market | ukwatch.net

What went wrong in the capitalist casino?

Ellie Keen — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:48:32 +0000

The great inter-war slumps were not acts of God or of blind forces. They were the sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men. These men had only learned how to act in the interest of their own bureaucratically-run private monopolies which may be likened to totalitarian oligarchies within our democratic state, They had and they felt no responsibility to the nation.

These words are from the 1945 Labour manifesto Let Us Face The Future which brilliantly identified the very same crisis which is now described as a “credit crunch” as if it were a mere hiccup in an otherwise wonderful neo-liberal globalised world which could be corrected with a vast subsidy from the taxpayers to put the Wall Street casino and its partners worldwide back into profit. It reminded me of the fact that when slavery was abolished it was the slave owners, and not the slaves, who received compensation from the government of the day.

Perhaps more important – and never mentioned in the media – is that all the news we get every day and every hour is all about the bankers while presidents, prime ministers and other elected leaders of the world have been reduced to the role of mere commentators who are expected to supply taxpayers’ money whenever it is needed to bail out the wealthy.

Indeed, what we are watching is nothing less than the steady transfer of real political power from the polling station to the market and from the ballot to the wallet – reversing the democratic gains we have made over the last century when we were able, increasingly, to use our votes to shape our economic future.

Our 1945 manifesto made that clear in the very next passage following the quote above. This is what it said: “The nation wants food, work and homes. It wants more than that. It wants good food in plenty, useful work for all and comfortable labour-saving homes that take full advantage of the resources of modern science and productive industry.”

That was the policy that swept Labour MPs into power in 1945 and gave this country the National Health Service, the welfare state and a massive house building programme, made possible by elected local authorities who had the resources made available to them by the Treasury.

Now, 63 years later, we are back facing a similar situation and we need to understand why it has happened if we are to see our way forward.

We have been told every day by the media that we should put our faith in the market and that elected governments are the problem and not the answer and, for that reason, should not interfere.

These ideas began to emerge in the political mainstream when Margaret Thatcher came to power and in 1994 “new” Labour adopted them as the basis of its own approach which explains why she once described “new” Labour as her “greatest achievement”.

Trade union rights are now more restricted than they were in 1906, wages have been held down and people have been advised to borrow and spend as an alternative – which explains why the stock market has fallen and locked more and more people into debt, which is a subtle form of slavery itself.

This is why so many people are frightened and frightened people can sometimes be persuaded to seek an answer by identifying an enemy who can be made a scapegoat for failure – as Hitler did when he blamed the Jews, the Communists and the trade unions for the mass unemployment in Germany and set up a fascist dictatorship which led to the Holocaust and war.

Hitler dealt with the unemployed by giving them jobs in the arms factories and the armed forces which led to the Second World War and the massive human cost it caused.

Whatever the left does it must never respond by splintering into a mass of tiny ideological sects forever fighting each other – for that way leads to failure, frustration and defeat.

This is the time for co-operation across the left to tackle the problems that face us on a non-sectarian basis as we have seen in the Stop the War Coalition, the campaigns for trade union rights, civil liberties, pensions, nuclear disarmament, council house building and a fair tax system – all of which require full trade union backing if they are to succeed.

If the economic situation gets worse, as it very well may, we have also to be on the look out for the “coalition” solution which could well be presented to us as the only way that these problems can be tackled, an argument that is being put forward now in America when George Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama rallied round to back the $700 billion bail-out that Wall Street demanded.

That same argument was used by Ramsay MacDonald in 1931 when he formed a National Government which nearly destroyed the Labour Party in the general election when only 51 Labour MPs survived and, without the courage of Ernie Bevin and the TUC, it might never have recovered, as it did in 1945.

I hope that the re-appointment of Peter Mandelson to the Cabinet in the latest reshuffle does not lead to that idea being re-floated as the best way to see us through the crisis for that could be the end of democracy – allowing the European Commission to prevent the re-emergence of public ownership and control of the banks which many will now see as the best way forward.

For the first time in my life, the public are to the left of a Labour government and common sense points us in a direction quite different from the one we have been following since 1979 when Thatcher set out to destroy the trade unions, cripple local authorities and privatise our public assets which we need now more than ever.

In 1945, the nation realised that the problems of peace required the same intensity of commitment as the problems of war.

And with the disastrous experience of Iraq and Afghanistan that argument, too, is beginning to register again and people are asking why we waste so much money on those illegal, brutal and unwinnable wars and on new nuclear weapons when people are losing their jobs and facing repossession of their homes.

The case for peace and socialism is intensely practical and, put like that, will command wide public and electoral support as it did then, in 1945, and could again do now.

