For democratic socialism #296 January/February 2019 £2 · Chartist aims to up its game, particularly on social media. As one of the longest-standing print magazines on the Labour

Peter Kenyon, NickDearden, Don Flynn,Rupa Huq MPBrexit & People’s VoteCan PazSyria & LabourPrem SikkaFat Cat payWendy PettiferCalais kidsAlice ArkwrightGirls educationDuncan BowieTown hall fundingplus Book & Film reviews

CHARTIST£2

For democratic socialism #296 January/February 2019

www.chartist.org.uk

ISSN - 0968 7866 ISSUE

Let the people vote

9 6

#296 working_01 cover 18/12/2018 02:19 Page 1

Editorial PolicyThe editorial policy of CHARTIST is topromote debate amongst people active inradical politics about the contemporaryrelevance of democratic socialism acrossthe spec t rum of po l i t i cs , economics ,science, philosophy, art, interpersonalrelations – in short, the whole realm ofsocial life.Our concern is with both democracy andsocialism. The history of the last centuryhas made i t abundant ly c lear that themass of the population of the advancedcapitalist countries will have no interestin any form of social ism which is notthoroughly democratic in its principles,its practices, its morality and its ideals.Yet the consequences of this deep attach-ment to democracy – one of the greatestadvances o f our epoch – a re se ldomreflected in the discussion and debatesamongst active socialists.CHARTIST is not a party publication. Itbrings together people who are interestedin socialism, some of whom are active theLabour Party and the trade union move-men t . I t i s conce rned to deepen andextend a dialogue with all other socialistsand with activists from other movementsinvolved in the struggle to find democrat-ic alternatives to the oppression, exploita-tion and injustices of capitalism and class society

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views ofthe EB

Contributions and letters deadline for CHARTIST #297

10 February 2018Chartist welcomes articles of 800 or 1500 words, and

letters in electronic format only to: [email protected]

Receive Chartist’s online newsletter: send your email address to [email protected]

Chartist Advert Rates:

Inside Full page £200; 1/2 page £125; 1/4 page £75; 1/8 page £40; 1/16 page £25; small box 5x2cm £15 singlesheet insert £50

We are also interested in advert swaps with other publications. To place an advert, please email:[email protected]

ContactsPublished by Chartist PublicationsPO Box 52751 London EC2P 2XF tel: 0845 456 4977

Printed by People For Print Ltd, Unit 10, Riverside Park,Sheaf Gardens, Sheffield S2 4BB – Tel 0114 272 0915. Email: [email protected]

Website: www.chartist.org.ukEmail: [email protected]: @Chartist48

Newsletter online: to join, email [email protected]

Editorial BoardCHARTIST is published six times a yearby the Chartist Collective. This issue wasproduced by an Editorial Board consistingo f Duncan Bowie (Rev i ews ) , AndrewCoates, Peter Chalk, Patricia d’Ardenne,Mike Davis (Editor), Nigel Doggett, DonFlynn, Roger Gillham, James Grayson,Hassan Hoque, Peter Kenyon, Dave Lister,Anna Paterson, Patrick Mulcahy, SheilaOsmanovic, Marina Prentoulis, RobbieScott, Mary Southcott, John Sunderland. Production: Ferdousur RehmanWebsite: Steve Carver

W e en te r 2019 in unce rta in and dange rous tim es .P o litics in the UK is dom ina ted by B rex it. U nde r th ispo litica l s to rm w e con tinue to endu re aus te rity ,in secu rity and fa lling liv ing s tanda rds . In te rna tiona llyw e a re w itness ing the rise o f r igh t-w ing popu lis ts inthe shape o f T rum p in the US , B o lsona ro in B raz il,M od i in Ind ia , P u tin in R uss ia a longs ide o the r newrigh t na tiona lis ts in E as te rn E u rope , Ita ly ande lsew he re . B eh ind these ug ly deve lopm en ts lu rk thefo rces o f fasc ism and xenophob ia , com p lim en ted bythe rep ress ive d ic ta to rsh ips in C h ina and m uch o f them idd le eas t. T o cap it a ll is hum an -m ade g loba lw a rm ing th rea ten ing the en tire p lane t.O u r po litics is d riven by the need to rev ita lisesoc ia lism as a tho rough ly dem ocra tic andin te rna tiona lis t cu rren t, w ith the back ing beh ind it tom ake an e ffec tive cha llenge to g loba lised cap ita lism .C ha rtis t a im s to up its gam e , pa rticu la rly on soc ia lm ed ia . A s one o f the longes t-s tand ing p rin tm agaz ines on the Labou r Le ft, pub lished fo r a lm os t50 yea rs , w e recogn ise w e a re in new tim es . N ewd ig ita l fo rm s o f comm un ica tion a re cen tra l to ge ttingdem ocra tic soc ia lis t ideas ou t to a w ide r, espec ia llyyounge r reade rsh ip .H ence th is appea l. W e w an t to im p rove the look o fthe p rin t ve rs ion w h ile deve lop ing the w ebs ite andsoc ia l m ed ia ac tiv ity on Facebook , Tw itte r, Y ou tubeand e lsew he re . Th is cos ts m oney . Fo r yea rs C ha rtis t

has ope ra ted w ith en tire ly vo lun ta ry labou r. B u t nowwe need to ou tlay finance on deve lop ing ou r w ebp resence . Fo r tha t w e need sk illed peop le .S o w e a re appea ling to reade rs to m ake a dona tion ,b ig o r sm a ll, to he lp revam p the p rin t m agaz ine andboos t ou r soc ia l m ed ia p ro file .W e a lso p lan an e lec tron ic new s le tte r fo rsubscribe rs . If you w an t to rece ive the new s le tte rand in fo rm a tion abou t o the r ac tiv itie s and a re w illingto con tribu te to ou r appea l p lease ind ica te on thetea r-o ff s lip o r em a il us a t ed ito r@ cha rtis t.o rg .uk .

CHARTIST APPEAL

I enclose £ ... towards the Chartist AppealI would like to receive a newsletter yes/no[please circle]

Name…………………………………………

Address………………………………………………………………………………………..Please return to Chartist PO Box 52751London EC2P 2XF or go to our websitewww.chartist.org.uk to make a donation


January/February 2019 CHARTIST 3

CHARTISTFOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISMNumber 296 January/February 2019

FEATURES

REGULARS

Cover by Martin RowsonMay hits Brexit buffers– page 8

CONTENTS

8 BREXIT & POLITICAL IMPASSEPeter Kenyon says May’s failure should triggerLabour action to Remain

9 CROSSOVER REFERENDUM POINTTrevor Fisher on the disappearing Leavemajority

10 NATIONAL EDUCATION SERVICEDavid Lister finds Melissa Benn providesthe plan

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON THE BRINKLabour must get radical to save town hallservices says Duncan Bowie

13 CURBING FAT CAT PAYPrem Sikka outlines Labour’s new plans

14 THE TWO EUROPESNiccolo Milanese on progressive v rightistnationalist visions

16 ANLANTICIST TRADE FANTASIESNick Dearden exposes the brutal realities oflife outside the EU

18 BREXIT FOR BAME BRITAINKimberly McIntosh explains the negativeimpact

19 ANOTHER EUROPE CONFERENCEDon Flynn on campaigning for reform andremain

20 WHILE SYRIA BLEEDSCan Paz argues for a change in Labour’sstance on Assad

22 ANTI POLITICSIan Bullock finds echoes from earlier Britishsocialists

23 CALAIS KIDSWendy Pettifer protests lack of action onchild migrants

4 EDITORIALProject Hope and a Peoples Vote

5 OUR HISTORY The Socialist Union and Rita Hinden

v Free Stansted 15

6 POINTS & CROSSINGSPaul Salveson on creative solutions torail crisis

7 GREENWATCHChlorinated chickens are tip of theiceberg says Dave Toke

24 YOUTH VIEW Alice Arkwright on girls’ education

25 FILM REVIEW Patrick Mulcahy on Peterloo

26 BOOK REVIEWSRory O’Kelly on Bread for All; DuncanBowie on Bolshevism, spies and AbelHeywood; Sultan on Afghanistan; AndyRoberts on Cuba and Corbynism; DonFlynn on Mistaken Identities; AndrewCoates on May 68

32 WESTMINSTER VIEWAmidst Brexit boost to racism RupaHuq MP calls for a Peoples Vote

Labour must change course on Syria –page 20

Girls aloud for schooling - page 24Subscribe to CHARTIST:£18 ordinary subscription£35 supporter subscription (6 issues)

Visit www.chartist.org.uk/subscribe for details


4 CHARTIST January/February 2019

EDITORIAL

The Tories have brought the UK to thebrink of calamity. Rather than heal divi-sions of culture, wealth, regions andnations they have brought only deeperconflicts and disunity. Not least in their

own party.As the year ended Theresa May had pulled the

vote on her 580 page withdrawal deal and surviveda no confidence vote triggered by 48 of her hardlineBrexiters by 200 to 117. Then she faced the doublehumiliation of being the first PM to bring the gov-ernment into contempt of parliament and to haveEU leaders tell her there could be no renegotiationof the deal or the ‘backstop’ agreement on Ireland. It is clear there is no parliamentary majority for

May’s deal. But the three government defeats inWestminster also mean that ‘no deal’ cannot be anoption. That leaves two real choices: Labour’s pre-ferred option, a general election (without TheresaMay leading the Tories), or a Peoples Vote toaccept the deal or to stay in the EU. This couldmean a suspension or rescinding of Article 50 (nowpossible without the other 27 EU nations’ consent).Chartist is unequivocally for reform and

remain. This was Labour’s 2015 manifestocommitment and following conference2018 it should be in the next mani-festo. We have tried ‘respecting thereferendum result’. For two and ahalf years Labour has sought toinfluence the government for a cus-toms union, access to the singlemarket and full rights for EUnationals in the UK. Corbynreached out at conference. ButLabour’s calls have been ignored. The position is untenable. The

Cabinet deal is worse than remainingin the EU. It’s worse for jobs, livingstandards (the pound has slumped againstthe dollar and Euro), it’s worse for public ser-vices, for environmental protection, human rightsand workplace safeguards. It’s worse for prospectsof trade, it threatens peace in Northern Irelandand the break-up of the UK. It underminesprospects for collaboration with our fellowEuropean citizens.As Peter Kenyon argues we have now reached

a turning point. It is time to move on. A PeoplesVote is moving up the agenda. In this politicalimpasse it is necessary for Labour to begin prepar-ing for a PV as Shadow Brexit secretary KeirStarmer and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnellhave been saying. Trevor Fisher says ‘crossoverpoint’ has been reached to invalidate the 2016 ref-erendum result.Echoing calls for a PV Rupa Huq MP also high-

lights Brexit economic perils for Black and Asianpeople and a continuing rise in racist attacks sincethe referendum. Kimberly McIntosh providesfurther data on the negative impact of Brexit onBAME communities. On trade Nick Dearden exposes the fantasies

Brexiters seek to impose on us. With a mixture ofimperial nostalgia and fawning Atlanticism theywould cede control to the likes of Trump and hiscorporate mates behind an ‘America First’ trade

war protectionism. The NHS would be opened upto US Big Pharma and private companies eager toextend their profits empire. Dave Toke furtheremphasises that chlorinated chicken would be butone outcome of the bonfire of food and environ-mental safety regulations.Fundamentally whether Labour is fighting a

General Election or a referendum the case mustbe a positive one for being in Europe.As Don Flynn reports the main message from

Another Europe is Possible conference, is that wecannot have a remain case led by ‘project fear’that characterised the last campaign. Labour’scampaign for reform and remain must be inde-pendent, forthright and confident in promoting apositive vision of Europe for the many not thefew. A project of hope.As 2019 dawns an old spectre haunts the world.

It is that of crude nationalism, xenophobia andauthoritarianism manifest in Trump, Putin,Erdogan, Bolsonaro, Modi and others. While theEU currently provides a framework for coopera-tion, peace, human rights and a rules-based sys-tem, lurking below the surface the same mon-strous forces of nationalist populism and fas-cism are straining to break through.

Niccolo Milanese illustrates these twosides of Europe while emphasising theimportance of Labour being part of theprogressive alternative wing in the EU.The war in Syria continues to produce

its human carnage. Can Paz arguesLabour should come off the fence with amore robust condemnation of Assad. Closer to home Prem Sikka outlines

a new Labour plan to curb fat cat payexcesses while Duncan Bowie calls forLabour to sharpen its thinking on local gov-

ernment and grasp the nettle of council taxreform. Dave Lister welcomes Melissa Benn’s

book which lays out a convincing blueprint for aneducation service for all.To counter austerity and recession it is vital

policies for nationalisation with worker/consumervoice, for green led investment, secure, properlypaid work and Europe-wide action against corpo-rate tax dodgers be the contours of a forward-looking campaign. Thomas Piketty has also pro-posed a bold new blueprint to address division,disenchantment, inequality and rightist populismsweeping the continent. The multi-authored planincludes huge levies of multinationals, million-aires and carbon emissions to generate funds totackle the burning issues of the day. Corbyn’s Labour espouses a democratic social-

ism as the best future for working people every-where. In this era of globalisation, if we are tostop the clock being turned back to a nationalistsiege economy with trade wars, hectoring authori-tarian zealots and the prospect of a new bar-barism threatening the human race we have tofight on every front. That especially means fight-ing for our values and policies in the Europeanarena. And there is only one European Union.Labour must commit to making it a peoples’ EUin a Peoples Vote or General Election. That isProject Hope.

Project hope and a Peoples Vote

The position isuntenable. The

Cabinet deal is worsethan remaining in

the EU



OUR HISTORY

Socialist Union was established in 1951 by con-tributors to the Socialist Commentary jour-nal, which had been edited by Rita Hindenand other ‘reformist’ Labour Party memberssince 1946. The group had previously operat-

ed under the name’ Socialist Vanguard’, having beeninitiated by a group of socialist exiles from Germany inthe early 1930’s. Hinden was a Jewish South Africanand Zionist who having completed a thesis on thecolonisation of Palestine moved to London to becomesecretary of the Fabian Colonial Bureau in 1940, work-ing closely with Arthur Creech Jones, it’s chair, whowas to become colonial minister in 1945. Hinden contributed to a large number of pamphlets

and books on colonial policy, mainly focusing on thecase for African decolonisation. In 1950, Hinden left theFabian Colonial Bureau to focus on the role of editor ofSocialist Commentary. The chair of both SocialistUnion and Socialist Commentary was the industrialrelations academic, Allan Flanders, who had been amember of the Socialist Vanguard group before thewar. The journal and organisation were revisionist inthe sense that they considered Marxist concepts ofclass struggle outdated, argued for a new social demo-cratic response to the post-war world and increasingaffluence especially within the middle classes, support-ed political pluralism and a mixed economy. The group was in effect proto Gaitskellite (Hugh

Gaitskell was treasurer of the friends of SocialistCommentary) and picked up many of the concepts fromthe pre-war works of Evan Durbin, Douglas Jay andHugh Dalton, many of which were to reappear inCrosland’s The Future of Socialism to be published in1956. The group also reflected the Christian ethicaltradition of R H Tawney, and Hinden edited Tawney’sposthumous essays, published as The Radical Traditionin 1964. The Socialist Commentary editorial boardincluded two MPs: Fred Mulley and Kenneth Younger.The Socialist Union group involved a number of MPs

SOCIALIST UNION: SOCIALISM - A NEW STATEMENT OFPRINCIPLES (1952)

including Alf Robens (later chairman of the NationalCoal Board), Jim Griffiths (deputy Labour Party lead-er) and Philip Noel-Baker. The group published threepamphlets: The Statement of Principle in 1952,Socialism and Foreign Policy in 1953 and TwentiethCentury Socialism, edited by Hinden and Flanders, in1956. All publications were issued on behalf of thegroup and contributors were not named. The groupdoes not seem to have survived beyond 1956.

“1. The socialist goal is a society so organised as toprovide each one of its members with an equal opportu-nity for the development and expression of personality.This is the right of everyone, and institutions should beshaped accordingly. But the human personality will notfind its full expression unless men are able to live infreedom and fellowship, that is in the exercise ofresponsibility and in the spirit of service. These areideals which give value to human existence and thedegree to which they are expressed will determine thequality of the society we hope to build.2. This conception of society has from the start been

the ethical inspiration of the socialist movement, thedeeper reason for its opposition to the exploitation ofman by man. It is, of course, a conception of an idealsociety which will never be wholly attained. But provid-ing we make it our conscious goal and are not contentto regard its coming as inevitable, we can advancetowards it. To achieve this advance is the essence ofsocialist action.3. Socialism, in this sense, cannot be expressed in

any single pattern of institutions; nor does its realisa-tion depend on any one line of political strategy. Itdoes, however, involve a continuous struggle in variousways to change the class structure of society and thepower relationships on which the class structure rests.In this struggle the labour movement, composed mainlyof the organisations of the under-privileged classes, isthe natural vehicle.”

On 10 December 2018 15 peaceful anti-deportationactivists were convicted of offences aimed at combat-ing terrorism. They prevented the departure of a

chartered flight deporting 60 people from the UK to WestAfrica, many of whom were at risk of great harm if removed.The charge – endangering safety at an aerodrome

(Aviation and Maritime Security Act) – carries a maximumpenalty of life imprisonment. The defendants were initiallycharged with the lesser offence of aggravated trespass whichwas later amended to the more serious terrorist offence. Thedecision to increase the seriousness of the charge appears tobe intended to dissuade activists from taking direct action.Of those who would have been deported 11 remain in the

UK to have their cases heard, whilst some others have beengranted leave to remain.

It is a great injustice that those who acted to save liveshave been convicted rather than those who acted to put peo-ple at risk of death and persecution by deporting them. Theconviction of the Stansted 15 is a damning indictment of theUK Government’s intolerance of criticism. Instead of reflect-ing on the harsh consequences of the hostile environment,the government has subjected brave and principled individu-als to a long and expensive trial which equates their actionsto those of terrorists.A demonstration in support of the Stansted 15 defendents

has been called to take place at the time of the sentencinghearing, on Monday 4 February at Chelmsford Crown Court.See the Facebook page on End Deportations(https://www.facebook.com/EDeportations/) for further detailsof the event.

Free the Stansted 15

OUR HISTORY - 82

Wendy Pettifer


We came to the conclusion thatthe best business model should bea social enterprise, in which prof-its are recycled back into the busi-ness to fund further improve-ments. A railway that is tied toTreasury control, as BR was,would not have the freedom toinvest and look to the long-term,which is desperately needed.Instead of short-term franchises(typically less than 10 years) thereshould be long-term stability withperiodic reviews by an appropriatepublic body. In terms of‘Lancashire and YorkshireRailways’ this should be astrengthened ‘Transport for theNorth’, a body which alreadyexists. Within this model, there would

be scope for employees and passen-gers to be much more fullyengaged, including encouragementto invest in specific projects thatcould also include some privatesector investment. There is a needfor a UK-wide ‘guiding mind’ thatcan ensure co-ordination is therewhen it is needed. The railwaydoes form a strong network andeven in the pre-1923 days of scoresof private (and vertically integrat-ed) railway companies, there wasco-ordination on ticketing, timeta-bles and other national standards.For freight, the issue isn’t aboutownership, it’s about having theright infrastructure, and fiscalregime, for freight to flourish. These suggestions avoid the cur-

rent unhelpful fixation on ‘national-isation’ without people really under-standing what that means; optingfor a social enterprise at arms’length from the state but with clearsocial objectives, must be consid-ered. The solution we’re suggestingcould be as relevant to Labour’sthinking as to Mr Grayling’s.


P&C

In the face of a failing rail system Paul Salveson puts an alternative plan

Government rail review

Chris Grayling’s tenureas secretary of statefor transport has beenmarked by the near-collapse of rail services

in the North and parts of theSouth-east, while he persists withthe grand folly of HS2 andCrossRail 2. Yet, to be fair to theman, he has recognised thatsomething is fundamentallywrong with how rail services arebeing delivered in the UK. Whether you are an earnest

advocate of nationalisation, orstill cling on to the belief that pri-vatisation was the right thing todo back in the 90s, what we havetoday doesn’t work. It’s expensive(compared with the overall cost ofrunning other railways acrossEurope) and services are oftenpoor and unreliable, as well asbeing expensive. Staff are de-motivated and passengers fed up.So Mr Grayling has ordered a‘fundamental review’ of rail policyand has appointed Keith Williamsto chair it. He comes from aninteresting background – formerchief executive of British Airwaysand deputy chair of The JohnLewis Partnership, the employee-owned retail chain. In addition,members of the review panelinclude respected railwaymanDick Fearn, former MD of IrishRail.The Government’s announce-

ment of the review in Septembersaid it would “... consider all partsof the rail industry, from the cur-rent franchising system andindustry structures, accountabili-ty, and value for money for pas-sengers and taxpayers”. Cynicswill say that nationalisation, theholy grail of Corbynistas in ahurry, won’t be given a secondthought. Maybe, maybe not. Butthe review does offer an opportu-nity to come up with some freshideas which could start to get usout of the current mess we’re in.I’m a member of a small group ofprofessional railway men andwomen called ‘The Rail ReformGroup’ which is looking at someoptions.It’s important that we are clear

on what we want our railways todo. Getting people and goods‘from A to B’ as fast as possibleisn’t enough and can encourageperverse outcomes. Is it right thatwe should be encouraging people

living in, say, Doncaster orPreston to commute to Londonmost days? Rail is good at deliver-ing longer distance journeys, butthose trips into major centres forwork, education and leisure areas important as longer distanceinter-city journeys. And it tendsto be the ‘regional’ networks thatare under most stress at present,with inadequate rolling stock,lack of track capacity and poorquality stations. Advocates of ‘nationalisation’

should also understand thatmuch of the railway is alreadystate-owned, or publicly-specified.Infrastructure is owned and man-aged by Network Rail. Trainsmostly run as part of franchisesthat are specified and funded byGovernment (predominantlyDepartment for Transport, butthe devolved governments forWales and Scotland, plusTransport for London for LondonOverground and MerseysideCombined Authority forMerseyrail). Yet once franchisesare let, operators can cut cornersto extract maximum profit fromtheir short-term contract.Arguably, what we have now isthe worst of both worlds – notfully private, but not really publiceither.Our modest little ‘Rail Reform

Group’ has come up with someprovisional conclusions whichcould help improve both regionaland intercity networks, as well asencourage freight. The startingpoint should be structuralchange. The current system,based on separation of infrastruc-ture from operations (which arebased on relatively short-termand highly expensive franchises)has not worked; bringing infras-tructure and operations backunder one co-ordinated lead isessential, but that doesn’t have toimply a nationally centralisedapproach. It could work at aregional level. We are suggesting,for the North, a new model – arevival of the pre-1923‘Lancashire and YorkshireRailway’ brand – that wouldserve the major centres of theNorth. Basically we’re proposingregionally-based, vertically inte-grated operations that are social-ly owned. The same approachcould work in other parts of theUK.

Paul’s website is paulsalveson.org.uk

Chris Grayling

C



David Toke isReader in EnergyPolitics,University ofAberdeen

GREENWATCH

NHS) subservient to US businessinterests.What we have to do is to fight

against the imposition of a USbacked anti-green agenda on theUK – indeed the acceptance ofsuch an agenda may make afuture close relationship with theEU all but impossible. This isbecause if British food and ani-mal welfare regulations arechanged then the EU will notagree a trade deal with the UKthat involves areas affected bythese issues. We can’t have onerule for US imports and anotherfor British and EU produce – theEU won’t accept that even if itwas practical.It may be that the UK can

agree a trade deal with the USAwhilst avoiding the US imposi-tions that I have mentioned, but itwill involve a big struggle to dothis and it will delay making anagreement with the USA for quitea while. Politically this will unitea number of disparate factions –the greens at the head of thestruggle, alongside most Britishfarmers who do not want to losebusiness to American imports andthe left who don’t want to be dic-tated to by US corporate interests.But, on the other hand, we will beacting in a changed political con-text where right wing Britishnationalism will be a lot stronger. C

Crashing out of the EU will mean subservience to US capital with more than itschlorinated chicken says Dave Toke

Giving away control

Now that it seemswe’re heading for a‘no-deal’ Brexit thebattle lines will bedrawn between those

still arguing for a closer relation-ship with the EU and those whowant a trade deal with the USA.It will be the left and the greenson one side and the right and farright on the other. We should pre-pare for this struggle! A strongfocus will be on whether we aban-don the EU rules which effective-ly bar US crop and animal prod-ucts which variously, do not meetanimal or human safety stan-dards. This includes whether wehave to swallow (literally) themuch mentioned US chlorinatedchicken. It also includes whetherwe will be forced to accept beeffrom cows treated with genetical-ly modified hormones (which isacknowledged to harm the cowsthrough over-milking) and alsowhether we will continue to begiven the right to know whether afood comes from GM sources.Of course this is a battle about

to whom we give away control. Dowe carry on with the food andanimal safety regulations thatwe’ve got with the EU or do weadopt the ones that the USGovernment wants us to? Nowthat we’re leaving the EU we willhave no control over the EU regu-

lations and certainly no controlover the American regulationsthat we will be expected to com-ply under a US trade deal.The problem for the UK is that

after a ‘no-deal’ Brexit there’s lit-tle chance of a trade agreementwith the EU until at least theIrish border issue is settled, andwith the nature of the future rela-tionship with the EU hanging inthe air, it will be difficult to agreesubstantial trade deals with othercountries. Indeed even the vari-ous trade deals that the EU haswith other countries (making uparound a quarter of our trade inaddition to EU trade) will lapseafter Brexit. This leaves a hell ofa mess, with countries lining upto impose their conditions on amuch weakened Britain.The US Government, aided by

plenty of their right wing cheerleaders in the UK, will be takingadvantage of the UK’s weakness.Indeed there may be strong pres-sures coming from the right wingto renounce the prospect of nego-tiations with the EU about tradein order to secure an agreementwith the USA instead. Such adeal of course would includeopening up British markets to USinterests in general and forcingthe UK to accept terms that theEU have always rejected thatmake the UK (including the

Just a taste of things to come Photo: Getty



BREXIT

Brexit: Labour's options

ties of the 2016 EU Referendummainly arising from the inves-tigative journalism of theGuardian newspaper group'sCarole Cadwalladr. In addition,the Electoral Commission hasruled expenditure by the LeaveEU campaign illegal. But to datethat has had no bearing on thedisposition of the Tory govern-ment or the official opposition,

Labour Party. Further discussionabout that or the circumstancesunder which Labour ever alloweditself to become embroiled in anirreconcilable Tory spat are prob-ably now best avoided.It is the future of country and

the opportunities for its 65 mil-lion strong population thatshould be at the forefront of allour minds. There has been muchself-congratulation since itsSeptember Annual Conferencewithin the Labour Party about itsability to debate policy publiclyand resolve significant differences

Hyperbole has ruled.It's time for truth.And there is notmuch time left.Labour is finally

engaged in rigorous parliamen-tary opposition to the Tory gov-ernment and its Brexit plans. Bythe time you are reading thisarticle the Meaningful Vote (MV)on the Tory deal may havealready taken place. A defeat forthe Tories whether before or afterChristmas is only the first stepalong an uncertain path withunwelcome consequences. A rear-guard action is reportedly under-way inside Prime Minister May'scabinet to change course. On 15December last year the DailyMail led with:Cabinet at war on Brexit:

Amber Rudd and PhilipHammond are among five minis-ters ‘swinging towards second ref-erendum’ while Sajid Javid andthree others urge PM to make NoDeal government's top priority.This demonstrates the

Conservative Party still irrevoca-bly split over the UK's relation-ship with the European Union.This belated flirtation with a sec-ond referendum by the likes ofRudd and Hammond will nodoubt be welcome news to thosewho have been campaigning for aSecond Referendum across thepolitical spectrum.I should declare an interest as

a member of Labour Business (aLabour Party affiliate aiming tomake Labour the Party of bothbusiness and labour), and chair ofits Brexit Policy Group. LabourBusiness supports a People's Voteor public vote as official LabourParty policy now refers to anotherreferendum. But that was a poli-cy formulated over six monthsago. There are now less thanthree months before the UK islegally committed to leave theEuropean Union unless the law ischanged.

Not unreasonably after somany UK electors went to thepolls on 23 June 2016 to voteLeave or Remain there is a con-sensus among Members ofParliament that the only demo-cratic means of deciding MayDeal or Remain in 2019 would bethrough another vote. Questionshave been posed about the legali-

Peter Kenyon reviews what's at stake for the nation before 29 March 2019

in its Brexit stance. But the prac-ticalities remain unaddressed.Apologies for repeating myself,but this cannot be said too often:as UK law is writ on the StatuteBook, the UK leaves theEuropean Union on 29 March2019.At the time of writing no for-

mal request has been made to theEuropean Union Council ofMinisters (EUCO) to extend theArticle 50 deadline to enable areferendum/public/People's voteto be held. Provisions for such anoption were ruled out in LabourParty Conference preliminaries(prosaically know asCompositing). Such a requestwould require unanimity amongthe EU-27, as opposed to a quali-fied majority necessary toapprove the draft WithdrawalAgreement Treaty and PoliticalDeclaration. So at this very late stage in the

Brexit process our elected repre-sentatives aka Members ofParliament need to be askingthemselves a serious question: Isleaving the EU in the nationalinterest? Apart from theEuropean Research Group in theConservative Party and a handfulof unreformed Lexiteers in theLabour and Liberal Democratparties, the vast majority of MPswould surely vote NO.

Members of Parliamentneed to be askingthemselves a seriousquestion: Is leaving theEU in the nationalinterest?

Theresa May-no joy with Juncker



Can the political noise sur-rounding this issue be filtered outto achieve that necessary focus?Those of us actively engaged intrying to encourage clearer think-ing have our work cut out.Ambiguity on the part of theLabour Party leadership hasserved a purpose over the pasttwo and half years, it has helpedkeep Labour Leave voters onside.But there is a trail of debris inthe UK political discourse con-cerning immigration and inequal-ity of economic opportunity.Chartist's small voice has soughtto contest the twin myths thatleaving the EU will assuage voterconcerns about the 'other' orbring new investment and jobopportunities to towns and vil-lages left to the mercy of freemarkets and neo-liberalism.Shortly before Christmas,

Labour's shadow education secre-tary and possible leadership con-tender, Angela Rayner MP,caused consternation on BBCQuestion Time by challengingcurrent thinking about a secondreferendum suggesting it wouldbe divisive:"Saying that we'll just have a

second referendum and every-thing will be fine, I think, is avery serious position and it

undermines democracy initself........People made the deci-sion and you can't keep goingback saying: Would you like toanswer it a different way?"Those are quite genuine con-

cerns and echoed by knownRemainers in the ShadowCabinet like shadw HomeSecretary, Diane Abbott MP.With tempers being sorely test-

ed in Brussels and the other EU-27 capitals the threat of anupsurge of support for right-wingpolicies and parties is real. But sois the haemorrhaging of jobs andinvestment if business uncertain-ty persists for another day. Fartoo little attention has been paidto this over the past 30 months,not helped by the supine disposi-tion of so-called business repre-sentative organizations like theConfederation of British Industryand the City of London, on behalfof the financial services sector.Labour should have more confi-

dence in its economic and socialpolicies in development sinceprior to the 2017 GeneralElection seeking to offer hope andaddress those concerns of the'left-behind'. To give them realcredibility they need to be recastin the context of the UK remain-ing a full voting member of the

European Union, with its budgetrebate, full voting rights and vetoin the Council of Ministers, yetoutside the EuroZone andSchengen. In the event of theConservatives managing to clingon to office as the government ofthe UK albeit in name only, thenthe options for Labour betweennow and 29 March can be nar-rowed down to the EuropeanEconomic Area (EEA)/ EuropeanFree Trade Association, anotherreferendum or revoke Article 50.Both the EEA and another ref-

erendum options are riddled withuncertainties. Revoking Article50, now that the European Courtof Justice has ruled it can be doneunilaterally, offers decisiveness –ends business uncertainty at astroke, enables the UK to recoverleverage in its relations withinthe EU-28, and for Labour thatopportunity to reshape andreform EU policy. How wouldsuch a move be received by thepublic? One suspects with over-whelming relief. For theLexiteers there is a backstop. Iftheir claims about the EU beingable to veto Labour's plans to bor-row, halt privatization andembark on renationalizing publicservices, then there is alwaysArticle 50. C

by Populus for the RSA suggeststhat Age Divisions are real, butnot on a Labour-Tory Basis.There are major contradictionsbetween the generations, under-mining consistent political out-comes. Age is merely one factor,though increasingly I wouldargue the most important- andalso the most time limited. The most pressing immediate

issue - even more so than thebehaviour of the elderly in recentGeneral Elections - is theCrossover day thesis. The founda-tions of referendum democracyhave never been clearly set out inthe UK with its unwritten consti-tution, and the system requires aseparate act for each vote, andhow the existing conventions onmandates and their longevityapply is now an urgent issue.Mandate theory is an obscureaspect of constitutionalism, butclearly all mandates are subject totime decay and the 1975 mandatewas gone by 2015. Has the 2016mandate already disappeared?

