Forest of Dean & Wye Valley

Posts Tagged ‘History’

CLARION REVIEW: HAROLD WILSON – Labour’s face of the ‘seventies.

In John Wilmot, Reviews on January 23, 2018 at 5:43 pm

wilsonbook“Harold Wilson” by Ben Pimlott, and published by Harper Collins – a review by John Wilmot for The Clarion.

Most of us (over a certain age of course) remember Harold Wilson. As Prime Minister, he helped to usher in a period of great change – before it was halted in its tracks by the arrival on the scene of Margaret Thatcher, of course.

This book by Ben Pimlott (a former warden of Goldsmiths College, London, and professor at Birkbeck College) is described as a “scholarly work”.  Which means in effect that it emerges as long and over- detailed. He spends one lengthy chapter on Wilson’s childhood, growing up near Huddersfield – and then carries on from there for over 700 pages.  But for those with staying power it’s well worth persisting.

A BRIEF OVERVIEW:

But, to put it into perspective, perhaps a brief overview of Wilson’s political career may be useful. He had studied at Oxford (first taking Modern History before transferring to Philosophy, Politics and Economics) and emerged with a first class honours degree.

He went on to enter Parliament in the 1945 General Election – a Labour landslide. He must have caught the eye of the new Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, as he was made President of the Board of Trade at the age of only 31 – to become the youngest member of the cabinet in the 20th Century.

Atlee’s pioneering government came and went, and Wilson finally rose to become leader of the Labour Party (following the death of Hugh Gaitskell) and from there went on to be Prime Minister on four separate occasions before bowing out of politics.

“MODERNISATION”:

His focus was on “modernisation”, coining the term, “the white heat of technological revolution”. He also did much to liberalise the law (still stuck largely in a pre-war mould) on censorship, divorce, abortion and homosexuality. He also legislated on discrimination against women and ethnic minorities – though it could be argued these days with less success. And he also created the Open University.

Other more controversial aspects of his Government(s) included the Vietnam War, in which Wilson attempted to walk a difficult tightrope. He did his best to maintain good relations with the USA whilst at the same time keeping Britain out of the conflict. He succeeded, but that did not prevent those of us who went on the march in protest against the war from chanting, “Where has Harold Wilson gone? Crawling to the Pentagon!”

STERLING CRISIS:

Another blip in Wilson’s premiership was the so-called “sterling crisis”, when an over-heated economy forced him to de-value the pound in November 1967. He also started Britain’s withdrawal from “east of Suez”, confirming the end of our role as an imperial power. He also applied to join the EEC (the European Economic Council – the predecessor to the EU), but Britain’s application on that occasion was unsuccessful.

In 1970, Wilson lost to Edward Heath, but made a return to power as head of a minority government in 1974. He managed to gain a slim majority (of 3) in the same year – which in a later election rose to 83.

What followed were the final years of Wilson’s premiership. In March 1976, at the age of just 60, he abruptly resigned to be succeeded by James Callaghan.

LAST YEARS:

So why did Wilson resign so suddenly?  According to Ben Pimlott, by 1974 he was ageing rapidly. “He no longer had the same energy… he took less exercise, drank more brandy, spoke at greater length… he looked older than his years.”

There seemed to be good reason to retire at sixty. Indeed, wrote Pimlott, his plan had been to retire at 56, four years earlier.  But it seemed the desire to beat Edward Heath in one last election made him postpone the decision.

Mary (his wife) it seemed was an important influence. “She wanted her husband out of politics. But it was Heath’s victory that stalled that. Wilson decided to put off his decision by a few years.

They talked it over during one of their holidays on the Scilly isles, and agreed on four more years.  Wilson was successful in beating Heath at the ensuing election, before handing the reins over to James Callaghan.

JOHN WILMOT.

Advertisements

Profile: THE MAN WHO TRIED TO TURN THE TIDE: Ian Smith

In A.Graham on January 23, 2018 at 5:35 pm

There’s been much publicity given by the media to Mugabe’s attempts to cling to power in Zimbabwe as he became increasingly isolated.

But there’s been hardly any coverage given to the man who preceded him – Ian Smith.  Smith was the last white Prime Minister of what was then called Rhodesia. It was a self-governing colony in which the black majority had no say in the government of their own country.

Ian Smith was a second generation Rhodesian settler, one of the white minority who ruled the country (they numbered no more than 120,000 at their peak). Smith became Prime Minister in 1960, and was to occupy that post (increasingly precariously) until 1979).

FIGHTER PILOT:

Before taking up politics, Smith had had an interesting role in the Second World War. He volunteered for the RAF, and became a fighter pilot in a Spitfire squadron. After being shot down over Corsica he fought alongside Italian partisans behind German lines.

After the end of the war, he was de-mobbed and returned to Rhodesia, where he entered the colony’s political circle (restricted, of course, to the White population).  Here, he went on to become a Minister, and from there rose to be Prime Minister,

WINDS OF CHANGE:

But Rhodesia was facing the winds of change. “Colonisation” was going out of fashion, and Smith and his government came under increasing pressure to allow the black majority to vote in future elections.

Smith declared that there would be no black rule – ever – but he was becoming increasingly isolated in a changing world.  According to one joke that circulated at the time, white Rhodesia had become “a Surrey with the lunatic fringe on top” (you have to remember the song to appreciate the pun).

With a Labour government now in power, pressure was increasingly brought to bear on Smith to move towards black majority rule. In 1965, in response, Rhodesia declared UDI, declaring that the move was “striking a blow for the preservation of justice, civilisation and Christianity” (sic).

Of course this was unacceptable as far as Britain was concerned. But Harold Wilson, the PM, was reluctant to use force to impose a settlement.  Instead he imposed sanctions which he believed would be sufficient to reach a deal for the introduction of black rule.

Meanwhile, Rhodesia’s external support was eroding.. Portugal’s African colonies of Angola and Mozambique gained their independence, and the backing of South Africa (the last African bastion of white rule) was becoming less certain.

In Britain’s election of 1971, Labour lost and the Tories returned to power under Alec Douglas Home (remember him?) A deal was struck with Smith to legalise his declaration of independence, with an eventual (bur remote) movement towards black majority rule.

CIVIL WAR:

Such a formula was, of course, unworkable and Rhodesia descended into civil war. The tide was now turning against Smith and finally he was forced to hold talks.

Interestingly his first meeting with Mugabe was quite cordial. Smith declared that he was someone who “behaved like a balanced, civilised westerner”.  He was soon to revise his opinion!

Finally, however, Mugabe took over the reins of power. And Rhodesia was confined to the history books, becoming the independent country of  Zimbabwe – with Mugabe as its president.

As for Ian Smith, he left politics, to devote his time to his 5,000 acre farm – but he continued to denounce the Mugabe Government to an ever-decreasing audience.

He finally died in Capetown in 2007 – by that time an almost forgotten footnote in the history of Africa.

MODERN TIMES: the Dinosaur column

In Dinosaur on January 10, 2018 at 1:15 pm

dinosaurAll change on the  railways:

Under this pie-eyed privatised system we now have for the railways, the franchise to run the Gloucester to Cardiff line via Lydney is now up for renewal. And Arriva trains (who’ve held the franchise for much of the time since privatisation) are bowing out.

I don’t know why. It just seems like a case of “goodbye, it’s been good to know you.” So, very soon, we’ll have another company running our trains – and looking at the choice of those in the bidding, it doesn’t look good.

When privatisation was introduced (by John Major in a moment of muddled thinking), the franchise for our local line was won by a cowboy outfit called the West & Wales Railway.  It suffered from a shortage of rolling stock and an inability to keep to its timetables. It wasn’t  surprising when it was  sent packing.

At that time Arriva was running trains in the north of England – and was, it seems, making a similar hash of things. They, too, lost their franchise, but were offered our cluster of routes as a kind of consolation prize.

Then the Arriva group was taken over by Deutsche Bahn (the German state railway company) and efficiency improved – though we were still saddled with antiquated rolling stock on our line. But we’ve grown used to them – and things aren’t likely to get any better when the new franchisee takes over, I fear. It’s a case of same old system, whether we like it or not.

ON THE BUSES:

Not everyone in this neck of the woods knows that  Arriva also own a few bus companies here and there. For example they run the city services up in Wakefield, and also around North Wales – and no doubt elsewhere.

But this Autumn Arriva bus crews came out on strike, in protest against a meagre pay offer. It seems the company is making quite a profit – but wants to keep most of it to itself.

According to one source,  Arriva’s transport operations are profitable enough to send some £26 million a year (on average) back to Germany. Which I’m sure will do nicely  for Deutsche Bahn!

21 YEARS:

It’s now over 21 years since I started writing this column for the Clarion. Ah, I remember it well!

But why should the Clarion take on a dinosaur to write a comment column, however erudite it may be?  Well, you could say it was a sign of the times.

Back then “New Labour” was  in power. It was indeed the flavour of the month for many.  But there were others  who weren’t  so happy.  It wasn’t just a matter of nostalgia; it was more a sense of betrayal. It was a feeling that much of New Labour’s policy was merely Thatcherism dressed up in new clothes.

Tony Blair (remember him?) Scoffed at his critics. He dismissed them, and called the “dinosaurs”.  So when the Clarion was launched with the muffled sound of trumpets it was decided that this new  paper should have its own dinosaur.

Now of course it’s Blairism aka “New Labour” that’s sunk almost without trace.  It may well be that dinosaurs are coming back into fashion. Let’s hope so!

Dinosaur

100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution

In C.Spiby, Guest Feature, Readers, Uncategorized on January 8, 2018 at 2:03 pm

To mark the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, your Clarion is pleased to have obtained permission to print the following speech – in full – given by Communist Party of Britain general secretary, Robert Griffiths, at the 19th International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties Leningrad-St Petersburg, 2 November 2017. 

“Comrades,

When we Communists urge people to overthrow capitalism because it is unfair, unstable, wasteful, belligerent, exploitative and oppressive, many agree with us that capitalism is indeed most—if not all—of these things.

But what do we propose to put in its place?

Before the Great October Socialist Revolution, we could only offer people a set of values—liberty, equality, cooperation, comradeship, freedom—and the hope that a new type of society could be created in which these would be the ruling values.

Marx did not provide any model for the future communist society, although he pointed to the Paris Commune as an example of how power can be exercised by the mass of people through a system of direct democracy.

But he was reluctant to provide a blueprint because, as the very first rule of the International Working Men’s Association put it, the emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves’.

After 1917, Communists could point to the achievements of the Soviet Union in the teeth of civil war, imperialist intervention, sabotage and fascist invasion. It transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of workers and their families for the better. It played the leading role in rescuing Europe from Nazi-fascist barbarism. It proclaimed the equality of women, all races and nationalities and assisted the struggle for peace, progress, socialism and national liberation across the world.

Yet there were weaknesses, failures and severe violations of socialist democracy that eroded popular support for the Soviet Union, outside and within.

This does not mean that Communists should cease defending and promoting all that was liberating and transformational about the October Revolution and its outcome.

But how can we inspire workers and the mass of people today with the ideals of socialism and communism?

As the general crisis of capitalism—economically, ecologically, socially, culturally, politically—reasserts itself, we need to show how our communist values would shape a modern, humane and democratic society which can meet the needs and aspirations of the mass of people.

Our vision of socialism—the lower stage of communism—has to explain how the economy and society might be reorganised on a new basis for the benefit of all.

Challenging the economic and political power of the capitalist monopolies must be an essential part of the communist solution. Public ownership and economic planning—enhanced by the application of modern information and communications technology—are the antidotes to market anarchy, plunder and waste.

We need to provide modern, concrete examples of how capitalist relations of production obstruct the full and beneficial development of society’s productive forces. For example, capitalist ownership ensures that medical technology, robotics and automation are not developed and applied in order to benefit the mass of humanity.

How will socialism secure the future of the planet’s eco-system, bearing in mind that—as the most recent IMF World Economic Outlook report confirms—the chief victims of global warming and climate change are the poorest layers of the working class in the tropical Third World?

How will socialism usher in an epoch of peace and international solidarity?

The Communist response must include a relentless struggle against imperialist super-exploitation, the military-industrial complex and wars of aggression. Social progress is impossible in times of war. Communist and workers’ parties everywhere need to strengthen and project the World Peace Council and its national affiliated organisations.

In the advanced bourgeois democratic countries, in particular, many people equate communism with dictatorship and the abolition of democratic rights.

More must be done to explain how and why socialism and communism will expand and transform democracy, drawing the mass of people into the self-government of their workplaces and communities, abolishing monopoly power and repressive legislation, opening up the mass media to social ownership and participation, and subordinating elected representatives to the needs and aspirations of those who elect them.

What will socialism mean for women, racial and religious minorities and young people?

The benefits to them of social ownership, public sector investment and economic planning have to be spelt out if we are not to appear irrelevant to wide sections of the working class and the people.

Inspired by the Great October Socialist Revolution, these are questions that Communists need to answer if the 21st century is to mark the final victory of socialism.

Long live the inspiration of the October Socialist Revolution!

cpb_flag


READERS’ LETTER:

To my fellow Clarion Readers

I am pleased to have assisted the Clarion is sourcing a fantastic speech by the CPB’s general secretary given this year at the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution (see page 3 {print edition issue #132-Ed.}). But I wanted to add a personal and separate afterword on the matter of 100 years of the Revolution in Russia.

Whilst I still think the Party’s programme, the British Road to Socialism, is a credible means of achieving socialism, the Party in both the UK and around the world still to distance itself from totalitarianism.

Clarion readers will doubtless agree that Stalinism was not what Marx and Engels had in mind when they set about formulating the Communist Manifesto. For that reason alone we must continue to fight for the rehabilitation of our reputation through the potency of our ideas and ideals.

It was Beat poet Allen Ginsberg who said it best, I believe, when he said Socialism was…

“…a universal failure wherever practiced by secret police.”

I keep a physical reminder of this with a East German people’s police armband next to a small bust of Lenin on my political bookshelf. So where there should be pride, there is sadness and the warning of betrayal of the revolution.

Thinking now of our 100 years, I find myself feeling that it is probably fitting that the revolution came to its end through the power of the powerless.

The end of history, as Fukuyama called it, was at once both incredibly sad and inspirational for socialists. Sad because of that betrayal of socialism that came with communist totalitarianism; inspirational because it was the people of East Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary and more who brought about the end of these one-party totalitarian states.

And yet, in the era of Trump, Putin and indeed Kim Jong-un, I cannot think of a more urgent time since the war against fascism in WW2 when the world has needed the values that drove the Russian people to build their new society than today.

Which brings me to another of my favourite quotes, this time by French poet/socialist Charley Peguy, when he said:

“The Social Revolution will be moral, or it will not be.”

With revolutionary socialism still regarded as the epitome of blood-drench immorality, it will take much to disassociate that view so that we might achieve the groundswell of support needed for 21st Century socialism. So, we move along that road in smaller steps. Starting with the election of Corbyn’s Labour government. That would be a perfect gift for the British worker. Happy Christmas.

Carl Spiby, St. Briavels
(former CPB member, former Labour Party member, but still a Labour voter)

THE SCOURGE OF “UNIVERSAL CREDIT”

In A.Graham, R.Richardson on November 7, 2017 at 6:51 am

Explained by RUTH RICHARDSON

Universal Credit was introduced in 2012 as part of the Welfare Reform Act (sic). Its aims were to simplify the system whereby clients claimed a number of benefits with a multiplicity of forms to fill in. It also aimed to encourage people into work and to make sure that work paid. And, it was claimed, the system would reduce fraud and be cheaper to administer.

The transition to Universal Credit from so-called “legacy benefits” such as Jobseekers’ Allowance, Income Support, Child Tax Credit and Housing Benefit has been gradual. But it is the Government’s aim that the roll out should be completed by 2022.  A report from the Trussel Trust [1] lists a number of points of difference from the previous system.

These include:

  1. A six-week delay for first-time claimants.
  2. Payments made in arrears with housing benefits paid directly to claimants rather than landlords.
  3. New forms of conditionality for claimants both in and out of work.
  4. Digitisation of how payments are managed (ie, on-line communication regarding benefits).
  5. Some reductions in the amounts received.

The Trussel Trust report detailed the problems clients face in coping with these changes.  The six week delay in the first payment hits particularly hard and food banks report that this alone has led to a 65 per cent increase in referrals.

Digitisation seemed fraught with difficulties with misinformation, claims being lost and documents misplaced.  To speak to an advisor directly, claimants have to hold on for an average of 40 minutes (at no small cost).  In fact the administration in general seems to be in disarray.

Since Universal Credit has been introduced, Food Banks have seen increasing problems with mental health, debt, work issues and housing. The report emphasises that where possible clients are sign-posted to local support services such as Citizens Advice – though these services are often stretched with a waiting list for appointments.

CALL FOR RE-THINK:

This report was published in April this year.  More recently, a newsletter from the Trust asks for the Universal Credit roll-out to be halted.  The Trust asks the Government to re-think the six-week waiting time for a first payment and to tackle the poor administration that can lead to ever longer waits.  More support for claimants could be provided through programmes like Universal Support [2]

Meanwhile the Trust calls for a  pause “particularly until appropriate emergency financial support is available and accessible to all people left with no income and no food in the cupboard.”

It is feared that as winter approaches problems will only get worse for the most vulnerable in our society.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Trussel Trust is the largest provider of Food Banks in the UK. Like many charities (such as Amnesty International) it bends over backwards to appear non-political.

[2] Universal Support is a partnership between the DWP and local authorities to give advice on the transition to Universal Credit.


FOCUS: What happened to public transport in the Forest?

a Clarion report by A. Graham

There was a time when we were well served by bus and rail services both in and out of the Forest of Dean – but sadly those days have long since gone.

The network of bus services is now dominated by Stagecoach, whilst all that’s left of the public rail service are the trains that serve Lydney station.  The network that once ran up into the Forest (and indeed across the Severn) has long since gone (true, we have the Dean Forest Railway, but that is basically a tourist-style “heritage” line).

ON THE BUSES:

The bus network in the Dean, and indeed beyond, was swallowed up through a ruthless takeover of other local companies in Gloucestershire by the Stagecoach group. It followed a series of acquisitions by the company throughout the country.  When Stagecoach finally set its sights on our neck of the woods in the early 1990s, it took over four companies in one fell swoop – Cheltenham & District, City of Gloucester, Stroud Valleys – and Red & White Services with its network of routes in the Forest and into South Wales.

The “Red & White” company had its head offices in Bulwark, near Chepstow, though its roots were in Lydney, having been founded by the John Watts’ group of companies between the wars. In 1950 Red & White was brought under public control along with other major bus undertakings throughout the UK. Routes were co-ordinated in order to provide an integrated network of services throughout the country, and fare levels were controlled.

In the Forest, there were two major bus service “hubs” – one in Lydney and the other in Cinderford. In Lydney (as an example) there was a sizeable bus depot and a cafe. The main service operated from Gloucester through Lydney and on to Cardiff – whilst there was also a service up to Hereford. From Cinderford there were connections with the Western Welsh company’s buses.

“DE-REGULATION”:

All this came to an end with legislation passed by the Thatcher Government in October 1986. This de-regulated the way that buses were operated, and effectively ended public control. Before then there had been a legal obligation on bus operators to provide adequate services, whilst any changes in routes or fares was subjected to scrutiny.

CHAOS – FOLLOWED BY CO-ORDINATION:

The immediate result of the legislation was chaos, when any old Tom, Dick or Harry who felt that he/she could run a bus service could buy up an old bus or two and put it on the road. In many parts of the country, timetables ceased to have any meaning. But then came a phase of co-ordination, with the big companies putting the privateers out of business. Within a short while Stagecoach and the “First Bus” groups established a virtual monopoly in their respective areas.

It should, though, be noted that for a while some well-established local operators (such as Soudley Valley Coaches, Cottrells, Willetts and – of courses – Bevans, continued to provide an adequate network of local services in the Forest – but over time they were put out of service or taken over. Now only Willetts and Bevan’s survive.

OFF THE RAILS:

What of the rail network that once served the Forest? Much of it survived the notorious “Beeching Report” (although there was a degree of shrinkage), but the old Forest and Wye network suffered a mortal blow with the destruction of the old Severn rail bridge in 1960. After a decade of inaction it was finally decided to demolish it in 1970.

When John Major came to power he decided to de-nationalise British Rail and carve up the remnants of the network into an overlapping patchwork of franchises. At the present time, our last remaining railway line is served by two passenger rail companies – Arriva and CrossCountry. Both are now owned by Deutsche Bahn (the German state railway) – although their franchises are up for renewal. So, as they say, watch this space!

CLARION REVIEW: KEIR HARDIE – Labour’s first leader

In A.Graham, Reviews on September 22, 2017 at 1:32 pm

“What would Keir Hardie say?” Edited by Pauline Bryan   and published by Luath Press Ltd, Edinburgh. ISBN 978-1-910745-15-1

Clarion Review by Alistair Graham


 

KeirHardieKeir Hardie can justifiably be seen as Labour’s first leader. He was one of those who helped to found the Independent Labour Party (ILP), in I893 – called “Independent” to distinguish itself from those who’d been elected to Parliament as “Lib-Lab” members – in other words who relied on Liberal support for their seats.

