Bob Dylan’s Nightmare – Israel June 20th

I have to make a confession. I’ve been a Dylan aficionado for most of my life. Together with the Beatles, Stones and Simon and Garfunkel he defined the ‘60s musically for me. He was the child of the civil rights movement, who played at the Washington March for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, the year of Alabama’s last stand.

Unfortunately the older he has grown, the more foolish and greedy Dylan has become. It is as if the elder Dylan was determined to act out the worst caricatures of his younger self, a form of self-castigation. Who for example could imagine back in 1964 that Dylan would allow a song of his (Forever Young) to appear in a commercial for Pepsi Cola? The line about ‘money doesn’t talk, it swears’ and the stanza from one of his greatest but simple songs, It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding comes to mind:

Advertising signs they con
You into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you

I know that people are inclined to talk up his more recent work but for me the last great albums were from the 1970s –Blood on the Tracks and Street Legal in particular. There then followed his Christian period and the truly atrocious Slow Train Coming. Dylan was thought to have reached the bottom of the pit when he told his audience in 1980

"I told you 'The Times They Are A-Changin' and they did!" he told a crowd in New Mexico. "I said the answer was ‘Blowin’ In The Wind’ and it was! And I'm telling you now, Jesus is coming back, and he is! And there is no other way of salvation."

In 1971 he had declared, in an interview in Time magazine, that the Neo-Nazi Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane, was ‘"a really sincere guy. He's really put it all together.’ One can only assume that it is Dylan’s ignorance and political idiocy which prevented him from understanding that the very segregation he once opposed was at the heart of Kahane’s philosopy, and worse.

Today Dylan is ploughing the same furrow that has guided his career – a love of the money that he lyrically disdains. It should therefore come as no surprise that he is playing in Israel on June 20th. An Israel which maintains a brutal occupation in the West Bank, bombs and murders in Gaza and which treats its Arab citizens in the same way as South Africa treated Black people under Apartheid. But no doubt the money is good. The fact that at 70 years of age Dylan is already fabulously rich and shows no signs of wishing to spend his fortune in retirement, one can only assume that it is a love of money for its own sake that is his guiding principle.

As to whether or not to try and dissuade him from going I disagree with Lenni Brenner. Of course Dylan will no more listen to the voices of Boycott than he did to those who asked him to speak out against the Vietnam War. But the call for Dylan not to go to Israel is aimed primarily at those who still fondly imagine that the Dylan of 1963 bears any resemblance to the old man of today.
Dylan is a pastiche of his former self. His lyrics are often borrowed wholesale from others, without acknowledgement and the songs themselves are dark and broody for the most part. They represent the depths to which Dylan has sunk since his visit to a dying Woody Guthrie, an idol of whom no more is spoken.

The words of one of his most underrated songs, Masters of War, come to mind when one thinks of Dylan taking blood-soaked shekels whilst he fawns in front of an almost completely Jewish audience.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

Below is an article by Lenni Brenner, the Jewish anti-Zionist who wrote Zionism in the Age of the Dictators about the collaboration between the Nazis and Zionist movement and also an article on his racist pro-settler song ‘Neighborhood Bully’. As the right-wing Jerusalem Post noted Neighborhood Bull was ‘Dylan’s 1983 Likudnik paean to Israel and the Jewish people. Chances? None. He has never performed it.’Has-Been Bob Dylan's May 24 Birthday

By Lenni Brenner

Hi folks,

I recently received a request from an Irish anti-Zionist to try to get Bob Dylan to cancel his upcoming June 20 engagement in Israel. Below are my answer to the Irish comrade and an article I wrote in 2003 on how I triggered off Bob's song writing career in 1961. The Dylan of that era was a genius, but today he's such an obvious intellectual has-been that his playing in Israel in 2011 will end up being an embarrassment for Zionism.

*********************************************

Hi comrade,

There are two reasons why people shouldn’t waste their time trying to get Dylan to boycott Israel.

1 - He’d play in Hell if he could make money at it.

2 - All intelligent Americans, Jew or gentile, see today’s Dylan as a crackpot.

Below is an article I published in 2003 in CounterPunch re me and Bob. I ended it by declaring that

“His radical songs will live on. But “do a good deed and throw it into the sea.” His later theological trapeze act, swinging between Jesus and the late Lubavicher rebbe, Menachem Schneerson, can only be described as the all-time-most-pathetic American Jewish tragi-comedy shtik.”

Bob was born into a Jewish family, but the Bob I met in 1961 had become an atheist lefty who went on to write the political anthems of that age. Then he became a Jesus-freak and, later yet, he topped that folly by reconverting to Orthodox Judaism. And within Orthodoxy he hangs in with the Lubavicher sub-sect, whose followers believe that Schneerson was the messiah, who will - any minute now - rise out of his coffin and save his followers.

Let me put this in its real world sociological context. Orthodoxy is Israel’s official religion. But no more than 10% of America’s Jews are Orthodox. Every day, Orthodox males say, as part of their morning prayer, “Thank you God for making me a man, not a woman.”

About 40% of American Jews belong to either the Conservative or Reform Jewish sects. They have dropped that male chauvinist manure and now have women rabbis and gay rabbis. The other 50% have completely abandoned any type of Judaism.

So now we have a unique situation. Bob is one of the most famous people on the planet. But his fame is due to songs he wrote in his leftist period. When he got into Christianity he discredited himself intellectually with 99% of Jews, from Orthodox to atheist. We may disagree on everything else, but we all believe that Christianity is a fairy-tale, and that any Jew who converts to any form of it is sick in the head. The result is that when he got involved with the Lubavichers, most Jews didn’t cheer, not even most Orthodox, except for the Lubavichers, who are ridiculed even by most Orthodox. We all saw his reconversion as another chapter in his mad autobiography.

Since all of this is from a Jewish perspective, it may be hard for Irish folks to understand. So let me give you an Irish analogy. Imagine if Bob O’Dylan was born into a Catholic family. Then he became an atheist leftist and a great songwriter. Then O’Dylan joined Paisley’s Protestant church. Later he reconverted to Catholicism, studied hard and became a priest. Who on the Island - atheist, Catholic or Protestant - would respect Father O’Dylan?

American Jews have the highest income and education of any ethnic or religious stratum in the U.S. That means that they are the most travelled. But the Israeli government admits that more adult American Jews go to Britain than Israel. So I suggest that you just ignore his Tel Aviv gig, or else play with it. Something like

‘Only American Jewish fools like Bob Dylan go to Israel. Educated Jews go to Shakespeare’s home town. So what is the new Dublin government doing to get them to come to the land of Joyce and Yeats?’

Stay well, give 'em hell, Lenni

*************************************************************

How Dylan Found His Voice

May 3, 2003

Big Joe Williams, the East Village, Peyote and the Forging of Dylan's Art

By LENNI BRENNER

I don't say I was Bob Dylan's room-mate. Calling some-one your room-mate means that at least one of us paid rent. It was the winter of 1961. I was crashing at banjo-picker Paul Shoenwetter's pad on East 4th Street between Avenue C and D, in what is now called the East Village, but which we knew as the Lower East Side, along with Vince Hickey, a jazz drummer, and Tom Condit, a socialist buddy, when St. Paul brought in yet another stray.

Vince married black, to the daughter of Victoria Spivey, an ol' timey blues singer. He was an encyclopedia on ragtime. Tom and I were up to our asses in the civil rights struggle. Bob, at 19, going on 20, 4 years younger than me, was our junior colleague. He couldn't be expected to say much that was new or interesting or amusing to us worldlings. However we recognized a marvelous musician, and welcomed him into our fraternity of the rebellious, brilliant and crazy.

The highpoint of one chat is chiseled into stone. Peyote was still legal. The problem was that it tasted like tiger piss going down. Then it upsets your stomach. But that's the best news it ever had. That means the veggie was kickin' in. It gave me spectacular eyes-closed color visions and the tummy-ache vanished.

Tom processed some. He ground-up a batch of dried up fist-sized buds, and put the powder into gelatin caps. That solves the taste problem. He laid 50 caps on me and split. I took 30 and was waiting for them to come on, when Bob walked in. I gave him the 20. He downed them, told of a near-by party and left. After my technicolor show came on, I walked over.

I vote the winter of 1961 as New York's greatest. Four fulsome blizzards had left huge mounds everywhere, and then, on Friday night-Saturday morning, February 3-4, another storm dumped 17.4 inches on the city. The total accumulation was the greatest ever. For the first time, the mayor had to ban non-essential traffic so plows could clear a lane down the side streets, with many parked cars buried for months under humongous glaciers. For me, high, those streets, with icicles as big as they get, hanging off tenement fire-escapes, were the once-in-eternity Siberia-in-the-Apple, well past any piddling prophet's paltry Paradise.

The party was at the home of Village Voice cartoonist Jules Feiffer. Bob was adding whiskey to the peyote, as he, Mark Spoelstra and other folkies played in a back room.

