Articles

Labour victory in Peterborough reflects importance of mass membership over social media

In Uncategorized on June 7, 2019 by kmflett

Labour victory in Peterborough reflects importance of mass membership & organisation

Labour has won the Peterborough By-Election by 683 votes slightly more than when it won it in 2017 with a 607-vote majority. As recently as 2010 it had lost to the Tories there by almost 5,000 votes and still trailed by 2000 in 2015.

What has changed? Brexit is the obvious answer but there is another more important matter which is referred to in some media as Labour’s grassroots campaign.

I don’t know how many members Labour has in Peterborough or indeed nationally. People leave and join organisations all the time for a variety of reasons (including unfortunately death) but its probably reasonable to think that the current national membership is somewhere in the region of half a million people. That figure is hugely up on 5 years ago and the rise has clearly come after Jeremy Corbyn became leader.

However this post is not about Corbyn or his beard.

The reality is that even in the age of social media and 24-hour news a political organisation that has members in communities and workplaces, or has sufficient activists to put people regularly out talking to people in those areas has both a significant organisational advantage and a good place in what might be called the battle of ideas.

Labour’s continuing links with some major trade unions also allowed it to put seasoned activists on the ground who knew exactly what the issues people at work, also voters, face.

Despite the fact numerous political commentators, pundits, pollsters and Editorial writers clearly think they can determine the result of things like the Peterborough By-Election, they can’t when a party with a large membership is active, not even in the political hothouse of a one off contest.

The downside that the Brexit Party had, aside obviously from the racist and far-right associations of its leader, is that is has no members and no structure. It, and particularly Farage, has a significant media presence and can hold reasonably sized rallies. On the ground however it has nothing. Farage’s previous vehicle UKIP only won seats when it stood a candidate like Reckless (who is currently in the Brexit Party) who defected from the Tories with some organisation to go with it.

It is an interesting reflection on where the balance of impact lies between social media and people power. There is still no alternative to talking to people and nor is there likely to be. There is also no real alternative to organising on the ground, despite all the sound and fury of social media.

However just to make sure I’ll be posting this on twitter and Facebook

Articles

Daily Telegraph restaurant review: As Retsina should stay in Greece and beards in Hackney

In Uncategorized on June 7, 2019 by kmflett

Beard Liberation Front

Media release 7th June

contact Keith Flett 07803 167266

Telegraph restaurant review focuses as much on beards as the food

William Sitwell the clean shaven food critic who had to resign as Editor of Waitrose’s food magazine after making ill judged comments about vegans has now turned his attention to beards.

In a review of a new restaurant in Marylebone, Sitwell seems as keen to comment on beards as he does about the food.

He notes:

This new place is a sister to Delamina East, an Israeli restaurant that turned into bricks and mortar after starting as a Shoreditch pop-up. The latter is the sort of thing that people chat about in London. Trendy people, people with beards who may or may not tuck their shirts in (I can’t keep up).

BLF Organiser Keith Flett said, is there some relationship between beard wearing and tucking your shirt in or not and does it have anything to do with food? Sitwell needs to grow a beard and re-think things

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/restaurants/william-sitwell-reviews-delamina-london-trendy-people-people/

Articles

The size of the crowd: Trump in London 3 & 4 June 2019 Part 1

In Uncategorized on June 7, 2019 by kmflett

The size of the crowd: Trump in London 3 & 4 June 2019

The size of crowds continues to be the subject of much discussion both in the media and in academia.

Indeed I came across an academic who is probably best described as a risk management professional who aims to look at the size of projected crowds to make sure there are no safety issues. A sensible idea no doubt but not something you can project back into history when ideas of how many people could fit into a particular space were different.

Even after the Chartist demonstration on Monday 10th April 1848 there was argument about how big the numbers might have been based on an assessment of how large a space at that time Kennington Common was. And that argument is still going on 170 years later.

This brings us to the numbers who were protesting about Donald Trump or supporting him on his State visit.

