Telegraph The accompanying graphic comes from the Daily Telegraph. Depending on which company supplies your gas the price has increased by up to 98% since 2003. If you get your electricity from British Gas your bill has gone up by 81%. These are the fastest rises since records began.

Here’s what the Telegraph says:

The figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in the year to last month the cost of domestic gas rose by 35.8 per cent, faster than during any of the energy crises of the 1970s and 1980s.

Since June 2003 the cost of gas has gone up by 64 per cent and electricity has risen by 45 per cent. The average price of goods and services went up by 10 per cent over the same period.

The squeeze on household budgets has been tightened by a 16 per cent rise in council tax, a 24 per cent rise in water bills and a jump of nearly 50 per cent in mortgage interest payments.

The Times seems to think that the energy companies might be running something like a cartel:

The most recent profits figures for the six main companies, which also include Eon, Scottish Power, and Scottish and Southern, reveal they made more than £2 billion in six months last year. Average household energy bills are expected to exceed £1,000 this year, compared with £572 in 2003.

According to well-placed industry insiders, the practices used by the big six to rack up profits include keeping domestic bills broadly “in line” with one another, restricting energy supplies to competitors and demanding laborious accreditation and credit requirements for new companies.

Belgium Living in the ivory tower that is chateau Mac Uaid I may have missed the protests and demonstrations organised by the British unions. Maybe Labour government ministers are standing outside post offices bunging envelopes full of £50 notes to pensioners and single parents. I have learned that in Belgium the Federal Government has approved measures that will triple the number of poorer families that will be entitled to financial assistance with their heating oil bills. Around 300,000 families on modest incomes will be entitled to help. This is an increase from the 100 000 who currently receive help. The government decided to act because so many families were struggling to pay their bills. Families with an annual income of between 13,500 and 22,800 euros can claim between 30 and 105 euros to help pay their household heating costs.

The odd thing is that the Heating Oil Fund has been financed by the petroleum industry to the tune of 9 million euros. The Federal Government is now to provide the fund with an extra 30 million euros in public money to pay for the new measures.

No organisation seems to be demanding similar support for people on low incomes in Britain. Combine the rapid inflation in the prices of essential goods and services with the pitiful pay rises that Brown has in store for workers in Britain and you see that New Labour is presiding over a major attack on the standard of living of the working class. Being poor is now a real fast track to being even poorer . From Respect Renewal’s point of view propaganda and organisation on these themes have to be a major part of its message in the coming months. Millions of workers are effectively without an organisation that is capable of making demands and agitating politically over something as basic as the cost of living. Most prominent Labour figures are too preoccupied getting donations from property developers to worry about much else.

At the same time, to quote from the statement on the revamped Socialist Resistance website:

Union activists must ensure serious wage claims and a real fight in the next pay round. They should also being raising the demand for emergency cost of living increases as price rises bite.

There is a real gap in British politics at the moment. It’s roughly the shape of a class struggle party with working class support. That’s the gap that Respect Renewal has to fill because this winter and next winter millions of people are going to have to decide between not eating or freezing. No other organisation that presently exists is able to fill that gap.

6 responses to “Can we learn anything from Belgium?”

  1. So, Liam, Respect Renewal has set itself the task of filling the gap in British politics. You are going to do what the CNWP and SWP cannot: launch a class struggle part with working class support. How many members have you got? The only list that I have come across is the one of RR’s website:

    Linda Smith National Chair
    Salma Yaqoob National Vice-Chair
    Mobeen Azhar
    Ayesha Bajwa
    Victoria Brittain
    Rita Carter
    Ger Francis
    George Galloway MP
    Jerry Hicks
    John Lister
    Ken Loach
    Abdul Khalik
    Abdurahman Jafar
    Abjol Miah
    Bernie Parkes
    Yvonne Ridley
    Clive Searle
    Alan Thornett
    Nick Wrack

    Is that your lot? Or is this merely the tip of an iceberg? How big is the iceberg? when will the key members subject themselves to democratic election? Will that ever happen? Frankly, I very much doubt it.

    Like

  2. Liam is oblivious to why trade union leaders are not mounting effective campaigns. He recognises that the absence of a class-struggle party probably plays some part. Unfortunately, Respect Renewal is a political aboriton. It has no role to play in the setting up of such a party. Leave aside the rotten politics of many of the self-important “key” members. What would make the trade union leaders sit up and take notice? How to make them give a lead to the rank and file? Well, calling for a vote for Livinstone could hardly be more counterproductive. Kevin Ovenden says this is necessary because it is a two horse race. Such defeatist nonsense was brilliantly exposed by Mark Serwotka at Respect’s conference. Liam I believed missed it, because he was otherwise engaged in a spoiling rally, but he can catch it on Respect’s website. As Serwotka pointed out, such pessmism stops John McDonnell and other good socialists supporting candidates standing against New Labour. While the politics of individual Labour candidates have to be looked at when we come to first past the post contests, the London Mayor contest gives the genuine left a chance to make a breakthrough. Not, however, according to Ovenden, Francis, Yaqoob and co.

    Secondly, only by contesting elections that the left cannot win is it possible to establish the momentum from which success is possible down the line. In the meantime, however, exposing New Labour’s left flank in the electoral arena can cause Brown and co to abandon their most reactionary policies. We can also force them to indulge in semi-socialist rhetoric. And that in turn can only create a political climate more favourable to the genuine left. Unfortunately, Respect Renewal are an impediment here. Firstly, by jumping on Kinnockite “Russian Doll” nonsense, there becomes no possibility of any reunification with the SWP, or of forming a class-struggle party alongside the CWI. In other words, Galloway’s supporters have guaranteed that the left of Labour vote splits at least three ways. Unless and until the SWP and the CWI can sort out their differences. When they do come together, Respect Renewal (or whatever they are forced to change their name to) will become a sideshow, if it has not long since disappered.

    Thirdly, since Galloway could no longer win votes inside Respect, he split away. He now insists those he deems a “key” member can stop Respect contesting elections against New labour, the Tories, the Welsh nationalists and… the British National Party! Galloway’s supporters boast about how they want to write New Labour a blank cheque in London, and how they would rather the BNP got elected than Respect. They do so while insisting they remain members of Respect. Thornett will promise his international comrades that he will caucus within Respect Renewal, while promising Galloway that he won’t. Francis, Wrack, Ovenden, Hoveman will caucus like crazy, while promising Galloway that their voting as a bloc is sheer coincidence. Socialist Action will be invited in and will exploit the opportunities to recruit from this anti-SWP opportunist mess while they last, which won’t be long. Thornett’s international comrades will wash their hands of him. Their British section will split, with any half decent members returning to Respect or the Respect/CNWP organisation that will become the long-hoped for class struggle party with support within the working class.

    Like

  3. Fran, bear in mind that the CWI quickly found a pretext to walk out of the Socialist Alliance ten minutes after the SWP joined it. The SWP has been involved now in three attempts at left regroupment and has not been notably successful in any of them. My view is that this is due in large measure to its methodology but that’s a discussion in itself.

    Those of us involved in RR know better than anyone else just how limited are its resources, personnel and implantation. Most of us share the view that it is only the next step on the road to building a new party. It won’t be easy and it won’t be quick.

    If one’s strategic starting point is the need to build a class struggle, mass alternative to Labour then the choices about where one is active are pretty limited. Of the available options RR is the most attractive.

    Like

  4. Does anyone think Fran might be Tom Delargy?

    Like

  5. Sorry for the length!

    Peter Sedgwick
    The SWP Fraud
    (December 1976)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Peter Sedgwick (Leeds District), The SWP Fraud, Socialist Workers Party Bulletin, No.1 February 1977.
    Transcribed by Mike Pearn.
    Marked up byEinde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.

    ——————————————————————————–

    The decision by the CC, endorsed by a Party Council with the most hasty District discussion and in a period without factional rights, to move towards the launching of a ‘Socialist Workers Party’ jointly with the putting forward of 50-60 candidates in a General Election, is a confirmation of the terrible disorientation which has hit the revolutionary left in the current Right-Wing climate.

    To take the question of the candidates first; it is humbug to suggest as the CC does in its resolution, that the number of votes obtained will be irrelevant to the success of failure of the tactic. When we participate under our own party banner in a general election in the bourgeois parliamentary system, we are fighting on the terrain of the enemy and at a time of his choosing. This would be fine if we were strong: but we are, in electoral terms, quite insignificant. On election day all the media will show comparisons constituency by constituency, between the mass electoral support of the Tories, Labour, Liberals, Nationalists, fascists, CP, various freaks and ourselves; we will be on or near the bottom of each list, numbered in hundreds when the bourgeois parties are in thousands. What an advertisement of ourselves for every worker! Better to grit our teeth and admit that this is the class-enemy’s day, one day only.

    Moreover the issues in a General Election in the British system (by-elections are a little different) are always posed in terms of a choice between the major bourgeois parties. The fact that IS has led the anti-fascist battles will mean little to an Asian or West Indian voter faced with the choice of a Tory government and a ‘central register’ of black people or a Labour government with the status quo. Of course the Labour traitors have pushed the question even further to the right; but that is how the choice will be posed temporarily. The SPD in Germany is even worse in its record than Callaghan and Healey on civil rights, but the alternative was between them and Franz-Josef Strauss, who is a semi-Nazi!

    Those of us who have argued since 1970 for an independent electoral strategy for IS now see choices in this direction being made in a vacuum of industrial militancy, with little feedback from the class to guide us. How easy it is in these circumstances to shoot off-course, trusting to the ‘intuition’ which Comrade Cliff has celebrated in the life of Lenin but which is, at its worst, impressionism mingled with emotion. The number of votes an IS candidate obtains will make a fantastic difference to our own perspectives, as well as to our supporters, supposing for example, that Ken Appleby gets 200 votes in Stechford and Tariq Ali gets 500? If we put a large number of candidates in a general-election field, and are shown up as another fringe group, the chances are that elements of the membership will over-react in despondency with their fingers burnt. Look how demoralised the Italian revolutionary left got when they only obtained ½ million votes compared with their previous total. If you want to make propaganda at general election time, you can (i) stand candidates with a chance of an impressive vote (preferably winning, like Bernadette Devlin); (ii) conduct political propaganda in constituencies without standing candidates or (iii) back left candidates on a broader base than IS, but building our own organisation in the campaign. All of these have drawbacks, but not the one of a deliberate, well-publicised, reverse, at enormous expense.

    The case made for the SWP was partly an element in this ‘electoral strategy’. Otherwise there is no particular reason to start an SWP at this moment there is no particular reason, on the other hand, not to start an SWP. Since we cannot, in the present bad political climate, change class reality very much, the conclusion is drawn that we have to perform changes on the name of IS itself, in the delusion that this is some step towards the actual construction of a revolutionary socialist workers’ party. If the CC decided that we should walk around with our bottoms painted bright green, doubtless it would have a electrifying effect on the morale of our membership (for a short time at least). There might even be a case for some such publicity venture; joking apart, we can always do with fresh propaganda on party questions. But what would anyone think of a Party whose Central Committee produced its suggestions for Green Bottoms in a few badly argued paragraphs, circulated, without real District discussion, before a Party Council, got a resounding 99 per cent vote for the proposed face-lift from the Council with virtually no argument on this or the obvious points about the election, and proceed to give us six months to declare ourselves to the world in this new disguise. This is not a party, but a circus. it does not form the basis for a democratic workers party but for a bureaucratic charade, sanctioned by plebiscite without discussion.

    What we are short of, comrades, is not new initials but a new phase of class action. When the struggle rises, will it help that we have made ourselves electorally ridiculous and given ourselves a somewhat more inflated name? One cannot often quote the late Chairman Mao with total approval, but what he did say, in a letter to his wife, was ‘When there is no tiger in the mountain, the monkey if king’. The tiger of working-class struggle has retired, only temporarily, from these mountains of ours, meanwhile, we must recognise this monkeying for what it is worth.

    From being an industrially based combat organisation in 1969-74, we have now moved to the role of a militant propagandist-action group. Most of IS’s main activities – anti-NF, Right To Work, electoral candidates – now fall within a propaganda perspective. This is at once an extension of our work and a forced retreat. It is no use bemoaning this turn – even though many of our industrial contacts have felt, understandably, that propaganda, making its impact primarily outside the workplace, does not assist their present isolated position. We have to work within the propaganda-politics of industrial weakness and social-democratic confusion, until we can wage battle on new fronts.

    However to declare the Party as a propaganda-act, is tantamount to declaring the Fourth (or Twenty-fifth) International. It is a silly fling, which loses us our good name.

    International Socialists are not yet a Socialist Workers Party, and will not get one whit nearer to that position in the working class by some fancy rallying and pseudo-inauguration. Forward with the IS!

    December 26th 1976

    Top of the page

    ——————————————————————————–

    Like

  6. Please delete my above post Liam, if yiu see fit. It was sent to the wrong thread.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending