Quantcast
Channel: People's Republic of Teesside
Viewing all 225 articles
Browse latest View live

Was your Great Great Great Grandaddy a Chartist ? A new list of 240 Chartists in Stockton, Thornaby and Hartlepool.

$
0
0
 
Chartist Ancestors (see  http://www.chartists.net/) now has an index of some 240 Chartists working and living in the Teesside towns of Stockton-on-Tees, Thornaby-on-Tees and Hartlepool.

The full list, along with other biographical details where known, is in a Google Docs Spreadsheet that you can download from this blog post.
 
 
The 1848 Chartist Rally in Kennington London - the earliest ever photograph of a political demonstration
 
Chartist Ancestors say "our thanks go to the noted Chartist historian Professor Malcolm Chase of the University of Leeds, not just for his permission to use the list but for inputting all the information from his card index.

The index was originally compiled by Professor Chase when researching an article on  "Chartism. 1836 - 1858 in two Teesside towns", first published in Northern History and subsequently with a postscript in "The People's Charter, Democratic Agitation in Early Victorian Britain."

Some of the information compiled at the time was published when Professor Chase published an article on Middlesbrough Chartism and an index of Middlesbrough Chartists which can be accessed on http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/chartists-in-middlesbrough-birth-of.html
 
But the names from Stockton, Thornaby and Hartlepool have never previously seen the light of day.
The sources used were the Chartist  Land Plan shareholders ' registers in The National Archives and press reports in the Chartist newspapers Northern Liberator and Northern Star,  cross referenced to the 1851 Census.

As the attached spreadsheet shows, the names (organised by town) are supplemented where possible by a place of birth, age, address, occupation and whether or not they were shareholders in the Land Plan.

A final column indicates those few who belonged to the committee of the Stockton Union Mill (an unsuccessful attempt to launch a flour society by Stockton Chartists in 1839).
 
My first thoughts on the list was that it reflects the more settled nature of Stockton as against the newer and more raw township of Middlesbrough. This is attested to by the more mature age profile and the wider area of origin and place of birth of those listed.   Absent is the 'West Cleveland cohort' of incoming linen weavers and flax farm labourers so prominent n  Middlesbrough.

To me, the occupations reflect the economic base of the town - maritime industries and general trades - and the influences that would flow from those occupations. The addresses in Stockton were in the main in the narrow but long enclave of cottages and tenements lying between the High Street and the Riverside wharves (such as Thistle Green). Similarly, the addresses and occupations for both Thornaby and Hartlepool reflect those towns at that time, with pottery workers being in the fore in Thornaby and maritime trades in Hartlepool.   There are few women listed as Chartists, but this should not be taken at face value, as records show that in Stockton especially, they were vehement and trenchant supporters of the cause and were particularly fiery when up against the police and the militia.
 
Striking was the sheer number of adherents to the Land Plan which needs to be contrasted to the seemingly low number for the Stockton Co-operative Mill idea which I would have thought as being more immediately of merit, being locally based.  But there we are.
Download the list on
 

FROM THE PANCRACK TO THE PIP - HOW WE CAN FIGHT IDS' ATTACK ON THE SICK AND THE POOR

$
0
0
Now, most of my posts are around aspects of Socialist history, but this is one with a difference and one where i suggest a way in which Labour, Community and Socialist activists, Councillors or Trade Union representatives can make a real difference to the life chances of the most disadvantaged in our local society - the old, the ill and the disabled.  
 
But first, inevitably from me perhaps, one word about our actual local Labour heritage,   When, a couple of decades ago, the local party was sprucing up the Guisborough office, I acted to get permission to transfer the large collection of records and minute books from the 1920's, 30's, 40's and 50's to the local Archives - and where they still are to this day.  
 
Looking though these dusty volumes, I came across some loose papers in one book which didn't seem to fit, as it was just a list of names and addresses and lists of household goods, mainly kitchen utensils. Then the penny dropped.
 
These were case notes made by the late Councillor Jimmy Finnigan, an Eston ILP Councillor who, in the inter-war years acted as a poor man's attorney for local families in front of the means testing Public Assistance Commissioner - the Poor Law Guardians of the day, and the forerunner of today's Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).   Seems the ownership and state of kitchen utensils was often decisive evidence that could be put forward to prove eligibility for discretionary benefit. 
 
Hence, I am told, the origin of the old Teesside phrase 'On the Pancrack' - a cracked kettle or frying pan was good evidence of need and often a successful argument for 'transitional relief"
 
 
Jimmy, who I knew, soldiered on into the 1970's and although at the end of his days he was our party's 'Mr Grumpy', there can be no doubt that he was a man who had fought for the poorest in the local community.
 
But forward to the future and today's world and to the lineal descendent of the poor laws - our own crazy, hated, benefit system,  And this is where I would argue today's Labour activists and members, - working as Councillors, workers in community centres or as Trade Union reps - can do for people today what Jimmy Finnigan did for those now long gone.
 
The battleground is the bizarre, weird and wonderful world of DWP sickness benefits - a system that is suffering from sheer unfitness for purpose.
 
What if I told you that both this Government have struggled with a contract worth more than an annual £100 million, which has been criticised by auditors and has a costly 17 per cent error rate ?   In any rational world that would lead to immediate suspension of the programme, a radical overhaul and the introduction of a new system which delivers.  But not here.  This is an essential part of the Coalition's war on the poor and a personal crusade of Iain Duncan Smith - so it stays.
 
The so-called "work capability assessment" carried out for the DWP by the multi-national private facilities firm Atos Healthcare at an annual cost of £112.4 million, needs more scrutiny than it receives. This test is seen by the coalition as a way of winnowing out claimants with medical or disability conditions and is based on physical and mental capacity (or lack of capacity).  The Coalition continued the tests, which were introduced by Labour in 2008, so as to move claimants from Incapacity Benefit to the new Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), or, in their rhetoric "off benefits and into work".   In weeks to come, this process will be intensified as the DWP start the process of transferring claimants for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to the new 'Personal Independence Payment"  (PIP) - a process which will trigger a fresh round of Atos medicals for all existing DLA claimants.
 
 
 
The steady drip, drip of bad news about the tests – from last week's court judgment that they may disadvantage those with mental health problems, to the rising rate of successful appeals – shows conclusively that all is not well. It is no surprise that 40 per cent of the Department for Work and Pensions’ fitness-to-work decisions go to Tribunal based appeal, but what is astonishing is that 42 per cent of those appeals are successful. Their cost is projected to rise from £60 million to £70 million this year.
 
In October, the National Audit Office identified weaknesses in the Atos contract. In January, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee sounded a similar warning, saying the DWP was “getting far too many decisions wrong” and “at considerable cost to the taxpayer”. 
 
So what is going wrong? Atos is subject to extraordinary levels of vitriol, deservedly, as I have heard just too many stories about the extraordinary lack of empathy on the part of their examiners towards claimants  but charities representing sick and disabled people argue that the problem lies as much in the test itself, which was designed by ministers and civil servants. It fails to assess, beyond someone’s ability to - for example - move a cardboard box in the test room, whether they are capable of doing a real job. The activities in the test are removed from workplace realities. Can you move that cardboard box (now filled with heavy contents) hour after hour, every day for every week, and probably after a long cramped bus journey into the workplace ?
 
People might be surprised to learn that even serious impairments might not disqualify a person for work. For example, someone who “cannot mount or descend two steps unaided by another person even with the support of a handrail” would only score nine points – the threshold for ESA is 15 points – so unless they picked up points under other categories, they could be “fit for work”. Similarly, people who cannot move 200 metres, either on foot or in a wheelchair, without stopping from pain or exhaustion, only receive six points.
 
No wonder so many appeals are successful.
 
The simple truth is that these tests don't realistically or fairly assess a person’s ability to do a day-to-day job. The National Audit Office has criticised the DWP for failing to collect data from tribunals in order to improve the medical assessment. The DWP have also been slated for the time scales used to get medical evidence from a claimant’s GP. Currently Atos only has two weeks from receiving the ESA50 form applying for the benefit until it decides whether to call a claimant in for testing; Mark Hoban, a Tory work and pensions minister, told the Commons earlier this year that only 37 per cent of medical evidence forms are returned on time from GPs and consultants. This can result in a terminally ill patient being hauled into an Atos centre when they should automatically qualify for ESA.
 
People on disability benefits are not on the make – the incidence of fraud is just 0.3 per cent, although urban myth would have it that this is far greater.   The reality is utterly different.   Benefits like ESA, DLA and the soon to be introduced PIP are an essential lifeline for people simply unable to work and who are often in dawn to dusk 24/7 physical pain or mental distress.  
 
They need help, and this is where local activists can make a positive difference for these vulnerable members of our community.
 
This is by assisting claimants in the appeal process against a refusal to award benefit following Atos declaring a person 'fit for work'.,   Like everything else in the Alice in Wonderland world of the benefits system, this is complex, hard to understand and difficult to navigate (especially if you are old, in pain or confused).  It is a two fold process.   Firstly a 'Decision Maker' (DM) employed by the DWP looks at any appeal received.  Invariably these appeals seem to be quashed, with the Atos findings, however bizarre, merely rubber stamped.  The second stage, the crucial one, and the stage where proper help can be given, is by a claimant requesting that a Independent Tribunal look again at that decision.  
 
These Tribunals, as their name suggests, are independent of both the DWP and Atos.  They are run by the Courts and Tribunal Service, part of the Ministry of Justice, These hearings are presided over by a Judge (normally a local solicitor) and a medical specialist (normally a local GP or consultant).  Now, whilst I have found these tribunals and their members to be utterly fair - certainly fairer that the DWP or Atos - and also run in an informal and  non-confrontational manner, they can still be, for someone not used to dealing with the law or the benefit system, hard to understand or navigate.  
 
So, for the past year, I have have, as a MP's caseworker, been helping claimants as an officially nominated 'representative', The great beauty here is that unlike a court proper where only a solicitor or barrister can act for an individual  at a 'first tier' tribunal anyone nominated by the appellant can undertake this role.
 
This presence adds 'oomph' to a claimants case, doubles up representational capacity and can help by intervening on points of law and through applying lay knowledge of DWP procedures and policy. In that year, the success rate has been very high.  Indeed, up to the date of writing this piece, only one case has failed.
 
I would argue that here is an area where local activists, working through formal community or Trade Union bodies, or as Borough or Parish Councillors, can make a positive impact to better people's lives. This becomes even more important as funded welfare rights advice or legal aid becomes harder or impossible to access as the cash axe bites into the capacity of groups like the CAB and local legal practices.   
 
Done properly - by acting within the remit of a tribunal and by marshalling, applying and backing up proper evidence - this representational work can make a real difference to a Tribunal outcome and to winning back a benefit the claimant should never have been under threat of losing.  And I have to confess that one element of a win gives me great personal pleasure.  At the end of a tribunal, an appellant and that person's representative is given a formal written decision form by the tribunal officers - and these forms declare (if the case was won) that this was a successful  appeal by the named appellant and representative against the 'The Secretary of State' himself (and not just some anonymous DWP office).   So I have often gone away feeling that I have given the unctuous Iain Duncan Smith a personal biff on the nose  (and I can tell you that this gives me a high).
 
The more people can help in this work, the more biffs IDS gets and the more the number of people rescued from possible state induced penury.
 

 
Oh God, not another Tribunal defeat................
 
This is an area of work we cannot ignore.   We can make a difference.  
 
Yes, we must argue and insist that Labour, as part of the coming manifesto drafting work, pledge to reform the benefits system to make it both fairer and fit for purpose, but for the moment we are stuck with what we have,   And we have a duty to help those who need that help.
 
I can give more direct advice on this work if contacted,  E-mail me at
 

100 Years On - A Plea for an East Cleveland Pacifist to be Recognised

$
0
0
Below is a copy of a letter I have recently sent to the Chairman of the Skelton and Brotton Parish Council, and which I feel will be  self-explanatory to PRT readers.

The story is a simple one.  A local Skelton Green man, Francis Mohun, refused to take the Kings Shilling and join up for the First World War.  Francis was a Quaker and therefore a pacifist.  It is to be assumed that he went before one of the local Tribunals set up to try all those, who through religious, moral or political conviction, refused to serve, and, as he was prepared to accept 'non-combatant' status in the Quaker sponsored 'Friends Ambulance Unit', he was passed by the Tribunal.  Members of this First Aid and Ambulance Unit - which went on to serve in WW2 - were uniformed, although not in national colours or style. He served with the corps in France and Belgium tending, often under fire, to the wounded of all sides, and died of pneumonia sometime before the end of the fighting on the 11th November 1918.   Sadly, no grave is recorded by the War Graves Commission.  Presumably, as he was not a 'serving soldier', the army of the time simply did not bother to keep a record.



Francis (Frank) Mohun

When, later in the early 1920's, Skelton's War Memorial was erected on the Village Green his name was left off.   Word via village legend has it - although I have to say that this cannot be proved - that this was due to the opposition of the local land owning estate,  the Wharton's (then as now die hard Tories), to a 'conchie' being honoured, and that, as the Wharton family owned most of the village and had put up the bulk of the cash for the memorial, their word on this became law.


Unveiling of Skelton War Memorial 11/11/1921

Next year will see the 100th anniversary of World War One, and hopefully the plea in my letter will be taken up by the Parish Council who are now responsible for the war memorial and its upkeep.   One hopes the present head of the Wharton family, the Hon Anthony Wharton, the President of  the local South Cleveland Conservative Association (albeit officiating from his luxury penthouse in London's West End), does not this time, object.


The letter

Councillor James Carrolle,
Chairman of the Council,
Skelton and Brotton Parish Council,
Skelton Civic Hall
Coniston Road
Skelton
Saltburn,
Cleveland TS12 2EE

28th May 2013

Dear Jim,


I am writing to you as this year's Council Chairman on a matter which lies, I feel, within the purview of the Parish Council.

I refer to what were the 'missing' two names on the Skelton War Memorial.

As you know, when this memorial was commissioned two names of local men were omitted - a Mr James Rooks, and a Mr Francis Mohun.

The reason, I gather, for these omission, were that Mr Rooks did not die until after the war had officially ended, and that Mr Mohun was serving in France, but with the Friends Ambulance Unit, which was classed as a 'non-combatant' unit.

As members from the time will remember, following a campaign by surviving descendents of Mr Rooks, his name was added to the memorial in 2008.

Given that next year marks the 100th anniversary of the start of World War One, I feel the same recognition for Francis Mohiun should now be paid by adding his name.

Mr Mohun, who was born in Dixon Street and then moved to 9 Boosbeck Road, Skelton Green, was a dedicated Quaker and thus a pacifist.   As someone who refused to serve in a fighting unit as a conscientious  objector, he enlisted instead in the Friends Ambulance Unit.    This was a unit formed by the Quakers and which served on the front lines in both World Wars ministering (often under fire) to the injured and ferrying them to field hospitals for treatment.   Over a thousand people served in this unit in WW1 and 1,300 served in WW2.

I gather that Francis Mohun died in France from Pneumonia.   His brother Alvin also died at the front in 1915.

The raison d'etre of the Friends Ambulance Unit was written up as follows.  

"We purpose to train ourselves as an efficient Unit to undertake ambulance and relief work in areas under both civilian and military control, and so, by working as a pacifist and civilian body where the need is greatest, to demonstrate the efficacy of co-operating to build up a new world rather than fighting to destroy the old".

They were part of a joint Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 in recognition of their work.

I feel one reason why Francis's name is not on the memorial is that he had no family in the area to campaign for this (although I understand a grand-daughter lives, or did live, in Essex).

I feel that, a hundred years on, it is now time to put this matter right.

Can I ask that this letter and request be put on a future agenda for the Parish Council ?

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

David Walsh

Anne Frank: A History for Today

$
0
0


An acclaimed exhibition ’”Anne Frank: A History for Today” organised by Hartlepool Trades Union Council in partnership with the Anne Frank Trust, and supported by UNISON Hartlepool Local Government branch with Radio Hartlepool and hosted by Hartlepool College of Further Education is being held as follows:-  

 

Monday 24th June 2013 to Friday 5th July 2013   (Monday to Tuesday 9.00 am - 4.00 pm, and Saturdays 10.00 am - 2.00 pm)

 

Hartlepool College of Further Education.

 

Attendees will get an insight into what life was like as Fascism swept through Europe during the Second World War.

 

The display which is owned by the Anne Frank Trust charts the rise of Fascism in Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jewish people which caused the Frank family to leave their home in Germany and to flee to Holland before the start of the war.

 

The exhibition also charts Anne Frank’s life including her two years in hiding with her family in Amsterdam and tragic death in Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp in March 1945, only weeks before it was liberated by British troops.

 

During her time in hiding Anne kept a diary which was fortunately found by friends in the families’ hiding place shortly after their arrest by the Germans. It was returned to Otto Frank, Anne’s father, on his return to Amsterdam after the war. Of the eight people who went into hiding in the annexe, only Otto survived the concentration camps. He soon realized the significance of the diaries and they were initially published using Anne’s original title for her diaries, “The Secret Annexe”, but soon became known as “The Diary of Anne Frank”

 

Edwin Jeffries, President Hartlepool TUC  said—“The exhibition covers a wide range of issues and challenges us to consider the contemporary relevance of these issues leading the visitor to a greater understanding of the steps that we can all take as individuals to prevent the rise of prejudice and discrimination in our own communities and workplaces. The exhibition is a timely reminder of the horrific consequences of intolerance and hatred”.

 

"Anne Frank is a symbol of the millions of innocent children who have been victims of persecution. Anne’s life shows us what can happen when prejudice and hatred go unchallenged".

 Yours in the struggle

 

 

Edwin Jeffries

President

Hartlepool Trades Union Council

STORM IN A MORRIS MARINA ? WILLIAM MORRIS, JEREMY DELLER, YACHTS AND WALKING WITH WEALTH ON TEESSIDE

$
0
0
Now there can be no doubt that British conceptual artist, Jeremy Deller, is ;one of us; and a comrade,   Known for a large mural of the 'Battle of Orgreave' (2001) he specialises in 'folk art' and political themes like 'Conversations about Iraq' - a free form work in which people engaged with the artist directly.    In October 2010, Deller was one of 18 Turner Prize winners and 28 nominees (Deller won the prize in 2004) who wrote an open letter to the then Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, opposing any further cuts to the arts, calling the daubing scene in Britain a 'remarkable and fertile landscape of creativity'.

He's now hit the headlines with a piece drafted at this month's prestigious Venice Biennale (where Deller was chosen to represent Great Britain). Pissed off by oligarch Roman Abramovich's massive yacht 'Luna' blocking the sun on the Grand Canal (and his studio), Deller rushed off a canvas showing an oversize William Morris grasping the yacht and throwing it into the water.  To say that this has upset the Russian state (an alliance between pint sized potentate Putin and an offshore oligarchy which did well out of the restoration of capitalism) mightily is a bit of an understatement.


Deller's revenge - a Luna eclipse ?
 
And this is where I want to show how easily we on the left can descend into naive folk memory. Sure, William Morris was an active and famed Victorian Socialist pioneer, working in the Social Democratic Federation, and, later, setting up the Socialist League. He backed workers in struggle and was a regular speaker at the Durham Miners Gala and the Northumberland Miners Picnic.  But his daily life (and work) was underwritten by the Roman Abramovich's of that time.  


William Morris and Jenny 'en familile' with the Socialist League
 
We don't have to go very far for proof positive of this.  Rushpool Hall, on the road between Skelton and Saltburn, a stately pile  sitting in 90 acres of gardens, and now a hotel, was home to one of Teesside's most influential Victorian ironmasters, Isaac Lowthian Bell. 
 
Bell ran - with a rod of iron - the family owned Bell Brothers steelworks at Port Clarence, local ironstone mines and, along with notorious Durham coal owners like William Joicey, the Lambton's and Lord Londonderry, (see  http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Lord%20Londonderrypits in East Durham.   He was also a dabbler in politics, being the M.P.  for, successively, both North West Durham and the Hartlepools.    

 
Bell Brother's Port Clarence works - the wherewithal for high quality wallpaper
 
Although portrayed by a subservient media (the Middlesbrough 'Daily Gazette' black bordered its pages when he died in 1904 ) as a kind paternal employer and a patron of good works, he was little different to his rougher edged brethren.  Indeed, he had to resign the Durham seat when it emerged that his mine agents were guilty of intimidation of voters at one general election.    But he was wealthy enough to employ William Morris and his firm, William Morris and Company, to decorate Rushpool Hall with hand-blocked pre-Raphaelite wallpaper.  Later he also employed Morris to design and hang hand woven tapestries at another mansion he had bought - Rounton Grange, near Northallerton.  
 
These connections undoubtedly also helped to secure the contracts for the design of both Bell Brother's Head Office on Zetland Road, hard by Middlesbrough Railway Station (now a grade 11 listed building) and Rounton Grange for Morris's close friend and business partner, the architect Phillip Webb.  No 'best value' sealed tenders in those days..................
 
To me this is all deeply ironic.   Just look at Bell's granddaughter, Florence's, book 'At The Works' on social conditions in Middlesbrough, which showed (even in the comparative boom years of the early 1900's) the poverty of many families whose breadwinner may have laboured in the shadows of  Bell Brother's furnaces, coke ovens and rolling mills.  Lino, for them, was a luxury, let alone hand crafted and blocked wall hangings.........
 
 
Florence Bell - Teesside's Grande Dame and social insecurity snooper
 
The same pattern emerges when we look at some of Morris's other customers. Take, for example, the Darby ironfounding family of the West Midlands (who built Ironbridge), the Royal Family, who commissioned stained glass windows at St James Palace, and the Baldwin steel making dynasty (who spawned Tory PM and general strike breaker, Stanley Baldwin) . Then there was the interior decoration commission for the Stanmore Hall home of William Knox D'Arcy, the founder of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, a company that acted as the de facto ruler of  Persia (now Iran) and who were crucial to the signing of the Sykes - Picot agreement which made that country, and its puppet Shah, a profitable satrap of Great Britain. (And guess who facilitated the trips around the Middle East of Gertrude Bell, Florence's Arabist sister ? ).
 
 
William Knox D'Arcy - oiling the wheels of imperialism
 
Now this is not a crude knocking job on Morris - just a reflection of the harsh economic reality that even such a prominent and vocal pioneering socialist had to come to terms with.  Quite simply whilst the products of Morris & Co were hand crafted, redolent of the ethos of an earlier, pre-industrial, pre-capitalist world, they came with the contradiction that they could only be purchased by the seriously rich in the shape of the very capitalist class  that Morris would have been expected to  oppose.............

I guess if he was alive and working today, one potential sought after client might just be one Roman Abramovich.

Walshy

STORM FORCE 10 FOR CHANGE FROM WHITBY - STORM JAMESON AND ENGLISH SOCIALISM.

