There
have recently been questions asked by socialists and
republicans about the morality of taking the British
State's coinage to finance community projects within
the north of Ireland. Such projects range from facilities
for ex-republican prisoners, across the board to activities
for retired people, (a wag might say the two are one
and the same, no matter I jest). Funding for this
work comes in the main either directly from the British
State via the N.I.O. or the European Union's Peace
and Reconciliation Fund. The latter whilst legally
independent of the UK government, in reality if the
funding tap is to be turned on or off, it will be
the UK government's or the government in the souths
hand upon it. Whether one agrees with taking the English
State's or indirectly European Union money or not,
there can be little doubt that the north of Ireland
and some of the counties that border upon it in the
south are awash with projects funded in the aforementioned
manner. Indeed they must be one of the main employers
in the north for former Republican and Loyalist prisoners
and activists, plus Community activists from both
communities, (so long as they are in the 'loop' that
is.)
The one certain thing about the English State, is
due to its longevity there is little it does that
it has not done before, either at home or in some
far-flung corner of its former Empire. So if it starts
handing out large sums of money, directly or indirectly
to people it has previously oppressed it is well worth
looking for the precedent and analysing its purpose,
In this case one does not have to look far back in
time to stumble across something very similar to the
current funding of these 'Peace and Reconciliation
Community Projects'. In the early 1980s the Thatcher
government had intentions to totally change the nature
of the British economy and industrial relations within
it. To do this they needed to bring into practice
legislation that severely restricted the right of
Trade Unions to represent their members in the work
place and if negotiations between trade unions and
management fail, to take their members out on industrial
action. Secondary picketing and the right to strike
without a lawful ballot were to be outlawed. The end
result being that the United Kingdom would have some
of the most draconian and repressive anti-Trade Union
legislation in the western world. The problem they
faced was how was this to be done without major social
upheavals within society.
Thatcher's government decided on a policy of the carrot
and the stick, the stick would be deliberately creating
mass unemployment and at a time of their choosing
a head-on confrontation with the country's most militant
Trade Union, which they intended to defeat no matter
what the social, political or financial cost and by
so doing they would send a message to the rest of
the Trade Union and Labour Movement, which would cower
them into submission for a generation and more. The
carrot would be generous funding for community groups
to set up schemes called Community Programmes, which
would 'employ' under government financed schemes the
newly unemployed. These programmes were set up under
the auspices of the Manpower Services Commission (M.S.C.)
an arm of the Department of Employment. Lord Young,
a recently ennobled arch Thatcherite right wing businessman,
headed the M.S.C. Amazing as it now seems they were
targeted at amongst others not only the local churches,
womens groups, but also very cleverly the Trade
Unions, especially at a local level and were sold
as a means to alleviate the hardships caused by mass
unemployment.
One of the ways to do this was to create Unemployed
Workers Centres to which newly unemployed workers
could go, if for whatever reason their benefits had
failed to materialise. They were also seen by many
Trade Union activists as a means to build the type
of movement that existed in the 1930s to fight mass
unemployment via political campaigns, demonstrations,
marches, etc. The advantages to the State were two
fold. Firstly it would take pressure off the state
benefit agency, as instead of turning up on their
doorstep, workers whose benefits had been cocked up,
would go to the Centres for the Unemployed who would
then co-ordinate with the various benefit offices
to correct the mistakes. But there was a second more
important advantage to the State, which was priceless.
The most militant and experienced Labour Movement
activists ended up staffing these Centres for the
Unemployed as co-ordinators and welfare rights advisors,
the reason being that the majority of the Centres
had originated within the TUC Trades Councils network,
to which most activists belonged back then. Thus experienced
political and trade union activists spent their time
making sure the unemployed received the benefits to
which they were entitled. Or as far as Thatcher was
concerned she had succeeded in making sure that, "the
devil did not find work for idle hands". As important
as it was to make sure people received their entitlements
as far as benefits were concerned, it was hardly what
these activists were best at, which were organising
workers in Struggle.
Thatcher intended and indeed did finance the Centres
for the Unemployed along with the Welfare Benefits
the unemployed who visited them received, out of Britain's
oil reserves, the revenue from which was increasingly
coming on line. Most of those people who lived within
the UK would have regarded her doing so as a criminal
waste, the more so as much of the unemployment was
unnecessary and had been deliberately created by Thatcher's
neo-liberal economic policies. But for Thatcher and
her ilk, to make the British economy once again fit
for multinational corporate raiders to plunder, without
opposition from trade unions and legislation protecting
the consumer was priceless. She was prepared to pay
what ever it took.
As with the vast majority of Peace and Reconciliation
projects in the north of Ireland today, there were
stringent rules about the funding of the Community
Programmes. In the main these revolved around political
activity being forbidden within the centres and by
those employed by them. Not only was it strictly forbidden,
but the threat of funding being immediately stopped
if politics so much as raised its ugly head hung over
these centres like the sword of Damocles. In practice
this meant that demonstrations, pickets and occupations
against unemployment were put on the back burner to
be carried out if at all surreptitiously. The Centres
instead concentrating on giving out advice on Welfare
Benefits and organising social activities like football
teams for the unemployed, or handicrafts etc. This
was hardly the type of work those militants who first
organised the centres envisaged them doing. To receive
funding a committee was needed, which usually consisted
of the likes of the local vicar/priest/imam, Local
Councillors of more than one political Party, plus
the mini great and good of the area. In other words
in the main no matter what their personal politics,
a bunch of conservative individuals who when push
comes to shove are unlikely to go out on a limb against
the State.
There was another factor, which at the time was hardly
seemed important; none of these Unemployed Workers
Centres owned the property from which they operated.
At the time this did not seem to matter as the local
authority were often willing to provide premises.
But on looking back this was a major flaw, for if
the funding tap was turned off; the Centre would close
even if it could arrange alternative funding, as the
State through the local Council would evict it from
its premises. So there was added pressure to stick
to the no politics ruling. Of course there were attempts
to get around this ruling but with time activists
found it increasingly difficult, as the basis of campaigning
is publicity so the powers that be soon got to hear
about it. Most of the more political activists drifted
away, some stayed on believing that by giving Benefits
advice they were at least helping their class in difficult
times. Even before the defeat of the Great Miners
strike of the mid 1980s a majority of centres had
had there funding stopped and been closed down. With
the defeat of the N.U.M. Thatcher had no need of the
rest; she was now publicly to proclaim, "There
is no such thing as society".
So as far as I can judge this is the British States
benchmark for these types of programmes. If a community
group is going to go down this road to gain State/EU
funding be aware of the pitfalls. Try and get a grant
to purchase a property to house the project in, or
at least obtain a long-term lease. Aim to get long
term funding; short term funding gives the funding
body the means to pull the rug if you are engaged
in activities they disapprove of. Make sure your organising
committee has a majority of solid reliable people,
who will not take flight if Authority shakes the tree.
Do not employ too many full time workers, under a
handful is best, more than that and too many families
depend on the project for the bread on their table.
In reality this means that people will compromise
their beliefs just to keep it going not wishing to
put people out onto the stones. Finally if the above
is not possible, consider any project that gets up
and running as being short term, act accordingly and
take the funding bodies for what you can and with
the cash have some fun pointing out the defects of
the political and economic system you live under by
campaigning against it. You'll soon have those conservative
creatures who inhabit the world of grant giving pulling
their hair out, for fear of being blamed for funding
your project in the first place. Believe me this is
a sight to see.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|