The Contradiction of Choice from the Government

tim — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:23:41 +0000

Buzzwords abound in the rhetoric of politicians and never more so than when the talk is of public sector reform. Of the current phrases spewing forth ‘choice’ and ‘empowerment’ are two of the favourites but whose choice and whose empowerment? And while MP’s try to frame these words as synonyms of ‘public benefit’, is choice always a good thing?

Health and education are the main areas where politicians see choice as the best way of improving services. Choosing where and what treatment to have and which school to send your children to are policies which both the Labour and Conservative parties are pursuing. This year’s Darzi review made patients’ rights the focus of change, proposing that patients’ views on the quality of care should have an impact on future funding, with bonuses for those GPs and hospitals providing the best services. Furthermore, the results of patient satisfaction should be published creating a form of NHS league table allowing patients to choose at which GP or hospital they wish to receive their treatment.

Parents are continually told that by being able to choose which school to send their children to they are getting a better deal from state education. Government ministers eulogise choice as the best way to match a child’s educational needs to the school that is best placed to cater for them.

Choice as prescribed by this government, however, leads to centralisation, destruction of communities, privatisation and the marginalisation of the poorest from the process. Their legacy of choice will be less choice.

Polyclinics are a perfect example of this. Patients are told that these super-surgeries will lead to more choice but one key choice will be removed: the choice to go to your community hospital or GP. Elderly patients, who frequently need to seek medical advice, will see their relationships with their doctor destroyed and will be forced to travel impractical distances.

NHS league tables, while appearing to increase patient choice, are in reality just another way of imposing more targets. Moreover, if patients do utilize them to make decisions about which hospital to go to they will find that choice is removed. A hospital which scores poorly in the table will receive less funding, therefore their results will get worse and fewer patients will choose them. As this spiral continues services will have to be closed down as they will no longer be efficient and then you no longer have a choice.

Choices can also be confusing, stressful and in the end you can always make the wrong one. When it comes to medicine my knowledge is possibly not as comprehensive as that of a qualified and experienced practitioner. I would, therefore, rather know that all hospitals and surgeries are clean and friendly and then allow my GP to refer me to the nearest one where I could receive the required treatment.

The government’s promise to give every parent a choice of secondary school for their child was proved a myth again this year with figures showing the number of pupils getting their first choice of school has dropped. As parents understandably clamour to get their children in to schools high up the league tables the idea of going to your local school is becoming a nostalgic notion, with over half of children not going to their nearest school. Commuting to school is detrimental to community development and the environment.

Worse still any benefits of the current policy are going to the wealthiest. A report by Bristol University found that disadvantaged families miss out in the current system and even in the same postcodes poorer families end up at the lower-performing schools. Expanding the better performing schools may not be possible as “giving popular schools the freedom to expand does not mean they will do so. To the extent that a school’s position in the league tables depends on the attainment of its intake, schools may be unwilling to increase and potentially to dilute the quality of their student body,” said Professor Burgess.

Whilst ‘good’ schools cream off the best pupils the rest are left with lower league table results and less people ‘choosing’ to go there. Some of the best teachers may leave and in worse case scenarios the school maybe closed. As with hospitals the choice is then removed. Furthermore, expanding the best schools and shrinking or closing the rest as suggested will result in huge institutions where education suffers. American researchers are leading the way in analysing the impacts of school size.

Craig Howley, of Ohio University, and Robert Bickel, of Marshall University, looked at whether smaller schools could reduce the negative effects of poverty on student achievement. They found that the correlation between poverty and low achievement was ten times stronger in larger schools than in smaller ones. “Everyone knows that there is a strong association between social class and achievement and that this association works very much to the disadvantage of economically disadvantaged students,” Bickel told Education World. “The California research, however, had the virtue of demonstrating that this disadvantage was exaggerated as school size increased.”

One in seven pupils in England are now in a secondary school with over 1,500 students and the number of pupils in schools of over 2,000 has doubled since 1997. Promoting choice is driving these figures ever higher. If you thought a change of government would bring about a change of direction then, like in most areas, the differences between Labour and the Conservatives are negligible. In a letter this week to local residents, Philip Dunne, Conservative MP for South Shropshire wrote: ‘We believe that the best way to enhance the power of patients is through choice.

We will allow patients to choose, in consultation with their GP, where they get their secondary care. And we will ensure that money follows the patient so that hospitals and clinics and other care providers are paid according to the results they deliver for that patient.’ Once again, it seems, Labour equals Conservative and the public is left without an alternative.

When ministers speak of choice what they really mean is installing the practice of privatised competition in the public sector. Not even the most ardent free-market Tory would openly pursue a fully privatised health or education service; it would be electoral suicide. All politicians know this so instead they are doing it under the radar masked by the promise of choice.