After dawn on Sunday, the 5th, I left for Paul's. I was alone when Bob came in, 20 minutes later. We chatted about the night, and I got on him about a southern song they sang, Just lookin' for a Home. "Bob, you never saw a boll weevil. Mark never did. None of us have. If one flew in the window, or crawled in under the door, or whatever the hell they do, we wouldn't recognize it. Stop singing about boll weevils and sing about your own life and times."

He was slouched on a couch. In a hot second he was upright, his smiling young face suddenly electrically alive: "That's what Joe Williams told me!" His new maturing face mirrored his thinking as the implications of what we said sank in. Others have that experience. Someone tells us something but it doesn't click until someone else slams it in.

It is idle to speculate as to whether Bob could have eventually figured out by himself that he had to do his own thing. I say with certainty that Big Joe and I were, in life, the agencies that propelled him to his destiny. I remember nary another word. But his expressions were unforgettable. Here was the most gifted young musician-poet of his time and place suddenly getting his act together as an adult and performer.

For at least the first minute, almost two, after his exclamation, his thoughts put themselves spontaneously onto his face. His initial reception of my statement was followed by a series of self-induced facial shocks as he silently cooked our old/new ideas in his pot. Then he regained his composure, leaned towards me with his elbows on his thighs and we talked for a few more minutes. Then, as we had been up for a heap of hours, we crashed. There was no doubt that both of us thought a profound thing had happened to him.

Of course I had no idea that he would make such an impact on the world. But that visual scene was hardly one that anyone could forget, even if it happened with a nobody. To be sure, it wasn't quite as if the scales immediately fell from his eyes and he received sight forthwith and arose and was baptized, as with Saul becoming Paul. But thru his cogitations he did spring up and go. The few words remembered and circa 10 minutes forgotten are how the mind sometimes turns events into memory. A highlight stands in for a whole conversation. The physical details are so vivid because the night was so spectacular and my vision was keyed up by peyote.

As his career took off shortly after, in the full bloom of our friendship, I had further reason to think about that morning, and lock in the incident. I'm sure that he saw it the same way. For the next two years, I was his wise buddy, who pulled his coat on a crux matter for him as a poet and person. In any case, we got up in the Winter dark. We had no food. Bob cleared out first, saying "I have to do some writing." Yea verily, a bright young fellow came into that pad, a full man went out.

I never asked him what Big Joe actually said. But we get the spirit of it in Robert Shelton's No Direction Home. Williams' recalled that "Bob...wrote me thanking me for the advice I had given him about music. What he earned, what he done, he got it honest. They ask me: 'Is he real?' And I tell them that they should let him live his own life."

Being in on the pad's chats, he understood my "sing about your own life and times" to be more ideologically loaded than Williams' "live his own life." I was also able to musically critique him because I had heard many of the best folksingers of the day and had listened to thousands of folk songs on records. In that period, Dave Van Ronk introduced me to Allen Lomax, the great field-collector. After listening to them, I read Lomax on the complex stylistic evolution of American folk music. It was obvious to me that what we call the folk music tradition was actually innumerable singers doing the old songs and making up new ones about their lives and times.

The ideological level varied from none to highly political. It is a myth that folk singers were all poor and illiterate or nearly so. And some were musically highly cultured via their churches. Accordingly, Bob welded our notions together because I added the obligation that his art should reflect our times - his, Mark's, mine - its experiences and demands, to Williams' down-home blues sagacity.

Yet note again how the kingly power, chance, plays with us. If I had to be ahead of time to drink with Woody, I had to be the 2nd to hit Bob like the sun, moon and stars falling on him. We ran into each other over the next two years, at Gerde's Folk City and other hangouts, notably Dave and Terri Thal's crib. Terri was Bob's first manager. They were fellow Trotskyists. Bob was there, sometime after his return from his 1962 trip to Europe. Boll weevil Bob told me how he didn't like to work in clubs for pay because "the people I want to play for can't afford the admission."

He ground on, all about how his record company took advantage of his youth to screw him financially, and how he had to make bootleg British records as Blind Boy Grunt. Management atrocity tales were boring old news to a seasoned red, so I tried to get him off himself. "That's very deep Bob." He shot back: "How deep is deep? Forty inches? Six feet?" With him completely wrapped up in his career, my like-it-is sarcasm zipped over his self-centered head. But his verbal facility was evident even in that answer that ain't an answer.

I bumped into him on 6th Avenue and Waverly in the Village in the Spring of 1963. I offered to pay the bill for a coffee. I explained that I had sold a silver goblet boosted from a Reformed Jewish Temple. He smiled and we went to what was then a plain American greasy spoon, now the Waverly Restaurant, got us a table and enjoyed the fruits of what we knew was a crime.

My ex-Christian ex-gal had taken me to a Village Episcopal church. After the ceremony, I went up to the alter and did for to partake of my first communion, without benefit of clergy. I took a wafer from a vessel. Yea, verily, Jerusalem Slim's body is like unto a Napoleon pastry. So, in return for certainty on a subtle point of Christian ritual that had perplexed Jewish minds for centuries, I led her thru the open doors of an empty sanctum we happened upon in those innocent, pre-crime wave days, down the aisle and onto the raised rabbi's platform. The ritual goblet held some of what looked like wine, except that it didn't smell of alcohol. Coke, in a sacred vessel before an altar, is, by American law, a religion, to be protected from desecration. Good. Even great. I'm describing a legal transgression that doesn't merit repetition. But, in the real American 20th century, that Temple wasn't Judaism. And in the 21st century Reform ain't even religion. Its what a minority of Jewish kids grow up doing if they live in our secular Coke present, but are hung up on their parents' ancestral religion. A book of proverbial truths, spiritual fantasies and barbaric war stories, also reduced, in the physical world, from the perpetual miracle of intoxicating wine, down to flat soda, in an empty shrine.

Bob approved of the double miracle, the conversion of a profaned vessel into capitalist lucre, and then into coffee and snacks, because he also had a contemptuous familiarity with Reform's instant platitudes.

I don't remember every word that passed between us. I told him I was heading back to the Bay Area and its politics. After maybe an hour, he felt "a song coming on." "You know I love to hear you say that." I left my buddy, pen in hand.

Shortly after I took off for Berkeley. We've had no contact since. If history records me, it will be as a historian and political activist. Beyond that, my advice to Bob that winter morning will be seen as my proudest artistic contribution. His radical songs will live on. But “do a good deed and throw it into the sea.” His later theological trapeze act, swinging between Jesus and the late Lubavicher rebbe, Menachem Schneerson, can only be described as the all-time-most-pathetic American Jewish tragi-comedy shtik.

Lenni Brenner, editor of 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, can be reached at BrennerL21@aol.com

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Bob Dylan’s Racist Song
Ellis Sharp

What! Bob Dylan? Bob Dylan write a racist song? The Bob Dylan who wrote ‘The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll’ and ‘Hurricane’ and all those other great songs about racism and injustice? Surely not!

But I’m afraid it’s true. And I think it says a great deal about the complacent and unquestioning culture in which we live that Bob Dylan’s racist song has attracted no serious attention at all.

Even a smart Marxist Dylanologist like Mike Marqusee loses all sense of critical perspective in the face of the song. But the far-right fanatics and sectarian bigots who benefit from the song know its worth to them and proudly celebrate its propaganda value, as you can see if you check out the website which displays the lyrics.

‘Neighborhood Bully’ appeared on the 1983 album Infidels and is generally passed over by commentators as musically a poor song from a disappointing album. In the best of all the Dylan biographies (Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan), Howard Sounes simply remarks that “ ‘Neighborhood Bully’ seemed to support Israel in its battles with its Arab neighbours.” In his book Chimes of Freedom, Mike Marqusee says that the song is about the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak.

In fact only the third and fourth lines of the fourth stanza are. Since ‘Neighborhood Bully’ consists of eleven five-line stanzas that leaves 53 lines, which are NOT about Osirak. I would argue that what the song is really about is this.

The third stanza identifies the Jews as a people who for centuries have been oppressed and driven into exile, the victim of prejudice and religious persecution. All the other stanzas are much more specific in their focus, and describe Israel. Israel is personified as a man who is abused as a bully but who bravely fights back against his enemies. Alone in a hostile world, this solitary yet heroic individual is mercilessly persecuted. Friendless, he lives just to survive.

It’s not hard to see why the lyrics are an artistic failure. The personification of Israel as a male fighter doesn’t work because he’s a cartoon figure. A fighter who can defeat a million enemies clearly isn’t in the real world but exists in the realm of fantasy or folk tale. The fighter’s enemies and critics are vague and ill-defined.

But ‘Neighborhood Bully’ is much more than just a song in praise of Israel in its conflict with other Arab states. It is, in every aspect, quite specifically a Zionist song. It contains a number of assertions which lie at the heart of Zionist mythology. Israel, the song asserts, is the innocent victim of irrational and vicious persecution. Israel struggles just to survive in a hostile world. Israel has made a garden of paradise in the desert sand. It took crumbs and made wealth. Israelis have no place else to go. They are unfairly accused of being on their neighbour’s land. Israel fights alone, struggling just to exist, using obsolete weapons, with no allies.

