Showing posts with label Kevin Morley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kevin Morley. Show all posts
Kevin Morley remembers his dad: August 23rd 1927 – May 5th 2020

Nick Morley, TGWU, with the late Jack Jones who 
fought against the forces of fascism in Spain

My Dad met my Mam, Olive, while they were both working on the buses. He was a driver and she a clippie (Conductress as it was then), a crew or bus crew as they were termed. In 1959 they were married, and in 1960 I came along. Olive stopped work as was the accepted thing in those days. Nick remained on the buses as a driver until his retirement in 1990. He finished as a long-distance coach driver having transferred to coaches from town and country. 

It was while driving long distance that my dad exercised an element of skill and judgement seldom called upon from a coach driver. Like most jobs an element of skill is involved, seldom reflected in the pay packet, and coach/bus driving was/is no exception. It was back in the late seventies or early eighties, I think, Nick was driving his coach when a little girl ran out in front of his moving vehicle. Nick knew slamming the breaks on would have been a death sentence for the child. Instead he allowed the front wheels to run over her then, knowing the distance between the front and forward rear axles he hit the break. This resulted in the girl coming to rest under the bus between the front and rear axles, almost unscathed and very much alive. This took quick judgement and, according to all reports, including the police, undoubtedly saved the little girl’s life.

During the sixties the union, branch 9/24, organised trips to Bridlington for the children of bus employees, Drivers and “Clippies” all of whom were TGWU members – a closed shop. Nick and other drivers would be responsible for the organisation of the outing and driving the busses. These were great trips and everybody, parents and children alike, looked forward to this day. Outings like these were few and far between during the nineteen-sixties, due to a shortage of money. 

Nick supplemented his Bus Drivers pay by shovelling coal from the lorry – straight from the pit – into sacks at Arrowsmiths Coal Yard in Acomb, just outside York. These sacks would then be collected from the yard by the coal merchant. Coal was delivered to customers in those days to be used to heat homes. It was a long working day for people like my dad and, on days off when not on union business he would be shovelling coal. 

Once per year we would have a week self-catering holiday at either Filey or Hornsea. This was before the days of holidays abroad and as we could not afford places like Great Yarmouth, where better off kids went, Filey was the usual destination. Late in the seventies we could do a week in Yarmouth or Torquay – pay had increased after a series of successful strikes for higher wages – but during the sixties this was a pipe dream. Spain and foreign holidays never would be in our price range but we enjoyed our times at Filey or Hornsea as much, if not more than the spoilt brats of what I now know as the bourgeoisie did in Spain or other foreign climes. 

Nick – full name John Nicholas – was a lifelong member and, when younger, activist of the British Labour Movement. He was a Labour Party member until his death, though was no lover of Tony Blair. He believed in party loyalty as did many older stalwarts of the same era like the late Tony Benn. Nick was a Shop Steward for many years getting re-elected several times. His trade union was the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) and he met with the late jack Jones, then General Secretary of the TGWU, a man who fought in Spain as part of the International Brigades against Franco’s Fascists. Nick was too young being only nine when the Spanish Civil War broke out. My dad was active in the union for as long as I can remember during the days of the post war political consensus in Britain, including Keynesian economic policies, practiced by both Labour and Conservative governments – until the election of Thatcher in 1979 – he continued trade union involvement until his retirement. 

Part of the consensus politics included a style of industrial relations known as pluralism. This was a system in which management and trade unions would hold regular meetings, particularly in the nationalised industries – Coal, Steel, Rail, Transport etc. Dad worked for National Bus which the West Yorkshire Road Car Company became part of. The pluralist system of Industrial Relations accepted class conflict as inevitable but not insurmountable, and realised that strikes would happen if negotiations broke down. This was not an acceptance of the right to strike by management and on the eve of any strike the usual warnings about it being in breach of contract and, therefore, dismissible were always issued, and ignored. I was going through some of dad’s old papers and found one such letter to him, as Shop Steward, from management threatening sackings if this strike went ahead. This was in the early 1980s – when Thatcherism was starting to bite – and, needless to say, the letter was ignored and pickets placed on the bus depot. Pluralism included regular meetings between the shop stewards and management to discuss issues like hours of work, health and safety, with the unions recommendations usually implemented. A far cry from today where trade unions exist largely in name only – this does not have to remain the case. This decline in trade unionism saddened my dad a lot, that much I do know. He would often say, ‘all the gains we fought for have been thrown away, the old stewards would turn in their graves especially Cess Singleton – who was the Branch Secretary during the sixties and early seventies – at what was going on!’

My dad was a firm believer in the “closed shop”, meaning all employees had to be a member of the union. His rationale for this was that the union fought for such things as pay increases, often meaning members had to take strike action in support of a pay claim. If, for example the union put in a twenty percent pay demand, and management came back with say eight percent with productivity strings attached, then this offer would be rejected. Strike action would ensue and after a period, denying the public a bus service – the blame lay at management's feet – a settlement of say fourteen percent with no strings would be reached. Those who refused to join the union would also benefit from this pay increase despite not having lifted a finger to achieve it – many employers would not, at this juncture, employ non-union labour because the strength of feeling was so high against these creatures. 

When Margaret Thatcher introduced legislation outlawing the “closed shop” The shop stewards nationally fought against the Tory legislation which Thatcher claimed; “was to give people freedom of choice whether they wanted to be involved with a trade union or not.” This was, of course utter rubbish and lies. Her intention was to weaken the ability of the unions to launch any affective campaigns to improve their members living standards, using this over used word “freedom” as her rationale. She knew it was a lie, the unions knew it was a lie and those would be “scabs” knew it was a lie. Her legislation was far more sinister in its objective. Unfortunately, the legislation was passed and remains to this day in Britain. Thatcher’s henchman, Norman Tebbit, is on record as saying; “my legislation has stood the test of time as no Labour administration has revoked my anti-union legislation”. 

For once this right-wing demagogue was telling the truth – for all the wrong reasons – and when Tony (tory) Blair and “New Labour” came to power in 1997 none of the legislation introduced by Tebbit, under Thatcher, was revoked. My dad had no time for Blair but, as I pointed out earlier, he was a party member and was very loyal to the labour movement. In the 2017 British General Election he supported Jeremy Corbyn, as he had in the battle for the Labour party leadership.

When in 1984 the miners came out on strike – which would last for one year – Nick was part of the shop stewards committee which organised coaches to take striking miner’s children away on days out. The idea was initially that of Branch Secretary of 9/24 branch, Derek Smallwood at the West Yorkshire Road Car Company (National Bus). My dad and other shop stewards gave their free time, days off and holidays, to take the kids away. This was in line with TGWU policy to aid the NUM wherever possible within the law. This last part was perhaps where me and my dad differed: different generation I suppose. He believed, back in the eighties, that the return of a Labour government would put everything back on track. Back to the negotiating days of “beer and sandwiches” at Number Ten when Harold Wilson would invite the TUC to Downing Street for talks. Alas Nick and many of his generation were to be bitterly disappointed when “New Labour” swept to power in 1997. Tony Blair abolished clause iv of the party’s constitution which committed the Labour Party to public ownership of the means of production. When this was removed from the constitution Miner’s leader, Arthur Scargill, said of Blair; ‘that man in there has declared war on the working-class.’ 

I stood on picket lines with my dad on numerous occasions and admired the working-class solidarity which existed in those days. Dad would often tell me of strikes in the late fifties and early sixties when pickets would be set up at the city boundaries stopping any bus entering York. One tactic they had - if the driver was proving awkward - was to put sugar in the diesel tank: the bus was then going nowhere! This also gave the driver the excuse to tell his employer his bus broke down!! 

As I mentioned earlier, when I was going through some of his old papers I came across a letter from management during the eighties advising employees and shop stewards, that taking part in the up and coming industrial action – strike – would make those taking part in “breach of contract” and they would be liable to dismissal. This was despite abiding by Thatcher’s laws on balloting with an overwhelming mandate to strike. Obeying the law offered no protection against the sack, though management did not yet feel strong enough to try and sack anybody: the union was still strong. 

As Thatcher’s privatisation plans - after the fall of the NUM as Arthur Scargill had warned - managements across the country in nationalised industries began taking a harder line, encouraged to do so by the government. What these half-brained managers did not realise was that when privatisation came, with their connivance, their jobs were also on the line as they too were employees. The days of pluralist industrial relations and the post-war consensus were coming to an end. Thatcher hated this consensus and replaced it with a new right-wing variant, which included Tony Blair: and “New Labour.” Thatcher is on record as describing “New Labour as her greatest achievement.”

My dad retired in 1990 – the union gave him, and other retiring former shop stewards, a good retirement present and social night – but he continued to carry on any outstanding union business. He was an organiser of the TGWU (now UNITE THE UNION), along with others, retired members. The late Jack Jones, former General Secretary of the TGWU was the first National Secretary of the Retired Members. Although Nick had retired, as I pointed out, he continued with union business. I remember vividly Christmas Eve 2013 he complained of feeling unwell. He was going out on union business, monies outstanding and other issues which needed sorting and quick. Monies were owed to former members of the TGWU by their former employer. I suggested he stay in as dad did not look at all well - let somebody else have a go was my suggestion. Nick was adamant, this needed sorting and quick, and needed doing right. On his return he looked very ill indeed, having secured the said monies. That evening, Christmas Eve, he collapsed. I was over from Ireland, as luck would have it as my mam could not have coped. She was suffering from Alzheimer’s – and just looked vacant as the ambulance crew took dad to hospital ICU. 

On Christmas day I took Olive, my Mam, to visit Nick in ICU. I tied her wrist to mine with my Man United scarf – FC United – so as she could not wander off. On seeing her husband in this state, it triggered something in her mind and for a short time she had some grip on reality. Nick was 86 and suffering from renal failure and the odds were against him. Renal failure kills people half his age yet, within three weeks he was sat up in bed on an ordinary ward reading Alex Fergusons autobiography, he had a hell of a constitution.

Like myself Nick Morley was a member of Football Club United of Manchester (Manchester United Football Club almost spelt backwards), a rebel breakaway club formed by rebellious Manchester United supporters over the aggressive takeover of Man Utd by Malcom Glazer in 2005. The Glazer takeover was the icing on a very deep cake and grievances ranged from price hikes, all seater stadia, money taking preference over football and the total degeneration of the game, as a game, at what passes for the highest level. FC United put a short obituary to my dad on their twitter site.

I did not get to York to see dad before he died. I had arranged a visit for the Saturday May 9th but received a phone call from the ward on the afternoon of May 5th telling me he was unlikely to make it. They set a zoom up for me to see him in his hospital bed on my mobile phone and he did look bad. I had the flight booked which was for the visit. If he looked bad in 2013 and pulled through it was not going to happen this time. He was six years older and cancer had attacked on many fronts. He had put Prostrate cancer into remission while in his early eighties but this time it was having him, he had a fall at home and this may have triggered it off again. It spread through his lower regions into his bowels: he stood no chance. It attacked rapidly because only days before he was to go to a care home allowing limited independence – going to the bookies and other places – but it was not to be. Once this cancer attacked it was remorseless. Once I saw that image on the zoom I knew there would be no repeat of 2013, he was now 92, not 86.

My dad died at the time of the Coronavirus pandemic. I must make it clear that he did not die of Covid-19, it was cancer which killed him. Covid-19 became a catchall illness for deaths if the authorities in various countries could/can get away with it. It did not kill my dad. As bad as Covid-19 was/is – and it was/is serious – it was nothing to do with Nicks death. After “Perforated Bowel, Sigmoid Cancer and Metastatic Prostrate Cancer,” they put Covid-19 as a contributing factor. This, I was unofficially told was because it was almost becoming protocol to put this coronavirus down on deaths.

Olive, April 25th 2015 and Nick, May 5th 2020, clippie and driver (on the busses) together again.

RIP: Mam, Olive Morley, January 8th 1925-April 25th 2015 and Dad, John Nicholas (Nick) Morley August 23rd 1927-May 5th 2020.

Love Kevin. 

Kevin Morley, writer, activist,  author of A Descriptive History of the  Irish Citizen Army & Striking Similarities & The Misogynous President.



Nick Morley

Kevin Morley challenges John Coulter's view of Sinn Fein's economic policies. 

I was intrigued to read in The Pensive Quill the assertion written by a Dr John Coulter regarding Sinn Fein’s economic policy and how it may play into the hands of Boris Johnson. 

This is, of course, more scaremongering by the bourgeois press and their reporters of who, I understand Dr Coulter is one. He claims the policy advocated by Sinn Fein would “ruin the economy” thus making the 26 counties economically dependent on the so-called United Kingdom. In short he envisages we would have to go to the UK, cap in hand, for money, which is crap. He goes on to unreliably inform us that their policies, especially their economic policy, has more in common with “North Korea” and would turn Ireland into such a state. More scaremongering propaganda. 

Firstly, how does the would-be informed doctor know how North Koreas economy operates? We are constantly told, by the same bourgeois media, North Korea is highly secretive and authoritarian. If this country is so secretive how does the doctor know so much about it? He cannot say whether their economy is good or bad simply because, if reports are correct, nobody can gain access to the place due to the high level of secrecy to find out. Perhaps Dr Coulter has been inside North Korea. Such a task would be above his pay scale it would be imagined but there you go, gained access to all the country’s economic policy which is top secret, and was then given leave to come and tell us all about it! Could this be how he knows Sinn Fein’s economic policy would ruin the Irish economy? The truth is Dr Coulter knows no more about the internal workings of North Korea, economic or otherwise, than anybody else. He just wants us all to believe he does.

He then continues to tell us the party’s economics would ruin us. What he really means is the rich man’s economy, for once would have to pay a little more, the dozen or so billionaires who really benefit from free market economics would have to cough up a little. Is he really suggesting or expecting us to believe an economic policy which provides beds for our sick, homes for those presently on the streets would break the bank? Is that what he is trying to convince us of? Is he telling us Sinn Fein are trying to introduce socialist economics into Ireland and this would ruin us? He reckons our economy – which is not our economy at all, it belongs to the Irish bourgeoisie and it is they, not the majority of us, who may fear having to pay for the first time their taxes – could not sustain a health service worthy of the name. If that is the case perhaps we should re-examine our assumption that we are a developed country! 

The fact is, it is not the case. Large transnational companies, like Apple who, I understand, owe this state billions but Fine Gael have been afraid to go after them. They are terrified of upsetting these conglomerates no matter how much the money is needed, and how much they owe. They have hidden behind the smokescreen of such firms providing employment, and if they, the Fine Gael Government – propped up by Fianna Fail – go after such companies as Apple, they may pull out of the country costing people’s jobs. What they are saying is that it is alright for the democratically elected government to be economically blackmailed by Apple! That money could go a long way towards providing houses for people, funding local authorities or employing Nurses and Doctors in our Health Service. 

I suppose Dr Coulter would have us all believe going after monies owed by large powerful corporations is too risky. Why could that be? In fact, such companies, it can only be imagined by using Dr Coulter’s argument, are bigger than the elected government of a country? Why then do we not hand over all power to Apple? The fact is the government is here, be it Fine Gael or/and Fianna Fail are there to govern and for the benefit of Irish capitalism, the same capitalism which has O’Connell Street acting as an open-aired hostel for the homeless every night. The same capitalism which cannot provide for the health of the people and, when a party comes along with a set of ideas which challenge the status quo, they would break the country! 

Dr Coulter continues to inform us that the same, or similar policies were rejected recently by the British electorate as they rejected Jeremy Corbyn. Firstly, that was a British election, ball all to do with us. Secondly, and very importantly, that election was lost by the British Labour Party MPs back in 2017. If the right-wing – one of the problems with broad church parties – of the British Labour Party had spent as much time trying to get Corbyn into Number 10, as they did trying to keep him not only out of Downing Street but out of their own party leaders office, promoting Labour in 2017 then Corbyn may well have won that election and the present situation avoided. It was elements of the Labour Party themselves in 2017 which cost them the election. The truth was those right wingers, Stephen Kinnock, Margaret Hodge and many others (remember Kinnock's dad, Neil, when he was Labour leader betrayed the NUM back in 1984/85) did not want Jeremy Corbyn in government, just like Dr Coulter does not want Sinn Fein in government here.

He then goes on to, wrongly, inform us that Sinn Fein’s policies are Marxist! Well, they are not, mores the pity. The policies advocated by Sinn Fein are pro-capitalist and certainly not revolutionary. All they are asking is the ruling elite pay a little more towards the nation’s health and housing. Is this really, as Dr Coulter implies, too much to ask? Remember when the crisis within capitalism hit us back in 2008? Workers were told, “in the national interest” to take a pay cut or wage freeze. The proletariat, foolishly in my view, accepted this burden in “the national interest” with little moaning. It is true what James Connolly once commented, the only true “patriots are the working-class”. Now, in the “national interest” with people living on the streets, and a health service barely worthy of the name, can the ruling classes not show the same patriotism instead of threatening or implying they may leave the country. The first time their “country needs them” – and it is their country, it is they who own the wealth, the means of production, distribution and exchange – they threaten to turn tale and run, supported by people like Dr Coulter.

There is no mention in Sinn Fein’s policies of redefining the relationship between worker and the means of production, no mention of the common ownership, a fundamental part of Marxism. There is no mention of abolishing private property, or the nationalisation of the banks, so where does he get his assertion that Sinn Fein’s policies come straight from the pages of “Karl Marx” and/or “Leon Trotsky”. Sinn Fein’s policies are, by the standards of the day in bourgeois politics, radical, but they are not Marxist and certainly not revolutionary. Sinn Fein know, as Harold Wilson found out, the ruling class will allow them to go “so far and no further” which is why socialism in its entirety cannot come about through parliamentary elections. Salvador Allende found this out, to his eternal cost, in Chile.

Dr Coulter claims Sinn Fein are apologists for the actions of the Provisional IRA. So, what if they are or they are not. Obviously the man has no recollections of Bombay Street and other areas of Belfast burnt out by loyalist/fascist thugs. It was the emergence of the Provisionals on the scene which prevented these pogroms becoming mass ethnic cleansing. Whatever your opinions of PIRA after then, the fundamental truth remains that they defended Short Strand and stopped the pogroms. Just to finish, Dr Coulter is an apologist for failed capitalist economic policies, but what Sinn Fein are advocating is not socialism based on economic planning, no mention of that. They are promoting a mixed economy, perhaps an injection of Keynesianism in one respect, which will include a nationalised health service, with care free “at the point of need”. This is nothing more radical than what Clement Attlee enacted in the UK, 1945/51. Nothing more radical than that but even these mild reforms appear too much for the correspondent, Dr Coulter. To even suggest these policies would break the Irish economy then it is either not in the great shape we are told it is, or, it is incapable of supporting the health and wellbeing of its population! Don’t listen to this man and others like him, not if you want to see a Doctor the next time you visit a hospital!


Kevin Morley, writer, activist,  author of A Descriptive History of the  Irish Citizen Army & Striking Similarities & The Misogynous President.




Let’s Dispel The Myths

Kevin Morley earlier this week went along to a Sinn Fein rally in Dublin.

On Tuesday February 25th at Liberty Hall, Dublin, Sinn Fein held one of their post-election “public rallies.” It was well attended, many being, but not all, Sinn Fein members as the party’s negotiating team, Pearse Doherty, Eoin O’Broin and Louise O’Reilly (Chair) together with Michelle O’Neil (Vice President) and Mary Lou McDonald (President) took to the stage answering questions from the audience upwards of 400. Questions were varied and reasonably well answered. 

It is clear Sinn Fein are offering a form of socialist government, but that will not deliver socialism. It is one of the contradictions, as Harold Wilson in Britain discovered between 1964 and 1970, which will - should such a government come to pass in the 26 counties - become apparent as a socialist administration tries to govern the affairs of Irish capitalism. 

However, it must be said Sinn Fein’s programme is radical should they get the numbers, and should this happen their main problem will be the attitude of the Irish Ruling Class and their role in the broader capitalist world. They will allow the government of Mary Lou to go so far and no further. If they cross this line then, electoral mandate or not, the ruling classes will move. For this reason, and not trying to spoil the party, socialism can only come about in its true form via the revolutionary removal of capitalism! Capitalism itself did not come about through peaceful means, despite what their apologists might want us to believe. In the early years in England the embryos of mercantile capitalism found it fit to chop off a Kings head. About 144 years later the French bourgeoisie did similarly to their King. 

Among the questions asked were on the plight of migrants in Ireland and Sinn Fein’s opposition to the “Direct Provision scheme” and the housing crisis. The party spokesperson’s, given the time allotted gave as fair answers as they could. Time was limited and there was a packed house to satisfy. I asked a question on health and Sinn Fein’s policy advocating, rightly so, a fully comprehensive, care free at the point of need single tiered health service. Louise O’Reilly (would be Health Minister) answered, again allowing for time restrictions, emphasising the party’s commitment to health care and a system delivering care “free at the point of need without looking at a person’s savings first”. 

All progressive stuff and although not revolutionary certainly radical and definitely doable providing the capitalist class, bankers etc, do not continually put up barriers. That could prove problematic. Why should the bourgeoisie put up barriers and create problems? Simple, because they, as employers, do not need a large healthy workforce as they did in the past. The VHI (Voluntary Health Insurance) provides them with the amount of fit healthy workers they need in the 21st century. This way people pay for their own health care via VHI who, incidentally amass huge profits themselves. They are part of the Irish capitalist class, in turn a component of the international bourgeoisie. 

I referred to the problems faced by Aneurin Bevan, the Minister for Health under the 1945-51 Clement Attlee Labour Government in the UK when the NHS was first formed (1948). Ms O’Reilly, again due to time acknowledged these hurdles but obviously could not go into detail. I then asked if it followed that if the service is to be funded by “general taxation, does it follow Sinn Fein are committed to full employment thus a greater return from Income Tax to pay for the health service”. To this, and I’ll say it was because time would not allow but…? I got no answer. All that said they are committed to tackling the crisis in the health service and addressing the housing problem and epidemic of homelessness, that is unquestionable. 

What they do if, or when, they ever get into government remains to be seen. It is no good saying such crass and unhelpful statements as “it will never work” or “they aren’t right for the economy”. The economy is the rich person's domain, so they want us to believe and, under the present system, this may be the case which is why they, the capitalist class, do not want a radical “government of the left.” They want the electorate to doubt Sinn Fein, they need doubting Thomas’s among the population the better stick with the devil we know mentality. 

To these doubters, not from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, who doubt Sinn Fein’s ability to manage; look at it this way: we have had Fianna Fail Green/coalition, we have had Fine Gael/Labour coalition and both have failed drastically. The Labour Party almost went out of existence due to selling their soul to Fine Gael. Sinn Fein have not yet been given a chance to manage the Irish capitalist economy. I do recommend they look at the problems Wilson faced in the sixties as cracks in the British post-war consensus began to appear.

Now to the problem staring us all in the face. Sinn Fein President, Mary Lou McDonald, emphasised the party’s strenuous efforts made to make the numbers add up. This I do not doubt for one second but at the end of the day will they get the required eighty? It looks unlikely! This throws up the flaws in our, otherwise very fair, electoral system. The electoral system in Ireland, by the standards of other so-called “liberal democracies” is as good as it gets. It is not like in Britain a first past the post system which is very unrepresentative of the electorates wishes. The gaping holes are, however, there to see. We have three parties formerly two – with Sinn Fein, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael receiving roughly the same seats. Sinn Fein can justifiably claim to hold the popular vote and should, therefore be in government. They are quite correct, they should but they have not the numbers. Even with the similarly minded smaller parties and independents they can not make the magical eighty. Neither can Fianna Fail and Fine Gael coming together: they would need smaller parties or party contributing. 

Sinn Fein are still working on this massive problem and, if I were them, which I’m not, then if I could not secure the numbers seek a commitment from those in negotiations with, they will not prop up the other two either together or as individuals. In other words, they, the smaller parties and independents, will not enter government with either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael or a combination of both. This way the least preferred option, from the parliamentarian’s point of view, a second election would be forced. 

It is my cynical view that these two political crooks, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael may have planned this all along. Tell the electorate they will not, under any circumstances enter government with each other, then when the situation suits or demands, pending on your point of view, do exactly that. A clear breach of election pledges by Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to be even talking of such a stitch up. This ploy may well have been their bottom line, last card, all along to keep Sinn Fein out of government. Parliamentary politics is a dirty game, arguably a person, or party, has to be crooked to enter the game! Perhaps Sinn Fein, at the moment the honest brokers, will soon learn.

What could be done to our electoral system to prevent this happening again? Could a rule not be inserted preventing such a comedy of errors happening again? What about something along the lines of the following? In the event of a three way split - as is the case here - and if one of these parties cannot form a government due to lack of numbers with the smaller parties and independents - again, what appears to be the case here - then if two of the parties sharing the tie have been in government together or, have had a governmental pact with each other; confidence and supply for example, then those two parties are forbidden from either coalition or confidence and supply again as it is clearly not the wishes of the electorate. Therefore, another election must be held! This rule would not apply if it were a two-party race but, as we know, at least on this occasion, this is not the case! 

People who did vote for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael did so on the understanding they would not enter into pacts with each other or coalition. I think they have had this planned for some time, perhaps along the lines of: let the Shinners try and form a government, when they can’t because they have not the numbers we, in the national interests will come to the nation's rescue and, against our wishes, but for the good of the country, will save the day! 

Could something along these lines have been concocted some time back by the former big two? Perhaps making electoral fraud a criminal offence could be an idea, then it would be impossible for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to cobble together a crooked coalition having promised they would not! If this was not an option then we would not be wasting time which could be spent going back to the polls.

Finally, Sinn Fein must take their share of the blame for creating such a reservoir for the predatory fish of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to swim. If they, Sinn Fein, had fielded a full team in the first place, then no replay would have been necessary judging by the mood of the electorate. If you do get a replay, Mary Lou, do field your first full team. Half a team of players never won the Sam Maguire but they can influence the result! With the other half on the pitch they might just lift the trophy!!


Kevin Morley, writer, activist,  author of A Descriptive History of the  Irish Citizen Army & Striking Similarities & The Misogynous President.

Political Impasse 26 Counties

Kevin Morley discusses the recent Irish general election in the context of a national health service. 

I can remember exactly where I was back in 1986 when Sinn Fein (Provisional) had taken their momentous decision to break their own rule book entering the twenty-six-county parliament, Dail Eireann. This caused a split in the organisation, not for the first time over the issue of entering Dail politics. Out of this, just as the provisional wing of Sinn Fein came into being, so did Republican Sinn Fein come about. I was sat on the London tube, Northern Line travelling to work at a Builders yard, Waterloo, wearing my work clothes, denims, steel toed boots and a Donkey Jacket still sporting the COAL NOT DOLE stickers from the previous year’s Coal Miner’s Strike. I glanced up and read the headlines of a broadsheet which read; “Uproar As Provos Enter Dail” which was referring to the above mentioned decision by the former revolutionary party to enter the Dail. 

The man reading the newspaper was, in sharp contrast to my dress, wearing his work clothes consisting of a three-piece suit and suede shoes! I recall thinking, fucking wanker! These enterist policies into the world of the bourgeoisie and their parliaments – all parliaments of liberal democracies are institutions geared solely to governing the affairs of the indigenous capitalist class. 

From Congress in the USA to the Bundestag in Germany, then West Germany, including Westminster, this is the role of what I call “Pandoras Boxes”. They are not there to govern the interests of the working-class, we are just led to believe this crap for five minutes every five years or so – I thought, what about the much heralded 32 county socialist republic? This was Sinn Fein policy and for many years afterwards remained, at least in public, to be so. Their paper, An Phobolacht, at least the one sold in Ireland and Britain often referred to the party’s aims of a 32 county democratic socialist republic. The one sold in the USA, I understand, made less reference to socialism, after all can’t be upsetting the capital of bourgeois ideology. The capital in the modern world yes, but not the originators.

As we know in Ireland, 26 counties, we have recently had an election and Sinn Fein are not the only party to drop their revolutionary clothes. People Before Profit, PBP originates from the Socialist Workers Party who trumpeted as their motto: “No Parliamentary Road to Socialism” which is as true today as ever. Their partners, Solidarity, come from the old Socialist Party and espoused a similar revolutionary road towards socialism. The SWP, I remember, ran down O’Connell Street many years back to the astonishment of shoppers shouting in their massed ranks; “one solution, revolution!” Both Sinn Fein and PBP/Solidarity are voteable and preach progressive policies. They are the best of a bad bunch in many respects.

Now we see these former revolutionaries trying to cobble together a “left-wing government” and I wish them well in this venture. The alternative is years of the same tried, tested and failed Fianna Fail and Fine Gael policies. The policies of homelessness, a health service not worthy of the name – no fault of the nurses and doctors employed – and more of these policies will kill, literally, many people. In the case of Fianna Fail they were unlucky enough, in one respect, to have been in office when the international capitalist economies collapsed. They presided over the effects of this in Ireland and could have done a lot more to cushion the blow on working-class people, but they didn’t. They instead, and true to form, looked after their friends in big business.

Sinn Fein and PBP/Solidarity both champion the establishment of a nationalised health service, and rightly so, single tiered with treatment free at the point of need. Modelled closely on the UKs NHS and funded from general taxation, primarily Income Tax, these policies are certainly progressive though not revolutionary. Below I shall briefly examine the UK NHS from its hey-day to present decline.

When the Second World War ended in 1945, the United Kingdom, including the six counties, was in a state of needing repair. In the election of that year the British electorate – not including the six counties, though they benefited for once – voted in by a landslide a labour government. Out went the wartime leader, Winston Churchill – who presided over the war time coalition – who, despite what many said about him being a great wartime leader, which may or may not have been the case, he was too closely remembered for the hard times of the pre-war years, the thirties. Britain (and empire) had been on the winning side, along with the USSR, USA, Canada to name three in the war against fascism and people demanded better. The thirties had been austere years for the working-class in the UK, even in Belfast during the outdoor relief schemes of the early thirties the boss’s biggest fears were evolving before their very eyes. Protestant and Catholic workers were united in their poverty and for a period it looked like the old sectarian divisions were in the process of being broken down. This was more than the employers could face and, as usual, they played the sectarian Orange Card thus resurrecting the age-old divisions between Catholic and Protestant, which Britain used for years as justification for their occupation. The 1945 election saw Churchill kicked out of office and the election of a parliamentary constitutional socialist government headed by Clement Attlee. This was the first ever majority labour administration and Attlee won by a landslide. His manifesto was radical, as were some of his ministers like Aneurin Bevan, a firebrand socialist who believed passionately in health which was the Ministry he was given. Attlee also nationalised some of the major industries, Coal, Rail, Transport to name but three. The programme was not revolutionary but by the standards of the day was radical. The labour government elect also included a broad-based Welfare State which included a National Health Service (NHS). Among the slogans of the welfare state was the maxim; “never again” meaning, “never again will people be means tested” before aid will be given. To cover the whole welfare state would be too broad for this piece so we shall look at the NHS. Aneurin Bevan, Atlee’s Minister for Health had a huge battle with the health professions, doctors in particular and even today most doctors practices, though incorporated into the NHS are in fact private business’s. Hospital Consultants were also a problem who had to be overcome but, and against massive odds, Bevan overcame them.

On July 5th 1948 Bevan unveiled the NHS where treatment would be given “free at the point of need” irrespective of a person’s ability to pay. Gone were the days when before treatment would be given a person’s bank balance had to be checked first. Another part of the post-war labour government’s policies, were the adoption of a mixed economy based on the principles advocated by the economist, John Maynard Keynes known as “Keynesianism.” These policies were geared towards full employment, an essential ingredient for labours vision. The new NHS was to be funded by general taxation, particularly Income Tax, and for this to even stand a chance full employment with everybody paying their share of Income Tax was essential. The UK as a whole needed rebuilding after the war many hands were needed for the task. For this reason, the bourgeoisie never objected to these plans, it would save them paying for the job, and, in many cases, they would profit out of the work which needed doing. Only about five percent of industry was nationalised leaving plenty of spare room for private companies to make money. Of course, a strong, large healthy workforce was needed which provided much impetus for the NHS and full employment. The welfare state provided unemployment benefit, the dole, which nobody claimed because everybody was in employment. Only those between jobs, sometimes called frictional unemployment which was not even registered, were for a short period, usually a week or so, out of work. Nobody claimed the “dole” even though it was considerably more relative to wages, than an unemployed person gets today. This drives a stagecoach through the theory of people not being willing to work, preferring to live off “hanouts”, for a living, often pedalled by the bourgeois media in modern days. The middle-classes, bourgeoisie, knew one day they would get their nationalised industries back, at a cut rate, once the post-war project was complete. How right they were! The political theatre after the war became known as the “Post War Consensus” in Britain – again the six counties were different, one party unionist rule prevailed there – and by consensus it was meant; one party would not do too much to undo what the other party had done while in government. So, in 1951 when Churchill was returned his administration did little if anything to reverse the nationalisation of Attlee and the previous labour government. Similarly, the conservative administration went along with, and even developed, the NHS. They too realised the boss’s needed a strong, large, reliable and healthy workforce to keep industry working and profits coming. If people were off sick, and could not afford healthcare they would be away from work much longer, thus costing the economy money. If they could receive healthcare free at the point of need, the quicker they’d be back at work. This consensus thrived and kept Britain going throughout the fifties and into the sixties. In 1960 Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan once boasted to the British people; “you’ve never had it so good” and this included the jewel in the crown, the NHS.

During the sixties the first cracks appeared in the consensus, as capitalism recovered after the war, it was seen that the NHS costs were rising and therefore, in order to suit the needs of capitalism cuts were introduced by the labour government of Harold Wilson. It was Wilson’s administration who first introduced the closure of coalmines and it was in 1963 that Dr Richard Beeching closed many railway Branch lines which were uneconomical. These cuts became known as; the “Beeching Axe”, officially called “The reshaping of Britain’s Railways” and coupled with the cuts in coal production saw the first reduction in nationalised goods and services. The NHS did not escape these cuts, many rural “cottage hospitals” were closed. In the cities some smaller hospitals were closed in favour of larger, what would later become, “centres of excellence” and specialised hospitals. All the same and despite the cuts the NHS was still the jewel in the crown of the consensus, and the best in Europe. it was also the largest employer in Europe, and still, despite the cuts and privatisation of certain areas one of the largest employers in Europe.

In 1979 the election of Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister signalled the end of the Post War Consensus. She hated the consensus with a vengeance and was determined the nationalised industries would be privatised, and the trade unions, strong in these industries, destroyed as a meaningful force. This was her policy, union bashing culmination with the year-long miner’s strike in 1984/85. She also dispensed with Keynesian economic practices replacing these with those espoused by Milton Freidman and the “Chicago School” of economics, monetarism. There was less emphasis on full employment and much more was aimed at reducing inflation, without telling anybody what the real causes of inflation were/are. If she could blame the unions for inflation, and enough gullible people believed her, then that was good enough. Unfortunately, through her control – unofficial – of the media it worked. Once she had tackled, or reduced the power of the trade unions, the NHS would have to be trimmed, but she was acutely aware this could not be done in one sweep. The people would not stand for her butchering the health service as she had done with other industries. This had to be done bit by bit, and while the cuts were being initiated she continuously told the public, “the NHS is safe in our hands”. By 1990 Thatcher had gone, but Thatcherism lived on and, arguably, still does! With unemployment, purposely rising – this was all a factor in defeating the unions, if people were out of work, the less likely those in employment were to go on strike – meaning again, less income tax revenue. That meant the NHS had to look increasingly more to private investment for funding. Now, private investors do not invest unless a profit can be made. The NHS was/is not supposed to be a profit-making organisation but the private sector would not invest their money unless a profit could be secured. Work it out for yourselves, I won’t insult the readers intelligence with all the details, but the NHS had to, for these people, return them a profit for their investments. Privatisation of certain areas of the NHS was on the cards!

Through the nineties, morale in the NHS among staff was ebbing fast. It was still among the finest health services in Europe but was beginning to look a shadow of its former self. Capitalism no longer needed the large healthy workforce it once did, new technology brought in by private employers deemed workers, human ones, unnecessary. Everybody began to believe the myth unemployment was inevitable, due to “automation and new technology” which of course is bollocks. It is not, was not, the automation of industry which causes unemployment, it is who owns this technology? The new means of production, distribution and exchange, just as their Fordist forerunners and before, right back to the Industrial Revolution, were/are not in themselves responsible for unemployment. Private ownership of the means of production now, as in history, is the cause of unemployment. Therefore, this private ownership is indirectly or otherwise, of the means of production, causing unemployment, is a major factor in the demise of the NHS. In the six counties one major reason against Irish unity the unionists could, with some justification, point to was the disparity in the health systems, north and south. The NHS was leaps and bounds above the HSE in the 26 counties. Not because the Doctors and Nurses were any better in the NHS than the HSE (or its previous name) but because of the structural set up delivering treatment and care free at the point of need practised by the NHS in the six counties. Contrast this with the system in the south, VHI and Medical Cards, and we can see why the NHS comes out well on top. That gap, however, had narrowed in recent decades, not because the HSE has caught up, but because the NHS has digressed. The UK National Health Service, once the jewel in the post war consensus crown, initiated by the government of Clement Attlee, based on the wartime report of William Beverage, is now in the lower part of the European health table. The twenty- six counties are lower but the gap between the two is much narrower!

Last year a report on the state of the finances in the NHS was commissioned. This was compiled by Sir Robert Naylor and has become known as the “Naylor Report” or, “Naylor Review”. It advocates the selling off of NHS “surplus land” and hospitals, disused buildings owned by the NHS, and the money raised used to invest in what is left. Building new hospitals is one way of investing, so we are told, but where? If all the “surplus” land has been sold to private speculators to build houses, private dwellings on, even if the money raised was sufficient, where are any new hospitals going to be built? Hospitals which do not sell land have been told they will be punished. They may be strangled of repair and building monies! To accelerate these sales hospitals will get a “2 – for – 1” offer roughly translated this means, to my understanding, the government steps in and doubles the cash received for the sale. The money to be paid straight to the hospitals, not private developers – supposedly to finance building projects. Again, the question must be asked, if hospitals have sold their land and receive this money, where exactly are they going to build? On new land costing more than the old land, even with the government double money, was sold for. More than what was received for the old land? What would be wrong with the government giving this money without the hospitals selling the land, they, the government, obviously have it, to build or develop for health on the land they already have? This could also lead, in order to get this cash, to the NHS selling land which isn’t really “surplus”! The Naylor Report recommends selling NHS land and buildings worth around £2 billion rising to £5 billion to build homes on. In order to secure this money, cash which should have been there from taxation, is tantamount to a drive to further privatise the NHS. Leading Doctors have criticised the “Naylor Review” claiming it is a drive towards the “complete privatisation” of the NHS.

Various conservative administrations have been dismantling the NHS for many years now while telling people, “the NHS is safe in our hands”. It is akin to telling people the weather outside is warm and sunny when, in reality, there is a foot of snow and freezing. Unfortunately, and despite evidence to the contrary, many people believe what they are told irrespective of what they can see.

Down here in the 26 counties we hear Sinn Fein committed to a national single tiered health service. This is progressive without a doubt, but if they are going to fund it from general taxation they must also be committed to full employment. If this is the case, as surely it must be, then how are they going to force employers to take on staff they do not need? They cannot instruct employers what to do, it would be in breach of neo laissez faire (none governmental interference in the economy) economics. Therefore, it must be assumed in order to secure full employment, to fund, through Income Tax, a national health service free at the point of need, Sinn Fein, or People Before Profit/Solidarity or a combination of both must be committed to full employment, and this can only be done through the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It must therefore follow, that to achieve this the private companies, large ones, must be at least nationalised. However, despite the radicalness of their policies in the build up to the recent Irish election, I heard nothing about breaking with laissez faire economics and governmental involvement in the economy. But it is Sinn Fein policy to build a national health service, single tier based on the British model. That means funding through general taxation which must also mean, everybody paying Income Tax! We can go around the mulberry bush for ever here, but these are essential ingredients, which was why Clement Attlee embraced Keynesianism as the 1945 labour administrations economic policy.

To summarise, 1945 the end of the war. Unlike their predecessors in 1918, the troops coming back from fighting fascism wanted a better society than the one they left behind. They wanted no more means testing, no mor being afraid to visit a Doctor or hospital because they could not afford the fees. For this, among others, the electorate in Britain elected a radical labour government who promised, and delivered, a welfare state including the NHS. Capitalism allowed these radical reforms as it benefited the capitalist class as well as the proletariat. The United States were not entirely happy with the British electorate for rejecting Churchill and, using some bullshit excuse about Britain abusing Marshal Aid, stopped this lifeline to Britain. So much for the special relationship! The “Post War Consensus” briefly explained above, became the status quo between 1945 and, ultimately 1979 which allowed for incoming governments not to dismantle their predecessors achievements. The consensus. Margaret Thatcher dismantled the consensus and arguably introduced a new right-wing variant epitomised by the Tony Blair (New) Labour Government which did little to attack Thatcherism. By this time capitalism, the priority of any government in a liberal democracy, no longer needed the sizable workforce which they did when the NHS first came into being. With unemployment rising, due to various government policies – chiefly conservative administrations – Income Tax revenue was falling leading to less funding which taxation was supposed to pay for. Enter private sector. If taxation was no longer sufficient to fund the NHS, and still they kept giving tax cuts to benefit the rich, then funding would be sought elsewhere. This is clear evidence that governments, despite what they say, are in the business of privatising the NHS. If they were not, even allowing for unemployment, they would stop giving tax breaks to the rich! On to 2019 and the “Naylor Report” and the selling off of NHS land and buildings, including old hospitals which could be refurbished, or, demolished and a new one built on the site!

This in brief is the rise and what looks like the fall of the UK National Health Service. Things not set to improve any time soon, the electorate don’t seem that bothered yet. If they were, they would have voted in a labour government, as they did in 1945! Unfortunately for the people in the six counties who did not vote for Johnson and his version of conservatism they will have to put up with him as their Prime minister. Never mind the Legislative Assembly, they are not, no matter how it is dressed up, the government any more than Greater Manchester Council are!!

Any government or potential government in the twenty-six counties must be prepared to interfere or intervene in the economy if they want to establish a nationalised, single tier health service. Failure to do this will not result in such a service coming into being. Clement Attlee had the Second World War to build his NHS on the back of, the people needed radical change and he broke with all previous protocol and delivered. He intervened, as Keynesian economics allowed, in the economy and delivered his “jewel in the crown”, the NHS. This service applied to all parts of the UK including the six-counties. Today, the ideas of Keynes are points of history as monetarism, which does not allow the scope for the same government intervention in the economy, is the policy of the day. So the question must be asked: how far would the capitalist state allow such intervention? For socialists, it would not matter, the state would have to be engaged to get all measures through and a socialist state established, but would the capitalist economy allow for some moderate intervention in order to deliver a nationalised health service delivering care free at the point of need? Or, would the capitalist class link arms, possibly using the army if matters were to go too far threatening their state based on profits for the boss’s? Chile was an example of a constitutional government, socialist, under Salvador Allende being overthrown when the capitalist class felt he, Allende, had gone too far. It resulted in a fascist takeover and cost Allende his life. The capitalist world looked on and did nothing why? Probably because they felt under such circumstances, they would have done the same, their armed forces and their police would take out the government! If anybody has seen the film; A Very British Coup about a left-wing British Prime Minister brought down by the state they’d see what I mean. The film epitomises the power of the state over governments. Would this happen here in Ireland if any government, constitutional government, broke with aspects of laissez faire? These are all arguments for the old maxim; “no parliamentary road to socialism”, which brings us to the meaning of left-wing and right-wing. Left-wing tends to be those committed to social change and sit on the left wing of parliament. It originates from the French Revolution and is a bourgeois political concept. Right-wing tends to be the forces of conservatism who sit on the right wing of parliament. Therefore, in the British parliament the labour MPs sit on the left wing or left side of parliament, the conservatives sit opposite. In the former USSR the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) would be considered right-wing, wishing to conserve the status quo, whereas Boris Yeltsin, who wished to dismantle communism – Soviet version – was considered left-wing. During the fall of the USSR western media often mentioned “conservative communists” a contradiction in terms to most people listening or reading. They simply meant the people who were in power at the time, the CPSU who wished to conserve the status quo.

Whether you agree with the revolutionary road to socialism, or still believe a parliamentary avenue remains open one thing all must agree on is; we need a new health service, free for all at the point of need! Just as Clement Attlee’s labour administration back in the forties brought about the NHS and nationalised certain industries which, as it turned out were only on loan, as progressive these moves were, they did not equal socialism. Socialism cannot coexist with capitalism and of all the isms the one which capitalism fears is socialism. Capitalism can coexist, even thrive, under fascism and as history tells us, under certain conditions the capitalist class will resort to it as their saviour. Nationalisation of industry, a move in the correct direction certainly, must not be confused or mistaken with “workers control of the means of production” it is not the same. The latter cannot be brought about without the removal of capitalism. If a Sinn Fein and possibly PBP/Solidarity coalition ever do bring about an Irish variant of the NHS, funded by general taxation, and if the capitalist state allow it, that same capitalist state can take it away. Just look at the UK! It will not be a substitute for the Socialist Republic which Sinn Fein once claimed to subscribe to, remember? That fight must continue!!


Kevin Morley, writer, activist,  author of A Descriptive History of the  Irish Citizen Army & Striking Similarities & The Misogynous President.

Socialism: Revolution or Reform? A National Health Service


Kevin Morley answers thirteen questions in a Booker's Dozen.


TPQ: What book are you currently reading?

KM: I am presently reading two books, The Irish Civil War 1922-23 by Eoin Neeson and Rebels by Peter De Rosa. The latter is an in depth account of the events leading up to the Easter Rising, Easter Week and the aftermath. This is an in depth read although it does contain some erroneous statements and what passes for fact. For example, Dr Kathleen Lynn was the MO for the Irish Citizen Army not the Irish Volunteers. She did treat volunteers obviously but De Rossa implies she was IVF before ICA which simply is not true. The two organisations were allies but never merged as many think the ICA always maintained its autonomy and ideological differences.

TPQ:
Best book you have ever read?

KM: My favourite read, which inspired me to write my latest book, is The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist by Robert Tressell (Noonan). A political novel of exploitation and poverty suffered by the working-class and in particular the story outlining the lives of a bunch of house painters.

TPQ: A must read before you die?

KM: I would like to read the full works of Dickens before I die.

TPQ: A preference for fact or fiction?

KM: My own preference is marginally for fact, though fact can be transmitted via fiction, if that makes sense, for example in my The Misogynous President many factual events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Watergate. All these are in this book and the response of the wholly fictitious characters.

TPQ: Favourite female author?

KM: As a child I liked, for some reason, Enid Blyton, but in adult reading I have read several female authors works and one which struck me was The Rebel Countess a biography of Constance Markievicz by Anne Marreco. I found this a very interesting read. I can not say with any definitive clarity to have a favourite female author as there are many.

TPQ: Favourite male author?

KM: When I was at Junior school I read C.S Lewis particularly The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe a book I remember well. I have enjoyed reading the works of Charles Dickens. Like the question on my favourite female author I do not really have a preferred male author. Tim Pat Coogan has written good works, there are many. No real preference.

TPQ: First book you ever read?

KM: I read Enid Blyton’s books as a child, I cannot remember which one first. During my adolescence my only real concern in life was Matt Busby and Manchester United FC. Reading and education from about the age of ten was, to me, irrelevant. I did like writing but at my secondary school surviving the day was an achievement. I really can not remember with any clarity the first book I ever read. There was one kiddies' book about a squirrel called Rufty Tufty, Policeman Badger and Harry Hare. I would have been about four years old and can remember that, the Rufty Tufty Club. Whether this counts as a book or not is open to interpretation. Does the 1968 edition of Roy of the Rovers count? Or the 1969 Football Facts with a front cover picture of Matt Busby with the European Cup, does this count?

TPQ: Favourite childhood author?

KM: Again the one which sticks out in my memory was Enid Blyton. Her children’s books, particularly Noddy and Big Ears stories were amusing.

TPQ:  Any book you point blank refuse to read?

KM: No, I’ll read most material even if I disagree. How would I know I disagree if I don’t read the material. To be in a position to argue you must know what you are arguing against.

TPQ: Any author you point blank refuse to read?

KM:  No, not really, how can I criticise a persons work, i.e. Mein Kampf by Hitler, unless I read it?That particular book made no sense and was littered with lies, as you would expect. It exaggerated his time working on the building sites and Hitler's arguments both orally and in writing made no sense. The same rule of logic, regards my right to criticise, applies to other authors as they must retain that right to disagree with me.

TPQ: Pick a book to give somebody so that they would more fully understand you.

KM: My latest book, The Misogynous President would give the reader a clear understanding of my politics, the rich and powerful parasites, as I see them. I used poetic license when writing the book but given various statements given by numerous individuals about the real-life incumbent President, not least Michael Cohen my exaggerations are not so exaggerated. In face some may argue my fictitious analysis of bourgeois USA is in fact, in many instances understated. I would recommend this book to get clearer understanding of my perceptions of what we are pleased to call, “the real world”.

TPQ: Last book you gave as a present?

KM: I gave my dad, a former trade unionist, a copy of Striking Similarities which he is enjoying reading. The book is fact to the letter about Thatcher’s assault on the miners and the working class in general. It also, as I said above, covers the 1913/14 Dublin Lockout.

TPQ: Book you would most like to see turned into a movie?

KM: After my own book, The Misogynous President which I think would make a brilliant movie, an epic due to the years covered in the characters life, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist would make a great film. It has been performed on stage, most recently at Liberty Hall, but to my knowledge there has never been a film made. Taking preference would be my book which, I believe, is written in such a way a movie based on the book would not present a problem. Any film makers out there take a look, I think it would be a goer. The Misogynous President covering the life and downfall of a man who becomes the most powerful person in the western world is great film material.


Kevin Morley, writer, activist,  author of A Descriptive History of the  Irish Citizen Army & Striking Similarities & The Misogynous President.

Booker's Dozen @ Kevin Morley