David Blunkett Persists in His Racist and Chauvinist Views

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

David Blunkett Persists in His Racist and Chauvinist Views

The Right to A Livelihood in Retirement Must Be Defended

Workers & Politics:
Arriva Strike: Massive Newcastle Picket
A Striker Clearly Explains

Home Secretary David Blunkett has once more hit the headlines with the demand that British citizens of South Asian origin speak English in their homes. That he has singled out South Asian nationalities is at once an indication of his racism.

Writing in a recently published essay for a book on "British identity", he declared with regard to people of South Asian origin: "Speaking English enables parents to converse with their children in English at home and participate in wider modern culture and it helps overcome the schizophrenia which bedevils generational relationships." With regard to citizenship he declared, "Citizenship should be about shared participation, from the neighbourhood to national elections." It is to be recalled that at present the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum bill is under discussion in parliament and includes proposals for tests in "Britishness" for prospective new citizens.

These views which represent the stand of the British state and are not just the individual views of David Blunkett reflect the chauvinism and racism which pervade the existing political arrangements in the country. They demonstrate a stubborn refusal to distinguish between nationality and citizenship. Instead, every effort is made to link the rights of citizens to their national origin. Consequently, a racist and chauvinist attitude is adopted according to which everything associated with the English is superior and the whole world must abandon their own culture, language and national identity and assimilate to being "English". From this perspective, it would be impossible to participate in modern culture through Punjabi, Bengali or Gujarati since such languages and cultures are by definition backward. David Blunkett alludes to the great damage that this assimilationist policy is causing for many national minority youth as a "schizophrenia", but actually wants to intensify it even more.

Further, the naked political aims behind this whole agenda slips out when Blunkett declares that citizenship must include "participation in national elections". Therefore the argument runs along these lines: national minorities in Britain must integrate by giving up their national identities and assimilating to being English and part of this being English will include taking part in the "national elections" of the bourgeois parliamentary representative democracy. It cannot be unknown to David Blunkett that increasing numbers of "English" workers have become disillusioned with the bourgeois parliamentary game which disempowers and marginalises them and consequently are refusing to "participate in national elections". What will he do with these "English" workers who fail the test of being English?

The growing crisis of legitimacy of parliamentary democracy is one of the factors which underpin David Blunkett’s increasingly racist and chauvinist outbursts. The political aim is to obscure the problems confronting the society, further marginalise and scapegoat the national minority communities while creating the conditions for elite accommodation with those individuals from these communities who want to "participate in national elections" to lend credibility to the system which is actually based on division of the polity.

The political system in Britain today is in urgent need of profound democratic renewal with the aim of bringing into being a new system which recognises the political equality of all citizens without regard to their national origin and equally respects the national rights of all citizens. Each citizen, as a fundamental human right, must be entitled to use their mother tongue for the purposes they so desire whether it is to conduct business with government agencies or to discuss matters in their own homes with their families. There can be no place in such a system for the chauvinist demand for an "official" language or the assumption of the superiority of the "host" language as a lingua franca.

At the recently concluded TUC congress in Blackpool, the continuing crisis in pension provision in Britain figured prominently in the deliberations of the delegates.

A motion sponsored by amicus and backed by the TGWU, GMB and Unison among others called on affiliated unions to campaign for all workers to have access to a secure income in retirement. This call was adopted. In detail, the motion demanded among other things that all employers be compelled to contribute to their employees’ pensions, that "pension pay" be given the same protection in law as "current pay", that workers transferred into the private sector as a result of privatisation have their pension rights safeguarded, that the government restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings and that it also take a number of fiscal measures to protect final salary scheme pensions.

Underlining the severe crisis gripping pensions in Britain, John Monks, TUC General Secretary, declared on the eve of Congress: "For more than fifty years we have believed in progress – that living standards would rise, that the country would become more prosperous and life would gradually get easier. … But many people at work today will be poorer when they retire than today’s pensioners. Many more will rely on means tested benefits that depend on the generosity of the government of the day. Progress for the retired has come to a full stop, and for many is now going backwards…Both employers and the state are trying to load responsibility for saving for retirement more and more onto individual employees."

The consequences of this situation, graphically described by John Monks, is also reflected in recent research findings which show that increasing numbers of pensioners are facing a life of poverty. For example, people relying on the recently introduced stakeholder pensions are currently said to face a £3,000 annual shortfall in the contributions they would need to draw a pension equivalent to half their present average salary. In the face of this situation, John Monks noted that both the Labour and Conservative parties in fact have policy commitments to further cut the state contributions to average pensioner income from 60% to 40%.

This fact alone underlines the real causes of the growing poverty of Britain’s retired workers and the likelihood that this situation will only worsen. At the root of the anti-social offensive is the government’s aim to prioritise the parasitic interests of the financial oligarchy nationally and internationally to the detriment of everyone else. To facilitate this aim of putting the claims of the rich in first place, the idea is being pushed that society has no responsibilities towards its members, old or young, able or disabled, and everyone should fend for themselves. It is this notion that the working class and people need to take a stand against, putting in its place the demand that society must recognise the claims of its members, including the right to a secure livelihood, including in old age, and that people cannot be left to fend for themselves.

Arriva Strike:

Massive Newcastle Picket

Taken from Demic’s Diary, an unofficial diary of the Arriva Northern dispute (http://www.demic.blogspot.com)

A large picket took place at Newcastle Central station on Saturday, September 21. Striking Arriva Conductors and station staff were joined by RMT activists from London Underground, South West Trains and Scotrail as well as representatives from ASLEF, the Fire Brigades Union and Unison.

Click here for a photograph of the picket including, in the background, the fire appliance that turned up to lend their support!

The meeting afterwards at the Marlborough Social Club was a lively affair.

Assistant General Secretary Pat Sikorski told the meeting that it was becoming increasingly apparent that this was not a simple pay dispute between ATN and the RMT; there was increasing evidence that the SRA or the government are blocking efforts by the RMT to raise the living standards of its members.

Scottish regional organiser Phil McGarry called on the union's executive to give full financial support to the Arriva strikers saying that if this dispute is lost it could have implications for RMT members throughout the country.

Pat Sikorski stated that there could be no settlement of the disputes without the re-instatement of activists who had been unfairly disciplined.

Regional Organiser Stan Herschel writes . . .

Members have once again been subjected to the rantings of ATN management.

On this occasion the attack has been two-fold.

200 members are returning to work and RMT is guilty of intimidating members into not returning to work. Now there’s a contradiction in terms, but it is consistent with the lies put about by ATN. At the same time as ATN announce 200 members are returning to work they also announce that the will cover 75% of the network.

Hold on, when there were only 10 scabs, they still boasted 75% of network. It was the same with 40, 50, 60, 70, & 80 scabs. Now, with a supposed 200, they still mislead the public with promises of 75% service.

The fact of the matter remains that members are strong and determined. The strike is solid.

Bear in mind that we have now endured nine months and 20-odd days of action; then to have 90 % of members displaying their solidarity is quite staggering.

I applaud you all.

It is also interesting to note that, by their own admission, on non-strike days service can be reduced by 31%. Hold on once more; is that not a 69% service? When we see this kind of logic and mathematical incompetence, then is there any wonder that no settlement has been agreed.

ATN have also accused RMT of intimidation by displaying a "list of scabs". If ATN’s figures are to be believed then it would appear that this "list" is having no effect.

Again, the fact remains that the list doing the rounds has not been put out by RMT and does not bear the RMT logo.

I will not condone such actions, but neither will I condemn them. This is anger, born out of frustration and I fully understand members who have been driven to such measures.

In reality, this is yet another smoke screen, put out by ATN, in an endeavour to cover their inept, bungling and outrageous handling of this dispute.

We all know who is guilty of intimidation, we all know who the bullies are.

This company shows no bounds when it comes to intimidation and lies.

Interview with an RMT representative from the Council of Retail and Station Grades by a reporter from North East Workers and Politics.

NEWP: Can you speak about the history of the dispute at Arriva Trains Northern?
A: Currently you have two disputes in Arriva at the moment, you have the Conductors’ dispute followed by the Station and Retail grades who I am responsible for. My constituents cover various posts throughout the rail industry from booking offices, supervisory positions and Station-based grades. Our dispute originated from Arriva not honouring an agreement reached in the 2000 annual pay award; the agreement was obviously to restructure the non restructured grades (my members). The Driving grades and the Conductor grades were given the opportunity to incorporate the value of certain terms and conditions into their basic salary, which they did. So we asked for a similar exercise; the problem occurred when the company insisted that any deal reached remained within a "Cost Neutral Parameter" in other words it must not cost the company a penny.

Whilst we endeavoured to put a package together, the Driving grades agreed another restructuring package which saw them receive a 18% increase in their basic salaries, 3% supposedly from the Annual Pay Award and the 15% from "Productivity Items". Now nobody is complaining that this grade received such a significant rise, but the spark that caused the fire was that the above deal was not "Cost Neutral" – it was estimated to be about a million and a half over. Obviously we asked the company for the same treatment, but I must state that we never asked for 18%, but we did ask for equality.

Arriva management insisted that our package was to remain "Cost Neutral" and that they were not prepared to award any money to our members.

NEWP: The agreement you reached in the 2000 Pay Award – was it for parity with the Drivers?
A: Equality in the way that the Arriva handled the other restructuring packages. Our members are the lowest paid in the rail industry and some of them earn as little as £9,000 a year. What annoys me is that you have the government stating that the average house price in the north of the country is approximately £100,000, I ask you, how can a man/woman earning the aforementioned salary afford to live in such circumstances? Obviously this is not a living wage.

