Britain’s First Socialist Film?

(and where you can watch it for free!)

by Christopher Draper

I GREW UP addicted to TV and loved “Robin Hood”, “Play for Today”, “Boys from the Blackstuff” and “The Monocled Mutineer” but kicked the habit long before the emergence of shopping channels, Ant & Dec and Jeremy Kyle. If Britain’s Got Talent it’s not evident from TV – the opium of the people.

Radical Cinema

RADICAL director Ken Loach was on telly in the 1960’s but as the medium grew increasingly idiotic shifted to cinema, where for decades he’s almost single-handedly kept alive the fragile flame of Britain’s socialist film culture. Loach wasn’t our first socialist director yet so little regarded is political cinema in Britain that lefties are more able to identify radical foreign film makers like Eisenstein, Vigo or Bunuel than any British pioneer.

Socialists and Film Makers

THERE were four decades of film making in Britain before in 1933 a trio of iconoclastic activists created the Socialist Film Council (SFC) with the intention of producing politically conscious films for public showing. The leading lights were Rudolph Messel (1905-1958), Raymond Postgate (1896-1971) and George Lansbury (1859-1940) with Messel the prime mover. Postgate was a writer and founder member of the British Communist Party and as a left-wing dissident, he was one of the first to resign in 1922 for refusing to follow the Moscow line. During WWI Postgate had been expelled from university, gone on the run and been gaoled for conscientious objection. George Lansbury was President of the Socialist Film Council and leader of the Labour Party, a role he’d accepted in 1931 when Ramsey MacDonald “ratted”, allied with the Tories, formed a “National Government” and imposed savage cuts and the “Household Means Test” on the unemployed.

As a Labour activist and accomplished amateur film maker Rudolph Messel was a key player in bringing socialist politics to the big screen. Like Postgate he’d enjoyed a privileged upbringing but was much slower to embrace socialism. At Oxford he’d participated in the notorious “Hypocrites Club” whose membership included Evelyn Waugh, Terrence Greenidge, Anthony Powell, Tom Driberg and Roger Hollis. In 1924 Messel and fellow hypocrite Greenidge jointly produced an amateur film entitled, “Big Dog”. The club was closed down by the University authorities the following year after staging an outrageous “Nuns and Choirboys” event. Messel’s friendship with Greenidge endured and in 1926 the pair jointly produced and directed “Next Gentleman, Please!” featuring their hypocritical associates in a film exhibited in Oxford’s “Super Cinema”. During the 1926 General Strike Messel, still firmly enamoured of the louche lifestyle, pitched in on the government side but educated by the experience he moved ever closer to socialism and developed a particular interest in Soviet film making. After visiting Hollywood in 1927, the following year he wrote “This Cinema Business”, described by his publisher, Ernest Benn, as “the first comprehensive and serious study of the Film in our language”. In 1929 and 1931 Messel stood unsuccessfully as a Labour parliamentary candidate and in 1932 was a member of a prestigious Fabian Research Bureau group that enjoyed a two month long “fact-finding” tour of the Soviet Union.

Socialist Film Council

RAYMOND Postgate and novelist Naomi Mitchison accompanied Messel touring Russia and on their return all three contributed chapters on their observations to a compendium volume, “Twelve Studies in Soviet Russia” edited by Margaret Cole and published by Gollancz. They also collaborated in producing the Socialist Film Council’s first film “The Road to Hell”, written by Postgate and directed by Messel. The film depicts the devastating effects of the National Government’s austerity policies upon a working class East End family. The novelist Naomi Mitchison, in the words of the Daily Herald critic “acted beautifully” in the role of the mother of the family. Postgate played the role of the father. Messel also appeared in the guise of a drunken playboy while fellow “hypocrite” Terrence Greenidge played the part of Freddy, the family’s elder son. Daisy Postgate, Raymond’s wife, and George Lansbury’s daughter, played Freddy’s girlfriend. With many of the domestic scenes filmed in Lansbury’s 39, Bow Road home it all made for an accomplished though economical production. Premiered in London on Friday 28 July 1933, Lansbury himself attended the show and a couple of months later introduced the film to delegates attending the Labour Party’s annual conference in the White Rock Pavilion, Hastings. Although the film was generally well received where shown it proved impossible to secure a general release. Cinemas were dominated by Hollywood and ultimately controlled by local authority licensing committees eager to ban Socialist Film Council films as did Birmingham Council in 1935.

