Owen Jones, author of “Chavs:the demonization of the working class”

George Barratt, a councillor from Barking, recently expelled from the Labour Party for refusing to vote for cuts

Claire Solomon, former President of the University of London Union and author of “Springtime: The new student rebellions”

We will also hear from representitives of the Montgomery School campaign.

The meeting is supported by GMB B49 Branch and Birmingham Against the Cuts

Tuesday 21st February, 2012, at 7.00pm, Committee Rooms 3 and 4, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B3 3BD.

Speakers: Deepak Rughani, Biofuelwatch

Steve Hall, Socialist Resistance and anti-fracking campaigner

Chair: Chris Crean, West Midlands Friends of the Earth’s regional campaigner

For further details contact: Midlands@socialistresistance.org or call 07775942841

The Assault of Bioenergy

The government believes it can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing finance to renewable energy technologies through subsidies called Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). As well as providing support for clean technologies like wind and solar, ROCs also finance electricity from biomass and bioliquids, which increase greenhouse gas emissions, drive deforestation, and worsen air quality locally. Greenhouse gas emissions from burning biomass are around 50% higher than those from burning coal per unit of energy.

The Committee on Climate Change has expressed concern that the large scale use of biomass electricity would hinder rather than help the UK’s transition to a low carbon economy. Bioliquids produce significant levels of local air pollution affecting health in this country, as well as black carbon (soot) which accelerates polar ice melt. Per unit of energy, biomass burning compared to coal produces higher levels of nitrogen dioxide and small particulates which are linked to respiratory and heart diseases. The Environmental Audit Committee recently found that the Government is already putting thousands of UK lives at risk by not adequately addressing air quality problems, and the European Environment Agency has just reported on air quality noting with concern the increasing use of wood burning in Europe.

The sourcing of biofuels and biomass from overseas is directly linked to natural habitat conversion to monocultures with devastating impacts on biodiversity. Natural ecosystems because of their biodiverse nature are major drivers of biospheric cycles including the rainfall cycle. Weakening these cycles has very serious implications for global warming, global rainfall patterns and ultimately on global food production. Biofuels and biomass has also been widely implicated (directly and indirectly) in human rights abuses – including the forced eviction of people from their land and inhumane treatment of workers.

Deepak Rughani trained as an ecologist. He taught environmental science at a conservation centre and ecology at London University. He worked as a change management consultant for 12 years before becoming active as an environmental campaigner in 2005. Biofuelwatch was set up in 2006 as it became clear that the rush to bioenergy carried with it grave systemic risks to climate, ecosystems, indigenous communities and food production. Deepak is contactable at biofuelwatch@ymail.com

If the leaking of smelly shale gas from your water taps and the ground generally, well-head fires and potential earthquakes weren’t a good enough reason to be worried about the expansion of hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’ for shale gas, then the use of toxic chemicals in the fracking process which could be even more disastrous, surely must be. This is because of the possibility of them contaminating not only the surrounding land and water courses when they are pumped back to the surface, but of contaminating underground aquifers as well, from which many get their drinking water. What we need in this country as well as globally, is not shale gas and what goes with it, but massive state investment in the development of renewable forms of energy like, marine, solar and wind power.

Stephen Hall is a supporter of Socialist Resistance in the North West. He attended last years Camp Frack protests near Preston and he will give an update on the campaign against shale gas extraction.

Bob Whitehead reports on another local anti-cuts victory:

The reply from the Birmingham City Council Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, Councillor Les Lawrence, to a question from Cllr Eddie Freeman (Weoley) says it all;

“A significant number of comments, representations and consultation responses were received with regard to the provision of respite services to those young people, such as attending Charles House, indicating the value and importance of the service to their well-being, personal development and families.

The commitment shown by parents, staff and young people as expressed at the Northfield Ward Committee Meeting and at the meeting, as you detail in your question, was an important factor in the consideration of the future for Charles House.

I can therefore confirm that Charles House will continue to be a vital component in the overall provision of respite services. Already changes to the process by which places are provided have occurred, staffing profiles assessed, to enable improvements in the access to and provision of placements.

Therefore Charles House, which has on three separate occasions been judged by OfSTED as outstanding, will continue to provide high quality respite care for young people together with supporting their families underpinned by staff who are highly respected.”

There is not much wriggle room in that. So, congratulations to the staff and children of Charles House, their parents who campaigned so effectively and to everyone else who lent their active support. The latter includes a few Labour Councillors in the South West of the City and our own Stirchley and Cotteridge against the Cuts group. (SACAC)

This victory was achieved by high-profile, effective and militant campaigning, led by the parents themselves. It was all organised at regular mass parent meetings; they planned the press campaigning, the lobbying, the letters to be written and the relevant meetings to be attended. These meetings also invited in Council officials such as Eleanor Brazil, legal experts and Les Lawrence himself. Some Labour Councillors turned up at times of their own volition, others had to be dragged. SACAC members were proud to have been invited in for every meeting, to give support and advice on campaigning strategy

But it was SACAC that pioneered the two most public demonstrations, a street corner Saturday morning stall in Cotteridge on Saturday 5^th November and on the Kings Norton Green on Saturday 10^th December. This latter event was preceded by parents, children and SACAC members filling up Councillor Steve Bedser’s surgery to bursting point and winning Steve’s active support for Charles House. At both stalls the public support received was overwhelming.

It was also SACAC that accompanied the parents to a memorable Northfield Ward Committee meeting on Monday 21^st November. To say that the campaign made its point forcibly would be an understatement. It was probably the turning point – as acknowledged in the letter above. Councillor Lawrence was reminded in no uncertain terms of the promise he had made to keep Merrishaw Community Day Nursery open, only for the shutters to go up soon after. When we all trooped out having made our point, Cllr Lawrence followed, and spoke to us in a very different tone of voice. It was probably at this point that it was realised a big mistake had been made.

So, the articles in the press, the coverage in the B31 blog, the lobbying of Councillors, the street demonstrations, the letters written and the solidarity achieved by keeping all parents together, plus the support of the local anti-cuts group, made a victory possible.

We, of course, hope that the survival of Charles House is not at the expense of any other such house or Council services. But if anywhere else does feel threatened, the service users concerned can take a leaf out of the Charles House parents’ campaign to see how to defend themselves.

If and when the Council cutters come for any other vital services in this part of the city, be rest assured that SACAC will be there once more. And while we think about it, is it not time to consider re-opening Merrishaw Community Day nursery?

No to elected mayors – democratise the Council!

On May 3^rd voters will be asked

“How would you like Birmingham to be run?

“By a leader who is an elected councillor chosen by a vote of the other elected councillors. This is how the council is run now.

“Or by a mayor who is elected by voters. This would be a change from how the council is run now.”

If they vote yes to an elected mayor an election will be held probably in November 2012. At present there are three serious candidates, all Labour: Albert Bore, Sion Simon and Gisela Stuart.

There is a real danger that voters will vote for an elected mayor out of disillusion with how the Council has been run over the last few years by the Tory-LibDem coalition. Not just the cuts in services and jobs, but the widespread feeling that there is an absence of dynamic leadership in the city and that citizens have no influence over the politicians. The government, echoed by the three Labour candidates and backed by the Birmingham Post, are strongly arguing that an elected mayor is the solution. A single clear high-profile leadership for Birmingham and, for Labour supporters, the attraction that the winner will almost certainly be Labour.

The left needs to be clear that the aim of the government’s policy of elected Mayors is to strike a further devastating blow to what remains of local democracy. On those grounds, whoever is the likely winner of an election locally, the left should call for a no vote in the referendum.

No to an elected mayor, no to the status quo

The wording of the referendum presents a false choice – that the only way to get change is an elected mayor. But there is a third option: a radical democratisation of the present bureaucratic system, opening up decision-making in the city to participation by its citizens.

The fundamental problem in Birmingham, as elsewhere, is that people – and especially young people and ethnic minorities – are completely alienated from local politics. They simply don’t believe that they can make any difference. The Power Inquiry’s report into the UK’s democratic health found that citizens are rarely asked to get involved, and rarely listened to when they do. Yet people want a real say in the conditions that affect their lives, and are willing to get involved if they feel it can achieve something important, as the local campaigns and strikes against the cuts show.

So the challenge for local government in Birmingham is: can it be reinvented to embrace the ideas, desires and energies of the people of the city? An elected mayor will have the exact opposite effect, replacing the existing undemocratic system with an even less democratic one – an elected dictator in the Council House.

The Localism Act gives the elected Mayor dictatorial powers. The Mayor:

• is in office for four years and cannot be unseated by a vote of council members.
• appoints the Cabinet.
• holds all the reins of council power, in charge of, among other things, economic development, with the power to make policy.
• cannot be overruled by the Council unless at least two-thirds of councillors vote against.
• sets the budget, again only subject to Council veto by a two-thirds majority

Under this elected Mayor system the role of councillors would be reduced to ‘scrutiny’, coupled with constituents’ casework. Under the present system scrutiny committees are largely toothless, placing few constraints on the executive. Under an elected Mayor they would be even more powerless, and largely unable, even if they wished, to prevent further cuts in Council services.

Even more powers in future

As things stand, a mayor would simply take over the powers of the council leader and cabinet. But amendments to the Localism Bill give the Local Government Secretary the power to transfer responsibility for almost any public service to local authorities, as long as doing so would “promote economic development or wealth creation” or “increase local accountability in relation to the function”. It potentially allows local authorities to take over any function which is “currently the responsibility of government or other public authority, which are carried out in relation to the people who live, work, or carry on activities in the authority’s area” (B Post 3 November 2011). The mayor could take control of local rail and bus service franchises, job centres and further education (B Post 8 December 2011).

These powers can be transferred to any local authority whether it has a mayor or not, but clearly the government wants to use them as carrots for a ‘yes’ vote. We welcome increased powers to local government, but not if they are in the hands of one largely unaccountable person.

Why business likes elected mayors

Companies which contract for local government services have made no secret of their support for the Mayoral system. Capita, perhaps the biggest, stated in evidence to a House of Lords committee in 2010 that they like the idea of “a strong leader who can personally commit the council making it easier for firms like theirs to develop partnerships”. In other words, dealing with a single business-oriented politician who can act without reference to anyone else makes it much more convenient for firms like Capita to win contracts for local government services.

The pressure on elected Mayors is to adopt the role of civic ambassador. This entails abandoning any notion of conflicting class interests at the heart of the city and promoting a sanitised and business-oriented public relations image of the city based on an imaginary consensus. For Simon:

“One of the key jobs of an elected Mayor is to speak for the city. To be the voice of the citizen. To lead the discussion on who we are, what we stand for, what makes us special. And then to lead the process of articulating and distilling that sense, and then taking the message out to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.” (B Post 1 April 2011)

Leave the big decisions to the mayor!

Albert Bore is promoting a deeply false and undemocratic division of responsibilities. In his view the mayor would exercise central strategic leadership – in other words take all the big decisions – leaving the councillors to ensure good local services in their areas. He claims this is democratic because the mayor would be accountable. But how? To the citizens of Birmingham every 4 years? To a council chamber where support from one-third of the members could block any challenge? And be wary of this word ‘accountability’. It means the mayor carries out policy and then is judged by the results. It doesn’t mean that citizens have the right to play a role in shaping policy in advance, as it is formulated. Of course councillors should ensure good local services, but they can only do even that if they have the power to take the big strategic decisions on which local services depend.

The prospect of an elected mayor is already threatening local democracy in other ways too. Gisela Stuart favours open primaries, people who don’t even support Labour, to select Labour’s candidate. A business executive, bidding for Birmingham’s local TV franchise, argued at a public debate on the mayor on November 24 at the Hiatt hotel that with an elected mayor we don’t need 120 councillors, a couple of dozen would do, preferably non-party.

Our alternative: democratise the Council!

Labour nationally and locally is arguing for a localism agenda, a shift from New Labour’s top-down micro-management to greater local community empowerment. We agree with the direction of policy. We want to see strong and active local bodies – parish councils or whatever they are called – with resources and powers so local people can have a real say.

But on its own sub-localism is not enough, because it leaves strategic power over the budget and key policies with the centre, the city council, largely immune from popular involvement. The crucial question is what new structures and processes can open up council decision-making to popular participation? How can local participation at the neighbourhood, ward and constituency levels fed into and shape decision-making at the centre? What new city-wide forums are needed to allow policy to be developed across the city?

For example, open up Scrutiny committees to popular input; introduce a participatory budget-making process, set up city-wide forums bringing together citizens and councillors on key issues such as education, transport, housing and jobs. There is no shortage of ideas, learning from experiences of participation around the world.

In our view ideas like this can fire the public imagination and win a ‘no’ vote to an elected mayor in the referendum if the opposition takes them up. We have to have a credible and imaginative vision of a democratic alternative, not just a ‘vote for the status quo’.

Yet the cross-party opposition campaign led by MPs Godsiff and Hemming and Tory councillor Hutchings has no such vision. In fact they don’t even have a campaign, as a visit to their website (ineptly named ‘saynotoapowerfreak’) will demonstrate – no arguments, no public activities, no functioning internal democracy (in spite of the promises). Their invisible ‘campaign’ itself mirrors the bankruptcy of their ideas and seriously risks handing over the referendum to the elected mayor camp.

For a labour movement-led campaign for a ‘no’ vote – and a democratic alternative

The left needs to urgently raise the issues around elected Mayors in the unions and the community. Time is short and the pro-elected mayor campaign is gathering momentum. We have the arguments, and we have an alternative to the ossified status quo. Now we need a campaign throughout the city for a ‘no’ vote in May.

Chris writes: “

“Across Europe resistance to austerity and cuts is mounting. Yet this comes at a time when much of the left in Europe is in crisis and this resistance all too often passes it by. In recent years the experience of the European radical left provides some valuable experiences but also some warnings which should be heeded. As the centre left falls in behind the drive for austerity the need to pose an effective left alternative is greater than ever. That begins by throwing ourselves into the resistance to austerity.”

7.30pm, Wednesday 18th January, 2012 at Bennetts, Bennetts Hill, B2 5RS

We are pleased to have Rick Simon, Senior Lecturer in East European Studies, Nottingham Trent University speaking on contemporary Russia.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened the way to the restoration of capitalism in what was now the Russian Federation. With Boris Yeltsin as president, Russia was supposedly heading for democracy and
prosperity, but the drive for rapid privatisation and marketization resulted in massive corruption, the rise of the Russian Mafia, and the impoverishment of the vast majority of ordinary Russians, while a tiny number of so-called oligarchs, such as Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, became vastly wealthy by plundering Russia’s natural resources.

 Yeltsin’s successor was Vladimir Putin, ex-head of the Russian security service the FSB, appointed to maintain Yeltsin’s system. Putin was not, however, entirely a creature of the old regime. He was repelled by the lawlessness of the Yeltsin years and by Russia’s declining status as a global power. He was also concerned with emerging differences within the elite about Russia’s future direction and by the potential for social unrest resulting from the huge wealth gap. Putin’s response was to recentralise the state, utilising the on-going and brutal war in Chechnya as a cover for the introduction of restrictive and, at times, repressive measures to limit expression and opposition.
Political parties, now dominated by the pro-Kremlin United Russia, have become much weaker and the Russian Communist Party projects an image of Russian nationalism rather than socialism. 

Under Putin, Russia became an energy superpower, enabling a significant improvement in workers’ living standards but also ensuring a steady flow of resources to the state bureaucrats who constitute Putin’s real power base.
Control of energy supplies also resurrected Russia’s status in respect of former Soviet republics. Dependence on natural resources makes Russia vulnerable, however, to the ups and downs of world oil prices: the financial crisis hit hard, GDP contracting by 8% in 2009, but reserves built up over previous years prevented a slump. Rising oil prices have subsequently lifted Russia’s economy.
 
Constitutionally, Russia’s president can only serve two consecutive terms. As a consequence, in 2008, Putin had to engineer his succession, nominating long-time ally Dmitry Medvedev. With Medvedev as president, Putin was appointed prime minister in a double act popularly referred to as tandemocracy but in which Putin often seemed to be pulling the strings. With presidential elections looming in March 2012, Putin has decided to return to the presidential hot-seat with Medvedev becoming prime minister. Such is Kremlin control over the political process that the outcome of this election is already decided. December’s parliamentary elections will also have resulted in victory for United Russia.

So has Russia become a virtual one-party global superpower run by the security police like the old Soviet Union? Russia expert, Rick Simon, will discuss how Russia’s political system works, how far this seeming stability can
continue, and what the prospects are for the left.

The strike is the product of several key actions taken over the past year which have pushed the movement forward. The first was the student revolt a year ago which electrified the struggle and exposed the lethargy of the trade union movement, which, despite conference speeches had still to take any form of action.

Then in March half a million turned out for the TUC London demonstration, making it far bigger and more militant than the organisers had anticipated. Around the same time UK Uncut emerged as an important and innovative direct action group.

This was followed In June by the highly successful strike by the teaching and civil service unions. This brought large numbers of young teachers and civil servants into strike action and onto the streets for the first time making it a game changer for the unions. The strike was a tribute to those in the teaching and civil service unions – not least Mark Serwotka of the PCS and left-wingers on the NUT Executive, who fought long and hard to deliver the action and make it a big success.

Now we have the November 30 strike which is a big step forward over previous actions.  Most of the teaching and civil service unions already have live ballot results which allow them to take action on November 30. These include: the PCS, the NUT, the UCU, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Welsh teachers union the UCAC. The EIS Scottish teachers union has already voted in favour.

Those currently balloting for strike action with results out shortly are: Unite, the GMB, the NASUWT teaching union, the NAHT head teachers’ union, the FDA civil service union, Prospect, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, and NIPSA the Northern Ireland civil service union. Most if not all of these unions are expected to vote for strike action. Such united action has not been seen in Britain for a very long time.

Nor are the strikes just in defence of pensions – important as that issue is. It is widely seen as a strike against the whole of the coalition’s cuts agenda. People feel that it has been organised in this way to avoid the draconian anti-union laws which outlaw solidarity action.

The decision of the Government to offer some marginal concessions – a slightly better accrual rate and some protection for workers close to retirement – was an attempt to split the strike. The unions, to their credit, rejected them and decided that the strike would go ahead. It was also a sign of weakness. It was not a part of the plan. The plan was to face the unions down hard line and enforce their full terms. The offer was a clear sign that the coalition is losing confidence in its ability to see the struggle though.

The reasons for this are not difficult to see. They are shocked that they are facing a strike of three million workers at this stage and they are faced with the spectacular failure of their economic perspective, which, by whatever measure used, is falling apart in front of their eyes. They are facing the slide towards a double-dip recession no chance of the reversing it in time for the next election – which was the plan behind the coalition agreement. If they did not face a weak and compromised opposition, and did not have the media wholeheartedly on their side in the debate over the debt and the cuts, they would have been lucky to survive until now.

The coalition’s problems are compounded by the economic and political tsunami taking place in the Euro Zone, which threatens to overshadow and derail anything the coalition might do in Britain. This is exemplified by the catastrophe facing Greece, the contagion overtaking Italy, the imminent break-up of the Euro Zone, and the paralysis of the G20.

The crisis in the European Union has also triggered a remarkable revolt of Tory Eurosceptics, who are taking the chance to vent their nationalistic and xenophobic spleen. In fact Cameron is facing a bigger and more vociferous revolt than that faced by John Major in the 90s – the ones he called ‘the bastards’.

All this underlines the extent to which Cameron has swung the Tory party back to the days of Thatcherism and the rabid rightwing nature of recent Tory MP intakes. It is also politically divisive within the coalition with the hapless ultra-pro-EU Lib Dems caught in the middle of this mayhem disingenuously defending a coalition which continues to use them as convenient shields for Tory policies.

The lesson from all this for the trade unions and the anti-cuts movement is clear. This is exactly the time to pile on the pressure and build the fight back to its full potential. It is the time not only to maximise opposition to the cuts but is a real opportunity to put the trade unions back centre stage where they have not been for a very long time. The education unions were boosted by the strike in June. This strike can do the same right across the public sector.

The unions, therefore, have two important tasks for November 30. The first is to make the strike as solid and effective as possible. The second is the call for and encourage the widest possible solidarity action with it. This means calling on the whole of the labour movement and the anti-cuts movement to back the strike in any and every way possible. This means trade union demonstrations, student demonstrations, occupations, and protests of every kind in towns and cities right across the country.

An important new factor in this is the inspirational Occupy Movement with its highly successful tented presence at St Pauls in London and in other parts of the country. It brings to the struggle the spirit of Tahrir Square, the powerful example of the Arab Spring, and the image of mass popular movements bringing down brutal dictatorships which had been there for years – practical demonstrations of how such power can be successfully challenged.

But a big success on November 30, however, is still only a stage in the struggle, if a very important one. It is crucial that the dynamic and momentum of the strike is continued and the pressure maintained. This mean not only consolidating the gains of this action but preparing for the next. This is the best opportunity get to strike a serious blow against this government and it is important that the movement takes full advantage of it.

This famous photo shows an unemployed worker in Wigan at the time of George Orwell’s visit to the town prior to his writing of “The Road to Wigan Pier”. Must we return to such bleak scenes before local youth rise up an act?

Are you looking for a 32 hour, four days a week job which pays a minimum £6.50 an hour to start with, has 30 days paid holidays a year, early retirement at 60 and a decent pension?

Alternatively, looking for an apprenticeship leading to a more skilled job, as well as in either case, looking for free lifelong access to education, including Higher Education, and/or on the job training?

If so, then you should, as the former Labour Party Young Socialists’ “Youth Campaign Against Unemployment” leaflets in the early 80s used to say: JOIN THE FIGHT TO GET IT!

This is the kind of employment and future income prospect all young people might have, not only in the Wigan area but throughout the land, if they all fought for it. To achieve it will mean putting to an end the very economic and political system which sees 25% of those in the 16 to 24 year old age range currently in the Wigan area NOT in EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION or TRAINING. Or alternatively, in the case of the vast majority of the remaining 75%, sees them in generally much lower paid and lesser skilled jobs offering little in the way of future advancement, and depending on whether they’ve been to University and got a degree or not, potentially shackled to a huge student loan and other debts to go with it.

It is difficult to say who is currently in the worse position of all these young people – the formally more qualified graduate, who even if they lucky to be able get a well paid job, will soon find themselves with a student debt in excess of £30k at the beginning of their work lives which they have to pay back, those graduates who can’t find any suitable work in keeping with their qualifications, those in low paid dead end jobs, or those who are NEET.

What is for certain though is if young people don’t themselves decide to do anything the situation can only get worse for all of them, apart from that is of course, the children of the most well-off.

Whilst some of us older comrades might want to do our bit and stand up for the rights of our young people and are prepared to fight for them to the extent we might be able, we are no substitute for the mass of young people (and the mass of the people as a whole) doing it for themselves, and only young people (and the mass of the people as a whole) doing it for themselves can ultimately ensure it actually happens.

The vast majority of our young people currently face a bleak future without decisive action on their part in the next period, not only in relation to securing jobs and decent living standards, but in relation to the growing threat of irreversible global ecological degradation and catastrophic climate change which cast a shadow over the very future of humanity.

Whilst the Wigan Borough Green Socialists, would fully support the idea of young people across Wigan organising themselves independently to promote their own interests, and believe young people would probably prefer to do that without the likes of us older comrades interfering, the lack of such independent organisation by youth in the Borough is glaringly obvious at the moment, including at the level of students.

As a consequence, I think it would be at the least apt for us to offer our unconditional support to any young person or group of young people wanting to get something off the ground. This might take the shape of organising and paying for a room for a meeting, printing leaflets or posters, helping with travel expenses, or whatever.

At the same time the profits of large landowners and supermarkets continue to soar. The issues of food production and food sovereignty – who controls the production, sale and distribution of food – have never been more crucial.

Monoculture – the industrial growing of a single cash crop – is a major contributor to soil erosion and desertification along with forest clearance for farming multi-nationals. Agribusiness calls for ever-increasing yields that may give short-term benefits but at a devastating long-term cost including pesticides polluting rivers and oceans. The cost to human communities is also immeasurable – peasants are thrown off their farms as land reform is reversed in the insatiable search for profit. Millions are forced to migrate to unsustainable cities – living in shantytowns with no infrastructure.

There is resistance – from the growth of militant peasant and indigenous organisations and the pioneering of organic agriculture in countries as diverse as Cuba, Venezuela and the Philippines to guerilla gardening in the deserts of post-industrial cities in the United States.

On November 15th 2011 Socialist Resistance and Green Left will be hosting a meeting in Birmingham to discuss these issues.
Our main speaker will be Maria Neri from Mindanao in the Philippines. Maria is a longstanding activist and ecosocialist and works for CONZARRD an NGO focusing on agrarian reform and rural development.

She will share her powerful experiences in the struggle for land reform and ecologically sustainable food production.

7pm, Tuesday 15th November, Committee Rooms 3 & 4, Council House, Birmingham, B3 3BD

Call 07775942841 for further details or email midlands@socialistresistance.org

You can download a copy of a leaflet here

Education without jobs?

You can read / download it here or get a printed copy from your friendly neighbourhood SR supporter for just 50p