100 Years And A Day

 


Between 1920 and 1942 within a quarter of a mile, there were three Methodist Chapels which were all situated on the southern side of Easington Colliery's main road - Seaside Lane. By the 1930s, the Colliery (in County Durham) reached its peak population of some 10,000.

The first of these Chapels was opened on 22nd November 1913. It is shown in the above picture and it is currently celebrating its 100th anniversary. It was initially called the United Methodist Church, which was a title which arose out of the amalgamation of two previous Methodist sects. But at that time a further distinction existed in Methodism between the Wesleyans and the Primitives. The Wesleyans established their own local chapel on 7th November 1917. Then the Primitives purchased two ex-army huts in 1920 which they used as the basis for their own chapel.  When Methodism was united in 1932, the local Primitive Methodists renamed their chapel; calling it the "Bourne Methodist Chapel", after a prominent former leading Primitive Methodist. They were keen to keep their heritage.

The three chapels co-existed and were drawn into the same Methodist Circuit, sharing preachers and various local activities. When the ex-Wesleyan chapel closed in 1942 their members moved a few hundred yards down the street into the building that is shown above, which was renamed St. John's Methodist Church. Then when the Bourne Methodist Chapel closed in 1956, they moved into the same Church which then changed its name a second time to the Easington Colliery Methodist Church.

The initial three chapels, did not of course suddenly spring for nowhere. Paradoxically, the United Methodists first held services in Easington's pioneering days in what is now 22 Bourne Street and also had open air meetings on the grass which later became Bede Street. On 11th March 1911 their society was officially formed at what is now 6 Byron Street. The two women in the above photo are walking in the direction of these places, which are just a short distance away. The Wesleyians and the Primitives were equally active and by 1910 were holding separate meetings in the Colliery's first temporary tin schools.

The Colliery's initial Miner's Union and leading Labour Party activists were often prominent in the local Methodist Chapels; especially George Bloomfield the local Lodge's Secretary (and Checkweighman) from 1911 to 1939 and also George Walker the Lodge President - whom I knew.  Both were amongst the group of six who met at nearby Murton just after the First World War to establish a Constituency Labour Party. They also became active and prominent Labour Councillors. Like-minded Labour activists in County Durham (such as Peter Lee and Jack Lawson) also travelled into Easington Colliery to preach from its Methodist pulpits.

I picked up many of my own political commitments from several years of activity in Bourne Methodist Chapel, until I left Easington Colliery to do my National Service at the age of 18.  By I returned to Easington two years later, I had rejected my former religious beliefs; but I was left with what had been a local Methodist-socialist heritage. My mother was also active in the Bourne Methodist Chapel and she moved to St. John's when they amalgamated. The last time I visited what is now the Easington Colliery Methodist Church was for my mother's funeral service, which was held on my 63rd birthday. Hence my need to record these matters. Although I happen to be a day late in  discovering this anniversary.

(Many of the above facts come from "Methodism in Easington Colliery :1913-1963", which is a Jubilee Brochure. My mother obtained my current copy almost exactly 50 years ago)

Iraqi Trade Unions Need Our Support

See here.

The Case For Public Ownership

Sidney Webb (1859 - 1947) 
 
The original version of Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, 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.

The move in Britain towards public ownership, a mixed economy and the welfare state came in the years of the Second World War and immediately afterwards. The war effort demanded effective economic organisation and the start of a much fairer distribution of the basic requirements of food, warmth, clothing, and health. Even schooling entered the frame in 1944. The electorate in 1945 decided that we would not return to the days of poverty and exploitation that had characterised the inter-war years. The NHS, welfare provisions, council house building and the public ownership of key elements of the "commanding heights of the economy" took place under the Attlee Government. Even when the Conservatives returned to office, they then limited their programme of denationalisation to the Steel Industry and basically accepted the norms of the welfare state and the mixed economy. Their future depended upon accepting this compromise.  An era of "consensus politics" then emerged, with fewer fundamental differences between the two main parties. The problem with the basic acceptance of the status quo by Labour was that capitalism can always find its way around restraints, unless governments act continuously to block and transcend its activities.

The cohort of voters who supported Labour in 1945 and the early 50s, tended to remain loyal to the then Labour's vision of society. But whilst some of us from that time are still around, we are now a dying breed: long since replaced by fresh cohorts. New experiences and influences began to shape the norms of the new generations. Car ownership, undermined the scope for public transport. Whilst rail denationalisation and the end of much municipal transport, further shifted us away from public transport. The growing world of television was opened up to advertising and to commercial programming, thus enhancing individualistic values. Then whilst Thatcherism rowed upon a wave of anti-collectivism, she also acted to undermine its remaining communal base with the destruction of much of manufacturing and mining. To which she added the sale of council houses. Moves which New Labour never sort to contain. Then in recent years we have moved into a incredible and ever expanding technological revolution. Almost as soon as the latest advances are made in computer-style technology, they become outdated.  Capitalism uses its position to cash in upon these changes - as an avenue for sales and controls. The capitalist power elite established global controls, buying services via the use of the third world's impoverished work force; whilst selling in the dearest markets.

But capitalism always operates for its short term interests. Paying as little as it can for raw materials, labour power and technological innovations. It then sells where it can make the highest profits. These practices lead to an eventual collapse in effective demand, leading to economic deprivation. For capitalism ends up failing to supply people with the money to purchase its own goods and services. The global financial crisis of 2008 is likely just to be a taster of things to come.

Yet there is a huge paradox. This was pointed to by the late Royden Harrison. Things have moved  rapidly in recent years, but events have only confirmed his diagnosis. He pointed out that the objective circumstances for the operation of socialism had never been better, yet the subjective circumstances had never been worse. For whilst objectively we have the skills, knowledge, organisational potential and technology to provide for everyones' basic, intellectual and emotional needs; the subjective appreciation of what is possible have never been worse. Our minds are often taken over by passing consumer fads and the beer and circuses of the modern media. When people rebel (often under stark circumstances) they tend to be consumed by unquestioning and counter-productive doctrines, such as those of racism and militant Islam.

