The City Deal - Pipe Dreams on Teesside?

December 14, 2013, 3:56 am

≫ Next: A Deviation from Deviation Junction

≪ Previous: The Attack on the Poor the Press Missed

$

0

0

If anyone had bothered to read the ever declining Evening Gazette last Friday, you could have been excused for thinking the second coming had arrived from the skies over Teesside.    As it was, and as I don;t know at the time of writing how he came up here, this second coming was either the more prosaic sight of David Cameron landing in a small executive jet at Teesside airport (probably the only flight of the day, given the general somnolence that coats this once busy transport hub) or at Darlington Station - and, if so, ironically courtesy of a state run and profitable East Coast Train.

He was here to announce the worst kept secret of the month - that the Government had given the green light to the 'City Deal' - the much vaunted initiative to give a boost to Teesside's  process sector and low carbon economy.

This was done in front of a captive and unenthusiastic audience of workers at Eaglescliife's Tetley Tebag factory - handy for Stockton South Toryboy James Wharton, as it is in his constituency.  It seems that the workers were told that a 'mystery guest'was coming, and the plant would be shut down for the occasion.   Trouble was, was that the rumour went round it was Olly Murs, and the disappointment when DC turned up was palpable.    It was a press occasion, but even this was wasted, when the Gazette, out of all the issues  they could have quizzed him on, had instructed their reporter to ask him about of all things, Stockton's Christmas Tree.  ............. words fail me.

However, back to the  City Deal   As always, the devil is in the detail, and when one looks at what will be on offer, the actualitie, as against the headlines,  is pretty vague.   This didn't seem to stop an orchestrated hosanna of praise from some of our civic leaders and MP's who I suspect had not analysed the bid in any depth.  The reality is we have some concrete proposals that are very supportable, one that could worry some people and a lot that are still in the air.   We need to recognise the fact that this announcement does not mean the streets of Teesside will be overflowing with new sherbet fountains or golden elephants.

Pipe dream - or nightmare ?

 

From PRT's reading it looks as if the one key project given the green light for implementation is the district heating scheme for Wilton, a project to utilise the waste heat (and there is a lot of it) from the chemical site to heat local homes.  This has big implications for Dormanstown and Grangetown (as district heating schemes are limited by distance)    Coast and County will be big players here, and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council will have to be on ball in terms of the planning and street works that will be needed.

The Carbon Capture and Storage bid seems to be limited at the moment to ask local agencies to begin 'design and conceptualisation' which is something and nothing, as much work has already been done here by firms like Progressive Energy and many of the local chemical players.   I gather from well informed sources that there was a lot of resistance to this project from DCLG and DECC civil servants, worried as they were, that this might be dissed by their knuckle dragging ministers as 'green crap'.

The one element that may worry some people - the so-called 'flexible planning system' (basically applying the existing Wilton Instrument of consent to South Tees and Seal Sands) has been agreed and has to be developed by the middle of next year.   This gives our local council planners the time and space to make sure this does not become a green light for developers looking to see the area as a dumping ground for projects which are problematical (toxic wastes, etc).    This means clear instructions need to be given by Stockton and Redcar and Cleveland Borough leaders to their planning teams to make sure that the parameters of the new designation can block such developments.

 

All the rest seems to be agreement in principle which we will have to monitor.  However, one scheme, the transformation of the Grangetown TATA labs into a multi-industry Research and Development Unit needs to be given more priority as TATA, who have made it clear that they want to divest from this former BSC / Corus facility, will not wait around for government fannying about..

All Gas and hot air ?

There are some big losers.  In geographical terms there seems little for either Darlington or Hartlepool, with the main investment going to schemes in Stockton and Redcar and Cleveland.   Crucially, transport planning and spending on projects for this area, I hear, was rejected outright at the first Tees Valley Unlimited  / Government meeting by Department for Transport civil servants who were not going to cede any powers over project funding whatsoever. (and probably worried that this would expose further the fact that most transport funding is going to London for things like Crossrail) .  This will also impact on the ability for Teesside to provide first-class logistics by road, rail, sea and air arising  from the overall scale of development. 

In terms of jobs, there is an element on apprenticeships but the bid was always seen as 'a capital development based' bid. The key argument is whilst the job creation element at the end is small (that is the logic of chemicals / process development), the locational pull of this development creates jobs down the supply chain such as with end users, logistics and process engineering fabricators.  This is a realistic and supportable prospectus, but it will still need extra support in training and development to support these activities, as City Deal in itself will not have the cash or powers to move into these sectors.

Also fascinating in the general hoo-ha is that no-one has said anything about the 'combined authority' condition. This one was insisted on by government, but seems to have been buried by a combination of Borough big-wigs and Chief Executives who are not going to vote for an early Christmas.   I suspect too, that, as any new Teesside or Cleveland wide council would be both a powerful beast and one controlled by Labour,  people like Eric Pickles or Cameron are not going to run vigorously on this one. 

The key issue is whether it all really means anything - or nothing.     One comment from a future Teesside politician - Redcar's PPS Anna Turley - sums this all up, and is welcome, coming as it does for a person hoping to capture a seat which may benefit from the City Deal.   Her release - making a key point on the highly abstruse, but central issue of 'additionality' against other government funding streams (something also picked up on by the Northern Echo) is below

"Labour and Co-operative Parliamentary Candidate Anna Turley reacted to the news of the Tees Valley 'City Deal' with a welcome - but also a warning.

Anna said "The news that the City Deal has been accepted is one I welcome in principle.  Support for the expansion of the crucial process industry sector on Teesside, an area of existing excellence, has strong local roots and local support. At a time when long-term unemployment has increased on Teesside every gesture from this government helps.

"However, I feel this deal could have gone further, and doesn't come close to the scale of support Teesside had under the previous government. There is nothing here to support local transport and very little on skills - key barriers in driving growth and jobs on Teesside. The scale of financial investment in industrial infrastructure is insufficient and is less than the cost, for example, of the sea defences in Redcar. While 'unlocking private sector investment' sounds great, there is no financial commitment here from the government. The proof will be in the pudding.

"At the same time I have a warning that there has to be structural change to meet the challenge that has been set.   Firstly, the City Deal has to be 'additional' to the funding streams that support regeneration on Teesside not instead of.   Back in the Thatcherite 1980's , when areas like Teesside first became eligible for EU funds for development and training, the reaction of Whitehall ministries was to shut down funding streams on the basis that 'Europe can pay for this'.  We do not want to see a repeat of this 30 years on.

"The second issue is that a key component of the City Deal bid is that the local councils on Teesside were required to make a commitment to a 'combined authority' to oversee all elements of development policy - from training to highway and transport provision and the physical regeneration of communities blighted by decades of unemployment.   A similar approach was asked of councils in County Durham and Tyne and Wear, and this is now being put in place.   The same has to be done on Teesside.    We are all Teessiders and need to work to a local government structure that recognises this."

We will all now have to wait to see if this is all a pipe dream - or a nightmare.

Walshy

---

A Deviation from Deviation Junction

December 22, 2013, 10:03 am

≫ Next: Old Marx's Almanac for the year 2014

≪ Previous: The City Deal - Pipe Dreams on Teesside?

$

0

0

Nothing better that a good whoodunit thriller for those seemingly short days and nights that lie between Christmas Day and New Years Eve, and what better than one that, amazingly, sets the bulk of its action right here in Teesside and East Cleveland.

You should best read this book in the evenings, when the distant vibration of the trains bringing wagon loads of potash along the winding line from the Boulby Mine to Saltburn can be heard across the dark fields and back streets of East Cleveland, or the rumble of loaded steel and container trains running through the heart of urban Teesside reverberate across the town centres.

All of this is a hopelessly long-winded way of saying that as a socialist, someone interested in railway and local history and well constructed whoodunits, I was well disposed to Andrew Martin's novel, 'Murder at Deviation Junction', featuring "Jim Stringer, Steam Detective", a mystery set largely in the mining villages of East Cleveland and the back streets of Middlesbrough in the snowy, gaslit week running up to Christmas 1909.

Andrew Martin, born and raised near here at Robin Hood's Bay, is an unusual combination of a railway nut (his dad was a bigwig of some kind with the old BR at York) and a committed socialist.  

His love and deep knowledge of the 'railway community' (something which I know does exist, despite all the best efforts of the privateers) allows him to pain the interdependence of railwaymen and women, something deep in the ethos of the rail unions, and how it informs the actions of his characters.

Socialism on steel wheels ? The ringing grooves of change.

To return to the book.  Jim Stringer, a former fireman, and with his roots still on the footplate, has now been prompted to be a member of the North East Railway Company's Police, based at York Station, where his  normal mundane day to day work is chasing fare dodgers and luggage thieves.  At the start of this story he is returning to York the long way round via Whitby from a fruitless trip to Middlesbrough pursuing an early version of a Eric Cantona style footballer thug around the St Hilda's area, and finds himself stuck in snow at 'Deviation Junction' (a thinly disguised Carlin How Cragg Hall sidings) where he is on hand to witness the finding of a corpse of a man in an unused lineside hut.

Being ambitious - and up for a promotion to Detective Sergeant, something which carries the prospect of placating his rather pushy and socially and politically emancipated wife - he decides to investigate the case despite being it well off his patch geographically - and in doing so finding himself in conflict with his bullying boss.

In his quest he colludes with an Edwardian beer monster Stephen Bowman, a roving reporter for The Railway Rover Magazine, and their trail leads to the mystery of the collective demise through foul means of a group of Teesside industrialists and local gentry, men who previously travelled to their Middlesbrough offices in the exclusive confines of their own private Club Class carriage. The pen portraits of these men, mine owners, shipping agents, ironmasters and lawyers, is one I vividly recognise from the history of our past, and the description of the fine old Middlesbrough Royal Exchange - a lovely old building now sadly lost to the A66 flyover, and the centre of these men's professional life - on a snowy pre-Christmas afternoon, is especially gripping, as I remember the building in its last years.

The last week of the Royal Exchange

The investigation of the disappearance of these men, and the body at Carlin How, now roves further abroad with Jim Stringer going from an over the border pub in Middlesbrough to London's Fleet Street and thence on to the far North of Scotland before the eventual cliff hanging ending at - of all places - the railway viaduct above Kilton Beck and Skinningrove Village on a dark and snowy Christmas eve, a dark night only lit up by the flaring furnaces at the Skinningrove Ironworks.

In this adventure, no-one is what they seem - certainly amongst Jim Stringer's police colleagues - and cross, double and triple cross is the order of the day. Indeed, Jim puts both his job and his marriage on the line to pursue the murderers, but at the end the case is simply and finally an open and shut one (and that's the only clue I will give).

The paperbook book, published by Faber and Faber, can be lent, I guess, from your local library or snapped up cheaply at any second hand bookshop.  But read it - it puts us, our patch and our forbears on the map after all.

Walshy

Old Marx's Almanac for the year 2014

December 30, 2013, 4:28 am

≫ Next: All the Fours

≪ Previous: A Deviation from Deviation Junction

$

0

0

"Well, my lieben smoggy kamaraden, you have asked me my help, and as a tribune of the people and someone who was always trying to divine the nature of human society I will try to oblige.    But. my friend, I will not and can not be guided by narrow orthodoxy.  I will cite one of my first political opponents on moving to your land - Prime Minister Viscount Melbourne, the man who put down the 1831 agricultural labourer's revolt and who opposed even the mildest of capitalist innovations - the Reform Act - and who said    "What all the wise men have promised has not happened, and what all the dammed fools said would come to pass, has come to pass,"

Let us therefore, from the perspective of a fool, look at the world and firstly the petty bourgeois affection for elections.   Now all the interesting ones have happened, and we now have the consequences of these in France, the USA and Germany.  We have also had the mysterious process of political succession planning in China -a society that for some reason still officially reveres me although for what or why I cannot fathom.  

Of the coming year, of the interesting ones, we have only Brazil, South Africa and India - i say 'only' - but in a sense they are of immense importance as these are the nations that are now most enthusiastically embracing the transformational power of capitalist innovation and technical change that I (or rather, to be honest, my horse riding, hard drinking and wenching friend, Comrade Engels) wrote of in the Manifesto of 1848.  Of India, it is to be hoped, even in the most mundane fashion, that the Congress Party with its historical links to your own social democracy retains power, as for all its nepotism and dynastic intrigue, it recognises wider truths than its BJP opponents who are only interested, it seems, in caste based Hindu nationalism. In South Africa. the ANC will win, but people are increasingly frustrated with corruption and poverty. Even the emotions unleashed by Nelson Mandela’s death may not help the ANC. As people reflect on Madiba’s legacy, the dissatisfaction with President Zuma - shown by the booing he received at Mandela's memorial rally - will grow

Zuma - booing, booing gone ?

In Brazil, the Workers Party should also keep power at presidential and congress level - but much for better or worse depends on the outcome of the so-called 'World Cup' for the game of soccer which is to be hosted in that nation.   To be honest, I never cease to be surprised at how powerful this sport has become in your civil society.  Engels always mentioned to me how the soccer obsessed operatives at his Manchester mill support a team of obscure footballing railway workers from nearby Newton Heath - but I always predicted that this is merely a passing fad and a diversion from the class struggle - and how right I was about the second assertion !  Still, to placate your readers I will add two prophesies; firstly that the coming year's English title will come to be the property of a team formed by the advanced engineering proletariat of your once greatest armaments factory and, secondly,  that your own Middlesbrough will again go exactly nowhere, but will still be cheered by the prospect of playing again, their nearest and dearest neighbours on the banks of the Wear.........

And what of your nation ?  I gather that the two bourgeois parties that hold power have combined to determine  that the election, as much as it may be needed to liberate the workers and strugglers, will not come to pass until 2015,  None the less, the parties will be on manoeuvres but all also show grave internal strains. These will be most accentuated in the two governing party coalition which will develop more fractious schisms as the months unfold.  They will duel over the capitalist structure that is the European Union, over the issue of immigration, in which the Tories will have been shown not to have changed one iota since the days they tried to keep me out of your nation on the grounds that I was a 'German Jew'.  They will also argue over civil liberties and the meagre dole that your nation maintains in the spirit of the Poor Law of my time.    But they will not split.  At heart both are simultaneously scared, and socially contemptuous of, your party of Labour - a party that is but a weak approximation of what I and Engels called for in the 1870's, but one still deserving of support.   There is also a Celtic issue to reflect on;  Scotland will vote on Independence from the UK... and the result will be ‘No’.

I need to also speak of the current travails within Labour.  These concern the way the workers pennies are to be collected and used.   Here there seems to be no change from the mind set of those Ox-like Trade Unionists and Westminster 'patrons of the poor' that I and Engels had to engage with in our time.  The former, then as now, are prone to bellicosity of speech, but timidity of action, whilst the leaders of the latter, afraid as always of their own shadow, make eloquent speeches, but are always prone to seeking some kind of centre ground nirvana with those they fondly see as 'friendly and advanced liberals'.   The debate over the workers pennies is to go to a special congress of the party of labour, but in reality, such is the desire on both sides for a quiet life, that the issues will be quietly resolved long before that congress, by way of muted conversations in Brewers Green and Great Russell Street, and the massed ranks of the workers, peasants and intellectuals making their way to some great London hall in March, will in reality be spending the train fare monies of their local parties in vain, as the matter will be by then a mere fait accompli.

Whatever will become of the Unlikely Lads ?

These schisms will however have a duel effect.  The Tories will continue to lose support to the deeply reactionary forces of the so-called UKIP, but - perhaps surprisingly to you - the sight of the soggy, socially servile Liberals appearing (if only in illusion) to be differing with their partners may lead to them maintaining a more healthy vote amongst the middling classes than would be otherwise expected.   This will mean that the least interesting of the elections on the coming year - the poll for the paper tiger 'European Parliament'' - will in your country at least, not be as expected.  True, the petty bourgeois and backward looking UKIP will still garner the vote of many of those of your countrymen still blindfolded by the chimera of empire and the 'nation state'  but both your Liberals and the Party of Labour will do better than expected. Indeed, as with earlier demagogues like Horatio Bottomley and Lord Beaverbrook,, both of whom formed similar parties, UKIP will only survive on the charisma of its leader.  Indeed at their grassroots there is sign of decline.  They are splitting in local council chambers and in the electronic intelligencer that is your Facebook, their Redcar and Cleveland Branch mentioned that only 4 people attended a recent branch night - something hastily deleted days afterwards

In the same fashion, the  Westminster bill on a European referendum devised by that milksop acned callow Tory youth from your part of the country, Mr Wharton, will be going nowhere, drowned out by the Lords and is destined to the darkness of a parliamentary oubliette, as indeed will be Mr Wharton  the following year.   

The regular roundabouts of British political scandals will continue, based as they are on the drivers of sexual lust,financial  avarice and greed and the struggle for power, and one now very near to the surface (according to the idle gossip of your internet) and relating to the first driver on my list, may well bring back into public gaze a former Tory politician once closely linked to your very own area of Great Britain - and I spell that carefully............

But all these matters are at heart mere small ripples on the great oceans of the world.   At heart everything is determined not by such trifling issues but by the roaring engine of capitalism.   My Lieben friends, I must commend to you one paragraph from our Manifesto of 1848;

"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober sense his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."

As it was then so it is now.    

So what may we see on the world economic stage ?   We see emerging changes in both production and the finance industry. We see the first stirrings that all may not be well in the most dynamic economy of all as the Chinese banks face their first ever 'credit crunch' with their so called central 'Peoples Bank' acting to push money into the system to prop it up.   This has a ripple effect as we start to see Pacific rim cash piling instead into the yen as the global recovery falters, driving a desperate Bank of Japan fearing artificial overheating  to delete all government debt as it tries what it calls a “simple but untested accountancy trick” - a trick that has never before been performed and of which no-one knows the rules.  And in all this, what of the potential role and actions of the Chinese working class - the greatest collective agglomeration of workers in the world ?

The dogs that have not yet barked ?   Chinese workers in the Guangdong region

In the US we see, a repeat of 2013 as right wing bourgeois Republican politicians begin to perform Act 2 of "50 ways to lose your economic marbles", with renewed Congress squabbling leading to deflation in the world’s biggest economy.  At the same time, we see the US domestic economy shooting itself in the foot, as, whilst they congratulate themselves of reducing their dependence on overseas oil by the development of fracking, they fail to see we are now facing a plunge in the oil price to $80 a barrel, as these new unconventional production methods cause a global oversupply, and the hedge funds start to 'short' crude - to the detriment of the whole economy.

And finally, via one of my aphorisms that you still use now - 'today as tragedy, tomorrow as farce'- we will see a repeat of the Dutch Tulip craze and the South Sea bubble, as investors realising the 700% premium that tech stocks like Amazon, Netflix, Twitter and Facebook trade at are as unsustainable as the tulips or the un-named Pacific bubble stocks of the past, and as insubstantial as net space already is, begin to dump their commitments, leading to an overall dampening in the economy and the knock-on impacts on investing bodies that are supposed to secure the pensions of the proletariat and the middling classes, and which leads to a new and widespread fear of my favourite word - 'immiseration'.'.

Tulips  in Amsterdam

But finally, I have to warn of the unexpected which, as all fools will tell you, is always there.  If I,  like Mr Dicken's fictional ghost , were to take you by the hand to years-end past - and  specifically to 1913 - you would be utterly confused.   Then, the world had never seemed more peaceable.   Granted, Britain was in internal political convulsion.  But as the new forces of  mass Trade Unionism (and a Trade Unionism infected with the fighting germ of syndicalism) and the women's movement vied for the realisation of their demands, and over the St George's Channel opposing forces of Irish nationalists and Protestant Unionists drilled and counter drilled in anticipation of a civil war to come over Home Rule, over the rest of the world there was an overall pervasive sense of passivity.  

The great powers of the Entente had seemingly come to devise methods of coping with German probing at the rim of their spheres of influence ( and Germany itself now seemed pre-occupied with the consolidation of its new African colonies) and the former ever present boiling kettle that was the interlocking alliances of the warring Balkan states had seen two Balkan wars ending in negotiated peace - and with such new machinery in place to defuse conflict -  the world could look forward to successive ensured decades of international peace.  

Both the wise men and the fools combined to call it right then, didn't they ?    

Now if you will excise me, I have to rejoin Engels and pull him out of the pub, so as to again resume our perpetual debate with Bakunin, Hyndman, Morris and Lasalle.   This place is far more interesting than you may think.................."

(As told to the PRT over the sprouts and the Queen's message)

All the Fours

January 11, 2014, 3:01 am

≫ Next: The Day Before the Apocolypse

≪ Previous: Old Marx's Almanac for the year 2014

$

0

0

It might just be clutching at straws, but years ending in 4 seem to be lucky for Labour.  The first Labour Government was formed in 1924.  it was the 1944 Party Conference that endorsed the planks of "Face the Future", the manifesto that saw the 1945 election triumph and the founding of the post war settlement.  Labour broke with "13 wasted years" of Toryism in 1964, and again saw off Heath, the three day week and the Tories in the early months of 1974, repeating this in the October of the same year.

 

Back to 1964 for this piece.   People not around at the time would assume that Wilson's victory was a one off, and didn't reflect the overall affluence of the early 1960's (the time that Harold Macmillan said 'we've never had it so good'),  But this would be a facile picture.   The period from 1961 saw the resumption of high unemployment - something not seen since 1940, and which most economists said could now no longer recur due to expanding domestic consumption, a semi-planned economy and the adoption of new technologies.  As today, it was industrial areas like Teesside that suffered most, leading the Evening Gazette (of all people ! ) to organise a 'we want work' deputation and march on Whitehall, booking a special train for the journey to and from London.

 

One town that suffered most was Hartlepool.   In a matter of months in 1962, it lost what remained of its shipbuilding industry when Gray's Yard went bust and then closed.   This was then followed by mass lay offs and protracted short time working at the two local works of the South Durham Iron and Steel Company.

This produced a kick back from the left.     For an example of this, see below an article from the radical libertarian left magazine 'Solidarity' from March 1963.  Overblown and millenerian as it is, it does give a flavour of the  times as it was felt in Hartlepool.     One wonders who the writer, Terry Milne is, or was ?

Another reminder of the time in the same town, was a documentary film "Waiting for Work" made by Jack Ashley (later a Labour MP) for BBC TV and which, using film making tradition from an older pre-war left, 'let the people speak'.

This piece of valuable reportage can (in 4 separate episodes) be seen via YouTube on 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxAKfnbFWe0

walshy

We want work    (Solidarity Vol 2 no 9)  Feb / March 1963

 

"The whole atmosphere surrounding West Hartlepool is one of decay.     Factories stand idle.   Girders, red with rust, lie about in the churned up solid frozen mud of factory yards.  The main shopping streets were not crowded, even on Christmas Eve.  Even the pubs were half empty, a sure sign of unemployment in the town.

 

More than 3,000 men are on the dole in Hartlepool, or 12% of all insured workers.   The Government's report that 'the country is going to the dogs' because we've all too much to spend on fridges, horses and holidays on the Costa Brava, does not even raise a cynical smile in West Hartlepool.

 

I spent Christmas Eve speaking the men on the dole or on short time.    

Don McCullin 'Early Morning, West Hartlepool  1963'

At the new £3 million strip rolling mill blokes are only working four shifts a week,and two weeks out of three.    In the Labour Exchange men in cloth caps and mufflers hang about lending each other fags and a few bob.  They don't expect a weeks work now - a day's work would be a godsend.   If there are no jobs they all go down to the beach to scrape up the coal which is washed up from the offshore seams. They bag it and flog it for about a couple of bob for a bag.

Down on the beach, shivering from a cold wind blowing off the North Sea, I talk to Tom J, a 27 year old steelworker out of work for 9 months; "I'd like to give old Mac a kick in the balls'.  Arthur C, a 24 year old skilled fitter out of work 2 months; "I don't  like that ******.Leadbitter (West Hartlepool Prospective labour MP)  "he's too smooth.  Vote Labour and you'll be alright.  Don't bother to think for yourself.  Does he think we're a bunch of *****or something ?  All he wants to do is to get in Parliament".

Memories of better times or Grays elegy  ? - homeward bound from Grays Shipyard 1950's

 

Bitterness. Anger. That is the mood in the town.    And this was the mood of Ray P, 24 year old ex-merchant navy seaman, blacklisted after the last seaman's strike when he was the West Hartlepool Strike Committee leader.  Bitterness towards the employers.  Bitterness towards the Labour Party and the Trade Union leaders.  Anger towards the Tories.  "The Labour Party in West Hartlepool has done F all. The only hope for the working class much come from the rank and file militants in industry."  Of the Trade Union leaders he says "All they say is get back to work. They they drag up the old red bogey.  All they are concerned with is being 'respectable'. and 'responsible'.   What ever happened to the class struggle ?"

 

As the wife of one of the unemployed workers told me " I've been saving 2/6d a week since August to get my bairn a red toy train and ourselves a big joint for Christmas.  All the same we're not going  

to have much fun this Xmas."

Terry Milne.

The Day Before the Apocolypse

January 17, 2014, 5:23 am

≫ Next: Black Bob Banked Down. Death of a man who tried to kill Teesside.

≪ Previous: All the Fours

$

0

0

As an antidote to the Jingoism of Michael Gove, can I, via the Hansard archive, give an airing for speeches made in the House of Commons in the evening of August 3rd 1914 by Keir Hardie and a future Labour Minister, but then still a Liberal, Arthur Ponsoby ?  These interventions were made literally hours before the British ultimatum to Germany was to expire.  They were heard, according to the press reports, against a background of fierce heckling from pro-war MP's,  and were later passed over totally by Labour's Common Leader and MP for Barnard Castle, Arthur Henderson, who merely used the bulk of his speech to make observations about issues around food prices and conditions of employment that might obtain in time of war.

But with hindsight, it is clear that it was Hardie, an illegitimately born Scots Miner and Ponsonsoby, a son of a Private Secretary to Queen Victoria and heir to the Bessborough peerage (and the man who later coined the saying "In war, truth is the first casualty") who spoke for Britain that evening.

Walshy

Mr Hardie    "I desire for a very few minutes to intervene in this Debate. Both Houses of Parliament have passed, with absolute unanimity, a Bill for the relief of the Stock Exchange.

Hardie on the stump

We Members, from these Benches, offered no objection, but we now demand to be informed what is going to be done for the relief of the inevitable destitution which is bound to prevail among the poor? As the Foreign Secretary informed us, whether we take part in the conflict or not, there is bound to be much suffering. That involves starving children. Will the Government pass with the same promptitude as we have done the Bill for the relief of the Stock Exchange and the business interests, the Bill to compel education authorities to feed hungry school-children? We ask for an answer. We are far more interested in the sufferings of the poor than we are in the inconvenience to members of the Stock Exchange. Most of the Members of this House have a more direct interest in the Stock Exchange than they have in the sufferings of the poor. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!""Shame!" and "Name!"] The proof of that will be found if the same promptitude be shown in redressing and alleviating the poverty of the poor as we have shown in the other case. 

What action is to be taken, not merely to ensure a sufficient food supply, but to safeguard the public against being robbed by food speculators? Surely that issue is urgent and important! Not only will workers be thrown out of work by the million—it will not simply be by the thousand, but by the million—but the unscrupulous gang who form the food ring will take advantage of the war crisis to rob the poor more than the market justifies. They have already commenced, without justification of any kind. We are entitled to demand from the Government—not merely to request, but to demand—to be informed what action is to be taken to safeguard the interests of the working classes in the crisis we are now approaching.

One word more. The decision of the Government has been come to without consulting the country. It remains to be seen whether the Government and the House of Commons represent the country on this question. So far as some of us are concerned—here I do not speak for the party with which I am connected for the present moment, but for myself personally—we shall endeavour to ascertain what is the real feeling of the country and especially of the working classes of the country, in regard to the decision of the Government.

We belong to a Party which is international. In Germany, in France, in Belgium and in Austria, the party corresponding to our own is taking all manner of risks to promote and preserve peace. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do they not control the German Emperor?"] I am asked, why they do not control the German Emperor? For the same reason that we do not control the Liberal Cabinet—we are not strong enough. But we are growing. My point is that in all these countries the party corresponding to our own is working strenuously for peace, and especially throughout Germany.

I say respectfully to the House that some of us will do all we can to rouse the working classes of the country in opposition to this proposal of the Government, but especially we have the right to ask what action is now going to be taken to alleviate, as far as possible, the sufferings of those who are bound to be hard hit by war, whether we take part in it or not. Our honour is said to be involved in entering into the war. That is always the excuse. I suppose our honour was involved in the Crimean War, and who to-day justifies it? Our honour was involved in the Boer War. How many to-day will justify it? A few years hence, and if we are led into this war, we shall look back in wonder and amazement at the flimsy reasons which induced the Government to take part in it."

The Timetable to War

Mr. Ponsonby  "I feel that I cannot remain seated at what I feel to be the most tragic moment I have yet seen. We are on the eve of a great war, and I hate to see people embarking on it with a light heart. The war fever has already begun. I saw it last night when I walked through the streets. I saw bands of half-drunken youths waving flags, and I saw a group outside a great club in St. James's Street being encouraged by members of the club from the balcony.

The war fever has begun, and that is what is called patriotism; I think we have plunged too quickly, and I think the Foreign Secretary's speech shows that what has been rankling all these years is a deep animosity against German ambitions. The balance of power is responsible for this—this mad desire to keep up an impossibility in Europe, to try and divide the two sections of Europe into an armed camp, glaring at one another with suspicion and hostility and hatred, and arming all the time, and bleeding the people to pay for the armaments. Since I have been in this House I have every year protested against the growth in the expenditure upon armaments. Every year it has mounted up and up, and old women of both sexes have told us that the best way to prepare to maintain peace is to prepare for war.

Arthur Ponsonby

This is what they have led us to—those who were foolish enough to believe it. It was inevitable that if Europe continued to arm, if every nation bled the people in order to furnish new ships and new guns, to grind all the people who devote their energy, their labour, and their enterprise to one sole object, the preparation for war, war will take place.

Still I do not even at this moment wish to see the horizon entirely black. I believe there is still a ray of hope. I regret the tone of the Foreign Secretary's speech. I felt that it was in keeping with the scenes I had seen last night. But still he declared that not yet has the fatal step been taken.

The House of Commons has treated those of us who are protesting to-day with the greatest patience, but it is right that those of us who hold these views should express them. It is by this House of Commons that the decision must be taken, and however small a minority we may be who consider that we have abandoned our attitude of neutrality too soon and that every effort should still be made to do what we can to maintain our attitude of peace towards the other Powers of Europe, I think in the country we have a very large body of opinion with us. War is a very different thing today from what it has been before. We look forward to it with horror, and men who have not got money, and must have food, and cannot buy it, will take it. We have scenes of that sort to look forward to. In the future, which is so black, I trust that my fellow countrymen will not embark on this light-heartedly and in a spirit of aggression."

Black Bob Banked Down. Death of a man who tried to kill Teesside.

January 29, 2014, 10:38 am

≫ Next: The End of an Era

≪ Previous: The Day Before the Apocolypse

$

0

0

News emerged last week of the death at his country mansion in leafy East Hertfordshire of Sir Bob Scholey, a man who, during the late 1970's and 1980's, presided over the decimation of the UK steel industry and the privatisation of the state owned British Steel Corporation.  

Every death may be a sad occasion for the nearest and dearest, but for former steelworkers and their families on Teesside (and in similar communities the length of the UK) his death will be marked by profound indifference and memories of a lost way of life.

Scholey, who became Deputy Chairman of BSC in 1978 and its Chairman in 1986, had the unfortunate historical attributes of being of slight stature, the possessor of a small moustache, a love of Wagner and Napoleon, and a hatred of organised Labour. 

He oversaw the near eradication of Teesside's steel industry in his period of office, both as Deputy Chairman and the Chief Executive before getting his behind on the Chairman's sofa.

Lost  in that period were complete plants  - Cargo Fleet works, Middlesbrough's Britannia and Ayrton rolling mills, and the grubbing out of the bulk of other local plants - iron making, coke ovens, electric arc furnaces and mills at the Cleveland works, Hartlepool's North Plant and iron making at the newer South Works.   Other plants only survived in parts - with the axing of a number of rolling mills at Lackenby and Hartlepool.   Even BSC's prestige development at Redcar was not spared.    Plans for a planned second blast furnace, coke oven battery and a plate mill were scrapped, which is why today's plant has the appearance of isolated pieces of kit sitting in a vast prairie grassland.

Teesside was not Scholey's only target.  Encouraged by the decisive management victory in the 1980 national strike, he imposed on a demoralised workforce closures at Corby, Shotton, Irlam, Consett and above all, Motherwell's iconic Ravenscraig works, whose controversial closure marked the end of Scottish steel making.

It is unlikely that Scholey suffered sleepless nights over his axing of jobs and the immiseration of entire communities.   He believed simply in managerial rule, the 'efficiency' of an industry and a healthy balance sheet.    He had a soulmate in Thatcher (although in general Scholey had as little time for politicians as he had for Trade Unions) and together they steered BSC into the private sector and oblivion.   

At heart, as a man reared in Sheffield steelmaking, he had little empathy with other steel centres, something that did not help in the internal world of the Steel Trade Unions, themselves endemically prey to inter-regional suspicions and rivalries.

All of this does not take away the  fundamental problems that faced UK steel in that period.  The problems at Ravenscraig were an exemplar of these.   Built by the former Colville Company to supply bulk steel plate and strip to Clydeside shipbuilders, new motor manufacturing plants at Linwood and Bathgate and the expected boom in North Sea rig building, this all came to naught when those markets either collapsed into closure or never materialised.   These factors, which went hand in hand with increased raw material and energy costs and the emergence of low cost steel making in the Far East, were common to the whole UK.   

Retrenchment was inevitable, but it could have been done in a human manner.  The UK was a member of the European Coal and Steel Community, and the government of the day could, if it had wished, tapped into ECSC funds to plan for gradual closures running alongside the development of alternative industry.     This approach was used successfully by the Belgian Government in Wallonia and by the West German Federal Government in the Ruhrgebiet, but this, as it needed to be matched with national state funding, was spurned by Thatcher's government, with the result that from Motherwell to Port Talbot, former industrial heartlands instead became grassy wastelands.

For interest, a fawning obituary from the Telegraph is to be found below.

Walshy

Sir Robert Scholey , who has died aged 92, was the formidable chairman of British Steel from 1986 to 1992.

A plain-speaking Yorkshireman known to friends and enemies alike as “Black Bob”, Scholey returned the loss-making nationalised corporation to profitability and led it back to the private sector — but found himself forever cast in Scottish demonology as the man who closed Ravenscraig.

Scholey was one of British industry’s characters, and when Margaret Thatcher’s government gave him the tricky and politically sensitive job of handling BSC’s privatisation, it was seen by some as a high-risk appointment.

For Scholey’s stock-in-trade was bluntness, though this was coupled with a detailed knowledge of steelmaking acquired over 40 years in the industry. He had a reputation as a hard, even intimidating, man who did not suffer fools gladly.

He was, however, greatly respected in the industry. Plucked from the managing directorship of BSC’s strip mills division to become chief executive in 1973, he served as right-hand man to Sir Monty Finniston, Sir Charles Villiers, Sir Ian MacGregor and then the part-time Sir Robert Haslam. He was given much of the credit for the transformation of BSC’s fortunes in those years.

British Steel employed 250,000 people when Scholey was appointed chief executive. By 1991 the figure had fallen to 52,000. But its financial position was transformed. Where once it had lost £1 billion a year, in 1989-90 profits were £733 million. It had become the lowest-cost steel producer in Europe, as well as the most profitable — even though, unlike its European competitors, it no longer received any state aid.

Scholey had little time for interfering politicians, engaged in what he called “social massaging”, and confessed that even though he admired Mrs Thatcher they had not got on particularly well personally. He had been hurt when the “Iron Lady” had twice passed him over for the job of chairman in the early 1980s, but he was proud to have proved to her that someone who had spent most of his career in the public sector did not inevitably come with a public sector mindset.

^{Bob Scholey with Sir Charles Villiers (PA)}

The friction between the hard-nosed industrialist and vote-chasing politicians was nowhere better illustrated than in the story of Ravenscraig.

The vast steel plant in Motherwell, Lanarkshire, had, by the time Scholey took over as chairman, acquired huge significance as a key symbol of Scotland’s proud, if tattered, industrial traditions; it was also a political benchmark, a test of “Scottishness” for MPs of all political colours.

George Younger, Mrs Thatcher’s first Scottish Secretary, came close to resigning to save a then state-owned Ravenscraig when the British Steel chairman Sir Ian MacGregor said he wanted to close the complex to rationalise BSC’s operations. Younger eventually extracted a guarantee from Scholey at the time of privatisation that the plant would remain open until 1994, market conditions permitting.

But market conditions did not “permit”, and as the steel industry experienced another sharp downturn in the late 1980s Scholey returned to the charge, this time determined to brook no interference from Whitehall or St Andrew’s House.

In June 1990 he failed to inform the Scottish Secretary Malcolm Rifkind of his intention to announce the closure of Ravenscraig’s strip mill, with the loss of nearly 4,000 jobs, explaining that, as head of a commercial company, his duty was to shareholders. There would have been a risk of a leak, he said, if ministers had received an early warning.

As a member of a government that emphasised one of the key benefits of privatisation as being freedom from Whitehall interference, Rifkind was in no position to object — although he described the decision to keep him out of the loop as “arbitrary and unreasonable”.

But worse was to come in January 1992, in the run-up to the general election, when Scholey appeared to have pulled the rug from under the Conservative campaign in Scotland by announcing the closure of the remaining plant that September — two years earlier than previously forecast — with the loss of 1,220 jobs directly, and thousands more in suppliers and subcontractors. The degree of anger, verging on panic, in Tory circles, was highlighted by Michael Hirst, the Party’s Scottish president, when he accused Scholey in a speech of having delivered a “slap in the face” by not delivering the bad news to the Ravenscraig workforce in person.

^{Sir Robert Scholey and his wife, Joan, after he received his knighthood (PA)}

In 2010 documents were released showing that the then Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang, had mounted a desperate rearguard campaign to get Scholey to reconsider after learning the previous December that the Lanarkshire site was at risk.

A meeting was arranged between Lang and Scholey at which Lang was briefed to say that the public was likely to view the proposed closure as “a further example of discrimination against Scottish plants” and a “betrayal” of Scottish workers, and to press for British Steel to seek alternatives such as leaving the site “ticking over” until the market improved.

But Scholey, who seemed rather to enjoy being monstered in the Scottish press as “Son of Frankenstein”, was not a man to be swayed by such arguments. In industrial circles the widespread view was that he chose to announce the shutdown ahead of his retirement in July 1992 to avoid pressure on his successor from a future Labour government to keep steel making alive in Scotland.

Contrary to all expectations, however, not only did the Tories win the general election, they actually gained two seats in Scotland. After the election the Ravenscraig closure was brought forward to July.

An only child, Robert Scholey was born in Sheffield on October 8 1921. His father was a director of a steel company, subsequently absorbed into British Steel.

Bob was educated at King Edward VII School, Sheffield, where he was, by his own admission, only an average student. After leaving aged 16 he began his career with the Sheffield-based Steel, Peech and Tozer, studying Engineering in evening classes at Sheffield University. During the Second World War he served in the REME and was demobbed in the rank of captain.

After the war he joined United Steel Companies as a mechanical engineer and rose rapidly through the ranks. Shortly after all the private steel companies were nationalised in the late 1960s, he was put in charge of the Welsh division of British Steel. It was during this time that he acquired the sobriquet “Black Bob” — a reference to the black safety helmet which he always wore on site. In 1972 he moved to BSC’s headquarters as managing director of the strip mills division, joining British Steel’s board of directors as chief executive in 1973.

His appointment (he became Vice-President in 1976) marked the beginning of more than a decade of playing “bridesmaid” to the top man, during which time he was turned down on three occasions for the job of chairman.

The worst moment in his career came in May 1980, when he was passed over in favour of the American Sir Ian MacGregor. BSC had just suffered a crippling strike, and was still heavily overmanned and losing more than £1 million a day. It seemed likely that MacGregor’s “new broom” would sweep Scholey out with it, but the two men hit it off immediately and rapidly emerged as an effective team. “MacGregor kept the politicians off his back, and Bob got on with running a decent steelmaking business,” as one colleague put it.

Scholey retired from British Steel in June 1992 and was replaced as chairman by Sir Alistair Frame. He served on the board of Eurotunnel from 1987 to 1994, and as chairman of the International Iron and Steel Institute in 1989-90. He was president of Eurofer from 1985 to 1990 and of the Institute of Metals in 1989-90.

Although Scholey regularly worked a 16-hour day, he was also an energetic amateur historian who could rattle off the dates of Napoleon’s battles without a second thought. Besides that he was a keen marksman and gardener, and an opera buff with a taste for Wagner. Though unsentimental about just about everything else, he admitted that the Liebestod could reduce him to tears. Once a 35 cigarettes a day man, in later life he gave up both smoking and alcohol.

Scholey acknowledged that there was some truth in his fearsome reputation. “I can be very nasty. I’m told that I use words like sledgehammers,” he admitted to an interviewer. But he claimed: “Ordinarily, if I have a row with anybody, when it’s over, it’s over.”

Robert Scholey was appointed CBE in 1982 and knighted in 1987.

He married, in 1946, Joan Methley, whom he first met on a Sheffield tram. She survives him with their two daughters.

The End of an Era

February 2, 2014, 7:45 am

≫ Next: Bell's Toll for the Middle East?

≪ Previous: Black Bob Banked Down. Death of a man who tried to kill Teesside.

$

0

0

COMMEMORATION EVENT -  50 YEARS ON - THE CLOSURE OF NORTH SKELTON MINE

 

50 YEARS AGO - IN JANUARY 1964, THE LAST SHIFT CAME UP TO THE SURFACE AT NORTH SKELTON IRONSTONE MINE.   THIS  WAS THE 'END OF AN ERA', AS IT WAS THE LAST IRONSTONE MINE IN EAST CLEVELAND.

