As Greece Surrenders – What Now for the European Anti-Austerity Movement?

The Greek government has submitted a last ditch proposal to its creditors in the EU and the IMF, reportedly conceding to an even harsher austerity regime than they have had for the last five years. Reports say that the proposals offer 13 billion Euros in cuts to public sector pay, jobs and pensions with sharp increases in VAT, together with a swathe of privatisation of public assets. The hope is that this can be traded for a ‘modest’ reduction in the amount of debt they are expected to pay. This amounts to accelerating austerity measures (previously 8 billion Euros) which have caused a deep depression in the Greek economy.

Coming less than a week after the Greek people voted in an historic plebiscite against the less bad offer, it is an effective cave in by the Syriza/ANEL government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. Even if the deal is accepted by the creditors, it will need the support of the Greek parliament, where some opposition is expected not least from within Syriza, but it should pass with the support of the right wing opposition parties, ND, Potami and Pasok.

That this will be a disaster for the Greek people is in no doubt, although from what I have read in the press even no voters from Sunday’s referendum on the issue, seem resigned to its acceptance, and in the process perhaps buying some more time.

Personally, I think this is a mistake, but that is easy for me to say sitting my house in London. This decision though doesn’t only affect the Greeks but the whole of the anti-austerity movement across Europe, and most particularly in Spain where the Podemos party has made electoral gains with a similar message to that of Syriza.

There has clearly been a determination on the part of the EU creditors to crush any thoughts of this rebellion spreading to other indebted European nations, but this was always predictable. To be fair, Syriza was put into an near impossible position by the intransigence of the creditors and by the Greek people’s insistence on staying inside the Eurozone, at all costs.

But I have to say mistakes were made by Syriza in the negotiations of the last five months, and others can certainly learn from this. After Syriza was humiliated in February’s previous negotiations, the writing should have been on the wall for Tsipras et al. It was clear to me then, and it should have been to Syriza that they would get nowhere arguing from an economic point of view, and should have switched straight away to a political strategy.

The switch to a referendum as a tactic should have come months ago, rather than two days before the money ran out, which is what they did. I was surprised under such circumstances (capital controls, shortages of food and medicines) that they actually won the referendum at all, however meaninglessly this has been regarded by EU creditors.

In my view, a process of educating the people in that staying in the Euro would mean further austerity measures and that a managed move back to the drachma would be necessary, should have started in February. This was never attempted and the last minute referendum ploy was a desperate and ultimately doomed attempt to shore up their position. All the creditors had to do was bide their time, and wait until Greece fell apart economically which it is very close to now without a further bail out.

Should the deal be done, as is looking likely, then it does at least buy some more time. This humiliation of Greece and Syriza will certainly not help the likes of Podemos in other European countries, but a devastating crash out of the Euro would probably have been even worse. A general election has to be held in Spain by the end of the year and if Podemos can gain power in Spain then at least Syriza is not so isolated in Europe and perhaps the issue can be reopened again.

Although the Greeks have been put back into their box again for now, the problems that led to the rise of Syriza will not go away with these austerity policies. The future may yet hold further windows of opportunity. The fight goes on.

A Red & Green Alliance in Scotland for 2016 Election?

Written by Donnie Fraser and first published at Bella Caledonia 

It’s almost clichéd to say that we’re living in exciting times, a political landscape rapidly shifting beneath our feet and unpredictable in its destination. No sooner is one historic election out of the way but another beckons and next year’s Holyrood election could certainly be that. But while we live in exciting times we also live in dark times for ordinary working people bearing the brunt of the Tories form of class war they call ‘Austerity’. However next year’s Holyrood election gives us the opportunity to wipe out Unionism, and by extension the pro-austerity parties, as a political force in Scotland at this time, and also build an effective opposition to the SNP from the radical Green Left.

Before I get started I realise that much of what I say may sit uncomfortably with some in the various left groups, greens and others who understandably have their own particular interests to look out for. 

Believe me it is way out of my own comfort zone. As a Republican I don’t have any rose-tinted view of the Holyrood Assembly, given it can be abolished by Westminster at any time and has no legal right to launch another Indy referendum without Westminster approval it is little more than a Unionist institution set up to preserve the Union rather than further democracy, power devolved is power retained and all that. Furthermore as a socialist with syndicalist sympathies when it comes to fighting elections for “bourgeois parliaments” getting too het up over elections to a wee pretendy parliament, or parish council as Tony Blair described it, seems a distraction from the real job of establishing an independent workers’ republic.

But… now, here, Scotland 2015-16 is not ‘normal’ political times. We’re still riding the wave of activity and enthusiasm unleashed by the referendum and given momentum by the myriad of groups that sprung up as self-organising collectives, organisations such as Women for Indy, National Collective and Radical Independence Campaign (RIC), where grass-roots campaigners could come together and get their voices heard independent of the party machines.

RIC in particular brought together all manner of radical forces from the socialist left, from the environmental movement as well as the left of the SNP and it seems to me self-evident that we were able to achieve far more working together (and working together consensually and harmoniously for a greater good) than would have been the case otherwise.

And that offers an interesting vision for the situation some nine months later. While those involved with the nascent Scottish Left Project (SLP) have done admirable work, building on the positivity of RIC, by actually getting elements of the Left talking to each other getting past the divisions which have scarred us and set back the cause of Socialism by a political generation or more, it is clear that the distrust that still exists means this won’t be achieved overnight and indeed with their own eyes set on the 2020 Holyrood elections rather than 2016 I fear they are in danger of not just selling themselves short but the needs and aspirations of the working-class in Scotland in the face of an unrestricted Tory government pursuing an increasingly aggressive domestic policy. So while the left still struggles to negotiate the legacy of the well bronzed buffer in its tracks the Greens have capitalised more on their role in the wider Yes campaign, yet their target of “at least 8 seats”, while easily achievable, still falls well short of the potential for a unified radical force.

As things currently stand even if the most ambitious projections of the left and greens were achieved it would still leave them around the same total achieved in 2003 when 13 were returned from this bloc. But… a unified Red/ Green or Green/ Red or Anti-Austerity or Radical Indy (call it what you want) Alliance that was able to tap into the positivity and momentum of the Yes campaign, which we played a large role in creating, could realistically aim to take 20-30 MSPs.

This isn’t based on the overly optimistic predictions of some party loyalist but simply through an understanding of the way the regional list system works in the Scottish parliament. It has an inbuilt mechanism designed to prevent any one party gaining outright control, a Unionist mechanism to prevent an SNP victory and the prospects of Independence, that worked well eh! If a party does well in the first past the post constituency section this will be balanced out by distributing seats on the list to other parties based on their support in the regional list vote. Put simply it means that if the SNP maintains its current level of constituency support they will need to poll well in excess of 50% to be in with a chance of winning any seats on the list.

Take as an example the recent TNS poll (1) which puts the SNP on course to win 70 out of 73 constituency seats. It also has the SNP at 50% on the list which they predict would give it only 3 out of 56 list seats across all Scotland, presumably in the 3 regions where they did not win every constituency seat.

Whilst obviously a lot of caveats apply and it takes no account of regional variations which always exist, if the results from this poll were applied across all 8 regions the returns would break down as follows for the 7 seats on each regional list, Labour 3 seats, Tories 2, Greens 1 and the last place going to a 3-way tie between the Lib-Dems, Greens and SNP. TNS predicts this being allocated as 3 SNP, 3 Lib Dem and 2 Green from the eight regions. So despite pro-Indy parties taking 60% of the regional vote the Unionist parties would take a 5-2 majority of seats in 4 lists, and 6-1 in the other 4.

But, in the hypothetical situation where a unified list of the pro-Indy Green/ Left was able to garner support primarily, though not exclusively, from that broad base of the Yes support who want radical change, this situation could be near reversed.

Let me explain. It’s been well documented that since devolution the Scottish electorate has developed relatively sophisticated voting patterns, voting in different way in different elections to achieve different, progressive, outcomes. This situation has certainly not been diminished by the IndyRef and many Yes supporters, and others, will be only too aware that voting SNP on the list may well be a wasted vote that will paradoxically only increase the chances of a Unionist candidate being elected.

If however a unified candidate of the Green Left radical forces was standing as a realistic, credible alternative then they would be well placed to capitalise on this situation.

