What is the Point of the Labour Party Now?

The reason why the Labour Party cannot come to terms with its catastrophic election loss is the reason why it happened. They continue to believe their own propaganda – a narrative that exists not for the electorate but for its own membership, from cadre to foot-soldier.

‘It was the media’. The media cut the Labour Party a lot of slack, particularly over its NHS claims and the majority of complaints to the BBC have been about bias against the Tories. Since the 2016 referendum campaign BBC Brexit coverage has consistently been framed through a Remain lens and they have shown themselves to be wholly hostile to Boris Johnson, a mouthpiece for Tony Blair, and Andrew Neil apart, tolerant of Corbyn and over indulgent of the Lib Dems and the Greens. But the underlying assumption of the accusation is that the plebs can’t think for themselves – that voters are a suggestable mob prey to slogans on the side of a bus or a Russian bot. The respectable well-worn term here is ‘populism’ but if you look through it at the 2019 election, the more populist party was Labour with trillion pound promises the electorate wasn’t buying. Furthermore, despite or rather because of the relentless pro-Remain media campaign for the last three and a half years, in 2019 just as in 2016 the electorate made up their own minds. In the UK it is not so much the voters who are volatile as the political class.

At the end of it all Labour tried to wash their hands of any Brexit policy. John McDonnell appeared at the end of his drive in the early hours of the morning inside a luxurious cardigan to regret that ‘we just couldn’t get past Brexit’, as if someone else had parked a second referendum in his manifesto. He reasoned that Labour had tried to respect both leave and remain voters, a position which Blair described as ‘comic indecision.’ Except it wasn’t. Rhetorically Corbyn pretended to be neutral this time, in reality everyone knew Labour was for Remain and their duplicity, their political cowardice was a major cause of their defeat.


The party is now undertaking ‘a period of reflection.’ From The Guardian manifestos we’ve seen up until now the most far-reaching conclusion likely to emerge will be ‘if it hadn’t had been for Brexit….and if it hadn’t been for Corbyn, we would have won.’ But the decision to support a second referendum  (according to Steven Kinnock MP ‘the worst policy decision in the history of the Labour Party’) and the huge support for Corbyn inside the party were not aberrations, they were historical outcomes decades in the making and very in much in keeping with the Labour Party that emerged post Blair. Corbyn was elected leader twice; on the second occasion by a greater margin. The party wanted him, many adored him and significantly many still do. His support from those in the party is only matched by the antipathy from large swathes of the electorate, particularly working-class voters. Likewise, the decision to support a second referendum was in keeping with its largely millennial, metropolitan, graduate membership – folk who see any alternative to open borders as racist – who’s politics are more utopian than pragmatic, who are uncomfortable with the notion of national identity let alone sovereignty. The support for globalist politics in the supposedly left membership is matched by the right in the PLP in the shape of Hilary Benn and others. Labour is increasingly estranged, not just from its former heartlands but from much of the electorate; it has a one member one vote system and an activist membership. The next leader will have to appeal to that constituency – and consequently it is unlikely that they will be electable to the wider public, more crucially – the new leader will be unable to undertake measures to make the party electable, for Labour have made for themselves a social and intellectual base that effectively imprisons the party in opposition.

The end of the miner’s strike in 1985 effectively meant the end of the labour movement as a national force in British politics. It took a decade for the penny to drop and there were further skirmishes but most knew it was all over. Blair’s Labour came to terms with it enthusiastically whilst Corbyn’s Labour runs on rage and pity about long ago lost battles that never were. It’s not an attractive look unless you are embittered which shows in the temperament of many of Labour’s new recruits. In the wake of the election Kier Starmer and others have made public statements about how desperately sad they feel for working class people who will now have to endure a Tory government – one that many of them in previously rock-solid Labour seats, former mining seats even, voted for. Starmer is oblivious at how insulting his patronage is indeed there is a wider routine lack of sensibility or dignity even amongst current Labour politicians. Another leadership contender Jess Phillips recently tweeted a photograph of her child nephew dispensing alms to a homeless man in Birmingham.

tweet (3)

Feeling sorry for people as a political drive leads to virtue signalling as a political strategy resulting in the crass exploitation of those at the bottom of the pile. My guess is, many people find this repellent and one cannot imagine Johnson or May, Cameron or Miliband behaving like this – it came with Corbyn and should leave with him. It has to be said that bestowing victimhood on the working class is decidedly un-Marxist; they are the agent of change in the supposed march of history and Engels famously said The emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class itself, not … an act of bleeding hearts. Labour’s silence on the year long protests and now general strike in France is telling. Likewise, Labour’s appeal to people as members of ‘oppressed groups’ with unique grievances fosters social division when the abiding hunger is for social solidarity. The labour movement once called itself ‘the hope of the world,’ now it’s an ever growing sub divided list of separate identities.

In the meantime Corbyn has announced that Labour will act as the ‘resistance’ to the Tory government. On election night he defiantly announced to the cameras ‘our time will come’, a republican slogan usually asserted in the Gaelic ‘Tiocfaidh ár lá.’ Corbyn’s Labour is keen on the toy soldier vernacular and they are not shy on the language of physical force either. It accompanies their fantasy that we are now living under a far-right regime, that Brexiteers are racists if not fascists and it is only they – the thin red/rainbow line – that can save the planet. They are not about persuading they are about combating, so banning speakers, verbally and otherwise attacking opponents fits the bill. Many in the Corbyn camp do not expect electoral success – are reluctant for office. They see the system as too rigged and it’s not the point of their involvement anyway. It’s this logic that enables Jezza to declare ‘we won the argument’ even though we are back to the 1930’s in terms of seats. Whilst they persist in appealing largely to students, ethnic minorities and the metropolitan middle class they are likely to remain in this territory.

What is to be Done?

Stephen Kinnock has suggested that Labour admit the second referendum policy was a mistake and apologise to Leave voters. They won’t. And Leave voters won’t forget and forgive the calumny as easily as Labour imagine. The next leader of the party should not be from Corbyn’s inner circle; again this is unlikely and the reason why Corbyn is delaying his departure. The internal organisation Momentum needs to be removed from the party. However, if anything Momentum will be instrumental in choosing the next leader. It is more nebulous than Militant was in the eighties and I think will have more longevity. I left the party four years ago and I’m still getting texts from them. It has support on the NEC and among some MPs.

Rather than embracing woke politics Labour should begin to distance themselves from this tribe who are not as large as they seem to be. Class is no longer an indication of how people vote, culture is and Labour need to pick up the flag they planted in the camp of those who are between unpatriotic and hostile towards Britain and plant it among those who have affection for the country and its traditions. They must seize the national narrative. They should hang on to their ambitions regarding taking into public ownership transport and utilities.

We shall see how one nation Boris Johnson’s government turns out to be. What the UK doesn’t need is to be a one party state, it needs a competent opposition. I spent New Year’s Eve round a table chatting to a former printer – one time the youngest SOGAT father of the chapel on Fleet Street who went through Murdoch at Wapping – or maybe it was the other way round. He said he thought that the Labour Party was an institution that had outlived its purpose. At the time I thought that was true for his generation but not otherwise. The response of the party to its electoral defeat thus far has made me wonder.

The Labour Party is in trouble because it’s relationship with the people who it was created to represent is broken. Despite or rather because of its mass membership it will find it difficult to rebuild trust in many communities or even convince sufficient numbers of voters that it values democracy. It is an institution that has existed since 1905 and it has been a vital part of British history. Although twice as many men have walked on the moon than have been Labour prime ministers, people not just in Britain are indebted to its past achievements. It is not excessive to suggest that its achievements of office might henceforth remain in the past.

What Rough Beast Is This? How Fanaticism has a Grip on British Politics

There is a fanaticism at the heart of Corbyn’s Labour Party and Corbyn’s thinking; a blind adherence by his followers and an absolute certainty in the righteousness of their cause to the detriment of truth, decency and parody. Corbyn himself exudes a smugness, a self-righteousness in interviews that makes his supporters dewy eyed and the rest of us cringe – his uninhibited followers brim with moral superiority whilst pouring bile on those with whom they disagree. The Spectator journalist James Bartholomew invented the term ‘virtue signalling’ to encompass the routine displays of piety, which whilst not being confined to the contemporary liberal left, are its custom and practice. Such a demeanour infantilises its exponents as well as the electorate. Recently, Corbyn told the Evening Standard that if elected he would move a homeless family into Chequers and then told a television interviewer that on Christmas Day, he likes to visit a homeless shelter to, “listen to how the government can improve people’s lives.” (Cue the twinkled-eyed half smile). It’s off the grandstanding charts and up the narcissism graph. This was not the character of Blair or Kinnock’s Labour Party, of any Labour Party I have known, nor even the Communist Party of Great Britain and the crass gesture politics and zealousness is also out of our national character.

love corbyn

Corbyn’s doctrinal politics is recognisable in a brand of Trotskyism exemplified by the Revolutionary Communist Group. The RCG’s take on socialist revolution was and still is, that the British working class is incapable of forging itself into a vanguard because of its historical ties to imperialism and the monarchy and that fundamental social change needs to be led by ethnic minority communities. Its weekly newspaper is called Fight Racism Fight Imperialism and has an international perspective supporting national liberation struggles across the globe. Corbyn has never been a member of the RCG or any other Trotskyist party but his political devotions have followed the same path. All ills, all terrorism are the result of American, British or Israeli imperialism. He supported the IRA throughout the Troubles and steadfastly refuses to condemn them to this day. Rather as a get-out he chooses to condemn all violence…. everywhere. If one were to receive a condolences card from Corbyn it would say ‘I am sorry for your loss as I am sorry for everyone else’s loss.’ One of the reasons he is popular with the young is because they have no memory of the barbarity of those times. Take any day…this day in 1972, when the IRA murdered William Bogle, 28, a married father of 3. He was an off-duty member of the UDR and fired on outside Killeter post office. His wife went into post office leaving William and the 3 children aged 3, 4 and 8 months – in the car. Though he rushed out of the car to save the children William died in his wife’s arms. This kind of atrocity was commonplace for thirty years and Corbyn was no mediator for peace, he was in no position to be that, he didn’t want to do that, he wanted the Provos to win.

Support for the IRA has been less of a problem than his support for anti-Semites. This running sore for Labour has two sources: Corbyn’s support for the Palestinians and wider Arab nationalism as well as an opportunism concerning British Muslims. His support for Palestinians is admirable and necessary, few in parliament are prepared to make the case, but it is not necessary to share platforms with, embrace and describe as friends – members of Hamas, Hezbollah, holocaust deniers, purveyors of the blood libel and other Salafists – people who believe gays and women should be stoned and Jews ‘wiped off the face of the earth.’  Corbyn is singular amongst the pro-Palestinian MPs in keeping such company. Part of his thinking is that such people can be won over to socialism but they never are; he thought that about the Provos and he thinks that about British Muslims which is why he has turned a blind eye to their prejudices inside the Labour Party. The Labour Party’s special relationship with the Muslim Council of Britain has always been a one-way street and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

I recently interviewed a long-standing member of a Greater Manchester CLP and he told me how in the last few years there had been an influx of Muslims into the branch, including senior members of the local Muslim community. His view was that ignorance regarding the Holocaust was widespread amongst this influx and there was no education in the branch. They were just pleased to have their support. When I worked in a jail I came across anti-Semitism amongst Muslim prisoners. Admittedly it was a jail and unrepresentative of wider society but the notion of a conspiracy – that Jews control the media and everything said about Islam is a lie was widely held. Myself and other staff took the initiative to get Muslim prisoners to help organise Holocaust Memorial Day which on the face of it seemed a great success with Muslim prisoners working hard to get a big audience in the library to listen to the talk and watch a film. But when I spoke to a number of lads afterwards, some were still sceptical whether the Holocaust had really happened. At the root of this is the Koran not the plight of Palestinians.

In the wake of Corbyn’s leadership ex-Trots have made their way into the party. The notion that Israel has no right to exist is commonplace among the harder left both in and outside the Labour Party. The logical conclusion of the premise is that it would therefore be acceptable if the state was destroyed – the stated position of Iran and Hezbollah. No one ever asks how many people would have to be destroyed along the way. One of the solutions to Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis would be to make it an expressed condition of membership that one accepts Israel’s right to exist and for those that don’t accept that to be shown the door. But then that’s an admission that something institutional is amiss.

Despite all the youtube interviews, the social media posts against Jews by Labour members, councillors, an MP – the footage of Corbyn on Iranian state TV and elsewhere, not to mention the evidence of the Jewish Labour Movement to the Human Rights Commission – there are ample numbers of people on the left who believe the entire saga is a smear. Not that there are a few bad apples – but the whole is thing has been constructed to deflect criticism of Israel. An element of that is the reluctance to accept that you might be in the wrong tribe after all, which can impact on family and friendships – but it also smacks of an irrational devotion and that is fanaticism. See here for a video version.

At the end of November Labour held a press conference regarding a 400 page document pertaining to trade talks with the US. Corbyn held up a few pages of the document and pronounced, “Imagine opening a five-figure bill for your cancer treatment. Imagine paying to give birth. Paying to have a check-up at the GP…. etc etc.” Despite that he and others were later forced to admit that the pages and the wider document didn’t refer to any such thing, that this was essentially a scam as crafty as the Zinoviev letter, many desperately hang on to the accusation and repeat it even if they do not believe it themselves. They do this because of their devotion to their tribe and as such people learn to love the lie.

The refusal to accept the democratic mandate by the Remain camp has inevitably fostered a fanaticism in the UK – it is by its nature a fairly extreme position to take and over the last three years an ugly desperation has been incubated. People have gone from ‘make them vote again’ to ‘these people are worse than Nazis’, from ‘they didn’t know what they were voting for’ to ‘throw battery acid at them’, from throwing milkshakes at the Brexit Party to death threats. David Starkey said that when he heard people (Polly Toynbee) using the death of supposed Brexit voters as a reason to negate the mandate it reminded him of Hitler talking about Jews. Fanaticism is not confined to black and white footage of Nuremburg. It begins with the ordinary folk in the video link above, holding placards condemning bigotry whilst spouting racial malice. It seems embedded north of the border, how else would you describe Nicola Sturgeon’s one-track solution to every problem, her same answer to every question?

I’ve been researching the International Brigade and the Spanish Civil War and recently came across a three-page letter by Orwell at the People’s History Museum in Manchester. The letter concerns the suppression and murder of Anarchists and members of the POUM (a Marxist militia) by Stalinists during the conflict. Orwell wrote an article about this at the time for the New Statesman but they refused to publish it, in fact the left press merely repeated the Stalinist line that these people were on the side of the Nazis. What you can see in the letter to Henry Brailsford is Orwell’s recognition that Communism was no answer to Fascism, a recognition later articulated in Homage to Catalonia and Nineteen Eighty-Four, that the choice to be made is between freedom and tyranny. The choice we currently have in the UK is between EU globalism and neo-liberalism and neither are appealing. What is more unappealing is the growing fanaticism on one side of the argument.

The closing submission by the Jewish Labour Movement to the EHRC is available to download here.



Who Cares About Democracy?

In a series of indicative votes in the Commons, 184 MPs voted to revoke Article 50, to simply ignore the biggest democratic mandate in the country’s history. What is even more shameful is that 111 of those MPs were Labour MPs. At the recent EU elections, the Liberal Democrats ran on an aggressive ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ ticket. In effect, bollocks to democracy, to all you 17.4 million Leave voters. The Labour party, always covertly a party of Remain seems set to publicly link arms with them. Ask a Leave voter if they believe in democracy and they invariably reply unequivocally: of course, that’s why I voted leave. Ask someone who post the referendum result still thinks we should Remain the same question, the reply is often equivocal at best: yes, but it depends…etc. It is perhaps a little reassuring that few people including politicians, won’t openly declare they are opposed to democracy per se, but in practice increasing numbers of people, at the behest of the political class, are taking anti- democratic positions, not just in relation to Brexit but in relation to banning and closing down points of view they disagree with. Democracy is suddenly not the article of faith it once was, it is has instead become one of a number of competing values.

Among its new foes is also its oldest: profit; currently in the shape of global capital. Amazon naturally prefers to deal with one set of regulations and tax arrangements as opposed to twenty- seven. Coincidentally its UK Chief has predicted there will be riots on the streets if Britain leaves the EU without a deal. For their part the EU are considering moving to a ‘harmonisation’ on corporation tax across its member states. Hard on the heels of the economics comes the politics. Cameron’s and Osborne’s mantra during the referendum campaign was that there would be dire economic consequences if people voted Leave. When we did there wasn’t, but then they could hardly argue that people should vote Remain in the interests of democracy. The interests of the economy have always been put above questions of civil liberty. For two decades William Wilberforce’s bills before parliament on the abolition of slavery were voted down in the interests of trade. In 1804 it should be noted, by the Lords alone.

What it new of our times is that anti-democratic politics is growing among people who think of themselves as left wing or liberal, who claim to stand in a tradition associated with the struggle for democracy, but who clearly do not. In the UK a contemporary self-declared progressive would likely be ambivalent, hostile even to the concept of national sovereignty, lazily equating it with nationalism. In France Macron refuses to allow a referendum on EU membership because he is worried he will lose it. He sees no contradiction in calling himself a liberal whilst keeping his country locked into an empire he thinks they want to leave. Just as in the UK, he smears political opposition as racist. To do so de-legitimises opponents no matter how much support they may have, no matter how many votes. Democracy as a value, as an ethic is now not only competing with the interests of the economy, it is held up against notions of political correctness, most notably allegations of racism, much like an individual tried in the court of social media. It is the Labour Party that has most vociferously slandered Leave voters as racist and more recently as supporting the far right by voting for The Brexit Party. Some have compared us to Nazis. They want to demoralise and demonise people who support democracy but it is also how they give themselves the moral authority to ignore the mandate; the accusations are as much for themselves as for us.

Recently the refusal to accept to the referendum result migrated to the result of the EU elections. Many in the media and on the left claimed that we witnessed a ‘remain surge.’ One wonders if this trait will continue to future elections. Acceptance of electoral defeat is fundamental to democracy, or as playwright Tom Stoppard put it, it’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting and some in the establishment are happy to present the numbers creatively. Much in the discourse of the last three years is reminiscent of the Victorian era when extending the franchise was denied on the grounds that working people were too irresponsible, to ill-informed and impressionable to be trusted with the vote. That and the paternalism of Victorians that pitied and feared the poor in equal measure. There is something of Dickens’ self-righteous Mr Bumble in so many of our politicians who preach one thing in manifestos and then practice the opposite in office.

Democracy is important not just as a civil liberty but because of the responsibility it endows us with. How we vote affects others, it encourages us to think of society as a whole, notions of equality around race and gender followed on from this most basic equality; we are all equal before the ballot box. Although it is a private act it is also a collective act and it was won through collective action. If the referendum result is negated it will not only destroy what little trust remains in government but it will break a connection that exists between citizens cooperating together to improve their lives peacefully through the ballot box. Fewer people will vote as a result, it will induce apathy as well as anger. It was once unthinkable that a politician on the left would do such a thing as to vote for the revocation of Article 50. Indeed, the origin of the division between left and right comes from the very birth of the struggle for democracy in Europe, for during the French Revolution Robespierre and others who demanded universal suffrage sat on the left of the assembly and the Girondists who wanted to keep political power within the nobility, on the right. But now in the UK the left so called, sit where the right once did and many who are thought of, and think of themselves as on the right, are for democracy.

At heart of the confusion is the way politics is used by many as a personal brand. Many on the Remain side see the EU as a more attractive brand than Leave, which they see as old and uncool. They do not consider how or whether the institution is steadily de-democratising Europe. The left is generally more vocal about their brand, uncontrollably self-righteous at times. And for all of us social media has diminished the space between private and the public spheres. The practice of keeping a diary developed during the Reformation when people would privately examine their conscience against the demands of living a Christian life. It was an entirely personal matter. Does anyone believe that Alistair Campbell kept a diary during the Blair years for any purpose other than publication?

Those of us in support Brexit will continue to be denigrated and lied about and I expect there is worse to come. However, for the last three years the Leave electorate has remained incredibly resilient and it now has a party to vote for, if only on this issue. It may not be perfect but at this point, it alone stands for democracy. The political establishment may have most of parliament, the judiciary and much of the media on their side. It seems daunting. But we have hundreds of years of struggle to inspire us and our forefathers overcame far greater obstacles than we are facing. We owe it to them to stand our ground.

democracy 1

A Very Real British Coup Why Britain is no longer a democracy

In Chris Mullin’s 1982 novel A Very British Coup, left wing Labour prime minster Harry Perkins and Member of Parliament for Sheffield, is overthrown by a conspiracy of spooks, capitalists and media moguls. For many of us in the UK it feels like we are living through a coup ourselves. Except it is not one executed by a secret state against an elected government, rather it is one conducted by a government against its own electorate. And at the heart of the conspiracy is a Labour Party which is apparently left wing from top to bottom. Its role in this, the anti-Brexit coup, has been a canny one. During the referendum campaign its leader, not Harry from Sheffield but Jeremy from Islington, was somewhat ambivalent. When the result came through he called for Theresa May to trigger Article 50 immediately. During the 2017 election campaign he promised to honour the referendum result (see page 24 of the manifesto) and then after securing the biggest increase in seats since Atlee, very quickly reneged. Labour is now the party of Remain.


The party’s coup against an overwhelmingly working class leave electorate is justified to itself on the grounds that the electorate is right wing and most of all racist. The party sees itself as internationalist and the EU as the same, it sees the Leave vote as backward. It isn’t the kind of internationalism of French trade unionists burning coal lorries bound for Dover during the miners’ strike, nor of the International Brigades. It is the new internationalism of global markets and open borders, providing skilled and inexpensive labour straight to a workplace from a labour pool of 500 million and rising. The left idea of internationalism was hijacked by neo-liberal ideas a long time ago and Corbyn and co are on board to the degree that they think British workers are obliged to have their wages lowered and their jobs taken by workers from lower wage economies. If you complain you are defamed as racist. This is the twentieth week of the yellow vest protests in France and I am yet to hear of a statement from anyone in Labour in support of those workers. Despite all the street cred they are more Macron than gilet jaune. It is this ethic that underpins Corbyn’s determination to keep the free movement of labour, regardless of the consequences to the poorest workers. That and his gormless narcissism that compels him to declare his pious anti-racism with every sound-bite. “Many Congratulations done to our diverse England football team.” Just watch the match and give it a rest.

The wider coup began the day after the referendum result when the political class as a whole began to turn on the electorate. They have been supported by the judiciary, the media and a significant section of the middle classes. Despite it being a very British coup it is also chilling how unsubtle it has been. Cash bunged Gina Miller whose lawyers handed the decision back to a Remain parliament; Bercow and his precedent from James I; the Jeremy Vine phone-in cheerily explaining to the recently retired why they should lose the vote. Within a week of the result the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg was pushing the demographics as if who is really why. Leave is old, white, uneducated ergo angry. Nothing to do with the possibility that older voters may value democracy more than students, having had parents who had to fight for its survival, who can remember the tanks rolling into Prague in ‘68. The BBC created a Leave archetype, gave a platform to Terry Christian, among the most vitriolic of elitist Remainers who has publicly called for Leave voters to be thrown out of work. The BBC, the state broadcaster, gave its permission for a bigoted backlash.

Polly Toynbee of The Guardian made a count of the dead until she could announce there were now more Remainers than Leavers alive. The liberal’s Pravda has always been Janus-faced; the bleeding heart social worker and vicious reactionary. During the miner’s strike they backed Thatcher and McGregor then ran a full page article after the miners’ defeat insisting there should be no victimisation – as 200,000 redundancy notices began to be issued. They supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq and were then strident about the need for an enquiry. The want to block Brexit, disenfranchise millions of working class voters, at the same time as running opinion pieces about how parliament must listen to the north.