Whatever Mr Trump may have been told the numbers who turned up to view the procession  of his car (note not ceremonial coach) to Buckingham Palace on Monday were, well, close to no one. There were certainly more police officers and pigeons.

When Trump was last here in July 2018 there was a very large, perhaps 250,000 strong, central London demonstration on a rather warm Friday afternoon against him and his politics. The leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn spoke, although the entire media and some Labour MPs managed to forget that in the 11 months since. Even short-term historical memory is becoming an issue now it seems.

That made it possibly the largest week day protest in UK history. Another contender was the demonstration when George W Bush came to London in November 2003 not long after the Iraq War:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3223780.stm

The demonstration on Tuesday 4th June against Trump which moved from Trafalgar Square to a rally in Whitehall was not as large although there were certainly very decent numbers present particularly for a late morning mid-week protest, around 75,000.

Could it have been even larger given how much Trump is hated? If there was a precise answer I wouldn’t be writing historically focused pieces about crowds and their history but instead have made my millions in the predictions business and retired.

Some possibilities are that it was an 11am start on a Tuesday meaning it was probably a bit more difficult for those in work to get there than say a late Friday afternoon. Many jobs involve working 5 or more days over variable patterns but in the world of professionals where I’m a union officer the working week in an actual office tends to be Tuesday to Thursday and that is a big factor in terms of London employment, which will always supply the majority of protesters on any demonstration. They can just turn up, mostly, few special arrangements to travel etc are required. However Tuesday might be more difficult than a Monday or a Friday.

The weather probably didn’t help either. The forecast was for sun and showers but in fact changed to some rather heavy downpours. One reason why the Chartist demonstration on 10th April 1848, however big it was dispersed so quickly was that it rained in the early afternoon.

Finally it may be that some have just go ‘demo fatigue’ when it comes to Trump. Pretty much every one but him knows he is hated and some may think the point has been made.

In my view you can never make it too often but I’m trying to understand protest crowds here not argue about why people should protest.

 

 

Articles

Protests against foreign tyrants 1850-2019. The consistency of Times’ Editorials

In Uncategorized on June 5, 2019 by kmflett

Protests against foreign tyrants from 1850-2019 & the consistency of Times Editorials

The Times was not happy about the London protest against President Trump on Tuesday. In an Editorial (5th June) it opined: ‘The public have a right to protest but Labour’s leadership should have no part of it’.

It is prepared to concede that there is a right to protest but is concerned that the Labour Party should be involved.

It’s view has not changed a great deal since 1850.

In September 1850 an Austrian soldier, Julius Von Haynau who was thought to have been responsible for acts of brutality in suppressing the 1848 revolutions in Europe, visited London. He got a rather robust reception from brewery workers on London’s South Bank. More robust it must be said that Trump got this week:

https://kmflett.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/before-trump-how-chartist-brewery-workers-dealt-with-a-foreign-tyrant-in-london-in-1850/

In the world of 2019 Haynau might well have been tried as a war criminal but not in 1850.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Jacob_von_Haynau

The Times was suspicious of how the brewery workers knew who Haynau was, and clearly suspected Chartists. The link is not proven but London Chartists did hold a public meeting in support of the workers and in opposition to Haynau with Chartist leader Feargus O’Connor (the Jeremy Corbyn of the day, sort of) speaking.

The Times Editorial condemned the protest (September 7th 1850).

It concluded:

‘The scandal and disgrace are that of the establishment at large, but a heavier reckoning is due from those who, with such an utter disregard of what they owed to their employers and the community, have exposed the character of Englishness to the contempt of the world’.

Meanwhile in 2019 The Times Editorial argued that making any kind of protest against Trump was being ‘discourteous to the Queen’ as it was a State visit.

So there we are. Protest is not English. Well at least that’s the Times Editorial view from 1850 t0 2019

 

Articles

London Socialist Historians book launch, Mon 10th June, Marika Sherwood on Nkrumah & the Cold War

In Uncategorized on June 5, 2019 by kmflett

London Socialist Historians Group

5th June

contact Dr Keith Flett 07803 167266

London Socialist Historians seminar & book launch. Marika Sherwood on Nkrumah & the Dawn of the Cold War, 10th June

The London Socialist Historians Group, which organises the socialist history seminar at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London*, has said that leading socialist historian Marika Sherwood will launch and speak on her new book (Pluto) on Nkrumah and the dawn of the Cold War on Monday 10th June.

The event is at Bookmarks Bookshop, 1 Bloomsbury St, WC1B 3QE at 6.30pm on Monday 10th June

LSHG Convenor Keith Flett said, we are pleased to be able to launch this important new research into the origins of the Cold War at Bookmarks, one of the leading socialist bookshops in the UK, and delighted to be working again with Marika Sherwood

About the book

The West African National Secretariat (WANS) has almost been forgotten by history. A pan-Africanist movement founded in 1945 by Kwame Nkrumah and colleagues in London and France, WANS campaigned for independence and unity. Nkrumah returned to the Gold Coast in late 1947. The colonial government accused him of being a communist and fomenting the riots of early 1948. He was jailed. This led to the beginning of the Cold War in West Africa.

Drawing on archival research including the newly released MI5 files, Marika Sherwood reports on the work of WANS, on the plans for a unity conference in October 1948 in Lagos, and on Nkrumah’s return home. Sherwood demonstrates that colonial powers colluded with each other and the US in order to control the burgeoning struggles for independence. By labelling African nationalists as ‘communists’ in their efforts to contain decolonisation, the Western powers introduced the Cold War to the continent.

Providing a rich exploration of a neglected history, this book sheds light for the first time on a crucial historical moment in the history of West Africa and the developmental trajectory of West African independence.

Articles

Virat Kohli joins race for the Beard of the Cricket World Cup

In Uncategorized on June 5, 2019 by kmflett

Beard Liberation Front

5th June

Contact Keith Flett 07803 167266

Virat Kohli joins race for the Beard of the Cricket World Cup, the W G Grace Prize, poll

The Beard Liberation Front has said that the search for the Beard of the 2019 Cricket World Cup is underway.

The poll of well-known hirsute cricketers who are playing is now on-line

India play their first game on June 5th and that sees Indian captain Virat Kohli enter the race

His beard is admired worldwide but perhaps particularly in India. A recent survey of hirsute men in Jaipur found one claiming:

“I have always wanted to have a beard like that of Indian cricketers, particularly Virat Kohli.

In the beginning was WG Grace but in the twentieth century cricket went to the barbers. So much so that by the early 1960s a major shaving company was sponsoring one day cricket and players deemed insufficiently clean shaven were sometimes sent from the field to sort it out.

In the twenty first century beards in cricket are back from Moeen to Hashim. Its now understood that a beard can have a psychological impact on opponents after Mike Brearley pioneered the point. Beards can also have an aero-dynamic impact on play itself.

Beards will play an important, perhaps vital, role in the World Cup. But who will have the winning whiskers?

Contenders could include Moeen Ali, Hashim Amla and Virat Kohli. Competition is expected to bristle as the competition goes on

However the Beard Liberation Front has said that to be eligible the beard must at least pass the Clint Eastwood post-stubble test & will ideally be more in the WG Grace beard zone

Pakistan’s Mohammed Hafeez has become the latest player to join the poll after a magnificent 84 against England at Trent Bridge

BLF Organiser Keith Flett said, at the moment Moeen Ali is the player to beat but every game brings hairy moments for the contenders, and Virat Kohli could turn out to be the beard to shave for the others.

 

 

Articles

A new Tory leader: democracy as it was before the 1832 Reform Act. Old Corruption

In Uncategorized on June 5, 2019 by kmflett

A new Tory Party leader: democracy as it was before the 1832 Reform Act. Old Corruption

A timetable has been announced for the election of the Tory leader to replace Theresa May, and hence a new Prime Minister and it is set to take place with the process starting next week.

A new unelected PM will be in place by July 22nd.

The selection of the leader, and PM, relies on a ballot of Tory MPs who will in a series of votes reduce the number of candidates to two. These will then go to a ballot of the Tory membership which is reported to be 160,000.

It is democracy but not as we know it.

Of course Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair but was never elected at a General Election. That said the succession plan was public knowledge when Blair was elected in 2005. That was perhaps a bit less true of Jim Callaghan when he replaced Harold Wilson in 1976 and again he was never elected at a General Election. Theresa May by contrast while becoming leader and PM by proclamation did hold and win, just about, an Election.

The current Tory contest does seem a bit like pre-1832 politics however.

The English Civil War was fought over the right of Parliament to decide affairs not the King. Charles 1st lost his head in 1649 and there was a period of Parliamentary rule under Cromwell. The monarchy was restored in 1660 but in 1688 came the revolution (a mostly peaceful one but that was not pre-ordained) which saw the Bill of Rights passed.

Henceforth the Monarch while retaining absolute power operated within the framework of a constitutional monarchy, the same one that exists today.

The monarch had to agree all legislation passed by Parliament and appointed the Prime Minister. On the other hand the monarch relied on funds from Parliament- the Civil List.

In practice until 1832 therefore Prime Ministers were certainly not elected by voters, nor really were they party men in the modern sense of political parties (the Tory Party started to organise after 1832, the Liberals were formed in 1859). Rather they were the figures who could command most support in Parliament and who most particularly had the confidence of the monarch.

Or as William Cobbett called it, Old Corruption. The Tories latest leadership election looks like a reprise.

 

Articles

Lest we forget. Jonathan Freedland, Guardian 22 Feb 2019 on Change UK ‘a blast of fresh air’

In Uncategorized on June 4, 2019 by kmflett

Jonathan Freedland, veteran Corbynphobic, and Guardian columnist has seen another of his hopes for replacing what the Guardian calls in its Editorial on 5th June ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s left-wing Labour Party’ fall apart.

Freedland thought in February that Change UK might be a blast of fresh air but it turned out to be just the hot air from a toilet hand dryer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/22/independent-group-political-playbook-failure?CMP=twt_gu

I gather from recent days that the Guardian’s line is now moving towards if you dont stop supporting Corbyn you’re going to get the Brexit Party. The Guardian does not support the latter (I’m not Dave Spart) but its search for an even half decent alternative to the great beard wearer is struggling.

I remain a subscriber btw. Still a lot of decent stuff to be found in the paper

Articles

So. Farewell then Change UK?

In Uncategorized on June 4, 2019 by kmflett

Change UK, formerly known as the Independent Group, TIG or to some TINGE, has split:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48515505

One might think its all a bit Life of Brian and that the extreme centre cant hold but somewhere in there, serious political issues are at work.

As Grace Blakeley wrote in the New Statesman in February a key issue is that the 11 MPs now 6&5 want the world to be as it was before the 2008 crash. But it isnt and it cant be. Austerity has to be grappled with:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/02/post-crash-era-no-time-centrism#amp

This doesnt mean that we are doomed to a political future of racism and politics for the rich with Johnson and Farage but it does mean that just cutting services, depressing wages and doing little about climate change, while the well off go about their lives as before is unsustainable.

Perhaps the problem with Change UK was that many people thought it was really No Change UK.

A deeper problem was the groups’s lack of weight, organisation and a framework of grassroots support. Once the LibDems made up their mind that they didnt like Change UK as it was, they rightly underlined the difference between it and the SDP

Here is a brief summary I did again in February about one aspect of that, the question of political experience of lack of it:

The political experience of the SDP’s Gang of Four & the ‘Independent’ Group 2019

We can only continue to hope and press for a General Election to resolve the issue of the 6+5 in political terms

Articles

John Cleese & Donald Trump are on the wrong side of history about London

In Uncategorized on June 4, 2019 by kmflett

John Cleese & Donald Trump are on the wrong side of history about London

John Cleese’s claim that London is not an ‘English City’ shows his ignorance of London’s history. Donald Trump’s criticism of the London Mayor Sadiq Khan is just ignorant full stop and also very likely to be Islamophobic I intent

The words below were printed in the Morning Star last Saturday and tweeted by the paper. They attracted several comments to the end that historians should not take sides. One was from a Brexit Party supporter who I blocked, another from an antiquarian, fair enough from their perspective I suppose.

Even so I think historians should take sides. Right-wing ones always have done- take Jacob Rees Mogg’s execrable new volume on The Victorians for example which celebrates imperialism.

Of course historical research must be solidly based and in particular awkward and inconvenient truths discovered in the archives must be addressed. That said, taking sides with the evidence found is important. History is not just about finding out about the past but indicating how we might have a better future by not repeating some of the worse aspects of it

John Cleese who was funny once is at it again, doing what Rupa Huq MP on Twitter called his best Morrissey impression. According to Cleese London is not really an English City anymore.

Quite aside from exhibiting an unacceptable racist attitude, Cleese is also showing his ignorance of history.

The late socialist historian Raphael Samuel wrote a long essay, Comers and Goers (in The Victorian City, 1973), about London in the later Victorian period. It begins thus:

‘The migrating classes’ as they were called by the promoters of the Leicester Square soup kitchen in the 1850s have left remarkably few traces of their existence, even in the places which once served them as town lairs. No railway hotels mark the terminal point of their journeyings. No imposing clubs stand as memorials to the seasons they spent in town’.

Samuel had partly in mind what Mayhew called the ‘wandering tribes’ seasonal workers who came to London in the winter for warmth and shelter and travelled to the countryside for work in the spring, summer and autumn.

But within that there were large numbers of gypsies, Irish workers, who were driven to London for work, given the poor state of their own labour market, and of course sailors as London was an important port.

Samuel writes of numbers of Americans, Chinamen, Lascars, Greeks and Italians, while numbers of stonemasons also migrated from London to America in search of seasonal work.

As trade union organisation began to get a grip in London, for example in the docks, towards the end of the nineteenth century, conditions of work became more regular, and while seasonal work remained- the hop harvest in September in Kent for example- ‘comers ad goers’ decreased.

However with the rise in the possibility of travel, either by rail or sea (air came much later)so London saw waves of migrants come into to live and work in the City. From the late nineteenth century many came from Eastern Europe, including a significant Jewish population.

From the late 1940s as the earlier groups prospered and in many cases moved on, so many started to come from the Commonwealth, at first Afro-Carribbeans and later from the Asian sub-continent and Africa.

Like the comers and goers of the nineteenth century they did the work that kept London going, often with low pay and poor conditions, but they were Londoners as much as anyone else.

Along with this, and Cleese’s remarks are an echo if it, came racism. Firstly against the Irish in the nineteenth century, then the Jewish population and more recently those from the West Indies, Asia and Africa. Theresa May’s hostile environment is but the latest outcrop of this.

Again Londoners had an impressive record of countering this and standing up for all Londoners. Whether it was the Battle of Cable St in 1936 where the labour movement was central to stopping Mosley’s British Union of Fascists with their anti-Jewish politics to the fight against the National Front in the 1970s where again fascists were stopped in places like Wood Green and Lewisham by successful anti-racist and anti-fascist mobilisations which led to the foundation of the Anti-Nazi League.

The work has continued since, opposing the BNP in Welling and the EDL in Tower Hamlets and Walthamstow.

London has remained a place of comers and goers, a world city, where all are welcomed. Cleese’s ‘English City’ is an unpleasant piece of historical fiction that needs to be called out for what it is