Music can be a powerful medium to convey the anti-monarchist message, but with John Lydon’s disappointingly sycophantic comments in the Sun about the wedding couple, it is clear that a genuine punk antidote is needed. Filling the gap is someone whose politics are a world away from those who, like Republic, want to replace the Queen with a democratically elected head of state. Anarchist, musician and writer Ian Bone – once labelled ‘Britain’s most dangerous man’ by the tabloids – will be making his sentiments loud and clear by releasing a remix of his ‘Better Dead than Wed’ CD on 5 April.
Originally released in 1986 to coincide with Andrew and Fergie’s wedding, he plans a new version with updated lyrics especially for Will and Kate. The song contains many catchy and colourful lyrics about the royals, including:

‘We’ve got a wedding present,
On this we’re very keen,
It’s built to last for frequent use,
It’s called a guillotine.’

Bone is well known for his direct militancy mixed with humour and was a founding member of various anarchist groups, such as Movement Against Monarchy (MAM), which was heavily involved with protests around the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations. Gawain, a member of the London-based Whitechapel Anarchist Group, says that they will also be taking to the streets again: ‘We would love to see a return of MAM and have been in talks with other anarchist groups to try to revive the movement in time for the wedding day.’

Anti-royalists in Scotland and Wales also have alternative events planned. The Scottish Socialist Party plans a public rally on the day of the wedding with an array of speakers and musicians yet to be finalised. It also plans to relaunch the Declaration of Carlton Hill event in Edinburgh, which originally took place as an alternative republican celebration to the opening of the Scottish Parliament. The declaration calls for an independent socialist Scotland, free from the ‘hierarchical and anti-democratic institutions of the British state’.

In Wales, the nationalist cultural group Balchder Cymru (Pride of Wales) is planning an alternative five-day celebration called the ‘Escape the Wedding Camp’, at a campsite near Machynlleth in north Wales. It is also considering planning a march through the town on the day of the wedding.
Organiser Adam Phillips explains that this location was chosen as it was the seat of Owain Glyndw^r’s independent Welsh parliament: ‘We are giving people an opportunity to escape the razzle dazzle and media hype. Not everyone will be celebrating this wedding because the taxpayer is footing the bill during a time of recession and cutbacks.’

Indeed, many will be simply outraged by the massive public cost of the wedding, estimated at £20 million.

Then there is the matter of the guest list. Among the usual dignitaries and celebrities will be the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, both of whom have brutally oppressed their own people as they bravely rally for democracy.

George Galloway, among others, has made his feelings clear: ‘The king of Bahrain presides over a dictatorship which cuts down demonstrators, including a two-year-old child. The king of Saudi Arabia rules over an outfit where people are executed on a Friday afternoon and women are not allowed to drive cars or go out without a male relative.

‘What do these despots have to do with a wedding in Britain at the taxpayers’ expense? If the monarchy wants to remain meaningful it has to relate to our society, not a fellowship of despotic kings.’

As the government takes the spending axe to public services, is it not time that we rid ourselves of the most wasteful, archaic and undemocratic institution of all? As Sue Townsend, author and republican campaigner, proposes: ‘Perhaps one day Britons will take a lead from the Egyptians and congregate in Trafalgar Square and march down the Mall towards Buckingham Palace – hopefully without a shot being fired or a taser being employed – to demand that the monarchy be abolished and sent to live among the people.’

The ‘Love Republic’ event takes place from 7:30pm on 29 April at Borough Bar, 10-18 London Bridge Street, London SE1. www.republic.org.uk

This article is part of our series on emerging political movements, made possible with the help of the Barry Amiel and Norman Melburn Trust

For more information, see the thorough and up-to-date blog on the national library struggle from Save Doncaster Libraries at savedoncasterlibraries.wordpress.com. User experiences can be read and shared at www.voicesforthelibrary.org.uk. A useful portal for campaigners across the UK is the Library Campaign, www.librarycampaign.com

There is a plethora of health campaign groups, ranging from national organisations such as Keep Our NHS Public to entirely local initiatives like East Riding Hospitals Action Group, and even single-issue political parties. This reflects different forms of campaign activity, with straightforward anti-cuts movements existing alongside more broadly focused organisations.

North London

Camden and Islington in North London are good places to look for examples. The debate has been particularly heated here because London is where New Labour’s reforms were pushed hardest and fastest.

The most visible and often successful form of health protest is the local ‘defend our hospital’ anti-cuts campaign. In summer 2008, services at the Whittington Hospital in Highgate were threatened with closure. This destructive proposal caused a groundswell of opposition. The Defend the Whittington Hospital Coalition (DWHC) was duly formed.

In February 2009 its protest campaign peaked in a vibrant 5,000-strong march. In April, as a follow up, the DWHC held a day of action to which it invited political leaders to speak. With the election just around the corner, then health secretary Andy Burnham made a dramatic U-turn and bowed to public pressure, overruling the NHS primary care trust (PCT). His Tory shadow Andrew Lansley, now the secretary of state, also pledged to honour that decision.

