Thursday, 10 May 2018

Interview with Bob Pounder



Bob Pounder interview
14 April 2015
Marne St, Ashton-under-Lyne
Summary
·         Royal Navy firefighter to 1978
·         Poor pay and conditions in the RN
·         Reading Solzhenitsyn, Orwell, Sillitoe, Trotsky while in the RN
·         Supporting the FBU in the 1977 strike
·         The Grunwick dispute
·         Greater Manchester Fire Service 1979 – 200? Working at Stalybridge Fire Station
·         The improved terms and conditions that followed the 1977 strike.
·         The Laurence Scott dispute 1982
·         The Stockport Messenger (Eddie Shah) dispute 1983
·         Solidarity with the miners 1984-5
·         Tackling racism and sexism in the fire service
·         The battle over the deputy chief officer saying ‘I’d rather be gay than black’.
·         Threatening the chief fire officer with industrial action to get an ill health pension for a member.
·         Bruce Springsteen, The River.

---- 000 ----

Geoff: Ok we're on the 14th of April and I'm talking to Bob Pounder.  Bob, I’ve given you a few questions....

Bob:  Yep.

Geoff: How did you become involved? What did your working life look like?

Bob: Well I suppose my early political memories; we are always surrounded by politics. Anyway as a child, you know you would come home from school and see that some of the other schools were closed, because of polling day, and you would see people wearing their different coloured rosettes. And I used to wonder what was going on and I remember I was in the classroom one day and the girl that sat next to me told the teacher that her sister had voted for the communist party  so... I never forgot that. I suppose really that there's a constant throughout my life, a constant prodding politically until you reach a point when you wake up.

The story really starts in the Royal Navy because in the Royal Navy you had no trade union rights, you were subject to the Queen's Regulations and you have no say what so ever in your pay and your conditions of service. I took an interest in politics whilst I was in the navy. I was 15 when I joined the navy and over those years I read books by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, Animal Farm and so on, and I read quite a bit of Alan Sillitoe. Raw Material was one of his books which really moved me. It was a real tirade against militarism and it affected me. Then I bought some Marxist literature I bought Trotsky's My Life which I think is a fantastic book. I read this while I was still in the navy and I would boast about this.  Anyway when I came to the end of my career in the navy I was aware of two particular disputes.

The first one was Grunwick. We saw that unfold on the television, day by day, week by week. We saw the mass pickets and there we heard there the voice of working-class solidarity. There was a real passion in that dispute.  It was led by Asian women, Indian women and they led a very brave struggle. I remember the arguments that used to go on with my colleagues but certainly one of my mates Taff Turner his dad had been a stevedore on the docks I think and a card carrying member of the Communist Party as well.  Me and Taffy used to support the workers, we were very much in support then.

Not long after that the Fire Brigades Union went on its first national strike. I think it was the 14th of November 1977 and by that time I was a naval airman I was working on the Naval Air Station Culdrose in Cornwell. Basically I was a Royal Naval firefighter so there was a real kind of affinity there in that the firefighters were members of another sort of militarized organisation taking matters into their own hands. Armed forces pay was very low at that time. We were getting paid less than the firefighters and I remember that in that year I got a pay rise and ended up with a 50p a week's pay cut. So that certainly we felt that the firefighters were making a point and fighting for us. You could see it on the television at that time: there was a mass movement of trade unionists, thousands of firefighters. There was an energy there that was happening.  We were watching from a distance. I never actually got sent out on the green goddesses to scab on the firefighters.

Obviously I understand the need for fire protection. I always remember the words of Ken Cameron  the general secretary of the fire brigades union for over 20 years and one of his cries  was that it's not it’s not the right to strike that wants removing it's the need to strike that wants removing. And I've always felt that about public sector workers that, by and large, public sector workers are serving the majority of the population who are the working class and the poor. It's a difficult decision to remove those kinds of services from the people who need them. So it's the role of the wider working class to support and help them and protect those social services but that doesn't mean to say, of course, that the Fire Brigades Union and other public sector unions don’t have a responsibility to take some kind action.  Of course they do.

Anyway the firefighters strike lasted 9 weeks. It came to an end in January 1978 and in the fullness of time, although the strike itself was defeated, the Fire Brigades Union were promised by that particular Labour government, the James Callaghan government that they would realise the objectives of their claim and, sure enough, they were and they obtained really good conditions of service and those lasted for quite a long time.  Unfortunately we no longer have them in the same way. Certainly it's right that it was a significant strike. It was inspiring and I was inspired by it. I wanted to leave the navy. I just got married and within about 18 months afterwards that I'd applied to join the fire service.  I was successful. I joined the Greater Manchester Fire Service (in February 1979) and I got my union card. Yes! I suppose that somebody once said that the only thing I ever wanted to be was a union rep. Well I suppose that's quite true really. I did want to be a union rep. I wanted to play an active part in the union movement. So I completed my training and got sent to Stalybridge. And while I was still in probation I became a station union rep. Probation was a two year period in those days - I became a branch official, joined the Labour party and I also got involved in the Militant tendency and it was all uphill from there

Geoff: can you say when exactly you got sent to Stalybridge?

Bob: Yeah, it was 6th June 1979

Geoff:  Four weeks after Thatcher gets into office.

Bob: It was horrendous. Just horrendous.  We didn't really know what we were in for, did we? I mean, you know, I knew it was going to bad and I had no idea that the unions were going to be so useless as well when it came to beating the challenge.  

Geoff: Have you any idea why we didn't win at Grunwick? ...

Bob: I think the establishment really got involved ensuring that kind of set piece confrontation.  We were fortunate to have these women, Jayaben Desai, leading that dispute and there was real courage there but I think there was an organisation the National Association for Freedom, George Ward the boss of Grunwick [was] open to them letting them help him.  It became a set piece class struggle even the posties, the post office workers at Cricklewood, they even refused to deliver the mail. We got a real sense of what working class power could be but I just think that the need to win, the need to step it up, the need not to back down was lost in some kind of way and the bosses exploited that weakness. And it did set the scene for future confrontations.

Certainly I felt the Eddie Shah [Stockport Messenger] dispute [1983] was again another set piece confrontation. I think that was basically because of the 3 day week, you know, the defeat the government had suffered in 1973-4 which obviously overturned the Heath government and the working-class were actually flexing their muscles for revenge. But it was still all possible in those days....

Geoff: Can you say something about what it was actually like working in the Stalybridge fire station and perhaps contrast with the way things are today, in terms of the conditions?

Bob:  Yes.  When I went to Stalybridge they had just come off the 48 hour week.  Before that they worked at 56 a week and before that they worked 60 hour week, a 70 hour week. And now we were on the 42 hour week.  We worked a system of two days, 9 in the morning to 6, and then we'd have 2 evenings, 6 in the evening till 9 in the morning, and it was absolutely spot on. It was a full 42 hours a week, there where beds on fire stations, during the quiet time you could have a kip.  There was a night cook and a day cook, there was a guaranteed pay formula, there was a good pension scheme, there was leave, there was NHS reimbursements, there was full acceptance of a proper discipline procedure. It was just a gold plated job and, as other public sector workers came under the cosh, we held on a lot longer to these conditions of service.  We had good health and safety, the equipment continued to improve, the union was supported by Thompsons, the trade union solicitors, the union was strong. Maybe some of the weaknesses came from some of the newer members; [they] would think these conditions dropped out of the sky, a kind of complacency. (But the union leadership is ultimately the crucial factor).  Once you've got these, you kind of relax and then obviously you got the employers and one of them turned round to one of my comrades and said you've got some of our jewels and we intend to have them back and it was always their objective to claw them back. But the conditions at the time were very good

Geoff: Can you say something about the actual job? Fire fighting is risky.

Bob: It is a risky affair but, again, because we were organised, because of health and safety, because of years of tradition, generally speaking, fire fighting is a calculated risk and, relative to the danger, the injuries and deaths are quite few.  There are scary moments when you're inside the building and the roof is coming in, you need to get out quick and, all of a sudden, finding the win that when your sent to the seat of a fire at the seat of the fire and finding the seat of the fire is acetylene cylinders   ... so you have your moments and in fairness Stalybridge was not one of the busiest stations and I won't claim great glory.  We served the community and we had the fires.  As you moved into the city centre, those were fires were more frequent and, if you were a city centre firefighter, you would become more experienced more quickly but you learn by the way and you can be killed out in the sticks fire fighting a barn fire as much as you can be killed in the city centre.  It is a dangerous job I wouldn't pretend that it isn't dangerous but it was a job with great camaraderie, a great sense of, I have to say, of brotherhood when I was there. You would work with these people, both men and women, and they become your family. I worked on a watch, I was 18 years on the same watch in Stalybridge, white watch on Stalybridge, and I spent more time living and eating, sleeping, you know, with these people    than I did with my own brothers and sisters.  There's a real sense of solidarity. I think that's one of the things employers didn't like, this kind of class solidarity that would naturally emerge when you're facing danger, you're together eating, sleeping together and your social time together.  It's very bonding.  It's almost tribal really but it's great. I love it, being with them, I love being with firefighters.  In fact I still like being with them now. I've got to tell you I've never met a firefighter that I've actually hated, I've always liked them. I've always found them a bit larger than life, maybe so am I. They are just great fun to be with.

Geoff: You mentioned how the Grunwick dispute was led by Asian women. Traditionally the fire service is very white and male.  How did that play out given that there was a women's movement and racism was a central issue?

Bob: I think racism definitely a central issue. Racism was a big issue in the fire service. The fire service as it was in those days in many respects only reflected the norms of the wider society which was racist and sexist and everything else.  And, of course, as a trade unionist and somebody who had become politically aware, I realised that it was as sin if you like, it was a defect we couldn't afford to have.  So because I was politically aware so I would spend time calling for solidarity with black workers with black people against racism and also on the issue of sexism that women have the right to join the fire service and to be treated with dignity and respect.  We have to grow up and acknowledge that the times are changing and there were lots of battles that I was actually involved with.  There was lots of battles I was involved with most of the battles ... There were very few women that came into the fire service.  Proportionally it will always be male dominated. That's just the way it is, the way men and women are.  Some women make better firefighters then some men but generally it’s kind of a boy's thing I suppose really.

But the big issues where on race.  Those were quite nasty at times and I was involved in quite a few struggles.  As you remember, the dispute with the deputy chief fire officer.

Geoff:  That was much later on.

Bob: That was about 20 years ago, quite a long time ago.   But we had to face it down.  I had black firefighters that were union reps. I once had this black firefighter that was a good union rep, a really good a solid lad he was and he was one  of my union reps - by that time I was the brigade secretary  - and he was getting abused.  So I went up to this particular fire station and said look, you know, you’re not on.  This is one of my reps and whether he is a black man or not, that's got nothing with it, I’m not having it.  We faced it down and, because of that stuff that happened much later in the 90s, we certainly created the acceptance and the realisation on fire stations that were all brothers and sisters together in the union and you can't do it anymore. The times are changing and that was it.  A lot of people didn't like it but at the end of the day it was something that had to be done and you cannot have a union and you cannot have solidarity when you are refusing your colleagues just because of the colour of their skin or because of their sexuality.  We can't afford to have that

Geoff: the deputy fire chief said something like 'I'd rather be gay than black'. Or was it the other way round?

Bob:    I can't remember myself ...  I think it was 'I'd rather be gay than black. It doesn't really matter which way he said it now.  ... at the time I just become the brigade secretary, it was '98 when it kicked off, I became the brigade secretary in '97 and, you know, it was in a mess. I was determined to pull it to make it a fighting union and to make the employer respect us.  I was fighting a battle at the time over another trade union dispute, which was about 'real fire training' it was called, and we'd not been consulted about that and I was going round stations telling blokes not to participate in this.  I even went on the training school and I argued it out with the staff and it went on and on.  Anyway, I was actually banned off all the stations.  The deputy chief fire officer said that I wasn't but when I went on the stations I was actually thrown off the stations.  A couple of days later I got all the union reps in down at the office on Liverpool Road and I said 'Right this is what's happening and we're getting tatered'.  I said you're all union reps; you're all members of the union.  If you don't do something about it, we might as well wrap up and go home.  Let's forget we're in the union. I'm calling on you now get stuck in, get on those stations and stop it. I put it in those terms for them 'cause there's nowhere to go.  You either become a bosses' union rep or you become a class fighter. That's how I saw myself I wasn't any great shakes but I wasn't putting up with that. Anyway, after the meeting somebody came up to me and told me what the deputy county fire officer had said in front of a bunch of young recruits in regard to this black firefighter.  And they gave me his mother's telephone number.  So I phoned the woman up and she was absolutely raging about it she said I can't believe this.  When my dad came to this country in the 50s they treated him like a dog and they’re treating my son like that.  Well it just got me going that did and I said don't you worry about it, they'll know about it.  And of course they did.

Geoff: There was a walk out as I remember...

Bob: Well, they hadn't taken industrial action for about six years or something. Somebody moved industrial action and all the rest of it and they all put their hands up and then they all cleared off out of the office and left me to sort it out, you know, Friday night, 7 o'clock, getting them all sitting down for Monday morning.  What do you do?  Well, can you imagine? Anyway, Monday morning, whshooo..., every station, emergency calls only. The whole lot came to a halt.  It was on the news, on the television, everywhere.  So, you know, it kicked off. We wrong footed them.  I said 'There, you've got your equal opportunities policy.  There it is'.  And they said 'What do you think should happen?' I said 'Well he's obviously said that, he should be subject to disciplinary action shouldn't he?’ I didn't actually think the deputy chief fire officer would lose his job.  I later found out that the chief fire officer, instead of pouring oil on troubled waters and sorting it out properly just ran a mile. For me, apart from the emergency calls only, in boxing terms, it was just a love tap.  But, you know, they just went down.  Well that was it.  You know that, by that time, we were well on the way.  All of a sudden, and it was on the issue of race, and stuff like that, that actually helped us strengthen the union, it brought us together because, about a year later, when they came for our national conditions of service,  we were the only section of the union, in Greater Manchester, that really fought it and fort it and the crowning moment, it was just wonderful,  we turned up at the Lancastrian Hall in Swinton, 800 firefighters cheering their rocks off for a strike, it was just great.  And it was just great and it was an officers' issue as well.  It wasn't for the blokes. I'd got the officers on board. The blokes were saying at first 'Forget the officers; they’ll never unite with the blue shirts'.  - because you had the blue shirts and the white shirts -  and I said 'No, no, it's the principle and people came on board and it was fantastic.  It went to a ballot and we got 85 percent yes vote for strike, reversing the defeat that they had a few years before, before I became brigade secretary.  So that was it.  I organised a victory march the following week through Manchester .  The union leadership didn't like it, they were telling people to keep away, 'Oh, it's too much, he's pushing too hard'.

I'll tell you, they were great times, and in the run up to the 2002 strike, stations with festooned with posters and all the rest of it, and some of the officers were trying to take them down because obviously they would do that's what the bosses wanted them to do and they're officers. I went to the officers’ branch and I told them to lay off and they laid off and the reason they laid off was they might not have thought there were any great shakes but they remembered and I respected them and they respected me. They knew that I would fight for their interests as much as anybody else's.  It wasn't a sectional union, it was a union. One union and we fought it together and they thought 'OK' and they just packed up.  That was it. And you know I had some great moments. It was tough, you know, 60 or 70 hours a week I would be putting in, no family life.  The union was my life. 

I remember other times.  This woman rang me up.  She said her husband, a firefighter, had been banged up in a psychiatric ward and she wanted him pensioned off and out of the fire service and...    and I phone up the chief fire officer and I told him he's got 24 hours couple to do  it . Anyway what happened was you know there's just so many of these things that happened, people when we've won one victory they're enthused by another. You build the confidence up and so, anyway, when it came to the 24 hours, I gave him from dinner time to dinner time, to 12 o'clock noon the following morning and it got to about 11:45 and we still hadn't got it, so I phoned him up there - of course all the union reps are in the office - I say 'Right, have you got him retired now?  Have you sorted his pension out?'  I mean it's virtually unheard of.  Just a fireman, me, telling the chief fire officer.  I mean you know what it's like to get someone a pension.  He says 'Give me another 3 hours.'  'Just hang on a sec, I'll phone you back.' and I say to the reps 'He's just said '3 hours'. 'Tell him to fuck off.' they say. So I say to him 'I'm sorry. I can't hold. You've got 15 minutes, otherwise the whole brigade is going out and we will tell the press all about it'. He went from 'Give me 3 hours.' to 'Give me 3 minutes.' and it was done and dusted.  And I got this lovely card from his wife.  But there was a whole history of neglect there. And I remember... I went to organise the Manchester May Day down in Bootle Street [police station] and I was talking to one of the cops down there.  I told him I used to be in the fire service and he told me about his pension scheme, so I told him about that and he said 'Bloody hell, I wish we had you in the Police Federation.'

Geoff: can I pull you back

Bob: A lot of bragging they but these are moments to be savoured.
Geoff: These are the moments that have been buried. And you can forget them all too easily. I want to go back to the Stockport Messenger dispute.  You mentioned Grunwick. That was a heroic battle which could easily have been won. Warrington was a much tougher battle.

Bob: It was terrible, absolutely terrible. I was there, I remember going down with Mary [Littlefield] and Peter [Waters] and another lad who was like a contact for the SWP and, after we got away, he said he was terrified, he said  'I've never been so scared since I watched the Exorcist'. But it was bad.  We got columns of marching cops and they were all in those industrial units [where] they were all tooled up and they'd got CS gas as well, gallons of stuff in there and they were really going to give it to us and they did. I mean I was involved on the first night in the picketing.  It was ... it was ... you know it wasn't ... it was really bad, that was really the set piece confrontation. It was like before a building collapses or before a thunder storm.  You get a little bit of a warning first that was the first tremor leading to the 1984 miner's strike as did  I think Grunwick set the scene in many respects.  But then again so did the 1974 Labour government because, despite everything they promised, they made more cuts and reduced wages that they'd never done since the 1930s and that's a fact.

Geoff: It's a key moment.

Bob: Yeah, when you're being chased. It ended up I remember being on this road with pickets must have been about 4:30 in the morning and then all these robocops with shields and batons started chasing us and then instinctively I ran. I just ran because I saw this machine coming and I thought 'You coward.' And, when I looked to my left and looked at my right, everyone else was running too so I thought I'm with the crowd ... a member of the Self Preservation Society.

Geoff: I've got a view that the Warrington dispute had a national impact but very strongly in the North West, one of the strongest areas for trade unionism, the union officialdom, the bureaucracy who were there on that night in Warrington, having their own heads cracked open along with everybody else that didn't run fast enough, the point is that the bureaucracy took a lesson from that, what later was called the 'new realism', that you've got to trim your sails, you've got to recognise the shift in class forces.  It set the scene for the lack of solidarity in the miners’ strike which then comes along.  So my next question is - it’s only a matter of months before the miners’ strike kicks off in March...

Bob:   Warrington was November '83 then in March it kicks off.

Geoff: So what do you remember of the miners’ strike? We all collected money.  How did it work in the fire service?

Bob: Well I had a collection every week, every week there was a collection for the miners' strike. I was the president of Tameside trades council. Dave Hallsworth was the secretary.  We gave all the funds away and the right wing complained that we given all the TUC's money to the miners' strike. We knew then and everybody knew then if this dispute was lost that that would be it.  The miners were the shock troops of the working class and there's absolutely no question about that. I collected every week at the fire station. I would stay behind at night [for the evening shift] because it was an ideological struggle. Even if they only gave me 50p I would get it off them and I would send it.  I never stopped collecting for them and writing to them and supporting them and going on the demonstrations but it was obviously a defeat. They said it wasn't a defeat but I don't care [what they said] and it was a significant defeat for us and it was a tragedy, an absolute tragedy. It was the last time in any significant sense that the working class was on the political stage. And that was it. 

And we don't really see the pervasive nature of that kind of ideology. We're drip fed an idea all the time. It's the way the establishment works, it's the way the bosses work Like In the fire service, they would have the green paper on the fire service in the 'Line of Fire' report then the Out of  the Line of Fire report  then they would go to the press and say about all these firefighters having second jobs and an easy life and all the rest of it and ripping the back out of a pension scheme, softening people up, so in the end you get the psychology of inevitability.  So people would say to you on fire stations 'You know, it's going to happen, it's got to happen there's nothing you can do about it. So it's the psychology of inevitability. Nothing's got to happen. If you say it's not going to happen, if you resist it, you can curve the ball. You can stop it; you can create your own history.  If you are allowing their ideas to become predominant, that's what's hit people, people are beguiled by it and I think a lot of that is because of the lack of vision in the working class movement, a lack of courage, a lack of any kind of independent ideology and the lack of compassion as well, a lack of understanding that once you go down this line of a service economy without workers there are going to have a whole swathe of people who have no means of subsistence, no means of living who are then going to be castigated as chavs and scrotes and all the rest of it and they become a subsection of society and they are ridiculed.  There's probably two generations who have never known full employment.  Work is a thing that we should be proud of.  We should live to work; we should take a pride in work. We make the means of production and by producing the means of production we should be the people that have a say and say how society should work not be run by a few psychopathic elites who lead us into pointless wars and all the other things that's wrong with society. Leon Trotsky said that the crisis of humanity is a crisis of proletarian leadership and I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Geoff: I've covered almost all my questions.  Just one or two more.  The Laurence Scott dispute, not far from here.
Bob: The Laurence Scott dispute was '82.  Dave Hallsworth, as you know, was in the Laurence Scott dispute and I remember that Dave was one of the unofficial leaders of that dispute. Obviously that was a strike that was the AUEW, Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.  It was in Openshaw as I remember and they made ...

Geoff: Mining equipment?

Bob: Yeah and they decided to resist and they occupied the place and Dave was calling for them to physically occupy with batons and stuff He said to me 'Once you've been hit with a baton a couple of times you know it hurts but you know it's worth it .

Geoff there was a lot of hand to hand stuff.

Bob:  I've got the information on that.

Geoff: I finish with that.  There is the question of papers and photos but I've got a question here about music and poetry and theatre.  There is a tendency to see the movement as a grey affair, meetings and picket lines and so on but no real movement is worth calling a movement unless it is able to express itself properly.

Bob: Yeah.

Geoff: You play an instrument.

Bob:  I play the buffoon.

Geoff: If we go back to these... is there anything when you go back?  You mentioned watching TV, that's not really what I'm getting at. I'm getting at the question what was...

Bob: Something to inspire people. The songs of the time.

Geoff: Yeah.  Is there anything from the time that we need to go back to and listen to again?

Bob: I think you mean what kind of songs were prevalent?  I think... what's he called, the American...
 
Geoff: People like Woody Guthrie belong to an earlier time. Bruce Springsteen.

Bob: Yeah, yeah... well Bruce Springsteen, The River, ‘I come down from the valley....’ That was a great song because in many ways that summed up working class life for many people.  He gets his girlfriend pregnant and, of course, he is forced to marry. The judge puts it all to right. For my 19th birthday I got a union card got wed in court.  It sums it up.  You're a worker. You've got your girlfriend pregnant, you are responsible for her, you go out now, you earn a thing and here's your union card. I find that very moving. It's not romantic. It's quite tough but that's what, you know, we need to be tough.  We have to be tough to defend our rights, to defend our families and the future and you see when people have got self respect, when they respect themselves they got a future. You become an aspirational class, you become a class not 'in itself' but a class 'for itself. That's the thing.

 A few years ago, there's a meeting at my church and the Church of England came down and one or two other people and they asked us to get involved in this Street Angels project which involves going round picking people up off the streets who are drunk and helping them to get home.  Obviously it's a nice little social service and if it was your kid that was helped by them you'd be grateful to them and I don't disparage the motive.  But then I said to the vicar 'What's the message? And he says 'Message? What do you mean?' We're not here to proselytise. The church has come so low in people's opinion that this is what we can do for people'. So I said, 'The church in the 19th century, whatever you might think of it, did have a message. It was abstinence and as a result of abstinence, especially in the Methodist tradition, the great working class religious movement, you got an aspiring working class and the labour movement came out of that working class'.  I said, 'That's the message. The great Irish revolutionary, James Connolly, said the powerful, the great are only great, appear great, because we are on our knees. Let us rise'. I said, 'How can you rise when you're pissed? And that's the message'.

And what I mean by that, we have a society where, first of all, we feel there isn't a message to be given and, secondly, we have a society where whole swathes of the population are sedated by drink and drugs with the blessing of the establishment.  I mean if I wasn't there it doesn't help. It keeps people down. To change the world, we've got to raise our consciousness to what we could be. We are not animals. We are human beings and we are made something far greater than the condition we find ourselves in and that's what I believe.
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Wednesday, 22 June 2016

A changing world: a note on the importance of context in writing history


Collecting stories of struggles which can inspire a new generation is important but makes sense only if the context is provided which can help make a bridge to the present.  This is not easy many of the old certainties of the left, the welfare state, Russia as socialist, the Labour Party as a vehicle for progress have been weakened if not destroyed. Many on the left  are now so pessimistic  they reject any grand narrative.  Among historians, one consequence  is that they choose to research fragments  without any context.  The fragments may be fascinating in themselves, inspiring stories but the failure to relate to a bigger picture gives them an ephemeral quality. 

So context is important and no matter how big the big picture is, it changes.   Writing this on the eve of the referendum, at a moment when Cameron's plan to deal with the right in his own party looks at serious risk of coming unstuck, the question arises in my mind: What does the Tory right bang on about the EU?  Clearly not for the same reasons as Lexit. Rather it's about a crisis in their big picture.  When our ruling class decided in the 1960s to join what was then called the Common Market, it was a clear response to the loss of empire.  There was a loss of what had been the more or less captive markets of the former colonies, many now trying to develop their own industry and lessen their dependence on imports from Britain.  Linked to this there was the decline of sterling as a reserve currency.  From the rulers' point of the rationale for membership has not changed.  What has changed is the strength of weakening of the Tories traditional base of support. There was a time in the 1950s when a third of the working class voted Tory. In part there was down to an instrumental view that an an individual aspiring to 'get on', the Tories would help  but there was also the view that the Tories were better placed to run the country. In her autobiography, Betty Tebbs quotes herself as a very young woman in the 1930s saying that those with the money were better placed to make decisions about it. This was strengthened by the idea that Britain was somehow 'great'.  It had had the largest empire in history.  Surely there was something special about being British that overcame class divisions? Racism was an essential part of this. There were other empires, French, Portuguese, Spanish and, de facto, the US.  All were ruled by white people.  The superiority of whites was obvious. Though Labour wasn't anti-Empire, the Tories drew much more of their support from the idea.

In truth, the twentieth century saw more or less uninterrupted decline of British power.  Though new colonies were acquired after 1918 (see Sykes-Picot), WW1 weakened Britain.  The war was brought to an end by revolution in Russia followed by revolution in Germany. All the European imperial powers were weakened. Only the US came out stronger, not least for being the main creditor.  The US-British alliance that emerged in WW1 and was strengthened in WW2 was 'common sense'. One simple example is the conclusion to the popular children's book '1066 and all that' published in 1930, a light hearted look at British history which ends with the sentence ' America was thus clearly Top Nation, and history came to a.'  The alliance, taking the form of NATO in 1949, soon reinforced with a huge nuclear arsenal, dominated post war British politics. To oppose this in any organised way put you in a very small minority.  The Communist Party of Great Britain had 30,000 members.  The numbers of organised pacifists and Trotskyists was much smaller. The first big post war movement to challenge the establishment, CND, had a national leadership that never led a fight against NATO, only against nuclear weapons.

2016 and the context, the big picture, has changed. The US's share of world GDP is now around half of what it was in 1950. China and India are challenging the domination of the world by Western Europe and the US over the last two to three centuries. At the same time, the world looks a more dangerous place with intractable conflicts in the Middle East, conflicts that a materialist analysis shows are rooted in the legacy of imperialism. For the Brexit Tories, the retreat into British nationalism has a pathetic ring to it.  It is also very dangerous.  


Racism may have changed its form from biological to cultural but the need to confront it is as strong as ever.  The struggles of the 1960s and 70s were part of a world wide revolt that failed to break through.  It was 'the fire last time' and so long as we keep in mind the changing context and do not oversimplify how the world has changed in the last half century, we can continue to write its history confident that this can make a contribution to our current battles.

Creative Commons Licence


Wednesday, 16 September 2015

'Vote, vote, vote for Nigel Barton' (1965), a TV play by Dennis Potter

Despite a very promising opening scene of 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable' as a couple of riders look at the dead body of the sitting Tory MP who has fallen from his horse on a fox hunt, this play disappoints. The death triggers a by-election. Having stood as Labour candidate a few months earlier in this solid Tory seat in the 1964 general electionthe young Oxford graduate from northern mining stock Nigel Barton realises he will be expected to stand again. Not that he needs persuading.  Despite his complaints about what it involves, epitomised by the cynicism of the Labour Party agent (who he later discovers is hiding his disillusion in the Labour Party because he needs to keep his job), Barton is ambitious. He dismisses his middle class wife's arguments about how the Labour leadership has been effectively co-opted by the elite. 

The play follows on from Stand Up, Nigel Barton (1965), about a miner's son from a northern pit village going to Oxford. At first shocked by the class divide he encounters, he learns to handle it and finally discovers how he can use it to make a career. As a parliamentary candidate he hasn't forgotten the injustices his father has gone through in forty one years as a miner. But on the campaign trail, he accepts instructions from the agent to tone down his rhetoric, treating the working class people he meets, mainly women, with contempt. His wife, widely read, interested in Brecht, angry at his compromising, has no independent activity of her own that we know of. Potter leaves us with an overwhelming pessimism, no sense of an alternative, no serious left, no possibility of struggle, politics will always be dominated by the elite. The play climaxes with Barton at a dinner for the local establisment where he breaks all the rules for candidates, passionately attacking the parliamentary game only to finish with a pointless gesture flicking a V-sign at his Conservative opponent. 




Nevertheless, with his openly pro-business attitudes, the elimination of Clause 4 etc, Blair isn't as new as some people think, he just took co-option some steps further.With Corbyn's challenge to the elite and renewed discussion whether socialism can come through parliament, these plays, available on Youtube, are worth seeing.

Thursday, 30 April 2015

San Francisco, Manchester and Shenzen

With the largest concentration of geeks in the world, something like four hundred thousand hi-tech workers, the Bay area, centred on San Francisco, is a seriously interesting place.  Just sitting in cafés puts you in touch with the buzz of people putting ideas together. Sometimes they will manage to hook up with venture capitalists, angel investors and the like, ready to risk their money and a start up will be born. Everyone knows that around 90 percent of start-ups fail, maybe 95%., but everyone also has a story about those who succeed, or could have succeeded if they'd taken up the offer of stock instead of cash when offered by one of the founders of Google, Facebook, Twitter or Apple or the like. Those that have made it are the force to beat in a world where is difficult to find any city whose leaders aren't trying to build up its science park, or business start ups working with techies. 

Two hundred years ago it was Manchester that performed this role of being the most exciting place on the planet when it came to shaping its future.  The world's first industrial city, 'the city of a thousand chimneys', people came from around the world to be part of it.  Marx's collaborator Frederick Engels, was one of a thousand Germans who lived in the city.  Writers such as the French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, and novelists such as the future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli and Elizabeth Gaskell wrote about this amazing development.  What everyone commented on was the creation of such vast quantities of wealth in conditions of such appalling exploitation and squalor.

What a contrast to today's San Francisco. Homeless people on many street corners, the local press full of stories of the rising rents squeezing the less fortunate out of the city.  The inequality is there: California spends more on prisons than it does on education and the prison population is disproportionately black. The techies are overwhelmingly white and male.  But something is missing: no chimneys, no smoke and little dirt.   And the answer quite simply is that the chimneys and the dirt are in China.  The I-phone is produced by Foxconn, a Taiwanese company. Its largest factory is in Shenzen, not far from Hongkong employing around 300,000 workers (estimates vary).  So there's the contrast: two hundred years ago the techies worked alongside the spinners and weavers and all the other trades producing the textiles. Today these two groups are  on opposite sides of the globe.

Where does the power lie? With the interconnectedness, the likelihood is that even small groups of workers, whether in Silicon Valley or Shenzen, are potentially strong. But as I remember it, at Cowley, producing motor cars in the early 1970s, they used to say that the closer you are to the finished product the more powerful you are.  I would be surprised if that wasn't still true today.

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

'Speak softly and carry a big stick' US policy today, Puneet Talwar in San Francisco, April 2015


Visiting my daughter Laura in San Francisco, I'm determined to get my finger on the pulse. So reading over breakfast that Puneet Talwar, assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs and liaison with the Dept of Defense, is speaking to the Commonwealth Club is an opportunity not to be missed. Laura rings the venue, a hotel in the business district,  and registers me. I'm not on the list when I get there but, having given my my name again, I'm admitted to a rather grand reception room with cameras and lighting all in place, the event will be broadcast. The room gets about half full with maybe 120 people, some enjoying a free glass of wine. Most look well heeled, some are post graduate students. 

The president of the club, a retired general, welcomes us and introduces Puneet Talwar, formerly an adviser to Biden and much else, specialising in the Middle East. Talwar quickly sketches an overview of American foreign policy, unashamedly emphasising the importance of US dominance.  He quotes Teddy Roosevelt on the unavoidability of American leadership. He speaks firmly, a carefully trained delivery,  a straightforward presentation of the liberal superpower imperialist in the increasingly challenging twenty first century. 

Very non partisan, always  speaking from the standpoint of the White House, he progresses like a Cook's tour of  the world's trouble spots, starting with the Middle East and an apology that discussions with Iran are at such a delicate stage he can't talk about them. He's telling the truth here, the preliminary deal on Iran's nuclear programme is announced just two days later.

Speaking with a very hard edge, he describes how ISIL (Islamic State) is being dealt with.  We get a detailed military hit list: how many air strikes, what targets. It's a narrative of clear progress: while ISIL isn't beaten, 'the allure of the caliphate is shattered'.  I think, that isn't how it looks in Britain where young Islamists are still making their way to Syria.  Some of what he says is valid. He correctly challenges simplistic 'Sunni v Shia' analyses: there are other dimensions such as ethnicity.  

There is a need to confront the enemy ISIL ideologically but "those that go in that direction will have to be dealt with". Egypt has not been certified as "moving towards democracy" but is still being helped in accordance with  the legality laid down by Congress under a budget line for "security".

There are slips on our seats for questions but the friendly moderator  politely generalises with people have written so the reply can be in similarly general terms and there is no danger of being put in an awkward spot. So Talwar's talk of 'our values' is of a general commitment to freedom and democracy and there's no possibility of a challenge about Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden or Guantanamo.  His responsibility being for international security with a budget of $6bn, it's interesting that he's spent the earlier part of the day with Twitter. 

He claims the strength of the US is in its values but his talk is mainly about how the big stick is being used.  It is hard not to conclude that the US today hasn't shifted from when  President Teddy Roosevelt said 'Talk softly and carry a big stick and you'll go far'.




Wednesday, 10 September 2014

What kind of history do we need?



As trade union leaders continue to call national demonstrations but fail to organise concerted strike action, so employers record rising if not record profits, the chancellor claims recovery and looks forward to winning the next general election.

Resistance continues but often it is isolated. The action of small groups, even individuals, is often crucial. Such actions are not spontaneous. They rely on an understanding of how to fight, how to organise, how to mobilise, how to communicate. Again and again we find that at the heart of the resistance is a political consciousness, a political memory, sometimes just one socialist who is able to give a lead.

Employers will often express surprise, "Oh we’ve never seen such behaviour". As always, if they're not actually lying, then they rely on ignorance. Aware that undermining people’s ability to resist includes weakening their self respect, their pride in themselves and their roots, they work to devalue, if not fully destroy people's past as well. 'History is bunk’ as the anti union, Hitler sympathizing Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company, said.  For all its failure to show how to reestablish collective class strength, Selina Todd's 'The People, the Rise and Fall of the Working Class, 1910-2010' demonstrates a solid pride in workers ability to organise themselves.

Against the attacks on our past, while we recognise that in itself history does nothing, it is only of value when it is put to use, we argue that those who do not know their own past are destined to repeat it. History has to be learnt and that requires an organised effort. The magnificent documentary of the 1984-85 miners strike, 'Still the enemy within', is a fine example of a memory that needs to be preserved.

We take our starting point from Marx, insisting that history is not determined, that there is no destiny, that astrology is rubbish and that men and women make history but not in circumstances of their own choosing.  In the uncountable number of events that constitute our activity as a species, the challenge it to bring some kind of order so that a narrative can be established. For us, the basis of all human existence is the labour which transforms nature and ourselves and in so doing enables us to meet our needs.  Labour is the basis of human existence, and, for last ten thousand years or so, the form that labour has taksn has been determined by the fundamental division in society, the class structure, whereby at the top are rulers and at the bottom are ruled. The rulers constitute the class that controls the productive wealth of society and the ruled are overwhelmingly those who labour for a living and in doing so produce the wealth of society, not only enough for their own continued existence but a surplus which is controlled by the rulers.

As it says in the Communist Manifesto, ‘All history is the history of class struggle’.  The driving force of history, what makes sense of it as a whole is the battle over who gets what.  This is not only a question of how the exploited are squeezed to produce over and above the necessities for their own existence, creating a surplus out of which the rulers expand their own wealth and meet their own needs. It also includes the battles between rulers over the division of the surplus.

This means that we need not only the history of our class, 'history from below', we also need 'history from above'.  Only then,  in what is sometimes called ‘total history', can we fully capture the history we need.

Monday, 16 September 2013

On the insatiable greed of a bunch of plunder-hungry Oligarchs

Hani Shukrullah's excellent 'People's History of the Egyptian Revolution'  - http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/4/81690/Opinion/A-people%E2%80%99s-history-of-the-Egyptian-revolution-.aspx - talks of the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood in their year in government to make a single attempt
"to deal with the massive inequities of a nation lorded over by the insatiable greed of a bunch of plunder-hungry Oligarchs with one foot in the state, the other in business, producing next to nothing, but consuming voraciously.

While it's true that the Oligarch as individuals produce nothing, I think that this is a little one-sided to omit the Oligarchs' need to exploit their workers which in turn requires that they invest in the machinery and raw materials needed to make what will be sold - it is hoped - at a profit.  As Marx points out, the capitalist's own consumption is a robbery on the process of accumulation.  However, he also talks of 'the prestige cost of capital', that is, the expenditure of making the business (and its owner) look  credible. Banks have to have posh facades. And, no doubt, Oligarch's need huge houses, yachts etc.

What is certainly true is that there is an insatiability at the heart of each and every Oligarch. Insatiability usually goes with a narrow focus on the object of desire and an inability to look at the big picture.  That is, an inability to see the massive destructiveness of their pursuit of profit, destroying both the human beings caught up as workers and consumers and also destroying the natural world, an inability to see the unsustainability of it all. The uprising that started on 25 January saw the masses step onto the stage of history.  They are still there. The revolution,  for that is what it is, whatever Hugh Roberts might argue - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n17/hugh-roberts/the-revolution-that-wasnt  - more of that anon - has arisen precisely out of the need to stand up to the insatiable voraciousness of our rulers.


Saturday, 21 April 2012

Notes on Manchester and Salford after reading ‘Ground Control, Fear and happiness in the twenty-first century’, Anna Minton, Penguin, reissued 2012 with a new section on the Olympics


Who owns and who controls Manchester and Salford?  The August 2011 riots showed that there are plenty who don’t feel these cities belong to them.  Should anyone be surprised as Manchester city centre becomes more and more a ‘mall without walls’, controlled by a private organisation, CityCo, the city centre management company?

The tiny political and business elites that run our cities are driven by the desire to increase the value and value for them is money, the price of property.  To this end, since the 1980s, the council leaderships, first in Manchester and then Salford, have put in public money, hoping to attract private money, what they call ‘leverage’. The two cities certainly looks very different from twenty years ago. Not just new shopping but a giant conference centre, ever more new hotels, new and expanded museums, galleries, concert halls and huge numbers of expensive flats, thousands of them empty, unsold.

Away from the city centre and Salford Quays, the disastrous Pathfinder programme, funded with large amounts of public money while driven by the interests of the private developers has targeted what they call ‘cold spots’ where property values are low, destroying working class communities and often leaving only empty sites with developers sitting on their money waiting for the next (speculative) boom.  Meanwhile, ‘council housing’ is renamed ‘social housing’ which is renamed ‘affordable housing’ and ever more unregulated and uncontrolled private landlords exploit the worsening housing shortage.  Except that, with ever more properties empty, it’s a shortage that is deliberately created by the big property owners.

But can we call this ‘regeneration’ when Manchester now is the most unequal city in Britain, the ASBO capital of Britain, the city with the greatest CCTV coverage, a city where the poor are simply not welcome in the centre because only those with money to spend are welcome and those who are seen as ‘problems’ are deliberately displaced from the city centre? Policing, whether by policed or security  guards exploits the fear of crime (unrelated to actual crime figures which have been falling for many years)  to justify ever more restrictions of those who want to meet friends or skate board, those who want to engage in political activity with leaflets, stalls and street meetings, or just do nothing.

Controlled for many years by sizeable Labour majorities, with Manchester sometimes described as New Labour favourite city, we have seen public space privatised, the historic Free Trade Hall turned into a hotel, the further education city centre campus sold off to the giant Spinningfields development controlled by Allied London.  In such one party states, there is no democracy.  Not that a change of control into the hands of the Tories or Liberal Democrats would make any difference.  There is complete consensus among all these parties that there is no alternative to the market: the only solutions are private solutions.  Nor are spin doctors only to be found in Whitehall.  The local authority press offices present only ‘positive’ images.

But, as Shelley put it in 1819, ‘Ye are many, they are few’. In 2012, ‘We are the 99%’. The efforts by the council to shut down political stalls on Market Street in 2011, failed because the numbers willing to put up stalls and defend them went up and up. Wherever resistance is organised, it gains mass support.  Already we have shown that anti cuts campaigns can succeed.  The November 30 strike gained massive support with over 20,000 marching in the city on that day.  Around 90% of the cuts planned by the coalition are still to be implemented.  They have the money but we have the numbers. This is the fight of our lives.

Saturday, 27 August 2011

A crisis of confidence in ruling class ideas?

Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph columnist, was on Newsnight last night. He's written that:

"I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right".

The argument runs "What with the the phone-hacking scandal, the eurozone crisis and the US economic woes, the greedy few have left people disillusioned with our debased democracies."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8655106/Im-starting-to-think-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html

Thatcher, he argues, was popular when she cut taxes and attacked the unions. We can challenge this: the cuts were not popular and Thatcher herself, "the Iron Lady", became extremely unpopular in the early years 1980s, her first years in office. What she was good at was in having a clear step-by-step plan to defeat her opponents, the Ridley Plan, sticking to it and understanding that the TUC could be relied on to wobble at the crucial moment. Eventually, people lost hope in an alternative and, helped by the Falklands War, her popularity revived and she won the 1983 election.

The comparison is nevertheless interesting. It reflects a growing crisis of confidence among our rulers. I would argue that this is not because he isn't as powerful a figure as Thatcher. That would be to overvalue her as a historical figure. Rather the circumstances are tougher for Cameron. The system went into crisis in the 1970s. Thatcher was one of the figures that lead the shift to neo-liberal, free market economics, breaking the post war consensus about commitment to full employment.

Coming up to forty years later, despite the continuing economic growth especially in Asia, the system is in much worse shape. Cameron has a tougher task than Thatcher. Nevertheless he can win if he follows Thatcher's example. He needs a plan. He has to stick to it. He has to rely on the TUC to wobble at the crucial moment. So far his plan has been to push ahead much harder and faster than Thatcher did. There have already been a few U-turns. As Moore points out the threat of another recession, the phone hacking scandal and the riots have shaken the confidence of our rulers.

But, if Cameron holds his nerve, he can win unless our side gets its act together. June 30 was a good day but it needs serious follow up. That's the key question for us. The march in Manchester on October 2 is a real opportunity to seize the initiative and put the Tories on the back foot.