Scottish Socialist Voice
Issue 319
25th January 2008

back to index


front page

NUKEY BROWN YOUR ATOMIC POWER IS NOT WELCOME!

THE worst kept secret in Whitehall was unveiled last week with the formal announcement that New Labour is to back the building of new nuclear power stations.
However despite much radiated hot air from Labour ministers the SNP administration in Edinburgh once again underlined its intention to block and new build nukes in Scotland.
Indeed there must be question marks over the entire plan given that, in the fashionable ‘leave it to the market’ doctrine favoured by Brown means that the whole operation is supposed to be privately funded.
Leaving aside the economics of running nuclear stations with their necessarily stringent safety and security costs a glance the key clean up costs will raise serious doubt if profit hungry companies will want to take them on.
For the current UK nuclear stations the taxpayer will pay an estimated £65billion to end their† productive life and at least £10 billion to dispose of nuclear waste.
And that is for a system which has still got no serious answers on how to deal with nuclear waste that will be dangerous for years.
But a closer look at the plans shows that behind the brave talk of a new generation of privatised nukes the state will still be expected to cough up to cover waste costs when, as is likely the going gets tough.
It is understood that it has been agreed that the government will collect a fee from the companies for each unit of electricity used in British homes to build up a fund to meet decommissioning costs.
Unsurprisingly it will be the customers who will pay this cost as the fee will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills.
So the government assurances that the public sector would not be asked to pay for the new reactors turn out to be only the part of the story ministers want to highlight
The decommissioning fund† raises the prospect that if the cash raised does not cover the full decommissioning costs, the shortfall - which, if the past performance is a guide, could run into billions - would be paid by the taxpayer.
Companies planning to build new nuclear reactors have also been assured that they will not have to pay the full economic cost of storing the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste they generate.
The plan is that they will be allowed to ‘rent’ space in a giant nuclear waste vault to be built by the government, so avoiding massive construction costs.
Thus before a brick is laid it is already becoming clear that the privatised nukes will, as in all previous cases, be expecting to receive multi billion pound ‘sweeteners’ to ensure that even if the environment isn’t safe the shareholders are OK.
Serious doubts have also emerged as to just how well the claim that nuclear power is a ‘green’ solution to global warming stands up.
Greenpeace warned Premier Brown that he would be misguided to press ahead with a nuclear programme.
Greenpeace communications director Ben Stewart said:
“There is a lie at the heart of his energy policy, because this Government’s own research shows nuclear power can only deliver a four per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. That’s too little too late at too great a cost.
“This obsession Brown has with nuclear is threatening to strangle the renewables industry at a time when it’s ready to take off. It’s one thing to be strong, it’s another to be strong and wrong.”
The renewables point has been underlined by many other critics who maintain that the billions earmarked for new nukes could0 develop a vibrant, safe and job creating renewable energy sector.

back to index

page two

War On Public Sector Workers

NEW Labour Ministers have declared war on the wages of 5.5 million public sector workers, invoking the spectre of the 1978-9 Winter of Discontent, when millions went on strike against crucifying wage cuts from the then Labour government of Jim Callaghan.
Chancellor Alistair Darling (of the rich) has declared his government’s plans for 3-year pay deals across the entire public sector, in order to ‘stabilise the economy’ and ‘defeat inflation’.
The proposal is married to New Labour’s oft-declared diktat that no public sector worker should be allowed a pay rise of more than 2 per cent.
Thus they continue to peddle the crude myth that wage rises create inflation when in truth, wage rises are often the first victims, especially amongst the low paid.
In the same week that these measures were threatened, official figures emerged that Retail Price Inflation is up to 4.3 per cent - higher than the previous month.
The government is seeking to dodge this troublesome fact by fiddling inflation figures down to the lower Consumer Price Index.
But anyone who eats, heats their home or lives in a house, knows that the cost of living is letting rip, and that wages are failing to catch up.
Announcements of 17 per cent (£1000 a year) hikes in the price of electricity and gas come hot on the heels of the price of a litre of petrol breaking through the £1 barrier, and an escalation in food prices, by the biggest rate in 14 years.
A quick stroll round your local supermarket will tell you that prices have risen far more than the 2 per cent Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling want to suppress wages to - and far more even than the official inflation figures.
New Labour hope the imposition of their three year deals will prevent industrial action for inflation-linked wages rises this side of a Westminster election, which must be held within that time-span.
They are aware of the looming economic storms blowing across the Atlantic from the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. They have been jolted by the Northern Rock disaster, where they happily bailed out profiteering bankers to the tune of £25billion, so that some new profiteer can be seduced into buying it; a case of temporary nationalisation to prop up the profit-crazed banking system.
But Labour want the working class to pay for this crisis not of their making.
The credit crunch adds to the pressure on working class families who have staved off catastrophe through several years of extended credit, paid for in exorbitant charges to the robber banks.
Thus wages that match inflation are, for many, a critical matter.
Already, workers are falling behind, as evidenced by recent IDS figures showing that average pay rises for 2007 stood at 3.5 per cent, whereas inflation stands at 4.3 per cent.
Leaders of both the GMB union and the Police Federation have rightly asserted that there is absolutely no evidence that public sector pay is key to inflation.
In fact, public sector pay rises are lagging behind the rest of the economy, with increases at their lowest since May 1998.
As the GMB union leader Paul Kenny put it, “Can you tell me what the price of a litre of petrol is going to be in two years’ time?”
The stark fact is that under a capitalist economy, where private profit is the central motivator, the government cannot hope to control price rises - but they do have the power to hold down wages, especially in the public sector. Provided the unions let them get away with it.
This was the central lesson of the 1974-9 Labour government fiasco, which imposed pay cuts across public and private sector jobs, whilst inflation ran riot.
In 1978, pay was restricted to 5 per cent whereas inflation was well above 30 per cent.
That crude wealth transfusion from workers to bosses, from the poor to the rich, is what triggered the explosion of anger manifesting in the mass strikes of 1978-9.
Whether New Labour’s new version of a very old idea is allowed to forge ahead, or whether workers across the entire public sector stop them in their tracks, very much depends on what leadership is offered in the unions.
Workers have plenty of direct experiences of New Labour’s multi-year pay deals.
Low-paid NHS workers have just suffered a pay cut with a phased rise of 2.5 per cent over 2 years in England and Wales.
Prison officers are up in arms at a similar form of pay cut, and at the recent announcement by New Labour that the Tories’ ban on their right to strike is about to be re-imposed.
The Police Federation are demanding the right to strike - denied them these past 90 years - and threatening demos outside Westminster, because of the government’s phased pay award.
Currently civil servants in the Department of Work and Pensions are striking back against an imposed 3-year deal that means 2 per cent in 2007, zero rise in 2008 and 1 per cent in 2009.
The lowest paid of these workers earn just 24 pence above the government’s derisory minimum wage. Of course, pay limits below inflation are not applied to everyone under the glorious free market economy. Last year, the bosses of the FTSE 100 top companies enjoyed ‘pay’ rises of 37 per cent ... to an obscene average of £2,875,000 (each, that is).
And now those elite ‘public servants’ - MPs - are pondering how to disguise their own greed and hypocrisy whilst demanding such severe pay limits on millions of other public sector workers.
Their Salary Review body recommends 2.8 per cent.
Gordon Brown and others are urging ‘restraint’ - that is, a ‘mere’ 1.9 per cent - so as to reduce the blatancy of their hypocrisy.
What he fails to remind the general public of is that 1.9 per cent on an MP’s salary of £60,675 is a damned sight different from the same rise for civil servants on as low as £11,000, or the vast army of public sector workers on £15-20,000 a year.
Nor does Brown broadcast the fact that MPs’ pay has risen by 127 per cent in 17 years - compared to official inflation figures of 72 per cent in the same period.
The government’s sweet talk about aiming at stability, at workers knowing what pay to expect in two years’ time, is absolutely bogus. It already has a shoddy record of reneging on such deals amongst NHS and local government workers, teachers and others.
Not even Gordon Brown can guarantee the levels of inflation two years hence.
He cannot even own up to last year’s.
Workers need the option of taking industrial action if annually negotiated pay rises fall short of the rising cost of living.
The need for united resistance across the entire public sector screams out at the union leaders, who agreed coordinated action at September’s TUC conference.
Even the threat of unified action has paid dividends in the recent past, forcing big concessions on pension rights for civil servants, teachers and health workers two years ago.
We need all bear in mind the lessons of the 1974-9 Labour government’s wage cutting Social Contract, which provoked the strikes of 1978-9.
Be warned. In the coming hard times, the government wants to share out the pain, but only amongst those at the lowest end of the pay scale.