Hardie, who grew up in the Scots town of Cumnock, went on to be the first truly Labour MP in the Commons. He opposed the looming clouds of conflict in the years leading up to 1914 and spoke eloquently from anti-war platforms. But worn out with his efforts he died prematurely in 1915.

This book is a collection from contributors assessing Hardie’s record and his relevance to the politics of today – though as there’s been a over a century of change since his day I found it difficult in places to trace the connections. But there are, of course, common themes that run through the decades.

One of the contributors to the book is Jeremy Corbyn, today’s leader of the Labour Party. Others include fellow political activists and academics.

“A LEGACY FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT”:

Corbyn sees Hardie’s work as a “legacy for the Peace movement”, and introduces his contribution with an account of the mass peace march in London, in February 2003 in which well over a million took part., to voice opposition to the invasion of Iraq. “It was the biggest ever demonstration in British history.” He goes on to look at the carnage of the First World War, and how it is remembered in his own constituency of Islington.

Another contributor is Melissa Benn – writing in the footsetps of her mother, Caroline Benn who produced a definitive “warts and all” biography of Hardie back in 1997. Melissa makes the point that Hardie had no love for Parliament. (And it’s worth adding, Parliament had no love for him). He saw his role more as an agitator. “Agitation was at the heart of three of the most significant movements of his lifetime – the representation of labour, the struggle for women’s suffrage and pacifism”.

Barry Winter, who has had a long connection with the ILP, remembers two old party members (no longer with us) who had memories of Hardie when he was alive. Bert Lea remembered Keir Hardie asking him to sell copies of the ILP paper, the Labour Leader, which he continued to do for the rest of his long life. And in Bradford. May Allinson was one of the children who performed for Hardie at an ILP concert in 1914. She gave a lifetime commitment to both the ILP and the Socialist Sunday School.

Barry’s contribution is in the main a historical account of the foundation of the ILP (at a special conference in Bradford) through the early years of its growth. Hardie saw the need to forge an alliance with the trade union movement which was then finding its feet. In 1899, the TUC voted to form “a Labour Representation Committee” (though not all unions backed it). Then, in 1906 this Committee transformed itself into the Labour Party, though it made slow progress in its early years.

“MORE THAN A CREED”:

A contribution by Richard Leonard describes Hardie as a “visionary” dedicated to the creation of a Socialist society.” He sees Hardie as a man guided by moral principles rather than by philosophical theorising.” He believed that the truths about Socialism were self-evident, rooted in ethical values and moral courage.

“Yet Hardie clearly understood the class-based nature of capitalist society and the need to appeal to workers as a class. He saw the value of the work of Marx and Engels, but he did not believe in following it rigidly. And Richard Leonard quotes from Hardie’s from Serfdom to Socialism “The economic object of Socialism is therefore to make land and industrial capital common property, and to cease to produce for the profit of the landlord and the capitalist and to begin to produce for the use of the community.”

Many I would hope, would see this as a good summary of their own beliefs when it comes to the transformation of society under Socialism.

HARDIE’S “WELSH ODYSSEY”:

During his Parliamentary career, Hardie represented two constituencies – first was West Ham, and then came Merthyr Tydfil. The account of his “Welsh Odyssey” is written by Owen Smith (MP for the neighbouring constituency of Pontypridd).

Smith starts his contribution with reminiscences of growing up amidst the slag heaps of South Wales, with his grandfather telling him of Keir Hardie campaigning from slag heaps when he gained the seat of Merthyr Boroughs in 1900. He “gave a hundred or more such ‘Cinder Hall’ sermons” before his election.

Hardie had lost his seat in West Ham five years earlier, which gave him some time to visit South Wales, and to build up a following for the ILP as well as for himself as a potential candidate. “This period cemented Hardie’s reputation as a standard bearer for the working class,” writes Owen Smith.

Despite Merthyr’s radical traditions, stretching back to the days of the Chartists, Hardie had his opponents. There was a strong Liberal tradition in the area, but there was also a strong conservative element amongst chapel goers. But Hardie was able to capitalise on the anti-war -feelings, stirred up by the Boer war, as well as his support for the miners in the struggle. He won, and was to represent Merthyr until his early death in 1915.

RELEVANCE TO TODAY:

Owen Smith then turns to the relevance of Hardie’s work to today. “How can a Queen’s Speech in 2015 call up the spectre of Taff Vale with its promise to curb the right to strike and break the democratic power of the trade unions?” He asks. “Perhaps Hardie would have been surprised that we still have so far to travel, and that such hard won progress can be halted with such ease.”

In such a rich collection of fact and comment in this book it’s only really possible to skim the surface in a review such as this. But I will finish with one more contribution – on Hardie’s roots in Cumnock, in Scotland.

HARDIE’S HOME TERRITORY:

Kier Hardie was an internationalist, but according to Cathie Jamieson, the Scots community of Cumnock in Ayrshire was always his home. It was where his family was raised, and where he always returned. And even today the town still remembers him in so many different ways

He and his wife Lillie arrived in Cumnock in 1979. He was then involved with the miners’ union in Lanarkshire.

It was in Cumnock that Hardie developed the political ideas that would shape the rest of his life. “The struggle of the miners he represented was fundamental to his work and his emerging political beliefs,” writes Kathie Jamieson. It was here that he realised that the Liberals would not deliver the kind of changes that the working class needed. He was soon backing a resolution put forward by the Ayrshire miners that “the time has come for the formation of a Labour Party in the House of Commons…”

Later he was to declare: “I am a Socialist, and until industry is organised on a co-operative basis, wherein men shall work, not to make profit, but to produce the necessaries of life for the community, the evils complained of will never be eradicated.”

OTHER BOOKS ON HARDIE:

There have, of course, been quite a few books written and published on the life and times of Kier Hardie. That’s only natural. But this volume is different. It sees his life from so many different angles, and though it contains numerous viewpoints, all are sympathetic to a man who, more than most, helped to create a movement that over the decades has helped to shape our society – and hopefully will continue to do so in years to come. If, of course, we remember the ideals that Hardie worked so hard for.

And it’s a compendium to be read from cover to cover – or just dipped into over a period of time.

END OF THE ROAD FOR “BLAIRISM”?

In A.Graham on September 22, 2017 at 1:11 pm

Whatever we want to call it, “New Labour” or “Blairism”, the model that was foisted on Labour Party members back in the lead up to the 1997 election, effectively died in 2010. That was when Gordon Brown lost the election to  Cameron and Ed Miliband was chosen as Labour  leader in his place.

As the Clarion commented at the time,  the “New Labour” experiment has long since run its course. “The attempt to impose a finance-based economy, where the demands of the City are always put first, has now run into the buffers.” (Clarion, June-July 2010).

True, Ed failed to claw back enough of the Labour vote to win the ensuing election, but it was clear that the Party was in no mood to return to Blairism.  Instead the Party took a further lurch to the left with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

But that strange anomaly (let’s call it Blairism) continued in an organised form, based around a glossy magazine called “Progress”, largely funded by Lord Sainsbury.

PULLING THE PLUG:

Now this wealthy backer has decided to pull the plug on “Progress”, and instead put his money into less overtly political causes.  Thus, turning to the “Progress” website, the latest  comment available to us was dated April of this year.

It was, however, an unrepentant defence of Blairism,  or whatever we want to call it.  It kicks off with the declaration  that there is no going back to New Labour , only going forward with its ‘attitude of mind’.

The Progress document obviously feels let down by those MPs  whose support it relied on, by abandoning “their role as gatekeepers by allowing Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot paper (which, it continues, means that Labour will be extremely lucky to form a government again in the next decade).

“GREATEST EVER VICTORY”?

“As the Party celebrates the 20th Anniversary of its greatest ever victory and subsequently three full terms in power… there is much to reflect upon,” declares the Progress statement. It bemoans the fact that nothing has been done to mark this achievement – and of course blames Corbyn. But, as we on the Clarion see it, it’s difficult to quantify this so-called achievement except in terms of criticism or rejection.

Meanwhile. Ed Miliband was described as being a “poor man’s Corbyn”.

Blair “rightly argues”(sic) that we have got to demystify New Labour. It was, he argues, ‘an attitude of mind’ And that attitude of mind by its very definition never loses relevance.”

REFLECTION:

“So how do we best reflect on 1997 and the years that followed it? On the 1997 election itself, Labour must understand history was not a given, nor would it have won ’with a pig’s bladder on a stick’ as the disgraced former mayor of London Ken Livingstone argues”, according to the “Progress” document.  That, in itself was a point of contention for those who remember back that far.

“Labour is now at a fork in the road. Its brand is being damaged day in, day out by the hard-left leadership and a failure to provide proper opposition. Blair asks “in Tory high command, how much time do they spend worrying about the prospect of a Labour victory at the present time?’ He would guess zero – and you can see why.”

“Those who want to see the Tories thrown from office must internalise this reality.  There is no going back to New Labour, only going forward with its ‘attitude of mind’.”

All this, we must assume was written before Theresa May’s ill-fated attempt to sweep Labour away with her snap election.  Not only was her rationale fatally flawed but so, too, was that of “Progress” and its Blairite followers. Where they go from here must be a matter of conjecture.

no_blair

Alistair Graham


THE CHANGING FACE OF NORTH KENSINGTON

Recollections by A. Graham

The events surrounding the tragic fire at Grenfell flats in North Kensington this summer stirred memories for me. Memories of a brief period of my life, living in the mean streets of Ladbroke Grove back in the late 1950s.

Time brings changes, of course. But some things stay much the same. Back then there were no tower blocks in the area – these came later, in an attempt to get rid of the narrow streets of crumbling slum dwellings that dominated the Ladbroke Grove end. I lived in one of them – a one-room “flat” with only a single window, with a view on to a cramped back yard.

As for the Grenfell Tower, this wasn’t built until the 1970s – and the lead architect on the project declared that it “could last another hundred years.” But between 2012 and 2016 it faced renovation – with a different contractor brought in who offered a cheaper quote.

Back in the 1950s, though, the landscape was very different. Up at the Notting Hill end there was affluence. The houses were expensive, and privately owned. The Portobello road had street stalls selling expensive antiques and crafts. Down the hill towards Ladbroke Grove the street market tailed off into junk and scrap as is and fruit. But overall it was still a shabby, down-at-heel area with neglected, crumbling tenement buildings subdivided by slum landlords into bed-sit accommodation with a constantly shifting population.

ENTER THE MOSLEYITES:

Back then the “colour bar” hadn’t been made illegal, and indeed many of the slum landlords refused to let accommodation to “the coloureds”. It was this that helped to provoke racial unrest in the area in the ‘fifties – and encouraged Oswald Mosley to abandon his strongholds in the East End, and put himself forward as candidate for North Kensington in the 1959 General Election.

The shabby streets of Ladbroke Grove were soon covered with whitewashed slogans daubed by Mosley’s supporters. I did attend a couple of his meetings, where he was given a rapturous welcome by his supporters. They clapped, stamped their feet and raised their arms in the fascist salute.

On the eve of poll, Mosley led a triumphant march through the streets of Ladbroke Grove. Anyone taken in by the cheers might have thought that it was all over bar the counting. But after the votes had been counted, Mosley was bottom of the poll with some 3,000 votes. His intervention had merely helped to concentrate the minds of his opponents – and Mosley himself had failed to realise that there was more to North Kensington than just Ladbroke Grove.

Shortly after the election I packed my bags and slipped quietly out of the area – and eventually out of London altogether.

CHANGES:

Meanwhile, Ladbroke Grove has changed, probably beyond recognition for most. The council blocks (like Grenfell Tower) were an honest enough attempt at the time to supply better living conditions for those who’d occupied the slum dwellings. And the disappearance of the colour bar has produced a much more homogeneous mix in the working class population. The response to the tragedy by those who’d lived there, and those who gave their support ran right across racial lines. There was righteous anger against the complacency of those on the Council (and indeed in Government) in the face of the disaster – but there was a sense of unity, as well.

The class divisions in North Kensington still exist of course – indeed the affluence of Notting Hill has probably grown since the 1950s – whilst Ladbroke Grove remains the poorer area. Its population is most likely to suffer deprivation – and upheaval, when their homes are destroyed.

Alistair Graham

CO-OPERATION! The Co-operative Party celebrates its centenary

In A.Graham on July 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm

by Alistair Graham

This year marks the centenary of the foundation of the Co-operative Party. It was born in 1917, in the uncertain years of the First World War, as the conflict was dragging towards its bloody conclusion.

But its roots were sown in earlier years, the years before war engulfed Europe. The co-operative movement was growing rapidly – but the Liberal government was hardly sympathetic to this new movement. Many co-operators believed that it needed a political voice to represent the movement – in Parliament if need be.

There were those who opposed this view, of course. Those who argued that the movement was made up of members of various political (and indeed religious) views. At an early meeting of the Co-operative Congress in 1897 a motion was passed supporting direct representation in Parliament – but such was the lack of any enthusiasm, it was reversed in 1900.

But the issue wouldn’t go away. It was probably the position of the Liberal Government that was in power during the years leading up to the First World War that was a deciding factor. The Liberals may have been the “shopkeepers’ friend” – but this new, strange concept of co-operation was a different matter altogether.

The Liberal Government was definitely hostile to the ideals of co-operation. The notion of sharing out “surplus value” amongst members and giving them a say in how the Co-op was run, was definitely an alien concept. As for the Tories – well, let’s not go down that road!

All this led to the Co-operative Congress of 1917, held in Swansea, passing a resolution that stated the Co-op Movement should have direct representation in Parliament in order to safeguard its interests. There was some opposition of course, but it was passed overwhelmingly.

Success for the new Co-operative Party was slow in coming. The first Co-op candidate to win a seat was A.E. Waterson in Kettering in 1918 – and he soon lost it again (albeit narrowly). .

In 1922, the party won four seats, including that of A.V. Alexander (who went on to become leader of the group in the Commons). Meanwhile, the strength of the Labour Party was growing, and finally the two parties reached a joint agreement.

In more recent years the Co-operative Party has continued to function as an independent body, with its own conferences and policy making bodies. But as for the candidates there has been a tendency for those who stand as “Labour Co-op” candidates to be seen as merely Labour by the electorate.

ALISTAIR GRAHAM
(Member of the Co-operative Party and the Mid-counties Co-op Society.


A.V. ALEXANDER: A co-operator in Parliament – and outside.

Albert Victor Alexander rose through the Co-operative movement to become the Co-op MP for Sheffield Hillsborough in 1922./ At the time he was one of just four Co-op MPs, but he was to hold his seat (with one short break in the’30s) until 1950.

He became leader of the Co-op parliamentary group and at one time he was a Minister in the in Labour Government of Ramsay Macdonald. But he opposed the cuts introduced in the late 1920s (particularly the cuts in unemployment benefits). He lost his seat in the 1931 election, winning it back in 1933, and resumed his position as leader of the Co-operative Parliamentary group.

In 1950 he retired from the Commons to take up his seat in the House of Lords. Here he continued to represent the cause of co-operation until his death in 1965 at the age of 79.


 

NORTHERN IRELAND AND TROUBLES: A visit to Belfast, 1991

In A.Graham on July 4, 2017 at 12:22 pm

a fire bombed pub in the city centre

by Alistair Graham

I paid a number of visits to Belfast during the 1980s into the 1990s. Despite “the Troubles” (as they were known), it was a vibrant city and I felt few qualms in walking the streets of this fractured community. After all, I had the anonymity of a stranger looking in, and thus was hardly a target for any warring faction.

“FACT FINDING”:

Probably the most fruitful visit was in April 1991, when I joined a “fact finding” group from the ILP to meet and interview groups and political parties from across the spectrum – sometimes singly and other times in groups.

We met representatives from the SDLP,  the Ulster Unionists, Democratic  Unionists, the Workers Party and Alliance..  We also met a number of campaigning groups – like the Peace  Women,  Families Against Terror and Intimidation – and Gusty Spence, former leader  of the UVF.

VIOLENCE;

At that time, of course, Martin McGuinness was still leader of the provisional IRA, before his conversion ushered in a new era of “power sharing” in Northern Ireland which officially brought “the troubles” to an end. In the spring of 1991 “the Provos” had established a bloody record of violence and destruction – including a half-hearted pogrom against members of the Workers Party (which had evolved from the former “official” Republican movement).  Several of those whom I’d come to count as friends were victims of armed attacks (though fortunately none were successful).

We also met Maurice Healey, from Newry (on the border) who had been taken by the Provisional IRA, tortured, subjected to a kangaroo court and ordered out of Northern Ireland with the warning that he would be executed if he ever returned.

He was charged with being an informant. But he had defied the order by returning to Belfast to make his case public.

DIFFERENT PATHS TO PEACE:

It became clear at least to me that despite the complexity of the conflict created by the warring factions there was a growing peace movement which was capable of contributing to any peace settlement. Politically there was the Alliance Party, the SDLP and in its own way the Workers Party. Elsewhere there were the Peace Women – and the remarkable case of Gusty Spence, a former leader of the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force), who’d turned his back on violence to involve himself in community politics in the Shankhill Road area of Belfast.

Few of us at the time would have believed that, after the Good Friday Agreement, it would be Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party under Ian Paisley who would emerge as leaders of the new order. “Power sharing” became the new mantra. Paisley, who had campaigned under the slogan, “No Surrender!” became Northern Ireland’s First Minister with    Martin McGuinness ensconced as his deputy.

It seemed as if the world had turned upside down. “Power” had somehow evolved to the two extremes of Irish politics, and in so doing had marginalised those forces in between that had worked so hard to create the conditions for peace during “the troubles”. It’s a funny old world.

With the death of Martin McGuinness, the status quo of power sharing hangs in the balance. What happens next in Northern Ireland I wouldn’t like to guess. But then I wouldn’t have foreseen events back in 1991 either. Now of course the UK General Election has thrown it all into limbo.

TRIDENT: Not fit for purpose

In A.Graham, C.Spiby on April 27, 2017 at 12:31 pm

We offer no apologies for returning to the topic of the Trident missile system – and its questionable role in our so-called defence system.

It seems that technically it is no longer fit for purpose. It has outlived its effectiveness (if it ever had any), and should now either be scrapped or at the very least phased out.

According to the latest issue of The Spokesman (the quarterly journal of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation),  the Trident system has now completed 26 years of deployment, and has now  “reached its original design life goal” – as the US Department of Defence puts it.

HUSHED UP:

The failed test highlighted in the last issue of the Clarion was hushed up by the Americans, though Theresa May was informed. She chose not to pass on the news to Parliament. It was only revealed through a US press leak.

WHAT ABOUT “DE-COMMISSIONING”?

There are other concerns about the Trident system, apart from the effectiveness of this ageing system. How do we get rid of nuclear submarines when we no longer need them?  The Spokesman reports that HMS Tireless has now joined eighteen other nuclear submarines awaiting dismantling.  “With Dreadnought rusting in Rosyth since 1980, the cost of maintaining them is rising and space running out as the Ministry of Defence struggles to find an environmentally safe and cost effective means of disposal. “

As Laurel and Hardy may well have said, “A fine mess you’ve got us into!”  Yes, Trident should be phased out. As “a defence system” it was never fit for purpose. But even if we do scrap this over-priced system our worries are far from over.  How do we safely and securely scrap our redundant nuclear submarines?  It could be a problem that remains with us for decades – if not longer.

Below is web-only edition of the Clarion bonus material…


 

THE HISTORY OF ‘PROTECT AND SURVIVE’

Professor John Preston will be hosting a discussion on the infamous 1970’s pif ‘Protect and Survive’ on June 29th at the University of East London. Click here for more details on the FREE event (limited numbers so you will need to book).

In Prof. Preston’s own words:

In this workshop we will consider the origins, nature, reception and fate of the 1980s UK government civil defence campagn “Protect and Survive”. We will discuss the following issues:-

  • What were the origins of Protect and Survive? How did the original plans arise and how were they realised? How exactly did it arrive in the public domain?
  • What was the nature of Protect and Survive? Was it a campaign / public information ‘package’? How would it have been used in practice? What types of media would it have used?
  • How was Protect and Survive recieved? How was it portrayed in the media, popular culture, government and internationally?
  • What happened to Protect and Survive? Did it become ‘civil protection’? Does it still exist in some form?

This is a workshop rather than an academic seminar. The format will be to spend one hour (approx.) on each of the four issues (with a tea break at some point) and for perhaps one person to ‘lead’ each area (if anyone would like to volunteer to lead a particular area that woudl be great) by giving a five minute introduction to that topic.

The conference is open to anyone: academics, historians, collectors, policy makers, practitioners and anyone who is interested in “Protect and Survive”

Lunch is not included but you will get a cup of tea / coffee and a biscuit or two. At the end of the workshop you are welcome to join us for a drink.

Incidentally, a seminal BBC Panorama has found its way on to YouTube (available at the time of this posting, at least), which looks into the role of Civil Defence in Britain in 1980, at a time when ‘Protect and Survive’ was still secret and intended for viewing only in the event of impending nuclear war.

Watching this again (I remember seeing it when I was only 9 years old first time around) – this programme has lost none of its potency. If anything it acts as an important reminder of the futility of nuclear war – no less relevant today – but also just how far we’ve come in terms of documentary film-making. An hour long and in-depth this is a far cry from today’s glossy but often light handling of topic on mainstream tv. Panorama on BBC used to occupy the 8pm or 9.25pm slot on BBC1 (just after the 9 o’clock News with Angela Rippon or Kenneth Baker!)

END