Jeremy Cobyn’s Patriotism

Patriotism, love for one’s country, is a virtue when uncontaminated by xenophobia, but when trumpeted by those whose personal contribution to the welfare of their countrymen and women is, at best, tenuous, it is, as Samuel Johnson wrote, the last refuge of scoundrels. It was the latter form that was employed last week in many of the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn in the capitalist press. This was perhaps inevitable given the foreign ownership and non-dom status of most of the owners, but we had a right to expect better of the BBC. They may be desperate to ingratiate themselves with the Tory government prior to their charter review, but surely they appreciate that a day of reckoning from a successor to this present, venal government awaits them.

Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘patriotism’ was questioned on three occasions: first by his questioning the need for obsequious flummery before he could be appointed to the Privy Council; second by his failing to sing aloud the National Anthem in the approved ‘patriotic’ manner ; and third for undermining Britain’s Independent Nuclear Deterrent by asserting that he would never, as Prime Minister, launch a nuclear attack. The first two questions arose from the continued conflation of the nation with the Crown. This may have been the formal position at the time of the Norman Conquest when England became William the Conqueror’s personal property and its people his ‘subjects’, but that this arrangement should linger on into the 21st Century is almost beyond belief. A heredity head of state may be defended by the establishment as both a symbol of the nation and a device to ensure continuity of government, but this does not mean that this symbol/device should substitute for the nation itself and her people treated as mere ‘subjects’, not citizens . As an intelligent individual, of course Jeremy Corbyn questions these absurd arrangements. We in the Communist Party share his views.

The attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, including those from his own front bench, for asserting that, as Prime Minister, he would never launch a nuclear attack are either disingenuous or condoning the crime of global genocide. The disingenuity arises because the British Independent Nuclear Deterrent is neither British nor Independent – does anyone seriously think anything would actually happen if a British Prime Minister pushed the red button without US approval? If Volkswagen can hide software in our cars to defeat US emission testing, the US can surely incorporate failsafe software in the missiles they sell us. Condoning the crime of global genocide arises either because a first strike by Britain is envisaged or because, without such a strategy, retaliation would be a genocidal war crime of monstrous proportions. By the time a future British Prime Minister has to consider whether or not to retaliate, most British ‘subjects’ (for once the term would be appropriate) would already be dead. In this situation, in a bunker under a mountain in Scotland, he or she must choose whether to extinguish Homo Sapiens completely or allow some of the descendants from a common ancestor to survive and possibly re-build civilisation. If the patriotic response would be to push the red button because these survivors would not be British, the capitalist press is right for once: Jeremy Corbyn is not a patriot. And, by this definition, neither are we in the Communist Party.

What Regulators Are For

Last week the Financial Conduct Authority proposed as its contribution to solving the housing crisis to “look at the products and markets that are developing to ensure they work for consumers.” This week it was the turn of the Bank of England’s Financial Stability Committee to address the housing crisis. They were, however, no more concerned about the housing needs of working families than were the Financial Conduct Authority. Their concern was with “wider financial stability” which they saw threatened by bank lending to the buy-to-let market. “Wider financial stability” is banker-speak for avoiding another banking crisis. Fuelled by Quantitative Easing, the policy whereby the government prints money and gives it to the banks in the hope that they will lend it to UK industry, the banks chose, instead, to increase lending for buy-to-let by 40% since the 2007-8 banking crash and bailout. This increase has been a major factor in escalating house prices. The Financial Stability Committee is right to be concerned that another banking crisis could be triggered by a collapse in the buy-to-let market, but just like the Financial Conduct Authority, they are focussing on the wrong needs: those of banks and financial services providers, not the unmet needs of working families.

Needless to say, the Financial Stability Committee refrained from suggesting that the government should regulate or restrict bank lending even though it is effectively with our money. The role of a regulator in a market economy is to bestow legitimacy on markets and the accumulation of capital. Protection of ‘consumers’ is very much a secondary consideration and protection of workers completely out of the question. Appointed by ministers but supposedly at arm’s length from the government of the day, their true independence is as fictitious as that of the judiciary and the police. We should not be surprised when they represent the interests of the 1%, not the 99%.

Crisis – what crisis?

The call this week by Lynda Blackwell, Head of Mortgages at the Financial Conduct Authority, for older people to downsize their homes in order to alleviate the housing crisis demonstrates just how out of touch the ruling class have become. Her employer quickly distanced itself from her lame attempt to blame the housing crisis on ‘last time buyers’ refusing to shuffle off to the care home quickly enough but it was unable itself to come up with anything better to solve the housing crisis than to “look at the products and markets that are developing to ensure they work for consumers.” This regulator’s gobbledygook translates as ‘Crisis – what crisis?’ I doubt, however, whether we have heard the last of Ms Blackwell’s analysis. After all, it is already being applied as the bedroom tax in the fast diminishing social housing sector. Ineffective as that policy has proved in solving the housing crisis, it does help the ruling class (or the 1% if you prefer) to stir up inter-generational strife and thereby draw attention away from the real cause of the housing crisis.

It is certainly true that the generation born immediately after the end of the Second World War have been exceedingly fortunate. Benefitting from free education and full employment, they were offered secure social housing to rent or could buy their homes with cheap, tax deductible loans from building societies. The next generation were deprived of access to such cheap finance – the government having abolished the tax relief on mortgages and allowed the banks to gobble up the building societies (the few that remain being forced to adopt the same profit driven strategies). Many in the next generation were, however, also able to build up significant equity in their homes, but this was more the result of escalating house prices than any sustainable policy. For the current generation of young people other than those born into the privileged 1%, conditions are much harsher. While some will benefit (eventually) from inheritance inflated by the sale of their parents’ homes, this benefit is eroded by too many siblings and step-siblings, increases in life expectancy and exorbitant care home costs. In the longer term this benefit too will melt away. For young people today, facing a ratio of national house prices to male average full-time earnings of 5 and average house prices in London of 33 times the annual full time earnings of £7 an hour, the first rung of the so called housing ladder is completely out of reach.

From the perspective of the 1%, this doesn’t matter. Housing is simply a valuable and valued part of their capital. Provided the rest of us can afford to rent in the private sector, however inadequate and insecure this may be, topped up where necessary with subventions to landlords to house those who cannot afford the ‘market’ rent, what’s the problem? These are secure investments, underpinned as they are by interest rates manipulated by an unaccountable Bank of England. Provided the rich on the way to the opera can still step over the homeless or, failing that, have them washed away with Mayor Boris Johnson’s water cannon, who cares?

One way to analyse the mess we are in is to compare it with how things would be done in a socialist society – one on the way to building communism where society is rich enough to meet everyone’s needs and class antagonisms and exploitation has melted away. In a socialist society, housing would be assessed by its usefulness, not as an investment to owners seeking a profit. An adequate stock of housing would be a social priority and provided by collective effort. Security of occupation would be ensured; and democratic control would be exercised by those living in a local community, whether it be a tower block or local neighbourhood. The continuity of local communities and familial ties would be prioritised.

What could be achieved under the existing social and economic structures? A massive programme of council house building, financed, as Jeremy Corbyn has proposed, by a peoples’ quantitative easing would be a start. Tough regulation of the private rented sector and more security of tenure for tenants would help. A ban on foreign ownership of London housing would help. Perhaps most important of all, attention should be given not to “looking at the products and markets that are developing to ensure they work for consumers” as the FCA fatuously proposed but to removing the props that underpin sky high prices in UK property and ensuring that when prices come down we are not asked once again to bail out the banks who were responsible for these prices in the first place.

If this cannot be achieved under capitalism, there is always the alternative solution.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Trade Union Bill

Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour leadership election has been warmly welcomed by the Communist Party although, given the composition of the Parliamentary Labour Party, no one in our Party expects his task to be an easy one. The immediate resignation of six members of the Shadow Cabinet and the universally hostile reception he received in the capitalist press and the BBC (with little to differentiate them these days) illustrates the difficulties he will face. Yet on his first day in Parliament as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will lead his party’s opposition to the Trade Union Bill. If the dissidents in the Parliamentary Labour Party cannot rally behind him on this issue, they will expose themselves for the Tories they are. Mass mandatory re-selection of MPs will be the only solution.

The Bill is pernicious. It will allow agency workers to be drafted in to strike break whether or not they are competent to do the job. Amateur train drivers? Longer notice of strike action must be given to employers of impending action (fourteen rather than seven days) and, more significantly, unions will have to publish, fourteen days in advance, a written plan of any intended protest and specific details about it, including social media use. Demonstrations will be severely circumscribed and simple majorities will no longer be sufficient to authorise strike action. In effect, and unlike other elections including those for parliament, an abstention will count as a vote against. On that basis, Scotland voted for independence and the Tories lost the last general election.

Yet there are trade union law reforms that are needed. Electronic voting by union members in the workplace would greatly enhance workplace democracy; firms that engage in blacklisting should be prosecuted; and police spying on trade unionists and left wing activists should end immediately. That the last activity is still going on was revealed by Dave Smith, a victimised trade unionist and author of Blacklisted (New Internationist, 2015), to Croydon TUC on Thursday.

Dave’s revelations did not come as a surprise to the significant number of Communist Party members at the Croydon TUC meeting. Anyone who knows our Party’s history knows that systematic efforts were made in the past to penetrate and spy on the Communist Party.  There is even evidence that the sanctity of the voting booth was systematically broken in order to identify and report the names of those even daring to vote for Communist Party candidates. Given the reduced scale of the Party’s electoral activity in recent  years, necessitated by the need to re-build the Party more or less from scratch in the 1990s, and the obstacles faced by smaller parties in parliamentary elections (the dominance and bias of our mass media including the BBC, the high cost  of lost deposits, the undemocratic nature of first-past-the-post  etc), it is unlikely that Special Branch expend much effort these days on this particular nefarious activity but other forms of spying on trade unionists, activists and communists continue and will continue until they are exposed and our reluctant authorities are forced to abandon them and legislate accordingly.

Now those would be sensible reforms! No doubt Jeremy Corbyn will propose them on Monday. Good luck, Jeremy!

Work ’til you drop? I don’t think so!

It’s worth reminding ourselves from time to time that, contrary to the establishment view, capitalism is not the permanent and definitive form of society, it is merely a transitionary phase in human development with a finite shelf life. There are a number of developments in the 21st Century that will make its survival into the 22nd highly problematical. These include:

  1. global warming and capitalism’s inability to deal with the cause – society’s dependence on fossil fuels;
  2. as predicted by Marxist economic theory (and largely ignored by non-Marxists), increasingly severe economic crises due to the over-accumulation of capital and a long-term tendency for the rate of profit to decline;
  3. increasing inequality and the failure of more humane variants of capitalism such as the Swedish social democratic model to survive; and
  4. demographics.

The last item is frequently overlooked. Growing world population clearly represents a threat to humanity’s survival but the greater threat to capitalism’s survival may come from its relative success in extending the average life of ordinary working people – assuming that is that the profits driven pharmaceutical industry doesn’t botch its response to the next pandemic or the equally profit greedy food manufacturers don’t kill us with obesity and diabetes generating food. Data published last week by the Office for National Statistics predict that a girl born between 2010 and 2012 can now expect to live until 82.8 while a boy is expected to live until 79. The previous predictions in 2005 were 80.6 and 76 respectively. The immediate response from the so-called pension ‘industry’ was that the state pension age will have to rise much faster than currently anticipated by the government “almost inevitably reaching at least 70 by the middle of the century”. Their motive, of course, is the huge profits they make peddling ‘personal pensions’, but there can be little doubt that the government will comply with their wishes.

What are we to make of this? By the middle of the century capitalism will have created an immensely wealthy 1% who own practically everything (where we live, the land beneath our feet, the services on which we rely) and who, apart from an ambitious, competitive minority, will neither wish nor have to work. For the remaining 99%, we will be required to work (or claim survival level ‘benefits’) well beyond any age at which we might be considered competent. Nonagenarian bus drivers? I don’t think so. Old people on jobseekers allowance? Much more likely!

The alternative is, of course, socialism which, in its fully developed form, has been described by Marx as from each according to their means, to each according to their need. While it will become immensely attractive to the exploited majority, it won’t, however, happen by itself. It will take organisation and effort. That’s where we in the Croydon CP and socialists and communists across the county and worldwide come in.

Free Education and the Future of the Labour Party

The recent finding from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development that more than half of UK graduates are in non-graduate jobs is more a reflection of our slow and partial recovery from the recession triggered by the 2007 financial crash than it is a reflection of the quality of university education. It does, however, leave most graduates – i.e. those without parents in the top 1% wealth bracket who pay for their education and subsequent internships – with a burden of debt.

