Britain: Blair's 'War on the Home Front'

by Hannah Sell (Dec/02)

"THE WORLD economy is suffering its sharpest downturn since the 1974 oil crisis, a ‘synchronised slowdown’ that is the most rapid for two decades", argued the chancellor, Gordon Brown, in his November pre-budget report.

When New Labour came to power Brown declared that his ‘prudence’ would mean an end to ‘boom and bust’ in the British economy. Quietly shelved some time ago, this claim is now in tatters. The reality of the capitalist system that New Labour has so lovingly embraced, is going to be increased hardship for working-class people. For New Labour themselves it will mean coping with economic crisis and political and industrial unrest, with the fire-fighters’ struggle the first, critical, instalment.

Since the March budget the value of the London stock market has fallen by 22%. The government estimates that their revenue from corporation tax has already fallen by 14% as a result of the economic slowdown. In the seven months from April to October the government borrowed £10.3bn, while in the same period last year it repaid debt of £2.6bn. According to economists at JP Morgan, Brown could face a shortfall of £23bn over the next three years. In fact this is likely to be an underestimate. In the 1989–1992 recession the then Tory government’s budget plummeted from a surplus equivalent to 1.4% of GDP in 1988, to a 7.8% deficit by 1992-93, as tax revenues decreased and spending (particularly on unemployment benefit) increased. The world economic crisis today is, as Brown confessed, far worse than that of the early 1990s. Yet even a recession on a similar scale to then would mean a turnaround in the government finances of something like £100bn. Like the Tories before them, New Labour will turn to a massive increase in borrowing, combined with deep spending cuts and increased use of ‘private finance initiatives’ (PFIs) to fund public services.

The economic crisis, however, will also create havoc for their privatisation programme. The prospect of ‘a hundred Railtracks’ will be posed. As some of the private companies running public services inevitably hit financial crisis, New Labour will have two choices: to pour public money into propping up private companies, as they have done with the privatised British Energy company, or, as they were eventually forced to in Railtrack’s case, step in and partially renationalise. Whereas one forced renationalisation could be construed as bad luck, several would make a complete mockery of privatisation and PFI.

But it would be wrong to imagine that New Labour will react to economic crisis by moving to the left. They will cling to privatisation until it collapses around them. It is true that Digby Jones, director general of the employers organisation, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), has loudly expressed his fear that New Labour intends to increase corporation tax to try and boost government income. Brown has responded with soothing (and accurate) noises about the government being ‘the CBI’s friend’. And in fact Britain’s corporate income tax rate is one of the lowest in the advanced capitalist world, at 30%, with even George Bush’s USA levying far more (45%). New Labour’s mantra about making Britain the most ‘business-friendly environment in the world’ is graphically illustrated by fact that the total tax take from business has fallen from 3.6% (as a share of GDP) in 1996 to 2.8% this year. Digby Jones’ grumbles do not represent a real divergence between New Labour and big business; they are more akin to someone beating their dog to ensure its continued obedience. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that large sections of the British ruling class must be desperately wishing that the Tories were in better shape. In the past they relied on the Labour Party to be a ‘second eleven’ that could stand in for the Tories when necessary, but now there is no credible party waiting in the wings if New Labour hit the rocks.

The fire-fighters’ strike is by far the most serious opposition New Labour has faced, and they appear weak, divided and incompetent in the face of it. Before the strike New Labour was full of bravado about how the fire-fighters would be Blair’s equivalent of the 1984-85 miners’ strike. Andrew Rawnsley summed up their previous mood in The Observer when he recalled a "conversation with a member of the New Labour high command just before they first came to power. He positively looked forward to a strike by a big union. His face lit up at the prospect of showing the unions – and the voters – who was boss. ‘We will crush them’, he smiled". But as Rawnsley went on to comment, "I doubt that he is smiling now".

Blair and his government, with no major strikes since 1997, have never really been tested in a large-scale conflict. Blair didn’t even have to win the battle to cleanse the Labour Party of socialism, his predecessors did most of that and handed him ‘New Labour’ on a plate. The result is an extremely arrogant and short-sighted government with a serious overestimation of its own powers. They undoubtedly provoked the fire-fighters strike, firstly by blocking attempts by the fire authorities to offer an incremental 16% pay rise earlier this year, and secondly via the Bain report. Then, through incompetence, they made doubly sure that everyone in the country clearly understood that they were provoking the second round of strike action through the fiasco of John Prescott’s last minute refusal to ratify the agreement reached between the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) executive and the employers.

It has since become clear that John Monks, secretary of the TUC, was deeply involved in these negotiations. His role was undoubtedly to convince the FBU leadership to accept a ‘modest’ proposal on pay and some elements of ‘modernisation’ (in reality cuts). However, having worked for a deal and had New Labour throw it back in his face, Monks has had no choice, given the fury of trade unionists with New Labour, but to step up his verbal support for the fire-fighters. John Edmonds, leader of the general workers’ GMB union, summed up the situation when he said that this is now "a fight between the government and the whole union movement". Whilst the right-wing trade union leaders currently have no intention of turning their words into solidarity action, if the strike escalates they will come under phenomenal pressure.

The RMT union, which organises a section of London Underground rail workers, are currently balloting for strike action after tube drivers were sent home without pay because they were unwilling to drive, on health and safety grounds, whilst the fire-fighters were on strike. Unfortunately, the ballot will delay action in defence of those drivers until the third planned eight-day strike in the middle of December – too late to put a stop to their victimisation – but nonetheless, if the fire-fighters strike continues, the prospect is raised of the whole London Underground being out at same time as the fire-fighters. Even Monks has had to take a neutral position on trade unionists on the underground and elsewhere refusing to work on safety grounds during the fire strikes, saying that it was up to the unions concerned to ensure that their members were safe.

Monks joked that there was no need to worry, he wasn’t planning a ‘mini general strike’. If the government go on the offensive against the fire-fighters, however, the need for words to be backed up with solidarity action, including if necessary a 24-hour general strike, will be posed. If the TUC are unprepared to do this the responsibility will fall on the newly-elected left trade union leaders. A call to take solidarity action by trade union leaders, if built for, could receive widespread support. There is an enormous groundswell of sympathy for the fire-fighters. Over the last eighteen months strikes have broken out amongst local authority workers, lecturers, London teachers, civil servants, rail workers and, of course, the fire-fighters. Significantly, the main issue in most strikes has been pay, although privatisation is also a massive issue. After twenty years in which British workers’ pay and conditions have been ceaselessly eroded, a tidal wave of feeling has developed that ‘enough is enough – its time to take a bit back of all that has been stolen from us’. The fire-fighters are rightly seen by trade unionists as the ‘advanced guard’ of everyone’s struggle for better pay and conditions. In addition, although the mood could change as events develop, the Prescott fiasco has currently hardened support behind the fire-fighters well beyond the organised working class. The majority of society, including sections of the middle class, are supporting the fire-fighters because they want Blair and New Labour to receive a bloody nose.

New Labour seems to be split and unsure on how to respond. On the one hand, against the background of economic crisis, they are terrified that a high profile victory by the fire-fighters would, as Eddie George, governor of the Bank of England, warned, open the floodgates as other public sector workers gained confidence to fight. Gordon Brown, above all, seems set on taking on the fire-fighters.

On the other hand the deal that was blocked by Prescott included major concessions by the FBU leadership. And New Labour is faced with real difficulties if they escalate the strike. The fire-fighters are determined, and seem prepared for a long and bitter struggle. Virtually all of the national trade union leaders, under pressure from their members, are at least verbally backing the fire-fighters.

At the same time the government is under attack from different sections of the establishment for the way they are handling matters. Some of the military chiefs are openly expressing their worries that, if the strike continues, they will not be able to supply British troops for a war against Iraq. The Chief Police Officers Association has said that they won’t cross picket lines, and army commanders have also expressed their reluctance to do so. This partly reflects the mood of the rank-and-file in the army and police, but it is also an indication of the antagonism between the tops of the police and army on the one side, and the New Labour government on the other. Whilst New Labour has proved its dedication to neo-liberal capitalism again and again, it cannot call on the same deeply-engrained loyalty from sections of the state and the establishment that the Tories had in the past. When it appears weak, as it does now, the instinct of a layer of those were traditionally Tories is to kick a Labour government while it is down.

However, if New Labour steps up their offensive on the fire-fighters these antagonisms will tend to be submerged by the class struggle, and the different sections of the state will largely do what is asked of them, including crossing picket lines and taking engines. The fire-fighters can only rely on their own cohesion and solidarity action from other trade unionists to win their struggle.

Against the background of increasing industrial militancy a victory for the fire-fighters would massively embolden working people to fight for decent pay. This could coalesce with the development of a mass anti-war movement, as Blair follows Bush on the road to a showdown with Iraq. In the latest opinion polls only 13% of people ‘strongly support’ a war on Iraq, while 59% think that a war would be fought to protect US interests in the Middle East. It is possible that, in a matter of months, Blair could go from being ‘Teflon Tony’ to being forced out of office. Brown, who imagines he will be Blair’s successor, could find himself even more unpopular than Blair, given his responsibility for the economy and his intransigence on the fire dispute.

At this stage there is still no mass political alternative to New Labour and the other capitalist parties. The Socialist Party’s demand for a new mass workers’ party is increasingly popular amongst rank-and-file trade unionists, particularly fire-fighters. The FBU general secretary Andy Gilchrist, unfortunately, is still arguing that the task is to force Labour back to the left. Even he, however, had to admit at a fringe meeting at the November 16 London Labour Party conference that was starting to think that ‘I must have been mad’ to argue such a position.

Certainly, he will not be able to convince his members that they should keep paying money to the Labour Party. Even before the strike whole watches had decided not to pay into the political fund. Once this strike is over, it is doubtful that many fire-fighters will be still be paying money to Labour. However, this urgently poses the question of what should be done with the money. At this stage, given the lack of an alternative, some fire-fighters have started to give the money to charity. What is needed, however, is for the unions’ political funds to be used to build a new workers’ party that will fight for the cause of the fire-fighters, and of the working class as a whole.

Britain: Blair Declares War on Firefighters

from The Socialist (29/11/02)

"THE GOVERNMENT has completely lost control of the agenda. This is no longer just a dispute between the FBU and the government: it has descended into a fight between the government and the whole union movement" (Observer 24 November). This quote from John Edmonds, leader of the GMB union, accurately sums up the firefighters' dispute.

The class lines are drawn. On the one side, the firefighters and control staff, fighting for a decent living wage and to protect their jobs and working conditions. Behind the firefighters, public sector and other workers who understand that a victory for the firefighters will be a victory for low paid workers everywhere.

Pitted against them are Blair, Brown, Prescott and the New Labour government, cheered on by the bosses' club, the CBI, and the right-wing press, all determined to take on the FBU so that they can continue with their agenda of privatisation and poverty pay for public sector workers.

Chaos and blunder

Blair brought forward his monthly press conference in a desperate attempt to regain the initiative after a week of chaos and blunder. Both army and police chiefs said they wanted nothing to do with his proposal to seize the red fire engines and the chief of defence staff warned that using troops in the strike would undermine Blair's plans for war with Iraq.

Then Prescott showed his contempt for firefighters by staying in bed when a deal between the FBU and employers was in reach. He then seemed to contradict Brown by saying that the deal was "still worth talking about".

Blair's hardline intervention has hardened the mood of firefighters on the picket lines as they gear up for what could be a long, drawn out struggle.

Blair is still insisting that any pay rise over 4% must be linked to 'modernisation', which all firefighters know means less jobs, worse conditions and an inferior service for the general public.

Everything they have fought for over the past 25 years is at stake. With New Labour digging their heels in for a protracted struggle, the FBU should consider moving from discontinuous action towards all-out action to increase the pressure on the government.

It's clearly big business that is pulling New Labour's strings. Digby Jones of the CBI has called on Blair to "stand firm" and "not budge an inch". The Financial Times turned up the heat by asking "does the government govern?". "Each surrender would make resisting the next one more costly" they declared, using the language of war. "A government's monopoly over coercive power is the basis of civilised life." (25 November) They call for "proper preparations" for a long strike including the use of red engines "If that means limits on Britain's deployment of troops in a new Gulf War, so be it."

Solidarity vital

There is huge public support for the firefighters and any provocative action by New Labour could turn opinion even further against the government. However, urged on by his big business backers, it's possible that Blair could move in the direction of trying to seize the red fire engines or using the courts to ban the strikes.

Police chiefs have said that they do not want their 'neutrality' to be compromised by crossing picket lines. But although individual police (who are also threatened with 'modernisation') and soldiers have sympathy with the firefighters, ultimately the army and police are not impartial, but used to defend the profits and interests of big business and the capitalist class - as clearly happened in the miners' strike of 1984-85.

If there is any attempt to escalate the dispute in this way, the whole of the trade union movement should be organised in support of the firefighters, including general strike action.

Blair says that this is a strike that the FBU cannot win. He claims that any rise over 4%, if not paid for by 'modernisation' will wreck the economy. But as the Financial Times bluntly put it: "The principle is not that the £200 million cost of a deal with the firefighters would cripple the public finances - it represents less than 0.05% of annual government spending. But it would set an extremely dangerous precedent".

Blair is taking on the firefighters to set an example to all public sector workers. But the firefighters can win. Solidarity action by other workers, most of whom are also facing low pay, cuts and privatisation, is the key to winning this strike. Left union leaders such as those in the RMT, ASLEF, PCS and CWU should, together with the FBU, call a conference of shop stewards and trade union representatives to discuss how solidarity action can be organised. A victory for the firefighters will be a victory for all workers.

Views from the picket line

I'm disappointed that this didn't get sorted because someone on £120,000 couldn't get out of bed before 9am. And I'm angry that they won't pay us because they're frightened of paying everyone else. It's unbelievable that the same people who recommended 40% to the MPs, and they took it, recommended the same to us and the MPs said we can't have it.
Firefighter at St Mary's Station, Southampton

All we want is to be paid a decent wage and to get back to doing the job we do well. But instead we are on a picket line. I feel awful about it but the government are determined to break our union and keep all other public sector workers' pay low. They can afford to go to war in Iraq. They are prepared to spend millions a day to keep this strike going but they won't pay us a decent wage. It looks like being a long battle and a lean Christmas, but we have to believe that we can win.
Zoe, fire controller, Swindon

Turkey: Continued Oppression of the Kurds

by Stephen Smellie (Nov/02)

STEPHEN SMELLIE, South Lanarkshire UNISON branch secretary, recently visited the Kurdish area of Turkey as part of a trade unions delegation. Here he gives a report of the continued repression facing the Kurdish people in Turkey.

Inroduction

Kurdish people, known as the Kurds, live in an area that consists of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, north-western Iran and a part of Syria. The Kurds refer to this area as Kurdistan. The Kurds have their own language, culture and history as ancient as any other people in the region. Historically they have suffered oppression in all 4 countries that they inhabit.

When modern Turkey was established in the 1920s the Kurds were denied any distinct identity by the Turkish state who refused to acknowledge them as a minority group, referring to them as "Hill Turks." Over the years there have been a number of uprisings by Kurds trying to establish their own state, autonomy or simply their own identity. These risings have met with brutal responses from the Turkish state on each occasion.

In the 1980s the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) launched an armed struggle. This led to a prolonged period of civil unrest with the Turkish military occupying the area under military rule and brutally suppressing any support for the PKK. 30,000 people died during the conflict, thousands of villages were cleared with people forced to migrate to the cities, to western Turkey and abroad. Many came to live in western Europe, including Scotland, as asylum seekers and refugees.

During this period thousands of people were detained and tortured by the military. Many of these people disappeared. Families were persecuted and victimised.

Heroic struggle

A member of SES (Health and Social Workers Union) in the city of Van, Turkey brought home to me just how heroic ordinary Kurdish trade unionists need to be to struggle for basic human rights. He said "The head of our union in Van was suspended and exiled for making a statement to an Italian delegation. Since so many more people are here tonight I expect there to be many more suspensions."

I heard similar stories from trade unionists throughout the Region. The Secretary of KESK (Confederation of Public Service Employees) in Diyarbakir explained that when they elect their branch committee they also elect a second committee. This is because the state will target the committee members and probably exile them to other cities in Turkey. The members of the second committee are then able to step in to replace them. However, he pointed out, the second committee often are targeted as well. This makes it difficult to organize, he said with what must be an understatement.

The Kurdish (south east) region of Turkey suffered from years of brutal military rule as the Turkish state fought to defeat the armed struggle of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). 3 years ago the PKK's leader, Ocalan, declared a ceasefire and since then the PKK armed units have retreated over the border into the hills of Iraq. This however has not ended the human rights abuses of people suspected of supporting the PKK, trade union activists, Kurdish politicians, socialists, lawyers and anyone else who argues for rights for the Kurds or working people.

During the time of the conflict the military destroyed thousands of villages and forced the small peasant farmers to migrate to the cities, to the west of Turkey and to Western Europe. The Kurdish cities were given no additional funding to cope with this huge influx of people. Many of these people had been victims of torture, had seen members of their family detained or murdered by the state or by the village guards. These guards continue to be a problem. Employed originally by the military to report any sympathies among the local population for the PKK, they have now became local warlords who terrorise the villagers and steal the best land for themselves.

Lawyers who represented people accused of supporting "separitism" were themselves targeted by the security forces. 70-80% of the members of the Bar Association in Diyarbakir were prosecuted or had charges brought against them. According to the Medical Association, Doctors, who examined people who had been detained for weeks before they appeared in court and who reported signs of torture, were threatened by the military.

Since the ceasefire the situation has improved but there are still reports of people being tortured in prison. Any country which sends 2 or 3 security police to wait for a Unison activist to come down to breakfast in the morning and follows him around all day for a week clearly has some way to go before it achieves a genuine democracy.

The Turkish state does not allow any language but Turkish to be used in any official setting. So even in schools where the children speak Kurdish teachers must only use Turkish. Failure to stick to this ruling can result in teachers being disciplined or exiled to another city. In the past year a campaign for the right to be taught in Kurdish has gathered momentum amongst students and parents of younger children. Signatures were collected on petitions to be presented to University rectors. This mild form of protest was met by a brutal response by the military. When Razat Bapci, a 19 year old student at Dija University, went to present a petition, he and his 2 colleagues were arrested, searched and beaten up by police before being detained for 3 days. They were sentenced to 3 years and 9 months in jail. They were also suspended from university just at exam time so they were unable to sit them. They are now appealing their sentence.

