Russia and Georgia - new articles

Two new essential articles are now on the Devon Socialist Party articles website.

Written by our sister organisation in Russia, it concerns Georgia and our analysis of the recent conflict there. Please take the time to visit the site and read the articles.

Making football fairer - one way to help level the playing field

At the moment, the success of a football club is largely determined by its resources. In the Premier League and Football League, this means that clubs without a rich chairman or very large stadium cannot hope to compete at the very highest level. Clubs promoted to the Premiership have the main ambition of staying there rather than actually winning anything.

The top four, who all qualify for the Champions League, is effectively the preserve of the same four clubs every season. The seperation of this top four from the rest of the league has even led to bookmakers offering odds on who will be the ‘best of the rest’ and finish fifth. Everton fans enjoyed winning that particular ‘league’ last season. Outside of the top two divisions, Leagues One and Two seem to be determined by who has received points deductions for financial problems, and how severe those deductions are. Luton’s decent record of a win, a draw and a defeat has translated into -26 points so far. They will need to get the sort of points a play off contender would accrue just to stay in the league.

While there are certain reforms that could redress the balance slightly, nothing short of the replacement of capitalism with socialism could make the Premier and Football League game resemble fairness. At non-league level though, the financial resources are more evenly spread. There are the odd clubs who have a wealthy owner which propels them artificially to success, but this is generally unsustainable and eventually the club either goes bust or sinks to a more ‘natural’ level. Truro fans should enjoy it while it lasts. Generally at non-league level the success of a club rests on using limited resources well. This means clubs rely on the efforts of volunteers, and also on the gate money that they receive. Expenditures that would be insignificant to a Football League club tend to make up a high percentage of outgoings. Travel to away games is a case in point.

For a competition to be fair, certain factors have to be equal. For example, athletes competing in the 100m sprint have to start at the same position and cross the same finishing line. The lanes have to be of the same width. But not all factors have to be equal. The clothes and shoes worn don’t have to be. Nor do the athletes’ training and dietary regimes. It is a subjective judgment what needs to be kept equal for fairness, but it generally involves factors that the actions of the individual or team competing cannot change.

In football things that a club can change (or influence) are the environment (ground etc.), attendances, coaching and management, tactics, style of play and players. Something a club cannot change is its geographical location. Sure, it can move from one part of town to another, but it generally does not move town or county. The obvious exception to this is the MK Dons, the plastic football club which usurped Wimbledon’s place in the Football League. Since AFC Wimbledon is generally recognised to be the same club as the Wimbledon which won the FA Cup in 1988, and MK Dons an ugly American-style franchise the product of an egomaniac and a town that could not be bothered to actually earn a place in the Football League by winning promotions, it can be ignored. Football clubs are rooted in their own particular area, be it a village, suburb, whole town or even district. They cannot be moved out of that particular area, and if they are they can no longer be considered to be that same club, but a newly founded one.

Travel costs are a product of (an unchangeable) geographical location and are far from equal between clubs at the moment. They therefore be considered to be something which would need to be kept roughly the same. Money taken up in paying for travel will likely take money away from other areas of the club, such as player wages or expenses, coaching and ground improvements. They may also necessitate the increasing of admission prices. Travel costs often put clubs off seeking promotion. Bideford AFC, stung by their financial problems in the 1970s largely caused by travel costs when they were in the Southern League, have not sought promotion to a higher level despite success in recent years. Clubs in Cornwall are also reluctant to seek promotion for this same reason. The fact that the only Cornish club to do so in recent years, Truro City, have been bankrolled by a multimillionaire, confirms this.

So, can the burden of travel costs be shared more fairly? A possible solution is outlined below:

1. Mileages between clubs in a league are calculated. The total mileage per season can then be worked out, then divided that by the number of weeks in the season, and then by the number of clubs in the league.

2. Every week, the cost of a mile’s travel will be calculated using the latest fuel prices. This will be necessary to take account of changing fuel prices.

3. Every club whose average mileage per week is less than the average for the entire league will pay a sum into a central pot, administered by the league, equivalent to how much they are below, multiplied by the fuel costs for team travel determined for that week.

4. Every club whose average mileage per week is above the average for the whole league gets paid the difference, multiplied by the fuel costs determined for that week out of the central pot.

The advantages of this scheme are many. An unchangeable and unfair situation which can contribute to the success or failure of a team is taken out the equation. The geographically well positioned team pays the same fuel costs as the geographically isolated team. Teams will be more likely to be promoted because of what happens on the pitch rather than an accident of geography. Another advantage is that the scheme will be easy to administer, only requiring an Excel spreadsheet and a league chequebook. There may be opposition from the teams who are currently at an unfair advantage, but they will have few legitimate arguments about the fairness and simplicity of the scheme.

Socialists seek to transform society in a profound way by removing capitalism, the system which relies on the exploitation of the many to provide riches for the few, producing inequality, authoritarianism, instability and war. We seek to replace that with socialism, based on cooperation and collaboration, equality, liberty and democracy in every aspect of human society. But we also seek to improve things in the here and now. Sport is an essential part of society, and there is nothing wrong with healthy competitiveness, and the rollercoaster of emotions that supporting a football team can bring. It is only right that we seek to make things fairer now, and one small way to do is what I have outlined in this article.

Devon Socialist Party will be sending these proposals to Philip Hiscox, Secretary of the South West Peninsula League, a competition for teams across Devon and Cornwall.

BNP out of Devon!

According to the Express & Echo, the BNP recently held a 'secret meeting' of up to 100 people in Broadclyst, near Exeter. The meeting was organised by one Colin Fribbens, a Parish Councillor who runs a local youth group. The meeting has caused a storm of controversy, with letters flying in to the Echo, mostly from BNP supporters, and local parents removing their kids from the youth group. A couple have also complained to the local authority about being intimidated by BNP canvassers in Broadclyst.

Some of the letters in support of the BNP have been ridiculous, and it seems there are a lot of people being taken in by the BNP's propaganda, accepting it at face value. These people need to be educated as to the nature of the BNP as an organisation, as this is a Party whose leading members nationally have a combined total running to well over 100 convictions for a huge range of offences including gun and knife crime, explosives offences, violent assaults, racist assaults, domestic violence and armed robbery. The BNP is not only a racist and certainly formerly an openly fascist organisation, it is also chock full of thugs, and racist and violent attacks generally increase where there is BNP activity.

One woman- Jane Holmes of Exeter, writes she has "Fear of a terrorist bomb attack" in Exeter, as if the BNP will somehow protect her from this. She seems unaware that the London Nail Bomber, David Copeland, was a member of the BNP and even acted as a Steward at some of their meetings. He carried out a 13 day bombing campaign across London in 1999, the bombs killed three, including a pregnant woman, and injured 129, four of whom lost limbs. No warnings were given. I was in Brixton High Street in 1999 when the bomb there detonated and witnessed the carnage first hand. I have seen the violence at rallies and marches organised by the BNP, and have met the victims of vicious racist attacks conducted by BNP thugs. When asked his motivation for carrying out the bombings against Black & Bengali Communities, Copeland replied "Because I don't like them, I want them out of this country, I'm a national socialist, Nazi, whatever you want to call me, I believe in the master race."

Another woman who attended the meeting, Vicky O'Hara, from Ottery St Mary, says that they are all 'nice people'. She would do well to understand the nature of the organisation she and her husband are getting involved with. The BNP's annual 'Red, White and Blue Festival' has been held at a number of locations, and features performances from skinhead bands and attracts crowds of football hooligans sporting swastika tattoos and giving Nazi salutes. There has been violence associated with every event.

The BNP have sought, in the last decade, to bury these truths about their nature, and to apply a thin veneer of respectability to their activities. They have dropped marches and rallies and abandoned (at least openly) their paramilitary activities. But they are still a Party of hate, and they offer no solutions for the people of Devon. Look at their dismal record where they have been elected to Councils: in Burnley two Councillors were convicted for violent offences and one resigned stating: "I keep asking myself how could I have been so stupid as to have anything to do with them." In Blackburn a Councillor left the BNP after complaining about the drug dealers and football hooligans who dominated his local BNP branch. He also criticised the Burnley BNP councillors as useless. No BNP Councillor has successfully moved a motion to assist local people in any way on any Council on which they are represented, and their attendance records are dismal.

We have to combat the growing number of people in Devon getting conned into believing the BNP's lies and half truths, revealing to them the truth about the Party they are joining, so that they understand what they are getting themselves into. I don't believe most of these individuals clearly understand the nature of the beast, and consider the BNP as a political alternative, as Socialists we have to fight back with ideas, offering a far more clear and appealing alternative for the people of Devon.

Article by SB, a Socialist Party member in Tiverton.

Decontamination threat - averted!

The tide of privatisation and marketisation has been halted in Devon, with the news that Northern Devon Healthcare Trust will not be contracting out it's Sterile Supplies work to private company Decon Sciences. This means that the proposal, which was once supported by 10 trusts in Devon, Dorset and Somerset, is now dead.

The health union UNISON ran an excellent campaign, and gathered support from the public as well as healthcare workers. The idea of a postcard sending campaign to the Chief Executive clearly worked. The clinical risks of the venture were spelt out forcefully, and ultimately worked to force the Trust's hand.

In order to try and force it through, the Government promised £1 million to each Trust if they took part. The growing unpopularity of privatisation meant that even with this giant bribe, the move didn't go ahead. The Trusts must now link together to campaign to get this cash, which is obviously available, to fund overstretched services.

While the proposal has been defeated, it is clear that there is still some uncertainty, and the Trust has said that in the 'middle-term' other options might be explored. They didn't state what the 'middle-term' meant, but it may well be that an attempt will be made again to privatise a service provided by NHS staff. We celebrate this victory, but are aware that there may be more battles to come.

Textual Healing - A Review of 'What's Going On' by Mark Steel

The new book by Mark Steel, the socialist and comedian perhaps best known for his excellent 'Mark Steel Lectures' and occasional appearances on shows such as 'Have I Got News for You' and 'Mock the Week', is written in the engaging, entertaining and light style that made his previous books such a joy to read. The formula of outlining a ridiculous situation and then taking a logical - and humourous - leap is present and obvious as always, though no less effective for that. Humour and analogy are perhaps the best ways we have of outlining the absurdities of many aspects of life under capitalism that people might take for granted or not question.

Where 'What's Going On' really departs from his previous work is in the tone and mood. Even when recounting defeats and setbacks in his earlier books, there was not the mood of melancholy that appears regularly in this one. The reason for this is the subject matter - a midlife crisis involving the breakdown of two of his most important relationships, with his wife and with the party (the Socialist Workers Party or SWP) that he was a member of for nearly 30 years.

The key theme running through is one of change, and not necessarily for the better. His marriage like so many starts off bright, but gradually the problems mount and he ends up sleeping on the settee. He sees the SWP change from the party he perceived it to be to one that has lost its way. He also mulls a lot about changes in Britain, particularly how the need to make a profit out of everything has changed the idea of public service, and how modern working practices turn human beings into a product on a factory line. He recounts the late Linda Smith's description of work in an apple pie factory. The apple pies became known as 'little f*ckers' to one of the workers, no longer an apple pie but simply a product, one that keeps coming along the production line, giving him no respite. Steel compares being served in a cafe or getting through to a call centre to this production line, where the customer is simply a product, and the worker has to work through a checklist of things he or she needs to ask or say. No room for human interaction or initiative.

Running through a thread in the book is the unspoken fear that he may be changing. He seems to live in a middle-class neighbourhood and regularly rubs shoulders with celebrities such as Bob Monkhouse, who bizarrely struck up a friendship with Steel shortly before he died, starting when he praised Steel's book 'Reasons to be Cheerful' (a book charting his experiences as a revolutionary socialist), which he had received as a gift from Jeremy Beadle! It is clear though that politically, Steel hasn't changed much, though his interests and concerns will obviously differ from many workers, as a result of his fame and (relative) wealth, though he does get irritated by the (apparently incorrect) suggestion by right wing controversialist Dr David Starkey that he earns a six-figure sum.

He does outline quite perceptively the subtle mechanisms the British ruling class has to bring people into the system, ostensibly to neuter them. Attending a party to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Independent newspaper, he is surprised to see Gordon Brown, the then chancellor, praise the newspaper to the hilt, despite it being opposed to the Iraq war, which Brown of course financed. There might be cross words, but fundamentally the Establishment is a fairly cosy club. This leads into a discussion of the way, through gossip, charm and positions on meaningless and powerless bodies, the Establishment wins rebels over. The now ex-rebel, once in the system, tries to go deeper and deeper in to try and exercise some power and influence, but ultimately fails. By way of illustration, Steel paints the picture of former left-wing anti-apartheid campaigner Peter Hain on the phone to Labour MPs to persuade them to vote for the renewal of the Trident nuclear missiles.

While his passages on the breakup of his marriage are thoughtful and moving, laced with a bittersweet humour, some of the more revealing passages appear in the later stages of the book, dealing with the break up of Respect and the bad behaviour on both sides of the split, from George Galloway and his supporters and the SWP. Despite now being associated with the Galloway Respect (known as Respect Renewal to many), he has some harsh criticisms of the Bethnal Green and Bow MP, many of which we would agree with. The ludicrous spectacle of Galloway in the Big Brother house loomed large, but even more significant than his unpleasant behaviour on live TV was the fact that none of the leading members of Respect (including SWP big cheese John Rees, who Steel only refers to as 'the National Secretary of Respect') knew about Galloway's entry into the show, or rebuked him after it. He did not behave the way a socialist MP should behave in many ways, and was not held accountable to the democratic structures in the party he was in.

Steel does not mention the fact that Galloway is the third highest earning MP, up there with the likes of William Hague and Ann Widdecombe. The Socialist Party has a policy that all its elected representatives should earn the average wage of the workers they represent. The late Terry Fields MP only took his firefighters wage when he entered parliament. The other Militant MPs did the same, taking only the average wage of a skilled worker in their constituency and donating the rest back to the workers movement. This is critical. How is an MP supposed to properly represent and work in the interests of their working class constituents if they live in the Westminster pay and expenses bubble, and don't know what it's like to have to think about bills and other concerns?

Of course, at the time, the SWP leadership did not say boo to Galloway. Rather than build on a principled, if slower, basis, the SWP were prepared to stay hitched to Galloway because he gave (and gives) Respect a media profile. But Steel also doesn't address the problems inherent in Respect from the beginning, that of being a party that was not a union of workers parties, organisations and campaigns, but a coalition with other groups and individuals outside of the working class. Respect was for a time making claims to be the 'Muslim party'. Now, there's nothing wrong with trying to attract disaffected working class Muslims who may have been radicalised (leftwards) by the 'war on terror'. But Respect was trying to recruit all Muslims, regardless of class. The SWP used to have the slogan during the Cold War, 'neither Washington nor Moscow'. Now they were effectively saying 'both the factory worker and the factory owner'.

With both the factory workers and factory owners, Respect was never a viable proposition for the liberation of the working class. It was a textbook example of a popular front, an organisation containing both workers and bourgeois parties, organisations and individuals. A key cornerstone of Marxism is the independence of the working class and their organisations. If this independence is compromised, by entering into a popular front, defeat is inevitable, as the front gets pulled by the bourgeois elements away from where it needs to go to fight effectively for the working class. This contributed to the defeat of the Spanish Republic to General Franco's fascists in the 1930s. In the 2000s it meant Respect didn't put forward a taxation policy in one election because they didn't want to upset supporters and voters who were businessmen. One council candidate, when asked by a journalist what he thought of trade unions, hesistated and then answered that he thought anything that boosted trade was good. This year, three Left List (the SWP's post-Respect organisation, now called Left Alternative) councillors defected to New Labour. Previously, an SWP councillor elected under the Respect banner defected to the Tories.

The most revealing chapters of the book were the ones dealing with how the SWP precipitated, and disastrously mishandled, the split from the rest of Respect centred around George Galloway. It perhaps wouldn't be right of me to recount all the examples of the behaviour that eventually led Steel to resign his membership, but a few examples highlight where the SWP have been going wrong. I think the most damning comment I can make is that the behaviour of the SWP leadership makes Galloway look innocent and virtuous in comparison.

The split began when Galloway circulated criticisms of the work of high-up SWP people in Respect. He suggested that someone be employed to work alongside the National Secretary, John Rees. The criticisms were constructive and aimed at improving the effectiveness of the party. But the SWP reaction was to go nuclear. Soon they were circulating petitions talking about a 'witchhunt'. One SWP member, to the approval of others in the audience of a meeting held to discuss the 'witchhunt', compared it to the military coup in Chile in 1973, which resulted in the torture and murder of tens of thousands of people, and the installation of a vicious right wing military dictatorship.

Members who criticised the party line on the 'witchhunt' were informed that they couldn't submit articles to the party's newspaper Socialist Worker, because according to party records, they weren't members. This Stalinist tactic of declaring anyone who dissented a 'non-member', is doubly laughable given the SWP's incredibly lax standards when it comes to claiming membership figures. People who have very definitively told the party that they don't want to be a member are included in membership lists, including people who have signed petitions. This reflects the SWP's opportunism in trying to boost membership numbers, either by recruiting people who later don't blink as they join the Tories, or just adding anyone to the rolls who smiled at an SWP member in the Post Office. It also reflects an anti-democratic culture inside the SWP. One SWP member once told me that the Socialist Party is 'too democratic'. What he means by too democratic is that we have vigorous debates over all sorts of issues and then take a democratic vote to determine the party's tactics, strategy and policy. Guilty as charged.

Ultimately, the consequences of the Respect adventure have been disastrous for the SWP. They have lost many members like Mark Steel. Some have joined George Galloway's Respect. Many more will have dropped out altogether, disillusioned. Fortunately, Steel doesn't seem to have given up, despite the dispiriting events in his personal and political life. An excellent, eye-opening and readable book, 'What's Going On' is by a man who has lost the certainties of his younger days, but hasn't lost his hope, despite hope often setting him up for a fall.

Review by JL, a Socialist Party member in North Devon. The views in the article are his alone, and not necessarily those of the Socialist Party.

USDAW Gen Sec Election - Vote Robbie Segal - Fight for a living wage; against partnership; fight for trade union democracy

For too long, some of Britain's lowest paid and most exploited workers, those who work in shops and warehouses, have been in a union (USDAW) led by people that would rather cosy up to Tesco's and fund New Labour than fight for their members. Who would rather collect a fat salary with all the perks than take on the bullying bosses of the supermarkets. Who have worked against union democracy.

The campaigning group 'The USDAW Democrat' is standing Socialist Party member Robbie Segal (pictured) for General Secretary of USDAW. Robbie has been an USDAW Shop Steward for 21 years and is standing against the current General Secretary, who moved the date of the election to try and head off any competition. It didn't work as the popularity of Robbie and the campaign meant she is on the ballot paper.

USDAW members also have the chance to attend a conference for all those who oppose the direction of the union under the current leadership, to be held in London on Saturday 20th September. For more details, please contact Robbie at the email address found on her site. For Socialist Party trade unionists, elections are important, but the campaigning doesn't stop when the results are announced. The fight to transform our unions into effective, democratic voices for workers goes on all year round. If you are an USDAW member, please get in contact with us. If you aren't in a union, join one, organise, and let the fightback begin!

Robbie's campaign platform is:

A Living Wage: I will launch a campaign to fight for a living minimum wage of £8 per hour for all retail workers, from 16 years to retirement age. I will fight to link pensions to earnings.

Yes to National free collective bargaining - No to Partnership: I will re-establish Usdaw as an independent trade union. I will fight to restore our vote on pay and campaign to resist Tesco’s proposed 2% target for absence.

Fight for Union democracy: I will return power to the Union’s elected lay-member Executive Council and ensure proper EC minutes are produced as agreed by ADM.

For a General Secretary on a worker’s wage: I reject the wage and the benefits totalling over £100,000 that John Hannett, the General Secretary, receives and the General Secretary’s Jaguar car. I will take the wage that I earn as a Tesco worker and all necessary
expenses will be open to scrutiny so that any member can check them. The money released will be used to campaign for our members benefit.