AGS Answers Sham Democracy Shargh of Iran Whistleblower Wins

Green
Socialist
AGS
Alliance for Green Socialism
Elections 2015
Issue No 71
ISSN 1741-5497
Spring 2015
£1.00
Journal of the Alliance for Green Socialism
www.greensocialist.org.uk
AGS Answers
Sham Democracy
Shargh of Iran
Whistleblower Wins
Green Socialist
is published by the
Alliance for Green Socialism
Editor: John Sillett
Guest Editor for this issue: Mike Davies
Editorial correspondence to:
The Editor, Green Socialist,
NEA 5794, Leeds LS7 3YY
email: [email protected]
www.greensocialist.org.uk/
.
The AGS is a political alliance seeking to build a future based on the twin
principles of socialism and environmental sustainability - we see these two things
as being inextricably linked, each being impossible without the other.
If you share our concerns and our principles, if you care about the survival of our
civilization on this planet and about social justice for all who live on it, then why
not join us? Membership details are on page 10.
Issue No 71 - Spring 2015
Election Special
In this issue:
Editorial
3
Whistleblower Wins
books: Tribal
Next Issue
Peoples
Pete Relph
4
Marks
5
Shargh of Iran:
election interview
Nozhan
Etesadosaltaneh
6
Sham Democracy
Mike Davies
8
Juliet Boddington
10
Being a Candidate
review: Laurel
Join Us
AGS Answers to
Voters’ Questions
The next issue of Green Socialist, no 72,
will focus on foreign policy, foreign trade
and foreign news.
British foreign policy seems to lean more
and more towards “lob in a few bombs”
whenever the USA says so.
Two big prospective EU trade agreements
- the Transatlantic Trade & Investment
Partnership with the USA and the
Comprehensive Economic & Trade
Agreement with Canada will make
democracy subservient to transnationals.
Countries the world over face similar
struggles to those we face.
If there are issues or stories you would like
to see covered, please tell the editor.
10
AGS Candidates
11
Articles in this journal do not necessarily reflect the policy of the Alliance for Green Socialism unless specifically stated.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 2
Editorial
May 7th
The general election is on Thursday 7 May - in
case you hadn’t noticed.
There is a lot of media coverage: newspapers, TV,
radio. But that coverage is rather like that of the
cup final or the Eurovision song contest. Most of it
is about the thrill of the contest, as though this
were a gladiator fight rather than a decision on
how Britain is governed.
In keeping with the gladiator analogy, there is a
focus on individuals, who is “strong” or “weak”.
A big chunk of the “news” is about the leaders and
their personalities. The issues, which surely ought
to come first, are trivialised or left out entirely.
A good example is the coverage of the NHS.
It is absolutely clear that the one really big question
on the NHS is whether it is to be privatised. Is that
question covered? Hardly at all. Instead we get a
sequence of items about funding commitments for
different initiatives, which are anyway presented in
such a way as to prevent sensible comparison.
Ignoring the NHS privatisation issue also enables
the media to cover up the stunning extent to which
Labour are complicit in the Tory plan for privatisation. It was Labour that tied the massive albatross
of PFI around the neck of the NHS. It was Labour
that forced hospitals to outsource (ie privatise)
operations when there was no need. Most important, it was Labour that “marketised” the NHS,
breaking it up into pieces that “traded” with each
other, to prepare it for full privatisation. This
despite a manifesto promise to do the opposite.
More broadly, the fundamental issues facing the
country are capitalism and whether it is viable; and
the environmental crisis. These manifest themselves immediately as austerity (moving money
from the poor to the rich) and global warming (are
we going to do anything to save our civilisation?).
There is no real discussion of these matters
in the election campaigns of the major parties.
Indeed, Labour is signed up to ConDem
austerity, while none of the three have any
serious policies to stop climate change.
Mike Davies
Vote ?
For any individual, the answer to the whether to
vote or not is simple. If you don’t vote, you are
passively accepting what you get. You forfeit
any moral right to criticise anything the next
government does: cuts, climate change, war, oil, ...
Stand ?
For a political organisation like the AGS, the
question of whether to stand candidates is not
much more complex. A “political” organisation that
fails to put its position to electors is simply not
serious about its politics. The situation described
above and the rigged electoral system don’t
alter that.
More practically, the election campaign gives huge
opportunities for making AGS policies known and
getting them discussed.
As one candidate, I have received over 600 emails
on topics like the NHS, tax and Palestine. This has
not only enabled me to provide an AGS view in
reply but also to send a copy of our manifesto.
That kind of opportunity does not come up often!
As well as emails and sending out the manifesto to
media and relevant organisations, AGS members
have delivered leaflets to tens of thousands of
homes; and Royal Mail will be delivering tens of
thousands more. There have been informal
discussions on the doorstep and a diverse series
of hustings meetings are in progress.
As a part of the political activity of the AGS,
standing in elections is important.
You may perhaps ask what you should do if there
is no AGS candidate in your constituency.
The very simple answer is that you should stand
yourself as an AGS candidate, or get someone
else to stand and campaign for them.
Don’t think you are not “good enough” to stand for
council or parliament. You’d be a better MP than
most of the corrupt rubbish we’ve got now!
The only parties addressing real issues are electorally minor. The AGS manifesto and election
addresses highlight these genuinely big issues.
The so-called Green Party concentrates on the
environment while largely ignoring capitalism.
Left parties like TUSC focus solely on capitalism,
totally ignoring the environmental crisis.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 3
Whistleblower Victory at Tribunal
by Pete Relph
Charlotte Monroe Is a recipient of the Alliance for
Green Socialism “Whistle-blower Award”.
She made trade union history when she was totally
cleared of the so-called charges brought against her
by her employers – Barts NHS Trust. It was an outrageous attempt to rid themselves of a sincere and
honest trade union representative at Whipps Cross
Hospital, part of the Barts group which is in serious
financial and other troubles. This hospital serves a
heavily populated catchment area covering large
swathes of North East London and South West
Essex. Charlotte who was sacked for her good
works, described as whistleblowing (a crime in their
eyes) has now been recognised for her worth and
reinstated in her employment by the new, ‘caretaker’
Trust governance.
Charlotte Monroe has worked for the NHS for 26
years and had an impeccable record. Charlotte for
‘her sins’ once received the ‘Employee of the Year
Award’ from her employers. Her apparent ‘guilt’
before fair trial was that she ‘whistleblowed’. As a
trade unionist representing health staff, she made
public the impending cuts planned by the Trust to
the rank and file – workers and patients, factually
and accountably.
The appointed (by whom? – not democratically
elected) leaders of the Trust were furious that this
upstart dared to raise her head above the parapet
and state loud and clear the Trust’s Machiavellian
intentions to cut staff jobs etc. Charlotte also drew
attention to the massive debt due to a scandalous
PFI contract at London Hospital which is now shared
by all this Trust’s hospitals at the cost of £2,000,000
a week - £100,000,000 per year paid directly from
the overall health budget before a single penny is
spent on actual health services. This Con-Dem
Government and the New Labour predecessors
consider this to be the priority.
Charlotte is a fighter and did not succumb. Her
union, UNISON, backed her with a supportive legal
team and she gained wide-spread support from her
colleagues and the local community in the hospital’s
catchment area. Organisations like ‘Keep Our
Health Service Public’, especially active in Waltham
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 4
Forest; ‘Redbridge Trade Council’ and others in
that borough along with ‘Epping Forest Green and
Democratic Left’ (an affiliate of Alliance for Green
Socialism) backed her without hesitation. Media
coverage e.g. by the West Essex Guardian and
the Morning Star has been generally objective
and supportive.
When Charlotte spoke at an AGS public meeting
in Loughton she demonstrated her worth and her
tenacity. We applauded her and presented her with
a token award – a Whistleblower’s mug, hope she
enjoys drinking tea from it ha! and a book recently
published by EDG&DL secretary, Pete Relph, hope
she enjoyed the read if she found time to.
So, what now? Prior to the announcement that
cleared Charlotte at the tribunal, a swathe of
management has seen fit to rapidly resign like rats
quitting the sinking ship. They included: Sir Stephen
O’Brien, Chair of Barts Trust; Chief Executive Peter
Morrison; Chief Nurse Professor Kay Riley; and
Finance Director Mark Ogden. Believed, they have
received very generous monetary sums but, the
details of their salaries, expenses and resignation
packages are deemed confidential. In their words,
‘sensitive personal data’. No doubt exceedingly
sensitive. Previous leaving packages for trust managers have been between £100,000 and £200,000
per person. All paid out of our NHS budget. The
Tribunal cost an arm and a leg too– who’ll pay?
Now for the Good News. Barts Trust now praises
her as ‘an energetic campaigner on patient care
issues’ and further states she will be able to assist
in ensuring the future of Whipps Cross Hospital’s.
What we really now need is a democratic revolution
and genuine democratic governance of this hospital
co-operating with the community it serves. And, the
strangulating PFI debt must be annulled and should
be the responsibility of those who initiated it in the
first place. Required: a Public Inquiry to properly
investigate the present parlous state of the NHS post
haste after the General Election on May 7th. Action
is Required! Not mere Words!
BOOK REVIEW - Tribal Peoples for Tomorrow's World
“Tribal Peoples for Tomorrow’s World”
by Stephen Corry
Freeman Press 2011
ISBN: 9781447424130
Review by Laurel Marks
This book is a guide to tribal people aimed at
a general readership. The author is director of
Survival International -an independent, not-forprofit organization that fights for the rights of tribal
people across the world. The book explores what
is meant by the terms “tribal”, “indigenous” ,“race”
and the very complex and controversial ways these
terms are used. It asks “who are tribal people?”,
“how are they different from us?”, “what has
culture got to do with it?”.
“Tribal Peoples for Tomorrow’s World” is of especial
importance, I believe, not
only because it informs us
about tribal people today but
because Corry also challenges
our typical Western prejudices about tribal people
being “backward”,
“primitive” and “living in the
stone age”. He stresses that
the way tribal peoples live is
a matter of choice -they
choose to remain selfsufficient , having minimal
material goods and dependent
on the land for food, clothing
and housing. What makes
tribal people poor is the loss
of their land and its resources
to “powerful, profit driven
markets“ ie oil, mining and
logging companies , palm oil plantations, tourist
“safari parks” and so on.
The author points out that “Of all the various lifestyles on the planet today, the majority are different
to the dominant industrialized society….The many
different lifestyles ...should be a clear challenge to
those who think that it is not only desirable for
everyone to live like industrialized Westerners, but
that everyone wants to. The truth is simply that not
all do.” This really challenges Western peoples’
assumptions about being the default society .
Corry’s book is quietly and, for me refreshingly,
iconoclastic, not only in challenging cherished
notions of Western society as the pinnacle of
human “progress” but also in upturning some of
our foundational beliefs, our origin stories. One
such is the idea that once upon a time all peoples
were hunters and gatherers until agriculture was
developed in the Middle East and that this
led directly to “civilisation”.
Corry comments “Such a simplistic rendition of
human experience is integral to the notion that
tribal hunters are “backward”. In reality, it is the
idea itself which is out of date: it is simply wrong
and in need of urgent demolition.”
He explains that early communities varied widely from primarily
hunting to settled crop-growing
and that many had a mixed economy of hunting , gathering, herding and plant cultivation with the
emphasis sometimes varying with
the seasons. This flexibility is
realistic and pragmatic and
applies to tribal people today.
The book gives brief intro’s to
tribal peoples in different areas
of the world. It explores tribal/
national government relations,
development, missionaries, law
and order, family, religion, racist
caricaturing and other contemporary problems that tribal people
face today. I particularly found
interesting the description of
different tribal political models
from kingship to true leaderless
egalitarianism .
“Tribal Peoples for Tomorrow’s World” is a
very accessible, carefully considered, thoughtprovoking and enlightening read that, to some
degree, holds a mirror up to ourselves in
Western society.
Last words from David Courchene, a Manitoba
leader from Canada;
“Our culture is creative. We are developing a
twenty-first century culture. And it is and will be
an Indian culture.”
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 5
Nozhan Etesadosaltaneh interviews Mike Davies
for Shargh Newspaper of Iran
1-What is your prediction about the result of
Britain’s election ?
Conservative
Labour
SNP
LibDem
DUP
Sinn Fein
UKIP
Plaid Cymru
SDLP
Green Party
Others
Alliance
Respect
280
280
40
18
8
5
5
4
1
3
5
0
0
(302)
(256)
(6)
(56)
(8)
(5)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(6)
(1)
(1)
7-Do you think a repeat of Syriza’s success in Greece
will be possible in Britain ?
No. Britain is very different from Greece.
2-Observers talk about the possibility of the end of
the two–party system in Britain after this election.
What do you think about this issue ?
The two main parties will remain dominant but may
need coalition partners.
Actually, of course, Britain does not have a two-party
system anyway. It has a one party (capitalist) system,
although that one party traditionally runs under different names: Conservative, Labour and LibDem.
3-What is the main problem of Britain today ?
Capitalism - and its consequent exploitation, inequality
and failure to address the environmental crisis.
4-What do you think about the performance of
Cameron and liberal and conservative acts in recent
years ?
Acts. Exactly. Theatre.
5-In past months, we have seen the rise of an
“independence” party in Britain with increased
popularity, and the rise of “national front” in
France, too. What is the main reason, and what do
you think about this? Do you think the threat of the
re-rise of fascist movements in Europe in serious ?
In Britain and elsewhere, the main reason is the
complete failure of the Conservative-Labour-LibDem
(or equivalent) establishment to offer any alternative to
capitalism. The threat of fascism may be real; but
primarily it is just a tool of the capitalist establishment.
6-Left parties in Britain always defend multiculturalism. However, we see the increase of travel of jihadists from London to Syria and Iraq. Don’t you
think multiculturalism is a failed project and the
non-integration of migrants in mainstream society is
the consequence of that ?
I assume that by "multiculturalism" you mean the development of societies with people from a number of
different ethnic, geographical, cultural and religious
backgrounds. In that case, no, I don’t think this is a
failed project. Anyway, it has been happening for
thousands of years so we may as well get used to it.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
If by "multiculturalism" you mean the deliberate separation of more recent citizens into "communities" which
are supposedly monolithic and typically get funds via
"community elders", then I agree that is the wrong
approach.
In any case, the rise of religious extremism and the
flow of jihadists is a consequence of many decades of
western imperialism ruining many of the countries of
the Middle East. People have turned to religion (eg
Hamas) as other forms of resistance to imperialism
and neo-imperialism (eg the PLO) have failed them.
page 6
8-The New Left believes that the working class
has become integrated in the capitalism system
and that left forces should concentrate on women
and students movements. What do you think about
this argument ?
I disagree. Socialists must address all of these
(overlapping) interest groups.
9-Britain has many left parties but the parties are
not revolutionary ? Don’t you think the left movement in Britain is affected by the conservative c
culture of Britain ?
Yes. The left in Britain is both short-sighted and ineffective. I personally know members of the "Socialist
Workers Party" (regarded as extreme left) who intend
to vote Labour "to keep the Tories out" - an unbelievable lack
of political understanding.
10-What do you think about the welfare model
of Scandinavian countries ? We see the best
status in human indices belongs to Sweden and
Norway. Don’t you think the main reason for
the current problem in Europe is disregard of
social democracy ?
It is true that social democracy is now very weak in
Europe, because the social democratic parties
(Labour, Socialists) have become simply capitalist.
However, social democracy is an inherently weak and
unstable policy with no ideological base. It is essentially “nice” capitalism and inevitably degrades into “not
so nice” capitalism.
11A-You are the main critics of liberal democracy
but you can have your party in Britain and participate freely. Don’t you think this a positive aspect
of liberal democracy ?
Liberal Democracy allows parties like the Alliance for
Green Socialism to exist only as long as they are not
successful. The state is continually increasing its powers of repression. Of course, it does not yet need to
use those powers. The difference is not that Britain is
“free” compared to, say, Panama, but that British capitalism is more subtle than Panamanian capitalism and
controls, for the moment, without much violence.
11B-Don’t you think the capitalism has positive aspects too, for example progress in technology and
medicine ?
Of course capitalism has positive aspects, but these
decrease by the day. Capitalism does not develop the
technology needed by society but technology from
which it can make profits. This includes a lot of things
that are harmful to their consumers and harmful to the
world. In medicine this is especially clear. Development of an Ebola vaccine did not go ahead because
the drug companies could not make enough money
from it - mostly only poor people catch Ebola. On the
other hand vast amounts are spent on research into
male baldness! And into obesity, caused by capitalism.
12-Critics of radical left arguments say the left don’t
have an efficient alternative to capitalism; and that
leftists are utopian and don’t pay regard to realities.
What is your opinion about this ?
600,000 people using food banks is real enough.
People evicted from their houses for having an extra
room is real enough. Zero hours contract are real
enough. Food riots in Cairo are real enough. The
Alliance for Green Socialism tries to put forward policies that will help now, but also to provide a coherent
way forward to a better society. Is trying to achieve a
better society utopian?
17-Your parties and far-left parties always talk
about the negative aspects of the US. Do you want
Britain to be a partner of Russia ? Don’t you think
US, in many aspects including democracy and
human rights, is much better than North Korea,
Cuba and China ?
Again, the countries you quote are very selective. If I
had to live in Latin America, I would far sooner live in
Cuba than anywhere else. Cuba is far from perfect, but
far better than the capitalist countries of Latin America!
For example, its life-expectancy matches the USA and
Britain. I know the USA very well. My daughter lives
there. It is deeply corrupt, racist (yet another black man
shot dead by police last week), vicious to its poor, and
its health "system" is terrible. It is on the wrong path.
18-Your party is against the nuclear establishment.
We see the success of left parties about this issue in
Germany. What about Britain ?
We oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
The government wants to give money to its friends,
keep central control of energy supply, and help the US
politically by keeping nuclear weapons.
13-You oppose the EU. The far right parties oppose
it, too. What is your difference with the far-right’s
approach ? Don’t you think your approach would
isolate Britain ?
It is not accurate to say that the Alliance for Green
Socialism "opposes the EU". Our assessment is that
the EU, as it is now, is undemocratic and pro-capitalist.
Our policy is that no further powers should be given to
the EU unless it becomes genuinely democratic.
14-You are against the constitutional monarchy
system but you can freely express your ideas and
establish a political party. However, in Cuba or
the USSR liberals could not expression their views
and were arrested and killed. Don’t you think the
European constitutional monarchy is better than
the middle east or former east block republics ?
You quote countries very selectively. People are killed
for their political views in many right wing countries.
Latin America, dominated for years by the USA, has
been a classic example.
Constitutional monarchy is not the worst system in the
world. It is a useful system for capitalism, while capitalism is able to control without violence. As I said above,
capitalism will not hesitate to use extreme violence if
that becomes necessary for it to maintain control.
15-Why not join the Labour Party ? What is your
party’s difference with Labour ? They can have
an effect on the power structure but you can not.