'Neighborhood Bully' evades the core issue of the conflict, which is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and the fifty year history of Israel’s ferociously violent suppression of any form of Palestinian identity or statehood. The dream of right-wing Zionism is to expel all Palestinians from Israel and create a pure Jewish Greater Israel; in that sense Dylan’s song formally enacts that aspiration, as imaginatively it liquidates the Palestinians. They simply have no existence in the song. As a Zionist song, it erases their tangible, historical existence.

As a reproduction of the Zionist master narrative ‘Neighborhood Bully’ is a song crammed with demonstrable historical lies, which it is worth identifying and rebutting. Its most blatantly dishonest line is at the start of stanza six: ‘He got no allies to really speak of.’ But of course Israel, notoriously, is financed, armed and protected by the world’s only superpower, the U.S.A. It is supported at every level - financial, military, diplomatic and ideological. Historically, the success of the Zionist project has always depended on the support of the most powerful and reactionary forces in the world– originally Britain, latterly the U.S.A, and even, in 1948, Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Dylan asserts that hostility to Israel is utterly irrational, and says it’s as if Israel was guilty of doing something as fantastic as change the course of rivers. Ironically, this is precisely what Israel has done. Arab citizens of Israel have been expelled from their villages to clear the way for water diversion projects. This happened to some 3-5000 Arabs in 1951. Five years later, in classic ethnic cleansing, they were forced out of their new homes, over the border into Syria. Today, Israel controls all water resources in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The average Israeli consumes 350 litres of water per day, but the average Palestinian is permitted only 50 to 70 litres. In refugee camps Palestinians sometimes only manage to obtain 19 litres of water per day. Nearby stand illegal Israeli settlements to which water resources are diverted and used for gardens and swimming pools.

The occupation also serves to negate countless other Palestinian rights. In the Oslo period alone, when Israel was supposedly negotiating to end the occupation, 35,000 acres of Palestinian land was stolen for Israeli settlements. During the first year of the first largely non-violent Intifada 500,000 Palestinian fruit trees were uprooted by settlers and soldiers.

What has attracted no comment at all is Dylan’s language in this song. He says that ‘every maniac’ is given ‘a license to kill’ Israel. These maniacs form ‘a lynch mob’. In other words, opponents of Israel are violent, prejudiced and irrational. But lynching, historically, is a form of sectarian violence associated with white American racists. It is a curious sleight of hand that makes Arabs equal to white American racists, especially when those Arabs are resisting Israelis, some of whom are white American racists. As a defence of ethnic cleansing ‘Neighborhood Bully’ is truly remarkable, as it turns truth and justice on its head. What’s more historically the violence and terrorism of Zionism has always greatly exceeded the retaliatory violence and terrorism of its victims.

As for prejudice: religious discrimination is institutionalised in Israel. It is a state which privileges Jews, with a wide range of discriminatory practises against non-Jews. Bob Dylan has the “right” as an American Jew to buy a home in Israel; a Palestinian refugee, whose home still stands inside Israel, neither has the right to reclaim property stolen by Jewish terrorists, nor even has the right to return to his homeland. In a powerful echo of apartheid South Africa, Palestinians who marry Israelis are not permitted to live in Israel. How apt that the artwork for the Infidels album shows Bob Dylan on a hill outside Jerusalem, exercising his sectarian privileges.

Finally, in claiming that opponents of Israel are “maniacs” Dylan dehumanizes them. He doesn’t engage with critics of Israel; he simply hurls abuse.

It gets worse. In the penultimate stanza, Dylan asserts that the enemies of Israel wait “like a dog waits to feed”. They are now not maniacs but dogs. This is the language of the racist and, historically, the language of Zionism. Noam Chomsky, for example, has noted how the Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan referred to Arabs as “roaches”; how on one occasion Palestinian prisoners were made “to crawl on all fours and bark like dogs”; how Israeli guards told Palestinians “You are a nation of monkeys”; how Gideon Hausner, prosecutor of Adolf Eichman and chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocuast Memorial Center, referred to the Palestine Liberation Oraganisation as “the centre of a cancerous growth which has metastized all over the world”; how one Israeli Defence Force officer remarked of Palestinians: “There are two alternatives, to live with them or to destroy them. Personally I hate them. They stink. They do not share our culture. They sleep with goats. It is necessary to vaporize them, to turn them to a gas.” Moshe Dayan, the Israeli military leader, suggested that Palestinians be told that “we have no solution, and you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever prefers – may leave…” (Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, Pluto Press, Updated edition 1999, pp.130, 240, 254, 354, 481)

Finally, no Dylan commentator has ever considered the context of ‘Neighborhood Bully’, which was recorded in New York in the spring of 1983. This was a time when Israel’s standing was at a very low ebb internationally after its invasion and occupation of the Lebanon. This was a very strange time to be asserting that Israel was a victim and releasing what is essentially a crude musical rant in defence of Zionism.

Fortunately Zionism was an allegiance that Bob Dylan maintained only very briefly in his music. But ultimately I think this song stains Dylan’s oeuvre in much the same way that anti-Semitism stains the achievement of T S Eliot, but in a way that is worse. Eliot’s anti-Semitism pre-dated the Holocaust. It was the kind of sniffy anti-Semitism which was very common among the English upper classes of the period, and also among many English novelists who were not conservatives like Eliot (there are derogatory references to Jews, for example, in the fiction of Graham Greene and Patrick Hamilton). But none of those writers, as far as I’m aware, produced malign representations of Jews after Auschwitz. Whereas the music of ‘Neighborhood Bully’ muffles the recent screams, and the memory, and the continuing unfulfilled need for justice of the victims of this.

Bob Dylan intended his song title ‘Neighborhood Bully’ to be ironic. But the irony was subtler and sharper than he intended. ‘Bully’ originally meant ‘hired ruffian’ and that is precisely what Israel today is – the local thug hired by the biggest world bully of them all.

'Welfare Reform' is Literally Killing People

New Labour Began the Attacks on the Disabled and 'Welfare Reform' - the Tories and Clegg are Finishing Off

The story below has been covered, both in the Guardian and the Sunday Mirror, though not those disgusting tabloids which were cheer leaders for Hitler in the 1930’s – the Daily Hate Mail and the Daily Express – the latter owned appropriately by Britain’s biggest pornographer, Richard Desmond.

The story of people being repeatedly called back to medical tests when they win an appeal, although it is obvious that their condition has not improved, is a scandal to which the Coalition Government is turning a blind eye. This was what Clegg’s Orange revolution inside the Liberal Democrats meant. This is the free market at work. As the so-called left of the Lib. Dems. collapses, like the bunch of opportunists they always were, we have a situation where there is consensus between all 3 major establishment parties.

But we should not forget that New Labour has been wholeheartedly behind the government’s ‘welfare reform’. Not surprising given that ‘welfare reform’ was begun by New Labour. Shadow Minister for Welfare, Stephen Timms has made clear his support for the principle behind the Government’s savage attack on Welfare. As he says on his own website, ‘The Bill’s basic idea is good….. Disabled people are particularly worried. I support reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).’

Reform of course means the abolition of Disability Living Allowance, a lifeline to the disabled that the John Major Government introduced! New Labour proposed in its 2010 Green Paper on Care to abolish Attendance Allowance (DLA for the 65s and over and the Tory/Libs abolished it for those receiving the Mobility component of DLA who are in care.

Our first demand should be that Miliband lives up to his claim that Labour represents an opposition by sacking Timms. Timms is a Tory and he should join his true friends.

The same goes for all the other New Labour 'advisers' to the Tories on Welfare - Frank Field, John Hutton and Alan Milburn. If Ed Miliband is serious that Labour is an Opposition then he should sack these turncoats and traitors and appoint someone like John McDonnell as shadow Welfare Minister.

And at the same time we should be stepping up the campaign to oppose the attempt to make claimants and working class people pay for the bankers’ crisis.

Tony Greenstein

VICTORY - The GMB Dissociates Itself from the Kennedy Scott Report Urging Further Privatisation of Job Centres

Persistence Pays Off as Paul Kenny Finally Comes Clean

It’s taken what seems like a very long time, but finally, GMB General Secretary Paul Kenny has come out and made it clear, crystal clear, that the GMB is opposed to any privatisation of the benefit or employment services. It has been like drawing teeth but it was worth it because the issue is an important one. Companies whose only motto is greater profit are only involved in ‘welfare reform’ and employment services for one reason, and one reason only.
Some like A4E go as far as creating their own sham employment agency to cream off a bit more (and they are still contracted to provide their ‘services’). Even those who are not in some way fraudulent (and many like Maximus have long records for fraud in the USA) are involved in cheating the unemployed. It’s not any personal inadequacy or ‘employability’ to use the jargon that is the issue, it is a system based on profit that pays the gambling debts of bankers whilst screwing the unemployed into the ground.