Stagecoach continues to bully and harass gay couple

ON Friday 11 January, Mark Craig and Steven Black, a young gay couple from Old Meldrum in Aberdeenshire had been in Aberdeen visiting Stevenís mum.
At around 10:30 they left to catch the last bus back to Old Meldrum.
They arrived at Berryden Road bus stop at around 11:00pm and waited. Mark said:
“The bus arrived at around 11:30. It pulled in to the bus stop as Steven and I were waiting. The bus doors opened slightly and the driver looked at us then looked around him and closed the doors and drove off leaving us standing on the street in the freezing cold.
It was the same driver that tried to kick us off for hugging in the back of the bus last year.”
Last October Mark and Steven were on the last Stagecoach bus of the night from Aberdeen to Old Meldrum, when the driver suddenly stopped the bus and demanded they get off. This was supposedly at the behest of a fellow passenger, for sitting with their arm around the other, as many couples do. The driver then forced Mark and Steven to separate before continuing on the journey, leaving them shocked and humiliated.
After hearing about this incident, the Scottish Socialist Party organised a mass email campaign to Stagecoach’s Director of Corporate Communications, Steven Stewart. Hundreds of gay rights activists and ordinary members of the public appalled by this sotry asked for an apology for illegally discriminating against the couple.
Stagecoach ignored all of these requests, and made it clear that they thought the driver had done nothing wrong, and had stood by him 100 per cent; accusing everyone else of not knowing the facts of the case.
With the bus company refusing to apologise for illegally discriminating against the couple and fully backing the driver, ‘hug-in’ protests by same sex couples and friends took place on Stagecoach busses around Scotland, with members of the SSP retracing the same route from Aberdeen to Old Meldrum with Mark and Steven.
Now these two courageous young men need our help and support once more. The Scottish Socialist Party is standing fully behind the couple, as we did last year, because homophobic bullying is totally unacceptable, especially when it is perpetrated by a company with monopolies on many of the bus routes in Britain. We ask that the LGBT community and straight allies alike to stand with us and Mark and Steven in opposition to this continued bullying and harassment.
Please contact Steven Stewart, the Director of Corporate Communications at Stagecoach (Steven.Stewart@stagecoachgroup. com, Tel: 01738 642040 or fax: 01738 443076) to demand that this clearly anti-gay bus driver be suspended from his job pending review and diversity training, and for a full and immediate public apology to be issued to Mark Craig and Steven Black for the appalling way in which they are being treated. This harassment and bullying by a multi million pound company against one, young, gay couple is utterly disgusting and totally illegal.
Nobody should suffer it, which is why we are asking everybody to demand an end to it.

back to index

page three

Labour In The Brown Stuff

DESPITE a New Year media barrage of Shock and Awe proportions from the beleaguered New Labour government in London, sleaze continues to dog the infant Brown administration.
The Prime Minister, reeling from the blows inflicted by the resurgent Tories and a series of near-mortal PR disasters at the end of 2007, toured TV and radio studios burnishing his image, but the bleak headlines kept on coming.
He even poured the tea and passed round the chocolate biscuits whilst spoon-feeding invited journalists some “exclusive” tales, which duly appeared in the daily and Sunday press.
But even this tried and tested tactic proved futile when pensions minister Peter Hain fell face-first into the latest donations scandal.
This once radical firebrand turned New Labour grandee faced charges of failing to mention a whopping £150,000 in donations received for his failed deputy leadership campaign.
Oops.
Leaving aside the question of how on earth you could actually spend £150K in an internal election, Hain’s claim that it slipped his memory due to his busy, busy lifestyle, falls a little flat.
Hence his recourse to a new legal defence, as pioneered by Wendy Alexander, that he ‘inadvertently’ broke the law. Well, that’s alright then!
Both are in limbo until the electoral authorities pronounce on their cases.
New Labour chieftains hope this will get them off the hook. In truth, it will but impale them on it more firmly.
They will be seen as either on the fiddle — and revelations that the Hain cash came via a shadowy think tank will strengthen that impression — or are just too incompetent to keep simple accounts.
Whether crooks or incompetents, this government is failing in its bid to boost public confidence and is trailing in the polls as it struggles desperately for survival.
At the heart of the 2008 ‘big push’ is the bid to portray the taciturn Brown as a serious man of power and decision, and his Tory opponent Cameron as a lightweight public school toff.
The fact that UK parliamentary politics apparently boils down to a beauty contest between the son o’ the manse and the cycling clot from Eton is a tragedy in itself.
And it’s a beauty contest Brown is far from assured of winning. His team can launch only so many PR bids before being drowned by the unrelenting tide of bad headlines which have opened the year.
For the first time since the fall of the hapless Major government, which (in)famously floundered in a sea of sleaze, the prospect of a UK Tory government has ceased to be fantasy politics and become a real possibility.
It is this reality which has sparked the sudden panic in Labour. 
Now witness the gathering storm of rising energy and food prices, falling house values, tight money and growing fears of a recession.
The Brown calculation is that, faced with such problems, his stern, Presbyterian image will trump that of Cameron’s youthful concern.
The New Labour sales team will flag up their ‘hard choices’ campaign in the latest pitch for power.
In true New labour fashion, this will be a bittersweet offering, with a few goodies to sugar the otherwise sick-making pill.
Thus glossy plans are revealed for ‘personalised’ health care and long overdue concessions given on workplace pensions.
But overall, the message is as bleak as the post-Xmas gloom which blankets the land.
Workers are warned that, as gas and electricity prices soar, petrol climbs above £1 a litre and mortgage rates soar, they can forget real pay rises.
Across the UK, a three-year pay deal in the public sector - a thinly disguised  pay cut - is being floated.
And as the wealth gap between rich and poor widens, both Labour and Tory are fighting about who can be toughest on the unemployed, with the new, ‘caring’ Tories threatening to suspend unemployment pay for three years.
For all their differences, Brown and Cameron contest only a small piece of political land - both support the idea that the market economy, which has generated the current economic and environmental crisis, holds the solutions to its own problems. They only diverge on the how.
Both back imperialism and war in the shape of ruinously expensive new nuclear missiles and continuing bloody war in Afghanistan.
This year is set to see further attacks on living standards, jobs and democratic rights, which will test the power and creativity of those seeking to chart an alternative path.
Here in Scotland, the SNP minority government will be under pressure as it squares up to these looming crises.
There is likely to be a real struggle between those who want to tackle poverty directly, through measures such a free school meals, and those who see the answer in a business-friendly, Tartan Tiger, tax-slashing Scotland.
So far, Salmond has managed — with considerable help from his amateur opponents — to keep his group united, but there are undoubtedly divisions bubbling beneath the surface.
But as the Trump affair has starkly shown, the danger of economic populism is that you get sucked in to backing all sorts of dubious plans on the grounds that they are ‘good for Scotland’.
It is a short hop from ‘Scotland is open for business’ to ‘Scotland is for sale to the highest bidder’.
There are powerful voices within the SNP advocating a neo- Thatcherite approach which pampers business.
Thus, the progressive, pro-independence voices have a huge task, and a huge responsibility, to popularise the alternative.
Progressive moves on prescription charges and the right to buy are encouraging, but we need to see a clear way ahead, towards a socially just, independent Scottish Republic.