So what can be done about the world's serious situation - climate change, imperial expansionism, fanaticism, starvation, mass poverty, unemployment, economic decline and the threat of economic collapse?  As radical improvement requires a change in people's values and commitments, then it is essentially a question of political education, political education, political education. Luckily there is something to build upon. If people could not be moved to contribute readily to disaster relief funds or to go to people's aid when they saw accidents, then there would be nothing to build upon. But consumerism and individualism still get adjusted by the experiences of daily life into avenues where human sympathy and collective instincts come to the fore. Political education directed towards the best in people is, however, very different from political indoctrination. The strongest educational question is "why?". It rebounds on those who see themselves in the role of stimulating political education. Any of us could be wrong at anytime.

If public ownership is to advance (including the end of outsourcing in the public sector which currently accounts for 24% of expenditure in the UK's public sector). then there are big problems we need to tackle. Public bodies can be prone to bureaucratic centralised controls. Wealth, power and status can come to dominate in the public as well as the private sector.  Democratic controls by producers and users of services are an antidote. Municipal, Consumer Co-operative and Worker Self-Management structures will often be more appropriate than the running of centralised State owned systems. Above all the providers of services and their users need to share a public service ethos. Those who work for a public body, need to see themselves as public servants. Whilst those who benefit from such services need to share similar values, which lead to them not just to grabbing whatever they can. Selfishness detracts from the common good.

I am not seeking perfection, just general standards of human decency and a sense of sharing.

The biggest problem is, however, to get ourselves out of the grip of capitalist domination. Sidney Webb called for the inevitability of gradualness in advancing public ownership. Today, it might take us time to get the ball rolling towards forms of public ownership, for we need to get politicians on board. Each step might be difficult. But once we create the conditions to start the move, we might come to be surprised as to just how revolutionary our gradualism has become. For we will come to realise that the future of mankind is tied in with our actions.

If you see public ownership as an avenue towards our salvation, then check "We Own It" out.  Things did not end with Sidney. Nor with Tony Blair's rejection of Clause IV. 

NHS On The Verge Of Extinction

See today's article by Kailash Chand in today's "Tribune" here  
Then act in conformity with Nye Bevan's message below.

Book Review Of The Year

Austin Mitchell (above) on Damian McBride (below). See here .

Cynical Attack On the Under 25s

In attacking benefit payments for under 25 year olds, Cameron is not only playing on prejudices which he feels are widespread, especially amongst Daily Mail readers; he is also aware that there is a serious under-registration for the vote by the under 25 age group.  So they can't snap back.

But even in terms of electoral advantage, he could be making a blunder. Under 25 year olds have parents and grandparents who may be deeply offended by Cameron's proposals. And he might simulate many under 25 year olds into registering to vote.

What we need is action on Ed Miliband's pledge that Labour will pursue the biggest electoral registration drive in a generation.

 

Clunk-Clegg

 

At the next General Election, Nick Clegg wants us to vote for a further coalition government. He does not seem to know that whilst we might get a coalition government by accident, this can't be achieved openly. This is because there are unlikely to be any Coalition candidates.

Just what mechanism does he wish us to follow to achieve his end?  Do we vote Liberal to show our support for his case?  Yet if he thinks we should do that, are we not then in danger of electing what he says he does not want?  For we could then get a majority Government - a majority Liberal Government.

Then if he is just after a swing to the Liberals from the Conservatives, that could put Labour in office. Whilst alternatively a swing to the Liberals from Labour, could give us a Conservative Government. Only swings from both Cons and Labs to Libs (as long as they ain't too big) could give us a possible coalition which might entail the Libs.

To get us to vote for a hung parliament, he can't even ask us all to vote just as we did in 2010. For numbers of voters have died or moved overseas since then, whilst many others have been newly enfranchised.

He says he wants to get rid of the two-party system. But if we agree with him sufficiently and, therefore, flock to vote Liberal we could get a one-party Liberal set-up and not his desired Coalition.

The only way to provide a reasonable chance of having continuing coalition governments is to encourage the development of a multi-party system; so that no-one will ever know what form of coalition is ever likely to emerge.  It will all depend upon deals between the elected parties.

Given the electoral logic of our first-past-the-post electoral system, a two-party system is always on the cards. Whether he likes it or not, the role of the Liberals is to seek to become a part of the very two-party system which Clegg decries.

We could, of course, get a coalition government after the next election which excluded the Liberals. It could be either a Lab-Con coalition, or one involving third parties other than the Liberals. Then even without an outright winner, there is still the possibility of a minority government.

Well Done Graham Allen

 
Precedent plays a big role in parliamentary procedures. There was a tradition of Prime Ministers making use of Royal Prerogative powers to lead us into military conflicts, without the prior consent of parliament being required. This is the way that Tony Blair intended to act over the invasion of Iraq, until a campaign led by Graham Allen the MP for Nottingham North helped to change his mind. What happened is explained below in Graham's own words, as they appeared in Hansard. What he did meant that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Blair was pushed into seeking the support of the Commons for his intended actions. Which at least gave the opportunity for large numbers of Labour MPs to oppose the move, even though we failed to block the proposal.

When it came to the proposal to bomb Syria, David Cameron felt obliged to seek the support of the Commons for this probable line of action. The logic of having a coalition Government might have required him to do this anyway, but Graham Allen's precedent also helped considerably. The Prime Minister still enjoys the ability to resort to the use of the relevant Royal Prerogative Power in the future. But yesterday's defeat of the Government's proposals has further helped to ensure that future Government's are likely to feel the need for prior parliamentary permission before they lead us into military action. Well done Graham.

From Hansard of 13 June 2013, here is Graham explanation of the line he pursued in 2003 -  


"Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab): I was one of the organisers of the rebellion, and it was with great sadness that I rebelled against my party and my Prime Minister. Will my right hon. Friend concede that the vote was not gifted by the Government, but hard fought for? Many of us worked for many months to obtain the vote. Indeed, there was to be an alternative convening of Parliament in Church House, at which we would have had a critical mass, and only 48 hours before the Government conceded that there would be a vote. We had enough Members to convene a Parliament to discuss the Iraq war, and the former Speaker, Bernard Weatherill, was prepared to chair it. It would have included Members from across the House, including some very brave Conservative Members, Members from the Liberal party and friends from the smaller parties across the political spectrum. But 122 Labour Members voted on the first occasion, and indeed the numbers went up on the second vote, which is unheard of, given the whipping operation against those who did not want us to go to war. It was not a gift of the Government; it was hard fought for ".

