Like Jeremy Corbyn, the people of Liverpool don’t know the meaning of the phrase ‘lost cause’, but they understand the power of solidarity.

Source: Ramblings of an Ordinary Man

The local paper, the Liverpool Echo, ran a poll asking supporters whether they agreed with the banner. Nearly three quarters of those who voted said they’d be proud to see it on the Kop.

I’ve been in love with Liverpool Football Club my whole life. In my childhood Anfield, despite its austere surroundings and primitive interior, was an almost mystical place, where acts of magic were regularly performed. The players were giants and the club’s managers, Shankly and Paisley were nothing short of deities.

In the 70s that magic allowed me to see football as an escape. I had a decent childhood. My parents both worked and I can honestly say that, although we were far from well off, we never lacked the essentials in life; a roof over our heads and food on the table. I didn’t need the luxuries in life, because every other Saturday I was within walking distance from paradise.

There was no place for politics in that world. Politics was London and men in suits who spoke with posh accents that said absolutely nothing to me. Back then Europe was that place where our players would go to win trophies.

Then you grow up. You live through a couple of stadium disasters and see the people around you smeared and accused of the most heinous crimes imaginable. You read headlines written, not by a man, but some sort of sneering malevolence, wrapped in a pin striped suit and your eyes are opened. Fully opened.

You realise that the people who told lies about you and everyone you know, those who covered up the truth and sought to place the blame for their crimes on the very people they had wronged, are the most corrupt of bedfellows. The police, the courts, the newspapers and the very government its self would sell you down the river, so long as they escaped accountability.

Then you grow older still and you begin to realise that it’s not just your childhood escapism that they’ve taken. They’re threatening your future too. All around you the place where you grew up, went to school, worked and played is falling apart.

You see others locked in the same struggle to simply live a decent life. Nothing fancy, just the right to work and pay the bills and maybe have a few bob over to go the match or take the kids on holiday. But you have to battle and scrimp and save to do even those things.

Then you fight back. You realise the odds are overwhelming, but you have all these people around you, who feel the same way. You’re never going to walk alone, no matter how long it takes. They’ve picked on the wrong city you say through gritted teeth. Then you win.

After all the set backs, the times they kicked you when you were down, you never gave in. You withstood it all, because you knew you were right. All your mates knew it too and in the final analysis, we were the many and they were the few. They never stood a chance.

Through all of that I’m struck by how it’s all so inter-connected. The right to work, rest and play, to enjoy watching your favourite team in safety, it’s all part of the same struggle. None of it is much to ask for, but it’s others who decide whether we get to enjoy any of these things at all.

The affordability of football is wrapped up in whether you earn a living wage, or any wage at all. It’s dependant on the cost of a ticket, something else you have no control over. Those who say politics has no place in football ignore these connections.

That’s probably why Scouse working class lads like Robbie Fowler and Steve McManaman showed solidarity with striking dock workers in the 1990s. It may be why Jamie Carragher tweeted “Vote Labour” recently. It’s because they too see how those on the pitch and those in the stands are intricately woven together. As Shankly said, we are all part of a great society and we all deserve to share in the rewards of our labours at the end of the day.

Football is political. Life is political.

In reality our whole lives, birth, life, marriage and death are affected, for good or ill, by politics and the actions of politicians. So it comes as no surprise and fills my heart with immense pride, to see Kopites unfurling a banner in honour of Jeremy Corbyn. He is, after all, a man who has spent his whole life fighting to shift the balance of power over all of these things, from the establishment to the people.

Like Jeremy, the people of Liverpool don’t know the meaning of the phrase ‘lost cause’. We do understand the power of solidarity though. We know that the road to victory can sometimes be a long one, but there is always great strength in unity. In the end it’s always preferable to fight for your principles and risk losing, than to capitulate and face certain defeat.

Jeremy Corbyn may be an Arsenal fan, but he’s an honorary Kopite now.

Jeff Goulding’s latest book is Stanley Park Story – Life Love, and the Merseyside Derby, is published by Pitch Publishing.  “A rich tapestry – yes for football fans – but also for anyone interested in how decades of social, political and cultural change and upheaval shaped Merseyside.”  – Read More…

A rich tapestry – yes for football fans – but also for anyone interested in how decades of social, political and cultural change and upheaval shaped Merseyside.

At one level it’s an evocative and always entertaining story charting the lives of two Liverpool families against the backdrop of intense football rivalries. The city is home to two of the biggest and most successful teams in English football: Liverpool – the Reds, and Everton – the Blues. The two central characters are Jimmy, who supports the Blues, and Tommy, who favours the Reds. The derby matches between the two clubs have produced some of the most famous occasions in England’s football history. And they give the novel its narrative spine.

But Liverpool as a city is much bigger than the fate of its football teams, and the fervour generated among the supporters. As Bill Shankly, the legendary Liverpool club manager, famously said:

“Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”

By which he meant, it’s more than a game in which 22 players kick a ball around a grass pitch. It’s a communal and collective experience, which embraces players and supporters.

This is reflected in another of Shankly’s widely quoted remarks, this time when talking about what socialism meant to him:

“The socialism I believe in isn’t really politics. It is a way of living. It is humanity. I believe the only way to live and to be truly successful is by collective effort, with everyone working for each other, everyone helping each other, and everyone having a share of the rewards at the end of the day. That might be asking a lot, but it’s the way I see football and the way I see life.”

It’s a sentiment affirmed in the words of the novel’s narrator Tommy:

“Football is about belonging; it’s about shared stories and common purposes. You keep going through the bleak times because in the end these are your people, whether they’re on the pitch or in the stands. You win together, and you lose together.”

Stanley Park Story is ostensibly about the Merseyside derby matches between Liverpool and Everton, told through the lives and loves, the emotional highs and lows, of two familes – of joys shared and tragedies suffered, a story of friendships made, broken and restored.

But entwined in that story, as reflected in its main characters, is the politcal, social and cultural history over the past half century, and how this impacted on the people of Liverpool and reverberated far beyond.

So, while Stanley Park is a hugely engaging novel, it is also a documentary of the times in which the story takes place. And so rich is the setting that on finishing the book, I almost wished it had an index. From the Ford factory strikes to rent stikes, from the 1978-79 “winter of discontent” to Margaret Thatcher’s vindictive hatred of the city, from the Militant Liverpool council to support for the 1984-85 miners strike, from the traumas of Heysel and Hillsborough to the city-wide boycott of the Sun, from the Beatles to Echo and the Bunnymen. As Tommy remarks:

“All those individual battles, going on peace marches, demonstrating and striking, they were all necessary and important. We wanted to live without fear, to be free from poverty wages and slum housing so that we could enjoy our lives. We wanted to listen to music, play and watch football and travel the world with our teams.”

Anyone who knows Jeff Goulding from his widely published writing, whether on football, politics, or the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn, will need no persuading of his eloquence and style. Anyone else is in for a treat. In Stanley Park Story, he has created a rich tapestry – yes for football fans – but also for anyone interested in how decades of social and political change and upheaval “shaped Merseyside into a strongly working-class region, with a socialist outlook”.

Highly recommended.

Stanley Park Story – Life Love, and the Merseyside Derby is published by Pitch Publishing.

Difficult to know what’s more absurd, Theresa May’s claim that the Conservatives are for everyone, or that she thinks we’ll fall for it.

The Tories’ talk of opportunity is simply cover for a programme of enrichment for those already sitting bloated at the top, with the vague promise that some of the fat will trickle down to the rest of us. It’s a lie, has always been a lie, and always will be.

What opportunities are there, if you’re born into a deprived area, save for the chance to leave this world several years earlier than someone born in a more affluent region? Children born in Britain today face a postcode lottery of life expectancy. But, it gets worse. For the first time since the war, average life expectancy has stalled in England and in Scotland and Wales, it has actually fallen.

Experts are agreed that this is a consequence of the grim barbarism of austerity and a sanctions culture that devalues life and people. However, it’s not the well-off being robbed of their retirement years. It’s not their children having precious memories with parents and grandparents snatched from their grasp; it’s the poorest and weakest among us.

Meanwhile, Theresa May dances.

But, what opportunity does she offer the children living in temporary accommodation or working parents who depend on foodbanks to feed their families. The Tories are for everyone, the many and the few, she claims. It’s difficult to know what’s more absurd, the claim or that she thinks we will fall for it. There is nothing in her speech that will reverse the effects of austerity and create opportunity.

There’s no end to tuition fees, no end to rip off landlords and squalid homes, no way out for the homeless. The privatisation by stealth and outsourcing of the NHS will go on and working people will continue to toil for hours on our decrepit rail networks, before they even get to work. Then they will toil some more as they head home, robbed of precious time with their families, and all for less as wages continue to fall.  Meanwhile May’s government prepares to sacrifice all of our rights on the altar of a no-deal Brexit.

The media lap up the show because that’s all it is; a sad, sorry, show. There’s no substance or solutions on offer, just a con trick, a distraction from the fact that there are no ideas to be found. There’s nothing at all, just a decaying, bankrupt cancerous government that’s sucking the life out of most of the population. This is a vampire state led by the Nosferatu of Prime Ministers.

Nothing is sacred, at home or abroad. When it comes to clinging to power, no tyrant, despot or demagogue is too far beyond the pale as far as the Tories are concerned. Whether it’s Donald Trump or Viktor Orban, they’re there to lend a hand. If Saudi Arabia wants bombs to murder children in Yemen, say no more. If Netanyahu’s army wants to murder unarmed protestors in Gaza, say nothing.

Meanwhile Theresa May dances.

She dances while the far-right grows stronger and the media normalise the hate spewed by Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. All the while they attack those who would stand in the way of hate.

All around us we see the demons of the thirties open their eyes and breathe again. Maybe that’s our problem though; we’ve seen them as demons, when really they are just flesh and blood. They are always among us, they are the very worst of us.

As a child I was taught to see nazis as monsters, almost mythical creatures. I wasn’t encouraged to see them for what they are—a terrible consequence of the contradictions and inequalities of capitalism and imperialism. They were real people doing terrible things in the name of power and privilege.

No fear, I was told, we defeated them, and they’re gone. Society has moved beyond all that. Never again would we allow their poison to take hold. That too was a lie, or at least a terrible misunderstanding of history. While the individuals now belong to history, the disease of fascism has continued to lurk in the shadows. The symptoms were bound to recur.

When it comes to the dangers posed by the far-right, there is no ultimate conquest. Instead there’s just the same cyclical battle. For as long as there is boom and bust, haves and have nots and injustice, there will always be someone to scapegoat and no shortage of people willing to point the finger of blame. Only by ending the system that perpetuates the cycle can we be free from its consequences.

Meanwhile, Theresa May dances.

She does so while attempting to undermine Labour, with accusations of racism. This is patently absurd, but the purpose is as clear as it is sickening. The establishment are more afraid of socialism, than they are of fascism. Accusing your enemy of the very crimes you are committing is an old trick. We mustn’t fall for it.

We know that the Conservatives and their allies would rather pander to actual racists and fascists than see a government that rips apart their status-quo. Fascists hate the vision put forward by Labour. They would seek to smash workers organisations like Trade Unions. They look to divide where we seek to unite. In fermenting divisions in society with their ‘hostile environment’ approach to immigration and the scandal of Windrush, the Tories and their fellow travellers are fuelling the rise of these very dark forces.

In seeking to undermine the left they risk removing one of the greatest impediments to fascism, organised labour. Or, is it that they see the enemy of their enemy, as their friends.

The Tories offer nothing to meet these or any of the challenges we face as a society. They offer opportunity to a few and more of the same to the rest. Their no-deal Brexit would hand Britain over to speculators and spivs who would gamble away our hard won rights and leave us to the barbarism of petty nationalism and isolation.

There is an alternative though. Labour’s socialism for the 21^st century offers a real opportunity to break free from the horrendous cycle of capitalism. There is much to build on in their programme, but this is a genuine chance to restructure wealth and power in society.

John McDonnell’s vision for industrial democracy should be only the beginning, but if delivered what a start that would be. Labour, gathering on the banks of the Mersey, offered common ownership of wealth and power. He spoke of collective effort for individual gain, with everyone sharing in the rewards at the end of the day.

That may have been an ideal stoked up by a craggy Scotsman from Glenbuck, who held court just a few miles from the conference centre, at Anfield. However, it owes its heritage to a much older and more international movement. It is the legacy of great socialist thinkers, whose vision led to the formation of the Labour movement itself.

Just imagine what we could achieve as a society, if we applied those socialist principals to the way we organise the economy. Think of what collective effort for individual gain would mean. How qualitatively different would our lives be, if all of us shared in the fruits of our labours, instead of them being hijacked by the few.

An end to food banks really is within our grasp. We can abolish low pay and insecurity at work. Together we can defend our communities and organise our resources so that nobody goes without, and we can build a society where all are cared for and have the opportunity to learn from the cradle, throughout a long and satisfying life, to the grave. Then, imagine us stronger, more confident and united, building a relationship with the rest of the world, based on peace and stability.

That’s the vision offered by Labour. It’s about taking back control over our lives and our neighbourhoods, our workplaces and schools. For all that Theresa May dances, and her allies sneer, the choice facing all of us is very clear.

It’s an old choice, and one we’ve squandered in the past. In 1916 Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish Marxist, wrote, “…society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism”.

She was speaking in the midst of the First World War and the carnage on the battlefields of Europe. After eight years of bitter austerity, the looming threat of the far right in Europe and beyond, and the hunger of our leaders for yet more war and conflict, those words seem ever more relevant today. A different world was possible then, it is again now. Let’s grasp the real opportunity.

Source:  Jeff Goulding. Article reprinted from 2016.

Standing in the ruins of a failed economic model, the question is not whether we can afford to implement Labour’s programme, but rather can we afford not to.

In 1943, with the war in Europe still raging and many of Britain’s cities in ruins, a debate raged in Parliament and beyond as to the future direction of social policy. ‘The Beveridge Report’ had been published a year earlier and it had identified the “five giant evils” that stood in the way of post war reconstruction: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease. It called for a revolution in social policy, no more tinkering around the edges.

The Conservatives, led by Churchill, sought to dampen down expectations and called upon the public not to make excessive demands on government. The country was crippled by debt, almost three times higher, as a percentage of GDP, than it is today. As a result the Tories proposed to limit the scope of change.

It would be left to Labour, who were swept into power in 1945, to implement the report in full, while the Conservatives voted against the introduction of the National Health Service. In the context of such devastation, sacrifice and economic ruin, Labour’s programme was arguably one of the greatest achievements in human history. It makes a mockery of today’s naysayers, who argue that we can’t afford to give every citizen a decent life.

In reality Britain could ill afford not to implement Beveridge’s recommendations at the end of the war. How would its streets and houses be rebuilt, or its factories put back to work, without a healthy and educated workforce, free from the squalor and disease previous generations had suffered.

It is a source of deep anger for me, that today all of these incredible social advances are being undone. Despite Britain being the sixth richest nation on the planet, those “five giant evils,” identified by Beveridge, are on their way back. The spectre of homelessness haunts our streets, while council houses lie empty. Child poverty is on the rise and people are relying on food banks to feed their families. Meanwhile the Tories distract the public with tales of refugees destroying our public services, while it is they who wield the wrecking ball.

John McDonnell has spoken of the sense of the optimism his family felt, in the sixties, as they moved into council housing and broke free of the slums. They had imagined they were entering a golden age of continuous social progress. Parents all across the land could expect that their children would go on to lead better lives than their own. Those men and women who had fought so hard during the war, had truly left the world a far better place than the one they had been born into.

Today though, parents who wave their children off to university, can only look on in horror as they rack up mountains of debt. Our transport infrastructure is crumbling and workers toil away on zero hours contracts, not knowing how much they’ll earn from one week to the next. Meanwhile the super rich avoid their taxes and hoard away the fruits of our labour.

Progress is being strangled and we are drifting back down the path of conflict and intolerance. Meanwhile, those in government move us ever closer to the type of nation our ancestors fought so hard to transform. It is nothing short of a counter-revolution and a betrayal of those who sacrificed so much for our future. Not since 1945 has Britain been in such need of an alternative vision. Thankfully we now have it, in the form of Labours new programme.

I have reflected a lot on the events of the 2016 Labour Party Conference. It was at times a truly inspirational gathering, both inside and outside the walls of the ‘Echo Arena’. Liverpool has long been the scene of mass gatherings. Our streets are accustomed to the pounding of feet, and the mighty Mersey has grown accustomed to demands for social justice and cries of power to the people. Nevertheless the sight of people, young and old, actively engaged in discussions about the type of society they want to create, is food for the soul.

The scale and scope of Labour’s ambition has taken even me by surprise and it has the potential to transform the lives of millions. Surely now the whole movement can unite behind it. Where Theresa May offers only a race to the bottom, Corbyn’s Labour offers education for all, for life. Not simply to create an army of workers, but to enlighten and unlock the people’s potential.

Labour now promises to end homelessness, child poverty and to restore the NHS to a publicly funded service free at the point of access. It is pledging a decent income for all and the reconstruction of our crumbling infrastructure. Of course the Tories will say we can’t afford it. Don’t they always though? Apparently we can afford tax evasion on an industrial scale and there is always a bottomless purse when it comes to war; but a decent society is too expensive, they say. It’s a lie and at last we have a leadership brave enough to say it.

No longer do we have a party afraid of its own shadow. No more hiding behind polling companies or pandering to the lowest common denominator. On immigration Labour is at last articulating a coherent strategy, that doesn’t accept the victimisation of minorities. No longer are we running scared of the right. Instead we are calling out the politicians and unscrupulous employers, who blame those they exploit for societies ills.

This is at last a vision that can unite a country and inspire this generation of voters to fight for it. Above all it is a manifesto in the making for a government in waiting. It is as bold as it is ambitious, as uplifting as it is comprehensive. Whisper it no more. This is socialism for the 21st Century.

As we stand once more in the ruins, not of war this time, but the result of a failed economic model, the question is not whether we can afford to implement Labour’s programme, but rather can we afford not to.

Stanley Park Story

Jeff Goulding’s latest book is Stanley Park Story – Life Love, and the Merseyside Derby, published by Pitch Publishing in November 2018.

Review:
“A rich tapestry – yes for football fans – but also for anyone interested in how decades of social, political and cultural change and upheaval shaped Merseyside.”
– Read More…

Vote for May or it will be chaos, screamed one right wing rag. I can’t remember which, it doesn’t really matter. Is this the same Theresa May who has presided over an election campaign riddled with gaffes, and u-turns?

The Tory manifesto is so flawed; she was forced into a botched rewrite just four days later. But, say the papers, the Conservative Party are the epitome of “strong and stable” government.

Don’t vote for Corbyn, says another, he’s a “terrorist sympathiser.” Meanwhile the party they would have us support is selling weapons to extremists.

The approach of Theresa May to Saudi Arabia is the perfect illustration of the difference in approaches to foreign policy on offer at this election. While Corbyn will discuss openly with terrorists willing to talk peace, May will sell them the guns they turn on the citizens she is sworn to protect.

The issue of competence is important and all politicians should be open to challenge and scrutiny, but the appalling hounding of Diane Abbott goes far beyond criticism of her performance in some interviews.

So, having acknowledged this, it is surprising that we are not having a debate about Theresa May’s refusal to meet the public or engage in debate. Why haven’t we seen a searing expose of Amber Rudd’s inability to guess a police officer’s salary?

What about the terrible car crash interviews given by David Davis on Channel 4 news, Michael Fallon underestimating the cost of HS2 by £20 billion or the absolute car wreck that was Justine Greeling’s interview on Good Morning Britain?

This is a party in so much chaos; they have the foreign secretary talking about the economy and the culture secretary discussing policing. If it wasn’t so horrifying, it would be hilarious.

However, there is a genuinely serious question at stake here and it concerns the ability of government to keep its citizens safe, all of them, not just a privileged few.

I’ve been thinking about this question of safety for some time now. What does being safe actually mean?

Well of course there is the obvious issue of protecting us all from foreign enemies, terrorists and those who would seek to undermine our democracy. On that score it is easy to make a pretty strong case that this government has failed miserably.

They have been in power for seven years, they have cut police numbers by 20,000 and demoralised the entire force. Firefighter, health service staff and the armed forces have all bore the brunt of austerity, leaving you and your family vulnerable.

Meanwhile they want to spend £200 billion on a weapons system that will not protect us against the sorts of attacks visited upon London and Manchester. Labour too will renew Trident, but at least they have a leader willing to challenge its effectiveness.

In no way have the Tories acted to keep this country safe. We now learn that the Muslim community along with other intelligence agencies warned Britain about the perpetrators of recent terror attacks. We know that, as Home Secretary, Theresa May failed to stop known Jihadists returning to Britain after they had visited Libya.

Theresa May had one job and that is to protect the people of Britain, she failed. Now we are asked to vote her government into office, on the basis she is the safe choice, how utterly ridiculous.

However, the threat from international terror is not the only threat stalking our streets. In 2017, in the 5^th richest country in the world, children are homeless, soldiers are homeless and the mentally ill are homeless.

The National Health Service is on its knees, housing is beyond the reach of many and our schools are begging parents for donations for books and pencils, while children turn up hungry to class.

The Tory answer to all of this is more cuts, privatisation and tax cuts for the rich and corporations. They say a strong economy will trickle down to the rest of us. However, while the country’s wealth has grown massively in the early decades of the 21^st century, the gap between the rich and the rest of us grows. Trickle down is a lie.

On every measure of safety, a roof over your head, a health service that works, defence of the realm and food in your children’s bellies, this government has failed. Now they want to distract us with smears and fake appeals to patriotism. Don’t fall for it.

The only party with a costed programme to address all of these issues is Labour. The only leader with a track record of fighting for all of these things is Jeremy Corbyn.

Vote for him, vote for Labour on June the 8^th.

Jeff Goulding blogs at Rambling of an Ordinary Man

Source: Ramblings of an Ordinary Man

Theresa May, however, has chosen to use the understandable fear and revulsion of the people of Britain to justify the continuation of a failed approach to global terror, which has cost countless lives, billions of pounds and has left us even less safe than we were before. The temporary suspension of campaigning in the general election was appropriate but it must now be lifted, so that the opposition can hold her to account.

We have never needed a debate about the role our country plays in the world more than we do now. There is another way to respond to this atrocity and the public needs to hear it. To allow Theresa May to shape our response to terror without debate, risks a continuation of failed policies.

In the midst of the horror and carnage, the pain and the death in Manchester this week, we found love and solidarity. One man came to wound and maim, but countless others chose to protect, support and offer comfort. There could be no greater illustration of the duality of the human condition; no starker demonstration of the choices facing all of us, as we work out how we should respond.

However, in the aftermath of this hateful act, the Prime Minister has sought to portray herself as strong, appealing to public fear, while advocating the militarisation of our streets. She does this, despite her record of cutting funding to the military and police, in the name of austerity.

We would not needs soldiers in our towns and cities, if Theresa May hadn’t cut police numbers by 20,000 during her time in government. The opposition need a chance to expose this, yet the Prime Minister is being allowed to escape scrutiny.

To portray the Prime Minister as strong here is pure fantasy. Such opportunism belongs only in the make-believe world, cooked up in Tory Central Office and presented to a frightened populous by sycophants in the media.

“Theresa May launches her war on terror” lauded one Sky News headline. What does that even mean? And, more to the point how is a woman, incapable of launching her own manifesto, able to solve one of the most complex issues facing the world today? Instead she is simply offering more conflict and the cycle of pain will go on.

Should we not be able to ask what she and her government have been doing for the last seven years? Have they only just realised there is a problem? Where they unaware that our communities needed protecting, while they were cutting budgets and demoralising police officers?

Could they not see that there was an opportunity to cut off the supply of money and weapons to groups like ISIS, while they were busy turning Britain into the second biggest arms dealer on the planet? Were they so incompetent that they couldn’t foresee that their weapons sales might end up in the hands of terrorists, or be used to oppress others?

In reality, this is a government made up of reckless, knee-jerk politicians, who promote violence, while seeking to restrict our freedoms, when their trade in bombs and bullets inevitably comes home to roost. This approach solves nothing and only inflames the situation. This is a key election issue.

In place of an election debate, there have been voices, in the media, so called reputable journalists, egging the Prime Minister on and calling for internment camps and mass deportations. How long before a “Muslim ban” is proposed? Such siren calls reached their lowest point when one celebrity troll provoked outrage by calling for a “final solution”.

This is not the first time Katie Hopkins has used language dreamt up by fascists in the 1930s and she knows exactly what she is doing. It’s time her employers thought seriously about whether they want to continue giving her a platform for her bile.

However, while some seek to perpetuate the cycle of hate and violence, it seems the people of Manchester have other ideas. An attempt by the so called English Defence League to capitalise on the tragedy, by whipping up hate and division, was given short shrift by ordinary Mancunians.

People of all faiths have rallied to offer help to their fellow citizens and those from further afield. Stories tell of acts of kindness, with people offering a free ride to the stranded and beds to the lost and separated. By far the most inspiring story to emerge is that of a homeless man who, without a thought for his own safety, rushed to the aid of the injured and the dying.

Isn’t it often the case that those who have the least give the most? How many people will have walked by, not even noticing this man sleeping rough on the street in the days and weeks that preceded the attack? How callous and indifferent has this government been to his plight and that of countless others? Yet when he was needed he gave all he had, in order to help others.

I have always believed that some of the greatest souls on earth are living in obscurity, ignored by politicians and demonised in the media. What we need is a society that unlocks the hidden potential in these people, instead of condemning them to poverty and isolation.

What we are actually being offered is more hate and more war. Meanwhile every bomb we make and every bullet fired robs food from the tables of the hungry. Surely there’s another way.

John Lennon once talked of “declaring peace” instead of war. That’s what the people of Manchester have done. In the face of outrageous violence and cruelty they have refused to be divided or cowed. I believe that the solution to all of this lies in the responses of the people of Manchester, not in the reactions of Theresa May.

Lennon also said, “Peace is not something you wish for; it’s something you do, something you are and something you give away.” Isn’t that what we saw on the streets of Manchester this week? Ordinary people giving of themselves and refusing to see differences, only what they have in common.

They weren’t simply dreaming of a more united world, they were living it. Why can’t we have governments that think and behave like this, who see violence as a last resort and whose starting point is always how can we declare peace?

The choices facing us now, in the wake of this atrocity, are the same as those in the election. On the one hand we are offered a society and a culture that feeds division, terrorism and war, while seeking to marginalise the poor and the vulnerable. On the other we are presented with the chance to do exactly the opposite.

As I contemplate that choice, I find myself shoulder to shoulder with my Mancunian brothers and sisters.

Source: Ramblings of an Ordinary Man

Today the Tory Party published its manifesto. Theresa May described it as “solid Conservatism” and the BBC dutifully reported that she was now targeting “mainstream Britain,” whatever all that guff means.

Presumably the Prime Minister has now grown tired of parking tanks on various lawns and begging Labour voters to lend her their votes. Judging by the protests that greeted the launch, in Halifax, of ‘Forward Together,’ they’re not too keen anyway.

Solid Conservatism? What’s that all about?

I remember when I was a kid ear-wigging a conversation between my mum and a neighbour. They were discussing another woman and I recall my mother, her voice full of derision, saying “she votes conservative now you know.” Her friend looked shocked and then snorted, “You’re joking! What the hell has she got to conserve?” They both erupted with laughter.

I’ve no idea what year this was or who the object of their hilarity might have been. It must have been the 1970s I guess. And, I assume, knowing my mum, this woman must have been a bit of a pompous snob. Such behaviour was an anathema to my mother.

I grew up listening to regular lectures about how I was no better than anyone else and that they were no better than me. It’s served me well to be fair; as has the advice to never take anyone’s word at face value, no matter who they were.

I’d never heard her use the word conservative though, either with a small or capital c, until that day. From that moment on though, I began to associate it with people who had money and who wanted to keep it to themselves. A bit of a caricature, I suppose.

I’m sure there will be those who argue that political conservatism is about much more than that. There’s a whole ideology behind it and a historical tradition to boot. For me to reduce such proud political sentiments to notions of greed and class war is both inaccurate and grossly unfair, they’ll say.

Maybe.

Of course I now know that the causes of conservatism are many and complex. Some people vote Tory because they genuinely identify with ideas of self-reliance and believe passionately that all you have to do to get on in life, is to work hard. Others actually believe that Conservatives are good at managing the economy, despite them borrowing more and repaying less than Labour historically.

The trouble with all of those arguments is, to coin a Tory phrase, they just don’t add up. For the whole of my life and the lives of my parents too, hard work has never paid anywhere near as much as accident of birth or, in the case of Phillip Green, crime. There have always been those who find themselves with lots to conserve and those who, no matter how hard they toil, will simply never get their true share.

I’m not denying that occasionally a working class man or woman will, through sheer determination, hard graft and a massive dose of good fortune, rise to the top. But how often does that really happen and, actually, how often could it happen?

The system is set up to ensure that those at the apex of wealth and power can only really stay there so long as the rest of us stay in our place. It is rigged, as Labour have pointed out in this election campaign, to ensure that this reality is conserved.

Today I’m wondering where the woman who earned my mother’s scorn is now. What does she make of May’s conservatism?

Maybe she feels she’s better off than her peers because she deserves it. She works hard, after all. Perhaps she still wants to vote for a Party that’s on her side, one that trumpets her self-reliance and work ethic. But is it her position, or the system she is conserving. After all her own status is by no means guaranteed. That’s only on loan, so long as the economic conditions permit her to hang on to it.

When calamity strikes its usually the poor, the unemployed and underemployed who are first to bear the brunt. After all, according to conservatism, they are architects of their own position. Theresa May said it herself. “I believe the best way out of poverty is work,” she said, justifying cuts to welfare, while ignoring the fact that 55% of those on benefits are actually in work.

These ideas are certainly not new. They were prevalent in Victorian times. Consider this quote:

“Heaven helps those who help themselves – whatever is done for men or classes, to a certain extent takes away the stimulus and necessity to do for themselves.” – Samuel Smiles, Self Help (1859)

Maybe my mother’s friend would reflect favourably on Labour taking us back to the 1970s, if she knew that Theresa May’s vision dates back to the nineteenth century.

Or maybe she still has some sympathy for this Tory ideology. After all, hard work never hurt anyone. Surely all the poor really need is a kick up the backside, she may think. If only they could stop relying on handouts and get on their bikes and look for work, Any work will do. Work is good for them. Isn’t it?

What she may not realise though is that’s really just the slipperiest of slopes. She started by convincing herself that all these food bank people are really just on their way to buy flat-screen televisions or crates of Stella Artois. Then production companies turned their lives into entertainment and newspapers convinced her they’re really all just scroungers. Suddenly she’s looking down her nose at people once more.

It works, for a while. Maybe she hasn’t noticed the gradual eating away of the welfare state, the NHS or the demise of our industry. Perhaps her personal position has remained strong and stable through all of that. Until now.

Then we get the May manifesto. “Solid Conservatism” for “mainstream Britain.” Suddenly it’s not just the so-called ‘feckless unemployed’ in the firing line. It’s the disabled, the old and the vulnerable too. People just like her, perhaps.

Now there’s no money left for education, unless we abolish free school meals for primary school children; literally taking food out of the mouths of kids, to pay for books and pencils. That can’t be right. Can it?

There’s nothing left now for social care, unless she can put up her house as security, or pay a bit extra for the privilege of surviving into old age. Or maybe her daughter can take a year off without pay to look after her when she can’t care for her self anymore.

It’s a grim vision that includes freezing in the winter, because she can no longer pay the gas or the electricity bills. Winter fuel payments are now gone. Her children can’t help her out, they’re trying to fund the grandchildren through University, or struggling with their rent or mortgages.

She’s terrified of getting sick, because the health service is in ruins and the thought of waiting hours on a trolley in a corridor fills her soul with dread. If she goes in, will she ever come out?

Maybe she wonders why this is all happening. After all she’s worked damned hard all her life and what has it all been for? She didn’t crash the economy. That was a crime perpetrated by somebody else. Someone who still has lots to conserve, thanks to bonuses, tax breaks and bail outs. Welfare for the rich, but none for the rest of us. None for her.

Maybe she turns on the TV and watches Benefits Street through a new lens now. After all it’s about people paying for crimes they didn’t commit. Just like she is now.

Fortunately for the object of my mum’s ire, it really doesn’t have to be this way. There is an alternative and a better world is possible. All she has to do is vote for it on the 8th June.

Source: Ramblings of an Ordinary Man

For students weighed down by loans and their parents worried about how they’ll pay them back, or afford a home of their own, there is hope. A promise of lifelong learning, within the grasp of all, offers a route out of poverty for many and, for business it holds out the prospect of a skilled and capable workforce, fully updated, motivated and productive.

For those unable to afford the rent or who have given up hope of ever owning a home, Labour’s housing policy offers a pathway to safe and secure housing. What’s more, the £10 living wage means they can afford to live with dignity, pay the bills and enjoy their leisure time.

Gone are bedroom taxes and cuts to disability benefits. Instead Labour wants to ensure schoolkids eat together, free of charge and their parents can afford to work, without shelling out their hard earned wages on expensive childcare. There will be a national education service and the NHS will be saved from privateers and chronic under-funding.

There will be huge investment in our infrastructure, modernising the economy and creating real jobs, not zero hours contracts. At a stroke Labour has produced a manifesto for the many and 95% of us will not have to pay a penny extra in income tax, VAT or national insurance contributions. It will be those who have the broadest shoulders who will be asked to pay a little more. They can consider that their subscription for living in a decent society.

There will be borrowing, but not to bail out reckless bankers, who then hand over their windfalls in huge bonuses to city fat-cats. This will be borrowing, at record low levels of interest, in order to to invest in our futures.

No political party’s manifesto has come under more scrutiny than Labour’s. It is as detailed as it is ambitious. The numbers add up and despite the best efforts of the Tory party and their friends in the media to discredit it, this is patently a vision of a future we can absolutely afford to implement. Indeed for the many living on handouts from food banks, living on poverty pay, those sleeping rough or living in insecure accommodation it’s an opportunity we can ill afford to pass up.

Beyond righting the wrongs of seven years of Tory austerity, Labour’s programme offers genuine hope of a better Britain. It proposes a country where the contributions of everyone are valued, where all children are given a helping hand by the state, which will bend over backwards to help them fulfil their potential. This manifesto offers a future in which the young, middle aged, elderly and  those living with disabilities can live their lives in peace and with dignity; regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

What a moving and inspiring vision and it’s all achievable, if we want it. We just have to vote for it. It’s really that simple.

In just two years Labour has been utterly transformed from a centrist party frightened of its own shadow, to one determined to stand up for its values. It’s truly remarkable to reflect on the fact that, prior to the election of Jeremy Corbyn, this is the same party that abstained on the Conservatives welfare bill.

Many questions have been asked about Corbyn’s ability to lead, not by the scores of new members who joined Labour to vote for him I might add. Instead commentators and backbench MPs from all sides of the House of Commons have chimed in to tell all of us that this is a man incapable of leadership.

Words like chaos, nonsensical, dangerous and incompetent have been bandied about with such regularity, they have become part of the accepted wisdom. Every interview Jeremy faces is prefaced with questions of electability and accusations of weakness. It seems in the eyes of the commentariat, the Labour leader is perpetually running to stand still.

Meanwhile Theresa May is allowed, without challenge, to trumpet the words “strong and stable leadership” with a chilling robotic regularity that reminds you of a certain Dr Who villain. This despite an almost invisible campaign littered with gaffes.

Surely Labour’s manifesto deserves to be seen as it really is, a monument to remarkable leadership and a testament to resolute strength and determination. Consider all that Corbyn has been through, ponder the journey from outsider to leader. See how he has grown in such a short space of time.

Imagine the character required to withstand the torrent of abuse and vilification from all directions. What must it take to endure all of that and still emerge victorious from not one, but two leadership contests?

If all Jeremy had managed to do was to hang on to his position, in the face of all of that, that in its self would have been some achievement. However, to have emerged from this baptism of fire armed with such an ambitious programme, backed unanimously by the National Executive and the Shadow Cabinet, is a colossal achievement.

If Theresa May had achieved such a feat for the Tories, you can bet her treatment by the media would be very different to that which Corbyn has faced.

We are just three weeks from the General election and there has never been a clearer choice on offer to the British people. It is a choice between more of the same, a government that enriches the few and makes the many pay, or one which strives to reverse this trend.

We can vote for the status-quo, or we can turn out in our droves for genuine change, it’s in our hands. However, that’s not all. On June the 8th voters have the chance to elect a man who has walked through hell and high water to get where he is. They can vote to bring to power a tireless campaigner for fairness, who has succeeded in rising to the top of a movement, never once abandoning his values or losing his temper, despite relentless provocation. Above all, this is someone who has delivered exactly what he promised he would do.

That sounds like effective leadership to me. It sounds like someone I can trust. Given all Labour has come through to deliver this prospectus of hope, in the face of cynicism and despair, I wouldn’t bet against one more inspirational victory.

On June 8th I urge you all to give them the opportunity to deliver for the whole country.

Source: Ramblings of an Ordinary Man

Few could argue he hadn’t captured the essence of a Conservative government that rules in the interests of the privileged. They are happy to carve out a Brexit for the few, to surrender our public services, he said, because they have a “get out of jail free card.”

Theresa May can slash and burn schools and hospitals, feed the greed of the super rich and watch as our infrastructure crumbles, because the people she serves will never pay the price. That is left to the rest of us.

To loud applause he called time on the housing crisis, under-funding of healthcare and a population weighed down by mountainous debt. With calm determination he set out an alternative future for all of us; one in which the aspirations of all people are heard by a government that would “bend over backwards to unleash their potential.”

His was a message aimed directly at the young, who will inherit the society Labour wants to build, and an appeal for them to claim their future by registering to vote. It will echo across the generations and resonate with their parents too. People like me, angry that my children have to borrow to achieve a university education; money they’ll spend the best years of their lives paying back, will be lifted up by his words.

I want my family to live in safety and security. I want them to grow old in a society that guarantees them and me dignity. I don’t want to see people sleeping rough, while houses lie empty and I deplore working people having to depend on charity to eat. Jeremy doesn’t need to draw out the fault lines for me. I see them every day.

Perhaps there are some though who have been distracted. Their gaze diverted and their attention fixated on minutia and matters only of interest to the chattering classes. For too long we’ve been fed an unremitting diet of analysis that only focuses on the editorial pot-of-gold they call “electability.”

It matters not what the message is. When you can paint a man, or a woman, as unelectable there is no need for further analysis. This is another of the Tory Party’s get out of jail free cards, ripped up by Corbyn today, as he pledged never to bow to a hostile media and an establishment that stifles free thought.

In truth, this is a man who has never doffed his cap to the powerful. Corbyn spoke of his decades long struggle against injustice. A career of resistance that had seen him arrested for protesting against the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa and in court for refusing to pay the hated poll-tax.

I’ve always believed that, if you want to know how someone will behave in the future, it’s useful to gaze into their past. If you want a Prime Minister who will stand by your side and fight tooth and nail for you, then you could only be heartened at the sight of a man who has stood shoulder to shoulder with the likes of firefighters and junior doctors his whole life.

His is an epic journey from Trade Union organiser to Labour Councillor and from the backbenches of Parliament to leader of a movement of more than half a million people and growing. Today he finds himself in a position he didn’t ask for and few, himself included, thought he could ever secure.

His rise to prominence and passionate defence of the weak and the disadvantage has seen him vilified and abused, both personally and politically. In all of that he has never wavered, not even for a moment. His principles and values remain as strong today as they were more than forty years ago. Is this not the very definition of strong and stable leadership?

Jeremy Corbyn has spent decades observing others squander the immense opportunity presented to them by the privilege of leadership. He spoke of how weak leaders seek to bolster their position by asking us to give them more power. Is there a more accurate description of Theresa May’s appeal to the British electorate over Brexit?

Here is a Tory leader, so lacking a backbone, she has run from Corbyn and the electorate. How will she negotiate with Europe? Have no doubt May will surrender all of our rights in negotiations, if she is given a mandate on June 8th.

By contrast Corbyn painted a compelling portrait of the Prime Minister and leader he wanted to be. It could not be more different than anything that has gone before. His life, his mission has taught him that there is strength in collectivism. He will be a leader who creates the space for others to challenge and create.

Corbyn spoke of his respect for criticism, even of his own leadership, because he wanted to resist the “presidential bunker mentality” of the May government. He would be a Prime Minister of a Labour government of and for the many, not the few.

As I write this I am conscious that it is laden with emotion. I have deleted and then retyped sentences, striving to be more analytical, objective and unbiased. But why should I be. I have tears in my eyes as I pen this, precisely because I am moved by the vision set out today by Jeremy Corbyn for the country and for the style of leadership he offers us.

Two years ago today, the humble man from Islington’s epic journey took an unexpected turn. Like all hero’s journeys there has been adventure and intrigue along the way. He has stumbled, but never fallen and he has always had his eyes fixed squarely on the goal of a more just and equal society.

Has it been smooth and easy? Emphatically no! But, to paraphrase a great teller of epic journeys, J.R.R. Tolkien, it’s not an adventure worth having, if there aren’t a few dragons to slay along the way.

All I ask is that you peer through the veil the media has placed over your eyes. Listen to the man, hear the vision. If you are as inspired as I am, then register, share the message with your friends and vote Labour on the 8th June.

Source: Ramblings of an Ordinary Man

Jeff Goulding wrote this article in March 2017, but its message is even more necessary since Theresa May called a snap general election for 8 June 2017.

Of course, in order to deliver all of these things, Labour had to first win power. However, could any of those things have been delivered, if our party’s founders had put the opiate of electability before their values? Would they have campaigned for the rights of children not to be exploited, or care for the elderly, had they been utterly preoccupied with ‘public opinion’? Was the media and the general public, in 1906, or in 1945, broadly accepting of Labour’s values? It seems they were not. Yet the likes of Kier Hardie, fought strenuously for them anyway.

Keir Hardie speaking in Trafalgar Square

Consider this passage from a speech, given by Hardie, Labour’s first leader, in 1914:

“I shall not weary you by repeating the tale of how public opinion has changed during those twenty-one years. But, as an example, I may recall the fact that in those days, and for many years thereafter, it was tenaciously upheld by the public authorities, here and elsewhere, that it was an offence against laws of nature and ruinous to the State for public authorities to provide food for starving children, or independent aid for the aged poor. Even safety regulations in mines and factories were taboo. They interfered with the ‘freedom of the individual’. As for such proposals as an eight-hour day, a minimum wage, the right to work, and municipal houses, any serious mention of such classed a man as a fool.”

If Hardie and Labour had not stayed true to their principles, even in the face of a hostile establishment and media, would future generations have had the courage to implement such a radical programme in 1948?

Even in post World War II Britain, we find that Labour had to fight the ruling class and middle England ‘tooth and nail’ to implement the National Health Service. There were voices, notably Winston Churchill’s, who argued that the nation could not afford such a social experiment. Labour did it anyway, and, though it is in peril from the current administration, it has endured for seventy years, and is still the envy of the world.

This excerpt from a speech by Aneurin Bevan demonstrates the resistance from an educated and powerful medical lobby, that Labour had to overcome, in order to enact its reform programme.

“In the case of the National Health Service very deeply entrenched emotional attitudes were disturbed. The traditions of the medical profession go back a very long way, and it was too much to hope that so drastic a thing as the National Health Service could be accomplished without very much disturbance.”

Aneurin Bevan, Labour’s health minister, architect of the NHS

The point here is that if Labour is to crumble in the face of the prevailing wisdom, every time we advance our programme, then we will always find ourselves articulating a watered down version of the status-quo. Such a manifesto would serve only those in power, while failing the very people who need Labour most. Yes we need a Labour government, perhaps now more than ever, but to do what? If it is not to transform society into one in which all people are of equal value and wealth and power are distributed equitably, then it is for nothing.

The argument that any Labour government is better than the Tories is selling our people short. It is precisely why so many voters have abandoned the party in its heartlands since 1997. Kezia Dugdale would do well to reflect on Labour’s near annihilation in Scotland, on the back of watered down Conservative policies, before she delivers any more sermons on what will and will not win votes. Our people deserve so much more than ‘Tory light’.

People stripped of their dignity and robbed of the help they need by cruel benefits cuts need a party willing to stand up for them, even in the face of relentless criticism and scepticism. They need a leader that campaigns tirelessly in their interests, even when the cost to him or her is great. Children dependant on food banks, or living on the streets, or in temporary accommodation deserve a future that doesn’t offer more of the same, and our elderly need a life worthy of their sacrifices. Indeed the National Health Service desperately requires a Labour movement that is unwilling to compromise on the socialist principles that brought it to life.