 

To mark this event, Action North Skelton and Redcar and Cleveland''s Skelton Borough Councillors are sponsoring a commemoration gathering to mark this bit of our local industrial history.

Introduction - Cllr Brian Briggs (Action North Skelton) and Councillor David Walsh

 

 

Peter Appleby from Skelton - the Secretary of the Skelton History Group

Tony Nicholson from Brotton - a local historian and retired University Lecturer who has made a life's study of East Cleveland's Mining Communities
 
Plus - a showing of a short film made on the day of the last shift by Dorman Long and Company to mark the closure - "The End of an Era" with Craig Hornby, plus East Cleveland excerpts from Craig's film  "A Century in Stone'.
 

The Bull, North Skelton, on Monday 24th February 2014 starting at 7.00 p.m.

Hope to see you there !

From Cllrs Brian Briggs. Helen McLuckie, David Walsh and Action North Skelton

Bell's Toll for the Middle East?

February 9, 2014, 10:32 am

≫ Next: A Deep Black Dilemna

≪ Previous: The End of an Era

$

0

0

The other week, Chris Lloyd, the Deputy Editor of the Northern Echo, and someone who has featured in the PRT before, penned one of his short Saturday columns about the life and times of Gertrude Bell,

Bell, who was born on the late 1860's into a family of wealthy industrialists in Washington in what was then County Durham,  but who later spent the majority of her life at Red Barns in Redcar, along with her father, ironmaster Sir Hugh Bell, was an intrepid traveler, writer and diplomat in the Middle East in the early 20th century. She shaped the politics of the Middle East and drew up the borders of modern Iraq..

Chris's column was sparked off by the news that Hollywood Stars, Nicole Kidman and Damian Lewis will be the two lead roles in an upcoming film about Gertrude lives and loves.   The film,"Queen of the Desert', , directed by Werner Herzog is due for release next year.

Chris's column focused on her upbringing and the doomed relationship she had with Gallipoli Hero, Major Charles Doughty-Wylie, a married man with whom who Bell had a tempestuous but unconsummated affair.     

Given the present situation in the Middle East and Bell's involvement (along with fellow Cleveland Liberal MP Herbert Samuel) in the drawing up of the post Great War map of the Middle East, I felt a follow up was needed, and happily Chris was prepared to make over his normal Saturday op-ed space for me last week.    

The piece, courtesy of the Echo, is below,    It is slightly longer that the paper article as it was lightly subbed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Last week, Chris Lloyd used this space to tell the story of Gertrude Bell, Edwardian Teesside ironmasters daughter, Arabist and a women intimately involved in British imperial interests in the Middle East.  I want to bring this story up to date, and to show how she - and another fascinating person from East Cleveland - can be seen to be the two people most responsible for today's continued mayhem in the Middle East.

 

100 years ago Britain brought war to Mesopotamia. From a base in Basra, they sent an army north along the Euphrates River toward Baghdad. And here's where things start looking like the nightmare battlefield of recent years. Over three months, the British lost 25,000 men during a siege at Kut. It was, at the height of British power, the nation's biggest military disaster to that time.

 

Iraq was a battleground in the First World War for one reason. The British lynchpin in WW1 was that British ships, protected by grey ironclads, delivered goods around the world and brought home three-quarters of our food. To maintain this, in 1911 the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, had ordered a major change, switching the nation's battleships from coal-burning engines to oil. Far superior to traditional ships, these new oil-burning vessels could travel faster, cover a greater range, and be refueled at sea  But Britain had no oil of her own. In 1912, Churchill signed an agreement for a major share in the Anglo-Persian oil company, with its oil wells in southern Persia and refineries at Abadan, close to Basra. It was essential for Britain to protect that vital area - and Iraq was central here.

 

This meant securing the region for the Empire, and this is where Gertrude Bell was so important.At her office, she met sheikhs and religious leaders. Relying on her decade-plus experience in the desert, she heard from these men their views about the future of the country, reporting all to Churchill and the Cabinet.  And they listened to her. Bell persuaded Churchill that new Arab monarchies with British backing would make for a stable region, compliant in the long run as a provider of oil. Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, Christians and Kurds would be united under a British imposed King, making it a subject nation of the British Empire. At the time, with the winning of the 'war that ended all wars' , the long term future of that Empire seemed assured.  

A Bell Tent ?  Gertrude Bell in Mesopotamia 

But it was not to be, and the inherent racial and religious instability of Bell's artificial country finally boiled over this century - and with the loss of incalculable lives.

 

The same grim story was repeated across the Middle East as a whole, and this is where our second character enters the stage. Meet Herbert Samuel, Liberal MP for Cleveland between 1902 and 1918. An intellectual (he spent his retirement writing critiques of Einstein's physics) he was clearly a rising star, and was appointed to the Cabinet in 1909 by Prime Minister Asquith  Across the cabinet table he put forward the idea of establishing a British Protectorate over Palestine in 1915 and these ideas were the key influence in the drafting of the Balfour Declaration giving a national homeland for European Jews in Palestine.  Samuel was Jewish himself and understood the Zionist case for such a homeland which would both be a haven from antisemitism and a protection for the Jewish faith in an increasingly materialist world.  

 

"Less beer, more boots" - picture of Samuel campaigning in Loftus - probably 1906

In 1917, Britain occupied Palestine in a WW1 campaign against the Ottoman Turk occupiers. Samuel lost his Cleveland seat in the election of 1918 but, still of value to the Government, became British High Commissioner in Palestine.  Samuel was the first member of the Jewish faith to govern the historic land of Israel in 2,000 years. He recognised Hebrew as one of the three official languages of the Mandate territory and drafted a Government white paper, supporting Jewish immigration to Palestine as 'part of the further development of the existing Jewish community"

 

As with Gertrude Bell, this could possibly be contained if the British Empire was to remain central in the Middle East, but it was not to be, and a mere twenty tears afterwards, Britain ignominiously scuttled out of Palestine. That country was then plunged into a power struggle won by the Jewish settlers facilitated by Samuel, exiling many hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs to refugee camps across the whole Middle East.  And it is the descendants of those refugees and their supporters who make up the bulk of the murderous Jihadist movements in today's Middle East. 

     

Put simply, from Baghdad to the Gaza Strip and from Aleppo to Beirut, we now only have a killing ground; and one tragically and largely created by two Empire Builders from East Cleveland.,

---

A Deep Black Dilemna

February 16, 2014, 6:32 am

≫ Next: Scots Missed?

≪ Previous: Bell's Toll for the Middle East?

$

0

0

An interesting post by former North East Miners Leader and NUM activist, Dave Douglass, which I saw in the Weekly Worker the other month, is, I feel, of interest to PRT readers as he deals with a fascinating look at a hidden side of NE political history, but also in doing so, exposes a painful dilemma for the left and for left historians.

The issue concerns the activities of the pre-WW2 fascist movement in the North East.   We have dealt with this before on the PRT; both in terms of the unveiling of the once forgotten 'Battle of Stockton' where the Teesside left took on - and won - against Mosley's blackshirts, (see PRT http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/battle-of-stockton.html)  plus follow up posts and a Radio 4 programme, and again in detailing far right attempts to infiltrate the unemployed movement in East Cleveland.  (see PRT http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/boosbecks-bright-particular-stars.html) and follow up posts.

 

Douglass uses a book review to highlight similar Mosleyite and far right activities in Tyneside and County Durham, places on our doorstep and therefore of interest to Teesside readers.

But the great dilemma - one Douglass explores and gives his own solution to - is that the review is of a book published privately by a man called Gordon Stridiron, a long standing NE Fascist, who over the years was active in both the National Front and the BNP.

So do we have to review such a book, or to give some idea of its contents ?   The dilemma is that to better understand fascism and the threats it has always posed, we probably do, if for no other reason that this book lifts a cover on past activity and events undocumented elsewhere.   However, I would not and cannot  give the title of the book, its publisher or its ISBN (although for reasons it can only explain itself, the Weekly Worker did give these details.)    In reality, of course, even the thickest fascist can use google and get these details - but I don't want to be the agency that facilitates this.

The background to the detailed Mosleyite history that Sttridiron gives shows that whilst in areas like Teesside they never really got a foothold, they did establish a more solid base on Tyneside and Wearside.

 

How ?

 

There were, I would argue, two possible reasons.    

 

Firstly, unlike on Teesside, Tyneside and Durham had prominent regional people giving Mosley the benefit of the doubt or outright support.  They included people like Alan Percy, the 8th Duke of Northumberland.  His father, Henry, the 7th Duke, had founded, in the early 1920's, a newspaper, "The Patriot", carrying notices announcing the setting up of a British Fascist Party.  His son faithfully carried on the filial tradition.  In turn, he was joined by big local employers, such as North-East tycoon and armaments industrialist Lord Armstrong, the shipping magnate, Lord Runciman and Durham coalfield heir Lord Londonderry (who we have met before in the PRT . See PRT  http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-right-little-charlie_31.html )

 

A NE Fascist triumvirate ? -  Lord Runciman of Doxford, Alan Percy, the 8th Duke of Northumberland and the 2nd Baron Armstrong. 

Secondly, Teesside, unlike Tyneside and Wearside (or more specifically Gateshead and Sunderland) did not have a large Jewish community.   But both Sunderland and Gateshead did (and still do) and it could be that this minority group's day to day visibility enhanced the visceral anti-Semitism of the Mosleyites.

That is not to say that the Mosleyites got a free ride on Tyneside - they didn't, with large anti-fascist rallies and street battles.   But unlike Teesside, the Mosleyite presence lingered on, with many Newcastle members of the BUF being interned after 1939.

 

Anyway, for what it is worth, here is David Douglass's review.    Comments welcome.
 

Blackshirts in Geordieland

An unlikely candidate for infamy, Gordon Stridiron, is short, quietly spoken, polite, non-abusive and well liked among the old folks of his Wardley community in Gateshead. One would not credit his infamy as a long-standing supporter of the far right since a teenager. 

I once lived in the same street as he did, and we both moved on to the same new council estate. Members of both our families worked at the same pit, and I was employed alongside his dad down the mine. But, whereas I graduated to the Young Communist League and then anarchism, Gordon became a committed supporter of the British fascist movement - swastikas, jack boots, stiff-arm salutes and all. I have one of his early leaflets, bearing all the Nazi insignia and addressed “To the people of Gateshead”. I have no idea what it says though, as this double foolscap sheet is full of German. Gordon was a founder-member of the National Front, when they were no-holds-barred fascists and Hitler-worshippers. He later moved on to the British National Party.

When I returned to Tyneside in 2005, I was quite surprised to find him playing a prominent role in local history societies. He had written an extensive, two-volume history on the people of Wardley Colliery, which can be found in local libraries. These contain straightforward, ‘non-political’ stories, the only political references being to the local communist and far-left leaders of the lodge and their supporters. Of late Gordon has been a regular attendee at the commemoration to Tommy Hepburn, the early founder of the Northumberland and Durham Miners Union and early Chartist leader, at the Durham Miners Gala and at similar local events.

I had assumed that this local churchgoer had long ago hung up his political boots and turned to god. He sometimes chats to me about mutual points of mining and regional interest without any political reference. However, the publication of this first book of his shows that this impression of mine was far from accurate: indeed it suggests that his pleasant demeanour is part of an attempt to sanitise fascism and allow it to take a place as just another political iron in the fire of working class history, then and by extension now.

For example, here he is writing about the annual Tommy Hepburn memorial commemoration: 

"Every year many colourful miners’ banners surround Hepburn’s grave, where part of the service is performed and the miners’ hymn Gresford is played.  Gresford in North Wales was the scene of a terrible explosion on September 22 1934, when 266 miners lost their lives, including British Union of Fascists members Stephen Penny and William Higgins. Unit leader Stephen Penny had recently been present at the BUF rally in Hyde Park that was attended by over 100,000 people.

Penny had already completed his shift and spent some spare time selling copies of The Blackshirt at the entrance to the pit. Keen to ensure he had sufficient funds for the coming Oswald Mosley meeting at Belle Vue Manchester, he volunteered to do a second gruelling shift. At 2.08 am on the morning of the 22nd a violent explosion ripped through the Dennis section of the mine … A British Union Gresford Disaster Appeal was set up and contributed to the £566,546 raised for the widows and children of the miners killed in this great tragedy."

The history is quite illuminating in terms of the fascist movement on Tyneside. I had no idea how apparently popular it was across the region and in particular within the working class. Gordon makes particular mention of its support among miners. Were this just a book simply dealing with factual history, no-one could have much objection to it. But it is more than that, being a clear restatement of fascist politics and perspectives.

The basic narrative is that the fascists were dynamic, young visionaries with an exciting, new plan (‘new’ is very much in vogue in the propaganda) to sweep aside all the old reactionaries. They were ruthlessly repressed and attacked by “the reds”. What was true of the British Union of Fascists was also true of Franco Spain, Italy and Germany. It is obvious to the author that the main threat came from communism, and that fascism was the only way to block to it. This was the theme of many rallies: 

"About 30 Blackshirts took up a stand in Gillbridge Avenue at Sunderland … it seemed as though they might get a fair hearing from the crowd that soon gathered around them, but then the communists arrived and there was so much noisy interruption that the police ordered the meeting closed. The Blackshirts obeyed, as they always did, and marched back to the Central Station." 

Mackems 5, Mosley 0 - Gillbridge Avenue, Sunderland

The local paper wrote: “Although one may think there is absolutely no need for fascism in this country, there is no denying that these young men are endowed with a good deal of personal courage. It was pitiful to see a mob of street-corner loafers yapping at their heels and shrinking back like frightened puppies whenever a fascist turned round defiantly”

And how about this?

"On October 21 [1930] General Blakeney addressed the Newcastle Conservative Club and told them fascism was a real force against communism and stood for great ideals and two great principles - “nationality and absolute loyalty”. He said that the struggle was “going to be between those who love their country and those who do not”

The author attempts to create a widespread anti-communist consensus by not only chronicling the many clashes, but also recording every other organisation’s disputes with ‘communism’, such as efforts by Labour and some trade unions to ban party members. The idea is that everyone had seen the reds as the main enemy: “During the November election, the Seaham Division was seething in disgust at the organised terrorism of ‘reds’, which had broken up three of Mr Ramsay MacDonald’s meetings in two days”
 

A man who could strut sitting down - Mosley inspects his troops

The message to workers was that strikes were useless and we always lost them. Under a fascist state all workers’ grievances would be addressed and workers’ organisations would be part of the corporate state: 

The constant repetition of strikes and lockouts … would bring about such a grave, chaotic industrial position, resulting in misery and starvation to the workers, that the workers themselves will demand some protection from such calamity. The BUF believes we can organise the necessary machinery to prevent such disaster …  Let me point out as one who has had experience in these matters that the trade union leaders are never out for the good of their members in such disputes as these … under fascist control no owner could lock out his men and no worker would strike … Can any trade union leader tell of a strike that has brought any lasting good to the industry which has had to suffer it?

BUF member Patrick Moir, speaking in North Shields, declared: 

"Fascism is a creed of the 20th century which inspires us to face the problems of our day by bringing to bear on them the full effects of modern science released by the state. We envisage an ordered state in which all sectional and factional interests are subordinated in the interests of the whole nation.   The machinery of government will be rationalised and modernised to cope with the development that has taken place and is still taking place in the industrial field. The ever growing problem of poverty and unemployment can and must be solved, and the corporate state of fascism provides the most viable machinery for such economic planning … Fascism means the rebirth of Britain."
 
The fascists make no secret that democracy plays no part in their scheme. Elections are useful for the one-off vote which gets them elected, then government is reorganized and democracy put to bed.

Mosley, the hero of this book, is quoted: 

"Dictatorship under fascism was not dictatorship in the old and vicious sense of the word, which meant government against the will of the people, but it is dictatorship in a modern sense, which meant government armed and equipped by the people, with the people to do things that the people want to be done ... The first act of a fascist majority in parliament would be to confer on a fascist government absolute power to order action
. 
But what about national minorities? Here is Mosley again:  

"We never attack any man on account of his race or religion, but it is a fundamental principle of fascism that no section, no minority within the state, shall organise against the state. An immense amount of Jewish money has been used in Britain to work up war fever with Germany. We say that fascism will not lose British lives in a Jewish quarrel."

When a letter-writer in the Shields Gazette points out that, however a dictator gets into power, once there he cannot be removed, BUF staff officer Henry Gibbs replies that unemployed, poverty-stricken people do not care about that, so long as they get decent jobs and high wages: “British fascism is using constitutional methods to place its proposals before the people in the same way that Herr Hitler formed the Third Reich through obtaining a majority support from the German voter”
.
Director of BUF policy Alexandra Raven explains that “Fascism would mean the dictatorship of the will of the whole people … Power action meant selecting a leader and giving him power to carry through their will. It will mean the end of the multi-party political system. It will be smashed up and a new system of government set up on an occupational franchise”

According to the book, William Joyce (soon to be Lord Haw Haw) spoke at Hetton-Le-Hole Miners Welfare on January 9 1934: 

"However much you may hate Hitler and Mussolini, those men command the overwhelming and enthusiastic support from the majority of their countrymen … Although Hitler is one of the most powerful figures in Germany, he comes from the working class and there you have the best possible proof that fascism has no connection with social favouritism. Mussolini is the son of a blacksmith ... I admit that Sir Oswald is an aristocrat, but we only have one. The trouble with socialism is that it has 30 or 40 aristocratic leaders."
 

Not quite Nuremberg  ? - the old Miners Welfare Hall at Hetton le Hole

Joyce goes to Germany in July 1939. He takes out German citizenship and becomes a Nazi propagandist, broadcasting nightly to Britain. The author tells us how useful these broadcasts were, citing the case of a Jarrow family whose son was missing serving in Norway. Joyce announces that he is a prisoner of war and his mother comments: “... whatever people say about Lord Haw Haw, he did a good deed last night”

Reading this book is one of the hardest things I have ever done - it left me feeling physically sick on occasion. This is not merely history. Not even far-right history, but a political restatement of fascism, undiminished and unmodified since pre-war years. It is being presented as part of an effort to gradually reincorporate a discredited creed.

As yet there have been no attempts to sell the book on stalls at local history, community or labour movement commemorations, but adverts have started to appear for books in this series. Local history societies need to be on their guard - the sale of fascist literature under cover of history is not something any of them will want to endorse or allow.

So how do we approach a man like Gordon Stridiron? He is 68 years old, frail and physically inoffensive. I would certainly not agree with any physical attack on him. While he has not recently been part of any demonstration or counter-demonstration against the left, the unions or the progressive movement I know of, and is not engaged in physical attacks upon anyone, no-one can have any justification for attacking him.

However, on the basis of his own politics, as represented publicly in this book, he is an unreformed fascist and still a card-carrying activist of the British National Party. His politics and those of the far right can and should be confronted at any opportunity which presents itself at community events, labour commemorations and history forums.

David Douglass

David Douglass is a political activist and writer. He worked as a coal miner in the coalfields of Durham and South Yorkshire. He was NUM Branch Delegate for Hatfield Colliery from 1979. In 1994/5 he became Branch Secretary at Hatfield Main but after the pit was privatised the NUM no longer had any recognition there. From 1994 to 2006 he helped to run the Miners Community Advice Centre in Stainforth

Scots Missed?

February 24, 2014, 3:42 am

≫ Next: February, Don't You Come Around

≪ Previous: A Deep Black Dilemna

$

0

0

The media's flooding obsession has obscured a more fundamental issue now coming to the boil - the result of the Scots referendum.   Recent utterances, like Cameron's warning on UK break-up and the intervention of the Bank of England (and North of the border, that name resonates) to warn of the dangers of an independent Scotland have all conspired to hype the issue up - and in my humble opinion, greatly to the benefit of Alex Salmond and the "Yes" camp. 

 

This hasn't been helped by odd statements like one this week from Andy Burnham, who was quoted in the press as saying  "I am going to be leading a charge here and I don’t know if it will cut any ice with any Scots voter but I want northern England to say, ‘for God’s sake, help us out. If you vote ‘Yes’ you are saddling us with the Tories in government’.”

 

He went on: “Maybe people in Scotland don’t feel any great affection to the north of England but I think they do and where a Yes vote leaves us is with a higher chance of a Tory government. My appeal would be to get the leaders of those northern cities up there to Scotland to say, ‘please, recognise that we are better together fighting together’.”

 

"Motorists would have to drive on the right and present their passports at the Border if Scotland becomes independent", Mr Burnham added. (Oh  dear     DW)

 

Again, all this does is present an image of Labour which implies that we desperately want to keep the union for simple electoral maths, and that we do not want to engage too deeply (if at all) in the deeper devolution debate, where there are respectable and trenchant issues for the North East and the wider North of England, and that all we are at heart is just a part of the 'Westminster Club'.

And no more so than with last fortnights simultaneous declaration by George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander that the Scots 'cannot use;the pound" if they vote for independence. Quite how such an edict can be enforced is pretty difficult to fathom, but what would not be hard to fathom - even for the thickest Braveheart woad coated nationalist - is the obvious conclusion that this joint approach had been cooked up through what are delicately called 'the usual channels' - in other words a cosy arrangement reached within the confines of division bell Westminster.    If this produces anything, it is likely to be the creation of a Caledonian version of the Dunkirk Spirit - 'alright, alone then if need be'.

Smoked out Salmond ?

Quite why Ed Miliband allowed himself yo be signed up to this uber-establishment stitch-up is obscure to me.  For, given that there will be a referendum, and as democrats we should respect the result of that referendum - whatever it may be - a period of silence, followed by a statement that if 'yes' Labour would work to erect a financial and fiscal structure that benefits any new constitutional arrangement. and if 'no',then the same for any move (and an inevitable one) towards some kind of 'devo max' as consolation, would both give substance to the 'No' campaign, and show ourselves to be the friends of the ordinary people of both England and Scotland,

A constitutional defence by the SNP ?

Furthermore, we have to recognize that the changed constitutional landscape after the referendum (whatever the result) must inevitably mean another look at the English question.

To quote Owen Jones in the Independent last week;

"The non-Scottish left panic that secession would saddle them with an eternity of Conservative governments. It comes across as electoral colonialism, that Scottish territory must be preserved because of its left-leaning voting fodder. But the relative weight of the Tory core vote would undoubtedly grow, and Scotland itself may find itself economically dependent on an England whose political centre of gravity has shifted rightwards.

For some – not all – of the Yes camp, support for independence seems to be born out of a sense that the Union is the source of social ills. But it is neo-liberal dogma – which, to varying degrees, has swept practically all industrialised countries – that has given us a low-wage, low-rights, insecure workforce, privatised utilities and services, and a housing crisis. It would be striking, but rather unlikely, if, in the era of globalisation, a small, independent nation managed to break from this without building an outward-looking movement first.

There is something inescapably sad about this situation. Scottish nationalism is one symptom of the tragic decline of a type of politics: of movements based on shared economic interests – of people who really “are all in it together” – rather than national identity, striving to win concessions from those above. The NHS, the welfare state, workers’ rights: all of these gains – now under attack – were won through the joint effort of ordinary Scots, Welsh and English people. But it is just a symptom, and the reality is, for now, as uncomfortable as it is inescapable.

An alternative, of course, would be a loose federation, with the English regions granted substantial autonomy, too, breaking the hegemony of Westminster across the islands. Movements for a living wage, decent housing, publicly run and accountable services and workers’ rights would unite shopworkers in Glasgow with call centre workers in Manchester and Cardiff. An old dream, yes. But still one worth fighting for."

 

 

I'll finish with my response to David Cameron's call for us humble folk living south of Berwick to write to our Scots nearest and dearest about the impact of their vote;   So here's my ode to my Aunt Annie in Auchtermuchy. (Thanks to Paul Salveson for the idea)

Dear Aunt Annie,

You may be surprised by this letter, as I don't think I have written to you in years, if ever, but here goes.

As an Englishman, I have been asked by my Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, to write to you, saying how much I love you and how important our historic link with Scotland is. As an obedient citizen, I must comply with his request and ask you to consider a number of points before casting your vote in the independence referendum on September 14th. 

Who the F is this Walshy Matron  ?

Scotland has always been a dynamic and progressive force within the UK, producing not only some outstanding politicians (Keir Hardie, John Smith, Donald Dewar, Robin Cook, John McLean, Tam Dalyell,, John Wheatley and, let’s be fair, Gordon Brown) but writers such as Burns, Scott and Stevenson, intellectually, the Scottish renaissance, painters including ‘The Glasgow boys’ and any number of hugely talented engineers. As far as railways go, you gave us the Forth Bridge, the ‘Cardean’ class of locomotive, and the great locomotive builders of Springburn. The strength of our merchant marine rested largely on Clyde built ships too.

Your architecture, your urban design and your countryside - from the lowlands to the Cairngorms - is distinctive and tremendous.

And, let’s not forget Scotland’s greatest gift to the world, whisky.(even if you seem to all prefer either Irnbru or Buckie...................)

                                                           

So why leave?

By voting for independence you will hasten the demise of ‘Great Britain’ as we know it. An independent Scotland would be free to go its own way and instigate the sort of policies which have resulted in places like Norway, Sweden and Denmark becoming by-words for profligacy, welfare spending and egalitarianism. Public spending has been diverted away from defence into building new railway, bridges, urban renewal and improving schools and hospitals. Everyone is seemingly forced to cycle or use cheap and frequent public transport,. 

Is this really the sort of world you want your children (and grand-children by the way) to grow up in? And think about the effect of Scottish independence on the rest of our United Kingdom. Wales will be next, wanting to go its own way ‘within Europe’. Here in the North of England, the 15 million subjects of the crown may get increasingly restless and want their own government. A scenario could open up of a ‘federal’ Britain with the power of London considerably reduced. Is this what you want? If so, vote yes. If you prefer things to carry on pretty much as they are, support our Prime Minister.

Staying within the UK will allow you to enjoy the continuing benefits of London government and its continued attachment to neo-liberal politics. Instead of being left undefended by a reckless nationalist government in Edinburgh, you will have a new generation of Trident submarines to keep you safe. On your occasional visits to London you will have an outstanding transport system to enjoy, as a result of the disproportionate investment going into the capital’s infrastructure. All subjects of the Empire will benefit from this, however infrequently you may chance to visit. Building HS2 will allow you get to London far more quickly, as an added inducement. The many tunnels will avoid any unpleasant views of derelict industry and decaying housing in the north of England, that may blight your view en route.

Your loving nephew,

Walshy

February, Don't You Come Around

March 2, 2014, 4:14 am

≫ Next: End of an Era Revisited

≪ Previous: Scots Missed?

$

0

0

One of  the more boring aspects of this blog (to some) or the most interesting (for a few anoraks) is the odd look back at past elections.   This week saw the anniversary, forty years on this week, of the first of the two 1974 general elections.  The first was at the end of February, which as Barbara Dickson said a few years later "always comes around".

It was the dull dreary year that Abba’s Waterloo won the Eurovision song contest; Suzi Quatro, Alvin Stardust and the Osmonds topped the charts; and Rising Damp, It Ain't Half Hot Mum and Selwyn Froggart first appeared in the telly. But on the news, the monochrome images of February 1974 – millions of homes still only had a black and white set – was of a country gripped by industrial turmoil.

Late the previous year, the NUM had demanded a 35 per cent pay increase, in clear defiance of the Conservative government’s anti-inflation wage policy. Fearing that the massive oil price increases of October 1973 were already placing his government’s efforts to bring down inflation in mortal danger, prime minister Ted Heath resisted the miners’ claim. Rebuffed, the NUM led by Joe Gormley, ordered an overtime ban. The government responded by declaring a "state of emergency". 

Newspaper advertisements requested drivers to ‘leave your car at home this weekend’. On new year’s eve, the government’s three-day week to preserve coal stocks and reduce the risk of power cuts came into force.  But they surpassed even that by introducing a renewed and more thorough going "State of Emergency" in the penultimate sitting of the Commons, and having to having Heath scuttling to the Palace that very afternoon to get the Queen's assent.

With inflation and unemployment soaring and an emergency budget in December 1973 introducing swingeing cuts in public expenditure, an atmosphere of chaos and foreboding ensued: one cabinet minister reportedly told friends over dinner that the country was on the same course as the Weimar republic, while the editor of the Financial Times predicted a rightwing authoritarian government would soon be in power.

This, then, was how the curtain rose on 1974 – a time when governments attempted to control inflation by introducing wage policies, the prime minister often negotiated into the early hours with union leaders in Downing Street, and, when he finally asked the country 'Who Rules" the answer was "anyone but you, chum".   

This would be the third time that Heath and Harold Wilson had jousted at the polls. To date, each had beaten, and lost to, the other. On this occasion, however, Heath, supposedly playing the stronger hand, was no match for Wilson. Despite the strike being the cause of the election, the Tory leader proved poor on TV and in the papers. . Instead, the Labour leader, in the words of Ben Pimlott’s (himself then a junior academic at Newcastle Uni and Labour's candidate later that same year in Cleveland and Whitby)  biography, depicted himself as ‘a Labour Baldwin – a long-established national leader whom the voters could trust’. Aided by the three-day week. wide spread power outages and panic rises in the costs of household essentials, Wilson deftly turned the focus of the campaign away from the miners’ strike to the government’s poor economic record, painting Heath as ‘Mr Rising Price’.

Heath was a bad TV performer and his strangled upper middle class accent grated across the UK,  Wilson, as normal, tried to portray himself as the nation's avuncular bank manager - and succeeded.  In retrospect, looking at his interviews, it was noticeable with the advantage of hindsight to see his frequent small memory losses in front of the cameras, which he always quickly  covered up by puffing on his pipe,  I feel that this was, although we were not to know then, the very first signs of the onset of dementia that his own doctors had already warned him of, and which led to his shock resignation the following year..

Labour's manifesto was drafted largely by Tony Benn and Stuart Holland - both firmly on the left - but the process of taking the manifesto through the NEC and the joint liaison committee with the party's affiliated Trade Unions produced a document which was remarkably centrist .   There were commitments on price controls, but also an acceptance of government regulation on wages The Miners strike would be settled and the only new nationalization promised was that of shipbuilding

The local campaigns were low key.  Sure, the miners enjoyed support on Teesside, but people working for BSC and parts of the chemical industry still needed coal to power processes, blast furnaces and in-house power stations. Given this, solidarity with the miners was there, but so was an anxiety about local jobs.  On that basis, Labour's commitment to settle the dispute quickly and honoutably struck a chord.  

Most of our candidates, Arthur Bottomley in Middlesbrough, Jim Tinn in the newly created Redcar seat, Bill Rodgers in Stockton and the very odd Ted Leadbitter in Hartlepool were ageing, colourless, warhorses of the old Labour Right.   Ian Wrigglesworth in the new Thornaby seat shared their views, but was a bit younger and slightly more dynamic. The colours of the left were only worn by two candidates  - Gaye Hewitson (now Johnstone) in Cleveland and Whitby and the elderly, highly voluble, but comradely and approachable Spanish Civil War veteran of the ILP Brigade, Ted Fletcher.

Of polling day, all I can remember is that it was both nitheringly cold and sleety. I was new to Teesside then, and really didn't know the territory or the local nuances all that well.   I recall being assigned by the late Charlie Shopland,, Labour's agent for Middlesbrough, to loud speakering in a union car driven by a taciturn T&G full time officer who, because he had a weak bladder, had to drive via the area's public wc's (at least I hope it was a weak bladder !)   We covered Redcar and the East Cleveland part of the Cleveland and Whitby seat, with me squawking for Jim Tinn and Gaye, and using Radio 1 on the car radio as a musical interlude, so allowing Mud's "Tiger Feet", Sweet's "Teenage Rampage" and Golden Earring's "Radar Love" to be pressed into the struggle for socialism.

It wasn't helped by an unscheduled early evening black-out in Eston and Grangetown which led the people at bus stops to shout at us to "F off and get the lights back on".  I don't suppose, however, if we had stopped to say that was, in fact, what we were trying to do, it would have cut that much ice.   

The cold weather and dark early evening was anathema to turn out, and in East Cleveland, at least, it seemed that the whole population had cabined themselves up.  The joint count was at the Coatham Bowl, and with a crowd mainly made up, than as now, with party members who had not done a hands turn, but liked to come to what they saw as some kind of local soiree or levee for the local great and good. The business job of overseeing the count was, I recall, in the hands of the late Claude Christie for Redcar (known as the "Old Estonion" because of his painfully acquired upper class accent) and the indestructible Harry Tout (still with us at the age of 94) for Cleveland and Whitby.

                  

The colorful and diverse faces of Teesside Labour '74 (clockwise from above left) Bill Rodgers, Arthur Bottomley, Jim Tinn and Ted Leadbitter (centre of group)

All our candidates save Gaye Hewitson won their seats, Gaye  narrowly missing out in a newly created and heterogeneous constituency and failing to keep out a younger Tory rising star, barrister,  Leon Brittain

Only seven years later Rodgers and Wrigglesworth would rat on the people who worked for them by going over to SDP.

Despite polls indicating that the Tories would win comfortably, Wilson managed to fight them to a virtual draw: when the results was counted, Heath led by 0.7 per cent in the popular vote, while Labour, by four seats, was the largest party. The country had its first hung parliament since 1929, and one of only five in the 20th century. 

For a few days, the country witnessed a situation similar, albeit by no means identical, to that of May 2010. Wilson assumed that, as the leader of the largest party, the Queen would call upon him to form a government. Heath, however, believed that as the incumbent prime minister he had the right to first see whether he could form a government. Although toying with threats to issue ‘a denunciation of constitutional impropriety’, Wilson stayed his hand while Heath, still squatting in Downing Street,  tried, in vain, to negotiate a coalition deal with Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe, talks which foundered on Tory unwillingness to grant electoral reform, and the reluctance of many traditionalLiberals to support a government headed by a Tory leader.

Back where we belong - Harold and Mary

In the end Heath grumpily relinquished  the key of the door.   Wilson and Labour were back in power.  But it was clear that a new election could not be long delayed - and that came in the October of that same year.

Walshy (the anorak in the blue snorkel anorak at the back of the Coatham Bowl for those of you with colour TV)

EPILOGUE:  AN ELECTION AFTERMATH - HAROLD'S MINORITY MARCH OF THE MODS - THE QUEENS SPEECH FOR A NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT

After getting back into the comfortable seat at the head of the Cabinet table, Harold Wilson acted quickly to resolve the Miners strike and then get down to constructing a programme that could be accommodated within the confines of being a minority government and in an environment where a new election was inevitably not going to be far away.   He stressed the moderate (what we would now call "one nation" nature of his programme, but looking at the Queen's speech in early March, it now seems - in today'running s context with a Labour shadow administration scared of its own shadow, incredibly full of red meat - retail price controls, the boosting of regional development, big advances for the disabled, equal pay for women, the establishment of ACAS  and the bringing about of the end of rent racketeering - all of which could be seen as being capable of being implemented in a short yearly term. In the event most of that which could be implemented, was - and in seven months rather than a year

Here is the speech in full

HC Deb 12 March 1974    vol 870   cc43-7

Mr. Speaker

I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended Her Majesty in the House of Peers, and Her Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which is as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

My Husband and I look forward with pleasure to our visits to Indonesia and Japan and to the State Visit which Her Majesty Queen Margrethe of Denmark will pay to this country.

My Government will work for the strengthening of international institutions and of co-operation between all countries concerned to promote peace and to achieve prosperity in the face of world-wide inflation and far-reaching monetary disturbance. They will attach particular importance to the work of the United Nations and its agencies and to co-operation within the Commonwealth.

My Government will seek a fundamental renegotiation of the terms of entry to the European Economic Community. After these negotiations have been completed, the results will be put to the British people.

Recognising the economic problems concerning the developing countries My Government will seek to increase the provision of aid and to establish a more liberal pattern of world trade.

My Government will give their support to the search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973.

Recognising that the availability and the price of oil is a problem for the whole world, My Government will cooperate with consumer and producer countries in seeking to establish arrangements which will be in the interests of all.

My Government will oppose all forms of racial discrimination at home and abroad. In Rhodesia they will agree to no settlement which is not supported by the African majority.

My Government will give full support to the maintenance of the North Atlantic Alliance. They will regard the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as an instrument of détente no less than of defence. In consultation with their allies they will pursue a policy directed to maintaining a modern and effective defence system while reducing its cost as a proportion of our national resources.

My Ministers will contribute fully to the negotiations for force reductions in Central Europe and to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

My Ministers will give their support to the constitutional arrangements which now offer to Northern Ireland the prospect of healing its political and social divisions and of achieving prosperity and security for all its people. They will play their part, together with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, in developing co-operation in matters of mutual interest and in bringing violence to an end.

Members of the House of Commons:

Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:

In home affairs, My Government will first seek to ensure a return to full-time working in industry. I have been able to end the State of Emergency, occasioned by the coal mining dispute, which had existed since 13 November451973 and which I had renewed by Proclamation on 6 March 1974 before the dispute was settled.

My Government will give the highest priority to overcoming the economic difficulties created by rising prices, the balance of payments deficit and the recent dislocation of production.

Measures will be laid before you to establish fair prices for certain key foods, with the use of subsidies where appropriate; and to restrain price inflation.

Legislation will be introduced to reform and extend the law relating to consumer credit; and a measure will be laid before you to require goods, where appropriate, to be labelled with the price at which they are to be sold, and to provide for unit pricing.

My Government is taking immediate steps to halt the increases in rents due in 1974. They will bring forward comprehensive proposals, which will require the repeal of the Housing Finance Acts, to reform the law relating to rents and housing subsidies in England, Wales and Scotland. Urgent measures will be taken to reverse the fall in house-building, to protect furnished tenants from eviction and to encourage municipal ownership. Proposals will be prepared for bringing land required for development into public possession and for encouraging home ownership. Proposals will be brought forward to eliminate the abuses arising from the lump.

My Ministers will work for a greater measure of social justice as a pre-requisite of national unity at this difficult time. A Bill will be introduced to increase pensions and other social security benefits. Proposals will be put before you for the redistribution of wealth, the protection of the lower paid and the disadvantaged, and for better methods of meeting the needs of the disabled.

In the light of these measures, My Ministers will discuss urgently with the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and the others concerned, methods of securing the orderly growth of incomes on a voluntary basis.

My Ministers will hold urgent consultations on measures to encourage he development and re-equipment of industry. A Bill will be laid before you to consolidate and develop existing legislation to promote national industrial expansion. High priority will be given to the stimulation of regional development and employment. They will develop an active manpower policy, and bring forward legislation for protecting the health and safety of people at work.

My Government will encourage the maximum economic production of food by the farming and fishing industries of the United Kingdom in the interests of the national economy.

My Ministers will set in hand urgent action to improve energy supplies, to secure their efficient use and to ensure that oil and gas from the Continental Shelf are exploited in ways and on terms which will confer maximum benefit on the community, and particularly in Scotland and the regions elsewhere in need of development. An urgent examination will be carried out of the future of the coal industry.

Measures will be introduced to repeal the industrial Relations Act and to replace it by new legislation which will include the establishment of a new conciliation and arbitration service.

Comprehensive proposals will be brought forward to reform the law relating to the adoption, guardianship and fostering of children on the basis of the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Adoption of Children.

Within available resources, My Government will progressively improve and expand the National Health Service and the personal social services. They will review the working of the reorganised National Health Service.

My Government will give priority to improving educational facilities for children in need of special help, and will prepare plans for the nation-wide provision of nursery education and for the development of a fully comprehensive system of secondary education. A major review will be made of the particular needs of handicapped children.

The museum charges recently introduced will be abolished.

My Ministers will work for the protection and improvement of the environment including the improvement of public transport, and will reappraise accordingly the value of certain major development projects.

My Ministers will initiate discussions in Scotland and Wales on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, and will bring forward proposals for consideration.

My Ministers will make proposals for securing equal status for women.

My Ministers will consider the provision of financial assistance to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions.

Measures will be introduced to make further reforms in the law and improvements in the administration of justice.

Other measures will be laid before you.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:     I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

End of an Era Revisited

March 9, 2014, 11:14 am

≫ Next: Tony Benn and the Steelworkers - "We on this side are a socialist party".

≪ Previous: February, Don't You Come Around

$

0

0

A fortnight ago,as previously advertised int he PRT, 120 people packed out a North Skelton pub at a public meeting called by the 3 Labour Councillors for the ward and the local North Skelton Community Group, Action North Skelton.   This was a big turn out for a small village of 600 people,   Normally meetings of this size are to protest against something seen as a threat to local life - but this wasn't.   Instead it was to mark the 50th anniversary of the closure of North Skelton Mine - the last ironstone mine in the Cleveland orefield. 


Those at the meeting  saw film clips and heard contributions form three local experts on the mine and the miners - Peter Appleton from the Skelton History Group,  Dr Tony Nicholson, a retired History Lecturer from Teesside University and local film maker Craig Hornby, whose works include the the epoch-making 'A Century in Stone' a film honouring the heritage and deeds of the Cleveland Ironstone Miners


The closure was not one that was contested.  1964 was a different age.   Only two weeks notice of the closure was given, and the job losses were not fought.    Most of the men moved on automatically to other jobs in Dorman Long, such as at the expanding Lackenby steelworks and rolling mills.   Teesside was expecting a new future.  The week before the closure had seen Ted Heath, then the Tory President of the Board of Trade (today, the Business Minister) visiting the area to open the new Thornaby industrial Estate  and to announce the news that Shell were to open a "vast" new crude oil refinery at Teesport.   Modernity and expansion was in the air, and no-one - not even the GMB who represented the miners - seemed to care  overmuch about the loss of grubby, physical mining jobs - even if that industry was why Teesside existed.

It was both a sad and at the same time joyous meeting at North Skelton. The pit saw deaths, injuries and tragedies. But at the same time it also was a place where human comradeship between the miners was the key feature of their working life. And that comradeship still lives today in the spirit of a village that, 50 years on, can still come together to celebrate a collective working class community past.