So using some basic maths if one-third of the SNP support on the list could be persuaded to vote Red/Green (based on the TNS poll with all the caveats etc.) and coupled with the already existing Green support this could lead to regional voting figures of SNP 33%, Red/ Green 27%, Labour 19%, Tory 14%, LD 5% leading to the election of 3 Red/ Greens, 2 Labour and 2 Tories on each list. This would mean 24 Red/Greens in total making them the 2nd largest grouping at Holyrood behind the SNP, who would have already won the election based on their support at constituency level (it’s probably worth noting that it would be in the interests of such a grouping for the SNP to win every constituency seat in Scotland.)

Again if one half of SNP voters supported this new grouping the corresponding figures would be Red Green 35%, SNP 25%, Labour 19%, Tory 14%, LD 5%. This could result in 4 Red/Greens being elected in each region giving 32 seats across Scotland outnumbering the combined total of all the Unionist parties at Holyrood.

Obviously there is no data to support the claim that SNP voters would support a Red/Green alliance but given the positive and committed role that socialists and Greens played in RIC and the wider Yes campaign and, as has been stated, the ‘sophisticated’ nature of voting in Scotland and increased levels of political activity since the referendum, I believe that this could be achievable, but only though a unified force that wasn’t going to be fighting each other for the same votes.

Now basing politics on opinion polls is not generally the sort of politics that I would touch with the proverbial bargepole, it reeks of new Labour focus groups and the selling of your soul for the sake of a handful of votes in a few marginal constituencies, but this is a different situation altogether, and while compromise is inevitable it need not be at the expense of political principle.

We wouldn’t need a huge unified political programme, just agreement around a set of core demands where unity already exists, opposing austerity, stopping fracking, more green energy projects, real radical land reform, ending zero hour contracts, fighting for better workers’ rights, No to NATO, a £10 minimum wage, more social housing built to higher environmental standards as well as support for an independent Republic. There is plenty we have in common as we showed throughout the referendum campaign.

Realistically the left would have to accept its weakened position at this time and probably offer the Greens at least the top spot on every list, even in its Glasgow heartlands, though Patrick Harvie top of the list, a problem? I don’t think so. Given the potential to elect 2/3/4 MSPs from each list perhaps the rest could be decided by some form of regional aggregates, but I digress.

Here in the Highlands the thought of standing in opposition to someone like John Finnie who played such an active role in the RIC campaign and is top of the regional list for the Greens next year is not something which appeals to me and I’m sure that similar situations would be replicated elsewhere.

Is it too late for this to happen? Certainly not. But whether narrow party political advantage will win out over the NEEDS of the marginalised and disadvantaged bearing the brunt of Tory ‘Austerity’ is another matter altogether.

Socialists and Greens managed to put our differences aside, in RIC and elsewhere, to work collectively for a greater good last year, surely the radical forces of Scotland can do the same for the next? Talks did take place between the Greens and the SSP before the 2014 European elections which indicate that there must be willingness, in some quarters at least, to contemplate this scenario.

But this time round the opportunity for such a bloc wouldn’t just mean the election of one MEP, not even replacing the Lib-Dems as the 4th largest party, but on becoming the main opposition to the SNP at Holyrood, pushing them in a more radical direction and making sure they live up to their anti-austerity promises, the prize is potentially that big. Surely that’s something worth aiming for?

1) TNS Poll, 9 June 2015 – Regional list voting intentions for Holyrood: SNP 50%, Labour (19%), the Conservatives (14%), the Greens (10%), Liberal Democrats (5%), UKIP (2%) and others (2%)

Caroline Lucas - There’s a climate-shaped hole in the budget

Osborne’s failure to put action on climate change at the heart of the budget is bad economics

Amid swathes of bad news in today’s budget – the cruel cuts to tax credits, the lowering of the benefits cap and the handouts to the richest in the form of a raised inheritance tax threshold – there’s a cavernous, climate-shaped hole that should concern us all.

George Osborne isn’t just wedded to shrinking the state, he’s failing recklessly to ensure the Treasury plays a positive role in this country’s efforts to tackle climate change. In Today’s Budget, the chancellor trumpeted plans to cut taxes for fossil fuels, increase taxes for renewable energy and spend public money on building new roads.

This comes just weeks after the government announced plans to end support to onshore wind – the cheapest form of renewable energy. This flies in the face of the Conservatives’ supposed desire to decarbonise power at lowest cost, and ignores the views of two thirds of the public who support onshore wind.

Osborne’s failure to put action on climate change at the heart of the budget is also bad economics.

Only yesterday, a coalition of leading UK businesses called on George Osborne to prioritise green investment and climate action, warning that the UK green economy is ‘at a crossroads’ without clear policy direction. In this context, the chancellor’s claim to have put in place a long term framework for investment in renewable energy bears no resemblance to reality.

A further call to action from the Global Commission on the Economy and the Climate, a heavyweight panel of experts, found that by building green cities, mobilising clean energy investment and other measures, governments can secure up to 96 per cent of extra carbon cuts needed to avoid dangerous global warming while reaping economic benefits.

It’s astonishing that this year, when the UK should be playing a leadership role at the crucial global climate summit in Paris, Osborne is risking both the UK’s reputation and the chances of meeting our own emissions targets.

We heard the usual rhetoric about the cost of energy to consumers; yet again not matched by action.

If the chancellor was truly worried about fuel poverty and the cold homes crisis – which results in 65 people on average dying each day in winter – he’d be making energy efficiency the number one infrastructure investment priority.

If the Treasury can decide to allocate all revenue from Vehicle Excise Duty to spending on roads, it should instead be ring-fencing the taxes everyone pays on energy bills to invest in making all homes super energy efficient, starting with households on low incomes. This would be a job-creating, revenue raising, carbon-saving, economic and environmental no brainer, yet is nowhere to be seen in today’s Budget.

Even more urgently, the chancellor should be reviewing the billions of pounds of indirect subsidies to the dirty fossil fuel industry, tax breaks for fracking, and the vast sums of public money allocated to polluting, environmentally destructive, high carbon projects such as new roads and runways. The chancellor announced plans to prevent taxpayers’ money benefitting renewable electricity generated overseas, yet remained silent on the shocking revelation earlier this year that the government spends three hundred times more backing fossil fuel projects abroad compared with clean energy, via the export credit agency.

Fossil fuel subsides are the scandalous public spending that should be cut – not support for clean, green, home-grown renewable energy.

The consequences of inadequate action on climate change are grim and will hit the poorest worst. But, as businesses and economists are increasingly explaining, ambitious action to tackle the climate crisis would utterly transform our economy, create decent jobs and lift people out of fuel poverty.

It’s a tragedy that this government looks set to let its obsession with spending cuts trump a commitment to investing in the long term health of our economy and the stability of our environment.

Six years ago, the chancellor told the nation he understood this. In a speech to Imperial Colleage, he said “I want a Conservative Treasury to be in the lead of developing the low carbon economy and financing a green recovery. For I see in this green recovery not just the fight against climate change, but the fight for jobs, the fight for new industry, the fight for lower family energy bills and the fight for less wasteful government.”

Now, the need for the government to drag itself out of the dark ages and blaze a trail of low carbon leadership is more urgent than ever – for the sake of our economy as well as our climate.

Caroline Lucas is the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion. Follow her on Twitter 

First published at Left Foot Forward

7/7 London Bombing - Memories of the Day

This is a re-post of something I wrote five years ago. 52 Londoners were killed and many were injured on 7 July 2005 when four suicide bombers exploded their bombs, three on the tube network and one on a bus. 

At the time I was working close to Edgware Road tube station, where one of the four bombs was detonated, and it was at the usual time I arrived at the station. That I wasn’t there at that fateful time is down to a matter of luck really.

I arrived at my local Piccadilly line tube station at about 8.15am, only to find the station closed. An underground worker informed me that there was a ‘power outage failure’. I took an overland train to Finsbury Park station, intending to get onto the Victoria line to Kings Cross, but found the Piccadilly line was now working, so took that  instead to Kings Cross.

As I was ascending the escalator at Kings Cross, to make my connection onto the Circle line to Edgware Road, the emergency sirens sounded, with instructions for everyone to evacuate Kings Cross station. This must have been around 9am. On exiting, I milled around with hundreds of other passengers at the front of the station, waiting for the all clear to continue my journey. At about 9.10am, a police officer rushed towards us, waving his arms, shouting ‘get away from the station’.

I decided to complete my journey to work on a bus, and managed to get onto one going to Marble Arch, where I could walk the rest of the way. I arrived at work at about 10.15am, and my colleagues there were still talking of power failures, but I had noticed a thick cloud of black smoke hanging over Edgware Road station.

Then news started to come through of the bombings.

I feel extremely lucky that I wasn’t caught up in any of this, but have also reflected that the events I witnessed just didn't make sense.

Why was the Piccadilly line closed at 8.15am, but open again around 8.45am? Why did the emergency alarm sound at Kings Cross some ten minutes before any of the explosions? And why was the story of a power failure put about by the authorities? Also, why have we seen so few photo images of the bombers on the day, when the London Underground has hundreds of CCTV cameras?

This is not intended to be a 'conspiracy theory' piece but these questions remain unanswered today.

There was a very strange feeling for a few weeks after the bombing around London, especially when travelling on the underground. People voluntarily kept bags and ruck sacks open to show there was nothing untoward in them, and Londoners pulled through in the end.

The Greece Euro Debacle has Reminded the British Left Why it Used to Oppose the EU

I think it is fair to say that the British far left has, by and large, remained anti the European Union (or its various predecessor organisations) over the years. Of course, Tony Benn was always against our membership, but the broader left in Britain (the Labour left and the trade unions) changed from its opposition to the EU to a position of being in favour of continued membership in the late 1980s.

What caused this change was the Thatcher Conservative government in Britain at the time and the introduction of Jacque Delors European Social Chapter. In the autumn of 1988 Delors addressed the British Trade Union Congress, promising that the European Commission would be a force to require governments to introduce pro-labour legislation.

Delors appeared to be an ally for the British left’s fight with the Thatcher government, and this is where the roots of the Conservative Party’s opposition to all things European began. ‘Socialism via the back door’ was a phrase much bandied about at the time by the right of the Tory party and their cheerleaders in the press.

I think something is changing though and the treatment handed out to Greece over the last five years, and most acutely since the election of the Syriza anti-austerity party to government, has been a catalyst for a mood change amongst many on the British left.

I conducted a poll on the Green Left Facebook Page last week on the question of ‘does the EU’s treatment of Greece make you more likely to vote for Brexit’. Although the sample was small, there was a marginal majority from yes voters. The Green Left Facebook page has a lot of Green Party people using the site, so normally I would have expected a fairly large majority for no voters to this question.

Veteran of the British left Tariq Ali has said, that Greece has made his mind up to vote for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU when our referendum comes around, probably next year.

I read an interesting piece today by Ian Dunt on the Politics.Co.Uk site, entitled ‘The British Left is Finally Turning Against the EU, in which he argues against the EU from a largely anarchist perspective. He writes:

Today's referendum reflects how Syriza has started to re-introduce the notion of participatory democracy to Europe…This week has finally seen this lesson start to be internalised by the left. It has done more to further the eurosceptic cause than anything Ukip has ever done. The debate has shifted from the right-wing critique of Europe – immigration, market interference – to the left-wing one, which is of German fiscal extremism applied to powerless local communities.

I must admit, I’ve been a Europhile for as long as I can remember as I have always liked the ‘internationalism’ associated with it, but I am having my own doubts now too. I was always happy with the Green Party line on the EU, that is, we want a different sort of Europe, for the people, not for the corporations and bureaucrats. But will we get a change to Europe to anything like we would want to see? I really doubt it in the foreseeable future.

The EU is a thoroughly undemocratic organisation and particularly with recent events in Greece which have thrown the spotlight on this. The EU appears to be going to completely ignore the decisive referendum result against the EU’s terms delivered by the Greek people on Sunday.

I am beginning to wonder whether this is a club I want to belong to after all. 

Greece Votes No to More Austerity

Albeit with less than 40% of the referendum counted it looks to be clear that the Greek people have rejected further austerity measures from their creditors the so called Troika of European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Indeed there is a split amongst the creditors with the IMF saying that Greece's debt should be largely written off.

Of course the ball is now back in European Union's court, but surely now a dignified arrangement can made for Greece?

I do hope so, because this affair has caused so much misery in Greece.

Well done to the Greek people for refusing to bow to blackmail.

In celebration of this likely victory I'm re-posting Romayne Phoenix's speech last week to a rally in Trafalgar Square, London in support of the Greek government and people.

As things stand, a positive alternative to austerity won’t be the main battleground in the London elections next year. But it should be.

Jonathan Bartley speaks at a demo outside Lambeth Town Hall

Written by Jonathan Bartley who is the Convener of Lambeth Green Party and a Green Left supporter. Jonathan is a candidate for the Green Party for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly List.

When I was part of Jenny Jones’ mayoral campaign team in 2012, the focus was the usual issues of safer cycling, air pollution and London’s ongoing housing crisis. These are all important. But the problems are a symptom of a much bigger issue; every aspect of London life is being turned into a commodity.  

London increasingly knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

Commercial haulage is prioritised over the lives of cyclists. Property speculation is encouraged at the expense of those who just want a decent home. Polluters are favoured over those who want clean air to breathe. Everything is assigned a price. The highest bidder wins. 

Tory Mayoral hopeful Zac Goldsmith will try to move into ‘Green’ territory. He must not get away with it. It is his economic policies that are responsible for the great London sell-off. Labour and Lib Dem candidates will happily join in the collusion. We must fight it.  

I want to be the Green Party’s mayoral candidate so I can stand up and say that the commodification of London life isn’t just economically deluded, it is socially and environmentally destructive.  

As the Green Party’s Work and Pensions spokesperson, over the last couple of weeks I have attended three demonstrations to highlight what Zac Goldsmith’s cuts have been doing to the disabled.  

I met with campaigners when they stormed the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Questions. I attended Streatham Job Centre, to support those marching against the placement of therapists in job centres ( https://vimeo.com/131890530?ref=tw-share ). And on Tuesday I supported Disabled People Against the Cuts as they presented their petition at Downing Street over the pernicious closure of the Independent Living Fund ( http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-51eb-Independent-Living-Fund-laid-to-rest/#.VZkPe_kzbIU ).

The Government is getting away with their cuts because human life itself has become a commodity. And under this Tory system, those who are disabled are worth less.   

It doesn’t have to be this way. Take London’s public transport system for example. It is not really ‘public’ at all. Around 10% of London’s population are excluded from large parts of it because of their impairments. There is a 'Transport Apartheid' that would not be tolerated anywhere else.

But when the Paralympics arrived and we needed to impress the world, as it turned its gaze upon us, things changed. Magically ramps appeared in tube stations. Public sector staff were suddenly discovered to provide vital assistance.  

Then they magically disappeared again when the games were over. 

It confirms what we all know. There is enough money in the world’s fifth richest city. The problem is the political will to make things happen.

There is a chance in next year’s elections to show that there is an alternative.  During the general election campaign I challenged Iain Duncan Smith over his welfare reforms. 

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e0AGfEF6r8 ) 

As the Government’s new £12bn round of welfare and other cuts bite harder, they will impact many more people. They will impact families claiming tax credits and child benefit, and those who rely on vital public services.   And when they do, many more will wake up to the reality of what is going on.

We have already seen this begin to happen where I live in Lambeth. There we successfully saved sheltered housing from the Labour’s Council’s plans to bulldoze it. Labour shrugged its shoulders and blamed Tory cuts.  But we fought for the residents – and won. 

( http://streathamnews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/sheltered-housing-saved-in-streatham.html )

A few weeks before the general election I got a call from one of the residents, inviting me in for a cup of tea. Half way through my second biscuit, she pushed an envelope towards me. “We have got you here under false pretenses” she said. “We had a collection to support your election campaign” she said.

    

These are people who were not natural Green supporters. But they saw the threat that austerity presented. And they discovered that it was only the Greens who would fight it.

We have an aspirational vision to give to Londoners. London should lead the world. It should have world class public services. It should be the city of Good Jobs. And as austerity bites, more and more will want to hear our alternative. I want to be the mayoral candidate who delivers it. 

Twitter: @jon_bartley

Facebook: jonathan.c.bartley

Tel: 020 8769 8163

Mob: 07771 598097