Trades Unionists reject Covid cuts & pay freeze!

TRADE Unionists in Greater Manchester are calling on Metro Mayor Andy Burnham and the leaders of all ten Greater Manchester local authorities to unite together with them and the city region's MPs in demanding a Government U-turn on the relaxation of the covid lockdown, planned £500 million cuts to Greater Manchester local Government coffers for 2021-22, and the mooted pay freeze for public sector workers, ahead of Wednesday's spending review by Chancellor Rishi Sunak.

They are additionally calling on trades unionists and other Greater Manchester residents to e-mail Andy Burnham, their local councillors, MPs, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, to put as much pressure as they possibly can on the Government to make an about turn on these proposed policies, which the Greater Manchester Assoc. of Trade Union Council President Stephen Hall says: '.... will result in a much higher death toll from covid 19 than it might otherwise do; lead to increased mental stress and anguish as a result of needless additional job losses, and much reduced incomes for most people, not to mention potential financial ruin, homelessness and countless other social problems which will cost us all considerably more in the long run, than the supposed financial savings from the Government's currently proposed course of action and staggering costs already borne by the public purse.

'The safety of the people is always the first consideration of any Government, so the economic cost of that principle should always be a secondary issue no matter how much it might amount to financially. However, had the Government been prepared, and acted more decisively at the beginning of the covid outbreak then much of the so far huge cost of the measures implemented by the Government would not have been incurred and we would not now be discussing the additional costs still to be borne by the Government as a result of a clearly failed on-off-on national lockdown with various tiers of restrictions in between, and a 'leaves-a-lot-to be desired' national test, track and trace system, all of which despite the advent of a vaccine, could still go on for many more months. No instead what we would have more likely been talking about is Christmas and New Year celebrations without restrictions and all of us being financially better off than we currently are.

'We believe the Government should abandon its present course, which will only prolong the covid crisis and instead immediately adopt a Zero Covid strategy as done by such countries as Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and China. Their success speaks for itself. A key element of it has been the protection of the livelihoods of EVERYONE adversely affected by lockdown. As a result, the overall economic impact of Covid in those countries has been considerably less than in Britain. Their Governments have also spent substantially less than the British Government has, and still has to spend as a result of not acting decisively earlier and not financially looking after everyone throughout, and by not bringing the virus under control as in those countries. Further, in this country however generous it has been claimed the Government's package of financial support has been, we have additionally seen many thousands of jobs lost, many thousands of household incomes slashed by 20% or more, many thousands of families now in huge rent arrears and facing potential eviction and almost four million people provided with little or no support at all. This latter national figure equates with around 200,000 people in Greater Manchester.

'Concerning the Government's proposed cuts to Greater Manchester local council coffers of around £500 million for 2021-22, Mr. Hall said: 'Our Metro Mayor and Council leaders, should make it clear to the Government that any proposed cuts at this time are simply unacceptable and will only pour more misery into Greater Manchester households at time when we should be investing in long term 'more-than-pay-for-themselves' projects such as building thousands of new hi-spec zero carbon council house and other social housing, insulating people's homes, and expanding local renewable energy generation, etc., all of which will help to create thousands of new jobs as others are being lost due to covid, and which will additionally allow us to intensify our fight against the even bigger threat to us all than covid, which is the threat of irreversible catastrophic climate change. This additional spending would not be wasteful expenditure burdening future generations, but on the contrary, in helping to tackle the huge housing shortage, climate change and alleviating the widespread financial pressures presently on millions of households nationally caused by the covid pandemic, possibly represent the best investment we could presently make in the interests of our children and future generations. We could also re-train people to equip them to do the increasing number of new jobs that need creating, in addition to training and employing more social care workers, mental health professionals, teachers, and nurses, etc., etc., to better look after everyone's social, health and mental wellbeing.

'What the Government are proposing won't help us to achieve anything positive at all, and will ultimately just suck money and spending power out of the Greater Manchester economy at the same time as impoverishing many thousands of households. What they are proposing is also a completely false economy, which will lead to greater financial and social costs be borne by the public purse at a later date. Local trades union councils across the city region stand ready to fight alongside residents, workers, and service users, to oppose any such cuts in Greater Manchester and to work with all those who support the fight for a turnaround in Government policy.'

'In relation to the mooted pay freeze for public sector workers other than NHS staff, who may get a paltry pay rise to help them pay to park at work, as a reward for their efforts over the last 9 months" Mr. Hall said: "It is simply outrageous to suggest that many 'key workers' such as care home staff, teachers, bin men, and school cleaners, many of whom are in receipt of in-work benefits because they are so poorly paid should see their pay frozen at any time let alone under the present circumstances. If anything we should be rewarding them all with a hefty pay rise. What the Government needs to remember, and private businesses and self-employed people need to bear in mind is that without ordinary people having money to spend they can't afford to buy the products and services they sell and the more disposable income workers' have the more money they can spend in the local economy all of which has a local economic 'multiplier' effect. Opposing pay rises for public sector workers also does not help to achieve anything for private sector workers who if they think they are currently hard done by should join a union and fight to improve their own situation. Across Greater Manchester the trades council movement stands ready to support them.'

PRESS STATEMENT ENDS

23-11-2020

Issued by Stephen Hall, President, GMATUC

Stefan Cholewka, Secretary, GMATUC

Pledges, Demands and Blackmail by Les May

I WAS recently chatting to an older lady who has actively supported Labour for the forty plus years I have known her. She tried to persuade me that the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn was a ‘right wing’ plot to remove someone who is widely considered to be on the ‘left’ of the Labour party, though as the economics journalist William Keagan pointed out some years ago the policies of Clement Atlee government in 1945 were more radical. I disagreed with her; so far as I am concerned the accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ which led to Corbyn’s downfall are a systematic attempt by a small number of Jewish people and organisations to ensure that Labour party policies are not critical of the actions of the state of Israel towards Palestinians.

Overt scepticism amongst Jewish people about Labour party policies towards Israel predate Corbyn’s election to the leadership in September 2015. In April 2015 the Jewish Chronicle (J.C.) published an article by Marcus Dysch when the Labour leader was Ed Miliband which said:

‘Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were 'very' or 'quite important' in influencing how they would vote.

'The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance.

'The Labour party itself fared worse than its leader, with its Israel policy attracting only eight per cent of Jewish voters. The Tory approach was preferred by 61 per cent.’

I should however caution that the survey from which the above was derived questioned only 580 Jewish people and we do not know how this sample was obtained.

The day after, 8 April 2015, the website Forward carried an article Liam Hoare with the title ‘How Ed Miliband Lost Britain's Jewish Voters’.

Hoare tells us: ‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge. ‘The British Jewish community is a middle class community and the Conservatives are the traditional home of the middle class...’

‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge’ and .The nadir of Miliband’s relationship with the Jewish community then came in October when Labour backed recognition of Palestinian statehood during a symbolic vote in Parliament. Miliband thought it good politics, but the fact that attitudes toward Israel influence the vote of 73% of British Jews apparently wasn’t taken into account.’

I have no doubt that Ed Miliband’s critical stance was a response to the scale of the casualties inflicted by Operation Protective Edge.

Wikipedia says this: 'Between 2,125 and 2,310 Gazans were killed and between 10,626 and 10,895 were wounded (including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled). Gazan civilian casualty rates estimates range between 70% by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65% by United Nations Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36% by Israeli officials, The UN estimated that more than 7,000 homes for 10,000 families were razed, together with an additional 89,000 homes damaged, of which roughly 10,000 were severely affected by the bombing.'

Now whilst I disagree with the seemingly uncritical support for Israel which seems to be offered by many Jewish people in Britain I believe they are entitled to hold such views and if they so wish vote accordingly at the ballot box. Although it would be quite untrue to say that the late Jim Dobbin courted Catholic voters, I doubt that his public stance against abortion did him any harm with them. Voting for an MP whose views you share is what parliamentary democracy is about.

But this is very different from the attempts being made by a small number of Jewish people to manipulate Labour into being a party which will never be critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. And if you think my choice of the word ‘manipulate’ is too strong or ‘cue anti-semitic trope here’, then consider this.

In January of this year the Board of Deputies of British Jews published ‘Ten pledges to end the antisemitism crisis’ directed at the Labour party. Though I think that all the ‘pledges’, which are in reality demands, are attempts to circumscribe the freedom of action of the Labour party and the freedom of expression of its members, I will highlight two of these which I think are particularly pernicious.

Number Seven reads: ‘Deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community. The Jewish Labour Movement should be engaged by the Party to lead on training about antisemitism.’

Number eight reads: ‘Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.'

The first thing to note here is that these two are inter-related. Both seek to define the ‘Jewish Community’ by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. We are left to assume that the right sort include those who run the Board of Deputies, which does not speak for the 70% British Jews who are either secular or Charedi, and those who control the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and individuals who do not align themselves with the Board of Deputies, are to be ignored. Just to make the meaning of this ‘pledge’ absolutely clear the Jewish Chronicle of 12 January described JVL as a ‘fringe’ organisation.