$
0
0
Always on the look out for interesting snippets of local socialist history, I was directed to look up one Francis Haydn Williams, the Unitarian Church's Minister in Whitby in the 1900's.  It seemed that Williams, in an early incarnation of the Occupy movement, once led a crowd of locals to occupy a piece of the Abbey Plain enclosed by Whitby's Lord of the Manor 'in the name of the common people'.    Now I didn't find out much more about the Rev Williams at that first attempt  although I now have good leads that I am now following, but it did lead me to another Whitby person whose reputation in the Labour movement dearly needs rescuing from the dust of posterity - Margaret Storm Jameson.
It was said that Williams was the person who first motivated Storm Jameson to look to 'a  political life' and this led me to try and find out more.
I knew her vaguely as a pre-war 'middlebrow' British novelist, and I can remember her volumes seemed to be a unread staple of many second hand bookshops in my youth, but it seems there was much more to her than that prosaic fact.
So I sought out some facts on her and a copy of her autobiography "Journey from the North', written late in her life in 1969.    From this, it was clear how much Whitby and the North meant to her - both politically and in her writing.  The title itself says it all - her Whitby life was not just an incidental part of her upbringing - it was, in fact, her life force.  That life was one always on the left, and a life which reflected its times - from being an Edwardian middle class young lady, through the carnage of the Great War, the hungry 20's and 30's. the moral dilemmas of the left in World War 2 and then the equally hard dilemmas of the Cold War and the rise of a new left. 
Sure, she made mistakes, but these were mistakes she acknowledged (although some were somewhat sublimated). She worked with and amongst some of the most towering intellectuals of the 20th century, but was not fazed out by them.
First the bare facts.  Margaret Storm Jameson was born in Ladysmith Avenue on Whitby's West Side in 1891. Her house is now part of the Saxonville hotel complex. Her father and grandfather were successful shipbuilders, although at the time her father's firm had been liquidated and he had turned to work as a ships captain.  Her mother Hannah, from the town's well to do, Tory and ship owning, Galilee family, was always conscious of these divisions and tensions, and this, it seems, led to a troubled childhood for their daughter, caught as she was between warring factions and left mainly to the care of a mother who thought nothing of thrashing Margaret and her siblings for any mild transgressions or misdemeanours.
However, she was allowed a  high degree of intellectual freedom, based around church activities (her aunt was a Deacon in the local Congregational Church), a freedom which allowed to her to meet and be informally taught by Haydn Williams, a man whose activities were chronicled in her 1938 novel "The Moon is Making" with Williams appearing as the thinly-disguised arch-nonconformist cleric 'Handel Wikker' ministering to a community that, in the words of the author H.E Bates, reviewing it in the arch Conservative Morning Post, was "wretchedly narrow and fiercely parochial in their capacity for small feuds", a description still resonant for anyone who has been involved in small town politics.
This intellectual early journey stood her is good stead when later in life she was sent to a local Grammar School where she developed serious political views under the influence of two brothers called Harland, the eldest of whom, Sydney, (1) went on to become one of the UK's leading geneticist and a campaigner against British colonialism.  Both brothers, Sydney and Oswald, were active supporters of the left in the shape of the ILP, and although not old enough to be engaged in 'grown-up' activism, were regular supporters of ILP street corner speakers in their home town of Scarborough and helped deliver copies of party newspapers and the 'Clarion'.
It seems that Storm (and here, I should say she always used her middle name, taken from her father's family, rather than Margaret) moved on from these influences to active support as a young teenager for both the ILP and women's suffrage,(at the time when the first stirrings from the WPSU was being born).
From school, she took what was then an unusual route for a lower middle class girl and elected to go on to University. Oxbridge was out of reach and so she went on to study English Literature at the University of Leeds and became the Secretary of the University's Women's Representative Council.

A Young Storm in the making.
But it was her extra mural activities that took up her day to day life.  Firstly she became active in the Leeds Arts Club.   As its name suggests it was primarily a club devoted to the arts, mainly writing, painting and dramatics.  But it was also a centre for 'advanced debate' as it was styled, and this aspect was encouraged by its founder, Arthur Orage, an avowed socialist and a champion of Storm. (2)
Orage was born in the village of Dacre, near Harrogate.  After being bought up in a non-conformist household, he went on to become am elementary teacher in a Leeds Board School where he taught the children of working class families from the city centre district.  He was a founder member of the Leeds ILP and became a regular writer for the party paper, the 'Labour Leader' where he concentrated on questions of philosophy, and championed the work of socialist thinker, Edward Carpenter.
His socialism was esoteric - not for him 'gas and water' reform via a town hall or social advance through industrial struggle - although he certainly supported struggle in its widest sense. He believed that "Economic power precedes political power and political reform is useless without prior economic reform".
Under the influence of Edward Carpenter, an anarchistic evolutionary socialist, and who, living just outside nearby Sheffield, met Orage often (and perhaps, also, Storm) and also Carpenter's own mentor, American poet, Walt Whitman, Orage burgeoned.  Orage's individualistic socialism had an anarchistic taste. While he encouraged open debate between all shades of radical political opinion in the pages of his later magazine "The New Age", his editorials were explicit in what he called "a passionate desire to break all bounds whether human or divine‟  (3)
His favoured approach was that of the 'Guild Socialists' who looked to the working classes and the Trade Unions forming 'Guilds' that would take over, then own and run - on a co-operative basis and with a strong craft ethos - industry and the workshops.   They were often ridiculed as 'socialist mediaevalists' who wanted a 'better 1400's' instead of the surrounding greyness of Edwardian industrial Britain, but their emphasis on working class self-management and control struck a chord with the emerging Syndicalist movement active in Trade Unions organising miners and railwaymen.  Their inspiration, it was said, came from William Morris and the arts and crafts movement, but the tragedy, as again it was said, was that the Labour movement once in power looked to the 'other' William Morris (the motor manufacturer) for their guidance in the structure and techniques of industrial management rather than the socialist Pre-Raphaelite from Hammersmith. (4)
Orage at the Prieure, Gurdjieff, Fourth Way, Ouspensky, Jean Toomer
A.E. (Arthur) Orage
Orage became someone who was a lifelong influence on Storm, and she later became a regular writer for 'The New Age'.   She was ready to back local Leeds tailoring workers who were caught up in the strike wave of 1911 and collected food for their families amongst her fellow middle class students.  She wrote later of that experience, saying in a passage that showed the influence of Orage that: "I believe that there exists in the intellect of the working class a vigour and freshness that may well bring forth a new Renaissance. For generations crushed under the industrial slavery, I believe that it will move when it does move, with a mighty bound."
The influence of Orage and Carpenter stayed with Storm in the 1920's but by the end of that decade, and the realities of economic depression pushed Storm towards a more pragmatic socialist position.  In her 1945 novel "The Journey of Mary Hervey Russell", the central male character, Hugh Hervey is mocked for "his "radicalism‟ consists in wishing to turn back the industrial clock so that England may be again a nation of craftsmen‟ with his Whitby born and bred wife Mary observing acidly "You‟re a Tory, yourself, really. The other's only a dream you had. Oh, a charming dream, but a dream none the less....."''
The other influence was the women's suffrage movement, and she partnered the intellectual life of the Arts Club with the activism of the WPSU. In July 1913 - exactly 100 years ago - she took part in the Women's Pilgrimage to show the House of Commons how many women wanted the vote.   Members of the National Union of Womens Suffrage Societies set off in the middle of June, and during the next six weeks held a series of meetings all over Britain. An estimated 50,000 women reached  Hyde Park in London on 26th July. According to her autobiography, shades of Saurez, she bit a policeman's ear during the demonstration.
On the 13th January 1913, Jameson married Charles Clarke, a fellow student at Leeds. They moved to London where the relationship rapidly soured. She tried to commit suicide with an overdose of phenacetin, and he was deeply unsympathetic. She fell ill at the end of the year and went home to her parents in Whitby, while he moved in with his Quaker parents in North London.   The marriage however staggered on into the Great War and resulted in the birth of her only son.   The war touched her deeply too, in other ways.  Her beloved brother, Harold, was killed in France, and her father, skippering a merchant vessel, was torpedoed by a U Boat and taken into captivity for the duration of the conflict.    These events, and the knowledge of the horrors of the trenches instilled in her a third component of her socialism - an abiding hatred of war and force.
At the end of the war, with an extra mouth to feed and to pay for an errant husband she turned to serious novel writing.  Her first novel, The Pot Boils,was published in 1919. This was a novel inspired by her Leeds student life, with a description of a campus 'swept by socialistic thought' and where, inspired by their reading of Marx, female students opposed to the curriculum imposed by a reactionary Professor of Economics.  Alas, it was a novel that passed critics, and readers, by, and what was said by reviewers was damning. Take a Punch review which said that "although the book is hardly likely to gain universal popularity, … certain persons, notably very  young Socialists and experts in Labour journalism, may find it of absorbing interest."
Her marriage to Charles came to its inevitable end and in January 1924 she met her future husband for life, Guy Chapman, a junior academic. They soon began a relationship. The couple married on 1st February 1926. 
Now living in a less stressful manner, Storm Jameson continued to write novels, including a trilogy about a family of Whitby shipbuilders, The Lovely Ship, The Voyage Home and A Richer Dust.  These were not just potboliers based around the family, but were a history of her fathers time and place, as well as having the shipyard workers featured as key characters as both masters and men struggled in a time of economic decline and technological change.  She was not romanticising Edwardian, insular, conservative Whitby.  She recognised the deep class divisions that existed in a small town - which unlike neighbouring East Cleveland or Middlesbrough - did not have an established and vocal Labour movement to allow for working class self-expression.  In the 'Haydn Williams' novel based on shipbuilding and fishing, "The Moon is Making" (mentioned above) she drew attention to the manner in which social divisions in her native town were etched into the very landscape with the River Esk dividing the lower-class district of the East Cliff ('Under Wik') from the more upper-class district of the West Cliff ('Over Wik'). 
She also found, in 1927, employment as what was probably the first 'womans correspondent' on a Fleet Street paper when she joined the Daily Mirror.  At a time when women had just gained the vote and were encroaching heavily into the Labour Force, the Editor, Alexander Campbell and its owner, Harold Harmsworth, saw the need to appeal to new women readers.    Storm, however was corralled into 'safe' subjects like clothes, cooking and entertaining  although she managed to pen some tentative articles about sexual freedom.
In September 1932 Storm Jameson became close friends with Vera Brittain. The two women had both lost brothers during the Great War and as a result became committed pacifists    Jameson reviewed Brittain's 'Testament of Youth' in the Times stating that as a representation of war from a woman's perspective it "makes it unforgettable".    She then, in the late 1920's became involved with the British section of the International Union of Revolutionary Writers - a Comintern Front Group.. At a meeting in January 1934, spurred on by the effects of recession, the economic failure of the National Government  and the growth of Facism, it was decided to publish a new Marxist intellectual journal. As a result the 'Left Review' first appeared in October 1934. Fellow contributors, many of whom were to become household names in the future included Storm Jameson, Tom Wintringham, John Strachey Hugh McDiarmid, A L Morton, W H Auden, Stephen Spender, Edward Hutchinson, Storm's fellow Yorkshirewomen Winifred Holtby and Edward Upward..
Despite her association with this leftist, London, glitterati, Storm continued her association with Whitby, returning to live in a house on Mayfield Road, a 1930's semi, which fronted onto the Guisborough Moors Road and, at the rear, emptied out into the open countryside, She continued to write from there, was active in the local Whitby Constituency Labour Party, serving for a number of years as the CLP Secretary (and how my heart goes out to her for performing that dreadful job), and as the CLP's Delegate to Labour's Annual Conference where she upset many in the party establishment by speaking and arguing for workers control of industry.
On 7 July, 1934, the British Union of Facists held a large rally at London's Olympia.. About 500 anti-fascists including Storm Jameson, Vera Brittain, the Reverend Dick Sheppard and Aldous Huxley (another writer with a Teesside connection) managed to get inside the hall. When they began heckling Oswald Mosley they were attacked by hundreds of black-shirted stewards. Several of the protesters were badly beaten by the fascists. Jameson argued in the Daily Telegraph  "A young woman carried past me by five Blackshirts, her clothes half torn off and her mouth and nose closed by the large hand of one; her head was forced back by the pressure and she must have been in considerable pain. I mention her especially since I have seen a reference to the delicacy with which women interrupters were left to women Blackshirts. This is merely untrue... Why train decent young men to indulge in such peculiarly nasty brutality? "
Hitlerism comes to Hammersmith - the Olympia BUF Rally
Her friendship with Sheppard also led to one of Storm's political errors.  Sheppard was, like a radical cleric of our own time, Giles Fraser, a Canon of London's St Paul's Cathedral.  He had been an army chaplain during the Great War  A committed pacifist  he was concerned by the failure of the major nations to agree to international disarmament and in October 1934, he had a letter published in the Manchester Guardian inviting readers to send him a postcard giving their undertaking to "renounce war and never again to support another." Within two days 2,500 responded and over the next few weeks around 30,000 pledged their support for Sheppard's campaign.  The result was the founding of the Peace Pledge Union, supported vocally by Storm and many fellow writers and intellectuals including Bertrand Russell,, Labour Party Leader George Lansbury and Great War poet Siegfried Sassoon.
The error here was simply that there was a simple blind contradiction between the naive pacifism of the PPU and the fact there was no way in which this could overcome the brute force shown by the Facist and Nazi states on the European mainland, determined to extirpate any and all progressive movements of the left by force if needed and warranted by their ideology.  None the less, Storm remained a member of the PPU until the invasion of France and the Low Countries in May 1940. She latter wrote in her autobiography: "I had joined Dick Sheppard when he started it, in October 1934. Then, I was absolutely certain that war is viler than anything else imaginable... I don't think that now."
In press articles in 1936 Storm, speaking for her fellow left writers, called for the Labour Party to work with the ILP and the Communist Party to create a British 'Popular Front. movement. In one article she said "The reanimation of the Labour Party - by (1) a change in its constitution. The statement that the Labour Party is ruled by the Trade Unions is delusive. As constituted, it is ruled by a narrow oligarchy of Trade Union leaders, as much out of touch with their rank and file as is the executive of the Labour Party with the Party rank and file. (2) An alliance, on the basis of an exactly defined programme, with the progressive Liberals, I.L.P. and Communist Party, as distinct from a shabby vote-catching agreement between leaders - is a preliminary step towards the only form of Popular Front worth voting for. Apart from a People's Front, what indeed is there to hope for in the political future? And without it, what hope of averting the eventual triumph of reaction by the default of the Labour Party?"
The struggle continues - Storm snapped in the 1930's
It was at this time that Storm, as well as producing novels on an assembly line basis, became the UK leader of the International Writers Group PEN (Poets, Essayists and Novelists) a body that acted as a global voice for writers and for the integrity of writers and writing.  At a time when writers in continental Europe were under attack from Nazism and Facism this had to be a role which would have to be much more than issuing pious statements.  PEN became active in rescuing writers facing persecution and imprisonment and arranging for them to enter the UK as asylum seekers.  Storm, in her PEN role, had to be the named sponsor for many of these people and for a time her home (she was now back living in London) resembled an airport arrival lounge for writers fleeing from countries like Austria  Spain, Germany and Czechoslovakia where the tanks and planes of the axis were grinding out the life force of democracy.
The experiences of these men and women led Storm to a further ideological facet of her socialism, the conviction that socialism, if it were to survive, had to built in a structure of a united "Europe of the Nations". This conviction was strengthened by her growing disillusionment with the Soviet Union at a time when the Hitler / Stalin Pact and the national Communist movement campaign against the war looked to be merely ceding victory to Facism,  and the equal suspicion that the US, despite Roosevelt's New deal, was still at heart a nation actively hostile to social progress and socialism.
During he war, Storm carried on with her writing, with much of her output being novels set in Whitby (Danesborough as she now christened it), augmenting this by acting as a jobbing journalist and pamphleteer for the Ministry of Information, highlighting the role of women workers (in the same fashion as Staithes artist Laura Knight who provided vivid paintings of the factories and the work of the home front emergency services).   
She also continued to act as the UK spokesperson for PEN, and in this role (which, given the contending, often monstrous, egos of fellow authors could be seen as trying to herd cats) she had to confront for the first time the growing opposition to democratic socialism of the Communist Party, which, now that the Soviet Union was in the war, had become super patriots, often out-Churchilling Churchill in their opposition to any move from the left which could be seen to be detrimental to the interests of the Soviet Union .
This aspect became more to the fore after the end of the war. In July 1945 Storm visited countries like France, occupied Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Holland and saw at first hand the Concentration Camps,  But she also began to witness the growing persecution (and indeed imprisonment)  of writers in Eastern Europe if they were seen as being hostile to Stalinist orthodoxy.  In an act of supreme irony, PEN had to act to directly help some refugee writers a second time around as they had to flee Stalinism in the same way that they fled from Nazism.
This become a double faceted issue for Storm, as she also faced a growing threat from the other side of the divide. As the cold war developed, many American writers faced growing persecution from McCarthyism, and some, like veteran star Charlie Chaplin and screen director Sam Wanamaker, had to flee the US to survive and continue to work.   Parallel to this were the not so subtle attempts to nobble groups like PEN through the covert use of cash funnelled from the CIA to their Front Groups like the "Congress for Cultural Freedom".   In this side of the struggle, Storm had to face the bitter anti-communist criticism of some who, like Stephen Spender, had been her allies in the 1930's.
In the post war years she both carried on with her work for PEN and also continued to write novels, again either set in Whitby, or using characters based on local Whitby place-names like ' Nicholas Roxby', 'Captain Esk' or "Mr Thorgill" (a character modelled on a fictional WEA teacher from North Yorkshire who is both used and patronised by younger, upper-class and thoroughly Stalinised University Academics.).
By this time Storm was aging, and often seemed to be a person hailing from a past age. But her political convictions stayed fixed to democratic socialism, in opposition, as it is often put, to 'both Washington and Moscow".  
Storm in later years
Her determination and central guiding point was and remained European unity and this was an ideal modelled on her upbringing in Whitby,which she saw as an ideal balanced, human, community and rural France where a veneration of peasant life meshed with the sturdy independence they shared with the fishermen of her native town.  
Again, I turn to her autobiography, which in its deliberate titling and in its content, shows how Whitby and the surrounding moors made up her life's outlook and her own life force.  "Journey from the North" also showed how growing up in Edwardian England at a moment of radical change and coming to maturity across the historical fissure of the Great War,  she also experienced conflicts in her own: as a woman working in what was then a male-dominated sphere of culture; as a socialist with roots in a proudly individualist protestant tradition; as an atheist with roots in religious nonconformity; and as a 'modern' but in whose mind, as she graphically put it "the Victorian habit persisted, like an old coat hung behind the door‟.  
Still, none the less, the central truth was that she saw her writing as a way of bringing about a better, socialist, society.  As she once said "The impossible talked of is less impossible from the moment that words are laid to it."
She enjoyed a brief renaissance in the 1970's as some of her novels as well as her autobiography were re-published as an act of homage to a woman writer by the feminist publishing house, Virago.  A blue plaque was erected at the family home in Ladysmith Avenue and a new student accommodation block was named after her. Despite this, I still wonder whether holidaymakers staying at the Saxonville Hotel or indeed today's students at Leeds really know anything of her ?
Storm Jameson Hall at Leeds Uni
She died a very old lady in 1986 in a Cambridge Nursing Home, but despite a lonely death amidst the featureless black earth Fens of St Neots (a landscape as far removed from her birthplace cannot be imagined), she died a Whitby women.  To borrow a common cliche 'You could take the woman out of Whitby, but you could not take Whitby out of the woman."
Walshy
Authors notes
(1)    Sydney Harland has also been described as one of the intellectual founding fathers of the Green movement.   Regrettably, his own genetic bequest to his son, Psychologist Richard Lynn, has not survived, with Lynn becoming a leader of a school which sees IQ's as linked to racial and national differences and who is quoted as a strong influence in the controversial book, "The Bell Curve".
(2)    Orage (like his contemporary, Sylvia Pankhurst) later succumbed to occultism, a not unusual route for many raised in the ethos of the Victorian left, a movement that often had a strong interest in such things as spiritualism and theosophy.    In consequence most published material on Orage concentrates on this, rather that his political life.
(3)   The standard work on Carpenter is Sheila Rowbotham's "Edward Carpenter, a Life of Liberty and Love" published as a Verso paperback.
(4)   The most modern writing on Guild Socialism is "Guild Socialism Revisited" by Anthony Wright in the Journal of Contemporary History 1974 and is available via Sage Publications Ltd. Like the ILP, Guild Socialism still survives in the ethereal electronic cloud of the web. (see http://www.guildsocialism.org/

The Fire Next Time - Piper Alpha Remembered As A Warning From History.

$
0
0
25 Years ago this week, the single most destructive disaster in the UK offshore oil industry occurred when the Rig Piper Alpha caught fire.   167 men, some from Teesside, died that night.  As Aberdeen M.P. Frank Doran put it in a later debate in the House of Commons.
 
"One hundred and sixty seven men died, most from suffocation on the platform or later in hospital from terrible burns. Fifty-nine survived. The victims came from all parts of the United Kingdom, underlining the fact that the North sea oil and gas industry was a UK industry. In the early days, workers had been recruited from the old smoke-stack heavy industries—the coal mines, the shipyards and the steel works. They came from Lancashire, Teesside, Merseyside, Lincolnshire, West and South Yorkshire, Sheffield, Stafford, Manchester, Wales, Essex and London."
 
This disaster was not an  accident.  As a sober engineering report from the Institute of Risks Management put it "The Piper Alpha accident was one of the cases that can hardly be attributed to “an act of God”: it was mostly self-inflicted. Although the coincidence of the final events that triggered the catastrophe was not in itself controllable, the failure resulted essentially from an accumulation of management errors."
 
The oil and gas extraction industry employs around 20,000 people on about 200 UK offshore installations and a further 300,000 people onshore. The number of oil and gas industry technicians has increased in recent years and there is a strong demand for them. There are around 6,000 employers in the UK oil and gas industry. They include: operating companies -  usually major oil companies that operate production platforms, drilling companies who are  contracted to do the drilling work and a vast number of small to large Service Companies who operate roles as diverse as seismic exploration, diving, drilling mud supply, cementing companies and well-testing specialists.

As Frank Doran said. Teesside, with a legacy of trained chemical process workers, artificers, riggers and seamen, has been a centre for contract recruitment for the global offshore industry for many years.  Over those years, many thousands of Teessiders, from all of the five Cleveland Boroughs have, are, or will be working on rigs in the UK Continental Shelf.

 
Twenty five years on Piper Alpha is again being remembered. The BBC is to screen a film about it. A large memorial service is to be held in Aberdeen.  Smaller memorial meetings will be held elsewhere.  But trade unionists fear lives could be lost again, because the government is reducing provision for health and safety inspections in offshore oil and gas, as in other industries, and because workers are frightened to open their mouth about health and safety in case it leads to them losing their jobs and being blacklisted, in the same way as has happened to building workers.    

Trouble on the Piper Alpha rig, operated by Occidental oil in the sea north-east of Aberdeen, started with maintenance issues. On July 6, 1988, one of two pumps sending oil and gas to the mainland had its safety valve removed for routine maintenance, and replaced with a temporary cover.  The on-duty engineer filled out a permit which stated that Pump A was not ready and must not be switched on under any circumstances.

When the night shift began at 6pm, the engineer found the on duty custodian busy, so placed the permit in the control room, and left. This permit disappeared. There was another for general overhaul of the pump , and so did another for general overhaul of the pump

At 2145 hours problems with a methanol system had led to an accumulation of hydrate ice formed by gas and water combining, and causing a blockage in Pump B. So pump A was restarted, apparently without realising it had no safety valve.  The temporary plate cover was obscured from view by machinery. At 2155 hours a stream of 
escaping gas ignited and caused the first of two explosions, also damaging the firefighting system. While the firefighting system was not on automatic control and could not be remotely started from the control room, two outlying platforms joined by pipe to Piper Alpha continued pumping oil and gas into the damaged rig, where it escaped and fuelled the flames.

