tories broken britain - home | chartist

CHARTIST£2

For democratic socialism #308 January/February 2021

www.chartist.org.uk

ISSN - 0968 7866 ISSUE

Prem SikkaCOVID CRONYISMPaul GarverGlyn FordUS ELECTIONSMark CockerCOUNTRYSIDE THREATAnn BlackLABOUR DIRECTIONSandy MartinDon FlynnLABOUR NEW DEMOCRACYPlusBook reviews andregulars

Tories broken Britain

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

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

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views ofthe EB

Contributions and letters deadline for CHARTIST #309

10 February 2021Chartist welcomes articles of 800 or 1500 words, and

letters in electronic format only to: [email protected]

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

Chartist Advert Rates:

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

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

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

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

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

Newsletter online: to join, email [email protected]

Editorial BoardCHARTIST is published six times a yearby the Chartist Collective. This issue wasproduced by an Editorial Board consistingo f Duncan Bowie (Rev i ews ) , AndrewCoates, Peter Chalk, Patricia d’Ardenne,Mike Davis (Editor), Nigel Doggett, DonFlynn, Roger Gil lham, Hassan Hoque,Pe t e r Kenyon , Dave L i s t e r , Pa t r i c kMulcahy , She i l a Osmanov ic , Mar inaPrentoulis, Robbie Scott, Steve Carver(Websi te Edi tor) , Mary Southcot t andJohn Sunderland.

Production: Ferdousur Rehman

Printer ad

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

January/February 2021 CHARTIST 3

CHARTISTFOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISMNumber 308 January/February 2021

FEATURES

REGULARS

Liz Truss and crony contracts – Page 8

CONTENTS

8 CRONY COVID CONTRACTSPrem Sikka uncovers the millions awarded toand wasted by Tory chums on PPE contracts

9 LABOUR’S MISSED MOMENTSCorbyn represented a lost opportunity totransform Labour says Nick Matthews

10 ECONOMIC CRISISBryn Jones on the limitations of Sunak’smagic money tree

11 COVID-19 OPPORTUNITYRobin Hambleton finds a focus on localityand care provide a new way

12 BIDEN-HARRIS OUST TRUMPPaul Garver on the triumphs and testsfacing the Democrat left

14 WINDRUSH SCANDAL CONTINUESDon Flynn on the plight of migrants in thehostile environment

15 CLIMATE COUNTDOWNNigel Doggett on steps to avert ecologicaldisaster

16 COUNTRYSIDE THREATSMark Cocker and Keith Savage look at theBrexit threat to our green and pleasant land

18 BIDEN AND UKGlyn Ford asks if the ‘special’ will survive inUK-US relations

19 BELARUS IN REVOLTAlan Flowers and Mikalaj Packajeu examine theprotests and politics

20 CAN LABOUR REFORM?Ann Black reports from Labour’s NEC

21 ELECTORAL REFORM ROADMAPSandy Martin sets out a plan for makingvotes matter

22 LABOUR FOR A NEW DEMOCRACYDon Flynn on a new initiative to transformBritain’s broken state

24 NEGOTIATING THE RAPIDSAndrew Coates looks for lessons inStarmer’s early political milieu

4 OUR HISTORY 94Crick and Blunkett’s Aims and Values

4 ANOTHER EUROPE IS POSSIBLE Post-Brexit strategy

5 EDITORIAL Tory Britain isn’t working

6 POINTS & CROSSINGSPaul Salveson on new northernism

7 GREENWATCHDave Toke on heat pumps v bluehydrogen

25 FILM REVIEWPatrick Mulcahy on Nomadland

26 BOOK REVIEWSDenis MacShane on Twilight ofdemocracy; Don Flynn on Marxists onfascism; Duncan Bowie on class andWorld War One, Cromwell andLilburne; Mike Davis on BlackSpartacus; Ben Francis on DictatorshipSyndrome; Glyn Ford on JBS Haldane

32 VIEW FROM WESTMINSTERSam Tarry on radical federalism for UK

Challenge for US DemocraticSocialists – Page 12

Belarus people v autocracy – Page 19

Subscribe to CHARTIST:£18 ordinary subscription£35 supporter subscription (6 issues)

Visitwww.chartist.org.uk/subscribe

for details

Cover by Martin Rowson

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

4 CHARTIST January/February 2021

OUR HISTORY

In 1985 the Labour Party National Executive Committeecommissioned a statement of ‘Principles and Beliefs’. Theworking party appointed to draft the document apparentlymet only once and then lapsed. Blunkett and Crick howeverbelieved that despite disputes over policy and strategy with-

in the party, there was nevertheless widely shared commonground and that democratic socialism in Britain had aclear and distinctive doctrine. Their ‘unofficial’ state-ment was published as a pamphlet by Spokesman.Blunkett had been elected to parliament in 1987, hav-ing for the previous seven years been leader ofSheffield Council. He was later to serve as Educationsecretary, Home secretary and Work and Pensions sec-retary between 1997 and 2005 and is currently a mem-ber of the House of Lords. Crick was professor of politi-cal science at Birkbeck College, University of London,having previously taught at Sheffield University. Hepublished some thirty books including In Defence ofPolitics, originally published in 1962. He also wrote aFabian pamphlet Socialist Values and Time, publishedin 1984. Crick died in 2008.

“The Labour Party is proud to be a democraticsocialist party. It is egalitarian, that is it believes in the equalworth of every human being; that we should treat each otheralways, whether friends or strangers, with equal consideration.But Labour also aims to be libertarian, open-minded and tolerant.

David Blunkett and Bernard Crick: The Labour Party’s Aims and Values1988

We wish by democratic means to transform slowly but surely ourpresent economically and socially divided society into a trulydemocratic community that treats all people as equal, women andmen, black and white. Such a society would maximise popular par-ticipation and would stimulate the altruism in people not only theself-interest, aiming to reinforce the best in us all. Labour seeksnot to do good to people by the state but to use the state to enable

people to help themselves and those around them.”“The Labour Party from its origins rejected revolu-

tionary socialism. But Labour’s founders had idealswhich if applied through free and democratic process-es, example and discussion, applied step by step,patiently but with determination, would create auniquely civilised society with a revolutionarychange in social attitudes and values.”

“To get workable and acceptable policies is thegreat task of any political party. But policies must beinformed by values and a sense of direction not mere-ly by short-term practicality and expediency.Otherwise policy dwindles into mere pragmatism,always reacting to events, never trying to shapethem. Policy must never mean staying in office for

the sake of staying in office or trying to win elections simply byreading the momentary popularity of issues on opinion polls.Rather we should try to persuade honestly and by the example ofworking models on a local level of what we democratic socialistssee to be a free, more just and ultimately attainable good society.”

OUR HISTORY 94

Another Europe is Possible Where do we go from here?

The UK’s departure from the European Union, on terms set by the nationalist right, will mean an attack on the rights and prosperity of ordinary people, including future generations.

The Tories’ Brexit agenda is not a policy but a project. It is anti-worker but not anti-state. It puts up new barriers to trade with Europe, but seeks deregulation and marketisation ‘athome’. This is pushing Britain towards a new, authoritarian, ‘crony capitalism’. As this becomes unpopular, the other aspects of the Tory agenda – the migrant bashing culture warsand ethnic nationalism – will become more and more important to sustain their political support. The bare bones deal being negotiated between Brussels and London protects verylittle in terms of rights and protections, and the economic fallout of Brexit will also be grave.

There are three broad planks to our strategy:

1. A push to stop the worst aspects of the Brexit agendaDespite the shift in parliament, there are some aspects of the Tories’ agenda that we could seek to influence by running public campaigns aimed at pressuring MPs. We identify twosuch areas, and more may arise in the course of 2021:● On Settled Status, we continue to fight for a ‘right to stay’ for EU migrants.● On new trade deals, such as the US trade deal, we will fight for concessions, especially around issues like food standards, the NHS and workers’ rights.

2. Building mass movements of resistanceMuch of the hope for progress rests on the building of movements which are simply too big, or too disruptive, to ignore. Mass mobilisation can also capture the public imaginationand shift the national debate on key issues which we are fighting on. Examples of this include the building of a national protest and/or day of action for migrants’ rights in early 2021.

3. Campaigning to shift the policy of the next governmentThe road to the next election is a long one. With many other parties already committed to our goals, much of our emphasis must be on Labour. Another Europe has always played three roles: we are the anti-Brexit wing of the left, the left wing of the anti-Brexit movement, and a driver of internationalism with the progressive left. When it comes to internationalism, our role has never been more important. We will fight against the continuing and deepening parochialism of UK politics, including of its left andprogressive political forces. All over Europe, huge events and movements are taking place, and though we are no longer formally attached to the EU, these events are likely to shape thedevelopment of politics here. Our emphasis will be on giving a platform and a voice to the movements taking place, for instance the opposition in Belarus; undertaking practicalsolidarity and mobilisation for them; and building lasting links between the UK left and its international counterparts.

This is a heavily abridged version of the AEIP Strategy paper agreed at the December 2020 conference

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


EDITORIAL

Adouble whammy of Brexit and the Covid-19pandemic are savaging Britain. An incompe-tent and reckless government has presided overthe highest death rates of Covid-19 in Europe.Over 68,000 official and 80,000 excess deaths in

2020. Infections continue to rise, a virtually privatised trackand trace system is a national embarrassment and mixedmessages continue to flow from government ministers.

Meanwhile with the unnecessary economic hit fromBrexit we are witnessing spiralling price rises, congestion atports with miles of lorry queues, and the threat to agricul-ture and livelihoods of many who live by farming underthreat as Keith Savage explains. Environmental and safe-ty standards are being sacrificed for a bogus sovereignty.

We knew the economic costs of the pandemic would besevere. Despite Rishi Sunak’s discovery of the magic moneytree his Tory predecessors said did not exist, and used tojustify ten years of austerity, British workers are facinghuge threats to jobs and living standards. Bryn Jonesexplains the limitations of the Sunak packages which missout millions of self-employed, casual and agency workers.Jobless numbers have risen 800,000 during thepandemic and look set to continue withoutmuch more wide-ranging support mea-sures. Labour needs to broadcast itspledges on a Green New Deal, national-isation of utilities and massive invest-ment in youth training to highlightTory deficiencies.

We are now facing a new epidemicof poverty. The United Nations Aidagency is channelling £700,000 to feedinsecure households across the UK whilethe working poor are forced to resort to foodbanks in record numbers. If it had not been forMarcus Rashford’s campaign to have free schoolmeals provision for all during school holidays, many mil-lions more children would be going hungry. All this in theworld’s fifth richest country.

Contrast the £16 billion found for the expansion of theDefence budget (war industry), over the next four years,alongside billions for Trident replacement, the public sectorpay freeze, the threat to discontinue the £20 weeklyUniversal Credit uplift last year, highest homeless numbersin decades, the list goes on. Meanwhile the top 100 UKbosses trouser 73 times the average worker’s income andthe CEO of Ocado was awarded £58.7 million –2605 timesthe average Ocado worker, with the government refusing toraise taxes or close loopholes on this richest one per cent.

This is the way capitalism works say its defenders. PremSikka shows that it helps if you are mates with ministers.He outlines the multi-million pound contracts awarded tocompanies linked to top Tories. Deals rushed through withno competitive tendering. Many of them failing to deliveradequate PPE and millions wasted. Serco is the de facto cor-poration behind test and trace. No accountability and faileddelivery.

This is the face of Conservative Britain increasingly iso-lated from its European allies. Broken and a far cry from

the illusory ‘global Britain’. This government will also beat odds with the new Biden administration in the UnitedStates as Glyn Ford explains. Paul Garver looks moreclosely at the Biden/Harris ticket and highlights the role ofthe Democrat left in turning out the votes for Biden in keyswing states.

But it need not be this way. Robin Hambleton sees asilver lining in the Covid crisis with the way it has encour-aged caring for others and the planet. He posits that a moreuseful measure of government success would be to look atthe degree to which care is valued rather than ‘growth’ perse. Further he champions power to the cities and regions asa further way to rectify wealth and power inbalances.Don Flynn reports on Labour for a New Democracy, an

initiative designed to inject fresh impetus into campaignsfor proportional representation in Westminster electionsand broader democratic reform across Britain’s antiquatedbroken state. Sandy Martin amplifies the calls laying outa road map to commit Labour to change by 2021’s partyconference, while Sam Tarry MP calls for radical federal-ism. Ann Black, newly re-elected to Labour’s ruling NEC,

explains some of the internal party debates whileencouraging greater member engagement.

This has been made more difficult by thecontinuing conflict over antisemitism

and Jeremy Corbyn’s senseless suspen-sion from the PLP, despite being rein-stated into party membership.

If Labour is to mount an effectivechallenge to the Johnson government

it will need a more united front and aclearer narrative on the economy, as

Bryn Jones argues. This means an endto internal wrangling—which has to start

with the Starmer leadership. Meanwhile Labour needs to set its sights on the

open goals provided by government. Don Flynn highlightsthe plight of the Windrush generation, thousands ofBritish residents denied compensation and support. DaveToke exposes corporate interests promoting blue hydrogenwhile Nigel Doggett highlights the case for more deliber-ative democracy to stiffen resolve in averting climate dis-aster. We plan a regular climate countdown column lead-ing up to the COP conference in Glasgow at the end of theyear.

Environmental journalist Mark Cocker reports on thethreat to our wildlife and habitat which requires invest-ment and protection. New Heathrow runways and roadnetworks are not the way to reduce air pollution and car-bon emissions.

The vaccine roll-out will take months while jobs in hos-pitality, creative industries, aviation and retail continue todisappear. Brexit just compounds the economic crisis. Thisact of national self harm is likely to mean anything from athree to eight per cent fall in GDP. Starmer needs to windback restrictions on members and refocus on building anarrative around a new democracy and a new economy.This is the route to winning back the lost ‘red wall’ seats,parts of Scotland and the south.

Tory Britain not working

This is the face ofConservative Britain-

broken and a far cry fromthe illusory ‘global

Britain’

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

find anyone, even within the cityof Manchester itself, describingthemselves as ‘GreaterMancunians’. Towns like Bolton,Wigan, Bury, Rochdale andOldham still doggedly identify as‘Lancastrian’ and many fly theLancashire flag on LancashireDay, November 27th.

The second major problem withthe ‘city region’ concept is that it ishighly centralist, concentratingeconomic and political power on‘the city’ and consigning the so-called ‘satellite’ towns to secondarystatus. So in Greater Manchester,the economic growth ofManchester in the last decade hasbeen undeniable. But the once-eco-nomically powerful towns sur-rounding it are in a dire way. Moreand more power has been ceded bythe districts to the ‘combinedauthority’ which lacks either credi-bility or accountability.

The ‘county-region’ approachoffers a different model where theregion covers a bigger area but onewhich makes sense in terms of aviable regional economy, supportedby a strong regional transport net-work and links between cities andtowns on many different levels.Instead of power being concentrat-ed on one centre, there could be twoor three regional centres (in thecase of Lancashire, Manchester,Liverpool and Preston) linked bygood rail connections complement-ed by strong ‘second tier’ towns andcities such as Warrington,Lancaster, Bolton and St Helens.


C

P&C

Paul Salveson on 2021 and a reset for new normal

Northern democracy

The North of England isin tough times and inthe coming year theymay well get tougher.Covid has killed many

thousands and upended the liveli-hoods of millions. The end of theBrexit transition period will causehuge upheavals and potentiallyfurther major hardship, withparts of the North bearing thebrunt. No wonder the newly-formed ‘Northern IndependenceParty’ has already had thousandsof messages of support on socialmedia.

The region’s problems of socialinjustice and strategic economicweakness were already there; it’sjust that the last year has com-pounded them. Decades of ‘neo-liberalism’ and ten years of aus-terity have taken their toll. Now,the rollercoaster of successivecrises is here to stay: globalwarming is with us. The Arctic ismelting and nothing can be thesame again even if we wanted itto be. 2021 offers the opportunityfor a reset; people don’t want thenew normal to be like the old nor-mal. The North must have a neweconomy and a new social con-tract; it can and must ‘build backbetter’.

How? The Hannah MitchellFoundation proposes a Campaignfor Northern Democracy to arguethat constitutional and democrat-ic reform is a vital ingredient inthe great task of building a neweconomy and addressing socialinjustice across the North. To suc-ceed in fixing our social and eco-nomic problems, we must fix theproblem of the North’s democraticdeficit and abject subordination toLondon. It’s not the whole solu-tion, but it’s an indispensablepart of the solution. The Northneeds its own grassroots move-ment to demand it.

The Campaign for NorthernDemocracy can provide thatgrassroots movement. TheHannah Mitchell Foundation isinviting all citizens and organisa-tions who are working for a betterNorth of England, and agree thatdemocratic reform in the North ispart of what we need, to join us. Itwill be progressive and inclusivebut politically non-aligned.

As a member of the broad cam-paign, the Hannah Mitchell

Foundation will work with othersto specialise in developing thethinking behind, and practice of,progressive regionalism andregional democratic government.That can take many forms and‘The North’ isn’t a monolithicwhole. It contains at least threegenerally-accepted ‘regions’ –Yorkshire and the Humber, theNorth-east and North-West. Inthe past, advocates of regionaldevolution have used these ‘stan-dard planning regions’ (as theywere once called) as the basis offuture regional government. Yetregional identities don’t alwaysfit with planners’ thinking. WhileYorkshire clearly has a strongemotional identity (as well asmaking sense as a regional eco-nomic unit), the North-West does-n’t. Lancashire does and a coun-ty-region taking in much of ‘his-toric’ Lancashire, includingMerseyside and GreaterManchester, has a lot going for it.

Opponents of regional democ-racy still point to the referendumin the North-east sixteen yearsago, when a proposal from theBlair government for a regionalassembly was decisively rejected.It was from that defeat that theidea of ‘city regions’ began to takehold in the world of planning andlocal government. However, thereare two very big flaws with ‘city-regions’. The first is that peopledon’t actually like them. Withinthe ten districts that make up‘Greater Manchester’ you won’t

For moreinformation onthe HannahMitchellFoundation andCfND contactPaul [email protected]

‘Northern Independence Party’ has already had thousands of messages of support on social media

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


Dr David Toke isReader in EnergyPolitics,University ofAberdeen

GREENWATCH

a range of issues with the gas dis-tribution and carbon captureinfrastructure, not to mentionissues of whether pipes, gasmeters and other parts of the sys-tem are compatible.

The difficulties and costs ofrolling out the blue hydrogen sys-tem need to be compared to thepotential for rapid roll-out ofenergy efficiency and heat pumps.Certainly, the heat pump roll-outneeds substantial fundingthrough incentives for installa-tion in existing buildings andurgently needs planning lawreform to ensure that gas heatingin new houses is banned. Heatpumps, which multiply the elec-tric power input using heat fromthe environment, use energy 3-4times more efficiently than heat-ing systems using hydrogen.

There is a battle going onbetween the grass roots move-ment and the big corporations.The corporations want top-downcomplicated, polluting projectsincluding blue hydrogen andnuclear power that at best willtake a long time to be delivered.The grass roots movement wantsdecentralised, cleaner and cheap-er solutions that can be rapidlyrolled out.

Dave Toke on the virtues of heat pumps over blue hydrogen

Grass roots versus big corporationspower struggle

Reports suggest thatdomestic heating billsare likely to be aroundthree times their cur-rent average rate in

order to pay for so-called 'bluehydrogen' supplies. Blue hydro-gen is produced from natural gaswith a large proportion of the car-bon dioxide captured and stored.It is competing for public fundingresources with other more effi-cient low carbon solutions such asheat pumps. The fact that bluehydrogen will be such an expen-sive solution to decarbonise heat-ing is likely to tip the scales infavour of strategies that placemore emphasis on fitting heatpumps to heat buildings.

The information about howexpensive blue hydrogen is likelyto be has been given little cover-age amidst the steady stream ofreports promoting blue hydrogenthat are financed by the oil andgas industry. Instead attentionhas been focussed on the costs ofinstalling heat pumps, its keytechnological competitor in theheating market. Yet after instal-lation, the running costs ofdomestic heat pumps should bebroadly the same for consumerscompared to supplying hot waterusing natural gas boilers.

A recently published paper inthe journal Energy andEnvironmental Science compar-ing the costs of blue hydrogenwith natural gas heating saidthat 'the cost of a H2-based heatsupply is on average, three timesmore expensive than natural gasat present.'

This conclusion matches otheraccounts. Analysis published inPetroleum Economist reportsthat large parts of the costs ofproducing blue hydrogen aretaken up by carbon capture andassociated costs and the costs ofconverting methane into hydro-gen. On the other hand the 'feed-stock' costs of the natural gas, areinflated by the fact that 25 percent more methane is needed tomeet a given amount of heatingthan a natural gas system. Thatis because the steam reformationsystem is only 80 per cent effi-cient. The gas distribution system

will also need to undergo expen-sive refurbishment, at least toboost gas pressures.

All of this will raise the exces-sive cost of supplying heat to theconsumer. This reality is notmentioned by gas industry lobby-ists who have persuaded theGovernment that their bluehydrogen strategy is a seriousone. Instead, the focus on talk ofmaking sure new boilers are'hydrogen ready' allows animpression to be spread that boil-er adjustment is practically allthat is needed to switch to bluehydrogen. In fact this is only avery small part of the require-ment for a national heating sys-tem supplied by blue hydrogen.

Green groups have been verycritical of the Government's back-ing for blue hydrogen. They see itas a means of continuing the oiland gas industry with its 'fugi-tive' methane releases duringproduction and transportation,incomplete decarbonisation dur-ing hydrogen production andcross-subsidisation for ongoingunabated natural gas productionand sale. It is also likely to be avery long time before substantialparts of the heating system willbe served by blue hydrogen given C

Heat pumps use energy 3-4 times more efficiently than heating systems using hydrogen

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


COVID-19 CONTRACTS

Tories waste billions of tax-payersmoneyPrem Sikka says the cronyism evident in numerous Covid related contracts awarded by theTories is nothing new to British capitalism

ment departments. A large numberof contracts were awarded to enti-ties with no experience of PPE andclose to Conservative politicians,often channelled through a VIPlane, created for firms recommend-ed by ministers and leading politi-cians.

A £252m contract was awardedto Ayanda Capital Limited, a com-pany with £510,000 share capitaland £44,509 of tangible assets.Former investment banker TimothyHorlick is on the company boardand its main shareholder. The enti-ty is controlled by Milo Investmentsregistered in opaque tax havenMauritius. The contract was bro-kered by Andrew Mills, an adviserto Ayanda’s board and Liz Truss,the Secretary of State forInternational Trade and Presidentof the Board of Trade. There was nocompetitive tender. Ayanda seemsto have acted as an intermediary tosecure PPE from China. Around 50million face masks it procured werenot suitable for NHS use.

Since August 2015, ConservativeMP Owen Paterson has been a con-sultant to Randox receiving £8,333a month for 16 hours work. A£347m Covid-19 testing contracthas been given to Randox, whosetesting kits were later recalledbecause of concerns about contami-nation.

PPE Medpro, a company incorpo-rated on 12 May 2020, secured a£122m contract to supply millionsof medical gowns. The company hasa share capital of only £100. Untilthe day of its formation, its founderworked for Tory Baroness MichelleMone. In 2015, she was appointedby Prime Minister David Cameronto conduct a review intoentrepreneurship and small busi-nesses, particularly focusing uponsetting up small businesses indeprived areas. Within six weeks ofits formation, PPE Medpro securedthe lucrative PPE contract. Therewas no competitive tender. InDecember 2020, it was learnt thatthe medical gowns supplied by thecompany have not been used.

Contracts worth £148 millionhave been given to Meller DesignsLimited, without any competitive

mentation must have raised con-cerns about the large number ofavoidable possible deaths and theshortage of PPE, an essential ele-ment in containing any pandemic.In the six years before the Covid-19pandemic, the government commit-ted to austerity ran down the emer-gency PPE stockpile by 40%. Thefunding cuts meant that that NHSwas not in a position to handle thecrisis. At the beginning of the pan-demic, frontline health workerswere wearing plastic bin-bags andhomemade face masks.

Amidst the public anger, the gov-ernment began procuring PPE.Contracts should have been chan-nelled through Supply ChainCoordination Limited (SCCL), astate owned company, specificallyformed to co-ordinate purchases bythe NHS. But SCCL was side linedand the government handed outcontracts to corporations. In panicbuying, it paid £10bn over the odds.

Some £10.5bn worth of PPE con-tracts were awarded directly with-out a competitive tender process.The government defence is that tospeedily secure supplies it suspend-ed the normal competitive tenderprocess, but the process was notapplied evenly. The NAO reportedthat in many cases no adequate doc-umentation exists to justify theaward of contracts or the perfor-mance expected. Due diligencechecks were ignored. In some casescontracts had been backdated.

Numerous UK-based businessesoffered to supply PPE, but did noteven receive a reply from govern-

Anyone mapping trajecto-ries of capitalism andthe relationship betweenthe state and corpora-tions ought to look at

how the UK government has hand-ed out Covid-19 related contracts.

Cronyism and favours has beencentral to capitalism, since itsinception. Remember how the EastIndia Company was sponsored bythe state (Royal Charter) to plunderaround the globe. The loot wasshared by wealthy elites. The formmay have changed but the symbiot-ic relationship between the UKstate and corporations remains.

Despite questions in parliament,the government has failed to pro-vide a full list of contracts, theamounts and recipients. InNovember 2020, a National AuditOffice (NAO) report titled“Investigation into government pro-curement during the COVID-19pandemic” stated that by 31 July2020, the UK government hadsigned some 8,600 contracts, worth£18bn. The contracts ranged invalue from less than £100 to £410m.Personal protective equipment(PPE) accounted for 80% of thenumber of contracts (over 6,900 con-tracts) and 68% of the total value ofcontracts awarded (£12.3bn).

The flurry of contracts at theheight of the pandemic also drawsattention to the Conservative poli-tics of austerity and neglect of theUK capacity to manage pandemics.In October 2016, an exercise code-named Exercise Cygnus, involvingthe National Health Service (NHS),local government and emergencyservices, simulated the outbreak ofa flu pandemic to test the resilienceof the systems. The resulting reportnot published in full but copiesleaked to the press stated that the“UK’s preparedness and response,in terms of its plans, policies andcapability, is currently not sufficientto cope with the extreme demandsof a severe pandemic”. In November2020, the government released thefinal, redacted, report titled“Exercise Cygnus Report” thoughmost of the crucial documentationremains unpublished.

The full Exercise Cygnus docu-

Lord Prem Sikkais Professor ofAccounting atUniversity ofSheffield and isEmeritusProfessor ofAccounting atUniversity ofEssex

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


contracts worth over £50m, despiteauditors raising concerns about itssolvency. Tory Peer LordChadlington sits on the Board of itsparent company, Sumner GroupHoldings Limited. P14 MedicalLimited, controlled by formerConservative councillor SteveDechan, who stood down in Augustthis year, was awarded three con-tracts worth over £276m despitehaving negative £485,000 in netassets.

Big accountancy firms advisenumerous government departmentsand also received Covid-19 relatedcontracts even though they have noexperience of dealing with virusesor test and trace facilities. The con-sultancy bonanza includes contractsworth £8m for Deloitte, £7.4m forPricewaterhouseCoopers, £5.4m forErnst & Young, £3.8m for KPMGand £3.5m for Grant Thornton.Details of other contracts are notknown.

tenders. The co-owner of the firm,David Meller, had donated nearly£60,000 to Conservative politiciansand the party since 2009, including£3,250 to Michael Gove’s unsuccess-ful campaign for leadership of theConservative party.

A £3m contract was given, with-out competitive tender, was given toa company called Topham Guerin.The company’s controllers appear tobe friends of Dominic Cummingsand Michael Gove, two leading pow-ers in the Johnson administration

Faculty, a data intelligence gath-ering firm, received a £400,000 con-tract to collect and analyse people’stweets, as part of a coronavirus-related contract. The company waspreviously hired by DominicCummings, chief adviser to PrimeMinister Boris Johnson, during hiscampaign to secure Brexit.

The Good Law Project reportedthat SG Recruitment UK Limited, astaffing agency, secured two PPE

The above list draws attention toirregular practices. It shows thatcrony capitalism is alive. Previously,Michael Gove, Chancellor of theDuchy of Lancaster, vowed to crushcrony capitalism because it distortsfree markets and enables a few toenrich themselves from politicalpatronage. The reality is different.The government awarded Covid-19related contracts without competi-tive tenders, and even without prop-er documentation, to businessesclose to the Conservative Party.Some of the PPE was of poor qualityor not capable of being used. Behinda wall of secrecy, a few selected indi-viduals became rich. Taxpayersfooted the bill for this huge transferof wealth. There is little transparen-cy and public accountability. Thegovernment has failed to publish afull list of contracts. An inquiry bythe Public Accounts Committee islong overdue, but the government isunlikely to come clean.

C

tics without winning aWestminster parliamentary seatbut winning Brexit and completelytransforming the Conservativesinto an ethnonationalist Party.

Labour had a moment when itcould have rebuilt itself. Whengiven the chance to vote for a lead-er who was not a middle manager,members did so in huge numbers.However, instead of this leading toa renewal of Labour it produced aninternal total war. Large parts ofthe parliamentary party and ofLabour’s bureaucracy spent theirtime using the by-ways in itsByzantine constitution to do dam-age. It is true that Jeremy Corbynlacked many of the necessary skillsto be a leader of a modern politicalorganisation but it is also true thatthe party infrastructure made noeffort to support him or remedythose deficiencies.

Organisations that can allow oldways to die and new ways to growhave a chance to survive.

Labour had a small chance tocreate a new kind of political party,a less centralised more federalorganisation, with a more inclusivepolitical culture. A party that didthings in communities on theground not just talked about doingthings.

Corbyn may not have been thesolution but the problems that gaverise to him have not gone away.

first past the post constituency-based elections.

Labour’s rush to the centre leftmany working class areas deeplyalienated by a Party which did notappear to have anything to say tothem. This collapse in communica-tion with what had been strongLabour supporting areas was filledby others who did offer a messageto this group of voters. That mes-sage was ethnonationalism. Formany ethnocentric attitudes canoffer a coherent worldviewalthough who exactly is ‘us’ andwho ‘them’ can vary considerablybetween individuals and over time.

The early warning signs were inthe larger more aggregate electionslike those for the EuropeanParliament. The canary in thecoalmine should have been whenin 2009 the BNP received almost amillion votes and gained twoMEP’s.

UKIP as the slightly more palat-able ethnonationalist party toobegan to gain ground in the 2000’sagain ironically doing incrediblywell in European elections givingthem a strong base across thecountry. This phenomenon mani-fested itself very differently inScotland with the SNP offering asolution to all that country’s ills.

We know how this panned out.Nigel Farage has completelychanged Britain and British poli-

The Labour Party in itscurrent state shows thatit is unable to renewitself. For a short timeunder Jeremy Corbyn’s

leadership it had a point and somelife. Now it is back on the road torespectability and terminal bore-dom.

Organisations are often mostvulnerable when they are mostsuccessful. The long divorcebetween voters and parties, asSobolewski and Ford, call it intheir study of British political cul-ture, Brexitland, can be dated to1997. They attribute the decline insupport for Labour over a twentyplus year time scale to three fac-tors. Ideological convergence – theyare all the same, competitionbetween parties became focussedon a small number of voters andissues in swing seats – they are nottalking to me and the professionali-sation of politics, politicians allhaving the same kind of back-ground and outlook - they don’tlook like me.

These issues are fundamental tothe Party as an organisation.Namely how it creates and commu-nicates its policies and selects itscandidates for elections. This pro-cess of alienation from Labour bymany of its historical core mem-bers and voters has been going onfor a long time but was masked by

Nick Matthews on factionalism and Labour’s missed moments

Ethno-nationalismC

LABOUR FACTIONALISM

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


COVID-19 POLITICS

Britain’s Post-Covid settlement? Bryn Jones says Sunak’s cunning plans and Labour’s timid alternative are no 1945 moments

come from a promised quasi-pri-vate ‘infrastructure bank’ for aNorthern England location, need-ed to replace EuropeanInvestment Bank funding.Underlying this neoliberal quasi-Keynesian largesse is a clearstrategy and potential electoraltarget: stave off post-Covid/post-Brexit collapse of public services;display concern for key workersand dangle (temporary) benefitand training lifelines to masses ofinsecure and impoverished work-ers. But the big money goes to bigbusiness for military and con-struction contracts.

Unfortunately, Labour’s alter-natives differ mainly in sizerather than kind. ShadowChancellor Analise Dodds wantedUniversal Credit raised andextended to the self-employed;plus more capital spending: £30billion, a.s.a.p, for more jobs(400,000) than Sunak’s tokengreen initiatives. Dodds rightlysaid Sunak’s ‘pathways’ ‘lock out’the green economy and make‘transition to net zero harder’.

Meanwhile, as critics have com-plained, Labour is now locking outthe radical structural changes -public ownership of railways andbuses, progressive taxation anddevolution of Green Energy andZero Carbon funds to local govern-ment – recognised as necessary inits last Manifesto. ‘Maybe later’Starmerites may respond.However, Labour’s post-war set-tlement was not achieved bydelaying its bold vision till the1945 election campaign.

lar intensive support, ‘tailored’ forthe long –term unemployed,receives just under a billionpounds a year. It will be accompa-nied by extra ‘Plan for Jobs’ fund-ing: £1.6bn more for 250,000‘Kickstart’ temporary placementsfor young workers - giving employ-ers £2,000 for each new worker tillMarch 2021. Reacting to long-standing inadequacies in furthereducation provision, Sunakpromises £138m of new fundingfor Johnson’s Lifetime SkillsGuarantee: essentially trainingcourses for post-teenage workers.Though welcomed by FE represen-tatives this scheme won’t directlylink the unemployed and under-employed to growth sectors need-ing new occupations and workers.Similar schemes in the 80s and90s produced extra hairdressersand car mechanics not civil con-struction and software engineers.

Beleaguered and under-fundedEnglish pubic services – NHS,schools, local authorities, prisonsand police - get a total of £9.45 bil-lion of, allegedly, extra funding.Yet nearly 50% of this money goesto prison accommodation! The railnetwork gets a £2bn subsidy. Butthese sums are overshadowed by£16.5bn of four years’ new moneyfor ‘defence’, including a new A.I.agency for a ‘national cyber force’and a new ‘space command’ tolaunch satellites and, potentially,space war rockets.

Apart from the claimed ‘thou-sands’ of jobs this last supportsJohnson’s jingoistic boast that: ‘inthe teeth of the pandemic . . .defence of the realm must comefirst … to end the era of retreat,transform our Armed Forces, bol-ster our global influence, uniteand level up our country, pioneernew technology and defend ourpeople and way of life.’ A StarWars £16 billion panacea pack-aged in Brexit Thatcherism.

A £4bn "levelling up" fundbypasses - ideologically, financial-ly and ecologically - Sunak’s earli-er Green Industrial Revolutionrhetoric. A token £1.1bn for greenbuildings (1% of all infrastructurespending) is eclipsed by fundingfor local infrastructure projects,such as new roads, which are like-ly to ‘level down’ the environmen-tal score card. Even more jobs lay-ing concrete and tarmac could

If Britain’s struggle againstCovid-19 resembles war-time, then Sunak’sNovember Spending Reviewcould be the first sketch of a

peace settlement. In 1944/45wartime leaders rehearsed scenar-ios for what became Labour’s wel-fare state and Keynes’s managedeconomy. In 2020 the pro-businessestablishment pines for a ‘returnto normal’. Political divides andsocio-economic devastation makethis highly unlikely. Johnson’scorporate cavalry charge of BigPharma vaccine won’t preventhundreds more businesses andthousands more jobs disappearing.Knowing this, and humouringJohnsonian braggadocio, Sunak’sde facto budget mixes fiscal firstaid with stabs at economic recon-struction.

He has postponed tackling thehuge debt mountain and tackedKeynesian demand stimulationonto neoliberal market forces. Allthis aims to adapt neoliberalorthodoxies to meet two chal-lenges. 1) The very real threat ofdecimated consumer service sec-tors. 2) Failure of the Tories’fabled promises to ‘level-up’impoverishment and neglect in‘Red Wall’ constituencies: theirnew electoral base.

This pragmatic deference topublic spending and workers’grievances parks several tanks onLabour’s lawns. Does Labour havebetter alternatives? Sunak’s menuhas three main courses: financialhelp for cash-strapped low earnerswith labour market interventionsfor the workless; cash injectionsinto public services like the NHS;and public contracts for new jobsand idling businesses. He offersboth short-term and headline-grabbing spending and morestrategic policies: laying thetracks down which the Torieshope an economic goods train willrun.

The main pay packet measuresinclude ‘a minimum £250 increase’for two million earning below£24,000 a year; rises for one mil-lion-plus NHS staff; and anincreased National Living Wage to£8.91 an hour. The labour marketpolicies, however, will producegroans in those who recall their1980s Thatcherite archetypes. Athree-year Restart scheme of regu-

Bryn Jones isVisiting Lecturerat the Universityof Bath and co-editor ofAlternatives toNeoliberalism:Towards Equalityand Democracy(Policy Press) C

Sunak-presiding over growing jobless queues

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


RobinHambleton,EmeritusProfessor of CityLeadership at theUniversity of theWest of England,Bristol.

He is the authorof ‘Cities andCommunitiesBeyond Covid-19.How localleadership canchange ourfuture for thebetter’. BristolUniversity Press.

More details:

https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/cities-and-communities-beyond-covid-19

Progressive politics beyond COVID-19Robin Hambleton suggests that COVID-19 is opening up new political possibilities

ly narrow, even bizarre, way of con-ceptualising freedom. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates, if moreevidence were needed, that we areall inter-dependent – we can makeeach other ill or we can try to makeeach other well.

In recent months societies acrossthe world have favoured strongintervention by the state to meetthe COVID-19 challenge preciselybecause they value freedom – mean-ing freedom from sickness, freedomfrom suffering and freedom fromdeath.

More than that, there has been aspectacular rise in community-based social caring, with neighbourshelping neighbours alongside a pro-liferation of heart-warming localprojects and initiatives designed tohelp those in need.

These radical shifts in perceptionof what really matters in modernsociety suggest that we need a morecapacious way of measuring andevaluating state intervention – onethat goes well beyond the simplisticquestion ‘Is this state limiting myindividual freedom or not?’

COVID-19 opens a new windowof political possibilities

In a new book, Cities and com-munities beyond COVID-19. Howlocal leadership can change ourfuture for the better, I suggest thatwe can build a useful measure ofgovernmental performance byfocusing on the concept of caring forothers and for the planet.

In her book Caring Democracy:Markets, ecology and justice (2013),Joan Tronto argues that care, noteconomics, should be the centralconcern of democratic life. Sheexplains how societies now face acaring deficit and COVID-19 hasshown her analysis to be prescient.

By drawing on the well estab-lished literature on ecocentrism –see, for example, Robyn Eckersley’sbook on The Green State:Rethinking democracy andsovereignty (2004) – we can add tocaring for ourselves and for eachother the critical importance of car-ing for the natural environment onwhich we all depend.

Figure 1 (overleaf) presents away of considering future politicalchoices that steps beyond the out-dated framing provided by theOverton Window.

The continuing tensionsbetween political leadersin the north of Englandand Prime Minister BorisJohnson regarding

COVID-19 recovery strategy high-light two critical divides in society atone-and-the-same time: values andplace.

As well as drawing attention tostriking differences of view regard-ing the values that should guide soci-etal healing, the political conflict isalso shining a bright light on theunacceptable spatial divisions thatnow disfigure modern Britain.

History tells us that when injus-tice is felt not just by oppressedclasses within a society, but is alsoclearly seen as unacceptable by largenumbers of people living in particu-lar areas within a country, the politi-cal consequences can be explosive.

A lesson from the poll tax rebel-lion?

Reflect for a moment on the polltax rebellion of 1989/90. Initiallyintroduced by Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher in Scotland in1989, prior to its introduction inEngland and Wales in 1990, the polltax replaced the long-establishedlocal ‘rates’, a tax related to the valueof property, with a single flat-ratelocal government tax on every adult.

The new tax was, then, not basedin even a notional way on ability topay. Rather it required an individu-al on very low income living in asmall flat to pay the same amount oflocal tax as a multi-millionaireresiding in an extensive mansion.This inept policy was rightly seen bymost people as wholly unjust andthere were truly massive, wellorganised public protests across thecountry.

As Danny Burns explains in hisexcellent book, Poll Tax Rebellion(1992), the grass roots anti-poll taxcampaign drew in a very wide rangeof voices from civil society – frompoor people who simply couldn’tafford to pay the tax to place-basedcoalitions of people who were furi-ous at the cruelty of the tax. Withina few short months MargaretThatcher was history – she wasforced to resign in November 1990.

My point is not to suggest that asimilar fate awaits Boris Johnson in2021, although there are politicalcommentators who take this view.

Rather, I want to draw attention tothe way that place-based publicresentment at a distant and out oftouch government can, at times,combine with class-based intereststo bring about an unstoppableupsurge in pressure for progressivechange.

Owen Jones in his insightfulbook, The Establishment: And howthey get away with it (2014), pro-vides a revealing account of the roleof right-wing think tanks in reshap-ing the political discourse about therole of the state in Britain in theperiod since the 1970s. He explainshow these think tanks operated as‘outriders’, extolling extremist, evendangerous, ideas that right-leaningpoliticians could then draw on.

He rightly gives attention to theso-called Overton Window. Namedafter Joseph P. Overton, the latevice-president of the MackinacCenter for Public Policy, based inMichigan, US, this window conceptclaims to describe what is politicallypossible, or reasonable, at any giventime within the prevailing politics ofthe day.

The window analogy is helpful asit suggests that those seeking boldchange, in whatever direction, needto think beyond the development ofnew policies. Radical reformersneed to work out how to move thelocation of the window in the direc-tion they favour. The chief problemwith the Overton version of the win-dow is that it misunderstands thenature of freedom in the modernworld.

Following Overton, right leaningpoliticians take the view that weak,or minimal, government is superiorto strong government - at root theyclaim that ‘less government’ deliv-ers ‘more freedom’.

To be fair the state does, indeed,limit individual freedoms, usually tobring about significant societal ben-efits. For example, anti-pollutionlaws limit the freedom of pollutersto ruin the natural environment,and laws banning physical assaultand murder limit the freedom ofviolent individuals to do harm toother people. Clearly not all indi-vidual freedoms are good for society.

However, the experience of livingthrough the COVID-19 calamityteaches us that the very framing ofthis debate about ‘freedom’ is mis-conceived. Focussing attention onlyon individual freedom is a peculiar-

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


BIDEN & DSA FUTURE

Biden wins but US still on edge ofprecipice Paul Garver says Left must keep up pressure for progressive agenda

message that he would restore nor-malcy and decency to the WhiteHouse and undo the harm wreakedby the Trump administration con-tributed to victory in several battle-ground states, especially in sub-urbs of major cities. However, it didnot much help other Democraticcandidates, since it lacked a posi-tive or inspiring message to eco-nomically distressed voters.

Trump’s base of rural voters,evangelical Christians, traditionalCatholics and white men with lessformal education, remained sub-stantially intact. The Republicansmobilized voters better throughsocial media and direct canvassingthan the Democrats and investedconsiderable effort in attractingLatino voters, making gains amongCuban-Americans in Florida andMexican-American voters in theRio Grande valley of Texas.Trump’s margin of victory in thoselarge states was therefore morecomfortable than expected in pre-election polls, and Cuban AmericanRepublicans gained two FloridaHouse seats.

Two members of the ‘Squad’ ofleft Congressional Democratshelped drive turnout in the keystates of Minnesota and Michigan.Congresswoman Ilhan Omar over-came Trump’s personal Twitterhate vendetta against her as aMuslim born in Somalia and $10million campaign funding for herRepublican opponent to easily win

At about 67%, the overallvoter turnout in the USpresidential election farexceeded the normallymiserably low US stan-

dard. So far, Biden received morethan 81 million votes and Trump74 million, both record numbers.

Essentially a referendumagainst and for Trump’s reelection,votes against Trump did notalways transfer to otherDemocratic candidates. OverallDemocrats lost ten seats in theHouse of Representatives, mainlyof more conservative Democrats,retaining a slim majority. Theygained net just one Senate seat,with two Georgia seats undecideduntil runoff elections in January.

Black, Latino, Native Americanand young voters were highlymobilized by volunteer field orga-nizing efforts and grassroots orga-nizations in key battlegroundstates, providing crucial contribu-tions to the Democratic victory inPennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia,Arizona and Wisconsin, all ofwhich had supported Trump in2016. This was despite systematicattempts at voter suppression inRepublican-controlled states.

The national Democratic Partyfocused its efforts on massive TVadvertising to persuade suburbanswing voters who had voted forTrump in 2016 to vote for Bidenand moderate Democratic Senateand House candidates. Biden’s

her own re-election in Minneapoliswith a 38% margin. Omar’s cam-paign featured in-person canvass-ing that the Biden campaignlacked. In Detroit CongresswomanRashida Tlaib (also a Muslim and aDSA member) engaged tens ofthousands of 2016 non-voters toachieve re-election and help Biden.

Just as ‘essential workers’ arethe real heroes and heroines of thepandemic, postal workers, localand state election officials and vol-unteers helped save the tatteredframework of American democracy.Whether Republicans orDemocrats, they toiled for manydays to ensure that every vote wascounted as thoroughly and accu-rately as possible.

Whilst the dancing in the streetsafter Biden’s victory was justified,every responsible organization ofthe broad American Left is prepar-ing its members and supportersboth to defend democratic rightsand to mobilize for a broad progres-sive agenda, including racial jus-tice, environmental justice, univer-sal health care and a just and equi-table recovery from the pandemic.

Failure to accomplish this wouldbe disastrous for both the broadLeft and the Democratic Party. IfBiden delivers only better and lessvenal appointed officials and execu-tive orders reversing Trump’s may-hem against immigrants and theenvironment, it will lose credibility

Paul Garver is amember ofDemocraticSocialists ofAmerica

C

The next steps

Vast numbers of citizens andactivists in thousands of cities andcommunities across the world havealready moved the political windowtowards caring for people and theplanet.

In my book I celebrate the pro-gressive achievements of Bristol,Copenhagen, Dunedin, Freiburg,Mexico City and Portland. The goodnews is that these cities are notalone. The COVID-19 pandemic,awful and upsetting as it is, hasalready provided an opportunity forplace-based leaders to change ourfuture for the better.

Figure 1: : A new window of political possibilities (Source: Robin Hambleton (2020) Cities andcommunities beyond COVID-19. Bristol University Press. p. 67)

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


trist and vacillating DemocraticParty (‘Republican Lite’) cannotcompete ideologically with a viru-lently right-wing Republican Partythat rejects reasonable compromis-es that would further a multiracialworking-class agenda favored bythe base supporters of theDemocratic coalition.

Whereas we avoided theprecipice of a victorious Trump re-election, we still remain too close tothe rim of destruction for USdemocracy. Democratic socialistsdefend democracy in order to deep-en and extend it further so that thebroad working class has more deci-sion-making power. It is soberingthat a majority of White votersvoted for an incompetent, egocen-tric demagogue who demonizedimmigrants and Blacks to try tomaintain power. If Trump had notblundered so egregiously by deny-ing the pandemic, he would likelyhave been re-elected.

The Democratic Party played itsafe with Joe Biden by avoidingany commitment to pursue funda-mental reforms beyond restorationof the Obama era. Yet the threatsposed by climate catastrophe, eco-nomic inequality and racial injus-tice are growing, not diminishingin scale and urgency, and demanddecisive actions. Even if Biden’sarticulation of his four priorities -economic recovery, combattingCOVID-19, racial justice and cli-mate change - suggests importantopenings for a progressive policyagenda, these will not happenwithout decisive pressure from theLeft. C

with its supporters. The midtermelections in 2022 might result in arevival of Trumpist Republicanreaction in a virulent neo-Fascistform.

A Republican majority in theSenate would virtually ensure thatno major national reform legisla-tion is enacted in the next twoyears. Democratic victories in theJanuary 2021 Georgia run-offswould tie the Senate, with Vice-President Kamala Harris given acasting vote. Easing theRepublican stranglehold wouldmake it more difficult for theDemocratic Party to evade respon-sibility for progressive reform legis-lation.

Hence the progressive organiza-tions on the broad Left that workedto defeat Trump by electing Bidenare going all out to elect the twoGeorgia Democratic Senatorialcandidates, Jon Ossoff andRaphael Warnock. Neither haveendorsed Medicare for All or theGreen New Deal, two emblematicgoals of the Left. However, groupslike the Sunrise Movement, OurRevolution and members of theHouse Progressive Caucus are sup-porting local progressive forces onthe ground by registering andmobilizing Black and Latino vot-ers. Progressive Black-led organi-zations like Black Voters Matter,New Georgia Project and FairFight have registered 800,000 newvoters, mainly younger and peopleof color. Groups associated with theGeorgia Latino Alliance for HumanRights (GLAHR) and the ArizonaLUCHA delivered record turnouts

of Latino voters. Despite some con-cerns before the election thatRepublicans were registering morenew voters, exit polls showed thatfirst time voters split 2:1 for Biden.However, turnout for other thanpresidential elections is normallylower, and the Republicans arepouring hundreds of millions ofdollars into Georgia to mobilizeconservative voters for the runoffelections.

