Note of our meeting on 20 October

Discussion on Housing

The meeting reviewed Jeremy Corbyn’s Housing Policy, published as part of his Labour leadership campaign, and concluded that it had much to commend it. In particular, the aims of building one million new homes during the next five year parliament and providing new safeguards for tenants in the private rented sector in the form of three year tenancies and blocks on “unreasonable rent increases” were welcome and politically attractive. The CP should certainly maintain its support for Corbyn and endorse these proposals. The meeting did, however, conclude that they would ameliorate but not eliminate the housing crisis. For this the fundamental problems with UK housing had to be addressed. It needed to be recognise that treating homes as investments benefitted home owners – those already on the so-called housing ladder, but Marxists understood that, outside the productive process, asset ownership and exchange was a zero sum game. The gains accruing to home owners from owning property – essentially land value – didn’t materialise out of the ether: they were transfers of value  to those who who didn’t own their homes to those who did. One solution would be a Land Value Tax. It also had to be recognised that land and houses were currently over-valued when they couldn’t be afforded by working people. A fall in prices should be encouraged and welcomed, not feared – but it had to be matched with restrictions on banks’ rights to foreclose and requirements on them to write down the amounts they could recover from mortgage loans. For too long banks had made essentially speculative loans secured on land and buildings. passing on the risk associated with these speculative loans to the borrower. The aim of housing policy, the meeting concluded, should be to separate the provision of homes – a basic human need – from the creation of speculative investment.

The anomaly of allowing home owners to build up a capital gain which was then appropriated by the private sector providers of care homes was also discussed.

The meeting went on to discuss how to support the Axe the Act Campaign and their wish to expose Gavin Barwell, the Tory MP for Croydon Central and newly appointed Housing Minister, for having no intention of addressing the housing crisis. Barwell had a majority of only 165 at the last general election having spent almost up to the statutory limit according to his election expenses returns. There were allegations that he had falsified these returns, but the police had now concluded their investigations without bringing a prosecution. The meeting was not impressed with this outcome. Barwell also had a poor record as a Labour Councillor on housing matters, appearing to be keener on sweetening his constituents than pressing ahead with housing development in the south of the borough. It was also noted that the Nestle Building in Central Croydon had stood empty for four years, mostly under his watch, and was not now scheduled for redevelopment until 2018 – probably for luxury flats. The similarity with Centre Point in Central London, left empty for decades while its value increased, was pointed out. The problems of empty property and second homes both needed to be addressed in any comprehensive policy on housing.

Other Business

Ben Stevenson was appointed our delegate to Party Congress on the weekend of 19-20 November at Ruskin House. Members were encouraged to attend as visitors, volunteer as stewards and offer beds for delegates on the nights of Friday 18th and Saturday 19th November. Please make offers to

The Party’s Big Red Appeal is up and running. Members are encouraged to donate what you can – cheques made out to CPB and mailed to the Party at Ruskin House or by credit transfer to the Party account – details from the acting branch secretary.

Members were encouraged to attend the Croydon Assembly at Ruskin House on Saturday, 26 November

Next meeting

7 pm at Party Centre on Thursday ,17 November –our usual third Thursday of the month.


The Same Mistakes

Disappointment at learning that the ‘wrong’ Dylan, Bob, not Thomas, had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature this year was only partially mitigated by the reminder that being dead disqualifies one from winning a Nobel Prize. Dylan Thomas has been dead for 63 years and in his turbulent lifetime never courted Establishment recognition.’Llareggub’ was what he expected and that’s what he got.

Establishment recognition is a heady treat that recipients are well advised to imbibe with caution. The credibility of the British gong system and, in particular, membership of the House of Lords, is at an all-time low following misuse by successive governments to reward party donors and pack the second chamber with party hacks. Can it still be deemed “an honour” to receive such taudry awards? The Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Literature, Physics, and Physiology/ Medicine were first awarded in 1901 and remain hugely prestigious. Less so is the Nobel Prize for Peace – awarded to Barack Obama in 2009 for no obvious achievement than that he had won the US Presidential Election eight months previously. The so-called Nobel Prize for Economics was the creation of the Swedish Central Bank in 1968 and is awarded to whichever bourgeois economist can come up with the least implausible justification for sticking with free market economics.

Notwithstanding the award to Bob Dylan, the Nobel Prize for Literature, while inevitably more contentious than awards for science, has until now retained its credibility. The award in 2005 to Harold Pinter cannot, for example, be faulted. Another worthy award, albeit one given very little coverage or endorsement in the UK media, was that to Svetlana Alexievich in 2015. She writes in Russian, which could conceivably explain this lack of interest, but a more likely explanation is that her interviews with citizens of the former Soviet Union are far too sympathetic for the tastes of our newspaper owners; and, although she does not whitewash the shortcomings in the former USSR, neither does she portray a system that was all bad. The current edition of the London Review of Books contains a detailed and largely positive review of her book Second-Hand Time: The Last of the Soviets and may encourage sales of the book.

Another sympathetic look at the shortcomings of the USSR is Landscapes of Communism by Owen Hatherley (Penguin, 2015). This book looks at the built environment of the former socialist states and China and refrains from rubbishing them out of hand. Mr Hatherley, coincidentally, also writes for the London Review of Books. While it would be pleasant to dwell only on the successes of communism, glorying in the October Revolution, the Long March etc, it’s vital to understand what went wrong in the first attempts to build socialism. Superficial analysis that focusses on the flawed personality of the leader or conflates socialist states with totalitarianism won’t achieve this. We need honest and thoughtful analysis so that we don’t make the same mistakes next time.

Voices of the Spied Upon

Croydon CP are joining with Croydon Unite RM Branch and Croydon TUC to encourage members to attend the meeting this Monday, 7 pm, 10 October, at The Venue, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HY called by the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance to hear the Voices of the Spied Upon. The meeting will be well attended by the police, albeit there won’t be many uniforms on display.

The intention is to give a voice to those spied upon by the authorities. Speakers will include Ricky Tomlinson, one of the Shrewsbury Six imprisoned for legal picketing, and Lisa Jones, an environmental activist who discovered in 2010 that her partner of six years was actually an undercover police officer. Unaccompanied women attending the meeting are strongly advised not to allow any strange men with size eleven feet to chat them up.

If you wish to attend the meeting, you can book a place at Eventbrite.

If you would like to know who attended this meeting, simply submit a Public Information Request after the event to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard, 8-10 Broadway, London SW1H 0BG.

What is a School of Government for?

The new Lavatnik School of Government at Oxford University now offers an intensive one-year masters degree in public policy (MPP) intended to equip students for a career in public service. While there is clearly a need for professional civil servants and public administrators, there must be a doubt about whether what they need can be taught in twelve months, especially when such careers increasingly involve, at the top of the heap, rotating doors between government service and the private sector. Integrity and commitment to the public good are, in any event, not susceptible to being taught in universities and are not demonstrated by the acquisition of a very expensive masters degree for which the student received no grant from the state or local authority for fees or subsistence. But is that what the Lavatnik School of Government is for?

The School is named after Leonard Lavatnik, Britain’s richest man. His wealth is thought to be some £17 billion, from which his ‘modest’ donation of £75 million to the School was sufficient to give him naming rights. As with many of the mega rich, the origin of his wealth is obscure, but, as he was born in the former USSR in 1957 and emigrated with his family to the USA in 1978, it’s a safe bet that he benefitted from the collapse of the USSR and the plundering of workers’ assets that then ensued. This does not represent much of a role model for future public servants in the UK, but Oxford Colleges, like Tory politicians, are notorious for not looking too hard at the source of their funding. The question remains, however, what is the purpose of the Lavatnik School of Government if not to “equip students for a career in public service”?

An important role for a prestigious School of Government will doubtless be to add to the stock of establishment ‘experts’ who can be wheeled in to justify the status quo. It has, however, another even more grubby purpose.

Professor Jonathan Wolff of this same Blavatnik School of Public Policy, writing in the Guardian today, clearly sees post graduate degrees as a product to be sold internationally. Rejoicing in the fact that in 2014-15 71% of full time masters level students and more than half of PhD students at UK universities come from overseas, he cautions against any possibility that the number of overseas students in UK universities could be capped. Such a cap would simply benefit “our competitors”, by which he means foreign universities. No social function is apparently attached to post-graduate degrees, including the MPP. They simply represent a business opportunity for universities, nothing more.

The Marxist view of the education system is that it’s there to reproduce and legitimate class structure and to meet the needs of employers for staff with the necessary skills, attitudes and conditioning. Post-graduate education is part of this system. Treating universities as businesses competing to flog prestigious degrees to those who can afford to buy them is perfectly consistent with this model.

it’s time to change the system. Education would be a good place to start, and university education should be high on our agenda.

Political Discussion on 15 September

At the branch Meeting on 15 September the political discussion centred on the leadership contest in the Labour Party.

It was agreed that, although Communist Party members were simply observers in the struggle going on inside the Labour Party, and we had no interest in entryism, we were well placed to speak out on what was going on. While the reports to the meeting were essentially second-hand, they drew on excellent contacts across the labour movement and, in many cases, the experience of family and friends who were Labour Party members and members of Momentum.

It was reported that Momentum were advising its members to keep a low profile in the internet and not to refer in public or on the internet to ‘plotters’, ‘coups’, ‘traitors’ or ‘Blairites’ when discussing the election. Fear of being expelled, or at the very least being disenfranchised in the current election, appeared to be widespread amongst Labour Party members. Fortunately, the CP, at this meeting and in the pages of the Morning Star, was not susceptible to such intimidation..

It was reliably reported that Labour Party members were still receiving telephone calls asking whether they had voted yet and, if so, which way. When challenged about the purpose and legitimacy of enquiring about votes already cast in a secret ballot, the callers had, it was reported, hurriedly rung off. The evidence points to these calls coming from the Smith campaign, but how they got hold of names and telephone numbers of Labour Party members was unclear. Breaches of the Data Protection Act could not be discounted.

The attention of the meeting was drawn to the extensive anecdotal reports that Corbyn supporters were being expelled for trivial reasons and to the exclusion of some 130,000 new members because they had joined in the last six months. Doubts were expressed over whether the elements in the Labour Party opposing Corbyn would succeed in expelling enough members to swing the election in favour of Owen Smith. Whether this was so won’t be clear until the Labour Party Leadership Conference on 24 September.

It was noted that, in seeking comments on political developments, the BBC had reverted to those who had participated in the staged and phased mass resignations from the Shadow Cabinet. The self-imposed silence from Hilary Benn and his fellow conspirators had ended. Little surprise was expressed over this development, but it was pointed out that, when the BBC draft Royal Charter was enacted, the likelihood of the BBC  reporting  without bias on political developments would be further reduced.

The most disturbing aspect of the Labour leadership election for many at the meeting was the failure of the challenger, Owen Smith, to confirm that he would respect the result of the election. He had previously stated his refusal to serve in a future shadow cabinet under Corbyn and, in the televised debate with his ‘unelectable’ opponent, he had left the stage after being thoroughly trounced, mumbling about offering Corbyn the non-existent role of ‘president’ of the party. As the Co-op Party had refused to go along with the plotters’ proposal to use it as a vehicle to legitimise a Parliamentary Labour Party in revolt against its elected leader, the meeting was concerned that the Blairite wing of the Labour Party would simply trigger successive leadership elections until they finally win one.

Concluding the meeting, it was proposed that, in response to ideas discussed at the Party Cadre School on 10 September, the Croydon Branch should in future hold public meetings to debate and discuss political developments and analyse them in the light of Marxist theory. It was suggested that this might be done by re-activating and re-branding the classes previously held by the Communist University in South London, but possibly introduced this time by named speakers. This proposal will be investigated by the Branch Committee. Views of members were invited.


TUC Congress 2016

Largely ignored by the capitalist press and the BBC, who have again declined to reinstate their live coverage of the event, the annual TUC Congress is taking place this week in Brighton. Despite these efforts to discourage public attention, Congress is particularly significant this year as the government struggles to implement the EU referendum decision and while the Parliamentary Labour Party struggles to sustain its self-appointed role as Tory Lite, contrary to the wishes of its elected (soon to be re-elected?) leader. Fortunately, the CP has no such internal conflicts and, as ever, will be in attendance at Congress, distributing each day Unity, our well received briefing for Congress delegates.

One of the most significant issues facing Congress is reflected in Motion 17 and its amendments, grouped together under the heading Protecting worker and trade union rights in the EU Brexit as Composite 7  The composite resolution calls on unions to ‘oppose any assault on the rights of workers arising from the decision to leave the EU. Our rights as workers continue to be among the most restricted in Europe and any further restrictions through Brexit negotiations would be totally unacceptable. The resolution calls for the trade unions to be recognised as key stakeholders in the Brexit negotiations and for

  • a campaign to ensure that the UK government does not repeal any current rights guaranteed by the EU;
  • the rights of existing EU workers to remain in the UK to be protected; and.
  • the IER Manifesto for Labour Law to be promoted.

The CP welcomes these proposals which we anticipate will be adopted by Congress and thus become official TUC policy. In this event, at the local level we will be asking Croydon TUC to acquire, study and seek to implement the IER Manifesto locally. I will report back on the outcome of this initiative..

A Voluntary Tax

In the CP’s 2014 review of taxation, From Each According To Their Means , little emphasis was placed on hypothecation – the principle under which money raised from a particular tax is used for a pre-specified purpose. This makes sense. The primary purpose of taxation is to finance the totality of government expenditure and, subject to borrowing to invest for the future and the cyclical nature of economic activity under capitalism, budgets do need to balance. When, however, there is an opportunity to raise revenue which can be matched with a clear social need for government expenditure, it makes sense, if only for  presentational purposes, to link the two.

Inheritance Tax is currently a “voluntary” tax, not only for the very wealthy but also for large sections of the upper middle class who also see it as their right to pay as little of it as possible. Estates worth less than £325,000 are exempt and the rate of and 40% thereafter is easily avoidable by employing any half-competent solicitor. The Duke of Westminster’s estate, for example, is said to be worth some £13 billion, but no Inheritance Tax will be paid following his death last month as his property is held in trusts. In consequence, Inheritance Tax yielded a paltry £4.6 billion last year. Yet according to even ONS statistics , wealth in private hands is now worth £11.1 trillion, with more than half owned by the wealthiest 10%. If we assume an average lifespan of 60 years between inheritance and death, this indicates an average effective rate of Inheritance Tax of only 2.5%. In reality this average effective rate is much lower due to the wealthy concealing their wealth and the average interval between inheritance and death being much less than 60 years.

Consider now the government’s current level of support for those in residential care homes. According to Laing & Buisson Care of Older People UK Market Report 2014/15. care home charges last year were on average £29,250 per annum, rising to over £39,300 if nursing care was required.  Charges in the London area are significantly higher. Support from local authorities is available (although increasingly difficult to access due to the austerity squeeze from central government), but the care home resident has, in effect to surrender any capital in excess of £14,250 but less than £23,250 at a rate of £250 for every £1 per week of support and 100% of any capital in excess of £23,250. For a small estate of, say £50,000, this is equivalent to paying Inheritance Tax at 72%.

What is to be done? According to the Dilnot Commission in 2011, there should be a cap of £35,000 on the amount an individual would have to pay for their own care costs during their lifetime. Above that level, the state would pay a standard rate for care, regardless of the individual’s wealth. People would still be liable for costs of accommodation and food in a care home, but this would be capped at £10,000 a year. In addition, the commission called for a big increase in the threshold of savings and assets above which the state offers no help with care costs. The limit should rise from £23,250 to £100,000.

These were modest proposals and failed to go to the heart of the problem. The government nevertheless chose to ignore them. Instead it included a vague manifesto commitment to introduce new rules designed to prevent older people from having to sell their homes when they go into care. This has been deferred until 2020. A lifetime cap on care costs in England of £72,000 was also proposed but deferred after council leaders asked for the allocated funding to be used instead to paper over the on-going crisis in day-to-day social care services.

According to another report from Laing and Buisson, residents (and local authorities) currently pay £14.3 billion per annum in care home fees. This figure is likely to increase due to:

  • pressure on fees from cash-strapped local authorities driving many smaller homes out of business, enabling the rest to put up their fees; and
  •   pressure on care homes to improve the pay of their often badly paid and exploited staff. Even the Tories’ so called living wage will have an effect here.

If, however, we disregard the profits earned by care homes – in a sane world they would be run by local authorities, not profiteers – and estimate that the economic cost of the services currently provided is, say, three times that currently paid, this could be paid for by a tenfold increase in the yield from Inheritance tax. Given the current very low effective rate of 2.5%, this could be achieved by abolishing the trust loophole and ensuring other similar scams are not allowed to flourish. With an average rate of tax of 25%, we could have care homes for all with most people still being better off . With a graduated rate of tax, 90% of people could be better off. For example, on the figures above, a rate of 50% on the top 10% of wealth owners and a zero rate for the rest of us could provide care homes for all.

I don’t claim that the above calculations are anything other than rough estimates. The overall position they reveal is, however, undeniable. There is a solution to the problem of paying for care homes: it’s an Inheritance Tax that is no longer voluntary..



Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a statistic to which much importance is attached by the high priests of capitalism, our celebrated economic ‘experts’ and central bankers with their panels of expert advisers. Estimates of the growth or decline in GDP in the previous quarter are eagerly awaited, and forecasts for the coming year and beyond are given much credence and lead to sighs of relief when, as with the recent forecast for UK GDP from Moody, they predict growth of 1.2% for 2017, only slightly lower than the 1.5% forecast for 2016. The collective group-think is that, while the UK economy is slowing down, the EU Referendum result will not, as previously feared, trigger a recession. This confidence is buttressed by forecasts of GDP growth in the rest of the world, the recent fall in the value of the pound and the Bank of England’s further resort to ‘quantitative easing’ – the strategy whereby the government, in effect, prints money and lends it to the commercial banks without any strings attached.

