Shiraz Socialist

Poor old Dave Osler is pretty depressed about the state of the left ; both the extra-Parliamentary far-left and the Labour Party (”the end result is that Bameronism gets away with representing itself as all there is. Welcome to British politics without a functioning left”).

Dave is a very thoughtful and serious guy. I, personally, share some of his misgivings about the state of the British left. In particular, I share his distaste for the collapse of the “left” into communalism (I should stress, at this point, that all views expressed in this piece are mine and not Osler’s) and its retreat from class politics.

Since the defeat of the miners’ strike in 1985, the mainstream British left has tended to downplay the class struggle. That is, to some extent, excusable: the class struggle itself has been at a low ebb for many years. But now, with the arrival of super-exploited migrant workers, there is no excuse for leftists to collaspse into communalism: the class struggle is back on the agenda in a big way. Organisations like “Respect” that foster communalism, should simply be denounced as the reactionary obstacles that they are. A big fight is needed to open up the existing organisations of the British working class (trade unions and Labour Party) to the new arrivals.

And, Dave, there are some signs of hope: the McDonnell campaign (the sillier claims of some of its young organisers notwithstanding) has gained real support in some unions; ‘Blairism’ /’Brownism’ is now discredited in most unions and amongst many rank-and-file Labour Party members. And there are small, but hopeful signs of the class struggle re-emerging in places like Tesco and Heathrow airport (Gate Gourmet was not a “sell-out”): we must build upon these - admittedly limited - actions, and support the T&G’s Organising Unit’s campaign to recruit and organise migrant workers.

I long ago broke with James P. Cannon on matters of theory. But he was a damn good organiser, with a real “feel” for the class struggle: he knew what it was like to be a working class socialist in difficult times: he described them as “The dog days of the left opposition”.

I’m a mild and friendly sort of bloke, so I often wonder how the hell I ever got involved in:
1/ The Trotskyist left;
2/ Jazz.

Both are the most factional, aggressive and vituperative arenas imaginable.

However, there is some good stuff to be had in the wunnerful world of jazz sectarianism.

My two personal favourites are this murderous denunciation of Kenny ‘G’, allegedly penned by guitarist Pat Metheny; and this disastrous interview with the legendarily bad-tempered cornetist Ruby Braff, by Jim Godbolt (quite a curmugeon himself, but here overwhelmed by Braff’s vituperation). Enjoy…and learn.

Respect has 10,000 student members, apparently

I found this absolutely hilarious.
With these sorts of numbers I fully expect Respect to elect themselves into every position on the student union in every university, leading to them taking over the NUS.

Of course this is complete bullshit on behalf of the SWP, even by their standards this is dense beyond belief.

I wonder if any of their activists actually believe this?
I probably shouldn’t say this on an unrelated issue - I had a dream last night that I attended an AWL meeting last night, bizarrely being held in the basement of a tower block in Coventry. It was very strange, to say the least.

toodle pip

Larry C

Here at Shiraz Socialist, we’re organised by ACTS - the ‘white collar’ section of the Transport and General Workers Union. I think it’s also fair to say that, in terms of T&GWU internal politics we could, broadly, be called critical supporters of the present General Secretary, Tony Woodley.

We - certainly - have been supporters of Woodley’s drive for unity with Amicus, and for the creation of a ‘new union’. It makes industrial sense: both existing unions organise in the same industries, and even alongside each other in the same workplaces:

Opposition to the ‘new union’ within the T&G has come mainly from the regions: the T&G has a powerful regional structure, in which Regional Secretaries wield a tremendous amount of influence, including the power to hire and fire officials and members of staff. This has allowed Regional Secretaries to build up their own personal fiefdoms based upon nepotism and downright corruption. The Regional Secretary of Region One (London), Eddie McDermott, recently resigned rather than have Woodley call the police in to examine his financial affairs. Something similar happened with the Scottish Regional Secretary, Andy Baird, recently sacked by Woodley for ballot-rigging.

Unfortunately, the “left” within the union is also prone to regionalism: Region 6 (Merseyside and the North West), controlled by left-wingers, seems to think that the union should exist for the benefit of its unemployed members and that there should be no national control over regions.