Trade unions were created to defend workers’ rights. Unfortunately, like the TUC itself, they have often become tame tabby cats, with all the perks that come with it. The leadership of trade unions is an intermediate layer between the capitalists and government and workers, with its own interests.

It is only through democratic accountability that members can ensure their union leaderships don’t work with, or go to bed with, the likes of Kennedy Scott. There are of course unanswered questions such as what was/is the relationship between the GMB and KS. There must have been some relationship otherwise why did KS think they could put the GMB’s name on their Report?

But the comments of Paul Kenny, who has been extremely foolish, and getting others in the union to dig for dirt is not a way of politically responding to criticism, even if that criticism was strident, are unequivocal and I am happy to accept them at face value.
When Paul Kenny says therefore, in the e-mail correspondence below, that ‘The report you refer to was not ours nor did we endorse it or support the type of comments quoted

I have written to kennedy scott making it clear we do not support private companies in these services nor do we support welfare to work or their views.
I have made my views clear about anyone using our logo or implying our support for Welfare to work.’

I am happy to accept his word. What is more troubling is that a Report such as this was not even read, as I suspected, by Paul Kenny. ‘I had not read or seen the document until this all came to light and I have tried to ensure that the GMB position is explained to all who seek clarification.’

However that is an internal matter for the GMB not me. Below is our latest bout of correspondence and beneath that the e-mail exchanges between Paul Kenny and Holly Smith. I have only deleted personal information from the latter and I would add that, despite everything I have said, it is refreshing to see a General Secretary correspond directly with his member and to do his own typing!

Tony Greenstein

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your latest e-mail. I will insert my replies in different colour so you have no difficulties in placing my answers alongside your comments.

Hi Tony,

You have a sad sense of logic.
I never objected to you placing our correspondence in the Public domain.
I thanked you for doing so.

Good. However there was no need to thank me. I took your thanks as being sarcastic.

For at least the third time I have to state that we do not support Welfare to Work and the report you refer to from Kennedy Scott is their view not GMB's.

Excellent. But this process has been like having to drag the truth out of a difficult witness. However the Report bears the GMB logo so it would be reasonable to assume that the GMB supported its contents. Since you now say that the views expressed in the report are not those of the GMB, will you now go on record as dissociating the GMB from those views? If so I welcome that.

I have told you that the GMB sponsored research from Portsmouth Uni which we did to show the current system of payment by revolving door results is a complete sham.
We think the research supports our view that the private sector contracts awarded by the Government are nothing but a rip off.
Kennedy Scott have no contracts with the Employment service that we are aware of and none we support.

So why sponsor a report with Kennedy Scott? I don’t know whether the GMB paid for this report but it is clear that KS wants to get a foot in the door of Welfare to Work in Britain. That much should be obvious. And do you really need to commission or ‘sponsor’ – whatever that means – research to know that these schemes are just make-work schemes? Despite all New Labour promised and said? It isn’t the implementation of them that is faulty, it is in the very assumptions lying behind them in the first place. Under capitalism virtually no job, bar that of General Secretary of a union or banker is safe. To try and make these schemes more workable is in fact to undermine the conditions of your own membership (& the unemployed).

They are based on the false premise of needing to make people ‘work ready’ or that ‘employability’ is the problem. This is a consequence of the abandonment by the trade union movement of support for a socialist society.

I have no knowledge of where you live nor do I care.

So why did you raise the question of where I live?

The confirmation that you took money from young unemployed people who gave their time to help the TUC is beyond the pale.

I confirmed no such thing. I personally took not one single penny. I was a steward and I paid the same deduction. On behalf of the TUC we obtained stewards and it was perfectly reasonable to deduct about 7% of monies received for a refugee charity.

What if someone refused, were they banned from further Involvement?

The decision was agreed to collectively and that means that it was a condition of involvement. That is the history of the trade union movement – you decide collectively and then everyone implements that decision, whether to strike, join the union or whatever. It’s part of labour movement history and traditions.

Attacks on G4S members, rants at GMB Brighton Branch

I have never attacked the Brighton Branch. On the contrary we have always given it our support and will continue to do so. All I did was point out that far from being hostile to the GMB I had provided support to members, despite it not being my role. As for G4S, they have been shown time and again to have abused and assaulted asylum seekers and the GMB has not exactly distinguished itself by support for organisations working with refugees and asylum seekers, hence the hypocrisy of your complaint.

A complete lack of knowledge about the GMB role at the TUC on Palestine shows your real agenda.

I am a committed activist on Palestine, within my own union and beyond. I am fully aware as to what happened at the 2009 TUC Conference when the GMB was in a distinct minority in supporting Israel’s massacres and bombing in Gaza. You do not deny what I wrote. Is it true or not true that you tried to amend ‘condemn’ (Israel’s bombing) to ‘regret’ because it’s on the TUC’s own site? Do you deny trying to delete any condemnation of the arms trade between Israel and Britain or for that matter the role of Histadrut? Give me just one example of concrete support from the GMB for the Palestinians? A delegation? Funding for Palestinian workers organisations? What seriously have you ever done?

The fleecing of Tribunal claimants on a level no better than a no win no fee swag bag Lawyer,are you serious?

This is childish. You abandoned a GMB member and to be blunt you are not the only union who does this. It is an open scandal that union members who lose their jobs often find that their union turns round and says you’re not paying contributions any longer as you are not working, therefore we won’t represent you. We agreed to take on your member’s case on a No Win No Fee basis. Given lack of legal aid and the unwillingness of unions to pursue cases that is the only way workers can gain access to the employment tribunal. The maximum chargeable is 35% not 20%, so your member was hardly being fleeced. Certainly he didn’t think so as he was £27k better off. But given your clear concern at the fact that your member has lost £5k, would you agree to compensate him if I give you the details?

If I had wanted, I could have got a job paying as much as your salary and work for the kind of solicitors firms you mention. Instead working at Brighton Unemployed Centre, which I helped found 30 years ago, is the pinnacle of my ambition. The money I obtain through legal work goes to the Centre, not me.

The wild guff you have sought to spread will not weaken our support for PCS or sour our work with Unison.

My intention in raising these questions, which go to the heart of what trade unionism and solidarity are all about, had nothing to do with creating difficulties with PCS. It was PCS and their General Secretary Mark Serwotka who first alerted us to what was happening. Likewise UNISON.

Tony,
You could have rightly asked the GMB serious Questions but you did nothing but spread rubbish and hurl insults at all and sundry.
If it comes to believing you or Mark Serwotka you come last.

It’s not a question of whether to believe Mark Serwotka or me. There is no difference between Mark and me. The question is whether anyone can believe you.

The GMB has poured thousands of pounds into campaigns such as No to AV and of course New Labour. It has given next to nothing to unemployed centres in Britain. In that, of course, it is not alone, as the 250 centres of the 1980’s have shrivelled to about 30 today. But that neglect, which was not even benign, has meant it has lost contact with millions of workers and the price has been falling numbers of trade unions which officials have sought to remedy via mergers.

However, in the light of your correspondence with Holly Smith it is clear that our differences have now narrowed given the assurances contained in that correspondence.

Best wishes
Paul

Kind Regards

Tony Greenstein

E-mail Correspondence Between Holly Smith (GMB Steward in Brighton) & Paul Kenny

From: Kenny Paul (WI) [Paul.Kenny-wim@gmb.org.uk]
Sent: 23 May 2011 21:49
To: Holly Smith

Subject: Re: Workfare

Hi Holly,
Let me deal with your most important question first.
The GMB and myself are 100 percent opposed to Workfare and the privatisation of any public service including Employment services.
I spoke to Mark who I know well and his info was based on the document Kennedy Scott put out which suggested the GMB supported its contents by way of our Logo.
The only work we were involved in was the work we asked Portsmouth Uni to do on the Failure of the current private sector providers to help the long term Unemployed,Mark accepts GMB would never support welfare to work and we are pledged to support PCS in their struggle to retain direct employment services like Jobcentreplus.
The report you refer to was not ours nor did we endorse it or support the type of comments quoted
I have written to kennedy scott making it clear we do not support private companies in these services nor do we support welfare to work or their views.
I have made my views clear about anyone using our logo or implying our support for Welfare to work
Mark Serwotka was concerned at the report but has always been positive that GMB would never support such sentiments as expressed in the document.
I had not read or seen the document until this all came to light and I have tried to ensure that the GMB position is explained to all who seek clarification.
I am sorry that not everyone is prepared to listen to the explanation.
The good news out of all this is the research we did with Portsmouth Uni is very supportive of our case on the failure of the private sector to do anything on the field of Employment Services except line their pockets.
Anything left unanswered please prompt me
Yours
Paul Kenny

----- Original Message -----
From: Holly Smith
To: Kenny Paul (WI)
Sent: Mon May 23 21:24:20 2011
Subject: RE: Workfare

Hi Paul

No problem. Thanks very for much for replying and taking the time to respond to my concerns. It reassures me to hear that you advocate the Jobcentre workers over private providers. However I am still quite confused. Did you not read all the quotes from the report that I included in my email? Can you not see how, from that, anyone can conclude that the GMB is in support of the proposals that the report makes?