Watch “The Road to Hell”

DESPITE Lansbury’s influence the labour movement gave little material support to the SFC and although it managed to complete one more film this spark of socialist cinema would have been extinguished if it had relied entirely on the organised labour movement. Fortunately a few isolated though determined and largely forgotten individuals did successfully produce politically radical films into the 1960’s when Ken Loach memorably lit the “Big Flame”. I’ll post more on these overlooked directors and studios in future NV posts but for now watch and be inspired by “The Road to Hell” on the British Film Institute website (no charge or registration required!)

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

Mayoral elections in Greater Manchester. Do people know what they're voting for?

Manchester Town Hall

NEXT month, the 2.8 million people of Greater Manchester, will be asked to vote for the first directly elected mayor for Greater Manchester, who will have powers over transport, homes, policing, and skills.

A great deal has been said about the lack of consultation with the public about ‘Devolution for Manchester’, also known as ‘Devo Manc’. Research that has been undertaken, suggests that while some people may have heard about ‘devolution’, most people have virtually no public understanding of what it means.  

A 2015 survey, revealed that 88% of people questioned, had never heard of Devo Manc. Indeed, few will be aware, that almost twelve-months ago, Greater Manchester acquired control of the regions £6bn health and social care budget. Similarly, the clear majority of the people of Greater Manchester, will be unaware that the consultation ‘Taking Charge Together’, ever took place and that only 6,000 people out of a population of 2.8 million, have responded.

This lack of a general understanding about Devo Manc by the people of Greater Manchester, seems all the stranger, when it is being claimed that devolution will give power back to the people and let them have greater control over the decisions that affect them. Yet, the devolution deal was signed behind closed doors in Manchester Town Hall and more than two years on, the population of Greater Manchester, remain largely shut out of the conversation. The Labour MP, Lisa Nandy, who represents Wigan, recently wrote:

“The public consultation on these sweeping changes was not properly publicised, ran for just three weeks and received only 12 responses – 10 of them from the same council leaders that signed the deal in the first place. It didn’t even mention the NHS. When the deal was announced by press release from Whitehall, MPs, councillors, and the public had little idea what it was. And as legislation was passed to enable the transfer of powers, it wasn’t even clear who in government was accountable for it.”

Although the MP for Wigan believes that the UK is moving towards a more federal structure, she fears that devolution decision-making in Greater Manchester, will not be pushed down to the people, but leveled up from local communities to Manchester town hall. Nandy points out that the decision to have a directly elected mayor for Greater Manchester, was imposed from Whitehall less than two years after the city of Manchester voted to reject one. Moreover, the current interim mayor, Tony Lloyd, is accountable to only ten people (his cabinet), who put him in into the job and are responsible for delivering his agenda. Seemingly, the minutes of these meetings are not published and “journalists have to do FOI requests to discover who is making the decisions.” Regarding “health devolution” in Greater Manchester, Nandy says:

“Healthier Together”, disrupted collaboration that was already taking place between local areas, took little account of the reality of people’s lives, and pursued hospital closures and centralization of services…asking people to travel long distances on non-existent transport networks when they already struggled to afford fares on low incomes…The risk is that decisions will be made in central Manchester with towns and rural areas just an afterthought.”

Research by the Fabian Society, using focus groups, carried out between September-October 2016, into public attitudes towards health devolution in Greater Manchester, found that people wanted local input into healthcare but not at the expense of equality. Though broadly sympathetic towards the idea of investing in prevention, most participants were keen to avoid a ‘post-code’ lottery of healthcare and some wondered what would happen to healthcare in Greater Manchester, if the money ran out or was mismanaged. Most participants supported uniformity over variability. Few participants had heard of ‘healthcare devolution’ nor understood what devolution meant.  All groups considered newly elected mayors as unfit to oversee healthcare and generally felt that decisions about healthcare should be left to experts. 

A YouGov survey – “HEALTH LOCALISM: what the English public thinks”, carried in October 2016, found that “Only 9% of people believed that councils and councillors should have the most say on local healthcare.” While evidence from the focus groups, indicated a certain un-enthusiasm about residents having more say in decision-making, the national YouGov poll, wanted residents to have more say.

While the people of Greater Manchester are being asked to vote for a metro-mayor next month, it seems that few really understand what they are voting for or how they got Devo Manc in the first place. Like mushrooms, they have been kept in the dark and fed shit. But as Richard Vize points out in the Fabian policy report, “With a mixture of mayors, combined authorities, councils and health service structures involved, it is hardly surprising that few people have a clear idea of what it all means.”

The secrecy, obfuscation, and lack of transparency, as well as the failure by the political elite of Greater Manchester in their ‘Labour one-party states’, to engage with the public and to spell out what services are going to be delivered and how, only exacerbates the problem. 

Farnell is in Great Fabian Socialist Tradition

WRITERS on the left in Rochdale have been anxious to infer right-wing tendencies in the proposal of the Labour Council to inflict on-the-spot penalties upon the beggars in Rochdale town centre.   Were as, for my part I see Richdard farnell and even Simon Danczuk in the great tradition of Fabian state socialism.

Some leftist critics of Rochdale council have summoned up references to the German laws of the 1930s, and people like the pacifist Phillip Gilligan was  driven to write in the Rochdale Observer (March 18th, 2017):
'....after coming to power in Germany, the Nazis sought to exclude many groups from their so-called "national community", including those who they labelled "asocials".  There measures became steadily more oppressive and, in just one week in 1937, 11,000 beggars and homeless people were arrested and sent to Buchenwald concentration camp.  They were never seen again.'

Before Hitler and the Nazis established any kind of clean-up campaign against anti-social elements it was the Fabian state socialist Bernard Shaw who who as early as 1931 was filmed delivering a 'Paramount Sound News Exclusive' which caused outrage at the time.  J. Kelly Nestuck writes describing this encounter  vividly:
'In the black and white footage, Shaw, with his Irish lilt and smug grin, seems to argue in favour making everybody "come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissions," to justify their existence..

'If you're not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more," he suggests, "then clearly we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.'

How very practical and rational these old fashioned state socilalists like Shaw were, and somewhere I seem to remember that Malcolm Muggeridge, who knew many of these Fabian socialists, would ponder the puzzle about whether if the great man Shaw and a lame beggar were in a boat and one should have been sacificed which one should go overboard; Muggeridge took the view, as I recall, that humankind would benefit far more 'if  it was Shaw who took a header into the depths'.

Most anarchists and decent people would have no hesitation in making a similar choice if Simon Danczuk and/ or Richard Farnell were poised aboard a craft in difficulties with a pair of limbless beggars.

A Liverpool Nut Case

The third in a continuing series by Chris Draper of, 'Lives of Northern Anarchists'.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the story of John Oldman and

feel free to add comments, info or criticism below.

by Chris Draper

IT was easy to spot a Victorian anarchist, he wore a black cloak with a tall hat and carried a fizzing bomb shaped like a bowling ball but William Hensby Chapman didn’t match the stereotype. He was better known for his nut pies, rational dress, bees and chess but was no slouch in the anarchy department. Chapman was a pioneer of William Morris’s 'Socialist League', founder and host of Liverpool Socialist club, anarchist street agitator, newspaper correspondent and recruiter of his son Edward to the cause. William Hensby Chapman was an anarchist practitioner of the “New Life”, a fascinating character who’s been ignored by historians ever since he disappeared in mysterious circumstances.

Born in Norwich in 1833 William moved around the country performing minor clerking and retail roles until in the 1860’s he settled down in Warrington as a live-in draper’s assistant. As soon as he secured suitable accommodation at 27 Golborough Street, Chapman was joined by his wife, Emily and their three boys, James, Edward and William. James, the eldest (born 1863) was employed as a clerk at a wireworks but died in the winter of 1884. This tragedy prompted William to fulfil a couple of long-held aspirations, signing up to Socialism and starting a food-reform business.

In 1886 William and his twenty-year-old second son, Edward Crook Chapman, joined the newly established Socialist League (SL). Chapman senior also donated a generous ten shillings to the SL newspaper, Commonweal, printing fund. William also opened, “Chapman’s Vegetarian Restaurant” at 1 Stanley Street (on the corner with Dale Street), Liverpool. In May 1887 the Vegetarian Society selected his restaurant as the venue for a 'banquet' to follow their national conference which was addressed by wholemeal enthusiast 'Dr T R Allinson'.

In an 1887 lecture William Chapman introduced his local 'Mutual Improvement Society' to 'Anarchism'.  'He affirmed that the government of man by man was oppression; and defined the ideal of the Anarchist as absolute liberty and economic equality and independence, which meant the substitution in the place of political rivalry and class antagonism, of a society based on voluntary co-operation…Owing to the novelty of the subject, Mr Chapman was allowed to answer each question in rotation.'

Chapman’s anarchism wasn’t the narrow-minded insurrectionary “Smash-the-State” sort but a constructive, holistic politics that promoted positive alternatives as much as opposing exploitation and authority. He was a regular contributor to, and living embodiment of, 'The Dietetic Reformer and Vegetarian Messenger'.  Chapman was a Vice-President of the national Vegetarian Society, alongside pioneering animal-rights activist and libertarian, Henry Salt, and an active Committee Member of his local Liverpool Vegetarian Society (LVS). 

Meetings of the LVS were held at the restaurant and from time to time William gave lectures and cookery demonstrations to members and guests.  As the Liverpool Mercury reported in December 1894, 'the various dishes were handed around and partaken of by the audience and in every instance were most favourably received.  The various recipes used were widely distributed on a printed leaflet…showing people how to prepare nutritious and savoury dishes at a very little cost without the aid of flesh meat…large number attended and a very pleasant evening was spent.'   

Meetings at Chapman’s were invariably fun and the Liverpool Mercury typically observed that an 1896 meeting of the LVS featured 'a programme of music' and 'concluded with an amusing ventriloquial sketch.'  At another visit by the Society in February 1897; “After a sumptuous vegetarian repast, the company was entertained by an exhibition of Mrs Jarley’s Living Waxworks…The figures comprised 17 characters, representative of ancient and modern life and by their action when wound up, combined with the humorous description of their history by Mrs Jarley and her son, Mr Ebenezer Jarley, formed the source of endless merriment”!

The restaurant’s agreeable atmosphere doubtless contributed to the 'Lancashire and Cheshire Beekeepers Association’s' peaceful resolution of the tricky issue of their proposed 'split'.  Having been overwhelmed by their own success, the bee keepers convened at 'Chapmans' and happily agreed to form independent 'Lancashire' and 'Cheshire' County Associations to ensure their respective administrations remained small and friendly.

Chapman’s was also a popular venue with chess-players and the Mercury staged its annual Chess Trophy Competition there, 'Players will oblige by bringing their men with them: boards will be provided…Chess players who wish to win the trophy should try Chapman’s tea and coffee; an excellent 6d afternoon tea is always available.'

In 1894 the newspaper reported on Chapman’s pioneering of, 'Dress Reform in Liverpool'.  'Mr W H Chapman, who occupied the chair was attired in one of the reform dresses sketched by the lecturer, Miss Hope-Hoskins.  It consisted of Irish tweed jacket and knickerbockers, made of pure, undyed wool, Jaegar collar, cellular underclothing, sandals and straw hat of novel construction… Her motto was Fashion without folly and elegance without extravagance… An interesting discussion followed and the lecturer was cordially thanked at the close of the meeting.'

'Rational Dress' sat comfortably alongside more spiritual concerns at Chapman’s and the venue occasionally hosted 'Gatherings' of the 'Liverpool and Birkenhead' apostles of the 'Light and Reason' movement of working class philosopher-poet, James Allen (1864-1912).  Despite his eclecticism William’s personal politics remained irreducibly anarchist, never ossifying into Marxism nor dissolving into Labourism. 

Chapman first tried to attract interest in the idea of starting a Socialist League branch in Liverpool in May 1889 but despite repeated appeals in Commonweal (on sale in the restaurant) it was months before there was enough response to convene a meeting at the restaurant on 17th September. William’s son Edward was appointed Secretary of the group that was constituted as an independent 'Liverpool Socialist Society (LSS)' rather than a branch of the Socialist League.  This suggests some recruits weren’t entirely comfortable with the Socialist League’s anti-parliamentary approach but this didn’t preclude comradely cooperation.  On the evening of October 1st Edward led a discussion which concluded with the members agreeing 'to commence work of a public character early in November'. 

By the end of the year LSS was confident enough to invite 'delegates and friends from societies in Lancashire and adjoining counties to a conference to discuss the desirability of united action.'  On the 11 January 1890 the conference took place at Stanley Street.  'Delegates were present from Sheffield, Salford, Blackburn, Rochdale and Liverpool…Comrade W H Chapman proposed, “That in the opinion of this conference it is desirable to form a Union of the North-Western Counties Socialists".'  This was passed with Edward Chapman appointed acting secretary of the Union.  It was further agreed to draw up a list of willing public speakers to facilitate the organisation of propaganda.  'At a later hour a conversazione was held, at which a number of pieces of vocal and instrumental music were rendered by members and friends and a most enjoyable evening was spent. W H Chapman superintended the arrangements for refreshments. On Sunday we held two open-air meetings.'

The following month both William and Edward debated with members of Liverpool’s Rathbone Literary Club, 'Is Socialism or complete Individualism likely to be the ultimate goal of human development?'  The Chapman’s proposed the former whilst local Tolstoyan anarchist John Coleman Kenworthy (a future biography) demolished the argument of one of their opponents. 

With support from comrades William was able to organise weekly outdoor Sunday morning (11.30am) lectures at the Mersey landing stage as well as indoor Tuesday night meetings at the restaurant.  The LSS maintained its unsectarian approach, including Fabians like the aptly named Hubert Bland in its programme.  In March William addressed a good crowd there, 'Numbers of dock strikers were present and applauded frequently.'  At the end of the month the LSS were proud to unfurl their new flag before a landing stage audience gathered to listen to a lecture from Edward Carpenter on, 'The Breakdown of Our Industrial System'. 

On Sunday 13 April 1890 'afternoon and evening, comrade William Morris lectured to good audiences at Rodney Hall on, The Development of Modern Society and,The Social Outlook'.  Chapman had expected Morris the previous November but he evidently proved worth waiting for as, 'papers and literature to the amount of £2 9s were disposed of.'  Morris’ Liverpool lectures fused the ideas of Ruskin and Marx with a dash of his own interpretation of Medievalism and were subsequently published in that summer’s 'Commonweal'. 

Chapman and Samuel Reeves were regular Sunday lecturers and on Sunday 11 May they were joined on the landing stage by 'celebrity' anarchist Charles Mowbray who was on a speaking tour of Lancashire  at the time. The following Sunday William’s son, Edward, reported that when the LSS group arrived at the landing stage , 'we found it occupied by a party of religionists from the YMCA who coolly told us to find another stand.  We determined to move them' and so whilst our speaker did his best, 'the rest of us made such a noise by selling the Commonweal and Justice and reading from the former that we eventually upset them…Thanks to the Christian intruders we had the largest meeting yet held.'

Significantly, in May 1890 LSS donated 3s 8d to the Commonweal Guarantee Fund suggesting that the group was both financially secure and generally sympathetic to the anti-parliamentary politics of the SL.  Even more significant was the decision to delegate William Chapman to the forthcoming sixth Annual SL Conference in London.  Held at the Communist Club, Tottenham Court Road, Chapman was elected to Chair the conference by the other fourteen delegates that included William Morris as well as anarchists Charles Mowbray, Max Nettlau, David Nicoll, James Tochatti, Frank Kitz, William Wess and Sam Mainwaring.  'When tea was over Mrs Tochatti sang a few revolutionary airs...Comrade Coulon (CD: a police spy!) gave La Carmagnole in French. In the evening the hall was filled with comrades who passed a very agreeable evening. The more enthusiastic carried on the festivities till the dawn of the day.'

The following Sunday found Chapman singing revolutionary songs on the Liverpool landing stage; 'The YMCA people again occupying our usual stand. We, however, took up our position back to back with them. While they sang hymns we sang the Marseillaise …the audience giving three hearty cheers for the social revolution.'  In June both Chapman senior (William) and junior (Edward) actively supported the successful strike of Liverpool tailoresses, addressing and encouraging the women and collecting monies and administering the strike fund. 

When the Trade Union movement held its twenty-third Congress in Hope Hall, Liverpool on September 1, Chapman issued a general invitation to any socialist attending to drop in at Stanley Street for a bit of comradely support for the union movement was generally still saturated with Liberalism.

Around this time William moved his restaurant a little way along Dale Street to occupy the commodious “Percy Buildings, Eberle Street” (now a gay bar with 'Liverpool Artists’ Club' upstairs). The LSS moved with him, subsequently holding its weekly indoor meeting at Eberle Street every Tuesday at 8pm. From these new spacious premises William Chapman also published revolutionary propaganda leaflets (“6d per 100 or 4s 6d per 1,000”). He composed a satirical, “STRIKE! POLICEMAN, STRIKE!”, song, to be sung to the tune of “Wait for the Wagon”.

“O STRIKE! Blue Peelers boldly.

And quit yourself like men;

Protect no more the robber class,

But leave them in their den.”

The song included a repeated four line, 'Strike down the Tyrants!' chorus as well as nine further verses. 

Unfortunately Chapman’s dynamic campaigning for the SL wasn’t replicated down south. As the LSS successfully promoted an inclusive, non-sectarian anti-parliamentary politics the London anarchists around Commonweal went the other way, effectively alienating first William Morris and then most of its other non-insurrectionary supporters.  By the end of 1890 Commonweal was in trouble and the SL was collapsing as a national organisation. LSS continued but as the appeal of the SL shrunk, Chapman’s politics appeared less viable to sympathetic unaligned socialists who began to drift ever closer to state-socialism.

Chapman sought encouragement from anarchist comrades in Sheffield in both 1890 and 1891 and mounted the soap box on both occasions but Sheffield soon followed London and fell under the influence of exaggerated class-war rhetoric. Having created havoc in Sheffield, manically militant anarchist John Creaghe decided to move on in November 1891 and ominously announced, 'I may be able to do something here in Liverpool'!  After writing off William Chapman as 'an academic Anarchist' Creaghe, fortunately, soon moved on again  leaving LSS intact but diminished.

In March 1892 'Mr Chas E Dodd read a paper before the Liverpool Socialist Society at their rooms, Percy Buildings, Eberle Street on The Socialist Way Out of Darkest England'.  It was a depressingly statist presentation. The very same month the Liverpool Mercury informed correspondent 'A.F’.', 'There is no branch of the Fabian Socialist Society in Liverpool, two attempts to start one having failed. For information about the Liverpool Socialist Society apply to Mr Chapman, Eberle Street.' 'A.F.' wouldn’t have long to wait for long-time SLL activist Samuel Reeves was about to take over as Secretary of the LSS and assert himself as an enthusiastically parliamentary Fabian.  The Chapmans didn’t abandon anarchism but their libertarian influence was soon swamped by a rising tide of servile state-socialist Labourism.  In October 1893 Blackburn journalist Jesse Quail reflected on the transformation, 'In Liverpool there was a local independent Socialist Society, but it dissolved itself some eighteen months ago and its members joined the Liverpool Fabian Society, which was then formed.' 

In 1893, both Chapmans made substantial donations to support anarchist Christopher Davis, imprisoned for smashing a Birmingham jeweller’s window and scattering valuables across the pavement as a protest against poverty and unemployment.  Despite the disappointment of the LSS William continued to supply practical as well as political support to the impoverished and in a period of economic depression in February 1895, 'During the past week about 100 free breakfasts have been provided daily at Chapman’s Vegetarian Restaurant but…it is Mr Chapman’s wish to provide two meals per day and he therefore begs to state that assistance, either goods or money, will be gladly received at 6 Percy Buildings, Eberle Street.'

Chapman helped local workers organise and in December 1895 his restaurant hosted a meeting aimed at establishing a branch of the 'National Clerks Association…After a discussion the nucleus of a branch of the NCA was formed and the members arranged to meet in the same room on Friday evening next.'

Cultural and political alternatives continued to flourish at William’s restaurant but it was lean years for Liverpool anarchism that would only reignite in the run-up to World War One and by then Chapman was no more. 

Beneath the headline, 'FERRY-BOAT MYSTERY', in January 1910 newspapers reported that, 'The Wallasey police are endeavouring to solve the mystery connected with the disappearance of Mr William Hensby Chapman of Liverpool, who kept a vegetarian restaurant. He has been missing since Tuesday and was last seen on board a ferry-boat at New Brighton. There were few passengers on the steamer, the night was dark and he was not observed to land either at Egremont or Liverpool. Subsequently a coat was found on the boat. Attached to it was a paper on which was written, Adieu Chapman. Mr Chapman was 75 years of age.'

Christopher Draper (“NORTHERN ANARCHIST LIVES -3”) 

Corbyn addresses Fabian Society

I welcomed Corbyn's election as Labour leader in September 2015, not because I'm 'an extreme left winger', but because I was tired of listening to a Labour party that was pre-occupied with fighting for the 'centre ground' which in reality was well to the Right of the Tory governments I had experience of in the 1950s and early 1970s.

But I grew increasingly impatient with the distractions of squabbles about Trident renewal, and the constant attacks from people like Simon Danczuk, which fed an anti Corbyn agenda in the media and allowed the debate about whether to sanction the bombing of Syria to be presented as a crisis of leadership.  What these critics of Corbyn failed to notice is that the Right wing press, in the shape of the Daily Mail, was very doubtful about some of Cameron's claims and made comparisons with Blair's 'dodgy dossier'.

Corbyn should never have let Trident renewal become the touchstone of his leadership.  Single issue politics holds no attractions for me whatever the cause.  In the long run practical politics will reassert itself as the leaders of the engineering trades unions point to the job losses which could follow from the 'wrong' decision.

But at last, in a speech to the Fabian Society, Corbyn has set out his vision of what Labour stands for, and what policies it should enact when it next forms a government.

Commenting on  this Nigel Morris of 'The i' wrote:

'Mr Corbyn's critics, both inside the party and outside, will seize on his plans as evidence that he is attempting to drive its policy platform to the left.'

And so will the people who voted for him.

No one can describe the policies he is proposing as 'extreme left-wing' without doing an injustice to the English language.  If these policies are criticised by the self styled 'moderates' I shall begin to wonder if there would be any point in voting Labour if they reassert their strangle hold on the party.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts97stMv-7M

http://labourlist.org/2016/01/fairness-isnt-just-an-abstract-morality-jeremy-corbyns-speech-to-the-fabian-society/

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/why-burnham-cooper-and-kendall-deserve.html 

Private Eye's Pedantry Corner

Letter sent to Private Eye (No.1404)

Sir,
...Prince Peter Kropotkin was a founder of the anarchist journal Freedom (p10, Eye 1403) but credit should also go to the almost entirely forgotten Charlotte Wilson (1854-1944), the first editor and co-founder.  The wife of a stockbroker and early student at Newnham College Cambridge, she was one of five members of the executive of the recently formed Fabian Society.  But when in 1886 the early Socialist movement proposed setting up a political party, it was opposed by, among others, William Morris and Mrs Wilson.  From then on she devoted herself to Freedom and the anarchist cause, before returning [to] the Fabian fold 20 years later by founding the Fabian Women's Group.

PHILIP VENNING.


To subscribe visit www.subsonline.co.uk 

Re-writing Clause 4 for Labour Party

by Les May

WHEN I was a member of the Labour party my membership card carried the then Clause 4 (part 4) which was just 56 words long. Had I pondered it closely I would have noticed two things.  It confuses 'ends' and 'means', and its not clear what the term 'common ownership' actually means. 

This had not gone unnoticed by Anthony Crosland and Hugh Gaitskell. Crosland developed his ideas in his 1956 book 'The Future of Socialism' in which he pointed out that Labour's 'ends' could be achieved without 'common ownership' a.k.a. 'nationalisation'. Gaitskell's desire to change Clause 4 in 1959 may well have been motivated more by a realisation that it was unlikely every to be implemented in full and he thought that Labour should say so. Certainly it was not an issue in the 1959 election which Labour had just lost. Nor does it appear to have been one of the reasons Labour lost the elections of 1970 and 1979.  

Whether Labour's victory in 1997 with Blair as leader can be attributed to the newly written Clause 4 which dropped mention of 'common ownership' is doubtful. A study published in The Independent in 1994 made no mention of nationalisation being a reason for Labour unexpectedly losing the 1992 election.

In 1993 Blair had authored a Fabian Society pamphlet which put forward a case for defining socialism in terms of a set of values which were constant, while the policies needed to achieve them would have to change to account for changing society. 
Superficially it looks as if Blair was simply following on from Crosland and Gaitskell. But there is one subtle difference. 

Both Crosland and Gaitskell had a strong belief in the importance of equality. Crosland in particular developed the idea that 'equality' as not just about income and wealth. It included a more equal distribution of power, of equality of treatment by public bodies and institutions, and a more equal education system, though with its line about 'equitable distribution' Clause 4 was itself not clear on this. For both Crosland and Gaitskell 'equality' meant 'Equality of Outcome'.  
That's not what the New Labour version of Clause 4 said. It referred only to the fact that a just society promotes 'Equality of Opportunity'. That's no longer a policy exclusive to New Labour, the Tories say it too and the Lib-Dems used to say it until Clegg began to use the phrase 'social mobility' as something of a synonym.   
In 1996, Yvette Cooper wrote an article for 'The Independent on Sunday' which set out what 'equality' meant to New Labour and it is still worth reading as a summary of the New Labour project. In 2015 we are now able to see what twenty years of 'Equality of Opportunity' has got us apart from Blair and Mandelson taking the opportunity to make fortunes.  
Not everyone thinks that outcomes don't matter.  The Equality Trust has compiled figures showing the scale of inequality.  People in the bottom 10% of the population have on average a net income of £8,468.  The top 10% have net incomes almost ten times that (£79,042).  In this context 'net' means after direct taxes have been deducted and before benefits have been added. Inequality is much higher amongst original income than net income with the poorest 10% having on average an original income of £3,738 whilst the top 10% have an original income of £102,366 on average, which demonstrates the impact of redistribution on equality.  Wealth (property, shares, land etc) is even more unequally divided than income. The richest 10% of households hold 44% of all wealth.  The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9.5%. 
Income and wealth are quantifiable but twenty years on we find that there has been a qualitative change too. Whilst in 1996 Labour still defined itself as a 'left-of-centre' party it now sees itself as being in a fight for the 'centre ground' of politics.  
In their day both Crosland and Gaitskell were seen as 'right wing'.  (Mandelson's grandad, Herbert Morrison, was seen as even more 'right wing' and he masterminded the nationalisation of basic industries in the post 1945 Attlee government.)  Both would have welcomed a rewording of the original Clause 4. But I don't think either of them would have been foolish enough to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.  Time perhaps for a redrafting of Clause 4 to reflect some of the spirit of the original? :  
'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'  http://www.labourcounts.com/clausefour.htm
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/02/david-cameron-boris-johnson-iq http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/01/19/cameron-s-moral-capitalism-speech-in-full  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11547808/Revealed-how-Tony-Blair-makes-his-millions.html  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11670425/Revealed-Tony-Blair-worth-a-staggering-60m.html  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8714791/Mandelson-poised-to-buy-8m-home.html  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9514481/Lord-Mandelson-follows-Tony-Blairs-global-wealth-strategy.html 
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk