Interview: The man expelled from Labour for opposing cuts

28 May 2012: Brian Precious talks to Councillor George Barratt about his fight against the cuts in Barking and Dagenham

Brian: Could you give a brief biographical introduction?

George: I am a working class London bloke who dropped out of school at 15 and got a job as an office boy in a quantity surveyor's office. My membership of the Labour Party has fluctuated, depending on life events and interest locally.

I first joined Labour in 1962, but I have spent time working overseas, firstly in Aden in 1963- 65, then Zambia 1966-72. My experiences politicised me by witnessing anti-colonial struggles, making me realise that I had to take a stand on the big issues unfolding around me. I went on a work brigade to Nicaragua in 1987, and witnessed the achievements of the Sandinista revolution - especially for women - and the horrors of the previous Somoza dictatorship and the growing threat of the Contras. I went on a work brigade to Cuba in 1993, and was shocked by the effect of the US blockade on the island, especially as I was there during the ‘Special Period’ following the collapse of the USSR. The open display of prostitution in Havana was a particular shock. In order to be more knowledgeable, I did a part-time Masters in Latin American History and Politics at the LSE.

More recently, I have been active in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and over time have travelled around the Middle East, from Morocco in the west to Iran in the east. I recall young schoolgirls in Tehran trying out their English by asking me if I had read Harry Potter!

Brian: The Special Period was perhaps the lowest ebb of the Cuban revolution. Tell me about your political career at home?

George: I got my first taste of class in Britain in my first job, as a working class cockney boy facing the snobbery of those in the quantity surveyor's office around me. I moved around the south-east and was active in the Labour Party, when I was in the country. I was there on the day when we smashed the National Front in Lewisham in 1977, so anti-fascism goes back a long way with me. I joined the IS when it was becoming the SWP, and later joined the IMG in 1978. I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of the IMG and had my consciousness raised by the feminist stance of the women comrades. I was active in supporting the Miner’s strike, and lived very close to Wapping so I was active against the scabs in the print dispute in 1986.

Brian: Let's move to the present. How did things start in Barking and Dagenham?

George: It was the election of Richard Barnbrook and the fascist BNP councillors in 2006 that got me to re-join the Labour party in Barking and Dagenham. I became a ward chairman, and in the 2010 elections I stood against two fascists in Mayesbrook ward. We didn't think I would win, but we felt we couldn't leave two fascists uncontested. But I was elected! As a Councillor I got an insight into the terrible conditions of many peoples' lives - those with industrial illnesses, learning difficulties, unemployed, those with awful landlords.

I also came to realise that many of my fellow Labour councillors were part of the problem. Their inactivity had been responsible for the BNP advance in the first place. There was a sense of routine, OK at dealing with straightforward problems, but when faced with the savage cuts imposed by the new Tory-Lib Dem government they simply capitulated. They voted through cuts totalling 28% of the B&D budget over 3 years, and they did this without so much as a whimper.

Although we are compelled to obey legislation on local council spending, I felt we needed to make it clear that the cuts were not our fault and that we were on the side of the people who elected us. We should have organised protests and demonstrations, but the council stuck to the mantra of 'having to make tough decisions'. What appalled me was the tone of the Labour group budget discussions. For example, ‘if we cut libraries, there will be a backlash and we won't get re-elected.’ Just self-interest but no principles. By now, I felt I can't do this anymore, and in Nov 2011 I stated my opposition to the cuts in the B&D Post newspaper. Then an anonymous comment from a council spokesperson appeared, repeating the 'tough decisions' line. I gave an interview to Socialist Worker on why I resigned, and I lost the Labour whip in early January 2012. I was told I must 'recant' in order to be re-registered as a Labour Councillor. I refused and was expelled from the Labour Party.

So we had a protest meeting on the closure of the Broadway theatre in Barking, with Ken Loach, and set up Barking and Dagenham Against the Cuts.

Our next event is a half-day conference of community organisations on the cuts at St Margaret’s Centre, Barking on Saturday, June 9th. There will be plenary sessions and workshops on health, council housing, jobs and pensions, and anti-racism. We hope that each of these workshops will precipitate a campaign in that area. We have a badly-run NHS trust, which will get even worse under Lansley, we have the Tories threatening to throw people out of council houses that are ‘too big for them’ even though the residents may have lived there for years. We've had the PCS, NUT and UCU strikes over their pensions but we still have an inactive trade’s council, and we also have had the pernicious local influence of the BNP and the EDL.

Brian: Would you say there is one issue which stands out above the others?

George: People are radicalised over different things. We must get them on board so they see the connections between things. We need people to see that, for example, the council's outsourcing of building services to the Enterprise Group in Liverpool, and to the US multinational office services company Agilysis at their office in Cheshire, are examples of ‘Globalisation comes to Barking.’ We need people to see that the multinationals run down Ford Dagenham to make cars on the cheap elsewhere, and that is the reason for the unemployment here. This reduces purchasing power in the economy and that's why we see so many pawn shops here in Barking and an economy that runs on debt and payday loans.

Brian: What would be your solution to the crisis, especially if you were leader of B&D Council?

George: I think there is a consensus on this, but action is needed at central government level. We need to nationalise the banks, start a major public works programme, especially building new council houses, raise taxes on the rich and recover the billions in taxes unpaid by multinational corporations. While Margaret Hodge was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, she exposed the massive tax avoidance of Vodafone, Goldman-Sachs and 25 other multinationals running up huge tax bills and not paying them! We are not all in this together!

Brian: I recall Julian Assange and Wikileaks and their exposure of massive tax-avoidance by companies. I also note the media's focus on 'benefit scroungers'.

George: Yes! A woman working as a barmaid and getting a few quid cash-in-hand is light years away from a multinational owing billions of pounds in tax! The economic solution I just outlined would raise the money to actually get things going to provide for need, not for profit.

You can join the half-day conference on the cuts on 9 June at St Margaret’s Centre, Barking, for sessions and workshops on health, council housing, jobs and pensions, and anti-racism.

Race to the Line

24 May 2012: With John Carlos, one of the Mexico ‘68 podium protesters, on a speaking tour of Britain, Mark Perryman describes the continuing clash of race and the Games

United on the Mexico podium by their fierce opposition to racism, Tommie Smith, Peter Norman and John Carlos used the medal ceremony for what has become an iconic moment of public protest. Its durability as an image of anti-racism in sport and beyond is testament to the global platform the Olympics provided. Even before satellite TV and digital media, the dignified audacity of the three medal-winners became an overnight world-wide news story.

The Sydney Olympics in 2000 offered another iconic Olympic memory of sport and race. As the twenty-first century began Eric Hobsbawm’s, description of the role of sport in providing a popular expression of national identity amongst the debris of globalisation became increasingly relevant: ‘The imagined community of millions seems more real as a team of named people.’ As part of this process a sporting contest can sometimes crystallise social or political changes within a nation. When Cathy Freeman, the Australian Aboriginal sprinter, streaked around the track to win the 400 meters gold medal, kitted out in an all-in-one skin-tight green and gold Lycra suit complete with hood, she was chased every inch of the way by the light of thousands of camera flashes capturing her moment of glory. This was more than an instant of supreme sporting achievement. For Australia’s Aboriginal community it represented recognition and inclusion from the majority white population - however temporary it ultimately proved to be. Inequality, discrimination, racism, and disputes over land rights didn’t disappear just because Cathy was a national heroine. Her success was the exception, not the rule, but for a moment it pointed to a different version of Australia.

These moments of opportunity provided by sport are vital in constructing any kind of progressive conversation around issues of race and nationality. Especially in the wake of London’s 7/7, one day after the city was selected to host the 2012 Games, a caricature of multiculturalism has been used as cover to break with the kind of celebratory diversity that the Olympics bid had seemed, at least for one of those moments, to represent. In Singapore, as the London bid presentation approached its climactic ending, Seb Coe welcomed on stage thirty youngsters, ‘Each from East London, from the communities who will be touched most directly by our Games. Thanks to London’s multicultural mix of 200 nations, they also represent the youth of the world...’ And what a mix too. ‘Their families have come from every continent. They practice every religion and every faith.’ Was there any box in the table of diversity these kids didn’t tick? It was a compelling image of London as a global city. But this was a flimsy populism, a kind of corporate multiculturalism, a presentation of a cosy team picture of unity through diversity which obscured the realities of representation.