Why was the GMB quoted as saying the report was 'innovative' when it was launched in the House of Lords?
Why did you yourself say that you "welcomed the idea of pilots" of these plans "across the country" if you tell me that you are opposed to them?

Did you know that the report ‘reflects on the importance of outsourcing welfare to work provision to independent providers’, and recommends ‘best practice is for contractors to have a presence in job centres’. I am confused as what you have to said to me in your email is in contradiction with what the report actually says. You state that the union was "trying to establish facts" and "trying to expose the current payment schemes" but I am at a loss as to how you think this report does this in the slightest. How do you think it does?

You state that the PCS has our full support and this has been made clear to them - so why was Mark Serwotka angry about the report that GMB has put it's name to, and why were PCS members calling out 'shame'?

Can you say unequivocally that the GMB, and yourself, opposes all welfare to work programmes? Can you state that you are opposed to any privatisation or introduction of private providers into the welfare state?

And finally, may I ask if you have actually read the report and what it is recommending? I spent hours reading it on Friday morning, so I was knowledgable about it's content and could make an informed opinion, yet what you are saying in your email is very inconsistent with the report's conclusions.

Sorry for the extensive questions in my email, but I am still confused as to your, and the GMB's position over this, so am just seeking clarity.

Thanks for your time.

Holly.
________________________________________
From: Kenny Paul (EDG) [paul.kenny-edg@gmb.org.uk] On Behalf Of Kenny Paul (WI) [Paul.Kenny-wim@gmb.org.uk]
Sent: 23 May 2011 18:34
To: Holly Smith
Subject: RE: Workfare

Hi Holly,

Sorry about the delay in responding to your note.

The GMB seems to have been accused of supporting Welfare to work.

This is not true.
The GMB appears to have been accused of having some sort of deal or partnership with a company called Kennedy Scott.

This is not true either.

The union has by bitter experience seen the impact of private sector firms on all walks of Public Service Provision.

The Introduction of the Private sector into Employment services is the latest in a long line of political dogma.
These companies which were given contracts by this and the last Government are paid on little more than a revolving door basis.

They are not a patch on the supportive and caring Direct service provided by Jobcentre staff.

The "success" of these companies is held up as evidence to open up more doors for these companies.
The truth is that if they were Judged on the same level of success which Jobcentre plus has in placing people in decent stable sustainable Employment they would lose every time.

The current system of payments to these companies and the criteria they are judged by leaves the person who needs support without it and the taxpayer picks up a bill for lining private sector pockets.


The Union worked with Portsmouth Uni to establish the facts about how these private sector companies had failed the Unemployed and we used the GMB members from Remploy who were throw on the scrapheap and left without proper help because in Money terms they take more time and support to place into suitable and stable mainstream employment.

The Remploy data base claims on how they have helped many thousands of Disabled people into mainstream jobs is highly dubious.

Placing people into Charity shops or collecting Trolleys at Supermarkets is not what everyone wants to do.


The Union therefore is trying to expose the current payment schemes and we believe that Jobcentre plus do and can provide the best most caring service if the measurement used on real success in helping people into work was on a like for like basis.


The PCS has our full support and that has been made clear to them.

The GMB does not support Welfare to work nor will it.

The confusion has been around the use it appears of our logo.
That matter is being dealt with.

Thanks for writing to me and as you can see by my grammar I do as many of my own letters as I can manage.

Yours
Paul Kenny

-----Original Message-----
From: Holly Smith

Sent: 23 May 2011 10:11
To: Kenny Paul (WI)
Subject: FW: Workfare

Hello Paul

I am a GMB shop steward for Brighton Council.
On Friday I sent an email to my Regional and National Officer about great concerns I have about recommendations the GMB has made about a welfare to work programme.
I am not sure if you read your own emails or not, or if a secretary reading this would be able to pass my comments on.
As our General Secretary I am appalled that you appear to be giving your backing to these recommendations and would very much like to hear your comments on this.

Please read my below email for further detail.

Thank you

Holly.


Holly Smith
Contracts Team & GMB Shop Steward
CityClean & CityParks
Brighton and Hove City Council
Hollingdean Depot

>>From: Holly Smith
Sent: 20 May 2011 12:50
Subject: Workfare

Hello Paul and Richard - I was given your names as people to contact about an issue I have. If you are not the right people to discuss this with, please advise me on how I take this forward through the correct channels.

As I am sure you are aware, the PCS trade union is currently holding their Congress in Brighton. I attended a meeting there yesterday at which they launched their new booklet ‘Welfare – An Alternative Vision’, an excellent straightforward and accessible booklet which sets out to debunk the myths around benefit claimants and reinforces why we should all be fighting to defend our welfare state. - http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/welfare-reform/index.cfm

Speakers at the meeting included Mark Serwotka, PCS General Secretary, and John McDonnell MP. They both spoke at length against the introduction of private providers into the welfare service, and were extremely angry about ‘a trade union’ that has come out in support of introducing private providers to work with the DWP, and the ‘welfare to work’ programmes. Eventually someone in the audience shouted out and asked who it was; I was appalled to hear it was the GMB.

I spoke to PCS members at length about this after the meeting, and have been researching it this morning.

In essence, the GMB has, through a report called ‘Welfare to Work in the 21st Century’ made recommendations that the DWP pilot a US Welfare-to-work programme developed by a company called America Works. The report has been authored by an accountancy firm called PKF (!). You can read the full report here: http://www.pkf.co.uk/web/pkf.nsf/D13546DB143A24CA8025788B004F11EE/$file/Welfare+to+Work+report.pdf

Here are some choice selections from the report itself –

The report ‘reflects on the importance of outsourcing welfare to work provision to independent providers’
The report recommends ‘best practice is for contractors to have a presence in job centres’
And recommends ‘the Government should robustly monitor the sub-contracting market to ensure that competition is maximised’

I am incredulous that a trade union is actually recommending and encouraging a Tory Government to increase their free- marketeering! Why on earth are we encouraging the opening up of the public sector to private providers? Do we really believe that introducing a profit motive into the public sector ensures the best possible service??

I have been researching the scheme, and the companies involved, this morning. Here are some of my findings -

- The guy who set the company up, a Mr Cove, is described as ‘one of the nation's leading advocates for private solutions to welfare’

- Mr Cove ‘influences policy makers internationally in his belief that private-sector efforts must be tapped by government’. (taken from his own website).

- The company themselves state “work first was a better strategy to reduce welfare than education and training programs”.

- Candidates participate in up to four weeks of unpaid training, focusing on soft skills like ‘developing a positive attitude’

- Employers ‘try out’ each candidate for up to four months during which time they have no employee rights, and if they are found not to be suitable they are simply released!

At the launch of this report in the House of Lords, the GMB described it as ‘innovative’. How about ‘regressive’ or ‘oppressive’? In a statement Paul Kenny said “The GMB is looking at how best to support both our members who are facing redundancy as the public sector cuts bite and those suffering the scourge of long term unemployment. We welcome the idea of pilots across the country to evaluate how best to do this.”

Apart from the immense political and moral objections I have to opening up welfare provision to private providers, cheap labour, subsidising employers, the treatment of the workers who will be forced into these schemes, etc etc., then does the GMB not realise schemes such as this actually takes jobs away from other workers and serves as a mechanism for keeping wages down and profits up?? Why would a private company keep employing a unionised workforce who have fought for a decent salary and terms and conditions, when they could simply sack them all and rely on an army of cheap labour which they get extra subsidies for, who they can have on permanent rotation?

Of course the GMB should be advocating job creation and getting people into work – but absolutely not in this manner. Why not advocate a massive house building programme, that employs skilled labourers to create quality social housing to solve the massive housing crisis we have in this country? Why not push for manufacturing jobs in sustainable technologies? I could go on.

I had a meeting with the other shop stewards in my workplace this morning (who are copied into this email), to discuss this matter. We would like to know why on earth our trade union is actually advocating the further exploitation of the working class. We feel that this report is nothing but an opportunity for private providers to profit from exploiting workers, and is an attack on unemployed workers, an attack on workers in jobs, and essentially an attack on trade unionism and it’s core values.

I would like your advice as to how we progress this complaint further, and also to ask how we go about writing an emergency motion for this to be discussed at Congress.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

Holly.

Holly Smith
Contracts Team & GMB Shop Steward

CityClean & CityParks
Brighton and Hove City Council
Hollingdean Depot

E-mail Correspondence 23rd May 2011 Between Paul Kenny (GMB) and Tony Greenstein (Brighton Unemployed Centre)

From: Kenny Paul (WI)
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 16:50:53
Subject: RE: GMB Gen. Secretary Paul Kenny Openly Supports Further Privatisation of Public Services

Dear Tony,

Thank you for your latest note and for posting my earlier reply on your blogsite.

I have explained in unambiguous terms the GMB stance on Welfare to Work and our complete opposition.

I have also explained what the GMB position is with regard to highlighting the failure of both this and the previous Governments policy of using Revolving door measurements of the "success" the private sector have been credited with and upon which large amounts of public money has been squandered into the pockets of these private providers.

This Money could have been better directed to help the long term Unemployed and those who are discriminated against such as the Disabled, the Young, Older workers and those other groups Employers tend to be less keen to give fresh opportunity's to such as Ex offenders, and those recovering from some form of substance dependency .

The GMB sought definitive evidence that the current system used to determine payment to these private sector companies are bad value for the person seeking support and for the taxpayer who picks up the bill.

The GMB has always argued that the most cost effective and compassionate support for those seeking work or training comes from direct employed Jobcentre staff. If performance were rated on criteria which applied fairly between the public and private sector the public sector wins and wins big. The pilot scheme you refer to is one where these criteria can be tested.

The current situation cannot be challenged by merely passing resolutions and then wandering home.

Those who deliver Public Services by direct means have been undermined for years by various forms of CCT, Best Value and every other form of excuse to privatise a public service.

The GMB has no agreement with any company engaged in this type of work that I am aware of with the exception of Remploy and their record of assisting disabled workers into mainstream employment is highly dubious.

The GMB operates in the real world. It is no good pretending that these difficult situations don't exist.

The retreat to the leafy lanes of XXXX is not an option for everyone.

In your comments to my earlier email ( which incidentally I sent to you at 11-22am on Sunday Morning) you said that you did not need to verify any of your conclusions since you had been present when Mark Serwotka had made all these allegations against the GMB.

I have spoken to Mark, who knows GMB well and he has advised my that he made no such attack on GMB.

It is clear that Mark and colleagues from PCS have every right to seek an explanation and an Understanding of the GMB position.

The support for our comrades in PCS in their struggle is unwavering and I don't think Mark doubts that for one moment.

It appears therefore that you have made a wild and unhelpful attempt to create a split between 2 Unions who are having to face up to this Governments Cuts to our services.

In conclusion, I accept that anybody who supports Welfare to Work and Exploitation of the Unemployed are beneath contempt.

In fact the only lower form of life I can think of is someone who would get Young Unemployed persons recruited at something like the TUC conference as Stewards and then take a portion of their meagre Lunch expenses as a FINDERS FEE.

Some Low life's about eh?

yours

Paul Kenny

GMB Gen. Secretary Paul Kenny Openly Supports Further Privatisation of Public Services

From: tony greenstein

To: Kenny Paul (WI)

Cc: RegionalSecretaries@gmb.org.uk

Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011

---

Dear Paul,

It seems that my comments have hit home. I posted your reply on my blog because this is a matter of public concern. It is not a private matter and your e-mail was not headed 'private'. This e-mail will also be made public.

I am disappointed though that you immediately resort to trying to shoot the messenger rather than dealing with the message by instructing your local minions to try and dig up some dirt on me. Unfortunately their attempts at 'research' are on a par with the Report that you have endorsed. What it does reveal is that you know your position is indefensible. Knowing that by the time the truth gets its boots on, lies have gone 12 leagues round the world, I will comment briefly on the personal allegations:

i. Yes I rent a house in xxxx and I claim housing benefit. So what? I suspect it is worth far less than the house that you live in. I also happen to have my autistic son live with me and there is therefore a need to be near his mother. His mother also cares for him and she lives in xxxx. Do you have a problem with that? One thing is for certain. I don't receive the £80,000+ a year which is the going rate for General Secretaries, to say nothing of the expense accounts and allowances. Try to remember, every time you dine out on the union, you are spending a few annual subscriptions. In fact New Labour got a 1,000 votes in the Council elections, so it can't be that leafy!

ii. Yes there are some low lifes around. E.g. union officials who get into bed with anti-union private American companies who are involved in workfare and 'welfare reform' - which are merely different sides of the same exploitative coin. The quality of your 'research' probably explains why I have ended up in the past 2 years representing at least 2 of your members in disciplinary/grievance hearings and employment tribunals, despite my being a member of UNISON. I won £32,000 at the Brighton employment tribunal for one of your members, for unfair dismissal, after the GMB simply dropped the case of a builder [whose name I can give confidentially] who was summarily sacked. Likewise I took up the case of an Asian woman and GMB member who worked for Hove YMCA. She was being racially harassed and bullied and then put on a disciplinary for capability. After your official failed to provide support, I had to submit a grievance, attend numerous disciplinary and grievance hearings before she was exonerated and her pay restored. This is all a matter of public record.

But since I did the work that the GMB did, maybe you'd like to compensate the unemployed centre for the work involved - at solicitor rates about £5,000. You might also like to compensate your member as we do ET cases on a CFA [no win, no fee] of 20% and therefore the unemployed centre received over five thousand pounds which the union should pay.

To deal with your specific allegation. If anyone had charged a 'finders fee' for stewards at the TUC Conference they would be drummed out of the unemployed centre without a moments thought. But of course those you got this information from are second hand gossips and liars. What we did do was to make it a condition, for those who wanted to become stewards, to pay a £10 donation to the local Refugee Trust, a charity which the Unemployed Centre helped set up. The Refugee Trust provides support for asylum seekers and refugees who have no other means of public support. Do you have a problem with this? Does the GMB provide any help at all to asylum seekers and refugees? I look forward to your apology for getting it wrong again. Your union represents many of those who have brutalised and abused asylum seekers in detention such as in G4S. Your crocodile tears over these alleged 'finders fees' are just that.

To deal with more substantive matters:

i. You say that 'I have explained in unambiguous terms the GMB stance on Welfare to Work and our complete opposition.'

Do you actually read what you put your name to? The Report with Kennedy Scott, 'the road to work and opportunity in the 21st century' is subtitled ‘welfare to work’ in the 21st century'. Section 1.3 'emphasises the importance of 'those delivering welfare to work provision coming from the public, private and voluntary sectors;' Section 1.5 speaks of 'the effectiveness of social networks and outplacement arrangements (alongside welfare to work provision) in mitigating the impact of unemployment.' and 'having a presence for welfare to work providers in Job Centres to enable assistance to be provided as early as possible.'

There are so many other favourable references to 'welfare to work' that I can only conclude that you have not read the report you have endorsed. To me that is even more shocking.

Yes we are well aware of the 'revolving door' nature of these make-work schemes. That is why I am surprised that you continue to advocate the same, with the added ingredient that the person placed will have a longer time before they leave, not least because of the coercive measures use to ensure that they put up with lousy conditions.

These programs are not designed to help particularly vulnerable sections of society but to ensure that welfare provision is kept at a minimum by forcing e.g. the disabled into work regardless of their own needs. They are not an added bonus but part of the overall demolition of the welfare safety net.

You speak of money being 'squandered into the pockets of these private providers.' Agreed. So why co-sponsor a Report with one of these providers?

You say that 'The GMB has always argued that the most cost effective and compassionate support for those seeking work or training comes from direct employed Jobcentre staff.' I find that difficiult to square with arguing for 'a presence for welfare to work providers in Job Centres to enable assistance to be provided as early as possible.'

I don't doubt that 'The GMB operates in the real world. It is no good pretending that these difficult situations don't exist.' I don't think you need to teach your granny how to suck eggs. However there is a difference between operating in the real world and advocating measures that make that real world even worse for the most exploited. The question is how you change that world, not how you adapt to it.

You say that you have spoken to Mark Serwotka and that he made no such attack on the GMB. I didn't say that he had attacked the GMB, but as you admit, he has every right to seek an explanation from you. The point though is why you didn't consult with him before embarking on this Report.

What I did say was that 'Mark Serwortka, PCS General Secretary made mention of the fact that there was a trade union in Britain which had come out in favour of more privatisation of job centres in Britain and had even co-authored a pamphlet with one such pirate, the US Workfare company Kennedy Scott. It emerged that the union was the GMB.'

Likewise Holly Smith, a GMB steward who you will no doubt subject to the same defamation as myself, was at the meeting and wrote that:

'Speakers at the meeting included Mark Serwotka, PCS General Secretary, and John McDonnell MP. They both spoke at length against the introduction of private providers into the welfare service, and were extremely angry about ‘a trade union’ that has come out in support of introducing private providers to work with the DWP, and the ‘welfare to work’ programmes. Eventually someone in the audience shouted out and asked who it was; I was appalled to hear it was the GMB.'

I have no interest whatsoever in creating a split between PCS and the GMB. You seem to have managed that entirely by yourself.

You state that 'anybody who supports Welfare to Work and Exploitation of the Unemployed are beneath contempt.' I agree. And now we are in agreement I trust you will, as they say of government ministers, consider your position.

regards,

Tony Greenstein

Secretary - Brighton Unemployed Centre

An Open Letter to Lauren Booth

It was, unfortunately, not a surprise that Lauren Booth, whose main claim to fame is her sister-in-law Cherie Booth's marriage to war criminal Tony Blair, has come out as a supporter of Gilad Atzmon.

In a report in the Palestine Telegraph of 6th may 20 11 ‘jewishness’, scare tactics and a sense of humour.’ she presented him as a simple supporter of Palestinian rights who has stumbled on the secret of the Palestinian catastrophe - 'Jewishness'. Quite what one does with this nugget of gold is never revealed. True Booth has converted to Islam, but religious adherents have the odd intellectual amongst their ranks.

It is of course understandable that each national liberation struggle has its own unique features and that of the Palestinians is no exception, but they also have certain things in common, like an oppressor and oppressed. Now if the Palestinians were unique in having been expelled, if Israel was unique in being an apartheid state, if the massacre of indigenous people were patented in Israel, then maybe, just maybe there would be a half justification for the concept that 'Jewishness' is to blame.

But of course the history of imperialism is littered with examples. such as South Africa, the United States, Australia and Ireland of settler colonial states. Other examples of straightforward colonisation - Malaya, Kenya, Nigeria, India - where massacre and atrocity were the norm should demonstrate that focussing on the racial characteristics of the invader and settler, as opposed to the socio-economic reasons behind what happened - is the explanation of those without any explanation.

But clearly Lauren Booth, despite her religious conversion (a trait that she shares with Blair) thinks differently.

Tony Greenstein

'Jewishness' - the secret ingredient that explains everything and enchants Booth

Dear Ms Booth,

I read with interest your article of 6th May 2011 ‘jewishness’, scare tactics and a sense of humour.’ on Gilad Atzmon’s meeting that was going to be held at Westminster University, not least because of your own determined muddleheadedness. I can well understand that having a sister and brother-in-law as war criminals is likely to produce strange effects, but it doesn’t normally addle the brain.

Those anti-Zionist groups and individuals who opposed Atzmon’s meeting at no time called for it to be cancelled. We contented ourselves with persuading the two leading academics who advertised as part of the panel, John Rose and Ghada Karmi, not to participate in an anti-Semitic love fest with your hero.

As a convert to Islam you see what happens in Palestine through the lens of religion, i.e. how men 13 centuries or so ago interpreted society. That means abandoning any rational attempt to explain things like war and expansion. Perhaps you will also learn that religion is a means of rationalising repression – be it in Israel or Iran – the difference being that in Israel religion justifies the oppression of non-Jews, in Iran it justifies the oppression of Muslims.

It is unfortunate that you work for the Iran State’s Press TV, whose record includes broadcasting the confessions of torture victims such as Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman condemned to be stoned to death. Of course you have to earn your shilling but it also helps me to understand where you are coming from.

You quote Atzmon as saying that Zionism ‘is NOT a colonial enterprise. It is a tribal setting.’ Zionism has nothing to do with class, settler colonialism or western imperialism. Instead the answer is to be found in this elusive and mysterious elixir called ‘Jewishness’.

Having rejected any materialist understanding of the world and retreated into received wisdom, you are left with no alternative but to look for racial explanations. After all religious devotion and class politics rarely go together. But for those who want to understand why the Palestinians were dispossessed, ‘Jewishness’ is not much of an explanation.

Or let me put it more simply so that there is no room for misunderstanding. Do we analyse why up to 10 million Africans were exterminated in the Belgian Congo by analysing Belgianness? Or does Germanness explain the holocaust as Zionist historians like Daniel Goldhagen argue or the genocide of the Armenians by examining Turkishness or Americanness to understand why the Amerindians were massacred? And the murder and torture of thousands in Central and South America by US sponsored death squads and juntas? How then to explain the horrors of Mubarak’s regime and why the USA supports the Saudi regime?

‘Jewishness’ explains nothing whatsoever. If it means Jewish identity, well this identity has changed repeatedly in the past 150 years in different parts of the world - from caste, to a working class, to supporters of Marxism and revolution and now Zionism. Your fascination with Atzmon and 'Jewishness' is a mere chasing of your own tail. You will be more likely to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow than ‘Jewishness’ as an analytical tool.

Or maybe the oppression of Catholics in Ireland lies in the nature of Protestantism rather than the machinations of British colonialism. Unfortunately the ruling class is not so stupid. Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, signed off on both the Partition of Ireland and the beginning of the British Mandate in Palestine. Or to quote the first Military Governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storres: ‘A Jewish State will be for England a little, loyal Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.' [Orientations p.4l4]

In fact the first Zionists weren’t even Jewish but Christian! Having read little about Zionism and understanding even less, you probably weren’t even aware of Zionism’s Christian roots. Try reading Hani al-Rabeb’s ‘The Zionist Character in the English Novel’ or Non-Jewish Zionism by Regina Sharif. Yes in the 19th Century, the age of imperialism, the idea of a Jewish ‘return’ to Palestine was popular among Christian imperialists and Evangelists (& before them the Puritans) long before it made any impression on Jews. Lord Palmerstone, Ernest Laharanne, Napoleon III, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Gladstone, George Elliot, to say nothing of Lord Balfour, who like many combined anti-Semitism and Zionism.

Employing Atzmon’s logic, we should also ask if it is Christianness that explains Zionism. It should be obvious, even to you, that you are looking down the telescope from the wrong end. You are mistaking cause and effect.

So when Atzmon asks ‘‘Is Zionism what it is. Because ‘Jews’ are what they are?’ the answer should be obvious. Even an Islamist should understand that imperialism didn’t depend on personal or racial characteristics (and if you ask what Jews are then you are talking race) of the conqueror. Of course the imperialists rationalised and justified their plunder and murder by explaining that they had to 'civilise' the subjugated, who were 'backward savages'. All in the name of a ‘Christian’ civilisation. Most people called it racism. No doubt Atzmon wil begin a minute examination of the New Testament.

That is why historically it has been the oppressed who rejected racism because they understood it was the weapon of those they were fighting against. In South Africa the ANC emphasised that it was a non-racial organisation which welcomed white opponents of Apartheid. And on occasion, as in the ‘End Conscription’ group white anti-apartheid activists organised separately. Some of the most prominent anti-apartheid Whites – Ruth First, Jo Slovo, Ronnie Kassrills – were Jewish and unsurprisingly it is Kassrills who has been the most ardent advocate of the Boycott of Israel which Atzmon opposes.

Atzmon talks of ‘the good Jew’, anti Zionist ‘lite’; willing to condemn acts of the Israeli state but supporting the right of ‘Jews’ to a homeland. A supporter of the right of Jews, who are not a nation, to a ‘homeland’ is not an anti-Zionist – be they Jewish or non-Jewish. But I seem to recall it is Atzmon who thought that Israel would change with the rise to leader of the Israeli |Labour Party of Amir Peretz, the ‘Defence’ Minister who waged war on Lebanon in 2006 and who believed that Zionist hegemony had ended with Obama.

In fact it is not the supporters of 2 States who have opposed Atzmon. It is those who oppose Zionism root and branch and have been integrally involved with BDS. Not because of any ‘presumption of superiority’ but because we recognise that there is no greater gift to Zionism than for Palestinian solidarity to be redefined in racist and racial terms. Anti-Semitism poses no threat to Jews today but it is dangerous to Palestinians and Palestine solidarity. Without anti-Semitism there would have been no Zionism. Atzmon, half fool, half charlatan that he is, wishes to replay history as a farce.

The question is cui bono – who benefits from Atzmon’s forays into Jewish conspiracy theory? I first came across him when he defended Israel Shamir, an open holocaust denier. Shamir is widely believed to be linked to the Russian internal security police, FSB. Everything about Atzmon’s behaviour and his efforts to divide the Palestinian solidarity movement, suggests that he also may have links to Mossad.

There is no dispute that most acts of ‘anti-Semitism’ are a result of the atrocities of Israel and claims that Israel is acting on behalf of all Jews. In fact Zionism has always welcomed such anti-Semitism as a means of stimulating emigration to Palestine. By supporting Atzmon, this is something you are also, no doubt unwittingly, are helping in. However the idea that you cannot be an anti-Semite because Jews are not a race is the kind of absurd question that I once had to put down from Oliver Kamm. Accordingly there is no such thing as racism against the Palestinians. After all they are not a race. And the Nazis weren’t racist either. Since there are no races there is no racism according to this logic!

You say that ‘The concept of ‘Jewish’ labelled, pro Palestinian groups, really gets under Atzmon’s skin. Why again, he argues, this need to be ‘special’ or ‘separate’ from other solidarity groups.’ Atzmon isn’t an activist. Nor are you. Jewish anti-Zionist groups don't act separately from other solidarity groups. Quite the contrary. Only Boycott Divestment and Sanctions has forced Israel and Zionism on to the defensive. Nothing that Atzmon says is of the slightest concern to Israel’s supporters.

So what was Atzmon’s reaction to the academic boycott which triggered off the boycott campaign of the past 6 years? In an interview ‘Tangling with the Oppressor’ Atzmon makes his position very clear:

‘interfering with academic freedom isn’t exactly something I can blindly advocate. Unlike some of my best enlightened friends, I am against any form of gatekeeping or book burning. But it goes further, I actually want to hear what Israelis and Zionists have to say. I want to read their books. I want to confront their academics. If justice is on our side we should be able to confront them…. to impose a boycott is to employ a boycotter.’

And why was Atzmon opposed to the Academic Boycott? Because his critics, not least Jewish critics, led the campaign! But according to him, ‘we are crypto-Zionists’!

There is a very good reason for Jews to organise as such. Not because of any desire to organise separately on ‘racial or ethnic grounds;’ (Atzmon doesn’t use the term ‘race’!) but because we are most effective when we do. It also helps deflect the charge that supporting the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. That was why at the national conference of UNISON I was deliberately chosen to speak in support of Boycott in order to counter the Zionists. The same happened in the University & College lecturers Union. It seems a price worth paying, even if it does get under Atzmon’s skin. But to Atzmon the academic boycott is the equivalent of 'book burning'.

You finish with Atzmon’s quip that ‘'The real genius of the Jews is that they made God into an estate agent and the Bible into a land registry'. It is anti-Semitic because it attributes what Zionism did to every Jew. It also holds true for many other religions.

If Atzmon is correct and it is all about ‘Jewishness’ then we should give up on solidarity. Instead the focus should be on Jews outside Israel who, Atzmon holds, control Israel. Instead of demonstrating outside Ahava we should be picketing synagogues and Jewish restaurants. And abandon Palestine solidarity work (as some of his supporters argue) Which I suspect is the real reason for Atzmon’s obsessions.

And if you want any further proof of Atzmon’s anti-Semitism then one only has to read his latest epic ‘Jewish Clandestine Operation Exposed’ about a meeting to discuss the issues above. In fact a number of those taking part, including London ISM, are non-Jewish. But why spoil a good conspiracy?

It’s a great pity that you have chosen to hitch your wagon to this particular carthorse.

regards

Tony Greenstein

Paul Kenny Replies - More Privatisation is Less

It seems we touched on a sore nerve as I got an early Sunday morning reply to my blog.

More Privatisation is Less!

Dear Tony,

Thanks for your note.

I am sorry that you choose to send long ranting inaccurate emails in the early hours of the Morning which could have been avoided had you sought any type of verification of your claims from those you have made such wild attacks upon.

The story you peddle of the GMB being in support of workfare is pure drivel and a lie.

The GMB has always given a clear line that the best option is direct Employment Services provided by Job centre staff.

The last Government and this one have pursued a policy of opening up the provision of Employment services to the private sector in a clear attempt to undermine direct services and line the pockets of private companies.
All this I am sure you know.

The GMB has sponsored a report by Portsmouth Uni which seeks to show that this system of private sector engagement has failed the Long term unemployed and is in effect just a Revolving door method of obtaining. Payments with no concerns for the real needs of the person blighted by Unemployment.

The GMB knowledge of what happened to the thousands of ex Remploy workers thrown on the unemployment list shows the truth.

The undermining of Job centre plus by these types of schemes is the challenge we are taking on.

We believe that were the payments these companies are currently creaming off the state only paid on long term results similar to the standards applied by Job centre staff then almost all would quit the market in the Uk.

I am sorry that instead of repeating half cocked rumours everyone concerned had bothered to make a simple phone call or drop a note if they had concerns.

For the final purposes of Clarity the GMB does not support Workfare it never has and never will.

The GMB supports the direct provision of services to the Unemployed and those services are best delivered through Job centre plus operations.

GMB believes if the time and personal care approach were adopted to helping and supporting the Unemployed were the bench marks for Government then direct services would beat the private sector hands down.
If you would like to discuss this further I am happy to meet.

I suspect your suggestion that the GMB is a right wing Union is based on your lack of knowledge of our Union or perhaps this was more garbage peddled by those who have other agenda's against the GMB or the wider TU movement.

Yours

Paul Kenny

Response to Paul Kenny

i. I should have sought 'verification' first. I have the Report by me now. I heard what Mark Serwotka said with my own ears. What more confirmation do I need?

ii. Whether the GMB supports Workfare officially is besides the point. Kennedy Scott, America Works and all the other pirate privatisers Kenny is working with support and operate working for your dole. The example of someone working for 4 months unpaid is what they say, not me. And likewise the agency worker set-up deprives those taken on of all employee and workers' rights. That is a fact that no amount of squirming Kenny can get away from.

iii. Yes we know the system of private sector employment in the DWP has failed. That is what makes your suggest for more involvement even more weird.

iv. You speak of 'The undermining of Job centre plus by these types of schemes is the challenge we are taking on.' How is this compatible with '‘the importance of outsourcing welfare to work provision to independent providers… The government should recognise that best practice is for contractors to have a presence in job centres’ ?

v. The primary reason that the long-term unemployed are let down is called 'capitalism' older, sicker workers don't get taken on because they are not seen as profitable. That is as true in the US as here. Except that what is being advocated is their super-exploitation as a solution. Find me any mention in the Report of Workers' Rights or trade unionisation. You know these are anti-union scum have managed to win over the more stupid of our trade union leaders, i.e. you.

vi. If you really believed that 'The GMB supports the direct provision of services to the Unemployed and those services are best delivered through Job centre plus operations.' then it is a strange way to go about it to call for the involvement of a more systemised private involvement in such services and for a continuation of payments by results.

vii. You deny that the GMB is a right-wing union. That is how it is perceived, as witnessed in your attempt to minimise criticism of Israel, the US's strategic ally in the Middle East, after the Gaza war. The only time it joined the mainstream left unions was under your predecessor John Edmonds. If you were on the Left, instead of getting into bed with American cowboys you would be supporting those who wish to seek an end to New Labour's attack on the unemployed and its use of these privateers. Instead you try to make the system work with an alteration to how these people are paid. The reason that the weakest are left on the dole is because of something called capitalism - it doesn't pay to employ the weak. No amount of make-work schemes will alter that.

I assume that the GMB under your successor will put itself in the forefront of the campaign against benefit cuts to the disabled and unemployed so that those without work aren't impoverished too.

Your reply is wholly disingenuous. It purports to support a public service but gives up on it and gets into bed with our enemies instead.

Tony Greenstein

PS: I should have added that I am prepare to meet Paul Kenny with representatives of Brighton Claimants Group but it's very much a question of closing the stables after the horse has bolted!

Extracts from the GMB-Kennedy Scott Report

‘The government should recognise that best practice is for contractors to have a presence in job centres’

‘the Government should robustly monitor the sub-contracting market to ensure that competition is maximised’

The Report speaks of ‘improving the employability of the long-term unemployed group’ and

‘the importance of delivering welfare to work provision coming from the public, private and voluntary sectors’.

It speaks of ‘the importance of a more competitive Work Programme tendering process in the future.’

‘It is surely in the national interest that this happens (shorter periods of unemployment). The country is facing the biggest change to the welfare system in 50 years’

‘America has already had considerable experience of these initiatives and there is much to learn.’ It speaks of the ‘work and ethos of Kennedy Scott’ and quotes uncritically the Freud Report that advocated ‘(1) a tightening of conditionality for lone parents;... Significantly the DWP stressed a new personalised and responsive approach…’

‘In particular through the competitive tendering process, DWP stressed its desire to contract delivery partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors.’ But

‘Redundancy can be a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity to start again. It is unlikely that the Jobcentre Plus will be able to provide suitable services for former professionals… conversely, a network is emerging which is based on voluntarism and social entrepreneurship.’

‘Another idea the government should consider is encouraging welfare to work providers to have a presence in Job Centres.’

‘it is important to take account of the more generous benefits system (and the consequential greater difficulty in getting claimants back to work).’

In other words benefits too high and discourage work. Benefits therefore should therefore be lowered (because of course raising wages runs contrary to all notions of privatisation and the free market). The Right calls this the 'dependency culture.'

The Report speaks positively of

‘Outsourcing and contracting-out have a longer history with the 1988 and 1992 Local Government Acts requiring local authorities to competitively tender services such as street cleaning and refuse collection.’

as justification for introducing Kennedy Scott into existing programmes.

The Report speaks of

‘8 client groups ranging from jobseekers under the age of 25 to Employment and Support Allowance recipients who had formerly received Incapacity Benefit. Contractors will receive incentivised fees to deliver successful employment outcomes…. contractors will receive… thirteen four weekly sustainment payments of £215 to encourage in-work support and job retention.’

In short nearly £3,000 pounds which would have stayed with the DWP will be frittered away on parasites like KS whilst benefits are cut and wages lowered.

The Report speaks of a

‘full outsourced recruitment service’ and ‘The introduction of ‘Work Choice’ by the DWP is also to be welcomed as support for people with disabilities seeking employment,… '