Guest post - Save Behnam and family

I heard about this via Pauline , the coordinator of the campaign. on Facebook. I asked her to write something for the blog and here it is below. Do please sign the petition and support this campaign.


SAVE BEHNAM!

BEHNAM & FAMILY MUST STAY CAMPAIGN

UNIVERSITY OF THE ARTS LONDON STUDENT AND HIS MOTHER FACE DEPORTATION TO PRISON AND TORTURE IN IRAN

Behnam is a 22 year old artist studying for a BA Fine Arts degree at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, part of the University of the Arts London. Born in Iran, he has lived in London since the age of fifteen. Unusually for such a young artist, Behnam has held several solo art exhibitions and has exhibited alongside more established artists. His art is eclectic, much of it reflecting his strong yearning for freedom especially for the country of his birth.

In 2005, following the arrest of his father at Tehran Airport by Iranian authorities, he and his mother claimed asylum in the UK. They were subsequently tried and sentenced to 5 and 7 years imprisonment respectively and told they would be given 70 and 100 lashes for “jeopardizing Iran’s National Security”.

They were absurdly charged with this serious offence due to their association with two teenage brothers, school friends of Behnam. These students were arrested at Behnam’s family’s Tehran apartment where they were staying for some of the time that Behnam’s family were living in London. They were members of an underground group opposed to the regime and were apparently found in possession of anti-regime materials and printing equipment.

There is a culture of disbelief that sadly permeates the asylum system in the UK. The application for asylum was refused and an appeal was also unsuccessful, at least in part attributable to very poor legal representation at the time at the hands of an unqualified representative posing as a fully qualified solicitor.

It was clear to all those who know Behnam as a completely trustworthy and exemplary character that they could not stand by and let an appalling injustice happen to Behnam and his family, knowing of the terrible fate that awaits them back in Iran. It was at this point that the Behnam & Family Must Stay Campaign was set up.

Iran’s record on Human Rights is appalling. It has deteriorated since the coming to power, in 2005, of hardline President Ahmadinejad, and since the fraudulent Presidential election of June 2009 and the resulting widespread protests, there has been a further clampdown. Students and cultural figures are among the groups most targeted. Torture is rife and executions, including of juveniles, common.

Behnam and his mother’s lives are in clear danger. Like so many refugees before them, they are positive assets to this country. They must be given protection and allowed to remain in safety in the UK where they belong.

To date over 11, 200 people, including many famous names, have signed a petition calling upon the Home Secretary (we are now on number 4) to lift the threat of deportation hanging over the family and to grant them leave to remain in the UK.

The petition can be signed online .

Thank you for your support.

Guest post : Hands Off Lewisham Bridge Primary School

Cross posted from Infantile and Disorderly , by Vicky:

Early this morning, parents of children who attend Lewisham Bridge Primary School bravely occupied the roof of the school in protest at Lewisham Council's reprehensible decision to bus all the pupils and teachers 3 miles each day to another site. For decades, Lewisham Bridge Primary School (a grade II listed building) has been at the heart of the community... There is a facebook group called Hands off Lewisham Bridge Primary School (you will need to be logged into facebook to see this). Join the group, or check back here, for pictures and updates. If you're one of the strange people who prefer twitter, you can keep up to date with events here.

Guest post: Public sector workers made to pay the price - again

Here is a guest post from Caz. It exposes very well how top managers are squandering money then making workers pay the price. Workers in many public services - and no doubt the private sector too - will tell you that it seems that once you get to a certain level of management, you can make whatever cock-ups you like and get away with it. Meanwhile we mere workers get booted for the slightest mistakes and face redundancies even without making mistakes!

Today at work I came across this little gem. Another appalling misuse of money at the highest level - millions squandered on an incompetently handled, and then dumped, computer project for prisons and probation.

I happened to read the article with my 'risk of redundancy' letter sitting on my desk. Dozens of workers in my probation area have also received letters. Budget cuts from the Home Office our bosses tell us. We must all make sacrifices they say (well, apart from the managers who've feathered their own nests in the 'cuts' reorganisation). They assure us they'll protect the front-line (shame about the proposed cuts in front-line admin workers!).

But here in front of me is a report that tells me £155 million of tax-payers' money (and presumably in part probation funding) was just thrown away.

Obviously workers in probation can do the math. Over the next three years probation budget shortfalls will likely lead to redundancies, attacks on terms and conditions and a reduced service. And we'll be told it's because there just isn't any money.

So who is held to account for fiascos like the probation IT project?

Who's held to account for all the fees paid to 'consultants' in previous years?

Or the privatised contracts allowing cowboy outfits to make vast profits whilst delivering a poor service?

Ordinary probation workers face redundancy so that probation managers can save a fraction of the millions wasted at the top over recent years.

We can, and will, do our best to fight back at a local level. In my area both napo and Unison have already had a successful indicative ballot for action. Hopefully we can turn that into an official vote for action to oppose any compulsory redundancies.

Unfortunately there's no sign yet of a national campaign (not from Unison at any rate). Our union leaders should be fighting to hold those responsible for these scandals to account instead of sitting back whilst we pay the price for incompetence and greed.