The Whittington campaign was a powerful community alliance driven by the real and acute threat of losing a treasured hospital. According to organiser Candy Udwin, ‘We were successful because of the sheer breadth of support. We were also a highly visible campaign out on the street, in the paper and on line. We built broad links with other campaigning groups.’

Yet fears about the future of the Whittington are still palpable. Campaigners delivered a 25,000 signature petition to the Department of Health in July. The coalition white paper proposes to give GP consortia commissioning power, and health bosses have said they could resurrect their hospital closure plan if GPs agree. Despite the massive show of public opposition, Lansley may still oversee cuts, so the campaign is not over yet.

In the same area of London, a different form of health campaign has also gained a high profile. The Camden branch of national organisation Keep Our NHS Public was active in the Whittington campaign too, but it has a broader, more long-term set of objectives in opposition to the imposition of the market on the health service.

Camden Keep Our NHS Public has been a thorn in the side of the local PCT, frequently challenging the failure of NHS bosses to carry out their legal duty to consult the public when downgrading local health services. Most recently the PCT tried to award an out-of-hours GP service to Harmoni Ltd, a private company that plans to cut costs by replacing out-of-hours GPs with nurses. Keep Our NHS Public member Regan Scott made the case to the borough’s health scrutiny committee that this represented a substantial change requiring consultation. As a result the tendering process has been delayed and at the time of writing is pending.

Meaningful consultation when imposing cuts and privatisation has continued to be a stumbling block not just for NHS Camden. North East Derbyshire PCT fell short in 2006 and was challenged in the High Court. Haringey PCT also failed to consult in 2008 when Hornsey Central Hospital was demolished in favour of a PFI health centre, and there are many other examples.

The North East

Another form of resistance is being employed in the North East of England, this time led by health workers directly. Earlier this year Unison in Durham successfully quashed proposals to turn the local NHS trust into a social enterprise – an independent body not part of the NHS proper. Unison insisted that before any decision was made a vote among staff had to be taken. Members campaigned hard to raise awareness about the negative impact this change would have on local health services and staff voted against.

This kind of action by health workers will be seen more and more if the government’s health white paper becomes law, as forcing NHS bodies to become ‘social enterprises’ is a central plank of the coalition’s health policy. One of the fears is that social enterprises are a soft cover for privatisation, breaking the NHS up into independent businesses that must compete with each other rather than collaborate for the good of patients. Social enterprises are likely to be easy pickings for profit-making corporations to buy up in the future.

Concerned locals in the North East also formed the Public Services Alliance (PSA). The PSA is a broad community alliance between organisations opposed to cuts and privatisation in general. At present it includes all the public sector trade unions and it aims to expand to include organisations in the voluntary sector, political and academic representatives, as well as public service user groups.

In the Northern Region one in three jobs are in the public sector. As Unison convener for the region Clare Williams says, “With the threatened abolition of PCTs, Strategic Health Authorities and NHS Direct as well as cuts in hospital services, there is a real worry what this means for jobs and the quality of services.”

The PSA is not just about defending jobs. It has come together to challenge the pro-market agenda and to provide an alternative vision for the future of public services. “We have been leafleting and awareness-raising with health workers and the public,” says Clare. “One of the first hurdles to get over is making people aware of the seriousness of the danger posed by the White Paper: that if more NHS Trusts become social enterprises this will take more NHS hospitals and staff out of public oversight. This will ultimately fragment services, resulting in a postcode lottery.”

The PSA has already started branches across the North East, including in Newcastle, Gateshead, Durham and Sunderland. Branches are meeting regularly, a website is in the making and coalitions with other local groups are being built – support is growing.

National

On a national level, health campaigners are looking to the unions to lead the fightback, freed from any fetters now that Labour is out of government. Unison has launched an important legal challenge in the High Court, seeking a judicial review over the government’s failure to consult on the white paper before beginning its implementation. Meanwhile Unite has started a Unite 4 Our NHS campaign.

Beyond resistance to government policy, campaigners are developing visions of how the NHS should look. A recent British Medical Association-sponsored roundtable event on ‘An NHS Beyond the Market’ called for a health service based on principles of ‘risk pooling, free access and comprehensive care based on need alone’ and an end to the purchaser/provider split, first introduced by Ken Clarke during the last Conservative government, which is the foundation of all the market reforms.

What next?

The campaigns outlined here represent a fragment of what has been going on in communities across the country. As the pro-market agenda becomes more aggressive it is imperative that a nationwide campaign mounts a robust and unified defence. Unions will have a key role, not just health unions, but all public sector unions. This campaign must be a broad one building on the strategies that have proved effective.

Health will be a big issue over this parliament. The most radical reforms since 1948 are being pushed through at the same time as £20 billion of cuts. If these two phenomena become linked in the public mind, and unions, local and national campaigns coordinate their efforts, there is a real chance of stalling government policy.

Michael Gove’s Academies bill makes two equally regressive proposals, which, if realised, will seriously threaten comprehensive education in England. Firstly, it encourages maintained schools to convert to independent academies free from local authority control. Already head teachers from outstanding schools have been invited to apply for academy status.

