Prohibition & privatisation even the Tories won't touch

Following a healthy break from any critical writing I have to admit that sitting back down and producing something has proved far more difficult than in 2014; then my creative juices seemed to flow more freely whereas now every word seems to creak forth. I have toiled over this short article and present it now, raw as it is, in the hope that it's completion may oil the machinery of this stuttering blog back into life.

After watching this excellent interview with a retired police Captain I then came across the following article from Charlie Brooker which strikes at a different issue but surely contains within it yet more evidence in a forever growing mountain of fact, figure and personal account which make a mockery of prohibition and the so called 'war on drugs'.

At the risk of falling into the same pattern of regurgitation for which Brooker lambastes the UK media; the following is a summary, as I see it, of the main points raised by the police Captain Peter Christ:

Control over market place. Legalisation would take control of the currently illicit black market for drugs and place it into the hands of organisations which could be regulated, controlled and taxed.

Control over purity. As a result of the above point the manufacture of controlled substances could be closely monitored. The current system ensures that the drugs available in our society are often cut with a huge a variety of excipients in order to bulk them out and ensure larger returns. These chemicals are often poisonous, corrosive or carcinogenic - far more damaging themselves than the illicit drugs they are masquerading as.

Crime. Prohibition creates illegal markets which are controlled and driven by violent crime. It also creates overpriced, low quality drugs which result in large amounts of non violent crime such as burglary and shop lifting which fund addiction. The police Captain quotes homicide figures around the time of alcohol prohibition in the United States. As prohibition was introduced in 1920 homicide rates climbed every year until a 1933 peak, when alcohol legalised. Murder rates then fall year on year to pre prohibition levels by 1937.

One of the most striking points which Christ makes is the following: If we cannot even keep drugs out of prison, how we do ever imagine we can keep them out of a free society. Drugs are always going to be in society, this is fact - from that stand point where would we rather the drugs in our society were originating from? Gangsters, thugs and worse; or a licensed, regulated market place with controls on access, purity, strength and anything else we would care to monitor.

This week I read an article on the legalisation and regulation of Marijuana in Colorado - it has been such a roaring success they have exceeded pre determined taxation levels, crime is down, and the typically polarised Democrats & Republicans are in agreement; legalisation it works.

We have a government hell bent on privatisation. Privatisation for the sake of it, ideologically driven; our NHS, housing, fire service, forensic service, even our New Year fire works display in London - ticket only. It's just such a shame that this one market, ripe for the picking and laden with societal benefits is a topic the government daren't go near.

Blue sky in the Middle East

Ok, so he might have recently annoyed some poor banker and made his paella get a bit cold, but I think we must applaud how Russell Brand has attempted to address issues of global violence and terrorism, as well demonstrating how such issues are regularly manipulated by corporate media. In an age of Islamophobia and far-right extremism, its refreshing to hear someone calling for a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of the causes of recent terror attacks. This is vital if we are to avoid simply fuelling further hatred, further tensions, and further violence.

The tragedy that hit Pakistan on Tuesday was awful, whilst the recent hostage situation in Australia was equally shocking. Let me be clear, I am not condoning these acts. They were despicable and beyond the pale of social acceptance. However, we need to understand the complexities of politics and religious difference in the Middle East, rather than simply reacting with condemnation and urging for further air strikes in the region. We have to develop a stronger appreciation of how The West is implicated in such acts of violence (albeit not always directly). 

The UK and US have a long a history of political intervention across the Middle East, and much of the current tensions are a legacy of the border divisions drawn up after Colonial rule. British interference in Middle Eastern politics has most notably been felt as a consequence of the 1948 'Mandate for Palestine’, which led to the re-distribution of territory from the defunct Ottoman Empire. This resulted in the division of Palestine, the formation of the State of Israel, and with it, a history of Arab-Israeli conflict. It also left a rather sour taste in the mouth across the Gulf in terms of its relationship with The West (compounded by the continual financial and military aid given to Israel). Such interventions have caused long-lasting anxieties between various religions and religious sects across the region, which have been further exacerbated throughout the last century. 