Also, see here on the parliamentary arithmetic of yesterday's vote.

Don't Destroy A Good Idea

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) are proposing that first time voting should be made compulsory, yet other voting should remain voluntary. See here.

Whatever, the rights and wrongs are for compulsory voting: the IPPR are wrong to propose having a two-tier voting system, with voting being compulsory for some and not for others. All voters should be given the same status.

Labour is supposed to be interested in the IPPR Report, with a view to attaching the notion to their proposal for Votes for 16s. This would make things even worse. How can we treat 16 year olds as adults and give them the vote, then say because they are not really adults they will be forced into using their first vote? Talk about crossed messages.

Let us have votes at 16, with electoral registration taking place via schools for 15 year olds in readiness for them attaining the vote. Then run courses for the 15 year olds at school about voting and democracy.

Schools, Colleges and Universities can then be used as a means of updating registers. For those who have left educational institutions, a pro-active re-registration system can be put in place. This would track and catch up with people as they move, in order to get them to re-register. Advertising could also be used to alert people to the need to re-register. If Wonga can use the media to sell their dangerous services, then the State can do it for a worthy purpose. If the State adopted relevant legislation, they could oblige the media to run their adverts for free. Electoral Returning Officers could also be funded to arrange for door to door canvassing to encourage re-registration. All registration should be compulsory, with the numbers fined starting to match up to the numbers of non-registrations. 

But we should treat everyone in the same way.  Not forced voting for some, but it not mattering for others.

My own preference is for all voting to be voluntary. It is up to political parties, individual candidates, political activists and the media to start interesting people in politics and to show that it can have real meaning to people's lives.  As the Labour Party are now advocating votes at 16, they have a special responsibility on this matter.

A universal franchise is only part of the democratic process. But it is an essential element.

Labour and Votes at 16

It is being reported in the media that Labour has come out in support of votes at 16.

There is now a key opportunity to provide important add-ons to the policy, which will (a) ensure full electoral registration for those acquiring the vote, (b) encourage a good turnout from the newly enfranchised and (c) will enable these 16 and 17 year olds names to be retained on the electoral registers as they grow older.

Providing voting rights from 16 can be used as an essential step to tackling the serious problem of voter under-registration. The Electoral Commission reported that at least 6 million people are missing from electoral registers. Yet we also see that the under-registration figure is likely to be larger than this, as census details have revealed 1.57 million people in England and Wales have second addresses and this will entitle many of them to double registration. If, say, 1 million throughout the UK have done this, that means that under-registration is actually over the 7 million mark. There are even indications recently by the Electoral Commission that 2 million more may need to be added to these under-registration figures.

With votes at 16, the names of "attainers" would be included on registers when they were 15, showing the dates of their coming birthdays and their then entitlement to vote. If registration for these first-time voters took place via their schools, an initial registration of almost 100% could be achieved. A proactive registration system could then be put in place to ensure that most of those who initially registered did not slip through the net later in life.

As under-registration is high among the 18-25 age group, the poor, the rootless and ethnic minorities; this also leads to a situation where the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are seriously distorted. A system of initial registration via schools, with an associated and imaginative educational programme, could start to correct this imbalance and develop a commitment amongst young people to use and improve the democratic process. With almost universal registrations being achieved for 16 year olds via their schools, electoral registration officers could also be given the authority and resources to trace the addresses of the people concerned as they grow older and have often moved their homes. This would have an early impact by ensuring that most of those newly enfranchised would be on the registers as they moved into the under-represented 18-25 age range.  Many of the newly enfranchised 16 year olds will also, of course, already fit (or come to fit) into the categories of other groups who currently suffer from under-registration.

Provision for pro-active electoral registration methods (including relevant education programmes in schools for 15 year olds about the democratic process) can hopefully be added to Labour's welcome commitment.

Alice : Who Art Thou?

A prison warden, Hettie Wheeldon, Winnie Mason, and Alice Wheeldon in January 1917



Alice Ann Wheeldon (1866 – 1919) was a member of the Independent Labour Party, a  pacifist and a campaigner against our involvement in the First World War. She was arrested in 1917 along with her family and imprisoned. Evidence given in the case against them was fabricated by a government which was eager to disgrace the antiwar movement. She was falsely convicted of conspiring to kill the Prime Minister, Lloyd George.  See here for more details.

Derby People's History A FESTIVAL FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE 1913 -2013 Alice Wheeldon: a daughter of Derby to be proud of Derby Guildhall Saturday 14th Sept : 10.30 – 22.30 This year Derby has honoured Alice Wheeldon with a Blue Plaque; recognising that an injustice was done to her family. Our day will look at the conditions before and during and before the WW1, with talks, music, performance, an Art Exhibition and discuss peace and justice at a time of war. It will be lively and enjoyable, so book your place now and tell your friends. We have the fabulous Peggy Seeger in the evening (£12.00 and £10.00), Robb Johnson & Rosa’s Lovely Daughters, Workshops and Art (£1.00 day ticket). Tickets from Derby Live Website. Contact us: derbypeoplesh@yahoo.co.uk Website: www.derbypeopleshistory.co.uk/

The Third King Harold.

If you can't beat them, join them. What will the baby's name be? Have a bet on "Harold".

As everyone knows, a King Harold ruled and was killed with an arrow in his eye by the forces of William the Conqueror in 1066.  But he is a huge figure in our history. He was King Harold II. There having been an earlier King Harold from 1035-40.

In 2066, the new baby will reach 53 years of age. His father, Prince William will make 84 that year. Unless the likely coming reign of King Charles III, leads to the end of the monarchy; then William V is likely to hold the crown in 2066 - as nowadays wealthy and privileged people can be kept alive well into their old age. 

William can then resign in favour of his son in 2066, bringing the crown to Harold III exactly 1,000 years after it was held by the really famous King Harold.

Besides my proper name is also Harold and the new baby was born on my 77th birthday. When that is discovered the media can really start giving the chap some coverage in deepth.

Update : He has been called George. The Royal Family obviously have no sense of history. Good job that I never got round to putting a bet on.

Over 50 Sources For Socialists

They can be found here.

Should Democratic Socialists Seek To Engage With "One Nation Labour"?

The above question is currently being debated on the Web-Site run by Independent Labour Publications (ILP).

To follow and join in the debate, you can use this link.

That takes you to an article which I have contributed. But at the close of my contribution, you will also find a series of key links to items by others who generally take differing lines to myself.

We can only advance our own understandings by entering into genuine debates with others.  As the Labour Party is seeking to move its ground from New Labour to One Nation Labour, how should democratic socialists respond? With enthusiasm, opposition or in our own third way? 

EXTRACT FROM THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

"A forthcoming trade treaty between Europe and the United States could have far-reaching implications for the NHS. Some observers believe the Health and Social Care Act was designed with this deal in mind. Will it add a new dimension to competition in the health service? Peter Davies reports.

The European Union and the United States are about to agree terms for negotiating a free trade treaty. Prime minister David Cameron has made reaching agreement a priority for the meeting of the G8 countries on 17-18 June, which he is chairing. It is hoped the treaty will be signed by the end of 2014. The European Commission says it will be “the biggest bilateral trade deal ever negotiated,”1 adding £73bn (€85bn; $110bn) a year to the EU’s economy.

Officially titled the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), this is the latest in a series of agreements to “liberalise” trade between wealthy nations. The EU has been negotiating a similar deal with Canada, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA), since 2009. These agreements focus on “harmonising” regulation and opening up markets: often this involves privatising public services. Though governments negotiate the agreements, they are designed to benefit large transnational corporations and protect foreign investors.

Cameron said of the TTIP talks: “Too often in trade, the voices defending special interests shout loudest. But it makes no sense to exclude vital parts of the economy. Everything is on the table with no exception. ”.

Some health policy analysts have deduced that the NHS will be one of the markets the government opens to US interest. Since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 it has been primed to make ever more use of competition, in England at least. The result could be many more NHS services contracted out to private providers...."

FOR SOURCE  SEE HERE.

Where Does Miliband Stand On The Future Of Capitalism?

In making his speech to Google yesterday and as part of his advocacy of "responsible capitalism", Ed Miliband made the following statement as a means of distancing his views from those of his Marxist father, Ralph Miliband. Democratic Socialists don't have to be Marxists to the extent that Ralph was in order to be deeply disturbed about the nature of Ed's brief argument.

His father, he said, "thought that the route to a fair society was not through capitalism but through socialism based on public ownership. It wasn't just my dad who thought it, of course. Until 1995 this view was enshrined on the membership card of the party I now lead. Tony Blair got rid of it and rightly so, because nationalising the major industries is not the route to a fair society."

A problem with this argument is that Ed does not distinguish nationalisation from other possible forms of public ownership. If he feels that it is public ownership itself which is problematic, what does he feel should happen to the remains of our public services in areas such as the NHS, the Royal Mail, the Armed Forces and in the remnants our post-war school system? If Ed sees the future economic pattern as one that should be dominated by "responsible capitalism", then is there a limit to his vision? Or has the "inevitability of gradualness" which Sidney Webb saw as being associated with the advance of public services, now been transferred to the growth of Ed's favoured form of responsible capitalism? Does he want more capitalism or less?

There are many possible forms of non-capitalist economic and social structures - including co-operatives, worker-controlled firms, voluntary bodies, services by local authorities, public services and nationalised firms (whose operations could be democratised to overcome any problems which arose from the model pursued by Labour immediately after the Second World War). These all need forms of regulation and patterns of worker and consumer involvement - which (at the least) is what  Ed will need in his efforts to make capitalism act responsibly. For I assume that he knows that preaching is not enough to get exploitive and corrupt capitalism to behave reasonably. Of course, even if we can find some nice cuddley capitalists, these will not be able to ignore the logic of the market in which there are pressures to purchase in the cheapest market (whether for raw materials, technological improvement, or for labour costs) and to sell in the dearest market (via cheap transport, advertising and other marketing techniques).

When Tony Blair came along with his vision of New Labour, many in the Labour Party went along with him thinking it was only a gimmick to ensure the return of a Labour Government. They soon learnt that this was not the case, although far too many Labour activists then just accepted what they were given. Is the same pattern happening under Ed?  Perhaps his "One Nation Labour" owes far more to the ideas of Benjamin Disraeli than is being assumed. Is Labour now being re-shaped to seek  to do no more than tackle what Ted Heath called the "unacceptable face of capitalism"? At the best, Labour would then be aiming to become a non-Thatcherite version of the Conservative Party. But Labour would then be the descendants of Disreali and not of Keir Hardie. It would be much better to have a modern varient of the views of the latter, than of the former.

 

May Day Rally Meeting on the NHS

In founding the NHS, Aneurin Bevan (left) said that : "It will survive as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it".








                       NEXT PUBLIC DISCUSSION MEETING 


SPEAKERS           MARTIN RATHFELDER  and VAL GRAHAM

TOPIC                    THE FUTURE OF THE HEALTH SERVICE

DATE                      MONDAY, 6th MAY 2013 (MAY DAY)

TIME                       1.30pm to 3.15pm

VENUE                   COUNCIL CHAMBER, NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE 
                                DISTRICT COUNCIL, SALTERGATE, CHESTERFIELD


Martin Rathfelder is the Director of the Socialist Health Association and Val Graham is from "38 Degrees - Save our NHS Chesterfield and North Derbyshire". 

What do we think the NHS is ? Is the only important principle that patients don't pay when they need treatment? Or is there more to it than that?

Also - see a thread here on the NHS.

Clem or Maggie?

Click onto the above to enlarge it.

HAT TRIP - BILL LAWRENCE

An Extra Argument For Votes At 16

 Yesterday in the Commons, there was a two and a half hour back-bench debate on whether people should be entitled to have the vote from 16 years of age. As the Commons was acting as a debating society and was not dealing with legislation, only 25% of its MPs turned up to vote. The vote for the proposal was carried by 119 votes to 46. Nevertheless despite the boycott, it was a fruitful effort for those who support the principle. It is now a proposal that is supported by almost all parties, except the Conservatives. Steve  Williams the Lib-Dem MP for Bolton West moved the proposal and he has also put forward a Bill to seek to impliment the measure. It is entitled the "Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill"  (Bill 125). Whilst the Conservative-dominated Government are likely to kick the current efforts into the long grass, what has just happened can only aid the cause. I feel, however, that an important point in favour of Votes at 16 was missed both in the debate and in the related Bill. I have put my case in an email to Stephen Williams, with copies being sent to several other MPs who share his stance. Whether I get any responses (positive or otherwise), we will have to wait and see.

My e-mail runs -    

Dear Stephen Williams,

There is an important argument in favour of votes at 16 which was missing from yesterday's debate. Namely, that providing voting rights from that age could be used as an essential step to tackle the serious problem of voter under-registration. The Electoral Commission has reported that at least 6 million people are missing from electoral registers. Yet we also see that the under-registration figure is likely to be larger than this, as census details have revealed 1.57 million people in England and Wales have second addresses and this will entitle many of them to double registration. If, say, 1 million throughout the UK have done this, that means that under-registration is actually over the 7 million mark.

With votes at 16, the names of "attainers" would be included on registers when they were 15, showing the dates of their coming birthdays and their then entitlement to vote. If registration for these first-time voters took place via their schools, an initial registration of almost 100% could be achieved. A proactive registration system could then be put in place to ensure that most of those who initially registered did not slip through the net later in life.

As under-registration is high among the 18-25 age group, the poor, the rootless and ethnic minorities, this also leads to a situation where the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are seriously distorted. A system of initial registration via schools, with an associated and imaginative educational programme, could start to correct this imbalance and develop a commitment amongst young people to use and improve the democratic process. With almost universal registrations being achieved for 16 year olds via their schools, electoral registration officers could also be given the authority and resources to trace the addresses of the people concerned as they grow older and often moved their homes. This would have an early impact by ensuring that most of those newly enfranchised would be on the registers as they moved into the under-represented 18-25 age range.  Many of the newly enfranchised 16 year olds will also, of course, already fit (or come to fit) into the categories of other groups who currently suffer from under-registration.

Provision for pro-active electoral registration methods (including relevant education programmes in schools for 15 year olds about the democratic process) can be added to your Private Members Bill if it ever makes progress. It could also be added to any later parliamentary initiatives on the matter.

I am circulating this e-mail to Natascha Engel, who succeeded me as the MP for North East Derbyshire - as well as to certain others who have shown a positive interest in Votes at 16. 

All the best,
Harry Barnes.

Philosophy Can't Provide The Answers

This seems to be clear proof that philosophy can't provide all of the answers. Well, once more, this particular philosopher can't.

Socialist Greetings

Click on to the card to enlarge it.

Get Your Socialist New Year Calendar

 The Following Is Taken from the ILP's Web-Site. I Have Just Ordered My Copy.

 

Cartoon Calendars to Mark ILP’s 120th Anniversary

Nov 19th, 2012 | By Matthew Brown | Category: Articles, Frontpage, News

Iconic political cartoons from the 1890s and 1920s are featured in a new wall calendar published by the ILP to mark our 120th anniversary next year. 

Launched to celebrate the founding of the Independent Labour Party in Bradford in 1893, the A4 calendars are illustrated by biting socialist cartoons first published in Keir Hardie’s newspaper, Labour Leader, in the 1890s and its ILP successor, New Leader, in the 1920s. They are not only a poignant reminder of our past but retain significant political relevance today.
The founding conference of the ILP on 13 January brought together local ILPs which had already been established, particularly in the north of England, plus the Scottish Labour Party and many individuals eager to promote its cause. The ILP became Independent Labour Publications in 1975.
The ILP 1893-2013 wall calendars cost £9.00, including postage and packing, from Independent Labour Publications, PO Box 222, Leeds LS11 1DF. Cheques payable to ‘ILP Trust Ltd’.
To buy a calendar by PayPal, click here.
For more information email: info@independentlabour.org.uk
—-
To read more about the ILP’s history visit our History section here.
To mark the anniversary, the ILP will also be publishing an updated version of The ILP: Past & Present in the new year while this website will feature a series of biographical articles on significant ILPers from Labour history.
More details of 120th anniversary publications and events will be published here in due course.
                   

Where Prisoners Have The Vote

The nations in Europe where prisoners have the vote are Albania, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland. Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the Ukraine. See here.

What makes us different, apart from prejudice?

Votes For Prisoners - Remove The No-Go Sign

The following is from a BBC Report, see here.

"Ministers will give Parliament another vote on whether to give prisoners the vote this week, the BBC understands. Political correspondent Carole Walker said she understood MPs would consider options, on Thursday, including votes for those serving six months or less and those serving four years or less. A third option on the draft bill would be no votes at all, she added."

I wonder if any MP will do the honourable thing and put down an amendment to the Government's list of options, in order to allow all prisoners to have the vote. If there are worries about prison loads of voters distorting the outcome in specific constituencies, they could be given votes via their last known places of residence prior to their imprisonment.

The main reason that prisoners should be able to have the vote is that they are human beings. But even if they are thought to be not very nice human beings, that is no reason for disenfranchising them. For quite correctly we don't otherwise try to separate the wheat from the chaff when we decide who is entitled to the vote - not since we  came (basically) to adopt the correct overriding principle of adult male suffrage. Separating the wheat from the chaff is an elitist response, contrary to democratic values.

There is also the fact that masses of people who commit serious crimes, never get caught. There is no mechanism we can adopt to remove the franchise rights of those who have murdered, raped and pillaged, but have got away with their crimes.