2204 hours. The control room was abandoned. Piper Alpha's design made no allowances for the destruction of the control room, and the platform's organisation disintegrated. No attempt was made to use loudspeakers or to order an evacuation. Emergency procedures instructed personnel to make their way to lifeboat stations, but the fire prevented them from doing so. Instead the men moved to the fireproofed accommodation block beneath the helicopter deck to await further instructions. Wind, fire and smoke prevented helicopter landings and no further instructions were given, with smoke beginning to penetrate the personnel block.

As the crisis mounted, two men donned protective gear in an attempt to reach the diesel pumping machinery below decks and activate the firefighting system. They were never seen again.

By the time rescue helicopters reached the scene, flames over one hundred metres in height and visible a hundred kilometres away prevented safe approach. Tharos, a specialist firefighting vessel, was able to approach the platform, but could not prevent the rupture of the Tartan pipeline, about two hours after the start of the disaster, and it was forced to retreat due to the intensity of the fire. Two crewmen from the standby vessel MV Sandhaven were killed when an explosion on the platform destroyed their Fast Rescue Craft; the survivor Ian Letham later received the George Medal.

The blazing remains of the platform were eventually extinguished three weeks later by a team led by famed firefighter Red Adair, despite reported conditions of 80 mph (130 km/h) winds and 70-foot (20 m) waves. The part of the platform which contained the galley where about 100 victims had taken refuge was recovered in late 1988 from the sea bed, and the bodies of 87 men were found inside.

Various recommendations were made by an inquiry into the disaster, and accepted by the industry. It was also recommended that the government transfer responsibility for safety in the North Sea from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive, to avoid a conflict of interest between productivity and safety considerations. Survivors and relatives formed an association to campaign for better safety.



 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha

The disaster also boosted a determination by offshore oil industry workers to organise themselves. The Offshore Industries Liaison Committee, formed to link workers regardless of trade or original union eventually became a union in its own right, though not officially recognised by management or within the TUC. In 2008 it became part of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), a merger which made sense as the RMT already had diver, seamen and supply barge members.    These efforts paid off and now m
any offshore workers are in Trade Unions - mainly the RMT - but with many others in UNITE





It is Jake Molloy, formerly the OILC general secretary, and now the Aberdeen-based regional organiser for the RMT, who is warning that the dismantling of a specialist offshore safety division set up by the government after the Piper Alpha accident will make things worse and should be reversed.

Oil and Gas UK, a lobby group for the major oil companies,  issued its latest annual health and safety report before the Piper 25 conference in Scotland, outlining a 48% reduction in the number of reportable oil and gas releases over the last three years, plus an all-time low in 2012 in the incidence of "over-three-day injuries".

Jake Molloy says these statistics were irrelevant if those employed offshore were still too frightened to report safety breaches because they believed they could lose their job. "Overall safety in the North Sea has improved since Piper Alpha but I have got two safety representatives in my office now saying they cannot do what they are meant to," he said. "You can have all the statistics and the technology in place but it does not make a blind bit of difference if people are under pressure, being bullied, or just disengaged."

Molloy is worried that companies driving to cut costs cut endanger jobs and safety, with workers frightened to risk their employment if they raise safety issues.      

Molloy says oil companies subcontract almost all North Sea work to third-party contractors, meaning those employers are more scared of losing their multimillion-pound deals through lost work time than interested in listening to difficult issues raised by their employees. Some managers rule in a climate of fear where employees dread an "NRB" (not required back) on the grounds of a one-off complaint about their behaviour.

He said even safety representatives feared their employers and did not have the authority to halt operations as they do in Norway, where the overall industry safety record is much better.

The decision by the government to dismantle the offshore safety division inside the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and subsume its functions inside a newly created energy division covering onshore and other installations is also troubling the RMT. "HSE says this restructuring will make no difference but I remain to be convinced, as does the rest of the trade union movement in Scotland. We are also worried that the role of the HSE is being diluted," 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/16/oil-gas-workers-safety-fear-sack

See also: 
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jake-molloy-1876900 

There are obvious parallels here with the building trade where workers who raised safety issues found themselves blacklisted. In fact, among the names which stood out among the files of the employers' blacklist Consulting Association was that of Glasgow academic Charles Woolfson, apparently becoming of interest after he criticised safety standards in the wake of the Piper Alpha disaster. There were suggestions big companies could put pressure on the institution employing him.
 
Twenty five years on the legacy of Piper Alpha is still with us.    As Teesside children's writer, Peter Brunton (who honed his writing techniques on a gas rig) put it in a short poem

The Company

Who let them walk away without any blame
Where was their integrity, where was their shame
All they lost was oil wells – what about the laddies ?
All they lost was money
All the children lost their daddies
 

Dirigible daydreams - the balloon and airship in socialist romance.

$
0
0
Now with July on us comes an utter warm weather whimsy.  Nothing local. Just simple whimsy. 
 
Take ballooning. If there was ever a pursuit that seemed to be for the nobs it is this.
 
The thought of quiet, relaxing ballooning gliding the breezes in silence, has always been one that I have would liked to be part of - but it seems it is expensive, for the uber-wealthy and a pursuit that reeks of Pimms and punnets of strawberries  Indeed, one abiding memory I have is being, with hundreds of others, stuck on a sweltering and stalled 'cross-country' train, at that time owned by Virgin, and seeing soaring overhead, the corporate Virgin balloon.  Whether Beardie was on board was not clear, but the comments of fellow passengers were.
 
A book I read recently however, shows a more plebeian side to ballooning. 'Falling Upwards' by historian Richard Holmes shows that there was another side to balloons and their big brothers, the motorised dirigibles. To start with, they fascinated left leaning writers.  Shelley dreamed of the cool liberation of high altitudes, whilst Jules Verne, the French proto-lefty and anti-capitalist author, wrote an 1896 work 'Robur the Conqueror' about an airship inventor and commander, "Robur", an idealist (and like Verne's other, more famous character, submariner Captain Nemo), an Eco-warrior, who plans to conquer the world  in order to put an end to exploitation, tyranny and war. 


Using a massive airship, 'Albatross,' Robur plans to use his undisputed airborne supremacy and the threat of bombing as a way of becoming acknowledged as the world's ruler. Bombarding your way to world peace seems somewhat rather counter-intuitive, but in the end, the only actual bombing is of an African coronation where a mass human sacrifice is about to take place, but which is thwarted by Robur and his airship crew.

A more peaceful view of the potential of the air was penned by Tennyson in his 1842 poem of a far off, future, world, 'Lockesley Hall' in which he saw a vision of the skies  "For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,  saw the vision of the world and all the wonders that would be.......  Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales."

But he also saw the obverse side of the air.  "Heard the heavens fill with shouting and there rain'd a ghastly dew.... From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue."

H.G. Wells was also fascinated by ballooning, but saw that the conquest of the air also carried threats for mankind as well as benefit, and in his 'War in the Air' (1907) he visualised a world laid waste through massive aerial bombardment by fleets of dirigibles in the employ of the great nations of the time - Germany, France and Great Britain - fleets that then find themselves threatened by new armadas of airships and fast, heavier than air, machines developed by China and Japan.  The end of the book, where the narrator, a very thick cockney shop worker, Bert Smallways, returns to a shattered South East London, reduced to primitive feudalism, has a classic, dystopian 'post apocalyptic' portrait of a world where civilisation has disintegrated, a narrative similar to later descriptions of a world laid waste by atomic war, as seen in books like Russell Hoban's 'Riddley Walker' and John Wyndham's ''The Chrysalids'.

 
Then we have 'Hartmann the Anarchist'. This fascinating book, written by Victorian novelist, Edward Fawcett in 1892, is often credited with being the original 'steampunk' novella. After being out of print for over 100 years, Hartmann was republished in 2010 and, despite its Victorian 'ripping yarns' vernacular, verbiage and structure, it is still a good read.
 
Rudolph Hartmann is an anarchist initially presumed dead at sea after a botched attack on Westminster Bridge.   In this book, the plot centres around a Mr Stanley, a London socialist politician who, through associations with many of the capital's most prominent socialists and anarchists (including Hartmann's aged mother), finds that Hartmann was in fact still alive and had taken to the air.  Stanley ends up, after his abduction, riding with Hartmann and his cut throat crew on the impeccably collectively run dirigible "Alttila' as they plan to attack civilization, with Stanley's native London as the first target.


When Stanley first comes across Hartmann on the Attila, the anarchist is “Seated before a writing desk, studded with knobs, electric bells and heaped with maps and instruments'.  Hartmann sees the Attila as “the craft that shall wreck civilization and hurl tyrannies into nothingness”.

'Hartmann' was published in a turbulent decade when a minority of anarchists engaged in political assassination and bombings across Europe and Labour unions in the docks and sweated industries were flexing their muscles.  The London he depicts is a bloated, unwieldy city, an abode of fog, smoke and dreariness startled from time to time by the angry roar of Labour.  "Riots had been reported from many great towns, whilst handbills of the most violent sort were  being thrust on the workers of London. Revolutionary counsels had long been scattered by thousands of demagogues, and it appeared that the ingathering of that harvest was nigh."  

The storm centre was the urban colossus of London "the home to six million souls, where the endemic social problems of the time were intensifying.  It was clear that bad times were coming was a settled conviction of the middle and working classes", a belief due to (joy of joys - DW) the misdeeds of a 'Coalition government' which held sway during the year in which the story opens. In many quarters a severe reaction had set in against Liberalism, and a stronger executive, and repressive laws were urgently clamored for by a resurgent, populist right, whilst at the opposite extreme in the slums and rookeries of the East End, "we see the raising of the red flag, and socialist revolution being eagerly mooted by the labouring classes".   So put that in your clay pipe and smoke that one, Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron..........

Such books spawned a whole late 1890's sub genre of fictionalised terror from the skies via airships, often commanded by crazed visionary commanders.  It even allowed a Phd student called Hayzer Makov to write what must be the most originally titled and most obscure thesis ever - "Class treachery amongst airship commanders in late Victorian Fiction." These works helped to produce a early 1900's "airship scare" where strange flying machines were seemingly spotted soaring above the skies of peaceful English towns.  These accounts, with their implicit fear of alien destruction from the skies, allied to more prosaic fear of a resurgent Germany as a rival to an imperial Britain, could be seen as an Edwardian precursor of the UFO furore of more recent cold war years.  (Dangerfield's 'Strange Death of Liberal England' devotes a small chapter to this, an account which included airship sightings above Whitby).

This tradition endured and, finally, and more up to date (in the early 1970's), we had a trilogy of SF 'counterfactual alternative future' pot boilers by fantasy writer and Hawkwind collaborator, Michael Moorcock - the 'Owen Bastable' novels - set around an impeccably stiff upper lipped Victorian colonial Indian Army soldier who, after a series of unlikely adventures in the Himalayan foothills, find himself in an alternative future dominated by the airship, airships crewed by the alternative history personas of Stalin, Mick Jagger and T.E Lawrence. 

Other figures of the left (broadly defined) also appear in 'Falling Upwards'. We meet Republican Benjamin Franklin, dreaming of cheap refrigerated food for the masses via larders lashed to tethered balloons floating in the ice cold upper atmosphere. and the defender of a Paris besieged by militaristic Prussian forces in the war of 1871, using balloons stabled in the safety of the Gare Du Nord train shed, which are used to ferry men (including the wounded) and messages into and out of the City above the spiked helmets of the besiegers.

Then there is the USSR.     

Is this the most awesome soviet propaganda poster ever ?   It has it all - Lenin rising above the masses and showing by arm movement the direction of travel of a worker's state.   And demonstrating the power of a newly liberated socialist industry you have the immense phallic modernity of a fleet of airships surfing the golden dawn of a communist future. The slogan reads 'Let's build a fleet of airships in Lenin's name'.    So don't let miserable soggy social democrats or revisionists tell you otherwise - 'Socialism = Lenin + Dirigibles.........."


 
One person who should have been in the book, but wasn't was a lady called Muriel Matters.  Her name sounds like an afternoon local radio chat show but Muriel Matters was real enough and tough enough.  And, unlike the fictional Robur or Hartmann and their creators, she did use an airship for political ends - in her case, the demand for votes for women in the days of the Suffragettes.
 
An Australian pianist, she came to UK to work the London concert halls. As well as recitals, she also joined the burgeoning Suffragette movement, on one occasion, chaining herself to the House of Lords entrance door.   As a result of her activities she met and became friendly with people such as Sylvia Pankhurst, George Bernard Shaw and (Prince) Peter Kropottkin.
 
In 1909 she embarked on a daring mission to fly over the houses of parliament in an airship and bombard it with thousands of 'Votes for Women' leaflets from the air. She had one other male passenger, dirigible pilot and suffragette sympathiser Henry Spencer, and as he climbed over the webbing attaching the gondola to the ship she suddenly realised she had no idea what to do if he - or she -  fell off.  Rising to 3000 feet despite the weight of the ton of leaflets she had brought on board, the airship was blown off course. As Muriel and her companion heaved the leaflets randomly over South London, the bucking airship – with "VOTES FOR WOMEN" emblazoned on its side – became even more out of control and eventually crashed into trees in Coulsdon, Surrey, where Muriel and Spencer thankfully escaped unscathed.


muriel


 
She later recalled that "I had already won my spurs by chaining myself to the grille of the ladies gallery in the House of Commons and the doors of the House of Lords . As a result of this I was entrusted with the aerial demonstration on the day of the opening of parliament. That morning I went to Hendon and met Mr Henry Spencer who had his airship all ready near the Welsh Harp. It was quite a little airship, 80 feet long, and written in large letters on the gas bag were the three key words, "Votes For Women."


 


And, gloriously, you can hear Muriel speaking in best RP English about her exploits.   A recording of a BBC National Radio Programme with her from 1939 survives in the BBC archives, and can be heard here.  


http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/suffragettes/8315.shtml


After the vote was won, Muriel opposed the First World War as a socialist, and later stood for election to Parliament as Labour candidate for Hastings in the 1924 election. She was unsuccessful.
  
Hastings never saw a Labour MP until 1997.
 
So, in a year that saw the 100th anniversary of Emily Wilding Davison’s tragic heroism at the Derby, a nod to Muriel as well..........After all, it Matters..................
 
Walshy.

REPUBLICANISM, REVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC AND FENIAN RIOT IN 1870'S STOCKTON

$
0
0
Last week's disturbances in Belfast, where 'loyalists' rioted, after being denied their 'right' as they view it,  to march in strength through nationalist areas, was a minor feature of the news. Imagine, however, blast bombs, barricades and bobbies imported from all corners of the UK in somewhere like London or Liverpool (or perhaps more tellingly) Cardiff or Glasgow.  The news coverage would have been wall to wall, COBRA meetings would have been convened, the rising of parliament would have been delayed for an emergency debate, and talking heads - from Owen Jones to Nigel Farage and all points in between - would have been dominating our plasma screens.  But it was just Ireland - and that's what happens there......  Thus the unthinking condescension of the English political elite shown throughout the ages to Ireland and Irish needs.
 
And it was never so much so as in the Victorian years.
 

A year or so back, the PRT blog ran a ground breaking feature on Tessside's 'Red Republicans' of the 1870's - a group of local men and women breaking with Victorian Liberalism and were taking - perhaps under the influence of an older generation of Chartists like George Markham Tweddell - an explicitly radical republican stance around the need for deep and thoroughgoing revolutionary action against oppression, the landed gentry and the capitalist order.

 

These groups, based in Middlesbrough and the mining settlements of Eston and East Cleveland, had made a conscious decision to affiliate to Marx's First Working Man's Association - the 'First International' and to build a broader critique of the wider world beyond their home streets and workplaces. One of these strands was support for Irish Republicanism, the end of England's 'first colony' and specifically support for the Fenian movement of that decade. That was an active and militant movement, and one event - a Fenian rally in Stockton in 1872, which we describe below and ended in a riot - was perhaps the local high point of this movement.

 

But to begin, what exactly was Fenianism ?

 

Fenianism, through its organising body, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), is generally thought of as the archetypal physical force movement, directed towards establishing an independent Irish Republic. It was founded in Dublin in 1858. It organised the unsuccessful Rising of 1867. Segments of it played a leading role in the Land League agitation in the 1880s. And one of its ancestral strands helped to organise the Easter Rising of 1916.  

 

At their inception the Fenian leaders found Ireland a depressed and desolated country. Friedrich Engels, describing this country during a visit in.1855, wrote: "Gendarmes, priests, lawyers, bureaucrats, squires in pleasant profusion, and a total absence of any and every industry, so that it would be difficult to understand what all these parasitic growths found to live off, if the misery of the peasants did not supply the other half of the picture."  (Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence, p.112.).

 

Ireland then did indeed present a depressing picture. Ever since the enforced Union, the weaker Irish economy had been absolutely unable to make any industrial progress in the teeth of British competition. This meant that for the vast majority of the population the only means of livelihood remained the barren land - or enforced emigration

 

The Famine of 1846-8 heightened the bankruptcy of the landlords and produced even more disastrous effects for the peasants. So overcrowded was the agricultural land of the country, so close to subsistence was the vast majority of the people, that the slightest fluctuation could force millions into starvation.  The peasants grew potatoes for food and sold livestock and grain to pay rack-renting landlords. Though the potato crop suffered from the blight for a number of years in succession, it failed entirely in 1845,  In simple terms, what then took place was mass murder by starvation of the peasants, a starvation compounded by way of the forcible export of grain and other food far in excess of the value of the potatoes destroyed. 

 

 

 

The Great Hunger

 

Fenianism was conceived amid the horrors of the great hunger and born in betrayal of any hope of an all-Ireland constitutional and social pact. To the Fenians no worthwhile reforms for Ireland could be expected from the English Parliament, therefore Parliamentary campaigns on issues such as land reform, extension of the suffrage, etc. were irrelevant and a sham - they wanted a national revolution and not just a feeble piece-meal campaign of the old sort.   The drain of emigration and the progress of land clearances also gave rise to a justifiable fear that if something were not done quickly it would be too late.

 

An IRB Proclamation of March 1867 contained these worlds: "The soil of Ireland, at present in the possession of an oligarchy, belongs to us, the Irish People, and to us it must be restored. We declare also in favour of absolute liberty of conscience, and the complete separation of Church and State. We appeal to the Highest Tribunal for evidence of the Justice of our cause. History bears testimony to the intensity of our sufferings, and we declare, in the face of our brethren, that we intend no war against the people of England; our war is against the aristocratic locusts, whether English or Irish, who have eaten the verdure of our fields - against the aristocratic leeches who drain alike our blood and theirs."

 

"Republicans of the entire world, our cause is your cause. Our enemy is your enemy. Let your hearts be with us. As for you, workmen of England, it is not only your hearts we wish, but your arms. Remember the starvation and degradation brought to your firesides by the oppression of labour. Remember the past, look well to the future, and avenge yourselves by giving liberty to your children in the coming struggle for human freedom."

 

The organisation was secret, utterly disciplined and highly centralised. In theory at least each cell or circle elected a representative to the next level of the organisation, and so on up to a supreme head centre,     They were also, via recruitment amongst the Irish diaspora of enforced emigrants in Great Britain, North America and Australia, the first ever truly international revolutionary movement

 

Such was the organisation which, by 1865, had some 100,000 members across the world. Their international character and their creed of peasant collectivism led to them becoming affiliated loosely and locally to the First International, at that time led by a shaky alliance between Marx and other socialist thinkers and  - in England -  some of the leaders of the 'craft' Trade Unions.

 

Karl Marx had no doubt in his mind of the revolutionary potential of the Fenian movement - and nor did Fred Engels.  In his case, this was deeply personal. He had a life long relationship with a Irish Fenian lady called Mary Burns who worked as a piecer at the family Cotton Mill of Ermen and Engels in Manchester.  In this relationship Englels had to come to terms with Irish nationalism - on one occasion, with Mary and her sister, Lizzie,, helping to hide some Fenians who had made a jailbreak from Strangeways Prison.
 
A Fenian demonstration in  London's Hyde Park proclaims  that 'Resistance to tyrants is  pleasing to God'.
 



In general the English groups of the IRB were found in the new manufacturing towns, and on Teesside this meant Stockton, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool. Many Irish were employed as day labourers in the new Ironworks in and around Middlesbrough, and it was an organised IRB group in South Bank, employed at the new Eston ironworks of Bolckow and Vaughan, who affiliated directly to the International and teamed up with our local native republicans.

 

It needs to be stressed that whilst the Irish had their allies amongst this small strata of politically advanced workers, this was not typical of the attitude of much of the wider working class of the period.   Most local English workers were hostile to the Irish incomers, seeing them as being used by the employers to depress wages and worsen working conditions, and as a consequence there was an effective movement in being to deny them employment in many sectors of the local economy - and this enforced in physical terms if necessary.  
 
In Cleveland there were few, if any Irish, employed in the ironstone mines, and certainly none in the local shipyards where Protestant sectarianism amongst the skilled shipwrights ruled.

 

Despite this, the growing iron industry gave employment to the local Irish and enabled distinct Irish quarters to come into being in the towns of Teesside.  By the 1870;s the threat of Fenianism has grown to such an extent that many of the English based IRB leaders, such as O'Donovan Rossa and Thomas Kelly were arbitrarily imprisoned, an action by the state that resulted in acts of terrorism, incendiarism and physical attacks on the police - a move that led to the execution of three IRB Council members - the "Manchester Martyrs".  It was these arrests and these judicial executions that led to the Stockton rally of December 1872 - a rally calling for a free Ireland, and an amnesty for all Irish political prisoners.

  

This rally, on a rainy, cold, Sunday 16th, was held in a highly tense period. Searches of Teesside homes occupied by known IRB sympathisers found caches of weapons, whilst a few miles away in the South West Durham town of Spennymoor, the murder of a local shopkeeper by a group of known Fenians (one who had only recently lived in Stockton) meant a group of local Irishmen facing the hangman.

 

Little wonder that the rally descended into violence.   It led the Northern Echo to run an account with a five decker headline (the nineteenth century's equivalent of the front page being cleared for a lead story) and a subsequent editorial in unprecedentedly harsh terms.

 

The Echo's story, under the heads "Irish Demonstration at Stockton", "Fierce fighting in the crowd", The Middlesbrough Police telegraphed for" "The Chairman arrested" and "Seditious banners destroyed" started by saying that for some days previously anonymous handbills has appeared across Teesside advertising a march and rally at which people were asked to attend 'in their thousands' to protest 'the barbarous policy of keeping political prisoners incarcerated'. The speaker were advertised as "Comrade George Odger from London" (the Secretary of the London Trades Council and the President of the First International) and Joseph Shepherd, the President of the new Cleveland Miners Association.

 

Despite that cold and rainy winter weather the rally did indeed attract the thousands the organisers asked for.  According to the Echo, at 1.00 p.m. "a procession of Irishmen from Sunderland, Hartlepool, Bishop Auckland, Darlington and Port Clarence started from Portrack and picking up the Stockton Fenians en route,  marched through Stockton High Street down to the Victorian Bridge to meet the Middlesbrough contingent".  The Echo reported its Middlesbrough reporter as saying this contingent 'met at the Borough Hotel, Marton Road at midday, three to four thousand strong and then began the march to Stockton."

 

The Echo continued "The streets of the town, especially the High Street and the Market Place were thronged by thousands of spectators .  At about a quarter to three o' clock the procession returned, greatly augmented by the Middlesbrough men who brought with them several large banners and flags.  At once they took up position around the cross, and by that time the whole area around the cross, the town hall and the shambles was a dense mass of human beings which could not have numbered less than seven to eight thousand.  As soon as the flags were raised there arose a wild cheer........the immense mass of people surging to and fro presented a really terrible picture."

 

t9991

 

A far quieter Stockton in Victorian times

 

Whilst the advertised speakers had not materialised, other local speakers readily filled in, with a 'Middlesbrough Newsagent',  Mr Johnstone presiding, a Charles Carolin as the main speaker, backed by John De Morgan. 

 

These names were very familiar and showed the influence of the local English republicans - Johnstone being one of the men behind the Middlesbrough radical press, and John De Morgan, the movement's main propagandist (see previous posting http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/our-lost-revolutionaries-red.html) on this fascinating guy.)

 

The Echo continued "During the whole time the speeches were being delivered, there were disturbances going on in the crowd and severe fights took place,   It was said that knives were used and that a local man, named as John Young, received numerous stabs to his arms,  A little before four o'clock the proceedings became so disorderly, and the interruptions so numerous, that the meeting had to be abruptly closed.  But still fighting continued around the cross where the crowd was densest,  At length Superintendent Booth, followed by a large body of police arrived, who were met with groans and hisses"

 

Elsewhere in this report it was said that the Stockton Police were reinforced by Police from Middlesbrough who had been telegrammed for, and that this force was armed with 'drawn cutlasses'..

 

The Echo continued "We think that Stockton has never before known such a disorderly multitude in its streets."

 

The marchers then formed up to move across the borough borders over the Victoria Bridge to 'South Stockton' and it was there that more violence erupted.  The Echo said "some very serious disturbances took place and several people were badly injured.   The meeting's Chairman. Mr Johnstone who was on horseback...... and who seemed to be acting as a leader of the procession, rode his horse into a section of a hostile crowd severely injuring two men' ......   which led to him being arrested and taken to the lock-up.'  At Stockton "a number of people were apprehended, and the whole of the banners and flags were seized by the police and destroyed. In the evening the town became quieter.........but the streets were still thronged with people in expectation of the disturbances being renewed.'

 

It was clear that much of the violence did not come from the marchers, but from Englishmen politically and racially antagonistic to the Irish and their cause.    This was pointed out in an Echo editorial the following day which, in apocalyptic language for a mild liberal newspaper, damned all and everyone involved on that earlier Sunday.  This editorial was almost certainly from the pen of W.T Stead, the famous writer and journalist, who had taken up the Echo's Editorial Chair a year before these events.

 

"What with murderers, poisoners, Fenians. 'Irish Republican Central Councillors'; and simple English rowdies, the County of Durham is becoming a strange place to live in.  The other day we were informed (that the local Irish) were living under an organised system of terrorism, directed by a pack of the most infamous scoundrels yet un-hanged, styling themselves the 'Central Council of the Irish Republic'.  We here now lie under the stigma of having a nest of ruffians in our midst as bloodthirsty as the Thugs and infinitely more infamous............The affair at Stockton is most disgraceful and deplorable..........  we look with no approbation upon meetings in which drivelling nonsense, spiced by mischievous treason is pumped out to ignorant men who ought to know better......"    

 

This Phillipic from the Editorial chair then lashed out at the local native Englishmen who 'treated these strangers now sojourning in our midst, and who only err through their ignorance, in a grossly illegal and barbarous manner.....hunting the Irish to cover like vermin by ruffianly rowdies who disgrace the English name."

 

So ended this precursor of Irish protest on the streets of Teesside.
 
Retribution followed, but after the subsequent police crack down when the local magistrates had local men with unmistakeable Irish names - McCasey, McGee, O'Brian, Coyne and Durkin - weighed off for three months hard labour for affray and riot, and when the alleged Spennymoor murderers, despite flimsy prosecution evidence, made the inevitable appointment with the hangman at Durham Gaol, the fight for Irish emancipation continued.  

 

One wonders what the reaction of the Northern Echo's W T Stead would have been to informed prophesies that the cause of Irish Home Rule would lead to the first big spilt in the Liberal Party that he so ardently supported, that this itself would be the key precursor of what has been called the 'Strange Death of Liberal England' and that - forty years on - the political descendants of the Stockton rioters would be manning the barricades in Dublin against the forces of the British Empire, and that a year after that, that the political descendants of the First Socialist International of George Odger, John De Morgan and the Cleveland Miners would be ruling a revolutionary Russia ?  

 

Would he also have been amazed to know that the "Irish Question" did not go away, that in the 1920's it would again explode in Stockton and Teesside and this times with petrol bombs and explosives ?  (see http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/fire-at-home-ira-war-on-teesside-1921.html)

 

Thus, what some would call the whirligig of time, and what others would call the inexorable process of historical materialism, would lead from humble places like Stockton High Street through to a totally new planet.    

 

Pus ca change..........................

DETROIT AND DECAY - COULD IT HAPPEN HERE ?

$
0
0
Last weeks news that Detroit has gone bust leads me to the thought; could it happen here ?  The sheer scale of Whitehall cash cuts to revenue and capital budgets of our local councils is such that the question has to be posed.  After all, a council delivers day to day revenue services used by citizens and delivered by citizens (either as employees or contractors) as well as maintaining through capital budgets the civic infrastructure - from roads to public loos.     A council also has long term obligations, from honouring wage agreements, seeing that pension obligations are met and paying the interest on past borrowings.    But Pickle's cuts threaten all this.

The 'commonsense' view is that Detroit is impossible in the UK.   Both financial law, models of governance and state control rules are different. “Councils have a legal obligation to set balanced budgets each year. We cannot run deficits in the same way central government can,” The LGA says “Even if you get to a situation where councils had their budgets continuously reduced, you would see certain services reduced completely.”

But, all the same, bills are bills.  And these bills are underwritten overwhelmingly by central grant.  The amount of funding for local government from Whitehall will have dropped by 33% between 2011 and 2015, says the Local Government Association, with a further 10% cut scheduled for 2015-16.

So what if the cuts make financial budgeting all a lot messier, a lot more complicated and takes a lot more time than assumed? What if the local authority simply runs out of money and can't pay its bills? It has never happened but then who would have thought banks could go bust?

Detroit is not unique. In past years a number of American cites have gone bankrupt. Police and fire services still operated but city hall got protection from its creditors. In other words it delayed indefinitely paying some bills and negotiated a part repayment of other bills. The real damage was to the reputation of the city. No-one wanted to invest there and of course there was no money for capital projects like repairing roads and bridges. More recently the state of California claimed to be bust and unable to pay its bills. 

After all, we have already heard from big UK cities like Liverpool and Leeds that the combined effects of budget cuts, loss of public sector jobs and the recession will have a disproportionate effect on their local economy. 

Clearly, some local economies are more dependent on the public sector as an employer than others. Even so, it is hard to imagine the likes of big cities like Leeds and Birmingham and large local authorities like Nottinghamshire becoming bankrupt. Like the banks they are too big to be allowed to go bust and like in the USA central government would have to step in. 

But what about all those smaller district councils in the true blue shires ? Their budgets are comparatively small – maybe £30m – as opposed to a big city budget of £1bn but a 20 to 30 per cent budget reduction is still a massive cut and they have fewer options other than closing down all their swimming pools, sports centres and outsourcing all their support services. They don't have much room for manoeuvre if the bins are still to be emptied.

I feel that, given these facts, deep in the recesses of home grown UK Right Wing thinking in the offices of think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute, the IEA and the Taxpayers Alliance, Detroit is being studied. After all, the home grown analogies with UK Labour city stronghold s are compelling and strong.   

Like Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, Detroit is a city that brims with class-symbolic history. It was the laboratory where Henry Ford would assemble his greatest creation, the automobile, and the city that would forever change how the world got around. The car factories, in alliance with an interventionist state was the arsenal of democracy during the Second World War, producing the Flying Fortresses and the Liberator bombers. 


And this economic underpinning saw Labor politics becoming dominant.  The radical inter-war Congress of Industrial Organisations came out of the car plants. Walter Reuther organised the assembly line workers at Fords and GM, into his left leaning UAW, whilst Jimmy Hoffa Teamsters organised the labourers. longshoremen and truckers there. 


Detroit was, and still is. robust with culture and diversity. If Liverpool spawned the Mersey Sound and Manchester Mark E Smith, Detroit gave the world some of its greatest jazz artists, from Elvin Jones, Tommy Flanagan to Kenny Burrell and Donald Byrd, as well as being the home for amazing rockers, such as Bob Seger Suzi Quatro,and crazy ass Ted Nugent.  And - crucially -  one word: Motown. Actually, two more words;: Aretha Franklin. And that found a UK echo with Northern Soul, a genre that remained entirely within Northern, working class urban Britain.   And Motown sprang from the blues, a blues associated with John Lee Hooker, a long term Detroiter.

So, like many Northern British cities it is rich - both economically and culturally.  But now it's broke.  Last week the formal notice of bankruptcy was filed by Kevyn Orr, an attorney appointed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder to turn around the city's finances. According to Orr, the city has about $18.5 bn in liabilities and no way to pay most of its obligations. His filing was 3,000 pages long and included the names of more than 100,000 creditors.  And this hits poor Detroiters.  It may the banks named in the creditor lists, but it will be the Pension fund investors and pensioners who will find their pockets emptied.

In the same way that Thatcher, and now Cameron here viewed (and view) our Labour heartlands, generations of right wing US politicians viewed Detroit of a symbol of everything they feared.   Detroit, a black city, a union stronghold, a radical Democratic hotbed, was viewed as an enemy camp. The investments that had been made in Detroit in the 1970s began drying up as Reagan and then the Bush family embarked on policies of urban divestment and voodoo economics.

The auto industry lost huge chunks of ground to Japan. In the face of furious but doomed Trade Union resistance, jobs were shipped overseas, sent to new greenfield non-union plants in the American South or automated into oblivion. More families left town or fled to the 'burbs. The small businesses that had sprouted to serve them began shuttering.

 
Detroit's Mayors tried to patch the holes by taking out more and more loans to keep the city afloat. But with businesses fleeing as fast as residents, Detroit couldn't stay on top of its debt. The deficit continued to balloon.

The schools, which have been run by the state for much of the past 15 years, continue to fail students. And many of the neighbourhoods that once marked Detroit as an ideal place to raise families are so abandoned that there are sometimes only one or two homes standing on entire blocks.



Crime, unemployment, illiteracy – all are at near third world proportions. Detroit is an American tragedy. But Detroit is still rich in a way that the banks do not realise.

But will that cultural identity survive ?   Or will it be beaten into the ground as buildings, factories and schools crumble and the prairie reclaim blocksof what was once urban downtown.  In a way, the thought of sagebrush succeeding socialism and tumbleweed taking over from Teamster halls doesn't worry the new right.


The parallels in Britain are interesting and frightening  What if under the guise of 'extended localism' the virus of what could be seen as economic autonomy but which like a virus, infects the very life support system of urban administration, was hatched out and transmitted by Tory Ministers and their radical right advisers and thinkers ?   What could be trumpeted as 'financial freedom' for British big city and county councils would be, in fact, a freedom which could kill them, and allow for central 'direct rule' of a scale never before seen.   

If that were to occur, then it would represent a scalp for Cameron on a par with the destruction of the Unions by Thatcher during the Miner's strike of the 1980's - and it would allow for a further transfer of funds to the small, leafy southern (and Tory) shire districts from the decaying corpse of what were once proud urban left leaning fortresses.  This may be just a distant dream now - but if we are to see a resurgent Toryism after 2015, a dream could become living nightmare.

Walshy

From Cameron's very own white van to 'Keep Britain White' - The Economic Lunacy of Racsm

$
0
0
It's summer, parliament is not sitting and the silly season is on us.   And nothing more silly than the sight of a poster display vans driving around areas with a large Asian population advising the locals "to go home' if they are not supposed to be here.    Silly, but sinister..  It is a Cameron lite version of the daubing of Jewish owned shops by Mosley's pre-war Blackshirts or the bi-lingual English and Afrikaans apartheid public signposts of Verwoed and Vorster's South Africa.
 
To be honest, I am surprised that the vans have not been subject to a good egging attack yet - or some well aimed plastic bags filled with paint.   But I guess that is to come.   What has happened however, is a rash of text messages to the Home Office number given asking for help for a mini-cab fare from Southall to Hounslow, or for the Home Office to pay for a quick summertime trip to a place of birth in Barbados. One text spragged a family 'living in expensive state accommodation in central London and who are all German and Greek incomers' What Ms May's finest have said to these requests and messages, I don't know, but I look forward to seeing the replies.
 

Egging on prejudice ?
 
But this silliness hides fundamental issues.  And Labour, as much as the Tories are complicit in not facing up to them.   Now I don't expect the Tories, locked as they are in a PR battle against UKIP to be brave.  But we should.
 
Consider this; In 1940, Ed's dad, Ralph Miliband, fled occupied Europe for the relative safety of Britain. He learned English and served for three years in the Royal Navy. Following the war he went on to be one of the most widely respected political theorists of his generation. Whatever you might think about his academic work and political outlook, it’s impossible to argue that Miliband didn’t contribute to British life. He gave more than he received, and was certainly not a “constant drain” on the UK.years.
 
The same could be said of all the other Jewish refugees of the 1930's.  They played huge roles in UK and US academic life, literature and business.    They were not all of the left either - many Jewish intellectuals and thinkers like Isaiah Berlin were instinctive (and often persuasive) thinkers on the conservative spectrum.  No matter.
 
Locally at Guisborough, one of the biggest past employers in the area - what was called the 'Shirt factory' before it was purchased by Burton's, was developed by a Jewish refugee from the Nazis,  Herman Schmulewitsche from Lepzig who arrived in this area in 1935.   Amazingly, he also managed - with the aid of an incredibly brave helper working for the Reich's Trade Commission who was a secret member of the German Communist Party in Lepzig - to smuggle out a large part of the family's cash assets which had been seized by the Nazis, as a German 'investment' in the new Guisborough enterprise. Needless to say, the Nazis never saw a return on that investment !  (more on this in a future PRT piece)

rw271112guis-3_edited-1.jpg

Built on the courage of a German Communist - the Guisborough clothing factory

 
The fact that this could happen - that Britain could take in Jewish refugees at a time when anti-semitic innuendo was rife in the press – and budgets were incredibly constrained – shows, despite appeasement and the refusal to back Spain - how decent some of the politicians of that period were.
 
That same contribution to Britain continues today.  A year ago almost to the day, 
the country rejoiced at the successes of Mo Farah, his Somali-born face beaming from the front pages of even the most xenophobic newspaper. Joy too came from the sustained success of Sir Bradley Wiggins (born in Belgium) and - this year - has been followed by his teammate and fellow Tour de France winner Chris Froome (born in Kenya).
 
But if you thought we’d turned the corner, think again.
 
Whether it’s government funded poster vans or the Prime Minister agreeing that immigrants are a "constant drain on Britain, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is slowly but surely being ramped up again. The media gleefully join in too.
 
Some classic recent examples include
 
The Sun saying that "Foreigners" will make up the majority of Londoners by 2031.   By “foreigner” they mean anyone born abroad, so that’s many of our sporting greats, our rock stars, many of our football legends – oh – and the Duke of Edinburgh.
 

Dining out on racism - Desmond's Star

The Mail claim that 'second and third generation migrants are struggling to understand basic English". Read that headline again. It doesn’t say “some”, it appears to suggest – ludicrously – that a lack of English is a widespread problem amongst people who were born and schooled here, which is spectacularly untrue.  If true, it would make a nonsense of the white van, as no-one would be able to read the posters !   Again, that piece was written by a anonymous “Daily Mail Reporter” – no surprise to me that no-one was willing to put their name to such garbage.
 
The Sun claiming that the UK and the EU are deluged with 'fake gay' (!) claims from Africa.  Again no evidence, just innuendo linking the demons of homophobia with implicit racism, and backed up by anonymous quotes. It was the very worst kind of fear-mongering scare journalism. Again, no-one put their name to it.


Pandering to prejudice ?  

And over the coming years, this kind of thing is going to get worse. Lynton Crosby has largely been attracting attention for his extensive range of clients, his campaigning in Australia – where he made his name – has been largely overlooked. The Australian Liberal Party under John Howard was responsible for some of the deeply reprehensible anti-immigrant smears in recent political history, including claiming that asylum seekers had threatened to throw their children into the sea in 2001. 
 
Lynton Crosby was the director of the 2001 Liberal Party election effort. His methods are clearly having an impact on the Prime Minister’s approach to immigration already, but perhaps they always have done. In 2005 Crosby ran the Tory election campaign and Cameron wrote their manifesto. Their slogan was "Are you thinking what we're thinking" - a silent dog whistle to the racists in our community.
 
So in this climate of rising political and media attacks on immigrants, where is the politician that will step forward and extol the benefits of immigration? Who will stand up for the hard working immigrants who come from abroad, become British and work for the betterment of themselves and their new nation? Because at the moment British politics seems utterly bereft of such a figure. Ed Miliband is doing his best, but for a party leader to swim against the tide on his own would be electoral suicide.
 
But one body has said the right thing.  And amazingly it is a creation of the present government.  The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was set up by Cameron and Osborne for one reason only - to be the institutional vehicle for the one big enduring lie that this government have created, and have succeeded in implanting in the public consciousness - that past Labour Governments were profligate in government created the deficit and cannot be trusted with public finances.    Leave aside the fact that much of the recently created debt was down to Gordon Brown's 48 hour battle to save the UK economy from total meltdown after the banking crisis, the OBR have served to provide a veneer of seeming academic economic respectability to mess that is of Osborne's creating.

But then it said something that was not trumpeted by the Government and echoed across the tabloids by Tory SPAD's and their shadowy media advisers.   

The OBR said that immigration was a fact of life in a globalised world economy, and that - horror of horrors - it was of overall benefit to the nation.

As what they said was subject to a media blackout, it is worth repeating their arguments, published in their 'Third Fiscal Ssustainability Report. (FSR)  The central focus was the anticipated costs to the economy of supporting an ageing population.  The report features a chapter on “the impact of inward migration in the long-term projections” which considers the contribution which can be expected from migration to the sustainability of public services as the economy develops in the future.   The FSR assumes that net immigration will stabilise at 140,000 incomers a year from 2016 onwards. It defines this as a ‘low migration’ projection. The coalition government is currently aiming to push net migration well below this figure, to reach 'tens of thousands' by 2015. 


The OBR Tells it as it is..................

The report notes the probability that “immigrants will make a more positive contribution to the UK public finances over their lifetimes than natives” and this will be enhanced if a high proportion chose to return to their countries of origin when they reach retirement age. 

The evidence also shows that migrants to pay more in taxes than they cost in the provision of services, by over 35% according to some studies.  However fiscal outcomes are likely to be sensitive to definitions of the term ‘migrant’ (for example, whether the UK-born children of migrants are themselves counted as migrants) as well dynamic features of the economy as it changes over time might alter this assessment. 

The FSR sensitises its analysis to this factors and concludes that, “overall inward migration has a positive impact on the sustainability of the public finances over our 50 year horizon.” On the basis of an assumption that net inward migration will be positive at around 140,000 people a year over the next 50 years the public sector net debt to GDP ratio is calculated as reaching 99 per cent by 2062-63.  If zero gross migration is assumed then the net debt to GDP ratio to increases to over 174 per cent by this date.

In an analysis of the FSR carried out by the Migration Matters Trust, the authors conclude that:

The OBR is clear that the medium term impact of the cost of ending net migration will be Greek levels of debt.    The gap between the OBR’s central projection on public debt (based on annual net migration of 140,000) compared to debt levels without net migration, begins to open up in the next 5 years.

If net migration was ended, to avoid the fate of Greece, the UK would require a significant extension of taxes, combined with substantially deeper spending cuts

Britain will experience the best part of a century of austerity that is very much more severe than anything experienced to date


Our own Tired, Huddled Masses ?

So there we have it.   Inward migration is happening and will carry on happening.   It is not a unique British problem - if problem it is.  The simple truth, seen in the skies above West London where a plane lands at Heathrow every 6 minutes, is that travel movements and settlement patterns are world-wide, are growing and are part of a huge global flow from South to the North.   It may be something that all too many politicians refuse to recognise, but is something that has to be factored in when we look at the state of European national economies.   That truth is here and that truth is now.

Walshy

Preparing for Power - Labour's route map for democratic renewal

$
0
0
I was struck by the Archbishop of Canterbury's attack on the Wongas of this world, and more so because he argued for community based credit unions as an antidote to the payday lenders.   It is telling that it took someone who in his past life had worked in the hothouse atmosphere of the trading section of two of the world's major oil and energy companies, and who is a relation of a former Tory bigwig of the second half of the last century, R A (Rab) Butler, to argue the case for community based institutions as an alternative to the mega city institutions that that rule household finances.  Telling, because Stella Creasy aside, who has been shouting the case for community based institutions in the highest ranks of the Labour movement ?



Who will rid us of this turbulent priest,  Earl....?

But the case for Credit Unions cannot, I believe, be made without seeing them as one arm of a wider community sphere which can act honestly and solely for the benefit of working class communities.   And the creation and sustaining of that sphere in a world dominated by the overarching culture of aggressively marketed individualism, of 'choice' (no matter how false that choice is) and the competitive acquisition and consumption of commodities, can only be done by a government with an ideology not in hock to that dominant culture.

There are plenty of models of how this used to be done.    In Britain, the early socialists in groups like the ILP and the SDF looked to, and created, financial and class cultural networks that were both local, socially inclusive and democratic.    The Co-op movement, now alas, largely a bureaucratised  retail operation, was the way in which local communities could get a fair deal on all their household needs - from food through to clothing, and covering an age range that supplied school uniforms through to funeral services.   

The Co-op also had its savings arm, based on investment of the 'divi' (which in my youth had tangible form in the shape of pressed tinplate cash tokens) and the provision of simple banking for both Trade Union branches through to wider community groups, groups ranging from allotment associations to local football clubs and pigeon racing combines, whilst in terms of direct political organisation it had its own party, affiliated to Labour but still with its own internal autonomy, and a national network of Women's Guilds which put women's demands centre stage to male politicians and law makers, and helped sponsor and train women to enter political life on their own account as MP's and Councilors.

In this area, the Co-ops were founded by workers representatives.  The Middlesbrough Co-op came from workmen at the Britannia steelworks, whilst the trustees of the main East Cleveland Co-op - the Skelton Co-op - were made up of lodge officials and checkweighmen of the Cleveland Miners Association.   



The East Cleveland Worker's milk - courtesy of the local Co-op

Paralleling all this were a dense network of localised community facilities linked to the workers movement. At a time when local pubs and their landlords were seen as the local outlets for Beerage sponsored Toryism, the Trade Unions and the infant Labour Party set up a network of local Labour Clubs selling cheap beer, but served in what today we would call a 'family friendly' ambiance.  (as an aside, this was looked at a bit askance by many in the ILP and the far left of the day who were, by and large, wedded to teetotalism - I wonder how many people know that one of the founding groups that came together to from what was to become the British Communist Party was the Scottish based 'workers temperance league' ?)

There were also locally based Building Societies which were able to act as both as regional banks, and to lend on a local basis to those working class families in a position to buy a home.   Some of these became giants in the financial world, only (as with the Halifax and Northern Rock) to succumb to the lure of becoming City of London players - a lure that led either to total absorption or, as with Northern Rock, once the Newcastle based and worker run, 'Northern Counties Permanent Building Society', collapse, withdrawal queues and final ignominy.


From mutual to meltdown ?

And what we had in Britain, was paralleled elsewhere in the new industrial societies of the nineteenth century

And one model on the continent has a lesson for Britain, and puts the case for British democratic renewal.

Bismarck's newly unified Germany was the industrial 'shock society' of the latter half of the 1800's.  From a standing start, it industrialised and urbanised on a scale far faster than Britain two generations earlier.  And that created the ground for a new workers movement.

But on the ground this took a different form to Britain.   Unlike Britain there was no tradition of community institutions.  Prior to 1850 the German palatinates were the property of the local aristocracy and their regional Princedoms. Bismarck cemented this absolutism into a unitary state which left no room for either local democracy or parties that represented that new workers movement.

The new SPD however, could not be crushed,  and in less than 20 years after its formation in 1875 (and that itself 28 years before our own Labour Party came into being) it was the dominant opposition in the Reichstag.

Despite the passage of anti-socialist legislation, the SPD continued to grow in strength, as characterised by the steady rise in membership, from 384,327 in the period 1905/06 to 1,085,905 in 1913/14. 

And that membership was underpinned by a new and cohesive community network.

As a mass party, people from every quarter of German society sought help and advice from the SPD. With its advice service (provided free of charge by the mostly trade union maintained workers’ secretarial offices), the German social democratic movement assisted large numbers of Germans to secure their legal rights, primarily in the field of social security. 

It had its own parallel savings league and a network of 'workers banks'.

There also existed a dynamic educational movement, with hundreds of courses and individual lectures, its own theatre performances, libraries, peripatetic teachers, a central school for workers’ education, and a famous Party School. 

It had its own workers sports league, sponsored many of the Football Clubs making up today's Bundesliga and set up workers holiday associations and travel groups.




As noted by the historians Susanne Miller and Heinrich Potthoff, "In the states of Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Hesse and Baden, the SPD was successful in extracting various socio-political and democratic concessions (including the replacement of the class-based electoral systems with universal suffrage) through both demonstrating its power in the factories and its latent ability to put a spag in the wheels of a state seeking to use industrial power as a way of becoming a leading world nation, and setting up tactical electoral alliances with the bourgeois parties, in voting for parliamentary bills and state budgets that favoured working class families.. 

The Social Democrats also gave particular attention to carrying out reforms at local level, founding a tradition of community politics which intensified after 1945. The establishment of local labour exchanges and the introduction of unemployment benefits were due not least to the efforts of the SPD.

In 1913, the number of Social Democrats on municipal and district councils approached 13,000. As noted again by Heinrich Potthoff and Susanne Miller, “Here, and in their work in the administration of industrial insurance, in community employment offices and courts of arbitration, lay one of the roots of the gradual penetration by the Social Democrats of the imperial German state."

And it was this total permeation of working class communities that gave the SPD a level of residual and enduring strength that meant it could survive Bismarck's ban on socialist parties, the upheavals and revolution that followed the end of WW1,  the great inflation and depression of the 1920's and, - above all - the imposition of rule by Nazi jackboot and rubber truncheon between 1933 and 1945, and its ability to emerge almost immediately as a left wing force in that part of post 1945 Germany that was not subsumed into a succeeding Stalinist oligarchy.





All this had great resonance then, and with good lateral thinking, resonance today.  But for Labour, it needs a culture shift of its own.   It means that whilst we do not ignore the City of London and the finance industry, we need to devote as much of our effort into building up a manifesto that will allow for the creation of legal governance models to sustain community endeavour and capacity, as to a new 'prawn cocktail offensive'.   


It means rescuing local government from models devised and imposed in the Blairite era like the creation of remote 'cabinets' 'strong' leaders, 'elected mayors' and powerful officer apparats, instead vesting control back to Councillors again.  It means an automatic default approach that sees local democratic control of agencies, initiatives and organisations as the first model of choice rather than setting up a new web of anonymous and unaccountable quangoes.


But that means Labour party membership culture has to change.   Labour has to become a party 'on the streets' again - and not just seen as n passive instrument for a central office as a source of donations. I accept totally that there will be members and supporters who see membership as a statement and a declaration of their stance, but who for all kind of reasons - age, health, occupational barriers and commitments and family - cannot go much beyond that   But, I would contend, those members seeking party positions have to show the ability to be able to act in representative roles in community groups and voluntary bodies.  Those seeking and gaining office in local councils need to develop and demonstrate those representational skills - in their trade union at work, or as lay representatives at things like social security appeals - before they can be considered for local panels.   And that role has to be an active and accountable role once elected.  Being a Councillor cannot be once again be allowed to degenerate to being passive tea drinking agenda fodder in town hall committee rooms.


We should not underestimate the opposition a Labour Government will get from powerful interests opposed to transparency, openness and the devolution of power.  It will not be just the Murdoch's and the CEO's of City Banks, but NHS bosses, University Vice Chancellors and local authority chief executives.  These are people used to wielding power, and who know the route map of the corridors of that power.


Also (and this is where its get interesting for leftwing readers tiring of my praise for prelates and an impeccably respectable social democratic party) if we act to democratise civic society and community, can this stop at the gates of factories and offices ?  I hope it would not.


It will be a test of Ed Miliband's strength and sense of purpose if he can stand up to that concerted power.  If he fails, then it is back to 'business as usual' and the continued sapping of vitality from local communities and local people.  But if he can articulate this approach and steer it through Parliament he could be seen by history as a reformer to rank amongst the best.


Walshy

Ancestral Voices on Immigration and the Politics of Race

$
0
0
A fortnight ago I was fighting a (finally successful) by-election for Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in my home village ward of Skelton,

It quickly became aware to me and the by-election team from the village and the Wilson Street office that the key opponent and key danger was UKIP.    They had quickly stepped forward to call the contest within two days of the official declaration of the 'casual vacancy', and their first leaflet was through the letter flaps within a week.   Their printed stuff was pretty risible, trying to portray themselves as deliverers of the town hall from 'Labour corruption' and their facebook page was a joke (tips to other would be UKIP candidates - don't use the shop front of the local undertakers as the backdrop for your group pic, and do not rope in your entire family plus yourself to 'like' your comments - 'likers' can be identified........).

Photo

Local UKIP's would be gauleiters - off to the political graveyard ?

But it wasn't that part of their campaign that was poisonous.   It was the unwritten, unposted stuff, that was striking a chord. It seems that when you have a party who - in un-overheard conversations on doorsteps or in local pubs - were openly articulating a pure racist ideology and hatred of anyone not conforming to their definition of 'Englishness' -  the EU, gays, supposed 'do gooders', sassy women, and anyone with a darker than usual skin - it allows the supposed respectability and space for others to then come out and echo those sentiments, and in pretty blunt terms.   Most writers and commentators felt that the 'bongo-bongo' outburst from their MEP,  Geoffrey Bloom, 'badly embarrassed' UKIP.  Frankly, as that furore coincided with the last couple of days of the election,, I think it gave their local man a nasty and unwanted boost.   I was doing mainly phone canvassing and I got to notice that race suddenly became an open and unprompted issue after UKIP had done some doorstepping. in the area I was ringing out.

Now, in the near half a century I have been involved in left politics (my first appearance was as a 15 year old school leaver number taker for Labour in the 1964 general election),and arguing the politics of race and the need to demonstrate,against the forces of the right, that - whatever your skin colour - everyone is a member of one race - the human race,  I was beginning to think that we have turned a corner in a new century.   

I was wrong.  UKIP are a clear and present danger to our democratic values.  They have to be fought and exposed and not (as it seems across the mainstream party divide) accommodated.  The centripetal pull of the Tory shift is being felt in Labour.  This is shameful and wrong.  And I speak from my recent experience.

All this led me to thinking about our forebears viewed immigration, asylum, and ethnicity, and in that context (after writing a piece about the Office for Budget Responsibility's report of the beneficial economic impact of immigration, a report ignored by the  Government  who commissioned it)  (i) I was  pleased to see that an old friend of mine from the early 1970's, Jim Denham, who writes and hosts the Shiraz Socialist blog, had done some digging in that very area. (ii)

He found two pieces, by J B Priestley writing in the 1930's, and George Orwell  (the other Mr Blair) from 1946.   
With no further comment I reproduce both essays.

Firstly we have J B Priestley writing of his home city of Bradford as  he knew it in the years before World War One.  This came from his great travelogue and work of social reportage "English Journey' from 1934.


Gentleman Jack - writer and socialist

"There was this curious leaven of intelligent aliens, chiefly German-Jews and mostly affluent. They were so much a part of the place when I was a boy that it never occurred to me to ask why they were there. I saw their outlandish names on office doors, knew that they lived in certain pleasant suburbs, and obscurely felt that they had always been with us and would always remain. That small colony of foreign or mixed Bradfordians produced some men of great distinction, including a famous composer, two renowned painters, and a well-known poet (in Humbert Wolfe’s Now a Stranger you get a glimpse of what life was like in that colony for at least one small boy).  I can remember when one of the best-known clubs in Bradford was the Schillererein. And in those days a Londoner was a stranger sight than a German. There was, then, this odd mixture in pre-war Bradford. A dash of the Rhine and the Oder found its way into our grim runnel – “t’mucky beck.” Bradford was determinedly Yorkshire and provincial, yet some of its suburbs reached as far as Frankfort and Leipzig. It was odd enough. But it worked.


The war changed all that. There is hardly a trace now in the city of that German-Jewish invasion. Some of the merchanting houses changed their names and personnel; others went out of business. I liked the city better as it was before, and almost all my fellow-Bradfordians agree with me. It seems smaller and duller now. I am not suggesting that these German-Jews were better men than we are. The point is that they were different, and brought more to the city than bank drafts and lists of customers. They acted as a leaven, just as a colony of typical West Riding folk would act as a leaven in Munich or Moscow. 

These exchanges are good for everybody. Just lately, when we offered hospitality to some distinguished German-Jews who had been exiled by the Nazis, the leader-writers in the cheap Press began yelping again about Keeping the Foreigner Out. Apart from the miserable meanness of the attitude itself  —  for the great England, the England admired throughout the world, is the England that keeps open house, the refuge of Mazzini, Marx, Lenin  –  history shows us that the countries that have opened their doors have gained, just as countries that have driven out large numbers of their citizens for racial, religious or political reasons, have always paid dearly for their intolerance. It is one of the innumerable disadvantages of this present age of idiotic nationalism, political and economic, this age of passports and visas and quotas, when every country is as difficult to enter or leave as were the Czar’s Russia or the Sultan’s Turkey before the war, that it is no longer possible for this admirable leavening process to continue. Bradford is really more provincial now than it was twenty years ago. But so, I suspect, is the whole world. It must be when there is less and less tolerance in it, less free speech, less liberalism. Behind all the new movements of this age, nationalistic, fascistic, has been more than a suspicion of the mental attitude of a gang of small town louts ready to throw a brick at the nearest stranger.

And now Orwell. Jim introduced it thus  "In the course of preparing the last-but-one post, I searched the net for an article on immigration by Orwell, that I had a vague recollection of. The best I could find was a brief extract on Google Books, which wasn't much help except to remind me that it came from Orwell’s ‘As I Please’ column in Tribune, 15 November 1946. I finally tracked down what seems to be a nearly-complete extract, as published in Penguin’s Orwell and Politics (2001, ed: Peter Davison).

The piece starts and ends with a brief discussion of the post-war Labour government’s problems, which is of historical interest but not of any particular relevance to our present situation. Similarly, the passing mentions of the reactionary roles played by the TUC and the Communist Party.      The argument about a labour shortage doesn't apply in the immediate situation, either. But the meat of the article is highly pertinent to the poisonous contemporary ‘debate’ on immigration and, indeed, on Britain’s relationship with Europe. The reference to events immediately prior to the creation of Israel is also of some contemporary interest:"


The Other Mr Blair

"As the clouds, most of them much larger and dirtier than a man’s hand, come blowing up over the political horizon, there is one fact that obtrudes itself over and over again. This is that the Government’s troubles, present and future, arise quite largely from its failure to publicise itself properly.

People are not told with sufficient clarity what is happening, and why, and what may be expected to happen in the near future. As a result, every calamity, great or small, takes the mass of the public by surprise, and the Government incurs unpopularity by doing things which any government, of whatever colour, would have to do in the same circumstances.

Take one question which has been much in the news lately but has never been properly thrashed out: the immigration of foreign labour into this country. Recently we have seen a tremendous outcry at the T.U.C. conference against allowing Poles to work in two places where labour is most urgently needed – in the mines and on the land.

It will not do to write this off as something ‘got up’ by Communist sympathisers, nor on the other hand to justify it by saying that the Polish refugees are all Fascists who ‘strut about’ wearing monocles and carrying brief-cases.

The question is, would the attitude of the British trade unions be any friendlier if it were a question, not of alleged Fascists but of the admitted victims of Fascism?

For example, hundreds of thousands of homeless Jews are now trying desperately to get into Palestine. No doubt many of them will ultimately succeed, but others will fail. How about inviting, say, 100,000 Jewish refugees to settle in this country? Or what about the Displaced persons, numbering nearly a million, who are dotted in camps all over Germany, with no future and no place to go, the United States and the British Dominions having already refused to admit them in significant numbers? Why not solve their problems by offering them British citizenship?

It is easy to imagine what the average Briton’s answer would be. Even before the war, with Nazi persecutions in full swing, there was no popular support for the idea of allowing large numbers of Jewish refugees into this country: nor was there any strong move to admit the hundreds of thousands of Spaniards who had fled from Franco to be penned up behind barbed wire in France.

For that matter, there was very little protest against the internment of the wretched German refugees in 1940. The comments I most often overheard at the time were ‘What did they want to come here for?’ and ‘They’re only after our jobs.’

The fact is that there is a strong popular feeling in this country against foreign immigration. It arises partly from simple xenophobia, partly from fear of undercutting in wages, but above all from the out-of-date notion that Britain is overpopulated and that more population means more unemployment.

Actually, so far from having more workers than jobs, we have a serious labour shortage which will be accentuated by the continuance of conscription, and which will grow worse, not better, because of the ageing of the population.  

Meanwhile our birth-rate is still frighteningly low, and several hundred thousand women of marriageable age have no chance of getting husbands. But how widely are these facts known or understood?
In the end it is doubtful whether we can solve our problems without encouraging immigration from Europe. In a tentative way the Government has already tried to do this, only to be met by ignorant hostility, because the public has not been told the relevant facts beforehand. So also with countless other unpopular things that will have to be done from time to time.

But the most necessary step is not to prepare public opinion for particular emergencies, but to raise the general level of political understanding: above all, to drive home the fact, which has never been properly grasped, that British prosperity depends largely on factors outside Britain.

The business of publicising and explaining itself is not easy for a Labour Government, faced by a press which at bottom is mostly hostile. Nevertheless, there are other ways of communicating with the public, and Mr Attlee and his colleagues might well pay more attention to the radio, a medium which very few politicians in this country have ever taken seriously."


Walshy

Notes


(ii)  And check out Shiraz Socialist - see http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/

Does anybody have a fracking clue?

$
0
0
The public, arguably, has every right to be confused sometimes. How can you have a divide between the passion of the anti-fracking protests yesterday, which culminated in the arrest of Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, with David Cameron’s passionate crusade to convince the Great British body politic of the harmlessness of the process. 

It seems, if we are to believe the spin, that the practice of seeking to extract natural sources of shale gas and oil from underground rock will both solve the country’s energy needs for a generation, causing no damage to the landscape other than, as one supporter of fracking recently put it to me, ‘little more than a postbox sized hole in the ground’.  

Are the protestors truly misinformed, or are they right to challenge the Government’s agenda. Well, first of all, here is a picture of your ‘postbox in the ground’:
 
That is, of course, the Cuadrilla drilling operation in Westby, Lancashire. Fracking was halted in 2011 after a series of earthquakes in Blackpool. The company’s own report into the incidents found that it was ‘most likely’ that they were the cause, having injected fluids directly into the fault zone. (http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Geomechanical-Study-of-Bowland-Shale-Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf)

Fracking was also the cause of minor earthquakes in British Columbia. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/06/bc-fracking-earthquakes.html.

 The fluid pumped into the cracks in order to force the gas from the rocks is a mixture of water, sand and chemicals. But which chemicals? Let’s look at the American example. In the US, owing to the reluctance of major fracking companies such as Dick Cheney’s Haliburton to disclose what goes into their fluid, the Democratic members of the Congressional Energy Committee launched an investigation into the practices that went on during the growth of the fracking industry during the Bush years.


They found that 750 different chemicals and other components were used ranging from the harmless, such as salt, walnut hulls, instant coffee and citric acid, to highly toxic substances such as benzene and lead. Between 2005-2009, the committee found, oil and gas companies used products containing 29 chemicals that contain known or possible human carcinogens as regulated by the Safe Water Drinking Act, or pollutants listed as hazardous by the Clean Air Act. These include Uranium, Radium Ethylene Glycol, Mercury and Formaldehyde. (http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/committee-democrats-release-new-report-detailing-hydraulic-fracturing-products)

Each well in the States requires 400 tanker trucks (which have been known to crack under pressure) to carry water and supplies to and from the site. Consider this becoming widespread in parts of the British countryside. I think at the very least we’d need some more roads!
 
What then happens to the fluids? Well, during the process itself methane leaks out and contaminates nearby groundwater. Methane concentration in drinking water wells near fracking sites have been shown to be 17% higher than elsewhere. 50-70% of the fluid (which is non-biodegradable) is left underground, and the rest comes back up and is recovered as waste fluid. The Environmental Protection Agency’s initial report supported the claims of nearby residents that fracking was buggering up their drinking water. (http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf)

 In America the naturally radioactive waste fluid is kept in open pits. Here is a picture of such an operation:  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhammer/fracking-2.jpg. We’re alright though; it won’t damage the natural landscape here because in this country it will have to be stored in covered pits.

Those new roads will at least be busy though as this produced water will have to be trucked away again in order to be cleaned before it can be re-used.


As the USA experiment with fracking has shown us, once the process is complete each well can only be re-drilled a maximum of 18 times.

So why on earth are we even contemplating it? Well, it might be because the government is being influenced by Cabinet Office Minister Lord Browne, current Chair of Cuadrilla Resources and board member of Riverstone, who own 40% of Cuadrilla. Previously on the board of Riverstone was Ben Moxham, who was subsequently appointed as David Cameron’s ‘Special Advisor on Energy’.


George Osborne’s father-in-law Lord Howell, advisor to William Hague, is a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. The head of the UK Trade and Investment arm of the Foreign Office, which has been promoting fracking around the world, is Lord Green. The same Lord Green who also sits as non-executive director at BASF, who produce the chemicals that go into the fracking fluids.


What however of the Environment Department? Surely if this were serious they would have something to say on the matter? Well, not likely given that Environment Secretary Owen Paterson’s special advisor Guy Robinson was recruited on secondment from the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, who would profit from fracking in the UK. Also to profit would be gas company Dart energy, whose President, Ian Taylor, donated half a million pounds to the Conservative Party. (http://frack-off.org.uk/gas-mafia-infilitrates-greenest-government-ever/)

(credit also to Climate Radio: http://climateradio.org/no-dash-for-fracking-gas/)

 Ok then so putting aside the risks to public health, however resolutely the industry promises to regulate itself, putting aside the army of tankers clogging up the countryside to deliver fluids to and transport toxic waste out of fracking operations, and putting aside the craven vested interests that dictate Tory policy on all issues from energy, planning and development, banking, tax, tax avoidance, media reform, welfare reform and cigarette packaging to the privatisation of the NHS and Royal Mail, is the process not worth it if ultimately it will bring bills down for the hard-pressed consumer?

 Well, what evidence is there that it will bring bills down?

 Certainly fuel poverty is a serious issue in the UK. As reported in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/britain-tops-the-fuel-poverty-league-table-8554723.html) nearly 20% of ALL households live in fuel poverty. This is approximately 5 million households.  A Government-commissioned report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48297/4662-getting-measure-fuel-pov-final-hills-rpt.pdf) found that in 2010-2011 there were 2,700 ‘excess winter deaths’.


This is caused by declining (or stagnating) incomes, but also by sharply rising prices. Between 2004-2011 energy bills rose by nearly 50%. According to the Climate Change Commission, however, nearly 60% of this was caused by the rising price of gas, whilst only 10% was caused because of investment in renewable energies. (http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1672_CCC_Energy-Bills_bookmarked.pdf)

 In fact, it is expected that by 2015 even wind power is likely to be cheaper than gas (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/wind-power-to-compete-with-fossil-fuels-by-2015-make-says.html).

 Unlike in the US, drilling for shale gas in the UK is unlikely to reduce those gas prices as there is less promising geology here, higher population densities and a tougher regulatory regime. A report by management consultants Poyry for Ofgem concluded that only a shale gas boom across the whole of Europe might lead to a reduction in gas prices. This of course is extremely unlikely given that fracking is outlawed in many European countries. (http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/About%20us/PwringEnergyDeb/Pages/PwringEnergyDeb.aspx)


More likely, as observed by the former (and not corrupt) Energy Minister Charles Hendry, “betting the farm on shale brings serious risk of future price rises”.  Put simply, for the reasons given, UK shale gas is unlikely to be able to compete on the international gas markets from the US, China and India. Leaving us overly-dependent on gas leaves us extremely susceptible to unpredictable price rises within that international market.
 

Meanwhile the privatised energy utilities continue to rip-off the public, including the five million households having to choose between heating and eating, whilst making enormous profits: much of which is trousered by the people who run them. British Gas, for example, paid £16m to its senior executives in May this year. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/13/british-gas-fight-evil-empire-charge-profit)


 What about oil, then? Is it not the case that economic growth in China, India and Africa is driving up demand for a shrinking resource that we need to wean ourselves from? According to the United Nations in 2011 the USA consumes 25% of the world’s total energy, and yet Chinese energy consumption has grown by 5.5% per year for the last quarter of a century. 30% of American energy comes from oil, 60% of which is imported.

 About 40% of global oil production is under the control of OPEC (the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), a cartel that coordinates oil production in twelve oil producing countries, based in Vienna. The price for oil is traditionally determined by the minimum set by OPEC, which is achieved by increasing supply when prices rise and vice-versa.
 

It is not so straightforward to assume that oil prices are set at a high and rising level simply to exert a squeeze on First World energy consumers. Most of the world’s oil trade is conducted in dollars, which explains why oil exporting countries peg their currencies to the dollar. When the dollar declines in value so, consequentially, do their oil revenues. Their costs, however, go up. A fall in the value of the dollar therefore usually leads to high oil prices in order to maintain profit margins.


Global oil prices therefore are not exclusively governed by rudimentary calculations based upon the supposed laws of supply and demand. This was proven in 2008 when, with onset of serious recession in the United States and Europe, global demand for oil fell and global supply rose. The average price of a barrel of oil, however, still rose.

 This was because investors (using money from pension funds, hedge funds and ‘wealth management’ portfolios) fled from the collapsing real estate and the stock exchange markets and began pouring money into ‘futures’ markets investing in commodities. The consequence of a surge in investment in oil futures led to a dramatic rise in oil prices for 2008. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html)


The speculation in commodities spread to other markets such as wheat and gold, driving up food prices around the world. This is itself is an example of how global capitalism continues to generate wealth from exploitation of poverty and starvation in the developing countries, leading in many places to food riots in the streets.


With the slow recovery in the housing market and global stock markets capitalism now has many more options for investment and oil prices remain below the 2008 peak.


Despite the fact that some oil-producing countries such as Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria wish to maintain oil prices at over $100 per barrel, the OPEC countries are actually divided on the question of whether continually rising oil prices are a good thing. All of those countries have used oil export revenues to fund social projects, and all have seen the increase in shale oil production in the USA lead to a reduction of 41% in their exports to America. Countries like Saudi Arabia, however, have welcomed new energy resources and have announced an increase in supply so as not to make the importation of oil uneconomical when compared to other energy sources. OPEC for this reason has set a target average price for oil at $70-$80 per barrel, high by historical levels but well below their present levels.


It is misleading, therefore, to craft an energy policy on the assumption that oil prices are locked into some permanent process of natural law that leads to exponential rises in the cost of importing the crude stuff.


Nor should we ignore the history of energy policy and how this has lead us to dependence on importation of energy sources.


Ted Heath discovered the pitfalls of such reliance in the sepia-toned, simmering days of the 1970s, when he ended up hoisted by the petard of his own energy policies.


On 6 October 1973 Egypt invaded the Sinai Peninsula, occupied by Israel, and began the Yom-Kippur war. With its outbreak OPEC, seeking to increase the isolation of Israel and ‘turn the screw’ with regards to its suddenly increased position of power, engaged in a series of selective oil boycotts against Western countries, cuts in production and colossal price increases. All of this meant that by January 1974 a barrel of oil was priced at over $11, more than a five-fold increase on two years earlier.

This presented difficulties for every country that was both rich and hungry for oil; in particular it presented difficulties for Heath’s Britain. Business would end up paying much more for oil and those products derived from oil, leaving much less to spend on everything else, pushing up inflation and reducing demand for goods and services.

The prospect of such a sudden loss of public spending power and severe recession was not lost on the Government. The Cabinet Minutes for 12thDecember 1973 are recorded as noting the country was facing ‘the gravest crisis since the Second World War’.


So how had Heath been hoisted by his own petard? By a combination of factors: primarily his government’s own economic policies, but more specifically their provocative conduct since entering office towards the mining industry and by extension the National Union of Mineworkers.

In 1901 a wealthy English venture capitalist named William Knox D’Arcy set off to the Middle East in search of oil. He would spend seven difficult years in the Iranian desert before striking lucky in the South West of Persia. In 1909 he founded what was then named the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Just before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, invested £2m into the company in exchange for regular supplies of oil. At the time of the Iranian oil crisis of 1951 when that country’s government nationalised all of its assets, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company represented Great Britain’s single largest foreign investment.

 It was the same year that Attlee opened the Esso oil refinery on Southampton Water at Fawley, on 14 September - at the time the largest of its kind in Europe, capable of meeting approximately one third of the country’s need for petrol products. From 1945 to 1973 the oil price continued to fall steadily, and in 1951 the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was re-named the British Petroleum Company (BP).

Middle-Eastern oil throughout that boon period, during which production doubled each decade, provided the backbone of post-war capitalist growth in the West and was thus a powerful Tory weapon in the battle of ideology in Britain. It gave them license to promote a consumerist, or consumption-based, system as the better way forward, owing to the expanded availability of relatively cheaper goods: the exciting developments in the motor cars industry, products created using new plastics, and more widely accessible electrical goods for ‘the home’. 
 

More and more of these goods were being produced abroad. However the consumer boom came at the expense of deliberate underinvestment in British manufacturing and punishing monetary policies - in other words the holding back of wages and the gradual increase in structural unemployment. As a burgeoning market economy depends upon low inflation any government promoting such a system will inevitably turn to the weapons of pay policies and public spending cuts to protect the value of the currency and increase the ability to purchase the shiny goods from overseas. 

It is a Tory trick of language to use the phrase ‘in the national interest’. It has been used throughout history by the ruling class; presumably it is taught in public schools. It remains in sadly frequent use today by David Cameron and George Osborne, invariably whenever they present their latest disastrously harmful and/or spiteful Government initiative. It was precisely this ploy that was attempted by the Heath government in its own dying days. Maurice MacMillan, the Secretary of State for Employment, moved the ‘Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (No 2) Order 1973’ in the House of Commons on 7 November. ‘The British economy’, he began, ‘has during the 1960s and 1970s, under successive Governments, performed poorly’. ‘Its poor performance is largely due to successive periods of stop which have discouraged investment by industry, and that growth has all too often been sacrificed in a vain attempt to curb inflation’. He then went on to argue for the statutory pay policy of wage control set out in the Order. He said ‘we made a long and determined attempt in talking to the CBI and TUC to come to an agreement on a voluntary policy. Those consultations went on for many months... We achieved a wide understanding about ends, but were unable to achieve agreement about means, and in those circumstances it was inevitable that, for the good of the country, we should adopt a statutory incomes policy’. 

Problem being: the basis upon which the Conservative government had been elected was exactly the opposite from what they now wished to implement in office. In fact, quoting directly, the Conservative Manifesto for 1970 stated:

“Britain now faces the worst inflation for twenty years. This is mainly the result of tax increases and devaluation. In implementing all our policies, the need to curb inflation will come first. For only then will our broader strategy succeed.

Our theme is to replace Labour's restrictions with Conservative incentive. We utterly reject the philosophy of compulsory wage control. We want instead to get production up and encourage everyone to give of their best.” [emphasis added] 

Now the Government, exercising its Tory prerogative to deviate from a democratic mandate, having achieved a ‘wide understanding about ends’ with the unions over the need to control inflation (it never being evidenced who exactly might have been in favour of wild, excessive inflation) but having failed to persuade them to voluntarily accept wage restrictions, decided it must therefore be in the ‘national interest’ to impose them compulsorily!


Tony Benn, responding for Labour, lambasted MacMillan for having said one thing during an election and done another once in office, lamented what he called ‘the most complex and bureaucratic structure of controls ever imposed upon the British economy in peace or war’ and drove forward the case for the Opposition with the prescient point:

“The policy is principally designed to hold down wages rather than to check inflation. Inflation is being used as an excuse to destroy free trade union bargaining. The policy operates through boards and commissions not accountable to Parliament and behind which Ministers shield when they wish, while the commissions and the boards shield behind the Minister when they wish...” 

It was in this political climate that the oil crisis of 1973 struck at the heart of Edward Heath’s already floundering Government. It would have been a bizarre expectation, if he ever actually held it, to believe the miners would have gone along with his plan ‘in the national interest’. The miners had been battered and bruised throughout history, and whilst at one point they were regarded as a conservative force within the labour movement they could not be charged with that by 1973. Heath’s rudimentary monetarist policies, a foretelling of what was to hit the working class square in the face a decade later, had been far too over-reliant on Middle Eastern oil and designed to prop up the Tory dream of the consumer society, but had left the miners with the threat of pit closures and the experience of wages being held back well below where they ought to have been. What is more, Heath had driven through Britain’s membership of the free market EEC, putting the coal industry in potentially destructive continent-wide competition with other energy providers. 

If there had been slight embarrassment in some quarters of the trade union movement at the rough ride given the first Harold Wilson government, it did not manifest itself in the politics of the NUM. A rising star named Arthur Scargill had become a prominent figure. He was a militant, out and proud, firm in his conviction that the working classes had only ever received what they were prepared to go out and take for themselves. The miners had already clashed with Heath over pay in 1972, culminating in the spectacle of the battle of Saltley. Their clash in 1973 was also, at a fundamentally basic level, about pay, but what it revealed was a clash of ideologies, a clash of core principles, a clash of world-views, and a clash of worlds. The position of the NUM was now broadly the position of the Left: the economy must be founded on production rather than consumption, and this industry must, and can only expand on the basis of indigenous energy sources, and the graft of those who dig it, rather than on speculation in dodgy foreign energy markets.


Heath himself had been holding meetings with Joe Gormley and a selection of NUM negotiators starting in the summer of 1973. The miners wanted a pay increase of 31%, whereas Heath, determined to curb inflation with his restrictions on wages, was prepared to offer them barely half of that. At a meeting on 28 November, following an NUM ban on overtime working that had succeeded in cutting coal production by close to a third, the union reiterated its demands, as one NUM executive logically questioned of the Prime Minister, “why can’t you pay us for coal what you are willing to pay the Arabs for Oil’.  

An outcome of the oil crisis had been an increase in coal consumption, and this, coupled with the ban on overtime, created a national coal shortage. Heath, perhaps sensing that the miners’ demands were driven by ideology and politics rather than material self-interest (the truth actually that the material interests of the mineworkers and their politics were interconnected), decided that the best course of action insofar as placating Tory Britain would be to challenge the miners head on in political battle. If he had done nothing the PR horrors of energy shortages would have destroyed his Government amidst a sea of electricity disconnections and factory closures. His object instead was twofold: to shock the miners (preferably in such a way as would assault the credibility of the NUM leadership and cripple the union’s activities) and to massage the so-called ‘mainstream’ public opinion against them. If he was successful he could increase the nation’s dependency on the coal industry without having to acquiesce to as rapid a rise in working class living standards as would have followed from his alternative course – acceptance of the miners’ wage demands and the creation of more mining jobs in exchange for their cooperation with his Government. The tactic he adopted was a form of strong economic planning to dramatically reduce overall energy consumption. It was revealed in a television broadcast announcing the introduction of a three-day working week.  

However, Heath had been too reliant upon his faith in the ability (and for that matter, willingness) of the British public to put up with a new bout of austerity measures. Most people felt the miners had a reasonable claim, and plenty were able to spot the transparent politics of the three-day week. 

The stunt, for stunt it was, failed to win barely any meaningful public support. Put broadly, there was a distinction between the ‘austerity’ consensus Heath sought to create and the war and post-war periods of austerity the population had experienced in the past. During the war, when food and energy and pretty much everything had been rationed, it was tolerated according to the grave and potentially destructive position people found themselves in. In any event, rationing had led to an increase in living standards for the majority of the working population, based as it was on the principle of ‘fair shares’. 

To hear Ted Heath, who had defined Tory philosophy in his own image of confidence, prosperity and affluence now making a call for national unity and sacrifice jarred with many people. Again there was a view more widely held than he envisaged that believed the miners had a case – they were grosslyunderpaid – and this cynicism towards his announcement was compounded by brazen hypocrisy among members of his own Cabinet. One target was the Energy Minister, Patrick Jenkin, who having made a point of boasting to the press that he could ‘manage my whole morning routine without putting on a light’ and urging people to, for example, brush their teeth in the dark to save energy, had his house photographed by the Observerone morning with all of its lights blazing away. 

The story is then well-known. The three day week was a failure, most of the public blaming the government for the restrictions rather than the miners, and a further strike announced in 1974 led Heath to call a snap general election on the question of ‘who governs’. The answer, resoundingly, was ‘not you!’. 

Then came the question of North Sea Oil, which from the date of its discovery had also been a hot political football, and it was apparently clear to the Labour Party upon returning to government in 1974 that its utilisation, once the rewards began to be reaped, could be of immeasurable value towards finally rectifying the interminable crises of British Capitalism and to cement their plans for social progress by funding some kind of expansion of the Welfare State, which in the first year of that Government had been mostly channelled through Barbara Castle’s Department of Social Security.


Despite Castle herself having been removed from that office at the same time as Tony Benn from his, that the focus of the Wilson government’s social policies up to that point had been social security provision was revealing of the hostility to the ‘New Left’ enthusiasm for nationalisation and public ownership and control of industry best represented by Tony Benn’s various White Papers, from the Labour Party’s frustratingly moderate leadership. The result, when combined with obstructive behaviour from his civil servants and vicious smears against him from the mass media, had been to hamstring his abilities to implement in office the policies decided by Party members and trade unionists before the General Election. He was restricted to the nationalisation of a few failed companies and PR visits to experimental workers’ co-operatives at Triumph and Meridian.  

Progress towards ‘reaping the rewards’ of North Sea oil had, however, been slow. It was only in 1975 that the crude oil first began coming ashore. That year, according to Andy Beckett in his excellent ‘When the Lights Went Out: Britain in the Seventies’, British production was a ‘tiny’ 34,000 barrels a day. By 1976 it was ‘still insignificant’ at 253,000 barrels a day, ‘comparatively small’ in 1977 at 792,000 barrels and in 1978 at 1,119,000. ‘It was not until 1979 that the output of the North Sea approached the level that it has maintained since, and it was not until 1985 that Britain’s oilfields reached their first production peak’. Legislation was passed in November 1975 to tax North Sea oil profits at a rate of 45%. The architect of this was the left winger Thomas Balogh, a junior Energy Minister. ‘From a low base,’ he describes, ‘the contribution of North Sea oil revenues to the government’s income began to climb steeply: 0.3 per cent in 1976-7, 0.6 per cent in 1977-8, 1 per cent in 1978-9. By the North Sea’s mid-eighties peak, a full tenth – and arguably a politically decisive tenth – of national tax receipts would be coming from its unlovely metal archipelago.’ (see Beckett’s book, page 198-199).


If Benn’s policies at the Industry Department had caused rancour with the bosses’ union, the Confederation of British Industry, having been moved to the Energy Department, though a demotion, meant he set himself the task of trying to further left-wing causes - which caused severe rancour, putting it mildly, with the emerging world superpowers that were the multinational oil corporations. 

He initially proposed that the oil companies would work in effect as contractors for the (nationalised) British National Oil Corporation. The corporations responded to this by holding back on their North Sea operations and his scheme, further damaged by a lack of confidence from cabinet colleagues, was significantly scaled down.


In 1978 Benn proposed that growing tax revenues from the North Sea ought to be put into a national ‘Oil Fund’ and used to invest in Britain’s struggling heavy industries onshore. This was similar to a scheme already in place in Norway. The plan again did not win the support of the Cabinet, who felt that the hungry social security budget was too urgent a priority for Britain to be able to afford the policy.


It was not until 2008 that John Hacksworth, an economist with the Accountants, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, calculated that had Britain’s tax revenues from North Sea gas and oil been invested rather than consumed as part of normal Whitehall revenue, they would now be worth £450 billion, leaving Britain with control of one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds.

 Most of the revenue generated during the North Sea oil boom years was spent by the Thatcher Government on the increased welfare bill that accompanied the mass unemployment that defined Britain in the 1980s.


The Thatcher and Major Governments are, of course, also remembered for their destruction of the UK Mining Industry, both for revenge for the downfall of the Heath Government by the Miners’ Union and also in pursuance of the ideological aim to smash the most prominent of trade unions in Britain. Whilst it is true that 212,000 mining jobs were lost during the Harold Wilson government in the 1960s, this somewhat masks the fact that in percentage terms the number of mining jobs lost under Thatcher  at 80% was nearly double.

 In 1985, 25 coal mines were closed by the Government-run National Coal Board. By 1992, 97 pits had been shut down. The remainder were privatised in 1994.

 Despite this, today 40-50% of our energy needs each winter are dependent on coal, the highest rate since 2006. In 2012, 16.8m tonnes of coal were mined in the UK, an all-time low, whereas 83% of our coal needs, some 44.8m tonnes, were imported. 96% of these imports came from just three countries – Russia, Columbia and the USA. (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/decc-energy-statistics,-march-2013). This despite the fact that there is an estimated 3,196 million tonnes of indigenous coal reserves at our disposal! (http://www.ukcoal.com/why-coal/need-for-coal/world-coal-statistics#)

 All of which leads us to today, and back to the Government’s adopted role as the PR arm of the gas industry. UK Government policy on fracking for shale gas and oil is driven by vested interests, is just if not more likely to push up gas prices than reduce them, and does not relieve us from dependence on volatile oil prices that are only in certain respects driven by increased global consumer demand. This is before we ask questions as to what consequences it might have for climate change.

The answer is clear: a negative one. In 2008, the Government of Gordon Brown became one of the first, through the Climate Change Act 2008, to place legally-binding restrictions on the total amount of so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ the UK can emit over a five year period, known as ‘Carbon budgets’.

The legislation was introduced with the aim of reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (from the 1990 baseline) by 80% when we reach 2050.


It is no coincidence that the current Government, alongside its promotion of the gas industry, is slowly retreating from these commitments. The Government’s gas policy goes hand-in-hand with the announced weakening of carbon budgets going into in the future (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/12/gas-strategy-would-ramp-up-construction-by-loosening-carbon-budgets).


It is perhaps easy to despair when considering all of this. Are these not problems rooted in the central foundation of the capitalist system itself – the private ownership of the world’s resources and their management in the interests of increasing the wealth of the minority at the expense (and starvation etc) of the majority? Unless we genuinely believe in a utopian new world order in which all things as we know it are turned upside down, there do not appear to be any easy answers to the energy dilemna. Nor is it easy to deal with the conundrum of balancing rising consumer energy demand with what must be the paramount government energy policy: to reduce carbon emissions and global warming. That is, unless we intend to leave our children a catastrophic environmental legacy.

Perhaps such despair is then indeed justified. But simply because we cannot solve that conundrum at a stroke does not mean we should accept the consequences of a destructive and ill-thought-out policy willingly. If we are to convert to an economy founded upon sustainable and environmentally-neutral energy production we should be doing that now and not diverting investment into any project that runs counter to this. We can take baby steps, and if protesting against fracking keeps the debate within the public’s attention it is probably worth doing.


To coin a phrase, the Government can frack right off!


Joe Culley

From Red Petrograd to the Redcar Sea Front - A Tale of Two Towers

$
0
0
Now that the sun is starting to take its hat off, and is making a belated appearance in our sky, time for a day trip to somewhere like Redcar.    Once you are there, time to check out what was last year's most controversial building project on Teesside - the new 'Vertical Pier', commissioned by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council as part of wider ambitious plans for the regeneration (the non Dr Who type) of this seaside town.


A universal truth about a lot of people in and around Redcar is that anything that new is utterly hated by them.  Many hated the pedestrianisation of the top half of the High Street, although I can remember how exhaust fumes seemed to fill the shops. They hated the new Morrisons Store, although that blocked any attempt to build an out of town superstore and is now hugely used.  They hated and still hate the offshore wind turbines which block the idyllic seascape view of, er, Hartlepool's Nuclear Power Station. And they hated the Vertical Pier. Still hate it, many of them, and they use it as a all-purpose excuse to attack a Labour Council.

Now we have this chorus of bile joined by the Daily Telegraph. Dinnae worry.  The paper have put it on their list of Britain's possible worst buildings and are inviting readers to give their verdict on.   This is par for the course.  The Tory Telegraph, which is forever harking back to a non-existent better 1950's, hates any original building design, whether it be the Festival of Britain's Skylon, the National Theatre, Euston Station, Terminal 5 or any wind turbine, any time, anywhere.   No surprise here, then.

Now I have mixed views about it, but now that it is here, I would rather have it that not have it, although if I had been around when the scheme was dreamed up, I might have argued in a much less sexy fashion, that the capital might have been better directed to buying up empty High Street and Esplanade shop units and then renting them off on easy in, easy out terms for local start up niche retail business,   


No matter, the decision was democratically made and Teesside has now its own tower.





Pier Review


Problem is, is that in my head I had this vague feeling that we had been here before in terms of the design of the Pier.  Like an "ear worm', when a bit of music you cannot identify goes round and round in your mind, the Pier design just seemed so very familiar from somewhere..


Then, late last year, the penny (or perhaps the Kopeck) dropped. As a former tyro teenage member of the local 'Party of Lenin', I was brought up by my party elders and betters on the virtues of "actually existing socialism" (only to be found East of Checkpoint Charlie) and the dreams of the Bolsheviks.   One aspect of the latter was the way that the 1917 revolution sparked off a tidal wave of outlandish, but incredibly expressive, artwork -  spanning painting and posters, music, writing, cinema and architecture.





Shout it loud - red and proud


And it was a massive work of 'constructivist' architecture, to be forged by the efforts of the factory proletariat in steel working, that had been my visual ear worm memory. It was the projected but never built Tatlin Tower, a structure planned for post revolution Leningrad.


The tower was a design for a grand monumental building by the Russian artist and architect Vladimir Tatlin.  His dream was that this 1,300 foot high metal megalith would be erected in the centre of what was then still "Petrograd" as the headquarters for the Communist International, the federation of world communist parties, and as a hub HQ building for the Petrograd Soviet.





Projection of Tatlin's Tower if it had been built


Tatlin's tower was to be built from industrial materials like iron, glass and steel, which would have been fabricated in local Petrograd factories including the massive Putilov engineering plant, a factory whose workers provided the shock troops for the October revolution. (the 'Great Works' in Victor Serge's novel of 1917 Petrograd 'Conquered City') The tower, in terms of materials, shape and function was to be a massive monument to modernity and the revolution. The height was deliberately designed to be taller that the highest buildings of the capitalist era, including the Eiffel Tower and the planned skyscrapers for New York and Chicago.

The shape was original.  Long, long before Watson and Crick's (and the ignored Rosalind Franklin's)  discovery of DNA, it was to be sculpted in a Double Helix form, around which visitors and building users would be transported by various mechanical devices including lifts and escalators.  The main steel framework would support an internal structure of four large suspended geometric structures, all of which would rotate at different rates of speed. The building was at a tilt, the same as the Earth's, at 23.5 degrees. .

At the base of the structure was a cube which was designed as a venue for lectures, conferences and legislative meetings, and this would complete a rotation in the span of one year.  The cube was also designed to host the congresses of the Third Communist International. The pyramid would make a spin in 30 days and would be the home for the Comintern bureaucracy. The thin cylinder was to revolve once a day and host a newspaper editorial offices and a print plant. 





The Soviet stamp of approval

Above the cube would be a smaller pyramid housing executive activities and completing a rotation once a month. Further up would be a cylinder, which was to house an information centre, issuing news bulletins and manifestos via telegraph, radio and loudspeakers, and which would complete a rotation once a day. 

At the very top, there was an hemisphere for a radio studio and above that a powerful short wave transmitter and an aerial capable of beaming broadcasts across the world. There were also plans to install a gigantic open-air screen on the cylinder, and an another projector which would be able to cast messages across the clouds on any overcast day. Given Redcar's normal weather, this is something that could still have utility, but I have to say that, given the vitriol cast on the Pier and the Council by many of Redcar's grumpies, huge messages from the Labour Group on any lowering clouds (backed up by noisy loudspeaker exhortations) might not go down a bomb with some.

In a sense though, some of these activities actually did  foreshadow some elements of the Vertical Pier and the associated regeneration work in Redcar.  After all, a radio station, Palace FM, are installed in the new 'hub'  and I gather that most RCBC Committee meetings and council meetings will transfer there from their present building share with the South Bank City Learning Centre.      

In the end, unlike the Vertical Pier, the Tower was never built,   An early decision of Lenin's was to move the Soviet Government's base to Moscow from more peripheral Leningrad, and thus with it, the activities that would have been housed in Tatlin's Tower. The main killer fact however, was that it would have consumed most of the new USSR's steel output and fabrication capacity at a time when that steel was needed for the munitions, railway lines and armoured cars needed to transport and equip the new Red Army, an army now facing a civil war against the counter revolutionary Whites, and backed by western governments (including Great Britain's).


Tatlin never again dabbled in constructivist architecture, retreating to clothing design and music (he was a virtuoso Balalaika player) and remarkably surviving intact through the dark Stalin years.






Vladimir Tatlin                                 


The seeming similarity of the Vertical Pier and Tatlin's tower is remarkable and rather touching to me.   Granted, the Vertical Pier is - as it says - vertical, against Tatlin's tilt,  But the surrounding spiralling steelwork around the pier tower (now named officially the 'Beacon') gives an impression of tilt, and I have met people who swear blind it is out of the vertical and is becoming the 'Leaning Tower of Redcar' - which again is a concept I love.




Kate Curtis


A peerless Kate Curtis


I would hope that Kate Curtis, the Associate Architect from Harrogate based practice Smeedon Foreman, will give a tilt (sorry) of her hat to Vladimir and his tower, happy in the knowledge that, in the whirligig of time, her vertical pier design was both the subject of intense debate and now sees the light of day - or at least as much day as Redcar can muster........


Walshy

"PIONEERS, OH PIONEERS" - MARION COATES HANSEN AND THE STRUGGLE FOR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE AND SOCIALISM IN EDWARDIAN MIDDLESBROUGH.

