Showing posts with label British Labour Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Labour Party. Show all posts
Anthony McIntyre ☠  It was heartening to see SS twin Keir Starmer of the Sunak-Starmer war lobby being openly defied by a number of his own MPs, including ten from the front bench, who refused to endorse his enthusiasm for Israel's war of extermination in Gaza.


56 rebellious MPs, preferring peace to war, defied their party leader who has objected to a cessation of the war on hospitals, the war on children, the war on women, the war on civilians. For the Labour political class in what was a rare display of conscience before career, 'ten of the party's frontbenchers have left their jobs over the vote, including eight shadow minsters.' Contrast that to the antics in Belfast City Hall where career trumped conscience. 

Starmer actually threatened to sack MPs from his shadow cabinet if they called for a ceasefire. They still faced the war monger down. 

War mongering is nothing new for the British Labour Party. Twenty years ago while in government it waged a war of aggression on false pretences against Iraq. The Prime Minister of the day Tony Blair is a war criminal. Starmer might not yet be a war criminal but he is certainly a war monger.

Starmer wants the Kapo state's war against the civilian population of Gaza to continue, while simultaneously having the brass neck to oppose the Russian war on Ukraine. 

The former leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, who has never supported genocide, was accused by the right wing Starmer cabal of not doing enough to stem antisemitism within the party. When the Equality and Human Rights Commission flagged up failings under the Corbyn leadership Starmer called it "a day of shame for the Labour Party." Yet he seems remarkably free of shame in his support for the Kapo state policy of emigration or annihilation. As SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said, it was:

shameful that a majority of Tory and Labour MPs blocked calls for a ceasefire - and have condoned the continued bombardment of Gaza.

It doesn't really get any simpler. 

The most anti-Semitic statement that can be made is one in which genocide is supported, or one in which the crime of genocide when it occurs is denied in real time. While not the Nazis' greatest crime of World War 2  - the War of Extermination in the East has that dubious distinction - given the genocide that was inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis during that war, the real antisemitic school is that which howls never again but never means it. 
 
Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Signs Of Ethical Life In British Labour Party

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ When the Second World War ended in 1945 the election of that year produced, for the first time, a landslide majority for Clement Attlee’s Labour Party. 

They swept to governmental power bringing in a parliamentary socialistic set of policies which would change the face of liberal democracy in Britain, the UK in fact, for the foreseeable future. These policies included, for the first time a nationalised health system, the National Health Service (NHS), a welfare state bringing an end to the hated ‘means test’ when a person claimed benefits, the nationalisation of major industries and free General Practitioners (GPs) care for families. No longer would the patient have to look in their pockets for money before they dare approach a GP for care. This heralded a new beginning for the people of Britain which is why they unceremoniously booted out the great ‘wartime leader’ Winston Churchill. 

All these changes came about without altering for one second the balance of class forces in Britain. The ruling classes, bourgeoisie and aristocracy would remain in their ruling positions, owning the means of production or about 95% of industry which was not nationalised, and the landed gentry continued to own the land and stately homes. Most of the wealth would remain in the hands of a tiny minority.

People did not mind this as their new health service and almost guaranteed employment meant they too now had a vested interest in society for the first time ever, or so they believed. In 1950 Attlee went to the polls and was returned but with a much-reduced majority. The ruling classes used their influence, media and other avenues of communication, to clip the Labour Party’s wings. In late 1951 another election was called returning Churchill back to office. The media rejoiced with slogans like; ‘Winston is back’ and ‘good old Winnie’. The Conservative and Unionist Party were back but they did little if anything to alter the new status quo. The NHS remained as did the entire Welfare State and nationalised industries along with the pluralist system of industrial relations which gave the trade unions more leverage than ever before. This state of affairs, often referred to as ‘the post war consensus’, remained in place, give or take a few cracks, until 1979 and the election of Margaret Thatcher and her new right-wing agenda. She pulled down many of the gains working-class people had made since 1945 and, ironically enough, they let her!

Thatcher, who I believe privately held fascist political views unlike the rest of her party with a couple of exceptions, began pulling the British political landscape to the right. For a short period between 1980 and 1983 the Labour Party, under Michael Foot, moved rapidly leftwards but, unfortunately the right-wing juggernaut could not be stopped. Thatcher’s ratings in the polls were very low which was why she allowed the imminent Argentine invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas to go ahead. She was aware of Argentina’s intentions as the Ice Ship, HMS Endurance, had reported Argentine troop movements weeks in advance to their landings on the islands. Thatcher allowed this to happen knowing full well a British Army victory in the South Atlantic would sweep her back into Number Ten. People, having short memories, would forget about the poverty and unemployment her and her policies had inflicted on them providing they could wrap themselves in a silly flag and sing patriotic songs. She guessed right, just as Hitler did in the early years of the Third Reich! She also reckoned, again guessing right, that the new generation were more interested in some farcical national pride than listening to trade union leaders or worrying about having no job. She then finished the job of finally destroying the ‘post war consensus’, replacing it with a new right-wing variant the legacy of which the British people still have today.

After Michael Foot's 1983 defeat at the polls the British Labour Party have followed Thatcher and Thatcherism on this rightwards march. When Neil Kinnock was Labour leader, he routed the party’s left wing and later Tony Blair, labour Prime Minister 1997-2007 moved the Labour Party further to the right, making it almost indistinguishable from the conservatives. He was followed by Gordon Brown, a Blairite, who succeeded Blair when he stood down in 2007 remaining as Labour Prime Minister until 2010. From 2010 until 2015 a right-wing coalition of conservatives and liberal democrats made up the government of the UK. When Labour, right-wing as they were, lost the 2010 general election Brown stood down as leader of the Labour Party to be replaced by Ed Miliband another centre right leader, despite his father, Ralph Miliband, being an out and out Marxist. He in turn was replaced, after another election defeat in 2015, by Jeremy Corbyn, and for the first time in many years a return to original Labour values and policies looked a real possibility. Corbyn cut PM Theresa May’s Conservative majority in the 2017 general election, much to the annoyance of Labours parliamentary party who hated Corbyn. They then set about ousting him, despite Jeremy Corbyn being the choice of the majority of party members, and in the 2019 election their efforts bore fruit as labour were crushed. The right-wing consensus, started by Thatcher rolls on.

The Conservatives remain in governmental power today and their leader and Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is in no mood for a turn to the left. Despite him coming from Asian stock he is as right-wing and, arguably racist and reactionary as any of his predecessors. On Wednesday 4th October 2023 Sunak announced at the Tory Party conference in regards to ‘Transexual’ people; “people can’t be any sex they want to be, a man is a man and a woman is a woman and that’s just common sense”. He did not try to hide his contempt for the trans community and his hatred of sex change operations for those who feel born into the wrong body, despite some utterings to the contrary. This speech was heard by millions of TV viewers watching BBC 2 daily programme, Politics UK. The prejudices which already exist in society were legitimised by Sunak’s speech at the conference. This coming from a man who is of Asian origin himself and many of those in society who hate the transsexual community also hate black people, Asian people, and mixed race, not ‘pure British’ people. 

Sunak and his policies are bordering on fascism and are certainly prejudicial as he makes no secret that he is an admirer of Margaret Thatcher and her right-wing agenda. Is it possible for a person of mixed race (if we use colour of skin as a barometer of race) to be a fascist? Well, yes it is, because racism and fascism although closely related and complimentary to each other are not essentially preconditions. It is not essential, though it is preferable, for a member of a fascist party to be racist. By the same token they cannot be anti-racist, just mildly ‘non-racist’ (there is a world of difference between the two) which would inevitably lead to becoming racist. This is not to suggest Sunak is a fascist (yet) or, like his predecessor Margaret Thatcher, holds fascist views but inflammatory speeches of this nature can set a dangerous precedent in society and at very least makes for a very unpleasant odour within the general population.

What Sunak does not realise, or perhaps he’s a little stupid on this subject, is that by legitimising hatred for the trans community among the general population, most of whom are perhaps indifferent hitherto, he has also indirectly legitimised racial and gender hatreds along with homophobia and xenophobia, the snowball effect! The far right and fascists will be watching developments in people’s attitudes after Sunak’s inflammatory speech to see how much support they can tap into and exploit. The fascist right, at leadership level, are not, unlike their followers on the streets, stupid. Evil yes, stupid no! The leaderships of these organisations, at the moment fringe groups, will be watching the Conservative and Unionist Party’s swing to the right with interest. Their next step is to borrow some of the statements and comments, which perhaps may lead to becoming policies, made at the party conference by the Conservatives and elaborate on them, claiming such comments and policies as their own. If the shout of ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ is aimed at them they in turn will point to the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak pointing out it was he who introduced the anti-trans and racist comments, not them! It was he and the supposed Labour opposition who want to cut the legal avenues for immigration into Britain, not them!!

Sunak also proposes life sentences for leaders of gangs who groom children for abusive purposes. This is a difficult one to argue against because child abuse is wrong, evil, and many in the population would applaud such policies as Sunak suggests. My own view is people who abuse for sexual gratification children are sick and therefore need treatment by qualified doctors, which neither me or Rishi Sunak are one of. However, I am speaking politically, and as a parent I may think differently and there is no doubt in society there is a demand for harsher punishments for child abuse. Sunak is playing to this populism both in the case of anti-trans discourse, seeking votes at the expense of some people’s happiness, and he is seeking popularity by being seen as the saviour of British children at risk from predators. Sunak is also in favour of cutting the time a foreign criminal spends in jail from twelve to six months before they can be deported. Could this be another way of introducing easier deportation orders across the board, starting with criminals then extending it generally across the migrant population? Of course, he will not tell us this at the present early stage it is called ‘gradualism’ as Hitler did with the Jewish population and look where that finished up!

‘It can’t happen in Britain’ do I hear? Why can it not? It only needs the correct language dressed up to sound respectable, instead of the barmy rantings Hitler rammed down the throats of Germans, and the potential is frightening. Another dangerous idea of the Prime Minister of the UK is his belief the police should be allowed to record the ethnicity and race of those involved in such, albeit, hideous crimes as child grooming. The question is will, these records of ethnicity apply to all offenders, or just those of ethnic minorities, like Sunak himself? What has a person’s ethnicity or racial origins got to do with the crime? Is it any less horrific for the victim to be groomed and abused by an English person than somebody from, say, the Indian sub-continent? Is this not how Hitler managed to track down Jewish people in the occupied countries during the Second World War because records of people’s ethnicity existed? It was for this reason, many years ago, that we, as trade unionists in England opposed the use of ethnic origins of job applicants to be kept on file even though the reason for the employer wanting this information was to prevent negative discrimination and practice a form of positive discrimination. We could not disagree with this as we too supported positive discrimination, the question was, how long before the files are destroyed? If a fascist or worse a Nazi style government ever came to power, they could use these files to track down, with ease, various ethnic groups, therefore the files should be destroyed after a given period, perhaps just keeping records of the numbers of ethnic minorities in a given position to maintain parity, not the names and addresses of these minorities.

The language used by Sunak at conference may not be intended as fascist, racist or anti-trans but such discourse legitimises the anti-transsexual and anti-immigrant factions in society. He talks of reducing the number of people coming into Britain ’illegally’ when any legal routes as still exist are being closed. What exactly is an ‘illegal immigrant’? Is it a person arriving with no papers or documents? Let us not forget many countries these people are fleeing do not afford them the niceties of issuing papers before they flee! Look what happened to hundreds of thousands of Jewish people trying to escape Nazi Germany without any form of identification or documentation! They were refused entry to countless countries, including the UK and sent back to their certain deaths in Germany!! Is this what Sunak is suggesting in Britain? Perhaps he should remember his own parents may not have gained access to Britain had such restrictions existed during the sixties when they arrived! If the Conservative reactionary MP, Enoch Powel, had his way would Rishi Sunak’s parents have gained entry to Britain?

Britain has a history dating back to the nineteenth century of migrant people moving to the country and then becoming the greatest opponent of further immigration. The ‘pull up the drawbridge mentality, I’m alright Jack so fuck you’. Some people would, often by foul means, gain access to Britain then immediately deny their fellow countryfolk the same access, quite ironic!

The ambiguity of Rishi Sunak’s speech at conference is exposed when, on the one hand, he says he wants Britain to be “the safest place to be trans” then, on the other, making the potentially dangerous speech outlined above possibly making Britain the most unsafe place to be for transsexuals or transgenders as the public listen and turn their backs on tolerance. The potential is worrying to say the least. One problem the British electorate face is what is the alternative to Sunak’s blind and worrying discourse? The British Labour opposition, as pointed out earlier, are part of the right-wing consensus and offer little difference to the policies of the present government. They too wish to ‘cut immigration’ and have their sceptics on transgender. Their Blairite leader, Kier Starmer, keeps changing direction to say what he thinks the people want to hear, no matter how reactionary. Principles can go to hell, let’s just get elected and continue the Tory policies with a little extra perhaps to govern British capitalism and maintain divisions within society while pretending to want unity!

These are dangerous times in the British electoral system or, more to the point, the UK which alas still includes the six counties. The Conservative and Unionist Party are the natural parliamentary allies of the unionists in the North of Ireland. In fact, until 1972 the Ulster Unionist Party took the Conservative whip in Parliament. For this reason, the British Labour Party at their conference push any discussion on Irish unity to the fringes, not allowing such meetings on the main agenda at their conference. Many in the Labour Party, like Kate Hoey, are themselves unionists and others, like former leader Jeremy Corbyn (now expelled from the party), are in favour of a united Ireland. How long will these fringe meetings and trends be tolerated by Starmer? Thereby hangs a question!!

Once the snowball of prejudice has began rolling it becomes unstoppable, increasing in size as it rolls down the hill. The politicians who started this prejudicial avalanche then distance themselves from the outcome, denying any involvement in reactionary behaviour on the streets. Remember Enoch Powell's ‘rivers of blood’ speech in 1968? The parliamentarians who started such reactions then claim to deplore such activities pretending to have concern for the very minorities now under attack from prejudicial people, prejudices such speeches as that of Sunak started or certainly helped!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

British Tories Shift Further To The Right!

Harry Hutchinson ✉ The Labour Party former and present leader have plunged themselves into the divided issue of Irish Unity or Union with the UK. Corbyn advocating unity, Starmer the Union. 

Both fail to understand the purpose of why the constitutional question in Ireland is deliberately maintained, nor have they any approach to resolve it realistically.

Since Partition the constitutional question has dominated the political agenda both in the North and
South. In the South Fianna Fail and Fianna Gael have used the constitutional position of what they refer to as the ‘6 counties’, in order to dominate the political scene in Ireland. This is at the expense of class based politics. The use of the constitution is continued by Sinn Fein, who may form the next government in the South, on the aspiration of Irish Unity. 

Every election in the North has dominated and divided the electorate, favouring the dominance of the Nationalist and Unionist parties. 

All these parties are pro Capitalist and are essential to protecting and promoting private enterprise in
the interests of the Corporations. The essence for these parties and not without success, is to maintain
the Constitutional issue over the social and economic crisis facing people, North and South.

Irrespective of any attempts to resolve the Constitutional question under Capitalism, be it towards Irish
Unity or continue the Union with the UK, the issue will remain unresolved. It is in the interests of these Capitalist Nationalist and Unionist Parties for it to remain so and in addition the same interests of the UK and Irish Governments. The purpose is to maintain division and continue to control people in the North and South.

The Labour Party should not stand ‘neutral’ on the Constitutional question, nor so called solutions to
resolve it, like border polls. The Party should explain to people that such a poll will not lead to a solution to the Constitutional question; indeed it could ignite civil conflict, by reactionary Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries.

It is the corrupt system of Capitalism that people North and South need to unite and challenge. Any
approach to resolving the Constitutional question must be based on the people with a Socialist agenda,
where wealth is publicly owned and democratically controlled by the people.

⏩Harry Hutchinson is a member of the Labour Party Northern Ireland.

Corbyn and Starmer Creating Illusions

Dr John Coulter ✍ The time has come for Unionism to ideologically and strategically play the red card and bolster its relations with Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party ahead of any future General Election.

Unionism in general and the DUP specifically benefited from the confidence and supply arrangement the latter’s Commons team of MPs negotiated with then British Prime Minister Theresa May to keep her minority Tory Government in power.

Ironically, given the ongoing Conservative civil war and the financial allegations scandal which has engulfed the Scottish National Party north of the English border, Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour could be on the brink of getting their hands on the keys to 10 Downing Street, a feat which seemed next to impossible when ex-Tory PM Boris Johnson delivered an 80-seat plus majority at the last Westminster General Election.

Labour’s Commons foundation was always built on the guaranteed dozens of seats coming from Scotland, but since the SNP surge a few years ago, the majority of Scottish constituencies are no longer regarded to go red.

Predictions are already starting to emerge that the next General Election, due in 2024, could produce a hung Parliament - and this could once again land the DUP front and centre.

If the DUP can wangle a confidence and supply arrangement with May and her Tories, the DUP could find itself with enough MPs to dangle the keys of 10 Downing Street in front of Sir Keir.

And such a move would not require a major ideological shift for the DUP. Indeed, such a move would see the party returning to its original working class Loyalist roots which its founder, the late Rev Ian Paisley, envisaged when he launched the DUP in 1971 following the previous year’s election victories for ‘The Big Man’ at Stormont and Westminster.

Paisley senior’s success in the early Seventies was that he gave a political voice to two sections of the Protestant community which had been largely muted by the ruling upper middle class and aristocratic Unionist Party.

These were the Loyalist working class and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Paisley’s embryo Protestant Unionist movement in the late Sixties and in 1970 was essentially a working class organisation.

Strip away the anti-republican rhetoric and Hell-fire sermons against Catholicism, and the Protestant Unionists and DUP were Loyalist Labour movements.

‘Big Ian’s’ big success initially in Stormont’s Bannside constituency and Westminster’s North Antrim seat a matter of weeks later was based partly on Paisley’s ability to get indoor toilets installed in working class housing estates.

Right up until the late Sixties, the crude ‘slop bucket’ was a key feature of many working class Protestant housing developments across North Antrim.

The fundamentalist Paisleyite rhetoric covered the fact the DUP was a bread and butter movement; a soft socialist party building a power base among the Loyalist working class. The DUP’s original ideology was essentially a political shotgun marriage between the Hard Right stance on the Union, coupled with a Soft Left agenda on bread and butter issues.

The DUP overtook its rival UUP in there 2003 Assembly election by eating into the middle and upper class pro-Union vote which traditionally had been the electoral foundation of the Ulster Unionists.

This was a strategy which eventually saw the DUP become a middle class mirror image of what the UUP had been in 1986 under its then boss Jim Molyneaux.

This influence by the UUP middle class continued after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement when a considerable number of key Ulster Unionists defected to the DUP from the Ulster Unionists, including current boss Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, past leader Dame Arlene Foster, and Peter Weir, now Lord Weir.

While Sinn Fein has been able to attract middle class Catholic voters to the party whilst at the same time retaining support in its working class republican heartlands, the DUP in trying to soak up middle class Unionist voters was perceived to be disconnecting from its traditional working class Loyalist power base.

But compared to the DUP’s soft socialism, other Left-leaning pro-Union movements, such as the Progressive Unionist Party tended to pursue a Hard Left, even an openly Marxist agenda.

Ideological discussions between the PUP and the political wing of the Official IRA, the Workers’ Party, dismayed the fundamentalist wing within the DUP. Indeed, such fundamentalist Christians tended to brand the Belfast-based PUP as the Shankill Soviet, believing such pro-socialist Unionists were more communist than unionist.

But if Starmer can purge the Labour Party of the Hard Left who once championed former Hard Left leader Jeremy Corbyn, then the DUP could fit quite snugly ideologically into a pact with Labour to make Starmer PM.

And just as the DUP had a cash list for Theresa May under confidence and supply, as well as a cash list for Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris to kickstart Stormont, so too, in the event of a hung Parliament or a Labour Government with a wafer thin majority, the DUP must have its shopping list fine-tuned either in terms of a cash boost or dumping the concept of a border poll, no matter how many seats Sinn Fein wins in the next Dail election in Dublin.

Indeed, in the past I have written about the need for a socialist alternative for Northern Ireland - and I don’t mean a looney left commie movement!

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online

Time For DUP To Reclaim Its Working Class Roots And Suck Up To British Labour

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ I am not a great believer in the bourgeois pedalled myth that parliamentary democracy is the most democratic system available to human kind.
 

It is not and, though better than a one-man dictatorship it is not the finest imaginable as we are led to believe. Neither do I believe in the myths portrayed by various Labour parties around the globe that a parliamentary road to socialism is possible, certainly while parliaments remain in their present form, bourgeois committee’s to manage the affairs of the rich, elected by the poor. 

Parliaments, certainly in England, have been around in their present form since the revolutionary overthrow and beheading of King Charles 1st in 1649 and have remained with us ever since. At the time the reformed parliament was progressive, taking away the so-called divine right of Kings to rule. Perhaps this is why the now British Parliament is called; “The Mother of Parliaments”. For many years would-be revolutionary parties like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) were telling their membership, including me for a short time, and anybody else who cared to listen, there is “no parliamentary road to socialism” which I still subscribe to. I can remember this party many years ago (I was no longer a member thankfully) running down O’Connell Street in Dublin, trying to impress shoppers who took no notice whatsoever, shouting “one solution, revolution, one solution…” A sorry sight to say the least. If this was the best the revolutionary socialist camp had to offer then the bourgeoisie had and have no need to worry. 

Today we see the same SWP members, under the guise of People Before Profit sitting in the lower house of the Irish Parliament, Dail Eireann. What happened to the no “parliamentary road to socialism”, and “one solution, revolution”? Parliaments, in their present form as rich men’s committees meaning that the same class of people - the capitalist, or bourgeois class - still rule irrespective of who is in government. The capitalist state and all its instruments of law and order and, albeit as a last resort, terror will still prevail as Harold Wilson found out back in 1964 in Britain. He believed when elected to Number Ten he was actually in charge. He soon found out this was not in fact the case. 

The persons who behind the scenes dictate economic policy are the Governor of the Bank of England and senior Civil Servants, and the persons who decide Foreign Policy are the Imperial General Staffs, MI5 and MI6. As he stood in the Cabinet Office at Number Ten, he was reportedly thinking to himself, ‘if I press this button, I can summon the Imperial General Staff, and if I push this button, I can summon the Governor of the Bank of England’. How right he was, he could summon these people who would then tell him what he could and could not do. Fair play to Wilson on one occasion: he did get his own way on foreign policy, usually tailored to suit the United States, when he refused Lyndon Johnson's demand, dressed up as a request, for British troops in Vietnam, Wilson refused and got away with it! Despite my criticisms of Parliament and parliamentary elections I do exercise my right to a ballot paper. My right to register my vote it is, after all, about the only democratic right, limited as it is, anybody gets.

In Britain and Ireland, the respective Labour Parties still pedal the myth that socialism can be delivered through Parliament, not so much the British variant these days as they appear to be more of an opposing Conservative Party in much of what they say. 

The Irish Labour Party

Ireland though is a different ball game especially, it appears, since the election to the party’s leadership of Ivana Bacik. On Saturday 25th March I listened to her maiden speech at the Irish Labour Party Conference (they don’t call it an Ard Fheis, they perhaps should but do not) and for once I heard some progressive soundbites. Echoes of the British Labour Party, now long dead, but alive and well here in Ireland it appeared. Not the seditious talk of one of the party’s founders, James Connolly, granted, but given the hot air we have heard over the years from various previous Labour leaders what Ivana was saying was progressive. She opened her address with “Friends and Comrades”, a long time since any Labour leader anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn exempted, has used such language. 

She went on to describe “Labours vision of change” - a new way forward for the party it appeared “to deliver an Ireland that works for all”. So far, usual kind of opening bar the comrades bit, explaining how Fianna Fail and Fine Gael equal an unequal Ireland which are “failing the people of Ireland”. How correct she is on this one as the housing crisis worsens, the flames of homelessness are getting bigger so the Government throw a huge tin of petrol on it to increase the flames by ending the eviction ban. Housing is starved of “public investment” as the Government coalition of FF, FG and Greens turn to the “private market” whose sole aim is not to build houses, unless they are profitable, but only to make profits. Like any other service under capitalism, if there are no profits then the service does not get provided, this includes housing. Ms Bacik continued, “having a safe and secure home is a human right” and called for an extension of the eviction ban. It was also noticed she did not attack capitalism outright so let’s not get over carried away from a Marxist perspective.

The Labour Leader then addressed the issue of workers' rights and trade unions, a very important aspect of any Labour party bar, it would appear, the British version. More on this below. “The Labour Party is rooted in the trade union movement and no worker should have to work in uncertain conditions. Labour would end the situation where apprentices are not covered by the minimum wage. We would endure workers and unions have the right to organise”. That is the first time I have heard any party leader use that kind of language regarding trade union organisation, having “the right to organise” as a right, suggesting labour would legislate in this direction. “The best way for workers to organise is in the trade unions”. To any trade unionist this must be what we want to hear, to any worker including apprentices this should be music to their ears. 

She continues in this positive vein, “this vision is across the thirty-two counties and Labour supports a referendum” on Irish unification. She also indicated closer links with Labour's “sister party the SDLP”. Perhaps Sinn Fein should take such closer links seriously as each party could act as an extension of the other in the two jurisdictions, the six and twenty-six counties. At the moment Sinn Fein are very appealing to many nationalists in both jurisdictions. A Sinn Fein Taoiseach in the south and a Sinn Fein First Minister in the north is an appealing all Ireland factor in Sinn Fein’s popularity. If the Irish Labour Party forge closer links with the SDLP could this arrangement rival the position of Sinn Fein as the only all Ireland party? We should not run round with the idea that Irish Labour have suddenly become republican in their outlook, certainly not in the traditional Irish sense. That died in Irish labour with James Connolly.

Another point well worthy was a proposed “ban on all goods coming from the Israeli occupied territories” something which if uttered in the British Labour Party would be deemed “anti-Semitic” by the current leadership. Ivana Bacik included Palestinian refugees among the worlds needy and not, as appears to be Irish Government policy, just Ukrainians. The actions of the Netanyahu Government against the Palestinian people in Tel Aviv were condemned without reservation.

These were just a few of the points covered by the new Irish Labour Party Leader, Ivana Bacik, which to me sounded more progressive than those of Sinn Fein, who have not mentioned the “thirty-two counties” for, I don’t know, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement (Sell Out). This, it appears is a new dawn for Irish Labour just as the British labour Party had a new dawn with Jeremy Corbyn, but in favour of British capitalism, ditched him. Let us hope the Irish variety have more sense than to ditch Ivana Bacik.

The British Labour Party

In sharp contrast to the progressive sounding language spoken by the Irish Labour leader, in Britain the Labour Party appears to be continuing its rightwards direction of travel started by Tony Blair when he became the party leader in 1994. He abolished Clause IV, which had served the party well since 1918 and was in reality the guts of the constitution. Clause IV was a commitment to public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and therefore a commitment to socialistic ideas, if not all out socialism. It separated Labour from the other parties in Parliament. Tony Blair got rid of this and replaced it with some obscure wording about being a modern party. Roughly translated that means a party of capitalism. Little wonder Margaret Thatcher once said of New Labour, they were her “greatest achievement”! 

The last time the British Labour Party tried to remove the once sacred Clause IV was after the 1959 election defeat. Then leader, Hugh Gaitskell, proposed to remove Clause IV but was defeated by the party’s left-wing. Blair succeeded in not only getting rid of Clause IV but also in diminishing the relevance of the left-wing within the party. Even though it was not greatly acted upon when Labour were in government the fact it was there in the constitution was the weapon of the left-wing. The nearest Labour came to enacting Clause IV was after the landslide victory of 1945 when Clement Attlee nationalised much of the major British industries, including coal, rail, gas and electric, and transport, and introduced the National Health Service (NHS). 

When Blair abolished Clause IV he removed the guts of the Labour Party’s constitution, the part which made them a reason for existence. The Conservative Party have a much older set of ideas based on the 1834 “Tamworth Manifesto” and although capitalism has moved on since those days it is still said the Tamworth Manifesto is the basis for modern Conservative political thinking. They did not just rip it up, they adapted the wording and meaning to suit modern times. In contrast, the Labour Party took their jewel in the crown, Clause IV, and ditched it. Now, in British parliamentary politics there is very little between the Conservative government and the Labour opposition.

Blair immediately started distancing the party from the trade unions while at the same time accepting their money to fund his project, “New Labour”. With the short break in this pattern of party leaders, Jeremy Corbyn who was on the left was leader between 2015 and 2020 and represented traditional labour policies and values, the election of Keir Starmer to leader in 2020 signified a return to the rightwards political direction. Any hope of resurrecting Clause IV under Corbyn died with Starmer’s election as did the brief return to traditional Labour policies. There is very little mention under the Starmer leadership of the trade unions, except to condemn strikes and the strike waves currently running through Britain. The Labour leader refuses to support openly the strikers and forbids any Shadow Ministers attending picket lines, though he stops short of outright condemning the unions and blames the government, as the party of opposition should, for not “sitting down and talking”. He condemns the disruption strikes cause, suggesting the trade unions who are representing their members' interests, should reconsider this strategy. Compare this with the pro-union part of Ivana Bacik's maiden speech. Starmer should realise he, as a Labour leader, cannot sit on the fence as one of his predecessors, Neil Kinnock, did during the 1984/85 Miners Strike. Whereas the Irish Labour Party are calling for “workers and unions having the right to organise” the British variant cannot even openly support those millions of workers taking strike action. Strike action, it must be said, as a last resort after government and employers refused to listen.

Keir Starmer has also expelled former leader Jeremy Corbyn for what he, Starmer, calls anti-Semitic language. Jeremy Corbyn has fought against racism and ant-Semitism all his political life and is certainly not guilty of what Starmer is suggesting. All Corbyn was saying was pretty much along the lines of what was contained in Bacik’s speech to the Irish Labour Party on goods from the occupied areas being banned and condemning the Israeli Government for their actions against the Palestinian people. Language like this cannot be used in the British labour Party in case it upsets the Israeli Government! In other words, any statement offensive to the Israeli Government is anti-Semitic! Really? This is a complete redefinition of the term “anti-Semitic” more over it is anti-Semitism according to Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer appears to be more concerned with not upsetting the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv than supporting the beleaguered Palestinians.

Whereas the British Labour Party appear hell bent on “thriving” in a capitalist society rather than challenging such a society, the Irish labour Party appear to be moving in the opposite direction, leftwards. Being left-wing does not make a person revolutionary, the terms left and right-wing are parliamentary terms originating from the French Revolution. Who sat on which side of the “Constituent Assembly” - the left, who advocated social and economic change, or the conservative right who wanted more of the same, the status quo. It would seem the Irish Labour Party have rediscovered, if Bacik's speech is any indication, some of their original values, but not the revolutionary anti-capitalist part of these values. They are still not the party formed by James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and others who used seditious terms like “I want to talk sedition” and “capitalist robber barons” often used by Connolly and Larkin. That aside Ivana Baciks speech was a breath of fresh air and more radical in many respects that Sinn Fein’s Mary Lou McDonald. She certainly appears to have put the breaks on the right-wing trajectory of recent years within Irish labour.

Historically the British and Irish Labour Parties have had differences. When the Irish party was formed in 1912 the British Labour Party agreed to remain exactly that, British not a UK party. This was agreed between the two leaderships to give the Irish party room to develop its own entity separate from Britain, it was early British Labour policy to support Irish independence. Even today the British Labour Party do not organise in the six-counties. James Kier Hardie, a friend and comrade of James Connolly’s agreed this was the best direction to give the Irish the best chance to develop. Both organisations were part of the “Second International” at the time. When, in 1914 the First World War broke out in Europe the British party, despite early opposition, along with most of the international voted to back their indigenous bourgeoisie in the war as did the Germans, Italians, in fact all of them bar the Russians under Lenin, the Bulgarians and the Irish (though Connolly and Lenin never met). This was a complete change for both parties, British and Irish, in political direction. It appears such change in travel is occurring again.

All the socialist rhetoric by the new Irish Labour leader is all very well while she is not in a position to implement it! The employers would fight back, be under no illusions, against her pro worker and pro trade union measures. The question is, would she, if necessary, legislate against the bosses just as the various governments of the employers have demanded legislation against the unions? Time may well tell on that one. I refer back to the well-meaning Harold Wilson back in 1964 who soon found out how far the British state would allow him to go. Would the Irish state also put a block on some of Ivana Bacik's policies? Again, time will tell!

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist

The Irish Labour Party And British Labour Party ✏ Some Short Comparisons

Eddie Dempsey  In the past week, Owen Jones surprised me by making me the subject of a blog post in which he attempted to sketch a caricature of me as a peddler of nativist fantasies about a supposed ‘white working class’.

This comes off the back of a series of slurs against me orchestrated by Clive Lewis, who compared me to the fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley (the irony may have been lost on Clive, given Mosley’s well-known support of European unity against ‘dark Africa’), and Novara commentator Ash Sarkar, who withdrew from speaking at a Peoples’ Assembly rally — citing my presence as the sole reason.

Owen’s caricature of me is unfamiliar and unfair. I am an Irish immigrant and a trade unionist. I grew up on the Woodpecker Estate in New Cross, one of the most diverse — and most deprived — estates in Britain. My first political act was to join a demonstration against the Iraq War.

The people I look up to are people like Bob Crow, Jack Dash and Mickey Fenn – Tilbury docker and founder of Anti Fascist Action, who was one of the few dockers to speak out against the 1968 wildcat strike, called in defence of Enoch Powell’s comments on restricting Commonwealth immigration.

Continue reading @ Labour Heartlands.

A Reply To Owen Jones ✑ Keep It Comradely

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ The Labour Representation Committee was formed by, among others, James Keir Hardie in 1900. 

Between this year and 1906 the group worked with the trade unions and the Independent Labour Party to form, in that year, what we know today as the Labour Party. It has been described as an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists, Fabians and trade unionists and was (and supposedly is) an organisation to give working class people a voice in parliament. 

The modern variant of this party is open to serious questions as to whether that role has been fulfilled. In the 1906 General Election the Labour Party won 29 MPs to the parliament becoming the fourth party after the Liberals, who won by a landslide, and the Conservative opposition and the Irish National Party - who claimed 82 seats under the leadership of John Redmond and were the third largest party in Westminster. The Labour Party of the early 20th century was considered almost revolutionary because it advocated social democracy at a time when liberal democracy had yet to reach its full potential. The Labour Party did not stand candidates in Ireland for the 1914 election in defence of the newly formed Irish Labour Party (1912): it was to be a British Labour Party not a United Kingdom organisation.

With the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, a split occurred within the second international, which the Labour Party was affiliated to, between those who supported the war and those who did not. The Irish, Russians and Bulgarians opposed the war while the Germans led by Eduard Bernstein, British and French to name but three suddenly forgot their socialist principles and weighed in behind their respective rulers to support the war. The Labour Party, although against the war right up until the outbreak, voted with the government of the day for £100,000 war credits once war broke out. This forced Ramsay MacDonald to resign the leadership of the party in protest against the war. 

Part of the Labour Party were the Fabian Society, a group of middle-class socialists, non-revolutionary. This group headed by Sydney and Beatrice Webb influenced the party and its future greatly. In 1918 the Webbs inserted the once celebrated Clause 1V into the party’s constitution. This was a very important piece, as it became the guts of the party for the next seventy-seven years it read: 

To secure for the worker by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. 

This addition to the party’s constitution though not revolutionary, certainly not in its armed insurrection sense, was significant. There was now for the first time embodied in the constitution of the party a declaration of political principles, and these principles were, at least on paper, socialist in content and radical for their time.

In 1924 Ramsay MacDonald headed the first minority Labour Government, the first time the party had a taste of governmental power. They were to find out, as happened time and again in later years, that having Clause IV on paper and implementing it against the will of the minority capitalist class were two different things. Not until 1945, just as the Second World War was ending did a majority, by a landslide, Labour government come to pass. This was headed by Clement Attlee and included swathes of Clause IV in their manifesto. Much of major industry was nationalised, including the Coal Industry, the Railways and Transport, and a National Health Service (NHS) came into being in 1948 which is still in existence today, though a shadow of its former self due to government cuts and pushes towards privatisation. 

Attlee did not have the brick wall opposition of British capitalism to his policies due to the fact Britain was just coming out of a six-year conflict with Nazi Germany. The bourgeoisie saw these relatively modest policies as perhaps beneficial and they did not want a repeat of soldiers coming home from the fighting, as happened in the First World war, to poverty and no improvement in their condition. It was a way, perhaps as the ruling classes saw it, of staving off potential revolution. This was perhaps the closest any Labour administration has come to enacting clause IV of their constitution.

Clause IV was the guts of the party and differentiated them, again on paper, from the rest of the parliamentary parties and it served them well. In 1964 Harold Wilson's Labour were elected into government and Wilson, as PM, would find out the difficulties of taking Clause IV off the paper and enacting it into policies. British capitalism now would resist, and resist they did successfully as Wilson had to row back on many pledges. He was unfortunate enough to be in office when the first cuts to the NHS were enacted. In 1966 the party was re-elected, the year England won the World Cup, and once again capitalism would clip the wings of the Labour administration, reminding them once more who the real rulers were. Arguably in 1970 the same World Cup cost Wilson his Premiership, as England lost to West Germany, the team they beat in the 66 final, in the quarter-final stage. Many people blame Wilson’s handling of the Bobby Moore affair as the reason Labour lost. This is debatable. Labour would again return to power in 1974, Harold Wilson retiring in 1976 to be replaced by James Callaghan. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives won the election and Labour would be out of office for the next eighteen years.

In 1994 the Labour leader, John Smith, suddenly died and a man named Tony Blair was elected to the leadership. In 1995 Blair changed the wording and meaning, a new version of Clause IV, not committed to any form of socialism, the guts of the party, completely changing the party’s position and identity in the parliamentary spectrum. Blair, under “new Labour” continued to reform the party, killing off what was once the Labour Party which it was now in name only. When he tore the guts of the party out at the 1995 party conference – without Clause IV the party are indistinguishable from any other pro-capitalist party – Arthur Scargill, then President of the National Union of Mineworkers, stated outside the conference hall “that man in there has just declared war on the working-class.” He was not wrong, and this was the first death of the British Labour Party. Blair continued to enact policies more akin to Thatcherism than those of any Labour government as worker’s rights, lost under Thatcher and then John Major, were not returned. The exception being trade union membership rights were given back to the employees at the Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) lost under Thatcher. This was the only concession Blair made to the trade unions, one of the founding component parts of the Labour Party. Blair led the party to three consecutive electoral victories between 1997 and 2007, the most of any Labour leader. He was replaced by Gordon Brown, a Blairite, on his retirement in 2007.

On 12th September 2015 Jeremy Corbyn, a traditional Labour politician and believer in the old Clause IV, became the leader of the party. At last, a glimmer of hope existed for those of us, including my late father, who wanted a Labour leader worthy of the name, somebody who would not bow to capitalism and who would certainly not re-enact Thatcherite or Blairite policies. Corbyn’s biggest enemies were within his own party as may MPs were Blairites and did not want the Labour Party to be the organisation it set out to be back in 1900. Corbyn was often accused of not upholding Labour values, which was rubbish. He was the man who if anybody could would bring the party back to the age of Clause IV. In April 2017 then Prime Minister, Teressa May, called a snap election. She was hoping to strengthen her majority in parliament and her hand in the Brexit negotiations, instead she lost her overall majority. Jeremy Corbyn and Labour did surprisingly well, removing the Conservative Party’s majority and producing a hung parliament. May kept her premiership but with a much-reduced number forcing her to step down. The right-wing of the Labour Party were shitting themselves as they had hoped Corbyn would be humiliated. He was not. 

Because of Corbyn’s performance and not despite of it, he carried on as Labour leader, he had almost done it. The right-wing Blairites began their internal campaign to ensure at the next election, which would not be far away, Corbyn would not have the result he had achieved in the 2017 vote. They did everything to undermine him, along with the media, and this resulted in Labour being defeated heavily in the 2019 General Election winning just 202 seats to the conservatives 365 under Boris Johnson. This forced Corbyn’s resignation as leader of the party. There had been no repeat of the 2017 bounce, many of his own party ensured that. The Parliamentary Labour Party, almost to a one, were against their leader Jeremy Corbyn from the start. It was the membership of the party, the branches and trade union membership which catapulted him into the leader’s position and, all things considered, almost Prime Minister. The Parliamentary Party’s centre right MPs, people like Hillary Benn (whose father would turn in his grave), Stephen Kinnock, the son of former leader Neil Kinnock who would not give Labour party support to the Miners during the year-long strike of 1984/85, and Margaret Hodge all wanted the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn. Hodge is on record as saying she wanted rid of Corbyn as leader. They were like Roman Senators waiting to stab Caesar to death. Margaret Hodge even accused him of being a “fucking anti-Semite” which was untrue. The word “anti-Semite” has taken on a new meaning and is now applied to anybody who condemn any Israeli military action against the Palestinians. Margaret Hodge and the likes cost Labour - through their actions of backstabbing their leader - the election in 2019. In 2017 when Corbyn had, against all the odds, brought down the Conservative majority, Stephen Kinnock was on the brink of tears, not tears of joy but pure resentment because he nearly had to do a Labour politicians job - try to enact socialism.

Jeremy Corbyn stood down as leader of the party after the electoral defeat and on 4th January 2020 Keir Starmer was elected leader. He defeated Corbynista Rebeca Long-Bailey and the more moderate Lisa Nandy in the race. Starmer immediately began changing the party back to something more in line with Blairs “new Labour” and this meant not criticising the Israeli Government in their treatment of the Palestinian people, to do so is deemed anti-Semitic. He almost immediately denied Jeremy Corbyn the Labour whip which, I understand, is still the position. This delighted the vultures who had done everything in their power to rid the party of Corbyn. They think nothing of the 430,000 party members opinions, the majority of whom supported Jeremy. They think the Parliamentary Party should call all the shots. It should be noted Jeremy Corbyn won a re-election battle for the party leadership, a contest forced by the PLP, who lost. The membership overwhelmingly elected Corbyn again but, for the PLP, democracy can take a walk in their book. Under Corbyn it should be remembered the Red Flag, Labours traditional anthem, was once again sang at the party’s annual conference. This was previously discontinued under Blair.

With the Russian invasion of the Ukraine the major parties in the British Parliament are lining up to see who can be the most anti-Russian and pro-NATO. Starmer and his Labour party, many of whose members do not support the EU and NATOs position on the invasion while, at the same time, not being in favour of the actions taken by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin either, are trying to outdo the government in the anti-Russian stakes. Starmer, in true dictatorial right-wing fashion has now threatened any MP who equates the actions of Russia with those in the recent past of NATO with expulsion. This means, he will not “tolerate” any anti-US or NATO feelings or discussions in the Labour Party. Starmer is trying to outflank the Conservative government in pursuing an anti-Russian, pro-NATO position which is almost racist. Like Tony Blair before him, who grovelled his way into George W. Bush’s good books, it appears Starmer wants to be the pet poodle, should he ever get into government, of President Joe Biden or his successor. This looking up to the USA has often been a weak link in Labour party politics and, to my knowledge, only Harold Wilson stood up to the White House back in the sixties refusing British troops for the Vietnam war. He bluntly told US President, Lyndon Johnson, there would be no British troops involved in the war.

I lived in England, where I was born, for thirty-seven of my sixty-one years. I was brought up in a trade union and Labour supporting family and my late dad was involved with his local party and a shop steward in his union, the TGWU now part of UNITE, all his working life. What he would make of Keir Starmer I do not know. He was loyal to Labour even through the Blair years despite hating everything Blair had done to the party, so I would imagine he would have remained a loyal member. I voted Labour in 1997, my last vote in England, with many reservations because I could never in a month of Sundays even consider voting Conservative and Unionist, “blue nose bastards” as they were known. 

If I lived there now, would I vote Labour? No, I could not in all conscience look myself in the mirror if I voted for this variant of what was once the Labour Party! The denying of the former leader, popularly elected, Jeremy Corbyn the Labour whip was bad enough, changing the meaning of the word “anti-Semitism” and now threatening anybody who may criticise NATO, the Israeli Government or say anything detrimental about the USA with expulsion are bridges too far for me. I would probably spoil my ballot paper while exercising my only democratic right. Keir Starmer may share part of a name with party founder, James Keir Hardie, but the differences in their policies are wider than the one hundred or so years which separate them! 

In reality Starmer has become a dictator beyond the boundaries of even Tony Blair who, despite his huge lunge to the right, would at least tolerate disagreements and debate without the threat of expulsion to any MP who disagreed with him. Under Keir Starmer such differences which might upset the big boys of NATO and the USA will not be tolerated. He has brought the British Labour Party to new depths hitherto perhaps unimaginable. Can the Labour Party in Britain resurrect itself again? Probably, but will remain Labour in name only, unless this direction of political travel is changed and that would mean another change of leader!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

The Second Death Of The British Labour Party!

Mick Hall ☭ It's a puzzle to me why anyone would remain a member of a political party in which they have no say and are despised by the leadership?

Whatever you can say about previous Labour Party leaders, from Corbyn, John Smith, Callaghan, Wilson, Attlee, Lansbury, even Tony Blair etc, they all adhered to the party being a broad church. This is no longer the case, Indeed the current leader Sir Keir Starmer and his acolytes have made it clear that the Left in the party are persona non grata.

He now intends to remove shortlisting powers of election candidates from regional and local party officials. The NEC which he controls will now be responsible for approving each stage of the selection process, including the election of the selection committee, timetable, and shortlist.

This would mean in all probability the LP would be the most undemocratic mainstream political party within the UK. The Tory party, SNP, Liberal Democrats, Green's, Sinn Féin, SDLP, Plaid Cymru and the DUP all have a system which allows local constituencies to play the main role in selecting local and general election candidates.

Just how cold a place the LP has become for the left was demonstrated by Starmer's odious gofer Rachel Revees when she said recently:

It's good 150,00 have left the party because they never shared Labour values. The drop in Labour Membership, which has reduced the party's income was a price worth paying for shedding unwelcome supporters.

This is some statement to make given many of those who left the party had been members for many years, or been expelled/suspended for no good reason.

Starmer isn't a socialist by any stretch of the imagination: a supporter of the apartheid state of Israel, one of the most vicious regimes in the world; A close friend and uncritical supporter of the war criminal Tony Blair. As you can see from the photo below he bends the knee to the crown, an archaic and undemocratic institution which sits at the pinnacle of the UK class system which has blighted so many working class lives.

We know Starmer and his Blairite coterie lied to gain the leadership of the LP now they're rewriting history. There will come a time when left activists who remain in the party will reach a crossroads, come the next general election they will either have to collude with the current leadership, or bury their heads in the sand and keep their mouths shut.

As to the former leader Jeremy Corbyn, along with John McDonnell and others who told leftwing members to hang in there, it might be time for them to explain what are they hanging in there for?

⏩ Mick Hall is a veteran Left Wing activist and trade unionist.

Hanging Around Aimlessly

Caoimhin O’Murailebegins his foray into socialist thinkers and activists from a bygone age.

In the latter part of the nineteenth century the political ideology and concept of socialism gathered momentum. The early socialists, all of them including the Orangeman, William Walker, based their ideas on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Walker was, however very selective as to what parts of Marx he agreed with and those he chose to ignore. For example, the First International, the International Working man’s Association supported Ireland's right to freedom from Britain. This was a part of Marx’s teaching which Walker chose to ignore! I intend to look here at well-known socialists of the early twentieth century, James Keir Hardie, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll, William Walker, William Partridge and James Connolly. The intention is to do one each Thursday, space permitting, in TPQ.

James Keir Hardie - Founder of the British Labour Party

Keir Hardie was born in Newhouse, Lanarkshire near the town of Motherwell in the central low-lands of Scotland on 15th August 1856. His mother, Mary Keir was a domestic servant and his stepfather, David Hardie, was a ship's carpenter. He had little or no contact with his biological father, a coal miner from Lanarkshire. 

The family moved to Govan near Glasgow, later in 1912 incorporated into the city itself, where, despite the financial difficulties faced daily they made a life. David Hardie tried to maintain continuous employment in the shipyards rather than practising his trade at sea, a difficult situation given the boom-and-bust nature of capitalism which affected the industry leading to uncertainties and, inevitably, unemployment. 

Keir Hardie started work at the very young age of seven which meant all forms of formal education came to an end, having hardly began. His first job was as a messenger boy for the Anchor Line Steamship Company. His parents spent their evenings teaching the young James to read and write, skills which would one day prove very useful for self-education. 

Life was not easy for the family and when the Clyde-side employers locked out their workers, the unionised employees were sent home for a period of six months, part of an employer’s offensive against trade union labour and activists, the family’s main source of income was terminated. The family was then forced to sell all their possessions to survive, with young James’s meagre wages the only remaining source of income. His stepfather went to work at sea plying his trade on the waves, obviously being absent from the home which was something he wished to avoid if possible. At the age of ten James went to work down the mines as a trapper – opening and shutting doors for ten hour shifts in order to keep the air supply continuous for the miners.

Keir, as he was now called, had learned to read and write in shorthand and began to associate with Evangelical religious movements where he became a preacher. His ability to orate publicly made him very popular and a choice among his fellow miners to be the logical candidate to become the chairman at their meetings and spokesman for their grievances. The coal owners began to see him as an agitator and a threat and in a short time he and his two brothers were blacklisted from working in the local coal industry. 

At twenty-three Keir Hardie moved seamlessly from the coal mines to trade union organisation work. In May 1879, Scottish mine owners combined to force a reduction in wages, which had the effect of spurring the demand for collective unionisation among the miners. Mammoth meetings were held weekly in Hamilton as miners joined together to vent their grievances and on 3rd July 1879, Keir Hardie was appointed Corresponding Secretary of the miners, a post which gave him the opportunity to contact and maintain communication with other representatives of the mineworkers throughout Scotland. Three weeks later he was chosen by the miners as their delegate to a National Conference of Miners to be held in Glasgow. 

Hardie was appointed Miners Agent in August 1879 and his new role as a trade union organiser had begun. He subsequently led miners strikes in Lanarkshire (1880) and Ayrshire (1881) and from 1886 he was a fulltime union organiser as Secretary of the Ayrshire Miners. As part of the Scottish Miners Federation the Ayrshire Miners Union would, in 1889 become part of the Miners Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) – forerunner of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). The MFGB was an amalgamation of all the local miner’s unions throughout Britain and became the backbone of working-class militancy and industrial action, something which remained with the NUM until the year long strike of 1984/85.

James Keir Hardie was one of the founding members of the British Labour Party serving as its first parliamentary leader from 1906 to 1908. After initially supporting Gladstone’s Liberal Party Keir Hardie concluded the working-class needed its own party. Keir Hardie first stood for parliament as an independent in 1888 and later that year he was heavily involved in the creation of the Scottish Labour Party. In 1892 he won the English seat of West Ham, again as an independent, and was instrumental the following year in the formation of the Independent Labour Party. Both the Independent Labour Party and the Labour Representation Committee along with the Fabian Society would later become component parts of the Labour Party. 

In 1895 he lost his seat and was coming to the realisation that all these small groups, the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society, the Social Democratic Federation along with independents should come together and form one party. He was re-elected to parliament for Merthyr Tydfil in South Wales as an independent and was now certain the way forward for the labour movement was the unification into one of all these groups. 

In 1900 Keir Hardie helped form the trade union-based Labour Representation Committee which would later be renamed the Labour Party, along with the ILP, the Scottish Labour Party, the Marxist Social Democratic Federation and the largely middle-class Fabian Society, which on 15th February 1906 formally became the Labour Party. After the 1906 General Election James Keir Hardie was elected parliamentary leader of the new unified Labour Party. He was a strong supporter of women’s suffrage, and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) also known as the Suffragettes.

The 1906 General Election was one of the biggest landslide victories in British political history for the Liberal Party. It also benefited the Labour Party due to the 1903 agreement between the liberals and Labour where the former agreed not to stand against the Labour Party in thirty constituencies. The Conservatives and Liberal Unionists [a split from the official Liberal Party led by Joseph Chamberlain who opposed Gladstone’s 1886 Home Rule Bill] were wiped out. The deal was to avoid splitting the anti-Conservative vote and was known as the Lib-Lab Pact, resulting in twenty-nine Labour MPs being returned to Parliament.

For all Keir Hardie’s radical, even for their day revolutionary, socialist policies and astute leadership of the infant Labour Party, he was stained by what today we would call racism. We must remember Keir Hardie was talking late 19th early 20th century and, without excusing his comments, perhaps they were not considered as outlandish as they would be today. In fact, today such comments would, rightly so, get him expelled from the party he led until 1908. 

During the nineteenth century the question of race was decided on which class a person belonged to. For example, the industrialists, the bosses, considered themselves a different race to their employees, skin colour was rarely considered relevant when depicting race. In his evidence to the 1899 House of Commons Select Committee on emigration and immigration Hardie argued: ‘the Scots resented immigrants greatly and that they would want a total immigration ban’. When it was pointed out to him that more people left Scotland than entered it, he replied; ‘it would be much better for Scotland if the 1,500 were compelled to stay and let the foreigners be kept out.’ Such a narrative at the time may not necessarily have been considered racist, strange as that seems today. He was actually arguing that any Scottish person wishing to leave should be held back against their will and not be allowed to do so, in case immigrants should come in! According to Hardie; ‘the Lithuanian migrant workers in the mining industry had filthy habits, they lived off garlic and oil and they were carriers of the Black Death.’ This was, even allowing for the times, acute racism of which there is little latitude for excuses.

All in all, James Keir Hardie was a pioneer of the labour and trade union movement in Britain at a time when liberal democracy in its fullest form was in its infancy. He died on 26th September 1915, three years before the Labour Party’s Clause IV was added to its constitution. This was what became the guts and backbone of the British Labour party and - written by two Fabians, Sydney and Beatrice Webb - was inserted into the party’s constitution in 1918. 

Clause IV  gave the party what has been described as ‘a commitment’ to the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and ‘committed the party to socialism’. The nearest Labour came to enacting clause iv was the Labour Government of Clement Atlee in 1945-51 after the immediate post-war election. Atlee nationalised around 20% of the economy, including Coal, Civil Aviation, the Bank of England, Cable and Wireless (entrusted to the Post office), Transport - all in 1946, Electricity 1947, Gas 1948 and in the same year the National Health Service (NHS) was formed. Iron and Steel were nationalised in 1949. These have all been since reprivatized [NHS so far exempted] by the right-wing Thatcher Government, And the right-wing Thatcherite New Labour administration of Tony Blair abolished Clause IV and did nothing to renationalise the majority of the industries once under state ownership. Tony Blair is largely responsible for the mess the British Labour Party is presently in. He tore the guts out of the party, Clause IV, and renamed the party “New Labour” following many of Thatcher’s policies. In fact, Margaret Thatcher is on record as saying; ‘New Labour is my greatest achievement.’

This is the text of the once iconic Clause IV, the guts and spine of the British Labour Party, which is now like a person with their stomach and backbone removed:

Clause IV: To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

James Keir Hardie had been dead three years, thereabouts, when Clause IV was inserted into the party’s constitution. It was, without doubt, the kind of political direction he would have wanted the party to travel. Tony (Tory) Blair removed these guts and backbone of the party because it symbolised the exact opposite of where he wanted the Labour Party to go. 

With the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader there was a glimmer of hope that the party had rediscovered its roots, but this was not to last. Corbyn did very well in the 2017 British General Election, removing the Conservative majority in parliament, much to the annoyance and disappointment of his right-wing, Blairite, MPs who collectively did all they could to bring the man down. This they succeeded in, and now that same party is under a new centre right leadership of, ironically, Sir Kier Rodney Starmer. It is not the party which James Keir Hardie gave so much time to moulding into a parliamentary vehicle towards socialism, at a time when such policies were considered revolutionary and dangerous.

In 1908 Hardie resigned as leader of the Labour Party and was replaced by Arthur Henderson. Henderson was nowhere near the radical Keir Hardie was. And, perhaps with hindsight, he epitomised the direction the party would take in the future. Hardie spent the rest of his life campaigning for votes for women and built up a close relationship with the leading suffragette, Sylvia Pankhurst. Hardie’s secretary, Margaret Symonds Travers was the first woman to speak in the Houses of Parliament having tricked her way in on 13th October 1908.

As a pacifist Keir Hardie campaigned against the First World War, a position his former party initially grappled with but eventually coming down on the side of the imperialist robbers. Along with socialists in other countries he tried to organise an international general strike to stop the war. His stance was not popular, even though in my own view correct. Even within the Labour Party then, as now, there was a strong pro-war element as well as a small outspoken anti-war faction. He continued to address anti-war demonstrations throughout Britain and supported those considered conscientious objectors.

James Keir Hardie died in a Glasgow hospital at noon on 26th September 1915 of pneumonia aged 59. His friend and fellow pacifist Thomas Evan Nichols delivered the sermon at Hardie's memorial service at Aberdare, in his constituency. Hardie was cremated in Maryhill, Glasgow. A memorial stone in his honour is at Cumnock Cemetery, Cumnock, Ayrshire, Scotland. 

On 2 December 2006, the centenary year of the birth of the British Labour Party, a memorial bust of Keir Hardie was unveiled by Cynon Valley Labour MP, Ann Clwyd, outside the council offices in Aberdare, his old constituency. Despite what today we would call racism, James Keir Hardie should be remembered for all the positives he did. He secured working-class representation for the first time ever in parliament. He was instrumental in the unionisation of the mining industry, he opposed the Frist World War, a brave thing to do at the time and encouraged and participated in the campaign for the vote for women.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is a Dublin 
based Marxist and author. 

Late 19th - Early 20th Century Socialists ➖ Keir Hardie

Mick Hall The whole point of political party's like Labour, the Tories and Lib-Dems is to maintain the status quo so the banksters, city slickers, the monarchy, aristocracy, and the rest of the flotsam and jetsam that makes up the English ruling classes can sleep safely in their beds. 

True, these party's may quibble over this and that, but when it boils down to it they always support the status quo even when it's clearly against the best interest of the majority of people.

There are many examples of this in history. WW1 was the worst, the Iraq war came a close second. It's indicative today when with a flick of a switch the ruling classes have gone from being Sinophiles who eulogised trade with China to placing sanctions on it. Pray, tell me how will this help the average person? Please don't tell me this issue is about human rights. When did the UK state ever care about human rights? Need I mention Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Libya, apartheid South Africa, Ireland, the list is endless.

The reason Jeremy Corbyn was treated so harshly by the state apparatus, the MSM, and their agents of influence, was because they feared he might upset the applecart and gain enough support to tear up the rule book which ensures the status quo.

Once Starmer became LP leader the status quo became normalised again and increasingly the left of the party were marginalized. All talk of anti-Semitism within the Labour party disappeared as if by magic from the MSM.

Starmer's refusal over the last year to face Johnson and his government down, despite its record of U-turns and failed systems to combat Covid-19 has allowed Boris Johnson to set the agenda over and again.

Yet still comrades cling to the LP, despite Starmer using the LP left as a doormat to wipe his feet on. For Christ sake today he is even trading under the same slogan as Johnson, Build Back Better. He is a man who all but sat on his hands whilst approximately 55,500 thousand people died of Covid-19, and refused in its first draft to oppose draconian legislation which curtailed our human rights. He is a creature of the state, a ruling class toady, a member of a privileged class who benefits from the status quo, just as he was when he was head of the Crown Prosecution Service.

You cannot reform a party which is led by a knight of the realm, an agent of influence of the ruling classes. Only a new party will give self respect, Sadly at the moment there is little sign the Corbyn leadership is going down this road.

It's heartbreaking, as one of the biggest achievement of the Corbyn years was how Corbynism united the left, something which had never happened before. Now the left is hanging by a thin vine, beginning to atomise out in different directions.

⏩ Mick Hall is a veteran Left Wing activist and trade unionist.

Build Back Better ➖ Better For Whom?