Trevor Fisher on the crossover pointWhen Brexit loses its majority

Early in January,Britain will switchfrom a pro-Brexit to ananti-Brexit country. Tobe more precise: if not

a single voter in the referendumtwo and half years ago changestheir mind, enough mainly Leavevoters will have died, and enoughmainly Remain voters will havereached voting age, to wipe outthe Leave majority achieved inJune 2016.This is the clear conclusion

from the YouGov survey for thePeople’s Vote Campaign. Theyshow that demographic factorsalone are causing the Leavemajority to shrink by around1,350 per day, or almost half amillion a year. Crossover Day,when Remain moves into thelead, will be January 19th. ByMarch 29th, the day the UK isdue to leave the EU, the Remainmajority will be almost 100,000,again assuming that nobody whovoted in June 2016 has changedtheir mind.

Suggestions that age hasreplaced class as the major deter-minant of voting behaviour werereinforced at the 2016 EU refer-endum and 2017 GeneralElection. Pollster Peter Kellnerhas proposed the Crossover the-sis. Namely that as older votersdie and the young replace themthe government cannot continueto conclude that they have amajority - and therefore a man-date - for the process of Brexitwithout a further referendum.The thesis rests on the perceiveddominance of the elderly in regis-tering and voting.There is some data on this, but

analysis notably the Hope NotHate report Fear Hope and Loss(September 2018) while notingthe impact of age on the attitudesanalysed rarely places age at theheart of the patterns beingdescribed. As always with socialbehaviour there is no unqualifieddirection of travel. The attitudesurvey reported in the Guardianon 8th December 2018 carried out C

For furtherdetails onDemocracy,Referendums andBrexit -TheElephants in theRoom. Seewww.brexitskeptic.co.uk



EDUCATION

Wanted: a profound shift in how werun, fund and judgeWhile parents fund-raise for resources and head-teachers take to the streets in protest atgovernment cuts Dave Lister finds Melissa Benn outlines a strong case for an alternativeeducation system

sive schools with, for instance, ahuge increase in the number ofstudents still in education at age17 from 31% in 1977 to 76% in2011 and in those going on to uni-versity.She sees the majority of the

education reforms from the 1980sonwards as having a negativeimpact. These include the devel-opment of national testing, theintroduction of league tables andthe academisation process. Thishas led to the loss of local demo-cratic control with in many casesa handful of ‘members’ given theright to agree a Trust’s constitu-tion, appoint and sack otherTrustees and control large bud-gets. It is also the case that manyschools in MATs (multi-academytrusts) have far less freedom thanthey had previously.Other reforms introduced by

Michael Gove have wreakedhavoc on schooling. Benn saysthat they were introduced toospeedily and without consulta-tion. The result has been greatly

Labour has a plan toestablish a NationalEducation Service pro-viding free educationover the course of a life-

time. Melissa Benn’s book offers ablueprint for such a service. Benn starts by sketching out

the background. The 1944Education Act established anational education system forchildren up to the age of 15.However at secondary level it alsocreated what became a binarysystem of grammar and sec-ondary modern schools with lessgood provision for something like80% of mainly working-class chil-dren who failed the 11+. Themove to comprehensive educationin the 1960s and 70s changed allthat. She makes the point thattoo much of the subsequent dis-cussion of comprehensivisationwas negative – from the BlackPaperites to Alastair Campbell’s“bog standard” schools. There hasbeen too little celebration of thevery real successes of comprehen-

increased stress among pupilsand their teachers with all the joyremoved from learning to bereplaced by drilling/teaching tothe test and an obsession withdata leading to teachers becomingeven more overworked. Yetdespite what the DfE wants us tobelieve there has been no signifi-cant narrowing of the attainmentgap between children from lesswell off and those from moreaffluent families. Clearly someschools and teachers have man-aged to rise above all this andstill deliver interesting lessonsbut their task has been madeinfinitely harder.Benn is talking about educa-

tion ‘from the cradle to the grave’and therefore discusses the short-comings and her solutions foreach sector. In terms of earlyyears, there is too much formalteaching of literacy and numera-cy. She points out that some othercountries with successful out-comes start formal learning muchlater than England and suggests

Headteachers marching in protest at cuts



C

that greater emphasis on play-based learning is the way forward.At primary level she wants to

abolish the Key Stage tests, point-ing out that children in Englandare among the most tested in theworld, and introduce a broadercurriculum. A broader curriculumis also needed at secondary levelwhere increasing numbers ofschools are ending Key StageThree a year early to focus ondrilling children to pass theirGCSE examinations. She wants tosee the restoration of teaching inthe Arts, drama and Sex andRelationship Education continuebeyond age 13. One important area Benn does

not cover is the growing practice of‘off rolling’ pupils. It is estimatedthat 30,000 pupils have disap-peared from school rolls in theperiod before GCSE examinationsover the past three years – 13,000last year. This is done to improveexam performance and to removedisruptive pupils, A Sheffield MPLouise Haigh reported last yearthat one primary school in herconstituency had to take on 20new pupils because they wereexcluded or were at risk of exclu-sion from a nearby academy.Ofsted are finally taking actionover ‘off rolling’ and their inspec-tors will be looking at pupil rollsto see if there is any evidence of it.At FE level there is a crisis of

funding, as there is with schools,and funding shrunk by a quarterbetween 2013-15. FE lecturers arepaid less than school teachers andtheir conditions are worse. Bennproposes that there should be aparity of esteem between academ-

ic and vocational subjects. Tosome extent the Government hasacknowledged this with the intro-duction of T levels and the appren-ticeship levy. She points out thatif Brexit happens there will be areduction in the number of skilledworkers entering the country anda consequent need for the develop-ment of the skills of Britain’syoung people.At university level there is the

disparity between the high pay ofmany vice chancellors and the lowpay and uncertain conditions ofmany junior staff. Labour’s pledgeto abolish tuition fees is applaud-ed. Their introduction has madethe English system one of themost expensive in the world.Finally, she wants to see therestoration of funding for adulteducation. As people live longerthere should be increased opportu-nities for them to attend courses.In general terms Benn says

that “a new educational settle-ment does not require the settingup of over-bearing new structures.Rather it involves a profound shiftin how we run, fund, judge…”Although not many primaryschools have been academised,nearly three quarters of secondaryschools are now academies. Shewants to see them returned tolocal democratic control over time.I have argued that a LabourGovernment would need to priori-tise and it would make sense tofocus on bringing failed academiesand schools which were forced toacademise back under LocalAuthority control.Benn also wants to see the

remaining grammar schools and

all private/public schools integrat-ed into the maintained school sys-tem over time. Labour was com-mitted to the abolition of the pri-vate sector in the early 1960s buthas never bitten this particularbullet when in office.Comprehensive Future proposesthat we gradually open grammarschools up to a fully comprehensiveintake. Other key points are:• Teachers need to be trust-

ed to teach and tight monitoring ofthem needs to end.• Headteachers and teach-

ers are leaving the profession indroves and action needs to betaken to make leadership andteaching less stressful and moremanageable. • Abolish Ofsted and

replace it with a Local SchoolSupport and Improvement Office.Most readers would agree with

almost everything Melissa Bennhas written in Life Lessons. It’spacked with ideas and valuableinformation. One weakness is thatthe free flow of her writing meansthat at times there are disconcert-ing jumps from one education sec-tor to another. Tighter editingwould have helped avoid this. If Labour wins power education

reform should be an important pri-ority. Ending harmful measuresand replacing them with effectivesolutions in order to ensure thateducation becomes a rewardingexperience for all children must bethe way forward. Labour politi-cians should read this book and lis-ten to the people who really knowabout and understand education atall stages. Angela Rayner (shadoweducation secretary) please note.

Life Lessons–TheCase for aNationalEducationService. MelissaBennVerso £8.99

Dave Lister was ateacher andtrade unionactivist. He is amember ofChartist EB.

Printer ad



LOCAL GOVERNMENT

C

Local Government on the brinkDuncan Bowie explains how eight years of an austerity straitjacket has pushed manycouncils to the verge of collapse. But does Labour have an effective alternative fundingplan?

recently announced this reform.While this helps those localauthorities, who have the assetsand income against which theycan borrow, it is not in itself ananswer to the current crisis oflocal government funding, as inorder to borrow more, localauthorities need the ability to payback the funds borrowed withinterest. Not only have localauthorities had to dig into theirreserves to fund current expendi-ture, many have had to sell offassets to fund either services ordebt repayments. Council asset management

tends to focus on immediatefinancial requirements ratherthan the longer-term strategicrequirements and statutory func-tions of the authority. So publicland and property is sold, often tothe highest bidder. Land on whichcouncil homes could be built issold to private developers, whilein some cases council estateswhich are tenanted are demol-ished and tenants dispersed asthe site becomes a more valuableasset for disposal if existing occu-pants are moved out. Councilstrategy becomes driven by therequirement to survive financial-ly, and difficult decisions have tobe made as to which policy objec-tives and services are sacrificed. With the weakening of housing

legislation, child care and adultcare are the primary unavoidablestatutory functions. It is not sur-prising that youth services, recre-ation services and librariesreceive the harshest cuts, withhousing services often becomingthe next sacrifice. So, councils,irrespective of political control,are forced into difficult, and often

Who would want tobe a councillor inthe current cli-mate? There hasbeen a series of

news items on councils that arestruggling to fund core servicesand are at risk of financial insol-vency – first Northamptonshire,then Somerset and most recentlyEast Sussex – all Conservativecontrolled. In March, the National Audit

Office published a report on the‘Financial sustainability of localauthorities’: * 49.1% real terms reduction in

government funding for localauthorities 2010/11 to 2017/18*28.6% real terms reduction in

local authorities spending power(government funding plus CouncilTax) 2010/11 to 2017/18The report also projected that

at this rate of spending, one inten local authorities would runout of reserves within threeyears.These reductions need to be

seen in the context of increasedpopulation growth, especially inrelation to elderly people whomake significant demands onsocial care budgets. The figuresabove are national averages, andin many areas the cuts have beenmuch greater.Though the announcement of

the 2019/20 on 13th Decemberwas a little more positive for someauthorities than expected, thecurrent government still intendsto reduce the main local govern-ment support grant to zero by2020. Local authorities will thenbe required to be self-financing,except where they are eligible forspecific grants. Council tax risesremain capped at 3% per annum.Council tax on individual proper-ties in England are based on val-ues set in 1991, so are now 27years out of date. Where a proper-ty value has doubled or even tre-bled over the last 25 years, theowner will generally be paying asimilar level of council tax to 25years ago.The Labour Party has cam-

paigned for the caps imposed bycentral government on borrowingby individual local authorities tobe removed. The Government has

unacceptable decisions, as manyof not just the older but the newcohort of would-be progressivecouncillors are discovering totheir dismay.Is there any light at the end of

the tunnel? Would a Labour gov-ernment come to the rescue? Thehonest answer is that we cannotbe certain. The Labour Party isapparently carrying out a reviewof local government finance, butother than comments about someform of land tax being under con-sideration, there is as yet no pub-lished outcome. Firstly, Labourmust give a commitment torestore the main revenue supportfrom central government, whatused to be called rate supportgrant but is now known as ‘for-mula grant’ which by the time ofthe next general election willprobably have disappeared alto-gether. Secondly, the cap on rateincreases must be removed, andLabour, both nationally and local-ly must be prepared to campaignfor increases in local council taxwhere necessary to fund local ser-vices. This should be in tandemwith a reform of the council taxsystem, both to relate tax to cur-rent property values and to intro-duce much higher tax bands forthe most highly valued property. Without these reforms, local

government will continue to beprimarily a mechanism by whichlocal councillors impose austerityon their constituents and take theblame for what is not of theirmaking. If Labour is to maintainany credibility locally and Labourcouncillors to have any hope forthe future, the Labour Party mustannounce now what are its solu-tions to the crisis in local govern-ment funding.

Duncan Bowie was asenior lecturer atUniversity ofWestminster. His most recentbooks are RadicalSolutions to theHousing SupplyCrisis (Policy Press)and a history of theLeft in Oxford.

He is ChartistReviews Editor.

A longer version ofthis article is onwww.chartist.org.uk

Cash-strapped Northamptonshire Council sells off its brand new HQ to raise funds


LIVER-

*The paper titled“ControllingExecutiveRemuneration:Securing FairerDistribution ofIncome” isavailable athttp://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/LabourExecutiveRemunerationReview2018.pdf

Prem Sikka isProfessor ofAccounting andFinance,University ofSheffieldEmeritusProfessor ofAccounting,University ofEssex

INCOME DISTRIBUTION

holders see fit. The CompaniesAct must provide a framework forclaw back of executive remunera-tion under specified circum-stances. These could relate tomatters such as fraud, tax eva-sion, wilful violation of fiduciaryduties, deliberate mis-selling ofproducts/services, publication offalse or misleading accounts andprofit forecasts.

The remuneration of eachexecutive at a large companymust be the subject of an annualbinding vote by stakeholders,including shareholders, employ-ees and consumers. The reportrecommends that if 20% or moreof stakeholders reject executiveremuneration policy and practicethen the board should get a warn-ing (a yellow card) which shouldencourage directors to rethinktheir practices. If in the followingyear, at least 20% of stakeholdersagain reject the policy and prac-tice, the board should receive ared card. This should trigger anadditional resolution for theaccompanying AGM. This resolu-tion must consider whether theentire board, with the exceptionof the managing director and/orchair, need to stand for re-elec-tion. If this resolution is support-ed by 50% or more of the eligiblestakeholders then a meeting toconsider re-election of directorsmust be convened in accordancewith the requirements of theCompanies Act 2006 or any newprovisions that might need to beenacted.The above proposals make com-

pany executives accountable tostakeholders and help to checkfat-cattery and secure equitabledistribution of income and wealth. C

Prem Sikka outlines his co-authored report on ending excessive executive payouts

Labour to halt bosses bonanza

Most social problemsare rooted in thec o n t e m p o r a r ystructure of insti-tutions and the

skewed distribution of power. Theinequitable distribution of incomeand wealth is a good example ofsuch a thesis. Company directorsat the top collect large remunera-tion packages even for poor ormediocre performance, and thewages of the rest struggle to keeppace with prices. According to the High Pay

Centre the mean pay ratiobetween FTSE 100 CEOs and themean pay package of theiremployees is 145:1. It is evenhigher in other companies. Thechief executive of Bet365 pickedup £220m plus £45m in divi-dends, a total of £265m. This isequivalent to £726,000 a day or9,500 times the average UKwage. No amount of shareholderempowerment would have pro-duced a different result becausethe CEO held 50% of the sharesand her family and friends theremainder.Inequalities matter because

they have consequences for accessto education, healthcare, housing,food, transport, pensions, securi-ty, life expectancy and ultimatelysocial stability. The challenge isto develop policies that curb fat-cattery at the top and also secureimprovement in the share ofincome/wealth of ordinary people.A policy paper, of which I am a

co-author, submitted to theLabour Party calls for changes toinstitutional structures and redis-tribution of power to secure moreequitable distribution of incomeand wealth. It contains twentyrecommendations. It recommendsthat employees and consumers, inaddition to long term sharehold-ers, should be empowered to voteon executive pay in large compa-nies. Any director wanting morewould have to think aboutemployees’ welfare or otherwises/he would have difficulty insecuring approval of his/her ownrewards. Similarly, the empower-ment of consumers would meanthat executives can’t easily getaway with shoddy products, ser-vices and exploitation of con-sumers.Here is a sample of some of the

other policies.

Executive remuneration con-tracts in large companies must bepublicly available so that stake-holders can have more effectiveinformation about the basis andamount of remuneration which isoften a complex package of basicsalary, other payments andincentives. Bonuses have becomea mechanism for inflating execu-tive pay and should only be paidfor extraordinary performance.Any bonus scheme available toexecutives must also be availableto employees.Pay differentials between exec-

utives and employees analysed bygender and ethnicity to be pub-lished.Executive remuneration must

be in cash as rewards in the formof share options, shares andperks invite abuses and compli-cate the calculation. Executives

have been known to backdateoptions to maximise their gains.Frequently, excessive dividendsand share buyback programmesuse corporate resources toincrease short-term returns toshareholders and the value ofshare options and shares held bydirectors. Such practices depleteresources for investment and areundesirable. Golden hellos and goodbyes

have all become a way of boostingexecutive remuneration and mustbe prohibited as they bear norelationship to actual perfor-mance.Company law should be

changed to give stakeholders theright to fix an upper limit. Thiscould be in the form of a multipleof pay ratio, or an absolute limit,or in any other form that stake-


End fat cat pay excesses Credit: Martin Rowson

The report recommendsthat if 20% or more ofstakeholders rejectexecutive remunerationpolicy and practice thenthe board should get awarning (a yellow card)which should encouragedirectors to rethinktheir practices.



EUROPE

A tale of two Europes

my as a whole, the pressures onthe weak institutions of the euro-zone will be reduced, and theunderlying racism that prevents agenerous coordinated migrationpolicy for Europe will be softened. It is delusional to suppose that

growth alone will address any ofthe underlying problems. TheEuropean Union plans of FrenchPresident Macron - by far themost ambitious of the currentleaders, still amount only tominor changes in European eco-nomic governance, with propos-als for a European finance minis-ter, more resources for the Unionand greater efficiency in the exist-ing policies of granting and refus-ing asylum in Europe. Even these totally inadequate

changes have been rebuffed firm-ly by other European leaders,leading many commentators todespair at the lack of positivedynamics for the reform of the EU(the longtime European optimistJurgen Habermas recently wrotehe 'fails to see any encouragingtrends right now').Now let us turn to the history

'from below' of the EuropeanUnion, which is perhaps the realnovelty in the past decade: thefirst time that a European citizen-ry has really expressed itself assuch. The last decade has not onlyseen crisis, but also citizensmobilising to address them. Wehave had solidarity actions with

tries. There is nothing sustainable in

this solution and the next crisisaround the corner will either beused to reinforce this model evenmore drastically, by totallyremoving those elements of socialcohesion policy and structuralinvestment which still persist, orit will be used to change direc-tion.Likewise, the increased migra-

tion flows in 2015 were not onlypredictable but predicted and theEuropean Union not only failed tomake adequate preparations forthese but failed to use the policymechanisms already at their dis-posal, instead allowing itself toget into a 'beggar-thy-neighbour'situation where each memberstate blames the other. Few takeresponsibility and the fortressaround the European Union isreinforced. Again, this situationis not sustainable. People willcontinue to come to Europe, andeither efforts to stop them willbecome so restrictive that therights of Europeans to move willbecome caught up in the fortress,or a real coordinated Europeanasylum and migration policy willbe developed.The central forces of European

politics have shown their lack ofimagination with a simplisticunderstanding of the situation.They hope that with growthreturning to the European econo-

The past decade in Europe is atone level that of a decadent,unimaginative and sometimesmendacious elite unable to fullyunderstand, let alone properlyaddress, multiplying crises. Thisis the history from above of theEuropean Union. But there isalso another story which haslargely been outside of the inter-est of the media: a story of politi-cal invention amongst the citi-zens, sometimes for progressiveand sometimes for reactionarypurposes. This is the history'from below' of Europe. The waythese two histories come togetherand interact is going to be deci-sive for the future form of theEuropean Union. Examples of the unimaginative

elite are easy to find. The finan-cial crisis hitting Europe in late2007, which rapidly turned into acrisis of the euro, was above all acrisis of the banks which couldhave been decisively addressedearly on and could have beenused to complete the fiscal unionnecessary for the sustainability ofthe eurozone. Instead, the struc-tural weaknesses of the eurozoneand the lack of proper balancedgovernance of the single marketpersist, and the crisis has insteadbeen used to reinforce a neoliber-al economic model based on aus-terity and precarity which worksto the benefit of a few elites prin-cipally in core European coun-

Niccolo Milanese looks at the multiple crises in the European Union with anunimaginative elite against the twin threats of progressive and reactionary civic movements

Niccolo Milaneseis a member ofEuropeanAlternatives

Amazon workers coordinating strikes across Europe



C

and inside Greece and refugee-welcome initiatives, 'blocupy'mobilisations against the policiesof the European central bank, thelaunching of NGO boats to rescuemigrants in the Mediterranean(most recently the boatMediterranea in Italy, the firstsuch boat to sail with an Italianflag and therefore in principle theright to dock), Amazon andDeliveroo strikes in the gig-econo-my, mobilisations to protect oradvance women's rights to abor-tion in Poland and Ireland, or therights of LGBT couples inRomania, protests for freedom ofthe press and against corruptionin Romania, Slovakia, Malta andelsewhere. Such civic initiativeshave found electoral expressionand success, notably at city level.Cities like Barcelona under theadministration of Ada Colau havebecome inspiring paradigms forothers. What is more, over the last

decade, civic learning amongstmovements has been takingplace. Where the concerns of AdaColau's Barcelona-en-comu wereinitially local - starting with stop-ping housing evictions - rapidly itbecame apparent that change inthe economic, environmental andsocial conditions of the city relyon action beyond its limits, andwith little support from thenational government, only coordi-nated international action wouldopen up such possibilities. Thusthe city of Barcelona took leader-ship in an international networkof 'fearless cities'. A similar form of learning

could be found in workers organi-sation in the precarious economy.In 2013 Amazon workers in dis-tribution warehouses in Germanyattempted to strike and foundthat Amazon simply redeployedwork to the nearest warehouse

over the Polish border in Poznan.The following year, representa-tives of the German trade unionVerdi joined up with a new tradeunion in Poland, InicjatywaPracowicza, to organise coordi-nated strikes. Now the Amazonstrikes on Black Friday andAmazon Prime days take place inmost European countries in acoordinated way. All these initiatives on the pro-

gressive side of civil society hasbeen matched and sometimes sur-passed by initiative on the reac-tionary side. Whilst civic initia-tives to stop housing evictionscreated a positive example inBarcelona, a similar process inBudapest where the incumbentSocial democratic party could beblamed for the failure led to thecoming to power of Victor Orban. Far-right organisations have

been able to convene protests andrallies of numbers unseen sincethe second world war, notably inWarsaw each November. Theyhave also built a social base byproviding services from securityto social welfare where the statehas failed. For every refugee wel-come initiative, there is a corre-sponding reactionary initiative topatrol the borders. Reactionaryreligious organisations have beenable to intensify campaignsagainst women’s and minorityrights, and freedom of expressionis under attack. In manyinstances, reactionary civil soci-ety has been able to coordinateinternationally better than theprogressive side. The success of Victor Orban in

advocating a nationalist, conser-vative and christian EuropeanUnion, in coordination with othernationalist movements, whichultimately have divergent objec-tives but see short term benefit incollaboration, shows that the

political translation of this civicenergy has been largely to thebenefit of the right.This overall European picture

of political deadlock 'from above'and civic energy 'from below',both increasingly hijacked by thefar-right, should have many reso-nances for people in the UnitedKingdom. The 'remain' cause in the

Brexit referendum was led in anunimaginative, uninspiring way,which assumed that an overallmessage of economic prosperity -irrespective of the way that pros-perity is distributed or deeperquestions about the quality of life- would be sufficient to defend thestatus-quo. Meanwhile, enough ofthe civic energy for change wascaptured by a far-right cabalwhich has pulled British politicstowards its most hostile, ungen-erous and dysfunctional state fordecades. How the Brexit process evolves

will be crucially important for thefuture direction of Europe. The European Union elites are

attempting to use the process togenerate legitimacy for them-selves negatively: by showinghow bad it is to leave theEuropean Union, they aim tobuild legitimacy amongst theirown populations. This shows thestaggering lack of positive ideasfor the future of the Unionamongst the elites. On the other side, the far-right

nationalists build their betrayalnarrative not only in the UK butacross Europe - 'look at the men-dacious European Union whichonce again frustrates nationalsovereignty' - and hope for aneven more dysfunctionalEuropean political economy theycan exploit further.Against both of these tenden-

cies, citizens of the UK have acommon interest with progressiveEuropeans across the continentto continue to invent a positivefuture through civic initiatives ofsolidarity and joint struggle, andto aim to give this positive civicenergy representation in politicalinstitutions at every scale. The fronts we have to fight on

are multiplying, but let us makethat multiplicity our strengthand our agility to negotiate differ-ent contexts our virtue. This isone of the deep meanings of theEuropean idea over centuries,once the bureaucratic and admin-istrative shells are strippedaway: it is an expression of ourcapacity to create a new worldtogether and to face-down therisks implicit in any such project.

Matteo Salvini far-right Italian deputy PM



LEFT AND BREXIT

Brexit and the hard right’s Americandream

states if government policies endan-ger corporate profit. Governmentsmight do this, say, by puttingcigarettes in plain packaging, remov-ing toxic chemicals from petrol,increasing the minimum wage, orplacing a moratorium on fracking. Infact, these are all real cases. The gov-ernment in question has no right toappeal, no right to take a similarcase of its own against a corporation,and must pay extortionate legal feesfor each case, win or lose.Up to now, Britain has shared the

European bloc’s standards and regu-lations. Many of us regard thesestandards as pandering to the inter-ests of the corporations that lobby forthem. But for people like Liam Fox,even these standards are far toohigh. They would far rather weshared the low standards of theNorth American bloc. This wouldmean out of the window go workers’rights, food standards and the ‘pre-cautionary principle’, which makessure something doesn’t do harmbefore allowing it to go on sale.Chlorine chickens are the tip of

the iceberg. The US is pretty publicabout what it would want from atrade deal with the UK – they havepublished a 400-page document totell us exactly what they don’t likeabout EU standards. This includes astomach-churning list of foods theUS would like to import into Britain

Fox is also important because heinhabits the key ministry for bring-ing this vision to fruition. After all,for the leading Brexiteers, unlike themasses who voted with them, thecore of their vision is not limitingimmigration, nor even parliamentarysovereignty, but Britain’s right tosign independent trade deals.Through these deals, a new worldwill be created – that is, unless westop it.

Corporate courts Liam Fox is a hardcore Atlanticist

who regards Europe as a nightmareof socialist bureaucratic hell. Hedreams of deregulated markets,where the state is reduced to oneman sitting in an office with a nucle-ar weapon. He plans to use trade pol-icy to inch us closer to that place.How? Well, trade today is not simplyabout finding ways to sell more carsand clothes (or even financial ser-vices). Rather, trade deals are aboutderegulation, liberalisation and mus-cular corporate power. They areabout a set of rules that put the‘right to profit’ above any social orenvironmental objective.Nothing better illustrates this

than the corporate court system,politely known as ‘investor protec-tion’. These are secret courts, embed-ded in many modern trade deals,which allow big business to sue

No single person betterembodies the right-wing world of Brexitthan trade secretaryLiam Fox. Fox inhabits

a parallel universe in which bucca-neering adventurers scour the worldfor new wonders to sell in an ever-expanding marketplace ruled over bythe imperial warships of Britannia.Fox’s own civil servants brand his

trade strategy ‘Empire 2.0’, fitting fora man who chooses to have a pictureof arch-imperialist Cecil Rhodes look-ing over his office. Even by the stan-dards of the current government, Foxis a hard right free marketeer, closeto Trump-supporting US groups likethe Heritage Foundation. This mightbe why Theresa May retains his ser-vices. He moves in circles with cli-mate deniers, Big Pharma CEOs, oilmen, billionaires. The 0.1%. So Fox can teach us an awful lot

about Brexit – not in terms of under-standing the myriad reasons thatBritain narrowly voted to leave theEU, but recognising where hardBrexit will take us unless we stop itin its tracks. For beneath the bum-bling, the bluster, the seemingincompetence of Fox and his hardBrexit companions, is a deadly seri-ous vision for a very differentBritain, stripped of social protectionand dedicated to the pursuit of profitabove all else.

Nick Dearden exposes the myths of a ‘global Britain’

Trump and Fox - crusaders for a bonfire of regulation



– including meat from animalsstuffed with hormones, steroids, rac-topamine, and endocrine disrupters(chemicals that mess with animals’hormones and can cause cancer andbirth defects), more genetically modi-fied foods, and more pesticideresidue allowed on fruits and nuts. It gets worse when you look at the

other side of the ‘staying healthy’equation: treatment. Medicines inthe US are vastly more expensivethan they are in Europe, and the USis unhappy about the (still very mod-erate) limitations that many govern-ments place on pharmaceutical cor-porations. The US wants BigPharma to have more say over theprices charged for medicines, curtail-ing the NHS’s limited power to nego-tiate pharmaceutical pricing. Andthe US wants to make it easier torenew patents on medicines, allowan even greater degree of corporatecontrol over clinical test data, grantnew patents on biological medicines(including many new cancer treat-ments), and give corporations agreater say in healthcare policy. If the US successfully pushes

through these top-line demands in atrade deal with the UK, the NHSwould either have to spend moremoney on drugs each year, or morepatients would be denied access tothose drugs. The reality is that regu-lation is already too lax. In the lastfive years the cost of medicines to theNHS has increased 29% – that’smore than the NHS’s total deficit. Itcan’t afford US drug prices. Indeed,most Americans can’t either.On top of this, a US trade deal

would give US corporations greaterpowers over public services like theNHS. US corporations would havemore rights to bid for contracted-outbits of the NHS, and could then usethe corporate court system describedearlier to make it nearly impossibleto ever bring those contracts intopublic ownership. While the govern-ment has previously claimed that theNHS is at no risk from a trade dealwith the US, legal advice sought bytrade union Unite disagrees withtheir assessment.

The Brexit empire The list of potentially weakened

regulations and standards goes onand on: it includes threats to ouronline privacy, to our ability to moveto renewable energies and our rightto pass public health regulations.This ideological vision of Britain’sfuture has been described as‘Singapore-on-Thames’, an (inaccu-rate) shorthand for a low-regulation,low-tax, free-market paradise.It’s not all about the US. Liam Fox

is talking trade with a whole host ofcountries. The oil tyrants of the Gulf.

The rising right-wing governments ofLatin America. Erdogan of Turkeyand Duterte of the Philippines. Anydictator or anti-democratic thugseems ideal for a trade deal. Morerecently, Theresa May has touredAfrica, promising to spend aid moneyto help us get trade deals, in aneffort to re-create imperial tradingrelationships. Her hope is thatBritain will soak up cheap food andbasic resources (even though thosecountries require them for their owndevelopment), and we will sell themback financial services at vastlyover-inflated prices. That’s how theempire worked – a core economy anda periphery.MPs currently don’t have any

power to stop or change trade deals.Despite attempts by opposition MPsto give parliament and the publicsome voice in trade deals, Fox’sTrade Bill, currently making its waythough parliament, has concedednothing substantial to date. Thetrade secretary acts under royal pre-rogative and has set up more than adozen trade working groups to beginnegotiating post-Brexit trade dealsbehind closed doors. The most MPscan do, if they’re really lucky, is topostpone ratification of a trade dealfor a month. So much for the all-important concept of parliamentarysovereignty.

Brexit and Trumpism One way to undermine Fox’s

vision is obviously to remain in theEU. Given the popular mandategiven for leaving, it’s hard to imagineanything short of a referendum couldachieve that. Such an outcome looksincreasingly possible, as there seemsno parliamentary majority for anyspecific deal.But a second referendum is not a

long-term solution. After all, Brexitdid not fall from a clear blue sky.Along with Trump, and the rise ofthe far right across Europe andauthoritarianism across the world, itis a symptom of the deep problems atthe heart of our economy and society.While a People’s Vote is necessary,on its own it is not sufficient. Werequire radical change to massivelyreduce inequality, constrain thepower of the 1% and protect the envi-ronment. And those messages mustbe part of any new referendum cam-paign, if we’re to have any chance ofwinning. One important component is

rethinking the global system ofneoliberal trade rules. Neoliberalismis dying, and the battle today isabout what takes its place. National(or even better, EU) law needs to bereclaimed as a means of controllingbig business and ‘investment’ to gen-uinely build a more equal and sus-

tainable economy. But that doesn’tmean that erecting trade barrierseverywhere is desirable, or that prop-ping up corrupt industries is the bestuse of taxpayer money. The left needsto redefine the purpose and limits oftrade policy. Trade is not an end initself, and where it takes place itshould benefit the people of all partici-pating countries, rather than beingused to exploit. Labour’s ‘JustTrading’ initiative is a good start, butit needs to go much further. Economicintegration doesn’t have to be neolib-eral. The key to success is that inte-gration must have a strong social andenvironmental basis, and evenstronger democratic control. For all itsfaults – and they are huge – the EU isthe world’s biggest trade bloc withsuch social and democratic elements.What’s more, economic integration

cannot be based on the super-exploita-tion of the planet’s limited resourcesor of poorer countries, as the WorldTrade Organisation dictates.Developing countries should beencouraged and supported in formingtheir own regional integrations, withstrong laws to control investment andtrade. This is the very opposite of theEmpire 2.0 logic of hard Brexit

An internationalist policyThere are other elements of eco-

nomic integration that can free peo-ple, rather than capital. At the centreof this is free movement of people.Free movement doesn’t ‘allow’ busi-ness to pick up and relocate people inorder that they can produce more effi-ciently – rather, that is how virtuallyevery other migration system works:power resides with the economicgiants and what they demand. Freemovement is different. It’s one of theonly immigration systems where theability to move is a human right. Freemovement gives ordinary peoplerights to organise for better conditionsand pay on the same terms as domes-tic workers. Our internationalist economic poli-

cy should combine two importantprinciples. On the one hand, rebuild-ing local economies and local democ-racies – giving people real power overtheir communities. On the otherhand, giving people much greater citi-zen rights at European and global lev-els, fostering much bigger democraticdiscussions over how we trade, howwe control corporations, how weensure that humanity survives the cli-mate catastrophe we’re facing.This also allows us to develop a

clear and compelling vision for aninternational economics that taps intothe concerns of those who voted forBrexit out of desperation, while pre-serving our internationalist outlook.It is the only progressive future forEurope.