The Labour government of 1945 can take much credit for promoting the concept of free education open to all. The view that education is simply the route by which the wealthy secure the best paid and most congenial jobs for their offspring came, perhaps for the first time, under pressure. This advance received its first set back when the Wilson government, having introduced the Open University as a route into degree level education for workers who missed their school-based opportunity, required it in 1970 to charge modest fees. As Tony Simpson has argued, this was a critical mistake that opened the door to tuition fees across the board. First Thatcher froze grants and introduced loans, then in 1998 Labour abolished mandatory student grants and introduced £1,000 tuition fees. Despite Labour’s pledge in 2001 not to introduce top-up fees, they allowed them to rise to £3,000. Under the subsequent Tory government under Cameron, unrestrained by their Lib Dem partners (a treachery that cost them dear), fees have exceeded £9,000 per annum and even an OU degree now costs over £15,000.

There can be no better way of cementing the position of the top 1% on our country than to heap the cost of education on students. Not only does it secure the best jobs for the kids of the wealthy, but it encourages our universities to focus on a neo-liberal worldview and to think of themselves as multi-national businesses, not national centres of learning and research with responsibilities to educate citizens. It is no coincidence that the decline and disappearance of Marxist studies in universities has coincided with this development. To the extent that Marxist studies continue in the UK, it is through such voluntary initiatives as the Communist University in South London, not in our colleges and universities.

One of the most encouraging aspects of Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign to become Labour Party leader has been the commitment he has given to scrapping tuition fees and restoring student maintenance grants. In his first major policy announcement of the campaign he said that they could be funded either by a 7% rise in national insurance for those earning over £50,000 a year and a 2.5% higher corporation tax, or by slowing the pace at which the deficit is reduced. His proposals received a negative response from the other candidates. Yet it is a modest price to pay for such an essential reform.

Should Jeremy Corbyn fail to be elected, or, if elected, should the Parliamentary Labour Party seek to block his proposals for scrapping fees and restoring maintenance grants, such is the importance of this issue that it is difficult to see how Labour can avoid the fate that befell it in Scotland. How this issue pans out may well be the key to their future.

New Labour Hubris

The Blairites were supposed to be masters of controlling democracy, having eliminated it first from their party conference, then from party policy making and finally with changes to the procedures for selection and de-selection of MPs. Local government democracy was supressed by the simple ploy of turning Labour councillors into full-time, relatively well paid employees, positions more suited to careerists rather than political activists. The influence of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) was so successfully marginalised within the Labour Party that most ordinary Labour Party members were unaware of its existence when its founder, Vladimir Derer, died last year. So what went wrong? The answer is surely hubris. They came to believe their own propaganda about a silent, middle class majority. Triangulate on them and all would be well. What they forgot was that the silent majority are just that – silent. They don’t participate in politics. Meanwhile, there is a large, progressive minority who do. People like us: people who go on marches against the war and against austerity; people who join Palestine Solidarity, CND, Cuba Solidarity etc. Even a growing number who are joining the Communist Party – although in our case we are not recommending our members to vote in the Labour Leadership election. We have a long standing and proud tradition against entryism. As Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto,

Communists fight for the attainment of immediate aims, for the enforcement of the current interests of the working class, but in the movement of the present they also take care of the future of that movement…They labour everywhere for the union and agreement of democratic parties…Communist s disdain to conceal their views and aims…They openly declare that their ends can be obtained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.


Sound principles in 1848 and sound principles today.

An Alternative to Job Seekers Allowance and the State Pension

With the UK economy faltering and in no state to withstand another shock – we are still paying for the bank bailout – you may think that the prospect of  Job Seekers Allowance – £72.40 a week or £57.35 if you are under 25 – is not a very attractive prospect even assuming you can satisfy the onerous conditions and limited tenure.  Much better, surely, to collect £300 a day for simply turning up at your designated place of work and then doing absolutely nothing. Furthermore, unlike JSA you won’t be singled out as a work-shy scrounger by the press; payments are non-contributory – you don’t even have to have paid any UK tax; and there is no retirement age  – more than half the current claimants are over 70. Important fringe benefits include a subsidised canteen and bars and every prospect of an upgrade the next time you fly.  Yes –  it’s Member of the House of Lords and you can nominate yourself at House of Lords – self nomination.

Be warned: there is only seating for 400 Lords at Westminster and there are already 783 of them including 26 Bishops. You may not therefore get a seat, but not to worry. No one expects you to actually go to the Chamber and listen to the interminable speeches, let alone speak yourself. You can even claim your allowance without turning up if you say you are working at home. Finally, unlike JSA, not only can you have another job without being prosecuted, you can actually pimp this one to any interested business – they don’t even have to be based in the UK – provided you record that you have done so in the Register of Members Interests.

Too good to be true? The problem is that Cameron, having secured only 36.9% of the vote at the General Election on a 66.1% turnout, i.e. the support of 24% of the electorate, intends himself to appoint some 50 additional Lords in order to secure himself an unearned majority in that House too. As this will cost us as a nation at least £1.3m per year more, the prospects for further expansion will be limited and your application may not be treated as favorably as it deserves. As a job creation scheme, the House of Lords may have reached its capacity. As it serves no other useful function, the time has come sadly to merge it with JSA and the State Pension. But good luck with your application anyway.


Before I depart on my summer vacation, I should like to draw attention to two important events while I am away:

1. Red Star Festival, Marx Memorial Library, 31 July – 2 August, 37a Clerkenwell Green, London EC1R 0DU. A weekend of debate, discussion, comradeship and fun. Book your place at

2. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party leadership front runner

Tuesday 4 August 2015, 7pm, Croydon TUC, Ruskin House, 23 Coombe Road, Croydon, CR0 1BD

No need to book, just turn up.

There is no Communist University in South London in August. We are holding a planning meeting in September and classes resume in October – both on the first Tuesday of the month, 7 pm at Ruskin House

Dooming the Labour Party Forever?

Liz Kendall, the Blairite candidate in the Labour Leadership election, received a respectable 41 nominations from her fellow MPs, including one from our very own Steve Reed, MP for Croydon North. Their hopes of a payback for this support must be fast diminishing.

Liz Kendall’s bid to become Labour Leader didn’t come out of the blue. Before the general election the Independent on Sunday said she had “emerged” as the favourite among Blairites who were impressed by her TV performances. What a mistake that turned out to be! She fell flat on her face in the first televised hustings, finding herself unable to establish any rapport with an audience of potential Labour voters.

She was also tipped by the odious Daily Mail in January as a potential future Labour Leader. Their source was not disclosed, but the Mail would probably not have gone ahead with such a puff without sounding out Miss Kendall first. They made much of her membership of a mysterious ‘breakfast club’ of right wing Labour frontbenchers, including Chuka Umunna and the dire Tristam Hunt, who reportedly met regularly prior to the full shadow cabinet to discuss such matters as who should succeed Ed Miliband. With the election still some months away, one has to sympathise with the hapless Ed. Who needs enemies when you have friends like these?

Despite preparing the way so assiduously, things have not gone well for Liz. Ladbrokes are now offering 10:1 on her winning this four horse race. Jeremy Corbyn’s odds, on the other hand, are shortening by the day. It seems to have come as a shock to our so-called ‘opinion formers’ that there are so many of us who are demanding radical reform and more. Not everyone has, however, woken up to this yet. The slumbering Daily Telegraph has called on its readers to register as Labour supporters and vote for Corbyn in order to “doom the party forever”. Calling on them to vote for Liz Kendall would have been a far more effective way of achieving this.

The only good news for Liz in the last few weeks has been a paltry third endorsement by a Constituency Labour Party. Regrettably for those of us who take pride in Croydon, it was from Croydon South CLP.

Jeremy Corbyn, if elected Labour Leader, would face huge difficulties with the Parliamentary Labour Party. No doubt he would seek to build bridges with the many pragmatic (if not to say self-serving) Labour MPs, but the hostility of much of the party and especially the Blairite rump – a group so disengaged from reality that they thought Liz Kendall was the solution to the problem – will mean a very real risk of another SDP-style break away if Jeremy is elected. That’s no reason, however, not to register, if you can, as a Labour supporter and vote for Jeremy. If you have any doubts about the quality and integrity of the man, would like to know more about what he stands for or if you would simply like to express your support for him, come along and hear him speak at 7.00 pm on Tuesday, 4 August at Croydon TUC, Ruskin House, 23 Coombe Road, Croydon CR0 1BD.