Letters: Women's Lib (1974)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Women's Lib

At your 70th Annual Conference a resolution was passed that membership of the Women’s Liberation movement is incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party. Is this due to the fact that Women’s Lib. strives for equality within the capitalist society, or is there more?

Catherine Spence, 

Cramlington, Northumberland.

Reply:

The SPGB has as its sole objective the establishment of Socialism.

Membership of the SPGB is dependent on the acceptance of and compliance with our Declaration of Principles which declares:

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interests of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.

In pursuit of their objectives Women’s Liberation must put pressure on or come to some agreement with capitalist political parties. Reforms of capitalism rarely if ever benefit the working class and the outcome of workers struggles in this direction are not worth the time and effort spent on them. They leave the workers in precisely the same position as before — the dispossessed class in society.

The Socialist Party must therefore be hostile to all reformist political parties and pressure groups and membership of any of them (e.g. Women’s Liberation movement) must be incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party.

If all the reforms demanded by Women’s Liberation were implemented the vast majority of women would still be members of the propertyless class having to sell their ability to work to the capitalist class for a wage or a salary.

The political history of capitalism is littered with the remains of those reform movements which attempted the impossible task of establishing “equality within the capitalist society.” Having failed many reformists dropped their illusions and went on to administer capitalism in the only way it can be administered — in the interest of the capitalists.

Social equality is only possible in a classless society. Women’s Liberation by accepting the class basis of society. (whatever some of them may claim) help to confuse workers and thereby help to perpetuate capitalism with its mass of economic and social discriminations. Have you read Women’s Lib has got it Wrong in the July Socialist Standard ?

Workers and wages

"We . . .  do not . . . exhort workers to try to attain 4y wages where before they only had 3y wages. An above average wage in one industry necessarily implies a below-average wage in another”.

This seems to suggest that the Socialist Party of Great Britain does not urge workers to struggle for higher wages on the grounds that a wage increase for one group of workers necessarily involves a wage decrease for another.

The Socialist Party has always urged workers to try to get the highest possible price for the sale of their labour-power. And Marx long ago exposed, in Value Price and Profit, the "wages fund” theory accepted by the Owenite Weston that, as the amount that could be paid out in wages was limited, one group of workers could only obtain a wage increase at the expense of the rest of the working class, and that therefore trade union action was to be opposed. As Marx showed, it was sometimes possible for workers to take advantage of favourable labour market conditions to obtain a real wage increase, even if only a temporary one, at the expense of the profits of the capitalists and without harming other workers. For Marx Socialists had not to oppose the struggle for higher wages, but rather to point out its severe limitations and to urge the adoption of the revolutionary, socialist slogan “Abolish the wages system”. Marx also made the point that workers have to struggle for higher wages, even if they don’t obtain them, just in order to realise the value of their labour-power. Workers should struggle to get 4y wages in place of 3y because if they don’t they won’t even get paid 3y.

A. Buick

Brussels

Reply:

The interpretation placed on this extract by A. Buick appears to have been an over-reaction to what was stated. The term “above average wages” derives from the IPC statement itself and it should be remembered that this is a statistical concept. It should also be remembered that the statement relates to a specific company and those workers within it. This is not meant to imply that because it is a specific company, that we take no interest in the workers concerned, but more to mean that we do not approach these workers and their part both in the class struggle, and in their understanding of Socialism, exclusive of all others.

As was pointed out in the article, Mr. Roberts (the Managing Director of IPC Newspapers Ltd.) refers his employees to their high standing in the “Pay relativities League Table.” The graph (re-printed from the Financial Times) represents the average rates of pay throughout many industries, and Roberts is telling IPC employees: Look how much higher up this scale are your wages compared to those of other workers. This is a blatant appeal to his men to be thankful, for what are in the end, extremely small mercies. It is relevant however, to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that if Roberts pays his workers wages which are above a norm, then those of other workers must be below it. Clearly not all workers can obtain “above average wages,” for an average is necessarily the mean between high and low.

