Tag: tony delahoy

Letter: Socialist solution to self-interest

Dear Editor

We are living in a capitalist society where most places of work are privately owned, in which the first priority is to maximise profit. The owners are also free to close down places of work if they feels profits are not enough, regardless of the effect on the workers and their families.

By it’s very nature the capitalist system is based on the owners’ self-interest, whether dealing with national workforces or international workforces.

Modern technology and knowhow is now able to solve the scourge of starvation, poverty and ill-health worldwide, but owners of industries are not willing to set aside their self-interest.

The capitalist system has amassed unbelievable wealth but in the UK cannot or will not solve the problems of jobs, housing, pensions, health, care of the elderly, education and social services. They cannot or will not treat the preventable diseases that kill millions of children worldwide for the sake of the few pence per head needed to do so.

In the knowledge of all this, the arrogance of language and policy used by political supporters in support of capitalism is breathtaking. Replacement of such a useless system is long overdue, being replaced by one working for the benefit of all – SOCIALISM.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

Letter: Making it work

Dear Editor

I wrote to NEN in 2010:

‘The struggle of the labour movement, trade unions and others has always been to ease the burden of work and to improve wages and conditions of work. It has been a long struggle, great sacrifices being made but always holding out the hope that, at long last, the nation will be able to look after the youngest – giving them all the care and opportunity needed, and giving the oldest respect, dignity and the care they need. This is how it should be and the nation will be judged accordingly.

‘Now despite all the evidence of the correctness of that struggle there are serious moves to undo the good. Raising the retirement age from 65 – to 68 initially, then later on to 70 – is a thoroughly backward move. I believe the majority of people, having worked for an average of fifty years, welcome relief from the daily grind. There should not, of course, be a compulsory retiring age if an individual wishes to continue working.’

It is now November 2013 and:

there is a situation where there are over one million young people out of work, and older people are told they will have to work for years beyond 65. This is creating new problems for the labour movement and the trade unions to solve: how can we tackle these problems and obtain the best results?

As a counter-proposal to raising the retirement age, I suggest an individual option lowering the retiring age to 62. The skills, knowledge and experience of those taking the option can be used for the benefit of their communities by agreeing to do a maximum of nine hours paid work for those three years.

No doubt this example will raise many questions and problems, but organisations representing working people must discuss what options there are and which are beneficial to all.

  • The scheme would release jobs for young people.
  • The skills and experience of the older person would be available to the community
  • The older person would have some work satisfaction, respect and dignity and a better quality of life
  • There would be a steady replacement of people taking part for the benefit of the community.

Comments and ideas needed!

Tony Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Time, gentlemen, please

Dear Editor

People over decades have had to struggle very hard to get an increase in wages; the employers, when faced with a determined workforce, do eventually make some concessions.

The one thing they strongly resist is a reduction in working hours: the weekly wage they pay has bought your ‘time’, and the more work that can be had from that ‘time’ the greater amount pf profit can be made, whereas any increase in the wage bill can be clawed back in rising prices.

Development in technology over the decades has meant more can be produced using fewer people, so the logical thing to do was to reduce the working week/year so that all could benefit – but no way would the employers reduce working hours: your ‘time’ was paid for by the weekly wage.

Now in the 21st century the employers are taking things further, embracing zero contracts where your ‘time’ is now on-call as and when needed, your ‘time’ that is left is not their concern as it is unpaid but remains tied to their needs. How close is this to serfdom or tied slavery?

Think about it. Today the call is for everybody to work harder and longer. Where, how and why? And for whose benefit?

Further, in spite of the nation’s will to finance national schemes to help those who are unemployed, sick or disabled in their time of need, this Tory/Lib government have planned to make them work for nothing or lose benefit.

Imagine the delight of some employers, having this pool of free labour available! Perhaps you may think it wouldn’t happen, but maybe this Tory/Lib government would reinstate poor law relief officers dishing out food vouchers, etc. instead of benefit money. It would be in character!

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: public services paying the price

Dear Editor

Wage increases restricted to 1% maximum. Price increases averaging 3%, with gas, electricity and rail fares rising even more. This is not a one-off, it is a policy continuation over the last three years. Every working person is feeling the pinch, more so those on low incomes – in very many households the question of heating the home is decided by how much cold one can stand first.

Passing the cost of the colossal greed and mismanagement by the banks and financial institutions onto the people is bordering on criminal – especially as huge salaries and bonuses are still being paid to the people at the top, Their political supporters have been very busy making sure the people pay, but that is not enough for them.

They have also seized the chance to break up, privatise and destroy as many public services as possible – the very services, both local and national, that are needed more than ever. These services have been struggled for and paid for in taxation; they haven’t been given to us, this begs the question: how has the Tory/Lib government been able to do so much harm to so many?

First, any resistance had to be broken or diverted, pointing out people to blame, setting one section against another – those in work (‘hard workers’) against those out of work (‘layabouts’), people not on benefits against those on benefits (‘scroungers’), disabled people (‘shirkers’, or ‘work shy’). That so many people were taken in by these tales is a disaster, not only for the scapegoated but because every individual is under the same threat.

Emboldened by this success the Tory/Lib government felt confident enough to go even further and dictate how much space a hame needs (the ‘bedroom tax’) and in doing so giving the like-minded controllers licence to dictate, if on benefits, what people should or should not buy.

It is important every person listens very carefully to what is being told to them and why, and by defending others’ rights you defend your own. 

The famous speech by Pastor Neimoller is really worth recalling:

First they came for the communists

And I did not speak out because I was not a communist

Then they came for the socialists

and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak for me.

Most people have one asset, the ability to work; when the opportunity to exercise this is denied it has disastrous consequences on individuals and families, made worse by destroying public services.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Social Profit

Dear Editor

The economic crisis was created by financial institutions and the banking systems, and they and their political supporters are now passing the cost onto the working population: cutting jobs, freezing wages and raising prices – causing widespread poverty and despair, not only in the UK but world-wide. This clearly shows their determination to protect themselves by any and all means.

All history shows that systems change: serfdom, feudalism, early capitalism, industrial capitalism to today’s financial capitalism. Each system in turn created problems they were unable to solve, but those who stood to gain most from the existing system strongly resisted any change.

The common factor of all these systems was that they were organised mainly for the benefit of the few. Today, the same is happening: financial capitalism moves money around the world to maximise their profits irrespective of the poverty created in country after country. As a system it can only operate in this way, engaging in what they call the ‘global race’ – this is fully backed by David Cameron.

A change of system is now needed, but it cannot be plucked off the shelf – effecting a change will involve everyone with ideas and determination to organise a social system to cater for the needs of all for life.

The NHS is one example of such social policies that can be ut into place, which everyone must defend alongside other social policies that exist. Social policies should include, for example: Rail, bus and air transport; gas electricity and oil suppliers, house building, care and security for the elderly and no privatising of schools.

Companies who own and control these indispensible industries operate for maximum profit at our expense: if operated socially it would bring about changes in the system.

Tony Delahoy

Silverknowes View

 

Letters: Winners and losers of the global race

Dear Editor

The repeated use of certain words and phrases, for example ‘let me be clear’, ‘openness and transparency’, ‘hub’, ‘flat-lining’ are very irritating; and ‘we must win the global race’, often repeated by David Cameron and most Tory politicians, is both annoying and dangerous.

Dangerous; when the state of the world needs nations to work together to solve problems of food production, fuel and energy supplies, diseases, protection of the world’s forests and climate change.

Dangerous; because ‘winning the global race’ means there are losers, creating disastrous unemployment, poverty and health problems.

There are many examples of companies engaged in the ‘global race’, making vast profits in one country, closing industries in others, showing little concern for people’s’ lives and wellbeing. The ‘global race’ does not exclude the working people of the UK from this exploitation.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Pension Plan

Dear Editor

Sometimes one hasn’t a choice but I would expect everyone would wish to have a long and good life. To achieve both ‘long’ and ‘good’ requires reliable and steady employment and a society that is run for the benefit of all – this has been the aspiration of past generations of workers who struggled to improve their lives; we owe them our gratitude and respect.

The same applies to the pensioners of today, who in their time have striven to create better conditions for all of us. Now today’s generation must help, protect and care for their parents and grandparents whose welfare at the moment is under attack from a vicious reactionary government determined to undo all the social progress fought so hard for.

People who are working today are the pensioners of tomorrow and the government’s sights are firmly fixed on them – by playing the ‘divide and rule’ game, pitting one section of people against another, they hope to achieve their aims.

People working today must rally to support their parents and grandparents (the pensioners); this would then be their contribution to the ongoing struggle to achieve a society run for the benefit of all.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Warning – pensions under attack

Dear Editor

Pensioners of today and tomorrow, be aware: the government is laying the ground for further attacks on pensions and pensioners benefits.

First, they have to divide opposition, for example by saying they wish to be fair by stopping the wealthy getting the winter heating allowance. It sounds fine, but does that mean the introduction of a means test for everyone to qualify? And who sets the level?

Other benefits, such as travel passes, television licence and free medicine prescriptions – things to help pensioners maintain some quality of life – are threatened: the government is looking to see if the nation can ‘afford’ them.

The campaign of setting one section of people against another is well-prepared, with millions of words and pictures; every person working or retired is the target. Just a few figures:

  • 31% of the population are of retiring age; not all get a full pension as many qualifying conditions apply
  • The government is raising the age of retirement for women from 60 to 65 by 2018 and for both men ad women to 66 by 2020, with increases to 67 and 68 later on
  • The ‘full’ state pension is only approximately one sixth of the average age
  • The amount paid out in pensions from the total wealth produced in one year is approximately 5%, yet the percentage of the population’s pensioners is 31% (and most have contributed to a pension scheme throughout their working lives).

Just two further points: today’s working population, who now produce all the nation’s wealth, were raised, loved and cared for by our pensioners. Today’s working population and pensioners combined have massive voting power: use it!

Tony Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

 

 

 

Letter:Reality

Dear Editor
From and including the times of Thatcher there has  been a steady campaign to depict the ‘working class’, 90% of the population, as uneducated, fairly lazy  and undeserving. What is behind this campaign – such a sustained attack must have motives?
The 1other 10% of the population, the wealthy class, have always feared a united people striving for and getting major improvements to their lives and gaining control over decision-making; this, they had to stop. This unity had to be broken,
First they had to break any resistance by people’s organisations, launching a
vicious attack on the trade unions, following this  by wholesale closing of industries, from shipbuilding, ports, coal mines, printing, car & aircraft  production, steelworks etc, destroying scores of thousands of people’s  lives.
What better method could there be to break this unity, by pitting one against another in a scramble for a job while at the same time propagating the possibility of  individuals climbing up the ‘social ladder’ and becoming ‘middle class’!!
The 90%, if opportunities are available, have  differing levels of skill, giving differing levels in quality of life, but nevertheless are still of the working class in  which everyone depends on everyone else to maintain their quality of life. The 90%, have the values of decency and thoughtful  caring in wanting society to be organised and run for the benefit of all.
The same cannot be said of the remaining 10%, their  campaign of vilification of the working class goes on; the recent  past and present times are  witnesses of their intentions.
Tony Delahoy (by email)
thatcher

Letter: Wealth and Power

landownerDear Editor

Have you ever wondered how the wealthy made their money in the past?

Do you think most of today’s wealthy got it through inheritance?

Do you agree that wealth gives rights of power, privilege and decision-making?

Interesting questions, worthy of some research – but how deep?

We ll know about the appalling exploitation and working conditions of men, woman and children who worked in mills, factories, coal mines and on the land, making vast fortunes for the owners. This in itself begs the question: how did these people become owners in the first place? Owners who were also law-makers, magistrates and lords of the manor to whom everyone had to defer.

Today, a great part of land is still in private hands, although landowners derive massive wealth from leasing.

The wealthy industrialists have now moved their money, mostly into speculative financial stocks and bonds both nationally and internationally; they still hold positions of power beyond ‘one person one vote’ and weald great influence on all aspects of our lives.

Despite these positions of strength, tremendous struggles throughout history by men and women in groups, organisations and as individuals have taken place – and will no doubt continue to change society and make it work for the good of all.

A Scottish miner was carrying home a brace of pheasants when he met the landowner, who told him that he owns the land and the pheasants are his too.

“Your land, eh?” asks the miner.

“Yes, and my pheasants”, replies the laird.

“And who did you get the land from?”

“Well, I inherited it from my father”

“And who did he get it from?” the miner insists.

“His father, of course! The land has been in my family for over 400 years!” the laird splutters.

“Okay, so how did your family come to own this land 400 years ago?”

“Well – well – they fought for it!”

“Fine@, replies the miner. “Take off your jacket and I’ll fight you for it now!”

 

Tony Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens