Political Notebook: The tale of the arrogant man . . . (1979)

The Political Notebook Column from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The tale of the arrogant man . . .

The Liberal Party goes on a lot about ‘The Great Spirit of Liberalism’ which it so passionately cherishes. In his essay ‘On Liberty’ John Stuart Mill argued that liberals should be prepared to debate all subjects from every point of view so as to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Cyril Smith is a Liberal MP. So when Bolton branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was looking for a defender of capitalism to debate with, they wrote to him anticipating a liberal-minded response. Smith replied thus:

Thank you for your letter. No, I do not provide audiences and publicity for my political opponents, much less ones with whom 1 totally disagree.

Firstly it is supreme arrogance on the part of the Liberal Party to imagine that we would have to rely upon the personality of Cyril Smith to provide us with an audience for a debate. Secondly we wonder which of his political opponents Mr Smith does not ‘totally disagree’ with. Thirdly it is a pity that the Honourable Member for Rochdale’s mind is not as broad as his backside.

. .  And the ignorant man

Dr Rhodes Boyson MP does not claim to be a liberal. He is a firm believer in the highly disciplined inculcation of the correct attitudes in schools and Universities. Which in layman’s terms means that he believes in training children to be efficient wage slaves. He recently received a letter of criticism from one member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (who presumably had a second-class stamp that she could find no better use for). She received a reply which demonstrates the confusion of the MP for Brent North’s mind. He wrote, “You may have noticed that, since the socialist reform and the comprehensive schools came in, less working class children are going to University.’’ 

What socialist reform does he mean? Socialists have never concerned ourselves with the reform of the capitalist education system. Rhodes Boyson makes the fundamental error of referring to Labour as a socialist party. He then goes on to use another incorrect definition of socialism:

All one would need is to look round the world where Socialist Governments are in control and see the inequalities there are far wider than in Britain . . .

Which socialist governments does he mean? If he is referring to the state capitalist dictatorships which the SPGB has consistently opposed, we would have expected him to show great admiration for the system of suppressing free trades unions, enforcing the law by means of brutal terror and organising education on the basis of strict discipline which has been mastered by the Russian and Chinese regimes. They are, after all, the very policies which he advocates in the name of freedom. Rhodes Boyson is clearly a man of many illusions, such as that Labour is socialist and state capitalism is socialism. He shares his illusions with millions of members of the working class. But Dr Rhodes Boyson is currently a government minister with responsibility for Higher Education. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Free Press? Free Speech?

Copies of the following letter were sent to The Guardian, The Bolton Evening News and The Manchester Evening News. As they would not publish the letter, we reproduce it here.

Dear Editor,

That Britain is supposed to be a free country in which all shades of political opinion are given an opportunity to be heard is one of the more persistent myths of capitalism. On Saturday 28th September a crowd of over one hundred people in the Bolton shopping precinct were given a chance to observe socialist freedom of speech in action. An outdoor meeting of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was in progress; the speaker was presenting our party’s case for a society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution; a number of interested people were usefully and critically joining in what is a traditional and long established medium of free discussion. Then the police arrived. Not because they suspected our speaker of being a criminal or because they believed that there was any danger of violent disorder or even, because as members of the working class, they wanted to find out what was in their interest. Their announced intention was to stop the meeting because it did not have the prior authorisation of the police. One and a half hours later, after a long wait in an interview room at the Bolton Central police station, two members of our party were charged, nominally for causing an obstruction to the highway (which did not occur until the police arrived and shoppers came to see what was going on), but in fact for attempting to address people in public without consulting the police.

There are two principles involved here. Firstly, the opportunity to set up a platform and address a crowd without police authorisation has been an accepted political tradition in Britain for most of this century. If it is now to be denied to us, may we know whether this is a government decision or, as we suspect, a further example of the increased use of police powers at the expense of the freedom of the weak and the powerless? Secondly, we consider that the freedom of assembly of those of us who are prepared to commit rational ideas to public scrutiny in the shopping centres, the parks and the factory gates should be recognised at least as much as the freedom of others to hold military processions, commercial displays, slogan-shouting demonstrations and pre-election walkabouts.

When our members appear in court they will plead ‘Not Guilty’. If the magistrate is typical he will accept the word of the police regarding the obstruction and will be indifferent or hostile to the principle of freedom of speech as it affects the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Next time I am on an outdoor platform and I am told that such a privilege would not be allowed in Red Square (which is part of a system that we have consistently opposed since 1917), 1 shall remind those present that state oppression is not confined to the state capitalist dictatorships, but is alive and kicking on the streets of Bolton.

Steve Coleman

Smile for the Camera (2014)

Book Review from the September 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Smile for the Camera, A Double Life of Cyril Smith' by Simon Danczuk and Matthew Baker

This book tells the career of Smith, who was the face of the Liberal Party in the 70s and 80s, and their star performer. The book shows the rise of Smith from an illegitimate child, in the 30s, through members of the Young Liberals, to Liberal agent, then as a Labour councillor and alderman, to Mayor of Rochdale, when after an argument over rent rises, he resigned from the Labour Party to form his own party which predictably went nowhere, and in 1968 he re-joined the Liberal Party, displacing the prospective candidate for the 1970 General Election, which he lost. In 1972 the Labour MP for Rochdale died.

During Smith’s time on Rochdale Council he had built up a coterie of various contacts, and had a deserved reputation as a hardworking councillor and a Mr Fixit. Smith was friendly with a leader of the Pakistani community, Karim Dad, who was the Godfather-like Mr Big in the community. Virtually the whole Pakistani community backed Smith, who was elected MP. Karim Dad was arrested the following year for personation (electoral fraud) and fled the country before his trial. Smith continued to rise in the Liberal Party, playing the part of the bluff, plain speaking Northerner. Behind the façade, however, was a darker side, that of a predatory child molester.

In the early 60s, Smith was the backer of Cambridge House, a home for young men 11-18 year-olds, providing cheap lodging. I now write from personal knowledge. I first met Cyril Smith in 1958 when, at the age of 16, I joined the Labour Party Youth Section. I then resigned from the Labour Party in 1960, after attending the 1960 conference in Scarborough, joining the Young Communist League.

I trained as an SRN, and in 1963 while selling the magazine Challenge, I was approached by a couple of lads from Cambridge House, who told me how Smith had both physically and sexually assaulted them.

They told me how Smith had spanked their bare backsides, fondled their testicles, pulled back their foreskins, for hygienic examinations. I got the lads to make sworn, notarised statements, which I personally presented to Rochdale Chief Constable, Ross. Ross I'm sure dismissed it as a Commie plot to discredit Smith. Copies, however, were given to the Labour Agent Josh Hughes, which is probably why funding was withdrawn from Cambridge House.

I left Rochdale in 1974, not returning until the late 80s, by which time Smith’s career had bloomed, and the list of his sex crimes increased.

In many ways, Smith was a superb politician, building networks of protectors, and fellow offenders, giving protection to each other. The Rochdale grooming scandal of the enforced prostitution of dozens of young girls though, brought everything to a head.

The book also charts Smith’s involvement in the cover-up of the dangers of asbestos, becoming a paid lobbyist for Turner Newall (the world’s largest asbestos producer). I must confess to a personal interest. My late wife died in 2004 from asbestosis. The site of Turner’s is now a derelict ruin, on a highly contaminated site, and for years there has been a  campaign for the safe development and remedial control of the area.

Ultimately, the book shows how the system of capitalism corrupts and destroys both life and human relationships.

Roger Chadwick