Editorial: A Damp Squib. (1908)

Editorial from the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Of course we cannot expect anything better of Victor Grayson. He’s a firework, rather damped by the humid atmosphere of the Commons, but liable to little fizzles where the powder remains dry. On the occasion of the discussion of the visit of the great peacemaker (which his other name is Guelph) to Russia, when Keir Hardie, swearing he would ne’er withdraw, withdrew his references to the bloody autocracy and feudal savagery of the “Little Father,” and his bigger sisters and cousins and aunts of the Arch-Dukeries, Victor Grayson wanted to give a one-horse pyrotechnic display. He doubtless felt that he had reached a dry spot in his powder magazine and could let off a few crackers. But Henderson, who is the “Little Father” of the Labour Party (MacDonald being his wire-pulling Grand Duke), was not going to allow Grayson to break up the order of the proceedings which the “black hundred” (less ninety-eight) had decided upon in collaboration with the Government. So Grayson was promptly “closured.”

o o o

It was a decided exuberation of bad manners on the part of Grayson, who might easily have followed the example of Pete Curran. Pete, who is a model of self-restraint, found himself once up against the rules of the “House” when he wanted to do desperate things against the Government in connection with the shooting of the people at Belfast. (Russia does not entirely monopolise the institution of “Bloody Sunday.”) With an effort Pete managed to maintain the entente between the Labour Party and the Government unfractured, and relieve his feelings at the same time. In this way. Bubbling over with indignation, he went outside the “House,” and while no one was looking, exploded (under his breath) in these epoch-making and entirely original words—”Damn the Rules !” And so went back to his duties.

o o o

This is the story told, with modest restraint and with less detail perhaps, by Pete himself. It is an example of statesmanship that Grayson should have at least endeavoured to emulate. That he did not is a sign of youth—and of the fact that he does not draw his £200 from the Labour Party exchequer.

Caught In The Act: No, No, Nigel. (1989)

The Caught In The Act Column from the August 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

No, No, Nigel.

Nigel Lawson did not get where he is today through being bashful or at all reticent about his own talents so he does not take kindly to any criticism about the way he handles the financial affairs of British capitalism. That is why, some time ago, he dismissed the analysis of a large group of economists with the inadequate—and untrue—sneer that they were a bunch of teenage scribblers. That is why he is locked in an apparently unbreakable conflict with Thatcher and her toadies and why, as it is rumoured, he may take his talents and his touchiness off to some well-paid job in the City, where they are prepared to pay a lot to know all about the impotence of Chancellors of the Exchequer straight from the horse's mouth.

For Nigel is no longer a success. Against a rising tide of criticism and in face of all the evidence he can only insist that he is in complete control of the situation, working to an effective plan which is moving smoothly into operation. Of course there are some doubters, as financial observers consider what is happening to prices and the balance of payments but Lawson's response to these is that his remedies are taking rather longer to be effective than he at first thought. We only have to wait a little longer, be patient and trustful of the Law- son talents and all will come out well.

What worries Lawson's enemies—and many of his admirers—is how long this argument of postponement can hold good. As the Chancellor has to revise, again and again, his forecast of how much prices will rise by and how high interest rates will go in the near future, he begins to look like anything but a man in control. Perhaps he is hanging on in the hope that there is still time for the cyclical nature of capitalist trade to come to his aid so that he will be able to publish some statistics which make it seem as if his measures are indeed working. If that happens it will probably add quite a bit to the wage he can expect from his job in the City; he will retire from office in all the glory of a prophet fulfilled; what he assured us was only a "blip” was indeed that.

The success of that will be greater as more people forget how often, and how spectacularly, the forecasts of Lawson and his experts have been discredited in the past. The Tories came to power ten years ago on the promise that their priority would be to eradicate inflation, by which they meant that they would stabilise prices. For a while, as the rise in prices began to flatten out, they were able to claim that their policies were successful (in fact the two are not connected). But as the trend in prices has changed Lawson has been forced to revise again and again his forecasts about the rate at which prices will go up. Almost as soon as it was out of his mouth, each of his forecasts was outstripped by what actually happened. How long will this go on? How long can Lawson keep it up? How long before the voters begin to wonder whether the economy is under anyone’s control?

Teaching us a lesson.

The background to these events is that it is not so long ago that Lawson was making the claim to have conjured up an "economic miracle" for British capitalism; only just over a year that Thatcher was describing his budget as "brilliant". Some of this euphoria was based on the lowering of income tax rates, which so many workers mistakenly believe to be a sort of barometric scale of their prosperity. And some of it was based on the steady lowering of interest rates which, as more and more workers are forced to commit themselves to a lifetime of mortgage repayments, have assumed the same kind of false reputation as income tax rates. Part of the Lawson coda was that low interest rates not only bring us all prosperity but also contribute to its growth, so that the rates would move in a downward spiral while our living standards spiralled upwards. Now all that has changed and those working class dreams have, in many cases, turned into nightmares. The present orthodoxy is that low interest rates are not a form of prosperity but a symptom of a malignant economic disease. They must be forced upwards, to teach us all the evils of living beyond our means.

The popular explanation for all this confusion is that Lawson and his experts are having a little temporary difficulty in sorting out some passing, unpredictable problems. Anyone who believes that will believe anything. It does not require any great feat of memory to recall that every Chancellor has had to face similar problems and that they have all responded in the same way (if not with the same lack of modesty) as Lawson—with the promise that they are only postponing success for a while. Clearly, there must be an explanation more in tune with the facts.

However consummate their expertise, however seductive their promises, the people who claim to be able to control the economy of capitalism are really floundering about in impotence. Lawson's changes of policy and his ever-lengthening string of broken promises are not the result of his notoriously arrogant and pompous conceits. It would be no different if he were the most modest and retiring of men for his job is one of trying to do the impossible.

Not in front of the voters.

Perhaps it was people like Lawson Honourable Members had in mind, when they were so uneasy about allowing the TV cameras into the House of Commons. It is one thing to be seen by millions reading a carefully constructed harangue of the working class for not working hard enough, expecting too high wages or for wanting too much of life's little (very little, in their case) luxuries. It is quite another to be shown up by the camera's merciless eye as a spluttering buffoon. For many Labour Members it is one thing to allow themselves to be filmed addressing ecstatic crowds about building the new Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land. It is quite another to be exposed, in a classier kind of soap opera, as the Percy Sugden or the Jack Duckworth of the Commons.

Some of the arguments used against letting in the cameras, such as that it would provoke even more irritating behaviour from the louder MPs and stimulate the rise of media favourites (like Percy and Jack) were deployed a long time ago in the rearguard action against allowing reporters to record parliamentary debates for the press. The question must be asked, now as then, whether Honourable Members are ashamed of their behaviour, whether they feel they have something to hide from the viewing voters.

If they were aware of what actually goes on in the world—and much of what they say and do leaves that open to doubt— MPs would realise that the exposure they have to fear most is of the uniformity of their impotence to affect the problems of capitalism. This is not only a matter of being shown up as ineffective but also of the viewers having it rammed home to them that the clashes in the Commons are sham affairs, at most over trivialities and not worth serious attention or of influencing how people vote at elections.

Television has already allowed us to sit at home while we watch our leaders, represented as all-knowing, all-caring, all-powerful (there is no point in having leaders unless they come up to these exacting standards) are shown up as blundering helplessly from one crisis to another sustained only by their own self-esteem. This is an encouragement to workers to develop their own consciousness, take their own decisions, run society in their own common interests. What is more likely to happen, if TV is allowed freely into the House, is that Members will mend their ways. No more dropping off during debates; no more yobbish heckling and jostling; only established eccentrics licensed to sport strange clothes and wild hair styles. It is important, to our legislators, that they keep up the pretence of representing our interests. And even more important to us that we see through the pretence.