Genuine, useful choice and universal empowerment are great things which should be strived for but do not confuse them with current government policy. Next time you get excited by the prospect of politicians offering you a choice think again as it’s not always a good thing.

Snouts in the Trough... but not yet

Ellie Keen — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:03:18 +0000

Since the partial exclusion of health care from the liberalisation of services brought about by the EU’s notorious directive of 2005, we have been waiting with some trepidation for the European Commission to make its next move.

To this writer – and I hope also to his readers – a functioning, efficient, equitably funded and affordable system of health care is the absolute fundamental of a civilised society.

Others look at health care through different eyes, of course.

Here is a multi-billion pound industry the widespread public ownership of which means one less well-swilled trough into which piggy can stick his snout.

And since this figurative individual (and my apologies to real pigs, whose treatment at the hands of the EU is even worse than our own) is the one dearest to the European Commission’s heart, it was only a matter of time before the Eurocrats sought to ensure that the weakly-worded, unconvincing health care exclusion found its way into the clinical waste bin of history.

So where is the Commission’s proposal on the liberalisation of health care services, which we were, in the end, promised for last November?

It was the European Parliament, which increasingly vies with it in its enthusiasm to do corporate capital’s bidding, which last May called on the Commission to reintroduce health services into the Services Directive.

In a report described even by social democrats as “a total catastrophe”, it was proposed that health care be robbed of its ‘privileged’ position as an essential service.

The Parliament wants to see an unrestricted patient mobility across the EU’s internal borders, which it is well aware would make publicly-owned and collectively-financed health care services untenable.

It wants the Commission to enable codification of European Court of Justice case law applying to the mobility of services.

This would ensure that internal market rules, the freedom to provide services and free movement all apply to health services, and that these principles are put beyond doubt.

In fact, the Commission’s work programme for 2007 already contained such a proposal, but the Parliament wanted action.

Its report was an attempt to cajole the Commission into smuggling health care services back into the Services Directive.

This would do nothing to address the real problems of Europe’s health care services, which to one degree or another reflect those of the NHS.

Patient mobility may have a role to play, but only if it forms part of a coordinated system of resource pooling based on principles of efficiency and, where appropriate, solidarity.

Collectively-funded health services which are free at point of care – such as almost all NHS treatment – are financed nationally and will remain so for any foreseeable future.

Patient mobility must not be allowed to undermine such services.

EU regulations on the coordination of social protection schemes already deal with many of the real problems arising from cross-border patient mobility, though they have clearly been found wanting when it comes to lining the pockets of private health care providers.

Supplying a high quality and efficient health care infrastructure where people live is, in any case, a much better way to avoid waiting lists for treatment.

Dutch left MEP Kartika Liotard, who initiated the amendment which led to the exclusion of health care from the Services Directive, says that “what we definitely do not need is another bogus ‘balanced compromise’ of the Service Directive type. We demand that health services and social services, in common with all public services and services of general interest, be excluded from internal market and competition rules. High quality health care for all is not a commodity, but a public good.”

Adding that her views had found support from MEPs across the political spectrum, she says that she was “shocked” to see the issue return.

“We fought extremely hard to keep health care services out of the scope of the services directive” says Liotard. “Health care is much too important to allow it to be exposed to unrestrained market forces.”

So does the delay to the European Commission proposal mean that Liotard’s arguments may have prevailed?

Only, unfortunately, in our dreams.

What the hold-up really means is that the Commission, along with all who support the top-down integration of Europe and its transformation into a paradise for corporate capital, are well aware that health care liberalisation will prove about as popular as toothache.

And while this unpopularity is not going to change, the liberalisers are prepared to wait until the most sweeping liberalising measure of all, the renamed European Constitution, is approved by all of the national parliaments and the only electorate which will be allowed to have its say, the Irish.

“EU member state citizens are not expecting still more liberalisation, and certainly not in health care,” Kartika Liotard explains. “The Commission is afraid that resistance to this will throw a spanner in the works when it comes to ratification of the reform treaty. The public would then for once find out the full extent of the EU plans, and perhaps they would also become more critical of the new ‘constitution’.” Far from welcoming the postponement, she describes it as “simply scandalous” and “evidence of a lack of political courage.”.

Heavy political pressure from the Commission has already ensured that after Ireland no other member state will hold a referendum on the reform treaty. “But,” Liotard says, “evidently there is still disquiet and a feeling that until the treaty is finally ratified any proposals which might prove controversial should remain out of sight. This is typical of this Europe: keep everyone sweet until the ink is dry on all of the signatures and then get on with unpopular, far-reaching measures which have long been planned.”

Steve McGiffen edits Spectrezine. This article was written for the Morning Star