IT WAS NO surprise to see a desperate John Major, his party languishing in third place in national opinion polls and facing annihilation in the Euro-elections, attempt to whip up a populist reactionary backlash against beggars.
His government has of course done more to create beggars than any other since the 1930s.
Behind the massaged official figures, realistic estimates suggest unemployment at four to five million. Whole communities have been devastated and lives wrecked by the closure of basic industries.
Social security benefits have been slashed: special needs payments have been axed, and partially replaced by loans from the cash-limited Social Fund.
Over 140,000 households, and countless more individuals are homeless, while council housing has ground to a halt as a result of Tory restrictions on spending. 20 hostels for the homeless face closure as the Tories axe their grants.
In 1988 Major himself cut off social security payments to 16 and 17 year olds - to save £140m from the DSS budget.
Thatcherite policies have widened the gulf between the rich and poor, and massively exPregnant and penniless panded the numbers living in poverty: the bottom 20 percent of the population are actually worse off now than in 1979, while the richest 10 percent have gained an average £13,900 per year.
Some of the poorest and most desperate have travelled to the big cities to beg rather than languish in equal poverty and squalor out of sight.
£1,000 fine Maior's threat to use the law against beggars is especially ironic. Possible penalties against convicted offenders include fines of up to £1,000: how on earth could they be made to pay?
Alternatively, jails could be further extended or overcrowded to accommodate and feed those currently with no roof PULL-OUT SPECIAL over their heads: but this would result in Major's government spending through the Home Office some of the millions it has. slashed from social security.
The screw is tightening, with the growing harassment of the long-term unemployed through 'restart' schemes. When Kenneth Clarke's new 'Jobseekers Allowance' replaces unemployment benefit in 1996, dole payments to hundreds of thousands of jobless aged below 25 will be cut by 20 percent - axing up to £10 per week.
But few workers know of these attacks, and fewer still were alerted to the threat to benefits and services that have now already been axed. sector and civil service unions have failed to build broad-based campaigns to defend these crucial components of the welfare state.
They should now be sounding the alarm: a nationwide campaign is needed that will not only expose the Tory plans, but demand Labour break from its timid economic consensus and commit itself to restore and expand the welfare state.
By Pete Firmin NO-ONE can pretend the election for Labour leader takes place under good conditions for the left. Constituency parties are frail, and within them the left is weaker than for a long time.
The One Member One Vote system, compounded by the appallingly short time-table, means discussion will be dominated by the media beauty contest with the real issues barely getting a look-in.
Nomination is entirely in the hands of the MPs, 34 of whom have to back a candidate for them to even get on the ballot paper, regardless of the level of support they may have in the party and unions.
Coronation
Moreover, with Brown's withdrawal and rumours of Cook and Cunningham likely to do the same, the pressure is on for all other candidates to withdraw in favour of Blair and for the Party to have a coronation in place of an election. With this threat CLP activists should be campaigning for their MP to support a contest with a left wing candidate.
But the election is an opportunity the left cannot afford to PULL-OUT SPECIAL miss. It gives the chance to put forward alternative policies on the issues facing the movement, both internally and externally, to those on offer from all the front bench candidates.
Literature can be circulated to all members of the party and affiliated unions, and numerous debates will take place around the country at which candidaies (or their representative) could speak. Yet some on the left are at best reluctant, if not downright opposed, to putting forward a candidate. The Socialist Campaign Group of MPs itself needs to recognise that failing to stand makes them invisible and would contribute to a further decline and weakening of the left.
Doubts
Their doubts about gaining sufficient nominations, while real, do not take account of the fact that if the 28 members of the group collectively campaigned, it should not be beyond their abilities to convince 6 more.
Much of the debate is col oured by the fact that it is known Ken Livingstone is the only Campaign Group member likely to stand.
He is mistrusted by much of the left but at least he recognises the political significance of this election.
Those who don't like him have ducked out of arguing for the Campaign Group to come up alternative candidate, but instead used it as part of the reasoning for not standing at all.
The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Socialist Action share Socialist Outlook's view that it is necessary for the Campaign Group to collectively decide on a candidate and campaign for them.
A London Labour Left meeting on Thursday May 26 unanimously endorsed a Socialist Campaign Group member standing as a candidate.
Leading supporters of Labour Briefing are in effect reinforcing the weakness of the Campaign Group MPs. They arBy Pete Firmin The June 11 Socialist Campaign Group Supporters' Network conference on Socialism and Full Employment indicates well the extent to which the Labour Left is Which one is cuddling up to the right wing? Neither offers a left policy gue for a campaign around policies, but without a candidate, arguing that support would be so low as to be damaging.
But a campaign without a candidate would not get a hearing. When Livingstone and Grant stood after Kinnock and Hattersley resigned, the media switched off completely when they failed to get sufficient nominations (then nearly twice as many).
They failed because of the lack of a collective campaign by the SCG of MPs. The left should have learnt that with a collective campaign it would be possible to achieve the 34 nominations.
Catastrophe
Briefing also argue victory for Blair would be such a catastrophe that the left has to throw its weight behind a candidate with a chance of winning from the start. Leaving aside whether such a candidate exists, this view underplays the need for a fightback against whoever wins.
Socialist Organiser takes a similar view, while openly displaying its hatred of Livingstone (more latent among Briefing supporters).
It argues for committees in the unions to organise around alternative policies, a fine sounding idea, which needs taking up by the left, but which is severely restricted in the context of the election.
The time-table means that these would hardly get established before the election is ers around the country, with many local campaign groups, has the backing of the Campaign Group of MPs, circulates a newsletter to supporters and produces a daily bulletin at Party conference.
While no great seachanges in the fortunes of the over, and without a candidate supporting them, those policies would have little purchase.
Arguing that a Left candidate is a non-starter, it throws its support behind Prescott as the candidate to back, because of his support in the unions.
If there is a need to unite around an alternative to Blair, the exhaustive ballot allows for this without detracting from a left campaign, but Briefing and Socialist Organiser think it necessary to plump for (a poor) second best from the start. Their problem is that they cannot agree on who this should be.
Many Briefing supporters see Margaret Beckett as their champion, because of the 'coded signals' she gave over the trade union link debate, her position against proportional representation and support for women's rights in the party.
Darling
Meanwhile, Socialist Organiser argues Prescott, the darling of the union's, has the best chance of defeating Blair.
Of course, thé candidates may resolve their dilemma for them, but this confusion is a reflection of the fact that neither offers a serious alternative.
Of course, they might make some left sounding noises during the campaign, but if the Left rolls over and dies, they will take that as an indication of its inability to actually fight for what it wants. the fight both inside and outside the party has a chance of appearing relevant to those sections of the working class wanting to fightback both against the offensive and the "new realists' and attracting new forces to the party.
The conference should be the starting point for a new