Why We Need Len McCluskey

The upcoming Unite General Secretary leadership contest has been described as ‘a battle for the soul of the labour party’.
There have been some spurious claims made in the campaign, allegations of misuse of party funds for Jeremy Corbyns leadership campaign and claims that Len McCluskey has used members money to purchase a plush flat in London.
Politically we live in turbulent and quite extraordinary times and the ride at times hasn’t been pleasant, but now it is all too evident that the political ‘dirty tricks’ campaign is spilling over into our union elections.
These days it is a difficult task trying to find reliable information, the press are very selective indeed when portraying information, as it attempts to sway your vote, to their advantage. So what I have done is to look behind the headlines and try to find the real story.
I have looked at Gerard Coynes election manifest and as a union member, it deeply concerned me, it should concern everyone of us regardless of what union we belong to because Gerald Coyne is advocating the separation of Unite from the Labour Party. In effect, this would sever our links, as union members with those who make our employment laws. Unite, through Len McCluskey is the conduit that our voices, hopes and futures use to reach those in power. For the first time in a very long time, we have a leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn and the leader of our greatest union Unite, who truly share our hopes and aspirations. As members, if we severed this relationship, we would sever our voice in parliament and leave ourselves at the mercy of those in power. This is the choice we are faced with and your vote will determine how protected your future prosperity, security and rights will be.   

Severing our link with the Labour Party will silence our voice in parliament.

Those that wish to deprive us of our voice are the same as those trying to discredit both leaders. And its fair to say that they have used some fairly imaginative journalism, otherwise known as a ‘smear campaign’ to swing your vote and further their cause. So, I have taken a look behind the headlines to find the real story behind the smear.

THE LONDON FLAT

The first story makes claim, that Len McCluskey spent £400k of members money on a flat.
Well the first thing I discovered was that it wasn’t £400k that Len used for his flat, but £417K, slightly more than we thought. However, as Len now works in London, it is not unreasonable for the leader of the largest union in the UK, to have some form of accommodation in the area. But did the Unite executive really ‘gift’ Len £417K to by a luxury London flat? 

Well, the answer is, no.

What Len actually did was enter into a ‘shared equity’ agreement with Unite where the £417K represents 60% of the value of the flat, belongs to the membership. An agreement approved overwhelmingly by the Unite Executive. Conditions were included that meant that the Unite membership, could never be ‘out of pocket’ because of the deal. Incidentally, deals such as this are quite commonplace for union chief executives.

The Unite investment in the property was £417K on a £700k apartment. Len is funding the rest. This same apartment as of June 2016 had increased in value by £24,000 meaning that the value of the unite members investment had also increased to £430,800, making unite members just shy of £14,000. So Len has ‘made’ money for Unite members, not squandered it.

MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTIONS

Len has been criticised for donating money to the Labour Party. The reality is that we, as members, gave Len that money specifically to donate to the Labour party. Its an optional political levy made in addition to our membership fees. In 2013, unite members voted overwhelmingly to ‘opt in’ to this political fund, a political fund which is regulated in law.
The political levy is the members only route to influencing our working terms and conditions that are dictated by government to enhance the good and oppose he bad. Severing these links, that have been built on for generations, would only serve to weaken all unions, expedite the erosion of our terms and conditions of employment rendering us compliant or having to resort to the increased prospect of taking industrial action, that no-one wants.

Unite, under Lens leadership, Unite recognized that Labour's new leadership team would be a great asset for the work of Unite. The money used to help secure Jeremy Corbyns successful leadership campaign was an investment for our futures and will serve to keep the strength in all of our unions.

We cannot allow our relationship with our closest political ally to wither.

Voting day is just around the corner, you are voting to protect your rights, your prosperity, your futures but above all, you are voting for you.

VOTE LEN McCLUSKEY

How To Repair an Irrepparably Split Political Party

I wrote this story about 35 years ago on my Commodore64, neither its USB or HDMI connections were functioning but I managed to Bluetooth it directly to my tablet.

Today It seems almost profetic but as you know, having been written so long ago, it couldn't possibly have been based on any recent events.