I understand that the Jewish Labour Movement refused to campaign for a majority of Labour MPs at the 2019 general election and that it does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party!

I find it difficult not to believe that both the so called pledges, which are in fact a thinly disguised attempt at blackmailing the Labour leadership, and the constant attacks on Corbyn using accusations of anti-semitism, are anything other than attempts to shift Labour policies to a position favourable to a foreign power, in this case the state of Israel. This is not new; I am old enough to remember and have known people who wanted to shift Labour to a line more favourable to the foreign policies of the USSR. They were recognised for what they were and called ‘fellow travellers’.

Let’s recognise the problem for what it is and not make the lazy mistake of turning Corbyn’s suspension into yet another left/right battle. The blackmail seems to be working.

The many articles on the website of the Jewish Voice for Labour are well worth reading. Attitudes to Labour are more diverse amongst Jewish people than you may have been led to believe. Remember the Board of Deputies does not speak for all British Jews.

******************************************

Greetings on Lancashire Day!

An occasional update from Lancashire Loominary

No. 2 November 27th 2020

Greetings on Lancashire Day!

This is an update about ideas, publications and events at Lancashire Loominary. It’s about publishing fiction and non-fiction on the history and culture of Lancashire (by which I mean all of it) and its people. It’s not about ‘the great and the good’ but so-called ‘ordinary’ working class people who did extraordinary things. I do this roughly every 4-6 weeks. Let me know if you don’t want to receive it.

The original ‘Lankishire Loominary’ was published by James T. Staton in Bolton in the 1850s and 1860s. The name changed on a fairly regular basis; at one point it was ‘The Bowtun Loominary, Tum Fowt Telegraph Un Lankishire Lookin’ Glass’. But I like the alliteration of Lancashire Loominary and its textile connections. The reason you’re getting this is because you’ve either bought, helped or promoted previous examples of my work and I thought you might be interested in future titles.

Lancashire Re-united: A Lancashire Day thought-piece

Lancashire and Yorkshire both have strong identities and despite historic rivalries, we have more in common, as Jo Cox would have said, than what divides us. Yet while our Yorkshire neighbours are building up momentum for a ‘One Yorkshire’ region, Lancashire is lagging behind. On Lancashire Day 2020, this paper argues for a re-united Lancashire, with its own democratically-elected assembly, based broadly on its historic boundaries but looking to the future for a dynamic and inclusive county-region that could be at the forefront of a green industrial revolution. It isn’t about creating top-down structures but having an enabling body that can help things happen: in business, arts, education and other fields. As well as a new county-region body to replace the mish-mash of unelected regional bodies and mayors with little accountability, a re-united Lancashire also needs strong local government (that is genuinely local) working co-operatively with the communities it serves and a vibrant economy that is locally based where profits go back into the community.

Back in 1895, Bolton writer and visionary Allen Clarke said:

“I would like to see Lancashire a cluster of towns and villages, each fixed solid on its own agricultural and industrial base, doing its own spinning and weaving; with its theatre, gymnasium, schools, libraries, baths and all things necessary for body and soul. Supposing the energy, time and talent that have been given to manufacture and manufacturing inventions had been given to agriculture and agricultural inventions, would not there have been as wonderful results in food production as there have been in cotton goods production?” (Effects of the Factory System, 1895)

Utopian? Perhaps – we need our utopian visions!. But there’s an element of realism there too. He recognised that capitalism had unleashed enormously powerful productive forces, but not necessarily with the best results. What Clarke was saying over a century ago is being said by many green activists and thinkers today and was what Gandhi preached in his own time and what ‘small is beautiful’ thinkers like Leopold Kohr, Franz Schumacher and John Papworth argued.

Humanity has the resources and skills to create a better world, for everyone; the consequences of not trying are worsening climate change and all that follows from it. The old cliché remains true: think globally, act locally – and regionally.

Clarke looked forward to a Lancashire that was a greener, more self-sufficient place – within a co-operative rather than a capitalist system. Now, as we struggle to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, is the time to think differently about the world we live in. This paper is about what Lancashire could look like in the next twenty years – by which I mean the ‘historic’ Lancashire, including Greater Manchester and much of Merseyside. But this is not about looking backward – it’s about creating a progressive and inclusive vision for a re-united Lancashire ‘county-region’ within a prosperous North and a Federal Britain. A Lancashire Co-operative Commonwealth.

The state of the county

The Lancashire of Allen Clarke’s day has changed in so many ways. In the towns, gone are the mills and mill chimneys with their attendant pollution and poor working conditions inside the factory walls. But we have also lost some of the civic pride and buoyancy of the great Lancashire boroughs including Clarke’s beloved Bolton.

‘Lancashire’ itself has been split and divided in what was a travesty of democracy. No wonder there is a very worrying degree of despondency and cynicism within these towns that ‘nothing can be done’ and we are powerless. It becomes easy to blame scapegoats, be they immigrants, asylum seekers, politicians or whoever.

Lancashire has yet to find a new role that can build on its past achievements, without just being a dull collection of retail parks, charity shops and sprawling suburbia, nor indeed a heritage theme park. We have many successful businesses and a thriving academic sector with great universities, some world-class, in many towns and cities; there is the potential for that to spin-off into new industries and services that are world-leaders.

Manchester has emerged as a dynamic regional centre, though many of the once-thriving towns surrounding it are in a parlous state. This has got to change and consigning towns like Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury to the role of commuter suburbs is not acceptable. Instead of the centralised ‘city-region’ we need a more decentralised and collaborative ‘county-region’ with several centres and smaller hubs connected by good rail links.

There is a disconnect between urban and rural, with tourist ‘honeypots’ around Lancashire and areas like the Ribble Valley and Trough of Bowland besieged by traffic from towns and cities and homes for local people made unaffordable by urban dwellers buying up second homes – a process accelerated by Covid-19.

The county that was stolen

Allen Clarke’s Lancashire has been shrunk by an undemocratic diktat in the 1970s. Nobody asked the people of Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Wigan and other towns if they wanted to be part of ‘Greater Manchester’. We have an elected mayor but without the democratic oversight of an elected council – which at least the original Greater Manchester Council had, before it was abolished by Mrs Thatcher in 1986. Something else we weren’t asked about. Now, in 2020, some politicians are contemplating further municipal vandalism with the destruction of the remaining ‘Lancashire’ county council and three ‘super’ councils replacing it and the existing districts. Talk about making a bad job even worse. In Cumbria, there is talk of creating one single unitary authority; this would mean the death of ‘local’ government.

Allen Clarke was a strong believer in municipal reform and backed The Municipal Reform League, formed in Lancashire in the early 1900s. There’s a need for something like that but on a bigger scale, addressing the huge democratic deficit in the English regions, particularly the North, as well as the loss of power by local government. We need a ‘Campaign for Northern Democracy’ that can involve Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Cumbria and the North-East as friendly allies and partners.

Samuel Compston of Rossendale, a radical Liberal of the old school, spoke of the virtue of ‘county clanship, in no narrow sense’. He was on to something and his words were carefully chosen. Regional or county pride does not pre-suppose antipathy to other regions and nations, and it needs to include everyone within the region. But it requires a democratic voice, not just one person elected every few years as ‘mayor’, nor a committee of local authority leaders whose prime loyalty is to their own council ward.

Yorkshire has been quicker off the mark and the Campaign for a Yorkshire Parliament has won wide cross-party support; the Yorkshire Party has made several local gains. The Yorkshire-based ‘Same Skies Collective’ has developed some fresh new ways of thinking about regionalism. The Yorkshire Society is succeeded in reinvigorating a strong, inclusive Yorkshire identity - a very good model for us to follow in Lancashire.

Here, there’s a ‘Friends of Real Lancashire’ and we have a Lancashire Society which currently has a low profile. Lancashire needs to play its part in the regionalist revival with a much higher profile and cross-party support. A reformed Lancashire that includes Greater Manchester and Merseyside makes sense as an economic unit but also chimes with people’s identities – in a way that artificial ‘city regions’ never will.

‘Greater Manchester’ typifies the problem of ‘city-regions’. It has reduced the once proudly-independent county boroughs to the status of satellites - commuter suburbs of Manchester (or ‘Manctopia’ as it was described in an excellent TV programme recently). Nearly 50 years on from the creation of ‘Greater Manchester’ our ‘city region’ still has precious little legitimacy and if there was a referendum tomorrow on being part of Lancashire or ‘Greater Manchester’ I have little doubt about the result.

A democratic new Lancashire

Regional democracy must be the next big jump for our political system with county assemblies, elected proportionately, taking real powers out of Westminster and Whitehall, backed up by strong well-resourced local government which has the right scale (not too big!). In England, we haven’t grasped the distinction between the national, regional and local, with cack-handed attempts to combine the regional and local (witness current attempts to create a unitary authority for all of Cumbria and three huge ‘local’ authorities covering all Lancashire). The latter are neither sufficiently ‘strategic’ to be effective regional bodies, and anything but ‘local’. Cumbria itself is big enough to be a county-region but still needs effective local government beneath it.

We need to get power out of the centre – Westminster/Whitehall – and give county-regions such as Lancashire real powers (see below) complemented by local government which really is ‘local’ and relates to historic, ‘felt’ identities which make economic and political sense.

Parameters and powers

A re-constituted Lancashire county-region should include much of what once constituted Lancashire with the additions of parts of historic Cheshire to the south (Stockport, Tameside and Trafford in Greater Manchester). In some places, e.g. Warrington, Widnes and Runcorn, local referenda on joining the appropriate county-region could be held. The historic ‘Lancashire north of the Sands’ really makes more sense within a Cumbria county-region that works closely with its Lancashire sister. This provides a county-region of significant size able to wield economic clout without being too large (which a region of ‘The North’ would be, both in population and geographical scale). Crucially, it would reflect people’s identities.

A major failure of the attempts to create regional assemblies during the Blair Government was their obvious lack of powers, prompting the successful attempts by the advocates of the centralised status quo to label them as expensive ‘white elephants’. While on one hand it makes sense for a new county-region to evolve gradually in terms of the powers and responsibilities it has, it must be able to demonstrate a clear reason to exist from the start. That means taking over responsibility for many of the areas which Wales and Scotland already have. It should include tax-raising powers.

The county-region should be empowered to support economic development across its area, investing in emerging industries, research and marketing. The ‘Lancashire Enterprises’ of the 1980s, stimulated and overseen by Lancashire County Council, would be a good model to start with. Part of its role should be to encourage new social enterprises and encourage greater employee and community involvement in large enterprises.

For transport, a ‘Transport for Lancashire’ should be created to take over the powers of existing transport authorities, as well as the ineffective Transport for the North. There should be close collaboration between sister bodies in Yorkshire, Cumbria, the North-east, and the Midlands, with formation of joint bodies to develop inter-regional links.

Another regular canard against regional government is that it creates ‘more politicians’ - ’jobs for the boys’, another effective line of attack against the idea of a North-East Assembly in 2004. It depends how you look at that. Regional devolution must include reducing the number of MPs at Westminster, as their functions transfer to the county-region. The same goes for the civil servants. Some powers that are currently devolved, but with little democratic scrutiny (transport, health, etc.) could simply come under the democratically-elected county-region, with members elected by a proportional voting system.

Localising local government

One of the most disastrous decisions of local government reform in the 70s was the destruction of small, usually highly efficient, local councils. Medium-sized towns, such as Darwen, Heywood, Farnworth, Radcliffe and others often ran their own services, built good quality housing and underpinned a very strong sense of civic pride. They were ruthlessly destroyed in the spurious cause that ‘big is better’ and the knee-jerk approach of far too many bureaucrats to centralise as much as possible. Can anyone honestly say that these medium-sized towns have benefitted from the changes imposed on them in the 70s?

Within a Lancashire ‘county-region’ local government should ultimately be based on smaller but empowered and well-resourced units that reflect people’s identities – the Darwens, Athertons, Radcliffes as well as larger towns such as Oldham, Burnley, Blackburn and Blackpool. However, in the short term use should be made of existing powers to create local councils (‘town’ or parish councils) for small and medium-sized towns that don’t have their own voice, based on the ‘Flatpack Democracy’ model developed by independent town councillors in Frome, Somerset.

These smaller but more powerful local councils should co-operate with their parent borough council and neighbouring communities on issues of mutual concern within a Lancashire county-region – a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ as argued below.

Having vibrant town as well as city centres must be a major element of the county-region. This means having a vision for town centres which offer something that the mega-stores don’t offer: a sense of conviviality and sociability. The arts have a key role to play – small galleries, larger public facilities including theatres and annual festivals (Bolton’s Film Festival is a good example) can help revive town centres and give them a new role.

Some Lancashire towns have been successful in developing niche manufacturing which offer highly skilled, well-paid jobs – but there’s a need for much more, working in partnership with the higher education sector. The ‘Preston Model’ should be rolled out to other similar-sized towns and cities to encourage much more local procurement and business support. It all needs sensitive encouragement which should come from re-structured and empowered local councils working within a collaborative framework provided by the county-region’s Lancashire Enterprises, as part of ‘The Lancashire Co-operative Commonwealth’.

A new green industrial revolution for Lancashire

Allen Clarke’s prophecy in Effects of the Factory System in (1895) that the cotton industry was doomed has finally come to be. Most of the mills that once dotted the south Lancashire landscape have been demolished. A few have survived but many are in poor condition, with only the prospect of demolition ahead of them unless something is done. The University of Bolton has had the sense to re-use some old mill buildings as part of its campus.

Yet most of the surviving Lancashire mills, perhaps with the exception of Manchester’s Ancoats, don’t have the wonderful mix of creative industries, office space and living accommodation that has been achieved with some of the mills in Yorkshire. At Saltaire, Salt’s Mill is perhaps the finest example, though rivalled by the Dean Clough Mills in Halifax. More should be done to protect our Lancashire mills and find good uses for them. Why should Yorkshire have all the fun?

Allen Clarke would have loved the idea of putting the mill buildings to better use - as places to live, but also as office and art space, recreational centres and performance areas. How about mill roof gardens? There’d be no shortage of space, with room to grow fruit and veg. Time for the ‘Incredible Edible Mill’!

We also need to build new, inspirational buildings that can take their place alongside the fine architecture bequeathed us by past generations. We need a vision, at least as radical as that of the Bolton landscape architect T.H. Mawson, of what our towns and cities should look like in the next 20 years, not what developers think is ‘good enough’ for us and makes the quickest return for them. We need some new Lord Leverhulmes (for all his faults!), women and men of vision, able to work collaboratively and creatively. Lancashire could be at the forefront, once again, of an industrial revolution – but this time a green revolution which benefits everyone, not just a handful of entrepreneurs.

Sharing the same skies: the countryside for everyone

Alongside a vibrant urban society, economy and culture, we need to make the best of our countryside, the ‘green lungs’ that make Lancashire so special. At its best, it can compete with the Lakes and the Peak District in terms of scenic beauty and is relatively well served with vibrant shops and smaller towns. It’s a huge asset in attracting talent into the region as a place to live and work.

Yet public transport access to the countryside is nothing like as good as it ought to be. Some of the most attractive areas have little or no bus services, or they don’t operate on Sundays – just when people need them. Places like Rivington, Pendle and Holcombe – let alone the Ribble Valley and Pendle - can be clogged with cars and motor bikes at weekends. At the same time, many stations that gave walkers access to the countryside, have closed.

Never mind HS2, let’s rebuild a world-class local transport network. For a fraction of the cost of that high-speed white elephant, we could have a network of modern, zero-emission trams and buses serving town and country, feeding in to a core rail network. If we look at the examples of Germany, Switzerland and Austria their popular rural areas typically have either frequent train services or rural trams connecting from the larger urban centres.

One of the few bright spots during the coronavirus outbreak has been the remarkable growth in cycling. Clarke and his friends Johnston and Wild would be delighted. Quiet roads, good weather and time on your hands was the ideal combination. Cycle shops have enjoyed a boon. I hope this renewed interest in cycling will survive, particularly if the Government puts its money where its mouth is and provides funding to expand cycle facilities in both town and country. That will need a strong regional body to implement cycle infrastructure working with local authorities and communities – a clear role for Transport for Lancashire.

People will still use their car to get out into the countryside and that needs to be managed and provided for. Car parks can be ugly, but so can cars parked alongside verges. The more alternatives there are available, the less likely we are to assume that the only way to enjoy the countryside is by that form of transport which does most to disfigure it.

Why not copy the example of some of the national parks in the United States, which prohibit car access to the most sensitive areas? If you get there by car, leave it in a ‘parking lot’ and either walk, get on a local bus or hire a bike. It could work in some of our national parks including the Lakes and popular visitor locations such as Rivington and the Pendle Forest. The exciting plans for a ‘South Pennines’ regional park could include sensitive measures to restrict visitors’ car access and promote use of public transport, cycling and walking.

Allen Clarke wanted to see a new ‘agricultural revolution’ in Lancashire, and that’s still relevant. Much of Lancashire, particularly in the north of the county, has a highly productive agricultural sector and we need to guard against precious agricultural land being lost to development. We need to do much more to feed our own people and not be dependent on imported foods. The ‘incredible edible’ model, of small-scale food production within towns was invented here in Lancashire and needs to be rolled out in every town and village.

Beyond a boundary: a Red Rose Co-operative Commonwealth?

The future of England should be about county-regions co-operating with empowered, but geographically smaller, local councils. There should be strong encouragement to co-operate on issues when it makes sense, and to share resources and specialist staff. That co-operation should extend further, across the North. Why not a ‘Northern Federation’ of county-regions – Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, the North-East and Cumbria, collaborating on issues of joint concern, such as strategic transport links and academic co-operation?

Good, democratic governance must be about addressing inequality, jobs, the environment, health, education and having a thriving and diverse cultural sector. Allen Clarke’s vision in 1895, of locally-based and socially-owned units of production make sense in a modern digital age, co-operating as equals with partners across the globe.

His idea of a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could certainly work at a Lancashire level; after all, it’s where co-operation began. Allen Clarke, with and his radical friends Solomon Partington, the co-operator and feminist Sarah Reddish and Samuel Compston looking over his shoulder, would have said “what are you waiting for?”

And we can’t wait. The coronavirus pandemic has focused people’s minds on the dysfunctional way we have lived our lives. An even bigger threat is climate change which requires re-thinking every aspect of how we live, travel, work and play. A democratic revolution is needed to create appropriate governance that can address those issues.

That revolution needs to go beyond Lancashire and the North. We need to build a Federal Britain which is no longer dominated by London: a federation of equals. Now is the time to create that Allen Clarke’s vision of a ‘Lancashire Co-operative Commonwealth’ that can, in the words of Clarke’s heroine, Rose Hilton – get agate with the job of “washing the smoky dust off the petals of the red rose” and create a county-region that is fit for the 21st century. A Lancashire re-united.

Lancashire United: What we stand for

· The promotion of a strong, inclusive Lancashire identity that is welcoming to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or age

· The creation of a new Lancashire county-region which includes Greater Manchester and Merseyside

· The formation of a democratically-elected Lancashire Assembly, using a fair voting system

· The devolution of powers over transport, health, education, economic development, culture and tourism to the county-region, with democratic oversight

· The encouragement of informal Lancashire-wide networks in the areas of higher education and research, culture and the arts, sport and other areas

· The encouragement of democratic forms of social ownership - ‘a co-operative commonwealth’

· The empowerment of local government and town/parish councils

· Close and collaborative working with our neighbours in Cumbria, Yorkshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire and the formation of a Northern Confederation

Lancashire Day, November 27th 2020

See facebook group #Lancashire United twitter @lancsunited and www.lancashireloominary.co.uk

I SUED SHEARINGS – and guess who won?

by Christopher Draper

I’VE just returned from a North Wales Courtroom where I was the litigant in a Breach of Contract legal action and “Shearings Holidays Ltd”, the defendant. If you are one of the few people in Britain who’ve never enjoyed a Shearings coach holiday you must be very young or a southern snob (or possibly both) and when the Wigan-based business celebrated its centenary last year it was described as the biggest and most successful coach holiday company in Europe, carrying over a million holidaymakers every year but all was not as it appeared.

Herbert’s Story

The Company was started in Oldham, in 1919 by pioneering motor mechanic Herbert Shearing, who’d six years earlier been fined a pound for barrelling along Manchester Road at a speed in excess of the legal limit of 5 mph! Herbert began by taking coachloads of Oldham working folk down to Devon for their annual week-long holiday. While other coach touring companies stayed at different hotels every night Herbert used a Torquay hotel as a base for daily trips out. His bargain-basement prices soon attracted customers from across the Pennines and this prompted him to start a “feeder-service” bringing Yorkshire-based customers to his Oldham depot but his enterprise wasn’t appreciated by rival proprietors. When Herbert, in 1934, advertised a feeder-service from Halifax he first had to overcome objections from Leeds-based, Wallace-Arnold Coaches. As his network expanded by 1936, he offered Liverpool customers, “a ten day all-in holiday in Scotland for £8.40 or nine days in Devon for £6.50”. “Shearings” thrived after the war although Herbert himself retired to Torquay where he died on 14 July 1945.

Post-War Shearings

Shearings prospered under a series of different owners and in 2005 even swallowed up its old Yorkshire rival “Wallace-Arnold”. By 2015, the company owned and operated over 200 coaches, 52 hotels and annually conveyed a total of 1.1m passengers by coach, rail, air and ship to over 170 destinations worldwide. In 2016 Shearings was acquired by Lone Star Funds, a private equity company and although a positive spin was put on this takeover at the time “to fund expansion plans etc” in reality it was extremely bad news.

Lone Star or Black Hole?

Texas based Lone Star is more “Vulture capital” than “Venture capital”, specialising in buying up “distressed assets” and sucking the life and value out of them. Founded, owned and controlled by 64 year old John Grayken, Lone Star manages over seventy billion dollars of assets, with Grayken’s personal fortune valued at 7.4 billion dollars, making him the 196th richest person on the planet. Born in Boston, Grayken is an Irish citizen, having renounced his U.S. nationality for tax purposes and according to Forbes magazine, “Amongst the robber barons of the new-millenium, few are as secretive – or as loathed”. Despite his American birthplace, Irish citizenship and Dallas HQ this modern day robber baron naturally lives in London, the tax-avoiding plutocrat’s domicile of choice. His seventy million dollar

Chelsea mansion is equipped with a glass elevator, basement pool, cinema and Japanese water garden and was purchased through a Bermudan company. Grayken also owns Pyrford Court, a fifteen-bedroomed Surrey manor house with a twenty-one acre garden and La Bergerie, an extensive Swiss estate overlooking Lake Geneva though he prefers to spend summers in Massachusetts where he owns the exclusive White Head Island.

Ruthless Economy

I missed Herbert’s era but over the last forty years I’ve enjoyed many Shearings holidays and until recent times the company maintained decent, old-fashioned business ethics. After Lone Star took over Shearings adopted a ruthless, Ryan Air style business approach. “Dynamic pricing” was introduced with an emphasis on online sales, hotel prices were segmented into all sorts of price levels with supplementary charges, higher payment was demanded for sitting on the front seat of coaches and an extra cost levied for using feeder-coaches. Petty economies extended to withdrawing bread rolls from meal times and charging for post-dinner coffee. Years ago when Shearings failed to attract enough passengers on a trip I’d booked they generously offered me a longer alternative holiday at no extra cost. This sharply contrasts with my recent experience.

Last Tango to Harrogate

For the last few years my partner and I enjoyed annual coach holidays in Harrogate, staying at Shearings’ St George Hotel (their best by far). In July 2019 I booked and paid a deposit to return the following January (2020) only to receive a phone call, six weeks later, informing me that Shearings no longer intended to honour the booking and wouldn’t run a coach to Harrogate for unexplained “operational reasons”. I offered to make our own way to and from the hotel if the company agreed to cover rail costs but they adamantly refused. Initially unable to specify which provision of our binding contract the company relied upon to legitimate this cancellation, Shearings eventually cited “clause 9” which states that “As we plan your holiday arrangements many months in advance we may occasionally have to make changes or cancel your booking and we reserve the right to do so at any time.” I pointed out the significance of the words “have to make changes”, meaning that for any cancellation to be legitimate it must be forced upon the company by external circumstances (such as the hotel having burnt down), NOT simply the company’s whim. On the internet I discovered Shearings were marketing the same category of room and meals at the St George for the identical four day period at three times the price contracted to me and “coincidentally” Harrogate was that week hosting a Sales Convention at the Conference Centre opposite the hotel. On the face of it, Shearings appeared to be cynically selling our contracted rooms at a much higher rate to incoming sales reps. I printed off this page and when I checked a few days later all these rooms had been sold, presumably at this higher price.

Terminological Inexactitude

In a letter dated 11.9.2019 Shearings’ “Customer Relations Manager” Angela Fowler re-stated the company’s position - “we may occasionally have to make changes” and “we are not able to agree to any of the choices that you have given us” (my emphasis). Instead of addressing the critical distinction between forced changes and voluntary choices Ms Fowler claimed a similar inability to finance alternative transport. I realised that ultimately Grayken’s ruthless regime was pushing Shearings’ minions into screwing customers like me but I wasn’t intimidated and decided to sue for “Breach of Contract”.

Justice Delayed

After essential pre-action exchanges of letters I filed formal court papers on 3.10.2019. You don’t need a barrister, solicitor or horsehair wig, just £35 (less online). I claimed £257.60, the cost of two ordinary return rail fares from my home in Llandudno to Harrogate. Shearings’ defence amounted to no more than a restatement of Angela Fowler’s previously quoted letter. I was duly informed that the case would be heard on 20.3.2020, unfortunately Covid intervened and the hearing was twice postponed until on Friday 6th November 2020 at 2pm I was finally called into Prestatyn’s Court Number Three for a hearing before Deputy District Judge Morris.

Justice Denied

The judge ruled against Shearings’ defence that the contract gave carte blanche for the company to amend or cancel at will. I was awarded my original claim plus costs, amounting to £317.60. Unfortunately in the interval between launching the claim in 2019 and this November 2020 judgement Shearings went bust.

It’s difficult to calculate how much wealth Lone Star extracted before eventually driving Herbert Shearing’s century-old company over the edge. E & Y (previously “Ernest & Young”) will certainly make a fortune from their dismemberment (“Administration”) of the company’s residual assets as they’re legally entitled to feast on the carcase before lowly “unsecured creditors” like me get a look in. Leger Travel bought the Shearings trading name and customer-list but none of its liabilities, 2,500 employees lost their jobs while innumerable suppliers were left with unpaid invoices. Although I don’t expect to get my £317.60 I’d still encourage people not to submit to big company bullying. If all else fails, suing isn’t difficult or expensive and authority everywhere relies on deferential, fearful compliance. As I write John Grayken’s Lone Star has just sunk its fangs into another well-known “distressed asset”, so if you’re contemplating moving into a McCarthy & Stone retirement home, think again.

****************************************************

Is Trump Expendable? by Les May

I’VE never bought into the idea that Labour losing last year’s General Election was because a Corbyn led government’s policies made it ‘unelectable’. I think a more plausible explanation is that Labour’s so called ‘Red Wall’ crumbled because those voters wanted ‘Brexit’ and knew that Johnson would deliver it, but Corbyn couldn’t be guaranteed to. The intervention of a Brexit party candidate in my constituency effectively helped to defeat Labour.

Those who voted Tory at the last election came from two ‘tribes’, each of which spoke their own language, had their own values and were incomprehensible to each other. One was the tribe which always voted Tory; the other was the tribe made up of those who usually voted Labour, or not at all, but who for their own reasons simply wanted to leave the EU.

Britain will leave the EU on the last day of the year. Job done! Why vote Tory next time? Boris Johnson knows this, that’s why he is so eager to push his ‘levelling up’ agenda which seems to me no more than a rebranding of the old ‘trickle down’ economics of Margaret Thatcher.

Donald Trump’s sojourn at the White House came about because two ‘tribes’, incomprehensible to each other, put him there in 2016. One tribe was drawn from Americans whose livelihoods were threatened because the industries they worked for were losing ground to cheaper foreign imports or were simply past their sell by dates like coal production, the inhabitants of the so called ‘rust bucket states’. The other tribe was composed of socially conservative, for which read abhors homosexuals, same sex marriage and abortion, devout, Bible immersed, fundamentalist Christians. Trump knew exactly what he was doing selecting Mike Pence to be his Vice-President. Pence is the real deal. At the end of the first meeting between the two he suggested they hold hands for a short prayer.

Trump now faces the same problem as Boris Johnson. He’s delivered a Supreme Court bench with a built in conservative majority which could last for the next thirty or forty years which his Bible bashing supporters can reasonably expect to deliver the sort of socially conservative rulings they want to hear. Job done! Why vote for an ersatz vulgarian like Donald Trump when you can have the real deal in the shape of someone like Pence in four years time?

The smart money is on Trump still being a major force in the Republican party in the next four years. I’m not so sure.

**************************************************************

Blackmailers Always Want More Revisited

by Les May

SEVERAL days ago the High Court struck out a claim for libel against the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) made by Tony Greenstein. The organisation now boasts that the ruling made it permissible for it to call him, and presumably anyone else, a “notorious antisemite” in articles on the CAA website.

The problem for anyone challenging the CAA over such personal attacks is that whilst they are made with all the certainty of them being objectively true, the law treats them merely as opinions, and as the saying goes ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’.

The finding makes Mr Greenstein liable for costs of nearly £68,000, something else the CAA is eager to crow about.

Having seen off Greenstein the CAA is now renewing its attacks on the Labour party claiming that Starmer has ‘conned’ them and offered them ‘crumbs’ by allowing the Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension to be dealt with by the Labour Party’s existing disciplinary procedures which resulted in the lifting of the suspension. If Starmer thought that his removing the Labour whip would result in him being allowed to deal with complaints of anti-semitism in his own way, he was mistaken. The response from the CAA has been to claim ‘New evidence emerges showing that incompetence, factionalism and politicisation remain the hallmarks of Labour’s disciplinary process under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership’. Blackmailers always want more.

Not content with that, at the end of October the CAA submitted a short letter and almost 70 pages of allegations against a number of former and sitting Labour MPs who it referred to as ‘Respondents’ as if it had some legal authority . If Starmer actually read these he must have wondered who is in charge of the Labour party, himself or the unelected Gideon Falter and Joe Glasman of the CAA.

It should also be said that Starmer’s action in removing the Labour whip from Corbyn may be the start of an attempt to reverse the democratisation of the party which placed the decision about who should by Leader in the hands of the membership, and not in the hands of the parliamentary party.

The ruling against Greenstein is a warning that it is not possible to challenge the tactics of the CAA head on, pernicious though they are. But it is possible to point out some of the shortcomings of this organisation.

The CAA likes to present itself as a ‘non-governmental organisation’ and a ‘charity’. In 2019 its income was almost £900,000, almost all from legacies and donations. But when the Charity Commission investigated complaints against the CAA’s Gideon Falter said, ‘There are many people who oppose our mission and complain to the Charity Commission at every opportunity’ and described it as an ‘orchestrated campaign’. In October 2018 the report in the Jewish Chronicle showed how the CAA had broken charity law;

The Charity Commission told the JC its investigation was launched "following concerns raised about a petition launched by the charity which called for the resignation of the leader of the Opposition".

A spokesperson said: “Charities are free to campaign and engage in political activity in furthering their purposes...

"But there are rules that charities must follow. One of the most important of these rules is that charities must stress their independence from party politics and demonstrate party political balance.

"This is a cornerstone of charity law and the public rightly expect us to uphold it robustly."

The commission instructed CAA to change the petition's wording "to ensure it complied with our guidance on campaigning and political activity".

Reading the CAA’s most recent complaints against named individuals in the Labour party, which quote exactly which of the Labour party’s rules have been broken, it is difficult to see how the organisation can be said to complying with rules set out for charities.

The CAA makes much of its ‘methodology’ in its investigations into anti-semitism. But this is what the Institute from Jewish Policy Research had to say about its methods in January 2015;

However, unfortunately, the organisation’s survey about antisemitism is littered with flaws, and in the context of a clear need for accurate data on this topic, its work may even be rather irresponsible.

Its report is based on two surveys – one of Jews living in the UK, exploring their perceptions and experiences of antisemitism, and one of the general population of the UK, exploring its attitudes towards Jews.

In the first one, the data about Jewish attitudes are based on an open web survey that had very limited capacity to assess whether respondents were in any way representative of the British Jewish population. So the percentages quoted are of survey respondents, not of Jews in the UK. The findings might be representative of the Jewish community in some way, but it is at least equally likely that they are not. Unfortunately, due to quite basic methodological flaws and weaknesses, there is absolutely no way the researchers or any readers of the report can really know

.

Because of this, the claim in the report, for example, that “more than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s” verges into irresponsible territory – it is an incendiary finding, and there is simply no way to ascertain whether or not it is accurate. Moreover, the very inclusion of such a question in the survey, which most credible scholars of the Holocaust utterly refute, was a dubious decision in and of itself, and raises issues about the organisers’ pre-existing hypotheses and assumptions. Professional social researchers build credible surveys and analyse the data with an open mind; the CAA survey falls short both in terms of its methodology and its analysis.

The second survey, conducted by YouGov, is much better – the results are certainly broadly representative of the UK population. The findings would have benefited significantly from greater contextualisation, both in terms of attitudes towards other minorities, and the inclusion of some positive statements about Jews rather than just negative ones, which would have helped to provide some balance and nuance. But the research makes a valuable contribution to knowledge. The inclusion of some context might also have altered the way in which the results were presented in the CAA report and press release, which included the rather sensationalist claim that almost half of British adults harbour some kind of antisemitic view.

A far more accurate and honest read of the YouGov data would highlight the fact that between 75% and 90% of people in Britain either do not hold antisemitic views or have no particular view of Jews either way, and only about 4% to 5% of people can be characterised as clearly antisemitic when looking at individual measures of antisemitism. This figure is similar to Pew data gathered in 2009 and 2014 which estimated the level of antisemitic attitudes at somewhere between 2% and 7%, and Anti-Defamation League data gathered in 2014 which, while also flawed, put it at 8%, and, more robustly, identified the UK as among the least antisemitic countries in the world. It is possible that the proportion has risen in light of the summer’s events in Gaza (and those interested should look out for the next results from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey), but the notion that it has risen to such a significant degree seems to be highly implausible.

So much for the Campaign Against Antisemitism's‘methodology’.

In what I write and say I try to avoid using words like ‘racist’, ‘islamo-phobic’, ‘anti-semitic’, ‘fascist’, ‘nazi’ etc, largely because the way they are sometimes used against individuals is difficult to distinguish from what has been called ‘hate speech’. Nor do I find it easy to distinguish the repeated attacks by organisations like the CAA on Corbyn and other individuals, easy to distinguish from what is called in social media circles ‘trolling’.

The Labour party and those of us who support it have a choice to make. We can go on trying to appease organisations like the CAA or we can insist that if it feels it has the right to call people anti-semites, we have the right to defend ourselves against such charges and to criticise the policies of the state of Israel and those who act as apologists for it. To paraphrase Shakespeare: 'Caesar would not be wolf, if the Romans were not sheep'.

The Charity Commission website carries details of the CAA. The page headed ‘What, who, how, where’ is revealing, and rather difficult to equate with it’s recent activities with regard to the Labour party and its supporters.

*******************************************************

Letter from 14 Labour NEC members orders general secretary to rebuke Starmer and instruct him to immediately restore whip to Corbyn!

FOURTEEN members of Labour’s 39-member National Executive Committee (NEC) have written a damning and explosive letter to Labour general secretary David Evans about the conduct of party leader Keir Starmer – one that blows open the opaque events of this week surrounding Jeremy Corbyn’s reinstatement.

The letter:

Condemns the ‘double jeopardy’ and ‘deliberate political interference’ of withdrawing the whip from Corbyn after he was reinstated by an NEC panel;

makes clear that the decision of the panel was based on independent legal advice and the recommendation of Labour’s disciplinary investigative unit;

implies that their advice was that there were no valid grounds for Corbyn’s suspension;

confirms that the whip had been restored to Corbyn on the lifting of his suspension, making an utter mockery of Starmer’s excuse that he was ‘not restoring’ the whip rather than withdrawing it;

makes clear that the meddling in the disciplinary outcome is exactly that kind of ‘political interference’ the EHRC has ruled unlawful;

accuses Starmer and other right-wing MPs of smearing the NEC panel members who acted in accordance with the party’s rules and the legal advice they gave;

says that Starmer has put NEC members in a legal bind – and that as a highly-qualified barrister he has no excuse for his ‘unconscionable’ choice;

demands that Evans rebuke Starmer for his political interference in party processes and undermining public confidence in Labour’s disciplinary process;

‘requires’ Evans to immediately ‘demand’ that Starmer upholds the NEC panel’s decision and restores the whip to Corbyn:

Dear David,

On Tuesday 17th November a Disputes Panel of the NEC sat to consider current discipline cases one of which was the complaint against Jeremy Corbyn MP. The Panel after many hours of consideration and deliberation, including advice and guidance on process from the Head of Disputes in GLU and an independent Barrister provided by the party, established that there had been no breach of Labour Party rules. As such the Panel determined that Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension should be lifted.

As with all other cases considered by the Dispute Panels, as soon as the panel’s decisions have been ratified as per the agreed process, Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension was required to be immediately lifted. Any consequence of the suspension, namely the suspension of the whip, was of course to immediately fall away as a consequence of the NEC panel decision.

The decision of the Leader the following day to withhold the whip from Jeremy Corbyn MP is an act of deliberate political interference in the handling of a complaint. It defies the decision of the NEC panel, is a matter of double jeopardy that flies in the face of natural justice, it undermines the Rule Book and it is precisely the type of action found to be unlawful indirect discrimination by the EHRC report.

We would remind the leadership that the political interference criticised by the EHRC included interference intended to speed up the disciplinary process.

The Leader of the party in addition made commentary that the Jewish community have no faith in the process of the Dispute’s panel. Although intended to be a damning comment on the Dispute’s process generally it is of course a direct criticism of the decision reached by the Dispute’s Panel on Tuesday. This criticism has been joined by other MPs, no doubt following the lead of the Leader.

Neither the Party nor the Leader have made clear that the Disputes Panel in question received legal advice on the day and as is the norm that includes a recommendation from the GLU staff, in particular the Head of Legal appointed by the Leader as to the sanction that should be awarded.

This is an unacceptable attack on the lay volunteers elected to uphold the Rule Book, it is direct political interference and it is unacceptable.

We understand that the Party will now face legal action as a result of the decision of the Leader to undermine the disciplinary processes. This will inevitably mean that members of the panel are asked to give evidence in a Court of law. It is unconscionable, given that the Leader is Queens Counsel and must have read and digested the EHRC report, that members of the NEC should be placed in this position by his actions.

As members of the NEC with responsibility to uphold the Rule Book we require confirmation that the General Secretary will now write to the Leader of the Party to admonish him for interfering in the NEC processes, for levelling public criticism intended to undermine confidence in the dispute process and for taking a decision that is directly contradictory to the NEC Panel decision. The General Secretary must demand that the Leader upholds the decision of the Dispute’s panel and immediately reinstates the whip to Jeremy Corbyn MP.

Signed

Howard Beckett

Jayne Taylor

Ian Murray

Andi Fox

Mick Whelan

Andy Kerr

Pauline McCarthy

Ellen Morrison

Lara McNeill

Mish Rahman

Laura Pidcock

Yasmine Dar

Nadia Jama

Gemma Bolton

Unite union leader condemns Starmer decision!

YESTERDAY the UNITE union general secretary, Len McCluskey said: “I am astonished at the decision to withdraw the Parliamentary Labour Party whip from Jeremy Corbyn.

“This is a vindictive and vengeful action which despoils Party democracy and due process alike, and amounts to overruling the unanimous decision of the NEC panel yesterday to readmit Jeremy to the Party.

“This action gives rise to double jeopardy in the handling of the case and shows marked bad faith.

“The unity of the Party around the need to implement the EHRC recommendations in full is being recklessly undermined.

“The continued persecution of Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who inspired millions, by a leadership capitulating to external pressure on Party procedures risks destroying the unity and integrity of the Labour Party.>

“I urge Keir Starmer in the strongest terms to pull back from the brink.”

**********************************************************

Unite is Britain and Ireland’s largest union with members working across all sectors of the economy. The general secretary is Len McCluskey.

Anti-socialism In The Labour Party

by Les May

A COUPLE of weeks ago the Sunday People newspaper carried a piece headed ‘Don’t talk about Jez’. It claimed that General Secretary David Evans, had written to constituency parties warning members not to talk about Corbyn’s possible expulsion. It went on to claim that one MP who was at the meeting which discussed the EHRC report said ‘In forty years I’ve never seen anything like it. It was a bit scary. Starmer spoke at length. He never mentioned Jeremy Corbyn once. It’s like 1938 in the USSR with the show trials.’

Even allowing for a degree of exaggeration and a bit of paraphrasing it seems that Corbyn is being ‘unpersoned’ in the Labour party. Starmer’s decision to exclude Corbyn from the parliamentary Labour party by not to restoring the whip to him would presumably mean that he could not stand as an official Labour candidate in any future General Election. The problem for Starmer is not that Corbyn is anti-semitic; it’s that he is pro-socialism.

****************************************************

LANCASHIRE RE-UNITED?

For a New Lancashire County-Region

WHILE our Yorkshire neighbours are building up momentum for a ‘One Yorkshire’ region, Lancashire is lagging behind. This paper argues for a re-united Lancashire, with its own democratically-elected assembly, based in part on its historic boundaries but looking to the future for a dynamic and inclusive county-region that could be at the forefront of a green industrial revolution. As well as a new county-region body to replace the mish-mash of unelected regional bodies and mayors with little accountability, a re-united Lancashire also needs strong local government working co-operatively with the communities it serves and a vibrant economy that is locally based.

Back in 1895, Bolton writer Allen Clarke said: “I would like to see Lancashire a cluster of towns and villages, each fixed solid on its own agricultural and industrial base, doing its own spinning and weaving; with its theatre, gymnasium, schools, libraries, baths and all things necessary for body and soul. Supposing the energy, time and talent that have been given to manufacture and manufacturing inventions had been given to agriculture and agricultural inventions, would not there have been as wonderful results in food production as there have been in cotton goods production?”

(Allen Clarke, 1895, slightly adapted)

THAT was Allen Clarke, the Lancashire journalist, philosopher and novelist writing in 1895. Utopian? Perhaps (we need our utopian visions!) but there’s an element of realism there too. He recognised that capitalism had unleashed enormously powerful productive forces, but not necessarily with the best results. What Clarke was saying over a century ago is being said by many green activists and thinkers today and was what Gandhi preached in his own time. Humanity has the resources and skills to create a better world, for everyone; the consequences of not trying are worsening climate change and all that follows from it.

Clarke looked forward to a Lancashire that was a greener, more self-sufficient place – within a co-operative rather than a capitalist system. Now, as we struggle to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, is the time to think differently about the world we live in. This paper is about what Lancashire could look like in the next twenty years – by which I mean the ‘historic’ Lancashire, including Greater Manchester and much of Merseyside. But this is not about looking backward – it’s about creating a progressive and inclusive vision for a re-united Lancashire ‘county-region’ within a prosperous North and a Federal Britain. A Lancashire Co-operative Commonwealth.

The STATE of the COUNTY

THE Lancashire of Allen Clarke’s day has changed in so many ways. In the towns, gone are the mills and mill chimneys with their attendant pollution and poor working conditions inside the factory walls. But we have also lost some of the civic pride and buoyancy of the great Lancashire boroughs including Clarke’s beloved Bolton. ‘Lancashire’ itself has been split and divided in what was a travesty of democracy. No wonder there is a very worrying degree of despondency and cynicism within these towns that ‘nothing can be done’ and we are powerless. It becomes easy to blame scapegoats, be they immigrants, asylum seekers, politicians or whoever.

Lancashire has yet to find a new role that can build on its past achievements, without just being a dull collection of retail parks, charity shops and sprawling suburbia, nor indeed a heritage theme park. We have many successful businesses and a thriving academic sector with great universities, some world-class, in many towns and cities; there is the potential for that to spin-off into new industries and services that are world-leaders.

Manchester has emerged as a dynamic regional centre, though many of the once-thriving towns surrounding it are in a parlous state. This has got to change and consigning towns like Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury to the role of commuter suburbs is not acceptable. Instead of the centralised ‘city-region’ we need a more decentralised and collaborative ‘county-region’.

There is a disconnect between urban and rural, with tourist ‘honeypots’ around Lancashire and areas like the Ribble Valley and Trough of Bowland besieged by traffic from towns and cities and homes for local people made unaffordable by urban dwellers buying up second homes – a process accelerated by Covid-19.

The County that was Stolen

ALLEN CLARKE’s Lancashire has been shrunk by an undemocratic diktat in the 1970s. Nobody asked the people of Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, Wigan and other towns if they wanted to be part of ‘Greater Manchester’. We have an elected mayor but without the democratic oversight of an elected council – which at least the original Greater Manchester Council had, before it was abolished by Mrs Thatcher in 1986. Something else we weren’t asked about. Now, in 2020, some politicians are talking about further municipal vandalism with the destruction of the remaining ‘Lancashire’ county council and three ‘super’ councils replacing it and the existing districts. Talk about making a bad job even worse. In Cumbria, there is talk of creating one single unitary authority; this would mean the death of ‘local’ government.

Allen Clarke was a strong believer in municipal reform and backed The Municipal Reform League, formed in Lancashire in the early 1900s. There’s a need for something like that but on a bigger scale, addressing the huge democratic deficit in the English regions, particularly the North, as well as the loss of power by local government. We need a ‘Campaign for Northern Democracy’ that can involve Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cumbria and the North-East as friendly allies and partners.

Samuel Compston of Rossendale, a radical Liberal of the old school, spoke of the virtue of ‘county clanship, in no narrow sense’. He was on to something and his words were carefully chosen. Regional or county pride does not pre-suppose antipathy to other regions and nations, and it needs to include everyone within the region. But it requires a democratic voice, not just one person elected every few years as ‘mayor’, nor a collection of local authority leaders whose prime loyalty is to their own council ward.

Yorkshire has been quicker off the mark and the Campaign for a Yorkshire Parliament has won wide cross-party support; the Yorkshire Party has made several local gains. The Yorkshire-based ‘Same Skies Collective’ has developed some fresh new ways of thinking about regionalism.

Here, there’s a ‘Friends of Real Lancashire’ but the issue needs a higher profile and cross-party support. A reformed Lancashire that includes Greater Manchester and Merseyside makes sense as an economic unit but also chimes with people’s identities – in a way that artificial ‘city regions’ never will.

‘Greater Manchester’ has reduced the once proudly-independent county boroughs to the status of satellites - commuter suburbs of Manchester (or ‘Manctopia’ as it was described in an excellent TV programme recently). Nearly 50 years on from the creation of ‘Greater Manchester’ our ‘city region’ still has precious little legitimacy and if there was a referendum tomorrow on being part of Lancashire or ‘Greater Manchester’ I have little doubt about the result.

A Democratic New Lancashire

REGIONAL democracy must be the next big jump for our political system with regional assemblies, elected proportionately, taking real powers out of Westminster and Whitehall, backed up by strong well-resourced local government which has the right scale (not too big!).

In England, we haven’t grasped the distinction between the national, regional and local, with cack-handed attempts to combine the regional and local (witness current attempts to create a unitary authority for all of Cumbria and three huge ‘local’ authorities covering all Lancashire). The latter are neither sufficiently ‘strategic’ to be effective regional bodies, and anything but ‘local’. Cumbria itself is big enough to be a county-region but still needs effective local government beneath it.

We need to get power out of the centre – Westminster/Whitehall – and give country-regions such as Lancashire real powers (see below) complemented by local government which really is ‘local’ and relates to historic, ‘felt’ identities which make economic and political sense.

Parameters and Powers

A RE-CONSTITUTED Lancashire county-region should include much of what once constituted Lancashire with the additions of parts of historic Cheshire to the south (Stockport, Tameside and Trafford in Greater Manchester). The historic ‘Lancashire north of the Sands’ really makes more sense within a Cumbria county-region that works closely with its Lancashire sister. This provides a county-region of significant size able to wield economic clout without being too large (which a region of ‘The North’ would be, both in population and geographical scale). Crucially, it would reflect people’s identities.

A major failure of the attempts to create regional assemblies during the Blair Government was their obvious lack of powers, prompting the successful attempts by the advocates of the centralised status quo to label them as expensive ‘white elephants’. While on one hand it makes sense for a new county-region to evolve gradually in terms of the powers and responsibilities it has, it must be able to demonstrate a clear reason to exist from the start. That means taking over responsibility for many of the areas which Wales and Scotland already have. It should include tax-raising powers.

The county-region should be empowered to support economic development across its area, investing in emerging industries, research and marketing. The ‘Lancashire Enterprises’ of the 1980s, stimulated and overseen by Lancashire County Council, would be a good model to start with. Part of its role should be to encourage new social enterprises and encourage greater employee and community involvement in large enterprises.

For transport, a ‘Transport for Lancashire’ should be created to take over the powers of existing transport authorities, as well as the ineffective Transport for the North. There should be close collaboration between sister bodies in Yorkshire, Cumbria, the North-east, and the Midlands, with formation of joint bodies to develop inter-regional links.

Another regular canard against regional government is that it creates ‘more politicians’ - ’Jobs for the boys’, another effective line of attack against the idea of a North-East Assembly in 2004.

It depends how you look at that. Regional devolution must include reducing the number of MPs at Westminster, as their functions transfer to the county-region. The same goes for the civil servants. Some powers that are currently devolved, but with little democratic scrutiny (transport health, etc.) would simply come under the democratically-elected county-region, with members elected by a proportional voting system.

Localising Local Government

ONE of the most disastrous decisions of local government reform in the 70s was the destruction of small, usually highly efficient, local councils. Medium-sized towns, such as Darwen, Heywood, Farnworth, Radcliffe and others often ran their own services, built good quality housing and underpinned a very strong sense of civic pride. They were ruthlessly destroyed in the spurious cause that ‘big is better’ and the knee-jerk approach of far too many bureaucrats to centralise as much as possible. Can anyone honestly say that these medium-sized towns have benefitted from the changes imposed on them in the 70s?

Within a Lancashire ‘county-region’ local government should be based on smaller but empowered and well-resourced units that reflect people’s identities – the Darwens, Athertons, Radcliffes as well as larger towns such as Oldham, Burnley, Blackburn and Blackpool.

These smaller but more powerful local councils should co-operate with their neighbouring communities on issues of mutual concern within a Lancashire county-region – a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ as argued below.

Having vibrant town as well as city centres must be a major element of the county-region. This means having a vision for town centres which offer something that the mega-stores don’t offer: a sense of conviviality and sociability. The arts have a key role to play – small galleries, larger public facilities including theatres and annual festivals (Bolton’s Film Festival is a good example) can help revive town centres and give them a new role.

Some Lancashire towns have been successful in developing niche manufacturing which offer highly skilled, well-paid jobs – but there’s a need for much more, working in partnership with the higher education sector. The ‘Preston Model’ should be rolled out to other similar-sized towns and cities to encourage much more local procurement and business support. It all needs sensitive encouragement which should come from re-structured and empowered local councils working within a collaborative framework provided by the county-region’s Lancashire Enterprises, as part of ‘The Lancashire Co-operative Commonwealth’.

A new Lancashire industrial revolution

ALLEN Clarke’s prophecy in Effects of the Factory System in (1895) that the cotton industry was doomed has finally come to be. Most of the Bolton mills that you could once see from the moors above Bolton, described so vividly in his Moorlands and Memories (1920), have been demolished. A few have survived but many are in poor condition, with only the prospect of demolition ahead of them unless something is done. The University of Bolton has had the sense to re-use some old mill buildings as part of its campus.

Yet most of the surviving Lancashire mills, perhaps with the exception of Manchester’s Ancoats, don’t have the wonderful mix of creative industries, office space and living accommodation that has been achieved with some of the mills in Yorkshire. At Saltaire, Salt’s Mill is perhaps the finest example, though rivalled by the Dean Clough Mills in Halifax. More should be done to protect our Lancashire mills and find good uses for them. Why should Yorkshire have all the fun?

Allen Clarke would have loved the idea of putting the mill buildings to better use - as places to live, but also as office and art space, recreational centres and performance areas. How about mill roof gardens? There’d be no shortage of space, with room to grow fruit and veg. Time for the ‘Incredible Edible Mill’!

