Hamas And A Hook Nose Dummy by Les May

AS soon as the first rocket was fired into Israel by Hamas it handed Netanyahu his ‘get out of jail card’. ‘Honest Joe’ could say ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, talk grandly about a ‘negotiated settlement’ and then when the carnage stops declare the US is back in the Middle East showing how different he is from Trump. Though not different enough to think twice about continuing the ten year long agreement signed in 2016 which sends Israel $3.3 billion in military aid and $500 million for missile defence systems each year.

Meanwhile his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, can mouth his platitudes, preceded by the obligatory ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, while Israel calmly announces to the world it is going to bomb two schools and justifies its bombing campaign against civilian targets by claiming the buildings stand above a tunnel system used by Hamas. A claim that no-one can verify and if untrue would mean the bombing is a war crime.

And then some genius in the UK decided what a good idea it would be to hand out yet another ‘get out of jail card’. This time it was to our home grown apologists who respond to every denunciation of Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and the theft of their land, by claiming it is just another example of anti-semitism. Quite why anyone would think that a huge dummy seemingly depicting Israel as a hook nosed Jew, with sinister features and horns, had any place at a demonstration supporting the Palestinians, is beyond me. It comes as no surprise to read an attempt being made to link Jeremy Corbyn with this, though the only placards visible carry the imprint of Socialist Worker. With people like this as ‘friends’ the Palestinians will never have a shortage of enemies.

You can find the image of the ‘demo’ at:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/16/the-lefts-shameful-silence-on-anti-semitism/

NV can no longer embed links in the text of articles. To use this link copy the full text of the link into your browser (Startpage, DuckDuckGo or Google) and search in the usual way.

Salvaging something in the Wreckage. by Les May

THERE’s an understatement!

Last Thursday was not a good day for Labour. I’ve heard three explanations so far; Mandleson ‘It was a hangover of Jeremy Corbyn’, Starmer ‘We lost the trust of working people’, my wife ‘Labour should have focussed on Tory stinginess towards the NHS workers’.

I have a different view. My guess is that what scuppered Labour under Starmer is what scuppered Labour under Corbyn. It’s called Brexit. The people who wanted it in 2019 still want it in 2021. They associate the Tories with Brexit, Labour with being at best lukewarm about it and at worst against it. Whether its downside will have become apparent by 2024 or 2029 is unknown. Perhaps the older Brexiteers will have fallen off their perch or the young ones begun to wonder what all the fuss was about. For the moment Labour is stuck with Starmer and we are all stuck with Boris.

So what can be salvaged. Starmer is probably feeling safe for the moment because the rest of the front bench is so unprepossessing. It’s just possible that Starmer will come to realise that eventually he has to reconnect with those supporters who gave the Labour party a distinct ‘buzz’ under Corbyn and are now leaving or just drifting away from it, though I doubt it. Many of these will be the people who went out ‘on the knocker’ at election time to drum up support from Labour. They won’t be doing that in 2024.

And what about chancer in chief Boris? As we are stuck with the Tories for at least three more years what can we make of this? Curiously enough the results may have an upside. Remember all those particularly nasty sounding Tories who had such a lot to say during the Brexit debate? Remember how Boris had to find a new Chancellor who was more amenable to spending money to fund furlough during the pandemic? Waiting in the wings are a lot of ‘small state’, low public spending zealots. For the moment at least they are unlikely to be able to eject Boris.

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

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.

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

Blackmailers Always Want More by Les May

AFTER Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour party the Guardian newspaper opened its comment column to Margaret Hodge. Her article is high on opinions, hers, resorts to generalisations, ‘the hard left’, complains about online conspiracy theories, which originate abroad and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour party, and dismisses as ‘fantastical’ the notion that she and her acolytes sought to ‘weaponise anti-semitism’, a view that is shared by many Labour supporting people I know.

Here’s an example.

In the article she claimed; ‘Only last week, the trade union leader Len McCluskey repeated a common antisemitic trope on television when attacking Peter Mandelson.’ But a more detailed account in the Jewish News, an online publication of the Times of Israel, which I quote verbatim, suggests a very different interpretation.

The Unite union’s general secretary, a leading ally of Jeremy Corbyn, made his comments on BBC Newsnight after reporter Lewis Goodall told him that former cabinet minister Lord Mandelson had been 'nothing but full of praise for Keir Starmer' in an interview.

Len McCluskey responded: 'I stopped listening to what Peter Mandelson said many, many years ago. I would suggest Peter just goes into a room and counts his gold. Not worrying about what’s happening in the Labour Party – leave that to those of us who are interested in ordinary working class people.'

Mr Goodall had said earlier in his report that 'When Mr McCluskey sat down with me, he used language that could be considered an antisemitic trope.'

After the Newsnight report looking into Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership and the future of the Labour party was aired, a clarification of Len McCluskey’s comments was read out.

The statement by Unite the union said:

'Mr Mandelson’s religion was not relevant to the comments made by Mr McCluskey. Indeed to the best of our knowledge Mr Mandelson is not Jewish.

'The ordinary meaning of the statement made by Mr McCluskey is one of his belief that in recent years Mr Mandelson has had more interest in increasing his own wealth than fighting for justice for working class people. The suggestion of any antisemitic meaning to the commentary would be ludicrous.'

Lord Mandelson is not religiously observant but his grandfather founded the Harrow United Synagogue.’