Bernie Sanders, the Squad andprogressive organizations went allout to defeat Trump and elect thecautious centrist Biden, and con-tinue to mobilize for moderateDemocratic candidates in Georgia.However, these efforts are stillstigmatized and scorned by conser-vative elements in the DemocraticParty and its official leadership.

Within days of the Novemberelections, conservative Democratswere blaming their losses in theHouse of Representatives on advo-cacy of ‘socialist’ issues like theGreen New Deal and Medicare forall, and on advocacy for defundingthe police and support for BlackLives Matter. Members of theSquad and the Justice Democratsblamed these losses on theDemocrats’ lack of a compellingprogressive economic message likea Green New Deal jobs programand on the failure of someDemocratic candidates to makeeffective use of social media anddirect contact with voters. Thatdebate will continue within theDemocratic Party for years tocome. In the long run, even if itwins some elections, a weak cen-

Biden-Harris- voters playing safe

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


WINDRUSH

Racism at heart of government failureThe Home Office has forfeited the right to manage immigration says Don Flynn

the hostile environment were beingreplicated in measures thatrequired the eviction from housingof people subject to negative asylumdecisions. Refugee campaignersdescribed this as recklessly push-ing vulnerable people into home-lessness and destitution during apandemic that has disproportion-ately impacted black, Asian andminority ethnic communities.

On another front, the deportationof non-citizen offenders, many ofwhom came into the country as chil-dren, has been stepped up throughspecially chartered flights to theCaribbean which seem to be aneffort to beat difficulties that areexpected to arise for peremptoryexpulsions when the UK is finallyout the EU in January 2021.

Many organisations working tosupport the welfare of migrant andrefugee people are at their wits endwhen it comes to dealing with agovernment department that refus-es to learn from its past failings.For these critics, institutionalracism is now so deeply embeddedin the Home Office that the onlyremedy can be a decisive end to itsrole in anything connected to migra-tion and refugee policy.

Exactly where the proper placewithin government would be for theadministration of policies whichwould work with compassion to getsocial justice into the way the man-agement of people movement acrossfrontiers and borders is a discussionwe urgently need to get started.

within the way the compensationscheme was working and had rec-ommended changes. She cited thesluggishness of getting money topeople, and the unwillingness onthe part of staff “to provide informa-tion and guidance that ordinarypeople can understand” as beingamong the main reasons for her dis-quiet.

Officials had originally expectedto pay out between £200m and£570m in compensation, such wasthe degree of harm that had beeninflicted on the people eligible forpayouts. But, after a full 18 monthsonly £1.6m had been paid out to 196people. The scandal had managedto trap a cohort of now elderly indi-viduals who had been subjected totremendous stress arising from theallegation that they were not law-fully resident. The scheme’s staffappear to be indifferent to the frailhealth of many applicants and theextent of foot dragging has meantthat at least nine people have diedwithout receiving an offer of com-pensation.

Evictions and deportations

Back in July, in response to herown department’s Learned Lessonsreview, the current HomeSecretary, Priti Patel, claimed that‘compassion’ was to be the watch-word from now on, with furtherreforms bringing ‘diversity’ into thework of immigration management.Yet just weeks later the mistakes of

The Equalities andHuman RightsCommission report onthe Home Office policieswhich produced the

Windrush scandal was published atthe end of November. It joins sixother detailed reviews of the sametopic published since the news ofinjustices on this long-settled groupof Caribbean immigrants had beenbroken in The Guardian back inNovember 2017.

The reports differ somewhat intheir language, but they all reachthe same conclusion. The HomeOffice went in reckless pursuit ofgroups of irregular migrantsthrough the imposition of a ‘hostileenvironment’ on whole segments ofpublic services and civil societywhich were severely prejudicial tothe interests and well-being of legal-ly resident as well as undocument-ed migrants, with the factors thatbrought about these outcomeslargely devolving on ethnicity andincome status. Effectively, a darkskin and modest standing when itcomes to measures of wealth wasthe thing that was going to do foryou.

That was the Windrush scandalitself. The compensation schemehastily cobbled together under SajidJavid’s brief tenure as HomeSecretary was supposed to offer afinancial settlement to cover theloss people had suffered. Lossincluded being denied the right towork and receive social securitybenefits, critical health care, beingmade homeless, and in some casesarrested, detained and deported tocountries in the Caribbean whichthey hadn’t seen since childhood.

Toxic compensation scheme

But, being the Home Office, eventhe task of managing this schemecould not be undertaken withoutdragging racism and cold contemptfor the lives of the humble folk mosteffected into its modus operandi.

The task of administering thescheme was originally given to themost senior black civil servantworking in the Home Office,Alexandra Ankrah. Ankrahresigned earlier in 2020, complain-ing that a ‘toxic atmosphere’ pre-vailed in the unit doing this work.According to a report in TheGuardian she had identified failings

Patel’s toxic compensation scheme angers Windrush campaigners

C

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


in low carbon replacement indus-tries.

Willis conducted interviewswith a range of politicians topaint a remarkable picture oftimidity and lack of leadership,citing a lack of popular engage-ment, albeit grounded in the prac-tical difficulties of transformingour society and lifestyle. Sheidentifies a despairing trendshared by some of those in powerand self-styled ‘environmentalists’such as James Lovelock to sug-gest that democracy itself is inad-equate.

Many politicians, not justPrime Minister Johnson, areprone to grand gestures but waryof provoking a backlash by chal-lenging vested carbon intensiveinterests in business and tradeunions alike and lifestyles basedon consumerism, travel and west-ern diets. The sensitivity over cli-mate concerns also reflects itsfault-lines that tend to parallelthe Brexit /cultural divides overage, education, class and geogra-phy.

They therefore resort to ‘stealthstrategies’ and ‘feelgood fallacies’designed to achieve change with-out facing hard choices. So grantsare paid for renewable energyalongside continued road buildingand tax breaks for fossil fuel pro-duction and aviation fuel alike.Popular concern also carries itsown risks of tokenism and feelgo-od fallacies such as over plasticsreduction and even the electriccar rollout while SUV promotioncontinues apace.

The result is a failure to bringhome the necessary rapid trans-formation, which will affect howwe live in both good and badways. In other words, we are notbeing treated as adults. (Ofcourse, it was movements of chil-dren in climate strikes andExtinction Rebellion’s directactions last year that demandedour leaders tell the unvarnishedtruth.)

Instead we need to developdemocracy beyond passive focus-group consultations, to initiatedeliberative democracy based ongenuine discussion such as locallydetermined plans and citizens’panels. The experience of UK cli-mate assemblies and the Irish cit-izens’ assembly drawn from a

Yet again this year isbilled as a make orbreak year for climateaction. The COP26 cli-mate conference in

Glasgow at the end of Novemberwill be the most important sincethe 2015 Paris Agreement.Chartist will be commissioning aseries of articles on a range of cli-mate-related topics in addition toour regular Greenwatch page.Check our website chartist.org.ukfor updates as well as the journal.

Low carbon technologies suchas renewable energy and ‘green’hydrogen extracted from waterare increasingly viable andaffordable. Popular demands foraction have risen with the aware-ness of such phenomena asextreme weather events, loss ofbiodiversity, melting icecaps anddeforestation.

What Sort of Democracy?

It is clearer than ever thattackling this emergency is a polit-ical problem. A system fostered bya society based on a stable cli-mate, plentiful raw materials andparticularly fossil fuels faces acrisis unprecedented in extentand urgency that upends theseassumptions. This brings intoquestion the nature of our democ-racy and its limitations. In TooHot To Handle, published inMarch 2020, academic andactivist Rebecca Willis sees ademocratic deficit that needs tobe addressed if we are to act effec-tively on climate change.

She characterizes the ‘climate’community centred on academiaas over-focussed on depoliticisedscientific and technologicaloptions, ignoring entrenchedindustrial interests, infrastruc-tures and cultures of inequalityand consumption that chargepolitical dilemmas. Even laudableconcepts such as ‘planetaryboundaries’ seem abstract tomany people and economic mea-sures discussed in terms of ‘car-bon taxes’ and ‘creative destruc-tion’ can alienate those they needto persuade, without a politicalstrategy such as using the result-ing revenue for equitable purpos-es (as recently announced inCanada) and government inter-vention to guarantee employment

cross-section of society shows thata measured (and progressive) con-sensus can emerge. Perhapscounter-intuitively, basing gov-ernment policy on such measurescan bridge the divides that blightour politics, a development thatwould shock sectarian class war-riors and Brexit hardliners alike.

Where does this leave climateand political activists, strugglingfor influence beyond either sloga-nizing or local projects? Willissees radical direct action as theother side of the coin. There can-not be many Green or Labouractivists with any illusions aboutparliamentary reform in theabsence of popular campaigning.But we also need to understandthe web of factors that underlypeople’s views and speak in termsrelevant to them. (An echo here ofthe dilemmas facing the left onother issues.)

The key messages offered for‘good climate citizens’ also applyto a wider field than just climateaction: don’t despair or give up;speak out to colleagues and politi-cal leaders at all levels; andamplify individual lifestyle deci-sions by initiating changes atwhatever scale you can.

This should be fertile groundfor our readers: after all demo-cratic socialism differs from liber-alism in advocating the redistri-bution of economic and socialpower as well as electoral democ-racy. Political campaigners andactivists need to engage in gen-uine dialogue with the public.That does not mean giving up ourprinciples or reaching a centristlowest common denominator. Thislesson should be taken to heart byus all.

Nigel Doggett isa member ofChartist EB C

2021 Climate Countdown starts hereNigel Doggett says citizen’s assemblies and direct action needed to save planet

CLIMATE AND DEMOCRACY

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


COUNTRYSIDE THREATS

New Deal for Nature

ward to a complete ban on drivengrouse shooting.

The government recentlysigned-up to a target of protecting30% of the countryside for biodi-versity but what is centrallyimportant is that all areas of landrich in nature are linked and con-nected with corridors. Naturefunctions as a single system, notas a series of separate pocket-sized fragments. The creation ofnew National Parks will be greatbut it is also necessary that wehave a connecting network thatlinks them all.

In existing National Parks,such as the Lake District andPeak District, much of the highground is a sheep-shorn desert.The Parks need to be funded andfarmers supported so that weslowly shift from this traditionalsheep monoculture, devoid ofwildlife, to a wilder countrysidethat fulfils the nation’s require-ment for green space and recre-ation.

We need a New Deal forNature. We have seen local chari-ties and voluntary groups showinggreat creativity and imagination,getting bold projects off theground. Environmental politics is,in many ways, still marginal tothe mainstream and the recogni-tion that we as a species are partyto a single functioning biosphere,and completely dependent upon it,is still undeveloped in the main-stream political conversation. Toofew politicians at Westminster arewell-informed and able to arguethe case for and about nature.

A post-Covid, post-Brexit worldcould allow us to ‘Build BackBetter’. But part of that meansnot putting the needs of the domi-nant species first every time. Thatis going to be difficult to argue.The economic hardship inflictedby Covid-19 will see unemploy-ment rise, child poverty will reachinto new communities and healthservices will be stretched.

Tackling these issues will be atthe heart of political arguments in2021 but the pandemic has provedhow much our own healthdepends on the life around us. Itis time to recognise that acting inthe interests of the biosphere isnot just good for nature, it is goodfor us too.”

sweeping aside ‘newt counting’formalities, as the means to eco-nomic recovery after Covid whilethe planning White Paper offersfew environmental safeguards. It’sa bit like expecting the butcher topromote vegetarianism!

But who and what can affectour political discourse? Our binarypolitical system distorts debateand prevents really innovativeviews on how to tackle the pro-found social, cultural and econom-ic problems from being heard andconsidered. Our biggest environ-mental charities have been weak-ened financially by the lockdownand their charitable status pre-vents them from taking on explicitpolitical campaigns.

All of this might leave you feel-ing a bit pessimistic - after allDavid Attenborough has been abrilliant educator and campaignerfor 40 years but wildlife popula-tions worldwide have halved inthat time. However, there areissues that we can focus on inBritain that would make a signifi-cant difference.

We have the largest, mostimportant areas of blanket bog inthe world. The Flow Country innorthern Scotland is typical. Itwas proposed as a UNESCOworld heritage site 40 years ago,and calls have rightly beenrenewed for recognition. Thisblanket bog landscape is made ofpeat and is a land form that con-tains fewer solids than milk.Boggy and quaking it may be butit stores 400 million tons of car-bon and sequesters more carbonthan rainforest. It is, therefore,brilliant for wildlife but it also hasa key role in combatting climatechange.

These islands have about fivemillion acres of peat moorlandand it is vital that they receiveproper environmental manage-ment too. Instead we see millionsof pounds in subsidies go to sup-port their degradation. Much ofthis upland area is intensivelymanaged to support the sportinginterests of perhaps 10,000 super-rich people. Instead of beingimproved for carbon capture theareas are often systematicallyburned to create breeding habitatfor grouse. The whole exercise isecological illiteracy and I look for-

The COVID-19 pandemichas inflicted massiveloss and damage on ourcountry. Yet in all thehardship of the last year

we have learned or relearnedsomething about ourselves. Couldit be that the experience of lock-down has changed our lives andour relationship with the naturalworld for the better?

Mark Cocker says

Just as there are wide reports ofmental health problems triggeredby the pandemic and lockdown, sothere have also been positive out-comes. For instance, many came toappreciate the centrality of greenspace to the quality of their lives.Dozens of studies report that expe-riencing green spaces and natureis good for mental well-being andis an aid to recovery from illness,mental and physical. The issue isnot why we should engage withnature, but how do we do it.

We are trapped in a set of his-torical relationships with naturewhich are so deeply embeddedthey are hard to alter. But greenspace is still unevenly distributedacross the population. Black peo-ple are four times less likely tohave daily access to quality greenspaces than white people. Wegained the right to roam in 2001but we still only have access to 8%of the country. Our country, sup-posedly. But it still feels likessomeone else’s land. It is anotherexample of the social injustice thatbedevils our society. People are acasualty but so is nature becauseso many of us are unaware of ourresponsibilities to the rest of life inthese islands.

Theoretically there should bescope to turn the tanker of habitatloss around in this country.Whatever your views on Brexitand our membership of the EU, asilver lining in our leaving Europepolitically could be the opportunityto press a reset button on our atti-tudes and policies for the naturalenvironment.

In the autumn the governmentmade great play about investing inthe countryside. Given their trackrecord one is entitled to be scepti-cal. The prime minister talksabout ‘Build, Build, Build’, and

With the end of the pandemic in sight Mark Cocker talks to Keith Savage about thepossibilities and challenges for environmental campaigners

Mark Cocker isan award-winning authorand naturalist.Follow him@MarkCocker2 C

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


C

These proposals, in principle,have been largely welcomed. Thatdoesn’t mean that this ‘landmarklegislation’ is seen as being thesaviour of farming or the country-side. Rebanks is scathing of whathe perceives to be the govern-ment’s longer-term strategy.

‘The Secretary of State (GeorgeEustice) was very clear that inseven years, British farmers aregoing to be competing with farm-ers from across the globe withoutthe support of any subsidy forfarming itself. It is about the old-est of neoliberal dreams — killingoff state involvement and throw-ing open our country (and coun-tryside) to free trade and deregu-lation.’

Critics also disputed the gov-ernment view that this legislationwas not the place to make connec-tions between food productionand public health and despite apetition signed by two millionpeople there are no guaranteesabout food standards.

Farmers have usually beenassumed to be Tories. If that isthe case then their loyalty will besorely tested. There is an oppor-tunity for Labour to be a part of anew alliance when it comes tofarming practices and the man-agement of our land. Chartist willbe reporting on these questions infuture issues.

One of the conse-quences of leaving theEuropean Union isthe fact that theCommon Agricultural

Policy no longer applies to Britishfarmers. About 50% of farmers’income comes from CAP pay-ments and something is needed toreplace it.

The CAP reinforced a post-warfarming focus on producing foodas ‘efficiently’ and cheaply as pos-sible. This has made it impossiblefor farmers to live off the pricepaid for what they produce and,at the same time, led to greatdamage to the bio-diversity in ourlandscape. As it stands some sortof direct government investmentin farming is inevitable - other-wise the industry will collapse.

The Agriculture Act 2020became law on November 11 andproposes that payments be madeto farmers for maintaining andcaring for land in a responsibleand sustainable way - supportwill be offered for delivering pub-lic goods. The transition from thepresent system of payments to anew Environmental LandManagement scheme will takeseven years altogether.

The details of the new pay-ments are yet to be spelt out - theview from Defra is that it is bet-ter if they are co-designed with

stakeholders rather thanannounced and imposed. Forfarmers trying to run a businessthis approach is not necessarilyhelpful. James Rebanks, a LakeDistrict shepherd and author ofEnglish Pastoral, reported onUnHerd:

“It is not a prospect relished byfarmers. As one of my peers putit, “it is like shifting from a salaryto a per hour contract, with yoursalary halved by the fourth year,and the hourly rate not revealed”.It looks like a great many of uswill lose financial support.”

Farmers do produce food, butthey are also stewards of the landand they manage millions ofacres on behalf of all of us. It isbest that this job is done well andit should be paid for. TheAgriculture Act identifies a num-ber of public benefits that farm-ing can deliver. The post-warfarming industry has damagedthe health and biodiversity of thecountryside in a host of ways. Tobegin to put this right farmerscan be paid for work that will:

• mitigate climate change• protect nature and pro-

mote biodiversity• lead to cleaner air and

water• improve the health and

condition of the soil• address animal welfare.

Keith Savage is aLabour councillorin High Peak,Derbyshire.@keithsavage

Farms face double exposureKeith Savage on threats to farmers, food and land from EU withdrawal

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


BIDEN & UK

Biden in the UK

NATO. Johnson’s recent £16.5 Billion

November bonus for Britain’s mili-tary is the buy-in to US securityplans. The Queen Elizabeth, theUK’s biggest and best aircraft carri-er, due in service in 2021 hasalready trialed integrated operationswith US forces. Deployment is to fol-low in the Gulf and Pacific. It wouldbe a geographical surprise if thatdidn’t include joint Freedom ofNavigation Operations in Chineseterritorial waters that will haveBeijing scrambling their fighter-bombers.

Biden is signed up to thePentagon’s new Indo-PacificCommand and Trump’s enthusiasmto build ’NATO in Asia’. The Quad -an alliance of the US, India, Japanand Australia - had its first jointnaval exercise in 2020 and now thepressure is on for a Quad Plus con-tainment of China. The key is coerc-ing Seoul into developing a ‘bluewater’ navy choosing US securityinterests over its biggest economicpartner Beijing. Washington viaNATO wants the EU onboard. DoesLabour see Britain in the role of‘judas goat’ allaying entry inhibi-tions from Seoul and Brussels totriggering a new Cold War as some-where we want to go? The last timewe played patsy it gave us Iraq.

attempt to breathe fresh life into theTransatlantic Trade andInvestment Partnership (TTIP) withthe EU that would constitute theworld’s biggest trade deal. This sec-ond is an easy sell in Washington - ifagriculture is in the mix - but fierce-ly controversial in Brussels withthreats to labour rights, food stan-dards and the subordination of newEU legislation to the multinationals,the result of the privileging provi-sions of Investor-State DisputeSettlement. France’s farmers andfilms may have to ride to the rescue.

Washington’s central foreign poli-cy focus will be Beijing. Trump’stantrums were the response to thevery dilemma Biden faces; how tocontain a rising Superpower closingin to successively break the threelegs of American hegemony, R&D,the dollar and military monopoly.Biden will speak in a lower register,cloaking comprehensive contain-ment in the language of conciliationand compromise. His underlyinggoal will remain the same. Biden’swants to rebuild the Transatlanticpolitical relationship for export.NATO spending should surge tospend abroad, not at home. HereBritain remains - for the momentbefore the second ScottishReferendum - an important playeron the UN Security Council and in

Biden’s was a ‘good’ badwin. He took thePresidency, held theHouse - albeit with areduced majority - but

failed to take the Senate. The tworun-offs in Georgia look possiblerather than probable. Even a win inboth races leaves the Senate dead-locked at 50-50 and only breaking tothe Democrats for two years, withVice-President Kamala Harris’ cast-ing vote, before being swept backinto Republican hands with the2022 mid-term elections.

Biden’s victory over Trump’snativist xenophobia, blithe racismand shiftless authoritarianism ispause - not cause - for celebration.Biden will be in custom and practicea snapback to the bad old days ofWashington politics. It’s the lens ofTrump’s departure that misleads asa rosy glow. Half a century in poli-tics never saw the next Presidentdressing to the left. He’s not going tostart now.

The Democrats desperately clingto the illusion that they can peelaway Maine’s Susan Collins andAlaska’s Lisa Murkowski from theRepublicans. The reality is whenpush comes to shove they’re allmouth and no trousers, hawkingtheir consciences to no consequence.All the more so with Trump threat-ening to emulate Grover Cleveland,the only President (1885-89, 1893-97) to re-capture the White Houseafter a defeat. Trump’s mob of devo-tees - unless beaten by biology - givehim a lock on the 2024 Republicannomination.

The result is domestic deadlock,with Biden hostage to SenateRepublicans unwilling and unable tocollaborate with the enemy. With nochoice but bargain, the ransom tothe beggars of Wall Street will provesteep. Biden’s mark will make beabroad. It will be guns and better.With, or even without, a BrusselsDeal there is little on the trade tablefor Johnson. The issue is whetherwe are in the game at all or at theback of the queue. Biden’s fashionconsciousness as to his Irish her-itage makes any new Irish border abar, without the need to replayJohnson’s gratuitous references toObama from Kenya.

Washington’s trade priorities willrevisit membership of theComprehensive Trans-PacificPartnership (CTPP) - on Trump’sdesk ready to be sign in 2016 - and

Glyn Ford questions whether Johnson’s UK will be back of the queue or in the game at all

C

Glyn Ford was aLabour MEP

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


C

flag of a democratic Belarus nowhas been raised (quite literally) bymany members of the public with noprevious interest in politics. It is notthat the opposition has evolved inBelarus – but rather that there hasbeen a generation change and a tec-tonic shift in Belarusian societyitself.

This dramatic change in the pub-lic attitude to Lukashenka has beenmade irreversible by both the arro-gance in robbing the voters of thepresidential election on 9th August2020, and by the massive and law-less brutality against non-violentprotesters which then followed.Lukashenka’s popularity cannot besalvaged.

A prominent feature of this dra-matic public change has been localcommunities’ self-organising,expressions of solidarity and thehumanitarian volunteer movement.Given the expected role of generalstrikes at the final stages of topplingLukashenka’s regime, organisedlabour will likely enjoy a significantposition in Belarus's post-Lukashenka politics.

These recent events are no reasonsuddenly to categorise Belarus as a“delayed Ukraine” or analogous toany other neighbours. Since Augustthis year Belarus is visibly progress-ing to a more 'normal' East-European member of the Europeancontinent but is taking an unusualand rather traumatic path. WhileLukashenka still clings to power,now is the critical historic point tohelp the nation of Belarus.

politics had been developing inBelarus’ society over recent years.There were larger-than-usual ral-lies in 2018 to mark the 100thanniversary of the brief indepen-dence of a non-Soviet Belarus.Many observers suggested that theregime was growing more moderate- a perception which created expec-tations for change among youngerBelarusians in particular. Morerecently the public widely felt thatLukashenka was negligent regard-ing public health when the COVID-19 pandemic started – more peoplethan ever losing faith inLukashenka’s paternalistic ‘socialcontract’. Economically it becamestagnation for some and going frombad to worse for others. Official ex-Soviet trade-unions are in practicepart of the state system and actmore as a tool against any protestmovement.

Lukashenka was officiallydeclared the winner in the firstround of the 2020 presidential elec-tion, with over 80% of the vote,thus claiming to have heavilydefeated his main and very popularrival, Sviatlana Tsichanouskaya.The magnitude of the discrepancywith Lukashenka’s popularity wasso enormous and evidence of report-ed vote-rigging so numerous thatLukashenka's declared 80% victoryappeared an outrageously crudefabrication to a very large section ofthe Belarus people. An unusuallylarge network of election observersand an independent online systemregistered voters’ declared choice.Based on polling station resultswhere the count could be verified,election experts, and importantlyincreasingly the public, believedthat Tsichanouskaya had won inthe first round. The initial explosionon the streets, of popular rejectionand outrage about the rigged elec-tion, ensued as never before.

Mass protests have kept on forfour months after the election not somuch because of vote rigging butthe continuous brutality, stungrenades, shooting and torture withat least 30,000 detained and at leastseveral killed between August andNovember.

The traditional white-red-white

Organised labour willlikely enjoy a signifi-cant position inBelarus's post-Lukashenka politics.”

Belarus became an independentstate in 1991 following the collapseof the USSR. It then started along apath of nation-building, transitionto a pluralist democracy, and eco-nomic reform. That came to an endin summer 1994 when it electedAlexander Lukashenka, initially apopulist politician who soon madehimself an autocrat.

26 years of Lukashenka’s rulegained Belarus the reputation as anautocrat-ruled state pursuing ele-ments of Soviet conservation, astate-run economy, not signing theEuropean Convention on HumanRights, lacking reliable rule of lawand independence of courts, holdingpolitical prisoners most of the time,and enjoying Russia’s subsidies inexchange for geopolitical and ‘cul-tural’ loyalty. Lukashenka creditshimself with providing ‘stability’above all and is keen to eliminateany doubts about how firm andunchallengeable his grip on Belarusis. This dampened any expectationfor changes in Belarus and so therewas comparatively little interna-tional attention on Belarus until therecent events of 2020.

The dramatic pictures of massprotest and brutal repression inBelarus that suddenly appeared inJuly and August 2020 in worldwidemedia were a result of issues thathave been in place for a long time –as well as of novel developments.

For a long time, there have beenunderlying post-Communist issues‘frozen’ by Lukashenka. The tradi-tional opposition in Belarus had tobe, for the last 26 years, the advo-cate for democracy and accountabil-ity of the government to the peopleover human rights, rule of law, therights of organised labour, and bet-ter opportunities for non-state sec-tors of the economy.

Why did these issues come to ahead now in 2020? On 9th August2020 a presidential election washeld. Prior to that several new fac-tors had been at work. A newmomentum of civic participation in

Alan Powers is aretired lecturerand a leadingBritish-BelarusacademicMikalaj Packajeuis a legalresearcher andchair of theAssociation ofBelarusians inGreat Britain (aUK diasporaorganisationfounded 1946).

A longer versionof this articlecan be found onwww.chartist.org.uk

Mikalaj Packajeu and Alan Flowers on the 2020 Belarusian Revolution of the People toelectoral reform

The end of ‘the last dictatorship inEurope’?

BELARUS

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


LABOUR REFORM

know that too many members aretorn between voting Labour andkeeping the Tories out. Theyshould not have to make thatchoice.

I shall also attempt to fulfil mycampaign pledges. I support stu-dent proposals for dual member-ship, with defined rights in theirhome CLP and their universityCLP, something which would ben-efit both. I hope to get a largershare of subscription income backto local parties, as I am now evenmore convinced that the 2011model is neither fair nor sustain-able. I would like to enable mem-bers to start selecting their par-liamentary candidates, after theNEC imposed candidates indozens of seats twice in threeyears. As joint NEC vice-chair forwomen, I expect to play an activerole in the second free-standingwomen’s conference of the modernera, albeit held virtually. Andlast but certainly not least mydossier of individual and collec-tive complaints has grown since2018. I shall follow them up, butbetter systems are clearly stillneeded.

My NEC reports are atwww.annblack.co.uk – I welcomequestions and comments, and youcan always contact me [email protected].

human intelligence sources billand the overseas operations bill,and to understand the thinkingbehind positions on Brexit and onthe pandemic. Without continu-ous dialogue, mutual respect andwell-defined objectives the partywill turn inward, the vacuum willbe filled by factionalism, and nor-mal people will stay away orleave. I would like to see regularnews from Labour in parliament,more direct consultation withmembers, even a return to thenational campaign days, wheremembers across the countrymobilised around a commontheme.

Within the NPF I have askedto join the justice and homeaffairs policy commission, whichwill be considering electoralreform as one of its key issues.The dozens of resolutions fromlocal parties and individuals haveclearly had an impact, and I hopeto take them forward. I benefitedfrom Labour’s switch to singletransferable vote for the NECelections: under first-past-the-post, 60% of the membershipmight again have won 100% ofthe seats. In Scotland, Labourwon three of the 73 constituencyseats in 2016, and only top-upsfrom regional lists saved theparty from obliteration. And we

Iwas elected to the NECagain last November, and alot has changed in twoyears. Another lost generalelection, new NEC mem-

bers, a new leader and deputyleader, a new general secretary,new staff. All this is overlaidwith the continuing coronaviruscrisis, so it’s hard to catch upinformally, over coffee in thekitchen or waiting for the lifts.Meeting online has advantages –less time and money spent travel-ling, and easier to visit far-flunglocal parties, from Cornwall toSouth West Surrey to the Wirralto Scotland. But it also has draw-backs and, just as people watch-ing TV swear and throw things ifsomeone annoys them, someremarks would not be made if thespeaker was sitting next to theirtarget.

In that time I’ve attended thejoint policy committee (JPC), anNEC awayday, special meetingsof the equalities committee andthe NEC to discuss Labour’sresponse to the EHRC, disputessub-panels to decide how to dealwith membership rejections, andthe NEC funds panel which allo-cates money from subscriptions tolocal parties. Generally the largermeetings have been shoutier, thesmaller ones more consensual.

Weirdly I returned as chair ofthe national policy forum (NPF),a position to which I was electedback in 2018, and of such impor-tance that it remained vacant formore than two years. However,policy development does needurgent attention. At the JPCmeeting I was impressed by theknowledge and enthusiasm ofshadow ministers, but little ofthis reaches members. They arelooking to the leadership forvisions of a better society, tack-ling the climate crisis and thepoverty and inequality whichCovid-19 has exposed. They alsowant campaigning points, forinstance keeping the uplift to uni-versal credit, protecting tenantsfrom eviction, and opposing pub-lic sector pay freezes. These arenot contentious, and could unitethe party in the run-up to nextMay’s elections.

Where there are differences,members deserve to know whyLabour abstained on the covert

Ann Black is aconstituency repon Labour’s NEC

Ann Black updates on returning to Labour’s ruling body

There and Back Again

C

Ann Black addressing Labour conference

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


PR and by the time you read this,that number will almost certainlybe higher. We are hopeful that asubstantial number of those will besubmitted as a Conference motion.

In addition, members wereencouraged to make submissions tothe Justice and Home AffairsCommission of the National PolicyForum this summer. 65% of thesubmissions to the Commissionmentioned PR, and it had the mostmentions of any single issue in thewhole NPF consultation. AnnBlack, Chair of the NPF, hasassured us that it will be one of thematters on the agenda for the com-ing year.

The other major focus this yearneeds to be on speaking to affiliat-ed Trade Unions. Trade Unionsand their members will benefitfrom a more progressive electoralsystem. An electoral system whichprevents doctrinaire right-winggovernments will almost certainlylead to a just settlement for TradeUnions which gives them the pow-ers to genuinely protect their mem-bers interests and enables them togrow their membership again.

Labour for a New Democracyaims to see our Party ready to starton the creation of a new electoralsystem as soon as we are in gov-ernment. Many Chartist readershave already been at the forefrontof our campaign. If you want to getmore involved you can register atwww.labourforanewdemocracy.org.uk – and of course I would also bedelighted if you join www.labour-campaignforelectoralreform.org.uk

Together we can change the sys-tem.

Sandy Martin outlines a road map for transforming our broken electoral system

Time to change the system

2020 was the year of “jobsfor the boys”. The wellbe-ing of UK citizens wastrumped by the desire toput as much public money

as possible into the hands of pri-vate individuals and companies.

Such wholesale corruption mightbe expected to put paid to anyParty’s chances of being democrati-cally elected, even on the basis of43.6% of the vote. Alas, past expe-rience and the current polls tell usotherwise. Unless such behaviouris regularly reported and charac-terised as corruption, the voterswill not know about it.

The print media does not havethe stranglehold on political opin-ion it once held, but it still sets theagenda. Ownership of radio andtelevision channels is increasinglyin the hands of the same propri-etors, in particular the Murdochs.Tory operators have usedCambridge Analytica and others tosubvert social media for their ownends. The only organisation withenough presence in the lives of themajority of people to be able tochallenge the misinformation is theBBC. That is why the governmenthas put so much effort into sub-verting the BBC’s ability or willing-ness to criticise it, and deliberatelystifling Ofcom.

It’s not just broadcasting thatthe Conservatives are undermin-ing. Changes to the registrationsystem took millions off the elec-toral roll, and that depleted fran-chise is now being used to redrawconstituency boundaries. TheElectoral Commission has criti-cised the hurdles put in the way ofregistration - in response the gov-ernment has threatened to abolishit. Tory MPs who have been sanc-tioned for breaking electoral rulesare on the committee that overseesit, a classic case of putting Draculain charge of the blood-bank. Andvoters may have to carry photo-graphic ID at the next GeneralElection, also depleting Labourvotes.

Labour has got to address consti-tutional issues – it is a matter oflife and death, not just for theParty but for democracy itself.Creating a society where there ismass popular access to politicallybalanced information, and someway of calling out deliberate lies,will not come about over the course

of a single Parliament. Politicaleducation, rebalancing wealth andpower, and wide-ranging institu-tional change are all essential, butthey are not quick fixes.

One change Labour can makeduring a single Parliament is tointroduce proportional representa-tion for the House of Commons, intime for the subsequent GeneralElection. It would massivelyimprove the chances of a furtherprogressive government after thatGeneral Election – theConservatives have not won morethan 50% of the vote since 1935.And it would ensure that constitu-tional safeguards put in place byLabour were not subsequentlydemolished by a doctrinaire Torygovernment elected on a minorityof the vote.

Labour must be committed tochange before the next electiontakes place. We need the votersand the other political parties toknow that we will make every votecount. We need that commitmentenshrined in our Manifesto. 75% ofLabour members support PR – weneed that recognised in aConference resolution nextautumn.

That’s why Chartist has joinedthe Labour for a New Democracycampaign, alongside LabourCampaign for Electoral Reform,Make Votes Matter, the ElectoralReform Society, Open Labour,Compass, Unlock Democracy,Labour for a European Future,Another Europe is Possible,Politics for the Many and Get PRDone.

At the time of writing 111 CLPshad passed a motion supporting

Sandy Martin ischair of LCER

ELECTORAL REFORM

C

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


LABOUR DEMOCRACY

come reflecting the votes cast. Inany event the reform, not evensupported by many LibDem mem-bers, crashed out, rejected by 68per cent of the people who votedin the referendum held in 2011under the auspices of the coali-tion government.

The failure of AV was salutaryand might have brought an end toany further dalliance with elec-toral reform were it not for therole that new systems haveplayed in the devolved assem-blies.

In Wales it has allowed Labourto retain its position as the natu-ral party of government (albeit incoalition with other centrist-left-ist groups), and in Scotland togovern in coalition with theLibDems, and in the face of therise of the SNP maintain any sortof presence in the politics of thecountry at all. Even the oneEnglish region with a claim tohaving a devolved assembly,Greater London, has given itsvoters the chance to feel what islike to participate in one of theversions of a PR-style ballot.

Participation in elections whichweigh the value of each vote dif-ferently might have softened vis-ceral resistance to change, but itstill leaves the question of whatPR is for largely unanswered.

Don Flynn says equal voting will lead to more equal society

Labour Campaign for a New Democracy

The Labour establish-ment has always beendismissive of talk aboutreforming the UK’santiquated system of

Parliamentary democracy. Forthem the rules of the game saythat you have to aim to win elec-tions under the long-establishedfirst-past-the-post system (FPTP)and any complaints about theunequal weighting this gives toindividual voters is nothing morethan weakness and whinging.

The Labour Campaign forElectoral Reform has been a fea-ture of the political landscape fordecades, but despite winning overthe likes of the late Robin Cookand Mo Mowlam, its efforts atpromoting a broadly proportionalvoting system have not succeededin swaying the views of the ‘bigbeasts’ of the party and affiliatedtrade unions.

This might just be changingwith the formation of the umbrel-la campaign Labour for a NewDemocracy (LfaND) campaignwhich combines the skills andcontacts of many organisationsworking in Labour who havecome together to get a commit-ment from the party conference infavour of PR by the end of 2021.It counts on a change in the moodof party members at grassroots

level to achieve this, with recentpolling from YouGov showing 76per cent supporting change andonly 12 per cent being decidedlyin favour of retaining FPTP.

Among the third of MPs whoare now in favour of change, CliveLewis, has been the most outspo-ken. He puts the majority for PRdown to a general election whichhas given the Conservatives acommanding majority of 80 seatsin the Commons with just 43 percent of the popular vote. Lewisargues that the FPTP system hasfrozen parties representing cen-trist and leftist positions out ofpower despite the fact that theyare together more representativeof the country’s broad politicalstance.

The AV dead-end

This is an argument that hasbeen around for a long time andat the tail end of the last Labourgovernment it appeared thatcracks were appearing in themonolithic support for the estab-lished system. The 2010 mani-festo expressed support for a ref-erendum on the alternative voteand Lords Reform. Whatever itmight have promised in the wayof change, AV would not havebrought about an electoral out-

Don Flynn isChartistmanaging editor

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


zens of the country into some-thing which can, first of all, winover the Labour party. Itsapproach at the moment is limit-ed to the familiar one of recom-mending a model resolution thatcan roll across the CLPs (SeeSandy Martin this issue) andeventually be big enough to winat a party conference.

But perhaps it needs to encour-age a diversity of reasons fordumping the voting system whichevolved from the nineteenth cen-tury before the Labour Party andrecently multi party politics exist-ed.

Accommodating its politicalpractice to the dumbing-downrealities of a FPTP system,Labour tends to make its highestpriorities campaigning in whatare understood to be marginalseats, whilst ignoring constituen-cies facing the brunt of deindus-trialisation and poverty.

Then we have the tactics whichfocus everything on switch voters,not ironically Labour supporters,who want the assurance that a‘safe’ government is in the offingthat won’t scare them off withtalk of radical change.

Trade unions all too often havenot made the connection betweenthe outcome of FPTP electionsand bread and butter issues interms of health, education, invest-ment and expenditure.

In exchange for having thewhole cake once in a generationthey throw away the incrementalbut revolutionary build-up of bet-ter services and more secure jobs.

The LfaND also needs to focusattention on the party’sCommission on Justice and HomeAffairs. Democratic reform is cov-ered by its current remit.

It has decided to extend its cur-rent evidence-gathering into sum-mer 2021 to allow constituency,branches, individuals and tradeunions to submit their ideas andarguments for change. Out of thiswe might get a Commissionreport which reflects the fact thatLabour members have moved onfrom PTTP.

A revised voting systemdepends on democracy anddemocracy depends on listeningand learning and recognising thatit is sometimes necessary to moveon from the old way of doingthings.

Our new democracy ought to bea way of governing in partnershipwith the people we are asking tovote for Labour – rather than ask-ing for a mandate to rule overthem for simply another fiveyears.

This is particularly urgentgiven the way in which politics isbeing shaped round the idea ofchronically ‘left behind’ peoplewho live on the margins createdby decades of deindustrialisationand a decaying national infras-tructure. It is of critical impor-tance that we think about whatdemocratic reform might meanfor these groups, and then build apolitical campaign that bringsthem on board.

A start would be for LfaND todeclare itself as being an advo-cate of democracy and enfran-chisement rather than a short-hand for it, PR.

The vote has been the symbolfor change throughout the cen-turies from the Chartists via theSuffragettes but of course itneeds to be accompanied by fur-ther democratic reform. The cur-rent strategy of prioritising vot-ing reform for one year or twoallows this umbrella campaign tofocus on something it can change- namely, the default position ofsupport for the status quo on thepart of the Labour Party andtrade unions.

But after it succeeds it is ofcritical importance that thedemand is nested in more com-prehensive sets of proposalswhich include the no-brainerdemand to finally scrap theHouse of Lords, and strongerregional and local government,with revenue raising powers andthe ability to modify the impact ofpolicies emanating from centralgovernment.

The Commons itself needs tocontinue the modest changes ofrecent years to ensure that itlooks like an assembly of repre-sentatives of citizens more fit forthe 21st century than the 19th.The devolved assemblies inScotland and Wales have much toteach Westminster not least votesat 16 for their own elections.

Encourage diversity

The real challenge for LfaND isto convert this vision of a democ-racy that empowers all the citi- C

Simply allowing the Labour voteto cling on for another generationis not the most persuasive argu-ment, so what else is on offer?The LfaND campaign is making acase for a voting system thatmakes all votes count equally andin turn will produce a more equalsociety. Unfortunately, the analy-sis that might back up this boldclaim is not yet present on itspublic platform. If it was, howmight it run?

The virtue of PR is seen as giv-ing each and every vote equalweight in determining the politi-cal character of the government ofthe country. This is not the caseas things stand at present. Thephenomenon of ‘electoral deserts’exists which, for Labour, take theform of rural or southern con-stituencies, where preference forthe party can be a wasted votebecause FPTP closes off any hopethat it will gain representation inParliament. Under any of thesystems of PR – in reality eithersingle transferable vote or a formof additional member system –fewer if any votes would beentirely wasted, with the votes

for all parties being aggregatedacross constituency boundariesand having some influence on theformation of the eventual winninggovernment.

But how does this get us to thepoint of an ‘equal society’?Systems which have some ele-ment of proportionality prevailacross most European countriesbut, on their own, they have donelittle to stem the tide of growinginequality and the sense amonglarge parts of the electorate thatthey ‘are not being listened to’.

‘Fair votes’ or empowerment?

It would help, inside and out-side Labour, if the PR argumentwas framed as being less aboutabstractions like ‘fairness’ andmore about strengthening a com-mitment to the empowerment ofcurrently neglected segments ofthe population within the demo-cratic system.

Voting systemsdepend ondemocracy anddemocracydepends onlistening

Chartist is one ofthe 11 groupsinvolved in theLabour For A NewDemocracyCoalition.

Full details of thecampaign can beseen on itswebsite athttps://www.labourforanewdemocracy.org.uk/."

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

SOCIALIST SOCIETY


C

role to play renegotiating univer-salist socialist and working classpolitics, a current distinct fromthose who promote “identity, val-ues and culture” – “identity poli-tics”. Negotiating the Rapids sought

to promote democratic and partic-ipatory socialism by politicalreform. It drew on the campaignfor political reform, Charter 88,for a “democratic programme forthe transformation of the UK’spolitical system” and the “unitarycentralised state”. One advancewould be the “introduction of agenuinely proportional electoralsystem”. In the internationalsphere the goal of a “socialistUnited States of Europe” wasneeded to “reply to the offensiveof transnational capitalism witha transnational trade union andsocial strategy.” Dismantling the“barriers between Europeansocialists” instead of withdrawinginto “glorious isolation” was theway forward to contest the“emerging European space”.

The Socialist Society was con-scious of its role within theSocialist Movement, foundedthrough the SocialistConferences. In Negotiating theRapids green issues, the “eco-blind development of capitalism,imperilling the planet itself” ispresented with the way the “ecol-ogy movement has recentlyproved central to re-definingsocialism, especially in Europe”.Committed to the “politics of ecol-ogy” the pamphlet states, “theSocialist Movement must bepreparing the ground for an eco-socialist party”. In SteeringCommittee meetings the group(Socialist Alternatives) of the pre-sent leader of the Labour Party,Keir Starmer, argued for a moreimmediate formal structure forthis “alternative”.

The radical red and green mag-azine. Red Pepper, launched in1995 with the support of theSocialist Movement, and editedby Hilary Wainwright, is a suc-cessor to the Socialist Society.Many of the distinctive ideas inNegotiating the Rapids, an inter-nationalist stand on Europe,democratic left politics, Greenpolitics, a supportive but notuncritical view of what is nowcalled “intersectional” issues,have an influence across the left.

Andrew Coates looks back on the innovative thinking of a left current involving Keir Starmer

Starmer & Negotiating the Rapids

The Socialist Society wasfounded in 1982.Independent of theLabour Party, althoughmany members were

active within the party, it wascommitted to radical socialism.Members included RaymondWilliams, Ralph Miliband, JohnPalmer, Lynne Segal and HilaryWainwright. Committed to“socialist education and propa-ganda” the Society inEmpowering the Powerless (1983)called to “counteract the ominousrightward drift in British partypolitics” underway in the wake ofMargaret Thatcher’s election vic-tory in 1981. The last meeting ofthe Socialist Society SteeringCommittee was in 1993.

In 1987 the Socialist Societyjoined with the Campaign Groupof Labour MPs, the Conference ofSocialist Economists to convenethe Socialist Conference in TonyBenn’s constituency, Chesterfield.In 1989 The Socialist PolicyReview was published in theSociety’s journal (Interlink No 13)for discussion at the ThirdSocialist Conference (held inSheffield). It offered an alterna-tive to what it called “Labour’shopeless behaviour” in govern-ment, and looked beyond the justcompleted Party Policy Review, toa “living, vibrant politics and arenewed vision of socialism forthe 1990s”. The Judiciary and thelegal system by Keir Starmer andRobin Oppenheimer was,Interlink noted, incorporated intothe main strategy document,which had a long section on a newdemocratic constitution andhuman rights.Negotiating the Rapids is pref-

aced with a quote from RaymondWilliam’s The Long Revolution(1961), calling for socialism tohave a “sense of an alternativehuman order.” The Introductionreflects on the end of the “longnight of the Cold War” hopingthat the division of Europe, andthat the “creation of a just andpeaceful international order”might seem a “realistic goal”. Yet,socialism had been discredited bythe “authoritarian bureaucraciesof post-capitalists societies”, the“mixed economy” had failed todeliver the goods, and social-democracy, “and by association,socialism” was in crisis. The suc-

cess of a “neo-liberal politicaleconomy” the “Thatcher regime”anticipated the “triumph of reac-tion elsewhere.”

From the “ruins of consensus”Negotiating the Rapids arguedagainst the New Times perspec-tive developed in the pages of thejournal Marxism Today. Thiscombined a “monolithic analysisof Thatcherism” an “emphasis onnovelty” and “hegemony”. Thenew model Labour Party ‘realism’was an adaption to neo-liberalismand the efforts of theConservative government to cre-ate a “new consensus”.Nevertheless the Socialist Societydid not dismiss the new condi-tions brought about by “post-Fordism”. This “mode of deregula-tion”, transformed forms of pro-duction, while a globalisedparadigm of accumulation, thecollapse of traditional manufac-turing, and loss of trade unionmembership, marked the econom-ic and social landscape. Thebiggest change had been the“qualitative increase in the powerof transnational corporations overlabour and democratic politicalinstitutions”.

If the traditional proletariatwas declining, those who depend-ed on waged labour and statepayments remained the “vastmajority of the British popula-tion”. Reflecting debates duringdrafting the pamphlet looked to“new trade union thinking” and“new cultures of resistance” link-ing up with social movements.“Anti-capitalist class strugglecannot be workerist or exclusivelyworkplace based”. As part of femi-nist, gay, black and other self-organised bodies socialists had a

Negotiating theRapids. SocialistPolitics for the1990s waspublished by theSocialist Societyin 1989.

Andrew Coates isa member ofChartist EB

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


FILM REVIEW

Wandering Star

For long sections, the filmNomadland plays like adocumentary in which

director Chloé Zhao followsactress (and double Oscar-win-ner) Frances McDormand as sheadopts the lifestyle of a transientperson – minus those moments tocamera when McDormandreflects on a hand-to-mouth exis-tence that she is fortunate not tohave. McDormand is only one oftwo professional actors in thecast – the other is DavidStrathairn – and she detractsfrom the story beingtold. She doesn’t give abad performance –McDormand can cor-ner the market in brit-tle loners – but she issurrounded by peoplewho exude lived expe-rience, the true sur-vivors.

The film, whichMcDormand also pro-duced, is based onjournalist JessicaBruder’s 2017 book ofthe same name (subti-tled ‘SurvivingAmerica in the 21stCentury’) in which theauthor followed house-less Linda May as shetravelled from state tostate in her recreation-al vehicle, living offseasonal work with nogovernment support.In adapting the book,Zhao follows a fictionalcharacter, Fern(McDormand) a widowwho once lived in thefactory town ofEmpire, Nevada. Thefactory closed. Thetown’s population dis-persed. We first meet Fern at thelock-up garage where most of herpossessions are kept. It is a briefstop-over before she heads off toan Amazon packaging plantwhere she has a temporary job.We see Fern throw herself intoher work with a mixture of infec-tious energy and professionalcare as she scans barcodes ofparcels on their way to cus-tomers. Then, just as suddenly,she moves on, at risk of hypother-mia with sudden temperaturedrops.

Fern is invited to join a com-munity of travelling workers inthe desert, where they swap sto-ries, share meals and offer mutu-

al support. They are a benign ver-sion of the motorised communityin the Mad Max films, albeit withanti-capitalist rhetoric. She meetsa young man, also on the move,whom she taught in a school inEmpire. Fern is warned about theneed to attend to her vehicle. If itstops moving, so does she. Shealso meets a man, Dave(Strathairn) who helps her getanother job the following sum-mer, though when moving a boxfor her, he is responsible forcrockery dropping through the

bottom of the box. Simmeringwith rage, noting that many ofthe plates have a sentimentalvalue, Fern tells him to go away.

Zhao portrays an alternativeview of America, where individu-als aren’t defined by their jobs,but instead by their warmth andwillingness to help others. Butthese individuals are denied theopportunity to build somethingand they are isolated from theirfamilies through shame. At onepoint, Fern asks her sister forhelp, doing so through grittedteeth.

Insomuch as there is drama,the film asks whether Fern canform another relationship. Her

life in isolation honours her hus-band and we sense that maybeshe doesn’t want to becomeattached to someone else, evenwhen Dave invites her to stay athis son’s home. (The son is playedby David Strathairn’s actual son,Tay.) When, late in the film, Fernis lying on a bed in a house, not atthe mercy of the elements, we feelher unease. Sure, it is comfort-able, but it isn’t hers.

Towards the end of the film, inits only heavy-handed moment,Fern re-visits Empire, a journey

more for the audiencethan for her. The townresembles a 1950snuclear test site afteran explosion, withproperties, includingher own home, leftempty. It is in thismoment thatMcDormand doubles asa tour guide. Look atthe waste, she appearsto be saying; why can’twe design communitiesto be more resilient?

At its heart is anobservation that whenwe see service employ-ees at work, we haveno way of guessingwhere they come fromand what their storiesmight be. Zhao showstheir dignity. The vil-lain of the piece is acruel form of capital-ism that doesn’t investin workers but asksthat they chaseemployment, ostensi-bly for the benefit ofthe more privileged.Corporate Americaexploits a travellingwork force, giving only

temporary wages back. Zhaodoesn’t overtly blame corpora-tions – her film was produced byone, Fox, since acquired byDisney. There is a disconnectbetween the ending – Fern choos-ing a road that hints at a returnto normalcy – and the communitythat Zhao honours, where suchchoices aren’t available. The starsof the movie are the real nomads– Linda May (Bruder’s subject),Swankie and others, all playingthemselves. All over fifty –marginalised and unseen – butilluminated by Zhao’s spotlight.

Nomadland opens in UK cine-mas on 19 February 2021

PatrickMulcahy on realitiesof nomadcapitalism

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


BOOK REVIEWS

The decay of truthTwilight of Democracy. The Failure ofPolitics and the Parting of FriendsAnne ApplebaumAllen Lane £16.99

This is an important book,the first building block intrying to understand where

we are in a world where ‘truthdecay’ as Barack Obama neatlycalls it is now a major questionfor all political discourse andeven moral philosophy.

The term ‘Truth Decay’originated in a 2018 RandCorporation report of thatname. Rand identified fourinterrelated trends: 1. anincreasing disagreementabout facts and interpreta-tions of facts and data; 2. ablurring of the line betweencomment or opinions andfacts; 3. an increase in theinfluence, of opinion andpersonal experience overfact; 4. and lowered trust informerly respected sourcesof factual information. Addin social media, the manip-ulation of foreign powers,the explosion of new TV,radio and on-line news plat-forms and the failure of the40 year (1980-2020) era ofglobalisation, rentier eco-nomics symbolised by theDavos gatherings of topcapitalists and top politi-cians where it was neverclear which was which andyou have a modernity inwhich most of the rules ofjournalism no longer apply.

Anne Applebaum, is anAmerican journalist and writerwho covered the end of Sovietcommunism in the 1980s. Shemarried Radek Sikorski, a youngstudent activist from the era ofSolidarnosc who came to Oxfordand was in the Bullingdon Clubalong with Boris Johnson, DavidCameron and George Osborne.Sikorski rose in Polish politicswhile his wife was writing majorstudies of the Soviet Gulag andStalin’s genocidal repression inUkraine in the 1930s when up to12 million were starved to deathto build Stalin’s idea of socialism.

Sikorski became first defencethen foreign minister for the cen-tre-right-liberal Civic Platformparty which governed Poland2007-2015. Applebaum mean-while was working in London forthe Spectator, edited by BorisJohnson. Her natural anti-com-

munism reinforced by the atroci-ties she was writing about underSoviet tyranny took her into thefold of Tory journalism. But inthis remarkable and unusualbook of journalistic self-aware-ness, she recounts how she gradu-ally discovered that her Toryfriends were drinking at the foun-tain of nationalist, ethno-identitypolitics. This politics also attract-ed the non-metropolitan, rural,dispossessed work-

ers whowere not profiting from theget-rich-quick capitalism of thenew liberal parties vying forpower in East Europe. These areBrexit voters in England, MarineLe Pen voters in France, DonaldTrump voters in America.Applebaum discovered that thejournalists supporting this newidentity nationalist politics werenot bothered by facts.

As Hannah Arendt wrote: “theideal subject of a totalitarianstate is not the convinced Nazi orCommunist but people for whomthe distinction between fact andfiction (that is, the reality of expe-rience) and the distinctionbetween true and false (that is,the standards of thought) nolonger exist.”

We are not living in a totalitar-ian state or heading that way.But we have collectively given up

much interest in distinguishingbetween fact and fiction andbetween what is true and false.Donald Trump and Boris Johnsonare serial liars. Trump may haveover-reached himself and stum-bled but Johnson is protected bythe journalism of half-truth andpost-factual narrative perfectedthis century by anti-Europeanforces. This has also contaminat-ed the left. The Corbyn team

indulged in easy sloganeeringand eschewed hard analy-sis and telling truth to thepower-holders of the left,notably in some tradeunions.

Applebaum worked forthe US funded LegatumInstitute based in Mayfairafter the Spectator. Butthere she found the path tothe top of rightist journal-ism was to bend the truth,especially on Europe. Sheknew from her own livedexperience in Poland thatmost of what was writtenon the EU in London wassimply false though sheprefers the genteel adjec-tive ‘fanciful.’ And then herliberal friends who seemedto be keen on democracy inpost-communist Europebegan boosting nationalistpolitics and closing downmedia and university free-dom in Hungary orwomen’s rights and judicialindependence in Poland.Normally a senior andmuch respected writer-

journalist like AnneApplebaum would simply find

new outlets and leave the world ofnationalist identity lies behind tosink in its own sewer.

The arrival of Trump as presi-dent of her own country revealedhow much the contempt for truthand facts entered into and did seri-ous damage to modern democracy.Her book is a witness into just howcorrupted journalism has becomethis century. Luckily, Trump hasgone but Johnson and Brexit, basedon post-truth politics face no majoropposition in England while VictorOrban and Jarosław Kaczynski arestill running Hungary and Poland.

This book is a brave effort toexpose the wrong turning politicsand its associated journalism hastaken since the end of communism30 years ago. Stopping ‘truth decay’is a herculean but nonethelessurgent task.

DenisMacShaneon bendinghistoricalfacts

Denis MacShanewas a formerMinister forEurope. Hislatest book isBrexiternity: TheUncertain Fate ofBritain out nowfrom IB Tauris.

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


The Left’s failures and fascism’s triumphsMarxists in the Face of Fascism:Writings by Marxists on Fascism fromthe inter-war periodEdited by David BeethamHaymarket Books, £15.99

The idea of fascism haunts theleft from the standpoint of itsfailures to deal with the chal-

lenges this far right ideology setbefore the organised working-classmovement in Europe in the middledecades of the 20th century. The‘Marxists’ who provide accounts oftheir struggles against the impend-ing disaster in this valuable bookcover the viewpoints of theStalinised Comintern and its affili-ates across Europe, the criticalviewpoints of figures like Trotsky,Gramsci and Andres Nin, right theway through to social democrats ofvarious hues.

The book benefits from an excel-lent introduction by its editor, DavidBeetham, who does the service ofdistilling something that approach-es a consensual viewpoint as towhat fascism actually is from thesediverse commentators and partici-pants in anti-fascist struggle. Hesettles on a definition that drawsmost heavily on Gramsci andTogliatti. It revolves on the ideathat it is a distinctive form of capi-talist offensive which depends onthe mass mobilisation of petty bour-geois elements, but with a signifi-cant section of the working class intow. This popular support arosefrom the defeat of revolutionarymovements and the failure of thesocialist left to resolve the economiccrisis of that period.

The obligation to consider view-points from the entire spectrum ofMarxism makes it necessary toinclude a review of articles settingout the ‘third period’ take on ‘socialfascism’ which emanated from theofficial Communist parties. This is adip into a world of such baleful erroras to make it hard to take seriouslyexcept as an example of how to geteverything wrong.

The sections which reproduce theviews of the more critical group ofmilitants represented by Trotskyand the Italian currents are nowpart of the cannon sufficiently well-known and frequently republishedto be already present in volumes onthe shelves of many modern-daysocialists. This is much less so withthe social democrats, and it is thecontributions of the likes of RudolfHilferding, Max Seydewitz,Alexander Schifrin, Otto Bauer andRichard Lowenthal which make this

book particularly interesting.This group were all leading fig-

ures in the Austrian and GermanSocial Democratic parties who hadplayed a role in the parliamentaryand ministerial arenas of politicalstruggle during the 1920s and 30s.Their instinct throughout these crit-ical years had been to strive forworking class unity ahead of thedemand for ideological purity whichhad led to splits and the formationof mass Communist parties. Baueraccepted the logic of maintainingclass unity as the highest prioritymeant being prepared to go intogovernment whenever electoralmajorities had been secured inorder to deliver reforms like theworking-class housing projects thatwere the jewel in the crown of thecity of Vienna. But as the economiccrises of the period gained momen-tum, the refusal of the socialdemocrats to acquiesce to thedemand of the bourgeoisie to abolishtenant protection led to a swingtowards the nationalist right wingand fascist parties.

In a riveting analysis of how thecommitment to programmaticreform had led to social democracyemerging as a cluster of ‘interests’,Lowenthal shows how the entire

political project of the party couldonly be bound together by bureau-cratic means. This critique ofreformist socialism from the insiderreveals a picture that is far from the‘social fascism’ of the Stalinists, andjust as distant from the ‘treacheryof the leadership’ which is central toso much Trotskyist analysis. Whatthe best of these articles shows isthe belated awareness of howsocialists intent on change had beenlured onto the terrain of parliamen-tarianism and the state, which wasonly too ready to dump them when-ever it served the interests of capi-tal.

In a country like the UK todaythe threat of fascism is not presenton the immediate horizon mainlybecause the parliamentary statehas proven adept at rolling backworking-class gains without feelingthe need to mobilise the masses in aviolent counter-revolution. Thethreat of socialism in this countrycan be blown out of the water by notmuch more than a newspaper cam-paign in support of a silly EnglishBrexit party and a set of spuriousslurs against the personal integrityof leftist politicians. A long way offfrom fascism certainly, but alsolight years away from socialism.

Don Flynn on anti-fascism in1930’sEurope

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


BOOK REVIEWS

The state in a time of crisisFor Class and CountryDavid SwiftLiverpool University Press £25

This study is subtitled ‘ThePatriotic Left and the FirstWorld War’ but the book’s

coverage is much wider than thistitle would imply. Much attentionhas been given to those elementsof the left who were opposed tothe war: Macdonald and the ILP,the No-Conscription Fellowshipand the Union for DemocraticControl (UDC) and also to therole of the revolutionary left inthe last two years of the war,after the first and secondRussian Revolutions.Predominantly, John Macleanin Glasgow and the rentstrikes and Sylvia Pankhurstin London’s East End. Swiftprovides an importantcounter-narrative. His mainargument is that while the leftwas divided between support-ers and opponents of the war,this was not a simple left-rightdivision and that it was possi-ble to be both a socialist and apatriot and that patriots werenot all aggressive imperialistsand jingoists. He argues con-vincingly that the wider work-ing-class Labour movementsupported the war effort, evenif somewhat reluctantly andthat the opposition was largelyled by intellectuals, many ofwhom were associated withthe Liberal Party rather thanthe Labour Party.

Swift focuses on the role ofLabour ministers, who joinedthe wartime administrationsof Asquith and Lloyd George –the first experience of Labour ingovernment – Henderson at theEducation board, but also GeorgeBarnes as pensions minister,John Hodge as minister of labour,Jimmy Clynes as food controllerand William Brace at the Homedepartment. These Labour repre-sentatives, with trade unionbackgrounds, had significantachievements in protecting theinterests of workingmen andwomen during wartime. Swifthas also undertaken a systematicanalysis of the records of the WarEmergency Workers NationalCommittee, which broughttogether the Labour party andtrade unionists and also involvedthe Fabian, Sidney Webb. TheCommittee’s secretary was JimMiddleton, the Labour Party sec-

retary, who worked exhaustivelyto take up the cases of thousandsof individuals in relation to pen-sions, food, employment, housingand a range of other matters,making use of his personal con-tact with Labour ministers, someof whom held the relevant portfo-lios.

What is perhaps most surpris-ing is the extent of governmentcontrol over so many of the ele-ments of daily life and what ineffect was an emergency welfarestate, administered largely by

Labour Ministers working with agroup of Liberals, many of whomwere Asquithians with a laissez-faire small state anti-tax back-ground. The railways were takeninto state control, as was 85% ofthe food supply. The mines werecommandeered. Taxes and regu-lations restricted alcohol con-sumption. The government closedthe stock market and took controlof the financial system and credit.A minimum wage was introducedfor munitions workers and foragricultural workers. The RentRestrictions Act controlled privaterents and protected tenants fromeviction. Pensions were providedfor the families of fighting soldiersand those killed or invalided.

The state for the first timefunded new council housing, ini-tially for munitions workers. Free

meals were provided forschoolchildren, not just on week-days but on Saturday and Sundayas well. Child care classes formothers were provided free, someinteresting precedents for ourcurrent government in theCOVID-19 crisis.

Swift demonstrates that con-trary to the perspective of aca-demics who have focused on mili-tancy and strikes, which werelimited to specific locations andindustries, and the 1917 Leeds‘soviet’ conference, that actually

there was increased collabo-ration between trade unionleaders and the government,assisted by the group of tradeunionist Labour ministers.Swift also examines the grow-ing importance of the co-oper-ative movement, whichplayed a significant role infood distribution, and theincreasing collaboration withthe Labour Party to whichmany co-operators had beeninitially hostile.

Swift’s study is wellresearched. Unlike so muchof the literature, it focuses onwhat the labour movementheld in common, rather thanon internal differences. Italso demonstrates the extentto which the wartime pres-sures generated support forcollective action by the stateand the breadth of coverageof what became in effect anemergency welfare state andnational health service. TheLabour Ministers demon-strated that they could actresponsibly in government

and were not all wild revolution-ary Bolsheviks.

Moreover, the work of the WarEmergency Workers NationalCommittee won the respect of themany thousands of working peo-ple it had helped. The romanticanti-parliamentarianism ofWilliam Morris and the SocialistLeague was long forgotten. Thesyndicalism of Tom Mann and theguild socialists such as Cole wasmarginalised. While Labour wasdamaged in the 1918 Khaki elec-tion, with McDonald and theILP’ers losing their seats, most ofthe wartime Labour Ministerswere re-elected and it was thewartime experience that led toLabour replacing the Liberalparty as official opposition in1922, and then becoming the gov-ernment in January 1924.

DuncanBowie on Labour inthe FirstWorld War

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


First black superheroBlack Spartacus: The Epic life ofToussaint LouvertureSudhir HazareesinghAllen Lane £25

Serialised on Radio Four inNovember this is an epic story ofblack liberation, bravery and mil-

itary genius. Toussaint Louverture ledthe first black revolution to overturnslavery against the Spanish in whatwas then Saint-Domingue, now Haiti.

Louverture was inspired both by theEnlightenment ideals of French repub-licanism, to which he remained stead-fast, and a hybrid of native mysticism,fraternal slave organisations andAfrican political traditions. He emergedas the leading figure capable of organis-ing and mobilising the thousands ofblack and mixed race slaves againsttheir oppressors in last decade of 18thcentury.

Many would have believed theaccount by the great West IndianMarxist historian CLR James, TheBlack Jacobins, would be the last wordon the subject but Hazareesingh hasunearthed voluminous original works,letters and documents to produce abook that expands on James to create adeeply engrossing, richly rewarding andinspiring read.

Slave revolts against brutal Spanishrule, indeed against, British and Frenchcolonials across the Caribbean had beenwidespread. What Louverture did waspull together the disparate forces and

leaders into a political movement. Hisevident charisma lives and breathes inthese pages.

Hazareesingh takes us through theearly days of Louverture’s education andupbringing to the point of the successfulslave uprising against the Spanishforces in August 1791. On achievingpower Louverture abolished slavery,and set about economic reform, loweringtaxes, introducing horse drawn car-riages, encouraging new settlers. Hesought to rebalance the economy awayfrom just banana and yams to sugar,coffee and cocoa. This involved meticu-lous planning.

At the same time he displayed astutediplomatic and military skills in fendingor fighting off hostile and scheming colo-nial invaders intent on reconqueringSaint-Domingue and re-enslaving itspeople.

By 1801 Louverture drafted a set oflaws which became the new constitu-tion—inspired by Republican ideals ofliberty, fraternity and equality. Hesought to strengthen ties with theFrench republic. The previous yeat hehad effectively become the governor.

Louverture led from the front. In theface of Spanish, British and finallyFrench counter assaults he displayed asupreme military intelligence and was abrave commander willing to fight in thefield. He introduced new uniforms andfortified defences. He avoided tri-umphalism, calling on his forces toremain vigilant and defend the

MikeDavis on an epicliberationdrama

Dictatorship as a medical conditionThe Dictatorship SyndromeAlla Al-AswanyHaus publishing £12.99

The Dictatorship Syndrome isostensibly a guide to the vari-ous elements of dictatorship,

using the metaphor of a medical con-dition. In reality, it makes a veryreadable account of some of theauthor’s history and ideas but in pre-senting his own private wonderingsand conclusions based on a specificexperience, perhaps a missed opportu-nity.

In many ways Al-Aswany is stuckbetween two poles. The book benefitsfrom decades of his experience as aprominent Egyptian liberal voice anda key player in the protest movementwhich deposed Mubarak as part of theArab Spring in 2011. His familiaritywith the subject matter, havingknown a string of autocratic Egyptianrulers since Nasser, shines through inanecdotes to highlight the points

being made. He also claims to offer a universal

analysis of the traits and inevitablefailings that all dictators have in com-mon, but sadly, fails in this loftierambition. Though not an academicpolitical science work, it would carrysignificantly more intellectual heft ifhe had drawn on the large body of lit-erature and analysis of authoritarianleaders and their states. Why, forexample, in a book that claims a glob-al remit, is so little attention paid tothe 20th century dictatorships beyondthe Arab world? From Central Asiato the North Korean dynasty andLatin America, too many examplesare either ignored or fleetingly men-tioned. The conclusions thereforeappear narrow and tailored to Al-Aswany’s sphere of experience.

A principled commitment to demo-cratic ideals and political freedomsshines through each chapter of thebook, with a clear normative rejectionof the unquestioning loyalty and dou-

ble-speak required by many dictator-ships of their citizens. This absolutistrejection of dictatorship, thoughadmirable, does lead to some reduc-tionism. This is especially true in con-sidering the populations subjected todictatorial rule, where Al-Aswanyignores influences of culture, povertyand education to buy into disparagingnotions such as the caricature of the‘good citizen’ upholding the statusquo.

This book is both an easilydigestible and enjoyable read, notleast because of the personal experi-ence that feeds into its conclusions.But the sense that something is miss-ing remains. That there is no com-mentary on the economic success ofthe Chinese Communist Party, theilliberal democracies of Hungary andTurkey or the cult of personality stylepopulism in India, Brazil and the USAis a great shame. The dictatorshipsyndrome is real; but this book doestoo little to diagnose it.

BenFrancisondiagnosingdictatorship

sovereignty of the country. He could beruthless in the face of rebellion. He wasquite an aesthete eschewing the fine lifewhile instructing freed plantation work-ers to put in the hours in the fields.

Despite his willingness for SaintDomingue to remain a French colony itwas the French, under the instigation ofNapoleon whose treachery engineeredLouverture’s defeat. He had soughtequal citizenship under the Frenchrepublic. Bonaparte had other ideas andwith a huge force of 16000 troops and ayear long war finally overcameLouverture. He was taken prisoner,brought to France and spent his lastyear incarcerated in a fortress thou-sands of miles from his family. InWordsworth’s phrase ‘a most unhappyman of men’.

His inspiration and achievements liveon. He became a figure of legend and abeacon for slaves across the Atlantic andfor generations of European republicansand progressives in America andEurope. He inspired the black anti-slav-ery campaigner Frederick Douglas. Hisemancipatory struggle was hailed byanti-imperialist campaigners well intothe twentieth century.

Hazareesingh relates that in themodern era his life inspired the Frenchpoet Aime Cesaire’s seminal idea ofnegritude and has been celebrated in aremarkable range of plays, songs,poems and novels. It’s hard not to agreethat he was the world’s first blacksuperhero.

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


BOOK REVIEWS

Heroes or Villains?The Common Freedom of the PeopleMichael BraddickOxford University Press £25Providence LostPaul LayHead of Zeus £30

Braddick’s volume is a biogra-phy of the leveller, JohnLilburne, the first since PaulineGregg’s 1961 study, Free-BornJohn. Braddick sets Lilburne’spolitical career within the widercontext of the English civil war,the Commonwealth and theCromwellian protectorate whichfollowed. In doing so, he demon-strates that Lilburne did notactually believe in economicequality. Lilburne recognisedthat there were different classesin society and was proud that hewas a member of the gentry anda landowner. He was not opposedto the monarchy as an institutionand did not actually support theexecution of Charles I.

Lilburne’s focus was on indi-vidual political liberty. He wasnot a collectivist and theLevellers were a group of pam-phleteers and polemicists, whosometimes collaborated but oftenargued with each other. AsBraddick demonstrates, theywere not a political organisation,despite the later claim of thesocialist historian and journalistHenry Brailsford, and certainlynot a working-class organisation.As polemicists, Lilburne andother Leveller pamphleteers werehowever influential in that theyhad allies within the army coun-cil and some supporters withinparliament. Lilburne was neverelected to parliament, though ona number of occasions he wastried by parliament, and his elec-tion to the common council of theCity of London Corporation wasquashed by parliament on thepetition of his fellow councilmen.

Lilburne was a persistent liti-gant, seeking to defend his ownrights against the governments ofthe civil war era, irrespective ofwhether the government wasseen as reforming or repressive.He succeeded in falling out withmost of his political associates,partly through his own egotism,but also through his unwilling-ness to compromise. To him, theCommonwealth and theProtectorate were as tyrannicalas Charles I had been.

Lilburne was certainly not apragmatist. Once a close ally of

Cromwell, he called for Cromwellto be impeached. Fighting againstall religious authority, in his finalyears he was converted toQuakerism. He appeared to beagainst all civil authority in thathe always challenged the authori-ty of those who sought to try him.Despite not being trained in law,his legal theatrics outwitted someof the leading lawyers in thecountry. Twice on trial for his life,he convinced juries to acquit himof offences of which he was clearlyguilty. Spending nearly half ofhis political life in prison, he wasfinally sent into exile as a resultof a personal dispute over proper-ty. He then returned from exile

without authority to do so, only toface another trial and a furtherexile.

In prison he managed to contin-ue pamphleteering, and wasaccompanied by his wifeElizabeth. Prison clearly did notinterrupt his procreationalachievements. Elizabeth was con-sistently loyal to her husband andclearly deserves some sympathygiven how badly she was treatedby her husband who publiclyberated her for her perceivedweaknesses in suggesting that heshould seek allies rather thanenemies. She was endlessly peti-tioning on his behalf.

Lilburne however does deservecredit for his determined defenceof the rights of the individualagainst those in power includingthe right to a fair trial and theright to stay silent to avoid self-incrimination. Braddick, as a his-torian who has taught inAmerican universities, notes howthese rights have been incorporat-ed in the US constitution.

Lilburne was in essence a demo-crat. However, despite havingfought in the civil war, he clearlypreferred fighting in the courts tofighting in battles. Moreover,while his activity inspired con-spirators, and even riots, he him-self appears to have avoided plotsand conspiracies, and unlikeLeveller colleagues such as JohnWildman, did not ally withRoyalists in their attempt tobring down Cromwell.

Lay’s book, subtitled The Riseand Fall of Cromwell’sProtectorate is in contrast, ratherodd. The author, Paul Lay, is edi-tor of History Today, and the bookis written more as a popular nar-rative than as an academic study.Rather oddly, Lay’s initial focus ison Cromwell’s ‘Western Design’,his unsuccessful attempt to cap-ture the Spanish West Indiancolonies and much of the rest ofthe book focuses on Royalist mili-tary campaigns and Royalist con-spiracies.

Lay seems to have undertakenonly limited original research andboth of these subject areas havebeen well covered by more aca-demic historians, such as CarlaPestana and Karen Kuppermanon the former and DavidUnderdown on the latter. There issome interesting material on therule of Cromwell’s major generalsand on the debate on the succes-sion to Cromwell and the fallingout with John Lambert, who hadbeen seen as Cromwell’s deputy,but the book is spoilt by repeatedcomparisons between Cromwelland Margaret Thatcher. If youwere looking for an analysis ofthe rise and fall of Cromwell’sprotectorate, this is the wrongbook.

DuncanBowie on LilburneandCromwell

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48


A Marxian biologist losing his way A Dominant Character: The RadicalScience and Restless Politics of J.B.S.HaldaneSamanth SubramanianAtlantic £20.00

Haldane was a funnyMarxist biologist. Askedwhat nature told him

about God he replied: ‘He has aninordinate fondness for beetles’.Part of a pantheon of a half dozencommunist scientists in the thir-ties and forties that filled the air-waves, hard-pressedGovernment from withoutand counselled them fromwithin, it saw intertwinedresearch, lives and politics.Gary Werskey’s VisibleCollege (1988), the collectivebiographer of five of the six -JD Bernal, Haldane,Lancelot Hogben, HymanLevy and Joseph Needham,demonstrates the whole wasgreater than the sum of theparts. Quite what theMarxist archaeologist VGordon Childe had done tomiss the cut, apart frombeing Australian, wasunclear.

For this fraternity sciencewasn’t neutral. Intelligentdesign was not proof of god,but rather proof of purpose.The reel of history was yet tofully unwind but the finalehad already been previewedin Russia’s revolution. The‘eureka’ moment had beenthe descent of the SovietDelegation, led by NikolaiBukharin, on London in 1931for the ’Second InternationalCongress of the History ofScience’. The very title of BorisHessen’s paper The Social andEconomic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’ said it all. Science wasthe horse which ‘red experts’were to ride into the future. Itmay have staggered like a drunkin the past, but the discipline ofthe dialectic would sober it up tofind direction and speed.A Dominant Character, por-

trays its subject as a complexsplintered character. Principallya geneticist his work helped con-summate the necessary marriagebetween Darwin’s evolutionarycrawl and Mendel’s jumps, where‘hopeful monsters’ face nature’sgrim tribunal. He, in parallelwith Alexander Oparin (TheOrigins of Life, 1924), stirred‘primeval soup’ to life. His

numeracy allowed him to ravagethe intellectual structure under-pinning US eugenics - heavilyborrowed by the Nazis - that legit-imated the racism, sexism andfamily punishment in that unfin-ished American civil war where‘Black Lives Matter’ is only thelatest skirmish. He gaudily paint-ed eugenics’ scientific basis in thecolours of the Inquisition.

He was as equally happy exper-imenting on himself as on others.Early in his career he wrote

Callinicus (1925) in praise ofchemical warfare. The SpanishCivil War had him in Madrid pro-viding medical knowledge alongwith military and political exper-tise. The first two proved moreuseful than the last. WithNorman Bethune he pioneerednew techniques for storing bloodplasma and his frontline experi-ence of 1914-18 in the BlackWatch prepared Republican Spainfor gas warfare that never came.Franco preferred bombs.

By the late thirties his Spanishadventures led to tireless cam-paigns to mitigate the impact ofexplosives, over his preferred poi-son, with a crusade for better AirRaid Precautions as the Left BookClub published his A.R.P. (1938).All, in concert with his ‘college’,made a radio star. For those that

read and didn’t listen there werehis science columns in the DailyWorker.

He was blinded by Stalin’slight. The Nazi-Soviet Pact hadhim defending Stalin’s perspicaci-ty in New Statesman. Stalin hadno need to mop up the unem-ployed in war work to bolster cap-italist profits. The Soviet Unionhad neither. In a most ill-timedand ill-turned phrase Haldanedamned himself, ‘I would soonerbe a Jew in Berlin than a Kaffir

in Johannesburg or a negroin French EquatorialAfrica’. April 1942 saw hisfirst wife Charlotte leavehim and the CPGB. TheParty had told her to stayfor the cause. She left both.Haldane took the Party’scard in May.

Haldane’s darkest hourwas to follow. His only visitto his beloved Soviet Unionhad been in 1928 at theinvitation of the renowngeneticist Nikolai Vavilov.Arrested as a British spyand saboteur in 1940,Vavilov waited three yearsto die of malnutrition. Hehad stood in the way of TDLysenko, a snake oil sales-man selling the pseudo-sci-ence that wheat could be‘taught’ to like the cold.When the last remnants ofthe Soviet biological estab-lishment were purged in1948 Haldane defendedLysenko and his ’sect’ onthe BBC, betraying in theprocess much of his owncorpus of work. With

Stalin’s death in 1953 the cult’sgrip was broken. Haldane becamea critical supporter of Lysenko,yet uncritical of Stalin.

In 1957 Haldane escaped him-self with exile to India. Reborn inCalcutta’s Indian StatisticalInstitute he ran down his lifeworking to its 1964 end. For himthe secrets of human existencelay in biology, not theology. Hispenance was in his British vale-diction (Rationalist Annual,1958), ‘a man must not do anaction which he regards as dis-honourable even if ordered to bythe chief of the gods in person’. ADominant Character suffers onlyone failing. Subramanian’sHaldane is fish out of the water inwhich he swam. Placing him firm-ly in the social function of his sci-ence proved a bridge too far. Pity!

Glyn Fordon geneticsandcommunism

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

Democratic reform mustbe high up Labour’sagenda. As shadow min-ister for elections I havebeen working closely

with Scottish and Welsh Labour todevelop our commitments to a deeperdevolution of power in the economyand society.

This year we have a huge electoralchallenge with elections for theScottish and Welsh devolved govern-ments, mayoralties in cities through-out England and many local elections.

This is important because it showshow different our democracy is nowcompared to the 1980s. We have anasymmetric picture of devolved pow-ers, with some areas like London con-trolling a large infrastructure, forexample Transport for London, withlocal councils overseeing education,adult and child-care, housing and

local environment.We have an Everest stylemountain to climb to win a

majority in 2024.How do we use theanti-Tory majority in

the country tofashion a new

federa l i smalongside

t h echal-

VIEW FROM WESTMINSTER

Radical federalism

Sam Tarry isLabour MP forIlford South anda junior shadowminister. This isan editedtranscript of histalk at ChartistAGM

We may well see a further splinter-ing of the UK in the near future. Weneed to anticipate and plan for consti-tutional transformation. I’m workingwith Clive Lewis to develop this. Withthe Tories attacking devolutionLabour needs to develop a fullyfleshed out plan for the whole UK.

We are talking about a radical fed-eralism involving devo-max and some-thing big that relates to the democrat-ic deficit in England. We also need totarget smaller towns and rural areas,not just the bigger cities. Labour inWales has been doing some pioneeringwork, particularly illustrated withearly interventions in the first wave ofthe pandemic. Devolving new powersneeds to be at heart of our futuremanifesto.

One of the plus points in Corbyn’smanifestos was economic democracy.But the lock in of progressive demo-cratic political change has not yetbeen done. These two forms need to beconnected, particularly building amovement for democratic reform inthe trade union movement.

More devolution needs to be done ina way that is meaningful to people.

Ed Miliband’s plan for a GreenIndustrial Revolution builds on theCorbyn period. We have got to enablepeople to envision what this means fortheir jobs, for their communities andtheir wider environment. Economicdemocracy and putting real power inpeople’s hands need to be our goals.

lenges in England and London, almostanother country and economy on itsown? It’s both a question of cultureand politics.

We are clear on the need for greatereconomic democracy but the 2016 ref-erendum underlined the lack of powerpeople feel. Give people a binarychoice, many people in smaller towns,who feel a lack of power, were attract-ed by the idea of ‘taking back control’.In normal elections people are notgiven this sort of say.

Devolution in Scotland has meantordinary citizens now have a highersatisfaction level about elections, fol-lowing changes to the electoral sys-tem, according to Electoral ReformSociety. They have higher electoralturnouts and appear more positivegenerally about political engagement.The Citizens Convention in Scotlandthat preceded the referendum on inde-pendence meant there was real buy-infrom citizens, charities and civil soci-ety organisations. This has been sus-tained since.

When we were last in governmenthuge opportunities were missed. Yes,we had devolution but the changes tothe House of Lords did not go nearlyfar enough. Our first past the postelectoral system was untouched. Wenow have to fashion a manifestoattractive to people and other par-ties—the SNP, Green Party andLibDems — who we may need to forma government.

Sam Tarry calls for a radical federalism to connect with the people’s desirefor greater power over their lives

Subscribe to CHARTIST at

www.chartist.org.uk C

Welsh Labour leading in devolved Assembly

#308_01 cover 20/12/2020 22:48

tories broken britain - home | chartist

Documents