Guest post by David Rosenberg - The Left need to keep the bigger picture in view

I am bumping this post up to the top. David kindly wrote it for us and it got a bit lost over the weekend . I hope it will spark a debate about how the left engages with the bigger picture and Gaza.

Thanks to David for writing this guest post for the blog .


While the Israeli bombardment continues unabated wreaking a terrible toll in human lives, there have been important developments on the Home Front too. Justifiable anger at Israeli actions and their total disrespect for civilian lives is being directed at soft targets. There are increasing reports of antisemitic incidents against Jewish institutions and individuals in Britain and France. Meanwhile the self-important and self-proclaimed political heads of the Jewish community – the Board of Deputies and the thoroughly unelected “Jewish Leadership Council“ are swinging into action calling a pro-Israel demonstration for Trafalgar Square on Sunday 11th January the day after the second National Emergency Demonstration of anti-war protesters parades through London.

Individual members of synagogues, most probably, holding a wide range of views on the conflict from acute embarrassment and dismay through to total unthinking support, have received letters from their synagogues demanding their attendance, with no hint that there is anything to debate. They are trying to corral a divided community into an “Israel right or wrong” straitjacket and seeking to present a united Jewish front in support of Israel’s policy to the outside world – a policy which continues to be, as the late Harold Pinter expressed it, both murderous and suicidal. They are in denial. Many Jews supported the anti-war demos in London and other cities last weekend. And the very night that Israeli forces began their ground invasion into Gaza, 10,000 Israeli marched to a very different beat through the streets of Tel-Aviv, damning the war, proclaiming solidarity with the victims and declaring that Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.

There is a depressing symmetry among those who wish to blame any and every Jew for what is happening and those who wish to claim the support of any and every Jew for a war that, as well as taking a huge toll in civilian lives, has managed to make even long-suffering refugees in miserable refugee camps homeless again.

These developments have implications for the solidarity movement with the oppressed and targeted. In the way it politically engages with the conflict the Left has a responsibility to ensure that it does not fall into traps that benefit the Armageddon tendency in Israel and America. And it must avoid taking positions that can weaken those who wish to give maximum support to the Palestinians in the present, and who wish to further their longer-term aspirations for self-determination, statehood and equality.

If the left either by commission or omission does anything to entrench a view that this conflict is essentially one between Muslims and Jews it will only benefit the Israeli warmongers and give succour to antisemites. I was relieved that on the first big demonstration last weekend I only saw one banner proclaiming, "We are Hamas”. This contrasted considerably with the demonstrations around the Lebanon War and the widespread proclamation “We are Hezbollah” aided and abetted by George Galloway, who always chooses his words very carefully though sometimes very stupidly.

I was not Hezbollah and I am not Hamas. Neither are many of the people I know were marching last week. I am though fully cognisant that they are in the frontline of militarily trying to hold back the Israeli war machine. But they are a political tendency and they do not have ownership of the Palestinian people. And when you look at the bigger picture, this war is, in far greater proportion, a war against the Palestinian people and their aspirations than a war against Hamas. Don’t be fooled into thinking that Israel wants to completely destroy Hamas. It likes having a divided enemy, and is certainly keen to maintain, albeit in weakened form, a significant branch of the enemy that will utilise religious rhetoric and fall into the clash of civilizations and its local translation Islam versus Judaism to offset the secular branch of the enemy.

Hamas is a formidable body. They were smart enough to stand against Fatah politically by regurgitating traditional Fatah positions that it seemed to have been retreating from, rather than pose a fundamentalist religious challenge to Fatah’s politics. When Hamas won its election against Fatah (a significant victory in seats though much less so in popular votes) it stood on a determination to resist occupation; the demand that Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails without being charged, are released; the demand that Palestinian refugees have a right to return; and a call for the dismantling of settlements. And they could say it with a radical swagger from the streets that Fatah’s leaders mired in maintaining their own privileged positions could not.

But that does not mean that Hamas has abandoned its reactionary social agenda – homophobic, anti-women’s equality, antisemitic, anti-trade union, anti-left and more. Unlike some elements of the Left who think Hamas is now the only true voice of the Palestinian street, I won’t forget the fact that Israel had a major hand in encouraging Hamas to come into being. Nor will I ignore the reasons for it.

From the 1960s, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah faction, secular rather than religious demands dominated Palestinian political life. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the “Peace Now” movement emerged within Israel calling for an end to the occupation, and more radical Israeli peace groups were opening dialogue with Palestinian representatives. The “war” camp and “peace camp” could not be divided simply by religion or ethnicity. Israel’s clandestine response, revealed later by former CIA officials, was to encourage the growth of religious groups among the Palestinians as a counterweight to the secular PLO.

Israel allowed funds to be channeled to them from outside, while blocking funds to the secular PLO. It was trying to divide the Palestinian movement. Hamas, which still prides itself today on its rhetorical refusal to recognise Israel, was actually legally registered in Israel in 1978, by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, as an Islamic association called Al-Mujamma al Islami. No doubt many ordinary Israelis see it is a Frankenstein monster, as does a tendency in the Israeli military-political establishment. After all, Yassin was assassinated by an Israeli helicopter gunship in 2004. But Israeli strategists also know that any compromise for peace by Fatah whch will require compromise by Israel too, will be torpedoed by Hamas rejectionists, leaving the status quo unaltered, except for Israel building more settlements and doing more land-grabbing.

