Kmflett's Blog

Undercover Policing Inquiry resumes: outrageous behaviours & historical documents

The first public hearings of the long running Spycops inquiry were  held in November 2020. Another round was held in April and May 2021 and now after a protracted delay a third round of hearings and evidence has started at a hotel in Marble Arch (with on-line coverage)

A lot of mundane police reports underline where officers were wasting their own time. They have also pointed to police  activity which was at best of doubtful legality, such as intervening in the internal affairs of trade unions, and some that was simply outrageous such as undercover officers fathering children with activists they were spying on. Other appalling issues covered include police surveillance of activists seeking to discover the truth about the murder of Blair Peach at an anti-fascist protest in Southall in 1979 and officers spying on school students who opposed the National Front.

As Tariq Ali giving evidence in an earlier hearing noted, given the Establishment background of the chair, restrictions on questioning witnesses and failure to provide some information it seems unlikely that when the inquiry does eventually conclude it will lead to anything particularly useful in terms of addressing the behaviour of the police and the Secret State.

What has been provided however are partial but considerable volumes of reports on left-wing meetings and groups.

In that sense they provide a useful resource for future historians both in terms of what it was the police thought it worth spying on and also digitised documents which are unlikely to have been otherwise retained for posterity. Whether that justifies the resource and expense involved is another matter.

Some detail around the public hearings

Histories of the present: Johnson lies but he doesn’t resign he has to be sacked

Ministers are resigning again but will Johnson take the hint? Recent history suggests not.

One idea behind Keir Starmer’s statement that he will resign if Durham police find he broke the law over what is known as Beergate, seems to be that he is a man of ‘honour and integrity’ and Johnson should be held to the same standard. Leaving aside the point that it would be surprising indeed if Durham police had much honour or integrity themselves, Johnson’s career record suggests it won’t work.

Boris Johnson is not someone given to resigning. It no doubt goes back to his Eton days when it was noted that he felt that rules that applied to everyone else did not apply to him.

This clearly applies to his current job as Prime Minister. Pressed by Keir Starmer and others to resign after Sue Gray’s initial report into Downing St’s numerous lockdown parties, Johnson evaded the issue, blamed others and claimed he was just the person to sort matters out. A brief history of Johnson underlines that he has only ever resigned once and that was because it suited his personal ambition.

Johnson has departed from several journalistic jobs at the Times and the Spectator but he has also been sacked as a politician.

In 2004 when Michael Howard was leader of the Opposition, Johnson was Shadow Arts Minister and Tory Vice-Chair. He had an affair with Petronella Wyatt and she became pregnant. She decided to have an abortion and Johnson tried to keep the matter out of the public domain.

However news of it started to appear in the tabloid press. Johnson tried unsuccessfully to lie his way out of it. Howard decided that Johnson would have to go not over the affair or the abortion but because he had lied about it. He instructed his spokesman Guy Black to speak to Johnson and get him to resign. Johnson refused. After watching a Liverpool football match Howard then spoke directly to Johnson at 6.30pm and sacked him. It was November 13th 2004.

Johnson’s view was that only by being sacked would get sympathy, a resignation would not do it.

There is an exception that belongs in a different category. In July 2018 he resigned as Foreign Secretary in Theresa May’s Government. He had done nothing wrong on this occasion (in fact he had done very little in the role at all). The issue was that he wanted a harder Brexit than May. His resignation was part of the strategy to get elected as Tory leader in get the harder Brexit he wanted.

Many might feel that what he actually wanted was not a particular kind of Brexit but the position of PM which he thought his 2 11 would get him- correctly. As ever it was all about Johnson’s personal fortunes.

Even if Starmer does resign one doubts Johnson will take the hint

Source Sonia Purnell, Just Boris

The media & smearing Labour leaders. A long history

Some senior Labour figures are complaining that the media are ‘smearing’ Keir Starmer on what is known as #beergate. A sub text is the argument that the left are also to blame for this because they don’t like Starmer. The problem with this is that while that may be true to some extent Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets are not predisposed to carrying stories originating from the left who they dislike even more than Starmer.

Some of the complainees who have not been paying attention to the history of the Labour Party seem to think that smearing Labour and its leader is new. It is not. We need only think back to the Zinoviev letter in the 1920s to understand that. The idea that Labour leaders are linked to Russia has been a constant until recently(no one I think can claim Starmer is a secret friend of Putin). Harold Wilson was accused of being a Russian spy (this story originated in a faction of the security services- see Peter Wright, Spycatcher). While the old Soviet Union certainly had friendly relations with a few backbench MPs, the CIA had much better ones. That did not feature in the media.

Michael Foot was also smeared by the Times as being a Communist spy and won libel damages. Ed Miliband was smeared for having a left-wing father (Ralph) and for eating a bacon sandwich.

Jeremy Corbyn was subject to numerous smears, none with any serious foundation (in my view) and one can understand why the Murdoch’s et al had an interest in attacking him.

The point is that Labour leaders are invariably smeared by a right-wing media, and in the case of Corbyn some of the liberal media too.

Only one leader, Tony Blair, successfully grappled with this, but even that had a timebound success.

New Labour believed that winning an Election without Murdoch on board would be difficult.

As early as August 16th 1994 Alastair Campbell was recording in his diary:

‘I’d read an interview with Murdoch in Der Spiegel in which he said he could see himself backing Blair. TB said he was probably messing around. I wasn’t so sure. The right wing have had it with Major, and I think we can really make trouble. The aim should be to keep the left press on board, neutralise the Mail, and if possible get the S*n to back us’.

The S*n did end up backing Labour in 1997 and Campbell went on to write many pieces for Blair that appeared in the paper.

The point is that it suited Murdoch because while he may not have loved Blair (that much) he wanted to see the back of the Tories until they found someone more competent (in his mind) than Major.

Murdoch has long seemed to have favoured Gove to replace Johnson (in my reading anyway) and if Starmer is collateral damage to that I doubt he will feel concerned.

Beard Liberation Front

8^th May

Contact BLF Organiser Keith Flett 07803 167266

Campaigners welcome Ncuti Gatwa, a rare hirsute Dr Who

The Beard Liberation Front, the informal network of beard wearers, has welcomed the news that Ncuti Gatwa is to be the new Dr Who. The actor sports a stylish moustache and is a rare example of a hirsute Dr Who.

The campaigners say that hirsuteness has rarely been a feature of the Doctor over the years. Dr Whos Nos 4 and 11 were briefly seen with beards and the late John Hurt who appeared in an earlier transformation episode in 2013 did wear a beard. He was later named joint Beard of the Year 2013 for that role.

The BLF has campaigned for the new Dr Who to be hirsute and is pleased at the appointment of Ncuti Gatwa.

BLF Organiser Keith Flett said, follicle power must surely be a key element of the Doctor in 2022 and Ncuti Gatwa is spot on.

Brewdog: Free Shares & Profit Sharing. The devil is in the detail

Brewdog has announced plans for free shares and profit sharing for employees. Brewdog have now published details:

https://www.brewdog.com/uk/brewdog-blueprint

They have also announced they are re-branding their bars as 50/50 to reflect their employee profit sharing scheme.

In essence 750 salaried employees (Brewdog employs a bit over 2,200) will receive shares which Brewdog say might be worth £30K a year over 4 years. It’s not certain. The shares will initially be held in trust (common in such schemes) and can be sold when Brewdog launches an IPO or is sold for whatever value they then have. As often in such schemes anyone leaving before this happens will lose the shares. Hence it is a staff retention issue.

The remaining employees will share profits from the bars they work in. Brewdog says this could amount to £3-5K a year. Such schemes depend a lot on the criteria which determine how they pay out- for example, how is the profit worked out. Brewdog have shared a worked example in their blueprint. Without knowing how much staff are actually paid (based on hours worked)- Brewdog pays the living wage-it’s hard to judge what this will mean in cash terms

Brewdog describe these moves as ‘innovative’. I’m not an expert in the hospitality sector-aside from drinking and eating in it obviously- so that may be right, although Wetherspoons has had an employee share scheme since 1998. They are quite common in the private sector however often (but not always) offered to promote staff loyalty in preference to recognising a union.

The blueprint implies that in 2022 so far staff turnover is running at (very roughly) 25%. I have nothing to compare that against, although in the area where I work as a union officer it would be considered very high even currently. A certain level of staff turnover is normal and balances new skills against experience. However there is cost. Each new staffer needs training and will take a while to be fully effective.

It may be that all this will help staff retention certainly, although experience suggests that for many the core issues of decent wages and conditions matter a lot more than share handouts and profit sharing which are always uncertain things.

Pensions should be but usually aren’t a core issue for younger workers but the blueprint notes Brewdog will pay up to a 10% contribution to a DC pension. That’s a decent amount except it doesn’t say how much an employee needs to contribute to attract that. Where unions are recognised these things are subject to detailed negotiations not least because the cost is significant.

My private sector employer offers free shares on an annual basis and a yearly bonus but trade unions are also recognised. It’s understood that while the shares and bonus have their place feeling content at work with an employer that behaves reasonably is more important to many.

The blueprint refers to a weekly meeting to look at equality and diversity. One hopes that notes of the meetings and in particular what actions are taking place are sent to all employees. It doesn’t say. It also reveals that the staff representative forum has got Brewdog to make some staff welfare changes. Good and not so unusual for such forums. What it doesn’t do of course is to negotiate wages or indeed any of the above. Brewdog really need to say why it doesn’t. Announcements like the blueprint are one thing but it doesn’t suggest an employer/employee partnership, even if it implies it.

Ambridge Socialist

8th May

An necessary defeat: Grey Gables closes with no fight for jobs

Adil Shah and Oliver Stirling noted the strength of the Ambridge Socialist May Day rally and acted to try and address growing anger amongst the Grey Gables workforce over the hotel’s sudden closure. They offered the existing manager Kathy Perks a job on a new contract to manage the transition to new Grey Gables after she slammed their failure to consult staff. Roy reneged on the attempt to fight for jobs & grovelled to Shah for the job, but it didn’t work as grovelling never really does.

They are also ‘considered’ whether some staff with shorter service such as Tracy might get a better pay off. However Shah has decided that the criteria for such a payment must be performance and not service. More viciousness. They then offer a free bar to all staff on the final night-Thursday.

Ambridge Socialist Editor Keith Flett said, sadly despite anger Grey Gables closed without the fight which we urged. A fight to save jobs might not have been successful but never trying it was a guarantee of failure.

Redundancy and class

Tracy will get little money from statutory redundancy at Grey Gables particularly now Shah has blocked a bonus. There are bills to pay, living expenses and food to buy. Meanwhile Ian and Adam have been reviewing how to spend his redundancy money(and additional bonus) which according to some reports may be towards £30K with a 3 month enhancement on statutory terms. That is not a huge amount but in a low wage economy far from insignificant. They have invested in a pizza oven with Ian looking to set up a street food business.

Grundy update

Eddie Grundy was heard this week, the first time in 2022 and a gap of 103 episodes. The usual discrimination against the proletarian characters of Ambridge (thanks to Academic Archers who keep an eye on these things)

A farewell to Kathy Perks

Kathy Perks has left Ambridge to go on a round the world adventure and won’t return. She has been a feature of Ambridge life since 1983 with an interesting attraction to pub landlords, first Sid Perks and then Kenton Archer. Latterly she was bullied out of a job at the golf club by Martyn Gibson and departed for the now closed Grey Gables. She was definitely one of those Ambridge residents who sided with the many not the few

Beard Liberation Front

8^th May

Contact BLF Organiser Keith Flett 07803 167266

Keir Starmer needs an election winning beard

The Beard Liberation Front, the informal network of beard wearers, has called on Labour leader Keir Starmer to grow an election winning beard after the Party’s patchy performance in polls on 5^th May.

A common view is that while Labour did advance it was not likely to be sufficient to achieve a decisive victory at a General Election.

Some commentators such as Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian (7^th May) questioned whether Sir Keir lacks electoral charisma, but the campaigners say that it is image that is key.

The Labour leader presents as a clean-shaven middle-aged man in a smart suit and while this is far better than the perpetually dishevelled Johnson, it is not an image or brand that sticks in voter’s minds.

The campaigners say that Starmer should look to his namesake Keir Hardie, the original Labour beard and grow facial hair.

Beards come in all shapes and sizes so it’s not necessary for Starmer to copy the award-winning beard of former leader Jeremy Corbyn. Rather he can choose a radically different beard style, making a clear point of difference while also presenting a striking image.

BLF Organiser Keith Flett said, Keir Starmer’s hair is always carefully styled, it’s a trademark. He now needs to link this with a well designed and maintained beard to present a really distinctive election winning image to voters.

The long 2018? The problem with ‘Long Corbyn’

Labour’s election performance in England was good in some parts of London and also patchy elsewhere with some progress on 2018 but arguably not enough.

John Curtice who comments on elections, and often brings an independent perspective beyond Party spin (not one I always agree with btw) has argued that Labour did slightly better under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership 4 years ago. Perhaps although comparisons are difficult.

Some Labour commentary has blamed ‘long Corbyn’, an argument that people don’t vote Labour because they recall the last Labour leader. There is an obvious problem with this even if we assume it’s true. Far from everyone disliked Corbyn and those in that area may well feel that his current treatment by Labour is enough to swerve a Labour vote. In fact people who take that view regularly pop up on my twitter timeline. Its one I understand but it leads to another discussion about alternatives. Jeremy Corbyn himself called for a Labour vote on Thursday

Not expectedly the Observer Editorial (8.5) goes on about ‘long Corbyn’ arguing how difficult it is for Starmer’s Labour to recover from the 2019 General Election result. The problem with this point is that the elections in 2022 were local ones and they were last fought in 2018. What Labour actually needed to do was to further build on the modest successes of that year.

Historians are familiar with the concept of ‘long’ and indeed ‘short’. Eric Hobsbawm wrote of the long nineteenth century (to 1914) and the short twentieth century for example.

Politically though its often an excuse. Those who are old may well recall Harold Wilson using the phrase ‘thirteen years of Tory misrule’ at the 1964 Election. There was truth in it but it was still used when he was PM but he himself might reasonably have been expected to be accountable for events.

There are other issues with Long Corbyn, even if you think it has some validity, it only works in England (and only patchily even then). Firstly Johnson is clearly and rightly deeply unpopular but that doesn’t mean voters turning to Labour. The LibDems and Greens did well and arguably better than Labour in many areas.

Secondly Labour, in office in Cardiff Bay, put in an improved performance in Wales. Was that Long Corbyn? Does it also apply to Labour’s welcome improvement in Scotland? In London the loss of Tower Hamlets to Aspire suggests that at least there Labour has successfully ditched the Corbyn legacy. Islamophobia a serious issue in society as much as anti-Semitism, has not been a priority for Labour recently. Clearly the voters of one part of East London noticed, although that was not the only factor at work.

Talk of Long Corbyn is a distraction at best. If Labour is serious about winning an Election and I hope it is (Johnson needs to go) it needs to stare reality in the face not play silly games.

May 5^th elections, North London & ‘Metropolitan elites’

In a speech at a recent Tory Conference Priti Patel claimed, despite being born in Islington, that what she referred to as the ‘North London, Metropolitan, Liberal elite’ were the people she was aiming her reactionary remarks at.

The term has re-appeared in media coverage of the May 5^th local election results in England. In London did well. In my own Borough of Haringey Labour took 50 seats to the LibDems 7 their best result since 1998. Labour’s performance outside of London was patchy, some excellent results and some less good.

The claim is that Labour focuses on the interests of Londoners which are somehow different to people elsewhere.

People living in Tottenham, which last time I checked was definitely in North London, may wonder what this is all about. The area contains some of the more deprived, in terms of poverty, Council Wards in the UK. London overall has a higher portion of people living in poverty than anywhere else in the country.

The Tottenham Parliamentary Constituency contains few if any elites, or indeed liberals in a Party sense. It does contain lots of working-class people who have been on the sharp end of the policies of the Government for the last 12 years and want it to end. Now.

Keith Flett is a born & bred North Londoner, long time Tottenham resident & former Secretary of Haringey Trades Union Council

Beard Liberation Front

7^th May

James Anderton (1932-2022) was never a member of the Beard Liberation Front

The Beard Liberation Front, the informal network of beard wearers, has confirmed that the former Chief Constable of Manchester James Anderton who has died at 89 was never a member.

Anderton whose image trademark was what the Murdoch Times obituary called an ‘Old Testament’ beard came from a strong Labour family and was for many years a Methodist lay preacher.

However he was obsessively homophobic and also an opponent of anyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher complaining that police committees were taken over by ‘Trotskyists’.

BLF organiser Keith Flett said, James Anderton may have had an organic beard but the word liberation was not in his dictionary. He clearly preferred damnation