The tabloids and media portray us as militants and that we are asking for the world; this is not the case. We are asking for a sufficient living wage and to be treated as equals.

NEWP: How long has this dispute being going on?
A: The dispute has now been on going now for nine months and is now the longest rail dispute in our history incorporating 18 days of action. The response from Arriva is a negative one. We received a letter today, which states that the Strategic Rail Authority are preventing Arriva from honouring their agreements until the franchise is sorted out.

NEWP: I see that they are saying that employees taking part in industrial action will not receive this year’s 4% pay increase?
A: Yes, this is typical of Arriva; they have chosen to ignore all procedures and agreements. Our representatives have endured bullying, harassment and victimisation because of industrial action, we have representatives refused from attending Health & Safety courses, threatened with legal action for informing members of events, threatened with discipline for talking to the press and media, we have had all of our facilities withdrawn – we are not allowed to use company computers, telephones, faxes and photo copiers. Does this sound like a caring company?

We have been accused of reverting to the 70s and 80s because of the action – this is not true. We have followed and stuck to the anti-trade union laws and agreed procedures within the company. Obviously industrial action is the last resort, but Arriva has pushed us in to this situation. If the company wants to resolve this dispute then we are prepared to call off the action as long as Arriva works towards a decent package that brings us back into line with other grades in the railway industry.

NEWP: How have you widened the support for your action?
A: As you can see we have a lot of support here today from different unions, we have lobbied the TUC to raise the profile of our dispute, processed Early Day Motions in parliament and also used our internal network of union representatives to spread the word to each of their individual unions. Trade union solidarity is fantastic, not just because of our dispute but because of every working class individual. The government has created this support by promising the workforce of this country better conditions and rights and failing to deliver them. The manifesto of the government was supported by the workforce in the hope that they would have a voice. As everyone knows we endured six years of this government and we have not received any support. The anti-trade union laws are still in effect, need I say anymore?

NEWP: You feel that opposition is building up to these attacks on workers’ rights?
A: We are now in the new millennium 2000. We are human beings and we are supposed to work in environments free from discrimination and harassment, but as you can see this is not the case. If you work in an industry with a trade union and you do not agree with the Company Director over an issue, what you now face is persecution. As I stated earlier we are accused of being militants, but on the other hand the days of the master with his big stick are coming back and yet nothing is said or publicised about that. Today’s industries are only interested in one thing and that being "Profit" – workers’ rights are not their agenda.

NEWP: What is the future? Do you see your members fighting for a modern rail system that satisfies the needs of all and upholds the rights of rail workers?
A: First of all everyone wants a modern integrated rail system and we fully support that. But when you deal with a company that’s only interested in profits and refuses to address workers’ rights then you will never be able to achieve that goal.

I do not want to sound as if it is all about workers’ rights because industry is important as well, but our issue is about ensuring that you have some form of harmony in the workforce, remember every little cog turns the machines of industry. A good employer will be recognised by all but it’s the workforce that delivers the final product.

On the issue of workers’ rights, look outside of the rail industry at the other unions, e.g. FBU, NAFTE, CWU and many others, and ask yourself why are these unions heading in the same direction as us?

NEWP: You express a confidence in the future of the movement and whatever you can win at this stage do you see the importance of your members directly participating in politics, such as putting forward your own candidates for election?
A: This is a difficult question. With regard to the RMT and its affiliation to the Labour Party, we have found that those unions that are affiliated are preventing those, if you want to use the terminology, from the "left" from gaining seats. So we have in-house fighting which is not to the benefit of anybody. We have some very good candidates who could go forward but the politics from the "left" and "right" have created such a division and as long as that remains our candidates will be suppressed.

NEWP: I know I am labouring the point but you have got this new opposition building up but how is it going to be represented politically because at the moment none of the big parties are representing this opposition in parliament?
A: The problem is in trying to get our MPs to act fully on our behalves and not to sit back and ignore our pleas. Also you can see a new breed of General Secretaries emerging, i.e. Bob Crow, Mick Rix, Derrick Simpson and the others, and hopefully they will be in a position to ensure our issues are addressed in parliament. You are quite right with your question and I state that it is important that we have people who are not afraid to address our problems, but getting there will take time.

NEWP: The point I was asking about is do you see a way forward in workers directly selecting their own candidates for election to parliament because at the moment with the political parties they control their candidates so that they cannot represent the interests of the workers?
A: That is correct and I agree totally, but as I mentioned earlier the opposition from the "right" and the capitalists of this world will do everything in their power to prevent people from the democracy succeeding. Hopefully our leaders will use legislation to assist us in our goals of representation.