Nick Dearden isdirector of GlobalJustice Now. Thisis an abridgedversion of hisarticle in TheLeft AgainstBrexit publishedby AnotherEurope isPossible.www.anothereurope.org

C



RACE AND BREXIT

C

Kimberly McIntosh reports Brexit will be harsh for BAME communities

Ethnic minorities under Brexit coshof job losses. How ethnic minorities, and the

country as a whole, are impactedby Brexit will largely depend onhow the government in powerresponds. If Theresa Mayremains, with Philip Hammondas Chancellor, we can expectspending to remain at historiclows, despite assurances that‘austerity is coming to an end’ oris ‘over’ – depending on your verbtense of choice. So far, austerity measures

have had a disproportionateimpact on BAME women on lowincomes. The other Conservativeleadership contenders have littlecare for social justice and areunlikely to continue with May’s“burning injustices” mantra. Discussions of ‘Left Brexit’ or

‘Lexit’ need to be clearer aboutwhat assurances there will bethat the poorest in our societywill not be made even poorer. Weneed to see increased investmentin the industries, areas and peo-ple projected to be impacted nega-tively – people on low incomes,disabled people, ethnic minoritiesand women. But if there is noelection or Labour does not win it,these groups are likely to be hitharshly by the government’sresponse after we leave. It is notan ideological game. If we have a People’s Vote and

there is a switch to Remain, therewill need to be a clear, positivevision as to what it can offer all ofthe country – not just mobile,young people who want to doErasmus. Otherwise ethnicminorities are at risk of a back-lash from anyone harbouring asense of betrayal. Research byHope Not Hate found that levelsof optimism about economic pros-perity and opportunities post-Brexit are greatest in those areasthat voted most strongly to leavethe EU. Again, if this is not deliv-ered, BAME people, EU residentsand migrants will be the targetsof resentment. Visible minoritiesare the most common targets forhate crime and the police arepreparing for it to increase inMarch 2019 when we are (suppos-edly) due to leave.Now is the time for decisive lead-

ership from our political leaders,economic policies that work foreveryone and a vision that leavesanti-immigrant rhetoric and racismbehind. I hope it comes soon.

When we’re talkingabout Brexit, thephrase ‘left-behind’ is oftennot far behind.

The ‘left behind’, in theory refersto everyone damaged by austeri-ty, betrayed by politicians of allstripes and the forces of globalisa-tion. But it conjures up images ofthe ‘white’ working class in post-industrial Britain. This is a mis-nomer – the working class is mul-tiethnic. Whilst the discussionmight not show it, Brexit hasbeen about ethnic minorities fromits inception and its impact has,and will, be felt keenly by thesecommunities.The vote to Leave the

European Union was driven by acomplex cocktail of causes.Disparate demographics acrossthe UK said they wanted out andit’s important not to conflate thiswith the ‘Vote Leave’ campaign.This campaign was outwardlyxenophobic, using anxiety aboutmigration and ‘cultural change’ asthinly veiled proxies for race. Theincrease in hate crime followingthe referendum result was a con-sequence of this rhetoric, not arandom aberration. But beyond hate crime, there

hasn’t been much attention givento how ethnic minorities mightfare when, how, and if we leavethe EU.

In our briefing Brexit forBAME Britain, I examine withmy colleague Dr Irum ShehreenAli how BAME people might fare.We find that ethnic minorities arein an unenviable triple-bind inrelation to Brexit: already eco-nomically worse off, the primarytargets of hate crime and hithardest by austerity. BAME fami-lies are already more likely to bein low-paid work, spend a greatershare of their income on rent andhave less in savings. This makesthem vulnerable to price increas-es and makes it harder to weath-er economic storms. The projectedfall in GDP by 8% over the next15 years, particularly in light of a‘No Deal’ Brexit and projected fallof household income at between£850 and £6400 per year, will hitBAME people the hardest, asthey are more likely to be onlower incomes and in precariouswork. Ethnic minorities are also con-

centrated in specific sectors ofemployment, some of which are atrisk post-Brexit. For example,Pakistani and Bangladeshi menare twice as likely to be workingin ‘plant and machine operations’compared with white Britishmen, and much more likely to bealready living in poverty. TheInstitute for Fiscal Studies pro-jects that a ‘hard Brexit’ wouldleave these workers at high risk

KimberlyMcIntosh is apolicy officer atRace On TheAgenda. TheBriefing Brexitfor BAME Britainis available fromhttps://www.rota.org.uk/



Another Europe is Possible:Mobilising internationalism in thefight against BrexitDon Flynn sees the AEIP conference as a vital socialist response to Brexit

Another Europe isPossible has grownsince its foundationback in 2016 from asmall network of inter-

nationalist-minded individuals toan impressive organisation withthe backing of over 13 thousandsubscription-paying supporters atthe present time.Though with a sizeable overlap

of support from people alignedwith the Corbynite Momentum itsbacking is not confined to mem-bers of the Labour Party.Caroline Lucas, leader of theGreen Party in England andWales, is a frequent participantin its events. Left Unity alsobacks its initiatives and cam-paigns.The AEIP network brings

together that swathe of the leftwhich is committed to the ‘reformand remain’ stance in the currentdebate over Brexit. This is not anarrow current. There is scopefor disputes between people whotend to be uncritical of theEuropean Union, who repeat itsclaims for a unique role in secur-ing peace across the continentand upholding human rights, andothers more inclined to see it as a‘rich man’s club’ but at least hav-ing the potential for change.The organisation continued its

evolution to a more structuredentity with a democratic constitu-

tion and a leadership team at itsfirst national general meetingwhich took place in London on8th January. A couple of hundredAEIP members gathered for dis-cussion which centred on the cur-rent state of the Brexit saga andthe role taken by the LabourParty leadership. By the end ofthe day the assembled member-ship had adopted a strategy paperand a constitution which providedfor the election of a 16-memberexecutive committee. Highlightsof the discussion included contri-butions by Emiliano Mellino ofthe gig economy’s nemesis, thelargely immigrant IndependentWorkers Union of Great Britain,Molly Scott Cato, a Green PartyMEP, and Guardian journalistZoe Williams, Labour MP Russell-Moyle and Chartist EB memberMarina Prentoulis.The speakers welcomed the

revival of political activist moodsacross the UK and saw this ashaving the potential to support aradical government of the left atsome point in the future. Themain challenge at the presenttime was to confront the delu-sions being sown by the support-ers of Brexit, both in the form ofthe right wing nationalist rhetoricbeing generated by the Toryparty, but also the naïve leftismof the advocates of ‘Lexit’. Another Europe has been mak-

ing its pitch through an impres-sive website - https://www.anoth-ereurope.org/ - which featuresopinion pieces, news items andvideo blogs which aim to makethe case for its ‘remain andreform’ position. Supporters arealso urged to get active in cam-paigns which share its concernsfor an internationalist response tocontemporary challenges.Foremost among these is itsdefence of freedom of movementfor people – one of the mostimportant rights directly threat-ened by Brexit.AEIP’s ‘remain and reform’ mes-

sage is a response not just to theTory version of Brexit which is theimmediate threat, but also the ver-sion of socialism which believesthat the working class can achieveits emancipation within the highenclosing walls of a reinvigoratednational state. Its alternativevision sees socialism arising fromacts of resistance to capitalism andits crises that extend across nation-al borders and aims to mobilise thepower of a working class that istruly international. If it is toachieve any degree of success in thecoming months it will need to showthat its principled internationalismdoes translate as a practical pro-gramme of action for new cohorts ofworking people as they enter intostruggles to defend jobs and wagesand the gains of the welfare state.

ANOTHER EUROPE

C



SYRIA

Corbyn’s Labour needs to get realon Syria

rejected the view of others in hisAdministration that controlledsupport for armed oppositiongroups would generate incentivesfor the regime to make conces-sions and achieve a political set-tlement. Seeing any such supportas too risky, the policy chosen wastwofold: (1) to influence the pre-existing arms pipeline that hadbeen established by regionalstates so as to steer supplies awayfrom groups considered hardlineby US planners, and also to limitthe quantity and quality of armsprovided to the ‘sanctioned’ oppo-sition; and (2) to locate localforces which could be relied on tosolely fight jihadist groups.Ironically, this policy contributedto the very dynamics it sought toavoid. This effective interventionby the US to limit the supportprovided to the Free Syrian Army(FSA) led directly to the relativegrowth of radical groups withinthe opposition whose sources ofsponsorship could not be so easilycontrolled. In essence, the US policy was

one which inadvertently support-ed the regime in Damascus byundermining the military capaci-ty of the FSA. The resulting bal-ance of power in the conflict ledthe regime and its backers tobecome increasingly intransigentin the various peace talks, andthis is the context in which thefailure of the peace process shouldbe understood.

strators, by ‘disappearing’ pro-democracy activists, and by tor-turing and mutilating the geni-tals of children. This is the sameregime which, despite its historyof supporting transnational terrororganisations, attempted to pre-sent itself to the internationalcommunity as a lesser evil in atwo-way choice between itself anda jihadist nightmare – and thencommitted itself to seeing thatchoice materialised. At the same time it was killing

and locking up pro-democracyactivists in the early months ofthe uprising, the regime releasedscores of Al-Qaeda-affiliatedfighters it had previously sup-ported in the expectation thatthey would act in a way whichwould substantiate the pre-arranged narrative. This cynicalpublic relations strategy informedits subsequent war effort also,with the regime and its backersfirst and foremost targeting mod-erate opposition groups morepalatable to the internationalcommunity, and showing a blindeye to jihadist organisationswhose growth was seen to benefitthe regime’s international image. A cautious Obama

Administration had defined USstrategy in Syria through a fram-ing that only considered countert-errorism. Keen to avoid a collapseof Syrian state institutions whichcould generate a haven fortransnational jihadism, Obama

Following a successfulyear for the Assadregime which has seenit recapture a numberof areas from a poorly

equipped and increasingly demor-alised armed opposition, Syrianrebels have been pushed back tothe country’s north-westernprovince of Idlib. The province isnow home to some 1.5 millionIDPs from across the country,doubling its pre-war population.Fears of a regime effort to recap-ture the governorate inSeptember fortunately did notmaterialise, with predictions thata major offensive could generatethe worst humanitarian crisis ofthe 21st century, and the UN pre-dicting an exodus of up to 800,000people. While a Turkey-Russia deal

ostensibly prevented an offensiveand established a demilitarisedzone within the borders of theprovince, the conflict’s previousexperiences with demilitarisedzones suggest that this arrange-ment may well be a temporaryone. Indeed, each of the otherthree de-escalation zones agreedon in Astana in 2017 have nowbeen seized by the regime. Ineffect, the new de-escalationagreement in Idlib sits on top ofthe previous one the regime wasrecently preparing to violate. OnSaturday the regime shelledareas within this newly agreedarea. Donor disengagement is an

additional pressing issue. Withthe Turkey-Syria border havingnow been tightly barricaded withfinancial assistance from the EU,international donors previouslyincentivised to support stabilisa-tion efforts in order to curbrefugee flows are now pulling out.The subsequent drying up offunds has already led to the ter-mination of large numbers of cru-cial development programmes. Meanwhile, the international

community is moving to re-accommodate the Assad regime.This is the same regime whichresponded to peaceful demonstra-tions in 2011 by sending the mili-tary to the streets to kill demon-

Can Paz dissects the Syrian conflict while making a robust call for Corbyn’s Labour tochange a skewed view of the war

Syrian men rescue babies after air strike in Aleppo Credit: Ameer Alhalbi - World Press Photo


January/February 2019 CHARTIST 21C

Can Paz is amember of theSyria SolidarityCampaign. He iscurrently basedin Gaziantep,Turkey, where heworks for anorganisationrunningdevelopmentprojects innorthern Syria.

Yet this is not the image of theconflict one would take from thecomments of leading figures with-in the UK Labour Party, norwithin a wide portion of the polit-ical Left, both in the West and inthe Middle East and elsewhere. This connects to a wider prob-

lem many leftists nowadays tendto have with their understandingof global politics. Unlike theirviews on domestic political issueswhich are typically formulated inan honest and lucid manner, andwhich represent a serious intel-lectual attempt at producing anuanced analysis of a given situa-tion, dominant leftist approachestoward world affairs rest on alazy, fixed logic. This logic is bothdisinterested in the specifics ofthe case being examined, and isdisconnected from the Left’s tra-ditional commitment to interna-tionalism. In sum, it is one whichis both analytically and morallybankrupt, and which does its tra-dition a deep disservice. The structure of this logic rests

on a number of interrelatedassumptions: (1) that Westernimperialism is the primary ‘prob-lem’ in international relations; (2)that it has an insatiable appetitefor regime change; (3) that non-

Western agency is largely irrele-vant; and (4) that only humanrights abuses that can be linkedto the West are worthy of criti-cism. Indeed, criticism of otherstates, particularly those withshaky relations with the West, isdangerous as it risks reproducingan imperialist pro-regime changediscourse. It is because of these assump-

tions that so many prominentleftist voices associated with theadvocacy of social justice andhuman rights have been able toreproduce the dishonest, dehu-manising and counterrevolution-ary narrative of the Assadregime. In this view, the West iscommitted to regime change inSyria, and its reckless sponsor-ship of armed opposition groupshas led to the proliferation ofjihadist groups and the rise ofISIS. In this view, criticism of

Russian war crimes in Syria bypolicymakers in the US andEurope constitutes the importantact of aggression, a deplorableaction which risks dangerous

escalation. In this view, condem-nation of actually-used chemicalweapons against civilians is oftenlikened to the claims of chemicalweapons possession in Iraq priorto the 2003 intervention. The listgoes on. This is the sick ideologi-cal quackery which explains howself-styled human rights advo-cates dismiss volunteers who risktheir lives saving civilians fromthe rubble of air-strikes as a ‘pro-paganda construct’; suggest thatSyrians gassed themselves as apretext for American regimechange; reproduce conspiracy the-ories that portray the Syrian con-flict as an effort by the US toinstitute a gas pipeline; and writethat the dictator who plunged hiscountry into war is in fact a legiti-mate and democratically electedPresident. While not reaching such

depths, Jeremy Corbyn’s LabourParty seems to exhibit a similarview of foreign affairs. WhileCorbyn was chairman of the Stopthe War Coalition, the organisa-tion invited Mother Agnes, a noto-rious regime apologist who claimsthat the uprising is a ‘conspiracy’and videos of sarin gas victims arefabricated, to speak at its annual‘peace conference’. As shadowleader earlier this year, Corbynrefused to condemn the regime fora large chlorine gas attack in thecity of Douma that killed seventypeople and injured over five hun-dred. His recommendation ofexercising caution, and notassigning blame prior to a conclu-sive investigation may seem rea-sonable on the surface. It is not.Given that the regime has alreadybeen found responsible for numer-ous chemical weapons attacksagainst civilians, the source ofattacks launched from the air intoopposition-held areas is obvious.Suggestions to the contrary are anaffront to the victims, and effortsat postponing criticism of theregime until well after it has ben-efited militarily from the attacksenables it to continue using chem-ical weapons with impunity. In September, among fears of a

major regime offensive in Idlib,Labour’s shadow foreign secre-tary, Emily Thornberry, waspreparing this argument evenbefore the next batch of chemicalweapons were used. AddressingParliament, and with no sense ofirony, she emphasised the need topostpone criticism of the regimein the event of an additionalchemical attack – to confirm itsresponsibility for actions which,by virtue of her very statement,she anticipated were likely to hap-

pen. In the same speech she went on

to dismiss open-source information– compiled by local journalists,human rights activists andhumanitarian organisations, andwhich has been crucial to docu-menting war crimes by the regime– as unreliable, suggesting that itwas typically produced by ‘terroristgroups’. Prior to becoming Labour’s

strategy and communicationsdirector, Seamus Milne wrote in2013 that the regime may not beresponsible for its most notoriouschemical attack in Eastern Ghoutawhich killed over a thousand peo-ple. Amid suggestions that Assadhad no ‘rational motivation’ for theattack and that rebels may havegassed themselves, Milne claimedthat ‘even if it turns out thatregime forces are responsible’, out-rage would amount to ‘moralgrandstanding by governmentsthat have dumped depleted urani-um, white phosphorus and AgentOrange around the region andbeyond.’ Since becoming Corbyn’scommunications chief, he has ral-lied against what he sees as theunfair ‘demonisation’ of Russia,and his deputy, Steve Howell, hasrepeated Assad’s line verbatim,stating that, for Britain and theUS, ‘the choice in Syria is Jihadistsor secular Assad supporters’. Thereare many more such examples. The Labour Party must change

its skewed understanding of for-eign affairs. Rather than standingup for the marginalised and pro-viding a voice to those in need,Corbyn’s Labour is obfuscating theresponsibility of their killers. Thisself-styled anti-imperialist identitypolitics is anything but: it deniesnon-Western actors agency andsees sovereignty as belonging tostates rather than peoples.Fundamentally, this thinkingwithin the party leadership goesbeyond an abandonment of theparty’s legacy of internationalism –it is actively serving to defend theperpetrators of crimes againsthumanity.

