CHARTIST£2

For democratic socialism #292 May/June 2018

www.chartist.org.uk

Stephanie ClarkSelling our healthBob LittlewoodCouncil's in frontlineJames AndersonIreland bordersRuth Taylor & JaneyStoneMay 1968Billy HayesFixing the systemPaul GarverTrump resistanceplusBook & Film reviews

ISSN - 0968 7866 ISSUE

Saving the NHS

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 1

CHARTISTFOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

May/June 2018 CHARTIST 3

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

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 Gillham, James Grayson,Hassan Hoque, Peter Kenyon, Dave Lister,Pu ru Miah , Pa t r i c k Mu lcahy , She i l aOsmanovic, Marina Prentoulis, RobbieScott (Website Editor), Mary Southcott,John Sunderland. Production: Ferdousur Rehman

Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views ofthe EB

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: info@peopleforprint.co.uk

Website: www.chartist.org.ukEmail: editor@chartist.org.ukTwitter: @Chartist48

Newsletter online: to join, email webeditor@chartist.org.uk

CHARTISTFOR DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISMNumber 292 May/June 2018

FEATURES

REGULARS

Cover by Martin Rowson

Ireland border issue threatens BrexitPage 10

Contributions and letters deadline for CHARTIST #29308 June 2018

Chartist welcomes articles of 800 or 1500 words, and letters in electronic format only to: editor@chartist.org.uk

Receive Chartist’s online newsletter: send your email address to news@chartistmagazine.org.uk

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:editor@chartist.org.uk

CONTENTS

8 NEW COUNCILS ON THE FRONTLINEBob Littlewood outlines the challengefacing local Labour 9 ALTERNATIVE LOCAL MODELSAlena Ivanova and Paul Smith on Preston andBristol initiatives10 BREXIT & THE IRISH BORDERJames Anderson on the perils of a hardborder11 LEFT REMAIN CASEStephen Marks on socialists for the EU12 POLITICS FOR MANYBilly Hayes on a new drive to make votescount13 BOBBY KENNEDY LEGACYNigel Doggett recalls the times, the politicsand the man 14 TRUMPING TRUMPUS resistance is growing to the populistpresident says Paul Garver16 NHS UP FOR SALEStephanie Clark on how Tories are lettingthe predators in 18 PARIS MAY 1968-50 YEARS ONRuth Taylor & Janey Stone remember therevolt plus Chartist archive20 WORKERS’ DEMOCRACY?Ian Bullock considers soviets, delegate &representative systems22 LULA IMPRISONEDThomas Zicman de Barros on high stakes inBrazil23 SOCIAL SECURITY SCANDALRory O’Kelly argues Labour needs to standup for the poor24 ANTISEMITISM & WINDRUSHBryn Jones sees moral panic & Don Flynntraces migrant ire

4 OUR HISTORY 78The Commonwealth party Manifesto5 EDITORIAL Tory Brexit home truths6 GREENWATCHDavid Toke on onshore windfarms

7 POINTS & CROSSINGSPaul Salveson on local surprises25 FILM REVIEW Patrick Mulcahy on Funny Cow26 BOOK REVIEWSAndrew Coates on Rethinking

Democracy; Duncan Bowie on LabourChurch, Paul Salveson on WaltWhitman; Stephen Marks onWainwright’s democracy; Nigel Watt onMaking Africa Work; Maria Prentoulison Social Democracy; Mary Southcotton Erdogen’s Turkey

32 STRASBOURG VIEWJulie Ward MEP on Brexit shambles

Jeremy Hunt selling off the NHS Page16

Ex-president Lulu da Silva fighting tostand again Page 22

Join the growing body of supportersubscribers for which you will receiveoccasional discussion bulletins and aninvitation to readers’ meetings and theAGM. Alternatively, just take out anordinary subscription.

£15 ordinary subscription£30 supporter subscription (6 issues)

Visit www.chartist.org.uk/subscribe fordetails

CHARTIST AGM 2018Can Labour find winning ways?

Saturday July 7thCentral London

Venue tbc

Speakers & discussions on Brexit, neo-liberalism, Independent Labour Party,

Momentum, Labour strategy.Check www.chartist.org.uk for further details

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 2

4 CHARTIST May/June 2018 May/June 2018 CHARTIST 5

OUR HISTORY EDITORIAL

Brexiteers crow about the great prospects forBritain’s future trade and prosperity outside theEU. The freedom to strike trade deals as ‘globalBritain’ is held up as the alternative to the domi-nation and bureaucracy of Brussels. The emptinessand duplicity of this promise was further revealedby two developments last month: first, Trump’strade war threat and secondly, revelations over the‘Windrush generation’.Trump threatened huge tariffs on European and

Chinese steel and oil exports, to which the EU andChina responded in kind. This action if pursuedopens the way to a vicious trade war which couldtranslate into a loss of 100,000s of jobs and compa-ny bankruptcies. Of course, Trump is the bigchange since the UK EU referendum. This is the‘America First’ president, as Paul Garver reports,playing the populist nationalist cards to whiteAnglo-Saxon Americans. No way is Trump going tobe giving preferential treatment to UK firms inany future trade deals. Rather the UK will beexposed with no effective trading bloc for protec-tion.Nor will the Commonwealth countries

provide an economic refuge. Thesecountries of the Empire, currently of aUK trading value of 9% compared to44% with the EU will be lookingelsewhere for their economic devel-opment. Liam Fox is whistling inthe wind if he expects India, nowassuming its place as fifth largestworld economy, is going to dofavourable trade deals with UK.This links with the Windrush scan-

dal long highlighted by backbenchLabour MPs, migrants’ rights groupsand a sustained campaign by TheGuardian. It is the threat of deportation anddenial of rights to over 50,000 British citizens as aconsequence of Theresa May and Amber Rudd’s‘hostile environment’ for migrants. Revelationsfinally hit home during the week of theCommonwealth Heads of Government conferencein London. Cue huge embarrassment. All thoseIndian and African sub-continent students deniedany long term rights in the UK. The regime oflandlords, schools, health professionals expected toundertake checks, the Theresa May ‘Go Home’buses all begin to come home to roost as cheapelection ploys. So behind the Windsor Castle flat-tery the reality is alienated Commonwealth coun-tries.As Don Flynn points out, this is but the tip of

an iceberg and requires Labour policies whichunashamedly say that long-term residence in theUK does lead to permanent residence; thatmigrants in all categories will be protected fromadverse discrimination whether in employment,housing or the use of public services and citizen-ship and a right of appeal will be available to allwho want to settle here. Of course, it also connects to the rights of the 3

million EU citizens working in the UK and the mil-lion plus living in Europe. Labour has rightly saidthat their right to UK citizenship will be a numberone commitment. Not so with the Tories.Much comes back to Brexit and its follies.

Stephen Marks discusses a new must-read pam-phlet arguing the left remain case for a Europeanrecovery and reform programme within the EU.James Anderson puts the spotlight on the bigissue which could upset the whole Brexit applecart, namely the Irish border. He outlines theminefield in difficulties in avoiding a hard borderunless agreement on a customs union is reached.Julie Ward MEP reports on Brexit negotiationdevelopments, the inadequacies of UK lead DavidDavis and the need for Labour to firm up its posi-tion.Meanwhile chancellor Hammond continues the

tough austerity regime hammering public ser-vices, pay and living standards. Bob Littlewoodreports on the opportunity in local council elec-tions for Labour to clear out many Tory controlledauthorities but it has to be an anti-austerity cam-paigning message from Labour. There is no roomfor business as usual. Alena Ivanova reportingon Preston’s Community Wealth plans and PaulSmith highlighting Bristol’s radical housing ini-

tiatives provide two examples of a progres-sive alternative for Labour.

While outsourcing is becomingincreasingly discredited following thecollapse of Carillion, tin-earedTories like Health secretary JeremyHunt, put the NHS at the sharpend of two frontal assaults: bigeffective cuts in funding alliedwith a determined push to priva-tise. Stephanie Clark outlinesthe threat from the likes of VirginCare and US multi-nationals given afurther green light from newly

launched Accountable CareOrganisations.

Rory O’Kelly exposes the Tory assault onthe poor and disadvantaged through UniversalCredit and changes in the social security system.Labour needs to sharpen its focus on this assaulton the most vulnerable, he argues.Getting our system of democracy right is funda-

mental to making effective social change. BillyHayes outlines an initiative aimed at tradeunions to reform our antiquated electoral systemwhile Ian Bullock examines the strengths andweaknesses of representative, direct and sovietstyle democratic systems.Our current flawed democratic systems contin-

ue to alienate millions. As Ruth Taylor andJaney Stone celebrate the events of May 1968 inFrance we are reminded that engaging andempowering citizens in political life, whether inthe community, trade union or government, is notan optional extra but the only true safeguard ofour liberties and rights. Populists, authoritariansand racists of the right, in Hungary, Poland,Turkey or the US can only triumph if the peopleare passive and disempowered. The challenge for Corbyn-led Labour is to build

an active social movement based on our commoninterests for equality, solidarity and social justice.This means reaching out also to our brothers andsisters in the EU and beyond. As the students in’68 demanded: ‘Be realistic. Demand the impossi-ble’.

Tory Brexit dreams hit reality

The Common Wealth Party was a Christiansocialist political party founded in July 1942,by the alliance of two left wing groups, the1941 Committee, supported by Picture Postand J B Priestley, Spanish Civil War veter-

an and Communist Tom Wintringham and the neo-Christian Forward March movement led by Liberal MPfor Barnstable, Richard Acland.It appealed to egalitarian sentiments and hence

aimed to be more appealing to Labour's potential vot-ers, rather than voters leaning Conservative. CommonWealth stood for three principles: Common Ownership,Morality in Politics and VitalDemocracy. Disagreeing withthe electoral pact establishedwith other parties in thewartime coalition, key figuresin the 1941 Committee begansponsoring independent can-didates in by-elections underthe banner of the Nine PointGroup.Following the electoral

success of Tom Driberg inMaldon with this support in1942, there was a move toform the Committee into apolitical party, through amerger with Forward March.This was led by Sir RichardAcland, Vernon Bartlett, J.B.Priestley, and TomWintringham. Its programmeof common ownership echoedthat of the Labour Party butstemmed from a more idealis-tic perspective, later termed‘libertarian socialist’. It cameto reject the State-dominatedform of socialism adopted byLabour under the influence ofSidney and Beatrice Webb,increasingly aligning itselfinstead with co-operative,syndicalist and guilt socialisttraditions.Vernon Bartlett was elect-

ed as an independent inBridgwater in 1942. CommonWealth intervention in by-elections allowed a radicalis-ing electorate to returnsocialist candidates inConservative heartlands, in Eddisbury, Skipton andChelmsford. In the 1945, general election,Commonwealth held the Chelmsford seat, but the MP,Ernest Millington joined the Labour party in 1946.Before the 1945 election, Common Wealth had askedthe Labour Party to let it have a free run in 40 seats, aproposal rejected by the latter. Acland joined theLabour Party as did Driberg. Bartlett kept his seat asan Independent. Very little has been written aboutCommon Wealth. A 1968 PhD by Angus Calder hasnever been published. Vincent Geoghegan’s 2011Religion and Socialism: Roads to Commonwealth is a

OUR HISTORY - 78COMMON WEALTH MANIFESTO 1943

study of four radicals who were involved in the party.The Common Wealth party had no significant impactafter 1946 and was finally closed down in 1993.“The age that is ending is based on competition

between men and nations. It was the age of capitalismand monopoly, nationalism and imperialism. It hasgreatly increased the productive capacity of the world:built railways; grown cotton; dug coal. It has also builtslums; grown hatred; dug graves for two generations ofyouth. It was not without value in its growth and flow-ering, but it is now outgrown and decayed. The beliefsand forms of authority that shaped it are today shack-

les on humanity. Our proposals, we

gladly admit, do notmake sense in terms ofthe ideas of the City orthe Foreign Office.They cannot be under-stood by those whothink that if all menand nations pursuetheir own interests,universal prosperityand good will mustresult. Our pro-gramme is based oncompletely differentideas. We say that it isno use patching up away of living that haschanged into a way ofdeath. We believe theBritish people will notturn back towards theold world; they willpioneer towards a newsocial order.In this new social

order:Fellowship will

replace competition asthe driving force in ourcommunity.Co-operation with

our fellows, not thepursuit of self-interest,will be the drivingforce in the lives ofmen and women.Life will come before

property.A society built on

these principles will be inspired by vital democracy, ademocracy which is a living freedom, not dead, formalor buried in red tape.Work, responsibility and wealth will have to be

shared according to the needs and abilities of all men,women and children. Today this means the commonownership of the great productive resources, withdemocracy in industry as well as in politics.There will have to be security and equality for all cit-

izens. There will have to be colonial freedom and anadvance towards world unity.”

‘Berealistic.Demand theimpossible’

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 4

venting the Government from pro-viding opportunities for onshorewind.The Minister of State for

Energy, Claire Perry, has, inrecent months, been making someencouraging noises about provid-ing some 'contracts for differences',CFDs as they are know in trade-jargon, available for onshore wind.They were available for onshorewind when the CfD system waslaunched in early 2015 but sincethen, while some offshore windcontracts have been awarded,onshore wind has been carved outof bidding for such contracts. YetPerry appears to lack the requiredpolitical clout to do much thatchanges anything, especially toovercome the vocal hostility of theclimate-and-wind sceptical groupof Tory MPs.Making a priority of embarrass-

ing the Government over this issueshould be a win-win situation forLabour. Renewable energy, includ-ing wind power, is very popularamong all voters, especially withyoung voters. On the other handby supporting onshore windLabour can proclaim it is promot-ing consumer interests of obtain-ing electricity - above all cleanenergy – from the cheapest possi-ble source. Attacking theGovernment for its failure to sup-port onshore wind is a very goodway of taking votes from theTories. Please, John McDonnelland Jeremy Corbyn, spend sometime on this! Put some real windup the Tories!

May/June 2018 CHARTIST 76 CHARTIST May/June 2018

C

GREENWATCH

Dave Toke calls for more onshore windfarms

How Labour can put the wind upthe Tories

Labour is well placed toembarrass the Toriesby attacking theGovernment’s war onthe onshore wind

industry in the UK. Despiteonshore wind now being thecheapest widely available electric-ity source the Government isactively sabotaging the industryby refusing to allow long termcontracts to be issued to winddevelopers. Meanwhile large sub-sidies are being offered to gas,coal and nuclear power stations.Under the last Labour

Government incentives weregiven to build up a large increasein onshore wind power, whichnow supplies around a tenth ofUK’s electricity supply, with off-shore wind and solar farms nowsupplying around another ten percent of UK electricity. But rightwing English Tory pressure hasprevented any move towardsenabling long term contracts to beissued so that new windfarms canbe financed. Meanwhile the UKrisks becoming increasinglydependent on supplies of gas fromplaces like Russia and Qatar.The Labour frontbench is

beginning to realise that youngpeople in particular want to seegreen energy being given achance, and, for example, JohnMcDonnell has recently attackedthe Tories for failing to do any-thing to revive support for thefeed-in tariff scheme that helpedpeople install solar panels ontheir roofs. But attention oughtalso to be turned to promoting

onshore windfarms. Doing sowould embarrass the Governmentand also sow division inside theTory ranks. More practically, itwould offer hope to people whoare working in the industry thatthey might have a future. Placeslike Grimsby are benefitting fromoffshore wind projects which arestill being built, but onshore windfactories are being closed down,the latest being the Glasgowbased Gaia Wind.Independent experts say that

onshore wind can be built costingthe consumer less than new largegas fired power stations. Howeverorders have dried up because theGovernment is refusing to organ-ise long term guarantees of pricespaid for electricity to be generat-ed by the wind farms. Long termcontracts are needed because thetechnology is capital intensivemeaning that while the wind isfree, the money for the equipmentneeds to be paid for at the start ofthe project. Hence effective (say15 year) long term price guaran-tees are needed to persuadebanks to offer loans to supportwindfarm construction.The majority of the capacity of

UK’s onshore windfarms havebeen installed in Scotland.Despite the fact that the ScottishGovernment is keen to have morewindfarms, control over what con-tracts are issued for electricitysupply rests with Westminster.Yet it is English Tory MPs, oftenallied to the climate-sceptic NigelLawson and his ‘Global WarmingPolicy Foundation’, that are pre-

Dr David Toke isReader in EnergyPolitics at theUniversity ofAberdeen

P&C

councils have limited powers.That should change.The debate on what makes for

an appropriate size for a localauthority is an interesting oneand I would always go for smallunits with a manageable size andidentity. Farnworth has a popula-tion of 30,000 which for localauthorities in many towns incountries like France, Germanyand Italy is on the large side. Yetin the UK there’s still a mentalitythat going for bigger and biggercouncils (as in Wales at themoment) brings benefits. It’s non-sense. Small councils bring focus,good governance and strong com-munity support. It makes senseto share appropriate facilitieswith neighbouring councils butabove all maintain that localdemocratic base. Let electedregional authorities have respon-sibility for the strategic stuff.From what I’ve seen of them,

FKF supporters aren’t localUKIPers – they’re the sort of peo-ple who would be involved in com-munity activities and probably inthe past would have naturallyinclined towards Labour. TheMay elections will show whetherFarnworth and Kearsley Firstwas a by-election flash in the pan,or the beginning of a much biggershift in people’s thinking. Like itsmore affluent neighbour inFrome, Somerset, Farnworthcould shake the establishment’sfoundations. I hope it does. C

Paul Salveson on local surprises

New voice in town-part of the solution?

In previous issues ofChartist I’ve commented onthe appalling state of thetown where I spent most ofmy childhood - Farnworth -

and questioned why peopleweren’t rioting on the streets.Well it’s started. A ward by-elec-tion a few weeks ago saw newpolitical party Farnworth andKearsley First (FKF) win by asubstantial margin over Labour.Traditionally, Farnworth hasbeen a rock-solid Labour area.Yet FKF’s Paul Sanders wonwith 1,204 votes while Labourcame second with 969. UKIP got169 votes while the Tory garnereda mere 153. The Lib Dems didmuch worse, polling just 23, withthe Greens getting 18.So what’s going on? Part of the

problem is the marginalisation ofsmall to medium-sized towns fol-lowing local government reorgani-sation in the mid-1970s, coupledwith the catastrophic collapse oftraditional industries, mainly cot-ton. There’s something about hav-ing your ‘own’ council that bol-sters identity and engenders asense of pride, and participation,in a place. Being part of largerunits, often with meaninglessnames which mean nowt tonobody (Kirklees, Tamesideamongst others) only make thingsworse. ‘Huddersfield’ is a bigenough place to have its owncouncil, but so is Dewsbury andpossibly Batley. Lumping themall into one unit and calling itsomething meaningless in thehope that people won’t thinkHuddersfield, Bolton or Burydominates, is laughable. In thecase of Farnworth, Horwich andWesthoughton whoever decidedthese things had the sense to callthe new council ‘Bolton’ which isthe obvious dominant town, but itdidn’t make the loss of your localcouncil any more palatable. With even the best of inten-

tions, a local authority in whichone centre dominates will alwaysbe seen by the smaller towns asbeing against their interests.Often there’s more than an ele-ment of truth in the perception.It’s a particular problem (in myexperience) with Labour authori-ties in which most of the elected

members are from the large cen-tre, which is often economicallydeprived. It’s not uncommon forthe smaller ‘satellite’ towns to bemore affluent ‘outer suburban’places often returning non-Labour councillors. So the gov-erning Labour elite can justifyignoring the ‘satellite’ towns onthe basis that a) they don’t votefor us and b) they’ve fewer socialand economic problems anyway.Yes it stinks, and it’s politics. Incases like Farnworth, where the‘satellite’ town is both Labour-voting and economically dead ordying, the excuses are even thin-ner. The new leader of Bolton

Council has gone on record sug-gesting that the regeneration ofFarnworth is a high priority, buta lot of people would say it’s fartoo late in the day and the rot setin back in the 1980s, with pre-cious little having been donesince. The so-called ‘trickle down’theory that investing in a largecentre will somehow help theperipheral towns is a fallacy.Turning it all round is difficult.

But where smaller towns havetheir own council (be it parish ortown) they can make a differenceand bring a focus, in a way thatLabour’s much-loved ‘area com-mittees’ or similar, never will.But it’s ultimately down to thecommunities themselves, sup-ported by their councils, havingthe guts to get stuck in, stopblaming everyone else, and justdo it. So, forming your own politi-cal party – like Farnworth andKearsley First – could be part ofthe solution. It will almost cer-tainly bring out the worst inmany Labour politicians but theyshould realise their own failingsand understand why groups likeFKF have come into being. If theyhad any sense, they’d extend ahand of friendship to the newcouncillor (and others to come)and work with them in the inter-ests of the town. A town council for Farnworth

and Kearsley, matching whatother Bolton ‘satellites’ Horwichand Westhoughton already have,would make a lot of sense andgive a real focus for the town’sregeneration, even though town

Paul’s website iswww.paulsalveson.org.uk

A wake-up call- Farnworth Kealey First elected councillor

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 6

ning policies into their land dealsor have unconvincing argumentsfor why affordable housing is notviable. Once projects have plan-ning permission we have a hous-ing association fund of £57m topay for additional rented homes.This both allows associations tobuy homes directly from develop-ers and to compete with them forsites to develop themselves.The empty properties which we

were told were too expensive torepair and had to be auctioned offare now all publicly owned andlet. Some are general councilhousing, some are used by thecouncil as temporary accommoda-tion and some have been leased tohousing and homelessness chari-ties on a peppercorn rent.We are already seeing a signifi-

cant increase in affordable homesbeing built, which will flowthrough into meeting the mani-festo pledge. What we haveshown is that we can implementsocialist housing policies under aConservative Government.Imagine what we could do with aLabour one.

8 CHARTIST May/June 2018

LOCAL COUNCILS

May/June 2018 CHARTIST 9

Local change-makers

knew best and were there to con-trol rather than enable Councilsto decide what to do locally And our failure on housing in

particular was scandalous.Outright resistance and acting

illegally in the way that Lambethand Liverpool tried in the 1980sisn’t back on the agenda. Insteadwe must hang our hopes on theelection of a socialist Labour gov-ernment and make changes with-in our CouncilsSo it isn’t surprising that local

Labour is inward looking and onthe back foot, given our approachto elections and the concentrationof power in too few hands in somany Labour CouncilsIt’s possible that an intake of

left Councillors in May mightchange this outlook. Enormousefforts have been made byMomentum and the Party’s left toselect candidates for Council whowant to be local change-makersand challenge local establish-ments to be more outward lookingand confrontational, but there aregood comrades who think thatbeing on the Council won’tchange anything. They arewrong. If we want to make realchange we must have the rightpeople in place

It’s just possible that localCouncil leaders from the left willemerge and want to co-operate asa group to take the fight to theTories. Our national leadershipmust support them and encour-age members to do likewise. We need also to make a better

job of encouraging groups withrelevant single issues (e.g. dis-ability, homelessness, mental

At election time we talkabout LabourCouncils’ achieve-ments rather than theeffects of austerity in

order convince people we make adifference. So often when wemake cuts we present changes intoo positive a light-- transformingservices, protecting the most vul-nerable, efficiencies, etc. We DOmake a difference, but too oftenit’s quite marginal. Local turnoutdoes seem to indicate that thereare many people who believe thatlocal Councils don’t make a differ-enceThatcher was determined to

neuter socialist Councils throughrate-capping and forcing Councilsto outsource services, stoppingthe building of Council houses,the right to buy etc. and she abol-ished the GLC. Socialist Councilswho defied the Government inthe 1980s failed. The current gov-ernment is determined to keeplocal Councils in their place,whether through cutting grantsor using legislation/regulations toprevent a challenge to privateinterests-- landlords, developersand profiteers providing publicservices.In the new Labour era the

pressure eased a little but thebasic furniture of central/localrelations remained the same.Indeed the statist insistence onperformance indicators and tar-gets for everything actually madethings worse. It’s an unfortunatetruth that a succession of Labourministers with a responsibility forlocal government thought thatthey and their civil servants

Bob Littlewood on prospects for Labour councils in the face of continuing austerity

health) to take action together.With us.We do need rank and file

Councillors to give full support.The concentration of power with-in Councils (Mayors, strong lead-ers and Cabinets not accountableto rank and file Councillors andthe local party membership) issomething which needs to be con-fronted. As long as elites call theshots countering austerity togeth-er will be a tall order.On a positive note, there are

Labour Councils that are takingsteps to be ready for the timewhen more resources and powersbecome available to them:Fairness Commissions whichinform them in detail aboutinequalities; progressive procure-ment policies supporting localenterprise, including co-opera-tives (well done Preston); serviceprovision in genuine co-produc-tion with users; wholly Councilowned development companies,and of course the prospect of tak-ing services back in-house whencontracts expireAnd there are many individual

Councillors giving support to resi-dents in difficulty and bringingthe knowledge of this into whatthey say and do in the Town HallSo there needs to be change at

all levels.Turnout this time will be high-

er where local parties have beenfocusing on the Council cam-paigning against Tory austerity.Those who voted in the generalelection because they wereinspired by the message of hopewill turn out where candidatesput a clear anti-austerity message.

Bob Littlewood isaiming tocontinue as aLabour councillorin the Londonborough ofRedbridge

Brent Labour campaigning in local elections

Alena Ivanova isa member ofTower HamletsLabour Party andMomentum

Cllr Paul Smith isCabinet memberfor housing,Bristol CityCouncil

C

Community wealth fund Preston-style

When it comes tothe loss of con-trol andaccountabilitythat we all feel

when our services end up in pri-vate hands, previous Labour gov-ernments and current Labourlocal authorities have plenty toanswer for. A recent success story comes

from a northern local authoritywhere councillors reached outacross the pond for guidance onhow to take back control of theirprocurement for the benefit of theresidents, not international cor-porations. The ‘Preston model’has become something of a buz-zword in the past 18 months. Ademocratic control workshop atthe Labour Alternative Models ofOwnership conference (see previ-ous Chartist report) had CllrMatthew Brown, Ted Howard,from Cleveland, Ohio - the inspi-

ration behind the Preston Modeland Heather Wakefield fromUNISON explaining the initia-tive. Brown explained thatthrough using anchor publicinstitutions Preston have lever-aged their substantial procure-ment power to breathe life intolocal businesses by deliberatereorganisation of the whole pro-curement network, as well asembedding core principles of pub-lic control. Ted Howard thenexpanded on those principles.1) First principle of the

local economy - keep as manypeople as possible in work, ratherthan make capital happy;2) Local broad-based own-

ership matters - so does localdecision making;3) Economic multipliers are

extremely important;4) Investment vs extrac-

tion;5) Economic partnership

has multiple stakeholders - it isnot business first;6) Place matters - growth

outside the neighbourhooddoesn’t trickle down! Hyperlocalised investment is needed;7) It’s about a systemic

change.As inspirational as the session

itself was, the following Q&A wasmore informative: participantsasked when this will be officialLabour local government policy,when their local authority willstart implementing some of theseprinciples, rather than selling offland to private developers.Further, why is this only gainingmomentum now, when local can-didates for council have beenselected and manifestos drawnup, most not mentioning commu-nity wealth building? Party mem-bers need to raise this approachnow with councillors if we want itto happen.

In the wake of Carillion’s collapse, Alena Ivanova reports on an alternative modelfor delivering council services

Social housing Bristol fashion

The 2016 local electionsin Bristol saw thefirst Labour majorityin a dozen years andoverwhelming back-

ing for the Labour Mayoral candi-date. One of the headline promis-es in that election was to increasethe number of affordable homesbuilt from between 100-200 up to800 per year by 2020. The key to such delivery would

be a combination of land use,financial investment and rigoroususe of the planning rules. Bristolhas a significant land holding butthe previous mayor promotedmassive asset stripping in thecity. In October 2015 he issued aprospectus to sell 80 hectares ofhousing land, 80% of the totalavailable. On being electedLabour quickly halted these salesand stopped his programme ofauctioning empty city centrecouncil housing.Of all the powers councils have,

land ownership is the strongest inour ability to deliver social hous-ing. If a council is the landowner,it can decide what is built on its

land and even be the developeritself. Bristol has a council housebuilding programme and is set-ting up a wholly council-owneddevelopment company, which canaccess both borrowing and councilland. Bristol has allocated a five-year housing fund of £220m, theequivalent of a national pro-gramme of around £25bn (com-pared to the programmeannounced but not yet released of£2bn).We are applying a filter to our

land; if we can’t develop it, thenwe will look to housing associa-tions and community-based hous-ing organisations. Only if neitherthe council nor our partners cantake a project forward will welook to the private sector.Half of the housing land in

Bristol is privately owned and wewant affordable homes built theretoo. We are one of three localauthorities that publish develop-er viability assessmentsunredacted. We also have a plan-ning committee which has theconfidence to challenge develop-ers who have not costed our plan-

Paul Smith on using council land ownership to boost social housing

C

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 8

May/June 2018 CHARTIST 11 10 CHARTIST May/June 2018

BREXIT

Ireland’s Brexit Borders?

by the EU to protect its SingleMarket. But what if we see thenegotiators bargaining in relativeterms with the British gettingsome limited access to the SingleMarket and some new tradedeals, by using the Irish borderas a ‘carrot and stick’. The merely‘implausible’ becomes ‘perfidious’,indeed Machiavellian. It wouldprovoke opposition – which mayexplain British delays on beingspecific. But in a weak position itmay be their strongest bargainingploy. The ‘carrot’ is the claim that

the UK getting what it wants

removes the need for a ‘hard’ bor-der which it is widely agreedwould be a disaster – disruptingthe integration of the all-islandeconomy and the Good FridayAgreement that brought relativepeace, still leaking like a sieveand providing a smugglers’bonanza (not Single Market pro-tection), and an attractive targetfor dissident republican paramili-taries. The ‘stick’ is the UK notgetting what it wants and hand-ing the EU and the Irish Republicthe ‘hard’ border disaster.Northern Ireland would be collat-eral damage, with its DemocraticUnionist Party collaborators in

What are Britain’sBrexit negotiatorsup to on Ireland’sborders? We stilldon’t know, nearly

two years after the Brexit voteand less than a year before theUK exits the EU. It’s a majorsticking point, and unsurprising-ly many in Ireland and among‘Remainers’ in Britain have beenquick to conclude that the BritishGovernment is so divided it does-n’t know what it wants. Howeverperhaps too quick - it’s never wiseto underestimate an opponent.Possibly they have a rabbit topull from the hat, though maybelater rather than sooner as theyfocus on getting to the exit inMarch 2019. On substantive issues,

Britain’s negotiators have actual-ly been quite consistent, if coylyunspecific, about what they want.They have talked about technolo-gy to avoid a ‘hard’ border, but noexamples of this exist where thetwo sides are in different customsunions, and most take it with alarge pinch of salt. It’s true theBritish side have shown aremarkable lack of interest insecuring their land border withthe Irish Republic and implied ifanyone creates a ‘hard’ border itwill not be them but rather theIrish Government and the EU toprotect their Single Market. Somuch for “taking back control ofour borders” to stop unwantedimmigration, but here the Britishknow the leaky Irish land borderis unfit for purpose and they canalways fall back on the Irish Seaborder with checks at their portsand airports in Britain. More seriously, they’ve also

said they want a customs‘arrangement’ where they ‘mirror’or ‘shadow’ EU standards andregulations, presumably to arguethat they should therefore haveaccess to the Single Market.Moreover as they are explicitlynot in a customs ‘union’ theycould further argue that theyshould also be able to make theirown trade deals with other coun-tries, such as the USA. This couldbe what ‘having their cake andeating it’ really means. Many will dismiss this as total-

ly implausible, already ruled out

Could Ireland’s border be the stumbling block for Brexit? James Anderson on carrotsand sticks and collateral damage

supporting the BritishGovernment. Of course such a ploy may not

work. Indeed some Brexiters mayalready conclude as much and aresimply waiting for the exit datewithout an overall deal, or wantout just as soon as ‘an unreason-able’ EU can be blamed for theirexit. This is probably why the EUand the Irish Government tried toforce the UK to agree the ‘fall-back’ position of Northern Irelandstaying in a customs union or inalignment with the SingleMarket in the event of ‘no deal’,and the British negotiators seem-ingly agreed to this so talks ontrading arrangements could start. But the Democratic Unionist

Party opposes any separate or‘special’ status for NorthernIreland because it necessitates anIrish Sea border. This, theyclaim, would undermine the UK’ssovereignty and territorialintegrity. However, the reality isthat Northern Ireland’s constitu-tional position as part of the UKcan only be changed by referen-dum votes in both parts ofIreland. On Brexit the DUP doesnot command a majority inNorthern Ireland where 56%(including a third of unionist vot-ers) voted Remain, and they couldbe vulnerable if it emerged they’dbeen ‘DUPed’ into supporting aBritish ploy where NorthernIreland was collateral damage.A very uncertain future could boildown to an Irish land border dis-aster versus an Irish Sea borderas the more practical solution. It’sstill all to play for. C

A Corbyn government with a newEU vision Stephen Marks outlines ideas to stay and reform in a new pamphlet*

Four ‘left remainers’ -Luke Cooper, MaryKaldor, NiccolòMilanese and JohnPalmer - have written

a socialist case for ‘Remain’. The‘Corbyn Moment’ and Europeansocialism gets off to a good start. ‘The problem with some

Remainers’ it tells us ‘is that theyoften seem to be demanding areturn to the pre-referendum sta-tus quo. If Labour wants tochange the status quo for the bet-ter (and not for the worse as itwill do with Brexit) then the keyis tackling the problems ofinequality and deprivation, whichare inexorably linked to free mar-ket globalisation’.To do this, as Corbyn has

stressed, would require taxingmultinationals, controlling finan-cial markets and addressing cli-mate change. As the authorspoint out, this would need at bestclose co-operation between aLabour government in Britainand the EU, which in its turnwould require what they modest-ly describe as ‘a high level ofagreement amongst the EU27which is unlikely to be forthcom-ing’. This, they appreciate would

mean fighting for these proposalsacross Europe. ‘Ultimately thismeans building a mass movementfor these goals, working withother parties and social move-ments’.But such a social movement is

not something to turn to ‘ulti-mately’ but is actually a precondi-tion for change at the level of EUgovernments. And favourable ref-erences by some of the authors tovarious proposals coming fromthe Great White Hope EmmanuelMacron would not be taken kind-ly by the SNCF workers whosehard-won gains he is trying todestroy or the students who areshowing them solidarity indefence of their own struggles.Faced with a new 1968, he ismore likely to prove De Gaullethan Mendes-France!However there are many excel-

lent recommendations in this textwhich, in or out, could and shouldbe the basis of a Corbyn govern-

ment’s approach to cooperationwith other progressive forces inEurope - though with the excep-tion of Portugal these are unlike-ly to be found among the SocialDemocratic parties which areincreasingly vanishing down acentrist plug-hole.They form a useful foil to the

vacuities of ‘Lexit’ whose propo-nents have offered no viablesocialist strategy for a post-BrexitBritain unless it be a sort of ‘poli-tique de la pire’ in which an iso-lated Britain would somehow beforced into a ‘siege economysocialism’.And this would be the least

likely outcome. As the authorsrightly point out:‘…a post-Brexit Labour govern-

ment would have to use all itsenergy to fend off predatoryaction by larger economic blocs orfinancial markets, and unpickingtrade deals with the likes ofTrump that the Conservativeparty will have left as a poisonouslegacy.’They rightly point out that

unlike other supranational organ-isations the EU does contain apolitical and democratic frame-work; social legislation, howeverminimal; and environmental

rules which are actually superiorto others on offer.‘The EU has the capacity to tax

or regulate ‘global bads’ (close taxhavens, regulate financial flows,control carbon emissions, forexample) and to promote ‘globalgoods’ (overcoming inequality,bringing peace to conflict zones,constructing resource-savinginfrastructure).’They also set out a number of

areas in which a Corbyn govern-ment could act as ‘a beacon for aradical new agenda’ and ‘… pro-mote policies at an EU level thatwould facilitate social justice anddemocracy at regional local levelsin all EU countries, especially theUK’. These could include: taxingmultinationals; regulating finan-cial flows and controlling banks;protecting migrant workers; digi-tal rights; and climate change.I feel more cautious about

endorsing some of the proposedareas of security and defence co-operation, which could all too eas-ily slide into the sort of adven-tures which have justifiably given‘humanitarian intervention’ a badname.As the authors rightly con-

clude, this ‘will require progres-sive governments inside the EUto overcome the big business lob-bies, short sightedness andnational chauvinism that toooften hijack good intentions.’Indeed.But with Brexit of some sort or

another looking increasinglyinevitable it seems more useful tolook as Varoufakis has suggested,at a ‘Norway plus’ solution bywhich a Corbyn governmentcould be a pace-setter for Europeeven from a semi-detached posi-tion and a National InvestmentBank could still co-operate withthe EIB.The same goes for many or

most of the other policies in thedocument. While the socialist‘remain’ argued for here would bethe best outcome, a Corbyn gov-ernment could still fight for thisalternative European vision froma semi-detached Norway plusposition. Especially with thefuture of the EU itself as we haveknown it, increasingly in doubt.

Stephen Marks isa member ofOxford LabourParty

EUROPE

C

Brexit must not mean return to hard borders

A very uncertainfuture could boildown to an Irish landborder disaster

James Andersonis EmeritusProfessor ofPoliticalGeography,Queen’sUniversityBelfast

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 10

May/June 2018 CHARTIST 1312 CHARTIST May/June 2018

WORKERS DEMOCRACY KENNEDY

Robert Kennedy and the decline ofliberalismFifty years on Nigel Doggett assesses the legacy

Has anybody seen myfriend Bobby? Canyou tell me wherehe’s gone? He freed alot of people, but the

good die young. I looked aroundand he was gone.”This line from the song

Abraham, Martin & John waswritten in 1968. Starting with theassassinations of AbrahamLincoln, John Kennedy andMartin Luther King, it concludeswith Robert Kennedy who died on6 June 1968.It is hard to overstate how the

Kennedys loomed over the 1960spolitical landscape: John (JFK) asUS President from 1961 to 1963and his brother Robert (RFK), hisclosest political ally, US AttorneyGeneral, and after JFK a NewYork Senator.Their reputation has since

become tarnished and their lega-cy contested. How does Robertemerge after 50 years?The anniversary King’s assas-

sination on 4th April 1968 hasbeen widely commemorated. Butthe loss of RFK was also tragic ashe advocated a new politicsattracting radical young people.The Kennedys came from a

privileged background, as sons ofJoe Kennedy who was deeplyensconced in the Democraticparty machine. RFK gained areputation for ruthlessness doingJFK’s dirty work during the elec-tion campaign and after, whichhe found hard to shake off.He also worked for Senator Joe

McCarthy during the infamouswitch-hunts, though his own rolewas in trade and sanctions dur-ing the Korean war. He alsogained notoriety for his investiga-tion into the Unions, uncoveringcorruption in the Teamsters ledby Jimmy Hoffa.Both Kennedys were implicat-

ed in the run up to the Vietnamquagmire but the commitment ofground troops and bombing theNorth were ordered by newPresident Lyndon Johnson (LBJ). Anti-communism was standard

rhetoric for US politicians duringthe Cold War. RFK put forwardthe notion that to resist theattraction of communismrequired the ‘free world’ provide

real freedom and prosperity forall, an aim targeted at SouthAmerica as well as Vietnam andmuch of the USA.As Attorney General he took an

unprecedented activist stance inusing Federal Marshalls toenforce racial desegregation ofeducation in the face of chal-lenges from the South. By hisforthright actions he alienatedsome formidable foes - the Mafia,corrupt Teamster leader JimmyHoffa, Cuban exiles, FBI chief JEdgar Hoover and Southernracists. The strong suspicion ofinvolvement in his death as wellas of JFK, lacks firm evidence, asdetailed in David Talbot’sBrothers: The Hidden History ofthe Kennedy Years (2007).A new account by John Bohrer,

The Revolution of Robert Kennedy- From Power to Protest after JFK(2017) shows how RFK attemptedto continue the legacy of the JFKpresidency, whose mantle hadfallen on his shoulders. Heembarked on a series of tours,notably of South America, theSouthern USA and finally SouthAfrica, which served to channelthe reactions to John’s assassina-tion. Whereas JFK had projecteda patrician coolness, RFKappealed vehemently to a sense ofinjustice, speaking in venueswhere opposition was expected(such as Southern universitycampuses) and did not shrinkfrom arguing with both the rightand left, seeking out student radi-cal and South American commu-nist opponents, earning theirrespect if not agreement.Disappointingly, Bohrer omits

Robert’s presidential primarycampaign which ended in theCalifornia Democratic Primaryvictory and assassination in June1968.LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ pro-

gramme continued JFK’s work byconfronting the interlinked issuesof poverty and racial inequalitybut was jeopardized by ballooningspending on Vietnam. Ironically,the war was overwhelminglyfought by black and poorerAmericans from the very commu-nities targeted by this pro-gramme.RFK increasingly grappled

with the need to challenge LBJon both domestic injustice andVietnam without appearing dis-loyal. Only when LBJ escalatedthe military campaign by bomb-ing the north did RFK finallybreak with him.Though forced from a position

of power into opposition RFKnever succumbed to ‘oppositional-ism’. He stood for interventionistgovernment backed by a move-ment of young people. Suchproactive liberalism is now closeto extinct, supplanted by TariqAli’s ‘extreme centre’ of Blair, theClintons and their ilk. We stillgrapple with the tension betweenopposition and engagement. Ittakes talent to challenge the con-sensus and gain respect fromacross the social and politicalspectrum. The left often distrusts empha-

sis on leaders and rhetoric(Corbyn notwithstanding). Thegreat speeches of JFK, Clintonand Blair now ring hollow in thelight of their legacy. But the bestprogressive leaders personifytheir cause and by identifyingwith the poor and deprived focusattention on remedies. Glenn Close recently suggested

“We always need someone to say“I hear you”, someone who canput their words into unity andhope – and we don’t have that. Ithink the last person may havebeen Robert Kennedy.” (GuardianMagazine, 16 Dec 2017)Today, with the 1960s youth

reaching their 70s, new move-ments campaign in both the USand UK on resurgent issues ofinequality, racism and gun vio-lence. In JFK’s memorable phrase“The torch has been passed to anew generation.” C

Politics for the manyTo secure a democracy ‘for the many’, we must reform our broken politics saysBilly Hayes

Billy Hayes ofPolitics for theMany is alsotrade unionofficer for LabourCampaign forElectoral Reform

Afew weeks ago,Electoral Calculus –which regularly pro-jects the results offuture elections in the

UK – predicted a disturbing out-come if an election was held now. It showed that in a fresh elec-

tion, the Conservatives could win40.5% of the vote and 297 seats,whereas Labour could win 279seats on 40.7% of the vote.In other words – Labour would

win the election, but would bedenied office by Westminster’svoting system.It’s a problem that’s more com-

mon than it seems (a ‘wrong win-ner’ result locked Labour out in1951, and the other way round in1974). But it’s not just progressive

parties damaged by First Pastthe Post. Progressive policies inthe UK, as things stand, face anuphill battle. That’s not because there is a

lack of support for policies likeredistributive taxation or astrong welfare state. Last year, the archaic ‘one-per-

son-takes-all’ method of countingvotes completely discounted thevoices of millions of voters.At the last General Election it

was 22 million to be exact: that’sthe number of votes cast whichhad no impact on the result. And one in ten voters felt

obliged to ‘hold their nose’ andopt for their second or even thirdchoice at the ballot box. The consequence of this is that

governments are formed withminority support but wield com-plete power – the ‘elective dicta-torship’ outlined by Tory peerLord Hailsham in 1976. A new report by trade union-

ists seeking democratic reformhas highlighted just how damag-ing this is for progressive policies– and how more consensual struc-tures are much more amenable toprogressive ends.Landmark studies, from which

the report draws, have shownthat democracies with more con-sensual structures have moreprogressive social outcomes on arange of measures – from a largerwelfare state to more moneyspent on foreign aid and lowerrates of prison incarceration.

When everyone’s vote counts,parties have to seek the votes ofall voters – regardless of wherethey are. From almost exclusivelytargeting swing voters in wealthysuburbs, parties are forced tocampaign for every vote – no mat-ter where it is cast. Those post-industrial areas left to wither onthe vine are no longer ignorable. There is also a multitude of

studies, including Ljiphart’sPatterns of Democracy, that pointto consensual democracies -where the proportion of votesbroadly matches the proportion ofseats in the legislature i.e. pro-portional representation (PR) sys-tems - having lower economicinequality. For too long, political equality

and economic equality have beenviewed as totally separate enti-ties. Far from it – true politicalequality requires a level playingfield in the economic sphere,while economic equality can onlybe won through giving workingpeople a real voice. The mechanics behind this

reality is that under consensualpolitical systems, different par-ties have different electorates tosatisfy. When they work togetherin government, they are thereforedependent on a broader range ofsupport, and must satisfy abroader electorate. The difference between the

consensus required by a propor-tional voting system, and the con-sensus required by a hung parlia-ment under Westminster’s sys-tem, is that the latter tends toadvantage negotiations with par-ties with defined geographicbases. This means resources are often

spread solely on the basis of geo-graphic concerns – think of therecent influence of the DUP onspending in Northern Ireland.Yet in a PR system, other groupsand interests can achieve recogni-tion more easily: a green or femi-nist party can suddenly exertinfluence in a way that only aregionally-specific party couldhave done before. Beyond these studies on policy,

the concrete evidence shows thatcounties with a proportional vot-ing system tend to elect more pro-gressive governments. A lesspolarized political system meansthat for those parties in the mid-dle, the best strategy is to workwith the left to create a stronglyredistributive state. Time and time again we have

seen voters opt for a ‘progressivemajority’ – only to be denied aprogressive government becauseof ‘vote splitting’ on the left, and amore party-united right. Trade unionists gathered in

Scotland in mid April for theSTUC’s Congress – with manyhoping to build a movement forreal political reform.While Scotland has used pro-

portional voting systems foryears, ‘Politics For The Many’ – anew group of trade unionists – isstepping up to fight for electoralreform across the UK. As things stand, the forces at

play in the Westminster systemare aligned against progressivepolitics. But a new democratic system

can help us build a new economy.We will not build a socially-justBritain on the back of a riggedpolitics – but through the ‘kinder,gentler’ politics we deserve. C

Billy Hayes (second from right) protesting gvoernment cuts Robert Kennedy on campaign trail

Nigel Doggett isa member ofWealden CLP,Compass andChartist EditorialBoard

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 12

14 CHARTIST May/June 2018 May/June 2018 CHARTIST 15

TRUMP

is not twiddling their collectivethumbs while the DemocraticParty fiddles. Dozens of Leftcandidates have made successfulbids for local and state office,from legislature to district magis-trates to county executive. Forexample, Lee Carter, a youngDSA (Democratic Socialists ofAmerica) member and militaryveteran, defeated an incumbentVirginia Republican legislativeleader in a general election.

Thousands more candidates,many new to electoral politics,are stepping forward to betrained and supported by ofnewer and older small-donorfinanced progressive groups.Several Left organizations withaspirations to create lasting fed-erated structures are competing(and sometimes cooperating) tofill the vacuum left by theCorporate Democrats.The Sanders campaign demon-

strated that the Millennial gener-ation is much more likely thantheir elders to identify them-selves as “socialists”. The post-election membership surge in theDSA stemmed largely from well-educated millennials identifyingas members of a “precariat” bur-dened by student debt, lockedinto insecure “gig” jobs, and readyto make a long-term commitmentto political struggle.Their natural instinct is to

seek alliances with other mem-bers of the “precariat” that areeven more vulnerable because of

Trumping Trump

Well into the secondyear of the Trumppresidency, over athird of Americanssupport him

despite (or because of) his toxiccombination of incompetence andovert attacks on basic norms offairness, civility and responsiblegovernance. This is a more dis-concerting sign of political dys-function than Trump’s election.Opposition to Trump policies

continues to flourish. Less visi-ble in the streets than the giantwomen’s and pro-immigrantmarches of early 2017, organizedresistance has entrenched itselfat state and local governmentallevels, focusing on progressiveissue campaigns and, in the fewelectoral opportunities prior tothe mid-term elections thisNovember.Centrist Democrat Conor

Lamb, backed by a vigorous cam-paign from trade unions, narrow-ly defeated a right-wingRepublican in a WesternPennsylvania Congressional dis-trict that voted heavily for Trumpin 2016 and had been gerryman-dered to be a safe Republicanseat. Growing numbers ofRepublican HouseRepresentatives are choosing notto run for reelection, judging they

cannot win due to Trump. Thereactionary National RifleAssociation lobby has becometoxic following massive demon-strations organized by studentsagainst gun violence.State and local governments

retain certain powers to resistnational political policies.California as the most populousstate can resist right-wing

Republican efforts to allow oildrilling off its coast and to rollback other environmental protec-tion. It is restricting cooperationof state and local police forceswith immigration enforcementagencies. Other relatively liberalcoastal states are following suit.With efforts to raise the

abysmally low federal minimumwage blocked nationally, manystates and cities have yielded towell-organized Raise Up cam-

paigns to raise the hourly mini-mum wage to $15. Many similarwidespread initiatives are orga-nized through autonomous socialand political movements, whichare burgeoning in today’s USA.But there are sharp limits to

the scope for local resistance.National budget priorities are setby a Congress controlled by anunholy alliance of reactionaryRepublicans and CorporateDemocrats, both wings of whichsupport bloated military spendingover domestic priorities. Underinexorable pressure from the new“tax reform” legislation thatslashes taxes on corporations andthe wealthiest, while discourag-ing tax deductions that permittedmore progressive states to financeeducation and social welfare pro-grams, attacks on such essentialprograms will multiply. Evenwithout full support from localpolice, immigration enforcementagents are targeting millions ofundocumented workers and fami-lies for deportation.The challenges the left faces in

mounting a successful Resistanceare manifold. The Presidency,House of Representatives, Senateand Supreme Court remain con-trolled by reactionaryRepublicans. Most state gover-nors and legislatures are also

Paul Garver asks can the ‘American Resistance’ defeat Trump in 2018?

Republican controlled; due towidespread gerrymandering ofdistricts, more Republicans areelected even if Democrats winmore votes overall.Since Citizens United and

other Court decisions cut restric-tions on campaign finances, theplutocracy can purchase politi-cians and policies with impunity.The official Democratic Party hasadapted by courting its ownwealthy and corporate donors, de-emphasized door-to-door canvass-ing, and minimizing influence byunions and workers.The U.S. Supreme Court is

likely to rule shortly in the“Janus” case that public sectorunions have no right to collectfees from public employees theyrepresent, crippling their politicalactivities.However, Bernie Sanders’ pres-

idential primary campaigndemonstrated that money couldbe raised from small donors, thatenthusiastic volunteers couldbring voters to the polls, and thata more populist and progressiveposition on economic issues res-onates with many voters.Democratic Party apparatchiks

talk #Resistance, but actuallymean #Restoration of an idealized[Bill] Clintonian Presidential eraby merely electing moreCongressional Democrats.But most White Americans still

support Trump and his racist andreactionary policies across thecountry except for big cities andsome coastal enclaves. Right-wing populism [or “racializedxenophobic tribalism”] fanned bytoxic media like Fox News is diffi-cult to address by the Center andLeft alike. But the neoliberaleconomic policies of austerity andcorporate friendly trade pactschampioned by the Clintons dev-astated formerly Democratic-leaning unionized industrialregions that then swung towardsTrump in a politics of racializedresentment and frustration.It is not certain that Trump

and the Republicans will losetheir monopoly on national politi-cal power in 2018. One increas-ingly likely scenario is that theTrump administration, belea-guered on all sides domestically,will launch military and/or tradewar campaigns designed to fireup its populist/nationalistic basefor the elections. The CorporateDemocrats, without a serious cri-tique of militarist imperialism ora coherent progressive economicpolicy, would likely bungle thechallenge.The good news is that the Left

Paul Garver is amember ofDemocraticSocialists ofAmerica

Democratic Partyapparatchiks talk#Resistance, but actuallymean #Restoration of anidealized ClintonianPresidential era

race, gender identification, immi-gration status, confinement toprison, etc. The excluded mustbe able to organize and defendthemselves against the politics ofcontemporary capitalism. A poli-tics of democratic inclusion mustinclude struggles against votersuppression, for effective civil lib-erties, for prison reform, for therights of undocumented immi-grants, for access to better publiceducation, for workplace rightsetc. This mirrors the main social

base of the Democratic Party,also drawn from well-educatedurban professionals and commu-nities of color loosely held togeth-er by a politics of inclusion. Democratic ‘Restorationists’

and democratic socialists aremerely the right and left wings ofthe Resistance. Most of its foot-soldiers, who show up for march-es and rallies, canvass door-to-door, phone bank for candidates,lobby for progressive bills in statelegislators, are neither committedDemocrats nor identify them-selves as Socialists. They aretypically well-educated womenworking in human service ortechnical occupations, newlypoliticized or recently re-engaged.They strongly identify with a pol-itics of radical inclusion, whiledeeply suspicious of the pervasiverole of big money in politics. Ifthe symbol of the Trump victorybecame the alienated, raciallyresentful and frustrated formerlyunionized industrial worker ofthe Midwest, Resistors like thesemay come to personify a success-ful pushback. They might alsodetermine the struggle for thesoul of the Democratic Party.In the short term, Trumpery

must be thoroughly defeated. Inthe long term fashioning a newmajority left of center party willrequire decades of common workbuilding coalitions among diver-gent interests. It must be muchmore multi-racially led and classdiverse than today’s Left. Interweaving the variegated

strands of Resistance into aneffective social and politicalmovement capable of wieldingpower will require sophisticatedpolitical strategies that have yetto be discovered. From my ownyouthful experience with radicalpolitics, a politics based on mili-tant ideological expression ratherthan an orientation to long-termresults is normal for personsnewly involved in politics.Generations on the Left need tolearn from each other how to con-tribute to that long-term effort. C

Fashioning a newmajority left of centerparty will requiredecades of commonwork building coalitionsamong divergentinterests

Bernie Sander’s campaign demonstrated that progressiveecnomics draws votes

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 14

UnitedHealth, is another example of acompany in pole position to benefitfrom the evolution of ACOs. It alreadyhas NHSE contracts for commission-ing support as well as community ser-vices. Optimum declare they are:“One of the few companies in theworld that provides fully integratedsolutions to deliver NMC [NewModels of Care] requirements, fromback-office transactional support tofront-line delivery”.In July 2017, NHSE announced 8

areas that would become ACSs (nowICSs), working towards becomingACOs, originally intended from April2018. In this 70th anniversary year of

the NHS, we have reached the endgame of a long project to destroy it.

We cannot stand by and let thishappen.

16 CHARTIST May/June 2018 May/June 2018 CHARTIST 17

NHS

C

NHS –not safe in Tory hands

In a further development this year– and rare success for the public sec-tor – a Lancashire judge has blockedthe contract awarded to Virgin to runthe Lancashire County Council’sHealthy Child Programme.Virgin is an example of a predatory

company ruthless in extracting profitfrom NHS patient frontline patientcare, beginning with loss leading bidsto gain foothold in a lucrative futurehealth care market. And Virgin,based in a tax haven, pays no tax. Five years on from the 2012 Health

and Social Care Act, there iswidespread agreement that it hasbeen a disaster. The fragmentation ofservices, the destructive effect of com-petition and shocking contract fail-ures have ostensibly been addressedby Simon Stevens, head of NHSEngland, the body set up by theGovernment to run the NHS after the2012 Act. Stevens’ plan, “Five YearForward View” (5YFW), published in2014, to transform the NHS is beingimplemented through Sustainabilityand Transformation Plans (STPs).The country has been divided into 44areas for STP delivery. These havebeen established as vehicles for cutsof £25bn and privatisation, but arepresented as plans for the delivery ofimproved health outcomes with lowercosts. How to achieve this miracle? Informed commentators have casti-

gated the process dictated by NHSE,the “savings” required to eliminatethe deficits within the timescalesdemanded and with no planned eval-

uations of pilots and no plan for socialcare. The national rollout of the STPsin December 2015 was condemned atthe time by Julia Simon, until 2016senior NHS England director, as"ridiculous”, "shameful" and "mad"and the plans full of “lies”.The plans require co-operation

between the NHS and local authori-ties at a time when both NHS andsocial care are in crisis due to under-funding. But, both CCGs and, inmany cases, local authorities arebeing sidelined as the new organisa-tional structures are being set up. Itis NHSE’s intention that a multiplici-ty of interim arrangements will overtime evolve into ACOsSo what are ACOs? And where do

they come from?Simon Stevens’ 5YFV plan for the

NHS mirrors the blueprint developedover 2012 and 2013 at the WorldEconomic Forum at Davos. SimonStevens was leading that project teamin his then role as President of GlobalHealth Division at the US health cor-poration UnitedHealth. (Previous tothat, Simon Stevens was health policyadvisor to Tony Blair.)The WEF group commissioned two

reports from McKinsey & Co to devel-op a global template for transforming“socialised” health systems. Thereports’ recommendations, now beingimplemented through the STPs, areto:•Lower costs with new payment

systems•Reduce capacity in costly settings

Milburn introduced FoundationTrusts & the ‘internal market’, andGordon Brown energetically embracedthe Major Government’s PrivateFinance Initiative. The NHS was leftwith £81.6bn to pay off in debts –thecost of privatising hospital construc-tion and outsourcing services via PFIdeals - and paving the way to theCarillion disaster.But privatisation has been acceler-

ating since 2012. The 2012 Healthand Social Care Act, drafted by globalmanagement consultants, McKinsey& Co, set the NHS up for the purpose.It removed the government’s duty toprovide a universal, comprehensiveNHS, replaced strategic planning andcommissioning with local ClinicalCommissioning Groups, handed build-ings to NHS Property Services, intro-duced full marketisation of the NHSimposing competitive tendering of allservices, and increased the cap onNHS hospitals’ private patients to49%. It also left governance in a com-plete mess.As at 30 Nov 2017, nearly £10bn of

NHS clinical contracts are now heldby private companies, and only 34% ofcontracts tendered last year went tothe NHS. Among those with contractsare Care UK, which has links to theConservative Party. Care UK runs theNHS 111 call centre and, alongsideVirgin Care, has seized the opportuni-ties for potentially lucrative communi-ty-based health services opening upas the national strategy for movingcare out of hospitals into the commu-nity is being rolled out.Virgin Care has won well over £2bn

of NHS “business” over the past 7years – several large contracts in com-munity health, and £1bn of NHS con-tracts in 2016/17 – over 400 separateNHS contracts. In 2017 Virgin Carewon a 7 year £700m contract to runBath and North East Somerset’s com-munity care and health services. Thisis the first time a for-profit companywill run a council’s adult social careservices.Virgin also exemplifies the vulnera-

bility of the NHS to being sued wherecompanies fail to get the contract theyhave sought. Virgin Care sued theNHS after it lost out on an £82m con-tract for children’s services in Surrey.Damages have been kept secret butcampaigners have discovered throughan NHSE source that they amount to£2m.

On 1 April the firstAccountable CareOrganisations (ACOs)were due to be intro-duced into England’s

NHS. Concerns about the lack of con-sultation and parliamentary processinvolved in this radical re-organisa-tion by the non-statutory body NHSEngland are currently being consid-ered by the House of CommonsHealth Select Committee. Its Chair,Sarah Woolaston, asked Jeremy Huntto pause implementation to allow hercommittee to complete its investiga-tion. He refused, but has been forcedto concede a consultation on the newACO contract first. At the same time, Judicial Reviews

initiated by NHS campaigners arechallenging the legalities involved inthis process and the national ACOcontract and have caused local plansfor ACOs and hospital closures to beput on hold. The collapse of Carillionhas added to nervousness about pro-ceeding with further extension of pri-vate-public partnerships into theheart of the NHS.The risks and democratic deficit

involved in the massive re-organisa-tion of the NHS, alongside draconiancuts in budget are pushing health andsocial care to breakdown. There is fargreater public awareness and concernabout cuts, however, than under-standing of the complex programmefor NHS re-structuring and privatisa-tion.Dismantling and privatisation of

the NHS has been a clandestine 40year project by those ideologicallyopposed to a socialised health service.Margaret Thatcher went as far as shecould in introducing limited outsourc-ing but her ambitions were con-strained by practicalities. However,the Conservative Party’s privatisationambition was embodied in OliverLetwin’s 1988 book, Privatisating theWorld: A Study of InternationalPrivatisation in Theory and Practice(preface by John Redwood). Letwinwas David Cameron’s Chief PolicyAdvisor and got into hot water for hisleaked message to a private meetingin 2014 that the “NHS will not exist”within 5 years of a Conservative elec-tion victory. The Blair/Brown Government

increased investment with £5bn ayear to the NHS, but also extendedprivatisation. Health Minister Alan

Stephanie Clark explains that both cutbacks and creeping privatisation is threatening the NHS in England and how to stop it

Stephanie Clarkis a member ofKeep Our NHSPublic and localhealthcampaigns, andTower HamletsCLP

like hospitals•Promote ‘self care’•Redefine ‘health industry’ to

allow global corporations to take overmore public services •Introduce new ways to deliver

‘integrated’ or ‘accountable’ carebased on models like KaiserPermanente in the US, and the Alziramodel in Spain and calledAccountable Care Organisations, or‘ACOs’.An ACO requires a corporate enti-

ty to be set up: a commercial – non-NHS body, though NHS providersmay be included among its con-stituent members. There is nothingcurrently to prevent a private compa-ny, including a global corporation,from taking over the contract as awhole. (The “accountability” of ACOsrelates to financial accountability topartners, not to the public.)Jeremy Hunt referenced Kaiser

Permanente and Alzira as his twomodels for restructuring the NHS inaddressing the Health SelectCommittee on 9.5.16.Kaiser Permanente in the US is a

company running its own hospitalsand primary care, with its own healthinsurance plan. Its business model isbased on saving money on treatmentsand denial of care. The Alzira model appears, howev-

er, to be the preferred option of SimonStevens. This model (named after thetown Alzira in Spain where it waspiloted) functioned in part like a UKPFI for a new hospital (the first priva-tised hospital in Spain) but alsoincluded providing the actual healthcare. The Alzira model was creditedwith bringing down costs and wasextended to other regions but becamemired in scandal over strikes, allega-tions of premature deaths and bank-ing corruption and in 2017 theValencian government passed newlegislation to return the Alzira healthconcession to direct public manage-ment.Centene is a partner in the Greater

Nottingham ICS, has its UK base inthe Kings Fund premises in Londonand has recently appointed AlanMilburn to its Board. Centene’s rolein Nottingham is as a “CareIntegrator” – a key new role in ICSswith particular potential for the pri-vate sector and critical to the evolu-tion into ACOs. Optimum UK, the UK arm of

What can you do?

Support the Judicial Reviews, which are the best current hope forfrustrating the privatisation and the cuts.

National challenges:#JR4NHS, was supported by Stephen Hawking among the 5campaigners To be heard 23-24 May 2018#Comprehensive healthcare for all, challenging the legality of thenew draft ACO contract due to be heard on 24 April in Leeds

Local legal challenges in South Yorkshire, Huddersfield, Barnsleyand Rotherham stroke services, Dorset and Forest of Dean andSouth Tyneside.

Sign the online petitions: Stop Privatisation of NHS Services - to be debated in the House ofCommons on 23 April- And ask your MP to attendSTOP the new plans to dismantle our NHS

Build support for the NHS Reinstatement Bill.This is being tabled for the third time as a 10 Minute Bill on 11July

Join the demonstrations planned for the NHS 70th anniversary on30 June

Work within the Labour Party to gain understanding of what ishappening to the NHS, get discussion informed by the healthcampaigns to embed the 2017 national Conference NHS policy tooppose ACOs and work for the reinstatement of the NHS. If you have a Labour Council, do what you can to ensure it isadopting national conference policy and opposes the ACOs andcuts to health and social care.

Support the local campaign in your area. Consider joining KeepOur NHS Public

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 16

18 CHARTIST May/June 2018

MAY 1968

May/June 2018 CHARTIST 19

PARIS MAY 1968-Revolution of ideas On the 50th anniversary of the May 68 events French workers are again striking. Ruth Taylorand Janey Stone recall the nearly revolution

Fifty years ago we weredoing Europe. It was anAustralian tradition.We two 21 year oldwomen were told about

a hostel in the 19th arrondisse-ment, a working class suburb ofParis. The hostel was run by agroup of anarchists, who suppos-edly held all possessions in com-mon, even toothbrushes! Therewas an exciting mix of residents,from an African American desert-er, stationed in Germany, toGreeks and North Africans whowere lodging there long term. In away it epitomised the spirit of1968 - the youthful desire for free-dom from restriction and authori-ty. Unbeknown to us, political

unrest had already started on 22March at the new University ofNanterre, a branch of theSorbonne. Students agitatedabout their living conditions,restrictive rules on visiting timesto the women’s dormitories, andthe rigid, archaic academic envi-ronment. The police repeatedlybroke up protest meetings, pro-voking the students to go onstrike and occupy the campus.One of the leaders, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who was expelled fromFrance on 22 May for being a‘seditious alien’, subsequentlybecame a legend. On 3 May, when students at

the Sorbonne in central Paris metto protest against the closure ofthe Nanterre University, therewere clashes with the police.Following a protest demonstra-tion of 20,000 on 6 May, they tookover the Sorbonne and the sur-rounding streets. Over the nextfew days there were repeateddemonstrations and fighting. Thepolice routinely tried to dispersethe crowds by charging and beat-ing them.Although we did not closely fol-

low the newspapers we knewmajor events were happeningaround us from the reports of theanarchists and other residentswho returned bloodied from thedaily demonstrations. The atmo-sphere was highly charged. One

of us, Ruth, a trained nurse,attended the returning injured . There was the story of a gen-

darme throwing a tear gas canis-ter into a café. Another of ademonstrator whose arm was bro-ken by police, only to come out ofhospital, be recognised and beat-en again. We were shocked by thereports.Our daily lives in the hostel

were also affected by the police. Acontingent of 400 gendarmesbelonging to the force that spe-cialised in public order and crowdcontrol, had been transferredfrom Lyons and taken up resi-dence in the school next door toour hostel. The street was closedto traffic with a security check atboth ends. The hostel was host to animat-

ed discussions of the crisis, rang-ing from opposition to capitalism,to bureaucracy, class privilege,and authority. This generationwanted autonomy, open discus-sion, the power to make a differ-ence, to build a fairer, freer kindof society. The night of 10 May was wit-

ness to the famous Night of theBarricades, when the studentswho had been battered for hoursby the police decided to standtheir ground and fight. By mid-night, finding themselves holdingthe Latin Quarter, they built uptheir barricades. Thousands ofpeople joined this spontaneousmovement. They tore up cobble

stones from the streets and builtover 60 barricades using anythingthey could find. As one observerdescribed it, “women, workers,bystanders, people in pyjamas,human chains to carry rocks,wood, iron”.The trade union federation,

responding to the students’actions and police brutality, thencalled a strike for the followingMonday 13 May. Within a fort-night, in a largely spontaneousmovement more than nine millionworkers from all sectors were onstrike, the largest workers’ strikein French history.But on May 12th, not knowing

where its persistent turbulentstate was about to lead, we decid-ed to leave Paris, and continueour travels. The next day welearned that the national strikehad brought France to a completestandstill. We had been present for the

supporting act but had missedthe main event. The mass strike was an enor-

mously powerful act, but theaddition of workplace occupationsupped the ante considerablythreatening implicitly the owners’right of property and manage-ment’s right to manage. One ofthe most remarkable things aboutthe events of 1968 was the ener-gy, the excitement and creativitythat was unleashed. This was evi-dent in the poetry, posters andslogans that were created, one

famous to this day: “Be realistic.Ask the impossible”.The strike covered all parts of

society. Banks and television sta-tions, undertakers ,the FoliesBergere, schools and hospitals,car factories and public transport.Petrol was rationed. Cars out ofpetrol blocked the streets andmoped sales rose. By 22 May the Trade Unions,

started negotiating an improvedwage and conditions package withemployers.On 29 May President Charles

de Gaulle, fled Paris, but laterreturned to dissolve the NationalAssembly and announce a generalelection for June. It was a chal-lenge to the country to defy therevolutionary process. De Gaulleordered workers to go back towork or face a state of nationalemergency. Workers did gradual-ly return to work and the policere-took the Sorbonne on 16 June.The June 23rd general electionreturned the Gaullist party witha stronger majority. The party

banned a number of left wingorganisations. On Bastille Day, 14th July

1968, there was a further demon-stration by students and left-wingers which was again harshlysuppressed by the Parisian policeand security forces, with manyinjured. That was to mark thelast gasp of the May ’68 protestsin Paris.Having been derailed into an

electoral direction, the strikemovement itself did not produceany major improvement in wagesor conditions. But in a largersense Paris May 1968 had animpact beyond the immediateevents. The atmosphere through-out Europe and many other partsof the world in that year wasinspired by the French experi-ence. We saw student demonstra-tions in Vienna, witnessedGermans and Czechs discussingthe Prague Spring when we werein Bulgaria and large anti-Vietnam War demos in London.There were strikes and student

rebellions in Spain, Mexico,Germany, Poland, Jamaica, andthe US. In the following years thestudent and anti-Vietnam warmovement exploded, women’s lib-eration and gay liberation move-ments took off, there were work-ers struggles from the factoryoccupations in Italy to the defeatof the penal powers that had beenused to prevent strikes inAustralia.Paris May 1968 remains a cru-

cial milestone for the internation-al working class. In a highlysophisticated advanced capitalistcountry, working class powercalled the whole system intoquestion. The mass strike pene-trated every sector of society, andraised demands that went farbeyond the confines of tradeunionism, questioning control atthe centre of society. Crucially itwas a youth-initiated movement,youth who did not accept whatthe previous generation hadhanded down to them - a revolu-tion of ideas.

Cohn-Bendit at a student meeting

C

After the May Events theauthorities symbolically laidasphalt over the pave (cobbles)in the Latin Quarters—weapons the students had so

effectively used ih the street fighting. Butthe memoiry of what had occurred wouildhardly be so easily effaced, either in Franceor elsewhere.May 68 burst on the Western world

grown smug and complacent in ‘affluenceand ‘consensus’ where politics had becomea bore and the Cold War taken for granted.Its links with the Third World

Liberation movements (the Vietnamese‘Tet Offensive’ and the anti-bureaucraticmovement in the East were strong andwell-understood. Internationalism was a key aspect:when the government and the Stalinists denounced the‘foreign agitator’ Daniel Cohn-Bendit, studentsmarched chanting ‘We are all German Jews!’.While on the one hand the power of the general

strike gave the lie to the theory that workers in theWest had been irretrievably ‘bought off’, at the sametime the appearance of new sectors in the struggle withnew problems and demands made it clear future revo-lutionary movements would not be simple re-runs ofthe past.In its zest, its radical questioning of received ideas,

its hostility to hierarchy and bureaucracy of whateverkind, and in its fresh and imaginative posters, the Maymovement often approached the spirit of surrealism.”Run Comrade, the old world is behind you”…”Power isin the streets”…”Take your wishes for reality”...ran the

FROM THE ARCHIVE: The Spirit of May

world renowned slogans.Far too often, of course, the youthful

iconoclasm of the student revolutionariesled to ultra-left disdain for parliamentarydemocracy, the traditional workers’ par-ties, the trade unions and the ‘battle forhearts and minds’ generally, especiallyafter 1968 with the constant attempts tostart May all over again with the magicformula revolt-repression-revolution. Therewas often a mood of violence and irra-tionality, against the boring normality ofthe status quo.The movement notably brought into play

a whole range of groups not normallylinked to left politics and trade unionism.Showgirls and prostitutes in Montmartre,

lawyers and sometimes supervisors and scientific staffjoined in. Students, film-makers, journalists, archi-tects, technicians and others produced critiques of theway their world was organised in bourgeois society, ofthe authoritarian structures and alienation from fellowworkers, together with bold and imaginative plans for‘self management’, with schemes for putting their skillsat the service of society rather than of profit.Unfortunately, rather than take up the challenge of

such new dimensions to a socialist transformation ofsociety, too many of the left groups have been mired infruitless searches for latter-day Bolshevik parties andSoviets. May saw the eruption of millions of ordinary people

on the stage of history for a brief moment. If they do soagain, will the left be able to come to terms with theirmanifold aspirations for personal and social liberation?

Ten Years After: Author-Martin Cook, Chartist May 1978

#292 working_01 cover 23/04/2018 12:50 Page 18

20 CHARTIST May/June 2018 May/June 2018 CHARTIST 21

DEMOCRACY

Working Class Democracy? from time to time.Nevertheless, in spite of thefact that the rules of delegatedemocracy are sometimes fol-lowed less than consistently, del-egate democracy does work rea-sonably well in trade unions,political parties and other essen-tially voluntary organisations. Itis worth considering why this isso. Part of the reason is surelythat there are safeguards – some-times formal ones – against thepossibility of the organisation’spolicies getting too remote fromthose favoured by the member-ship as a whole. Often there arerules that allow for the calling ofspecial conferences or member-ship referendums. A politicalparty example is the ILP‘plebiscite’ in 1936 when therewas major disagreement over theparty’s response to Mussolini’sinvasion of what was then calledAbyssinia.Moreover, in the final analysis

if you are that much opposed tothe policies adopted by yourunion or party you can alwaysdecide to leave it, join a rival one,or even start a breakaway. Mosttrade unionists will recoil withunderstandable horror, especiallyfrom the latter option, but thethreat to leave can be a real oneeven if just implicit. The historyof the political Left, in Britain aselsewhere, can be told as a seriesof ‘splits’ alternating with ‘unit