At this point you might ask yourself if you knew that Mandelson had Jewish ancestry and whether knowing it now makes any difference to your opinion of him. As for ‘counting his gold’; in August 2011 the media showed considerable interest in how he could afford an £8 million pound house and in January 2009 the Evening Standard published the results of its detailed investigation into how he could afford to buy his £2.5 million pound Regency Villa.

Hodge shows far more interest in the Jewish ancestry of herself and others than I can muster. And, as in this case, she’s always ready to ‘play the race card’ when it suits her, though she is hardly the first politician to do this.

In July 2018 she called Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ in the chamber of the House of Commons. Her response to hints that she might face being reported to the Whips, and face a disciplinary inquiry was to give an interview to Sky News and say: 'On the day that I heard that they were going to discipline me and possibly suspend me, it felt almost like, I kept thinking what did it feel like to be a Jew in Germany in the Thirties?' For ITV News this was: 'Because it felt almost as if they were coming for me. It’s rather difficult to define, but there’s that fear… '

This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered. To try to draw a comparison with what happened to many Jewish people and many others in Nazi Germany in the 1930s beggars belief. And then she has the gall to use the word ‘fanatastical’ about other people!

Hodge’s response to the Unite statement was to say: ‘Regardless, he doesn’t get to obfuscate and dictate to us what is and is not anti-Semitic when called out. The ignorance with which these tropes are used by McCluskey and others shows just how pervasive and unchallenged antisemitism is on the Hard Left.’

Aside from the fact that comments in a similar vein about Mandelson are unlikely to be confined to what she calls the Hard Left, it seems clear that the intention of Hodge and those who think like her is to insist that they, and they alone, have the right to decide what is, and what is not, anti-semitic.

We have already seen this used to attack Livingstone, Corbyn and McCluskey, allowing her view to prevail would have implications, not just for the Labour party, but for the whole of civil society. In February of this year Lisa Nandy said that if she became leader she would try to go further than accepting the IHRA definition of anti-Jewish hatred. This is some of what the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has to say about that definition.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former. This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.

In September 2018 Hodge excused her calling Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ on the grounds that she had just learned that Labour’s NEC had declined to adopt the IHRA definition.

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

Mea Culpa. by Les May

WHEN I wrote the recent piece ‘Blackmailers Always Want More’ I described Margaret Hodge’s attempts to avoid the potential consequences, for her, of calling Jeremy Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ I wrote; ‘This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered’.

I failed to recognise that not all Jewish people would automatically accept her comments at face value. This was a mistake on my part. Below I give the transcript of a response by the historian Michael Finkelstein.

“Dame Hodge hasn’t a clue what it means to talk about deportations, having a suitcase and being prepared to flee. My parents, both of them, were in the Warsaw Ghetto from 1940s until the repression by the Nazis of the uprising in 1943. They were deported at the Umschlagplatz. If you go there now there’s a monument to the deportees, and my mother’s name Maryla and my father’s name Zacharias; they’re on that monument.

“You haven’t a clue, Ms Hodge, Dame Hodge, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You know the suffering? You know the death? My mother used to talk about how she walked the streets of the ghetto and there were dead bodies all around her. She lost both of her parents, all of her family: her sisters, her brother were deported. But unlike you Dame Hodge they weren’t deported to a summer home, they were deported to a death camp. My parents ended up in Auschwitz and Majdenek, and slave labour camps. Where are you going Ms Hodge? To Switzerland? To your chalet? And you have the gall, the brass, the audacity to compare your life with what my parents endured.

“You felt it was like 1930s, when you got a letter from the disciplinary committee. I wonder Dame Hodge when you were in sixth grade and your principal called you down to his office, did it bring back memories of the Holocaust? Or maybe you got a letter from the tax office, and they called you down, did that remind you of the Holocaust? What’s the point… What’s the relevance… What’s the pertinence of dragging in the suffering, the death, the martyrdom of what Jews endured during World War II in this context, except to cheapen and exploit the memory of Jewish suffering, as you carry on a blackmail and extortion racket against Jeremy Corbyn.

“It’s disgusting, it’s revolting, and if any of the rules that are now being implemented in the Labour Party have any meaning whatsoever, if they have any content whatsoever, the first person who should be booted out of the Labour Party is Dame Hodge, for trivialising the memory the Nazi Holocaust and for making wretched, disgusting, repulsive comparisons between herself and what Jews endured during World War II.

“Speaking of bags and suitcases, Dame Hodge, it’s time now to pack your bags, pack your suitcase, and get the hell out of the Labour Party.”

The transcript is taken from; https://wallofcontroversy.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/norman-finkelstein-calls-out-dame-hodge-and-speaks-to-the-crucifixion-of-corbyn/

The original video can be found on YouTube and at; http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/16/norman-finkelstein-to-dame-margaret-hodge-you-havent-a-clue-what-youre-talking-about/

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

Freedom: Anna Kleist & Spring Cleaning

by Brian Bamford

ON the 30th, October, a writer called Anna Kleist wrote on the FREEDOM website complaining of 'anarchist smugness' following the defeat of what she called 'the first mass movement for socialism this country has seen in decades': the Corbynista experiment which seemingly ended last December after the General Election. She was refering to the gloating of London anarchists in the FREEDOM bookshop following the result coming through.

According to Anna it amounted to a good dose of 'I told you so'!.