Israel cries crocodile tears about towns like Sderot that suffer indiscriminate Hamas rocket attacks while undertaking the very actions in the Occupied Territories that will provide justification in the eyes of those launching the rockets. And Israel will not evacuate the children from the areas that suffer rocket attacks.

Fatah have been a no win situation for several years now and are walking a tightrope where they appear to be acquiescing, but the picture is undoubtedly more complicated and nuanced. They still have the allegiance of many Palestinians and still hold the prospect of a secular, human-rights based, politics for seeking a solution to the wider Israel/Palestine conflict. Instead of playing Israel’s game by accentuating the division between Hamas and Fatah, and in knee-jerk fashion saying “Hamas good, Fatah bad”, the Left should be doing all it can to enable the reemergence of a strong and united Palestinian movement able to resist and move forward while holding together differing and contradictory political tendencies.

Above all the Left needs to stand with the Palestinian people against this wanton destruction that is taking place, and ensure that the anger and political demands of the solidarity movement are focused on the right targets.

Hamas’s tactics of lobbing rockets against Israeli civilians (ironically those poorer Israelis originating in Arab countries treated as second class citizens in Israel) makes little impact in terms of winning back land. In comparison with a few days of Israeli fire power their efforts are pretty pitiful, but they have handed Israel a PR gift for seeking popular support for their war.

The real responsibility though for the carnage, 800 dead in two weeks, thousands wounded, tens of thousands homeless, lies with the Israeli military-political establishment who want to put off for as long as possible the inevitability of coming to terms with the demand for Palestinian self-determination, equality, and dignity. And it lies too with the British and American governments that are supplying the weaponry for the carpet bombings of Palestinians people and the destruction of Palestinian hopes.

That is where we should be directing our anger and our pressure.

Guest post -HOPI Conference - 13th December

Another guest post , this time from Ben Lewis :



Ben Lewis is a member of the HOPI Steering Committee and a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The second annual conference of Hands Off the People of Iran comes at a vital moment for the struggle against the threat of war on Iran and the sanctions war currently being waged on Iran.

Hopi has had some important successes over the past twelve months, not least the affiliation of the two major national unions Aslef and PCS. But our small steps forward underline just how much work needs to be done - especially at a time when some in the anti-war movement seem to think we can afford to relax about the threat of a new disastrous war in the Middle East.

Comrades in the movement have told us that the world economic crisis, with its attendant collapse of major banks and financial institutions, eases the pressure on Iran. Many sincere activists hope that perhaps the leaders of the Western world will now be too preoccupied with their financial woes to countenance starting a new war in the Middle East.

In Hopi's view, this is dangerously complacent. In the past, imperialism has often turned to external war to alleviate problems at home. Reports reach us that influential voices in the Israeli government and secret service are lobbying the US government hard to “deal with Iran” before George W. Bush leaves office. The election of Barack Obama - however his foreign policy develops in the longer term - actually adds to pressure, as noted in the Sunday Times by David Owen (foreign secretary from 1977 to 1979):

“Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack. 

“Following an Israeli attack and Iranian countermeasures, the American military would be bound to follow Bush's orders. The president-designate … would be wary of criticising him. It is imperative that voices are raised in America and Europe to warn Israel off unilateral action against Iran. The experience of Georgia has given an amber, if not a green, light to Israel …” Now is not the time to relax - now is the time to dramatic step up our anti-war agitation and activity!

HOPI’s political perspective flows from two principles:

1. Imperialism has no progressive role to play in this region or in any other part of the world. It is the main enemy of the peoples of the world. We therefore campaign against the threat of any imperialist intervention and fight for an end to sanctions. Sanctions are not an alternative to war, but a form of war. We demand the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all occupying troops from the Gulf and an end to Israel’s expansion and aggression.

2. The islamic regime - whether in the sway of the ‘reformist’ faction around Mohammad Khatami (dubbed the ‘mullah with a smile’ by radical Iranian students) or the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - is also an enemy. Its repressive and reactionary policies actually smooth the way for imperialist designs on the region. This means that we must build active, practical solidarity with grassroots, progressive and secular forces in Iran - the radical women’s, workers’ and students’ movements. The ongoing nightmare of Iraq underlines that US-led imperialist forces can only introduce social meltdown and chaos - a fertile breeding ground for reaction. Progressive, democratic change must spring from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements.

In fact the question of imperialist threats and the islamic regime are directly interrelated, with the Iranian theocracy using the pretext of imperialist intervention to divert attention away from the country’s endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its iron rule.

This makes the tasks of the anti-war movement quite clear, underlining the significance of HOPI’s political approach. As Mike Macnair put it in a discussion on The Commune:

“Solidarity against US attack on its own, without opposition to the regime and support for the Iranian workers’ movement, is not even anti-imperialist because the Iranian regime is the main regional backer of the US war in Afghanistan and occupation of Iraq and because the US may at any moment come up with an overt deal with the regime.