Out in the Remain constituency revoking Article 50, calling the whole thing off, is a casual click away. Nice people do it. 111 Labour MPs voted to revoke Article 50. This is in effect supporting the end of universal suffrage, for the right to vote is not just the act of putting a cross on a piece of paper but having the vote mean something. What the electorate is currently faced with is soviet democracy – different candidates with the same politics. If 52% of a 72% turnout doesn’t mean anything to some, what does? It’s more than Atlee achieved, Thatcher or Blair. And there has never been a plebiscite where it has been clearer what we were voting for. What do they imagine we thought leave meant…leave the pencil on the string? Atlee didn’t mention in advance he was going to nationalise the commanding heights of the economy, Thatcher de-industrialise at a rate just as fast, Blair invade Iraq.

As we have approached the wire the temperament inside the Remain camp has become hysterical and fascistic. Saving the electorate from themselves has become saving the country from a horde and parliament is duplicitously refusing to implement Brexit. Britain has ceased to be a functioning democracy. We are living under a parliamentary dictatorship.

The current MP for Sheffield was born a year before Chris Mullin’s novel was published. He was elected as a Labour MP but now sits as an independent after an unseemly expulsion. There is no sign of a by-election. Sheffield, like the rest of the country, voted to leave the EU, yet their MP wants a second referendum. What does one do when you wake up to find you’re not living in the democracy you once thought you were? What can one do in a two party system both of which have proven themselves opposed to democracy? One can easily give up. The turnout yesterday in the Newport West by-election was 37%. In 2017 it was 67.5%. It’s a Leave constituency by a significant margin. The new Labour MP got just 39% of the 37% turnout but will now join parliament to help block Brexit. Let’s not pretend the political class are disappointed with low turnouts. In elections mathematics are morality and what’s occurring is wicked.

Coups come on the back of plebiscites that don’t go as planned (see Spain, Chile, Turkey) and always authoritarians use the cover of ‘the crisis’ ‘saving the country’ ‘the national interest’ to shut down democracy. In truth though this is a specific moment, it is also acceleration in the longer term direction of travel. Local government long since had any autonomy worth voting for as more and more services were contracted out. National government has followed suit, in part that’s what the EU membership is about, the contracting out of economic and political decision making. And let’s face it, we were an unresolved democracy to begin with an archaic unelected second chamber.

Historically the situation reminds me of the great betrayal of 1832 which led to the Chartist movement of 1838 to 1848. A new charter is needed. Whatever happens to Brexit, British politics is never going to be the same. Parliament, the mainstream media and the judiciary have been exposed as corrupt, contemptuous of the electorate; sections of the middle classes contemptuous of democracy. Millions of working class voters are without a home. Thatcher laid waste to industries and communities, Blair stole their party, Corbyn sold out their vote. Tragically this is where the far right like to come along to pick up the pieces – and it doesn’t help matters if everyone has been calling you a right wing racist for the last three years. For my part I have just joined the SDP. It feels like a new start whilst at the same time being part of a history play, reliving something that happened a century and a half ago.

The Word Turned Upside Down. The strange death of the Left’s opposition to the EU

If the Labour Party had accepted the referendum result, had embraced it, we would have left the EU by now and might also have a Labour government. There would also be less social division abroad than is currently the case. But they have reneged on their election promise of 2017, perpetuated and fed off the social division and set their teeth against Brexit from the Momentum foot soldiers up to the leadership. They now campaign for a second referendum, against a no deal option and there isn’t a deal they would vote for save their own which would leave us in the customs union and the single market, i.e. in the EU. In doing so they have not only betrayed their overwhelmingly working class leave constituency but democracy itself. And it’s a historic betrayal, not only in the sense of its magnitude but also in the narrative of the wider labour movement’s struggle for universal suffrage beginning at the Putney debates and spanning the centuries to the suffragettes. It is a rejection of the principle that ordinary people should strive to exercise political authority through the vote. We have now a Left in Britain that likes to toddle off to see Mike Leigh’s film Peterloo and then despair in the pub afterwards at the poor of 2019 who voted for political independence.


In the Labour movement that I was part of from the late seventies until a few years ago opposition to pan European economics and government was mainstream. Now it is extremely marginal, virtually extinct. By the very definition of the term (see the French Revolution) the Left side of politics is about widening access to political power and the Right is about the narrowing of authority. The EU by definition is a project of the Right. At my final Labour Party branch meeting I was roundly booed for saying I had voted leave and was called ‘Tory scum’ by a member who looked to be in the midst of retaking his A levels. Many in the room were completely unaware of the social democratic case against the growing power of the EU, nor were they aware that until very recently Corbyn had been an opponent of the EU for all of his career, hanging on to the coat tails of Tony Benn. I went to see Corbyn at Leeds during his first leadership campaign. Half way through he told the more than 2000 assembled, ‘…if the EU isn’t delivering for ordinary working people we will consider our membership.’ I wasn’t the only one who stood up to clap. Now the serial rebel is imposing the whip on MPs to stop Brexit. So how did he and the rest of the labour movement learn to love the oligarchy?

In Corbyn’s case it is because he has become increasingly opportunist and sees frustrating the Brexit mandate as a means to force a general election. It seems obvious to him to put party above country, above democracy. The Left has always been a curious cocktail of principled stands and popular posturing. I joined the Socialist Workers Party at the time of punk and the Anti Nazi League, a lot of teenagers did. Initially I didn’t understand why thereafter ‘the party’ made a virtue of unpopularity. But Corbyn wants power. To his credit he is far more serious about it than Miliband was. He and his shadow cabinet appeared so intoxicated by the scent of it during the 2017 general election that the following morning he repeatedly proclaimed Labour had won. What was darker was his response to the atrocity of the Manchester bombing which took place during the campaign. I was in Sydney at the time and was aware that the Prime Minster had called a halt in campaigning. We switched on ABC to see Corbyn proselytising to reporters that Britain’s foreign policy was to blame for the murder of 22 mainly teenage girls at the Manchester Arena. The fact that the bomber was the son of a refugee taken in by Britain is only part of the point here. What I saw was a politician so desperate to make ground he was prepared to exploit an atrocity before the names and scale of the victims were even known, during the nearest this country ever gets to mourning. Corbyn has put in a shift on the back benches and now at last he feels cometh the hour. The 2017 manifesto was an un-costed utopian basket case that had students queueing to have their debts written off. Now he is mapping every move back and forth across the Brexit board game. A former comrade said to me “Jezza is playing a blinder on Brexit.” The most radical domestic political event of our lives isn’t something Labour leaders should be playing with.

To explain the wider Left’s opposition to leaving the EU, even after the referendum result, you have to go back to the Thatcher years, from 1984 onwards. After the defeat of the miners and a second Tory election victory the Left had to reconcile themselves to the fact that the emancipation of the working class was not an act of the working class itself, but was something that the council might do on their behalf. Then Thatcher’s legislation and Kinnock’s purge put paid to that so they looked to Brussels instead. Whilst in Britain workers were reading tabloids, crossing picket lines and buying Filofaxes, the French and other continentals were electing socialists. Europe was cool and was providing European law to protect workers in Britain in place of the unions. There was TUPE for when you were privatised, the working time directive when you needed a break from your VDU. I was a shop steward during this period and was sent on day long courses by my union to gen up on European health and safety law. I became a full time irritant to management not because I had a militant workforce behind me but because I had a handbook of progressive regulations to quote from. A Bleak House version of Scargill.

In the face of declining working class support the Left became managerial in outlook and the Labour Party increasingly a party of managers in spirit if not in occupation. Fast forward to Corbyn’s Labour Party and the influx of numerous ex Trots in mid-life, a lot of young people and an aggressive form of identity politics. Prioritising and defining all things by race or age or gender etc is inherently managerial and undemocratic. It is not hard to see how the party membership gets behind the House of Lords, John Bercow or Gary Linekar to support what is in effect an anti-democracy movement.

Democracy has never been something the Left has valued for its own sake. The very idea has always been viewed as a sham. Believing instead that the real contest lies in the power relations of capital or as Corbyn refers to it ‘a rigged system’ doesn’t lend itself to respecting the result of plebiscites. Furthermore one is taught early on that the voters are rigged as well, that they possess a ‘false consciousness’. In short everyone who disagrees has been brainwashed. Politics for the Left and the managerial classes is not a matter of opinion, of real and perceived interest, it is a matter of right and wrong. Throw in the Left’s new Stalinist handbook that states unless proven otherwise white working class people are racist and leave voters are obviously nothing more than malign and stupid. A discussion with them regarding the merits or otherwise of the EU goes nowhere. If you want to end the free movement of labour because it suppresses the wages of those in unskilled work, you’re a racist. If you’re concerned about unprecedented and unsustainable population growth in the UK, you’re a racist. If you think people should be governed by consent, you’re a Tory. In many ways the contemporary Left bear many of the hallmarks of the far Right. They are censorious to the point of banning speech, books and removing paintings; they make a virtue of segregation based on race and gender and many loathe and fear the working class. The Guardian ran an article in the wake of the referendum arguing that voters should pass an intelligence test; the very same strategy that was used to disenfranchise black people in America.

“Intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history, etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.”

George Orwell.

The vilification of the leave constituency has been unprecedented and the vast majority of the barrage, indeed the worst of it comes from the Left. In many of the missives if one replaced the words leave voter with Jew, Muslim or Gay there would quite rightly be outrage. But there isn’t. A colleague of mine who works in arts production was hounded out of work when he spoke up for Brexit. I know others who work in the media, including the BBC, who realistically fear being sacked if management find out they voted leave. Some remain voters I speak to think this is fine. My impression of much of the wider remain vote is that it was based on fear of economic catastrophe. Much of the Left’s motives boil down to a matter of self-image, of virtue signalling as being anti-racist, pro-immigration for its own sake rather than any analysis or understanding of how the EU operates and what it means for democracy across the continent. For if Britain cannot leave the EU, a wealthy island with a commonwealth, then how can the landlocked?

Corbyn will lose votes in Leave constituencies, he may well lose constituencies. He knows this but has decided to throw his lot in with the pro EU middle classes. Brexit was a working class revolt. Labour’s betrayal of its election promise feels like a watershed but there is a much greater schism upon us. Millions of us have come to the conclusion that the UK is no longer a democracy. The system is rigged and it is Labour who have helped to rig it. They have run to the House of Lords to Macron and to the EU to prevent Brexit. The Speaker of the House, a man who has a Bollocks to Brexit sticker on his car bumper has today found a caveat from 1605 that says we can’t leave the EU. Corbyn happened because of Iraq; Brexit happened because of Iraq. The electorate do not trust parliament, politicians are self-evidently not people of their word and they are impossibly remote. I predict a riot and I predict a sharp fall in turnout at the next election, if as it seems, we don’t leave the EU. If voting doesn’t change anything, why vote? People will find other ways to make their point.

The hope here for me, as Winston Smith put it, lies with the proles. Despite approaching three years of EU propaganda from the political class and the state broadcaster, the leave constituency hasn’t buckled, if anything it has grown as many who voted remain have become disgusted with the behaviour of the establishment. I suspect that increasing numbers of people want to leave the EU, want the House of Lords abolished. All the advances toward universal suffrage were as a result of demands by the people. It may be that we will have to revive the struggle once more. But while I no longer think politicians can be trusted I still think the people can.


English Drama and the English Civil War

My Sky Arts commissioned play on the English Civil War, The Battle of Heptonstall opens on February 28th. Research for the piece led me in a number of directions and recently out of interest rather than necessity, to looking at what happened to English drama in the period and why, considering the magnitude of the historical events, the English Civil War continues to be so seldom dramatised on stage and screen.

 Publike sports do not well agree with Publike Calamities, nor Publike stage-playes with   the Seasons of Humiliation…it is therefore thought fit and Ordained that stage-playes     shall cease.’

In 1642 playhouses were closed. They were to stay closed for the next eighteen years though no one foresaw that at the time. There was not one order issued by parliament but rather a series based on reports and complaints and the reasons for the closures changed with the progress of the Civil War. In 1642 it was about the need to pray rather than play. The wording of the order invited the public into common cause with parliament, to set sport and leisure to one side at a moment of unprecedented crisis shortly before the war began. The major concern at the time was invasion by an Irish army. After the rising of 1641 coastal areas were rife with rumours of invasion. London was in political turmoil inside and outside parliament, Christmas of 1641 was punctuated by rioting in Whitehall and the breakdown of links between London and the King. The order of 1642 is passed on 2nd September, the very cusp of war; on the 9th the Earl of Essex takes command of a parliamentary army to confront Charles I.

An order of 1647 contrastingly emphasised suppression and punishment of offenders, it gave sheriffs jurisdiction to arrest actors and ‘imprison rogues’. Eventually in 1648, with the puritan revolution in full vigour an order was issued to pull playhouses down. Just as the Civil War had its roots in the years prior so did the suppression of theatre. In 1639 a play was produced in London, The Cardinal’s Conspiracy which satirised the clergy and resulted in the arrest of the actors. If theatre had a side in the period, it was by and large royalist. Imaginative spectacle never sat well in the puritan psyche that in the end banned Christmas and maypoles and had boys whipped for playing football on Sundays. Theatre responded to the suppression by working at the edges and by going underground. Short plays known as ‘drolls’ popped up in taverns on the outskirts of towns. There is evidence from pamphlets that street theatre takes on a new significance whilst mainstream plays that would otherwise be at the Cockpit or the Salisbury Court are performed in private houses. What emerges in 1660 is Restoration drama, defining itself as a rebellion against the interregnum.

The best-known fact about the Restoration drama is that it is immoral. The dramatists did not criticize the accepted morality about gambling, drink, love, and pleasure generally, or try, like the dramatists of our own time, to work out their own view of character and conduct. What they did was, according to their respective inclinations, to mock at all restraints. Some were gross, others delicately improper….The dramatists did not merely say anything they liked: they also intended to glory in it and to shock those who did not like it.

From George Clark’s The Later Stuarts 1660 – 1714.

The new drama is more commercial, playhouses that are built are smaller than those of renaissance theatres and women are not only on stage, they are writing plays. Charles II not only brought an entourage over France he brought cultural influences as well and one of the most successful women playwrights of the Restoration dramatist Susannah Centlivre made a career of adapting French theatre for the English stage.

What is there in the way of contemporary drama about the Civil War? By way of the theatre, there is Light Shining in Buckinghamshire by Caryl Churchill (1976). More recently Howard Brenton’s 55 Days. In film, there is a biopic of Cromwell, of Winstanley, and more recently To Kill a King. On television, By the Sword Divided from the early eighties, more recently Peter Flannery’s excellent The Devil’s Whore. There are one or two others perhaps: A Field in England and Witchfinder General which use the war as a back drop but the specific dramas are not that hard to bring to mind. In comparison with the ubiquitous Tudor’s there is relatively little. And yet, more people died per head of the population than in any other war in our history, including the First World War. Ireland suffered a loss of up to 41% of its population. Putting these numbers into the context of other catastrophes helps to understand the devastation to Ireland in particular. The Great Hunger of 1845–1852 resulted in a loss of 16% of the population, while during the Second World War the population of the Soviet Union fell by 16%. Those two events are burned into the psyche of the national narratives, the Civil War is largely absent from England’s.

It is admittedly a difficult narrative to dramatise. It’s a complex if not complicated subject. It was not a class war and though the completion of the reformation, it was not protestants versus Catholics either but rather many persuasions of Protestantism against Catholic affectations. Furthermore, it is not a pretty sight, particularly if you’re English. English writers find it easier to write about the Spanish Civil War, a subject best avoided in Spain. Perhaps we want to be reassured by history; that it’s composed of an inevitable continuum that leads to here, the right path. The Civil War was a detour that no one had a map for.

The fact that artistic expression during the period was so meagre hasn’t helped subsequent representation. There is Milton of course and there is Andrew Marvell but I know of no outstanding drama and the novel has not yet emerged. The theatre director Max Stafford Clark said that the closure of theatres during the interregnum created the space for the development of the novel, but Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is not published until 1678 and Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe is 1719. The novel begins when you can read them. There are few literary and no particular dramatic style from our period that writers can draw from.

When dramatists do tackle the subject they often go in through the door of the revolution, the latter stages of the conflict and the Levellers. Playwrights mostly shoot from the left and one of the consequences of this is that the Levellers are framed as proto socialists which in reality they were not. They were of their time and if one has to, and I don’t think we should interpret them in terms of today they are classical liberals committed to the rights of the individual. There is no doubt though, that the demand that they raise at the Putney debates of 1647, universal male suffrage more or less, is revolutionary. It’s an extraordinary moment as Cromwell describes it in The Devil’s Whore, “a form of government unknown on this earth.”

 ‘I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, Sir, I think it’s clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.’  

Colonel Sir Thomas Rainsborough, Leveller and MP for Droitwich, The Putney Debates.