$
0
0
Sometimes Wiki can come up with the goods, and in a trawl I was doing for a later piece on the growing electoral influence of socialism in the Teesside and South Durhan area between the founding of the Labour Party and the coming centenary of the General Election of December 1923 which saw the formation of the first ever Labour Government, I came across this detailed entry for Marion Coates Hansen, an ILP, a suffragist and a Labour pioneer in Middlesbrough.   As wiki entries are anonymised I cannot thank the writer here.   But, I give my thanks to he or she, and reproduce the entry below in full.  Tragically I can find no photograph of Marion Hansen - can readers help here ?

The next posting will be on her contemporary and sister-in-law Alice Schofiield Coates.

David Walsh.

Marion Coates Hansen., born Marion Coates (c.1870 – 2 January 1947), was a feminist and women's suffrage campaigner, an early member of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) and a founder member of the Women's Freedom League (WFL) in 1907. She is generally credited with having influenced George Lansbury a leading London member of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) and the future Labour Party Leader, to take up the cause of votes for women when she acted as his agent in the 1906 General Election. This led to Lansbury becoming one of the strongest male advocates for the women's cause in the pre-1914 era.

Hansen spent her almost her whole life in Middlesbrough after moving at an early age from West Yorkshire and was an active member of the local ILP. Born into the well-to-do Coates family, she was drawn to socialism through her association with Joseph Fels, the American industrialist and social reformer for whom she worked as a nanny in the US in the early 1890s. She was one of a group who left the WSPU in protest against the increasingly autocratic attitudes of Emmaline Pankhurst and her daughter, Christabel, towards the organisation's general membership. After the First World War and the securing of female suffrage, she took up local politics in Middlesbrough, became a Labour Councillor in the town, and was involved in housing reform and slum clearance. Her contributions to the cause of women's rights has largely been overlooked by historians, who have tended to concentrate on higher profile figures.

Little information has been published about Hansen's early life, education and upbringing. She was born Marion Coates in 1870 or 1871, in Osbaldwick, West Yorkshire. Whilst still a young child, the family moved to Linthorpe in Middlesbrough Among her siblings were two older brothers: Charles and Walter, who became successful businessmen, and were associated with the American industrialist and social reformer Joseph Fels. Through the Fels connection Hansen travelled to Philadelphia,probably in the late 1880s or early 1890s, where she worked for a time as a nanny in the Fels household.


During her American sojourn Hansen discovered and was inspired by the poetry and democratic philosophy of Walt Whitman On her return to England she became an active proponent of socialism and women's rights, using the pages of the radical Socialist Democratic Federation's newspaper Justice to attack the standard Victorian male prejudices concerning the roles of women in society. 


When one leading socialist opined that women ought to be "captivated and charmed by the beauties and possibilities of socialism", Hansen wrote a condemnatory reply in Justice: "We women are not going to be bought like goodies ... We are coming as comrades, friends, warriors to a state worthy of us, not to dolldom" Around 1900 she married Frederick Hansen, a member of a well-to-do Middlesbrough family with socialist beliefs. The Hansen and the Coates families were influential members of the local ILP, in which Marion Hansen, as branch secretary, was the driving force; she, her family and their associates were known in local socialist circles as "the Linthorpe set". From time to time this group's influence and their paternalistic attitudes, in particular their permanent control over the branch's executive committee, caused resentment among the more working class membership. Another point of contention was the conflict of interest between Hansen's ILP duties and her growing interest in the politics of feminism.  In 1903, when the WPSU was founded to promote the cause of women's suffrage, Hansen became an early member.

A WSPU meeting, circa 1908
The WPSU, founded in 1903, was a breakaway movement from the National Union of Women's Suffrage Society (NUWSS) which promoted the cause of women's suffrage by gradualist, law-abiding methods.   Certain NUWSS members, led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her family, wanted a more active strategy and a more specific goal: to secure voting rights for women on the same basis as for men. They founded the WPSU with the motto "Deeds not Words", and the new body began to build an activist membership. Initially, the WPSU did not promote the kinds of disruptive actions which later became its hallmark; the change in tactic occurred in 1905, when it appeared that reform via the parliamentary route was doomed to failure.with a bill was 'talked out' by its opponents and was not put to the vote. Sensing that the Liberals would soon become the governing party, the WSPU sought assurances from the party's spokesmen that they would, when in power, legislate on votes for women. The failure of the Liberal leadership to give this commitment led to the adoption by the WSPU of more aggressive tactics. From the autumn onwards Liberal party meetings were regularly heckled and harassed;


George Lansbury in old age (1938). Under Hansen's influence he became an ardent supporter of women' suffrage after 1906.
Hansen's first recorded contribution to the WSPU cause came in September 1905. Anticipating that a general election would be held in the near future, she secured the candidacy of George Lansbury for Middlesbrough Constituency on a programme that included a specific commitment to votes for women. Lansbury was a local councillor in London's East End, a tireless worker among the poor and disadvantaged of the Docklands. He became known to Hansen through the Coates family's connection with Joseph Fels, who had worked with Lansbury in the organisation of work schemes to assist the unemployed. 


Because the local ILP. via the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) to which the ILP was nationally affiliated, was bound by a secret election pact with the Liberals to support the Liberal candidate, Havelock Wilson, they could not endorse Lansbury. Hansen, given the widespread knowledge of Wilson's anti-socialism (1), tried without success to bypass this restriction. She wrote to Ramsay MacDonald, the national secretary of the LRC, pointing out the advantages for the Labour movement in supporting a candidate such as Lansbury, but MacDonald was unable to help.


In consequence, when the election came in 1906, Lansbury stood as an independent socialist. Hansen persuaded Lansbury to include in his election address not only a commitment to women's enfranchisement but other radical socialist policies: Irish Home Rule, state pensions, full employment and trade union recognition. Her close involvement with Lansbury's campaign—she acted as his agent—angered some in her local party, but she fulfilled her duties with calm efficiency; according to Shepherd she "displayed the essential quality of any agent ... to maintain optimism in all situations, whatever the daunting difficulties". Her husband Frederick acted as campaign treasurer, and most of costs was borne by Fels and Walter Coates. Nevertheless, when the election came in January 1906, Lansbury's socialist brew proved too much for what his biographer John Shepherd describes as "the mainly working-class, all-male electorate", and Lansbury was heavily defeated. Wilson received 9,227 votes, a Tory 6,846 and Lansbury 1,484—less than 9 percent of the total vote.


Hansen was primarily responsible in introducing Lansbury to and educating him, in the issue of women's suffrage, a fact that he acknowledged when writing to her in October 1912. Shepherd writes that in due course, "gender was to replace social class at the head of his concerns and preoccupations" and votes for women became for him the overwhelming question of the day. After Lansbury finally entered parliament in 1910 he expressed to Hansen his lack of faith in the ability of his fellow-Labour MPs to secure women's enfranchisement, despite the party by then having a formal policy commitment. In 1912 Lansbury resigned his parliamentary seat—against Hansen's passionate pleas against such action—to fight for it on the single issue of votes for women; Hansen was devastated when he lost the ensuing by-election: "a more unhappy time I have never lived through". In August 1913 Lansbury was imprisoned for incitement, after publicly supporting the militant tactics of the suffragist bodies which had by then passed well beyond the threshold of lawfulness. Although he was quickly released, Hansen wrote to him with approval: "You have done a big thing for us. It ... shows how far in the dark ages we still are, especially in matters concerning the welfare of women".


Hansen's concerns for Lansbury extended to his family, especially to his wife Bessie with whom she formed a warm and lasting friendship. She felt that Bessie needed a break from her responsibilities for her large family, and invited her to stay in Middlesbrough for a holiday: "The boys can look after the [younger] children, the girls can cook dinner and Mr Lansbury can darn his socks".

Christabel Pankhurst a leading WSPU activist, photographed on graduation in 1905
In the year following the January 1906 general election, won by the Liberals with a large majority, the WSPU was active in a number of by-election contests. Hansen took part in several of these campaigns. At Cockermouth in August 1906, a divergence of view arose within the WSPU over whether Miners leader, Bob Smillie, the ILP candidate, should be supported. Smillie favoured women's suffrage in a general way, but was not a declared supporter; he shared with most Labour MPs the view that trade union reforms should take precedence over women's issues. Christabel Pankhurst and others decided on a separate campaign against all three declared candidates, and accordingly arranged rival meetings. This created difficulties for those such as Hansen who had strong ILP loyalties. Hansen followed Christabel's line, a course of action that further antagonised her local ILP and caused her temporary resignation from the secretaryship.

In her memoirs written many years later, the socialist suffragist Hannah Mitchell provides a number of glimpses of Hansen during the 1906–10 period. Mitchell remembers her campaigning during a by-election in Huddersfield in November; a little later, while leading a series of meetings, Mitchell caught a chill: "I became so ill that my hostess, Mrs Coates-Hansen put me to bed at once ... Thanks to her kindness I managed to get through all the meetings, and she insisted on my staying a few days to rest. The Hanson home was lovely, and it was the first time in my life I had ever been waited on, and nursed, while the beautiful courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Hanson to each other, and to their guests, made those few days like a glimpse of Paradise".

The WSPU continued to grow rapidly, but many members were become increasingly dissatisfied by the organisation's lack of democracy and its detachment from the Labour movement. The historian Martin Pugh remarks that to many, "[the WSPU] represented no more than a small central coterie that took little notice of its members' opinions".  When in September 1907 Emmeline Pankhurst abandoned the constitution and appointed an executive committee of her own nominees a number of members, including Hansen, left the WSPU and formed the Women's Freedom League. The WFL, while fully committed to the activist struggle, adopted a wider democratic constitution.   It collected many of the WSPU's working class members and promoted better relations with the Labour movement in parliament.   Hansen joined the WFL's initial executive committee.

Despite her role in the formation of the WFL, there are few records of Hansen's activities on its behalf, although her correspondence with Lansbury in the years up to 1914 indicates that she remained passionately committed to the cause of women's suffrage. She may have been one of the WFL members who attempted to petition King Edward VII at the State Opening of Parliament on 29 January 1908, and may have participated in the mass pickets of the House of Commons and Downing Street organised by the WFL in the summer of 1909.[ Hansen's future sister-in-law Alice Schofield (she married Charles Coates in 1910) had greater visibility; an active WFL organiser, she was imprisoned in 1909 for her part in a demonstration at the House of Commons.  Although the two women shared common political and ideological concerns, they were not close; Alice Coates's daughter Marion Johnson, interviewed in 1975, revealed that the two disliked each other, and where possible kept their distance.


After the First World War, during which the women's suffrage campaign was largely suspended, Hansen does not appear to have resumed her WFL activities. In 1919 she and Alice Coates became the first women elected to Middlesbrough Borough Council – Coates was elected a week before Hansen.   The two were among the very few active suffragists who took up local politics. Hansen's main concerns as a Councillor were related to slum clearance and housing; During the 1930s she spoke against the indiscriminate destruction of properties in St Hilda's, maintaining that many houses scheduled for demolition "possessed fine elevations and interiors which make fault finding a difficult task". Florence who was childless, lived with her husband in the home she christened 'The Red House' in Nunthorpe (still standing).  Later, after Frederick Hansen's death, Hansen lived in Great Ayton where she died on 2 January 1947.


Shepherd quotes Lansbury's description of Hansen as "a very slightly built woman: her frail body possesses an iron will and a courageous spirit. The freedom for which she strove was one which would emancipate body, soul and spirit".Shepherd also remarks on Hansen's relative invisibility after her active life was over: "her name is rarely even mentioned in the standard histories of the suffragette movement". whilst the local history society at Nunthorpe refers to her as "an extraordinary feminist whom historians have forgotten"



Syria - The Case for Peace, Not War

$
0
0
A golden rule I try to work to is this: there is no such thing as a ‘foreign policy expert’. Actually that’s unfair. There is.

What I should say is that most politicians, media and armchair commentators alike, have no real idea what the consequences of any particular foreign policy decision are likely to be. It is all a question of subjective conjecture and, frankly, guesswork.

The best we can do is to identify our values and muddle through. I have no foreign policy credentials at all, but my own subjective opinion is that it is a bad idea to bomb, shoot or fire missiles at people as a matter of principle. Another subjective opinion I hold is that many of the most prominent advocates of bombing, shooting and firing missiles at people are those that I would describe as ‘bloodthirsty lunatics’.

When David Cameron recalled Parliament this week to seek endorsement of his plan to launch a couple of dozen Tomahawk missiles into Syria, only to be sensationally rebuffed by a combination of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MPs in an historic House of Commons vote, many of these ‘bloodthirsty lunatics’ thrust themselves onto the pages of our newspapers, our social media feeds and our television screens to decry this proud moment for democracy as instead an act of morally bankrupt weakness.

First up was Dan Hodges, the vehemently anti-Labour Torygraph columnist, who stunned the Twiterrati on Thursday night with his declaration that he was in fact a member of the Labour Party. Not anymore though. As if it wasn’t bad enough for Desperate Dan that Ed Miliband had on most humdrum issues of the day refused to support the position of David Cameron, the refusal to give succour to the Prime Minister’s mad rush for war was the ‘final straw’. He’s cancelled his direct debit, he tells us, as though anyone’s supposed to give a toss. (1)

Nick Clegg, Paddy Ashdown, Simon Hughes and Shirley Williams, all of whom have the principles of your average Liberal Democrat, used the London Evening Standard before last Thursday’s vote to demand a ‘strong response’ from the so-called ‘international community’, piously reminding readers that the use of chemical weapons is a breach of the 1925 Geneva Convention, drafted in the shell-shocked wake of the First World War. (2)

Now there is Tony Blair, special advisor to the Dictator for Kazakhstan and erstwhile elder statesman of these own Sceptered Isles.  In a column for ‘The Times’ (presumably tapped into a keyboard whilst bobbing up and down on the Mediterranean yacht of a playboy tax exile) the former PM simplifies the debate on Syria  to a choice between ‘acting’ and ‘not acting’, and demands, contrary to the wishes of either the British people or our Parliament, that ‘we act’. (3)

Certainly the question of military retaliation intended to uphold the principles of international law, which is rightly repulsed by any form of chemical warfare, is a momentous one. Not least because to intervene in Syria for this reason would represent a break with our own historical policy on the question, which has seen us both promoting and turning a blind eye to the practice depending on what suits at the time.

We had no issue with the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran conflict of the 1980s, responsible for the death of approximately 100,000 Iranian soldiers, without counting the civilian casualties on both sides. It would of course have been very difficult for the USA, UK and French governments to roll out the condemnation at that time, given that they were the ones responsible for providing Iraq with those weapons in the first place. (4)

Nor did the ‘liberal interventionists’, so keen in 2013 to ‘send a clear message’ to the Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons, advocate a bombing campaign against Israel following the use of white phosphorous during the war in Gaza in 2009. Campaign group Human Rights Watch assert that this was tantamount to a war crime as, whilst the use of white phosphorous is technically legal when used to provide smoke cover to troops, it surely falls foul of international convention when it is sent over densely populated areas where no troops are present. (5)

I’ve also yet to hear calls for the forcible destruction of the Israeli Institute of Biological Research, allegedly the home of a chemical weapons program at the heart of the Middle East. (6)

It does seem a very strange for the United States to set up a distinction between the use of chemical weapons and the means of mass destruction they have deployed throughout history in pursuit of their own murderous military adventures. The USA remains one of few nations yet to sign up to Protocol III of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons 1980, which restricts the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm. Perhaps this is not surprising given that the Americans themselves dropped an approximated 338,000 tonnes of napalm on Vietnam between 1963 and 1973. (7)

Let’s be clear - napalm is pretty nasty stuff. If caught in an attack the compound will stick to human skin, causing severe burns and asphyxiation. A firebomb makes no distinction between military and civilian. Dropped from a low flying plane a napalm bomb is capable of causing damage to an area of 2,500 square yards.

To this day the United States is culpable of the most ‘unsurgical’ war currently taking place on planet Earth. Since 2004 there have been 360 air attacks launched by unmanned ‘drones’ in Northern Pakistan, 318 of which have occurred since President Obama was elected on his platform of ‘hope and change’. 2,800 people have been killed in America’s drone war during this time. At least 600 of these were deaths of innocent civilians and ‘unknowns’. (8)

What is also puzzling about the calls for ‘intervention’ is the fact that Western governments have already intervened in the Syrian Civil War. Ten months after the conflict began, Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills granted export licences to British firms to sell to Syria compounds used in the production of chemical weapons, such as Potassium Flouride and Sodium Flouride. Labour MP Thomas Docherty – a member of the House of Commons committee on Arms Export Controls – will in the coming week table questions on the matter and demand an investigation into how this occurred and whether this may have enabled chemical attacks to take place. This is something taken up by the Labour Front Bench, with today’s comments by Chukka Ummuna. (9)

In fact we intervened in this conflict practically from the outset. First by demanding regime change and then by supplying the Syrian rebels with £8m worth of ‘non-lethal’ equipment including five 4x4 vehicles with ballistic protection, 20 sets of body armour, four trucks, six SUVs, and anti-chemical warfare equipment. (10)

Meanwhile, the UK and French Governments together forced the European Union to lift the arms embargo on Syria, with the explicit aim of allowing weapons to reach the rebel forces from wealthy backers in Qatar. The American Government then gave the green light to Saudi Arabia to import weapons to the rebels. Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that since at least 2011 Special Operations Forces Traning, Engineering and Maintenance Support (SOF TEAMS) from the US, UK, France, Jordan and Turkey have been ‘on the ground’ in Syria gathering intelligence and providing training to rebel forces.(11)

All of which has now led to the violent stalemate that potentially cripples the best prospect for ending the conflict: a negotiated peace.

Quite contrary to claims of Western ‘inaction’ in Syria, it was our haste to intervene that has led directly to the escalation from a brutal, violent suppression of street protests by a sectarian dictatorship – which is one thing – into a full-scale proxy war between competing regional interests. The losers in which have been the Syrian people now engulfed in deadly carnage.

The Syrian National Council, which has now been officially recognised by 17 members of the United Nations (including the UK, USA and France), is made up of a diaspora of groups and organisations. These include the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood led by Ali Saddradine Al-Bayanouni ; the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians (an alliance of a dozen Kurdish, Muslim, Christian and Arab groups united by their opposition to the Ba’athists);  and the ‘Damascus Declaration’, itself an umbrella organisation dating back to 2005 that comprises the (Arab Nationalist) National Democratic Rally, the Kurdish Democratic Alliance, the Committees of Civil Society, the Kurdish Democratic Front, and the ‘Movement of the Future’.

Also part of the SNC are the Syrian Democratic People’s Party, the Supreme Council of the Syrian Revolution, the Assyrian Democratic Organisation, the Syrian Turkmen Assembly, the Syrian Turkmen Democratic Movement and the Syrian Turkmen Democratic Bloc.

It would be wrong to assume that rebel fighters are only organised along these distinct lines. In fact there is a great deal of circulation of manpower, information and weaponry. Fighting alongside SNC affiliates are other front organisations such as Al-Qaeda associate Al-Nusra Front, the ‘National Coordination Committee for the Forces of Democratic Change’, a bloc of 13 mostly left-leaning political parties and youth movements, the National Democratic Rally – an 1980 alliance of five banned political parties, and the Syrian Islamic Front founded in December 2012 who have the intention of overthrowing Assad and establishing an Islamic state.

This doesn’t even mention the Kurdish nationalists, who have been fighting for independence in Iraq, Turkey and Syria for decades, and who are now organised in fighting in Syria under the auspices of the Kurdish National Council.

Supporting the opposition internationally are the United States, France, Britain, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Sunni-led Free Iraqi Army. Meanwhile, the Syrian Government has received sectarian backing from Hezbollah and Iran and, most significantly, the diplomatic support of Russia.

The Russian interests at stake in the Civil War should not be underestimated. The Tartus Naval Base is the only such base held outside the former Soviet Union and before the 2011 uprising the Russian Government entered into a lucrative arms deal with Assad.

Whilst it is true that most of the rebel forces have, unsurprisingly, made public calls for direct Western military intervention in the conflict on their side, I think it is very noteworthy that today the European spokesman of the National Coordination Committee, Haythan al-Manna, warned against the dangers of such a move. Dismissing any prospect of a US-led military strike restricted to the Government forces he warns that any attack can only cause harm to the Syrian population.(12)

‘We are not in favour of a satanic intervention against a satanic regime’ he told the Huffington Post. He points out that 70,000 lives have been lost during the two years that the rebels have refused to negotiate with Assad and suggests that any prolongation of the conflict is only in the interests of the Syrian President and Al-Qaeda.

Building a case for the UK to participate in any military attack against Syria was always, therefore, likely to prove difficult. Those of us who aren’t ‘bloodthirsty lunatics’ take the starting point that use of force is always a worse option than not using force, and the burden is always on those who would launch an attack to demonstrate the utility of doing so.

David Cameron and other hawks have failed to convince the British public precisely what could have been achieved by launching a couple of dozen Tomahawk missiles into Damascus, and have not been able to demonstrate how such an action could have saved lives or brought the conflict to a speedier conclusion.

Nor, without UN sanction, would such an action have been legal. Whilst there are some who would dismiss questions of legality as a cowardly distraction, the tide of consensus now seems to have arrived at the sensible conclusion that a world in which military force is the arbiter of conflict rather than international institutions, bodies and laws, is a world in which our own long-term security is at risk. Eventually there will be nations that are stronger than us, and if we want to continue setting precedents that international law is irrelevant if a country is powerful enough to ignore it we do so out our peril.

Even if there can be a specific mission identified with clear, achievable and realistic aims, and even if it can be demonstrated that this will be of humanitarian benefit rather than harm, and even if is legal, there are still further questions as to whether we are in favour of sending working class British teenagers into a proxy world war in the Middle East, whether intervention is worth the risks of retaliation from the 100 strong Syrian Air Force against British bases in Cyprus, and whether the costs of doing so can be justified alongside the redundancies of thousands of nurses, public sector pay freezes and sell off of publicly owned services, land and assets.

With the news that President Obama will now consult Congress on military action in Syria, it may just be the case that the British House of Commons has tilted the debate towards meaningful peace negotiations. This is the preferred option for the secular opposition inside Syria, who look to the ‘Geneva II’ peace conference in Switzerland. Assad has always accepted the need to attend at the end of this year, and is aware that he will almost certainly lose Russian support if he does not. Were the US, Britain and France to step back from war this would allow room for Russia to place pressure on the Syrian President to move to a settlement, which may in time include his own resignation and moves towards a power-sharing agreement. Should the West now refuse to intervene militarily it will also force all elements of the opposition, including the hardliners responsible for most of the fighting, to attend the conference without pre-conditions.

It is a ‘powder-keg’ situation, but this seems to be the best hope of reaching any form of agreement for the cessation of hostilities, necessary before a resurrection of Kofi Annan’s six point peace plan (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10583.doc.htm) can be attempted.

We can help domestically too. Approximately 2 million people have fled the violence since the conflict began, and the latest UNHCR reports (13) indicate that the numbers of refugees likely to flee hostilities will soon overwhelm neighbouring countries. The Government has already pledged £350m in humanitarian aid to assist with the costs of accommodating the large and growing displaced population, but with the tipping point nearly reached the British Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council and Refugee Action have called for a co-ordinated European Union effort to relieve some of the pressure placed on the crowded refugee camps.  

The British Government can therefore play a positive interventionist role in the Syrian crisis – a role that does not see it bomb anyone.

Joe Culley

 

SOURCES:













"PIONEERS, OH PIONEERS 2" - ALICE SCHOFIELD COATES AND A HALF CENTURY OF STRUGGLE FOR WOMEN AND LABOUR IN MIDDLESBROUGH.

$
0
0
After the last post on Marion Coates Hansen, I now follow up with a piece on Alice Schofield, who later and after her marriage, Alice Schofield Coates, became Marion's sister in law.  
 
A short potted biography of Alice in contained in a booklet published by the Centre for Women and Democracy and written by Nan Sloane (who older readers will remember as a rather formidable Regional Officer for the Labour Party who covered Teesside).  The booklet "Challenge and Change" and which chronicles the history of Women Councillors in the region is available in full on the web. I recommend a browse. 


By David Walsh
Described as an “indefatigable worker for the liberation of  women” (1), Alice Schofield Coates was a suffragette and ILP and later Labour activist who in 1919 was the first woman Councillor to serve on Middlesbrough County Borough Council.  Having grown up in Manchester, she followed an early career path common amongst suffragettes and became a teacher. In 1903/04,  she joined Mrs Pankhurst's Women’s Social and Political Union and it was at around this time, that she told a Liberal candidate, Winston Churchill, to “shut up and sit down” when he failed to stick to the point in a meeting over which she was presiding (2).


A Dorman Museum waxwork of Alice from the 1980's - someone should have told the MBC museum service that as a left wing ILP socialist she would never have posed next to a WW1 recruiting poster !

In 1907, she left the WSPU and joined the fledgling Women’s Freedom League (WFL). In 1909 she became the WFL organiser for Middlesbrough, got arrested whilst attempting to present a petition to Parliament, and served a month in Holloway prison – later describing the experience as “dreary”(3) - and was rescued from a pelting of rotten eggs and ripe tomatoes in Guisborough by her friend and comrade, Charles Coates. The couple were married the following year and were described as, “generous in their gifts and public services” (4) Alice was elected for the Ayresome Ward in 1919, using the slogans, “Healthy Homes and Clean Administration” and Public Health is Public Wealth”. Her sister in law, Marion Coates Hanson, was elected a week later. Alice remained a member of Middlesbrough Council until 1935.




She continued to campaign to improve the lot of women and workers throughout her life. She remained involved in the WFL, she was associated with the National Council of Women – attending international conferences in Rome and Geneva as a delegate -, and was still distributing leaflets in the 1950s advocating equal pay for equal work (5) 



She was widely regarded as a pioneer within the Labour movement, involving herself in health (serving as the Vice Chair of the Middlesbrough National Health Insurance Committee and Vice-Chair of the Middlesbrough Branch of the Social Hygiene Council), education and sanitation work, housing, and pioneering welfare work during the Second World War. She sat on the Middlesbrough magistrates’ bench for 35 years.   

Footnotes on sources.

1 Evening Gazette, 29.04.58 
2 Evening Gazette, 13.06.58 
3  Crawford, Elizabeth. (2001) “The women's suffrage movement: a reference guide, 1866-1928” p130.       4 The Northern Echo, 16.05.1939
Evening Gazette, 23.10.1951 

SATURDAY 21st SEPTEMBER 2013, 10.30am, CT.U & U.W.R.C, 119-121 Marton Road, Middlesbrough, TS1 2DU.

$
0
0
Cleveland Trade Union & Labour Movement History Society (CTU&LMHS) is hosting a presentation by Dave Walsh and Trev Teasdel on George Markham Tweddell. (Saturday 21st September 2013 at 10.30 am) and I invite you to attend.
 
CLEVELAND TRADE UNION AND LABOUR MOVEMENT HISTORY SOCIETY
 
Present:-
 
GEORGE MARKHAM TWEDDELL - CLEVELAND CHARTIST, POET, WRITER AND VISIONARY
 
"A PREPARED MAN FOR THE COMING REVOLUTION"
 

 
George Markham Tweddell, born in Stokesley in the year 1823, was a remarkable man of his times. A pioneer Chartist, agitator and lecturer, he was 'a bard of Cleveland', a writer - including a 'People's History of Cleveland' - and a correspondent with a wide circle of political, radical and freethinking individuals across the North of England.   It could be said that he was one of the first people in the North East to have become familiar with Marxist conceptions of economy, history and philosophy, and may have rubbed shoulders with Fred Engels.    His life spanned a century of radicalism, from birth in a small country town that was a hotbed of Paineite sedition, grew to adulthood in the Chartist years and was a first hand observer of the huge changes in local society that saw the growth of Teesside and East Cleveland as industrial districts based on ironstone and steel.  By the time of his death in 1903 the Labour Party was founded, inheriting the radical ancestral conscience of his Chartist antecedents.
 
Speakers:-
 
David Walsh - "Tweddell, a Paineite upbringing and Chartist adulthood"
Trev Teasdel  - "Tweddell, the writer, poet, observer and historian"
 
Cleveland Trade Union and Unemployed Workers Resource Centre, 119 Marton Road, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS12 2DU
 
For more details contact Bob Stephenson at the centre on 01642 244200 or email:- office@ctuuwrc.co.uk
 
“This is a free event but donations would be welcome to cover expenses”
 
I look forward to seeing you on Saturday 21st September 2013 at 10.30 am

LABOUR FIRST OFF THE BLOCK - THE STRANGE CASE OF SHADOW TAKING ON SUBSTANCE.

$
0
0
By David Walsh
 
Labour's Annual Conference opens this week, and the debates within the party on its future shape and direction  will take place under a relentless media spotlight, as will the comments and views of the factions and groupings active within the party.  Most active Labour Party members and people on the left generally are well aware - through lobbying and by mail and e-mail shots to party members and CLP's -  of the various pressure groups within the Party.   That list is too long to give in full, but it includes organisations such as Progress, the Labour Representation Committee, the Socialist Campaign Group, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and many, many others.    

But, I suspect, very few members have ever heard of "Labour First". Google it and little, if anything, will come back.  They do not do mail shots, they do not hand out leaflets outside the Annual Conference, or at Regional Conferences.  Yet they are an important and influential group because of their composition and antecedents.   

They are the lineal descendants of the old 'moderate' TU Leadership Group that fought the battle of the 1980's against the new left of the day. That Group, named the 'St Ermin's Group" after the London hotel where they met was made up of people like Roy Grantham, General Secretary of what was then APEX, Hartlepool's Bill Sirs of the ISTC and whoever was leading the GMB at the time.   The organisational backbone of this group was delegated to senior policy officers of those Trade Unions, a small number of MP's and some of the Local Government leaders sitting on the NEC.  

Now called "Labour First" they are still alive albeit shadowy, still active and still highly influential. If I was asked to say what was their motivation today, I would say that in general they still abhor some of the left within the party, whom they always suspect of sectarianism and grandstanding.   But they also heartily distrust and dislike the people they see as  the floppy haired, well-schooled and smart suited new Labour Types who, in their view, devalue the role of the Trade Unions, and who they suspect (rightly, in my opinion) of being jaundiced about working class activists - especially those who don't know their place, and who don't get on the North London supper party circuit.  For these reasons, many of the people around "Progress" are not on their Christmas Card list.

In my book, the left could profitably look to a tactical accommodation with Labour First. Unlike most of the people around Progress, Labour First people share the left's understanding of structural class inequality.  They support the redistribution of wealth and power. They understand the need for Trade Unions, the ethos of Trade Unionism and the need for the protection of true collective decision making and action.

Now the shadow of this possible accommodation is starting to take physical form. The recent panicky knee jerk  (1) reaction to what looks now to have been the small stushie  storm of the Falkirk selection - a storm now over and done with - from the small circle of people around the current leadership has forced Labour First to do something they have never done before, which is to make tentative overtures to a wider circle than the inhabitants of the tea room of Congress House.    

For that reason, I found myself approached by someone (no names no pack drill) who asked me to pass on their speedy reaction to the Collins review into LP structures and procedures, for our local Teesside CLP's and for discussion.

In nearly all its full glory (2) it is reproduced verbatim below (in italics)

It  is long - but sorry, it is important.  It certainly pulls no punches, and - if you take out the recurring pejorative language about the 'left' (which shows that some of their people still seem to want to fight a war that ended a generation or so ago) - many of what I would call the thinking left would agree with their arguments and suggestions.

In short they want to 

*  Keep the Link alive, and not split the Party from the Trade Unions.   They propose here a number of  reforms which actually extend this link down to an active local (CLP) level rather than merely at NEC level.

*  Put the boot into what they see as the daft and elitist idea of so-called "primaries" for parliamentary and other selections.

*  Keep, and beef up, the partnership funding structures between CLP's and Trade Union sponsored MP's  and PPC's.

For what it takes, this is a shopping list that many on the left can buy into.  Labour First may now be able to gain friends if they can now go one step further and not view the entire left as rampant anarchists or trots.  Can they do this ?  That remains to be seen.

(1)    The best take I have seen on the Falkirk SNAFU is by Phil Burton-Cartledge (a very public sociologist) on his blog.   


(2) for sake of brevity and as we are 250 miles from the GLA building, I have taken out an overlong and large paragraph about how to safeguard any "primary" for the selection of the London Mayoral Candidate, something that may, despite everyone's reservations, still happen.  If anyone wants to see it, let me know and I will e-mail it on.


Labour First

Introduction

Labour First believes that the affiliated trade unions are an integral part of our Party.  We welcome Ed Miliband’s bold statement that he wants ““to change the way individual Trade Unionists are affiliated to the Labour Party….. Individual Trade Union members should choose to join Labour through the affiliation fee, not be automatically affiliated”.

We want to take forward this aspiration in a way that further integrates individual trade unionists into Labour Party activity so that our activist and candidate base better reflects the composition of the electorate, whilst preserving the institutional relationship between Labour and its affiliates, which has been a source of organisational and financial stability.

The conduct of parliamentary selections to ensure fairness and transparency

We support the basic principle that parliamentary candidates should be selected by OMOV, thus ensuring members have democratic control over the picking of the candidates they will campaign for.  It should not be possible to recruit members with voting rights in a selection, and hence stack a selection, once a vacancy has been formally announced (in the case of a sitting MP announcing their retirement) or for a period of 12 months before the process starts, whichever is the longer period taking precedence. Members can still join during this period but should not be able to take part in the process.

Everyone who joins the Labour Party as an individual member should complete and sign a full application form. They should be on the electoral register and all contacts must be through that address. If another person is to pay their membership, the member must sign a form agreeing to this. These won't eliminate fraud and vote buying, but should reduce it substantially. (This should be done not just to address the sort of issues arising from Falkirk, but the reasons why other CLPs are in special measures). 

The current process is too long, which adds to its expense for candidates and acts as a deterrent to some participants, particularly those with jobs outside politics, or caring commitments. It means that Labour prospective candidates are usually only able to pursue one selection in any cycle whereas other parties’ shorter processes allow candidates several tries at different seats. We would propose the entire process could be run in a maximum of 4 weeks from opening nominations to final hustings.  We want to retain the basic shape of the current process: nominations by branches and affiliates, shortlisting and then an OMOV hustings, but reduce the time between each of these events. 

We would retain the NEC’s powers to shortlist in by-elections and in very late selections, which given we now have fixed-term parliaments can be defined more tightly than in 2010 as any selection starting after 1 March 2015. There should be a spending limit of £200 plus 5p per member, with a return of expenses provided to the procedures secretary. Doorstep, email and phone contact with members should not be limited but members should be able to opt out of further calls or emails relating from a candidate. The invitation to the hustings meeting or ballot papers should include 1 A4 leaflet from each candidate. 

The recent selection of MEP candidates was too long (4 weeks voting would have been sufficient), involved excessive spending (with one candidate reporting an £18,000 donation) so needs tighter spending limits, and would have benefited from a more obvious way for members to opt out of receiving emails from candidates. In every region members should have been presented with a shortlist to rank that was longer than the number of candidates to be selected. Prior to shortlisting by regional boards CLPs and regional affiliates should have had nomination rights. Any candidate approved as fit to stand by the panel should be able to seek nominations, and anyone who achieves a threshold (e.g. 5 CLP nominations) should go forward to the OMOV ballot to be ranked.

The development of a new relationship between the Labour Party and individual members of our affiliate organisations

The union link works. It gives a voice in Labour's policy making to millions of ordinary working class voters whose concerns are grounded in the realities and bread and butter issues of the workplace. It means that Labour's leaders are elected by a large, representative sample of those who actually vote for the Party.

The link gives trade unionists not just individual voices in the Labour Party but collective voices through their unions, an expression of our collectivist rather than individualist values as a party.
Across the world the most successful progressive parties are the ones with deep ties with the trade union movement.

The link needs strengthening at a local level with far more trade unionists being encouraged to both join the Party as individual members and become union delegates to their constituency parties. CLPs want more union delegates to attend their meetings, not just paper affiliations. The link provides a constant conveyer belt from union activists of recruits to public office - councillors and MPs - virtually the only way in which ordinary working class people get to hold public office - if it didn't exist the PLP would be even more dominated by lawyers and other professionals and career politicians. Of course this is not to say that everyone supported in a selection by a union is working class. In policy terms it is difficult to see how anyone could think that the Warwick Agreement reached with the affiliated unions was not a positive input to Labour's 2005 and 2010 Manifestoes, including important policies on workers' rights that might otherwise have not been committed to. 

When the Labour Party hits hard times, the unions keep it going. When it tried to self destruct in the 1930s, '50s and '80s the unions were the voice of sanity and moderation. We owe our existence as a party to the decision of the unions to set up the LRC with the Fabians and ILP, and to the work of individual trade unionists in setting up a CLP organisation on the ground. Without the unions we are just A.N.Other centre-left political party like the Lib Dems or the SDP - rootless, not embedded in the communities we represent, and liable to be blown away by the first political gale just like the Liberals were in the early years of the century and the SDP were at the end of the '80s.

We support the proposal that only those members of affiliates who consciously opt-in to a relationship with the Labour Party should be considered as affiliated members. It is only these opted-in members who should receive voting rights in Labour Party leadership and deputy leadership elections. 

The weighting accorded to the various affiliates within their sections of the Electoral College, Annual and Regional conferences and elections for the NEC and NPF should accordingly be based solely on the number of their members who opt-in, not on their total membership. This will incentivise each affiliate to promote opting-in. 

We do not propose any change to the collective weight accorded to affiliates in either the Electoral College or Annual or Regional conferences as we think these balances are a durable constitutional reflection of the balance between the different political stakeholders in the Party. For the same reason we would not support reducing the MPs’ and MEPs’ share of the Electoral College. Anyone elected as Labour Leader should be able to demonstrate they have a credible level of support from their colleagues in Parliament, from our affiliates and from individual members. 

However, should the number of members of affiliates who opt-in ever fall below the number of individual members of the Party we would propose that the weighting between affiliates and CLPs should move from 1:1 to a ratio based on the ratio between individual and affiliated members. For example, if there were 200,000 individual members and 200,000 or more affiliated members the current equal weightings in the Electoral College and at Annual Conference would apply. But if there were 300,000 individual members and 200,000 affiliated members the Annual Conference weighting would move to 60% CLPs, 40% affiliates, and the Electoral College to 33% MPs and MEPs, 40% CLPs, 27% affiliates.

The same principles should apply within each Region to weighting at regional conferences i.e. affiliates affiliate to the region based on the real number of opted-in members in that region, and if the total of all of these affiliated members falls below the number of individual Labour Party members in the region, the balance of votes at regional conference moves from 50% CLPs:50% affiliates to a ratio based on the ratio between individual and affiliated members in that region. This mechanism would incentivise affiliates as a whole to promote opting-in.

The annual fee charged to affiliated members is currently only £3, which is rather derisory given the voting rights accorded. We need to consider raising the fee that affiliates pay per affiliated member to a more realistic figure. 

The Labour Party at national, regional and CLP level will need to have access to the contact lists of opt-in affiliated members of each affiliate in order to: 

(i) Establish that affiliation levels are based on the real number of opt-in members o Prevent entryism by vetting and barring any applications to opt-in from people who there is evidence are supporters of other political parties or proscribed organisations 

(ii) Contact affiliated members to encourage them to become individual members of the Labour Party 

(iii) Involve affiliated members in campaigning for elections and on issues, and in the wider political, social and cultural life of the Labour Party 

(iv)  Encourage affiliated members to vote in local and national elections 

For this reason, in order to be constitutionally valid, the opt-in form presented to members of affiliates will need to include their consent to their membership data being provided to the Labour Party.  Affiliated members would continue to have their current constitutional rights plus the greater level of involvement in the campaigning, political, social and cultural life of the Labour Party inherent in the Labour Party having full access to their membership details.

However, all other constitutional rights over selecting candidates and running for office would remain the preserve of full individual members.  Affiliated members cannot be given identical rights to full individual members as there would then be no incentive for members of affiliates to pay full rate membership.  The Labour Party would actively promote to affiliated members the right to become full individual members of the Party, with the right to participate in selections, hold office etc, for an additional payment to bring them from the affiliation fee paid by their union to the minimum rate of individual membership (currently £21.50). 

We would like to see the membership fee for all affiliated members, unwaged members and members on less than the national average salary reduced to £15 to equalise it with the rate previously offered to members of affiliates and to enable easier recruitment in working class communities so that our membership more represents our voters.  In order to prevent recruitment exercises among affiliated members (or anyone else) motivated solely by the desire to stack the membership of a ward or constituency prior to a selection, we would recommend a one year freeze date for all selections (local government and parliamentary), so that everyone who is eligible to vote in a selection has proven they have a long-term rather than selection-motivated reason for joining.

The process for trigger ballots for sitting MPs would continue to include votes for locally affiliated branches of affiliates as well as party branches, as this provides an essential element of stability without which some MPs would be constantly distracted by de-selection attempts. 

The current balance on the NEC between CLP and Trade Union representatives is lop-sided (6 vs 12) and the small size of the CLP section means it is difficult to achieve BAME representation or regional balance, with a disproportionate number of CLP reps from London due to its large membership.  We would propose an NEC equally balanced like the Electoral College, with 12 representatives of affiliates (11 for the unions and 1 for the socialist societies), 12 for CLPs (with representatives elected by OMOV by pairs of regions, with a second rep for London due to its large membership, in order to ensure gender balance)1 , and 12 for elected members and other interests (Leader, Deputy Leader, Treasurer, Youth Rep, BAME Labour Rep, EPLP Leader, 2 Councillors, 2 backbench MPs or MEPs and 2 frontbench appointees).  The Treasurer should be elected by the same Electoral College process as the Leader and Deputy Leader to reflect their role as a senior office holder representing the whole Party and all three groups of stakeholders in it. 

We would not change the current composition of the National Policy Forum except in so far as the above changes affect it. 

We want CLPs to continue to have the right accorded to them by Refounding Labour to choose whether to have an All Member Meeting model or a General Meeting with a delegate structure. The former makes sense in smaller CLPs but the latter remains a useful and inherently stable model for larger CLP's where there are many branches and affiliates, active demands for local affiliates to be physically represented, a very large membership (making all member meetings impractical) or an imbalance in activist numbers between communities and branches in the CLP which might lead to under-representation of some groups in the CLP at an all member meeting.

The use of primaries in the selection of Labour candidate for London Mayor and for Parliamentary selections

Our concerns about primaries are based on the lack of evidence of any public demand for such a process, as shown by the turnout of only 20,019 in the Tory primary that selected Boris Johnson in 2008, out of over a million people who went on to vote for him in the election itself. There is even less appetite for constitutional innovations like this in the Midlands and North than in London.

The premise for it the London primary is a myth that a primary might have in itself produced a different outcome in the 2010 Labour selection, and that with a different candidate we might have won. The second part is arguable, we will never know. But any serious observer of London politics would be able to tell you that Ken Livingstone would have won that selection whether through the 50-50 CLPs and affiliates OMOV Electoral College actually used or a primary.

Primaries should be rejected for a number of reasons:

They are bad for Labour’s internal democracy, diluting members’ say in choosing candidates. This is at a time when members want more say in selections, not less.

In the London case a primary weakens the union link as the affiliates currently have 50% of the vote (cast based on aggregating One Member One Vote ballots of ordinary union members).

Primaries cost an immense amount to run and involve a vast amount of organisational effort. Like it or not we are not cash or resource rich as a party and should spent both on campaigning, not on a gimmicky way of picking candidates. You can’t run a primary on the cheap without the risk of electoral fraud or complaints of too few polling stations. Our guesstimate based on what it cost in constituencies where the Tories held them is that a London primary would cost about £3 million to run in a fully democratic, transparent way. We simply don’t have a spare £3 million, and if we were going to charge people to vote as in France, turnout won’t be good and we might as well register them as members and stop pretending it is a primary.

Campaigning to win a London-wide primary with potentially millions of voters would be beyond the resources of any potential candidate without big money or a huge media profile. You might as well give the Evening Standard 100% of the Electoral College as they will be able to make or break candidates, or just state “only celebs need apply”. Our calculation is that a proper campaign in a primary would cost about £750,000 per candidate!

As stated above, there is no evidence of public demand for a primary. We will be doubling the number of times we ask people to vote, in an era of declining turnout. The primary will have far less than the 38% turnout in the actual 2012 Mayoral election. It would therefore be vulnerable to differential turnout by particular communities or campaigns which might saddle us with an unelectable candidate.

In the US primaries are administered by the state governments, ensuring minimum standards regarding the conduct of the poll, and the states also include a party affiliation question in voter registration, so that “closed primaries” for your own party’s supporters only can be run. Neither facility is available in the UK and both would involve unpopular public subsidy of Labour’s internal democracy.

The rise of the Tea Party shows how in a primary system a well-organised, well-funded and hyper-energised extremist grouping can foist its candidates on a more mainstream host party. 

We should focus on recruiting members and supporters to the Labour Party, so it becomes larger, better funded and more representative of the public. We should also spend time identifying and encouraging our strongest possible candidates to run for Mayor, not tinkering with the selection process. We ought to reject the idea of importing a US organisational model that was developed for specific US reasons.

We do not think that primaries are an appropriate way to select parliamentary candidates other than in two categories: 

Vacant Labour –held CLPs that are deemed by the NEC to have membership so low (below 200) that it is unrepresentative of the Labour voters in the CLP, or are in some other way grossly unrepresentative e.g. the membership is disproportionately from one ethnic or faith group when the electorate is not, or disproportionately from one town in a multi-town constituency. There were fewer than 20 Labour-held CLPs with membership under 200 in 2012, one of them is Falkirk. 

CLPs which volunteer to pilot primaries. In the latter case the CLP would shortlist candidates from those nominated by branches or affiliates. In the former, the NEC would draw up the shortlist.  These pilots would be run under the same rules and electorate as the mayoral model set out above and can be set aside if fewer than 1,000 voters register to participate. o There should be a spending limit of £200 plus 5p per elector who registers to participate in the primary, with a return of expenses provided to the procedures secretary.  Every person who registers to participate should receive an A4 leaflet or electronic equivalent from each candidate with their ballot.  Anyone registering to participate in the Party would automatically be considered a “Labour Supporter” as defined in Refounding Labour with regard to voting rights in future leadership elections, and their registration would be data available to CLPs on Contact.Creator. 

We do not think that primaries are an appropriate way to select local government candidates (including borough elected mayors) in any circumstances, given the low likelihood of public interest, the risk of stacking, and disproportionality i.e. positions at this level do not justify such an expensive or organisationally arduous process.

 Constituency development agreements between affiliated organisations and constituency Labour parties

We do not believe there is a great necessity to alter the current arrangements regarding CLP development agreements with affiliated organisations.
Viewing all 225 articles
Browse latest View live