KitNotes

A mini website set up by Plaid Cymru urges union members to stop funding the Labour Party. The website says:

 Plaid Cymru supports the unions and actively encourage our members to join a union. We also value the good political work that unions do and think that it is important that people support the General Political Funds that many unions use to campaign for better and more equal rights for all workers.

We also believe that union members should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not the Labour party is representing their interests. At the moment many union members do not realise that they are paying money to the Labour party.

Already I can spot problems with Plaid’s claims. Firstly, the only union which I know of that has two political funds is my union, UNISON - a General PF, and an Affiliated PF. No prizes for guessing which one I contribute to, but the existence of two political funds is a historical comprimise between the former unions which make up UNISON - NALGO (whose political fund wasn’t affiliated) and NUPE and COHSE (whose political funds were affiliated).

Nearly every other union which has a political fund only has one political fund. In fact, it’s only UNISON which has more than one.

Secondly, I think nearly every union member is aware of what their political fund does. The Tories introduced a requirement for unions to ballot their members every ten years as to whether they should set up/continue the political fund, so they do have a choice as to whether they have a fund or not. And there has not been a case where union members have voted to give up their political voice through a fund - indeed, more unions are starting political funds. Also, the majority of union members do know if their political fund is affiliated - again, only one union, the RMT, has given money to political parties other than Labour (the Scottish Socialist Party, and I think the Greens and Plaid). Those who do give money to the Labour Party (UNITE, GMB, UNISON amongst others - see the “Unions Together” website for a full list) are also keen to show what they are doing with members’ money, lest they find themselves out of a position.

It’s quite clear what Plaid are trying to do - grab the union cash for themselves. I don’t think I can trust any party that openly considers rainbow alliances with those erstwhile friends of the workers, the Tories and LibDems, and I am sure that there are Plaid AMs, Councillors etc who would be just as axe-happy with spending cuts as their right wing Labour In Name Only counterparts. Plaid does have a socialist left, but anyone who sees this as a reason for Plaid being somewhat more progressive, let alone more socialist, is deluding themselves. Because it’s like that in the Labour Party, too.

But, despite the opportunistic nature of Plaid’s cash grab, it does raise a serious point. From my own experience, there are people in the UNISON-Labour Link (as the APF is known as) who are just as dogmatic and raving in their support of the Link as some of those, like the SWP, who want to see the link severed.

I have a different idea of what the link should be. It’s there, so it should be used. But it should not be used simply to funnel Labour policy into the unions, but rather, the other way around; it is possible the only space left for union members to influence Labour politics and to advance independent working class politics in the Labour Party.

If, as Plaid claims, we should simply stop paying into the Political Funds, then what does that mean for the political voice of the unions, and the workers they represent? Because the pratical implications of such a move is that the unions (under the current law) will be politically straight jacketed. Remember the excellent UNISON ad in defence of the NHS, with the surgeon and the cigar chomping fat cat staring down at the lens over the operating table? That was paid for by the political fund. RMT ads against the East London Line privatisation? Forget them.

If we follow the Plaid/SWP line of not paying into political funds, then any pretense of progressive politics is lost; instead, the unions will end up wallowing in a pit of apolitical syndicalism. And is that any good for anyone?

Further from my post on Nuclear Power, and my erstwhile support for it, I have stumbled across a blog called Left Atomics.

The identities of the blog producers are somewhat hidden; there is a “Left Manifesto for Nuclear Energy” which you can read here. The four founding principles of the manifesto are;

 • [The need to recognise that] The worldwide, social need for nuclear power has changed dramatically since the 1980s.

• As socialists, we need to deal with technological reality as it has developed in the last 30 years.

• We need to reverse our opposition to nuclear power and instead support its development.

• We need to oppose its privatisation and support its nationalization where it is private as part of state-owned, transparently regulated, nationalized energy monopoly for the sake of economically building of power plants and for their safety.

 It’s certainly something I’d sign up to if I knew more about who was organising it (get in touch).

Meanwhile, this article by Martin Thomas on the Workers’ Liberty website seems to echo my position. I’m pleased to find that the irrational blanket anti-nuclear fearmongering so often peddled by socialists and progressives is starting to wain; technology has progressed in the twenty years since Chernobyl and the left needs to recognise the new technological developments in nuclear energy.

It’s one of my new year’s resolutions to be a bit greener. I don’t own a car, but I am going to try to recycle properly (especially as there is a recycling thingy just down the road), cut down on electric consumption – you know, the sort of thing that might have the middle class environmentalist crowd drooling and patting me on the back for. Hopefully I’ll save some dough, too.

As we’ve all suddenly become ecowarriors, there is still one issue that haunts progressives of all stripes: nuclear power.

For the left, it’s an absolute given; nuclear power is evil incarnate, it’s wasteful, it’s harmful to the environment, and nobody wants nuclear armageddon thankyouverymuchifitsallthesame.

But is it? One of the main arguments against nuclear is that it has a record of going wrong. And when nuclear goes wrong, it goes very very wrong. Certainly the latter is true. But the former? I’m not so sure. People remember the discharge of radioactive material into the Irish Sea from Windscale (now Sellafield) in the 1940’s and 1960’s, but surely the numerous oil spills from sinking tankers can’t be that good for the environment? Lots of people died at Chernobyl, but lots of workers also died aboard Piper Alpha in 1988. Not quite the same scale, but all forms of generating energy have risks.

Truth is, every nuclear accident seems to find its roots in cutting corners and money saving – or profit, in other words. Chernobyl happened due to attempts to ramp up production to hit productivity targets – had the technicians not been forced to overload the reactor, it may never have happened. Nine Mile? Lack of health and safety. Windscale and Calder Hall? Over-production. These all – whether state in the case of the former Soviet Union and the UK or private in the case of the USA – are due to bosses trying to make a bigger buck for their bang.

Another main argument against nuclear is; what happens to spent uranium? True, it’s difficult to safely dispose of, especially as it has a half life of hundred of years. But what do you think happens to Carbon Dioxide and Carbon particles chucked out by gas and coal? Even clean coal produces some waste – I remember from my sketchy GCSE physics lessons that every energy-producing reaction causes waste.

I don’t trust capitalism to run nuclear power – but, if the profit motive is removed, then why not? Why is there this – quite frankly irrational – knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power? What other options do we have?

Trust consumer capitalism to scrape the barrell. If there is an opportunity to make money out of it, they will. There’s currently some ho-har over Naomi Klein’s new book on “disaster capitalism”. In Britain, we don’t need natural disasters for money making opportunities; we have asylum seekers for that.

I used to think that perhaps trying to make a quick quid out of some of the most oppressed people in Britain is more impossible than trying to extract the proverbial, but then again, I believe that old friend of public services Sodexho tried to make money out of the rather humiliating (perhaps for all parties concerned; but more so for the asylum seekers themselves) scheme of vouchers for food. Sort of like second-class Luncheon Vouchers.

So, the news that some enterprising Austrian “aviation consultant” called Heinz Berger (yes, his name makes me hungry as well) is to set up an airline specialising in forced removal of asylum seekers, according to the Independent.

Never mind that there have been allegations (Hello, Mr Solicitor!) of “physical and racial abuse” against Mr Burger’s operations, and that airlines like XL refusing to do business with the Home Office and take those pesky asylum seekers home. Apparently, there are a huge number of “aborted” “removals” (didn’t “removals” used to be called “deportations” or something? I can never keep up) because those troublesome asylum seekers are “disruptive”. Well, I’d be bloody “disruptive” if I were to be returned to a place where I might be murdered. Or worse.

Herr Burger promises clients specialist aircraft with restraints and holding cells on board. Has he been watching Con Air too much? These people are not criminals; they have committed no crime, except to seek sanctaury.

If anything, I would hope that this might shut up the racists of the ”swamping brigade” who parrot what racist bile that comes out of the Daily Mail. Surely, if there is a market for a specialist airline which forcibly moves asylum seekers from one place to another back to places where they will be tortured or murdered, then are we really being swamped now? I don’t know.

BBC are reporting that the CWU and Royal Mail have reached an agreement. The deal, details of which haven’t been released, is to be put to a vote of the Union’s postal executive on Monday.

Some CWU reps have been victimised in the wake of the return to work. Reports have come in of victimisation attempts at depots such as Oxford and Reading; both depots have a tradition of militancy. There have also been attempts at victimisation in North London:

>Brief update: some offices in London are out to defend 3 reps who have been summarily dismissed (again!). Negotiations are happening even as I type, with Crozier in >attendance for the first time. If they fail, the whole of London will be out on unofficial strike, and chances are it will spread. Merseyside are also out.

Reports of wildcat strikes - not uncommon on the post (shame it’s not the same everywhere else!) - are also running around on various left wing email lists, and “Mount Pleasant” - the biggest sorting depot in London - keeps getting banded about. Royal Mail felt so threatened, they sought - and won - a legal injunction against the strike.

The posties cannot afford to lose the momentum they have gained. Despite the injunction, they should keep the current momentum and keep the upper hand away from management. Not all that impossible, I should think.

Meanwhile, the current action on the Post should be watched by all local government workers as we face a ballot to overturn the insulting 2% imposed on us by the Supreme Leader Brown. If the posties lose this one, it will make action in the municipalities much harder.