                                                             Setting The Scene

Imagine if you will, a political party split on whether to go to war or not, a split that runs so deep, that it threatens the very existence of the party. The leader of that party only has a few merry men and women standing firmly behind her, but to her advantage she holds the support, of the majority of the membership. The remainder of the party leadership are pro-war and vastly outnumber the leader, but their membership following is far smaller. Neither side is willing to give any quarter.

So, the pro war faction decide to stage a coup to oust the anti war leader. And to lend weight to their treachery, they devise a plan to assissinate her, not with weapons, no, but with words. They were not brave enough to use weapons, because they thought that they might get into trouble. So they called her names and made shit up.

The pro war side had a terrible weapon in their arsenal, for they held power over the selection process for new candidates and undemocratically, they have selected all of their own candidates for election. Meaning that, even though the vast majority of members support the anti-war agenda, they will never get to see any of their preferred candidates selected, which they felt was very, very unfair.

To make matters worse, every time one of the pro war candidates lost, they tried to put all of the blame on the shoulders of anti-war candidate, but her supporters were having none of it.

Both sides stake claim to having the support of the wider electorate, but neither can prove their claims because they are based on heresay, doorstep gossip. Their refusal to put this question to the electorate meant that the answer to this question will never be discovered.

                               The situation seemed hopeless, stalemate, or was it?

Whilst both sides of the party had reached an impasse, a small group of 500 of the most faithful and loyal members had had enough and decided to do the unthinkable, they resigned their membership of the party and created a new party so they could carry on with their anti-war beliefs without hinderance.

Eventually, the time to start campaigning for the long awaited general election arrived, the pro war faction of the party fielded all of their own candidates and were ready for battle. The anti war majority, predicted to have done well in the elections, had no-one standing. 

On the day of the election the candidates were announced, the 500 loyal anti-war members who resigned from the party, re-emerge as independent candidates. Well funded by a number of wealthy benefactors, foreign governments, we'll never know but they have a clear purpose in mind, to stand against everyone except, the anti-war members from their old party.
The campaigns came went and were surprisingly strong for the independents, no-one expected it.

When election day finally arrived, slowly over the course of the night, the results came in......
1st place 250 seats - The pro war party.
2nd place 180 seats - The anti war party.
3rd place 120 seats - The Independents
Everyone else won 50 seats between them.

The massive loss of seats cost the anti-war party dearly in the election and the pro-war party of division, hate and poverty were duly elected.

                                                                   The Fallout

On day one of the new government there was nervousness in the air, no victory celebration from the pro-war party and the entire country were glued to their TV sets, waiting for the announcement that they had long suspected was coming.

The news reader came on....

"We are hearing reports of mass defections from the independents to the Anti-war party, we will keep you posted with developments".

By early evening, the news anchor came back on the TV, the atmosphere in the country was charged with excitment and anticipation, could it really happen? could it be true? because everyone knew what had just happened, they just wanted it confirmed.

"Well its been an extraordinary day in politics, a day that shall be long remembered. The final counts are in and we understand that all, I shall repeat that, all of the independents who won their seats have now all defected to the anti-war party, We are unclear what this means exactly, but it does appear that the main opposition to the government actually hold more seats in parliament than the elected government itself. Ladies and gentlemen, on their first day in office, the elected government has been rendered a 'lame duck'. Quite extraordinary."

On day one, all of the winning independents defected to the anti-war party who, for the first time in years, are now unified in their anti-war majority, massively strengthening the leaders position. Their resignation wasn't an act of desperation but a calculated act to illicit a specific outcome. Some called it unfair but the fact remained that defections were well within the rules.

The benefactors and the public were well aware and supportive of their agenda but no-one believed it could happen, for they knew that these independents had no intention of remaining as independent. On day one of the new parliament all of those who won, defect back to their old party to rejoin the leader in her anti-war stance. Sadly, because of the unavoidability of this action, the party lost this election by 130 seats and handed the victory to the party of division, hate and poverty. But, 180 of the faithfull 500 won their seats and immediately defected.

This now resulted in the unprecedented, extraordinary situation where the opposition party had lost the election, but had more representatives in parliament than the government, thereby rendering them a lame duck government, with no power to enact any of their dreadful, punishing laws. It was only a matter of time until the government in waiting, the anti-war party, seized power.

The End         

The Death of Neoliberalism - Part 2

One can't help but notice that there has been some political shenanigans going on of late.
Tory, Labour or Ukip? The posturing, the argument, it has all been great fun and yes, maybe a little boisterous. But what is it that is actually at stake here? What battle is really being fought here?

The fight isn’t just between political parties this time, its for a change in the economic model. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher introduced a new kind of economic model to the people of Britain, the economics of neoliberalism. It is this very economic model that ‘leaves people behind’. In 1997, when Tony Blair became prime minister, he rejected socialism and adopted neoliberalism as his favoured economic model. So the labour party were no longer socialists but had become neoliberals. Every election since then, irrespective of a tory or labour win at the ballot box, neo-liberalism in one form or another, always won and for almost 40 years, those left behind have struggled to survive. Forgotten by both the Tories and New Labour, it isn’t difficult to understand the distrust in the political establishment.

There is an easy way to separate neo-liberalism from socialism. Neoliberals want the wealth and power of the people handed over to the private sector, our NHS, railways, utility companies. Its a kind of ‘corporate communism’ which has been evolving for decades where business as opposed to the state own everything, but its still basically communism.
Socialism wants wealth and power handed over to the people so as everyone benefits, not contracted out to the private sector, where profits are kept as personal wealth in private bank accounts, instead of being re-invested into our services.
This is the real battle that is going on, the fight to wrestle the wealth and power once rightfully owned by the British people and taken piece by valuable piece, by successive neoliberal governments, to hand back to the British people so as they alone, not corporations, will be the architects or their own future.

As there are neoliberals and socialists within the Labour party, this also explains why the party is split. This isn’t a battle over a weak leader, but a battle for the very soul of the Labour Party, is the Labour Party neoliberal or socialist? When the Labour Party fielded a true socialist candidate for leader of the Labour Party in 2015, socialists around the country woke up and flocked to the party. Now the membership is made up primarily of true socialists. This is also why the Labour Party cannot depose Corbyn, because he has the overwhelming backing of, the membership. All the neoliberal element of the Labour Party can hope to achieve is to erode the membership support for Corbyn enough to launch yet another leadership challenge. It seems that the job of the socialist Labour members is to stay united, stay strong and stay members. The main danger for the Socialist labour party is that as time goes on, the membership who joined to support Corbyn as leader may feel their job is finished. Lapsing membership is one of the great threats to Corbyns leadership, especially if they are not allowed vote in leadership elections, without being party members for 6 months.

These same splits are evident, within the tory party who have their own internal (but suppressed from public view) battles between capitalism and neoliberalism, but you’d be lucky to find it documented though. Ken Clarke though strikes a lonely figure as one of the last remnants of a true tory conservative.

As for the future, neoliberalism has almost finished draining the last drop of capitalism from the Tory party. With capitalism being a close cousin of neoliberalism, it wasn’t too difficult for capitalism to be overwhelmed and subdued. The return of Socialism to the Labour Party has created a powerful defence against neoliberalism, and over the next 3 years, those defences will be continually tested for weaknesses. The weapons deployed by neoliberals run along the lines of leadership challenges, false accusations (trot infiltrations, unelectable etc) demonising the membership and of course, fake news which is happily delivered by the main stream media in the hope that they can create enough lethargy to divide Corbyns support base.
It seems to me that the battle for the next general election isn’t in 2020, its now. Neoliberalism does not want to face socialism in a fair fight, it would much rather face itself as it has done for he last 38 years. Neoliberal tory, or neoliberal Labour, it matters little. But neoliberal versus Socialism? that is a battle that neoliberalism knows that it can't win and therefore has to kill off socialism before the next general election.   

While neoliberalism has just elected its first president in the States, in the UK neoliberalism is in retreat and fighting for its very survival. If socialism wins in 2020, neoliberalism in the UK will be forced back into obscurity and the Tories will have to create more left leaning policies in order to just survive.
All 'socialism' has to do to win, is stay united, stay strong and retain the membership.