Solidarity with the Iranian workers’ movement on its own, without clear opposition to the role of the imperialists in the region, tends to fall in behind the US plans and covert ops for a ‘colour revolution’ or break-up of Iran”.

The Hopi conference is an important opportunity for activists to clarify our plans. There will be plenty of time to during the day to debate motions submitted on important themes. Speakers from Iran will provide up-to-date information on the women's, workers' and students' movements as they face up to the enormous pressure being exerted on them as the theocratic regime uses the war threat to clamp down on its internal dissidents. The conference will be a chance for trade unionists to share their experiences of Iranian solidarity work in different parts of the movement.

Speakers on the day will include:

John Mc.Donnell MP

Behrouz Karimizadeh (Iranian Students for Freedom and Equality)

Kaveh Abassian (Iranian Students for Freedom and Equality)

Torab Saleth (Workers’ Left Unity Iran)

Yassamine Mather (CPGB)

Details

Guest Post : Where next for the LRC?

Yes,loyal readers and all those saddoes googling David Broder , its a guest post from the comrade who has created some of the most momentous political moments of 2008.What, he was the first Black US President elect you ask in astonishment ? Nah, what was most talked about amongst the leftie anoraks? Yep, David B leaving the AWL. We can all remember where we were when we heard that news. Following on from that, could it be topped you ask, the reason for this post. Yep, the man loved and disliked in equal measures (like marmite), seen by some as a boy wonder, by others as an annoying public school boy with the best sneer on the left, is now a member of the LRC National Committee. With the backing of the bakers union as well. Personally I think he'll cause a few ructions , but the LRC needs that and as far as I'm concerned are welcome .

Oh and I did promise a quick plug for the last of the discussion forums organised by the Commune, with John McD there, or one of his clones (there IS more than one John !).

Anyway, enough of the build up. Here is his post :


Where next for the LRC?

This only represents my own opinions, not necessarily those of anyone else from The Commune.

The turnout at the Labour Representation Committee conference on November 15th reflected the role of the current economic crisis in pushing people long involved in the left back into activity: numbers were up from 200 last year to around 270 (not as reported on our website), even though the number of young people involved has declined.

There were several positive steps made at the conference that could breathe fresh life into the organisation, not least its call for a series of discussions on workers' self-management, social ownership and what we mean by socialism - developing the work begun by the Left Economics Advisory Panel on breaking from Old Labour and Stalinist conceptions of socialism - and the LRC's affiliation to Hands Off the People of Iran. Hopefully both steps will allow the membership of the LRC to be more involved week-to-week and month-to-month.

Indeed, the LRC has suffered from a lack of regular activities in between conferences, and despite the relatively large number of people signed up (as high as 1,500) it currently lacks enough of the character of an activist organisation, or indeed one where people come together to develop their ideas. A large number of individuals are involved in their own trade unions as well as campaigns such as Stop the War, Feminist Fightback, Campaign Against Immigration Controls, HOPI, etc., but the LRC itself neither mobilises its members for such initiatives nor has much "profile". Chris Ford and I were elected to the National Committee at the 15th November conference, and will be looking to encourage far more activities and using the LRC banner more prominently, including building union rank-and-file networks. (As an aside, it wouldn't hurt the LRC to produce more materials, such as a newsletter, to encourage people to take part in discussions and participate in events organised by LRC affiliates).

Most importantly, we will be encouraging a re-evaluation of the politics which dominate the left of the labour movement, and hoping to overcome the current vogue for left-Keynesian "answers for the crisis" as opposed to developing our case for an alternative society. These are fundamentally incompatible - to say that a series of "policy changes" are the answer to the economic crisis (e.g. the Socialist Appeal slogan "Labour: socialist policies, now!") implies a vague albeit top-down understanding of "socialism" wedded to the continuing existence of the nation-state.

Clearly posed too in terms of what the LRC does next is the question of our broader strategy as regards the Labour Party and Labourism. This question must be answered by the whole left, not just the LRC. Unfortunately, the fault lines in this discussion are not really over what politics we should advocate and organise for, but rather whether we want to keep a foot in the Labour Party or instead create a Labour Party mark II. Although I am more adamant than anyone else that it is totally illusory to believe that we could "reclaim the Labour Party", i.e. take it over, and so utterly disagree with Socialist Appeal, the CPB etc., the alternatives suggested by some others are also a dead-end. The Convention of the Left initiated in Manchester in September may lack the decision-making powers necessary to actually create a new organisation, but certainly there is a strong current of opinion arguing that the "big" Trotskyist groups, the left wing of the trade union bureaucracy and some Labour lefts ought to set up a new left party. Sect competition there may be, but to the extent that they have real existence, such a formation is the dream of the Campaign for a New Workers' Party, Left Alternative, Respect Renewal, etc. It is clear that a party based on national trade union affiliations or national trade union funding would necessarily rest on the bureaucracy. Not only current weak participation in unions, but the institutional control of the bureaucrats and the lack of democracy within trade unions, would guarantee this.

This question arises when we read Sean Matgamna writing an open letter to Tony Woodley ('Why won't the unions fight for a workers' party?' - http://www.workersliberty.org/node/10669). Of course this article's tone is light-hearted and he is not really trying to "win over Brother Woodley", but nonetheless everything he writes talks in such terms, e.g. "The unions need to act: if not the unions, no force in the labour movement can do it": quite why a workers' party ought to be based on trade unions wanting political representation (rather than people who have common political aims uniting around a specific project/programme) is not clear. Throughout history such formations have been very rare, except the British Labour Party and parallel organisations in former British colonies.

For all of the criticisms I personally would have of its (more or less Trotskyist) politics, I think a formation like the French LCR's New Anti-Capitalist Party, which has won a section of the union rank-and-file, unemployed, disabled and retired people, youth etc. to local committees arguing for a fairly specific political project, is a model far more susceptible to democratic culture and member-control of the organisation than one created by (and as a result expressing the interests of) trade union bureaucracies. If such a formation came about it would be foolish to ignore it or stand aside - which is why at the conference we voted for the LRC to be open to supporting certain socialist or trade-union backed candidates who stood against New Labour - but why should we positively go about arguing for its creation?


Furthermore, when thinking of our broader strategy, we must also take stock of the question of the current lack of democracy within left groups: this problem, after all, means that their participation is subordinated to the leaders' desire to hold their own organisations in hand, as was the case when the Socialist Party clique abandoned the Socialist Alliance for fear of their own group's dissolution.

Therefore it seems that the argument poses false alternatives and only seeks to answer the question 'ought the unions back the Labour Party, or ought they establish a new one?' Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee? This is linked to the left's failure to take serious stock of the changes that have taken place in the trade union movement and left as a whole, rather than just (however correctly) proclaiming the death of the Labour Party. The current state of the left leaves it in no position to establish a real alternative to Labourism, and indeed the next few years are bound to see yet more social-democrat electoral slates and initiatives to create Labour Party mark IIs which have no real existence beyond Trotskyist groups and their periphery.

What can the LRC do about this? To ask this question is to ask other fundamental questions about what the left exists for, not merely the organisational question of "in or out" of the Labour Party. We need to discuss what politics socialists should argue for; our attitudes to the trade union bureaucracy; the value of placing demands on the government; the value of left "programmes for the crisis" and programmes for alternative governments, and so on. Bottom-up rethinking is necessitated by the left’s continuing loss of numbers and weak ideas and tactics. LRC members will be better able to answer all these questions if we sink roots in trade union rank-and-files, have a much stronger orientation towards campaign work, and participate in the forthcoming forums on what we actually mean by socialism. We should encourage self-organisation in our movement, building unity “from below” on a principled political basis, not sit waiting for the existing left group leaderships and left trade union bureaucrats to thrash out a deal for yet another Labour Party mark II.

Guest posts

Just a reminder that we are always happy to have guest posts on Stroppyblog.

The idea is to have a mix of left views .

It would be really good to have some women guest posting as so far its the men wanting to. Come on, there must be some more Stroppy leftie women out there who'd like to post here?




Coming up ...

Ben Lewis on the upcoming Hopi conference and Iran.

THE David Broder on where now for the Labour Representation Committee (he is now on its NC).

And if Jim can remember what he was meant to be writing, one from him as well!

Guest post : Lifestyles

Below is a guest post from Mod on housing.




Lifestyles? What a trendy name. You can barely pick up a newspaper without the word, lifestyle, hitting you in the face But what does lifestyle mean to the British ? A nice TV? Good holidays? Trendy clothes? Plenty of free money? Or does it come down to something a bit more basic?

Housing? Housing is a very British concern, as an island there is little room for expansion and limited land.Housing is a favourite topic of conversation at middle-class dinner parties, from boasting about the size of the new extension to griping about negative equity, the British middle classes are intimately acquainted with the topic of housing. But they are not alone, the preoccupation for shelter, warmth, companionship and food have long dominated human culture, and understandably so.We can all sympathise with someone when they lose their home from natural disaster, flooding or fire.

So, given the above, the latest proposals from the Labour government are more inextricable and perverse.Basically, they remove security of tenure from Council tenants and introduce a degree of coercion related to the occupants' income and work situation.Many Council properties may be rubbish, but when you got one, you knew what you had, as a Council tenant, that was it, you had it for life, as long as you paid the rent, etc.

Now New Labour seeks to introduce the worst forms of social engineering and coerce Council tenants to do what Council bureaucrats and the government want. The Green Paper proposals were outlined recently:

"Whitehall officials said that ministers were looking at proposals from the Chartered Institute for Housing, which represents housing officials. It has proposed fixed-term tenancies in which anyone granted a council home would have it initially for three or four years before a review. Those whose circumstances had improved would no longer be able to remain on subsidised rents. A spokesman for the institute said that no one would be evicted under its plan, but that they could face higher rents. At present, social housing rents rise each year by the retail price index plus half a per cent. Under the new plan higher-tax payers could pay nearer the market rate."

Rather than improve the number and quality of Council houses, the New Labour proposal would introduce a higher degree of intransigence, instability and worry for Council tenants.It would not improve the lives of Council tenants one iota, but this proposal would assist in creating a larger underclass, completely disenfranchised from the political process and society.So in one fell swoop the New Labour government will have managed to do what even Margaret Thatcher could not do:destroy social housing in Britain.

But there is a bigger political picture to this nasty proposal, aside from the very obvious social effects, there is a political consequence, the growth of the BNP in Britain.There are some 2.8 million Council properties affected by this proposal, which probably extends down to 4-8 million people, who would, in all probability, have mostly voted for the Labour Party.It's a fair assumption that if Council tenants are going to vote they probably, by and large, would have voted for Labour. That's not going to be the case after this proposal goes through. Council tenants will feel stressed, ever under the watchful eye of a bureaucrat and insecure. They won't be voting for the Tories in large numbers, not the Liberals, either, no, they won't.

So unless there is a miraculous conversion, a sizable chunk of those Council tenant votes would land in the lap of the BNP.New Labour will have provided the BNP with all the propaganda that it needs.So the Left must take up this issue, not only because it is socially wrong, a direct attack on the working classes, but politically it is a gift to the BNP and will only assist their growth.And in putting forward this proposal New Labour has almost guaranteed that it will lose the next election as million of Council tenants vote elsewhere.Great job, New Labour, you've done the Tories job for them. Bastards!

Guest Post from Mod : Unfulfilled relationships.

Below is a guest post from Mod. If anyone else fancies doing one then get in touch.

Unfulfilled Relationships

Don't you hate it when a relationship doesn't work? Or you have a string of unfulfilled encounters? Doesn't it leave you thinking about your own habits? What you do wrong? and how your interaction with your partner(s) doesn't always work?

Remember the heady days when you first met, that trip to the pub, how you walked hand-in-hand, and eventually consummated your relationship, only to have it fail soon after?

Sound familiar?

I was reading an article at Dave's and it struck me how some Public-school lefties have a problem understanding the significance of Obama's win to African-Americans and the working classes. And how such a problem might have deeper roots.

On one level, there is a small degree of abstract understanding to Obama's win, but deep down there is no genuine connection with the history of African-Americans' experiences in the United States, their aspirations to be treated as more than just chattel, their desire to have a say, to be listened to.

Of course, on one level it would be very easy to be critical of Obama's election, as the candidate of big business, etc, but that completely misses the very real connection between Obama and his constituents, and why they celebrated.

And connections are what relationships are about, if you can't connect deep down to your partner, and empathise with their problems, support them when they need it then they are very unlikely to ever reciprocate, it becomes a cold mechanical relationship.

Still worse, if you ignore their feelings, their aspirations and seek to lecture them, then in all probability they will leave you, and you'll be stuck on your own until you can find someone who likes being dominated, but that's not a real relationship of equals.

A fulfilling relationship is where both parties learn from each other and enrich each other's lives.

All fairly obvious? But what does this have to do with politics?

Well, if you sit back and ponder the matter, that could be very similar to the working classes' experience with the British Left over the past 40 years, an unsatisfactory relationship.

We've been hectored, told we must do this or that, rarely listened to, and eventually we've mostly switched off.

True enough, some of the working class does belong to the Left, but a very small part, probably counted in tens of thousands, not millions as it should be.

And if you are really concerned about the situation you have to ask why?

It struck me that Punchie's attitude at Dave's, although very stark, isn't terribly removed from a lot of the British Left's leader's attitudes.

Granted not all of them are Public-school wombats but their detachment from reality, from the working classes, seems to stem from some dominant middle-class traits, where their views are important and the working classes are only fit as fodder for demonstrations or to storm the barricades, but rarely ever treated as equal partners.

I wonder if you could analyse the background to the leadership of the Left over the past 40 years, would you find predominantly Public-school/grammar school, University educated white middle-class types or something else?

It shouldn't really matter, but I think being educated at Public-school can often traumatize individuals at a deep level, and they bring that trauma with them into work, relationships and political attitudes.

After all WHY did the British ruling classes create and develop the British Public school system?

To create leaders, subalterns and administrators for the Empire

So being soft, cuddly and empathic to the feeling's of the poor, disenfranchised, etc are not high on the list of required attributes.

Instead an aloof, detachment is required to implement the policies of the Empire, to do what you are told and do it well.

So I'll bet that required coldness, inculcated at an early age and reinforced at Public school, is hard to shake off.

It doesn't help when you wish to relate to real people's existences, and if you don't try to relate and connect, then no one will want to connect to you.

There's probably a lot more to it, but those are a few of my entirely subjective thoughts on the matter.

Finally, I am NOT saying this happens 100% of the time, and I don't think that it is all of the story, but if you can't relate to people in one area then that will often limit your effectiveness in another.

I suspect that this is just one of many factors, and I am still left wondering why the British Left are so unsuccessful when across in Europe things seem a bit better? What is it about the British Left that makes it so?

could it be a "Wham Bam Thank You Mam" attitude?

Mosley on down - Guest post by Jim Jepps

Chatting over face book scrabble with Jim, I asked him to do a guest post . Hmmm he pondered, what on? Something thoughtful I suggested, you're good at that. Again he pondered. I suggested putting the topic to a vote on Stroppyblog, he got nervous.
Then came the whole Mosley story and he muttered about going off to write about kinky sex. That's it I said, that's the guest post...as Punchie said over at Dave's, about the discussion on BDSM: I really hope more personal stuff can not be mentioned (or if you must, I'd thought Stroppyblog would have been the specialist for lifestyle like this).

So here is Jim's rather good post :


Frankly all the papers have been very naughty. Very naughty indeed, and I have a basement flat that they must proceed to immediately for their proper chastisement. It really is not on plastering what are private goings on all over place. What's the use of being a fabulously wealthy son of Britain's most prominent wartime fascist if you can't have a private life, eh?

The term public interest is a strange one in the context of the Max Mosley sex scandal. Of course the public is interested, we all want to know whose bits and pieces have been going into whose whatchamacallit, but there does not seem to be a compelling democratic requirement for us to know the first thing about Mosley’s proclivities “sick” or otherwise.

Some of the discussion in the press seems to be of the opinion that because Mosley does the kind of things that only former Blue Peter presenters would contemplate he is not fit to be in charge of that stupid game where ridiculous looking cars whiz about until time itself seems to be standing still. For instance the Telegraph’s Kevin Garside thinks that the revelations around the case “paint Max in a deeply unflattering light, and more readily associates him with the kind of behavior unsuited to one running an international body like the FIA.”

Really? Frankly I could do with that one being spelt out for me because I'm not getting the connection. Perhaps he's called for the driver who comes in last to be stripped and lashed around the track and it's only now people have realised he had ulterior motives beyond simply spurring the others on to do better. However, unless this is so I am nowhere near convinced.

Admittedly when Garside describes Mosley’s sex life as “rich and varied” it’s difficult to know whether he is referring to the fact that Mosley’s five “friends” cost him £500 each and therefore he is regularly indulging a habit beyond the reach of most - even as a Christmas treat. That doesn’t include the reported £ 35,000 yearly upkeep of his fully equipped oubliette either. Yes, obscenely "rich" even.

Incidentally, there seems to have been very little focus on the prostitution angle of the case (and some of the evidence seems to be casting him in more of a pimp than a client) but there has been a great deal of censorious frowning about the so-called Nazi connotations of his ritualized abuse. As if the real social conditions of the women involved is far less interesting than the make believe games they were being paid to indulge in.

Mosley denies there were any Nazi overtones to his orgy, even though one of his captors was wearing a Luftwaffe uniform and a fellow prisoner pleaded with her guards that they were “Aryans” and so did not deserve to be harshly treated. Obviously there were Nazi overtones – but so what? They weren’t organizing a BNP branch, daubing local shops in swastikas or running for office as far right candidates – they were (or at least he was) having fun, mucking around – and they were not to know they were being videoed, so any sensitivities about other people’s feelings are irrelevant because for five out of six of them this was a private function, even if one of them was the wife of an MI5 agent. They just weren’t to know that the News of World would be posting selected highlights on the net.

In “Spanking good fun” I described the common “old stereo type of the elite white male in a powerful job by day and lashed to a dungeon rack by night” and that seems to fit our Max rather neatly. But the stereotype holds our attention because of the contrast between real world power and the make believe powerlessness - not because it reveals the old white guy's true nature, but because it reveals an unexpected side to it.

Some political people seem to be confused because they’ve mistaken sexual games for real oppression. Now obviously slap and tickle without the tickle is not everyone’s cup of tea. Fair enough, but that’s no excuse to go around tutting and getting sniffy at consenting activities you were never meant to find out about, let alone invited to.

In fact it’s worse when people start talking about BDSM as if it’s some sort of bizarre acted out therapy where he’s been working out “issues” with his father. I don’t get turned on by going round building sites, tapping pipes and then shaking my head sadly (which is how I imagine my Dad at work, perhaps the reality was different) and I don’t think it’s an appropriate way of sorting out any father/son issues that may or may not exist. Maybe it’s just that he’s into a particular form of kinky sex, and so he does it. I don't think you'll be getting any great psychological insights just from the press reports though.

Obviously there are some personal ethical issues involved. He’s been getting up to this for decades and forgot to mention it to his wife. That, dude, is not cool. There’s also the prostitution thing, I don’t think it stops being prostitution just because they’re getting paid large amounts of money and appear to be rather happy about the whole thing (which is perfectly possible). So there are power issues here, but it isn't the caning that's the issue.

Whatever the wrongs and rights of this I still find it difficult to get excised and start ranting about his deviance or immorality. I mean he’s not one of those back to basics Johnnies is he? He’s never openly nailed his personal morality to the mast – that just isn’t his kink - so I don't think it's our place to lash him for it. No matter how much he begs.

But still some want to send in the Nazi sex police. The weird thing is the press appears to be taking the position that kinky sex is alright, but German kinky sex? That’s just sick!

Take this from the Guardian when it was put to the reporter that in fact it was just an English dungeon fetish and had nothing to do with the Nazis the journo's patriotic feathers are ruffled and he replies "I know of no English prison that beats its inmates with a stick until their buttocks bleed. I know of no English prison where the warder will deliver those blows and count them out in German. I know of no English prison where the inmates then have sexual intercourse with the warder who has just given those blows." Whilst, of course, the real Nazi regime was just like the fantasy played out for Mr Mosley. Maybe someone needs a history lesson.

We should reject the policing of sexuality even by people who are progressive on other issues. The simple fact is that something can be an expression of a deep desire without being a literal exposition of what you’d like to really happen. Dressing up in a Nazi uniform for kicks does not make you an advocate of genocide – even if you’re a member of the Royal family.

Ah, I’ll go further, because I see some thin ice I’d like to skate on. Some people have rape fantasies, they do, it’s a fact. It does not mean they actually want to rape or be raped they are simply drawing from the deep, dark well of sexuality and if you are one of them it does not make you a bad person and you shouldn’t spend even one second feeling guilty about those fantasies.

Just as a dream does not mean you actually want to play strip poker with William Shatner at the local library (although, actually, that might be pretty cool) a fantasy or a fetish is just that and is not *real* in the sense that you're likely to act it out elsewhere. If you can’t see the difference between being caned by someone in a sexy uniform and the historic horrors of the Third Reich then you have officially left the building of free thinking and joined the temple of dogma where they burn the mention of "incorrect things" because they think that means they will no longer exist.

Guest post - The Future is Unwritten

I spotted on Facebook that Eddie Truman, pictured on the left (where else :-) ) in his heyday, had written a review of The Future is Unwritten. I asked nicely and he said I could reproduce it here on Stroppyblog. Its also going to be in the next issue of Scottish Socialist Voice.

So here it is :

“White youth, black youth Better find another solution Why not phone up robin hood And ask him for some wealth distribution ”
White Man In Hammersmith Palais


30 years ago a social revolution was in full swing that had burst onto the scene a year earlier in 1976.
In ‘The Future Is Unwritten’ Julien Temple has made a film that documents the life of the unofficial leader of that social revolution, John Graham Mellor, otherwise known as Joe Strummer.
Using film footage of Strummer’s youth and from the pre-Clash day’s of the101’ers, the squatters movement in London in the mid 1970’s, through the early years of the Clash, the heyday of punk and onto the break up of the Clash and Strummer’s tragically short renaissance, The Future Is Unwritten is a highly emotional film, leaving this viewer in tears towards the end.
Politically the 1970’s had been a decade of enormous upheaval; the miners had been in battle repeatedly and the 3 day week during the Heath government of 1970-74 gave a sense of a country in crisis.
Generally speaking though, this had not been reflected in pop and rock music.
The ‘heavy rock’ of bands like Led Zeppelin and Cream had evolved into pompous and over elaborate ‘progressive rock’ of Yes and Emerson Lake and Palmer with American bands like Rush and Blue Oyster Cult also hugely popular in the UK.
My abiding memory from the mid 70’s is my school friends with denim jackets that their mums had carefully embroidered with the logo of their favourite heavy metal band or even the artwork of an album cover.
The music and ethos of the heavy metal fans was incredibly conservative and hostile to new ideas, this was the era of the spectacular guitar solo and,incredible though it now seems, the drum solo.
When The Clash, Sex Pistols and Damned arrived it was a blessed relief.
Fast and furious, songs stripped back down to 3 minutes 30 seconds and, in the case of Joe Strummer and Mick Jones’ songs, a musical reflection of the turmoil and anger of the late 1970’s.
The Future Is Unwritten documents the explosion of punk rock and the social context that it took place in; the advent of mass unemployment, industrial disputes, the rise of the National Front and the opposition in the form of the Anti Nazi League.
Joe Strummer became the spokesperson for a new generation of left wing and militant youth and through his lyrics and interviews we were educated in the politics of protest and more diverse forms of music.
It was The Clash who inspired us to start attending the Edinburgh reggae club with their cover of the Junior Murvin song ‘Police and Thieves’ and the off beat chops of what is surely one of the great records of all time ‘White Man In Hammersmith Palais’.
“If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway” bawled Strummer, an observation that appeared frighteningly real at the time.
The contract that The Clash had with CBS records was little more than bonded labour and throughout their existence Strummer and Jones battled with the company on behalf of the fans.
The group insisted that CBS sell the double and triple albums London Calling and Sandinista for the price of a single album each, at the time £5.
In the case of Sandinista the band compromised on £5.99 and had to forfeit all royalties on the first 200,000 sales.
The band was constantly in debt to CBS and only began to break even around 1982.
The contradiction of being in a rock and roll band with principles and the commercial realities of success in the huge US market finally destroyed The Clash.
For anyone with an emotional investment in the band, the look on Joe Strummer’s face as he explains how he felt when the US military adopted‘Rock the Casbah’ as an anthem during the first Gulf War is absolutely heartbreaking.
“ha you think its funny, Turning rebellion into money” Strummer had sung in White Man In Hammersmith Palais’.
With the Clash no more Strummer entered a period of loss and uncertainty,haunted by the past.
Gradually he emerged from the dark and started to make music again, along with some involvement in films.
In 1999 his new band The Mescaleros issued their first album and in 2002 they played a benefit gig for striking fire fighters in London. Mick Jones was in the audience and joined Strummer on stage for an encore, the first time they had played on stage together since 1983.
On December 22nd 2002 Joe Strummer died at home of an undiagnosed congenital heart defect, he was 50 years old.
The Future Is Unwritten documents the life of a rock and roll singer, an inspirational figure and the spokesman for a rebel generation. Watch it if you possibly can.


Montage by Eddie.