Welsh recipe for failure

The right-wing Thatcherite mantra of private wealth and public squalor is writ large in the propaganda coming from all of the mainstream parties. We are told that we now have to pay for the "good times" enjoyed in the 14 years of "prosperity" under Labour. The only difference, but a big one economically, is that the Tories want to grind the people sooner rather than later. Wales has been one of the main victims of the boom-and-bust cycle of capitalism. It has paid a high price for both - horrendous exploitation of its peoples and countryside in boom times and bad housing, health and unemployment in the slumps, which it is still suffering from because of distant and recent history. We need an election manifesto to strike the right note here, urging working people to rise up and fight against attempts to make them pay for the capitalist crisis and demanding that the fat cats must pick up the tab for their own bail-out. Despite the "limited choice" on offer from the main parties, the CPB expresses its "clear and unambiguous preference for the election of a Labour government rather than a Tory one," while pointing out that people cannot rely on elections or parliaments alone to defend their interests. "If they want to protect jobs, wages, services, pensions and their rights at work, they must also take action wherever and whenever necessary," it declares. There is however another dimension that is now in jeopardy, particularly in Wales - devolved democracy.

Its extension would assist working people in the fightback against cuts, but the Tories would undoubtedly curtail the process. Wales, alongside Scotland and Northern Ireland, has secured through devolution greater control over powers that affect the day-to-day lives of people in the nation. Devolved power in areas such as health and education have brought more progressive policies and prevented reactionary ones. All the signs are that the Tories, if elected, would seek to rein in the relatively limited powers that have so far been granted to Wales and would resist the will of the Welsh people - now increasingly evident - to support more powers for the assembly. The latest evidence for this view came as parliamentary business was wound up in advance of the general election. An order that would have granted the Wales Assembly the power to halt the sell-off of council houses in order to maintain and increase the stock of homes available to less well-off members of the populace was voted out by the Tory leadership.

Another indication of the Tories' stance towards democracy in Wales was their attitude to the government's Independently Funded News Consortium project in Wales, a scheme aimed at providing entertainment and information to a Welsh public currently very poorly served by their media. A bid was accepted from a consortium involving Ulster TV and a north Wales newspaper group entitled Wales Live to take over a failing ITV service. Wales Live managing director Michael Wilson said the consortium would provide a "fresh and authoritative news service to the whole of Wales across TV, online and radio with the current ITV Wales news team. "Wales Live will reflect fully the needs of a devolved nation in conjunction with local and community media across both north and south Wales." The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so go the saying goes, but the new TV station in Mold, as well as providing jobs and apprenticeships, should lead to a better-informed public, boost democracy and encourage greater participation in the political process. However even before the bid had been accepted Tory shadow, culture, media and sport secretary Jonathon Hunt warned that if the pilot project went ahead it would not be honoured by an incoming Conservative government.

It seems they would prefer the current failed, hands-off approach to business that allows so-called entrepreneurs dipping in with little scrutiny and no-holds-barred treatment of staff training, wages and conditions. If that's the case then we can expect a downward spiral in content aimed at maximising profits in a dash for diminishing advertising revenues. An informed public will be the last thing on the agenda.

Rage against unemployment

The latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures showed a fall in unemployment from September to November 2009 of 7,000, to 2.46 million. For young people, the drop was more dramatic, down 16,000. The number claiming unemployment benefits also decreased, by 15,200, to 1.61 million. But this does not tell the whole story, as the number of people in full-time employment fell by 113,000 while part-timers increased by 99,000 to reach a record high of 7.71 million. There were 1.03 million employees and self-employed people working part-time because they could not find a full-time job. This is the highest figure since records for this series began," said the report. Also, the number of inactive people of working age increased by 79,000 over the quarter to reach a record high of 8.05 million. Some people choose not to work, but others give up the search for work because of the futility. For example, only one in four 18-24 year olds who stop claiming the dole, stop because they have got a job. But giving up the search for work decreases the unemployment figures, which the government can then selectively trumpet in the run-up to the general election. Also, the statistics are based on a random sample rather than every individual. Therefore, there is room for error; the ONS estimates that its figure on the number of unemployed people could be as much as 82,000 out. So a 7,000 drop for one three-month period does not signify a decisive change. And while there are less than half a million job vacancies for two and a half million jobseekers (plus one million part time workers), that will not change.