The teachers union, Egitim Sen, have always supported the right to "Mother Language Education." However when Abdullah Demirbas, the Chair of the unions Diyarbakir branch, made a statement on the subject he was sacked from his job. In the union office he showed me photographs of numerous union activists who had been shot by the state over the years.

While I was in Turkey the election campaign had just begun and many of the trade union and human rights activists I met were supporting DEHAP (the Democratic People's Party)*. This was an alliance of the Kurdish party HADEP and 2 small socialist parties (EMEP and SP). This combination of nationalist and socialist outlooks continually emerged in the discussions I had with people I met. On the one hand they would emphasise the democratic struggle for Kurdish rights and on the other point out that the struggle in Turkey was against globalisation. On more than one occasion the view was expressed that the unions in Western Europe had not done enough to resist privatization and the programme of the IMF.

The activist from the SES in Van ended his contribution by making a plea for the movement against the War against Iraq. A war would not help either the Kurds in Iraq or in Turkey he said. "I am asking the socialist groups in your country to help us."

*In the election DEHAP received over 40% of the vote in the Kurdish region but only 6% of the vote nationally. They failed to win any seats in the Parliament as parties need to get at least 10% to get candidates elected.

Italy: The Arrests of the 'No Globals'

by Gerri Creegan, CWI Italy (Nov/02)

ON NOVEMBER 15, at 2.00am, twenty activists linked to the 'Rete del Sud Ribelle' (formed after events in Napoli March 2001 and before Genova July 2001) including members of COBAS were arrested and transferred to special prisons in Trani and Latina, accused of an absurd offence: "associazione sovversiva". Meanwhile, in Napoli, inside the glass building of the Orientale University a room occupied by the university collective had the door forced open by Digos agents who later marched through the university at will.

At the Assemblea in the Orientale University on Tuesday morning Nov. 19th, people from the SKA Disobbedienti Social Centre) and Napoli No Global spoke about the events of the last few days. They were joined by others from the University Collectivo and other movements in the University. All speakers saw a clear connection between the Social Forum in Firenze and the arrests. Particularly as the government had been denied the violence it had clearly desired and the opportunity to repress a completely peaceful march.

So for the speakers the intrusion in the university coming at the same time as the arrests was no coincidence but rather part of a planned attempt to criminalise the No Global and other movements and to act as a disincentive for those people who might be interested in joining such movements. Thus the acts carried out, far from being against any present threat of violence, were in fact against the growing popularity of the movement. A point made by the speakers and also made in the last few days by many commentators, including pro-Berlusconi TV presenter Giuliano Ferrara, is their surprise at the manner in which the arrests were carried out, at two o'clock in the morning, as is only done normally with mafia bosses.

Another point reiterated by many is that the much hyped violence before Firenze never actually materialised, mostly because the policing of the Social Forum was in marked contrast to that of G8 in Genova with the police in Firenze keeping a very low profile.

Prior to the Forum much media attention focused on the security aspect of the Forum with much reference being made to Genoa and Napoli. Typical of this was Berlusconi, who described as 'hazardous' the choice made by the organisers of the Firenze meeting. Others in his government, no less menacing, warned people that their security could not be guaranteed, that Firenze could become another Genoa. The result was that one of the big talking points before the Forum was the threat of violence, in particular the kind of violence witnessed at Genoa. The government was keen to use this threat in order to discourage people from going to Firenze. The large numbers attending proved this ruse hadn't worked, causing worry only to those who had decided beforehand not to participate in the Social Forum in Firenze.

The group mentioned most often in the context of violence both in Genoa and Firenze is the Black Block. This group like the Rete del Sud Ribelle was formed after the police violence against demonstrators at the Global Forum in Naples. But they have become a useful scapegoat ever since Genoa where they were completely 'blackened' by the forces of the state as being mainly responsible for instigating the violence.

The Black Bloc are certainly not trying to get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but neither do they fit so easily into they stereotype created for them by government and others. All of the 'subversive activity' they are accused of doing they have done in public. Some of it is laughable in being considered a crime at all. Opposition to globalisation and the governments economic and labour policies now come under the heading of 'subversive activity'! Not surprisingly this has led many groups such as RC to declare; 'we are all subversives now'. The No Globals it must be remembered do not call for the need to bring down the rotten Berlusconi government, as some well known to us do!!

The much talked about self-defence manual the Black Bloc produced after Naples and in preparation for Genoa was done openly because it is perfectly legal.

As F Caruse put it in an interview from prison yesterday (Thurs Nov 21st) it appears from the charges as if they, the No Globals, attacked the police in Napoli, rather than the other way round. Maybe these people also think it was the twin towers which crashed into the airplanes rather than the other way round!

Review: Tower of Strength: The Story of Tyrone O'Sullivan and Tower Colliery by Tyrone O'Sullivan

by Alec Thraves, CWI Britain (Nov/02)

WITH TONY Blair gearing up to emulate Margaret Thatcher by taking on his own 'enemy within' - public sector workers, starting with the firefighters - Alec Thraves looks at a recent book on Tower colliery, its chairman, Tyrone O'Sullivan, and the history and struggles of the South Wales miners.

Tyrone O'Sullivan is the chairman of Tower colliery in Hirwaun, South Wales. He led the team of miners that fought to buy the pit from British Coal after it was due to close in 1994/95. He and 238 other miners each paid £8,000 from their redundancy settlement and borrowed an initial £2 million to become shareholders. Since the miners' buyout, Tower has remained a profitable going concern and is now the last surviving deep mine in South Wales with the best wages and conditions in the mining industry.

Prior to the miners' buyout, Tyrone O'Sullivan was the National Union of Mineworkers' (NUM) lodge secretary at Tower for over 20 years and an integral part of one of the most militant and respected group of miners in the South Wales coalfield. This book is about Tyrone's life, the pit, and the many people identified with the struggles of the miners in their proud history.

In 1947, there were around 100,000 miners working in the South Wales coalfield, overwhelmingly giving support to the new union, the NUM, that had been formed from the old Miners Federation in 1945. Nationalisation was welcomed by the majority as a major step forward but overcompensation to the coal owners and bureaucratic mismanagement was to have a significant impact on the industry with 74 pits closing in South Wales during the 1960s alone.

As a young man growing up in the post-war economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s it is understandable how Tyrone fondly reminisces of a time when "no one locked their doors and window locks were unheard of. I lived in a real community and was lucky to be enveloped in such a loving and caring environment". The main reason why "it is a great pity that youngsters today often never get the chance to experience that feeling of security and trust" is because of the way capitalism has ravaged the valley communities. Especially after the defeat of the 1984/85 miners strike "Poverty and despair destroyed many families. There was an increase in homelessness; alcohol abuse and drug problems started to become a real issue for the young. The older age groups reported higher levels of despondency and depression".

A recognition of the effect of pit closures on a community was one of the driving forces behind the determination of Tower miners to fight against Thatcher's closure plans. Another and more important reason was the tradition in Tower of struggle, solidarity and socialism. The South Wales miners had a history of adult self-education. For generations, in the miner's libraries up and down the valleys, miners would study everything from Marx to mathematics. Socialist classics were devoured by workers who could not only explain theories of surplus value but were also able to relate Marxist economics to the every day life in the pits.

Tower colliery was fortunate to have a leader in Tyrone O'Sullivan who would not just act competently as a lodge secretary but along with many of the lodge committee members would inject a daily dose of trade unionism and socialism into a knowledgeable workforce. That is one of the reasons why in Tower "as underground miners we never lost a vote for industrial action".

The miners at Tower not only fought for better wages and conditions for themselves but also followed the magnificent traditions of the South Wales miners in supporting other workers in struggle as well as workers internationally. The Welsh Triple Alliance, where nurses, miners and seamen came together to support each other, was very special to Tyrone because some of the events of that period were very traumatic and demonstrated that miners were not insular and they could relate to the needs of other workers.

They picketed Barry Docks in support of striking seamen, they occupied a block at Aberdare hospital when news broke of the intention to close the hospital, and they even supported chicken factory workers on the Welsh-Newent border by not only joining them on the picket line but also getting chicken forced off the canteen menu at the nearby British Coal research centre! The South Wales miners and Tower in particular were the first stop for numerous strikers over the years and workers in struggle knew they were guaranteed support and solidarity action.

Like their forefathers, the miners in Tower also had an internationalist outlook. One example highlighted in the book was the support given to the Solidarity movement in Poland. Tower miners had been sending money to Poland for some time, to the families of miners who had been killed in a pit over there during the uprisings. The Solidarity movement made its first visit overseas to this country and their first port of call was the Tower colliery. Numerous overseas visitors have passed through the bleak landscape of Hirwaun over the years on their way to meet a workforce respected for their internationalist and socialist outlook.

The great strike

Such a background prepared the Tower miners well for the biggest industrial battle since the 1926 general strike. Thatcher and the Tories meticulously planned for the 1984/85 miners' strike that lasted twelve months. The miners were traditionally the British workers 'Brigade of Guards'. A defeat as humiliating as possible was the conscious aim of Thatcher. The government provoked strike action in 1984 and Thatcher set out to create an 'industrial Falklands' to defeat the 'enemy within'.