This is how she colourfully described the scene in the FREEDOM BOOKSHOP at the time:

'While these bilious has-beens represent a particularly grotesque extreme of anarchist opinion, their unabashed joy at Corbyn’s defeat is not so far different from the smug “we told you so” that has, for the most part, constituted “the anarchist response” to December’s election results. One might have hoped that anarchists would have had something useful to say following the defeat of the first mass movement for socialism this country has seen in decades. Sadly, with one or two minor exceptions, all we seem to have produced are some rather tiresome Urban 75 posts about how we’re so wise and everyone else is pathetic and naïve.'

Following a brief consideration of the history of British anarchism she bitterly concluded:

'

'My contention is that we in the British anarchist movement are way overdue such a period of radical reassessment. Capitalism is in crisis, fascism is in the ascendency and yet we have never been more politically irrelevant. Now is not the time for smugness or schadenfreude. It is time for us to turn our “ruthless criticism” back upon ourselves.'

JON BIGGER Knows Best: Having the Key to the Universe!

SUCH criticism couldn't go unchallenged by those clever dicks who reckon to know better; one such 'Jon Bigger'* only the very next day scolded Anna thus:

'Yesterday, Freedom published a piece encouraging anarchists not to be smug, instead looking inwards at how we have failed to build a mass movement. I agree, but standards and principles matter. Let the last few years be a lesson about principles, as much as it is a lesson in building a mass movement.'

Yet to the non-partisan observer British anarchism is a political non-entity, as indeed Ms. Kleist described it in her brief contribution: the best thing it used to be able to do was to run bookfairs, but nowadays it can't even accomplish that. Despite what the Community of Scholars at Loughborough University claim, seldom has British anarchism been more ineffectual. Only if you count Extinction Rebellion can it claim any significance or real relevance today.

FREEDOM and SPRING CLEANING ANARCHISM

CURIOUSLY the editor of FREEDOM [Vernon Richards?] writing on the January 31,1953 in an editorial entitled 'SPRING CLEANING ANARCHISM' asked:

'IS anarchism, the denial of the State, of the right to rule, a merely negative doctrine? Should it not put forward also a positive contribution to political, social and economic theory? Such questions have periodically been asked since the time when the parliamentary Marxists of the eighties and nineties first accused anarchism of being a negative conception.'

At that time, almost 60 years ago, the FREEDOM editor was responding to a correspondent, R. A. M. Gregson, who had called for 'a Revaluation of Ideas' making a plea for 'recapitulation. for a re-evaluation of M basic ideas, and evolving new ones'. Mr. Gregson wrote: 'Destructive criticism, is easier than the expression of posit!ve beliefs and proposals.' Following this up with the claim: 'The literature of the movement . . .intents itself with protestations on the one hand and yearnings after past revolutionaries on the other.'

The FREEDOM editor then asks:

'How does such criticism apply to FREEDOM? To keep ideas up to date is an important function of a paper such as this, and it is always important to be on guard against the hardening of ideas into dogma, of their losing their significance through mere repetition. To do so all the more necessary since fundamental anarchist ideas have to changed much over the years, much that Godwin wrote over a century and a half ago could not usefully be added to to-day.'

Here the Freedom editor recognises the real dilemma for an editor who has sat perhaps too long in the editor's chair and is in danger of a cookbook approach to every unfolding event. Many of the publication on the left fall into this trap of repetitous cliques and dogma. Anna Kleist may not have fully grasped the real problems, but I venture to say, she can see things more sharply than the more mature than Jon Bigger with his plea for 'standards and principles'. The Direct Action Movement [DAM] to which I was once affilated in the 1980s spent time endlessly debating its 'Aims & Principles' but i never had a policy directed at the real world. The Anna Kleist approach is refreshing as the Gregson analysis was in 1953 because their assessments detect some seen but unnoticed features of the current crisis in the anarchist tribe.

* 'Jon Bigger' was a post-graduate at Loughborough University.

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

Margaret Hodge's ‘Irrelevant Man’ by Les May

IN an article I wrote for NV in February of this year I said:

‘Last year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group. Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals. One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation. One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties. Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

'We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart. I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences. It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.’

As I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what I was told I find it difficult to understand how anyone can claim that allegations of anti-semitism were not taken seriously by the Labour party.

Taken at its face value, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn suggests that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are being treated by the Labour party as something which cannot be questioned.

This is a dangerous road to travel. The EHRC is not a court. Its findings apply to bodies, not individuals, something which is much easier to ‘prove’ because individuals are protected by the rules of evidence whereby those accused can cross-examine the witness.

By definition ‘unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment’ are against individuals and as the adage goes “where there’s blame, there’s a claim”. In coming months are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Jeremy Corbyn fighting for his political reputation, and in many ways his political legacy, alongside the unedifying sight of individuals suing the Labour party for compensation and citing the EHRC report as evidence?

Figuring out whether Corbyn’s suspension and potential expulsion from the Labour party has an impact on membership won’t be easy due to its complicated support structure of ‘full members’, ‘affiliated supporters’ and ‘registered supporters’. In August 2015, prior to Corbyn’s election to the leadership the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members. In December 2017 this figure had risen to about 552,000 full members making it Britain’s most financially well party at the time. Perhaps Margaret Hodge’s ‘irrelevant man’ won’t prove to be so irrelevant after all.

Today, Saturday, speaking on the BBC News programme ‘Dateline London’ the political presenter Jo Coburn raised the question of whether if, in response to the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour party, some unions reduced their financial support, Keir Starmer might be quite happy to see their influence wane. Coburn is asking the wrong question. As I point out in the last paragraph, the number of full members of the Labour party almost doubled in the two years after Corbyn’s election to the leadership. The right question is whether Labour can afford to dispense with the unions and Corbyn at the same time. Corbyn has asked his supporters to stay in the party; they may not feel they any longer have a home there.