Those who put forward arguments about electability seek merely to distract us. Such bluff and bluster only masks their real intent, which is to maintain Labour’s position as a centrist party, committed to managing capitalism slightly better than the Conservatives. After all, it was Tony Blair who said he wouldn’t want Labour to win on a socialist platform, even if that was the only way to guarantee victory.

In closing, the words of Kier Hardie, at the end of that great speech in 1914, seem particularly pertinent.

“The emancipation of the worker has still to be achieved and just as the ILP in the past has given a good, straight lead, so shall the ILP in the future, through good report and through ill, pursue the even tenor of its way, until the sunshine of Socialism and human freedom break forth upon our land.”

Any Labour leader, at least one worthy of the name, will always need to stand firm in the face of doubt and hostility; if they are to deliver a programme worthy of the people. They’ll need to do it, as Hardie said, through fair weather or foul and stay true to their purpose. That’s why I’m supporting Jeremy Corbyn, a man capable of doing just that, and a true custodian of Labour’s values.

Creeping Fascism: Brexit, Trump, and the Rise of the Far Right

A tide of racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism is sweeping the world. With the world economy hobbled by debt and stagnation, society being torn apart by austerity and inequality, and a political system paralysed by corporate power, support for the Far Right is surging. This new book by Dr Neil Faulkner and Samir Dathi argues that we face the clear and present danger of ‘creeping fascism’.

Price £12 post free

Free Movement and Beyond – Agenda Setting for Brexit Britain

Current thinking of prominent ‘critical Remainers’ who argued for staying within the European Union while seeking its democratic and progressive transformation. Among the contributors are Diane Abbott MP, Yanis Varoufakis, Mary Kaldor and Caroline Lucas MP.

Price: £9.95

Source: Jeff Goulding

For the print and broadcast media to ignore this gross injustice is bad enough, but it goes much further than that. They have actually been complicit in it. The BBC in particular has been at the forefront in laying down covering fire for bureaucratic attempts to nobble the election. They have routinely peddled unsubstantiated stories about plots, intimidation, misogyny and anti-semitism.

During a recent episode of the Beeb’s Question Time programme, Corbyn ally and Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell was subjected to what, in my view, can only be described as bullying and harassment, while the shows ‘moderator’ failed to ensure any semblance of balance. Newspapers did elect to report the heated exchanges, but only in the context of backstage comments McDonnell is alleged to have directed at fellow panellist Alistair Campbell.

Shows like Panorama and Channel 4’s Dispatches have sought to create a perception, in the eyes of the public, that there exists a culture of chaos and fear inside the Labour Party, while laying the blame for this squarely at door of Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters. To call their evidence flimsy, would be an understatement. In truth their ‘undercover expose’ found absolutely nothing, but somehow they managed to make activists seem sinister, by using peculiar camera angles and eerie music.

In 21st century Britain we have the spectacle of journalistic ‘entryists’ infiltrating what are completely open and transparent meetings and uncovering such horrors  as ‘Trotskyist creches’, or as many of us would call them, creches. We have been informed that activists on the left have been campaigning to replace people who don’t represent their views, by recruiting new members and convincing them to vote for left-wing candidates instead.

None of this is actually news. In fact there’s a more accurate term for this sort of thing; they call it democracy. After all, if its not democratic for members to organise themselves in order to ensure they are represented by people who share their views, then how does the N.E.C. deal with ‘Saving Labour’s’ campaign to recruit thousands to their cause, in order to ensure a victory for Owen Smith? Or is this only undemocratic when the left do it?

Of course there’s a reason why the ‘moderate tendency’ within the party cry plots and takeovers every time their positions are under threat; its because this is actually how they took control of Labour back in the 1990’s. In case you were under the impression that the massed rank and file dreamt up the concept of ‘New Labour’ and the resultant lurch to the right, let me put you straight. This whole project was cooked up by a small group of determined individuals operating out of Labour’s headquarters at Millbank Tower.

As a consequence over time membership plummeted, allowing this wing of the party to exert ever greater control. In the same period conference was reduced to little more than an annual rally, decisions about policy and the selection of prospective parliamentary candidates have been increasingly the preserve of the centre and a powerful bureaucracy has emerged that now sees its self as the first and last word on all matters. What’s more it behaves in ways that suggests it has an absolute right to be in control.

This sense of entitlement, coupled with the belief that somehow the market on truth has been cornered, is both delusional and extremely dangerous. To suggest that opponents are living in the past, while at the same time aggressively advocating a doctrine that is now thirty years old, is indeed odd. But its is deeply worrying when it leads to the stifling of debate, closing down meetings and silencing alternative viewpoints. In doing so, they demostrate that the title ‘moderate’ when applied to them, is an epic misnomer.

Ordinary members and in particular new recruits, many of them young and enthusiastic, have been treated appallingly. Instead of being warmly welcomed, they have been smeared and treated with derision. They should have been viewed as the foundations of a future General Election victory, instead every attempt has been made, including through the courts, to exclude them from the democratic process.

Recently Owen Smith’s campaign team have been boasting that the vote will be much closer than anticipated; despite polls that suggests Corbyn is on course for an even bigger victory than he achieved a year ago. What could explain such hubris? Could it be anything to do with the unprecedented purge of Jeremy’s supporters?

Of course if you are a Smith supporter, or an opponent of Labour, you may not care about any of this. You really should though, and here’s why. The tumult inside the UK Labour Party is an illustration of how narrow the political discourse in our country has become. It shows what can happen to anyone who puts forward an alternative perspective, and it’s not pretty.

When you strip away the hyperbole, the lies and the distortions, what have Corbyn and his allies actually done to merit such attacks? Surely opponents claims of incompetence can no longer be taken seriously, when they are made by the perpetrators of a gaffe riddled coup. How can we give credence to questions of electability, when his detractors have handed the city of Bristol to the Tories, as a result of a purge of Corbyn supporting councillors.

Furthermore, how hollow do accusations of misogyny seem, when weighed against the fact that two thirds of female Labour members support the current leader, while his opponent talks of smashing women ‘back on their heels’ and shutting up female opponents with gobstoppers.

In fact once you discount all of this nonsense, you are left with one extremely unpalatable truth. Far from being a threat to our security and prosperity, Corbyn is simply guilty of challenging the perceived wisdom of the permanent political class. He is a threat to their status and power, and they have shown that they will stop at nothing to undermine and destabilise his leadership.

Today it is Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn in the firing line, but what if tomorrow the illusive centre ground of British politics shifts a little further to the right? What happens if you find yourself out on a left-wing limb? Consider groups like the junior doctors, once held in high esteem, now pilloried and demonised as Marxists and trouble-makers, hell-bent on overthrowing the government. Could that be you one day? If we don’t stand up for fairness and justice in the Labour Party now, it could well be.

The subversion of democracy, even when it seeks to damage those we disagree with, harms all of us. Whether you support Jeremy Corbyn or not, if you believe in the values of fairness and justice, you should be outraged at the behaviour of the ‘moderate tendency’ and their delusional sense of entitlement.

Source: Jeff Goulding

I can remember the day well. I had taken the train into town, in order to join a ‘refugees welcome’ rally, but I had only one thing on my mind; the special conference to announce the winner of Labour’s leadership election. Corbyn had begun as a rank outsider, owing his place on the ballot to a desire to ensure at least the appearance of a broad church. Nobody actually expected him to win. In fact so certain were Labour’s so called ‘moderate’ wing of his also-ran status, that even Margaret Beckett and Sadiq Khan signed Jeremy’s nomination papers.

What they had not factored into their calculations was the power of hope and the deep yearning in the party and wider society for profound change. Years of apathy and a growing sense that all politicians are as bad as one another, had now given way to the belief that at last a man of genuine conviction and integrity was providing a real alternative to the Westminster elite.

At the outset, I confess, I didn’t think he could win either. The odds, and more importantly the establishment, were stacked against him. But I had hope. And as Vaclav Havel, leader of Czechoslovakia’s so called ‘velvet revolution’, once said; “Hope is not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.”

Corbyn’s campaign was truly inspirational. I attended one of his rallies, at the Adelphi Hotel  in Liverpool. It blew me away. In fact I hadn’t seen anything like it since the 80’s, and while there were similarities in terms of the energy and enthusiasm behind the movement, this was very different from past campaigns. The overwhelming majority of people in the room, and those crowded into doorways and standing on tip-toes in the lobby, had never been to a political meeting in their lives.

I left that night utterly certain of victory; not because of this one meeting in Liverpool, but because I had seen the hope in people’s eyes, and I could see that Corbyn had tapped into something universal; the desire for a better world. Why should the working class of Liverpool be any different to those in London, the midlands or the north? Of course I was right and on the day of his victory, twelve months ago, I wrote the following words in these pages:

“The rules of conventional wisdom and political spin said that Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t get this far. He has torn up that rule book. The Labour Party will never be the same again. Beyond it there will be millions of people whose prosperity, health and well-being depend upon the success of this fledgling movement. As I rode the train homeward I realised that ‘New Labour’ is now dead. Long live ‘True Labour’ and a new hope for a better future.”

I was under no illusions. I knew that the onslaught against the new leader and his supporters, during the campaign, would pale by comparison with the barrage to come. We were now in uncharted territory and success was not guaranteed; but as Havel so eloquently put it, this just made sense, regardless of all that.

I still believe this today. In fact my resolve has strengthened. Some have accused me of being an idealist, or a dreamer. When did those things become a crime by the way? I am both, and unashamedly so. Life is painfully short and to devote your energies to anything other than imagining a better world, and striving to make it a reality, is a life wasted.

Besides, I have spent far too much time listening to those who say change is impossible, only to see old orders, once considered permanent, cast aside by people sick of the status quo and desperate for a life worth living. Think of the Berlin Wall, think of Apartheid, once considered immovable monoliths; now consigned to the rubbish heap of history. What is it that gives the current establishment such confidence in their longevity?

Of course they have the full weight of the state at their disposal. From unattributed briefings suggesting military coups, to CCTV footage illegally supplied by Billionaires and reported gleefully by Fleet Street, Corbyn has been treated to a ‘baptism of fire’. All of this and more was to be expected. It could even be seen as a sign that we had picked the right candidate. After all no Labour leader worth having is ever going to receive an easy ride from these people.

However, his treatment at the hands of the Parliamentary Labour Party has been hard to take. In his book, ‘A very British coup’, Labour MP, Chris Mullin, shows us a world in which the state conspires to destabilise a left wing Labour leader, Harry Perkins. This is not as far fetched a vision as you might imagine. After all, this week cabinet papers have revealed how Downing Street used the police and law courts to smear striking miners.

However, In the case of Jeremy Corbyn, it seems many of his shadow cabinet colleagues were more than happy to do the establishment’s job for them. Indeed their methods have been far less subtle and much more overt than anything Mullin’s security services could have dreamed up.

We’ve had accusations of far left, and even Thatcherite infiltration. Corbyn’s supporters have been branded Trotskyist Nazi’s, a completely new political ideology, presumably from outer space; and of course linked, spuriously, with violence and intimidation.

But by far the most insidious weapon used against the Labour leader and his supporters is, in my view, the undermining of that wide eyed sense of hope fostered by Jeremy’s campaign for the leadership and his ultimate victory. This ‘we know best’ mentality only serves to poison aspirations for a fairer society, when Labour should be nurturing such ideas.

Too often the the challenges posed by the most right-wing Conservative government in living memory have been ignored, only for the focus to be shifted onto their ill conceived and poorly executed coup. As a result of this senseless act of sabotage Labour is losing ground to the Tories, and the people it is meant to be fighting for are left behind. After being lectured that socialism is a discredited dream, we are apparently now allowed ‘diet socialism,’ but only if it is packaged in a shirt and tie combo and emblazoned with media friendly soundbites.

Time and again the ‘moderates’ seek to dilute the ideals of the movement in order to make them palatable to the establishment. It seems it is sacrilege to suggest we can partake of the feast, instead we must make do with crumbs. If this is their message now, before they have even engaged the Tories in an election campaign, imagine how much more the message will be diluted, in the face of a hostile press. Conversely consider how steadfast Corbyn and McDonnell have been, in weathering a storm that has lasted for more than a year, and shows no sign of blowing its self out. Doesn’t that epitomise courageous leadership?

I refuse to accept that another world is not possible. I know it will be hard, but it’s time for a Labour Party that offers a real and tangible alternative to a system that plunges millions into poverty and destroys our public services. The time for tinkering and reforming is passed. We need a total transformation and a shifting of power away from an elite few, and into the hands of ordinary people so that they can have control over the decisions that affect their lives.

Only Corbyn’s team are offering this vision. To those who say he is incapable of delivering it, I point to his courage under fire and offer these inspirational words, from Shel Silverstein, an artist and poet, who lived in Chicago in the 1930’s.

“Listen to the mustn’ts, child. Listen to the don’ts. Listen to the shouldn’ts, the impossibles, the won’ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me… Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

If you are still undecided in this contest I implore you to choose hope.

Much like the world we live in today, Dylan bore witness to an age of great technological and creative advances, juxtaposed with rising intolerance, inequality and war. Just as many do now, young people all across the world came onto the streets and fought hard for a better world, free from suffering and injustice. Inspired by these movements for peace and equality he wrote The Times They Are a-Changin’, a classic that perfectly trapped the zeitgeist in lyrical form.

Perhaps Bruce Springsteen put it better and far more succinctly than I. “This song was written in period in my country’s history when a people’s yearning for a more just and open society exploded. Bob had the courage to stand in that fire and he caught the sound of that explosion.”

What a time to be alive that must have been, in which you could actually feel the old order’s grasp slipping.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s the battle outside raging
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changing

I feel both exhilarated and frustrated by these words. When I hear them I am lifted by their sense of righteous anger and unbridled optimism. On the other hand, blessed with the benefit of hindsight, I am struck by the self-evidence of their inaccuracy and depressed by the apparent permanence of injustice and ignorance.

As a result the Bob Dylan of the 60’s, were he transported from that era to the present day, would surely be consumed with a sense of deja vu. This does not invalidate the heroic struggles of that generation, rather it condemns the senators and congressmen who failed to heed the call. And it exposes the strength of the established order and it’s death-grip on power.

We must all draw our own conclusions of course, but for me I am struck by the futility of tinkering around the edges of a system that produces such a never ending cycle. Yesterday’s demagogues may fade away briefly when the winds of progress blows hard enough, but unless the system that produced them is swept away with them, it will simply continue to regenerate them through the ages.

To my mind there is no evidence to support Martin Luther King’s assertion that the arc of history bends naturally towards justice. To believe that flies in the face of reality. At best it is a case of one step forward, followed by two steps back. Therefore I must conclude that unless people are prepared to fight for the kind of future they want, they risk having it shaped for them. Social evolution is slow and is as filled with blind alleys as it is new horizons. Instead, only a permanent social and political revolution can deliver the kind of society Dylan and his fellow travellers dreamed was possible.

That may seem extreme. If it does, I simply ask that you turn on your TV or check your news feed. Do we not still live in a country that punishes rough sleepers, but can’t make up its mind about whether a corrupt millionaire, who robbed the pensions of thousands of workers, deserves his knighthood or not. Is this not a world where politicians would bomb children out of their homes in the name of democracy, but are found wanting when asked to provide shelter from the resulting carnage, much worse allow those same children to drown in the seas, agonisingly close to dry land.

Today Conservative politicians still seek to demonise these same refugees in order to do the bare minimum, in terms of their humanitarian obligations. We should “look after our own first,” we are told. As if Syrian, Afghani and Libyan people belong to some other species. It’s like we are locked in some grim replay of the 1930’s, when fascism and war displaced millions and politicians sought to scapegoat and dehumanise, in order to hide their own failings.

Are we really prepared to accept that the fifth richest country in the world really incapable of feeding and housing its own citizens, while at the same time holding out the hand of compassion and friendship to others? In truth the present system has shown its self incapable of doing either. My point is that this is an indictment of our economic model and not the people suffering at its hands.

It is true that too many British citizens depend on food-banks, sleep on the streets or live in squalid temporary accommodation. Too frequently those in jobs don’t know how many hours they will work and can’t plan from one week to the next. Others are paid so little they take two or even three jobs in order to make ends meet, robbing themselves of the free time necessary to explore their potential.

Wages are being driven down and quality jobs are in decline, while those with real aspiration to better themselves, through education, are forced into terrible levels of debt. However, none of this is happening because of the greed of workers, the poor, refugees and the dispossessed. It’s happening because of the perverse priorities of a political and economic system, that can write blank cheques for warfare, while claiming there’s nothing left for welfare.

In truth most of us have more in common with the refugee or the person we walk by, sleeping in the shop doorway, than we do with people responsible for putting them there. Yet somehow many have allowed themselves to find common purpose with the perpetrator, rather than the victim. As a result the injustice continues.

Sadly, despite the best efforts of Bob Dylan’s generation, the times have not changed in any meaningful way. Instead the old battles are being fought once more. And for far too many people social justice remains as illusive as it ever did. Consider the 27 year battle of the Hillsborough families and survivors and the ‘Bloody Sunday’ campaigners, for whom justice had to be wrestled from the state, as opposed to being handed to them as their right. What of those demanding a fair hearing on Orgreave? They are yet to hear the truth, let alone catch a distant glimpse of justice. Does this not betray the paucity of progress since the 1960’s?

So long as we cling to the same structures and accept the wisdom of those whose interests are not our own, we risk perpetuating our predicament, and condemning future generations to the same dreadful cycle. In short if you keep doing what you’ve always done, don’t be surprised when you keep getting the same results.

Our ‘democracy’ is no longer fit for purpose and no programme, no matter how radical will survive the relentless march of time, unless there is a democratic revolution that redistributes power away from corporations and capital and into the hands of communities. This won’t happen unless we demand it, surely this is the real lesson of history. This is why Bob Dylan’s words seem as depressingly relevant today as they did more than sixty years ago.

