JUNE 20 MARKED THE FIFTIETH DAY of the Labour Party's being in office. These fifty days have demonstrated the readiness of the new Labour government to go overboard to do everything to serve the programme of paying the rich. Tony Blair truly entered office "hitting the ground running", but with an agenda to implement the anti-social programme.

It is indicative of this agenda which serves the financial oligarchy that practically the first action of the new government was to let the Bank of England set interest rates without consultation with government. Using the justification of taking the politics out of this decision-making, New Labour is saying that decisions which straightforwardly are in favour of the financiers are to be made. Similarly, with its overall economic strategy, the emphasis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on "long term economic stability" is underpinned with a whole rationale of putting the economy at the service of "the markets". In other words, the financial oligarchy is again calling the tune.

On the other hand, the anti-social offensive is not only not being reversed, but on the question of social programmes the brief of the Department of Social Security is to "think the unthinkable". When it comes to the interests of the vulnerable and the victims of a pay-the-rich society, the Labour Party is declaring that on no account must they take priority. Thus Tony Blair's speech on visiting a poor housing estate in South London was full of blame for all those sections of society that most feel the weight of the anti-social offensive. "It is unacceptable for unemployed people to continue to draw benefit if they reject placements on work, training or education schemes," he said. He went on to emphasise that there was "no option of a life on benefit under Labour", announcing a programme of "inviting jobless single parents to job centres". New Labour is to set up a "Welfare-to-Work" team, led by the head of the Prudential Insurance Company Sir Peter Davis, with the aim of forcing welfare recipients to perform "volunteer work" or participate in work placements or training in order to receive benefits. Indeed, the forthcoming Budget is being dubbed a "Welfare-to-Work" Budget, with the aim that "everyone is to help in creating one nation".

On all subjects where the people's welfare is at stake and on social spending as a whole, New Labour, to no one's surprise, is citing the "mess" that the Conservatives left as a reason why the people can expect no change. It is also entirely predictable that now in office, the Labour government has discovered "black holes" of billions of pounds in the Conservatives expenditure plans which will put even more constraint on social programmes. No similar constraint is to be found for offering lucrative contracts to the monopolies. "Private Finance Initiative" (PFI) is sinking below the horizon only to be replaced by the "new and innovative" method of funding of "Private/Public Partnership" (PPP).

In short, the whole programme and policy of the Labour government is confirmed as paying the rich and cutting investments in social programmes. In these circumstances, the workers must be vigilant against the illusion created by some left circles that the working class should utilise the government's links with the labour movement in order to put pressure on the Labour Party, especially through its "left wing".

There can be no advance for the working class and other working people but through fighting for their own independent programme to lift society out of its all-sided crisis with economic crisis at the base. This programme which all these forces must take up is the pro-social programme to Stop Paying the Rich – Increase Investments in Social Programmes. This is a necessity which will become ever more urgent as the programme of New Labour in office unfolds and the workers and the vast majority of society will be forced to fight against the attacks on their livelihoods and on social programmes as a whole which are being organised under the guise of everyone uniting to serve "one nation".

THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL meeting in Amsterdam on June 16 and 17 concluded the InterGovernmental Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the European Union. The purpose had been to update the Treaty on European Union (the "Maastricht Treaty"). Top of the agenda was the enlargement of the EU, the question of Economic and Monetary Union, as well as the issues of "economic growth", "economic stability" and employment.

According to the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, the main task of the Amsterdam meeting of the European Council had been to establish "the people's agenda" and "restore popular legitimacy in the EU" by tackling the problem of unemployment. In fact, what was striking was that the Amsterdam summit highlighted the contradictions that exist between the major European powers, especially the growing disagreements between France and Germany, which reflect the differing economic and political interests of these two countries. For all the gloss that was put on the summit, it represented a debacle in terms of the lack of agreement on the major questions. It underlined that the unity of the monopolies of the various European countries can never be absolute as they engage in dog-fights over their different interests. The draft treaty was delayed, and is finally to be signed in October at Amsterdam.

At the same time the summit was the occasion for massive demonstrations by the people of Europe in opposition to the EU and the fact that over 18 million people in Europe are unemployed.

One of the main purposes of the Amsterdam summit was to prepare the conditions for the enlargement of the EU, which it is planned will begin to admit some of the countries of eastern and central Europe. Trade and investment in this part of the world has become increasingly important for the EU and especially for the British monopolies. British exports to this region were £4.7 billion and imports £3.9 billion in 1996, while British investment in the region since 1990 is over $1 billion. Many major British monopolies including Shell, BP and Unilever are already well established and the government is fully committed to further developing "British interests" in this region, and will try to take advantage of Britain's forthcoming presidency of the European Council to play a leading role in the enlargement negotiations. But reports suggest that in this regard the summit did not achieve all its goals and the Prime Minister was forced to admit that there was only limited progress on this issue.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary returned from Amsterdam claiming that they had defended "vital British interests" and "set forward a positive agenda for Europe". However, it is the interests of the British monopolies which the Labour government has been defending. In the important area of employment , for example, the government was one of the leading advocates of "flexible labour markets", and "employability" that is limiting the employment rights of workers and increasing their exploitation for the benefit of the profits and competitiveness of the monopolies in the global market. In the area of defence it was one of the greatest supporters of the warmongering US-led NATO alliance and opposed the merging of the EU with the WEU favoured by France and Germany.

It is clear that there are growing contradictions between the major powers which have historically always posed great dangers for the peoples of Europe. New Labour's declared aim of a leadership role in the reactionary EU also creates great dangers for the people of Britain and other countries.

The working class can have no illusions about the EU or the claims of the Labour Government that it can get Britain a "better deal". It must demand that Britain withdraws from the EU.

The Central Committee of RCPB(ML) has informed Workers' Weekly that it is organising a Regional Consultative Forum in London on Sunday, June 22.

The agenda is as follows: 1) Problems in the Work: Organisational and political tasks after six months of the Party's programme for 1997; 2) Resolutions.

At the beginning of the year, RCPB(ML) set the work of the Party for 1997, a further project of strengthening Workers' Weekly and the technical base within the context of the fighting programme to Improve the Content, Extend the Readership of Workers' Weekly. The Regional Consultative Forum will discuss the stage of this work mid-way through the year, and in the context of the post-election period.

Workers' Weekly will report on the discussions in the next issue.

The Blair government does not hold the initiative as regards the north of Ireland and its carefully made plans to bring about a quick resolution in the interests of British imperialism have run into trouble. The events of the past week in Ireland make this very clear.

Tony Blair has lost no time in putting his plans for the north of Ireland into action. Within days of the election he was exchanging words of solidarity with John Bruton. The "no nonsense" approach of Mo Mowlam replaced the patrician colonialist style of Patrick Mayhew. The first weekend after the election Blair was in Belfast, urging the Unionists to toe the line while assuring them their veto on the future of the border remained in place indefinitely. Meanwhile Mo Mowlam was making conciliatory noises towards Sinn Fein at the same time as the denial of facilities at Westminster for the two Sinn Fein MPs was intended to tell them who called the tune. A little later even Clinton seemed to voice his support. All appeared on course.

Now, however, the plans are coming apart at the seams. Dr Mowlam's famous peace "train" is clearly going nowhere. The new Irish government has made it clear that it will follow its own course. Already the election results in the north had shown that the "demonisation" of Sinn Fein was not preventing a rise in their electoral vote. A Sinn Fein TD was elected in the south. Now the Republican forces have made clear that they will not allow themselves to be fitted conveniently into British imperialism's plans. They have made clear that they will stick to their guns, both physically and spiritually, in fighting for an end to the British occupation of part of their country and its reunification, an aspiration shared by the vast majority of the Irish people as a whole.

What will Tony Blair do now? He has been put into power to carry through the agenda of the rich, which as regards the north of Ireland means to continue to deny the right of self determination to the Irish people, to keep Britain as the arbiter of all developments, to maintain – in one way or another – the divisions between Irish and Irish in Ireland and between British and Irish, especially among the workers in Britain, upon which bourgeois rule depends. He is claiming this week that he has a plan by which Sinn Fein can take their place at the peace talks provided the IRA renews its cease-fire. He is planning discussions on the north of Ireland with Clinton over the weekend. How will he try to manoeuvre out of the present difficulties?

HEALTH WORKERS AND LOCAL PEOPLE organised a march and demonstration on Saturday, June 14, as part of the campaign that is being developed against the cuts in social programmes, particularly in the health service, which are reaching crisis proportions. This is the second such march and demonstration that the Campaign for Health in Waltham Forest and Redbridge has held under the slogans, "Health in Crisis!", "For a health service that can meet people's needs. For a public service, not private profit". The demonstration marched from the main gates of Whipps Cross Hospital to a rally in Walthamstow Town Square.

Activists from the East London Branch of RCPB(ML) participated in the actions, distributing a leaflet with the headline: "Paying the Rich – Cause of the Crisis in Healthcare". The leaflet points out that the situation facing workers in the health service and local people who need the health service is very serious. Any hopes that a new government would save the day are being laid firmly to rest as the days go by. Health Secretary Frank Dobson's NHS review announced on June 12 will consider charging for GP night visits, charging for hospital meals, increasing prescription charges, and lengthening waiting times for non-urgent treatment.

"What has happened to New Labour's election pledge not to close any London hospital for one year?" the leaflet asks. "According to the organisation London Health Emergency, beds, wards and units are closing all over London: Queen Mary's, Roehampton Accident and Emergency unit has been reduced to a Minor Injuries Unit prior to closure in August. At Edgware Hospital the Accident and Emergency unit has now been reduced to an Urgent Treatment Centre for minor injuries. On May 7, one of Whipps Cross' four surgical wards, Lister ward, a female surgical ward, was closed."

After detailing further examples of how funding is being cut, the leaflet continues, "While the health of the population is put so low on the agenda investment is being made in increasing the profits of big business. The health service itself is being turned into a market for private profit. Support services are being handed to private contractors, and through the Private Finance Initiative any new hospital building will be owned and run by big business consortiums."

It explains, "In essence what is going on is that money is being taken out of the social economy, and being paid directly to the rich. For example when a service is privatised, it is handed over to big business as a source of profits. This has a logical consequence, maximising profits then has to become the central thing. In this modern day and age it is a basic human right for people in society to expect and get healthcare when they need it. A right for all human beings without preconditions, not a right for those who can pay and not for others. This right must be fought for."

The leaflet raises the question as to how to further the struggle, and raises that health workers and the local community should organise to oppose the programme of paying the rich through the health service. It points out that in the financial year 1996-7, £26.6 billion was taken out of the economy and paid by the government directly to financiers in the form of interest on the National Debt, whereas the percentage of wealth that was used to finance the health service had decreased. The leaflet explains how such diversions as blaming hospital managers or health workers for "chronic under performance" obscure what the actual cause of the healthcare crisis is and cause divisions in the people's struggle for society to be responsible for the welfare of its members.

The leaflet concludes that the only way forward is to take up the political programme to stop paying the rich - increase investments in social spending, including a moratorium on debt servicing, halting interest payments on public debt which go to the financiers.

As part of the on-going campaign, a public meeting is to be held on Thursday, June 26, entitled: "Funding for Health". The meeting will take place at Ross Wylde Hall, Church Hill, Walthamstow, and begins at 7.30 p.m.

A RECORD number of complaints have been made about the NHS, according to a report of the health ombudsman. Michael Buckley, the Health Service Commissioner, said in his annual report for 1996-7, published on June 18, that 2,219 complaints were sent to him, a 24 per cent increase on the previous year. He upheld 69 per cent of the complaints investigated, the highest proportion since the health ombudsman's office opened in 1987.

THE BOURGEOISIE is trying to rebuild two-party politics after the Conservative debacle at the general election. The bourgeoisie had organised the coup against the working class on May 1 in which the Labour Party came to power. That the capitalists had to do so was a reflection of the crisis of the parliamentary system. That the Conservatives could not make a credible opposition after this election coup is again a sign of the chronic crisis of the system.

Tony Blair captured the centre ground adopting a centre-left position that was supposed to unite the whole spectrum of society from the left to the right apart from the extreme right represented by the landed aristocracy and the hereditary peers. To this end, he took up the mantle of "one-nation" politics.

The John Major policy of uniting all wings against "socialism" of the Labour Party has patently collapsed. Therefore to make two-party politics a force once again, restore a credible "Her Majesty's Opposition" in the Houses of Parliament and look to the future of the system, the capitalist class needs to reforge a party that can occupy the centre-right. The discredited Tory politicians of the old-guard have shown themselves incapable of doing this. The bourgeoisie has therefore opted to take a leaf out of the book of the "new generation politics" promoted by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, and put forward the conspicuously lightweight and untested William Hague as leader. The depth of the divisions in the Tory Party, however, was forcefully marked throughout the leadership election, in the farcical jockeying for position and horse-trading among the candidates, and in Kenneth Clarke's refusing to join Hague's Shadow Cabinet. It remains to be seen how successful this ploy of the rich will be in building a credible centre-right party in order to give some new lease of life to a system of a two-party government/opposition which has appeared to be defunct from the early 1980s.

This is recognised to be a long-term project by the rich, but they may not be able to buy enough time to avert the struggles of the people from breaking against their moribund parliamentary system. Disillusionment with the Labour Party as a party of government is bound to occur, but what will the rich replace it with?

The Tony Blair government has declared that one of its fundamental concerns over the economy, inherited from the previous Conservative government, is the achievement of economic stability. Gordon Brown speaking at the Mansion House last week talked about the "new global market place", and he said, "To succeed, countries must convince the markets that they have the policies in place for long term stability." The question is a very specific one about what the success of a country is, and who the government is addressing in the first place. That is, the success of the country is defined in a very prejudicial way.

The logic goes that over the long term, investors will choose to invest for the future in a stable environment rather than an unstable one. Therefore the government must be committed to overcoming instability and must put forward long-term commitments to monetary stability, resisting increases in public spending and increasing investments in business. These are put forward as the cornerstones of the creation of a stable economy.

With the present levels of mass unemployment which are a permanent feature of the present economic system, with the tendency of this present economic system at the foundation of the society to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, it has to be asked why would the government want to make such "economic stability" its priority? Why does it not start from the aim, for example, of eliminating unemployment and poverty?

Similarly, with the crisis in education, health service and welfare benefits, pensions and other social programmes characterised by cut-backs and lack of investment: why would the government want to resist increases in public spending and increase investments that benefit business? Why does it not start from the aim of making social investments in education, health and welfare benefits at the highest level attainable? In other words, what has first to be sorted out is the aim of society and the direction of the economy.

In adopting some other stand, the government's aim for the economy and for society is to serve the interests of the rich. In doing so, it creates the impression that to address the problem of "economic stability" is in the interests of all. But it does not want to investigate the objective causes of economic instability, and even less does it want to spell out what is the aim of society. In capitalist society financial and economic instability arises since there is no scientific plan for the whole of the economy, where, for example, each bank, each industry and service sector seeks to make the maximum profit and receive the maximum amount of tribute from the whole of the society.

The Labour Party presents economic instability as a phenomenon that is quite separate from this anarchy of production in the economy. Therefore the aim that is put forward on the economy is that government should strive for economic stability rather than address the aim of society. Interest rates on capital which are paid to the financial oligarchy, which have their source in the vast amounts of surplus value extracted from the labour of the working class and people, are presented as a key factor in stabilising the economy. Increasing the interest rates increases the returns of the financial oligarchy and they conveniently claim that this is all done to stabilise the economy. Yet government always blames the people for de-stabilising the economy, for instance through the size of the budget on social services, and forcing interest rate rises because they are forced to borrow money from the financial oligarchy at further inflated rates.

The aim for society should be to put the economy in the service of the producers, the working class and people, and meet their needs. To build a harmoniously developing economy, it is first of all necessary to stop paying the rich, stop the anti-social offensive against the people and increase investments in social programmes. The working class must demand an immediate Moratorium on National Debt Repayment and the Nationalisation of all Banks and other Financial Institutions. A plan for the economy with this programme would start to address the real problems of the economy and set a new aim for society.

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) has issued the following press release, datelined June 18, Pyongyang.

THE DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) will not hesitate to fight the final battle with the United States and the south Korean authorities if they so earnestly wish to make a military showdown with the DPRK. The Spokesman for the Ministry of the People's Armed forces of the DPRK warns this in a statement today as the dangerous scheme of the enemies to mount a forestalling attack on the DPRK is being put in action rapidly. The spokesman said:

On June 17, the south Korean puppet navy and marine corps staged a "joint landing exercise" involving various types of warships and large military forces as what they call a "demonstration of operations of combined battle groups" on the East Sea of Korea. On June 14, puppet marine corps units held a surprise landing exercise aboard I.B.S. Rubber Boats, simulating the distance between the Paekryong Island on the West Sea of Korea and the seashore of the north side.

The enemies overtly describe the exercises as aimed at "enhancing the operability for landing on the enemy seashore anytime and anywhere". They have gone so far as to threaten they will take a "countermeasure" and spread a "sea of fire" against the DPRK on the Military Demarcation Line and "retaliate" on the DPRK even by using chemical weapons stockpiled in south Korea.

It is common military knowledge that landing exercise is attack exercise that goes beyond self-defence. We cannot overlook the fact that the recent exercises were landing exercises for attack. It is self-evident what the attack exercises are targeted at. The enemies' landing exercises are obviously part of their aggressive and offensive combat exercises against the DPRK.

We have warned more than once that the rumour extensively spread by the United States and the south Korean puppets from the beginning of the year about "possibility of the outbreak of war" by the food shortage-stricken DPRK is to create circumstances for a forestalling attack on the DPRK. The enemies consider that the circumstances for the attack operations have been ripe in the main. Since the beginning of this month, we have sharply watched the ill-boding military movements of the south Korean puppet army on the East and West Coasts of Korea and the mobile exercises of the US imperialist aggression forces coinciding with them.

On June 14, when the surprise landing exercise of the south Korean puppet army was going on, the US military moved the control stations of the 13th Marine Flying Regiment from Iwakuni of Japan and the West Coast of the US mainland to the Osan air force base in south Korea in order to carry out a long-distance non-stop flight exercise along the Iwakuni-Osan route and the US mainland-Okinawa-Osan route.

It is clear what the US imperialists and the south Korean puppets seek. The enemies are thought to believe it is high time they made a forestalling attack since the DPRK is temporarily suffering from repeated natural disasters and numerous soldiers of its armed forces are engaged in farming in the socialist countryside. They are mistaken, however.

The chief executive of south Korea is trying to aggravate the tensions and make a military showdown with the north in a bid to find a way out of the serious political crisis caused by the Hanbo incident, the "presidential election campaign funds" and other scandals.

Dialogue and war are incompatible. The enemies are outwardly calling for "four-way talks" for a lasting peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and, behind the scenes, making war preparations in earnest.

At this moment when dark clouds of war are rushing toward our motherland and fighting is about to break out, our revolutionary armed forces cannot remain an onlooker to the situation, pinning hopes on dialogue for an indefinite period. It is the noble mission of the Korean People's Army to safeguard the socialist motherland and the people reliably by force of arms. When aggression is triggered off, counterattack will follow inevitably. Our People's Army will level its guns at every movement of the enemies and promptly take relevant countermeasures. If the enemies try to test our will and military strength despite our repeated warnings, our People's Army will mobilise all potentials consolidated for scores of years and give vent to our people's pent-up grudges and wrath.

THE GROUP of Seven industrialised countries (G7), comprising the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, are meeting in their annual summit in Denver from June 20-22. Russia will also participate in every meeting except the Saturday afternoon session on economic and financial issues. Russia's enhanced role, which began in 1991 when Mikhail Gorbachev first participated in the G7 meetings as the representative of the Soviet Union, has turned the gathering into the "Summit of Eight", to quote US officials. Despite Russia's exclusion from the key session on economic and financial issues, according to US officials, "bringing economic and political order" to Russia will be a top priority at the summit. One of the problems related to this is said to be the increasingly apparent difficulty Russia is having in paying its IMF loans.

US President Bill Clinton said on Thursday that he and the other G7 leaders would use the summit to "cut a new path" to the future by working to "improve the global economy" and "spread democracy". He also laid out a broad agenda for the summit.

Even though the economic developments in the world make the G7 countries' claim to be the "most economically powerful" in the world a dream from the past, the G7 grouping continues to function as it did in the old era of the bi-polar division of the world. Even American foreign policy analysts are questioning the group's legitimacy. "It's hard to argue that Italy and Canada are more important in managing international affairs than China or India, or Brazil and South Africa," said Richard Haas, head of foreign policy studies for Washington's Brookings Institute.

The 1997 summit is taking place in a period that is marked not only by the deep crisis of the capitalist economy, particularly in terms of the chronic and high levels of unemployment, but also by increased rivalries both amongst the ruling circles of the individual G7 countries, as well as amongst all the economic powers of the globe. This is reflected in the summit's agenda, which centres on the state of the World Trade Organisation and various regional trading blocs, exchange rates and monetary policy, as well as questions such as "fighting global crime and terrorism" and weapons agreements. In the context of the world-wide anti-social offensive, the summit is also to examine questions related to the re-design of social programmes.

Close to 50,000 people marched through Amsterdam on Saturday, June 14, on the final march and rally of the Euromarch. This was the culmination of the European Marches against Unemployment, Job Security and Social Exclusion which had been on the move for up to two months. Marches from Britain, France, Spain, Bosnia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, as well as participants from countries outside Europe, converged in Amsterdam to coincide with the opening of the Amsterdam Summit concluding the InterGovernmental Conference of the EU. In England, the starting point of the marches had been Preston in the North West and Jarrow in the North East.

The organisers point out that the demonstration in Amsterdam should be regarded not as the end of the campaign against the European Union and its dangers but as the beginning. For example, when the 1998 InterGovernmental Conference is held in Cardiff on June 15-16 next year, it is planned to hold an Alternative "Open" Conference.

THE imperialist powers have taken on the role of the military gendarme of the world, seeking legitimacy under the guise of the United Nations.

Photographs of Italian soldiers from the "humanitarian", "peacekeeping" UN forces depicting them engaged in acts of torture against the Somalian people were recently published in Italian newspapers. The Italian government is said to be anxious to act quickly to limit the damage caused by such a revelation. One reason for this is that Italian forces are currently involved in military activities in Albania where they are supposedly bringing "democracy" to that country.

The facts that have come to light about the UN-led "Restore Hope" military missions which was sent to Somalia in 1983 expose that the soldiers of several countries participated in the inhumane and brutal treatment of Somalis. These activities have been said to be aberrant behaviour amongst some individual soldiers. But the reality is that they are a compelling indictment of the big imperialist powers. The United Nations is manipulated and dominated by these big powers, and it therefore has sent such "peacekeeping" forces all over the world to serve their interests, currently deployed in Albania, Bosnia and Cyprus, as well as in other locations. This is the reason the United Nations itself is not addressing the issue of the scandals of their soldiers marauding the world in the name of "peace".

Furthermore, NATO never tires of telling the world that it is developing its modus operandi to facilitate "peacekeeping operations under the authority of the United Nations Security Council".

The working class and people of all countries should demand the immediate withdrawal of all UN interventionist forces and that a stop be put to these modern-day international squads of intimidation, brutality and torture of the big powers.