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

Labour Party suspends Jeremy Corbyn!

WHIP REMOVED FROM FORMER LABOUR LEADER

MARGARET HODGE said on Radio Four today at 1pm that 'I don't want to hear about that irrelevant man' and 'I think there is still a culture of anti-semitism' in the Labour Party. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner, the Deputy leader of the Labour Party also told us: 'Jeremy Corbyn has a blind spot'.

While later on the The Canary, a leftist website, Sophia Purdy-Moore wrote as follows:

'Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended, “in light of his comments” in response to an investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s investigation, published on 29 October, found Labour responsible for “unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment” in its handling of allegations of antisemitism.'

In his statement following the release of the report, Corbyn said he regrets it took “longer to deliver that change than it should,” but that:

"the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated."

This comment led to his suspension from the party. Corbyn told followers that he will “strongly contest” Labour’s decision to suspend him.

One Labour party member described what has happened to Jeremy Corbyn with the withdawal of the Labour whip and his suspension amounted to a 'witch-hunt' and a 'political assasination'.

Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite union, has said this will lead to 'chaos' in the party.

Looks like more fun to come from the people's party! Watch this space!

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

Unite's Len McCluskey & the lucrative libel lawyers

THE current PRIVATE EYE's TUC NEWS column reminded the Unite union's membership of 1.1m that though they may be worried for their jobs or in fear of Covid-19, their union is assuring the libel lawyers that they can count on bounteous harvest of refreshers following the lucrative case of Turley v Unite the Union.  Totting-up the costs of the trial which took up 7-days of court time, legal experts have told Private Eye 'the premium would be around £200,000' and the 'final bill to its luckless members members [of Unite] may be not far short of £2m.'

The Eye concludes:  'London's libel lawyers won't be going hungry any time soon.'  


However, only last January Ms Anna Turley was claiming on twitter that:

'Unite and Skwawkbox have failed to pay the damages and costs following my libel trial last month as ordered by the court. My solicitors are starting enforcement proceedings in the morning.' pic.twitter.com/pS8wpwIekF

— Anna Turley (@annaturley) January 16, 2020

At that time Guido Fawkes reported these developments on his Blog:
'In the latest development, the former MP has published a letter from her solicitors declaring given Unite’s failure to pay up, “The only conclusion we can draw is that your clients have deliberately chosen to cause further distress to Ms Turley or they are incompetent. Which is it?”, going on to say'

“We have prepared enforcement papers that will permit bailiffs to attend at your clinets’ premises to enforce the two final judgements. We shall issue these when the Court opens on Monday morning if the full judgement debts, together with ongoing interest, have not been satisfied.”

Guido Fawkes claimed:
This is much more entertaining than the Labour leadership contest…
UPDATE: Unite and Skwawkbox have finally coughed up

And Private Eye described the squabble as 'even by Labour's internecine standards it was a vicious fight.'

And then Ms. Turley was to announce on twitter:

'Unite & Skwawkbox have belatedly paid the damages and costs as ordered by the court. Proving after all that they are not above the law. What an avoidable waste of members’ money. Lesson is... don’t break the law.'

— Anna Turley (@annaturley) January 21, 2020

The judgement of Justice Nicklin J held that Unite was responsible for the defamatory statement because its Director of Communications sent the Second Defendant [Skwawkbox] a press summary fully aware that he intended to publish an article which would identify the Claimant and contain substantially the same defamatory sting about her 'being dishonest'.

The Defendant's Unite and Skwawkbox had claimed the Claimant “should have known” she was ineligible for Unite Community membership, but his Lordship emphasised that, even if that had been so, “negligence is unlikely to provide an objective basis upon which to reasonably suspect dishonesty” [134].

Skwawkbox the website that published the offending report had claimed that Turley, then Labour MP for Redcar, had called the leader of Unite an 'arsehole' and had joined Unite at cut price rate reserved 'exclusively for the unwaged' so she could 'undermine Jeremy Corbyn'.  Steve Walker, who runs Skwawkbox  according to the Mail Online 'Mr Walker, .... is the sales director and CEO of a company called Foojit, which provides mailing solutions to the NHS.'

Meanwhile Ms. Turley managed to lose her Redcar seat at last December's general election when the Labour Party backers Unite had declared in the High Court that she was 'not fit to be an MP'.  The £84,500  paid to Turley in aggravated damages, should help ease the pain of this defeat.  Probably Unite and its leader, Len McCluskey, now wish they had settled out of court when Turley's solicitors offered a settlement last June, if Unite agreed to pay her £25,000.  Now because the union refused this compromise it must now pay interest of 8% on the costs.  By rejecting this offer, it also lost the right to demand that Turley's legal advisors prove their costs were reasonable.

Ms Turley, MP for Redcar before losing her seat in the General Election, has said she was 'thrilled and relieved' after winning the case

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

'FREE AT LAST' THE MEMOIR OF ASIA BIBI

FREE AT LAST - ASIA BIBI

Asia Bibi was called the 'world's most persecuted woman'. A Roman Catholic Pakistani, she was sentenced to death for blasphemy after a dispute over a cup of water with Muslim villagers who were picking fruit with her. She spent eight years on death row waiting to be hung before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, quashed the case against her. Although some Pakistanis wanted to lynch her, some spoke out in support of her. A provincial governor in the Punjab, Salman Taseer, was murdered after speaking in support of her and for opposing Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Shahbaz Batti, Pakistan’s Christian minority’s minister was also shot dead for his opposition to the blasphemy law. Her defence lawyer, Saiful Mulook, fled to the Netherlands in fear of his life.

As a persecuted Christian, the family of Asia Bibi sought asylum from the UK Government, but this was refused by the Conservative Government led by Theresa May, the daughter of an English vicar. May refused the family asylum on the grounds that it might increase community tension in the UK and put the lives of British embassy staff working in Pakistan at risk. When Asia Bibi's husband and daughter came to London, they were told by the government's trade envoy for Pakistan, Rehman Chishti MP, that nobody representing the government was prepared to meet them. He resigned his position in protest.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Labour Party, also seemed reluctant to speak up for Asia Bibi. Brian Bamford, a Unite member and the Secretary of Tameside Trades Union Council, wrote on two occasions to Jeremy Corbyn asking where Labour stood in respect of an asylum claim from the family of Asia Bibi, but he never received a reply to his emails.

At a meeting organised by the North West TUC, Bamford asked during a discussion about racism and Tommy Robinson, whether cases like Asia Bibi involving religious persecution of Christian's by the mob, played into the hands of the far right in England and made racism more likely.  The Asian speaker replied that this was a matter for Pakistan and that this country had no right to interfere in the affairs of another country.

Angela Rayner, the local MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, incorrectly told a local Labour Party member that Labour were keen to help Asia Bibi but her family had made no application for asylum. Yet, Jeremy Corbyn didn't hesitate to take up the cudgel for the so-called ISIS bride, Shamima Begum. The Trades Council concluded that the Labour Party were possibly afraid of alienating the Muslim Labour vote.

When I circulated details of the desperate plight of Asia Bibi to various people, including the Momentum member, Sheila Sheppard, the Secretary of Stalybridge Constituency Labour Party, she politely told me to piss off, questioning why I had included her and pointed out that I was not a member of Stalybridge CLP and that there was nothing they could do to help Asia Bibi. I was told not to send her any more communications.

Many feminists were also conspicuously silent about the case of Asia Bibi possibly because they feared  offending cultural sensibilities or because she was a Roman Catholic Pakistani peasant woman and not a famous actress who'd been sexually violated.

Fortunately, the Canadian Government had more guts than the British Conservative government that let the Pakistani mobs dictate British asylum policy, or the Labour Party that gave preference to Labour votes before compassion and humanitarianism.

Asia Bibi and her family are now settled in Canada, despite the death threats of Muslim fanatics. From her new home in Canada, she now campaigns on behalf of other persecuted Christian's in Pakistan. I hope to get a copy of her autobiography 'Enfin Libre', when it becomes available in English - its been written in French - and possibly review it. It should be a compelling and interesting read.

Is Labour losing its traditional voters?

by Brian Bamford

A POST ELECTION REPORT   from  Steve Gillan (POA), the TUC-JCC General   Secretary, POA, claimed 'Brexit was a key issue' and Labour lost 37% of leave voters who voted Labour in 2017, and 21% of remain voters who voted Labour in 2017.

A recent comment in Heywood and Middleton from a Labour canvasser, campaigning on the doorstep, told me people were closing their front doors when they realised it was Labour on the knocker.  

It was said that this dislike seemed to be down to two things: an intense dislike of Jeremy Corbyn and Labour's stance on Brexit.

Heywood, near Rochdale, has long been a solid Labour constituency but at the General Election in December the local Labour candidate was defeated by the Conservative.  

Steve Gillan in his report also claimed 'we should be building on, increasing and challenging the growth of the far right, anti-semitism and Islamophobia.'

 Yet,  as the Secretary of Tameside TUC, I wrote twice to Jeremy Corbyn asking him where he stood as regards the case of the persecuted Pakistani Catholic Asia Bibi, who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan.  She had drank water from a cup used by Muslim fruit pickers to quench her thirst and had spent eight years on death row.  The family sought asylum for Asia in the UK but nobody from Theresa May's government was prepared to meet her husband and daughter when they came to London.  May refused asylum to the family because she said it could lead to racial unrest in the UK and put the lives of British diplomats at risk in Pakistan. 

Meanwhile, Corbyn never gave us a reply and I'm not aware of him speaking publicly about her case. We concluded that he was frightened of alienating the Muslim Labour vote.  I asked a Labour Party friend to speak to Angela Rayner about Asia Bibi. Rayner told him that Labour was supportive but the problem was the family hadn't applied for asylum in the UK, which was untrue.  Corbyn, did however, speak out publicly in support of the Isis bride, Shamima Begum, demanding that her British citizenship be restored. Asia Bibi and her family were eventually given asylum in Canada where she campaigns on behalf of other persecuted Christian's in Pakistan.

The Heywood and Middleton constituency in Lancashire has a strong Roman Catholic presence, having received immigrants following the Irish potato famine in the 19th Century.   Among today's fashionable addicts they they are now yesterday's people and the recent failure of Rochdale's Labour councillors to condemn an axe attack on four tree surgeons working in the Newbold area of Rochdale in October 2017 by an Asian gang shouting 'white bastards' at them, seems to be a symptom of post-modernity.  This might sound like blatant 'Orientalism', but the thing is Irish Catholics are no longer the flavour of the month in politics, and the local Labour Party is more inclined to wag-its-tail and fly the flag of Kashmir or Pakistan outside Rochdale Town Hall these days. This may go some way to explaining why Heywood and Middleton, which is one of the two Rochdale constituencies, now has a conservative MP.  Labour is so frightened of offending the Asian clans that it appears to be losing the white working class.