Come gather around people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
And if your breath to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changing

Jeff Goulding blogs regularly at www.jeffgoulding.com

Tom Watson
thinks there are Trots on
every corner trying to get you
when in fact there are very few – Michael Rosen

To have answered in the negative, no matter how politely, might have confirmed that there was indeed something malign about Judaism, that needed to be hidden. Perhaps that was the questioner’s intent. However, in one sentence Chaplin had completely disarmed his inquisitor. The power of language to distort our perception of the world is remarkable. Thankfully Chaplin’s own command of words, and quick wit, was able to counter any negative connotation.

I’ve thought about this story a lot lately; about how the subtle use of language can prime people to respond in a certain way to ideas and groups, be they ethnic, religious or political. Of course we’ve seen this many times recently in the context of the ongoing leadership challenge in the British Labour Party.

Consider the recent elections to the party’s ruling body. A number of pro-Corbyn candidates have now won seats on the National Executive Committee, as a result of a democratic process, and at the expense of the right-wing incumbents. Interestingly, in reporting the result, journalist Michael Crick chose to suggest that one of the defeated candidates, Johanna Baxter, had been removed after she had spoken out about bullying in the party. In doing so he used the word ‘ousted’.

Of course in reality this individual’s seat was simply up for reelection, in accordance with party rules. Unsurprisingly, given the demographic and political shift inside UK Labour, candidates supportive of the leader are more likely to triumph in a vote, and consequently they did. The NEC election was a thoroughly peaceful process, conducted by mail and online; no insurrections or uprisings. Why then is it necessary to describe this as one candidate ‘ousting’ the other.

Could the answer lie in the fact that those six letters, that make up the word ‘ousted,’ convey the impression of struggle, maybe even a violent one? Perhaps it was revenge for speaking up against alleged harassment? Crick’s tweet, above, could certainly be construed in that way. I believe this is not an accident, and is instead part of a consistent and, in some cases, orchestrated attempt to associate radical left-wing views with violence and intimidation, and thereby discredit them.

When such phrases are uttered we are justifiably incredulous, and absolutely correct to reject and challenge the narrative being created. However, how should we respond when the attacks are more subtle and insidious, as seemed to be the case with the one faced by Chaplin?

There is a correlate here. I am talking now about the use of the phrase ‘Trot’ or ‘Trotskyist’ to describe Corbyn’s supporters, and to associate this with violence, “arm twisting” and intimidation. This has actually been going on ever since Jeremy’s campaign inspired half a million people to ‘infiltrate’ the Labour Party, but it has now reached truly hysterical proportions.

This week Tom Watson, Corbyn’s deputy, launched an astonishing and utterly ridiculous attack on his leader’s supporters. In it he claimed that “Trotskyists are twisting the arms of young Labour members” It is a rant of such hysterical proportions, that I genuinely don’t know where to begin. On the one hand, I want to point out that Tom seemed perfectly happy to court the support of these alleged revolutionaries, when he was running for deputy leader; on the other I want to rail against the implicit insult to young members who, he suggests, can’t stand up for themselves or make up their own minds.

It would be easy to portray this as just a last, desperate attempt to cling to power, through smears and innuendo. And to be fair there is some truth in that. The challenge to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, is actually an attempt to ‘oust’ a man who was democratically elected only ten months ago. Ironically those involved have used intimidation and bullying in the PLP and on the back-benches, in order to “break  Jeremy as a man” and force him to resign. When that failed, Angela Eagle and Owen Smith emerged as challengers. Since then every attempt has been made to ‘stitch up’ the election, by closing down meetings, and denying members, thought to be pro-Corbyn, their right to vote.

In reality those attempting to cling to power, against the wishes of the membership are failing, and as a result their language and tactics have become increasingly desperate. But let us be clear, their attempts to use the word ‘Trotskyist’ as an insult, are both politically illiterate and designed to place certain ideas beyond the political pale. Many have taken to social media in response, in order to deny that they are ‘Trots’. However, if we are not careful, such fervent denials could end up doing the job for them.

The overwhelming majority of new Labour members would not describe their political ideology in this way. I am sure most have never engaged with Trotsky’s work, let alone joined an organised group. However, does that mean that we have to accept the word as an insult, without really understanding who the man was and what he stood for?

For the record Leon Trotsky was a Bolshevik who fought against the rise of bureaucracy and ‘Stalinism’ in the former Soviet Union, following the death of Lenin in the early 1920’s. The rise of an elite within the Communist Party was suppressing all dissent, and for the crime of fighting this, Trotsky was exiled. He struggled to find refuge in a hostile west. Ultimately he found himself in a state, he eloquently describes in his book, ‘My Life: An attempt at an autobiography’, as being “on the planet without a visa”. He was eventually brutally murdered by Stalin’s agents in Mexico.

Of course when it comes to revisionism and demonising ideologies, Labour, and in particular the right-wing of the party, has been here before. It is perhaps no surprise that, in trying to rid themselves of troublesome members who don’t want to march to their tune, they fall back on familiar tactics. However, there appears to be dissent, even within their own ranks.

In a surprisingly sober and honest interview in the Guardian this week, Peter Kilfoyle, the man charged with ridding the party of any vestige of “Trotskyism” in the 80’s, stated that Labour’s current mass membership bears no resemblance to those who joined the party decades ago.

He describes Momentum as people disenfranchised and ignored by Labour over many years, and who have found, in Jeremy Corbyn, someone who represents their views. Militant, he states, were a tightly organised group, with a particular ideology and a strategy formulated over many years. Words he could easily have used to describe the ‘Blairite’ takeover of Labour and the ‘Progress’ group, but never mind.

Kilfoyle’s analysis aside, there is a supreme irony in the fact that we now have bureaucrats in the British Labour Party, suppressing dissent and democracy in ways Stalin himself would be proud of, and using the word ‘Trotskyist’ as an insult. You couldn’t write it, except I just did.

I’m not trying to recruit a new army of supporters for the former Soviet revolutionary here. I’m simply asking, once again, that people think critically before accepting the narratives of others. Find out for yourself and don’t allow others to tell you which ideas and thinkers you can listen to. Perhaps we would all do well to respond, as Chaplin did, and refuse to accept the negative connotation.

Am I a Trotskyist? I do not have that good fortune.

Jeff Goulding blogs regularly at www.jeffgoulding.com

This is a movement, a mass outpouring that demands, no, deserves to be heard. “Not the usual crowd,” said a friend. That’s us I thought. I’m part of the ‘usual crowd’. The old left. Veteran’s of struggles past. We were there alright, but this time to simply bear witness. This is a spontaneous movement. Some deride it and call it a cult, but that belittles the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who are now, with one voice demanding change. These people turned out tonight, not for one man, but for hope, for a vision of a better way, and an end to the politics of the few and the demonisation of  the many.

Recently those in the media, sadly including people like Owen Jones, have decried the use of social media in shaping this movement. However, in the absence of main stream coverage, we have had no choice but to turn to alternative forms of communication. We would not know each other existed, if we didn’t; such is the black-out from official outlets. Sharing our stories, supporting each other, preaching to the converted are all important steps in strengthening and emboldening our movement, and this is precisely why 10,000 people closed down Liverpool city centre tonight. We have gained confidence from each other’s successes.

The people of Liverpool were inspired by their comrades in York, Hull, Leeds, Salford, Newcastle, Plymouth and Cornwall this weekend, and tonight we have doubtless inspired countless others. I have always been proud of my city. It is a place of solidarity, of hope and of determination. Tonight it was one of many cities joined in a nationwide campaign for socialism. We will all never walk alone.

This is how you build a movement. This is how you win hearts and minds. Now is not the time for faint hearts, or for Fleet Street lectures. We knew it was going to be bloody hard. Frankly it’s always been that way. The powerful won’t surrender without a battle, and while some run from the fight, hurling catastrophic prophesies as they flee, let history show that it was us that stood strong. It was we who built momentum, gave each other succour and encouragement. When others ran away, in our thousands we came to change society.

So don’t tell me this is insignificant. I won’t hear that these demonstrations mean nothing, and I don’t believe that change is impossible. This is new territory. The rules are being rewritten. 1983, 1997 and 2010 are ancient history. This is 2016. It’s the old ideas about politics that are irrelevant, not this glorious, magnificent uprising. We are rewriting the rules as we go, and nobody can truly predict what will happen; save to say that the old ways are dead and politics will forever be changed. The political discourse is transformed, maybe forever, and the tired old consensus has been ripped up.

The Westminster elite need to get over themselves. There is a revolution taking place in plain sight. They can choose to ignore it if they like, but they can’t suppress the truth anymore. We don’t need the oxygen of their publicity anymore. Thanks to new media we can talk to each other, organise and mobilise without them. The stronger and more confident we become, the more we can begin to engage with others in our communities and on our streets, in universities and workplaces.

This is just the beginning. The battle to reclaim our heartlands has begun. After decades of ‘Blairite’ neglect the working class are coming home. We’ll come for middle England next. Our message of hope, of a fairer more equal society, where the rich pay what they owe and everybody shares in the fruits of their labours will surely resonate with them too. This is our vision, our common purpose. It’s what mobilises us and it’s what will sweep Jeremy Corbyn to yet another victory in September.

The message to the Parliamentary Labour Party is now a simple one. Get behind us or step aside. Our time has come and we are not letting it slip by without an almighty fight.

Jeff Goulding blogs regularly at www.jeffgoulding.com