We at Shiraz Socialist believe that the success of the the T&G/Amicus merger is vital for the future of the trade union movement in Britain. Whatever the dangers, we wish the new union well, and we support the amalgamation against its critics from both right and ‘left’. And also from bums like the present Deputy General Secretary of Amicus, whose stupid posturing seems almost designed to sabotage the merger; certainly the anti-merger forces within the T&G (eg: Barry Camfield and his corrupt Region One cronies) have made full use of this sectarianism for their own purposes.

The Joint Working Party set up by the respective executives of the two unions, has now reported, and drawn up ‘Instrument of Amalgamation’: the law governing union mergers requires that members must approve - in a secret postal ballot - the ‘Instrument of Amalgamation’, which must contain the following:

i) the name and principle purposes of the amalgamated organisation;
11) the conditions of admission to membership;
111) the structure of the amalgamated organisation;
1v) the method of appointing and removing the governing body and principal officials and of altering its rules;
v) the contributions and benefits applicable to members of the amalgamating organisations.

The document fulfills all the above legal requirements. However, it does not fulfill Woodley’s promise to T&G members that this process would result in a “new union” - not just a traditional amalgamation. There are many things to object to in the Instrument of Amalgamation (probably obtainable at the T&G’s website, but at the time of writing it’s down), but - in fairness - some of these objections are probably necessary evils to enable the amalgamation to take place.

However, there are four essential reasons to oppose the document:

* The formulation of “all committee members must be accredited workplace reps” (the T&G Executive has already referred this back);
* The joining of the ‘East’ Region with London to make a Region (London should be a Region in its own right and if there aren’t enough members in the ‘East’ to form a viable region, they would be better served in a joint Region with the ‘South’;
* There are no mandatory committees below region. The ‘permissive’ rule: “(Regions) may set up Area Activists Committees, subject to EC approval, to bring together activists in a given district across industrial sections”. That “may” should be “shall”, and areas should have the same staus as Districts have in the T&G Regions that still have them. Regional (industrial) Trade Groups should also be mandatory. As one T&G GEC member commented (with tongue firmly in cheek): “Allowing Regions to decide their own committee structure is what made Region One the model of democracy and good governance it was under Eddie (McDermott: allowed to resign, rather than be sacked for corruption).

I never thought I’d say this: but unless these proposals are radically changed, there may be a case for opposing the amalgamation.

P.S: Sorry if all the above seems boring to non-TGWU / Amicus members: it’s just that the future of organised labour in Britain depends upon it.

All of us at ‘Shiraz’ like the ‘Stroppies’ (aka: ‘The Will Fan Club’ - link on the right) , despite their cruel breaking of our tender hearts when they stood us up in Manchester recently. The Priest and I were so distraught that we turned to drink and were quite unmanageable for a while.

Anyway, the Stroppies have a new and very tasteful design on their site. I think it’s inspired by Ms Nichole Kidmans outstanding portrayal of ‘Catwoman’ in a film. I am told that it has been created by that master of good taste and sound judgement, Will (aka ‘The Jim Denham Fan Club’ - link on the right), who also jazzed up Dave Osler’s blog (also linked-to, on the right). As I remember, having redesigned the Osler site, Will (on his blog, ‘A General Theory of Rubbish’) said someting like: “What a good-looking site: shame about the contents”.

The Stroppies’ site always had good contents: now it’s good-looking too.

We’ll stick to austere minimalism.

Congrats to all involved.

New head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt’s interview in the (UK) Daily Mail, has quite rightly, dominated today’s (October 13 2006) news. After all, the General says that British troops’ continuing presence “exacurbates the security problems” in Iraq, and opines that “our presence in Iraq exacurbates the difficulties we are facing round the world”. He concludes that “we should get orselves out sometime soon”.

He likes that word “exacurbates”, doesn’t he?

Despite attempts by Dannatt to row back (when interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, for instance, when he considerably qualified his position on the troops’ “continuing presence”), there can be no doubt that his comments are a tremendous embarrassment to Blair. It is also quite unprecedented (in recent British history) for a military appointee to publicly challenge an elected government…and leftists might like to think about that, regardless of their views on Iraq.