As he paraded the youngsters ‘representing’ London across the Singapore stage it might have been useful to ask Coe, or even the kids themselves, a few questions: What was it like living in and growing up in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney, among the poorest boroughs in the city? What jobs did their parents have, if they had jobs at all? What opportunities in terms of health, education and housing could they look forward to? How confident were any of them that they and their families would be able to afford the tickets to watch the Games they were on the stage to promote?

The forces of integration and difference reflect a set of power relations and consequential resistance which, like the national identities they help to define, are always in motion. These help to portray the ways in which all national identities are never entirely fixed but a process in motion. Sport plays its part, a very important part, in this process, but its role is partial and over-hyped at the expense of examining why the black athletes who represent Britain on the pitch, in the ring, or on the running track are not replicated in anything resembling equal numbers on Trade Union executives, or on the front benches, or on the committees that run sport’s governing bodies.

Writer on race and sport Dan Burdsey provides a poignant and powerful observation of how the racialisation of sport is often experienced. Apart from the athletes on the track, ‘You will often see a significant presence of minority ethnic people in the stadium: they will be directing you to your seat or serving your refreshments. The racialised historical antecedents, and continuing legacy, of these roles - entertaining or serving the white folk - should not be lost within the contemporary clamour of positivity.’ An Olympic Park built at the epicentre of three of Britain’s most multicultural boroughs which is experienced in this way will expose much of the inclusion and exclusion which persist in our society, or at least it should if anybody cares to notice.

Mark Perryman is the author of the forthcoming Why The Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be available at a pre-publication 15% discount now from www.orbooks.com/catalog/olympics/

Ex-ECB chief: ‘If parliaments do not give us what we want, we will annul them’

21 May 2012: Leigh Phillips examines the response from former European Central Bank chief, Jean-Claude Trichet on how to solve the eurocrisis

If there is anyone left doubting that the struggle against austerity is fundamentally a struggle for democracy, the chilling proposal of former European Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet on how to solve the eurocrisis unveiled on Thursday, should quickly put paid to such overly microscopic focus.

Trichet has proposed what he calls ‘federation by exception,’ whereby if a country’s leaders or parliament ‘cannot implement sound budgetary policies,’ that country will be ‘taken into receivership’.

Recognising that it would not be possible in the timescale necessary to respond to the crisis to deliver a fully-fledged United States of Europe with the associated political and fiscal union, including fiscal transfers and common debt issuance, the former ECB president, who left office last November, said this ‘next step’ can at least be taken.

‘Federation by exception seems to me not only necessary to make sure we have a solid Economic and Monetary Union, but it might also fit with the very nature of Europe in the long run. I don't think we will have a big [centralised] EU budget,’ he told the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington ahead of the G8 meeting this weekend and ahead of a make-or-break European Council meeting 23 May where EU leaders will discuss the fiscal, banking and political earthquake that is rumbling across southern Europe.

‘It is a quantum leap of governance, which I trust is necessary for the next step of European integration,’ he added.

Domestic fiscal policy has already been shunted off to unelected technocrats for vetting prior to assessment by elected parliaments as a result of the European Semester system, so in some ways, he is right to say that this is just ‘the next step’ beyond the still to be approved Fiscal Pact.

Of course, Trichet is now out of office, but he remains a policy heavyweight in European circles, and if the eurocrisis has shown us anything, it is that having a popularly sanctioned pulpit from which to speak is immaterial when it comes to whose voices are important. If anything, in being freed from office, Trichet is also now freed from the pretense that active ECB officials have to at least publicly maintain that the central bank only focusses on monetary policy and does not concern itself with the political governance of the provinces that lie within its territory. He can come out publicly with his proposals and not make them via secret letters to Italian prime ministers or orders to Portuguese elites.

At the same time, it should be underscored that this is not an official proposal from any EU institutions, and it remains to be seen what sort of hearing it will get, although reports from Washington suggest that his proposal was warmly received by economists and EU officials in attendance.

Nevertheless, let’s not be under any illusion that this proposal from a leading European ‘deep thinker’ is not a direct response to the elections in Greece this month that decimated the centre-left/centre-right austerity consensus in that country.

Trichet is in essence saying here that when the people elect the wrong parties, they have forfeited their right to democracy.

Acutely aware of what he is proposing, he declares that such a step would indeed have democratic accountability so long as it is approved by the European Council and the European Parliament.

But the European Council is a legislative chamber that never faces a general election. Its members, the presidents and prime ministers of Europe, are not elected to that chamber, but to their domestic parliaments and assemblies. And the European Parliament is not yet the parliament of a European government; even after the Lisbon Treaty, its powers remain very limited compared to the European Commission and Council, and, crucially, it does not have the power to initiate any legislation.

Should Trichet’s proposal or anything remotely similar somehow make its way to the Strasbourg chamber for its endorsement, any MEPs who cherish democracy must loudly oppose them.

If MEPs cannot muster sufficient numbers to do so, then the chamber would instantly be exposed as a Potemkin parliament, serving only to provide a facade of democratic legitimacy to an otherwise anti-democratic regime and so very far from the seed of a genuine European democratic order that many deputies wish it to be.

UK Uncut’s Great London Street Party: The future’s not what it used to be…

21 May 2012: On Saturday 26 May, UK Uncut will be hosting the Great London street party of resistance

The government are slashing public services and making the most marginalised people in our society pay for an economic crisis they did nothing to cause. It doesn’t have to be this way. In 1948 the UK’s national debt was far larger than it is today, but instead of cutting services and hitting the poorest hardest the NHS and the Welfare State were born.

So forget the Queen’s Jubilee and join the only London street party worth going to this summer – UK Uncut’s Great London Street Party. Let’s celebrate the services that are being destroyed, take the fight to the streets and party for our future, a different future, a better future, that we can build together.

Meeting Points:

Meeting point – Outside 1 London Bridge

The future’s not what it used to be… for women.

‘Domestic violence victims don’t go and storm the local town hall to demand more help; rape victims don’t go to the local paper to complain that there isn’t a good service for them. They are invisible.’ Women are facing the heaviest burden across all of the cuts – it’s time to show this government of privileged white men that women will not be an ‘easy target’.

Meeting point – Opposite University College Hospital, Euston Road

The future’s not what it used to be… for the NHS.

It was in this hospital that David Cameron unveiled the results of the ‘listening exercise’, promising that the NHS would be safe in their hands. The NHS is now being starved of cash and sold off to private firms and tax dodgers, yet as we all know, ‘The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it’. Show this government that there are still millions of people who still have the faith to fight!

Meeting point – Waterloo Station Concourse

The future’s not what it used to be… for the Welfare State.

Half a million disabled people are set to lose government support, EMA is being axed and almost every form of welfare payment is being cut – this bloc is fighting back against the demonisation of ‘benefit scroungers’.

This is the most accessible bloc for the party. In order to maintain access, disabled participants have the option of travelling via a more accessible route that is direct and reduces changing modes of transport. We have checked our travel plans with disabled activists and can provide accessible transport from Waterloo to the party. So, if you’ve got any specific needs or you’re concerned about travel on the day, please email ukuncut@gmail.com so we can make arrangements for everyone.

Meeting point – Parliament Square

The future’s not what it used to be… for real democracy.

The Houses of Parliament, the ‘mother of all parliaments’- home to a rich and disconnected elite forcing through law after law that the majority of the public didn’t vote for. Economic policies dictated by bankers and financial markets, unjust wars opposed by millions, and big business calling the shots on every decision – this is not real democracy. Join the movement for real democracy to decide our future together.

Things to bring:

- A tfl zone 1-6 off peak day travel card so you can get to the secret party location (£8.50, best bought in cash).

- Food – it wouldn’t be a street party without plenty of food to share.

- Water – you’re going to be out all day, so make sure you’re prepared with lots of water.

- Friends! – bring all your mates to this party, the more the merrier.

- Costumes – dress up for the day, your vision of the past, the future, or the services closest to your heart that are facing cuts – make it fun and spectacular!

- Games & fun – we’re going to be out in the street all day, so bring fun games, instruments and things to do while we’re there.

- All the family – this should be a good day out for all ages from newborns to great grandparents. The Welfare and Women’s blocs are the most accessible for people with push chairs or wheel chairs. Please bring everything you need with you for a full day out, like a folding chair or pillow and the possibility of some standing, walking, dancing and stories of the past and of the future to share.

- Waterproofs, warm clothes, sunscreen and a hat – you just never know.

- Your rights – we never know what police reaction will be like, please come prepared with information from Green and Black Cross.

- Tons of enthusiasm and energy – needed for partying, thinking, making new friends and creating a better future.

Don’t bring:

- Bikes – you may need to leave them behind for a little while (up to you).

- Dogs (except guide dogs) – not everyone is a fan.

- Loads of booze – Quite apart from the possibility of limited toilets and overpriced bags of salted peanuts at the action, alcohol will dehydrate you very quickly (and may well turn you into a liability for others).

- Huge things or heavy things – make sure you’re able to move around fairly easily and get on public transport.

See you at the party!

For more information please visit: http://ukuncut.org.uk/blog/meeting-points-for-london-action or find the event on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/232452506855123/

Who gets to see the Torch? Who gets to see the Games?

18 May 2012: As the torch relay comes to Britain, Mark Perryman, author of a new book on the Olympics, questions the claim of a Games for all

Beginning its long route around Britain the Torch Relay is one of the few examples of decentralisation and free to watch events that could have transformed the 2012 Olympics into a  Games for all. There is little doubt that the sight of the Olympic torch as it passes through a village, town or city up and down the byways, with photo-opportunities at famous landmarks will ignite popular interest and huge media coverage.

But the scale of that enthusiasm reveals the lack of ambition behind the 2012 model for the Olympics. I propose Five New Rings for the Olympic symbol. The first, and most important, of these is decentralisation. As a mega-event football’s World Cup has its problems too with new stadia sometimes built with no obvious future likelihood to be full again once the tournament is over. But the singular advantage for the hosts of a World Cup over the Olympics is it is spread all over the country, and sometimes more than one. In this way the global spectacular becomes not only a national event but a local event too. The Olympics is an entirely different model, apart from the yachting and the football tournament every single event is London-based, most of Britain will have no contact with the Games except a fleeting glimpse of the Torch relay as it passes through.

Decentralisation could have changed all of this, and saved enormous amounts on new builds too. Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Manchester, the North-East, Yorkshire and the Midlands all posses world-class stadia and arenas with huge capacities and multi-use possibilities. North Wales, the Lake District and parts of Scotland have the natural landscape perfect for events, including the canoe slalom and mountain biking. Badminton is one of the finest three-day event venues in the world, it’s not in London so it’s not being used for 2012.

Avoiding those costly new builds by using existing facilities would not only magnify the Olympics’ local appeal but vastly increase capacities too. With imaginative reconfiguring ,Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium could have hosted the show jumping, Manchester City's Etihad Stadium and the MEN Arena the boxing, between Glasgow and Edinburgh share the Hockey tournament, the Midlands Stadiums host the Beach volleyball, the North-East already hosts the Great North Run, why not stage the Olympic Marathon there, give Yorkshire the Football tournament and so on.

Decentralisation enables this spread of venues with far bigger capacity than many hosting the events in London. And with Scotland, Wales, regions and cities hosting entire parts of the Olympic programme, an effective campaign combining civic pride and participation in the adopted sport could have been mounted.

Decentralisation could also afford an extension of the Olympic programme to include events that are both nation-wide and free to watch. Why not an Olympic Tour of Britain multistage cycling race, and a Round Britain sailing race? The potential for crowds lining the streets and the quaysides to watch, for free, as the Olympics comes to their town or port would have been huge.

I am neither anti-Olympics nor against sport, I am a fan of both. But I am opposed to what the Olympics have become, the false promises made on their behalf and the chronic lack of ambition in the way they have been organised. My argument is that a different Olympics isn’t only possible, but better. If our only experience of the Games in this much hyped once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to host them is watching them on the TV, well they might as well be anywhere else but here, and a lot less costly too.

Mark Perryman’s ‘Why the Olympics Aren’t Good For Us, And How They Can Be’ is available at a pre-publication 15% discount from http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/olympics/