Letters

Fools

Reprinting your coverage of the year-long miners’ strike on its 30th anniversary is useful in one respect, but frustrating, in that it allows the errors and misjudgements you made at that time to be reprinted for a second time. I corrected you on these at the time, and many times since, and I think you may now realise where you were wrong.

Thankfully, you have lost some of that excruciating self-opinionated leadership arrogance you displayed at that time, telling battle-hardened, class-conscious coalminers where we were going wrong and how you’d worked this all out for us and here’s what we should do. Mind, you weren’t as bad as some, who must have come very close to a smack in the gob on a few occasions. None of the left, with the possible exception of the anarchists, came into this dispute without tablets of stone brought down from Moses’ mountain and, although you mock “tin rattling and baked bean collecting”, that was easier to digest than the grannies’ eggs you tried to get us to suck.

Your assessment of the Socialist Workers Party in this report (‘Facing up to reality’, January 29) is entirely at odds with our experience of them during the strike, when they were a total pain up the arse and highly disruptive. They may have tailed Scargill, but they certainly didn’t concede anything to area leaderships or even rank-and-file leaders, whom they tried at every turn to undermine. But that is another tale. Suffice to say, we had a strategy, we were winning. Neither they nor Scargill agreed with it and they, on reflex-action, assumed areas such as Yorkshire were less militant and combative than Arthur. It wasn’t the case.

Still others took the side of the scabs and ballot-mongered us for 12 months, while arguing the joys of nuclear energy and an end to the closed shop. The anarchists who came may not have come with tablets of god-given wisdom, but they brought food and could throw bricks, which the left by and large could not - not least because they had armfuls of papers to sell us, and couldn’t do both. As if we needed them or their papers to tell us what was going on and where we were ga’an wrong.

Coming more directly to your ‘Facing up to reality’ reprint from January 1985, let me again correct you on the question of the national ballot. We did not require such a ballot for an overtime ban. We could stop working that on individual, branch, area or national level by popular consent. Even the scabs didn’t call for a ballot on the overtime ban and kept it in place while they scabbed, so the Weekly Worker’s assertion that we should have had a national ballot to allow men to work more time than their shifts required, in the face of a government that argued we had too much coal, is quite insightful of your understanding of the situation (or lack of it).

The miners did not at any level pick the time of the dispute. This was entirely in the court of the employers and government. Recent cabinet papers now reveal that the famous hit list of National Coal Board chair Ian MacGregor had been taken to Thatcher before the start of the strike, when he outlined how he would take us on. Crucial in that strategy was that a ‘bomb’ would be dropped on the south Yorkshire coalfield, a militant centre, with the bland announcement of closures. This would force a national conference and ballot, which we would lose and the whole programme would sail through.

In the intervening period, Thatcher and Mac would launch a campaign called ‘Operation Saturation Coverage’, in conjunction with the press and TV, which would conduct a huge PR job against Scargill and the union in the hope of swinging any ballot away from a ‘yes’ vote. Certain assurances were given to probable strike-breaking coalfields and their individual leaders. But the rank and file didn’t respond like that. They walked out and spread the strike, coalfield by coalfield. Scargill didn’t make that decision; neither did the NEC. We did that ourselves.

In the immediate aftermath, we in the leadership called a national conference to simplify the majority requirement from 55% to 50%-plus-one in anticipation of a national ballot, which we, Arthur included, expected to hold. We had the publicity materials printed. We had the ballot papers worded. We then held a national conference to vote on whether we would hold a national ballot or not. Nearly 90% of the mines were already on strike, with many closed through effective picketing. (It was at this point that Thatcher interfered directly in the operation of the police, telling them she expected “vigorous and effective policing” to stop the pickets.)

The truth is the national conference, voting area by area, after having voted branch by branch, decided by a clear majority not to have a ballot and to stay on strike and not cross picket lines. At no point did either Arthur or the NEC make a recommendation on this question, speak on any of the seven resolutions before the floor (he was in the chair) or vote on any of the seven resolutions. So, whether you think the decision was right or wrong, it was not a decision of the “leadership”, as you call it; it was the decision of the rank and file. So what would the democrats of the CPGB have done? Ordered us to have a national ballot? You know what the response of the miners would have been? Same as it was then: ‘Stick your ballot up your arse’.

I could go on, but my corrections - particularly on your total misunderstanding of the miners’ reference to ‘our industry’ (we meant us, the miners, not ‘us’, the British state, fools) - but it would be longer than the article, or indeed the paper. I refer you once more to my comprehensive history of this whole period, Ghost dancers, still available for £11, including postage. Send your name and address and cheque to me at 193 Osborne Avenue, South Shields, NE33 3BY.

David Douglass
South Shields

Monoglots

I am sure that many of your article contributors and correspondents on Israel, Palestine, Zionism and Jewish identity are much more expert and knowledgeable than I am about these issues. However, as a linguist, I’ve been struck by the absence of discussion of the material factor that there presumably exists a substantial population in Israel for whom modern Hebrew is their first language. That is, the one that they are most fluent in.

Wikipedia puts the number of native speakers at three million, but I have been unable to discover rapidly from anywhere how many are equally fluent in another language or are monoglot Hebrew speakers among this number, which would affect the number of first language speakers - ie, those who would swim in Hebrew as a fish swims in water, and therefore have an identity very much formed by their speaking the language.

Whatever else might happen politically, and in terms of the formation/reformation of Jewish identity in Israel, or internationally, this population and its attitude to its language, even if there were a shift to more or less no monoglots, would remain a material factor in the Middle East for some considerable time, if not indefinitely (unless, I suppose, some sort of reactionary Arab nationalism/Islamism managed to expunge the language entirely, which seems vanishingly unlikely in the near future).

One has only to think of the survival of Welsh (showing no sign of impending demise, despite there being no monoglots left) in the face of what has become the de facto world language, and of either active hostility, or at the very least indifference, from English speakers, and British government, for several centuries.

Tim Reid
London

Wandering who?

On Monday February 2 Gilad Atzmon returned to Nottingham to answer critics accusing him of ‘anti-Semitism’. Some of his detractors had succeeded in persuading Gedling Borough Council to ban him appearing at the Bonington Theatre, Arnold, on January 15.

Gilad went to Five Leaves Books to confront its proprietor, Ross Bradshaw, who was one of the persons responsible for stirring up people to get Gilad banned. Bradshaw made rather feeble and defensive responses to his close questioning (Gilad’s wife filmed this encounter).

In the evening Atzmon addressed people at the Free Speech Forum. This was to have been held at the Canalhouse pub, but the management cancelled the booking as a result of intimidation from Gilad’s local detractors. These include not only the aforementioned Bradshaw, but also Nottingham Secular Society - a bizarre group of misfits, whose record on opposing religious sectarianism is exactly zero. Indeed Canalhouse was shut down on Monday evening, when it would normally be open.

At short notice an alternative venue was arranged, where Gilad mounted a powerful defence against the accusations made against him (this was filmed). His opponents had been invited to come along and debate with him, but they failed to show up. Among those present were members of Nottingham Jazzhouse, who have staunchly defended Gilad. The evening ended, much to the delight of those present, with Atzmon playing his sax, together with local saxophonist John Sanderson.

Now, Atzmon’s lawyers are considering the possibility of action against Gedling Borough Council. A freedom of information request has been made to obtain the letter sent and its signatories, who seem unwilling to reveal themselves.

There has been a long-standing, orchestrated campaign against Atzmon simply because he has dared to raise some questions about Jewish identity and the actions of some Jewish people. Most of the material floating around on the internet uses quotations (often misquoted), truncated and out of context, to try to show that Gilad is an ‘anti-Semite’. The letter-writers and their supporters have been mounting a vicious campaign to prevent Atzmon earning a living as a jazz musician. Shame on you.

No investigation, no right to speak! Read Atzmon’s brilliant book The wandering who? A study of Jewish identity politics, to judge for yourselves. Even Bradshaw said that he is willing to order copies. (What? Disseminating ‘anti-Semitic’ propaganda!) Of course, you can get it cheaper on the internet.

Gilad Atzmon and his band will be returning to Nottingham and as usual it will be sold out.

Harry Powell, Ted Hankin
Nottingham

Wrong

I think CPGB comrades have got things really wrong with the new communitarian populist front, ‘workers’ government’, ‘majority socialist coalition’, etc, in charge of Greece.

First, the new coalition has been described as a “popular front sui generis” (‘Victory tainted by right populists’, January 29). Was the historically notorious third-period collaboration between the German Communist Party and the Nazis, traditionally seen as the polar opposite of the later popular front turn, also a “popular front sui generis”? No, I am not comparing the Syriza-Anel cooperation to that, but some ultra-lefts have.

Second, Anel has been characterised as a “bourgeois party”. This is highly inaccurate: Richard Seymour has suggested that its electoral support is demographically more similar to a leftist party than to typical centre-right parties. It would be more accurate to describe them as a thoroughly petty bourgeois party.

Third, Anel has been characterised as being reactionary on all constitutional issues. Every single issue? According to Eleni Xiarchogiannopoulou, Anel also supports constitutional overhaul of the political system. It may be possible to win them over to average skilled workers’ compensation and living standards, as well as recallability, for all politicians and civil servants, and also to implement a ‘party tax’, not unlike Sinn Féin’s.

All these counterpoints suggest that the new communitarian populist front implies a dual insistence on radical, participatory-democratic overhaul and on predistributionist economic policy (how ‘socialist’ depends on the mass consciousness of class-based public policy-making), and concession on identity and related ‘social’ issues to a ‘radical centre’ standstill - but not pushing through bans on games of chance (Paris Commune) or violent video games (Hugo Chávez), or other socially conservative policy.

Jacob Richter
email

Socialism on trial

Throughout the history of the labour movement genuine activists have been victimised and harassed, isolated and bullied, and driven out of the movement by those with a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo.

A well-heeled, mainly unelected bureaucracy and their sinecured hangers-on, enjoying astronomical rates of pay and conditions, compared to those they are supposed to be representing, do not want change and do not want to come into conflict with the employers and the establishment. Therefore, when an officer, a branch secretary or a steward are doing their job properly and effectively, while at first lauded and held up as an example by the powers-that-be in the movement, they are only tolerated for so long. Unless they change their ways and conform to the culture of the institution they are a member of or they are employed by, at an opportune moment, they are dismissed, usually accompanied by a smear campaign, orchestrated by those whose careers and comfortable positions they are inadvertently threatening by doing their job properly.

Such is the latest case, that of Keith Henderson, who was employed as a regional officer by the London region of the GMB union. Keith was very popular and efficient. He had won a record award for a GMB member at an employment tribunal and his senior regional officers and regional secretary had been very impressed. Keith regarded himself as a leftwing socialist and loyally adhered to what he believed were union principles.

During the pensions dispute in 2011, when the best and worst of British trade unionism was seen in the space of a week, Keith had been given the responsibility of looking after the Houses of Parliament branch of the GMB. Their regular regional official was off sick. The House of Commons section of the branch (security, catering and cleaning workers) had voted to join the day of action by going on strike on November 30. At a specially convened meeting, there was an overwhelming vote to put a picket on the House of Commons. The members had spoken and Keith undertook the responsibility of ensuring that the picket was going to be as well attended and as effective as possible.

Until the general secretary, Paul Kenny, telephoned him, Keith was blissfully unaware that he was doing anything wrong. He wasn’t aware that his actions were in fact diametrically opposed to the current opportunist culture prevalent in both the industrial and political wings of the labour movement.

Kenny shouted at Keith, expressing his indignation that a press release that Keith had put out promoting the strike and the proposed picket were over the top and too leftwing. It was certainly something that had caused a bit of a stir, with the GMB having received a call from the leader of the opposition’s office. No-one will know exactly what was said, but, when the prime minister asked Ed Miliband if he had asked for “the GMB’s permission to come into work this morning”, every genuine GMB member would have felt a glow of pride. Every defender of the status quo in the union would have winced with embarrassment.

Keith’s life in the union and in the labour movement in general was made hell from that moment. His attempt to stand as a county councillor for Labour in Essex was thwarted when he was suspended without charge from the Clacton Labour Party. No help was forthcoming from Paul Kenny and the GMB, and the general secretary of the Labour Party, Ian McNicol (formerly the political officer of the GMB), also claimed that he was unable to get involved.

Life in the union became so unbearable for Keith that he was forced to take sick leave with stress, having also submitted a formal grievance in relation to the way he was being treated. That grievance was never heard and in fact some of the issues raised by Keith were used as charges against him following a disciplinary investigation that was conducted by Warren Kenny - also an unelected officer in the London region of the GMB and son of the general secretary.

The union eventually dismissed Keith and he was forced to take his case to an employment tribunal. The Watford tribunal found that the GMB had been guilty of victimisation and harassment, but, bizarrely, that the dismissal was fair. Leftwing socialist belief was recognised as a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act and, as a consequence, all employers and especially those who have usurped power in corporate trade unions, running them as little more than corrupt institutions, have a legal precedent set that will prevent them from victimising and harassing genuine activists in future without the threat of repercussions.

Neither the establishment as a whole nor those with a vested self-interest in control of corporate trade unions could allow this situation to persist. It will therefore come as a shock to many, but not to those who have been close to this case, that on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of members’ money that have been wasted on legal costs already, an appeal against this decision was lodged by the GMB. Fortunately, Keith has a barrister who has been working free of charge and he has lodged an appeal against the decision to uphold the unfair dismissal. Keith’s appeal is scheduled for February 10 and the GMB’s for February 11-12.

In conclusion, I can only reiterate the call made by comrade Gerry Downing when he wrote a letter to the Weekly Worker last week (January 29). We call on all serious trade unionists and socialists to support the demo outside the employment appeal tribunal at Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London EC4 (the nearest tube station is Blackfriars) from 8.45am on Tuesday February 10, and to attend the hearing itself on February 10-12 to show solidarity and give moral and political support to Keith in his struggle, which is on behalf of the entire working class.

Steve McKenzie
email

Sceptics

John Hill in last week’s paper asserts that climate change is just so much weather variation, that it’s nothing remarkable and we just need to deal with the climate and not try to change it (Letters, January 29).

He can be put into the 3% category of climate-change sceptics, contrarians and deniers - a very select group of people who doubt the credibility of climate scientists. These include Nigel Lawson, Sarah Palin, Melanie Phillips - and the oil companies funding the ‘dark agencies’ that sow doubt on the science. It’s John Hill’s prerogative to deny the science of climate change and to ‘keep calm and carry on’. He is yet to be convinced of the facts and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, because, as he says, it’s governmental. Comrade Hill notes, however, that the majority of scientists agree with the IPCC conclusions on anthropocentric climate change that he wants nothing to do with.

Even though the IPCC is a governmental organisation, no government has taken action to reduce carbon emissions and propose a ‘fundamental’ shift in the way we organise society. As I noted in my article, capitalism cannot tackle climate change - there is a metabolic rift between the needs of capitalism and the needs of nature (‘Business as usual’, January 22). Yet carbon emissions could be reduced by implementing carbon capture and storage and other technologies that have been proposed; the waste and uselessness associated with capitalist production ought to be abolished. However, the prime ministers and presidents of the world act in the interests of capital accumulation.

We are already seeing the melting of the permafrost beginning. The signs are there, but some people would rather refer to it as just “weather”. Yes, but these are human-induced weather events, such as the current extreme snow in North America.

If John Hill can point to research which disproves the science of climate change, I will willingly listen. Until then John and the sceptics will remain in the minority.

Simon Wells
London

A T-shirt away

When proposing an epitaph for Eurocommunism in his review of After the party (‘What Kate did next’, January 29), Howard Phillips could have quoted a line from Billy Bragg’s song, ‘Waiting for the great leap forwards’: “The revolution is only a T shirt away.”

Bob Wood
email

Traumatic cuts

The Rugby Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition is very concerned about planned cuts to educational provision for children with special needs in Rugby and Warwickshire.

Following concerns raised by parents and teachers in Rugby, we did our own research - and this backed up those concerns. The county council has a ‘Warwickshire business plan’ and a business case entitled ‘Dedicated schools grant high needs block action plan’, both of which they have kept very much to themselves despite being part of a supposed consultation exercise, which ends on March 6.

When you read the documents, it quickly becomes clear why that is. Warwickshire are saying that educational cuts need to be made, and that includes taking away specialist provision from vulnerable children. This could include removing statements of special educational needs (SEN). What that means in reality is that those children will no longer receive the educational support they have received up until now. This could set them back years.

Those most at risk, from the council’s own documentation, will be those children on SEN bands A and B. They would no longer be guaranteed any support, which could be traumatic for a number of our local children. Taking statements away from any child goes against the SEN code of conduct and could be illegal. All schools, but especially free schools and academies, are unlikely to use any delegated funds to support children with special needs who no longer have a statement.

These are not educational decisions, but financial ones. The council’s documentation accepts this: “In an era of diminishing resources for all councils, Warwickshire County Council is facing unprecedented constraints on funding and has agreed and published its intended response to the challenging financial conditions; the One organisational plan sets out WCC’s commitments to deliver c£92 million in savings by 2018.” So there we have it - the public spending cuts, which the Tory-Liberal Democrat government claims do not affect the NHS or education, actually do so in the here and now.

The council accepts in its documentation that “there is likely to be significant parental resistance”. Of course there will be: most parents we have spoken to don’t even know that their daughter or son could suddenly lose their statement and the guaranteed support that goes with it. WCC also accepts it could need legal advice as a result - an additional cost that could have been spent on education.

These cuts will hit children with special needs very hard. How do you tell a child they will no longer have an educational assistant to help them cope, and what effect will that have on them? This is the reality of cutting public spending - and worse is to come if Labour, the Tories, the UK Independence Party or Lib Dems win the general election, as all of them want to continue an austerity programme that has only cut 40% of what is intended by 2020.

In terms of spending cuts, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Pete McLaren
Rugby Tusc

Alien oil

Phil Kent must be confusing my position on the Stalin question with those of people like Harpal Brar, who apparently believe that Stalin did no wrong (Letters, January 29).

I defend Stalin’s general political line, while recognising that tactical errors were made, and criticise any abuse of political power, whether by Stalin directly or by those under his leadership. For instance, many people arrested by Yezhov, when he headed the NKVD, were later released by Stalin.

On the issue of peak oil, we can note that in 2008 oil prices reached $147 per barrel, which led to the recession and a credit crunch. This recession brought down oil prices. Any return to economic growth will send oil prices soaring again, ending in another recession. Kent confuses peak oil with the decline of oil production. It is the latter which leads to the collapse of capitalism, assuming no cheap energy substitute is in place.

As for the reptilian connection, Kent says we do not rely on secular gods or extra-terrestrial aliens. As I previously made clear, if we are being secretly controlled by the reptilian bloodlines - and this not as impossible as some closed-minded people may think - they are here to exploit and suppress us. So where did Kent get the idea that anyone was claiming salvation will come from aliens? In the case of some reptilians, the opposite would be the case.

This leads me to Tony Roberts’ intervention and his correct suggestion that capitalism is the cause of our woes. It is controlled by a political elite who may be answerable to a reptilian bloodline operating from the shadows. Robert’s mention of the television series V may be closer to the truth than he realises - truth represented as fiction.

Tony Clark
email