We also need to build new, inspirational buildings that can take their place alongside the fine architecture bequeathed us by past generations. We need a vision, at least as radical as that of the Bolton landscape architect T.H. Mawson, of what our towns and cities should look like in the next 20 years, not what developers think is ‘good enough’ for us and makes the quickest return for them. We need some new Lord Leverhulmes, women and men of vision, able to work collaboratively and creatively.

Lancashire needs to be at the forefront, once again, of an industrial revolution – but this time a green revolution which benefits the many and not the few...

Sharing the same Skies: the countryside for everyone

ALONGSIDE a vibrant urban society, economy and culture, we need to make the best of our countryside, the ‘green lungs’ that make Lancashire so special. At its best, it can compete with the Lakes and the Peak District in terms of scenic beauty and is relatively well served with vibrant shops and smaller towns. It’s a huge asset in attracting talent into the region as a place to live and work.

Yet public transport access to the countryside is nothing like as good as it ought to be. Some of the most attractive areas have little or no bus services, or they don’t operate on Sundays – just when people need them. Places like Rivington, Pendle and Holcombe – let alone the Ribble Valley and Pendle - can be heaving with cars and motor bikes at weekends. At the same time, many stations that gave walkers access to the countryside, have closed.

Never mind HS2, let’s rebuild a world-class local transport network. For a fraction of the cost of that high-speed white elephant, we could have a network of modern, zero-emission trams and buses serving town and country, feeding in to a core rail network. If we look at the examples of Germany, Switzerland and Austria their popular rural areas typically have either frequent train services or rural trams connecting from the larger urban centres.

One of the few bright spots during the coronavirus outbreak has been the remarkable growth in cycling. Clarke and his friends Johnston and Wild would be delighted. Quiet roads, good weather and time on your hands was the ideal combination. Cycle shops have enjoyed a boon. I hope this renewed interest in cycling will survive, particularly if the Government puts its money where its mouth is and provides funding to expand cycle facilities in both town and country.

People will still use their car to get out into the countryside and that needs to be managed and provided for. Car parks can be ugly, but so can cars parked alongside verges. The more alternatives there are available, the less likely we are to assume that the only way to enjoy the countryside is by that form of transport which does most to disfigure it.

Why not copy the example of some of the national parks in the United States, which prohibit car access to the most sensitive areas? If you get there by car, leave it in a ‘parking lot’ and either walk, get on a local bus or hire a bike. It could work in some of our national parks including the Lakes and popular visitor locations such as Rivington and the Pendle Forest. The exciting plans for a ‘South Pennines’ regional park could include sensitive measures to restrict visitors’ car access and promote use of public transport, cycling and walking.

Allen Clarke want to see a new ‘agricultural revolution’ in Lancashire, and that’s still relevant. Much of Lancashire has a highly productive agricultural sector and we need to guard against precious agricultural land being lost to development. We need to do much more to feed our own people and not be dependent on imported foods. The ‘incredible edible’ model, of small-scale food production within towns was invented here in Lancashire and needs to be rolled out in every town and village.

Beyond a boundary: a Red Rose Co-operative Commonwealth?

THE future of England should be about county-regions co-operating with empowered, but geographically smaller, local councils. There should be strong encouragement to co-operate on issues when it makes sense, and to share resources and specialist staff. That co-operation should extend further, across the North. Why not a ‘Northern Federation’ of regions – Lancashire, Yorkshire, the North-East and Cumbria, collaborating on issues of joint concern, such as strategic transport links and academic co-operation? As the late Jo Cox (a committed regionalist) said, “we have far more in common than what divides us.”

Good, democratic governance must be about addressing inequality, jobs, the environment, health, education and having a thriving and diverse cultural sector. Allen Clarke’s vision in 1895, of locally-based and socially-owned units of production make sense in a modern digital age, co-operating as equals with partners across the globe.

His idea of a ‘co-operative commonwealth’ could certainly work at a Lancashire level; after all, it’s where co-operation began. Allen Clarke, with and his radical friends Solomon Partington, the co-operator and feminist Sarah Reddish and Samuel Compston looking over his shoulder, would have said “what are you waiting for?”

And we can’t wait. The coronavirus pandemic has focused people’s minds on the dysfunctional way we have lived our lives. An even bigger threat is climate change which requires re-thinking every aspect of how we live, travel, work and play.

Now is the time to create Allen Clarke’s vision of a ‘Lancashire Co-operative Commonwealth’ that can, in the words of Clarke’s heroine, Rose Hilton – get agate with the job of “washing the smoky dust off the petals of the red rose” and create a county-region that is fit for the 21st century. A Lancashire re-united.

Lancashire Day, November 27th 2020

See facebook group #LancashireUnited and www.lancashireloominary.co.uk

**************************************************

Regulator: On Censoring Carillion Slowly! *

by Brian Bamford

YESTERDAY the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it intends to take further action against the failed outsourcer Carillion for 'misleading' shareholders with false information.

In a warning notice published the watchdog said that a number of senior executives were 'knowingly concerned' in numerous breaches of market rules, and had acted 'recklessly'

The FCA, had in fact issued warning notices to the company that 'certain previous executive directors' over a series of breaches of the financial rules before the business collapsed into administration in 2018 with liabilities of almost £7bn after a series of financial troubles caught up with the outsourcing giant.

This included giving 'false or misleading signals as to the value of its shares'; 'failing to take reasonable care to ensure that its announcements were not misleading, false or deceptive' and 'failing to take reasonable steps to establish and maintain adequate procedures, systems and controls'.

Yet the FCA has so far failed to as yet issue 'a financial penalty' or comment on possible sanctions against the guilty men et al or to even name the directors involved, because the case is ongoing. The FCA insisted that the warning notices were not final decisions and individuals might appeal against any decisions to its upper tribunal.

Meanwhile, Pro. Prem Sikka from Sheffield university and a member of the House of Lords, told the Financial Times: 'There are 30,000 small and medium-sized enterprises who have lost money, thousands of employees who have lost jobs and pension rights, and the regulator has taken two years to do little or virtually nothing.'

Carillion, which had 43,00 employees including 19,000 in the UK, was liquidated in January 2018 with £29m in cash and £7bn in liabilities, leaving the goverment to step in and pick up the pieces to ensure delivery of vital services including school meals and cleaning hospitals and prisons.

An inquiry into the collapse carried out by MPs described the collapse as 'a story of recklessness, hubris and greed', and said that the firm’s business model was 'a relentless dash for cash'.

For the individuals in question, the FCA has recourse to a number of additional penalties.

Carillion and the individuals in question will have 14 days to make representations to the Regulatory Decision Committee (RDC).

At the same time we can name some of the culprits because MPs haave demanded that Richard Adam, a former finance director, Richard Howson, a former chief executive, and Philip Green, a former chairman be held to account for their role in the biggest UK corporate failure in recent years. It is also the case that the Financial Reporting Council is investigating the conduct of Mr. Adams as well as another former Carillion finance director, Zafar Khan.

During their tenure, the company ran up debts and sold assets so that it could continue paying dividends to shareholders. It also paid 'performance-related bonusess to executives just months before its collapse' according the today's Financial Times.

**********************************************************************

* SOME HISTORY OF THE CARILLION COLLAPSE

ON Tuesday 15 January 2019, Northern Voices reported: All Carillion's victims.

AFTER a year the fall of Carillion is still having consequences with many sub-contractors having lost huge amounts. Today in Construction News Rob Davies spoke with some of those affected to find out why:

In the aftermath of Carillion’s failure, there were concerns that its liquidation would lead to multiple collapses in the contractor’s supply chain.

Unite union criticises lack of action

Unite, Britain’s largest trade union, bemoaned a lack of action taken against former Carillion directors, who were accused by a committee of MPs of “recklessness, hubris and greed”, reiterating calls for a criminal investigation.

The Unite assistant general secretary, Gail Cartmail, said: 'It is staggering that a year after the biggest corporate failure in modern UK history the government has carried on as though it is business as normal.

'The fact that no one involved in Carillion has yet had any form of action taken against them, demonstrates either that the regulators are failing to do their jobs or that existing laws are too weak. If it is the latter then we need better, stronger laws.

'A year on from Carillion’s collapse the government needs to stop prevaricating and start taking effective action to drive bandit capitalism out of the UK.'

The government has introduced measures to make companies in charge of major public sector contracts draw up “living wills” to ensure the smooth operation of the services they provide in the event of financial failure.

But Unite said the measures did not go far enough to reform the system of public procurement. A spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office, which manages the outsourcing of public sector contracts and faced criticism over its role in the administration of the bust of Carillion, said the government had put in place measures to prevent a repeat.

She said: 'This government has taken great strides to improve how we work with the private sector, including requiring companies to demonstrate prompt payment to suppliers and piloting "living wills" for critical contracts, allowing contingency plans to be quickly put into place if needed.'

The accounting watchdog Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which was criticised by MPs for being 'chronically passive' over the audits of Carillion by firms including KPMG, is still investigating the circumstances of its failure.