The Labour Party is deeply capitalist. Your last point
above is irrelevant: Labour could (if it wanted) change
the power structure. But it does not want to do so. As
well ask why we do not join the Conservatives.
16-Why doesn’t your party get the chance to have
seats in EU and Britain parliaments ?
Two reasons: (a) The capitalist hegemony over our
society is very strong. (b) The "first past the post" voting system in Britain makes it difficult for a small party.
19-What is your opinion on privatization in Britain ?
In the middle east countries some economic experts
say privatization is necessary for economic developments. What is your opinion ?
Privatisation always puts taxpayers money into shareholders pockets. It always exploits workers to increase
its profits. It always provides a worse service.
20-Most left parties in Britain, for example the
socialist worker party, have good relations with
Muslim communities because of their “antiimperialistic” rhetoric. However, the left have differences with Muslims about social issues, for example
women issues ? What do you think about this and
what is your approach about Muslim migrants ?
The SWP (and some other left parties) do whatever
their Muslim adherents or allies tell them.
Our approach to Muslim immigrants is the same as our
approach to everyone else. We oppose discrimination.
We also oppose any cultural, religious or traditional
practice that harms people's human rights.
21-We confront increased air pollution and global
warming, but why can the left and greens parties not
get many votes in European countries? Surely they
should participate in coalitions ?
The Alliance for Green Socialism has been working
over a decade to form coalitions with other left and
green groups. However, it is not easy. Most left groups
do not care about the environmental crisis and ignore it
in their material. On the other hand, the sectarian
Green Party will not even talk to other groups.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 7
Sham democracy - near the end?
Mike Davies
The last meeting in 2014 of Leeds Alliance
for Green Socialism discussed the apparent
fragmentation of the British political party system.
We were puzzled.
TWO-PARTY THEATRE
The British “two and a bit” party system has served
the ruling class well. For decades it has provided
the appearance of democracy, the appearance of
choice, while actually offering no choice at all.
Tory governments explicitly serve the ruling class –
those with wealth and power. Labour governments
actually do just the same, while offering the pretence of difference. Labour provides an essential
safety valve for ordinary people opposed to Tory
attacks. The classic example was the election
that ended the Thatcher era and brought in Blair.
People thought they were voting against Tory
policies, but just got the continuation of those
policies by Labour. As for the Lib Dems? Well,
what can you say?
Westminster provides the theatre to distract people
from the real political process of the exercise of
ruling class power.
The civil service – Whitehall – traditionally provides
a second, precautionary layer of right wing control.
Even were a “political leader” to run amok and
actually attempt to make policy independently of
the ruling class, Whitehall would simply prevent
the implementation of any such policy.
Yet what seems to happening at the moment, on
the stage of this pretend electoral politics, is a
significant change to this established theatrical
arrangement. One indication is the rise of UKIP
that looks to destabilise the Tory party. It may
lead to coalition government becoming the norm.
A second is the sudden lurch towards a rag-bag of
inconsistent “devolution” initiatives, ranging from
giving Scotland half-control over income tax to the
half-baked, undefined transfer of some powers to
Greater Manchester and other arbitrarily defined
and arbitrarily chosen areas.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 8
MEDIA BACKING FOR UKIP
UKIP’s meteoric rise is clearly endorsed by the
ruling class. UKIP has had a stunning degree of
media coverage and support, and we all know who
controls the media. Why would the ruling class
want to change radically a two-party arrangement
that has served them so well and seems set to
continue to do so?
One hypothesis is division within the ruling class
over Europe. This is, of course, in line with the
supposed basis of UKIP. This hypothesis has two
big weaknesses. Firstly, the ruling class normally
sorts out such issues within its own circle, not in
the theatre of pretend politics. Secondly, although
it is true that there do exist capitalists and big
companies who want to leave Europe, the overwhelmingly majority of British capitalists favour –
or even rely on – remaining in the EU. There is
certainly not a consensus view among the ruling
class in favour of leaving the EU.
A second hypothesis is that pushing UKIP is a
response to the general disillusionment with
politics – that is, with the pretend politics of the
Westminster theatre. This is a little more credible.
Certainly most people are deeply suspicious of
“politicians”. Of course, such disillusionment is
an inevitable consequence of the division between
real politics (principally the taking of decisions by
the ruling class) and the pretend politics of Westminster (presented by the media as though it were
real). As people find that, no matter how they vote,
nothing changes, they are bound to question the
theatre with which they are presented. Perhaps
the UKIP phenomenon is an attempt by the ruling
class to defuse anger at this con-trick,; or at least
an attempt at least to divert it into right wing
populism rather than genuine left wing opposition.
But why should the ruling class suddenly become
worried by a disillusionment they have positively
fostered for decades? Surely, the more people
who write off politics as a waste of time, the better
for the ruling class.
DEVOLUTION MESS
Turning to the “devolution” question, the ruling
class seems set to throw the whole British constitutional settlement up in the air. This applies not
merely to Scotland after the referendum. It applies
not merely to the four nations of Scotland, Wales,
Northern Ireland and England itself, with proposals
like preventing Scottish MPs voting on “English”
matters. Suddenly, there are also proposals – or
even facts on the ground before any proposals
have even been discussed – for arbitrary
“devolution” of arbitrary powers to undefined
chunks of England. England has had a bizarrely
inconsistent set of local government arrangements
ever since the last Tory reorganisation, but these
latest moves are of huge significance. Again,
the question is why would the ruling class want
to change radically, at so many levels, in such
complicated ways, a constitutional arrangement
that has served them so well? Why create such
a ghastly constitutional mess?
The harder it is to hold anyone to account, the
easier it is to have them do the will of those
wielding real power with no questions asked.
We can probably disregard the suggestion that it is
for Tory political advantage. Why should the ruling
class care whether we have a Tory government or
a Labour government, given that both will do its
bidding with equal readiness?
The ruling class has shown that it is not willing to
take the steps necessary to avert this catastrophe.
Indeed, a capitalist ruling class is unable to do so
because such action would undermine the whole
basis of capitalism. But the ruling class is not so
stupid as to fail to see what is coming. They will
not act to stop the environmental disaster, but they
do want to arrange things so that they, as far as
possible, are insulated from the consequences.
A more likely hypothesis is that the ruling class
sees an advantage in blurring as much as possible
any remaining political accountability. It is already
true that most people have little idea what level of
government is responsible for what services and
decisions, let alone who determines the funding
for such. Discussions on the doorstep show
that, even now, most people do not know who is
responsible for roads, hospitals, business rates,
social services, police or the fire service. You
name it, accountability for it is blurred.
If the British parliament
becomes some kind of
hybrid between English
and British, and some
(but not other) local
English areas have
significant devolution
(including some tax
powers), no-one will
have the faintest idea who is responsible for what.
Politicians in the electoral theatre are already
largely unaccountable. After the changes envisaged, you will need a PhD to work out who
controls whatever you are concerned about, let
alone to try to hold them to account.
Of course, this is not to condemn devolution as
such. Clearly defined, rational devolution of power
to a more local level is a good idea. But ill-defined
schemes to devolve here but not there, this but not
that, simply create a cloak to hide behind, instead
of the transparency and accountability we deserve.
That, of course, suits the ruling class just fine.
A SEA CHANGE?
A possible hypothesis is that both the promotion
of UKIP to destabilise the existing pretend parties
and the creation of a constitutional mish-mash are
motivated by a ruling class assessment that the
comparatively stable political and economic
conditions of the past are coming to an end.
The AGS is based on the idea that ecological
and social issues are inextricably linked. Clearly
climate change has the capacity to destroy our
society. The consequences even of “success” in
limiting temperature rises to 2 degrees centigrade
will be floods, droughts, mass species extinction,
wars for water and for agricultural land, and the
creation of tens of millions of refugees. And we
are certainly not looking at “success”, but at global
temperature rises of at least four or five degrees.
Perhaps these quite dramatic political changes
are aimed at removing the remaining safeguards
against arbitrary government and creating a state
much more directly controlled by the ruling class.
Coalition governments are entirely unaccountable,
even concerning their own manifesto pledges.
Incomprehensible arrangements for local/regional/
national government mean unaccountable local/
regional/national government. Effectively both
changes move us much closer to an unqualified
ruling class dictatorship.
Such a strategy would be a big departure from
that of the last few decades. Indeed, it would
arguably be a departure from the strategy of
accommodation with democracy pursued since
the 1848 “year of revolution”. It would suggest that
the ruling class recognises the dire consequences
of climate change and economic collapse and is
hugely concerned to ensure that ordinary people
have to bear these consequences, not them.
It may be that the ruling class no longer believes
the current arrangement of sham two-party
democracy and a more-or-less comprehensible
structure will suffice to achieve this in the future.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 9
Being a Parliamentary Candidate
by Juliet Boddington
The editorial in this issue urges members to stand in elections to provide a genuine alternative to the
major capitalist parties. How hard is this to do? How much work is it? Does it destroy your life?
CALIBRE
Do you think you’re not “good enough”, not “eloquent
enough”, not “media-friendly” enough, not “bright
enough” or not “handsome enough” to stand?
I bet you are:
Better than David Cameron at everything
More eloquent than Ed Miliband
More media friendly than George Osborne
Brighter than Ed Balls
Better looking than John Prescott
Get Celia Foote to authorise you as AGS
Get 10 electors in your constituency to sign
that they are happy for you to stand
Submit these papers plus deposit on time to
your local elections office
If you are worried about the ten signatures, don’t be.
Maybe you know ten people locally. But even if you
don’t, it’s a doddle. Knock on twenty doors and ten
people will sign - they don’t have to vote for you, just
sign. That has never taken more than two hours, and
usually less than an hour.
MONEY
CAMPAIGNING
It costs a £500 deposit to become a candidate. You
probably don’t have £500. But the AGS can probably
raise it for you.
To run an effective campaign also needs at least
£500 to print election addresses. Ditto.
The money is not your problem.
The basic parliamentary campaign is a free delivery
of your election address to every residence. Apart
from handing it over to Royal Mail, you don’t have to
do anything. Good if you can, but you don’t have to.
Keep track of any big donations for AGS Treasurer
Malcolm Christie.
STANDING
AFTERWARDS
To stand, all you need to do is:
Fill in a few forms
Fill in and submit the expenses form. (No, you don’t
get the money back!)
To:
Alliance for Green Socialism
Freepost RRLC-YBLL-CCXA
WHITBY
YO21 3HF
The world needs more Green Socialists and Green Socialism needs more advocates.
Why not subscribe to this journal, or better still, why not join us (and get the journal free)?
I would like to subscribe to Green Socialist
I would like to join the AGS
Name .....................................................………………………….........................................................…….................................
Address …….....................................………………........................................................…………………...........…...................
…….……………………………………………………………………….…...............................................................................
…….……………………………………………………………………….…...............................................................................
Telephone ..................................................... E-mail .................................................……………................................................
Subscription to Green Socialist alone costs £7 for 4 issues. AGS membership is: £30 a year or £2.50 a month (full income),
£18 a year of £1.50 a month (low income), £7 a year or 58p a month (negligible income) or
£7 a year or 58p a month (students). Cheques payable to: Alliance for Green Socialism.
You can join online at www.greensocialist.org.uk/
You can donate online at www.greensocialist.org.uk/
Any non-member donating £7 (or more) will be sent the next four issues of Green Socialist.
The discount for low-waged, unwaged and student members is subsidised by those who pay the full-rate so please feel free to
make a donation according to your pocket.
If you really want to assist the AGS then a Standing Order (even for a small monthly amount) would
be Immensely helpful. Tick the box if you want us to send you a Standing Order form
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 10
QUESTIONS FROM VOTERS:
AGS ANSWERS
A selection of answers from AGS candidates to questions from voters.
DEBT
I'm just one of three million people in Great Britain currently in
problem debt. Many millions more are at risk of falling into
difficulty.
If you're elected as an MP in May you will represent me in
Parliament. So I wanted to know what action you will take
to help people like me avoid problem debt in the future.
In my view, debt is one of the scourges of modern
capitalism. It is not enough that many of us are
impoverished. We live in a society which pressures
us to spend - indeed, it suggests that spending is the
way to happiness! Utterly unscrupulous companies
make a fortune out of this situation by offering credit
at unbelievably exorbitant rates.
The first thing I would try to do if elected is outlaw
the ridiculously high interest rates currently charged.
This would be with retrospective effect. No-one who
charges thousands of percent in interest has any
right to payment.
I support the six aims of the debt campaign:
1. Ensure that every family has £1,000 in savings
to cover a sudden cost or income shock.
2. Ensure all low income households can access
low cost credit products.
3. Scale up free debt advice so that it reaches the
1.4 million people who urgently need advice but
aren’t getting it.
4. Ensure everyone dealing with problem debt gets
the protection against interest, charges, enforcement
and collections they need.
5. Protect children and families from the harm of
aggressive debt collection practices.
6. Ensure debt solutions are fit for purpose, and do
not have a disproportionate impact on people’s life
chances.
However, I must be honest and doubt the feasibility
of the first. It is not clear to me how government can
“ensure” this. Certainly, though, it should be a target.
I attach the manifesto of the Alliance for Green
Socialism. Comments welcomed.
signed this promise. Please sign the Frack Free Promise and
publicly commit to opposing fracking.
The Alliance for Green Socialism and I as an AGS
candidate are deeply opposed to fracking and other
forms of extreme energy extraction. I had already
signed the Greenpeace pledge.
In fact I visited the Barton Moss fracking protest
several times last year. I even launched a private
prosecution against Igas, the fracking company, for
obstruction of the highway. They had blocked a
public footpath with an eight foot metal fence topped
with razor wire. Unfortunately the Director of Pubic
Prosecutions took over the prosecution and
discontinued it. Apparently the DPP does not regard
an eight foot metal fence topped with razor wire as
an obstruction.
I attach a text copy of the Manifesto of the Alliance
for Green Socialism. Criticisms and improvements
invited.
If I or the AGS can help in any way with your
university campaign, do let us know.
———————————————————————
GENDER
th
Whoever is elected on 7 May as my MP will have crucial
opportunities while in parliament to tackle sexism. Inequality
between women and men remains deeply embedded in our
society. It’s something I care strongly about.
I want my MP to be someone who is committed to taking
effective action to promote women’s equality.
• Since the 2010 general election women have become
poorer. Will you ensure all economic policies are fully and
properly assessed for their potential impact on gender
inequality?
• Women make up less than a quarter of MPs. Will you
take action to increase the number of women in politics,
including positive action measures where necessary?
• Over 1 in 3 women have experienced domestic violence
in the UK. Will you repeal cuts to legal aid that trap women in
abusive relationships?
• 85,000 women are raped in England and Wales every year.
Will you secure dedicated national funding for specialist
domestic and sexual violence support services?
----------------------------------------------------------------FRACKING
I am more than concerned about fracking and I would like you
to oppose it.
Myself and a collection of students have made it our aim to get
other university students only to vote for candidates that have
Gender inequality is a hang-over from the days
when women were regarded as naturally inferior,
indeed as mere chattels. Some steps have been
taken to improve matters, but such inequality
remains, as you say, deeply embedded. Currently
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 11
women are (largely) legally equal but also (largely)
significantly disadvantaged.
I will seek to ensure all economic policies are fully
assessed for their impact on gender inequality
I will act to increase the number of women MPs,
including by positive discrimination. I do, however,
realise that this will be difficult within our current
FPTP single member constituency system. I do not
support further entrenching the power of political
parties, but it is difficult to see how a better gender
balance could be achieved other than by imposing
quotas or proportions on these parties. Perhaps
you could let me know of any ideas you have for
achieving our shared aim of more women MPs.
I will seek the immediate repeal of the cuts to legal
aid that trap women in abusive relationships. Our
legal system is largely inaccessible to most people.
Without legal aid it is totally inaccessible to many.
The removal of legal aid from many abuse cases is
probably the worst cut of all. It speaks volumes
about the nature of those who imposed it.
I strongly support better, specialised, properly
funded support services addressing domestic and
sexual violence.
Although there have, over the last few years, been
some examples of significant improvement, there
have also been examples of the worst kind of
dismissive approach. This has even occurred in
specialist units.
I am not sure whether your question is intended to
include police investigatory "services" - which vary
hugely - or is more focussed on support for victims,
such as support in court or provision of refuges. The
effect of recent cuts on women's refuges particularly
concerns me. In both cases, I am not entirely sure
whether "dedicated funding" would be the most
effective approach. Certainly, far more needs to be
done. If you could point me at any researched proposals on this, I would be very grateful.
I might add that I believe pay gender inequality still
to be a significant problem; and that the proportion of
women in leadership roles in industry and commerce
is far too small. Effective action has been taken on
these matters in a few European countries.
I have attached a copy of the AGS manifesto. We
would be grateful for any improvements you might
like to suggest.
Keep up the pressure.
———————————————————————MEDIA
I am happy to add my signature to the pledge below:
Media Ownership & Plurality: Pledge
If democracy is to flourish, we will need diverse
and independent voices in the media. Yet media
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 12
concentration in Britain remains at worrying levels
and, despite what we have learned over the last
few years, a handful of media corporations and
individuals continue to have considerable power
over our news, cultural life and access to information. There is a danger that the increasingly digital
media environment could well increase this risk.
I therefore pledge to take steps within Parliament
and my own party to promote the growth of a
more pluralistic media environment by pressing
for legislation that will provide new funding for invaluable areas such as local news, investigative
journalism, youth media and digital innovation,
and that will temper the power of the largest media companies through the introduction of thresholds in specific media markets.
I would add a reservation and two extensions.
The reservation is that we must be careful, in providing funding, not to move towards state control of any
aspect of the media. Of course, that could hardly be
worse than the “Murdoch control” we have currently,
but it remains a concern.
The first extension is that I would push for a legally
enforceable rule that UK media can only be owned
by UK citizens. That is not an assertion of nationalism. It is merely a pragmatic way to avoid the kind
of multinational media empires from which we
currently suffer.
The second is that I would push for legislation
banning common ownership of media in different
delivery modes, such as TV and newspapers.
—————————————————————
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
The NHS will be a major factor in how I decide to vote.
Please will you tell me where you stand?
Would you vote to stop NHS contracts going to private
companies?
Would you help make sure the NHS is not opened up to the US
health industry, by voting against TTIP unless it excludes
healthcare?
Would you vote to fund the NHS properly?
Thanks very much for your email about the NHS.
I commit to keeping the NHS free at the point of use.
I deplore the current squeeze on NHS funding.
This is a classic pre-privatisation process whereby
a good public service is deliberately run down in
order to create a completely spurious case for
privatisation as a solution to its problems. I am
committed to proper funding for the NHS so that it
remains the best health service in the world, free at
the point of use.
The NHS has been let down by governments over
more than twenty years. The last Labour government, directly contrary to its manifesto commitment,
marketised the NHS to prepare it for privatisation.
The current coalition of Tories and LibDems, contrary to the agreement establishing the coalition, proceeded to push through the actual privatisation Act.
I pledge my support to repeal the Health and Social
Care Act 2012 in full and commit that all services
that have been privatised will be placed back in
public ownership of the NHS. I am also committed
to removing the NHS out of TTIP.
I copy below recent replies to other constituents on
the NHS and TTIP. I also draw to your attention the
AGS manifesto, attached.
---------------------------------Thanks for your email about the NHS, a subject
close to my heart.
If I were to be elected at the next general election,
I would strongly support the inclusion of a Bill in the
first Queen’s Speech after the election to reverse
25 years of marketisation and privatisation in the
National Health Service (under Labour and ConDems), abolish the purchaser-provider split, reestablish appropriate local Health Authorities and
other public bodies and fully restore the NHS in England as an accountable public service, publicly
owned and delivered, free at the point of use.
I attach a copy of the AGS manifesto that addresses
this and other issues. I and the AGS believe that the
public provision of free health care to all is a hallmark of a civilised society. Moves by the last two
governments to privatise the NHS are despicable.
Our policy is the complete reversal of the Health &
Social Care Act and of the pre-privatisation carried
out by Labour when in power. In line with this we
would support the NHS Reinstatement Bill.
----------------——————————————-----------TTIP
As a candidate in my local constituency, I would like you to
oppose the TTIP trade deal.
I’m really worried about the effect of TTIP (The Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership) on further privatisation of
our NHS and public services, as well as the inclusion of an
ISDS clause which could allow corporations to sue governments. A document leaked recently showed that the NHS still
isn’t exempt from the deal. You can read more about it here:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/ttip-leaked
Please can you tell me what you will do to stop this deal and
protect our public services?
Thanks very much for your email on TTIP. I was very
pleased to receive it.
Each year the AGS chooses three top campaigning
priorities. For 2015 our number one priority is
stopping TTIP.
You will see from the attached manifesto of the
Alliance for Green Socialism that we oppose TTIP.
We also oppose CETA, the similar proposed treaty
with Canada that is further down the track towards
ratification than TTIP. CETA will probably come up
for ratification towards the end of 2015.
The reasons for our opposition include those you
mention. TTIP threatens all our standards on safety,
food, rights at work, etc. It promotes and locks in
privatisation of public services. Politically, these
“trade” treaties are a means of neutering democracy
by giving corporations parity in law with elected
governments. Indeed, it is worse than that because
any disputes go to an ISDS “arbitration panel” rather
than a real court.
——————————————————————NURSING
Thanks for your email on nursing policy.
I support the Nursing Counts priorities.
Nursing is sometimes seen as less important than
doctoring. I think it is equally important. Often the
quality of nursing care is both a crucial factor in
treatment outcome and the main determinant of the
patient experience.
I attach a text copy of the manifesto of the Alliance
for Green Socialism, which addresses our overall
policy on the NHS. Suggestions for improvement
would be welcomed.
In Leeds the AGS is heavily involved in local
campaigns in support of the NHS and to have its
privatisation reversed.
I am currently Vice President of Leeds Trades
Council. Please do check that your union is affiliated.
———————————————————————
PALESTINE
I was very concerned by the attack on Gaza last summer, and
the death of over 2000 Palestinians. As you are a candidate
for my constituency in the forthcoming General Election, I am
writing to ask your views on Israel and Palestine, before I decide how to vote.
You are probably aware that the issue of Palestinian human
rights is a central concern to many more British voters than
ever before. Hundreds of thousands of letters were sent to MPs
asking them to oppose Israel's bombardment of Gaza and to
support the recognition of Palestine as a State.
With the election of a Government in Israel led by Benjamin
Netanyahu, who has pledged to prevent the creation of a
Palestinian State and to increase Israel settlement growth on
Palestinian territory, the situation has become even more
urgent. Could you please email me to indicate if you agree with
the following statements:
1. I urge the UK Government to uphold the principles of
equality, human rights and international law in all its relations
and dealings with Israel. Yes/no
2. I consider the construction of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to
be illegal and unjustifiable. Yes/no
In achieving these principles, what are your views on the following steps that a future UK Government could take:
1. Do you agree that one of the first acts of the next UK Government should be the recognition of Palestine? Yes/no/don't
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 13
know
2. Do you agree that the blockade on Gaza should be lifted
immediately? Yes/no/don't know
3. Do you agree that we should stop trade with Israel's settlements on Palestinian land, and stop settlement goods being sold
in Britain? Yes/no/don't know
4. Do you agree that the EU Israel Association Agreement
should be suspended until Israel meets its human rights obligations? Yes/no/don't know
5. Do you agree that the government should stop supplying
arms to Israel until it complies with international law? Yes/no/
don't know
The short answer is yes to all of your questions.
I congratulate you for asking these questions of
candidates.
An AGS national committee member visited
Palestine a few years ago, including Hebron.
The Israeli occupation is an obscene, racist affront
to civilisation.
What is truly remarkable is how the Zionists have
"legitimised" their theft of Palestinian land in 1948
and their continued expansion, apparently without
limit, stealing more and more Palestinian territory.
I attach a copy of the AGS manifesto. If you have
suggestions for how this might be improved, with
regard to Palestine or otherwise, please let me
know.
——————————————————————
PUBLIC SERVICES
ers, while directing DWP to be unbelievably harsh
with claimants. And, as you implicitly point out, the
legislative tax framework is currently wide open to
abuse.
I attach a text copy of the Manifesto of the Alliance
for Green Socialism. Criticisms and improvements
invited.
I am currently Vice-President of Leeds Trades Union
Council, so I am very much aware of the trade union
issues you raise.
——————————————————————PUBLIC SERVICE USERS BILL
I am writing to ask if you will support the introduction of a
Public Service Users Bill to put the people who use public services at the heart of your party's election manifesto.
Right now, services can be privatised or outsourced and I don't
get a say. Since 2010, UK government spending on outsourcing
has doubled to £88 billion yet I can't see contracts agreed in my
name and paid for with our public money. I can't access data
about how private providers perform and when they do a bad
job, there's nothing I can do.
A Public Service Users Bill would change all that, promoting
transparency and accountability, making sure government –
local and national – consults the public, looks at public ownership and puts forward in-house bids to check value for money,
as well as promoting quality and social value. Freedom of
Information would apply, contracts and data would be publicly
available and we would have a right to recall poorly performing providers.
Polling shows that the policies in the Bill would be highly
popular .
I readily pledge support on all five issues.
Thanks very much for your question.
• If elected, I will campaign to end the public sector
pay cap as it is unfair, unnecessary and damaging to
the economy
• If elected, I will campaign for well-funded public
services, publicly accountable and delivered by
valued public sector staff – and oppose privatisation
and offshoring
• If elected, I will support a well-resourced publiclydelivered social security service that provides a
decent standard of living, and support the removal of
the sanctions regime
• If elected, I will support investment in HMRC and
legislative changes to close the tax gap
• If elected, I will encourage the government to
engage in meaningful negotiations with all recognised trade unions, and to restore check-off and
facility time for reps.
You will see from the manifesto of the Alliance for
Green Socialism, attached, that we are very strongly
opposed to privatisation and in favour of the involvement in decision-making of those who use public
services. The AGS manifesto includes support for
the proposed Public Service Users Bill.
I would add that we should not just stop privatisation
but reverse it.
I would also add that, while I support the fourth point
without reservation, we should not primarily blame
HMRC. The fact that they are under-resourced is of
a piece with the acquiescence of both ConDem and
Labour governments in tax avoidance. In addition,
governments direct them to “go easy” on rich avoidGreen Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 14
The current situation, supported in government by
Labour, Tories and LibDems, is utterly disgraceful.
So-called "commercial confidentiality" is used to hide
the whole process from the public and to protect
private deliverers from scrutiny of the "service" they
provide. Complete transparency on both bid and
subsequent performance should be an absolute
condition of being allowed to bid to provide any
public service. Of course, I am strongly opposed
to privatisation anyway. But I am a realist and
believe that, if it is not yet possible to stop privatisation, the worst aspects of the current system should
be changed.
I will ensure that a statement of support, as described above, for a Public Service Users Bill is both
placed on the AGS website and sent to the media.
Incidentally, in the version of the Bill that I have
seen, para 1 (5) is pretty weak. Requiring authorities
to “… have regard to …” consultation responses is
far from binding. It should be stronger.
TAX DODGERS
TRIDENT
I'm concerned about the recent revelations that HSBC has been
helping the super-rich dodge their tax, and that the government
has not been acting to stop this.
As a prospective parliamentary candidate in my area, can you
let me know what you pledge to do to crack down on tax dodging and prevent scandals like HSBC from happening again?
I am writing to you to ask your views on the UK's Trident
nuclear weapon system. I am particularly concerned because a
decision on whether or not to replace Trident - at a cost of
£100bn - is due in 2016 and successfully elected Members of
Parliament will have to vote on this.
I believe that maintaining Trident is irrelevant to modern
security threats; runs counter to our Non-Proliferation Treaty
commitment to nuclear disarmament; and is not the best use of
tax payers' money given the cuts deemed necessary in other
areas of public spending.
In particular, before deciding how I will vote, I would like to
know your views on the following four questions:
a) The UK's submarine-based Trident nuclear weapon system is
approaching the end of its operational life. Do you think the UK
should replace its nuclear weapon system?
b) he next government will conduct a Strategic Defence and
Security Review. Do you think it should consider the possibilities and implications of scrapping and not replacing Trident?
c) The next government will need to attend the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Do you
think it should support a nuclear weapons convention or ban,
similar to those for chemical or biological weapons?
d) The next government will have to decide whether to carry out
the current coalition government's projected austerity
programme. Do you think spending £100 billion on Trident
replacement can be justified?
Yes, quite. You and I are happy to pay our taxes
as a necessary contribution to a civilised society.
Yet those far richer avoid or evade.
They are allowed to get away with it because this
is a society structured around the rich and powerful.
It is designed to favour them at the expense
of ordinary people, and it does so very effectively.
When HMRC allows rich tax cheats to get away
with tax evasion (and there is really no other way
to describe HMRC practice) they are behaving
normally in such a society. When Cameron appoints
as a minister a man who, as Cameron well knows,
has overseen systematic tax avoidance and evasion,
he is behaving normally in our system.
I attach a copy of the manifesto of the Alliance for
Green Socialism which addresses the question of
tax, tax avoidance and tax evasion. I pledge to
promote vigorously a radical change in the way
tax is assessed and the way it is collected.
Tax should be assessed on a "common sense"
basis. That is, any person or company who makes or
generates, processes, or sells goods or services, in
this country, or profits from the foregoing, should pay
tax in this country on those activities. The nonsense
of huge corporations actually trading in Britain but
pretending to trade from Luxemburg or Ireland for
tax reasons must be stopped dead. Any person
residing or economically active in Britain should pay
tax in this country on their assets and their income.
In collecting tax, the criminal law should be applied
to the full. The government is ready enough to
pursue people who obtain trivial amounts of benefits
to which they are not entitled. It must prosecute tax
evasion with equal vigour - or, rather, with far more
vigour, since the amounts involved are far, far
greater. The practice of allowing criminal tax evaders
to get off without prosecution can only encourage
more tax evasion. Any person or company that
facilitates tax avoidance or tax evasion, such as
HSBC and Lord Green, must also be prosecuted.
Unfortunately the Tories, LibDems and Labour
have all, when in government, been equally
complicit in allowing tax avoidance and evasion
on a massive scale.
This must stop.
Thanks for writing to me about Trident.
I strongly agree with the views expressed in your
email. I attach a copy of the AGS manifesto that
makes our position clear.
Not only should the UK drop any idea of Trident
replacement, it should scrap Trident itself. There is
no point in a weapons system that cannot legally or
morally be used. Its retention is also contrary to our
treaty commitments under the NPT. Of course any
security review must include a review of Trident
and its replacement. Any such review that did not
consider this would be an empty farce.
The NPT review meeting should indeed consider a
ban on nuclear weapons. Britain entered into the
treaty in bad faith and has never attempted to fulfil
its terms. We should start now.
Whilst I do not believe there are any circumstances
in which Britain should retain or upgrade nuclear
weapons, the current economic situation also
highlights the huge waste of money involved in
replacing Trident. There are many far more worthwhile uses for £100m, especially at a time when
Tories, LibDems and Labour all justify "austerity"
on the grounds of lack of funds.
AGS candidates and Green Socialist Editor
John Sillett would welcome comments,
criticisms and suggested improvements
on any of these (rapid) responses.
Green Socialist no 71 Spring 2015
page 15
Green Socialist is published by the Alliance for Green Socialism, freepost NEA 5794, Leeds, LS7 3YY
and printed by LS1 Print, Goodman St, Leeds, LS10 1NZ