Below is an article on the pit closure from Coastal View's enigmatic columnist, Hollie Bush

LAST CAGE UP TO NORTH SKELTON

Fifty years ago last month a chapter of history in East Cleveland came to an end - and we are now set to celebrate  - or mourn - it again,     This was the day in late January 1964 when the last shift came to the surface at North Skelton mine - the last ironstone mine in East Cleveland and the final survivor of a string of pits that stretched from Grosmont near Whitby through to the motherlode pit at Eston.  It was by fate that North Skelton survived its last weeks as the last survivor; it was originally expected to shut at the same time as neigbouring pits in Lingdale and Kilton, but it outlived them by a number of months.

North Skelton Pithead

 

This closure marked not just the loss of the jobs there, but the ending of an industry that simply and profoundly shaped our entire area.    If ironstone was not below our fields and meadows, then there would have been no Teesside - pure and simple.  We would have had an alternative history that would have meant that all that would have been of Teesside would have been small villages and the market town of Guisborough.   Instead, the discovery of ironstone at Eston set off an industrial juggernaut that saw the explosive growth of a whole region.    We became the iron land.

 

One thing that was missing in 1964 was this paper, as Steve and Lynne were just wee bairns,and so I have had to look at how the local press of the day covered this event, and it is from the faded, dusty pages of the Northern Echo and the Gazette that a lot of this column comes from

 

“Seven hundred feet below the green whaleback hills of Cleveland, the strong and proud heritage of the ironstone miner yesterday passed quietly into history,” said The Northern Echo's reporter, one Geoffrey Sumner, “The North Skelton ironstone mine, the last in Cleveland, died at midday. Its passing ended a way of life which brought industrial might to Teesside and moulded generations of men of iron.”

 

"And so, at noon on January 17, 1964, after 150 years of digging, the Great Cleveland Orefield came to an end. During those one-and-a-half centuries, 83 mines had employed up to 10,000 miners at any one time, produced hundreds of millions of tons of ore, created scores of little communities and one large conurbation, and started an industry which still employs thousands of men today"

 

 “A few minutes before noon, a dozen old men in cloth caps and mufflers stood at the pit head,” wrote the Echo’s talented reporter, Geoffrey Sumner, who must have been one of the last people to go underground. "In silence, they remembered the years of their youth given to the mine. With them stood miners’ wives, children and two women who still remembered men who were crushed to death in the mine." 

 

“They had come to see the end of a magnificent, roaring century. They had come to see history made.

But, 700 feet down in the damp, deserted galleries, this historic passing of an era had an air of anti-climax.

A jerking and groaning mechanical loader snaffled up the last three tons of ore that will ever be mined in Cleveland – the last of 25 million tons from this mine alone.   The ore, now in two iron tubs, rattled in the cage to the surface. Then two dozen men – the last of the tough, dedicated, larger-than-life miners who for a century have ripped iron from the Cleveland earth – stepped blinking into the sunshine. It was all over in 12 minutes."

 

The Evening Gazette was as elegiac.  Their 18th January 1964 edition said "It was an unreal moment of history. The roar of a mechanical loader made make talk impossible, and so, in silence, the party underground stood and watched iron ore being loaded into a tub.  Yet they were seeing the last tub being levered out of the mine signifying the end of Cleveland as a mining area" wrote an Evening Gazette reporter.    

 

Faces from the past - Tyne Tees TV's  George House speaking to a North Skelton pitman on the last day

That reporter - although the story had no by-line - was almost certainly the late Tom Leonard, a local man who served the East Cleveland area for the Gazette for many years, and who founded the Ironstone Mining museum still open and thriving to this day at Skinningrove.

Both papers marked the closure by talking to individual; miners on that last day - by all accounts an unseasonably sunny and warm day for the end of a January. The Northern Echo reported one person on the scene - a women form a local Mining family " “I don’t know how we’ll ever get used to the mine being closed,” said Meda Sanderson, of 27 William Street, North Skelton, whose uncle had died down below.  'It will always feel strange. Our village and our lives have always revolved around the mine. It is part of us. And now it is gone. I shall miss the rattle of the trucks in the morning and the sound of the hooter.. When you live with a mine all your life, these sounds become music.”

 

The papers gave a roll call of some of the men underground on the last shift - a shift that ended early that day, at 12 midday.   Given the ages quoted it is unlikely any of these men are with us now - but I hope members of their family are, and who can now appreciate how their grandfathers were recorded in the roll call of history.

Final pay queue

They started with the Banksman who lowered them 700 feet down into the mine - Mr Bob Calvert of North Skelton who, they reported, had worked at that pit for 30 years.   They were met at pit bottom by overman Charlie Dawn of Skelton - a 36 year miner.   They were introduced to the 'most experienced man in the mine" Deputy Mr William Armstrong, a 64 year old veteran of mining and who lived at 16 Davison Street, Lingdale.  They were then introduced to the men loading the very last tub of the material that made Teesside - Stanley Winspear of 2 Clifford Street, Redcar, George Johnson off Skelton, Sid Wesson, the driller, from Lingdale,  Mr Ray Johnson of Loftus, Mr Arthur Welburn of Brotton, Mr Victor Davison of Brotton and a Mr Conrad Radomski of Lingdale - almost certainly a Polish refugee from WW2, and a historical reminder that it is not only the 21st century that have seen Polish workers welcomed into our community as a fellow workers.

The last tun being loaded - Conrad Radomski (back to the camera) operating the Einco loader

 

The last tub of Ore was then hitched to a diesel loco - driven by a Mr Dave Hugill of Carlin How, and which then started its journey back to the bottom of the shaft for weighing at the pit head.  The weighman present for this - perhaps the most historic moment of the day - was Joseph Bennison of 9 Park Street, Skelton.   He was assisted by another veteran Arthur Pearson of Woodside, Brotton a 50 year service miner, and .Mr Alec Batterbee of 37 Wharton Street, North Skelton.  Alec told the gazette that he was the last man to care for the pit ponies at the mine; "I have been here 45 years and when I state as a horse keeper we had 89 horses stabled here.   My father, uncle and three brothers have all worked here, and I have been underground all my working life."  Not recorded was the actual last man out who later rode to the surface after all the underground systems had been turned off - Reuben Cooper of Bolckow Street North Skelton - aptly a man from the village built to house the mineworkers,  and who lived in a street named after the man who founded the iron land.

 

At the surface were   "the gaffers" - mine engineer Mr F W Cape, and assistant engineer, Mr W C Allen.     Coming down the steps from the offices were some of the clerical workers; Mr W Meaburn, wages clerk Mr T Laverick, Mr Benson, the mine accountant and a Councilor on the old Skelton and Brotton UDC and cost clerks, Mr Ingleby, Mr Stonehouse and Mr Gorman.   Presiding was the Mine Manager himself, George Pearson of Brotton, a man who began life at Carlin How mine as a pony stableboy at the age of 14, and through study worked up to be the man at the top.   He was a man who cared for the North Skelton community, and indeed up to his death just a few years ago, put much back into the village, and especially into the now closed St Peter's Church.

 

Sid Wesson and his marra on the drill

North Skelton was one of the most consistent and productive mines in the orefield – most years it produced nearly 300,000 tons to feed Middlesbrough’s voracious blast furnaces. Ir was hewed at a price, 30 men died in the lifetime of the pit.   The last trainload carrying the final 200 tons of ore that Cleveland ever produced left North Skelton for the blast furnaces three days later. And that was that.   The Northern Echo's Geoffrey Sumner concluded his report: “The spokes of the pit wheel stood still and stark against the sparkling winter sky. A page in history turned over.”    The Gazette's Tommy Leonard wrote is epilogue and epitaph too. recalling a miners banner he had known as a young lad in the East Cleveland area;   "It was Longfellow" he wrote "who said "And departing,  leave behind us footprints in the sands of time" but words forming a verse seen on a Cleveland Miners Association banner so long ago give an appropriate farewell to a vivid era in Cleveland history;

 

"Seize mortal, the transient hour.

improve each moment as it flies

life's a short summer, man's a flower

He dies - alas how soon he dies

 

 

Hollie Bush

Tony Benn and the Steelworkers - "We on this side are a socialist party".

March 14, 2014, 7:15 am

≫ Next: Hartlepool Telegraph Poles and Shildon Non-League Footie - Odd Reflections on the Passing of Tony Benn and Bob Crow

≪ Previous: End of an Era Revisited

$

0

0

"Not a lot of people know this" but Tony Benn's  maiden Commons speech in February 1951 was devoted to the nation's steelworkers and the need for democratic control by the people of the industry.  It resonated then for Teesside. It still does today.  He bounced up to follow Churchill who had opened an opposition debate to castigate Labour's steel nationalisation act

His speech is below, plus a note from the succeeding (Tory) speaker Sir Ralph Glyn (of Glyn Mills Bank fame, for what it is worth).                                          

 

5.30 p.m.

§Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East) 

As this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address the House, I must ask for the usual indulgence and sympathy of hon. Members. I am sure that all hon. Members realise that the hesitancy of a maiden speaker is a very real thing indeed; hesitancy, one might almost say, is an understatement of the way a maiden speaker feels. Conscious of the traditions of this occasion, I have chosen to speak in this very non-controversial debate. I have been inspired by hon. Members on both sides of the House in their appeals for unity at this time, and I believe that a great deal of unity of opinion is possible on both sides of the House over a great many of the issues we have to discuss this evening.

I detect in the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition three distinct ideas. First, it is a fundamental challenge of the wisdom of the last Parliament in passing the Steel Nationalisation Act. Secondly, it suggests that fresh evidence has come to light which should lead this House to reconsider its decision. Thirdly, in the wording of this Amendment, in which I note a trace of pained surprise, there is an implication that the Government have somehow or other behaved rather badly in this matter. I would like to deal, if I may, as non-controversially as I
can with those three propositions.


I do not want to deal at any great length with the main case of hon. Members on this side of the House for nationalisation, for the arguments are well known to all hon. Members. However, it is necessary to recapitulate them briefly so as to be able to see whether, in fact, the fresh evidence adduced in this Amendment is likely in any way to alter the necessity for this decision. Curiously enough, it is on the basic issues of nationalisation that the greatest agreement is possible on both sides of the House. Hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite are united in their agreement that this is a basic industry, that the health of this industry, the investment policy of this industry, the development of this industry in the future are absolutely fundamental to our economic life and to our standard of living. There can be no disagreement about that.


                                                   

                          And the people he was speaking for - Panteg steelworks 1950

Nor, I submit, can there be any disagreement on the nature of the present organisation of the industry. I do not want to press this point too much. I do not want to use the word "monopoly" in reference to this industry, because I do not want to be controversial. But I do think that hon. Members on both sides must agree that in the past this industry has shown a marked aversion, to put it mildly, to the workings of the competitive market both at home and abroad, and that it could hardly be described as the sort of industry which would make the classical economists smile with pride—if classical economists were ever known to smile. On these points, then, I submit there is universal agreement: it is an important industry and the control of it is in a limited number of hands. The point on which we disagree is the way in which this power should be controlled.


It is significant—significant, I would suggest, of the result of five years' political education since 1945—that nobody in the House today has suggested that there is no need for any control whatsoever. To do so would be to suggest that there was no likelihood of any divergence of interest between the industry and the people of this country.


Certainly such a suggestion involves an optimism which it would be hard to justify. On the contrary, hon. Members on both sides have stressed that there is a need for some degree of supervision. In accepting that, the point is immediately made that there may be in the future, as there has certainly been in the past, a divergence between the interest of the industry and the interests of the nation. Our problem tonight—indeed, the problem which was being considered throughout the last Parliament when this Measure was under consideration—is how such a supervision can be made effective.
I realise that analogies are dangerous, but there is one analogy which is as simple as it is instructive when we are considering the question of making supervision effective. It is the analogy with the present Parliamentary situation.


Right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench are making sustained efforts to supervise the policy of the Government. They find this supervision difficult because the political power in the country rests with my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. Similarly with the iron and steel industry, it is difficult to organise effective supervision over an industry when the real power lies, as in this particular case, with the shareholders. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite, if I may be so presumptuous, that the solution of their Parliamentary difficulties lies in a return to power at a General Election. There could be no dispute on the solution of their difficulties in that case, and there can be no dispute on the solution of our difficulties in this matter. If we are to make supervision effective, we must have control over the sources of the power in the industry, and this lies with the shareholders in the industry.


So much for this substantial case. I apologise to the House for recalling it, except that it is worth keeping it in mind when considering the fresh evidence adduced in this Amendment. The first piece of fresh evidence adduced is the record production in the industry. I, along with many of my hon. Friends, regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not devote more attention to the efforts of the steel workers in this connection. There are, however, many hon. Members on this side of the House who are better able to speak of that than I am. The point I want to make is a simple one: that the steel industry since 1945 has been working in what it is quite fair to call a sunny economic climate.


In this connection I should like to say a word about my predecessor, Sir Stafford Cripps. No one did more than he to bring about the economic recovery of this country since 1945. He, and those who worked with him, brought this country through the difficulties that faced it without many of the instabilities which arose from different policies, both in the United States and in Western Europe.
One of the major reasons of the success of the steel industry since 1945 was that it enjoyed, in the opinion of our British businessmen, a sustained justification for optimism about the future. I would, of course, only take this information from businessmen themselves. Hon. Members who doubt this, have only to read the annual reports of the company chairmen—that is, the business parts of their reports, and not the political parts—to see that the industry as a whole has benefited immensely through the sound economic planning of the Government. I do not underrate the value of American help—how could I when I am married to an American girl?—but I suggest that the success of the steel industry is much more a vindication of the Government's economic policy than a measure of the soundness of the present basis of ownership.


The second piece of evidence adduced was on rearmament. The part that the industry has to play in the rearmament drive simply underlines its importance, and therefore we on this side, to say the least, have every right to argue that as the industry is likely to be even more vital in the years ahead. We have even more right to believe that it should be in public hands. Also there are specific problems involved in rearmament, and it is upon these that I should like to focus the attention of the House.
First, there is the fact that the high demand for the products of the industry would tend to push considerations of costs and efficiency into the background if the industry were in private hands. The interests of the shareholders in this respect would be likely to diverge from the interests of the Government.


We saw after the First World War—I say "we  saw," but that is a politician's phrase: I was not born at that period—a similar situation, and we cannot afford to allow the demands made on the steel industry at present to result in its getting behind with its modernisation and development projects. Coupled with the need for a balanced programme is the need also for a proper system of supervision, which, I have tried to suggest, can be achieved only by public ownership.


There is also an important psychological factor. Owing to the curious nature of the industry, the fact that its units of production are of widely differing degrees of efficiency, and because of the complications of the price structure in the industry, there is at least the possibility that high profits will be made in the years during which the rearmament programme is under way. At a time when there is a very real threat to our standard of living, it would be psychologically disastrous to have an iron and steel industry which was doing very well indeed from a business point of view. [Interruption.]


That was put badly. I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I submit that the point itself is valid.
The last point with which I should like to deal is the implication in the Amendment that the Government have in some way behaved badly. We on this side are a Socialist Party—we have been for a long time. We have never made any secret of the fact. In 1945, when our election programme was published, we made no secret of it, and if any members of the electorate failed to read our election programme, they had only to listen to the Leader of the Opposition to realise that we were a Socialist Party. Everyone on this side pays tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his valiant work in informing the electorate of the intentions of the Labour Party.


The Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1948, and was debated throughout the following year. After some disagreements in another place, a compromise was agreed which seemed, to say the least, to be very fair to the critics of the Bill. Finally, the Bill was enacted. The people and their steel were married, after what, I suggest, was a long period of not very reputable cohabitation—if I may misquote the marriage vows—"For better for worse, for richer or poorer, until the advent of the Conservative Government doth us part." Moreover, it should be remembered that "That which Parliament hath joined together, let no man put asunder." This, surely, has some relevance to the Amendment which is before the House. That is the case which we put from this side.


We have learnt some lessons from this controversy. We have learnt that when one is up against the steel "bosses" it may not be as easy to get one's way as was thought. I believe that the whole history of this controversy is a final justification for our refusal to accept mere control. We have also tasted the political ambitions of economic power, and we shall not forget that either.


There seem to me to be two ways of dealing with the industry. One is an entirely new way, which nobody has actually suggested but which, I believe, is implied in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition; that is, for an entirely new form of public accountability, based on a constantly postponed plan of nationalisation, in which the work of the industry would be regularly surveyed by Parliament on Motions of Censure. That is one way in which it has been suggested that we could retain our ideological security and hon. Members opposite could retain their position of power. I do not think it is a very satisfactory solution, and therefore, with continued diffidence but with no hesitation now, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

5.47 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon) 

It falls to me, as the next hon. Member to speak, to congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) on a most admirable and able speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On this occasion I should like to couple the Socialist Party with my congratulations on having obtained an extremely helpful and forceful recruit. Another reason why I am so glad that it falls to me to be able to congratulate the hon. Member is that I am old enough to have sat in the House for a good many years with his father. It makes me feel uncommonly old to see the hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite looking as his father did then, and, indeed, as his father does now.

Every time we hear somebody make a maiden speech which convinces us that the House will gain by the hon. Member's presence and that the hon. Member will rise to positions of responsibility—it is all the more refreshing to have such sane remarks from a Socialist point of view and made by so young a Member of Parliament—we are given great hopes for the future.

Hartlepool Telegraph Poles and Shildon Non-League Footie - Odd Reflections on the Passing of Tony Benn and Bob Crow

March 23, 2014, 9:46 am

≫ Next: ERIC BURDON - "SKY PILOT" AND THE ZOMBIES

≪ Previous: Tony Benn and the Steelworkers - "We on this side are a socialist party".

$

0

0

More measured reflections on the loss of Bob Crow and Tony Benn in the space of a few days last week, gives me the thought that we should concentrate on the arcane in Socialist politics, as it has touched us in our area of the country.   In a sense, this is referring to the Marxist strain in our movement - in this case Groucho Marx's influence.      

I have also included at the end the Hansard transcript of Hilary Benn's tribute to his father given in the Commons last week.    Hilary has been a friend of my constituency party (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) for many years, and in this connection we should also remember the tragic passing of Ashok Kumar who died tragically young this time in 2010.  Ashok was Hilary's PPS and Hilary helped us in the MP's office to sort matters out in what was an unprecedented set of circumstances at that time

.Walshy

First a memory of Benn's recorded in his diary days after Labour had won the 1964 general election, and his first encounter with the decidedly odd Labour MP for Hartlepool, Ted Leadbitter, as recorded in Benn's diary.     See below an extract from a 2004 piece in The Northern Echo by Chris Lloyd, which recalled this tale

"Mr Leadbitter's election was part of the swing towards Labour that enabled Harold Wilson to end 13 years of Conservative rule - but only with a majority of four. In real terms, with illness, this was just a majority of two.

In such circumstances, most newly-elected MPs would do their utmost to support their new Prime Minister and government.

But, in astonished tones, the newly appointed Postmaster General Tony Benn recalls in his diary how early in 1964 he received a letter from the MP from West Hartlepool complaining that a telegraph pole had been erected in front of an irate constituent's house.

Mr Benn replied that there was little he could do; Mr Leadbitter was so affronted that he said that "he regards the Postmaster General's reply as so evasive that he does not propose to come to the House or accept the Labour Whip until the pole is removed". 

Ted Leadbitter was threatening to wipe out Mr Wilson's majority and let the Tories resume their reign.

Mr Benn told the Chief Whip. The Chief Whip told Mr Leadbitter "in earthy and graphic terms" about the foolhardiness of his actions.

A few days later, Mr Benn records that the "Leadbitter fellow had relented". The Government was not about to topple - and the pole stayed in place."

"I'm afraid that Mr Leadbitter's here again PMG" - Tony Benn at  the Postmaster General's desk

Then also from the Echo - this time from Mike Amos's "Bactrack" Local Sports column, which, last week, managed to find room for Bob Crow.

"The unexpected death on Tuesday of RMT union leader Bob Crow stirred affectionate memories for Alan Morland, in Shildon.

Ten years ago Alan helped run Shidon Railway FC, then nearing its 50th birthday. “None outside the town was particularly interested and few inside it, to be honest,” he recalls.

Alan wrote to Bow Crow, reminded him that Shildon had been “callously wiped off the British Rail Engineering map”, asked for a message of support from the union.

Crow replied personally, knew every detail of the wagon works and their demise, pledged to come personally to congratulate the club on its milestone. He did, brought an RMT football team, played himself, enthusiastically joined the dinner that evening.

The following season the club hit serious financial difficulty. Alan again contacted Crow and received a “sizeable” RMT donation almost by return. Again the RMT football team was drawn together, again enjoyed the dinner, have returned annually ever since. The next, sold out, is on March 22.

Shildon Railway FC Ground and RMT Poster. Is the refreshment room now the Crow Bar ?

Now scouting for Newcastle United, Alan Morland speaks as he finds. “”The portrait of Bob Crow in the media is harsh and untrue. It’s not a political endorsement by any means, but I just asked him to help the lads from Shildon. He promised he would, and he did"

(Thanks to both Chris and Mike for permission to reproduce)

Hansard 20th March 2014 11.58 am

Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab): First of all, may I say on behalf of my sister Melissa and my brothers Stephen and Joshua and the whole family just how much the words we have heard today mean to us?

I do not propose to add to what has already been said, and indeed written, about my father’s political legacy—apart from anything else, everyone already seems to have their own opinion, as today’s debate has demonstrated—but I do want to say a few words about what Parliament meant to him, because it was the centre of his very long life. He won 16 elections, proudly representing first Bristol South-East and then Chesterfield. Fifteen of those elections enabled him to walk through those doors and take his place in this Chamber. One of them—the by-election he fought after the death of his father—did not. He was barred from entry to the Chamber on the instructions of the Speaker because, it was alleged, his blood was blue. His blood was never blue; it was the deepest red throughout his life.

That moment taught him that the right of people to choose who will represent them here in this place—the very foundation of our democracy—was never, ever granted by those in power. It had to be fought for. That is why democracy is so precious.

His fight to stay in the Commons had, I think, a marked and profound effect on his life. It was why he was so determined to support others in their struggles: to bring an end to apartheid and the death penalty; in support of the miners, as we have heard; and to campaign for peace, because it was war that had taken from him his beloved elder brother Michael.

It was also why he was so determined to commemorate in Parliament the history of those struggles because, as he would often say, all change comes from below. That is why, as we have heard from many Members today, he went down into the Crypt with his screwdriver and put up that plaque in the broom cupboard. He wanted to teach us: why did that brave suffragette spend the night in the broom cupboard in 1911? The answer is because it was census night. What do you do in a census? You fill in a form, and she wanted to write: “Name: Emily Wilding Davison. Address: Houses of Parliament.” Why? Because she believed that a woman’s place was in the House—the House of Commons.

He was very fond of challenging those in authority, assisted by “Erskine May”. He once even moved a motion of no confidence in the Speaker. But he also had a great sense of fun. On one occasion, he was part of a group of Labour MPs who had decided to delay a Division in the Lobby because they wanted to make trouble for the Government. The Serjeant at Arms was dispatched in order to investigate and told them that if they did not move he would have to take their names. My father looked at him and, as his diary records, said, “But that would be completely contrary to Mr Speaker’s ruling of 1622.” After the Serjeant at Arms had departed from the fray, Dad turned to his fellow conspirators and, with that mischievous twinkle in his eye, admitted that he had just made that all up but it seemed to have done the trick.

He loved this place, the people who built it and those who help us in our work. He loved the debate and the argument. But he did not idealise Parliament. He saw it as the means to an end: to be a voice for the movements outside these walls that seek to change the world for the better, as well as being a voice for the people who send us here and whom we all have the privilege to represent.

That was the essence of his character. Yes, it was shaped, as we have heard, by events and experiences but also, as for many of us, by his childhood. He was, at heart, not just a socialist; he was a non-conformist dissenter. His mother taught him to believe in the prophets rather than the kings, and his father would recite these words from the Salvation Army hymn, which I think best explain what he sought to do in Parliament:

“Dare to be a Daniel,

Dare to stand alone,

Dare to have a purpose firm,

Dare to make it known.”

If we are not here to do that, what are we here for? Well, he was. He knew what he thought. He was not afraid to say it. He showed constancy and courage in the face of adversity. Whatever the scribes and the pharisees may have to say about his life, it is from the words and kindnesses of those whose lives he touched that we—those who loved him most—take the greatest strength.

After all, any life that inspires and encourages so many others is a life that was well lived. [Applause.]

ERIC BURDON - "SKY PILOT" AND THE ZOMBIES

April 2, 2014, 7:52 am

≫ Next: CHARTISM IN MID NINETEENTH CENTURY NORTH RIDING AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WEAVERS OF BROMPTON.

≪ Previous: Hartlepool Telegraph Poles and Shildon Non-League Footie - Odd Reflections on the Passing of Tony Benn and Bob Crow

$

0

0

As part of another contribution to the start of WW1 two other small musical essays that will enrage Michael Gove - but they were both penned at a time when the Education Secretary was still in his nappies.  

It is perhaps telling that despite the national hype on WW1 there has been nothing from the most accessible culture  in our society - pop and rock.  Leaving aside the classical or the hand over the ear folk genres - both marginal in popular culture  - there has been nothing from the rock industry, either from the narcissistic indie album makers, or from the TV dominated chart sector.  

It is frightening that what there is, is only from my old generation of the 1960's.    It might not be all that odd - after all, WW1 veterans were then around in good numbers, unlike now, and we heard their memories - but even then rock was absorbed with the hedonistic here and now, not old history 

But, still, two numbers emerged, and I am using this column to reprise them.

"Sky Pilot" was penned by Burdon at the time when he was with what are called "the second Animals" when he was on the road in the US in 1968.   Banned by the BBC for its anti-war lyrics at a time when the London US Embassy was under siege from haries like me there in solidarity with the embattled people of Vietnam, it was written by Burdon when he was at his most political.    He was politicised generally by the US anti-war movement - a far more serious cause in a country actually at war - and personally by his chief US roadie who, it seems, was oddly also a bit of a Trot,   Burdon bought heavily into the San Francisco scene, and his single 'San Francisco Nights' has classic lines like "Cops face is filled with hate..,.. heavens above he's on a street called love".  That was a minor hit here, and "Sky Pilot" reached 11 in the US, despite being blacked by right wing 'good old boy' DJ's.     

Classic stuff.

                                                 

Then -  the boy from Walker                    And now................on the road with Springsteen.....

"Sky Pilot"

(Burdon/Briggs/Weider/Jenkins/McCulloch)

He blesses the boys as they stand in line

The smell of gun grease and the bayonets they shine

He's there to help them all that he can

To make them feel wanted he's a good holy man

Sky pilot.....sky pilot

How high can you fly

You'll never, never, never reach the sky

He smiles at the young soldiers

Tells them its all right

He knows of their fear in the forthcoming fight

Soon there'll be blood and many will die

Mothers and fathers back home they will cry

Sky pilot.....sky pilot

How high can you fly

You'll never, never, never reach the sky

He mumbles a prayer and it ends with a smile

The order is given

They move down the line

But he's still behind and he'll meditate

But it won't stop the bleeding or ease the hate

As the young men move out into the battle zone

He feels good, with God you're never alone

He feels tired and he lays on his bed

Hopes the men will find courage in the words that he said

Sky pilot.....sky Pilot

How high can you fly

You'll never, never, never reach the sky

You're soldiers of God you must understand

The fate of your country is in your young hands

May God give you strength

Do your job real well

If it all was worth it

Only time it will tell

In the morning they return

With tears in their eyes

The stench of death drifts up to the skies

A soldier so ill looks at the sky pilot

Remembers the words

"Thou shalt not kill"

Sky pilot.....sky pilot

How high can you fly

You never, never, never reach the sky

Enjoy on YouTube (extended version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69zvFnVa03g

And then - as well - The Zombies "A Butcher's Tale 1914" - lyrics by Chris White (Bassist)

The lyrics are based on an incident from WW1 which was a subject band bassist Chris White took an interest in. The lyrics tell of a battle from the viewpoint of a soldier in the midst of the fight. Despite the title, the battle White had in mind when writing the lyrics occurred in1916.   In the album's CD cover notes, Alec Palao calls the song "a thinly-disguised comment on Vietnam".

Instrumentation for "Butcher's Tale (Western Front 1914)" is limited to Rod Argent playing a harmonium in a manner described by music critic Matthew Greenwald as "odd-sounding'.   Sound effects are also incorporated to help give the song its strange sound.  These sound effects were developed by playing a Pierre Boulez album backwards and speeded up.  The effect of the harmonium and sound effects is to make the song appear to be an example of "musique concrete"

Although White wrote the song with the intention that Zombies' lead singer Colin Blunstone would sing it, White ended up singing the words. "Butcher's Tale 1914" is White's only lead vocal performance for The Zombies. Although, in the words of Dorian Lynskey "Butcher's Tale 1914" was the band's "most soberly uncommercial song," Date Records chose it for a single for the LP Odyssey and Oracle. This was apparently due to the company seeing the song as a metaphor for Vietnam.  The band, however, was surprised that such an uncommercial song was also chosen as a single.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the single sold poorly.

Music critic Matthew Greenwald called it one of The Zombies "strangest and most experimental songs," adding that it provided "a fine strangeness" to the album. Pierre Perrone of The Independent, recently reprising the band, claimed that the song proved that "the band were both of their time and incredibly prescient".

   

Chris White (lower centre) in 1967                                                      And now- still on the road

A butcher, yes that was my trade

But the King's shilling is now my fee

A butcher I may as well have stayed

For the slaughter that I see

And the preacher in his pulpit

Sermoned "Go and fight, do what is right"

But he don't have to hear these guns

And I bet he sleeps at night

And I...

And I can't stop shaking

My hands won't stop shaking

My arms won't stop shaking

My mind won't stop shaking

I want to go home

Please let me go home

Go home

And I have seen a friend of mine

Hang on the wire like some rag toy

Then in the heat the flies come down

And cover up the boy

And the flies come down in Gommecourt,

Thiepval, Mametz Wood, and French Verdun

If the preacher, he could see those flies

he wouldn't preach for the sound of guns

And I...

And I can't stop shaking

My hands won't stop shaking

My arms won't stop shaking

My mind won't stop shaking

I want to go home

Please let me go home

Go home

And again on YouTube listen.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcIu3pIzWI

 

 

 

 

 

---

CHARTISM IN MID NINETEENTH CENTURY NORTH RIDING AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WEAVERS OF BROMPTON.

May 6, 2014, 11:18 am

≫ Next: Borrowed from a friend or otherwise, Conservatives need to hold their horses...

≪ Previous: ERIC BURDON - "SKY PILOT" AND THE ZOMBIES

$

0

0

 Previous PRT articles on Chartism on Teesside refer to Chartism's local roots amongst the linen weavers of 'West Cleveland" (the string of villages between Northallerton and Great Ayton), and the influence of displaced weavers in the new town of Middlesbrough.

Thanks to Harry Fairburn for providing this extract / notes of his talk to the Brompton Heritage Group which took place in the Village Hall on 27 March 2007 and which gives more details of this local aspect of the Chartist Movement

You may be puzzled by this odd colour scheme in these three paragraphs, but it is rather appropriate as the Colours the Chartists sported were Green, and probably had an ancestor in the green sprigs and ribbons carried by Leveller agitators  in the English Civil War.    FWIW the Labour Party in many parts of the North East used Green as leaflet and rosette colour right up to the 1970's !
 
SO HERE'S HARRY

 

"I think before getting under way I should say what exactly Chartism was about. Chartism was a working class political movement in the years from 1839 up to 1848. Supporters of this movement were called Chartists because their political objectives were contained within a so called Peoples Charter. The idea of a Charter was rooted in the myth of Magna Carta which was believed to be a statement of rights. The Charter contained six points was launched on 8 May 1838 by politically conscious artisan London radicals.

Every man over 21years to have the vote
A secret ballot to be introduced
A MP did not have to have a property qualification.
All MPs to be paid
All constituencies to be equal in terms of population size
Elections to Parliament to be held annually.

Interestingly there was no mention of the House of Lords or of womens’ rights. To achieve these objectives petitions to Parliament were made in 1839, 1842 and 1848. All were rejected. 

As you are aware five of these demands were eventually achieved except than that of annual Parliaments.

While Chartists were in broad agreement about the Charter it was additionally an umbrella for other radical proposals particularly the rejection of the New Poor Law. (that is the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834)

How did this all come about?

I would argue that Chartism was a cry for help particularly among the industrial areas of the North of England. There is evidence in early and mid nineteenth century Britain of a close connection between economic crises and political unrest. The commentator William Cobbett once said ‘I defy you to agitate a fellow with a full stomach.’ One historian has pinpointed specific years between 1790 and 1850 when social tension might be expected to be unusually high or low. What he has shown is that when bread prices were high and allied to business depression there was a correlation with Chartist activities in the late 1830’s and early 1840’s. On the other hand in years of low bread prices and economic well being in the years 1843 to 1846 there was a more muted response from Chartist sympathizers.

In the eighteenth century distress often resulted in riot. High bread prices in Newcastle resulted in “the Keelmen entering Newcastle in terrible numbers with all sorts of weapons.” The nineteenth century saw in the main a transition from riot to a political awareness among the working classes. This awareness was inspired by eighteenth century reformers like Thomas Paine in his work “The Rights of Man”. Building upon Paine’s work was the radical press led by the famous paper the Poor Mans Guardian issued from 1831 by Henry Hetherington. This paper and others gave working class radicalism with a new sense of purpose. Furthermore the Reform Bill of 1832 left only one man out of six with the vote. The Bill was a great disappointment particularly to the London artisans who had supported the reform of franchise. They now felt betrayed. The radical press built up the image of the Great Whig Betrayal beginning with the Reform Bill, the suppression of the Swing Riots and more fundamentally the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. The New Poor Law was of particular concern in the north of England where violence had occurred to delay the implementation of the Act.

Northallerton Workhouse - the poor law 'spike' for destitute West Cleveland weavers.

I have now covered briefly the background to the rise of Chartism. In 1838 and 1839 there was no national organization to the movement but often Working Mens Associations were established at a local level often inspired by the visit of prominent speakers like Feargus O’Connor. It was O’Connor who founded the Chartist newspaper the Northern Star. In fact it is from this newspaper historians have been able to obtain much information about Chartist meetings and its organizations. During 1838 the idea of a National Convention was developed. Delegates from various organizations were appointed with this event to take place the following year. These delegates finally assembled in London on 4 February 1839. The delegates saw the Convention as an alternative parliament but also there was an intent to add to the half a million signatures to a National Petition already gathered. Accordingly fifteen missionaries were sent out to areas where there was a perceived lack of spontaneous support.

One of these missionaries was Peter Bussey who came to the North Riding. (see notes 1) He was born at Aiskew, near Bedale in 1805. His parents moved to Bradford when he was quite young and later took up employment in the worsted trade. Bussey became quite active in Trade Unionism and a vocal opponent of the New Poor Law. By 1837 Bussey was a publican at the Hope and Anchor in Bradford and displayed a notice in the window of the pub “No more Poor Rates paid here until the Poor Law is repealed”. After the property was seized to pay the rates Bussey turned to the Chartist movement. Bussey often used extremist language and on one occasion was quoted as saying:

“Let those who cannot purchase a rifle get a musket. Those who cannot get a musket let them buy a brace of pistols. And those who cannot buy pistols must get a pike. Aye a pike with a shaft eight feet long and a spear fifteen inches at the end of it”   Bussey had clearly been influenced by the violent language used at the Convention which had alienated middle class delegates particularly from the Birmingham Political Union. The departure of the Birmingham delegation gave more scope to the group that has been described as the Jacobins who used the rhetoric of the French Revolution. One of this group, G.J. Harney, compared himself with the revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat. Other speakers at the Convention argued for the historical precedent for the right of citizens to bear arms. Behind all this it should be understood that the age of Chartism was also the age of melodrama on the stage and fire and brimstone in the pulpit.

Other Chartist meetings were just as much revivals as they were for Methodists. Some Chartists regarded Christ as the first Chartist. Many of the linen weavers (2) in Brompton were Primitive Methodists and their problems of the 1830’s were highlighted in the reports of the Brompton Primitive Methodist Circuit. In March 1837 “a great part of our members and hearers being weavers or otherwise connected with that business, our finances have been affected by the depression in that trade.” As the weavers in many areas formed the backbone of the Chartist movement it would be unusual if the Primitive Methodist Ministers in Brompton were not sympathetic to the cause.

Bussey’s visit to the North Riding was referred to by the Tory Yorkshire Gazette on 9 March 1839 with: “Mr Peter Bussey the delegate from the Chartist Convention commences his tour of agitation through the North and East Riding on Wednesday next. We think however that the good sense of the inhabitants of these districts is such that they will not be deluded into the violent and rebellious conduct which has been displayed in the manufacturing districts.” No doubt the Gazette was referring to anti Poor Law riots.

Bussey saw the hand loom weavers in the North Riding as potential supporters for the Petition. They were the casualties of the Industrial Revolution. The distress of the weavers was identified by Solomon Keyser’s contribution to the Report of the Royal Commission upon Handloom Weavers in 1840. Keyser’s evidence came from his discussions with weavers of both Brompton and Northallerton who described the depth of their poverty. (3) 

 

After Bussey’s initial visit to Guisborough he went on to Stokesley where he addressed a meeting from a window of the Black Bull. Following this an open air meeting took place near Swainby on the afternoon of 19 March 1839. The Northern Star reported that this meeting attracted many hundreds who poured in from the West Cleveland linen manufacturing villages of Osmotherley, Carlton, Faceby, Hutton Rudby, Potto and Ingleby. “They heard a “long, powerful, and effective speech” from Bussey which received loud and continuous cheers”. 

On 20 March Bussey entered Northallerton. A meeting took place in a large room on the 20th at the Oak Tree Inn at 7 o’clock in the evening. The Northern Star reported that the room was crowded to excess and many could not obtain access to the meeting as a consequence. The Chairman of the meeting, Mr Joseph Ingram, read out the National Petition before Bussey spoke to condemn the policies of successive Whig and Tory Governments. A resolution was passed to support the National Petition with the signatures of those present and also to establish a Working Mens Association.

On the following day, Thursday, Bussey addressed the inhabitants of Brompton where he addressed the people from the window of an Inn when the National Petition was adopted. The weavers of Brompton had previously organized strikes to support higher wages in both 1818 and 1825 which pointed to their organizational abilities. In 1818 the sentencing of four strikers for entering into an illegal combination was overturned on appeal to the North Riding Quarter Sessions. In 1825 the Brompton and Northallerton weavers obtained the increase in wages they fought for.” This was the last recorded instance of industrial action before the decline of the industry in the late 1820’s and the 1830’s.

On the evidence of the Northern Star all Bussey’s meetings were well attended. On the other hand the Yorkshire Gazette quoted Bussey as saying “The parsons and political Tories exerted themselves to the utmost in order to prevent the people from assembling. They threatened the shopkeepers with the loss of their custom and the labourers with the loss of their employment.”

A cockpit of past revolt, now a quiet commuter village - Brompton today.

On 7 May 1839 the Petition of 1.25 million signatories was rejected by Parliament. The proposal that the House of Commons support the Petition failed by 235 votes to 46. Disraeli was one of those who spoke in favour (see his novel “Sybil.”) If Bussey’s visit to Northallerton is judged in terms of signatories to the Petition then it must be seen as a failure. William Lovett wrote to a number of Working Mens Associations seeking responses to a questionnaire.

One of the towns responding was Northallerton. A key question was: How many signatories were there to the National Petition ? Bradford indicated 27,000  Knaresborough 500 - but Northallerton ? 

None

On 17 July 1839 Durham and Darlington Associations attempted to continue Bussey’s missionary work in the North Riding. A deputation included Miles Brown, Darlington’s principal Chartist leader, John Batchelor from Sunderland and John Rogers, a Thirsk hatmaker arrived in Northallerton. The Northallerton magistrates refused permission for the meeting no doubt being influenced by Miles Brown’s inflammatory speeches in Darlington. The meeting went ahead regardless at the Market Cross. Despite some interruptions Brown made a rousing speech and threatened “that the men of Durham and Northumberland were competent to give the gentlemen a good drubbing when the day of reckoning came.” After a meeting in Thirsk, just to the north of the town, the crowd was swollen by navvies from the Great North of England Railway. 

 

On 25 July the Durham Chartists came to Brompton and “a public meeting of the inhabitants and the supporters of the Charter was held on the front of Mr Hustwaites, innkeeper.” Brown made an impact and the weavers responded with “We will, with our right arms support the Charter.” Upwards of 50 members were after enrolled in the Association despite the presence of the manufacturers Messrs Wilford and Patterson. Probably in the region of 230 weavers were in Brompton at that time.

After the visits by the Durham Chartists there was no further Chartist activity either in Northallerton or nearby weaving communities. Nationally in the late summer onwards there were many arrests of Chartist leaders. There was great anxiety in Darlington as there was a growing tendency in the use of violent language by Chartist speakers who appeared to encourage the perceived threat of insurrection. Alarm reached its peak on 15 August with the announcement of a great meeting in the Market Place. Additional special constables were recruited and a company of 50 soldiers of the 77th foot were rushed from Stockton taking advantage of the railway connection to Darlington. The meeting ended peacefully. Nevertheless Miles Brown was arrested on 23 August and charged with seditious libel at a meeting in Darlington on 17 July and John Batchelor similarly charged at the house of W. Oliver the printer for the Darlington Chartists on 31 August. The 77th Foot left Stockton on 26 September. At the end of the day it was found that drunken members of the regiment had committed more violence than either the Chartists of Darlington or Stockton.

It may have been quiet in the North Riding but not elsewhere. There were rumours in all parts of the country during the autumn that there were to be insurrection. It was only in South Wales that anything happened. On the night of ¾ November in the region of 7,000 colliers and iron workers led by John Frost marched on Newport. The purpose was to capture key towns and establish a republic. After a fierce battle the Chartists were dispersed by two dozen soldiers and twenty four people were killed or died from their injuries. The myth that British soldiers would not open fire in such circumstances had been exposed. Frost and others were charged with high treason but in escaping the death penalty they were subjected to transportation. Further attempts at planned insurrections at Bradford and Sheffield were “killed in the bud” due in part to the Home Office use of spies to infiltrate the local Chartist organizations. The imprisonment of the Bradford and Sheffield Chartists in the Northallerton House of Correction did much to put Northallerton on the map during a period when almost 500 Chartists nationwide were to serve prison sentences.

A representation of the 1848 London Chartist Great Rally

The trials of the Bradford and Sheffield Chartists took place at York Castle in March 1840. The ring leaders were found guilty of “Conspiracy with intent to create riots and Disturbances and having in Prosecution of that Conspiracy procured arms and riotously assembled together.” The apparent leader of the Bradford conspiracy was William Peddie who was sentenced to four yeas imprisonment at the Beverley House of Correction. However it is thought that the real leader was Peter Bussey who disappeared shortly before the arrests. It is thought that he had “cold feet” about the matter. (He later turned up in charge of a boarding house in New York.) Of the eleven prisoners held in the Northallerton House of Correction had sentences running from 12 months to 4 years. These sentences were relatively light compared with those imposed on the Swing rioters earlier in the 1930’s. In the riots between 1 January 1830 and 3 September 1832 1976 prisoners were sent to trial with 505 sentenced to be transported and 252 sentenced to death. Of this total 19 executions were proceeded with.

Several prisoners in Northallerton were given early release particularly if they were suffering from ill health. One prisoner, John Clayton, died, after completing 12 months of his two year sentence with hard labour. The leader of the Sheffield conspirators was Samuel Holberry who was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. Owing to poor health he was transferred to York Castle in October 1841 and he died during 1842 from tuberculosis. He was then aged 27. In a letter to the Northern Star Holberry blamed his ill health on his treatment in Northallerton. It that was said Holberry’s funeral attracted 50,000 people. Five years ago I was advised that just a few years earlier a Samuel Holberry Society had just been wound up following the death of the 96 year old Secretary.

Only two prisoners served their full term of imprisonment in Northallerton. John Marshall had been given 2 years with hard labour and William Brooke who had been given 3 years. The decisions whether or not to grant early release were probably influenced by the interviews conducted with prisoners by Captain W.J. Williams of the Home Office. Williams while being impressed by the integrity of Holberry thought very little about Marshall whom he thought “was a very bad man” who sought to implicate others in the conspiracy to secure his own release. Marshall was already known to the authorities, although acquitted while serving in the East Yorkshire militia, had been brought to trial with others for breaking into a counting house. Additionally there was a petitioning campaign mounted nationally for the release of Chartist prisoners or the amelioration of their terms of employment. When Captain Williams interviewed the prisoners he obtained details of their weekly diet in Northallerton.

Breakfast: One quart of oatmeal porridge and half pound of wheaten bread.
Dinner: For two days one quart of potatoes with salt and half pound of wheaten bread.
For three days one quart of stew made of beef potatoes, oatmeal and onion
With half pound wheaten bread
For the remaining two days one quart of broth thickened with oat meal and onion and l lb of wheaten bread.
Supper: one quart of oatmeal porridge and ½ lb of bread.

The national movement’s high hopes and aspirations of 1839 were extinguished by the early 1840’s. Nevertheless attempts were made to rebuild the movement. But this was a turning point. Never again would Chartism recapture the sense that the achievement of power was within their immediate grasp. The way forward was done with the foundation of the National Charter Association in Manchester in July 1840. This organization provided for the payment of key officials in a bureaucratic national structure, the registration of members at a local level and the improvement of local organization. The NCA urged constitutional means to achieve their objects and stressed sobriety. It has been suggested that the NCA was the first working class political party. One immediate object was a campaign to save the lives of Frost (see march on Newport) and his associates from execution. The reduction of their sentences to transportation for life was seen as a success. There has been debate whether the structures of the movement owe more to trade union, Methodist or parish government experience and precedent. There appeared to be slow progress in the establishment of branches in this area. There was no mention in the Northern Star of Northallerton or Brompton for the whole of 1841. However in October 1841 there was reference to a meeting in Middlesbrough with delegates from:

Stockton
Stokesley
Hartlepool
Middlesbrough

with a view to them joining the NCA. At this meeting it was decided to make contact with Chartist friends in Darlington and Yarm. In December 1841 the Northern Star gave a list of 299 branches of the NCA which included Darlington and Yarm. The establishment of the NCA in Darlington was important as it became a eventually a regional centre. The first reference to Northallerton in 1842 was in May. Under the heading Northallerton the Northern Star stated: “Mr Brook will lecture at this place on Whit Sunday if all is well”

Later the Northern Star referred to a delegate meeting in Darlington on 22 May on business of great importance with delegates to come from Northallerton, Brompton, Richmond, Barnard Castle, West Auckland, Bishop Auckland, Darlington and Stockton on Tees. A report on this meeting in the Northern Star referred to the collection of monies from each branch to employ lecturers “but not until we have a month’s pay in hand.” It was proposed that each branch should subscribe on a weekly basis as follows: Darlington 4s., Richmond 3s., Barnard Castle 3s., Bishop Auckland 3s., Northallerton and Brompton 3s., West Auckland 1s.6d., Stokesley 2s.6d.,South Shields 2s., Wingate Grange Colliery 2s.6d., and Hartlepool 1s.6d. A further meeting was arranged for Sunday 20 June which was to do with the Brooke case. (The Chartist prisoner) The meeting for the 20th June appears to have been unreported.

Isaac Wilson, a weaver from Brompton is in evidence when a meeting was held in Northallerton in July1842. Wilson was the Secretary of the Northallerton and Brompton NCA and took the chair when a Mr. Williams of Sunderland gave a lecture at the Northallerton Market Cross. “At the appointed hour a goodly number of the spirited and intelligent weavers of Brompton marched into the Town and took up their position at the Cross.” I have heard that there my have been a Chartist choir in Brompton which is possibly substantiated by the Northern Star. Their reporter wrote that “The Brompton patriots appear to have cultivated the art of singing to some purpose for during the journey back (to Brompton) they poured forth the fervour of their hearts by singing patriotic songs.

Isaac Wilson appears in the 1841 census as living in Water End Brompton and his age given was 25. At the same address, the property was unnumbered were Elizabeth Wilson aged 75 and Jane Wilson aged 45 described as a pauper. The continual imprisonment of Brooke in the House of Correction appears to have given the local Chartists a new focus. Wilson’s letter to the Northern Star in August 1842 was headed “Brooke the Northallerton Victim” The letter went on to say” Brother Chartists, We the Committee of patriot Brooke’s Victim Fund lay before the public the decision of the Board of Magistrates. They refuse him being taken into our resources it being contrary to Northallerton prison discipline. They will allow him pen, ink, paper and books and exempt him from labour providing we pay for his prison diet. He is at present in the Hospital and lives as he being convalescent we expect his discharge immediately into the prison diet consequently we commence paying in order to render his dreary abode as little irksome as possible. We therefore appeal to the great Chartist body on his behalf and publish our balance sheet to show.” The figures show donations of £1.11.1 (including 6s.1d from the Hand Loom Weavers of Northallerton and Brompton) 

The letter was dated 9 August 1842 and requested that all donations be directed to Isaac Wilson, Secretary at Brompton.

Brooke went on to serve his sentence and was released in March 1843. Brooke had been interviewed in 1840 by Capt. Williams who found that Brooke had no significant complaints to make about his treatment. However Brooke entered Northallerton H of C he had a track record of several terms of imprisonment for refusing to support his wife. None of the other prisoners had criminal records or had served terms of imprisonment.

Wilson’s letter was the last reference I found to any Chartist organization in Northallerton or Brompton. Before Brooke completed his sentence he was joined by 27 of the so called “plug plot” rioters sentenced for terms of between four months and eighteen months hard labour in September 1842 for offences of “Unlawfully entering premises” and “Conspiracy and Riot.” The plug plot riots and many strikes occurred in several towns in Lancashire and the West Riding with rioters reacting to wage reductions of 25% and wider economic hardship of the times, by drawing the plugs from factory boilers and other acts of vandalism. These riots were not organized nationally, in fact the national leadership was very embarrassed by the events, but local chartist leadership was involved. Fergus O’Connor came out against the strikes as violence had been greater in the summer of 1842, apart from the Newport affair, than in 1839. The arrest of many of the rioters, in the region of 1500 dealt with by the lower courts, the rejection of the National Petition, despite doubling the number of signatories discouraged many within the movement. This Petition not only included the essential points of the Charter but also a demand of the repeal of the Poor Law Amendment Act as well as the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland. All this had a negative impact on the movement. Additionally there was a successful harvest in 1842 as well as improved economic conditions. There was also the restoration of the wage cuts that inspired the plug plot riots.

After 1842 the national leadership began to disintegrate leaving the local branches of the NCA without effective direction. Fergus O’Connor, for example, pursued his back to the land scheme. During the years 1843 to 1845 there was no reference to a NCA branch in Darlington in the copies of the Northern Star. Chartism did not necessarily die as a consequence. For example in November 1843 the radical The Stokesley News and Cleveland Reporter publishing material by T. Cartwright a local Chartist looking for support among the linen weavers. Nevertheless in 1846 the Northern Star referred to a petition being prepared in Darlington to obtain the release of John Frost the leader of the Newport insurrection. It said that “as there is no society in the town a few of the right sort set to work in earnest in getting petition sheets.” This virtually confirmed the absence of a Chartist organization in Brompton/Northallerton. The decline in Chartism as a political force is illustrated by the decline in the average yearly sales of the Northern Star from 1839 to 1844.

1839 30,000
1840 18,000
1841 13,000
1842 12,000
1843 9,000
1844 7,400

There was a brief recovery in Chartism nationally in 1848 resulting in the mass meeting at Kennington Common, attended by O’Connor, when it was intended that a procession would march on London to present a further Petition. This procession was banned by the authorities who were prepared to use the army to reinforce the police. The Petition was laughed out of court as it was found that many of the signatures were forged and it contained even the name of Queen Victoria. This then saw the end of Chartism as a creditable political movement. London in 1848 was not Paris. There was no evidence of a Chartist organization in this area in 1848.

What is most difficult to understand is why the Chartists felt they could succeed. That is why I said earlier that Chartism was a cry for help. Let us look at two possible strategies open to the Chartists. One was the route of moderation, education and temperance. This approach was one that believed in the supremacy of reason and ability to influence public opinion. Yet none of the main political parties offered support or saw the need for further reform. The alternative strategy was resort to force. Some limited success had been achieved with riots to prevent the election of Boards of Guardians. This route risked alienating moderate chartists. In any event when violence took place, or was planned, the forces of law and order were too strong. One possibility might have been to enter into alliance with the Anti Corn Law League. The latter organization could have gained the support of working class demonstrations so well exploited by those seeking political reform prior to the 1832 Act. In the main the Chartist leadership was against such an alliance. An important consideration of course was the extremist language of many Chartist speakers which would have in all probability deterred the middle classes who formed the backbone of the Anti Corn Law League.

What is important to point out that the restriction to the franchise did not necessarily mean that the working classes were oppressed. Much useful legislation was passed to assist the working classes eg.

Mines Act 1842
Factory Acts 1844 and 1847
Repeal of Corn Laws 1848
Public Health legislation 1848

Fergus O'Connor 

Finally there is a traditional view is that Fergus O’Connor made a negative contribution to the Chartist movement. This view reflected in part the criticism of other Chartist leaders with whom he had fell out.. They were of course not impartial. A more considered view has emerged. While he did divide the leadership yet he united the movement. Without him there would not have been a Chartist national movement."


Notes (DW)

1 Chartist Ancestors blog has three references to Bussey - an appreciation http://chartist-ancestors.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/peter-bussey-exiled-revolutionary.html, a biog http://www.chartists.net/Peter-Bussey.htm and a note on his burial place http://www.chartists.net/Where-are-they-now.htm&bussey

2  A note on the local industrial base in North Yorkshire History can be seen on Alice Barrigan's North Yorks history site http://northyorkshirehistory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/chapter-2-linen-weaving-paper-mill.html&more

3    A note from Alice Barrigan on the Parliamentary Commission in North Yorkshire History can be seen here http://northyorkshirehistory.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/notes-on-hutton-rudbys-industries-in.html

4     Previous PRT posts on local Chartism
http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chartism-in-two-teesside-towns-by-dr.html

http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/chartists-in-middlesbrough-birth-of.html

http://republic-of-teesside.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/chartism

Borrowed from a friend or otherwise, Conservatives need to hold their horses...

May 15, 2014, 3:26 pm

≫ Next: 80 YEARS ON THE BATTLE'S STILL TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY AGAINST CAPITALIST OLIGARCHY

≪ Previous: CHARTISM IN MID NINETEENTH CENTURY NORTH RIDING AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WEAVERS OF BROMPTON.

$

0

0

Judging by numerous sources (the offerings of the televisual political commentariat, newspaper columnists and comments page keyboard warriors), people would be forgiven for assuming that next year’s general election will soon be a foregone conclusion.

Such is the gloating from right-wing hacks and sympathisers it seems the Conservatives are on course for a substantial Parliamentary majority after May 2015.

The BBC in particular must be preparing for a raft of lawsuits from disgruntled employees in its news department, all complaining of repetitive strain injuries incurred through continuous copy and pasting of Tory press releases.

The public is being relentlessly bombarded with statistics (not context), informing us that GDP is growing, public borrowing is reducing, unemployment falling and inflation being brought under control. The Government has been proven right on its core economic policies, and the natural order of things will soon be restored.

It is a matter of time, we are told, before David Cameron will soon command a convincing poll lead, the odds ever shortening on him returning to Downing Street as Prime Minister.

Ed Miliband, meanwhile, is apparently doomed to defeat. Disgruntled outriders from Labour’s right wing already appear to be circling his walking corpse, ready to pounce as soon as the inevitable occurs.

Apart from anything else, such nonsense is revealing of the born-to-rule attitude still prevalent among the UK’s political Right. It is ludicrous to found electoral predictions on the notion that unless Ed Miliband can engender an overwhelming landslide victory for the Labour Party the keys to No. 10 will, by reason of default, remain in Cameron’s doubtlessly well-manicured fingers.

In fact, one year out from the general election Miliband looks comfortably on course to be the next Prime Minister. He is the most likely candidate, on the evidence, for the sole reason that it is currently difficult to see who else could possibly form a government in twelve months’ time.

As much as I personally loathe seeing the course of political debate in this country increasingly swayed by opinion polling, it is worth noting that the sampling methods developed by modern pollsters over the last two decades have moulded them into a very reliable indicator of election outcomes. So let us briefly look at the evidence and examine whether the braying of gloating Tories is justified.

Since Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in late 2010 the party has attracted poll ratings of between 35-40% consistently. It has never dropped below that bracket. Significantly, this has coincided with a considerable drop in support for the Liberal Democrats that has also proven consistent.

According to Ipsos Mori earlier this year, 77% of likely Labour voters would never consider voting Conservative. This is easily the most loyal base of support enjoyed by any of the main parties.

The Tory poll rating has been the most varied over the course of the Parliament, but it is telling that present rising support has not, and is not likely to, come at the expense of Labour. This is explained, and compounded, by the fact that only 5% of Labour’s current support comes from those who voted Conservative in 2010.

Let’s remember that in 2010 the Labour Party’s vote collapsed to 29% of the popular vote and numerically barely above that achieved during the Thatcher landslide of 1983. The pattern of the opinion polls shows two things from the Labour perspective: first, that the Party is set to capture a significantly higher vote share than five years’ previously, and secondly that its standing in the polls bears little relation to the fortunes of the Tory Party.

Should Labour and the Conservatives emerge from the next general election having achieved a vote share that one way or the other leaves them a few percentage points apart, this would represent a reasonable swing to Labour. Given that Cameron would need a uniform swing of 2% in his own favour to obtain a House of Commons majority, all the opinion poll results to date suggest he has very little chance of doing so.

It is also fair to question whether the Tories actually came close to maximising their potential vote in the 2010 general election. It is well documented that every Conservative election victory since 1955 has been on a lower share of the vote than previously. The loss to the Labour vote between 1997 and 2010 came to some 5 million people. David Cameron, however, could only increase the Tory vote in that time by 1 million.

There are now also significant geographical regions of the country where anti-Tory politics is entrenched. As Owen Jones reminded us in the Independent in June 2012:

“Over half of Scots voted Tory in 1955: at the last election, they were confirmed as a fringe Scottish party with less than 17 per cent. Merseyside used to be a heartland of working-class Toryism, but the idea that Liverpool once had Tory MPs seems ludicrous today. Conservatives once had a real base in places such as Sheffield and Manchester: they no longer have a single councillor in either city. Thatcherism created a culture of passionate anti-Toryism in large swathes of the country, with the mass unemployment of the early 1980s and early 1990s making the cruelty of Conservatism almost folklore. As Tory policies batter these communities for the third time in as many decades, this contempt is being cemented for a whole new generation.”

This youngest generation of voters – Generation Y – consistently tell pollsters that they are considerably more likely to vote Labour than to vote Tory. According to Ipsos Mori in December 2013, as many as four in ten of all adults say they would never even consider voting for them. The British Conservative Party, for all the triumphalism of today, is quite literally a dying political force.

If the Labour vote is unlikely to waver and the Tory vote is limited we can conclude that short of a major political upheaval over the next twelve months it is unlikely the Conservatives will establish a poll lead over Labour sufficient for a Parliamentary majority.

The balance of power, therefore, will be decided in a handful of marginal seats. The most recent polling on this question from September 2013 shows the Labour Party outstripping its national poll position, with an average lead of 14% in the ‘key’ 32 Con-Lab swing seats. If that swing is replicated elsewhere Miliband could garner a further 66 seats and would be on course to cruise into Downing Street.

We will have to await Lord Ashcroft’s latest marginals poll, due to be published later this month, to see if this lead is holding out. Were it to do so, what it would show is not only that the Conservative vote is limited overall, it is also limited by demographic and by geography.

Put another way the Tories may be able to rely on a core constituency of parliamentary seats over which they command insurmountable majorities, but taking these seats out of the equation Labour’s lead is considerably more than the national polls suggest.

To bring us back to my initial point, then, the trenchant unpopularity of the Tories would seem peculiar given their deafening spin and bluster regarding their economic record. Surely with the economic recovery now allegedly in full swing and living standards allegedly rising we ought to have seen the popularity of the Cameron government soaring towards hitherto unknown heights.

The reason this is not happening is because the spin and bluster of the government’s economic record is precisely that.

The sadistic mantra now in vogue is to refer to the slash and burn policies of swingeing cuts to public services, public sector pay freezes, and attacks on social security benefits as forming part of a retrospectively titled ‘long term economic plan’.

The argument that austerity has led to business confidence, which in turn has led to productive investment, creating jobs, economic growth and trickle-down prosperity, is not difficult to dismiss.

Firstly, the quarterly growth rate is still below where we were in 2010 when the government came into office. Secondly, save for the positive effect of the London Olympics and Diamond Jubilee, we saw no GDP growth whatsoever throughout 2012. Thirdly, annual GDP growth remains below its pre-recession peak.

This is before we even consider the substance of the ‘growth’ engineered by Osborne’s policies. As set out last month by former treasury economics advisor James Medway, far from rebalancing the economy away from the financial services sector and towards manufacturing, service output is now back above its 2008 level whilst manufacturing is not expecting to return to 2008 levels until 2019. According to the Office for National Statistics, services in fact accounted for 0.7% of the 0.8% growth in the last quarter.

Not only this but the rise in GDP is being fuelled by a rise in household debt. Between 2012 and 2013 household spending rose 2.4%, despite the fact that average real earnings are falling.

As Mr Medway warns:

“We are setting up, in other words, exactly the conditions that helped produce the crash of 2008: debt-led growth, in which stagnant or falling real earnings are masked by increasing levels of household debt that sustain continued consumer spending.

So the message, as we’ve stressed before, is that this isn’t so much a recovery as a relapse. With debt-led growth concentrated in overheated London, spurred onwards by an extraordinary bubble in house prices, it’s as if all the worst elements of the early 2000s had come back to haunt us: property bubbles, rising debt, stagnant wages, increasing inequality, growing insecurity at work.”

The Keynesian economist Paul Krugman is similarly unimpressed by the Government’s record on economic growth. Finding it unsurprising that growth returned to the UK economy once George Osborne took his thumb off the economic windpipe, at the end of last year he wrote in the New York Times:

“Britain’s recent growth doesn’t change the reality that almost six years have passed since the nation entered recession, and real G.D.P. is still below its previous peak. Taking the long view, that’s still a story of dismal failure — as I said, a track record worse than Britain’s performance in the Great Depression.

Second, it’s important to understand the history of austerity in Mr. Osborne’s Britain. His government spent its first two years doing big things: sharply reducing public investment, increasing the national sales tax, and more. After that it slowed the pace; it didn’t reverse austerity, but it didn’t make it much more severe than it already was.

And here’s the thing: Economies do tend to grow unless they keep being hit by adverse shocks. It’s not surprising, then, that the British economy eventually picked up once Mr. Osborne let up on the punishment.

But is this a vindication of his austerity policies? Only if you accept Three Stooges logic, in which it makes sense to keep banging your head against a wall because it feels good when you stop.”

But what about unemployment? We have all been inundated by the seemingly positive headlines that national unemployment now stands at 2.32 million, with the first quarter of this year seeing more people find work within a single economic quarter (283,000) than at any time since records began in 1971. Wouldn’t it be churlish not to rejoice at this news?

Not if we place the figures in context, it wouldn’t. Unemployment now stands only slightly below where it was in 2009. The numbers of people actually in work (72.7%) still remains significantly lower than ten years ago (73.1%).

When this government came into office it oversaw an increase in unemployment up to a peak of 2.7 million by the end of 2011: at the time the highest level for 17 years.

Again, though, if we waft away the smoke and invert the mirrors we begin to see the truth behind the figures. Research by the Resolution Foundation found that the total number of employed jobs actually fell in 9 out of 12 regions between 2008 and 2013, remained static in the south east and east, but rose only in London, where 285,000 posts were created.

In the North East, meanwhile, unemployment stands at over 10% and actually rose in the last quarter of 2013. Across Teesside, too, long-term unemployment, particularly amongst young people, continues to deteriorate. Since April 2010 the number of people claiming JobSeeker’s Allowance for more than 12 months in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency has risen 18.8%. For under-24s this figure has risen by 22.2%.

Outside of the capital, the fall in unemployment appears to be driven only by rising rates of self-employment. Esther McVey might laud this as a renewal of entrepreneurial spirit, but the fact that the average self-employed person now earns 40% less than the average employee suggests that many of the new entrepreneurs are simply people who have given up on finding work and registered as self-employed purely to get themselves off the dole.

Meanwhile the rise in the number of people working on zero-hours contracts, with no guaranteed hours or pay, has far outstripped the fall in the unemployed. According to the Guardian there are now 1.4 million people working under these conditions.

With any sign of economic recovery limited to London, driven by a house price boom in the South East and an increase in household borrowing, and with the fall in unemployment driven only by the service sector hollowing out the labour market, flexible and insecure working conditions and low-paid self-employment, it is not surprising therefore that the effects of alleged recovery are not being widely felt.

Again the Government’s rhetoric on living standards is transparently dishonest. We are told that average earnings are now rising by 1.7% per annum, and that this outstrips inflation which rose at only 1.6%.

Firstly, if we exclude bonuses average earnings rose only by 1.4%, so in fact a fall in real terms.

Secondly inflation is only measured at 1.6% according to the Consumer Price Index, to which the Government switched in July 2010 in place of the Retail Price Index. The chief differences between CPI and RPI are that CPI takes into account the spending of the top 4% of earners, but excludes housing costs. RPI does not take into account spending by the uber-wealthy, and does include housing costs. Given that 40% of average household income now goes towards housing costs, tracking inflation by the CPI does not therefore give any indication of realistic trends in living standards from the perspective of the average earner.

Measured using RPI, which does take housing costs into account, inflation is rising at a far faster rate (2.5%) than earnings. Had the Government not switched to the Consumer Price Index, the official rate of inflation would be predicted to continue to outstrip wage rises until 2018.

New data revealed this week shows that the share of post-tax income enjoyed by the top 1% of earners (some 300,000 people) has risen in the space of one year from 8.2% to 9.8%. Meanwhile, the share enjoyed by the bottom 90% of earners has fallen.

Suppression of wages has combined with cuts to tax credits, housing, child and council tax benefits to deliver the longest sustained fall in living standards since the 1870s.

What, then, of the final claim made by the Government - the argument that they are reducing public debt, without which we would see no business investment and no economic growth whatsoever?

This is the easiest claim to dismiss of all. It simply isn’t true. The fact that the Government spent three years stifling economic growth by imposing massive public spending cuts in the name of deficit reduction led merely to a reduction in tax revenues. The fact that Osborne has sharply reduced the top rate of income tax and has been visibly relaxed on tax avoidance has also contributed to the fact that the Government has missed all of its self-imposed targets on deficit reduction.

The consequence of which has seen the public debt increase by £417bn in the four years between 2010 and 2013. A staggering increase considering the previous government increased the public debt by only £407bn over the whole of its thirteen years, most of which as a consequence of the decision to bail out the insolvent financial sector in 2008.

There is clearly a constituency in the country that has benefited from Tory rule, but out where it matters the Government’s gloating rings very hollow.

If it is difficult to see the circumstances in which Cameron wins a Parliamentary majority, it is also difficult to see a continuation of the present coalition. Should the Lib Dems suffer a collapse in their numerical support during the election the appetite to get back into bed with the Conservatives will be weak and the appetite for a leadership election – perhaps a coronation for Tim Farron – will be strong.

Even if Ed Miliband fails to oust Cameron at the first time of asking, there would be an enormous danger to the Labour Party if his internal enemies used the opportunity to precipitate a change of leadership and a change of policies.

Given that the long-term strategy for Labour following the 2010 election was to first de-toxify the ‘brand’, second to re-build its base (for example, by winning back Redcar from the Lib Dems), the final stage would be to then reach out to the millions of younger and poorer members of the public who are voting in ever decreasing numbers.

A weak minority Tory government with barely more seats than Labour, rife with infighting over Europe and under increasing pressure to take the politically toxic measure of increasing interest rates would not last long. Its public approval ratings would quickly plummet and a Labour Party that sticks to its guns in those circumstances could look to build from a stronger starting point and could destroy the Conservative Party for a generation in a similar fashion to 1997.

The other reason for Labour to resist a move back to the right, even in the event it fails to form a government after May 2015, is that Cameron and Osborne have revealed the bankruptcy of austerity politics. Their vision is of a low-wage, low-skill, low-tax economy, where even with rising employment living standards continue to fall for the majority. Even with economic growth public services and the welfare state cannot be afforded.  Austerity has led to higher public debt, which must be paid for with a further bout of austerity.

Whilst Ed Miliband would not look towards some form of full-blown socialist program, the Labour Party has challenged neo-liberal orthodoxy under his leadership. A Miliband government would reverse the privatisation of the NHS and in fact expand its remit through the creation of a National Care Service.

He has given an indication that there is a strong probability his government would look to bring the railways back into some form of public ownership. His business department would set up a state-led investment bank to help divert investment towards regional economies such as the North East, and he would impose stronger regulation on rents and tenancy agreements, and legislate to prevent private energy companies from gorging themselves on profits generated by rises in household bills. His Treasury would reverse planned giveaways to the very wealthy such as tax relief on annual pension contributions up to sums several times average wages, and would use the savings to instigate a revolutionary reduction in business rates paid by small and medium sized businesses.

Furthermore, he would tackle zero-hours contracts and would challenge the Conservative view that lax workers’ rights and low taxes on the wealthy are the key to economic growth. Instead, there would be a genuine desire to promote a high-skill, high-wage economy, even if within the context of globalisation.

Politics is led by incumbent politicians whose focus is inevitably on election outcomes. The fact is, whatever the outcome of the next election, the Thatcherite policies relied upon by the Conservatives are unsustainable and they remain electorally doomed in the long term.

Whilst an Ed Miliband government is the most likely outcome, should the Labour Party fail to win at the first attempt next year it needs to avoid the carnage of a knee-jerk reaction and to retain the long-term perspective of where our political future lies.

 Joe Culley

80 YEARS ON THE BATTLE'S STILL TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY AGAINST CAPITALIST OLIGARCHY

May 24, 2014, 9:02 am

≫ Next: GRAYS ELEGY - MILIBAND'S SPEECH IN THURROCK GIVES HOPE

≪ Previous: Borrowed from a friend or otherwise, Conservatives need to hold their horses...

$

0

0

As a follow up to Joe's latest piece, I am simply pasting a copy of a piece put up on the Socialist Unity website this week  -  the FULL text of FDR's inauguration speech of March 1934.  I have to admit I have never read it in full, and knew only the line about "The only thing to fear, is fear itself', but reading the full version, it is tough stuff, and echoes as strongly in 2014 as in 1934.

The legendary presidential inauguration address heralding the radical reforms that saved US capitalism, Franklin D Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ speech, which he gave during his inauguration as the nation’s 32nd president in 1934 in the midst of the Great Depression, outlined his objective of creating capitalism with a human face. The New Deal moved the priority of the US economy away from the creation of untrammelled wealth for the few to dignity and decency for the many, inspired by the work of Britain’s John Maynard Keynes.

The underlying principal of the New Deal was government as lender and investor of last resort, using the resources of the state to reduce unemployment, introduce welfare for the poor, and reintroduce aggregate demand into an economy that had collapsed as a consequence of reckless lending and speculation by an unregulated and out of control banking and financial sector.

Wall Street experienced the impact of the New Deal in the form of a regulatory framework designed to constrain its ability to act irresponsibly and recklessly. It came into law under the provisions of the 1833 Banking Act  commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act, named after its Congressional sponsors – Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B Steagall – both Democrats.

Today’s US champions of Keynesianism – Paul Krugman and Joseph Stieglitz – have drawn parallels with today’s economic recession and the crisis of the 1930s. Interestingly, they point out that the weakness of the New Deal was that the federal government was too timid and did not spend enough, hampered by the absorption of much of the government funds made available to meet state budget deficits at the time.

It was the New Deal that at the onset of the Second World War was the instrument already in place which really pulled the US economy out of stagnation and under employment, involving as it did a massive injection of government spending, planning, and full employment. 

Reading FDR’s speech today, the parallels are striking between then and now.

The speech in full:    Over to you Ed and Ed for 2015

‘President Hoover, Mr. Chief Justice, my friends:

This is a day of national consecration. And I am certain that on this day my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation is asking for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources.

Hand in hand with that we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. Yes, the task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, the State, and the local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities that have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped by merely talking about it. We must act. We must act quickly.

And finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

These, my friends, are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the 48 States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States of America–a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor–the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others–the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress can be made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and our property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at the larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us, bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image, action to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple, so practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has ever seen. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

And it is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis–broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded, a permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He

protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.’

David Walsh 

GRAYS ELEGY - MILIBAND'S SPEECH IN THURROCK GIVES HOPE

May 28, 2014, 9:45 am

≫ Next: EVENT: "THE RED REPUBLICANS OF TEESSIDE AND EAST CLEVELAND "

≪ Previous: 80 YEARS ON THE BATTLE'S STILL TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY AGAINST CAPITALIST OLIGARCHY

$

0

0

Just for once I intend to be an uber-loyalist and post up Ed Miliband's full Thurrock speech made on Tuesday last - 48 hours after the close of poll.    It was a brave speech made hurriedly  in a Labour heartland turned purple  -  so no huggy feely embraces and handshakes with still ecstatic poll winners.  It was brave too, in that it cut through the dominant media narrative, and both celebrated Labour's wins ( on the locals far more massive than anyone would credit just by way of the mass media)   and also affirmed that we are not going chasing the UKIP obsessions with immigration and Europe.

That last part alone, contradicting the anonymous "senior party figures" who have been suggesting just exactly that, is welcome - hugely welcome.   But that does not mean we should be analysing where and why the party seems to be getting disconnected with traditional working class supporters.  

 

Ed Miliband talks to Labour supporters in Essex

                                                              

Simply, for my part, I feel that the party has become too obsessed with being fiscally conservative and ensuring it was not seen as profligate, but not enough on speaking to people’s everyday concerns about insecurity from job loss or low pay.   The wealth of data on UKIP sympathisers says most are deeply insecure about their economic prospects, worried about the future and want some stability in a rapidly globalising world.

But not so quick. This kind of analysis  will face resistance from those who want focus on keeping and developing a return back to ‘fiscal competence’ – i.e. trying to out-Tory the Tories on the economy.  This is an odd argument since talking about ‘fiscal discipline’ for the last two years seems only to have moved the polls against such an approach.

People want competence - but they also want cash and comfort, - commodities in short supply in hard pressed areas like Teesside.

And what of Teesside?

The public mood seems as muddy, turgid and somnolent as the lower Tees.    Instead of an angry white water surge, we see passivity and negativity.  We see huge mixed messages too.    In the same short time period that saw UKIP - on Borough wide aggregates - top the polls across all the Teesside boroughs, two new polls argue that Labour was on course.   Lord Ashcroft's poll of marginals called for a cab to arrive next year for James Wharton, whilst a second poll from a  (now ex-Lib Dem) peer - Lord Oakeshott's doubtless well-intentioned homily for Nick Clegg's breakfast reading, says the same for Redcar's Ian Swales.     Good news for Louise Baldock and Anna Turley, but the truth must be that at least some of those polled said one thing to the pollster and than voted entirely differently.

To see the stark Tees Valley Borough EU election results see here   

http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3433

At the end of the day, it is the local economy stupid.   Far too many of our people are living on a hand to mouth existence on short term jobs, on the minimum wage, or have simply sunk into the kind of long term benefit dependency that just does not show up on JSA counts - and are now seeing this as normal.    But they have TV's and read the press, so are in a position to hear the national politicians talking about - from the right 'the recovery' and from the left ''competence - but without cash'.    This is mirrored locally by the starry eyed output of a lot of our local councils who yak on of things forever being on the up - and this at a time when the damage done to local welfare and social care as a result of the austerity programme are apparent to all with eyes to see.

To me all this backs up Ed M's message - but he will have to be his own man here.   

Walshy

So, hey-ho, here is his speech.

"Today I have come to Thurrock to talk to you about Thurrock’s future and the country’s future.

I have come after the local and European elections.

In ordinary times, the point of me being here would be to come and tell you that these elections show Labour can win.   That’s the typical politician thing to do.

But these elections show something much more important; which goes beyond the fate of any one party or any one government.

For those who voted for UKIP, those who came to Labour, to the millions who didn’t vote at all, the resounding feeling was one of deep discontent with the way the country is run.

So I am not here simply to tell you Labour can win.

But to tell you why we must.

And to talk about the larger lessons in the results for our party and our country.

To understand these elections we shouldn’t look just at the last three weeks, not simply at the last three years but much further back: the last three decades.

Big changes have happened to Britain.   Economically, socially and to our politics.

And millions of people now feel that our country does not work for them, politics does not listen to them and cannot answer them.

They believe the people who work hard, try and support their families and build a better future have been left behind, and the major parties work for others and not for them.

Some of those voted for UKIP in these elections.  And far more people did not vote at all.  

These are challenges for all political parties.

It’s up to other leaders what they say, but I’m not going to shy away from these challenges or pretend they don’t exist.

If Labour’s going to change things, we have to be in communities all over Britain talking about the issues that matter.  And that’s why I am here.

I want to start by talking about some people I met here with Polly Billington, local Labour candidate, on Sunday.

Because they tell us so much about Britain today.

Jade’s here today.  She’s twenty.   She has got good college qualifications.  But she’s only able to find work for 12 hours a week.

She thinks she might be better off on benefits.  But she’s working because that’s the way she was brought up. That’s the value she believes in.

For her, the link between hard work and being able to do better feels like it has been broken.

On Sunday, I also met Carol, who had just turned 65, who is also here.  She’s got grown-up kids, with kids of their own.   Her kids have good jobs and decent homes.  But Carol worries about her grandkids.

She told me on Sunday: “The low paid jobs they can get mean they just won’t be able to afford their own home.”

And of course, lots of the people I talked to on Sunday were talking about immigration and the changes people had seen here in Thurrock.

Builders from Eastern Europe, care-workers from overseas who sometimes don’t speak fluent English.

Big changes happening to this community.

These are the realities of work, of family and of community.

Realities like those I have seen so often in my constituency in Doncaster.

Realities that are reflected across the country

Now it so happens that the people I spoke to on Sunday weren’t necessarily UKIP voters, but they knew people who were.

One person said to me: “The ordinary man in the street is not being heard enough anymore. They thought UKIP heard them.”

What she was saying was that some of the people who voted for UKIP came from that part of working Britain who work hard for a living, in tough jobs and seek to provide for their family.

People who love our country.But feel left behind by what has happened.

Some people who in years gone by would have been Labour till they die.

Their parents certainly were.  Their grandparents too.

So how have we got to this point?    And what do we do about it?

Let me tell you how I see it.

More than anything it is about the big economic change we have seen.

The industry of our country, the docks near here, the mines in Doncaster, my constituency, provided a decent wage, a decent life, a decent pension.

A job was not just a job.   It was the foundation of community.    

And about thirty years ago these secure jobs with good prospects started to disappear - And they weren’t replaced by similar jobs for the future.

At the same time, immigration has been changing communities fast, including here in Thurrock, with people seeking to build a better life here.

And the pace of change is quicker than it has ever been.

So over the last decades there were big changes happening in our country.

And fewer and fewer working people thought the country worked for them.

That was made worse when political scandals happened, like MPs’ expenses.

And as a result by 2010, too many came to think that no party was standing up for them, including Labour.

You in Thurrock know that the last Labour government did great things: rescuing our NHS, investing in schools and supporting working families with tax credits.

But they were not enough by themselves.

Because ordinary working people, people who weren’t rich, felt life was getting harder.

Our embrace of the future meant that some people thought we didn’t respect the loss they felt from the past.

Our embrace of openness made some people feel we didn’t understand the pressures immigration put on them.

Our embrace of economic change, on the one hand, and our determination to do right by the very poorest, on the other, led people to believe that we didn’t care enough about ordinary working people.

Looking to the future, openness, concern for the poorest and a belief in the modern economy were not wrong.

They were right.

But it was not enough.

That’s why as I have said since I became leader, there is no future for Labour saying we should simply pick up from where we left off in 2010.

Labour was founded on standing up for working people.   But for too many that link was lost.

That is what UKIP has sought to exploit.

We know what their appeal is.

They provide a simple explanation of the cause of our country’s problems: Europe and foreigners.

And they have an apparently simple solution: to get out of the European Union.

I have to say: this is not the answer for our country.

This will never be Labour’s mission or policy under my leadership.

Our future lies in looking outward to the world.

As the people of Purfleet, Tilbury, South Ockendon and Grays have always known.

And that’s the argument we’re going to have to have in the next year.

Some people will tell you that closing ourselves off from the world will deliver for working people.

It won’t.    It will harm working people.Think of all the jobs here that still rely on trade.

That’s why our future lies in the European Union.

What does it mean for immigration?

I am the son of immigrants.     I am proud of the contribution my parents made to this country. I believe immigration benefits our country as a whole.

But it needs to be properly managed.

I have changed Labour’s position on immigration since 2010 because it is not prejudiced to worry about immigration, it is understandable.

Labour would have controls when people arrive and leave here, we will tackle the undercutting of wages, we will ensure people in public services speak English and people need to earn their entitlements.

But a Labour government won’t make false promises, or cut ourselves off from the rest of the world because it would be bad for Britain.

These are the right principles for our immigration policy.

And in the end, if we are to meet the concerns people have, we need to do far more than have the right immigration policy.

We need more change in the way this country’s economy works for the people I am talking about.

People who work hard, do the right thing, but feel the country doesn’t work for them.

The normal politician thing to do is to come along and just announce a simple answer.    But sometimes there is no simple answer.

The changes I am talking about in our economy have taken generations to unfold.   It will take more than one year or even five years to make the transformation we need.

But I believe we can give hope to all the people who feel that politics doesn’t answer their concerns.   There is a different journey this country can take to get to a better future.

This is the journey Labour is on.    But we need to go further and faster

Towards:a  big change in our economy, so we make sure there are good jobs in successful businesses, which are properly paid, and not the insecurity that comes with zero-hours or short-hours that leaves people short-changed.

Building homes again in our country, so that Carol doesn’t feel that a home is out of reach for her grandchildren.

Rebuilding solidarity and a sense of community where people live, because people need to recognise the rules, whether they are on benefits, have just come to Britain, or are at the very top of our society.

And what brings all this together, one thing more important than anything, linking the wealth of our country back again with ordinary family finances, so that we can fight the cost-of-living crisis, and ensure that hard work means that people can build a better future for their family.

This is the right mission for Labour.

I believe this is the biggest single question facing our country.

.

And it is at the root of so much of what we are talking about.

Changing our economy to ensure we have the good jobs of the future for people here in Thurrock.

You know some people have said at times when I have announced our energy price freeze, policies on rents, policies on banks that Labour has been too radical.

I believe this is dead wrong.

To meet the challenges we face we need more change, not less.

To meet the generational challenge I am talking about, Labour needs a radical and bold offer at the next election.

And that is what we shall do.

That is the party I want to lead. We know we have work to do to reach out to millions.  Here in Thurrock and across the country.

And that is what I am absolutely determined to do.

EVENT: "THE RED REPUBLICANS OF TEESSIDE AND EAST CLEVELAND "

May 30, 2014, 8:32 am

≫ Next: Black Bob Banked Down. Death of a man who tried to kill Teesside.

≪ Previous: GRAYS ELEGY - MILIBAND'S SPEECH IN THURROCK GIVES HOPE

$

0

0

 

• Tired of the doings of Prince Harry ?
• Think that Princess Ann is a tad stand-offish ?
• Baffled by Prince Charles ?
• Fed up with Fergie ?

This was nothing to our local mining forbears of the 1870's who wanted a "Red Republic" in Britain, the end of royalty, and who plotted revolution.

                        

Hear Labour branch party member David Walsh, who has done some some digging on our long-lost history, and has found some great nuggets.

The Bulls Head Pub, Vaughan Street, North Skelton, 7.30 pm (after swift branch business) Wednesday 4th June 2014