Israel’s Drill May Curb Iran Nuclear Effort, U.S. Official Says
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 20 Jun 2008
Summary: An Israeli military exercise interpreted as a rehearsal for a strike on Iran will bolster a diplomatic drive to curb its nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said. Russia’s UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin, expressed a different view, saying that even the threat of military action and unilateral sanctions outside the framework of the Security Council might damage the diplomatic effort. source: Bloombergread more

Shell tanker drivers? strike
UKWatch.net - 20 Jun 2008
Last weekend?s strike by 641 Shell oil tanker drivers foreshadows a summer of discontent over low pay rises and soaring food and fuel bills. Unconfirmed reports suggest they have been offered a 14 percent pay rise, undermining the government?s 2 percent target but little more than the original offer of 7.3 percent this year and 6 percent next, which the drivers rejected before last weekend?s strike. Unite trade union leaders have called off another four-day strike due to start this Friday and an overtime ban and are recommending drivers accept the deal. They have refused to make the deal public, confining themselves to a joint statement with the two contractors employing the drivers, Hoyer UK and Suckling Transport, saying they were ?pleased to confirm that they have successfully concluded pay talks.? The government became extremely nervous at the speed with which many areas of the country ran out of fuel last weekend, the solidarity for the strikers shown by drivers from other companies and the support given by the public. The same nervousness goes for union leaders who, witnessing the chaotic effects of the strike and its spread to other workers in a way reminiscent of the secondary action banned by the Conservatives in the 1980s and upheld by Labour, moved quickly to close it down. Despite the strike only involving drivers delivering to Shell petrol stations?about 10 percent of the UK?s total?it quickly began to bite as they picketed oil refineries and distribution depots. By Monday, nearly 700 petrol stations out of the 8,700 in the UK had run out of diesel and unleaded petrol. From the first hours of the strike, tanker drivers from BP and other companies refused to cross picket lines. Striking workers picketed three oil depots in Scotland?at Grangemouth oil refinery, Aberdeen and Inverness?waving banners saying, ?Shell, gallons of greed? and ?Shell drivers over a barrel.? Only 3 tankers left the Grangemouth depot in the first seven hours of the four-day dispute, instead of the usual 40 vehicles an hour, and 6 turned away. On Monday, drivers from other companies walked out to join the strikers at Grangemouth after 11 workers from Scottish Fuels?a spin-off from BP?were reportedly suspended for refusing to cross the picket line and ?refusing to accept management instructions.? Faced with the possibility of the dispute escalating, Scottish Fuels backed down and reinstated the workers. Trade union leaders sought to bury the incident, claiming it had all been a ?misunderstanding? and was now over. Grangemouth, which is one of the most vital oil distribution centres, delivering one third of the UK?s supply, was the scene of a strike by workers at another BP spin-off company, Ineos, in April, protesting cuts to the company?s pension scheme. Around 15 BP drivers, who had arrived with a police escort for the nightshift at the Stanlow refinery in Cheshire, then refused to work, joined striking drivers. Some independent drivers also drove away after talking to pickets. In Plymouth, drivers from every fuel company at the local distribution depot joined the strike, leading to nearly all the petrol stations in the counties of Devon and Cornwall running out of fuel. The local Business Council chairman, Tim Jones, told the BBC, ?The impact of this right across the board is absolutely horrifying. ?The frustration and anger among the business community is growing by the hour. ?Fuel prices are already high, there is a credit crunch and this is the last straw. Businesses are on their knees.? The government relaxed competition law to allow fuel companies to compare stocks and target areas where fuel was short and also prepared emergency powers to ration petrol. It instructed the police to break up any picket lines that tried to prevent tankers from leaving or entering refineries or fuel depots and put the Army on standby to drive fuel tankers. Chancellor Alistair Darling claimed on Wednesday that large pay rises for public- and private-sector workers would fuel rising prices and said, ?That would be a disaster, not just for the country but for each and every one of us.? ?If you get yourself into a position where every penny extra you get through pay rises is eaten up through price rises, through inflation, then we will get into precisely the problems Britain had in the Seventies, the Eighties, and even the early Nineties, when inflation was at very high levels,? he said. ?We have got to be vigilant in relation to all pay?public and private sector pay alike?because if we get ourselves into that spiral it will take years to get out of it.? Darling spoke out after inflation hit a 10-year high of 3.3 per cent, and forecasts suggest it could hit 4 percent or higher within the next few months. For only the second time since the Bank of England was made independent, the level of inflation has risen more than 1 percentage point above the target?forcing its chairman Mervyn King to write to the Chancellor explaining how he plans to control the problem. King says that inflation will stay ?markedly? above the 2 percent target for the foreseeable future suggesting interest rate cuts are off the agenda. At the last meeting of the Bank, interest rates were kept at the same level, but some board members wanted them to rise. Workers made to pay for slump Darling?s insistence on below-inflation pay awards is part of a continued effort to place the burden of the coming economic slump on the backs of working people. For a worker on the average salary of 23,750 and receiving the current average 3.2 percent pay rise, it means take-home pay rising by 500 a year?about half the 1,000 extra that the average family has to find just to pay for their annual food and drink alone and before they pay for soaring fuel, housing and transport costs. According to figures published by the Office of National Statistics this week, the cost of food and drink has risen nearly 8 percent this year, the highest increase since 1990. Essential foods, such as bread and butter, have leapt by nearly 20 percent. The price of gas and electricity has soared and could go up another 50 percent over the coming year, and other utility suppliers such as water companies are planning to announce double-digit price rises soon. Average household heating and fuel bills will rise by more than 400. At the same time, the number of people without jobs is currently 1.64 million and rising sharply. It is widely predicted to keep going up for the next 18 months. These sorts of price rises have fuelled anger amongst the population as a whole and growing militancy amongst workers, especially as the government declared that pay rises had to be kept to 2 percent a year for years to come. There have already been strikes by postal workers, teachers and civil servants in protest of pay levels. Next week, the public sector union, Unison, will announce the result of a ballot on industrial action by 600,000 council workers who have already rejected an offer of just below 2.5 per cent. The union?s general secretary, Dave Prentis, warned that a dispute with public sector workers could bring the government down at the next election?raising the nightmare scenario haunting Labour politicians of a repeat of the 1978-1979 Winter of Discontent that led to the collapse of the last Labour government. Darling tried to downplay the drivers? pay rise, insisting that it was a one-off award due to the ?peculiar? nature of the oil industry?a line repeated by Business Secretary John Hutton. In fact, there is nothing peculiar about the conditions facing workers in the oil industry. What has happened to the oil tanker drivers?including contracting out to slash existing wage rates?is something every worker or professional person will recognise and most will have experienced. It was a major reason why attempts to whip up hostility against the drivers remained largely unsuccessful. As Gary from Lincolnshire wrote to the right-wing Daily Mail ?...it?s not a disgraceful pay rise. Open your eyes to reality. What these tanker drivers have received is what all of us should get. It?s only fair and reasonable. If you believe the CPI inflation rate of 3.1 percent then you have been totally duped by the government. Wake up Britain we ALL deserve 14 percent and don?t let them fool you.? Twenty years ago, tanker drivers were amongst the best-paid sections of the working class and enjoyed relatively good conditions and pension benefits. Under the impact of globalisation, all this has changed. Figures released by Unite showed that the drivers have suffered a drastic decline in their wages and conditions since the 1990s, when Shell outsourced their tankering operations. At the time, trade unions at the company and at countless other companies and public services across the UK sold the concept of outsourcing to their members, saying that under employment protection (TUPE) rules, they would keep the same pay and conditions. The fact that new starters could be employed at different rates was downplayed or ignored. According to Unite, in 1992, a driver typically earned approximately 32,000 (US$62,400) per year for a 37-hour week. Today, 16 years later, that same driver, employed by contractors Hoyer UK and Suckling would be earning the same 32,000-per-year basic wage for working a 48-hour working week?considerably closer to the industry average of 25,000. As the strike started, Unite General Secretary Tony Woodley blustered, ?This should have been solved six months ago. Shell outsourced my members? jobs years ago to cut costs and have been very successful at the workers? expense. ?Despite what management is saying, our members are on a basic wage of 31,800 and if they had remained working for Shell that would now be 46,000. What we are asking for is a basic wage of 36,000.? Woodley argued for a pay rise by citing yet another attack on drivers? conditions his union failed to fight?pensions. ?It would cost just 1 million to solve this dispute?money they have already saved from the workers? pension scheme alone,? he said. Unite Assistant General Secretary Len McCluskey chimed in, stating that Shell ?is one of the most profitable companies on earth and it now needs to provide the financial flexibility to avert this dispute. It is no use Shell bosses, who have themselves enjoyed 15 percent plus pay increases in the last year, sitting on their hands…. Shell tanker drivers are earning exactly the same today as they were fifteen years ago while working for a company that makes 1.3 billion every month, profits our members? hard work helps deliver. So Unite is saying to Shell bosses, stop hiding behind your sub-contractor and help us sort out a solution.? Shell is quite unmoved by the pathetic appeals from Woodley and McCluskey. On July 1, the company is outsourcing its IT infrastructure and the transfer of 3,200 jobs, mostly based at its Aberdeen HQ, to AT&T, EDS and T-Systems. The trade union Amicus is threatening legal action over staff redundancy terms, which Shell amended in June last year, slashing payments from 200,000 to 50,000 (US$98,700). Regional Amicus officer Graham Tran complained that ?loyal? employees were being ?dumped? and pleaded, ?We just want Shell to look after its loyal employees.? Shell says it will press ahead with plans to make pre-tax cost savings of about US$500 million per year through reorganising its structure, cutting costs and outsourcing jobs in the hope it will surpass the record 14 billion in profits it made last year. As many industry analysts point out, as oil prices soar, companies are ?increasingly examining their supply chain networks in order to make them more efficient and sustainable.? According to Unilever customer logistics director (Europe) Martin Whitcombe, manufacturing or logistics networks take a minimum of three to five years to restructure, ?so it is important that firms make changes now.? ?Oil prices are now $127-$130 a barrel. At $150 a barrel, we start thinking about our (supply chain) network; at $200 a barrel, we really start thinking about our network,? he said. According to economists Jeff Rubin and Benjamin Tal, this year?s explosion in transportation costs has offset all the trade liberalisation efforts of the past three decades. They say that the cost of transportation in 2000 when oil was US$20 a barrel was the equivalent of a 3 percent tax, but with oil at US$150 a barrel, it is equivalent to an 11 percent tariff.

London?s Embarrassment
UKWatch.net - 20 Jun 2008
?This is the end of political correctness in London,? exulted a Conservative as newly elected Mayor Boris Johnson entered city hall. Nearly a month after the polls closed, it is still an extraordinary thought that London, of all places, is to be represented in the eyes of the world by a man like Johnson. The Tory MP from Henley (outside London) first won notoriety as a right wing columnist and sometime TV quiz show guest: a bumbling parody of a right-wing upper class twit. His extramarital affairs also attracted publicity, and he was removed from the Tory front bench. As a pundit, he struck a brusquely Thatcherite and neo-con pose. In 2005, he described Africans as ?pickanninies? and called for the re-colonisation of the continent. He applauded George Bush and the Iraq war. He opposed the Kyoto Agreement and dismissed the threat of climate change. He routinely evoked social stereotypes, casually insulting the entire populations of Liverpool and Portsmouth, among others. After a bombing atrocity, he declared that ?Islam is the problem? (there are more than 700,000 Muslims in London). In the post-modern climate, it was sometimes hard to know how seriously anyone was supposed to take Johnson?s views. But as a Conservative party candidate for the Mayor of London, Johnson could no longer shelter behind the columnist?s lazy excuses, and he waged a careful and mostly dignified campaign, distancing himself from many of his earlier remarks. His central thrust was ?against crime?, with the populist touch of replacing the new elongated, uncomfortable ?bendy buses? with much loved double decker Routemasters. And of course he inveighed against the ?political correctness? of the incumbent Livingstone regime, including its links with the Chavez government in Venezuela (which benefited poorer east Londoners with cheap fuel). Ken Livingstone first came to prominence in the early 80s as the left wing Labour leader of the Greater London Council. Here he spearheaded a progressive programme which became a flagship of resistance to Thatcher ? so much so that she abolished the Council in 1985, leaving Londoners without any form of representative London-wide government. Responding to long pent-up demand, Labour re-introduced a modified form of London government in 2000: an elected Mayor and Assembly were to enjoy carefully restricted powers (education, housing and much else was left in the hands of the 32 London boroughs) and a limited tax base. Barred by Tony Blair from standing as the Labour candidate for the newly created Mayoralty, Livingstone ran as an independent and won a historic victory. In office, he soon made it up with the Labour party, and he and Blair and then Brown learned to live with each other. In 2004, he was re-elected as mayor, this time as the as official Labour candidate. His major achievement was the introduction of the congestion charge for central London, an effective environmental policy and the first social democratic innovation in this country for more than a generation. He opposed the war on Iraq ? and in doing so faithfully represented the view of a majority of Londoners. He denounced Islamophobia and continued to be associated with the rights of ethnic minorities. But he also gave strident support to the heavy handed police tactics that led to the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 and the near killing of two others in Forest Gate in 2006. When a London jury found the Metropolitan police guilty of health and safety violations in the course of the de Menezes incident, Livingstone condemned them for exposing London to terrorist attacks. Socialist rhetoric was reserved for left wing audiences. In practise, his economic policies were dictated by big business and the banks; his sole strategy for London was to compete with other cities to attract multi-national capital. Hence the vast sums poured into the Olympic project, which Livingstone championed. He opposed proposals for a modest tax on non-domiciled millionaires who spend months of the year in London. As time went on his regime became identified with croneyism and petty corruption. Not all the allegations were groundless. Livingstone certainly ran a closed shop, surrounded by a coterie dedicated to protecting his personal position, and he and they sometimes displayed a very casual approach to the prerogatives of power. The London election was heavily publicised as a personality contest though both candidates were muted during the campaign. Livingstone, in particular, was lacklustre, relying on his proven competence as incumbent and presenting himself as a safe pair of hands against Johnson?s gaffe-prone naivete. But the the campaign was given lurid fire by the extraordinary intervention of London?s main daily newspaper, The Evening Standard, which waged a ferocious assault on Livingstone. Across the city, the Standard?s familiar hoardings blazoned headlines linking Livingstone to corruption or terrorism or crime. In the end, Johnson picked up 42 per cent of the first preference votes, against Livingstone?s 36%. After the 2nd preference votes were distributed, Johnson was elected with 53%. While Livingstone?s vote held nearly steady from 2004, the Tory vote was up by more than 14%. Turn outs were higher in Johnson supporting areas in outer London than in Livingstone supporting areas in inner London. Still, Livingstone fared better in London than Labour did nationally, where it was reduced to third place with 24% of the vote, its worst local election result in forty years. The full story behind this must wait for another column. Suffice it to say that New Labour?s contempt for its core constituencies ? crystallised around the abolition of a special lower tax band for people on low incomes ? has come home to roost. Across the country, working class voters deserted Labour in record numbers. It was Labour?s performance in national government that was Livingstone?s greatest handicap in London. Here, the working class revolt against Labour was restricted to the white working class, but it destroyed Livingstone?s chances. These people had benefited little from either Labour nationally or Livingstone locally. They didn?t even get the benefit of the political gestures. Undoubtedly, part of Johnson?s triumph rested on a veiled appeal to racism and xenophobia. This was confirmed by the alarming success in the London elections of the far right, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim British National Party. In the vote for mayor, Johnson received the second preferences of nearly all of the 70,000 who voted first for the BNP candidate. In addition, some 128,000 mainly Johnson supporters gave the BNP their second preferences. Most disturbingly, the BNP secured 130,000 votes ? 5.3% – in the city wide top-up vote for the London Assembly, and under the proportional representation system won a seat there for the first time. The Green Party, with 8.3% of the vote, won two seats, and the rest were divided between Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats. Since the Tories are two short of a majority the BNP member could play a significant role, though at the moment he is being shunned. So one of the world?s most successfully multicultural cities stands naked. In a climate of looming economic crisis, fear, scapegoating and bigotry fuelled the vote for the BNP and for Johnson. People who have been left out by London?s economic boom turn their resentments on their fellow Londoners, who in fact share their frustrations. Now that boom, sustained by cheap credit and high property prices, is ending. Gross inequalities created during the years of wealth have already turned London, for all its marvellous mixing, into a city of parallel universes. As incomes and standards of living are squeezed and jobs are lost, we?ll find out how well we really know each other. Speaking as a Londoner, I?m filled with dismay at the idea of Mayor Johnson, flanked by a BNP assembly member, presiding over this crisis. When the Conservatives revile ?political correctness? they have in mind not merely the gestures associated with Livingstone but any and all claims for equality, any and all resistance to racism. In that respect their celebration of Johnson?s victory as ?the end of political correctness in London? is certainly premature.

Labour refuses to answer Davis?s by-election challenge
UKWatch.net - 20 Jun 2008
Labour will not contest the by-election forced by the resignation of shadow home secretary David Davis, which he says is intended to initiate a public debate on the government?s attack on democratic rights. The decision confirms that the Labour government is incapable of defending its extension of the period in which people can be detained without charge to 42 days?a measure that it managed to push through Parliament only with the support of nine members of the Democratic Unionist Party, reportedly ?persuaded? with financial incentives for Northern Ireland. More fundamentally, it underscores Labour?s hostility to any form of democratic accountability?a position which it made a point of principle with its decision to support the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq in defiance of popular opinion. Initially, Davis?s announcement was greeted with universal scorn and derision by the media, who claimed that his ?egotistical stunt? would backfire due to broad public support for the government?s stance. While Labour joined such claims, it refused to say if it would contest the election from the very start. Instead, having been defeated in the London Mayoral contest by Conservative Boris Johnson and with record lows in opinion polls, it turned to its closest backer, Rupert Murdoch, for help. Within hours of Davis?s resignation, Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, boasted that he had the oligarch?s blessing to take on Davis and that ?the Sun has always been up for 42 days, or perhaps even 420 days, frankly.? MacKenzie, who said he had discussed his candidacy with Murdoch and Sun editor Rebekah Wade earlier that evening, said he was ?90 percent certain? to challenge Davis if Labour decided not to. He also revealed that Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had been present at the party, implying that he had Labour?s backing to act as its proxy. But as thousands of e-mails and texts to newspapers and media outlets showed that Davis?s stance had struck a chord with the public, little was heard from MacKenzie or the Sun for several days. The former editor?s claim that Murdoch would finance his candidacy?which would be illegal under electoral law?combined with the possibility that the Sun?s claim to represent the ?man in the street? would founder should it be seen to tie itself too closely to an unpopular government?appears to have done for MacKenzie?s candidacy. Not that Murdoch was out of the picture. The Guardian reported that the Sun had also ?considered approaching Rachel North, a survivor of the 7/7 bombings, who has campaigned for justice for the victims.? And his other media outlet, Sky News, reported that Labour was canvassing John Smeaton to stand in its place. The baggage handler won the Queen?s Gallantry Medal for helping police foil a terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport last year. The report was considered especially authoritative because it came from Sky TV?s political editor Adam Boulton, husband of Anji Hunter, Blair?s former spin-doctor and close friend. North, however, told the Guardian that she ?admired Davis?s stand? and was ?a big fan of civil liberties and freedom and democracy.? At the weekend, Smeaton also scotched claims that he had any intention of standing, stating that he did not understand where the rumours were coming from. Finally, on Thursday, MacKenzie confirmed he would not be a candidate in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, citing financial considerations. ?The clincher for me was the money. Clearly the Sun couldn?t put up the cash?so I was going to have to rustle up a maximum of 100,000 to conduct my campaign,? he said, rewriting events to suggest that the earlier declaration of his candidacy had been entirely a personal whim. Instead, he urged Sun readers to support Northampton market trader Eamonn Fitzpatrick, who has said he will run as an independent in favour of 42-days detention. Currently, the unknown fruit and vegetable salesman is one of several independent candidates who, in addition to their campaign over one or another single issue, are defending the government?s detention powers. Labour?s hostility to democratic accountability Labour has attempted to justify its abstention on the grounds that the by-election is a ?farce.? Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman accused Davis of ?wasting over 80,000 to run a by-election, paid for by the council taxpayers,? while Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has said Davis should be made to personally foot the bill. Such demands establish an entirely new criterion for elections?i.e., whether the government of the day considers them politically pertinent or financially worthwhile. Labour has already overturned its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the European Union?s Lisbon Treaty?rejected by Irish voters last weekend?on the grounds that it no longer considers it necessary. In truth, Labour cannot publicly defend its policies because it is the political plaything of big business and the super-rich, whose interests are antithetical to those of the broad mass of the population. That is why Brown chose to make his rebuttal to Davis before an invite-only audience of just 50 people from the pro-Labour think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research. The thrust of his speech on June 17 was that ?modern security? requirements, ?modern challenges? and ?new threats? could not be managed ?by the old, tried methods and approaches.? Terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking were all organised globally, using the latest technology, he said. Whereas in the ?old world? police took ?fingerprints, now we have the technology of DNA.? ?While the old world relied on the eyes of a policeman out on patrol, today we also have the back-up of CCTV. ?While the old world used only photographs to identify people, now we have biometrics.? In other words, technological progress justifies the state?s acquisition of massive new powers?including plans for a national DNA database, identity cards and widespread surveillance (as in the case of closed-circuit cameras)?an argument that evokes Orwell?s 1984. As for Brown?s claims that technological developments could be used to ?strengthen the protection of the individual,? there was no evidence of this in his speech, which was all about strengthening the state. His pledge that liberty meant ?never subjecting the citizen to arbitrary treatment? and ?always respecting basic rights and freedoms? was made ridiculous by the government?s passage of 42-days, and its earlier plans to introduce 90-days detention. Concern at exposure of Labour and the ?left? It is a measure of the putrefaction of Labour and the so-called ?left? in general that a right-wing Tory can present himself as the champion of civil liberties. Labour?s 42-days detention is only the latest and most draconian of the more than 200 pieces of ?anti-terror? legislation enacted by Labour since 2001 that have overturned fundamental civil liberties and have established the legislative framework for a police state. Throughout this time, the Conservative Party has supported the ?war on terror.? Davis himself voted in favour of 28-days detention without charge and the Iraq war. But he can attack Labour as ?gutless? because not a single Labour ?left? was prepared to break ranks and challenge the government. The two Labour ?rebels? over 42-days who have said they will back Davis?Bob Marshall-Andrews and Ian Gibson?only did so when it became clear the government would not contest the election. Even more strikingly, all the government?s critics have thus far preferred to sign up to Davis?s campaign, rather than launch their own. Veteran Labourite Tony Benn has said he supports Davis, as has Observer columnist Henry Porter and Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights organisation Liberty. This has raised alarm at the pro-Labour New Statesman magazine, which, like all official political circles in Britain, was caught off-guard by the extent of the political disaffection that would be revealed by Davis?s resignation. On June 12, New Statesman editor Martin Bright had hailed Davis?s ?courageous? resignation. In his blog, ?I salute David Davis,? he wrote that the shadow home secretary had done ?the decent thing? and wished ?Davis well? in the election. Within a week, his position had changed. The government?s abstention and the willingness of its ?liberal? critics to rally to a Tory candidate left Bright concerned that Labour?s left periphery was fatally compromised politically. In an air of desperation, Bright wrote, asking, ?Where is the David Davis of the left, prepared to resign and challenge the government?s authoritarian agenda…. Where is the politician or public figure to challenge the government?s authoritarian agenda from a progressive perspective? In short, where is the liberal candidate to stand in Haltemprice and Howden?? Issuing the call for a ?genuinely liberal candidate to stand against David Davis,? he pledged that such a candidate ?would receive the full backing of the New Statesman.? See Also: Britain: Conservative MP forces by-election to challenge Labour?s anti-terror legislation [17 June 2008] Britain: Parliament approves police state measures in Terrorism Bill [17 February 2006]