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

Robert Harris on Boris Johnson

IN an interview over Lunch with the FT soon after General Election the writer, confident of Tony Blair, and political pundit, the classist Robert Harris, told Frederick Studeman that 'Every triumph has to be paid for,' he said, with an eye to his researches on classical Rome, believing Johnson will now have to deliver on his promises.  He added that Labour could be 'in quite a strong place in 2024 because the Tories won't have their two great advantages - "get Brexit done" and Jeremy Corbyn'.

There is a recognition however that it will be necessary to reorient the Labour party, and that would not be easy.

Meanwhile, Harris muses:  'One of the things I did learn from writing the Cicero books is the obvious one:  that in every great victory lie the seeds of subsequent defeat.'

His classical interpretation of the prime minister is that Johnson has a 'great man' view of power.   Harris says:  'He's, let's say, flexible in his approach.  I don't think he is guided.'

So expect some surprising twists and turns, the ditching of past policies and allies.  If Johnson wants to hold on to his newly won northern territories, then he can't have a hard, recession-inducing Brexit.

Boris is likened in the inerview to the Roman politician Publius Clodius Pulcher (died 52 B.C.) who was one of the leading demagogues in the 1st century B.C.  As tribune, he wielded nearly as much power as Julius Caesar or Pompey.

Harris says:  'One of the things that I did learn from writing the Cicero books is the obvious one: that in every great victory lie the seeds of subsequent defeat.'

Johnson will now have to deliver, according to Harris; adding 'Politics is just relentless.... nothing ever ends.  You get Brexit and then there'll be an NHS winter crisis.' 

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

The Data Death Ship for anti-Brexit team

ACCORDING to the Xmas issue of Private Eye both Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson had 'hard data telling them they would go down to an epic defeat if they gave prime minister Boris Johnson the election he craved.' 

What followed was what we now know to be a disaster.  

 Naomi Smith, cheif executive of the pro-European campaign group Best for Britain, commissioned a highly expensive 'multi-level poll' of British political attitudes. In June's Peterborough by-election it it prediction of Labour's vote share was only 0.6% off the actual result.  Private Eye claimed the Best for Britain researchers had considered what would happen if the Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, had decided to help the Tories. In the 2017 general election, Ukip didn't stand in hundereds of constituencies with pro-Brexit MPs. 

Best for Britain took their findings to the Lib Dem's cheif executive Nick Harvey, and Rhiannon Leaman, Swin's cheif of staff.  They continued to disbelieve the figures until the 28th, October when they voted to overturn the provision of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and give Johnson his election. 

The Best for Britian then tried Labour's James Frith, Anne Turley and other Labour backbench MPs were more receptive.  They were, according to Private Eye, aware that many of their voters hated Corbyn.  Private Eye added:  'They also knew they were just a handful of Commons votes from securing a second Brexit referendum.'

But Corbyn ordered Labour MPs to back an election saying:  'This is a once in-a-generationh chance to build a country for the many, not the few.'  'Bring it on' cried his sidekick Laura   Pidcock.  Swinson,and Turvey lost their seats. and Johson won his predicted majority.

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

LABOUR LOSING ELECTIONS: Six in a Row

THE STATISTICAL SPIRIT: Can they count to six?

FREELANCE journalist, Elenor Penny wrote in the Independent on the 14th, December:  'This new politics, embodied by Jeremy Corbyn, has lost it first electoral showdown.  But the circumstances of its defeat should embolden us... Losing this battle was always an option.  Losing the war is unthinkable.'

Yet, surely this 'electoral showdown' is now no less than the sixth attempt that, according to Private Eye, that Corbyn has lost out?  If we count last May's European elections, in which the Labour Party came third, and the four sets of local elections under his leadership, it was the sixth contest in which he had floundered and come to nowt.

*********

Dispiriting election redraws political map of UK

'This is an awful result', said Dave Smith 

of the Blacklist Support Group

by Brian Bamford

 
LAST SATURDAY the Financial Times leader writer began an editorial thus:
'A dispiriting election has produced a seismic outcome.  Britain's political landscape has been redrawn as it was by Tony Blair's New Labour victory in 1997, or Margaret Thatcher's win in 1979.  The Conservative landslide is a vindication of Boris Johnson's strategy of going all-out for a new Brexit deal and building his campaign around delivering it....  Yet the result, combined with the Scottish National party's surge in Scotland and nationalist gains in Northern Ireland, will strain the integrity of the UK.'

At the same time in an e-mail written immediately following the election Dave Smith secretary of the Blacklist Support Group, which has been consistently loyal to the Labour Party wrote:
'This is an awful result for the entire labour movement.

'Whatever people's thoughts on Corbyn or Brexit; the Labour manifesto commitments on workers rights, NHS & public services, renationalisation of rail & utilities, house building and the climate were supported by the majority of the population.  All these things are now at risk from a right wing Johnson government.'

Yet prior to the election in another e-mail he had wisely warned us:  'working people should never place dewy eyed trust in politicians, lawyers or union leaders to solve our problems for us; continuing to build a movement remains essential.' 