Ivan

It's that "Great Man" idea again (1957)

From the June 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the earliest times of recorded history up to the present age, the idea of the “great man,” “the superman" has captured the imagination of the crowd. Stroll along any of the main highways of the world’s big cities and we are confronted with statues of every conceivable size erected in remembrance of these "great men.” But, like everything else, the worship of this “great man” idea has been done to death. There was Jesus Christ for example, supposedly crucified, dead and buried, but three days afterwards (so is the legend) popped back to life again. God had sent him. “He was the son of God.” And no man can, according to the Christians, surpass Christ. He was, and remains, the greatest of them all.

Of course this is all very childish now to those adults who have made any attempt to understand the historic origins of life—humanity and all its heirs and relations. Why has this “great man” idea been so carefully fostered through the ages? It is hard for the rationally minded to believe that it is a “carry over” from early man’s cave dwelling origins, a memory and worship for the departed chief warrior, high priest.

Even if it be conceded that recollection of the deeds of these great men have been a source of inspiration— for a time—in the main it has been one of the biggest contributory causes of the worshippers overlooking their own miserable plight.

We are prompted to record these few odds and ends about the “great man idea” because of what the Manchester Guardian recently described as “the long and occasionally acrimonious struggle to perpetuate the memory of Keir Hardie in Parliament’s own small Valhalla of statutory. . ." The origin of Keir Hardie’s fame is associated with the fact that he entered Parliament wearing a cap, a severe blow to the respectability and propriety which had been enjoyed by that assembly for generations. It is often murmured even now that it undermined for a decade respect for political tradition. But what’s in a hat or a cap for that matter. Has not the recently resigned Prime Minister set the fashion in head gear, inspiring many and otherwise very humbler members of the community to appear less humble—and correspondingly more respectable. There have been others, Baldwin with his pipe, Joseph Chamberlain with his eye glass and orchids; the world's “big chum" with his big cigars and last, and by no means least, the Welsh miner who once coloured the pages of history by recording on a particular occasion his detestation of vermin!

All these incidents are of course quite trifling, but we would ask in all seriousness whether the cause of Socialism owes anything to whatever Keir Hardie ever said, whether with cap or bareheaded. Suffice it to say that the Keir Hardie Memorial Committee has been struggling for so many years to get the House of Commons to accept "a fine golden gleaming bust . . ." (but without that cap) to adorn those sacred precincts of the House of Commons. Lord Samuel, speaking on the occasion, is reported to have said . . . “Keir Hardie’s cap struck a discordant note. It made us feel slightly uncomfortable. It was meant to make us feel uncomfortable.” Mr. Gaitskell made his tribute at the occasion, saying, ". . . Far more than any other man, Keir Hardie had founded the Labour Party. His Socialism was idealistic in character, drawing more from Methodism, from Robert Burns, than from men like Karl Marx!”

Seriously we ask, what do Mr. Fenner Brockway, chairman of the Keir Hardie Memorial Committee, and Mr. Gaitskell, the old Etonian, really think about such odds and ends, which takes the mind back to the times of Moses, to the primordial past, leaving the story still untold of the manner and ways in which Capitalism still enfolds the life of the worker, with its slums, its homeless millions the world over. May we ask these two sentimentally saturated and posing politicians whether working class understanding of Capitalism as the cause and Socialism as the remedy for the existing ghastly lot suffered by the working class has been advanced one tittle? Or is it perhaps a vain hope which excites both these two political “show offs” to be “the bust of a to-morrow!” Who knows and who cares? Is not this the land of cant and humbug and can political humbuggery go lower?

O.C.I.

Clement Freud (1987)

From the May 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Each time the nation goes to the polls the Palace of Westminster stationery department will have a substantial run on crested paper. Teaspoons disappear from the cafeteria even more rapidly than they do normally, and the Sergeant at Arms' stock of hand towels available in all Members' washrooms takes a terrible hiding.

We call it "just something with which to remember our happy years at the helm". (You must know it has been authoritatively ruled by Mr Speaker himself that MPs cannot be drunk; any day now there will be other advantageous decisions taken in respect of our guiltlessness.)

(Clement Freud, Choice magazine, February 1987)

Letter: Some questions on Socialist policy. (1924)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (F. L. Rimington, of Leicester) in sending us his views on current politics, asks some questions relative to Socialist policy. These matters have been dealt with in the Socialist Standard before, but as they may be of interest at the present time we are replying to the questions here.

(1) Does the S.P.G.B. take part in Municipal Politics?

The answer to this question is contained in our Declaration of Principles, which declares for the conquest of the powers of government, local and national.

The master class spend huge sums to control local bodies, as these are a sub-division of the government of capitalism. It is important for the masters to control these councils, etc., and therefore it is equally important to dislodge the capitalists from power wherever they control.

The waging of the class struggle involves the conquest by the workers of the institutions of control, and hence Socialists must fight for conquest of local and national machinery of government. We do not take part in municipal elections to administer capitalism, but to advance the, interests of Socialism. The Socialist Party municipal election address tells the workers how little could be gained in improvements while capitalism lasts, and therefore in local as well as national elections we ask for votes from those alone who realise that the abolition of the present system and replacement by Socialism is the only hope of the working class. Socialists if elected to municipal bodies would use them as vantage points in the class struggle and to sound the message of Socialism to the unconverted workers.

(2) What is our opposition to the S.L.P.? 

The answer is contained in our Party Manifesto, and in many articles in the Socialist Standard during the years when the S.L.P. was an active body. Our opposition to the S.L.P. may be summarised thus : (1) Their lack of understanding of the class struggle shown by their reliance on industrial action as the workers’ remedy. (2) Their muddle-headed and continually changing views on fundamental points of policy, such as war, soviets, unity stunts, etc. (3) Lacking sound views on Socialist policy, they have simply followed the ups and downs of the American S.L.P., and are not evidently able to take up a consistent and firmly grounded Socialist position.

(3) What about taking the oath of allegiance in the House of Commons?

The answer to that question is implied in the Socialist need for getting political control. If we are to refuse to take oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. The questioner does not fully realise the implications of the class struggle. Socialists are not simply waging war against detail grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to workers’ triumph, Socialists cannot stop at taking oaths imposed upon them by the ruling class. There is nothing revolutionary in fighting against oaths, and by concentrating the electorates’ attention on the oath, Socialism is left aside as the issue. Republicans and Atheists like Bradlaugh can refuse* to take oaths, although they are bitter anti-Socialists.

The taking of oaths imposed by ruling classes has never prevented them being ignored when interest dictated it. The English Revolution of the 17th century was carried through in Parliament by men who took oaths to Kings they beheaded or drove from the throne.

Constitutionalists in Russia took oaths to the Czar and his Government in several Dumas, but that did not prevent them from breaking their oaths when opportunity presented itself, and so abolishing the Czar’s rule. In times of revolution in every country oaths have been broken by those who have been compelled to swear allegiance to the ruling power of the time. If Socialists are to keep out of Parliament because of formal matters of procedure, then the ruling class can keep on imposing conditions which they think you will refuse.

Our correspondent’s idea is that the propaganda value of refusing to take the Oath would be great. Possibly he is correct in this. But it would not be propaganda for Socialism or for the working class. It would be propaganda against the oath, and would not rouse or involve a class issue.

It would appeal to reformers, anti-monarchists, anarchists, and atheists, etc., people generally who are busy fighting effects or dealing with one aspect of capitalism.

The Editorial Committee

* Bradlaugh refused to take the oath at first but was willing afterwards. Then, however, the Government refused to let him take the oath.

In the House of Commons. (1921)

From the September 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thursday, 7th July, 1921.

Vote on Expenses of Mines Department.

In the discussion Major Barnes, putting forward a criticism of the Government's policy, gave an interesting explanation of the cause of the coal dispute.

Under Government control, coal during the war was exported to our Allies cut off from other sources of supply, at monopoly prices which reached an enormous figure. This was safe and exceedingly profitable while war continued, and for a considerable period afterwards, but it had effects, unforeseen by those responsible for the policy, but simply disastrous for the coal owners. Not only did it become cheaper for France to import from U.S.A., but also great importance was given to the demand for coal from Germany under the reparation clauses of the Peace Treaty. These factors soon brought about the almost complete destruction of British export trade in coal, which was the immediate cause of decontrol and the lock-out. Major Barnes' contention was that the Government should have foreseen and prepared for what was, in the circumstances, a natural development. Their reply did not dispose of his arguments, nor disprove the charge of failure to look ahead.