During the Cold War, the Middle East became a strategic battleground between the US and Soviet Union, one that had the added benefit of providing a wealth of natural resources. During this period (and continuing today), each side has given support for political regimes that have exploited their position of power, further marginalising many of the religious communities in the region. To counter each side’s agenda, rebel fractions have also been repeatedly armed and trained by both sides. This has resulted in generations of violent blowback and retaliation, whilst simultaneously undermining the development of the Arab states.

Instability across the Middle East has had a knock-on effect and has allowed certain dangerous ideologies to take root. As suggested elsewhere, the central cause of this region-wide crisis is the failure of state authorities to be able to control their borders and their territories, to provide services to their populations and, ultimately, to forge a common political identity that could be the basis of political community. Unfortunately, this issue has been further complicated through extreme interpretations of religious texts and repeated military conflicts. I would also argue that this situation has emerged as a result of another extreme and dangerous ideology: rabid capitalism.

Russell Brand has done a great job recently at addressing how the power wielded by transnational corporations has damaged communities across the UK, and that contemporary capitalism needs to be reigned in. In a global context, however, Western capitalism is guilty of far worse evils. It has tirelessly exploited the resources and labour of developing nations, using its position as world superpower to gain access to oil reserves across the Middle East. Whilst I do not want to trivialise or reduce the various conflicts which have occurred in the region over the past 30 years (nor do I wish to verge on 'conspiracy theory’ territory), we might well deduce that recent wars in the region have been primarily motivated by a desire to expand the US military-industrial complex and secure valuable fossil fuels.

The fanatical backlash that has emerged in recent years must be seen as a result of unfettered imperialist expansion. Extremist groups are bred from this petri dish of political instability, whilst further military strikes only serve to recruit more to their cause. This is an endless bloody cycle, which serves only the shareholders of Lockheed Martin and co. In an age where children are afraid of blue skies in fear that they might get caught in a drone attack, we must ask ourselves; is it any wonder some of these children mature into extremists? History tells us that violence begets more violence. If we truly want to combat global 'terror' then we have to develop more humane and peaceful solutions.

Immigration: a national scapegoat

As you flick through TV, browse newspaper headlines or talk with colleagues over a beer after work, you will undoubtedly have come across a negative discussion about immigration. In the run up to the general election, all major parties are doing their best to turn this issue into a political hot potato, using immigration to attract voters who might be swayed by the damaging rhetoric of Ukip (blaming everything from traffic on the M4 to problems with the NHS, unemployment and housing on migrants). The media is deeply complicit in this, fuelling tensions across Britain and diverting attention away from far more damaging policies that have resulted in a squeeze of the working classes, the disabled, OAP’s and the public sector. In fact, unless you have a few million quid knocking round in an offshore account in Jersey, you are probably feeling the pinch too. 

Let us be clear, migration did not cause the financial crash of 2008, and it certainly did not create the crippling austerity measures trotted out by the Coalition. The cuts put forward by George Osborne and co. must be seen as an ideological attack, designed to transfer as much money from the public purse to private pockets as possible. This has caused massive social unrest. The tension is real, it's palpable, and it is ultimately misguided; expertly misdirected by this Government.

A recent report found that, since 2000, migrants from EU have contributed £25billion to the economy, they pay 34% more taxes than they receive in benefits, and are 45% less likely to actually receive state benefits or tax credits. Cries of ‘benefit tourism’ are therefore massively misguided, while corporate media has grossly skewed reportage of the issue. When a recent UCL report came out highlighting the financial benefits of immigration, the Mail and the Telegraph decided to run with a line from the study about non-EU migrants costing the UK £120bn between 1995-2011. However, this should be put into context with the fact that UK nationals cost the country £591bn in the same time period. It is this distortion of facts that has become so damaging, as it has a negative effect on how readers comprehend this complex issue. And whilst the Daily Mail take great enjoyment from baiting its readers to detest migrant workers, our healthcare system is propped up by the very same immigrants to our shores; 11% of all staff and 26% of doctors are non-British.

Next time you experience someone verging on this sort of angry attack on immigrants you should advise them to turn their anger towards far more pressing issues. The big culprit is tax avoidance loopholes, which enable the world’s richest companies to minimize their tax bill in the UK by siphoning off profits to tax havens in Luxembourg or Ireland. It is estimated that only £1 in £15 was collected last year, resulting in a tax gap of £34billion. Google paid just £6 million in Corporation Tax on UK profits of £2.6 billion last year. If they’d paid the full 23% that bill would have been more like £600 million. Starbucks, meanwhile, has paid zero tax for the past 3 years. Companies like Facebook, Amazon and Apple are all equally complicit, but the worrying thing is that this is completely legal. The power wielded by corporations’ means that they have been able to totally re-write laws to support profiteering. When someone tells you there is not enough money to give our nurses a 1% pay rise, point them in the direction of this infographic. 

There is plenty enough money, the problem is that it is all sitting in the bank accounts of the World’s richest companies. They don’t abide by the same social contract as you and I, and they give nothing back to our communities. Transnational corporations not paying their way… these are the real immigrants we should all be concerned with.

If you are still convinced that immigration is the the number 1 issue facing UK today then I strongly advise you to turn your attention to the raft of super rich property developers taking advantage of the housing crisis and increasing rent beyond the means of those families on social housing. What is worse is that the government often subsidises private landlords that charge rip-off rates. There are currently over 1.8 million families on council waiting lists, and that list will continue to grow until tougher regulation is passed to limit this practice. So when Nigel Farage, David Cameron or Boris Johnson try to convince us all that immigration is to blame for the housing crisis, they may be half right. Unfortunately that half truth is a shadowy one; one that protects their super-rich, aristocratic friends-in-high-places.

Whilst I do feel that British immigration policy could be improved by a more thorough vetting process and by addressing how migrants are assimilated into British society (to avoid the linguistic and cultural barriers that do often exist in communities with large numbers of foreign nationals), we shouldn't be distracted from the causes of problems in Britain today. We need to end the exploitative policies of companies seeking cheap labour, we need tougher regulations on the housing market and we need to redirect the money which is being vacuumed up by the financial elite. This will help to relieve the social tensions that have resulted in a rise of xenophobic/far-right views. There is plenty enough money to fix the healthcare system, the public sector, the housing crisis, the rising poverty... the trouble is our current political system is set up to support the wealthy at the expense of the many.

Lobbying of a different kind

This week Russell Brand condemned the issue of corporate lobbying; in particular he took Rupert Murdoch to task for the practise of lobbying into existence tax loop holes which can then be exploited by the very people who have paid to have them created. At the same time there has been a grass roots lobbying campaign, instigated by the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), which has slowly gathered pace.

I have previously remarked on comments made by the chair of the London Fire Authority in the wake of fire fighter demonstrations (see: Staggering Contempt). Most can be forgiven for knowing very little of the current Fire Brigade dispute which has been rumbling on for 3 years but which has received derisory levels of media coverage; the dispute is just one of the many fronts on which every day, working people are fighting against unprecedented government cuts and, like all of these causes, it is worthy of our attention.

Fire fighters are struggling against an assault on our national fire service, they are standing up for a world class service which is being dismantled in the name of austerity; battling for public safety, arguing for the vital seconds which can can mean the difference should anyone of us be unfortunate enough to wake in the night to the raging horror of a fire in the home.

But they are also facing a personal attack. Wages have stagnated in the face of increased living costs and rising inflation, job security has been attacked with 5,000 fire fighter posts gone since 2010 and pensions now the target of a government campaign to wring unsustainable years of service out of personnel - the governments own, independent report has found these proposals to be unworkable. Regardless, Penny Morduant & this coalition Government are ploughing on with changes which will hit men and women 15 or 20 years into a deal which is now deemed subject to attack.

And so the FBU and it's members have undertaken a lobbying campaign; a campaign to raise awareness among MPs and to try and table a commons debate which would see some publicity brought to the issue from outside Westminster and perhaps even some common sense from within. This is lobbying as it should be; men and women alarmed by government proposals approaching their MPs to ask for representation in parliament. And it seems to be working, at the very least it is gathering pace.

Labour front bench MPs Hilary Benn & Lyn Brown supported an early day motion (EDM) put forward by the FBU calling for the Government's proposals to be annulled; an endorsement from Ed Milliband followed. With this support, and lobbying from FBU members, 260 MPs have signed up to the EDM; notably this includes 16 Liberal Democrats who form part of the coalition Government driving through the changes. A deadline of December 11th looms large; the FBU has gone as far as to promise suspending a proposed strike this Tuesday should the Government agree to a debate and vote in the house of commons.

Should the movement succeed it will represent a rare victory for working people in these times of ideological austerity. Sadly Rupert Murdoch and his lobbyists still hold more sway in the corridors of Westminster but perhaps this grass roots lobbying campaign will make a real difference, a chance for democracy to prevail.

Another Great Train Robbery

The selling of the East Coast Mainline franchise has caused a moderate stir online and in certain publications, and rightly so. It's difficult to frame it as anything other than a robbery, plain and simple. Look at it this way; as tax payers we own public infrastructure, it belongs to us as the people who foot the bill and who rely on the services we have invested in; similarly the government is democratically elected to represent us and manage the country as we, the electorate, see fit - simple, indisputable truths. Now consider that 68% of the public wish for the whole of the national rail system to be nationalised; with this in mind we can assume it's safe to say that a minimum of 68% of folk would prefer the East Coast Line to remain in public ownership. But just last week, in the face of this, the government rushed through privatisation.

These are not secret figures, plucked from the ether; they are based on credible national polls and the government are well aware of them. Of course they know that 68% of people would prefer a nationalised railway system; they just don't care. The East Coast Line is a shining example of the public sector at work, it puts the privately run franchises to shame on every level and it cannot be allowed to continue doing so. The figures are striking, this infographic from Unions Together says it all:

Click here for the original version on the Unions Together website

Some of these numbers are absolutely incredible, I'm drawn to the tax payer spend per passenger mile to begin with: 50p in the public sector against £5.70 on the privately run West Coast, record levels of both customer & staff satisfaction show what a difference it makes when profit isn't put before all else - it's no wonder public support for public ownership is so high.

The con that is this sell off really is as remarkable as it is infuriating. We, the tax payers, are hit three fold by Cameron's great train robbery: firstly, and most directly, in the pocket when we buy our ticket; the £500m in shareholder dividends has to come from somewhere and it comes out of our wallets with walk on fares hiked an eye watering 245% .

Secondly we subsidies the private franchises. This is just one of the many, many examples of neoliberal nonsense; so called free market capitalism is, in many cases, a total fraud - the franchises are propped up by tax payer subsidies; in the case of the West Coast line to the tune of £2.5bn.

Finally, and perhaps most sickening of all, is the lost revenue. The East Coast Line was such a success in public hands that it returned £1bn to the tax payer. That's £1bn which goes back into our economy and can be spent on society as a whole; Cameron and Osborne would sell it off for a fast buck - it's a grotesque abuse of power.

If you would like to exercise your democratic right against this sham of a gvernment you can do so in numbers of ways. Firstly sign this petition against the privatisation of the line and, come May, lets turn up at the ballot box and turf this caustic lot out of our Westminster

Putting Immigration to Bed

With David Cameron continuing to beat a hyped up UKIP tempo on the immigration drum this week it was refreshing to see Nathalie Bennett coming out to question the Prime Minister and his political doppelgängers in the purple & yellow.

"This is a speech addressing non-existent problems - the government has not been able to produce evidence of systemic 'benefits tourism' or 'health tourism"

The Green Party position on immigration is one which I share: that many of the worries surrounding the issue are caused by government failure to address societal needs - the blame for these failings is then apportioned to the catch-all political scapegoat which is immigration. It taps into a latent instinct of suspicion and a wariness of the unfamiliar and allows staggering injustices to hide in plane site while Cameron et al continue to work flat out to direct our ire onto those around us; most of whom may well be facing the very same struggles. It is a lazy excuse to cover years of neglectful policies courtesy of successive neoliberal governments. A brief look at some of the typical immigration complaints bears this out:


Housing
There simply has not been anywhere near enough housing built for over 25 years; this, paired with an idealogical drive to transfer existing council housing stock into the private sector, has resulted in a disgraceful shortfall in available housing. This shortfall has not been addressed by successive governments and has resulted in swathes of council housing stock falling into the hands of private landlords - many of whom proceed to rent the properties back to council tenants; and so public money is transferred into private pockets. A nationwide scheme of house building would alleviate these tensions, provide affordable housing, create jobs & boost the economy. It's hard to see the downside - unless of course you're a party using social tension to deflect political discussion & criticism away from your own failings.

Jobs
It is a line which has become synonymous with the current political Zeitgeist 'coming over here and taking our jobs' and while it is of course true that every job which goes to a non UK national is one which cannot go to a UK born citizen this, as always, does not paint the complete picture. The fact is that without immigration the country truly would be in dire straights; 26% of NHS doctors are non-British and 11% of NHS workers as a whole. Much of the home grown British fruit & vegetables sold in our supermarkets are picked by immigrants, work which some UK job seekers deem beneath them; just this week Next admitted a need to advertise for warehouse jobs in Poland to supplement the 500 Brits they have hired for festive work.

Just 1 in 40 jobs created since the recession has been full time, the rest being part time and zero hours contracts; this against a back drop of unprecedented government cuts to swathes of the public sector: 5,000 firefighters, close to 6,000 nurses, 15,000 police staff to name a few - the private sector has not picked up the slack. Not surprisingly massive austerity and cuts to public spending have not created an environment where widespread, meaningful employment is available.

Benefit Tourism
Polish immigrants living in the UK are 20 percent more likely to have a job than those born in the UK according to the latest UK census; indeed 73% of EU born nationals in the UK are in employment, this compared to 69% of Brits. The net result being that immigration contributes billions more to the economy in taxes than it costs in welfare; money which could, and should, be spent on improving public services to cope with the added demand. The upshot of immigration, money in the public coffers, is conveniently ignored by the political establishment who much prefer to stoke the fires of discontent.


All of this got me to romanticising about a non-Tory government putting the issue to bed. Could they choose an area, afflicted by these tensions, and embark upon a first class house building programme while fostering a burgeoning clean energy market as has been undertaken in Germany. A focus on proper recycling and waste disposal could create jobs in the community and local farming could be encouraged to grow organic and sell to local businesses; keeping commerce local and cultivating a connection with food and how it is produced.

This may sound like pie in the sky but it simply isn't; a government project like this in an area such as Romford & Strood could serve as a microcosm for nationwide policy, it could expose the huge lie that is the immigration debate and blow a hole in Tory & UKIP's politics of hate thy neighbour. It could show us that policies of hope and aspiration serve us better than those which denigrate others for the failings of the state & the 'free market'.

We need something radical; should the electorate opt for anti Tory, anti UKIP & anti austerity then neoliberal-lite is not going to cut it. Renationalising the railways and rolling back Tory NHS privatisation may serve as a start but what's needed is a top down reorganisation of British society.

Staggering Contempt

Yesterday saw hundreds of firefighters protesting against attacks on their pensions & cuts to the UK fire service; the opening of a new fire station at West Norwood provided the back drop for a passionate confrontation when Conservative MP Penny Morduant arrived for a ribbon cutting ceremony at a time when firefighters are facing unprecedented cuts and pension reform.

Much has been said about the proposed cuts, reckless & ideologically driven by the Tories with a disregard for public safety - the below articles highlighting the effect to response times in several London wards as a result of closing 10 stations and removing 500 front line firefighters from operational duty.

Response times increase in East London wards

Boris Johnson cuts increase response times across North East London

Response times increase in all but 1 of 20 Newham wards

But it is a small twitter exchange which I was staggered to come across this morning which provides the inspiration for this article. Chair of the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) James Cleverly was in attendance at the station, acting as guide to Ms Morduant along side London Fire Brigade Commissioner Ron Dobson, and it is his comments following the visit which give this article it's title.

After Penny Morduant tweeted an image of herself and the LFEPA chairman within the fire station several users made reference to the absence of firefighters who had refused to meet her, Cleverly then tweeted this caustic response:

It truly shows a staggering level of contempt for the firefighters which he represents as the figurehead of the authority charged with managing the fire service in London. It surely calls into question his ability to make key decisions uncoloured by his obvious disdain for the men and woman of the service.

More than that I believe it shows a glimmer of the pervasive disrespect which Conservative politicians have for public sector workers and working class folk across the land.