Tower miners recognised that this strike "was a strike like no other. It was not about rates of pay, conditions or working practices. It was a strike about the very future of the coal industry. The Conservative government wanted its revenge after losing many past battles. They would not forget that the miners had brought down the Heath government in 1974 and they were determined to curb the power of the NUM".

Coal Board boss Ian MacGregor had announced plans to close 20 pits and do away with 25,000 jobs. The closing of Cortenwood provoked a movement of Yorkshire miners who appealed to other coalfields for support. Surprisingly, because of a lack of support from Yorkshire when Welsh pits were in trouble, the South Wales NUM area conference voted 3:1 against industrial action. Tyrone believed this was due to a lack of information surrounding the events when Yorkshire refused South Wales support. Nevertheless this was a huge setback, which Tyrone, whose pit had voted 99% in favour, refused to accept. "I phoned Emlyn Williams who was President of the South Wales area of the NUM and told him of my unease. His pit had voted for action but they were not going out on strike as they had been beaten by the area vote. I suggested something could be done. Emlyn said - do what you can, but don't tell me".

What they did over the next few days was picket out every pit in South Wales! This proved to be a correct strategy because by the end of the week all the pits had met and agreed support. If they had formally accepted the area conference decision then there would have been no strike in South Wales.

That is why it is somewhat of a contradiction for Tyrone to later argue against a national ballot. Both at the time and later (and the argument continues in this book), not a little ink has been spilled over the issue of whether it would have been more effective if the miners had called a national ballot, even while they were out on strike, to confirm an overwhelming majority in favour of strike action. Tyrone argues that "it might appear irrational not to have held a ballot but the South Wales miners knew that a national vote would, by definition, have to include Nottinghamshire and from bitter experience they knew that they would vote against. I will always dismiss that option as rubbish".

Nevertheless, many militant miners believed it would have been tactically better for the NUM leaders to have sanctioned a ballot a few weeks into the strike. This would have resulted in a probable 80%-90% national majority in favour of strike action. Even if the Nottinghamshire coalfield had voted against then it does not take a great imagination to picture how the leaders of the scab Union of Democratic Miners (UDM) would have reacted. They would have advanced the argument that Nottinghamshire voted against the strike action and therefore was 'opting out'. But a majority in favour on a national level would have put huge pressure on these Nottinghamshire miners and could have convinced the majority to strike. Even if they had refused to join the strike, a national ballot would have removed an obstacle that was used by right-wing trade union leaders, politicians and the media to undermine support throughout the duration of the strike.

Tyrone argues that the formal constitutional position of the NUM was that "a national vote needs total support. All the areas have to vote in favour and I knew that was not possible". However, Tyrone correctly ignored the formal constitutional vote against action in South Wales and yet was prepared to accept that a formal vote by Nottinghamshire against the strike would have been decisive!

What leaps out of the chapters on the 1984/85 miners strike is the momentous support for the miners from rank-and-file trade unionists, from ordinary working-class people everywhere, and the international solidarity the miners received. Unlike right-wing Labour and its leader Neil Kinnock, who was always 'too busy' to attend NUM rallies, socialist organisations within the Labour Party such as Militant (the forerunner of the Socialist Party) played an important role in organising support throughout Britain and internationally. Tyrone recognises that "our work was also made easier by the help and support offered by Militant".

Tower miners were welcomed with open arms wherever they went seeking support: from Bournemouth, to Islington, to the small village of Wivenhoe, where a busload of strikers went to stop coal coming into the harbour from abroad. Millions of pounds, thousands of food parcels, clothes, and even toys for the kids at Xmas, were donated by a generous and sympathetic working class that wanted to see the miners defeat Thatcher.

Tyrone is also correct to point out the marvellous role played by women during the strike and in South Wales there were one hundred women's support groups covering the 27 remaining pits. "It is likely that the actions of these women changed attitudes forever about the role of women. They no longer waited for their miner husbands to come home on a Friday and hand over a pay packet. Now the support they gave to the miners' cause was fundamental in the fight to save the mining communities".

If the Labour Party and trade union leaders had come to the miners cause with the same solidarity as ordinary people then Thatcher wouldn't have lasted three months! Tyrone bends the stick too far in putting some of the blame on ordinary people for the defeat of the strike when he comments, "similarly in this country ordinary people scatter and run instead of standing and supporting each other". There is a big distinction between ordinary trade union members who fully backed the miners' cause and would have undoubtedly responded if given a lead and the well paid, largely unelected, overpaid trade union bureaucrats who helped Kinnock undermine the strike.

After twelve months the miners returned to work proud but defeated. The recriminations were quick in coming and NUM president Arthur Scargill, probably the most vilified and courageous trade union leader for generations, bore the brunt of the criticism. Surprisingly, in his re-election for president, the South Wales area, for the first time in its history, failed to support the candidate from the left. The recently elected NUM president in South Wales, Des Dutfield, who had narrowly beaten the only rank-and-file candidate in a three horse race for South Wales NUM president, Ian Isaac, a prominent Militant member and lodge secretary of St John's colliery in Maesteg, assisted this decision.
Inevitably however, as Scargill predicted, the government continued its programme of closures and redundancies. As a high productivity pit Tower was granted a temporary reprieve but in 1992, Michael Heseltine, the new Tory trade and industry secretary, announced that another 31 out of the remaining 50 pits left in Britain were to be closed with the loss of 30,000 jobs!

The Tower Employee Buyout

A fight loomed again and of course the miners at Tower were to the fore. "For over two years my comrades and I spoke at rallies and attended marches all over the country. The men of Tower organised and attended more marches and rallies than the rest of the other pits put together". However, the pits continued to close and Tower, now the last pit left in South Wales, was given its death notice on April 5, 1994. Tyrone outlines the next '14 days that shook Britain' when Tower miners struggled to save their pit. At 12-30pm on April 19, after two weeks of intense activity, the pressurised and isolated miners at Tower voted by a margin of 70% to 30% to accept the redundancy terms. But after returning from signing the redundancy terms with British Coal managers the despondent Tower delegation, drowning their sorrows with their families in a local pub, floated the idea of a buyout. Far from being down and out, the morning paper the following day screamed out, "Tyrone O'Sullivan quotes Arnold Schwarzenegger, 'We'll be back!'"

The following chapter then outlines how an idea in a pub can be put into practice by a determined leadership who almost overnight had to become familiar with accounting, insurance, management, markets etc. The Tower Employee Buyout Team (TEBO) put forward over the next couple of months a business plan that generated the finance for the buyout as well as gaining the support of the redundant miners, who each paid £8,000 to become shareholders. Ironically it was at the Tory Party conference later that year that Michael Heseltine made the announcement that the TEBO team had become the preferred bidders for Tower colliery. After going to London to hand over a down payment of £1 million for the purchase of the pit the TEBO team quickly returned back to the valleys where the mayor of the Cynon Valley pronounced, "Their names should go down in history, they have secured jobs not just for themselves but also for their children and grandchildren".

An appropriate tribute but also a warning. Tower was unique for many reasons that are outlined in this book, in particular the trade union and socialist consciousness of the workforce, a strong and determined leadership, and a pit that was economically viable. Tyrone however, by his own admission, has become a tribune for workers' buyouts, based on the Tower model. "This is the way forward and I hope the rest of Britain can learn from us. I will continue to travel the length and breadth of the country to spread the word to anyone who is prepared to listen".

Despite Tyrone championing the cause of workers' buyouts over many years the fact is that not one has been successfully taken up! For a very good reason - that nowhere have you had a viable business being privatised in which the government is being forced to sell to its workforce. While on the other hand, private bosses, if they are going out of business anyway, might sell up, but then it would already be a loss making prospect from the beginning. Look at the recent Corus steel example. They would not even consider the possibility of selling Llanwern to the workforce even though it was making a loss because it would end up competing with them.

Unfortunately, 'small islands of socialism' surrounded by a sea of capitalism can have no long-term future and while perhaps necessary in isolated, exceptional cases such as Tower, cannot be a viable alternative to a socialist plan of production where the commanding heights of the economy are nationalised under democratic workers control and management. Unlike previous nationalisation, there should be no compensation paid to the fat cats but compensation paid only on proven need in order to protect small shareholders.

Tyrone says "it is true; we have embraced capitalism, but only on out terms". However, this may not always be the case. Ultimately, the future of Tower is determined by the capitalist market, not by what is good for the community, the workforce or society in general. Whilst the economy is controlled by capitalism the future of even this unique experiment at Tower will always be at risk.

The very success of Tower is a story that needs to be heard and this book should be read by all those inspired by working class struggle and solidarity. That is its strength, not as a new economic alternative to be pursued by any workforce threatened with redundancy but through showing how a group of workers who struggled to the end to save a nationalised industry and with their backs to the wall, were forced into a workers buyout in order to save a few hundred jobs. Hundreds of workers, their families and the immediate community of the Cynon Valley, will be forever grateful for the efforts of these miners but for the tens of thousands in the rest of the South Wales valleys, and the millions throughout the rest of the country, capitalism continues to ravage their communities with mass unemployment, poverty and despair.