But what really happened under the Attlee Labour Government of 1945?

MILITARY BLACKLEGS & the 1945 LABOUR GOVERNMENT 

Dave Smith does well to remind us that we should not 'place dewey eyed trust in politicians' etc.   for within six days of the Labour Government taking office in 1945, it sent conscript troops into the Surrey Docks, London, to break a ten-week-old strike against a wage-cut....

Yet in a Labour amendment to the Military Training Bill, in Hansard on May 12th, 1939, this same Labour Party had declared:
'No conscript should be required to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian.'

Surely there is some inconsistency here?

THE GREAT ILLUSION 

In 1959, on the Aldermaston CND march, some trade union critics, who described themselves as 'syndicalists', not unlike Dave Smith of the Blacklist Support Group today, claimed at that time:  'we believe many sincere but starry-eyed Labour supporters have already half-forgotten the events during those six years in which every Socialist principle was betrayed by the politicians... [and that] It is no service to the working class for the truth to be hidden, however embarrassing and unpalatable it may be for some people.'  (How Labour Governed 1945-1951 - DIRECT ACTION PAMPHLET:  Publications Committee, SWF).

 THE LABOUR PROGRAM in 1945

Like Len McCluskey said last week about the panicky policy incontinence of the current Labour Party, the 1945 Labour Government, with a vast majority, had an economic programme based on two principles - 'a give-away programme and state control of economic functions'.

Dave Smith in his generally depressing Tweet continues to argue in this gloomy vain:

'For blacklisted construction workers, our hope for a public inquiry into the Consulting Association scandal now appears to be off the agenda for the next few years at the very least.' 

Bro. Smith was here pinning his faith on Page 48 of the Labour Manifesto:

'We will establish public inquiries into historical injustices including blacklisting and Orgreave, and ensure the second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry has the confidence of all those affected, especially the bereaved families and survivors.'*

When I last spoke personally to Dave Smith in 2015, at a Blacklist Support Group conference on  'Bullying, blacklisting and whistleblowing' at a two-day event at the University of Greenwich, I expressed my concerns and doubts about his hopes about getting a future Labour Government to solve the problem of blacklisting etc. by creating a distinguished public inquires.  Since 1979, when the alternative newspaper RAP had first exposed Cyril Smith, I long had the experience of seeking public inquires owing to the work I had put in to get something done about child abuse in Rochdale and beyond.  Sadly, by the time the inquiry will finally get to publish its report many of the alleged victims will be beyond help.

The Blacklist & the Consulting Association

Tameside Trade Union Council in Greater Manchester, has been involved with what later became known as the 'BOYS ON THE BLACKLIST' during the Daf dispute in Manchester's Piccadilly in 2003.  That was well before it had been finally confirmed that the blacklist actually existed in 2009** by subsequent events in which the Information Commissioner raided an office of the Consulting Association in Droitwitch, Cheshire.

As the Financial Times leader above indicates the political landscape of the UK  has changed substantially.  But it is not the end of history which some may claim.  The nationalist issues both in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as the FT editor suggests, may still come back to haunt the Tory Government.

Dave Smith is right in his blunt response to be 'gutted' by the outcome!  It is a slap in the face for what passes for the British left.  But we at Northern Voices have always been clear that we have historically even less faith in politicians than Dave Smith has ever had.  George Orwell told the poet Stephen Spender that he always avoided going to cocktail parties to mix with literary folk for fear it may interfere with his own critical judgement of their literary work.  

Could it be that being based and rooted in London that Dave Smith and some of the Blacklist Support Group, may well have become too close to the some of the Labour politicians down there and that it could have clouded their judgement?

In the years since the late naughties that I have known them; Dave Smith and the Blacklist Support Group, have always struck me as one of the most decent phenomena on the British left in this country bar none, aside perhaps from my own personal friends among the Boys on the Blacklist in the North of England, and I don't think that those associated with my own political persuasion among the English anarchists are a patch on them.  Other parts of the British left, especially including the British anarchists, who have presented us with the politics of a shabby little shocker.  Although I believe that Dave Smith and the Blacklist Support Group are wholly committed to fairness and common decency they will be well aware that the Labour party, when in Government, has failed to make serious in-roads towards the abolition of British blacklisting. 

Despite what Dave Smith declares about us placing our faith 'dewey eyed trust in politicians'; I fear that these honourable activists may suffer from being too trusting of people inside the Westminster bubble.      

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

*  Page 48 of the Labour Manifesto:

"We will establish public inquiries into historical injustices including blacklisting and Orgreave, and ensure the second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry has the confidence of all those affected, especially the bereaved families and survivors. We will also consider a public inquiry in the case of Zane Gbangbola.

We will require judicial warrants for undercover operations and retain the Mitting Inquiry into undercover policing.

We will release all papers on the Shrewsbury 24 trials and 37 Cammell Laird shipyard workers and introduce a Public Accountability Bill".

The Blacklist Support Group are proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder on shared platforms for more than 10 years with campaigners fighting for justice for Orgreave, Grenfell, Zane Gbangbola, victims of undercover political policing, the Shrewsbury Pickets and Cammell Laird ship workers. We have demanded and fought for a public inquiry for over a decade - its is our campaigning that has led to this manifesto commitment.  We therefore whole heartedly support this pledge towards getting the truth we, and other working class miscarriages of justice, deserve.  But working people should never place dewy eyed trust in politicians, lawyers or union leaders to solve our problems for us; continuing to build a movement remains essential.  

