Notting Hill Housing Association recently announced plans to get rid of carers leave, flexi-time and reduce basic terms and conditions of staff. They are refusing to go to ACAS and are refusing to allow the union to even speak to its Board members. This prompted Unison members to go on strike, backed by 93.5% of members in the strike ballot. The savings from getting rid of Carers leave for staff with young sick children or disabled dependants will save £30,000 per year, or a bit less than 1/5th of the Chief Executive’s annual salary.

John Gray reports on the first day of the strike:

Today was the first 24 hour period of strike action in Notting Hill Housing Trust. There was a fantastic picket and lots of active support for the Strike. We estimate that over 100 members came to join the protest outside Notting Hill headquarters alone.

Interestingly, the vast majority of the strikers were women who of course will tend to have by far the most to lose if these anti-family policies are scrapped.

Shame about the Notting Hill CMT member who tried to deliberately provoke the pickets by declaring loudly he was “very happy to cross the picket line!” with a big smirk on his face. No wonder the organisation is in such a mess with folk like him in charge!

There was plenty of press interest and messages of support from various trade unions and encouragement from other UNISON branches and trade councils. We were next to a busy street and spent a lot of time encouraging passing motorists to “toot” their horn in support. There was a very good atmosphere amongst the pickets. This being “Notting Hill” we even had a portable CD player blasting out Bob Marley songs.

This was a good first day and hopefully management will come to their senses and start to negotiate. If not – we will be back.

Check out “All Together Worse” for further information and pictures.

On Sunday, the French went to vote in the first round of their regional elections, and delivered a heavy defeat for Right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Party.

The Socialist Party topped the poll with 29%, ahead of the Centre-Right UMP on 26%. The Green Party finished third with 12%, with the far-right National Front fourth with 11%.

In total, parties of the left gained more than 53% of the vote, the first time in decades that the Left has gained more than half the vote in the first round of any national elections.

In a fortnight, the top two candidates in each region will take part in a run off election, and it is likely that the Socialists will repeat their success in 2004 and retain control of 20 of France’s 22 regions.

More info here and here.

The next Presidential election in France will be in 2012. With recent opinion polls showing Angela Merkel losing popularity in Germany, election gains for the liberals and greens in the Netherlands, as well as the troubles that our Tories have been having, the signs are that the centre right is losing popularity all across Western Europe.

Sad news that Labour MP Ashok Kumar suddenly passed away today. Thoughts of all of us at Liberal Conspiracy are with his family.

From Kerry McCarthy’s blog:

MPs were shocked today to learn of the sudden death of Dr Ashok Kumar MP. I didn’t really know him, and consequently was surprised – pleasantly surprised – to see this email from the BHA paying tribute to his brave work on humanist issues.

BHA mourns Dr Ashok Kumar MP (1956-2010), politician and distinguished supporter of Humanism

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed its sorrow at the death of its Distinguished Supporter, Dr Ashok Kumar MP. Ashok Kumar was a great supporter of the BHA, a committed and active member of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, and a self-described life-long “liberal humanist”.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, said, ‘Ashok was a long-standing supporter of Humanism and often went out of his way to get involved in and further humanist issues in Parliament. Ashok was especially interested in education, and was opposed to the divisive and discriminatory “faith schools” system, preferring inclusive schools and objective religious education, not religious instruction. In fact, Ashok spoke of the dangers of segregation and religious indoctrination consistently over the last decade, and in almost every Education Bill.’

‘Ashok also took the lead in Parliament in campaigning for a national holiday on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, in honour of one of the fathers of modern science and one of Britain’s greatest scientific minds. The loss of Ashok’s commitment, good humour and humanist outlook will felt by many in and outside of Parliament.’

Speaking in a House of Commons debate called in 2006 by his fellow humanist MP, Dr Evan Harris MP, he commented on the failure of Alan Johnson to ensure that faith schools would take pupils of other backgrounds:

‘I am against segregation, and I think that in his great spirited way the Secretary of State was trying to break down barriers and avoid future segregation. For that he was slapped down by the whole religious lobby. I find that very sad, because the Secretary of State was thinking, as we say in new Labour, for the long term—not tomorrow or the day after but perhaps 15 or 20 years’ time. We do not want groups of people in society who believe that one religion is superior to another—a generation in which some believe that the only way is jihad and others believe it is Khalistan, and in which there are also Hindu fundamentalists. By the way, I am of Hindu and Sikh descent, and I am very happy to be so, although I am a non-believer. I was raised in both of those beliefs and went to a state school. I had no problem with learning about all faiths.’

Our friends at London Citizens have two opportunities for people who want to learn more about community organising.

You can apply for their Summer Academy, an internship which involves working on campaigns such as helping marginalized workers get a Living wage; working in East London on the CitySafe campaign to tackle violence through rebuilding a community; working with migrants and asylum seekers as part of the Strangers into Citizens campaign.

Or you can study an M.A. in Community Organising at Queen Mary University.

More info on their website, here.

Our friends at Left Foot Forward are hosting an excellent debate in the comments on this post between critics and supporters of Lib Dem plans to raise the starting threshold at which people pay income tax:

Tim Horton and Howard Reed argue:

“The Liberal Democrats’ proposed tax cut fails the fairness test.

Spending £17 billion on increasing the personal allowance is a very poor way to help those on low incomes. It could actually harm the welfare of low-income households by increasing inequality and relative poverty.

The measure would do nothing to help the very poorest, who don’t have income large enough to pay tax;

Only around £1 billion of the £17 billion cost (6 per cent) actually goes toward the stated aim of lifting low-income households out of tax;

Households in the second richest decile would gain on average four times the amount than those in the poorest decile; and

The policy would increase socially damaging inequalities between the bottom and middle.”

Alix Mortimer replies:

“These are what Ben Goldacre calls zombie arguments. No matter how many times you knock them down, they always get up again.
…
There are dozens of Lib Dem policies that “don’t help the very poorest who don’t earn enough to pay tax”, just like there are dozens of Labour policies that don’t – because they are about other things. This policy is about a fairer tax system. It does what it says on the tin. It will make the tax system fairer and flatter, and in the process it will offer the greatest proportional help to people who pay tax but are nonetheless on low pay.

For people who don’t earn enough to pay tax, we have a little thing called a welfare state. And, coincidentally, the welfare state as constructed by Labour currently includes so-called “tax credits” paid over to households earning up to about £70k in some cases. As I’m sure you know another Lib Dem policy is to taper those tax credits. High-minded claims about Labour’s opponents failing to concentrate funds on the poorest are not well-founded.
…
You have reinterpreted the “stated aim” to suit your purposes. The stated aim is to make the tax system fairer. This has the *effect* of lifting low-earners out of poverty. Two, you are implicitly assuming that absolute gain is more important than proportionate gain. This can pretty easily be knocked on the head. £300 per year will make far more of a difference to someone earning £12k than someone earning £30k. And *everybody* earning £12k will feel that difference. Ignoring this simple truth suggests a disturbing lack of interest in people’s actual circumstances.
…
There *is* a debate to be had about the only point in which actual figures are quoted, i.e. point 2. This debate is largely about principle. The two questions are “Does absolute gain matter as much as proportionate gain?” and also “Should the tax system be fairer and flatter as a matter of principle?”. To which my answers are of course no and yes respectively, and accordingly, I don’t mind that the tax cut goes to everyone. It’s just a fairer tax system. I like fair tax systems. Your respective answers are yes and don’t care, so far as I can see.”

Nigel Biggar, professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford, has written an article in the Financial Times arguing that the Iraq war was necessary to stop or prevent a sufficiently great evil.

This is a good opportunity to test out a piece of the liberal-left infrastructure that Sunny talks about trying to build. In the past, we have had to go through particularly bad articles, such as this one, and take the arguments to pieces line-by-line. This can be time consuming and after a while gets kind of tedious.

Wouldn’t it be useful if there were a website which had already anticipated terrible arguments like this, and mocked and rebutted them for us?

To test this out, I used the Decentpedia, which has an extensive catalogue of arguments made by supporters of the Iraq war. continue reading… »

Bad business:

“Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.”

“A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).

The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.”

“In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.”

“In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities — in line with advocates of the global warming issue — while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.”

“Roughly half of Americans now say that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.”

Since 1948, Britain has supported the idea that state pensions, health care, education and other public services are best provided by society as whole. But this idea is now under threat.

A coalition of campaigning groups, including the British Medical Association, trade unions and community groups, are organising a demonstration on 10th April in London at 12pm.

You can find out more here or sign the petition here :

We the undersigned believe the welfare state and public services are an essential part of any civilised society – pooling the risk across the population and providing support and services to us all. We therefore call on the next government to reject any further cuts and privatisation and instead protect and improve the welfare state and public services as the most effective way of tackling poverty and inequality in our society.

Here’s what the Tories say:

“We want to see a transformation in the role of community groups, social enterprises and the voluntary sector to help build a stronger society for all of us.

We would enhance the role played by charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises in tackling the problems facing our society.”

…and here’s what they actually do:

“Last week, the Westminster City Partnership ended ten years of partnership with the voluntary sector, by voting to relegate voluntary and community representatives to a powerless advisory role, with no voting rights.

Following the vote, voluntary sector representatives Drew Stevenson, Jackie Rosenberg and Bernard Collier walked out of the meeting.

After the meeting, Bernard Collier, Chief Executive of Voluntary Action Westminster said: “It’s hard to see the logic behind this decision, which ends ten years of partnership working with Westminster’s voluntary and community sector. It’s a u-turn in terms of local policy – and flies in the face of the policies of all three main political parties. We’re deeply unhappy with this decision.”

The decision comes shortly after the decision to cut £500,000 from the voluntary sector grants budget.”

Both the ‘Hope not Hate’ campaign and the ‘Nothing British’ campaign aim to defeat the British National Party. Hope not Hate draws on the leftie tradition of mobilising opponents to fascism, and protesting wherever fascists try to march, inspired by the ‘Battle of Cable Street’ in the 1930s. Nothing British aims to defeat the arguments of the BNP, and win back ‘patriotic’ voters to mainstream politics, just as Maggie Thatcher did in the 1980s.

In the history of successful anti-fascist tactics which campaigners draw on for inspiration, there is one very important one which doesn’t always get the profile it deserves. If you want to beat the BNP, it’s not enough to expose their arguments, or to mobilise anti-fascists for demos or elections, important though all those things are. We also need to help their supporters. continue reading… »

In his attack on Lord Ashcroft today, Norman Tebbit explained the Daily Mail test.

“Many, many years ago the Daily Mail Question was explained to me by Harry Legge-Bourke, then chairman of the 1922 committee, when he said of a certain course of action that was being discussed: ‘If you would not be happy to read that in tomorrow’s Daily Mail, then don’t do it.’ That Daily Mail test is the one that matters above all in politics.”

Tebbit became one of an increasing number of Tories to criticise Lord Ashcroft publicly.

No word yet from Tebbit on whether he felt that Ashcroft, a dual national, also failed the “cricket test”.

Thanks to our friends at the F Word for news of the UK Gender and Development Network’s women’s rights manifesto. It has been endorsed by organizations including the Women’s Resource Centre, the Fawcett Society, the Women’s Environmental Network (WEN), Amnesty International and ActionAid.

Realising the potential of women and girls is critical to reducing global poverty and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Promoting equality between women and men is also a matter of justice.

The UK Gender and Development Network (GADN) calls on the next UK Government to put gender equality and women’s empowerment at the heart of its international development agenda, and ensure the UK’s existing commitments on gender equality become a reality for women and girls across the world.

In particular, we ask that all political parties and candidates commit to:

1. End violence against women and girls worldwide by making it a foreign and development policy priority and appointing a Minister on violence against women and girls whose brief covers FCO, DfID and MoD.

2. Increase women’s political participation and leadership by making this a key component of FCO, DfID and MoD governance policies and programmes, supported by robust funding, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms.

3. Champion gender-sensitive responses to climate change by mainstreaming gender across all climate change policies, programmes and budgets, and calling for the participation of women in decisions related to climate change locally, nationally and internationally.

4. Empower women and girls to take full control of their sexual and reproductive lives by scaling up FCO and DfID investment in affordable services and comprehensive sexuality education and information, and reducing barriers that
prevent women and girls from accessing these.

5. Implement the UK’s international commitments on gender equality by continuing to invest in DfID’s capacity to deliver – building on the current Gender Equality Action Plan – focusing on strong leadership, systems of accountability and
monitoring, and staff knowledge and skills.

So Sunny has gone on holiday, and apparently I’m meant to be looking after Liberal Conspiracy in his absence.

I hope and am sure that our great team of writers will continue to keep a regular flow of quality articles, but in addition I wondered if there were any readers’ requests for the rest of the month:

Are there any topics that you’d like us to cover or write more about?

Are there any bloggers that you think we should ask to do guest posts?

Would you like to write an article for us?

In response to the right-wing Tea Party movement, a new ‘Coffee Party’ movement is being launched in America.

Its mission is:

“The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.”

More info can be found here.

Daily Kos reports:

“If you haven’t heard of the Coffee Party Movement, it’s a progressive alternative to the Tea Party that started less than a month ago on Facebook and has captured the attention and commitment of those who believe that our federal government is the solution, not the problem.

Local chapters are planning meetings in cities from Washington to San Antonio to Los Angeles (where there have been four in the last month.) The party (coffeepartyusa.org) is planning nationwide coffee houses for March 13, where people can gather to decide which issues they want to take on and even which candidates they want to support.

This summer, the party will hold a convention in the Midwest, with a slogan along the lines of “Meet Me in the Middle.” The party has inspired the requisite jokes: why not a latte party, a chai party, a Red Bull party?

But this is just the type of grassroots activism that can help Democrats offset the Astroturfing bought and paid for by corporate interests.”

Reports of Wednesday’s Dutch elections in the British media were all about the gains made in two cities by the far-right Freedom Party, who came second in the capital and first in the city of Almere. This is part of a narrative about how the anti-Islam far right is gaining strength across Europe.

But the real results are much more interesting, as Radio Netherlands reports.

The elections saw major gains for the free-market liberals of the D66 Democrats and the Green Left party. The D66 Democrats topped the poll in Leiden, Harlem and Hilversum, with the Green Left top in Utrecht and Nijmegen. Across the country, Labour was top with 16%, just ahead of the Christian Democrats and conservative VVD parties. However, 28% of the votes went to independent candidates.

So rather than swinging to the right, the Dutch electorate backed alternatives to the main parties of government, from free-market liberals to environmentalists to independents. Fewer than 1% voted for the far right, who only stood in two cities and still got the bulk of the media’s attention.

There are national elections coming up in June after Labour withdrew from the government and called for Dutch troops to come home from Afghanistan, so these elections are an important predictor of what might happen then.

But even if you are not particularly interested in Dutch local government, there is an important message here. In these elections as in the European elections here in the UK, the far right gets disproportionate coverage compared to its actual level of support, and non-racist smaller parties get less coverage. Across Europe, free-market liberal and environmental left parties are making gains at the expense of the traditionally dominant parties of the right and left.

In recent parliamentary selections, local Labour members selected lefties to stand for Wansbeck and Leyton & Wanstead.

Ian Lavery, President of the National Union of Mineworkers, has been selected in Wansbeck, where Labour have a majority of 10,581. In Leyton & Wanstead, they selected John Cryer, who was MP for Hornchurch from 1997 to 2005.

John was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group while he was an MP, while Ian was profiled by the Times as an “unforgiving class warrior who condemns party for selling out“.

Many MPs who are currently members of Labour’s Socialist Campaign Group are standing down from parliament, but the selection of Ian and John continues a trend of Labour’s stronger areas of support picking lefties as their candidates.

There was a good example of the open contempt which the media have for ordinary people and for democracy in the Times recently. Mourning the “profoundly depressing”, “colossal loss” of James Purnell standing down from Parliament, their leader included a spoof recruitment advert:

Wanted: a highly intelligent, experienced person to kick his heels for at least five years. Travelling to and fro from some of the most inconvenient places in the country, you will have the opportunity to work seven days a week. On Sundays you will be able to enjoy attending civic events.

We promise to select your immediate boss from among your worst enemies. In return we will pay you less than half of what you might earn elsewhere. You will have to shoulder your own expenses. We are seeking a candidate willing to endure repeated insults from customers.

This is a window into the minds of a sneering, out of touch, hard to reach elite.

Thanks to journalists and Tories for the fake concern about what a devastating blow Purnell’s departure from parliament is for the centre left, but somehow I think we will cope.
continue reading… »

Neo-nazi group the Scottish Defence League tried to stage a march in Edinburgh at the weekend, but were prevented from doing so by anti-fascist activists.

The Scotsman reports that:

Only about 40 supporters of the SDL turned up, and they found themselves corralled into a pub at the bottom of the Royal Mile for several hours. There were five arrests for public order offences but the Scotland United rally, attended by about 2,000 people, passed off peacefully in Princes Street Gardens, about half a mile away.

Though Cowards Flinch has an interesting eye-witness report about the day.

It highlights the disagreements over tactics between some activists, led by Unite against Fascism and the Socialist Workers Party under the banner of Scotland United, which favoured a parallel rally and actively opposed any idea of direct confrontation with the SDL, and others (led by a range of activists from the Scottish Socialist Party, anarchist groups, student groups and others (including, it must be said, individuals from UAF/SWP)), which favoured direct confrontation via a march on the SDL position wherever it may turn out to be.

2,000 people attended the anti-fascist rally, while 200 directly confronted the SDL and prevented them from marching. There were only five arrests for public order offences, and no one was injured during the protests.

I think it is worth reflecting on this for future anti-fascist activity, and would be interested in people’s thoughts. Should there be any kind of counter-mobilisation by anti-fascists when neo-nazi groups like the Scottish or English Defence Leagues announce a march?

If so, should this be a separate rally, or direct confrontation, or both?

And if (as I think this example shows) the most effective response is one which combines the two tactics, how can campaigners make sure that they work together effectively, rather than undermining or cutting across each other?

Bye bye.

I have today told the executive committee of my local party that I do not wish to be the candidate for Stalybridge and Hyde at the next General Election.

I have been proud to represent the people of Stalybridge and Hyde. And this has been an extremely difficult decision to make. But I have decided that I no longer wish to be an MP.

I have spent all my working life in or about Westminster. And while this has been a huge privilege, I’ve realised I don’t want to have spent all my life in frontline politics.

I’m looking forward to completing my project at Demos. After that my hope is to contribute ideas to public service and to the Labour Party.”

As mentioned earlier by Paul, the class warriors over at Conservative Home have got a new website called mylabourposter, which has pictures of people such as immigrants, burglars, foreigners, the BBC etc., and the caption ‘I’ve not voted Labour before, but‘ and then reasons why these people like Labour.

One of the posters is Frank Gallagher from Shameless, saying “I’ve never voted Labour before, but I can see the benefits”.

One nice thing about these posters is that some of them have an explanation beneath them to explain the joke to anyone who finds the humour a bit too subtle.

For the benefits one, their “fact” is “Labour’s over-complex welfare system means there has been more benefit fraud and less incentive to work”.

Really?
continue reading… »