Thornberry dismisses evidence ‘on the ground’

Corbyn refused tocondemn the regime fora large chlorine attack



ANTI-POLITICS

Is the Left opposed to Politics?

apolitical 'real democracy' flour-ishing in the soviets, and allsocial institutions from schools totrade unions. He wasn't the firstto argue for this unlikely co-exis-tence of democracy and dictator-ship. I traced it, (if I may beallowed a plug) – in Romancingthe Revolution to articles byMorgan Phillips-Price, theManchester Guardian journalist,and in Sylvia Pankhurst's paper,The Workers' Dreadnought in1919 . The 'two great social insti-tutions' of revolutionary Russiawere, he told readers, 'the politi-cal soviet and the economic sovi-et'. The role of the former was toprotect 'the new social order' -just like Sloan's 'dictatorship' -and under its protection the non-political economic soviet would'build up' and eventually be left insole charge. To be fair toPhillips-Price the evolutiontowards a totalitarian state was alot less evident in 1919 thanwhen Sloan gave much the sameaccount.So, we can see where 'anti-poli-

tics' can lead. But what of now?Minor stuff in comparison, nodoubt. But it's worth us allthinking hard about the implica-tions of committing to – demo-cratic – politics and the continu-ing influence of a persistent flawin left-wing thinking.

happily. Consider where what I've

called the anti-political stancecan lead. Before the 1930s noone would have thought of thoseFabian intellectuals, Beatrice andSidney Webb, as hostile to poli-tics. Yet Kevin Morgan, in thesecond part of his Bolshevism andthe British Left trilogy whichdeals with the Webbs' attitudestowards the USSR surely got itright when he characterisedtheir Soviet Communism. A NewCivilisation as demonstrating an'aversion to politics'. Pat Sloanquoted them approvingly in his1937 book Soviet Democracy. Itnow seems incredible that at thattime he – or anyone – could write,or Victor Gollancz publish in theLeft Book Club format, a bookwith that title given what wasgoing on in the USSR at the time.Could Sloan have seriouslybelieved that some form of democ-racy was flourishing underStalin's brutal dictatorship? Isuspect he did.Sloan denied that one should

'treat democracy and dictatorshipas two mutually exclusive terms,.In the Soviet Union 'the democra-cy was enjoyed by the vast major-ity of the population, and the dic-tatorship was over a small minor-ity.' Protected by Stalin's dicta-torship Sloan saw an essentially

People sometimes stareat me in total disbelief,wondering whether I'vefinally succumbed tomadness in old age,

when I say that, since the verybeginning of the socialist move-ment one of its deepest flaws hasbeen its frequent lapse into ananti-political stance . Who, theyask, could be more 'political' thanthe earnest left-wing activist –past or present? So how on earthhave I arrived at such a view? Consider, first the beginning of

the chorus of the formerCommunard Eugėne Pottier'sL'Internationale of 1871 - 'C' estla lutte finale - It's the finalstruggle.' Is there ever going tobe a final struggle? The notionlurking here seems to be that'come the Revolution' all conflicts,all problems, will miraculously beresolved. The early English ver-sion is no better – 'the last fightlet us face.' The Billy Bragg ver-sion from 1989 is in this respect agreat improvement -'For thestruggle carries on.' Fast forward two decades to

the early 1890s and WilliamMorris's News From Nowhere.It's not that, famously, theHouses of Parliament has in theimaginary future been turnedinto a manure store. It's perfectlypossible to envisage an alterna-tive – indeed a more democratic –system than that represented bythe Palace of Westminster. ButChapter 13, 'Concerning Politics,'is by far the shortest one in thebook. The time traveller asks hisguide 'old Hammond' how they'manage with politics?' in thisutopia. Hammond responds that'we are very well off as to politics– because we have none.'Hostility to politics, given how

dodgy it often is, is not at all diffi-cult to understand. Many wouldprefer to flee to the hills ratherthan get too involved in it.People tend to agree that 'politicsis a necessary evil' and leave it atthat. OK as far as it goes. But weshould stress the 'necessary' partmuch more and to constantlybear in mind that the only knownalternative to politics is violencein some form – suppression of dis-sent, insurrection or civil war. Isthat an exaggeration? Hardly.And they all rarely if ever end

Ian Bullock looks back on earlier socialists’ idealised view of the end of politics and thatview today

Ian Bullock is amember ofBrighton LabourParty. His mostrecent books areRomancing theRevolution-TheMyth of SovietDemocracy andUnder Siege ahistory of theinter-warIndependentLabour Party

C

Wiilliam Morris’s News from nowhere: A Utopia sans Politics?



REFUGEES

Calais Children abandoned

Hackney Council in October2016 have agreed to take threeper annum, and Islington Council10. It is a small step in the rightdirection. Other councils shouldbe pushed to make similar com-mitments.

Brexit and Dublin 111Lord Dubs succeeded in obtain-

ing an amendment to the EUWithdrawal Bill currently sched-uled to become operational inMarch 2019. The Governmentinitially excluded Dublin III fromthe Bill but the amendment nowmeans that children will still beable to apply to join family mem-bers in the UK, although the defi-nition of family has been tight-ened to only include parents andsiblings. It becomes ever more difficult

to argue that the UK should pro-vide a safe haven for non EU chil-dren facing exploitation andhunger in Europe when we faceanother savage round of austeritycuts to front line services, particu-larly the Social Services of localauthorities. These cuts threatenthe well being of all disadvan-taged children here.But to give up diminishes all

our humanity. Every child shouldhave a chance to thrive some-where. The hostile environmentfostered by the Government since2010 against migrants is wrongand every small successful chal-lenge is a beacon of hope for thethousands who face destitution inthe UK, the EU and beyond.

were denied the chance to makefully evidenced applications.The UK ignored French warn-

ings that many of the childrenwould go missing, which is exact-ly what happened. Now they aredestitute around Calais, in Parisand in Brussels even thoughmany are legally entitled to joinfamily in the UK. They no longerhave mobile phones, have noaccess to interpreters or lawyersso cannot exercise their legalright to come to the UK.The Court of Appeal rulings in

September and October 2018 incases brought by Safe Passageand Help Refugees held thatOperation Purnia failed to meetstandards of procedural fairnessThe court also found that statis-tics on which the Governmentrelied in terms of the reluctanceof Social Services to accept chil-dren across the UK were funda-mentally flawed. Children whoare still in touch with theirlawyers, or with NGOs now havea chance to come to the UK legal-ly. But for the majority who can-not be found it is too late.

Dubs Campaign in support of CourtDecisionTo counter the Home Office

argument that Social Services areunwilling to accommodate chil-dren, Lord Dubs and SafePassage are running a campaignto persuade them to formallycommit to supporting specificnumbers of children over a periodof 10 years.

The hardship and home-lessness of unaccompa-nied children coming toEurope, and particular-ly the region around

Calais (to try to get to the UK)did not disappear when theJungle was destroyed in October2016. On the contrary, it ren-dered children even more vulner-able as hundreds now sleep inabout 10 informal camps in thepas de Calais area. They have noprotection against the harshCalais winds sweeping down fromthe North Sea.Since 2016, 293 children at

least have been trafficked illegal-ly into the UK and are nowforced into bonded labour and/orchild prostitution. Only 103 havebeen located. The children are tooscared to say anything due tothreats from the traffickers bothto themselves and their familiesback home.

Numbers of Dubs children accepted.The UK’s hostile environment

ensures that the numbers of chil-dren able to access the UKthrough DUBS and Dublin 111 ispitifully low. In 2016 theGovernment promised to fill 480Dubs places with children fromCalais but until now only 220have been transferred. This num-ber includes a very small numberof children from Greece and Italyand some children entitled to joinfamily members under Dublin111.

The recent court casesWhen the Jungle closed over

1000 children were dispersed inaccommodation centres aroundFrance, called CAOMIES wherethey were allowed to stay untilMarch 2017, although many ranaway from these isolated places.An expedited process OperationPurnia was put in place betweenthe French and UK authoritiesbetween October 2016 and March2017 whereby all the childrenwere ‘interviewed’ by the HomeOffice in France to assesswhether they were eligible to joinclose family members in the UKin accordance with Dublin 111.500 of these children were givenone line refusal letters. They C

Wendy Pettifer isa human rightslawyer

Thousands have drowned in the Mediterannean, died trying to get onto lorries or asvictims of traffickers since the Jungle was demolished in 2016. Wendy Pettifer reportson the fate of children

Lord Alf Dubs and Safe Passage launch campaign to get councils to commit to supporting refugee children


YOUTH VIEW


The Girl Effect

discussions have focused on sim-ply accessing education. Thisoverlooks what occurs in theclassroom and the ways in whichschool environments can act as aliberating environment, or canreinforce gender stereotypes anddiscrimination. All girls have aright to education, but for it to betransformative the content of edu-cation and how it connects withother inequalities need to be con-sidered.In failing to acknowledgehow societal barriers and powerstructures influence people’schoices, the responsibility for edu-cational achievement, empower-ment and poverty alleviation fallson the individual. This shift ofresponsibility means govern-ments and institutions are notheld accountable for creating con-ditions that are harmful towomen. Facebook supports cam-paigns for girls’ empowerment,whilst doing little to challengewidely known sexism in SiliconValley. Larry Summers publishedwork promoting the benefits ofgirls’ education, whilst supportingWorld Bank programmes whichpushed for welfare reduction andcuts to state education expendi-ture in the Global South. ONE, aninternational development cam-paigning organisation, used thetag line ‘a seat at the table startswith a seat in the classroom’,whilst over 70% of its own Boardof Directors are male.Finally, focusing on the individ-

ual’s path to success or failuremeans people are not required tounlearn attitudes that have con-tributed to gender inequality insystems, structures and society.

ideas began to emerge in the1990s as researchers, includingLarry Summers, former WorldBank Chief economist, producedwork suggesting that girls’ educa-tion was correlated with higheraccess to employment and lowermortality rates. Girls’ educationhas also been framed as an essen-tial input for national security indebates around the war on terror.Subsequently, slogans, such as‘invest in a girl and she’ll do therest’ have been used. Whilst an inspiring and poten-

tially simple solution to the crisisof extreme poverty, this lineartimeline of access to education toeconomic growth fails to connectwith the realities of women’slives. Inequalities which preventwomen from succeeding in thelabour market are all but ignored;lack of safety in work environ-ments, maternity policy andequal pay to name but a few. Inthe UK, where girls’ access toeducation is near universal, overhalf of all women have experi-enced some kind of sexual harass-ment in the workplace.This logic also considers all

girls to be the same when weknow other aspects of identity,such as race, class, mental healthand how these intersect with eachother will influence experiences ofeducation and employment. As well as failing to link to

wider societal factors, the currentdiscussions ignore the processesof education. School-related gen-der-based violence has become akey area of development inter-vention in the past ten years, butas the issue has mainstreamed,

And for women andgirls in developingcountries, this isvital…Providing themwith access to educa-

tion is the key to economic andsocial development, because whengirls are given the right tools tosucceed, they can create incredi-ble futures — not only for them-selves but for all of those aroundthem.”Since around 2010, girls’ right

to education has receivedunprecedented global attention.Not only has it become anincreasingly visible area of inter-national development, there hasbeen a mainstreaming of theissue in wider public debate. Many development organisa-

tions now have programmesspecifically focused on the issue,for example Plan International’sBecause I am a Girl campaign.Governments have also steppedup their investment; Let GirlsLearn was launched in 2015 byBarack and Michelle Obama.Since 2012, we have celebratedInternational Day of the Girlevery October and multiplecelebrities and companies, suchas Facebook, YouTube andInstagram have endorsed cam-paigns on girls’ education. Thequote above is from MeghanMarkle at the end of 2018. She isthe latest prominent figure to addtheir name to the issue. The attention now given to

girls’ education has occurredalongside the rising popularity offeminism in Western countries –Sheryl Sandberg’s 2013 Lean Inis one of the only books focusingon women’s rights to havereached international best sellerlists, celebrities and politicianshave proudly called themselvesfeminists wearing ‘This is what afeminist looks like’ t-shirts andmultiple elements of pop culturenow reference gender equality.Critiques of ‘popular feminism’have been widely published in thewake of this. The quote by Markle exempli-

fies some of the narratives thatare being promoted around girls’access to education in the GlobalSouth. The first being that a girls’education will not only relieve herown poverty, but her family’s,community’s and nation’s. These

Alice Arkwright welcomes ‘girls’ education’ celebrity endorsements but highlightsflaws in the campaign

C

Alice Arkwrightworks for theTUC



Crowd TroublePatrickMulcahyon MikeLeigh’shomage toPeterloo 200years on

Peterloo’ is writer-directorMike Leigh’s most ambi-tious film to date – and one

of his least financially successful.With an advertising campaignthat did not foreground any of theleading actors (Maxine Peake,Rory Kinnear) and a releasestrategy that pitted it againstmore commercial fare –‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, its maincompetitor, continued to wowaudiences in its second week ofrelease – it was quickly removedfrom mainstream cinemas andreplaced in art-houses by themovie version of ‘Widows’. Itremains though a brave and boldwork, the product of a filmmakerwith a distinctive way of workingthat informs what we see on thescreen. It should enjoy a healthyafterlife on the streaming serviceAmazon Prime and, later, FilmFour.Its subject is the Peterloo

Massacre of 16 August 1819,when an address byParliamentary reformer HenryHunt at Manchester’s St Peter’sFields attended by sixty thou-sand people was deemed illegalwhilst it was taking place andlocal yeomen and subsequently600 Hussars (the light cavalry)moved in. In the ensuring chaos,between 10 and 20 people werekilled – historians don’t agree onan exact figure – and many hun-dreds were injured. The Massacreremains a national outrage, anexample of government failing tolisten to the demands of the peo-ple and acting with incompetentcruelty – one of the film’s mostforceful moments is a cut fromcrowds being trampled underfootto the thundering hooves of hors-es crossing the finishing line asthe military man that shouldhave been in charge of his forcesat St Peter’s Fields attends ahorse meeting with landed gen-try.The massacre led to the rise of

the Chartist movement, formallyfounded two decades later withits six demands – votes for allmen, equal electoral districts,abolition of the requirement ofMPs to be landowners, paymentsfor MPs, annual general electionsand the secret ballot. At the time,only 2% of the country had thevote and poverty was rife. Menreturning from the Napoleonicwars found it difficult to findwork; food prices were increasedowing to restrictions on imports

and families struggled to makeends meet. Leigh restages the‘attack’ on the Prince Regent’scarriage after the state opening ofParliament in January 1817 thatresulted (not explicitly set out inthe film) in the suspension ofhabeas corpus – men could bearrested without proof of wrong-doing – as well as the prohibitionof seditious meetings and sup-pression of the press.The bulk of the film is told

from the point of view of ordinaryLancastrians. Our initial view-point is a lone bugler whom wesee on the battlefield of Waterlooensuring that troops could actappropriately – some bugle callssignalled attack, others retreat.He returns after a long and lonelywalk to Manchester and the fami-ly home (his mother is played byPeake). His difficulty in findingemployment is summarised in ashort but telling scene in whichhe approaches three craftsmen atwork in the high street, his mili-tary uniform – the only clothes hepossesses – seeming an anachro-nism. He attends a meeting ofreformers, who then take centrestage travelling to London to hearand then talk to Henry Hunt(Kinnear) – they are successful inthe former, but not the latter.There is plenty of light humour

as the reformers agree theirstrategy. Leigh shows us a print-ing press at work – one copy at atime – and how one newspapercurses a regional rival (‘bloomin’rag’). Meanwhile, a spy is atwork, sniffing out potential rebels

FILM REVIEW

and getting them arrested. Thereis a brutal scene of a so-called agi-tator being dragged to a cell andthen beaten.Leigh also shows us govern-

ment at work, principally smallmeetings rather than the Cabinetthat we know today. HomeSecretary Lord Sidmouth (KarlJohnson in the role of his life) ishopeful that the North can bepoliced appropriately. The film gets into its stride

when Hunt is smuggled into thelocality and hides in lodgings.There he contends with havinghis portrait painted. Hunt isdetermined to be the only speakerand no platforms a local reformer,who is in effect embarrassed infront of his family.In telling the story, Leigh does-

n’t invite contemporary parallels.Nevertheless, some exist. Thepoor aren’t being listened to andBrexit, the so-called exercise ofthe popular will, has become thenational distraction. Leigh’s pas-sion project could have been keptunder wraps until 16 August2019, the 200th anniversary ofthe massacre but film financing,demanding a return in a particu-lar fiscal year, appears to haveprevented this. Chartist argu-ments are rehearsed in the film(notably annual elections) but notframed in a way to remind us ofaspirations not yet met. Thoughan accomplished work, ‘Peterloo’is no rallying cry for the sociallydisenfranchised of today. This may be its biggest aesthet-

ic failure.

Leigh’s film tells the story of the Peterloo massacre, which took place in 1819



BOOK REVIEWS

Still the undeserving poorBread for all – The origins of theWelfare StateChris Renwick Allen Lane£14.99

It is easy to regard the BeveridgeReport of 1942 as the origin ofcurrent debates but it can equal-

ly be seen as the end of a long pro-cess of reconsideration of the princi-ples of the Elizabethan Poor Law.This book gives the history of thisprocess over its final century and ahalf. Though the title refers to theWelfare State generally it is mostlyabout Social Security, with limitedreferences to public health,medical care, educationand housing and someinteresting observations onrelations between centraland local government. The underlying theme is

the replacement of moral-ism by empiricism. Themajority and minorityreports of the Poor LawCommission in 1909 illus-trate the perennial strug-gle between those who seepoverty as the result ofindividual moral weaknessand those who see underly-ing economic forces. Thefact that in expert opinionthe latter are seen to havewon the argument is duelargely to the series ofdetailed studies in the later19th Century showing whowas poor and, equallyimportantly, when theywere poor. If predictableproportions of working peo-ple were unable to supportthemselves at any giventime and much higher pro-portions at some points intheir lives (e.g. when theywere too old or ill to workor had care of dependents)attributions of personalblame seemed not onlyunfair but irrational.The result in the post-war world

was the combination of Keynesianeconomics to address the threat ofmass unemployment andBeveridge’s social insurance systemto help people cope with individualmisfortune. Underpinned by largescale social housing, a NationalHealth Service and a system of fami-ly allowances these did in fact dealwith the main drivers of poverty andlargely resolved problems which hadseemed an integral part of allhuman societies.The truly remarkable develop-

ment since 1979 has been not the

political dominance of Conservativespursuing an unabashed agenda ofclass warfare directed towards therevival of mass poverty but the gen-eral collapse of rational thinkingwhich has made this possible. Publicopinion has in effect regressed to astate which is not only pre-Beveridge but pre-Elizabethan.The distinction between ‘sturdy

beggars’ and the ‘impotent poor’ hasbeen around for many centuries,together with the fear that membersof the first group would try to insin-uate themselves into the second.Until very recently however it was

universally accepted that there wereat least some people who actuallywere incapable of work. It was theWelfare Reform Act of 2007 whichabolished incapacity for work by leg-islation, opting grandly for a ‘visionof a welfare state where virtuallyeveryone is either looking for workor preparing for work’ in the wordsof Professor Paul Gregg, possibly themost important Government advisoryou have never heard of. The effect of this in reinforcing

the link between illness and povertyis well known. Equally importantare the economic effects. It is worth

remembering that pensions werefirst introduced (in the Civil Service)not so much to relieve old age pover-ty as to make it possible for peopleto retire and be replaced when theywere no longer functioning effective-ly. Similarly, the original ideabehind Labour Exchanges was tomatch workers better to jobs, not, asnow, to force absolutely everyoneinto some kind of employment (or‘self-employment’) whether or notthey are capable of it and whetheror not there is something else theycould do better.The resulting doctrine of ‘condi-

tionality’ of benefitsinvolves the creation of acomplex, elaborate andexpensive bureaucraticsystem designed solely tomake some of the poorestpeople in Britain evenpoorer. It also howeverremoves any possibility ofa rational employmentpolicy by making employ-ment an end in itselfrather than a means tosecuring economic out-comes. It is ironic thatmany of the pundits whotrumpet the benefits ofconditionality are thesame ones who moanendlessly about Britain’slow productivity, withoutapparently ever consider-ing that there might besome connection betweenthe two things.The culmination of this

process is ‘UniversalCredit’, a benefit inspiredpurely by the obsoletedoctrine of ‘less eligibility’;the removal of supposedfinancial incentives not towork. InterestinglyProfessor Gregg also hasa claim to be the origina-tor of the UniversalCredit concept. SocialSecurity policy is a field

in which idiocy has never exactlybeen rare, but he is perhaps insomething of a class of his own.A final thought suggests itself on

the effectiveness of the British state.The conceptually absurd andadministratively shambolicUniversal Credit, was launched in2011 but has still not quite strug-gled into life. The latest estimateddelivery date is now 2023. Our pre-decessors 70 years ago did thingsbetter than we can. Perhaps weshould consider the possibility thatthey may have seen things moreclearly as well.

RoryO’Kelly on workethicbenefits



Bolsheviks in BritainRussia and the British LeftDavid BurkeI B Tauris £72.The Zinoviev LetterGil BennettOxford University Press £25

Burke is the leading expert onthe role of Russian Bolshevikemigres within the British

left. He has published two books onRussian agents in Britain includinga study of the background to theMelita Norwood case. However, hehas also published academic articleson early Russian emigres and thisbook is based on his unpublishedPhD. The subtitle is a bit mis-leading as it refers to ‘from the1848 revolutions to the GeneralStrike’, while the focus is actual-ly on 1905 to 1926 and on therole of two individuals, TheodoreRothstein and his son AndrewRothstein, both of whom havebeen largely overlooked in previ-ous studies. The older Rothstein is per-

haps best known for his histori-cal study of the British labourmovement; From Chartism toLabourism, published in 1929.Theodore (or Feodor) was bornin Latvia in 1871, but emigratedto Leeds via Germany in 1891,moving to London in 1893 towork at the British Museum ona Marxist history of Rome,which was never published. Hefirst collaborated with RobertSpence Watson and SergeiStepniak in the Friends ofRussian Freedom before becom-ing involved in the SocialDemocratic Federation (later theBritish Socialist Part)y in EastLondon and was a regular con-tributor to its journal Justice. Healso worked with Wilfrid Blunt inthe anti-imperialist movement andin 1910 published a scathing attackon British imperialism in Egypt,Egypt’s Ruin. As an internationalist he became

a leading opponent of the Hyndmanfaction in the SDF/BSP, workingwith W P Coates, Zelda Kahan andJoe Fineberg. He then acted in anunofficial liaison capacity betweenthe exiled Bolshevik leadership andthe British radical and Marxistorganisations, playing a central rolein establishing the BritishCommunist Party in the post-warperiod. One of the most fascinatingelements of the narrative was thatthroughout the war, Rothsteinplayed a dual role, actually workingfor the War Office as a translator

and propagandist while operating asa Bolshevik agent. Burke tells the story of the battle

within Whitehall and the varioussecurity services as to whetherRothstein should be deported orwhether he was too useful to thewar effort to deport. In 1920,Rothstein returned to Russia, carry-ing out a number of governmentfunctions, including acting as H GWells interpreter before becomingSoviet ambassador in Persia, wherehis main function was to counterBritain’s imperialistic ambitions. Hewas also a member of the Russiantrade delegation to Britain, led by

Kamenev and Klishko, in 1922. Helater carried out academic andresearch functions for the Sovietgovernment, living until 1953.Feodor’s son, Andrew was a stu-

dent in Oxford in 1916, before beingcalled up to serve in the Britisharmy. Returning to his studies in1920, Andrew became a leading fig-ure in the nascent student commu-nist movement, the ‘hands offRussia’ campaign, supporting thelocal bus strike, contributing to theBSP journal the Call. His postgradu-ate studies were terminated whenthe army withdrew its sponsorshipat the insistence of Lord Curzon,who had the dual roles of Universitychancellor and foreign secretary. Hewas nevertheless allowed to visit hisfather in Russia, accompanied bytwo other communist students, Tom

Wintringham and Ralph Fox, bothof whom like Rothstein were to beleading members of the Communistparty. Wintringham later moving onthe Common Wealth party duringthe Second World War. Burke gives considerable detail,

derived mainly from British securityservice archives, of the youngerRothstein’s activities as a sovietagent and his work with both official(the ARCOS trade mission) andunofficial Soviet representatives(the propaganda commission of theLondon branch of the Bolshevikparty) in London. Rothstein stayedin the Communist party until its

dissolution in 1991, servingdecades on the executive com-mittee as a leading supporter ofthe Soviet Union throughout theStalinist period and writing anumber of short books onBritish-Soviet relations and apamphlet on Lenin’s time inLondon, (which included stayingwith his own family when hewas a teenager). Gill Bennett was the chief

historian at the Foreign Officewho produced the report of theZinoviev affair commission byRobin Cook when foreign secre-tary in 1999. The affair whichrelates to whether or not a letterfrom Gregory Zinoviev asComintern president to theBritish Communist Party incit-ing subversion was genuine orforged has become one of theconspiracy myths of Britishpolitical history, given the publi-cation of the letter a few daysbefore the November 1924 elec-tion contributed to the fall of thefirst Labour government. Bennett’s book, which has

revisited the numerous previousstudies of the affair and based on ascrupulous and exhausting analysisof British and Russian diplomaticand intelligence service archives,does not reach a clear conclusion,which as the author admits, is a lit-tle disappointing for conspiracytheorists. She recognises thatwhether or not forged the letter wasbelievable in that it was similar tonumerous genuine letters issued bythe Comintern to communist partiesin various countries. In fact ele-ments within the Soviet leadershipthemselves thought it might be gen-uine. The main argument against this

is that given the soviets were tryingto finalise a trade agreement withthe McDonald government, it wasn’t

DuncanBowie on spies,forgeriesand politics

CONTINUED ON PAGE 31>>



BOOK REVIEWS

in their interests at that time to besubversive. Moreover, there is noevidence that the BritishCommunist party actually receivedthis specific letter, which was appar-ently co-signed by ArthurMacmanus who was himself a mem-ber of the British Communist partyexecutive as well as that of theComintern. Bennett’s conclusion is that the

letter was probably forged by thePolish anti-communist forger IvanPokrovsky and fed to the Britishthrough the SIS (secret service)agency in Riga in Latvia and thatsecret service officers (and retiredofficers) in London ensured that theletter was circulated to the DailyMail and the Conservative Party atthe time that was most damagingboth to the Ramsay Macdonald gov-ernment and to the Soviets.

Bennett’s story is fascinating, notjust the story of her search throughthe Russian archives in Moscow andmeetings with Russian secret ser-vice agents and archivists, but alsothe review of the various anti-Bolshevik networks across Europein the mid 1920’s, the forging cen-tres and their links to intelligenceagencies of a number of countriesincluding the UK, Germany, Polandand the Baltic states. What I hadnot been previously aware of is thatin 1927 George Lansbury, throughEden and Cedar Paul (at the timeLansbury’s Daily Herald was itselfsecretly funded by the Russian gov-ernment) published a detailed studyof Anti-Soviet forgeries, whichincludes copies of a number of forg-eries in addition to providing adetailed analysis of the Zinoviev let-ter, and which reached conclusionsnot that far from that of Bennett’snew study.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 32>>

From Chartism to municipal politicsManchester’s Radical Mayor: AbelHeywoodJoanna WilliamsHistory Press £14.99

In this anniversary year of theKennington Common rally of1848, which is often seen as

the end of Chartism, it is impor-tant to note that many leadingChartists were to become activein radical politics at national andmunicipal levels. In this context,the biography of Heywood, whotwice became Mayor ofManchester, is welcome. Heywoodwas an active Chartist who hadbeen imprisoned in 1831 for sell-ing the unstamped Poor Man’sGuardian. As the leading radicalbookseller and publisher in thenorth of England, he built up aseries of local businesses whilebecoming active in local municipalpolitics. He was a member of thePolice committee, a Poor LawGuardian, a magistrate and amember of the Manchester munic-ipal corporation from 1843. A moderate Chartist, who grew

up in the jerry-built housing ofAngel Meadow in Ancoats (an areastudied by Engels and described ina new book by Dean Kirby asVictorian Britain’s most savageslum), he built alliances betweenworking class organisations andmiddle-class radicals, being activein Joseph Sturge’s CompleteSuffrage Union and the Financialand Administrative ReformAssociation.

The biography provides a day byday account of Manchester’smunicipal politics, dealing withpaving and sewerage, workingclass housing, open spaces, leisureprovision, controversies over com-memorative statues for PrinceAlbert (the centrepiece of AlbertSquare) and Oliver Cromwell(moved from the city centre toWythenshawe park) and thebuilding of the new town hall. Heywood was prominent in

almost every national and interna-tional protest movement over a 50year period. He was leader of aradical faction within Manchesterliberalism, challenging the munici-pal establishment. He twiceunsuccessfully stood for parlia-ment in 1859 and 1865. Williamsprovides a detailed account of thedivisions and rivalries withinManchester liberalism. Thisincludes analysis of the role ofRichard Cobden, John Bright andhis brother Jacob Bright who was

a Manchester MP, collaborationwith other former Chartists suchas Edward Hooson and ErnestJones, and in the later years, theleading role of Richard Pankhurstin the Manchester republican andradical Liberal movement. Both Ernest Jones and Richard

Pankhurst were supporters ofHeywood, with Jones unsuccess-fully standing as radical Liberalparliamentary candidate in 1868,and Pankhurst later helping toestablish the ManchesterIndependent Labour Party. Thebook, as with some other studies ofmunicipal politics, can at times bea bit dry, with pages on meetingsof paving committees and munici-pal events attended, but is wellworth reading. So congratulations to Joanna

Williams on her extensiveresearch and in getting the com-mercial sponsorship to get thisbiography into print. Given theshortage of modern biographies ofleading provincial radicals, Iwould also draw attention to thebiography of George Dixon,Birmingham radical mayor andfounder of the National EducationLeague and ‘ father of free educa-tion’. Written by James Dixon andpublished by Brewin Books in2013, under the title ‘Out ofBirmingham’, the book provides auseful narrative of Birminghammunicipal politics in the era ofJoseph Chamberlain as well as thestory of the campaign for the 1870Education Act.

DuncanBowie on radicalmunicipalism



A One-Party State?AndyRoberts on partiality

Cuba, The Media and the Challenge ofImpartialityMonthly Review Press $16

This book, which is certainlynot itself impartial, is basedalmost entirely on refuta-

tions of criticisms of Cuba madein one newspaper, the centre-leftSpanish newpaper, El Pais,rather than ‘the media’ generally.It may or may not be correct on

some points, especially re socialpolicy – I don’t know enough tocomment. But the give away is inthe short (6 pages) chapter on“The Issue of Human Rights”.Despite a comment that “Cuba isnot beyond reproach. AmnestyInternational states that in Cuba‘the rights to freedom of expres-

sion, association and assemblyremain limited and many criticsof one-party rule have beenharassed”, there is otherwise nomention that Cuba is a one partystate, in which there are no oppo-sition political parties, indepen-dent civil society organisations ortrade unions. Nor, of most rele-vance here, that there is no inde-pendent media at all, let alongindependent publishers like theone (based in the US) which pub-lished this book. This is a crucialpoint since, whatever the failingsof El Pais, in liberal democraciesother sources of information arelegally available.Three pages of this chapter

then list various human rightsviolations by EU member coun-

tries. As well as inviting thebasic moral rejoinder that “twowrongs don’t make a right”, thepoint is that all of these are opento review through (admittedlyimperfect) democratic processes,including the supra-nationalEuropean Convention on HumanRights, which simply don’t existin Cuba.Much of the rest of the book Is

devoted, improbably, to showingthat all dissent in Cuba is theresult of US and other ‘foreign’funding, etc. Mmmmmm ……

British eyes on the twilight ofimperial influenceThe Endgame: The Final Chapter inBritain’s Great Game in AfghanistanSusan LoughheadAmberley publishing £9.99

This is an interesting studyof the swift loss of imperialBritish power and influence

in Afghanistan and the strugglesof British diplomats to deal withthat loss. Susan Loughheadfocuses on the period from Indianindependence in 1947, beforewhich Britain all but controlledAfghanistan’s foreign affairs, to1950, by which stage Britishinfluence and credibility therehad quickly crashed. This narra-tive is interspersed with recollec-tions from the personal letters ofLoughhead’s grandfather whowas a junior clerk at the Britishlegation in Kabul during thattime. Loughhead was herselfposted to Kabul where she wasbased in the new embassy com-pound from 2010-13.Using British diplomatic corre-

spondence and papers, the bookcharts Afghanistan’s fractiousearly relationship with Pakistan,and its attempt to use indepen-dence to reassert its claim overterritories that now became partof the new country Pakistan.Drawn by Britain in 1893, theDurand line was a hated borderdividing ethnic Pashtun andBaloch communities. But the cre-

ation of the new country renderedvoid agreements with Britainover the Durand line,Afghanistan claimed - and contin-ues to claim. This set the tone for a relation-

ship with Pakistan that has over-shadowed Afghanistan’s regionalrelationships, domestic politicsand security through the cold warand beyond. By 1950, Cold Wardynamics in which Afghanistanwas caught between, but alsosought to benefit from, Soviet-USrivalry as well as Indian-Pakistani rivalry, were alsobeginning to take shape. Meanwhile, British diplomats

in Kabul battled in vain to secureattention and previouslypromised resources from Londonfor Afghanistan, to sweeten thepill over the North West FrontierProvince, and to counteract Sovietinfluence. Britain was over-stretched and lacked the financesto invest in a country that wasnot considered a priority. The USeventually stepped in, initiallywith a loan to the Afghan govern-ment in 1949, and from the early50s with more cultural economicand political presence and withtechnical assistance. Althoughthe UK did eventually participatein aid to Afghanistan alongsidethe Americans, it would, ofcourse, never recover its previousrole.

The book contains more than alittle imperial nostalgia and fasci-nation with the lives of Britishcolonial staff. The history, archi-tecture, and occupants of theBritish diplomatic compound,commissioned by Lord Curzon in1919 to be the finest embassy inAsia, have a central place in thenarrative. Life in this compoundwas described in the 1920s as ‘anendless country house weekend’and the tennis, horse riding, cock-tail receptions , and white-tie din-ners continued into the 40s. Theauthor’s grandfather at timesenjoys, and at times avoids, the‘confounded parties.’ Loughhead acknowledges her

sources inevitably tell ‘the Britishside of the story’ and the result isthat Afghan voices in this storyare largely silent, and Afghanactors are presented mostlythrough the eyes of British diplo-mats. Maybe this is why the booktends to present its British diplo-matic protagonists more as ‘neu-tral technocrats’ than as politicalactors who were part of a colonialchapter that was hated byAfghans. It is a chapter that, inthe form of the Durand line, hasalso left an apparently intractablelegacy that continues to poisonthe stability of the region.

Dev Sultan on divisionsof empire



BOOK REVIEWS

When you look in the mirror…..Mistaken Identity: Race and Class inthe Age of TrumpAsad HaiderVerso £10.99 ( £5.50 before 1/1/19)

Identity is the crisis can't yousee” -Poly Styrene – X-RaySpecsMs Styrene’s modest hit record

(number 24 in the UK charts,July 1978) set out a viewpointthat was more correct than itcould ever have beenknown. Lurking behind allthe more obvious crises ofthe final decades of the 20thcentury – politics, eco-nomics, performances ofnational sports teams, etc –has been a crisis of identitythat was waiting for thedawning of a new millenni-um to really make itsimpact.The 1970s young adult

generation struggled withidentities that straddled thecommunitarian class con-sciousness of the post-wardecades, with its emphasison the solidarities of univer-sal welfare and unionisedworkplaces, and the radicalindividualism that hadbegun to emerge in the1960s. Everything was upfor, perhaps not quite demo-lition, but certainly a rigor-ous round of deconstruction.This was a cultural fermentthat nurtured any numberof projects which preoccu-pied radicals across thespectrum of right and left.For the left the issue hasbeen whether there wereenergies amongst the tur-moil that would express newsolidarities betweenoppressed and exploitedgroups. For the right thehope has been for therebirth of the nation as acollectivity that would put classin its place and re-define thenature of the relationshipbetween the ruled and theirrulers.Haider’s brief book considers

the emergence of identity politicsin the context of the US and itssocial and cultural life since thelate-1970s. The work of thesocialist feminist Combahee RiverCollective is the starting point forhis reflection. It provided some ofthe earliest examples of the use ofthe term ‘identity politics’, pro-claiming in its often quoted ‘state-

ment’ of 1977 that “the most pro-found and potentially the mostradical comes directly out of ourown identity, as opposed to end-ing someone else’s oppression.”Some have seen in this the

splintering of the left into a thou-sand different projects whichhave issues around ethnicity,gender oppression, and sexualorientation, and with all havingvery little capacity to generate an

over-arching concern for solidari-ty across all the fragments.Haider is keen to rescue the CRCfrom this judgment and points tothe Collective’s political practicein turning up on union picketlines to support struggles overwages and conditions as evidence.Nevertheless, he is prompted

to assert that the ‘Holy Trinity’ ofrace, gender and class figure as“entirely different” social rela-tions. Quoting the political theo-rist Wendy Brown, he argues thatwhen these categories of identityare “tethered to a formulation of

justice that reinscribes a bour-geois (masculinist) ideal as itsmeasure.” The very structure ofpoliticised identity involves ademand for “restitution andinclusion” rather than a socialtransformation that would negateinjury and exclusion.What does this mean in con-

crete terms? Haider offers up theexample of the ideologies of racewhich have been integral to the

colonial projects instigat-ed by British, French,Dutch, Spanish andJapanese ruling elites.Whilst race is critical tothese histories there isnothing to be gained byreducing the subjectionof the peoples of Africa,India and Korea solely tothe atrocities inflicted onthe suborned ethnicgroups. More pithily, theessence of transatlanticslavery was its functionin generating profit; notthe misery and pain itinflicted on people ofcolour. Haider’s challenge to

identity politics concernsits role in obscuring therole which capitalismnow plays in reproducingthe categories of raceand gender and project-ing these as a means tomaintain the subordi-nate position of class. Itis a strong argumentthat is consistent withthe warnings fired off bya trio of socialist femi-nists in the UK in the1970s who saw the dan-gers of radical currentsagitating as separatefragments with limitedcapacity for generating amore powerful solidarityamong all people who

were compelled to struggle withthe harsh realities of an over-arching, all permeating capital-ism. Beyond the Fragmentsbecame a key text for 1970ssocialism in the UK, just as theCombahee River Collectiveoffered up their take on the chal-lenges for the left in the US dur-ing the same period. Haider hasprovided a stimulating text thatreminds us that whilst identitymight be a component in the cri-sis of contemporary society, itought not to define our responseto it.

Don Flynn on identitypolitics



Speaking for themselvesMay Made Me. An Oral History of the1968 Uprising in FranceMitchell AbidorPluto Press £12.99

If the events in France werenot a ‘revolution’, strikesground France to a halt.

Hundreds of thousands demon-strated, students and workersdiscussed politics in generalassemblies, and action commit-tees were set up across thehexagon. Capitalism was notoverthrown, or seriously chal-lenged. President De Gaulle leftthe political scene but the conser-vative liberal Georges Pompidouwas elected President in 1969.Yet French life was “freed up”and “sexual and social con-straints” were removed.Mitchell Abidor has had the

good idea of conducting inter-views from participants in May68 in France, from across the leftspectrum. Well-known figuressuch as Alain Krivine, currentlyin the Nouveau PartiAnticapitaliste (NPA) who recallsa ‘revolt’ not a revolution, stand

alongside activists outside ofParis. Daniel Pinos, from a work-ing class Spanish anarchist back-ground was studying at a techni-cal secondary school near Lyon.He had close ties with the work-ers at his brother and father’sfactories. Pinos had direct experi-ence of those with no intention ofoverthrowing De Gaulle, theCommunist led CGT union feder-ation.Amongst the many strengths of

May Made Me is that Abidor letspeople speak for themselves.Many agree with his view thatthe Communist Party had a“baleful influence”, thwarting aradical challenge to the power ofde Gaulle. By contrast,Dominique Barbe points to thehuge anti-May Champs-Élyséesdemonstration on the 30th Mayfollowed by the crushing of theleft in elections. If demands forfreedom of expression were amotor for the protests (France’smedia was ruled with a heavyhand) Bernard Vauselle points toCGT priorities in tackling “breadand butter issues”.

There are equally mixed judge-ments about the long-term effectsof the revolt. A contrast could bemade with optimistic, sometimesstrident, declarations made by theprotesters. Amongst the latter, the‘Marxist-Leninists’, or Maoists,Pierre Mercier, believes the upris-ing was “recuperated by capital”.Perhaps endorsing Le Goff’s cul-tural argument, the filmmakerMichel Andrieu more positivelycalls it an “absolute reference”. Abidor knows his subject inside

out. With the exception of Jean-Jacques Libel the conversationstook place in French and aretranslated into fluent American.Given the variety of the intervie-wees’ political backgrounds, rang-ing from the predecessor of LutteOuvrière, Situationist andSocialisme ou Barbarie sympa-thisers, to an editor of the anar-chist le Monde Liberataire, anexplanatory glossary would havebeen useful. Those who have readone of the many histories of May68 that have appeared this yearare strongly recommended to gethold of a copy of May Made Me.

AndrewCoates on 1968

A coherent body of thought?Corbynism. A Critical ApproachMatt Bolton and Frederick Harry PittsEmerald £14.99

This is a fascinating, and Ithink courageous, book, inwhich two activist academics,

who voted for Corbyn in 2015, puttheir heads above the parapet, anddevelop some potentially devastat-ing criticisms, generally from a leftdemocratic and libertarian perspec-tive, of what they call Corbynism.At times it seems to be goingthrough a speeded-up version ofthought-processes which the lefthas been through before.I am not at all sure if there is yet

a sufficiently coherent body ofthought to merit this termCorbynism – though one of the mer-its of this book is to mention manyof the bodies of thought, some quiteexotic, which have attached them-selves to Corbyn. Much of this hap-pens on-line – there are whole cul-tures there – of which few areaware. Some of them may eventurn out to be far-seeing.The authors themselves have a

pretty specific theoretical frame-

work, which I struggled to fullygrasp, derived from the FrankfurtSchool, and especially Adorno. Thebasic point they are making is thatwe are all part of an internationalsystem, based on markets (albeitsocially-mediated ones). Within thisthe ‘law of value’ (i.e. competition)limits the room for manoeuvre ofany individual country or otherentity. (An interesting parallel hereis with the theory of ‘state capital-ism’ developed by former SWP guruTony Cliff, although the authorsreach very different political conclu-sions).However, it is possible to reach

similar conclusions without sub-scribing to this body of theory.Areas covered - among many oth-ers - include Corbyn’s own vaguedefinition of ‘socialism’ – allowingall kinds of people to project theirown vision onto it; the personalitycult surrounding Corbyn and hissupposed purity; what the authorscall ‘two-campism’, i.e. in foreignaffairs seeing ‘imperialism’ (espe-cially the US version) as responsi-ble for everything bad in the world,and thus leading to dubious sympa-

thies on the basis of a “my enemy’senemy is my friend” logic; economicnationalism – deriving from‘Bennism’ and the AlternativeEconomic Strategy (AES) of the1970s and 80s, leading to ‘lexit’sympathies; the tendency to con-spiracy theories; tendencies to con-vergence between left and rightwing versions of populism.In terms of political conclusions

the authors recommend areformist but radical approachbased on the realistic and pessimist‘minimum utopia’ recommended bythe late, great Norman Geras.

AndyRoberts on Corbynandideology


The news in earlyDecember that SajidJavid sympathisedwith the Syrian refugeeteenage victim of racist

bullying that went viral via sick-ening video footage as he’d beenthere too as an Asian kid subject-ed to racism, won the HomeSecretary plaudits. As someonewhose been called paki in mytime myself it was a welcomeadmission and punctured the gov-ernment spin that all is rosy innear post-Brexit Britain whichthreatens to take us back to the70s in more ways than one.Less welcome was his

announcement that he would notbe publishing his immigrationwhite paper before the meaning-ful vote on the Brexit withdrawalagreement. Described as “shock-ing and unacceptable” by MPsacross the political spectrum,Javid’s announcement illumi-nates the Cabinet divisions onthis issue: Chancellor PhilipHammond and BusinessSecretary Greg Clark opposeTheresa May’s proposals to clampdown on low-skilled migrationfrom anywhere. The draft Brexit withdrawal

agreement states that freedom ofmovement will end, and will bereplaced by a skills-based immi-gration system. On top of this,Britons living in EU countries,and EU nationals living in theUK (for five years) will be able tostay in their respective countriesof residence, but will need toapply formally to remain in thosecountries. This additional layerof bureaucracy - and its potentialto cause mayhem due to proce-dural incompetence - adds towhat is already a hostileenvironment for immi-grants. TheE u r o p e a nP a r l i am e n t ’ sBrexit leadhas alreadyexpressedc o n -cern

WESTMINSTER VIEW

The people deserve a say ondeal or stay

Rupa Huq is MPfor Ealing Central& Acton

commonwealth and in frustrationat immigration policy thatseemed to keep out their own rel-atives are now horrified at jobsand investment already leavingour shores and the plummetingpound. Almost invariably they areasking “can’t we call the wholething off?” and imploring “now weknow all-we-know, voters deservea final say not just MPs”.If ethnic minorities in the UK

want to resolve these issues, theirbest option is to loudly demand aPeople’s Vote on Brexit. Pleasewrite to your MP at www.not-buyingit.uk, asking them to sup-port a People’s Vote on the Brexitdeal and copy Theresa May in too.After all she’s fond of talkingabout “what the British peoplewant.” All our voices shouldcount. Let’s put her right onceand for all.

about how EU residents wouldfare if the Windrush scandal wasanything to go by.Of course, more general free-

dom of movement concerns affectethnic minorities too. For exam-ple, having spoken to ethnicminority leaders, People’s Votefound opportunities for their chil-dren and grandchildren’s futurewas a real worry. If Brexit goesahead without freedom of move-ment guarantees, these opportu-nities will inevitably shrink, withmany EU jobs potentially off-lim-its to UK workers.Immigration issues will hit

BAME EU migrants the hardest,since they look visibly different,and may be more likely to beasked for ID to access employ-ment, housing and healthcare.The Roma community are partic-ularly vulnerable to this, sincethey tend not to feature on elec-toral registers or have identitydocuments, and are more likely tobe stateless.Further, it is no secret that the

Brexit referendum unleashed awave of xenophobia: hate crimesspiked by almost a third in theyear after the referendum,according to Home Office statis-tics. The victims were not justEU citizens, but also people ofAsian, African and Caribbeanheritage.40 years on from first being

called Paki I’m now an MP repre-senting my home seat that’s richin demographically diversity. Iknow that even constituents whovoted “out” with loyalities to the

Brexit will stoke racism, especially against BAME EU migrants says Rupa Huq

Subscribe to CHARTIST at

www.chartist.org.uk

C

UKIP posters stoked anti ethnic-minority feelings in their Brexit campaign

Martin Rowson's latest poetry venturefrom Smokestack Books £7.99

Pastrami Faced Racist


Documents

For democratic socialism #296 January/February 2019 £2 · Chartist aims to up its game, particularly on social media. As one of the longest-standing print magazines on the Labour