Everyone resident in the UK over a certain age (which I feel should be 16) should have the vote as they are subject to the laws which parliament determines. This is obviously the case with prisoners, as the law has caught up with them. The only exception to the right to vote should be for those who can't vote, due their having the most serious of learning difficulties. And even then we should err on the side of caution.

I just hope there are some MPs who see things in the above light. After all they are supposed to be at the cutting edge of democracy.

I have never heard a principled argument against what I say above. There are only appeals to our prejudices, as shown by the interviewer in the video attached to the link in my opening sentence.

Clay Cross - 90 Continuous Years With Labour

 

It is a 90th Anniversary. Since 15 November 1922, Clay Cross has been represented in parliament by only Labour MPs. Since 1950, it has been part of the North East Derbyshire Constituency and the MPs (in turn) have been Henry White, Tom Swain, Ray Ellis, myself and currently Natascha Engel. Yet prior to the 1950 General Election, Clay Cross was itself the name of the Constituency which bore its name. Below I give a synopsis of of that Constituency's Labour Parliamentary History.
 
The Clay Cross Parliamentary Constituency operated from 1918 until the time of the 1950 General Election. It covered much of what are currently the southern areas of both the North East Derbyshire and Bolsover Constituencies. In those days it was an area in which coal mining abounded.

Yet although the Constituency was dominated by the miners’ vote and the Derbyshire Miners' Association (DMA) was a powerful influence in the area, out of the six different Labour candidates it ran for parliament at various elections, only two of these were miners. The absence of miners as Labour candidates in parliamentary contests in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1929, 1931, 1933. 1935 and 1936 (when four different Labour candidates ran) showed an independence of mind amongst local miners from the pressures of the leadership of the DMA. This was aided by the influences of a socialist-inclined local Methodism and by left-wing activists in the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in areas such as Bolsover. The ILP, however, went on to disaffiliate from the Labour Party in 1932. A further factor leading to the period in which miners' were not run as candidates, is that Clay Cross became one of the safest Labour seats in the country. It, therefore, attracted the interest of leading figures at national level in the Labour Party.

The first election in the Clay Cross Constituency in 1918 followed a conventional pattern for an area dominated by the DMA. . Fred Hall, the Labour candidate was a leading official of the DMA, who eventually served for 29 years on the national executive committee of its parent body, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. He was, however, the only Labour candidate for the Clay Cross Constituency who ever failed to win the seat. He lost by 1,221 to a Liberal who had Conservative backing. For the Conservatives and Liberals who had been the larger elements of the 1915-18 War-time Coalition had joined into a deal aimed at not running candidates against each other. 
 
When Fred Hall dropped out of standing for the seat just prior to the 1922 General Election, Charlie Duncan was selected in his place. He had helped to found the Workers’ Union who had been involved in the birth of the Labour Party and represented unskilled workers. He had been the Labour MP for Barrow-in-Furness from 1906 to 1918 and had spells as both Whip and Secretary for the Parliamentary Labour Party. He won the elections in Clay Cross in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1929 and 1931. His final success revealed how Labour had built up the seat. The 1931 election was held following the collapse of the minority Labour Government in the middle of a major financial crisis, with Ramsay MacDonald its leader defecting to run a National Government. Labour’s position at the subsequent General Election collapsed from 288 to 52 seats, yet Labour held Clay Cross by almost 10,000 votes. A massive Labour majority in the adverse circumstances of the time.  
 
When Charlie Duncan died in 1933, Clay Cross adopted Arthur Henderson as their candidate. Known as “Uncle Arthur” he was a huge figure in the early history of the Labour Party. He was leader of the Labour Party from 1908 to 1910 (with another spell at the start of the First World War). He served as Labour’s first Cabinet Minister in the First World War Coalition Government from 1915 to 1917, resigning when his idea for an international conference on the war was voted down by the rest of the cabinet. He helped shape the pre-Blairite structure of the Labour Party as its General Secretary, a post he held from 1912 to 1935. He was Home Secretary in the first Minority Labour Government of 1924 and Foreign Secretary from 1929-31. When MacDonald defected Henderson took over as Labour's temporary leader until 1932, but gave up the position because he had by then lost his parliamentary seat. Clay Cross provided his avenue back into Labour’s parliamentary politics. In the by-election one of his opponents was Harry Pollitt the General Secretary of the Communist Party who lost his deposit with 10.8% of the votes to Henderson’s 69.3%. So there was a total left vote of over 80%. Whilst he was MP for Clay Cross, Henderson went on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and was held in high regard it being claimed that “no-one ever sought his help in vain"*. He died in 1935.  

At the subsequent General election, Clay Cross ran the 35 year old Alfred Holland who was a local Methodist. But within 10 months he was stricken with spinal meningitis and died shortly afterwards.

A by-election in 1936 led to the Clay Cross Labour Party running its fourth candidate in five years. George Ridley had been on the Executive of the Railway Clerk’s Association since 1909. He was seen as “becoming the Labour Party’s leading pamphleteer*”. In 1944 he also died whilst still an MP.

After 26 years, Clay Cross once more adopted a Derbyshire Miners’ Candidate in Harold Neal the area’s Vice President, who went on to become Secretary of the Miners’ group of MPs in parliament. There was a war-time pact amongst Churchill’s Coalition partners at the time, which covered the Labour Party. This was not to run candidates against coalition partners in by-elections. So only two independent candidates stood against Neal. One ran as a “Workers Anti-Fascist” and the other as an “Independent Progressive”.  Neal got 76.3% of the votes. When the war ended, he improved his position by taking 82.1% of the votes in opposition to a Conservative.

When the boundaries were redrawn and the Clay Cross seat was absorbed into other areas, Harold Neal became the Labour MP for Bolsover. He had a period as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power in 1951 and retired as MP in 1970 to be replaced by Dennis Skinner who was the Chair of NE Derbyshire Labour Party, President of the DMA and also an active member of the Clay Cross Labour Party. 
 
A souvenir brochure published by the Clay Cross Divisional Labour Party in 1948 pointed out Labour’s dominance in the area, stating that there were “46 Local Government Seats (exclusive of Parish Councils) within the Constituency : of these 40 are held by Labour members. In addition, there are 16 Parish Councils : in the majority of cases we have 100 per cent representation”*.  ( * = The two earlier quotations are also taken from this souvenir brochure.) 

Those were the days. 

It Is Time To Worry

We now have concerted attacks upon the BBC, the NHS and the Courts. Here is the latest.

Labour Got It Wrong

Labour's vote in helping to defeat the Government yesterday was a big mistake. Only those handful of Labour MPs who take a full anti EU line should have been in the rebels' lobby. Is there any Labour MP who has expressed his or her concern about what happened? And did any Labour MPs vote with the Government or positively abstain? Labour should vote on what it judges to be the rights and wrongs of an issue, not from reasons of political manipulation. There are sound practical reasons for acting in line with your own views and values, as well as moral reasons. In politics, your sins are liable to find you out. And voting for what you don't believe in is something that is habit forming.

There is, of course,  plenty that is wrong with the EU. Above all. it needs a democratic framework. But it needs actions other than those of political manipulation to start to achieve this.

Update 2nd November : Labour MP Margaret Hodge is claimed to have said that being asked to vote with Tory rebels in favour of a cut in the EU budget was "hateful" and "outrageous". Yet she still went into the lobby with the Tory rebels.  See here.

The Shape Of Things To Come?

The British Electoral Registration system is already in a mess with several million people missing from the voting lists. But changes in the rules for registration will make the situation far worse. Do these developments in America show the shape of things to come? Given a class-biased electoral registration system, Romney seems to have it in the bag.

From Today's Guardian : Letter To The Editor

 

        Fallout from the Scottish referendum

One of the strongest arguments for giving the vote to 16-year-olds, as proposed in Scotland (Editorial, 22 October), is that it is an essential step towards tackling voter under-registration. The Electoral Commission has reported that at least 6 million people are missing from electoral registers. Yet now we see that the under-registration figure is likely to be larger than this, as census details have just been revealed which show that 1.57 million people in England and Wales have second addresses and this will entitle many of them to double registration. If, say, 1 million throughout the UK have done this, that means that under-registration is then over the 7 million mark.With votes at 16, the names of "attainers" would be included on registers when they were 15, showing the dates of their coming birthdays and their then entitlement to vote. If registration for these first-time voters took place via their schools, an initial registration of almost 100% could be achieved. A proactive registration system could then be put in place to ensure that most of those who initially registered did not later in life slip through the net.

As under-registration is high among the 18-25 age group, the poor, the rootless and ethnic minorities, this leads to a situation where the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are seriously distorted. A system of initial registration via schools, with an associated and imaginative educational programme, could start to correct this imbalance and develop a commitment among young people to use and improve the democratic process. Or are we going to leave it all to Alex Salmond?

Harry Barnes
Dronfield, Derbyshire

The Clay Cross Rent Rebellion

It is the 40th Anniversary of the Clay Cross Rent Rebellion. So what was it all about?

In 1970, the Conservatives had a surprise electoral victory. Ted Heath replaced Harold Wilson as Prime Minister and became known as Selsdon Man, because he adopted a set of free market and anti-working class policies which were in line with what would later be called Thatcherism. The strong reactions against his approach later led him to alter his basic stance via a set of "U" turns, for which Thatcher was later to deride him.

In the year in which the Heath Government was established, council house building was still widespread and only fell marginally short of the total number of houses built under private enterprise for both owner occupation and renting. Furthermore, many Labour Councillors themselves lived in Council houses and understood the needs and interests of communities they were part of.  The Heath Government wished to switch the housing pattern for working class people away from their heavy dependence on council housing.

In pursuing their interests, the Conservatives produced a White Paper entitled "Fair Deal for Housing" which prefigured their Housing Finance Act which received the Royal Assent on 27 July, 1972. Well before the measure became law, the Government's intentions were well understood and were creating considerable concern amongst council tenants and their Labour Councillors. Government subsidies to reduce rents were to end. Councils were to be stopped from supporting council rents from the rates. Then (as a start) most Council Rents would have to be raised by £1 per week in October 1972, which is an amount approaching £11 in today's prices. If a Council failed to act in conformity with these provisions (a) any subsidies for Council House Building would be ended and/or (b) a Housing Commissioner would be sent in to operate the Act. 

On 10th June 1972, 223 delegates from 87 ruling Labour Groups met in Sheffield and carried a resolution by 74 votes to 1 (with 5 abstentions) demanding that "the labour movement shall not take steps which may lead to the implementation of the Bill."

Clay Cross in North Derbyshire had a population of 10,000 and had 1,400 council tenancies catering for over half of its population. Its 11 Councillors were all Labour. On 4th September 1972 it unanimously adopted the following motion - "That this Council will not operate any of the provisions contained in the Housing Finance Act 1972, and the Electorate shall be informed of the decision together with the reasons for coming to this decision and that the officers of the council be instructed not to make any preparations for implementation of any of the provisions of the Act nor to act on behalf of the Conservative Government as a Commissioner".

Initially a total of 46 Councils failed to operate in line with the legislation, whilst 80 Tenants Association were organised to hinder its operation. In the Chesterfield Rural District Area which surrounded Clay Cross their Tenant's Association ran a campaign for the non-payment of the £1 increase which its Labour Council had "reluctantly" introduced. In Dronfield, situated at the Northern End of the Chesterfield Rural District, its Urban District Council was Conservative-controlled and it had jumped the gun with a 50p increase in the April. Its Tenants and Residents Association, therefore, started out with a fortnight's rent and rates strike exactly 40 years ago today.  Dronfield had 1,000 Council Tenancies.

But much larger and immediately to the north is Sheffield where a Coordinating Committee for Tenants, Residents and Community Associations had been established in 1971. Sheffield having 76,000 Council Tenancies. Dispite this bodies' pressures, the Sheffield Council implemented the Act by 53 votes to 42, carrying out a later increase by 45-40. The second increase rested on the votes of 12 Sheffield Aldermen, but at least a non-eviction pledge was given for those withholding the increases.

Powerful pressures were, however, placed upon all the non-implementing Councillors and upon the tenants and residents who withheld rent or rates monies. By January 1973, 32 of the rebel Labour Councils gave up the struggle. 12 held out until later in the year. That left only Bedwes and Machen in Monmouthshire and Clay Cross in Derbyshire as non-implementing Councils. They both had a Housing Commissioner sent to their authorities to enforce the legislation. Bedwes and Machen did not block his work, so they were then out of the struggle. Clay Cross, however, blocked the work of the Commissioner and continued the fight.

Acton was taken against them by the District Auditor who claimed that they were responsible for a shortfall of £69,000 in their revenue account and could be bankrupted and thus debarred from office.  Eventually this position was upheld by the a High Court Decision by Lord Denning on 30 July 1973.

Fresh elections were then held in Clay Cross and Labour took 10 of the 11 seats with a 85% turnout. Local Government Reform meant the Clay Cross Urban District Council would be absorbed into a larger authority a month after the election and those elected would then become Parish Councillors, without Council Housing responsibilities. But for its remaining month as a District Council, the Labour Councillors refused to implement the Housing legislation. This led to the District Auditor surcharging them "jointly and severely" so that their liabilities fell over the £2,000 mark which would lead to their debarment. To save fresh bankruptcies among the second team the local Constituency Labour Party ran a defence fund, which paid off their debts. This fund, however, did not cover the much wider surcharges levelled against the original team of Clay Cross Councillors.

The Clay Cross situation was a matter of continuous dispute within the Labour Party from 1972 until 1978.  In 1972, Conference passed a resolution supporting the local campaigns of tenants, trades councils and Labour Parties "to spearhead the campaign against the Act". But it rejected a move for the retrospective clearing of "any councillors who suffer any penalty through their actions." Yet in 1973 it passed resolutions supporting "opposition to continuing rent increases" and backing Clay Cross. Furthermore, David Skinner one of the non-implementing Clay Cross Councillors stood for the Constituency Section of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party and obtained 144,000 votes. This section invariably elected Labour MPs and, although David, wasn't elected it was a telling result which showed strong support in the Labour Party for the Clay Cross struggle. The Clay Cross issue was pursued unsuccessfully at the 1974, 1975 and 1976 Party Conferences. But then in 1977 Conference overwhelmingly carried a resolution stating "This Conference deplores the continuing disqualification from public office of the 21 Clay Cross Labour Party members and demands that the Government introduce a Bill to remove the disqualification forthwith". David Skinner went back to the rostrum the following year complaining that the NEC had not even pursued the matter with the Labour Government.

Whilst the struggle against the Housing Finance Act did not succeed in its objectives, it was part of wider campaigning which led to Heath dropping his Selsdon Man approach. When Labour returned to office there was then a recovery in Council House building, until it was successfully undermined by Thatcher's tactics. The persistence with which the Clay Cross issue was pursued at Conference (especially on the initiative of its Constituency Labour Party) also shows the significance of the democratic arrangements that were then open to the rank and file of the Labour Party, which have since been removed. 

Yesterday evening the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group were fortunate to discuss these matters, when David Skinner addressed it on the "40th Anniversary of the Clay Cross Rent Strike". What appears above is, however, my own contribution and not a report of David's fine talk. My main sources have been Leslie Skfair's article "The Struggle Against The Housing Finance Act" in 'Socialist Regsiter 1975' and the Annual Reports of the Labour Party for the period. Anyone spotting errors, should use the comment box below.

Ed's Clause 4 Moment

 In effect it now reads -

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable predistribution that may be possible upon the basis of the operation of responsible capitalism."

Below is the relevant extract from Ed Miliband's speech made (appropriately) at the Stock Exchange where he called for "predistribution" under "responsible capitalism" . The full speech can be found here.

"Of course, redistribution will always remain necessary.  But we've learned that it is not sufficient. And fiscal circumstances will make it harder not easier.  The new agenda is that we need to care about the model of the economy we have and the distribution of income it creates.We need to care about predistribution as well as redistribution.

Predistribution is about saying: 'We cannot allow ourselves to be stuck with permanently being a low-wage economy'. It is neither just, nor does it enable us to pay our way in the world. Our aim must be to transform our economy so it is a much higher skill, higher wage economy. Think about somebody working in a call centre, a supermarket, or in an old peoples' home. Redistribution offers a top-up to their wages. Predistribution seeks to offer them more: Higher skills.  With higher wages. An economy that works for working people. Centre-left governments of the past tried to make work pay better by spending more on transfer payments. Centre-left governments of the future will have to also make work pay better by making work itself pay. That is how we are going to build growth based not just on credit, but on real demand. And that is how we are going to help the squeezed middle of this country and, build a better economy when there is less money around."

So what are Eds the first steps in his journey towards predistribution under responsible capitalism?

He went on to say "to tackle the challenge of predistribution...we have made proposals on changing the way the banking system works, and promoted a British Investment Bank...Sir George Cox, formerly Director General of the Institute of Directors, is leading our review on short-termism...We need proper competition in all sectors of the economy so that consumers get a fair deal. That means not allowing any cosy cartels to develop in any sector, from energy to our train network...We also need...all Government departments working together, including through procurement, to support British business...We need a skills system...And we plan to build that new agenda with schools, young people, businesses and trade unions working together to fashion our new vocational training system...We need a special welfare state that encourages people to work, and rewards those who do...the move towards responsible capitalism is actually being led by many business people...A responsible capitalism is a resilient capitalism".

Ed's dream seems to be a belief in the establishment of a system of "perfect competition", whose early advocates claimed would work for the benefit of all - whether they earned their living from their land, their labour or their capital. But it is a long time since this idea was even seen as a dream. We have long since moved into a world dominated by forms of monopoly capitalism, whose interests have themselves come to dominate political activity. An effective move to predistribtion would require measures such as a ceiling for earnings and wealth holdings, as well as improved minimum wages and benefit levels. But that would be called redistribution, rather than predistribution.