Scottish Gypsy Travellers Face Ongoing Oppression

SCRATCH beneath the surface of opinion in Scottish rural communities and you will very probably find attitudes that would make an apologist for apartheid in South Africa blush.
There is little doubt that Scotland’s Gypsy Traveller community remain marginalised and misunderstood, and that prejudice against them is rife. As with most racism and bigotry this has its roots are in official attitudes that continue to this day.
At the Bobbin Mill site in Pitlochry, Perthshire, two large extended families face yet another harsh winter in dilapidated accommodation with no amenities on a site described in a recent BBC report as ‘squalid’.
I spoke to Shamus McPhee by phone from the warmth and comfort of my home - Shamus meantime was wrapped up against the cold in a candlelit caravan he estimated to be worth £36. Perth and Kinross are charging him Band A Council Tax, even though they provide no amenities - the separate charge for water and sewerage was only dropped after persistent campaigning on the basis that these were not provided.
In 2006 the Scottish Parliament pledged £97,500 for the provision of a new chalet for Shamus’s father. Also part of the deal the SNP led Perth and Kinross Council were to provide an additional 25 per cent for a communal washing facility and provision of basic services: water, electricity and sewerage.
Nearly two years on and the Council are still at the planning stages for these amenities that are taken for granted elsewhere. Their argument that Bobbin Mill was an ‘unauthorised site’ cut little ice with the residents who had been placed there sixty years previously by the Council’s forebears, and this reason for lack of action seems to have been quietly dropped. Meantime with nowhere to wash his body and clothes properly Shamus found himself unable to get work and an unsympathetic Job Centre stopped his benefit for six months.
He found himself unable to pay his Council Tax and given the lack of progress with the promised upgrade, has felt reluctant to start since. Local MSP and government minister, the SNP’s John Swinney has not visited Bobbin Mill for many years and seems uninterested in the problems on the site.
Bobbin Mill was established in 1946 as a racial experiment to assimilate Gypsy Travellers. The reports that describe this and similar experiments elsewhere in the UK talk of the problem of travellers being a ‘stain on the welfare state’ and use language similar to that used by the Nazis when describing misfits in their society (including gypsies) who eventually became the victims of the ‘final solution’.
As the residents were not considered fit to live in normal council houses they were given huts that soon fell apart in the harsh climate of the Scottish Highlands. The logic that this would somehow wean residents away from generations of travelling and into acceptable conformism was lost on the victims of the experiment.
Instead marginalisation was reinforced and it continues to this day.
Despite the fact that Shamus and four of his fellow residents at Bobbin Mill are actually university graduates, they feel as much the victims of prejudice and societal ignorance as their forebears.
In recent years Gypsy Travellers have been recommended for status as an officially recognised ethnic minority.
This could afford protection under the anti-racist laws, but as yet there have been no test cases through the Courts and the legal establishment seem reluctant to pursue the matter.
The Scottish Parliament see racial identity as a matter for Westminster so have argued that they can do nothing more.
The last Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee produced a report in 2005 that concluded that no progress seemed to have been made in the previous five years in addressing issues raised from the travelling community: accommodation, education, health, representation and engagement. Under the new SNP parliament interest and momentum seem to have been lost and the issues shelved.
Scottish Gypsy Travellers have a rich culture of story telling and singing that has been celebrated by socialist folklorists like Hamish Henderson. Their simple mobile lifestyle provided vital labour in past years in rural communities requiring seasonal labour.
Prejudice and misunderstanding have pushed them to the margins of society and like similar groups elsewhere in the world, alcohol abuse has taken its toll. Shamus and other Gypsy Travellers consider that there is a continued systemic effort to end their lifestyle and forcibly assimilate them into mainstream society.
He and his family can trace roots and language back across the world to Asia and a migration that happened centuries ago; they are not prepared to let their traditions go.
The SNP vision of a new inclusive Scotland has no resonance in Bobbin Mill.

back to index

page four

The Pros & Cons of Biofuel

By Roz Paterson

THE biofuel boom was dealt a double bodyblow this month when both the European Environmental Commissioner and the UK’s Royal Society delivered extremely doubtful verdicts on the technology once hailed as the cure-all for an overheating planet.
Biofuels, at first glance, appear the ideal antidote to fossil fuels.
Made from lovely green plants, the carbon dioxide (CO2) they release upon being burnt is never more than equal to the amount of CO2 they absorb whilst growing.
Thus, a perfect, carbonneutral fuel source. 
Or is it?
The American government would clearly like its citizens to think so.
Yet George W Bush’s sudden conversion from oil to soil is failing to convince even the greenest greens.
No wonder.
He wants more ethanol, particularly the sort grown in Brazil, the world leader in ethanol production, not because he loves the smell of burning sugarcane in the morning, but because striking big money deals with a South American giant will, he hopes, provide a pro-US counterweight to oil-rich Venezuela’s economic and political influence in the region.
Alas, his power games do not even have the positive pay-off of providing the planet with a few carbon savings, because ethanol crops require fertiliser, often fossil fuel-based, processing and transportation, both of which are energy-intensive, often to the degree that you may as well fill your tank with petrol from a Saudi oil well for all the difference you’re going to make.
A slew of recent scientific studies confirms that carbon savings on biofuels may be negligible when you factor in production and distribution.
The EU, until very recently, was another biofuel addict, setting an ambitious 10 per cent target for all fuel used in vehicles by 2010.
Now, admits Stavros Dimas, the Environmental Commissioner, it might be better for the planet if we miss that target altogether.
The Royal Society concurs, stating in a new report that biofuels, far from being a silver bullet to our environmental ills, may exacerbate them acutely, through reducing biological diversity and natural ecosystems.
Such damage has already been wreaked, to a huge and devastating extent, through mass agriculture, where vast monocultures, such as wheat, drive out all other kinds of animal and plant life.
More monocultures, in the form of ethanol and palm oil plantations stretching across the horizon, can only make this problem worse.
Plus, biofuel production, concentrated mostly in poorer nations - because the richer ones are simply out of available land - makes poor to increase space for plantations, many rich landowners are simply turfing indigenous people off the land, or driving bulldozers through tropical rainforests.
And that’s not all.
Devoting huge tracts of farmland to fuel production means less food is grown globally, which means food prices must rise.
Some 20 per cent of the US wheat crop is diverted to ethanol production. This ‘excess’ used to be sold onto Asian markets. The fact that it’s no longer available contributed greatly to wheat prices scaling a ten-year high in 2007.
This is uncomfortable for us, where food accounts for an average 10 per cent of household costs, but hellish for people in poorer nations, where it accounts for 65 per cent.
“We must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change,” warns Professor John Pickett, of Rothamsted Research chaired the Royal Society’s study.
The big dollar paid by rich western nations for fuel crops means that feeding people now often takes second place to feeding cars.
Yet we have a screaming problem on our hands.
Transport accounts for fully one quarter of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions and biofuels is currently the only workable alternative to fossil fuels.
The other front-runners - hydrogen fuel cells and electric cars - are prohibitively expensive and their technology is in its infancy.
Furthermore, they need new infrastructure, in a way that biofuels don’t. The latter can already be made available at conventional filling stations.
The former - well, where would you go to recharge your hydrogen cell? How near would those recharging stations need to be to each other? Who would invest all the money to build them? And so on.
So what can be done? 
Current EU biofuel targets do not mandate any carbon savings. It’s high time, if they’re to be implemented at all, that they did.
So too should the UK’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which seeks 5 per cent of all fuel sold to be biofuel by 2010.
The Royal Society’s suggestions include a certification scheme for biofuels, similar to that for timber products and fish, that would mark out those that are sustainably produced.
But the main point, it seems clear, is that we must desist with any notion that technology will solve everything in time, and that we can live as we do now, in perpetuity.
Biofuel critics have long warned that building our hopes on plant-based diesel distracts us from the real issues and, furthermore, that only the big multinationals, already making a killing on the carbon economy, are the only winners.
“The only goal [of biofuels] is to maintain current patterns of consumption in the First World and high rates of profit for multinational corporations.” -MST (the Brazilian Landless Workers’ Movement)

back to index

page five

LETTERS

No Mean City
The continual problem of poverty, deprivation and its links with alcoholism, drugs, crime and territorial gang rivalry is a huge problem in Glasgow’s eastend - which Glasgow City Council are seemingly choosing to ignore in favour of the prosperous West End, and City Centre.
Until we see places like Possilpoint Youth Centre, underfunded and on a tight budget better provided for, and recognised for its work, young people of Glasgow’s deprived areas will continue to be failed.
Hanging out on the streets, getting into fights, fear of being jumped if going to adjoining areas to swim i.e. Springburn Swimming Pool, and the struggles which many people have due to being neglected, and brushed to one side cannot carry on any longer.
We tackle this divide between rich and poor people in Glasgow, with better projects to stop youth disorder or NEDS continually processed by police.
Lets sort this problem out, and stop looking at Glasgow through rose tinted spectacles, for the benefit of all of our future generations.
Jill Ferguson, Glasgow

Soap Box
Nick Henderson

HIV Epidemic Has Gone Nowhere

IN all of the manifestos for the Scottish Elections last May, there was but one mention of HIV or Aids; where we called for a publicly owned Scottish Pharmaceutical company to manufacture and sell cheap generic drugs to fight Aids in third world countries. 
Africa, of course, is what is most associated with HIV/Aids, and with good reason. There were 1.7million new infections in sub-Saharan Africa in 2007, and there are 22.5million people who are living with HIV in that part of the world, with 33.2million men, women and children HIV+ across the world.
The problem then in the UK may seem small by comparison; we don’t have an HIV prevalence rate among our adult population of 25.1 per cent, such as it is in Botswana.
Yet infections in Scotland are rising at an unprecedented rate. In 2005 there was a 17 per cent greater increase in the number of new infections than there was at the height of the Aids crisis in 1986. 45 per cent of those were from men who have sex with men, 41 per cent was from heterosexual sex.
Whether HIV in this country is a Gay disease or not, is the subject of debate.
What is not up for discussion, however, is the fact that this epidemic is real, it is here, and it is getting worse. For those who are living with HIV in Scotland, half have had to turn to the charity Crusaid’s Hardship Fund because they are living in poverty. One in seven young people said, on the run up to World Aids Day last year, that they would shun a friend who was HIV+.
It is probably no wonder then that 50 per cent of gay men in Glasgow with the disease do not know they have it, and many wouldn’t want to find out. Even George Michael refuses to be tested, and pulled out of Stephen Fry’s eye opening documentary, HIV and Me, because he is afraid of the result.
The fact then that our mainstream politicians do not see this as enough of a crisis to warrant even one word in over 167,000 words of promises and pledges from the 2007 manifestos’ lies somewhere between utter incompetence and sheer criminal negligence.
For many reasons, the debate over HIV in this country has been sidelined.
I’m not confident that the SNP have any real desire to bring the issue on to the forefront of national politics, where it needs to be. Strategies and policies on HIV in this country are buried in the sexual health sections of policy. HIV is not like any other sexual health issue. It can’t be cured by a pill or a jab, and intricately wrapped up in it are the broader problems of social inequality, discrimination, institutionalised homophobia and the underground nature of LGBT society.
The Terrence Higgins Trust has produced a battle plan, which I think we should aim to support, to fight HIV in Scotland, called 20 Things Government in Scotland Can Do available to download from www.tht.org.uk.

Stopping Violence Against Women

White Ribbon Group Launched For Men In Edinburgh

WHAT is a man? When do you get to be a man? What is a ‘real’ man?
For women in Scotland who are survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault, a man is perpetrator of violence in 98 per cent of all cases. One in four women in Scotland are survivors of male violence, and it is likely that you already know one of these women.
Like most survivors, she probably will not have talked about it.
Is it that simple? To be a man is to inevitably perpetrate violence against women? We, the White Ribbon Campaign Edinburgh, don’t think so. We are trying to contact other men who don’t think it’s that simple either and who want to do something about it.
We believe that men and women can live together without violence or the threat of violence.
Men have a vital part to play not only in educating themselves about violence against women, but also in working towards changing societal attitudes towards women, so as to bring about an end to domestic and sexual violence.
White Ribbon Edinburgh is a new group which aims to:

* First and foremost clearly state the vital role and responsibility of men in challenging other men around attitudes and behaviours which contribute to the high rates of male violence against women.

* Identify, create and promote opportunities for men to be involved in the campaign to Stop Violence Against Women in Scotland and to act in solidarity with other anti violence campaigns organised by women.

* Bring men together to discuss issues around being a guy, our feelings about relationships, masculinity and sexuality.

* To find different ways of relating to each other as men, to break away from narrow, restricting, macho, stereotypes. There are many ways to be masculine.

* To change the way we relate, as men, to women e.g. having full, person to person relationships instead of reducing women to sex objects.

We meet every first and third Thursday of each month, at 8.30pm, upstairs in The Wash Bar, on the Mound.
We can be contacted at whiteribbon. edinburgh@googlemail.com
Or phone Fraser on 07919102820
We want to see a fundamental change in the way men relate to women. Violence against women will not stop unless men are part of the campaign to stop it. We believe it takes a real man to do this, and that it takes strength of character to examine exactly what it is to be a real man in the twenty-first century.
Please join us in achieving this aim.

* More information about the White Ribbon campaign can be found at: www.whiteribbonscotland.org.uk

back to index

centre pages

Coming Home To Roost

Roz Paterson

What price do we really pay for our food? Not just financially but also ethically. The television at the moment is full of celebrity chefs extolling the virtues of free range and organic foods. Roz Paterson looks at the issue of intensive factorry chicken farming and Ken Ferguson looks at the big business behind the fayre on our dinner plates.
IN a time of rising mortgage rates, escalating fuel bills and creeping food prices, surely we can’t be expected to turn up our noses at a cheap chicken?
Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall think that’s exactly what we should do. But before we write them off as a couple of celebrity chefs with no idea of how the other half lives, here’s a thought...a chicken retailing at a mere two quid might seem like a bargain, but chances are that its meat will be of such low quality that it will provide only one meal for a family of four. A free-range chicken, retailing at double that, should be sufficiently nutritious and tasty to provide a decent family-size roast, a curry with the leftovers and a risotto, using the stock.
You do the maths.
Fowl Dinners, a campaign led by Oliver, whose campaigning work famously included a heartfelt drive for decent school dinners for the nation’s kids (an experience which left him reeling at the cynicism and sheer slipperiness of government ministers), is lifting the lid on the dark and nasty world of the factory farmed chicken, in a bid to make us reject the cheap chicks in favour of real meat, reared in a decent and humane manner.
Not solely because there is something undeniably sick about a society that treats its animals like so much shit, but also because factory farmed fowl is bad for the environment and bad for us.
This last may come as a surprise to many, given that chicken has become the UK’s most popular meat dish - we eat 12 times as much of it as we used to 30 years ago, amounting to an almost indigestible 855 million broilers a year - partly because it is seen as a healthy alternative to red meat.
But 95 per cent of those 855 million are reared in such unnatural and overcrowded conditions, that they need to be pumped full of growth enhancers and antibiotics to compensate, all of which bodily pollution ends up in our food chain and, ultimately, our bodies.
Factory farming dates from the 1930s, when US farmers with sufficient capital sought ways to meet the huge demand for foodstuffs from America’s burgeoning cities, matching those sprawling epicentres of industrialisation, where human beings were treated like cattle, with industrial epicentres of their own, where cattle were treated like breathing carcasses and the farmhands, truckers and meatpackers, little better.
The factory farming pioneers discovered that they could raise chickens in lots of tens of thousands at a time, in giant sheds where ‘nighttime’ was kept short so the birds stayed awake longer and thus ate more and thus grew more.
They discovered too that they could dispense with seasoned hands, thanks to feeding machines, the practice of binning dying birds rather than bothering to save them, leaving them to wade through their own waste for the short period they would be alive, rather than waste resources cleaning the sheds, and cut-price slaughtering methods.
Make no mistake, factory farming dehumanises its workers too.
In modern America and Europe, a typical broiler chicken - that is, one reared for meat production - lives to only five weeks. It used to take twice as long for a chicken to reach maturity but thanks to selective breeding and drugs, tiny chicks can swell to adult proportions in less than 45 days.
These sudden adults crowd each other in the dimly-lit sheds wherein they spend their lives, to the degree that many die prematurely of suffocation, or suffer ‘hock burn’ - leg ulcers caused by living shank-high in their own excrement - and heart and lung problems, brought on by their need for more and more oxygen to fuel their unnaturally speedy growth.
Given how weakened these creatures’ immune systems are, and how closely they co-exist, it’s little wonder that disease is a constant risk.
And given that we eat these animals, that risk is passed on to us.
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) states that between 1992 and 1999, one fifth of all reported food-borne sicknesses in the UK were related to poultry consumption.
Until recently, antibiotics were routinely administered to factory farmed birds to try to prevent outbreaks of disease, and also to promote growth.
That’s a lot of antibiotics. In fact, the World Health Organisation estimates that fully one half of all antibiotics produced worldwide are used in farming animals and all because, says CIWF, farmers need to compensate for the appalling way in which they rear livestock.
Antibiotics are only used in humans when necessary. Not so in the case of factory farming.
And because antibiotics are so widely used in this latter, bacteria are widely exposed to them, causing it to mutate into antibiotic-resistant strains, which cause infections that cannot be treated with antibiotics.
These strains can be transmitted to humans in a number of ways, including direct contact, to farm workers for instance, through eating meat contaminated with this resistant bacteria, or contaminated eggs or milk that is insufficiently cooked or pastuerised, or even through consuming fruit and veg that was grown using manure contaminated with the bacteria.
There have been moves to limit this orgy of drug abuse.
In 1997, the EU suspended the use of avoparcin, a noted growth promoter, because it produced a bacterial strain resistant to the antibiotic vancomycin, which is used as a drug of last resort in human medicine. Put simply, if this bacterial strain got you, you were untreatable.
By January 2006, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters was being phased out of European farming.
But it’s not enough, says CIWF, which is calling for a ban on antibiotics being routinely administered as a prophylactic.
This latter will be strenuously resisted by factory farmers, on the grounds that their method of livestock-rearing is untenable without drugs to control the inevitable diseases that such conditions promote.
Another problem with intensive farming is the amount of toxic waste it produces. Human waste, by law, must be treated. Animal waste, however, needn’t be. It can be used as fertiliser, which means it seeps into the food chain by another route, and runs off into watercourses, where it pollutes ecosystems and disrupts wildlife cycles.
But could we survive without mass-scale farms, called ‘operations’ in the US, where chicken stocks can number 100,000 at a time?
Wouldn’t we starve?
Probably not, if you consider that we throw away, as a nation, around 40 per cent of all the food we buy, partly because it’s so cheap, because we’re bombarded with inducements to buy more than we need, and partly because, thanks to long working hours and such ‘progressive’ innovations as the transformation of domestic science from the teaching of cookery skills to an indoctrination into the merits of the processed food industry, we have lost our skills base when it comes to having our chicken and cooking it too.
Furthermore, if our diet was less laden with meat, and more inclined to vegetables and cereals, we would not only be healthier, but there would be much more to go round, meat production requiring much more land and resources, including water, than agriculture.
Chickens going cheep? It’s no joke, you know.

Soaring Food Prices And Energy Bills Pile On New Year Misery

AS bumbling Labour minister Hain ‘forgets’ he had been given £150,000 back in the real world people are counting the pennies as soaring prices bite into shrinking pay cheques.
For while Wendy Alexander and Hain talk airily about mismanaging a few thousands given to them food and fuel price hikes are piling on the pressure for real families.
As first snows fell consumers were confronted with rises in gas and electricity prices which have now been followed by escalating food bills.
The increases recorded in food prices are the steepest since records began† fuelling a rise in the average family’s shopping bill of £750 a year.
And away from the world of New Labour’s champagne socialists it is basic prices which are soaring with Tesco’s frozen peas up from £1.19 to £1.79 and 2.5 kilos of spuds up from £1.78 to £2.18.
Clearly the High Street monster takes it own slogan to heart when it comes to price hikes - “every little helps”.
Meat prices have gone up by an average of almost 4 per cent in the month of December alone.
Now the well oiled PR machines of the big food retailers are being wheeled out to justify the latest price hikes with explanations which range from floods through rising oil prices to the Chinese eating a more varied diet.
However what they fail to mention is that one area where there is no call for belt tightening is in the profits going to shareholders. Indeed in a world of retail gloom and early sales to boost flagging sales food stores are, unsurprisingly, the exception.
Supermarkets continue to see profits rise amidst the gloom and no amount of Bob Hoskins voiceovers and minor celebs wheeling their trolleys across our TV screens can conceal that fact.
Taken with the squeeze on credit and high mortgage rates experts are predicting growing debt, hard times and in some cases bankruptcy for many families in the months ahead.
Yet what relief is offered from a supposed Labour government for people struggling to pay their bills?
No price freezes but a stern lecture from Gordon Brown on how we must tighten our belts, that the ‘nation’ can’t afford extravagant pay rises to pay bills and probably we should all sign three year pay deals.
There will, of course, be one likely exception to the call for pay cuts. MPs are likely to award themselves above inflation rises despite crocodile tears from Brown.
And of course 3.5 per cent of £65,000 a year is rather more than 2 per cent of a low paid workers £15,000.
For older Voice readers this will all have a ‘seen it before’ feel as the first call made in any economic crisis certainly since WW2 has been to freeze wages but leave profits alone.
Despite grave assurances from the chameleon like Chancellor Darling and former socialist Prime Minister Brown all the signs point to 2008 being a year of economic crisis.
The Northern Rock crisis has consumed £25billion so far and all the signs are that private buyers don’t want to touch it with a barge pole.
Even the normally headline hogging Richard Branson has disappeared from the fray.
However Northern Rock is but one sign of a massive financial crisis in which Billions in bad debt threaten the entire globalised money casino.
Indeed so bad is the crisis that key banks and financial institutions are refusing to admit how much bad debt they have and are hiding it in a rich man’s version of putting the unpaid bill behind the mantlepiece clock.
Add in the ingredients of continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing desire by the Bush White House to take on Iran before his political death and a frightening picture emerges.
In 2008 the left will need to maintain its opposition to imperialism and war and deliver solidarity and support to workers who refuse to carry the burden of the crisis through sackings and pay cuts.

back to index

page eight

SNP Not To Be Trusted With The Future

Scottish Government pledge to scrap PFI and replace it with... ...well with the same

By Gerry McCartney

JUST before the Scottish parliament emptied for the Christmas holidays, the SNP government published its longawaited consultation paper on proposals to create a Scottish Futures Trust.
This is important because this represents the SNP alternative to the private financing of public sector infrastructure such as school and hospitals, first termed PFI (private finance initiative) under the Tories and then rebranded as PPP (public private partnerships) under New Labour.
Before winning the election, the SNP had campaigned heavily on the issue of privatisation, claiming that PFI would be ended and common sense public financing restored. The basis of this would be the issue of bonds and the holding of new buildings and infrastructure in ‘trust’.
This effectively meant that the SNP intended to approach the money markets looking to raise money today by promises to pay back the money at low but guaranteed levels of interest.
This is a tried and tested method of public sector financing that, given the framework of a capitalist system, Socialists normally welcome.
It means that no profits are taken out of the system other than the low rate of interest for the money loan.
What was more questionable is the proposal to hold the newly built assets (e.g. a school) in ‘trust’.
The Government consultation on the creation of the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) has now been published. It is something of a disappointment.
Currently planned PFIs will go ahead. Existing PFIs will continue. The issuing of bonds is revealed to be only a future aspiration.
The consultation document welcomes the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services and the ‘additionality’ of their involvement.
This term, additionality, is a euphemism for privatisation.
Under PFI and PPP, private companies were attracted by guaranteed high profits for around 30 years.
The difference between SFT and PFI or PPP is the creation of a ‘trust’ to own the assets, or to manage the owner of the assets (e.g. a private consortium).
This trust will be a not for profit private company.
The published information about this is sketchy, but is it presumed that it’s shares will be owned by the government, and that it will raise money from the private sector for investment.
Another possibility is that the trust will contract with private consortia to own and run the asset (much like already happens with PFI).
The trust will not be able to be under government control (or publicly accountable) if it is to raise money from the private sector without the Treasury blocking it.
The board will therefore be appointed from the great and the good (or possibly just the friends and funders) of the government.
The government claims that the trust may make a surplus (profit), and that it will distribute this to the community because it will not be profit making.
This prospect is however unlikely, given that most contracts with the private sector do not result in the private company saying, ‘We didn’t spend all the money, so here is your change’.
However, any surplus that is created, will only be money gained by overcharging the government, local authority or health board that is paying for the asset.
It therefore represents a diversion of public money from the democratic structures to an unelected trust for distribution.
Those in the SSP who have campaigned against housing stock transfer or the creation of trusts to own and run leisure services will be familiar with the problems of this model.
Trusts are not accountable to the public as their boards are not elected.
The use of trusts is an expensive method of financing public sector investment because they sit outside the public sector and therefore do not attract the preferentially low interest rates that governments can benefit from.
The idea that the risks of investment (ie the potential for costs to rise) will be carried by the private sector has repeatedly been shown to be a myth and private investors will be guaranteed payouts for decades.
The contracts are inflexible and mean that any changes that are required in the future are ultraexpensive to rectify.
The private sector is adept at cutting corners and drawing up contracts that reduce the quality of the product.
These problems will be even more acute if the SFT is only managing the private consortium rather than raising the finance itself.
In short, privatisation in the SNP’s Scotland will continue both with New Labour’s PPP and as the SNP’s new idea (sic), the Scottish Futures Trust.
We can expect the Treasury in London to pick a fight with the SNP about the financing of the SFT, but they are unlikely to be able to prevent it as it will sit outside the public sector.
The EU might cause more of a problem since it is becoming more sensitive to the accounting scam of placing PFI projects (and SFT) outside the stated borrowing of the government, and this could expose the high borrowing levels in the UK currently unaccounted for.
Socialists should be clear that the SFT represents a continuation of privatisation.
The SNP is currently without an elected opposition to its left to make this case.
Our task is therefore to articulate this opposition and galvanise public opinion against privatisation.

Power companies announce price hike

By Ken Ferguson

WITH impeccable timing the big power companies chose to announce major price hikes as the mercury plummeted and the first snows of winter fell.
Leading the charge was Britain’s fourth largest energy company Npower, owned by German firm RWE, which had announced a 17 per cent rise in its discounted internet tariff before Christmas.
Npower said that customers will see annual bills jump on average by £95 for gas and £64 for electricity under the price changes, which come into effect immediately.
And it is an absolute certainty that the supposed ‘competitors’ of the firm will be smartly following with their own inflation busting price rises.
Price comparison website uswitch.com’s Tim Wolfenden said that the “smart money” was on a 15 per cent rise in bills from all British energy suppliers.
British Gas parent company Centrica had already raised its “market tracker” tariff by 13 per cent for gas and 15 per cent for electricity in December.
Its all a far cry from the privatiser’s fairy tale that taking energy supply out of public ownership would create a free market for gas and electricity in which the consumer would be king and just shop around for cheap power.
Originally pushed by Thatcher this nonsense is still fed to an increasingly disbelieving public by government spin doctors.
Commenting of the eye watering price rises a government spokesman - describing them as ‘price changes’ said: “The competitive market has delivered significant savings for UK consumers 
“Price changes are commercial decisions for the companies involved. There is a competitive market in the UK monitored by an independent regulator, Ofgem.”
Of course - as the soaring prices underline - the reality is that supposed regulators are toothless and are only there to provide a fig leaf for the fact that the energy market is nothing but a big business carve up to ensure super profits.
The creation of private firms with shareholders means that cash that could have pegged prices must go to pay the dividends of the largely corporate fat cats who now own UK energy industries.
For a few years they were able to claim efficiency was cutting prices when in fact this was largely based on the so called ‘dash for gas’ which saw short term investment in highly profitable gas powered power stations.
Now the gas has been largely squandered and rising energy costs are being handed to the consumers in the shape of price rises.
Despite illusions that a Brown government would be different they continue to punt that ‘sorry guv it’s out of my hands’ line on price rises and point the finger at the power firms.
No doubt they will ‘carpet’ the bosses to explain themselves, ‘force’ out a few minor concessions, spin them as a victory and move on.
In this they illustrate the great attraction to politicians of privatisation - in electricity, railways, buses, gas and so on they can wash their hands of it all and shift the blame.
That’s why on grounds of costs, efficiency , safety and to allow long term planning such key industries as gas, electricity, coal, railways and public transport were taken into public ownership.
Faced with the challenges of fuel poverty, global warming, growing traffic levels and choices about nuclear power the case for putting such key sectors under public control and out of the hands of faceless shareholders looks increasingly unanswerable.
Massive pressure needs to be put on to demand a freeze on energy prices to protect the vulnerable but the time is overdue for a renewed campaign to return such vital industries and services to public control.

back to index

page nine

A Mighty Heart

Paramount Home Entertainment DVD out now

by Alex Miller

THIS film tells the tale of Daniel Pearl, a journalist working for the Wall Street Journal, who was kidnapped and murdered by a jihadist group in Karachi in January 2002.
However, it focuses mainly on Pearl’s wife, Mariane, who was heavily pregnant at the time of the kidnap, and on the ultimately ineffectual search for Pearl carried out by the Pakistani and US intelligence services.
The acting is certainly very effective, and Angelina Jolie in particular is very convincing in the role of Mariane.
And director Michael Winterbottom does a good job of capturing the tense, chaotic nature of Karachi.
However, the film, regardless of how well it performs at the box-office or in the DVD sales charts, is ultimately a political sleight-of-hand.
While it justifiably highlights the terrible suffering of Pearl’s wife and family, it portrays the various non- American characters in the film as (at best) mere mouthpieces.
I don’t know if it was just the DVD version that I watched, but for long stretches of the film (including some key moments) the dialogue was primarily in Urdu, with no subtitles available.
While this may have helped to capture the tension felt by those non- Urdu speakers who were actually present as events unfolded, it also created the impression that there is an uncrossable divide between the incomprehensible non-white hordes and the fully human and transparent beings speaking English in American or European accents.
Although bits of the film are genuinely realistic, other bits are almost laughingly unrealistic, such as the avuncular portrayal of the American intelligence officer who reassuringly tells Mariane that they’ll find Pearl once a few preliminary arrests have been made, because of the methods ‘they’ (the Pakistani secret services) are happy to use.
The unspoken implication that “they” but not ‘us’ use or condone torture will fool no one acquainted with the basic facts about “extraordinary rendition”.
That the terrorists are always “they” and never western governments acting in our name is made clear by Mariane’s comments following confirmation of her husband’s murder.
In a radio broadcast she informs the audience that Pearl is not the only victim of terrorism that month: at least 10 Pakistani’s have been murdered by Al Qaeda in the same period.
Fair enough, she’s just lost her husband in horrific circumstances, but that this is the best the film can do by way of citing other examples of terrorism - at a time when American B- 52s are pounding countless innocent Afghani civilians into the dust - reveals clearly the assumption underlying the film: western governments, unlike the dark-skinned and incomprehensible jihadists, are themselves incapable of terrorist activity.
Overall, then, although the film is dramatic and compelling, its entirely one-sided portrayal of the “war on terror” won’t go unnoticed by anyone with a bare modicum of political nous.

Haggis, Neeps & Politics

People’s Festival Celebrates Burns the Radical

BURNS scholar Patrick Scott Hogg and stand up comedian Bruce Morton will top the bill at the Edinburgh People’s Festival’s ‘Alternative Burns Supper’ next week.
People’s Festival spokesman Kevin Ferguson believes their celebration will be like no other held in the city this year. He said:
“We reclaim Robert Burns the ‘People’s Poet’ from the prosaic and honour the working man who rebelled against his designated social status, the corrupt politics of his day and advocated international solidarity supporting the progressive revolutionary movements in FranceBritain and America.
“In recent years Patrick Scott Hogg and other prominent Burnsian scholars have established beyond doubt the revolutionary political leanings of Robert Burns.
“We are delighted that Patrick, who is in such huge demand at this time of the year, has agreed to join the Edinburgh People’s Festival Burns night celebration. And we are equally delighted to have the one and only Bruce Morton performing too.”
The Edinburgh People’s Festival’s ‘Alternative Burns Night’ takes place on Friday 25 January at 7.30pm in the upstairs function suite of the Meadows Bar, Buccleuch Street. Tickets, including traditional supper are available via the People’s Festival website and are priced £7 and £4 unwaged.
[1] www.edinburghpeoplesfesti val.org

The Wild Brunch
Keef Tomkinson

Keef casts his eye across life’s more leisurely pursuits in order to put a wee bit of CULTure into our lives.

I Am Keef - I Believe In Taking Sides* 

Was just writing a column about the American Presidential elections. Taking the piss out of armchair revolutionaries who muse over it and finding the most comical way to say I would vote Democrat in a flash if only see young republicans cry.
But who cares? While it’s the most bling political battle in the world its almost beyond parody. So what to write about?
Bridge cables? Naw. Sport Scotland? Snore. Old Wendy ‘Smudgie Face’ Alexander? It’s funny enough just watching her squirm. Culturally what’s going? Currently I am watching Sam Peckinpah’s, The Getaway. It’s a distraction.
My head is a mess. Should I buy a new TV? Where should me and the little lady go on holiday and when? Why do have so much gas?
Anyhoo. Why not a film review of sorts. I went to that Tom Hanks film on Sunday, Charlie Wilson’s War. For me it was really unsatisfying. It had a great trailer. Tom Hanks is Mr Likeable and there was the hope of a lil’ politics with the fun.
Wow, it’s hitting off in The Getaway. Bank just got robbed and folk got gunned down.
My biggest problem with the film (Charlie Wilson’s... not The Getaway) was that it could not decide what it wanted to be. A film about the Russians being driven out of Afghanistan or a film about the guy who helped organise America’s support to the Afghans.
It certainly does not manage both and fails to give enough background or an exposition of the conflict while skimming over Wilson’s character. Sorry, if you don’t know, he is supposedly the Congressman who helped rally America’s covert agencies to provide billions and training for the Mujahideen.
In terms of the conflict no explanation is given to why the Russians are there or what they want out of the occupation.
Only fleeting remarks are made to the tribal and disparate nature of the resistance, which led so much to the country’s implosion into civil conflict.
The hype describes Wilson as a political playboy so you would have expect a Boogie Nights-like depiction of this Sherida.... woah, sorry I mean Rex Butler like stud.
However, apart from boobs at the beginning and some secretaries, he comes across as a dull drunk with no inner demons.
The budget was a clearly a restriction for the film. Some refugee camps have the feel of being filmed on a disused Paramount lot. What could a powerful film touching on the modern intervention in Afghanistan is really limited.
There is an attempt at the end to show how America celebrated at the site of vanquished Ruskies leaving for home only to cut their funding and leave the field open for those elements now killing each other and occupying troops. But again it’s such a liberal critique it ain’t worth saying.
Why not start with images of young Russian men crossing the border to bring order and close the film with young Americans landing in Kabul to bring order. A blunt metaphor but one required to give this film some sort of identity.
Maybe all this needed was Meg Ryan to steal the politicians heart and give him his soul back but that’s another film. Wow! Steve McQueen just shot someone with a big gun. That’ll teach him.
I Am Keef - I Believe In Taking Sides*

*: The specific side being taken is liable to changes based on new political priorities, opportunities, headlines and revised jury verdicts.

back to index

page ten

Nicaragua’s Rocky Road

by Sam Gordon in Nicaragua

THE Sandinista Front for National Liberation (FSLN) government of Nicaragua has weathered its first year in office. President Daniel Ortega had to cope with a hurricane on the Atlantic coast, torrential rainfall and devastating floods on the Pacific coast and chronic fuel shortages all over the country.
The fuel shortages certainly affected the economy. And rising world petroleum prices have been a significant contributor to rising inflation in the Nicaraguan economy.
This has stood at around 9.6 per cent to 9.4 per cent for some time but reports now say that the cost of basic household purchases to the consumer had risen to 11 per cent in November.
Many hoped that petroleum shipped from Venezuela would bring a solution to this problem. However, life in Nicaragua is seldom that straight foreword. Nicaraguan’s state run Petronic company lacks storage capacity. That contributed to a row with Exxon Mobile Corp when the government threatened to appropriate some of their oil storage tanks. This was said to in response to the US oil company not paying its bills. The dispute appears resolved. Petronic gets the storage capacity and may well buy the oil tanks in the future. In the meantime Exxon gains by refining the Venezuelan crude.
On the political front, 2007 ended with a crisis that is sure to spill over into this year’s agenda. A central plank of Daniel Ortega’s government is the role given to the Council for Citizen Participation (CPC).
One of the declared aims of this piece of policy is to introduce ‘direct democracy’ into the body politic of the republic. The main exponent of this is First Lady, Rosario Murillo, wife of the President.
Just before the National assembly’s seasonal break the government introduced legislation to enshrine the CPCs into law. This brought a rare unity among the opposition liberals and conservatives - and rarest of all - the FSLN break away, the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS).
However, despite this exercise in parliamentary democracy the FSLN President of the National Assembly refused to sign it into law. Predictable
pandemonium followed and will no doubt boil up again.
Another piece of legislation is also bubbling away on the back burner.
And it is sure to make the political kitchen a very hot place in Nicaragua.
Since 1893 Nicaraguan law has permitted what is known here as ‘therapeutic abortion’, when the woman’s life is at risk and there was agreement by three medical specialists.
During the pre election frenzy at the end of 2006 the National Assembly overwhelmingly voted to outlaw all abortions. Faced with the combined campaigning of the Catholic Church and Evangelical pastors, Liberal and Conservative parties, formerly prochoice FSLN support for women’s right was nowhere to be seen. Only three MRS members of the National Assembly voted against the change in the law.
This has become a campaigning issue for women’s and human rights groups.
These organisations have political savvy and the ability to mobilise support in a way that will attract public attention. It is also likely to attract the attention of state authorities.
This year promises to be packed with tension in the political, economic and social arenas. Commentators loyal to Daniel Ortega assure us that the government is on course to improve the lot of the country’s poorest. Others, and there are plenty of them from the right, left and centre, condemn the Ortega couple’s every utterance and move.
The waters are indeed muddy. If anything is clear it is that Nicaragua, its institutions of state and civil society, not to mention its climatic and natural environment, is vulnerable and strained.
But all is not totally gloomy.
Former President of the Republic and Constitutional Liberal Party boss, Arnoldo Aleman, had been convicted of fraud, money laundering and other felonies contributing to the county’s poverty. Nevertheless, he continued to lead a high profile public life despite a long jail sentence changed to house confinement for health reasons.
A recent hearing of the Managua Tribunal of Appeals he was sent back to his house in the country - where he is due to spend the next few years.
We’ll see.

Chavez To Try And persuade FARC To Disarm

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez has offered to try to persuade Colombian Marxist FARC guerillas to lay down their weapons if Colombia’s US-backed government allowed him to meet the guerillas’ commander.
He also accused Washington of fomenting Colombia’s four-decade armed conflict, saying that inceasing warfare provides “the perfect excuse” for the US to maintain a military presence in Colombia.
“I don’t agree with the armed struggle and that’s one of the things I want to discuss with Marulanda,” Chavez said, referring to FARC commander Manuel Marulanda.
“This problem doesn’t have a military solution and, if it doesn’t have a military solution, what other solution is left? The political path.”
The Venezuelan leader also urged his Colombian counterpart US backed Alvaro Uribe to recognise the FARC and the National Liberation Army as legitimate insurgent groups, rather than terrorists.
And he brushed aside criticism made of him for urging foreign governments to remove the FARC from terrorist lists, saying:
“I don’t care if they call me a terrorist. it’s one more stripe for a tiger.”
The European Union fell in behind the US in branding the FARC as a terrorist group in 2002, outlawing all economic support for the guerillas.
Last week, Colombian former congresswoman Consuelo Gonzalez, who was released by the FARC after roughly six years in captivity, asked Mr Chavez to persuade the guerillas to abandon their practice of kidnapping people and holding them for ransom or political leverage.
Her release followed a key intervention by Chavez.

back to index

page eleven

Ballots Lead To Bullets In Kenya

By Bill Bonnar

IT seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy; another African country imploding into violence and demonstrating to the world that Africans are incapable of governing themselves.
As one caller to a talk radio show stated, “you can’t blame colonialism for this; we gave them this country and look what they’ve done with it. I suppose now we will have to bail them out with even more aid”.
His views are on recent events in Kenya are probably widespread although infected by a heady mixture of racism and ignorance.
Colonialism and the post-colonial settlement have a lot to do with recent events.
The violence was triggered by President Kibaki’s crude attempt to stay in power by rigging the country’s general election.
This produced a violent backlash among opposition supporters and counter violence by supporters of Kibaki.
As with many African countries divisions have largely followed tribal lines with leaders on both sides quite prepared to use tribal allegiances for their own ends.
However, to reduce what has happened to tribalism is both simplistic and naive. Politics in Kenya may be expressed in tribal terms but tribalism also reflects economic, social and class divisions in the country.
In 1967 the then President Kenyatta ended Kenya’s attempts to forge national unity across tribal divisions by bringing in constitutional changes, which favoured the dominant Kikuyu tribe.
This enhanced their social and economic standing in the country so that today Kikuyu dominate business and control much of the best land.
Their political control means that they also dominate a notoriously corrupt state. Within this there is a Kikuyu ruling elite with close links with international capitalism.
They tend to regard the country as a kind of private estate and been responsible for looting billions of dollars over the years.
The decision to rig the election was as much about protecting these interests as anything else.
The opposition mobilised people largely along tribal lines but also in opposition to corruption and inequality.
They drew most of their support from ‘excluded’ areas and from Kenya’s rapidly growing population of urban poor.
On a wider note Kenya today is still suffering from the legacy of colonialism and the post-colonial settlement. Kenya became independent from Britain in 1963.
This followed years of activities by pro-independence forces and a violent counter-reaction from Britain in defence of its then white settler regime.
This campaign of terror led to tens of thousands of deaths, over one million arrests, the setting up of concentration camps all over the country and the widespread use of rape and torture in its attempt to terrorise the population into submission.
When it became obvious that British rule was unsustainable a postcolonial settlement was agreed that would defend Britain’s economic and strategic interests and protect the property of the settlers.
Part of the settlement would be the creation of a new and amenable black elite who would play their part in exchange for a slice of the cake.
All buttressed by generous amounts of British aid; even today Kenya is the largest recipient of such aid in Africa.
When Kenya became independent and in the first few years that followed there was an attempt to build a national state which crossed tribal divisions and was linked to an ambitious programme of economic, health and educational development.
This crumbled in the face of western pressure and the interests of the new, emerging black ruling class and their white settler allies.
One positive that has emerged from recent events is that this original vision is back on the agenda.
It is clear that Kenya requires a government of national unity which can cut across tribal divisions and tackle corruption and inequality.
Perhaps the most significant factor is the growth in Kenya’s urban working class.
A growing section of the population now live in towns and cities like Nairobi and Mombasa.
For them tribal loyalties are becoming less important than issues of wages, long hours and sweat shop conditions.
They also see at first hand the poverty experienced by most people in contrast to the gratuitous wealth displayed by the rich.
Most of Nairobi is made of slums and shantytowns but contains within it areas that would not be out of place in Paris or Manhattan.
It is through the growing organisation and awareness of Kenya’s largely young urban population that real change will come about.

CIA Agent Who Denounced The Company Dies

By Ken Ferguson

PHILIP Agee, a former CIA agent who left the ‘company’ largely a a result of its support for US subversion and terrorism has died in Cuba. He was 72.
Agee went public on the crimes of the CIA in his book Inside the Company: A CIA Diary, published in Britain in 1975 prior to its release in America.
The book fingered approximately 250 Agency officers and agents and warned that “millions of people all over the world had been killed or had their lives destroyed by the CIA and the institutions it supports”.
The spooks hit back with the usual claims that Agee’s action had led to the deaths of US spies which it probably did but Agee responded saying:
“It was not enough simply to describe what the CIA does, it was important to neutralise the effectiveness of everybody doing it.”
Both the CIA and MI6 were believed to have been behind moves in 1975 to have Agee deported from Britain. The demand was made at a time of sharp challenges to imperialism with revolution in Portugal and Cuban troops fighting alongside liberation forces in her colonies and Allende recently murdered in the CIA backed Chilean coup.
A massive campaign in his support produced a defence committee, rallies, marches and demands by 50 Labour MPs for the closure of the CIA’s UK operations. However the Labour, government,true to form, bowed the knee to Washington and he was deported in 1976.
Agee attributed his opposition to the CIA network of subversion to his Roman Catholic conscience that had persuaded him to leave the CIA, and he certainly became a principled critic of US intelligence.
In 1978 he and a small group of his supporters began publishing the Covert Action Information Bulletin, a platform for his campaign to “expose” the workings of the CIA. In 1978-79 Agee published two volumes of Dirty Work, which exposed more than 2,000 covert CIA agents in western Europe and Africa as well as details about their activities
In 1981 Agee was deprived of his American passport and finally settled in Cuba. Reporting his death Cuba’s official news agency Prensa Latina said : “Phillip Agee was outstanding for his solidarity with the island, NicaraguaGrenada and Venezuela and other countries. Agee was Cuba’s loyal friend and fervent defender of the peoples struggle for a better world.”

Support Iranian trade unionists

THE British TUC is urging trade union members to send a message of hope to Mansour Osanloo and Mahmoud Salehi, who remain imprisoned in Iran for their trade union activities.
Mansour Osanloo, is President of the trade union representing workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company and Mahmoud Salehi, founding member of the Saqez Bakery Workers’ Association and of the Coordinating Committee to Form Workers’ Organisations.
Both have faced repeated persecution and periods of imprisonment for their efforts to establish free trade unions and to represent their fellow workers.
The TUC is backing Amnesty UK’s annual greetings card campaign, which takes place between November and the end of January, during which activists send thousands of cards with messages of support to those who are imprisoned or victimised for exercising their human rights.
This year Amnesty is highlighting the cases of Mansour Osanloo, and the TUC is joining the action.
Full details of the greetings cards campaign are available on the Amnesty website, including labels with home addresses, labels with a suggested solidarity message in Farsi, and other practical information.

back to index

page twelve

Support The Civil Service Strikers

by Richie Venton

CIVIL servants in the HMRC (Revenue and Customs) and DWP (Job centres, Pensions Centres and CSA) are poised to strike on 31 January.
They are putting up stiff resistance to the double-barrelled assault on jobs and pay by a government hell-bent on crushing public sector workers and the public services they provide.
In the DWP, a 3-year pay deal was rejected by three to one by staff, but instead of seeking a negotiated solution, the employers barged ahead by imposing this deal on workers’ pay packets at the end of November. They ignored union appeal for a pay rise to match inflation for 2007, whilst talks on 2008 and 2009 were held. This imposed deal means 2 per cent for 2007, zero for 2008 and 1 per cent in 2009 - a savage cut to pay in the light of food, fuel and housing costs rising relentlessly.
They provoked the rock solid two-day strike of staff in December. But still DWP bosses - who themselves got pay rises of 6.5 per cent to 7.6 per cent last year! - refused to budge.
Department Permanent Secretaries who had bonuses of over £3,000 and pay rises of 9 per cent, egged on by their political bosses in the Labour Cabinet, would neither concede a penny on pay nor arbitration though ACAS. So the PCS union are calling members in DWP out on strike on 31 January, to coincide with the one day strike being balloted for in the HMRC department.
In HMRC, the primary issues are a jobs slaughter totalling 25,000, galloping privatisation, and attacks on flexi time arrangements.
HMRC and the government are set on a crazed, vindictive course of 250 office closures, another 12,500 redundancies by 2011, and further outsourcing and privatisation - including the Security Guards at sites across the UK - including some that store seized contraband! The real pirates are the New Labour privateers - out to hand over services to the rich for profit, and to hell with the consequences for people’s jobs, public services, and public confidence in the security of data held on them.
A powerful show of strength by workers in two huge departments should rock even the most hard faced anti-union government.
Joint regional rallies and demos would be a powerful morale boost to all those on strength, and a means of highlighting the issues behind the strike to the public they deliver services to day and daily, despite their depleted numbers and vilification at the hands of New Labour.
And strikes work! 700 Glasgow Social Care workers won regrading in August - as did 260 Day Care workers last month, through tenacious, united action.
So imagine the power of 70,000 HMRC staff and 90,000 workers in DWP taking action to stop New Labour’s privatising, job-cutting, wage-cutting, anti-union Tories.
John Davidson, PCS East Kilbride Revenue Branch Vice- President, spoke to me (in a personal capacity) about why workers in tax and customs offices should be out on strike.
“The main reason for striking on 31 January and imposing a strict overtime ban thereafter is redundancies. 13,000 jobs in Revenue and Customs have already gone with a government target of another 12,500 by 2011.
But this issue is closely followed by privatisation. The government are not stupid enough to conduct outright, upfront privatisation, but they want to do it through a third party, and then eventually outsource and offshore the work - especially in the call centres.
Remember the leak a couple of years ago that they planned this transfer abroad of call centre work in the Department of Work and pensions?
Office closures are a big problem we aim to fight. The employers have not yet finalised the list for closure, but they have previously named Blythswood in Glasgow, Coatbridge, Motherwell and Hamilton in what they mockingly call the ‘Glasgow Urban Centre’. We have an agreement in HMRC that there must be reasonable travel to work times, no more than an hour. But the bosses try to claim you can reach e Kilbride or Cumbernauld from Glasgow in 30 minutes, which takes no account of real life traffic and our shoddy public transport system. They literally took a compass, stuck it in the middle of Glasgow and drew a circle with 25 kilometre radius round it, declaring that is OK for office closures and centralisation plans!
The existing loss of jobs makes the workload unbearable for those of us who remain. Staff face stress because they get the irate taxpayers ringing up to ask why it takes 19 weeks before their case is even looked at, not dealt with, whereas when I started in the revenue a mere six years ago the cases were dealt with inside 4 weeks.
The Labour government’s jobs cuts are crazy and illogical.
Because they are de-skilling the work in Revenue, we are the one part of the civil service which is recruiting! We now have 12,500 in the call centres. So whilst they are shedding jobs in the processing sections they are taking people on in the call centres - to deal with the irate calls from taxpayers that are caused by the staffing cuts in processing!
Even the Taxation magazine, the journal of professional accountants, is now backing our campaign against the jobs slaughter, which shows how badly services have been damaged.
Another key issue for Revenue staff is the threat of removing flexi time. This is always the second big issue after pay in staff surveys.
People with kids and care responsibilities only stay in the Revenue because they can use flexi.
Now they started a pilot scheme of removing it in the call centres. They want the arrangement more akin to McDonald’s, where they send you home without pay when it is quiet.”
The Scottish Socialist Party has a proud and unique record of supporting every action by PCS members since we were formed in 1998. We will be on the picket lines and rallies, as PCS members, as supporters† from the local community, as socialists who put people before profit, public services before shareholders’ greed, workers before bosses.

Vote SSP in the Kilsyth by-election

LOCAL members of the Scottish Socialist Party have chosen local man Willie O’Neill as their candidate in the impending council byelection in Kilsyth.
Willie told the Voice:
“Although this by-election is taking place in unfortunate circumstances, following the untimely death of Councillor Griffin, I am delighted that party members have selected me to stand.
“Growing up and living in the ward gives me first hand knowledge and experience of what the issues are that concern the people of Kilsyth and Croy.
“I am standing as a socialist who aims to challenge the consensus amongst all the other parties, that big business and the free market offers solutions to the problems of communities like ours.
“The SSP offers an alternative that’s about people not profit and it is important voters have that choice.”
Willie, who stood in the ward in May’s election, has previously contested Scottish and Westminster parliamentary seats for the SSP.
He has a long track record of involvement in campaigns dating back to the fight against the Poll Tax, including fighting school closures and for improving local transport links.
Willie has pledged to continue that fight saying:
“Labour led North Lanarkshire Council consistently let people in Kilsyth and Croy down.
“The gap between the wealthy and the rest of us has increased under Labour and our local services have been run down.
“The SSP will fight on a ticket that includes defending local services, improving public transport links, introducing road safety measures and increased resourses, to not only improve existing housing stock, but to increase availability of affordable homes for rent.
“The SSP gives people a real choice between parties who defend inequality and a party that will fight tooth and nail to defeat it.
“I hope people support our alternative vision of an independent and Socialist Scotland on 31 January.”

 


back to index