Capitalist economies are, of course, always driven by such vague sentiments, reinforced by the wisdom of ‘experts’ who actually have little understanding of how their economies really work or when the next crisis will hit. Moody’s forecast assumes that another financial crash of the kind experienced in 2007 and 2008 won’t occur. Considerations such as the instability of the Euro, the house price bubble and bankers’ continued addiction to casino and arbitrage activity instead of investment in productive enterprises are simply ignored. Also disregarded, perhaps because it is simply too painful for the ‘experts’ to contemplate, is the much greater difficulty governments and central banks will encounter if a crisis in the banking and finance sector occurs sooner rather than later. Next time it won’t be so easy to lay the burden on ordinary workers and their families. That trick can only be played when memories have faded.

The tendency for capital to over-accumulate and resort to speculative activity as the rate of profit declines makes another economic crisis inescapable. It may not arise in 2017, but it’s coming.

Finally, a brief note on GDP. GDP is arrived at by summing the value added from separate commodity generating activities across the economy, thereby avoiding double counting the production of commodities used in subsequent production. It thus represents the income available to a nation to pay wages, capital costs, taxes and (most important to capitalists) profits. It is a useful measure of the scale of an economy, but it has several shortcomings. In particular:

  1. it fails to measure inputs and outputs at their true economic cost. In particular, no allowance is made for the damage to the environment caused, for example, by CO2 emissions;
  2. there is no allowance for depreciation of plant and machinery. If this were done GDP would be a good first order estimate of surplus value – a key measure in Marxist economics which bourgeois economists prefer to ignore – assuming that is they understand what it is;
  3. GDP, even after deduction of depreciation, requires a deflator before it can be used as an efficiency measure. The available deflators such as hours worked have limitations; and
  4. the statistic tells us nothing about how GDP is shared between capitalists and workers.


For those interested in these more technical matters, I will post a short piece shortly on the  Communist University in South London website.


Keeping focussed on Global Warming

Averaged as a whole, the global temperature across land surfaces for June 2016 was 1.24°C (2.23°F) above the 20th century average—tying with 2015 as the highest June temperature in the 1880–2016 record See source. In June the CO2 level reached an all-time high of 404.48 ppm. That compares with 381.82 in July 2006 and peaks of only 300 ppm in the last 400,000 years. See source.

The government’s response was to scrap the Department of Climate Change. Climate change is now the “responsibility” of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and will have no one in Cabinet to make the case for action to oppose it. If problems went away by ignoring them, this would be a masterstroke. Unfortunately, they don’t and it isn’t.

There is also a danger that, in the heat of battle over getting Jeremy Corbyn re-elected as Labour Party Leader, the Left, and even the Communist Party, could also lose sight of this issue. This must not be allowed to happen. Global warming may, according to Marxist theory, act as a fetter on the growth of productive forces and thereby lead to the replacement of capitalism with a higher form of social organisation, i.e. socialism, but this is not the only possible outcome. Global destruction – a Sixth Great Extinction – is another. Indeed, according to Barnosky and others Nature 2011, it has already begun, but it will only become irreversible if we allow the capitalists to ignore it.

The 54th Communist Party Congress will be held on the weekend of 19-20 November. We are currently in a pre-Congress discussion phase when members and supporters debate anything and everything on the Members and Supporters site. It’s important that we take this opportunity to keep Global Warming at the forefront of concerns.



The Long Term View

In the final paragraph of his book, Stepping Stones, the making of our Home World, Steve Drury concludes that:

a mere 10 thousand years of human history has created economic chains that stifle such potential and increasingly endanger its survival. It seems to me that if history is to continue being recorded and sifted through, the next stepping stone is consciously to break those chains.

As communists we heartily endorse this conclusion, but we may not all be fully aware of how we got here. Marxists tend to study history and pre-history back to the end of the last Ice Age, but Steve Dury takes us from when our planet was formed some four and a half billion years ago and, drawing on the latest scientific evidence, explains everything with stunning clarity and insight. You can still find copies of the original hardback first edition  (Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0 19 850271 0) if you hunt round for them but he has now generously published a revised, second edition as an e-book  here . Both this and the revised second e-edition cannot be recommended highly enough. Day to day political and economic analysis and knockabout is all very well, but, in addition, we all need to be aware of the long term view..