The Brutish Multitude

The Brutish Multitude

Rehersals with Sky TV filming

In Heptonstall in 1643 there are no Levellers, victory is up for grabs, the King could have easily won the day and I have gone in through the door of a man who wants to avoid the conflict. John Cockcroft is as was said at the time like most men in England, ‘neither hot nor cold’.  But he knows it will destroy his livelihood, already at risk because of his failing eyesight and his feckless son. He does what he can to prevent the war entering his family’s life but fails, which he has to because otherwise there wouldn’t be a play. I have entered the national conflict through the personal lives of characters, it lays its eggs in a love affair between the weaver’s son who does not want to follow his father and an orphan girl Rose, who lives with two other women upon the moor, independently of men. And it had to be a community play. One could with the budget from Sky make a play with half a dozen professional actors but I felt a community play is much more apposite to the context and the timing and indeed what happened here in 1643. For the battle, the skirmish here, involved people of the village, and the war, as wars do impacted on those who wanted no part of it

The Battle of Heptonstall St Thomas the Apostle Church, Heptonstall 28th Feb – March 2nd, & Saturday March 9th Halifax Minster. Tickets £10 at eventbrite.co.uk










The James Ruse Story: An Epic Tale of Everyman

In 1782 at the age of twenty-three, farm labourer James Ruse was sentenced to hang for stealing two silver watches in the village of South Petherwin, Cornwall. He was reprieved and sentenced instead to transportation to one of his Majesty’s settlements on the coast of Africa for the term of seven years. He wasn’t taken to Africa because the convict settlement was almost immediately doomed by climate and disease. He was sent instead to a prison hulk off Devonport and then four years later to Sydney Cove, New South Wales. Ruse acquired some prominence in the history of transported convicts and that of his adopted country by being awarded the first land grant on the continent. He is Australia’s first self-sufficient farmer. But it does not end there for he was at the cusp of several significant moments of the infant colony, to such an extent that it appears almost strange.

He was reputedly the first ashore in 1788 at Botany Bay, ferrying the officers up on the beach on his back. He was among the first emancipated. As well as being given the first land grant at Parramatta he went and laid claim to plot number one on the Hawkesbury River, placing him at the apex of a conflict with indigenous Australians that at the Hawkesbury escalated to a war. His wife, convict Elizabeth Perry was the first woman emancipated. The description of Ruse’s process of composting and fertilising the soil in Watkin Tench’s memoir 1788, is apparently the first ever written record of such a process. Captain Tench who was uninterested and generally unsympathetic to convicts, devotes more than a page of prose to Ruse and singles him out for praise.

I am not aware of any historian suggesting an explanation for the repeated cameo roles that Ruse performed, for I suspect there is no research out there to be found. Let’s face it, European settlement was at its very beginning so it is hardly surprising that an individual, anyone that survived long enough, could be at the forefront of one endeavour after another. Yet even as we begin to look more closely, at one poetic moment: Ruse carrying the officers on his back up the beach, we learn that he had rowed the longboat from the ship Supply, a ship that officially carried no convicts, a ship that carried only marines including the Commodore, the future Governor of Australia. Why was he on board?

It is left to fiction to explain, to the art of story to tell us why. The James Ruse story needs the causality of plot and likewise historical fiction has an ongoing vacancy for the story of James Ruse. For another feature of this man’s life, are the pendulous changes of fortune, his long physical struggle against man and nature, and against man’s nature itself, including his own.

Those that know his story, including his many descendants, will each have their own James Ruse, constructed upon what biographical facts we can be sure of. His character is formed in Cornwall, that we know. In all probability brought up on a farm. But my James, the twenty three-year old that steals the silver watches is not a farmer, he is a landless labourer, a cottager dependant on common land fast becoming enclosed. He might even be a squatter on the edge of woodland living in a hovel he has built himself. He knows how to eke out a living, a food supply from a narrow strip of land, a kitchen garden, the few livestock he has on commons pasture. He is near the bottom of an economic system that dates back to the Norman Conquest, some say the Roman invasion. An agricultural system and an agricultural community that was taken apart at the end of the eighteenth century, as England went from a country of commons and common fields to a land of individualist agriculture and large enclosed farms. He is someone who dreams of establishing himself as a farmer, of securing a tenancy, of following his father. It is this ambition to escape common land farming that drives my James to steal the watches and it is also his cottager’s ability to live off scraps of land that enables him to succeed at Parramatta.

That he is chosen for a place on the Supply, and for a chance to prove himself self sufficient at Experiment Farm, I have put down to the humanity of Watkin Tench, and to the notion that Ruse convinced Tench that he had been a farmer with acres of his own back in Cornwall. Tench wrote out his life in memoirs particularly his early adventures but there are five years missing. Some say he was, for part of that time at least, captain of a prison hulk off Devonport, the Dunkirk where James Ruse was held. An unglamorous experience he chose not to write about. The Watkin Tench in my story is there, driving a plot forward if not the ship.


Site of Ruse’s first farm on the Hawkesbury River, New South Wales.

Until now Ruse has not had the attention of novelists or dramatists. He is perhaps seen as a little too pedestrian. The dogged farmer, clearing the bush, clod-moulding the earth. He didn’t escape, he didn’t try to, he never became a bushwhacker, and he wasn’t a highwayman to begin with. But he was a man always on the edge of calamity, his life and endeavours bound up with the very existence of the penal colony in New South Wales. He faced starvation, flooding at the Hawkesbury, losing land, beginning over, time after time, years of perilous sealing including a mysteriously ill-fated mission on the Speedwell. His story is epic because his deeds were quietly heroic. It is also an Everyman story of redemption and I have given my James a spiritual life as a Methodist. The James of us all we know became a Catholic in the end, shortly before he died.

Whenever I visit a stately home in England the guide will tell me that the property ‘was built by the Earl of Shrewsbury in 1720’. Somehow I’m never able to imagine the earl with a trowel. I look at the marble, who carved that? Who built the walls, cut the stone pillars? What were they like, how much were they paid? Or as Bertolt Brecht put it, Caesar defeated the Gauls/Did he not even have cook with him? So it is with Ruse, barely known to many Australians. Though he has a school named after him he is for me still too much on the margins of history, perhaps because of his class, his unromantic occupation. He was also someone, one among many, who tore his limbs and bent his back making farm after farm to feed the colony, to feed himself and his family, to begin the making of modern Australia.


My novel The Stony Ground, The Remembered Life of Convict James Ruse is published by Waterside Press and is now available.

Forthcoming book launches Australia

June 23rd, Cambelltown and Airds Historical Society see here

July 8th, Hawkesbury Regional Museum see here

June 30th, Experiment Farm Cottage, Parramatta, see below.

July 1st. The descendants of James Ruse. Private function.