Full manifesto available to view here: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

**  'During 2008/09 the Iinformation Commisioner's Office carried out an investigation into employment blacklisting in the construction industry.  As part of that investigation, the ICO seized information from a company called The Consulting Association.  Some of the information we seized amounted to a 'blacklist' of individuals who were considered to pose a risk to their employers if employed within the construction industry.'

***  
Following the blacklisting scandal the Labour Government came forward with regulations. These regulations are so weak that they will not deter blacklisting. The only recourse for someone who has been blacklisted still remains taking a case to an employment tribunal and financial loss has to be proved. UCATT has constantly argued for the regulations to be strengthened. They necessary changes are:

• Make blacklisting a criminal offence
• When a blacklist is discovered all those on it are automatically told.
• An automatic right to compensation for everyone blacklisted.
• For the regulations to be widened from the narrow confines of “trade union activities” to the wider “activities associated with trade unions”. Ensuring trade unionists can’t be blacklisted for taking unofficial industrial action, such as a ban on voluntary overtime.

Len McCluskey slams Corbyn's 'London mindset'!

THE Unite union leader Len McCluskey, while he trained his fire on Remain-backing members of the Shadow Cabinet, as well as centrist MPs who 'hankered after the New Labour past', the Unite general secretary claimed Labour needed 'a new leader early in the near future" who could "understand the communities that gave birth to the Labour movement.'
 
The comments - in a piece for HuffPost UK - are highly significant as Unite is Labour's biggest financial backer and the general secretary has previously been a staunch ally of Mr Corbyn.
It comes after Labour lost 60 seats in its worst election performance since 1935.

Mr Corbyn has vowed to quit after a 'period of reflection', and earlier on Friday said:  'The responsible thing to do is not to walk away from the whole thing, and I will not do that.'

Mr McCluskey reserved the majority of his criticism for senior Labour figires who had advocated for a pro-Remain position and led the party into a 'slow-motion collapse into the arms of the People’s Vote movement'.

He said:  It is pretty obvious where the essential reason for Thursday’s hugely disappointing result can be found.
'When our losses are concentrated in former coalfield constituencies and other post-industrial communities that voted heavily "Leave" in the 2016 referendum, and yet we happily retain our position in London more-or-less unscathed, it is staring us in the face.

'Others will try to make a different case, either because they have volubly hankered after the New Labour past throughout the years of Corbyn’s leadership of the party, or because they lack the honesty to accept the consequences of their advocacy of keeping Britain in the EU at any political price.'

But he also acknowledged 'mistakes' made by the party's leadership throughout its campaign, including what he called an 'incontinent rush of policies which appeared to offer everything to everyone immediately'.
 
Taking direct aim at the Labour leader, Mr McCluskey - who has previously backed the party's handling of anti-Jewish abuse - said Mr Corbyn's 'failure to apologise for anti-Semitism in the party when pressed to do so' had capped 'years of mishandling of this question'.

While he said Labour's Brexit position, backed at its party conference earlier this year, was 'the right and honourable one' he said it had been 'fatally undermined from the outset by leading members of the shadow cabinet rushing to the TV cameras' to promise to back Remain in a future referendum.

The Unite chief said:  'Both Labour’s target seats, and the ones most at risk in the north and the Midlands, were preponderantly in Leave-voting areas with very small Liberal Democrat and Green votes.  Put bluntly, there were far more coalfield seats to lose than there were Canterburys to win.

'As it is, a year of worrying about and placating exclusively Remain voters has produced the backlash which some of us predicted.  Better by far that we had stuck with some updated variation of the 2017 Brexit position, rather than its negation.'

Urging the party to 'rebuild, reflect on what went wrong and inevitably elect a new leader early in the near future', Mr McCluskey said:  'Corbyn has borne the brunt of one of the most sustained and unpleasant character assassinations in political history and done so with dignity.
'But alas some of the mud stuck and his leadership became an issue on the doorstep.'

And, in a thinly-veiled dig at Mr Corbyn, he said:  'The next leader needs to understand the communities that gave birth to the Labour movement, and realise that the whole country is not very like Labour London.
'As important as it is, too often, Labour addresses the metropolitan wing of its electoral coalition in terms of values – openness, tolerance, human rights – and the "traditional" working-class wing simply in terms of a material offer, as if their constituencies did not have their own values of solidarity and community.  That must change.'

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

BREXIT: The Lib Dem position!

 from Jo Swinson

IN the middle of this Brexit chaos, I want to be 100% clear about where we stand.

Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has passed its first vote in the House of Commons, but make no mistake: this is not a done deal.

The United Kingdom is still in the European Union.

It’s with a heavy heart and immense disappointment that I say Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has only passed because of Corbyn's Labour party.

Many Labour MPs voted for this deal, and Corbyn’s weakness on Brexit has passed this deal.

We are now on the path to Brexit – all because Jeremy Corbyn is not a Remainer and his Labour MPs have bailed out Boris Johnson.

This is a difficult night for our country, and I want you to hear this from me and from the Liberal Democrats: you are not alone.

You have a strong team of Liberal Democrat MPs fighting your corner in Parliament.

We are standing strong for our future.

We are growing the movement for a People’s Vote.

We’re doing absolutely everything we can to stop Brexit.

The vote in Parliament tonight is the first in a long series of votes that Boris Johnson has to win - and it does not mean that we have left the EU.

There are many opportunities left to stop Brexit. 

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