The New Year has begun with a stark reminder of the human cost of the bosses' economic crisis: young people are likely to suffer 'permanent psychological scars' as a result of unemployment, according to the newly released Prince's Trust YouGov Youth Index. The report shows that being unemployed affects young people's health, friendships and family life. This is hardly surprising. Unemployment for under-25 year olds means living on Jobseeker's Allowance of just £50.95 per week. On this poverty income young people cannot afford to go for a night out, buy a CD or DVD, let alone think of a holiday. Even something as simple as using the bus becomes a difficult financial decision. It is no wonder that personal relationships suffer and that unemployed youth are 'significantly less happy' than those in work when forced to live in these circumstances.When you factor in the reduced housing benefits that under-25s are entitled to, the reality is that young people are forced into dependence on friends and family. With so many families struggling to get by anyway, it is no wonder that 25% of the young people questioned said that their unemployment had led to arguments with parents and friends.

The overall impact of this according to Professor David Blanchflower is "an unhappy and debilitated generation of young people who...become decreasingly likely to find work in the future".Young people are being asked to put their lives on hold until the bosses' profits are restored and recruitment picks up again. Unemployment is a cruel punishment inflicted on the young for the failure of the free-market system. The fat cats have messed up people's lives by wrecking the economy and making working-class and young people pay for it. The situation facing young people will only get worse as the politicians line up to take the axe to the public sector, doubtless scaling back the already meagre help to the unemployed. Measures to tackle what many experts have called a 'national emergency' have so far been inadequate in every respect. Young people need permanent jobs that are socially useful and pay a living wage. New Labour undertook the biggest intervention in the economy in history when they bailed out the banks. Why can't the government intervene to help the next generation? Why can't it bail out young people? Capitalist politicians will claim the cost is 'too high'. This report shows the cost of doing nothing is far greater.

This crisis isn't our fault

As the winter nights draw in, many people will be worrying about whether they can afford to pay their gas and electricity bills. By the end of this year, an estimated 5.7 million households will be living in fuel poverty – spending more than 10 percent of their income on energy. And a recent report in the Independent newspaper warned that Britain is returning to Victorian levels of poverty, with 20 percent of the population living below the poverty line. With the savage cuts to public services due after the next general election regardless of which party wins, we can expect that figure to jump even higher. Providing decent jobs, homes and healthcare are three basic ways to alleviate poverty – yet none of them appear to be a priority for politicians. Instead we are told that cuts are “necessary” to get us out of the recession. As the BBC puts it, “with a deficit edging towards £200 billion, does any party have any real choices?” The assumption is that “we’re all in it together”, so everyone should pay to bail out the economy, whatever it may cost. But this assumption is seriously flawed.

The economic crisis was not caused by public sector workers, migrants or “excesses” in public spending. Nor was it caused by private sector workers or lone parents claiming benefits. Yet they are all being told they should bear the brunt of the recession. Pay rises are to be capped at 1 percent in the public sector and a million jobs are expected to be lost there – while unemployment continues to rise. The planned cuts will affect the public services we all use every day, from bus routes to school class sizes and hospital waiting times. The benefits system is one of those areas of public spending considered “excessive” and so benefits are set to be slashed. Yet unemployed people only get £64.30 per week, and that’s if they are over 25 – the under 25s receive just £50.95. The government also plans a fraud “crackdown”, saying that £900 million has been lost this year. Yet this number pales in comparison to the £10.5 billion of benefits that people are entitled to but don’t claim.

Migrants are another popular scapegoat for the right wing media. But it is a complete lie to say that they “come over here” to “sponge” our benefits system. Asylum seekers are segregated from others claiming benefits and dealt with by the UK Border Agency, not social services. They receive much less in benefits than other people. A single person aged 18 or over, excluding lone parents, gets just £35.13 a week. Many Eastern European migrants are also deliberately denied access to the benefits system here. Yet 1.5 million British people work in other European Union countries, where they do not face the harsh regulatory system that eastern European migrants do in Britain. And while councils close down nurseries, the government’s “back to work” approach to benefits is placing a double burden on women, who continue to be the primary carers for children. The part-time workforce, where job security and working conditions are worse, is mostly made up of women. Many of us don’t have the “option” of full-time work, but are not recognised as workers if we stay at home. Meanwhile, at the Royal Bank of Scotland – a bank owned by us – top bosses kicked up a fuss and threatened to leave if they were denied their bonuses. And so did many MPs when they were asked to pay back all the dirty cash they pocketed from their expenses. The poor may have debts – but they are symptoms, not the causes, of the crisis.

Health privatisation is truly sick

A damning report into hospitals last week claimed many were so sub-standard that over 5,000 patients had died in their care, despite being admitted with low-risk conditions. But the report, by the Dr Foster quality inspectors, is more than an indictment of the hospitals named as failing. It also calls into question the government’s strategy of privatisation and part-privatisation of the NHS. Four out of 12 hospitals deemed to be failing to meet basic standards of patient care are “flagship” NHS foundation trusts; under a scheme brought in by New Labour in 2002, bosses at these trusts are exempted from many normal health service rules, and are free to run their hospitals like independent businesses. Foundation trust status was supposed to be a reward for those hospitals that were deemed to be providing “excellent” patient care and financial management.

The report also deals a blow to the government’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) watchdog, set up this year to take over the monitoring of hospitals - the commission was supposed to be a new broom after the scandal of excess deaths at South Staffordshire NHS trust. This revealed that “self-regulation” of hospitals by their own managers had failed to identify even the most basic failings. Despite this, the majority of hospitals deemed by the Dr Foster organisation to be the “worst 12” were praised by the CQC in its annual health check last month. Among those rated “good” was Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. This manages a hospital that was condemned by Dr Foster inspectors who found “blood-spattered” walls and filthy conditions.

Accident and emergency units at a number of London hospitals are again under threat as the government plans to “rationalise” services. The department of health is rehashing plans to replace emergency services at four London hospitals with services provided by semi-privatised polyclinics. The scheme would involve downgrading the King George’s hospital in Essex, the North Middlesex hospital in Edmonton, and Whittington hospital in Archway. It has already been decided that Chase Farm hospital in Enfield will lose its emergency and maternity units. A huge public outcry greeted similar plans three years ago. Marches, many several thousand strong, forced the government to retreat. Ministers said that in future they would consult more fully. Local Keep Our NHS Public groups must be reformed and rejuvenated in order to force the government to backtrack on these proposals.

Privatisation is sick, not the NHS

THE LATEST report on safety standards in our hospitals lays bare some shocking examples of safety failures in some NHS hospital trusts. The Hospital Guide, compiled by a joint private/public body known as "Dr Foster", highlights 12 trusts that underperform on patient safety measures. The report highlights foreign bodies being left in patients after surgery, operating on the wrong body part and 5,024 patients with low risk conditions dying in hospital. Predictably the media headlines blame the national health service, trying to weaken support for the NHS and its hard working staff. But these problems are mainly caused by the privatisation and cuts to our NHS that New Labour has instigated. Many of the hospitals in deepest crisis were Foundation Trusts, initiated by Labour Health secretary Alan Milburn in 2002.The criteria for hospitals to become Foundation trusts included getting their finances in order and meeting targets, regardless of the consequences.



Foundation hospitals represent a further move towards privatisation as they have more financial autonomy than other hospitals (though patient care is not always a priority).They are supposed to involve the local community but the real decisions are made at the top. Before privatisation and PFI there was at least some local accountability for health services through the community health councils. We now need local health services that are run and planned by democratic committees with representatives of NHS workers and the local community. One big incentive for hospital chiefs to obtain foundation status is to secure a fat pay rise. The salary of the chief executive of Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre NHS Trust rose 32% from £125,000 to £165,000 on gaining foundation status. The Royal College of Surgeons' President explained that: "Too many hospitals are too concerned with meeting financial targets at the expense of clinical standards, and we are seeing patients suffering as a consequence."

Unison (the largest trade union in the health service) calls for Basildon and Thurrock Foundation Hospital to be taken back under NHS control, and calls for a public enquiry into patient care at the hospital.They explain that the hospital's privatised cleaning contract has been inadequate for many years with too few cleaners and not enough training. This is the direct consequence of private companies inside our hospitals ensuring fat profits at the expense of patient care and of staff wages and conditions. Public money fills the pockets of companies who make huge profits from building hospitals under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). As interest rates for private borrowers are rising, it now costs £6.3 million more to finance a £100 million deal than it did two years ago. And it costs £23 million more to fund such a deal through PFI than using money borrowed from the government. In consequence, less money is available for patient care. While supporting Unison's demands on bringing hospitals back into NHS control, the health unions should also call for an end to all privatisation and cuts in the NHS. And they should stop paying huge amounts of their members' money to the Labour Party who are responsible for the cuts and privatisation of our health service.