Sir Robert Horne admitted that the date of decontrol was deliberately advanced from August to March 31st in order that resistance from the miners might more effectively be met, and quoted from a speech made by F. Hodges where the latter had remarked on the weakening of the miner's position consequent on this manoeuvre.

Mr. Gould, shipping owner, held high wages and low production responsible for the ruin of "our export trade," but was very pointedly reminded of the huge and unnecessary shipping freight rates during the war. Mr. Adamson also showed how the productive power of the miners had been lessened by the hardships of war service.

o  o  o

Although the Government had spent approximately £20,000,000 in coping with the emergency situation arising out of the lock-out, Col. Spender Clay admitted "that with very few lamentable exceptions there was a complete absence of disorder in every mining area."

When a request was made for an amnesty for political prisoners sentenced under E.P.A., Mr. Adamson (Labour Party) assured the Chancellor that "there is no section of the members of this house who fight Communism more bitterly than the members of this Party." 

o  o  o

Mr. Kidd made the suggestion that lasting industrial peace could be secured only by the Miners' Federation investing its funds in the industry and abandoning political notions. Every man would then become capitalist, producer, and consumer. There is a whole heap of brilliance of this kind in the House of Commons. 

o  o  o

One cannot help wondering why the miners send representatives to Parliament when they talk like this: —

R. Swan: "Although our men have returned to work, it is not because we have been convinced that the settlement is just, but largely because we are anxious that this nation shall hold its own. We want to see our country, which we think the best in the world, prosperous. . . . We are as loyal subjects, every one of us, as any other member of this House of Commons. . . . I want to see England once again the premier nation of the world." 

o  o  o

Friday, 8th July, 1921. 

War Pensions Bill.

The intention of this Bill is stated to be the securing of economy in administration, but not at the expense of any pensioner, "for that is a policy to which I would never be a party" (MacPherson). Ministers have, of course, been known to change their policy, and the insistent repetition of their love for the ex-Service man is almost sufficient ground for a suspicion that a reduction of pensions is contemplated; but for obvious reasons such a move requires careful preparation and a tactful approach. Wages having been brought down without any serious difficulty, pensions must follow. There is for the Government the comforting thought that pensioners die off fairly rapidly, the number amounting to 46,000 already, but that is too slow a process.

There are in all, including 917,850 children and widows, 3,500,000 persons on the pension list. Much of the necessary work has been in the hands of local War Pensions Committees, which although costing £20,000,000 were virtually independent of the Ministry. By centralising and economising, the staffs of the Committee are to be reduced by one-third at a saving of from six to twelve million pounds.

Almost all of the speakers emphasised their determination that pensions should not be touched; but with reservations that conveyed a somewhat different impression.

Major Entwistle: "No one ever dreams, of course, of attacking any money that is expended on pensions" but "there have been experiences of irregular payments. There have been experiences of some Committees which have paid a great deal more than others, and I am sure the House does not desire that. " . . . "You ensure that undeserving people are prevented from getting that to which they are not entitled. "

Of course the House did not desire "that," but if it had been proposed to remove irregularities by standardising upwards instead of downwards, it would have been found that the House did desire "that" very much.

Col. Fremantle was more candid. "We have always excluded the question of pensions as being naturally outside the scope of possible economy, and we now have to eat our own words, and reconsider our declarations on the subject of economy . . .  and we shall have to go before the country and say we are considering economy in the matter of pensions, too."

The Major showed, too, another indirect way in which pensions will be reduced. Fear of losing his pension at a future re-examination may induce a disabled man to accept a lower amount because it is made permanent. "This clause will result in the saving of administrative expenditure and a saving in the disbursement of pensions within the next few years, because there are a great many people who would much rather have a permanent pension of a slightly reduced amount, if necessary, than a larger pension for a short period of six months. "

o  o  o

Remembering how much potential fighters were in demand in 1914 and the "salvation by khaki" that was then preached for those who had transgressed capitalist laws, but who could and would shoulder a rifle, it is interesting to note the present attitude of our rulers.

Those ex-soldiers who think they have a right to recognition from the owners of the country for which they fought are "undeserving people" now.

Lt.-Col. Fremantle : "We went into the highways and hedges and swept them in, and so long as they could pass the physical test by hook or by crook . . . there was no question about their moral or other worth."

The Lt.-Col., however, with the nobility of character for which the Empire and its officer class are justly famous, finds means of dealing with these "weary Willies." He has spies (no doubt of equal "moral worth" with himself) who stand by their comrades by acting as informer to their employer. I have in my employ, I am glad to say, two men . . . who keep me informed of some . . . of the tricks that go on."

o  o  o

The Labour Party, as one would expect, was supporting the Government in this measure, although suggesting amendments such as the lengthening of the period during which applications for pensions could be made.

In accordance with their customary policy, they are always at hand ready to assist the capitalists to cheapen the cost of administration, until finally, having won their confidence, the whole task shall be entrusted to a Labour Government; unless in the meantime the workers find out that this economy is not their business, and the party interested in it not their party, and decide to abolish the system instead of trying to improve it.

o  o  o

People who believed the assurances given from time to time that various ex-service men's organisations were non-political, etc., would do well to note the following remark made by Major Cohen, Treasurer of the "British Legion."

"That Legion is out to help the Government, and not only this Government but any future Government, with no conditions whatever. They are out entirely for constitutional Government."

Edgar Hardcastle

Speaker’s Corner (2020)

Book Review from the April 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unspeakable. John Bercow. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 2020. £20

It was always likely that recently retired House of Commons Speaker John Bercow would produce a memoir that settled a few scores, and he hasn’t disappointed. He clearly has an issue with the British establishment and those that personify it, and ‘snobbish’ David Cameron comes in for particularly vitriolic treatment. To give you a flavour of Bercow’s style: ‘In the pantheon of great leaders, the name of David Cameron will never feature. In a list of opportunist lightweights, it will be at the top’.

Then on to Theresa May: ‘Rudderless, without imagination, and with few real friends at the highest level, she stumbled on, day to day, lacking clarity, vision and the capacity to forge a better Britain. In a contest as to who has been the worst Prime Minister since 1945, it is hard to choose between Anthony Eden and Theresa May’.

And on Boris Johnson: ‘As a debater he is undistinguished and, as a public speaker, though humorous, he is often downright poor – hesitant, unable to string sentences together fluently and about as likely ever to warrant the description “captivating orator” as Bertie Wooster… Apart from those notable limitations in a man who has since become Prime Minister, he is, at his occasional best, a passably adequate politician in an age not replete with them’.

Bercow’s own story of course is an interesting one, the son of a Jewish cab driver who gravitated from a youthful dalliance with the right-wing, anti-immigration Monday Club to a barely disguised left-ish stance. This gained him much opprobrium during the Brexit debates, with allegations that he was a biased ‘remainer’, with an influential Labour-campaigning spouse, Sally.

In fairness, as political autobiographies go, it is more entertaining than most, despite the criticism it has received from many reviewers. Bercow likes to see himself in the mode of a parliamentary ‘reformer’ and the dominant thread is about the battles he fought with traditionalists and conservatives of every stripe, including those who took an ill view of his attempts to support the rights of backbench MPs against those of the executive.

There is a surprisingly interesting (and on occasion well-argued) Epilogue where he looks at the future of parliament and of the UK as a whole over the next decade and more. He picks out the key defining features of the UK well, including the influence of its island status (with a total coastline and sea exposure greater than that of either Brazil or India), and the overwhelming dominance of London, which skews the UK population and capital distribution to something more akin to countries in the Third World.

Interestingly, whatever insight and vitriol he has to muster, little if any of it is directed at Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, one suspects he will no doubt become Lord Bercow soon enough (even if he is not – as is usual – nominated by the Prime Minister of the day, but by the outgoing Leader of the Opposition).

Dave Perrin