The SWP/’Respect’ ‘Stop the War Coalition’ amalgam has, quite understandably, hailed the General’s comments and welcomed him as a new “recruit to the anti-war movement”. If I shared their politics, I’d do the same.

But what they conveniently leave out of the picture is that the General’s comments are part of an on-going rift within the British ruling class, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the peoples of Iraq. Dannatt makes it quite clear that his number one concern is the well-being of the British military and the “military covenant” between a nation and its armed forces: “I said to the Defence Secretary (Des Browne) that the Army won’t let the nation down, but I don’t want the nation to let the Army down”.

Dannatt also makes it clear that his aim is to re-deploy troops withdrawn from Iraq, to Afghanistan: “There is a clear distinction between our staus in Iraq and in Afghanistan, which is why I have much more optimism that we can get it right in Afghanistan”.

And if that doesn’t give the SWP/STWC axis pause for thought about whether or not the General really is the kind of ally they want, they should read his views (as what the Mail calls a “devout Christian”) about the “Islamist threat”, which he hopes “doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country. Our society has always been embeddedin Christian values: once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind”.

Very progressive views for the SWP/STWC to be taking on from their “latest recruit”, eh?

But, in fact Dannatt does have one thing in common with his pseudo-left cheer-leaders: a total disregard for the struggling Iraqi Labour movement. A precipitate withdrawal now would mean the triumph of the sectarian militias, who would massacre trade unionists, secularists and womens’ organisations. Dannatt doesn’t care about that: and neither does the pro-Islamist “left”.

As, probably, the main culprit that “Wonderslore” had in mind when complaining about this blog devoting itself to attacking “other” left groups (”other” than the AWL? But I’m the only AWL’er on the team), I’d just like to say that though I enjoy a good factional ding-dong as much as the next comrade, I am aware that we need to keep a sense of proportion. None of us cyber space -cadet polemicists here in the West are putting our lives on the line like - say - Anna Politkovskaya, whose last (unfinished) article about murder and torture in Russian-controlled Chechnya can be read here.

She exposed and denounced both the brutality of the Russian federal forces, and the increasing brutality of the Chechnyan rebels. She continued her work even after she had been locked in a hole in the ground by Russian troops and threatened with rape, kidnapped, and poisoned by the Russian FSB (Federal Security Service). According to the Guardian’s obituary (October 9 2006): “Her husband left her. Her son pleaded with her to stop. Her neighbours, cowed by the attentions of the FSB in an upmarket street in central Moscow, shunned her”.

And now she’s dead, shot very professionally, in the lift of her apartment block in Moscow.

It makes us posturing bloggers look pretty small-time, doesn’t it?

Can I just inject a slight criticism here of the blog - I’m getting ever so slightly bored of internicine sniping at other left groups. Yes I don’t contribute that often but I have had a couple of sojourns in hospital so that’s my excuse, and hence I’d like to throw in a contribution on a pretty basic issue.

I am Diabetic and rely on medication to control my condition. I have just discovered that the stuff I am prescribed while it does the job ,albeit with mildly unpleasant side effects, has been described by the hospital consultant as “old fashioned”.

So, why don’t I get the latest drugs that work more efficiently and effectively, because dear bloggers they are more expensive and hence would take a toll on my GP’s budget.

How jolly selfish of me I can hear you cry. I would be prepared to accept this state of affairs, if I had not found out that I am being prescribed other drugs to lower my cholesterol levels which I don’t need. This is because in a one size fits all NHS there is a certain regime of treatment that is prescribed and you have to fit into it.

Now you are all bored with my ailments, but my point is, by fitting in with this regime whether I need it or not, the GP is paid for hitting each target for me as an individual patient, hence they are paid to prescribe stuff whether you need it or not.

This makes me very unsure about the whole concept of professional clinical judgement. We have NICE (and just exactly who are they accountable to), on the one hand who won’t license early use of drugs for Alzheimers because of the expense and then someone like myself who is wasting resources by taking stuff they don’t really need ,and on speaking to people on the web who subscribe to various forums I am by no means unique.

Equally there is also a pressure on GPs to prescribe certain brands of drugs due to the pressure being put on them by certain drugs companies, but that’s a whole can of worms in itself

If I refuse, I could face being struck off my GP’s list

It ’s enough to make you want to nationalise the pharmaceutical industry !

PS Whatever his motive, Jack is right !

I was just going to add my twopenn’orth to the Strawgate debate by way of Volty’s esteemed if overcrowded comments box. Then I remembered that I’m a member of this blog, and have the privilege of boring y’all at greater length. So here goes!

The bourgeois press have been going crazy with silly stories about Muslims over the last week, the silliest being the taxi driver who wouldn’t let a guide dog in his cab. Of course, the motives of the Evening Standard for running this very small story on its front page can be easily understood: they’re a sad bunch of racist wankers. Nevertheless, the event does raise an interesting ethical dilemma (though not in the Evening Standard). When does a right or value trump another one - in this case, non-discrimination against non-discrimination? How much latitude can be given in such cases to religious peculiarities?

I think one has to ask whether or not the thing objected to is necessary, practically or morally. A human right must always trump a religious or cultural preference. Or to put it another way: something which applies to everyone equally takes precedence over something which applies only to a self-defined group of people. Everyone should have equal access to basic facilities like transport, and abolishing discrimination against disabled people is an important part of that. So the court was right to fine the taxi driver (though why didn’t they fine the firm? If he felt he couldn’t provide the required public service they shouldn’t have given him the job).

With Jack Straw and his peculiar aversion to the niqaab, we are (to state the bleeding obvious) in a different case. There is no practical or moral reason why one should have to show one’s face to the Leader of the House of Commons before speaking to him. (Maybe it should be Straw wearing the niqaab - he’s no oil painting after all!) I say Straw’s objection is peculiar because he says nothing about the veil or its patriarchal social function at all. In fact, he makes no rationally understandable criticism of it. Socialists and secularists should abhor the niqaab because it demeans and restricts women, brutally demonstrating male domination. Yet Straw seems to dislike it because it intimidates him!

If Jack Straw is so unnerved by talking to a woman wearing a veil that he feels compelled to criticise her clothing while she’s asking for his help; if that’s so important to him that he insists on shooting his mouth off about it when doing that will inevitably make a very sensitive situation even more tense - then he shouldn’t be an MP. Actually, he shouldn’t be an MP for many, many reasons. He’s just added another one. “Well done” Jack: now sod off back to Blackburn and try keeping your mouth shut!

Non - UK readers must forgive me. I write this as I listen to Mark Tulley’s “Something Understood” on BBC Radio 4. It’s a programme so depressing that suicide would seem a merciful release, if the alternative was to have to listen to it for more than about one hour. Bloody hell: Tully’s even put on a piece by Benjamin Brittan, sung by that dreadful Peter Pears. Before “Something Understood” , the most depressing radio show was, undoubtably, “Sing Something Simple“, which used to come on the Light Programme/ Radio 2: if you’ve never heard it, consider yourself lucky. It involved a choir singing depressing songs by Steven Foster and others, accompanied by Jack Emblow’s accordian. Someone said: “hearing ‘Sing Something Simple’ was the first time I realised that - one day - I would die”.

The Archers, You and Yours, and anything on BBC Radio 4 that purports to be “comedy” are also on my list of worst-ever radio. But the ultimate prize must surely go to the late, unlamented Home Truths: surely the most twee, self-satisfied, middle class vomit ever to be broadcast. If you heard it, you’ll know exactly what I mean: posh people giggling about going to the toilet and/or farting. Bring back the drunken bloke who did “The Fleet’s Lit Up!”, I say.

As I said, overseas readers must forgive me (although you can get Radio 4, if you try: some of it is quite good!): I had to get this off my chest. Radio 4 is a bit like Public Service radio in the US, except it’s paid for by a universal licence charge. And the awfulness of certain Radio 4 programmes has driven me over to BBC Radio 3 (the “classical music” channel), thus educating me in Shostakovich, Stravinsky and Schoenberg.

On the plus side, BBC radio introduced me, as a kid - over steamy Sunday lunches - to the wonders of Tony Hancock, Kenneth Horne and…Julian and Sandy: anyone remember them?