State Pension Strategy - Giving people the right to retire at a time of their choosing

State Pension Equality Strategy
It is clear that there exists an imbalance of equality with the State Pension.
This suggestion will aim to eradicate the gender inequality inherent within the state pension retirement ages, and also provide the flexibility for people to retire on a state pension at a time of their choosing and not that of the governments.
Another advantage of this policy idea is that, as more people will have the opportunity to take retirement earlier, then presumably, an equal amount to jobs will become available in the jobs markets. This will also be of significant advantage to British business as those retiring have usually reached the top of their pay scales and will be replaced by people entering employment at the bottom, which could make significant savings for businesses, which in turn could be used to invest in workforce education.
The government pension scheme will operate in a similar way to Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS) in that, if you are lucky enough to be able to afford to retire earlier, you will take a slightly reduced pension. This would enable those who have saved for retirement to be able to afford to retire earlier, and those that haven’t, may have to work longer, but once arriving at their chosen retirement age, will receive a larger weekly pension.
The scheme would apply to all people equally irrespective of gender.
Here are some numbers based on a life expectancy of 80 years of age and a maximum state pension of £120 per week. These figures are just for illustration.
If we base the pension on a weekly income of £120 per week for someone retiring at 65 and with a 15 year life expectancy, they would have a total pension pot of £93,600 based over a 15 year period. So their weekly pension would be £120pw.
However, someone retiring at 60 with a 20 year life expectancy would receive the same pension pot of £93,600, but their pension is based on being in receipt of it for 5 years longer, they would receive a weekly pension of £90pw. Over a 20 year period or average life expectancy, the pensions would achieve parity whilst giving people the flexibility to retire at a time of their choosing.
The calculations of pension are easily adjusted to compensate for changes in life expectancy and age of retirement. Pension can be calculated to be taken at any time throughout the year providing the opportunity to take retirement on any day of ones choosing between the ages of 60 and the day one chooses to retire.

How The UK Can Keep Free Movement of People Whilst Remaining In The Single Market

If you are truly truly concerned about the levels of Immigration then the only party to vote for is.......wait for it.......Labour.
Labour deal with immigration more effectively than any other party.
We have high levels of immigration ONLY because of economic decisions and therefore, we can cut immigration by using economic decisions.
Labour aren't going to do it by slamming the door shut on immigrants.....no.
Labour aren't going to do it by spreading hate....no.
So need we be concerned about keeping our open door policy to immigrants......no.
We don't have to use xenophobic, racist, small minded, little Englander policies to save the United Kingdom. 
How Labour are going to do is quite brilliant, we can keep all the great things abour Britain, we can maintain our friendship with Europe and we can reduce the number of immigrants without compromising our principals, our pride and our prosperity.
But, but but, before I tell you how I just want to go over a few issues that might arise if we stick to the closed door xenophobic policy.
Closing the door on immigration could decimate the already overstretched staffing levels of our hospital staff. Our immigrants close the skills shortage gap so Labour will fund the vocational training that the tories have soooo neglected.
I used to think that austerity was a political choice, but having encountered a 'brilliant mind' recently I understand that 'everything' is a political choice.
Everything.
We could have full employment with everyone enjoying a decent standard of living, we don't because of a political choice.
We could have the best health service in the world, but we don't because of political choice.
We could all own our own homes, but we don't because of political choice.
This shit storm we currently live in is purely down to a political choice.
Yes, there might me a few ramifications, we may have higher interest rates or inflation, the country may have to accumulate a little more debt, but thats just merely economics. Isn't the trade off more than worth it?

The nation is concerned with the effects that immigration is having on our country. The reason that they are concerned is because politicians have decided that to force their political agenda, we, the people need to be greatly concerned about immigration.
If immigration were a true concern, then all political parties would be concerned about it, but this isn't the case. Its only the right wing parties who push this agenda. Labour are not concerned about immigration because the way they would deal with it would make our concerns over immigration, irrelevant.
We have been led to believe that immigrants are flooding the country and driving down wages, not true. British companies are driving up immigration numbers by only providing low paid jobs that British people can't afford to take. This drives up profits for our businesses whilst keeping our own people out of work, on the dole, supported by the tax payer. British business profiteers on low paid migrant workers whilst the tax payer, us, pick up the tab for the unemployment it creates. It is tory policy along with the compliance of British businesses that is the driving force behind ever increasing immigration.
A political choice.
MacDonalds, if everyone who normally wants a MacDonalds on a Friday, go out to buy one but all the stores are closed except the one on the fezzie park, what are the queues going to be like? They are going to be long, very long, the staff are going to be working their asses off, hygiene, quality and customer service are going to be on the floor, but efficiency and profitability has been improved. This is tory Britain.
You know what I'm going to say, yep, this is also exactly what is happening to our country as a whole, not just the NHS, or our other essential services, but everywhere in both private and public sectors.

So how is labour going to solve the problem of immigration with a political choice, simple.
The living wage.
Remember that.

THE LIVING WAGE

The difference between Labour and the tories is that labour will enforce it. Essentially depriving the British labour market of the facility, provided by the tory party, to exploit migrant workers. Our once unscrupulous employers will have to pay migrant workers the exact same as British born workers, so faced with this choice they will naturally choose the British born worker and as a result the opportunities for migrant labour diminishes. No xenophobic policies, just a naturally occurring reduction in the number of immigrants.
The ones currently being exploited and filling places in the low wage labour market will no longer have opportunities in Britain, but more importantly, the skilled workers we need filling gaps in the NHS etc will be welcome.

Now this is the real beauty of labours brexit strategy.
1. It will separate the immigrants we need from those that we done need.
2. British living standards will rise because there are no more zero hours contracts and exploitative labour practices, great for British people, bad for unskilled migrants.
3. Immigrants will look for work in mainland Europe and not the UK. Immigration becomes a mainland European problem.
4. Because we can keep free movement of people, we can also retain membership of the single market.
  
In a nutshell labour will:
1. Reduce immigration and increase employment for British people.
2. Increase basic salaries for the indigenous population improving living standards.
3. Lower unemployment and higher salaries also means more money for the treasury.
4. More money for the treasury means more money to pay off the debt, to fund the NHS and everything else we hold dear.
5. Paying off the debt means the economy is better off, faster.
6. Higher employment means lower crime rates. (The crisis in our and prisons and public services solved).

Its because of policies like this that the establishment hate us. This is just one policy and believe me, there are many more that will improve our lives in on top of this.

Just remember, everything that is happening to us the result of a political choice. All it takes to change it is one simple vote.
We've had enough of tory created immigration, tory created austerity, tory created poverty.
Think prosperity, think Labour.

'Hug A Hogger' Day

Hug A Hogger

The main issue with the Tory government is that they just love to breed and foster 'hate'.

It doesn't matter 'who hates who' because there is profit in hate. They even create the environment where they encourage the hatred of themselves, why? because it makes it easier for them to hate you. It's much easier to persecute someone you hate, than someone you love. 

But as socialists we shouldn't hate those who hate us, no, we should learn to pity them, to show them a little love and to show them that they can be rehabilitated into decent society.

That's why today I am promoting 'Hug A Hogger', day.

Hoggers are people who have never understood or experienced true love, fairness and equality. Its a scandal that so many of the children of hoggers, were voluntarily rejected and discarded by their parents as infants and dragged up, in the cold and isolated, socially toxic environment of private education. Learning that the only true friend, that they will ever have, who will stick by them, through thick and thin, is money. Where they learn the art that sacrificing one 'real' friend to gain all of their paper friends is natural, normal and then they tragically call it 'success'. 

In a decent society, this is known as the socially unacceptable art of 'backstabbing'. The result is the creation of a morally void, socially defective and emotionally barren individual, incapable of independent thought. The closest thing we have to this type of education that we as humanists might recognise, is 'brainwashing'. 

There are a few, who despite their disadvantaged start in life, have successfully discovered the strength to climb out of the sewers of capitalism and neoliberalism to lead decent, honourable and productive lives. Who have resisted the lure of a fast billion or two from working outside of the boundaries of society (I deeply respect these individuals for having the courage to free themselves of their wayward upbringing, to gift themselves a better life and more importantly, to learn from them, how they achieved it).

Sadly, for the many hoggers who made it into decent society, there are countless more who succumbed. The old expression 'there is no honesty, fairness and equality in hogging' is as true today as it has always been. 

There are three main types of 'hogger'. There are the 'Fallonettes' the 'Bransonistas' and the May'shters, however, recently a deeply disturbing new strain, the 'Ruddenophobe' has been discovered, although this strain is causing the re-emergence of a disease we had previously thought dormant. On a happier note, I am happy to announce though, that the problem we had with the Crabbs last year, has been cleared up.

We know that hogging is contagious and has been permeating through decent society for decades. There are cases where decent people, from all walks of actual societal life, have been thinking themselves as hoggers and defending the May'shters. However, we don't believe that this condition is terminal or irreversible and can be cured. The infected are easily recognisable. They are usually intelligent people, but they possess a very limited vision of an alternative future. They have been made to mistakenly believe that the future of wealth, prosperity and success of the country is in their hands. That to create wealth they must believe in the hoggers vicious circle of increasing productivity for the lowest wages while paying no tax. This leads to the creation of more businesses where they can increase productivity, for the lowest wages while paying no tax. As they are intelligent they can be turned but they need a bloody good explanation as to why?

So friends, it is up to us to stop this neoliberal merry-go-round. To show the hoggers that instead of creating poverty to make profit, we can create wealth to create profit. An entirely new and better and more desireable roundabout.

So if you know a hogger, and im sure we all do, let them know we love them, we can forgive them and that there is always a place in decent society reserved for them if they desire it. 

So hug a hogger today.

I will leave you with a short prayer inspirted by St. Francis of Assisi

Where there is discord,

May we bring fairness and equality.

Where there is error,

May we bring socialism.

Where there is doubt,

May we bring security.

And where there is despair,

May we bring decent jobs.

It starts today.

Disclaimer: Hugging is not a literal term, many hoggers do not have the capacity to understand or interrpret a hug and they could break. Hugging a hogger could come in the form of a cup of Earl Grey or a beluga canapé if you feeling adventurous. So be careful.

Karaoke Politics

Karaoke Politics
Its funny how the mind works, I was reading a great speech given by a young labour member with a bright future called Shakira earlier. I have to say that I was honoured to be present when her maiden speech was originally delivered. Her thoughts and words reinforced to me, how important our young people are, how neglected they have been by successive governments and how much their futures could be improved under a labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn and only Jeremy Corbyn. Because under a tory government, there is no chance of university fees being abolished and the tories will continue to deprive young people of a decent education, whilst keeping the prospect of owning their own homes, out of reach for far too many. And under any other labour leader, there is always a risk that these dreams may never be realised.

So, it got me thinking 'how do we get young people involved?'

I drove passed Newcastle College and as always, there were hundreds of students outside who could directly benefit from Jeremy Corbyns policies, so how could we reach them?
I thought we could do leaflet drops, in-house presentations or even mini political lunchtime rallies (weather permitting), jam sandwiches and Jeremy Corbyn so to speak.

It was about this time that an unrequested random thought decided to pop into my head. As a fifty something Jeremy Corbyn supporter, I have been likened to a college student who has the same reverence over Jeremy Corbyn that a teenager has over any culturally popular band.

Now this accusation may not be far from the truth.

Young people like their pop stars.

I like Jeremy Corbyn.

Young people have belief and connection with their bands lyrics.

I have belief and connection with Jeremy Corbyns policies.

So yes, it may be true, I may have a reverence for Jeremy Corbyn but I may also be able to explain it.

So why is it that some bands are more popular than others? They all use the same notes and largely the same lyrics. What makes some songs good whilst others are outstanding? Its down to construction.

This is what Jeremy Corbyn has done with his politics, I hear people say that its just the same old notes, but the difference is how he has put them together. The music in politics is policy. You create wealth and homes and it is music to your ears, however if you vote for war in Iraq or cutting welfare payments at the same time, then you’ve thrown in a couple of bum notes or you sing out of tune, it makes you wince a bit. Its not right. But Jeremy Corbyn has created a symphony of policy, you cant help but listen to its beauty, there are no bum notes and no offensive lyrics or flat tones, everything beautifully harmonised.
But, there are others performing the same music and the same lyrics so why is Jeremy Corbyns composition the most popular and why is he revered over people singing the same song?
Simply put, it is because Jeremy Corbyns symphony ‘is’ the original, he is the one who spent decades working on the composition, perfecting the lyrics and disposing of the bum notes to produce the perfect political composition, it is his masterpiece. It cant be tweaked or improved as any attempts to do so only result in a carbon copy from which the depth of feeling, originality and creativity used to create it are missing.
So this is why I support Jeremy Corbyn, because I’d rather have the original version than the karaoke.