Secondly, it proposes that groups of parents or teachers apply for funding to start their own free school – ‘DIY schools’. A move that would drain the existing local school of finance, resources, pupils and staff: threatening its very existence.

Grove has already vetoed Labour’s extension of the free school meals programme affectively blocking 500,000 children below the poverty line claiming a meal. This money taken from the poorest children in our society, as well as money from the Building Schools for the Future programme, will fund the free schools ‘experiment’.

As the bill is fast-tracked through parliament it raises many questions and answers few. How will new academies select their pupils? How will they ensure that children with additional needs are supported? Who are these schools accountable to? To what extent will the private sector be involved in sponsoring these schools? And, perhaps most importantly of all, will this not create a two-tier system education system? For Alasdair Smith, National Secretary of the Anti-Academies Alliance, the answer to the last question is a resounding yes, ‘… academies plans threaten to create a system of the ‘best and the rest’ … For every free school, another will have to shut’.

The Resistance

On Thursday 24 June, under the dome of Westminster Methodist Hall resistance began to be organised under the positive banner, ‘a good local school for everyone’. Over 250 attended the Anti-Academies Alliance public meeting, including teachers, head teachers, governors, parents and union members. Christine Blower, general secretary of NUT described the nationwide alliance as ‘a large coalition opposed to the government’. The hall buzzed with a heated discussion, centered around one pressing issue: the defence of state education.

Executive union representatives from education and public sector unions, education campaigners and a head teacher spoke at the meeting.
Parent campaigner Fiona Millar stressed that as funding would be diverted from maintained schools to start up free schools, communities up and down the country would be split. She went on to state: ‘Don’t believe Michael Gove when he says that academies will have fair admissions policies. It will be impossible to enforce them and academies will find ways of admitting those who are easier to teach.’

Indeed academies are well known for having stringent admission policies and only allowing those children in who are likely to boost the school’s league table results.

Maintained schools are under a duty to accept all those in their catchment area. In contrast, academies are under no such obligation and those who do not meet the standard – such as children from difficult backgrounds or vulnerable children with additional support needs -will inevitable fall through the gap. As one concerned parent put it, ‘Our kids will be fighting for their lives.’

Many parents at the meeting expressed anger at the sheer undemocratic nature of the bill. Not only were they not consulted on whether their child’s school should apply for academy status but, if made reality, the school would be accountable only to governors and the secretary of state. Parents, teachers, local councilors and thus the community at large would be excluded from any decision-making process. What appears to be freedom would be greater central control.

Paramjit Bhutta, a head teacher in Tower Hamlets, spoke of his experience working in a maintained school and an academy. He shared how under a maintained school he was accountable to a local authority whose inspectors ‘got under the very skin of the school’ to ensure assessment accuracy and openness. He argued that any school who achieves an outstanding Ofsted report does not do so in isolation but with the in-depth advice and support of the local authority, ‘In my borough 78 per cent of schools are good or better. They didn’t become so by being independent.’

Privatisation of state education

Christina McAnea from Unison highlighted the fact that free schools and academies will be allowed to enforce their own flexible pay and conditions on staff. Chartered schools in the US are a good example of this. In New Orleans, where chartered schools have sprung up in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, many request that teachers work longer and longer hours with shorter holidays. A key question facing chartered school leaders is ‘how to maintain momentum as teachers inevitably … burn out.’

Another example, this time closer to home, can be found in Crest Boys’ Academy in Brent, north-west London. This is one of the UK’s most deprived boroughs and several academy staff are facing compulsory redundancy. At the same time E-Act, the charitable trust that runs Crest Boys’ Academy pays its director general, Sir Bruce Liddington, a staggering £265,000 a year. Clearly in many academies not only are pay, conditions and standards lax but so is their conception of equity and justice.

Alasdair Smith spoke of how this was essentially the privatisation of state education. This point is perhaps one of the most worrying for anyone who maintains that ‘private profit and public service are irreconcilable’.

Grove has admitted that he has no objections to private profiteering in education. But it is simply inconceivable that we could let ex-weapons manufacturers and hedge fund managers run our children’s education.
As free schools will need advice, support, and facilities, no longer provided by the local authority, they will turn to private providers to supply the teaching and it is profit not children that motivates these companies. As Nick Grant, from the NUT, has forcibly argued:

‘Like all capitalist companies these private providers want to make profits, and they do so by shrinking each school’s pay bill. This means employing many fewer qualified teachers and using much more ICT-based and assistant-supervised rote learning.’

What to do next?

As the meeting drew to a close, Christine Blower pointed out that as the list of schools expressing interest in becoming academies will be published, it is imperative that staff and parents find out if their school is on the list.
If so, those involved with the school must urgently begin a local campaign by petitioning, public meetings, leafleting, writing to MPs and engaging with parents and governors. It is essential to demand a full and proper consultation before any resolution is reached.

Blower stressed that while strike action is always an option, it cannot be fully effective without broad support. Many at the meeting believed that if parents and the wider community knew all the facts regarding academies and free schools the majority would join the struggle.

For more info or to get involved visit: www.antiacademies.org.uk