This reference was made to point out the limitations of Robert’s own emphasis on above-average wages as an indication of “success” and to remind IPC workers that they should not consider being “above-average” as a satisfactory position. In short, “above average” as a class view. It was certainly not intended to endorse the theory that there is a given pool from which wages are drawn, and consequently one man’s wage increase, is another’s decrease. The clause A. Buick has omitted from the extract quoted in fact points to the source from which an increase in wages would come i.e. the capitalist’s profit.

As A. Buick says, it is quite possible for a group of workers to achieve a wage increase without affecting the amount of wages received by other workers Their relative positions on a statistical graph will of course change, but as was pointed out, these relative differences will not change the basic class position of workers, or their problems. It is worth bearing in mind that there have been a considerable number of strikes in post-war years over wage relativities. As such we cannot be expected to approve a claim by any group of workers that at all times they must have more than some other group of workers.

A. Buick’s letter states “For Marx Socialists had not to oppose the struggle for higher wages . . ." and so on. However it seems a somewhat large (and inaccurate) mental leap to conclude from the passage quoted, or the article as a whole, that we were advocating opposition to workers struggling for higher wages. The class struggle between worker and employer results from the capitalist system, and wage claims are manifestations of this struggle. It would indeed be contradictory to claim that the SPGB represents the political interests of the working class on one hand, while actually advocating opposition to intelligent efforts aimed at improving or maintaining standards under Capitalism by struggles in the industrial field. The article did not put forward this point of view, and Marx explains fully why this would be a contradictory position:

(Writing about the tendency for the average standard of wages to fall)

. . . is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation . . .  they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiation of any larger movement.

(Wages, Price & Profit. Chapter 14).

In practise, where gains are made by workers in industries, generally it is due to these “occasional chances” and not to the number of strikes they engage in.

Regarding A. Buick’s opinion of how our case should be expressed in relation to the struggle for higher wages, it would not be true to claim that the SPGB is better placed than the workers, or Trade Unions involved, to identify such "occasional chances” for improvement, or to usurp their particular functions in this respect. It would be a considerable and alien extension of our own function to assume that we should act either as some form of Advice Bureau, or Clearing House for various wage claims. Such a conclusion would be hard to avoid were we to blandly assert that all those IPC workers receiving (in the article’s terms) 3y wages, should be taking action to attain 4y wages.

Apart from elementary considerations such as the likelihood of such a claim being met or not, or to what extent and duration of industrial action can be taken, it should be remembered that workers (not the SPGB) advance wage claims in terms of £’s and pence. Apart from these other considerations it would be unrealistic to prescribe the numerical formula put forward by A. Buick to the IPC workers, and even more so, to all workers at all times. The extract complained about was expressly inserted to make clear to the reader that we are not able to give specific advice on the formation of particular wage claims. We certainly do not exhort workers to act in such a way, we exhort workers to achieve Socialism.

Although Mr. Roberts might view such a formula as an attempt to be “realistic”, if a little immoderately, the SPGB would take a view which he, and millions of workers at present regard as “un-realistic,” namely, if we are to talk in terms of figures, why just struggle for 4y, why not 5 or 6 or 10y ?

It is possible that A. Buick means his formula to be interpreted in a more general way to read that workers should continue to struggle for higher wages. If this is so, he is acknowledging what is occurring daily under capitalism. The SPGB has frequently put forward the view that workers generally (not just Trade Unions) should recognise the need to achieve not only the best wages, but also the best conditions that they can, although we have not always seen as beneficial some of the methods employed in this respect: For example, the use of industrial action to preserve the “Closed-shop,” inter-unions disputes, or racially motivated strikes etc., because their result has been to further divide and embitter sections of the working class. If A. Buick is concerned lest the IPC workers, or other workers, become unaware of increasing costs of daily necessaries, or of greater exploitation by the capitalist class, his reminder is timely.

While recognising that the capitalist class will constantly seek to lower wages to the minimum level required to ensure the maintenance and reproduction of a work force, and pointing out to the working class that this is a most undesirable tendency, which, if not resisted, will result in a fall of their standards, the SPGB’s task is to urge workers (employed or not) to recognise their class position, and, as Marx points out in his following paragraph from Wages, Price & Profit (Chap. 14).

not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the cause of those effects.

Our exhortation must be therefore for workers to adopt a class view and establish a system of society in which high, low or average wages will only be sought and found in history books.

Could do better?

There are some cases where workers have got out of the position of being workers and made a bit of a fortune by some means or the other — hook or by crook — and Socialists are the first to oppose them doing this! Namely because Socialists give no incentive to workers in getting out of the position of being workers.

What comments have you to make on this ? Don’t be aloof and good. What are your comments, in detail ?

F. S. Steele 

London N.4.

Reply:

Have you confused us with someone else ? If we should hear of any working men or women making “a bit of a fortune” and escaping from wage-slavery, we don’t oppose it: we (individually) wish them luck

However, the belief that anyone can do it or have it happen to him is part of the mythology which sustains capitalism. Anyone cannot; very few can. If you were thinking of football pools the chances of a quarter - million - pound win are statistically about the same as those of being struck by lightning. If you were thinking of famous men who have “advanced by their own efforts”, such stories have practically never been true.

Our case is simply that workers who think on these lines are like the beast of burden following a carrot on a stick in front of it. Escaping from wage-slavery is a most desirable aim, and the only way for the great majority — with exceptions so rare that they don’t matter — to achieve it is by abolishing the wages system, i.e. establishing Socialism.

For the present

Until socialism is established, we have to live under the present capitalist system.

Features of this system are institutions such as Building Societies, Insurance Companies and banks, all of which many workers invest money into and unwittingly aid capitalism.

Seemingly they do not have a choice. There is not enough rented property in the private or public sector to meet the demand, despite years of government by the Labour Party. The Building Societies do offer a way out at a price

Insurance schemes are contributed to, understandably, by many workers who want to provide safeguards for their families should misfortune occur.

The banks use people’s money to finance their existence and keep the system rolling, for that, they provide the service of looking after our money.

All three institutions under the present system exist because of human needs. How do people at present obtain the necessities of life without contributing to a system that exploits them? The obvious need is for Socialism; until it arrives where does the Socialist Party stand on this problem ?

Kevin Parkin

London S.E. 1

Reply:

Banks, Building Societies, and Insurance Companies do not exist to satisfy human need. They are features of capitalism — a system of commodity production based on the class ownership of the means of life. As such they only exist to make a profit and only too often stand between human beings and their means of subsistence. They are “necessary” only in a money-dominated society which has profit as the motive for production.

While capitalism lasts the working class will need to sell themselves on the labour market, use banks and take out mortgages and insurance. Because they own no property they must work for wages and in so doing they will be contributing to the profits of the capitalists. Socialists realise this only too well, that under these circumstances workers have no option but to be involved in the whole sordid business simply in order to live — after all, we are in the same position ourselves. It is Utopian to believe that workers can isolate themselves from or opt out of these and other oppressive features of capitalism.

What the Socialist Party continually points out, and urges working people to act on, is that the society we live in can be done away with. When the majority of the working class realise this they will need to take upon themselves the task of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism through democratic political action. This is the only real choice facing the working class. Why not join with us and help to bring the establishment of Socialism that much closer?

Religion & railings

A reading of your interesting 70th Anniversary issue has left me with the impression that the SPGB has no satisfactory explanation for the failure to get through to the working class. I ask you to consider the following hypothesis.

A more propitious ethos must be generated by capitalism, which has already demonstrated its ability to induce a more rational view of the social scene. Remember the blow it has dealt religion. Masses of workers who have never heard of the SPGB or read a secularist tract have involuntarily succumbed to a more materialist view of the world about them. This dynamic power, identified as the ethos, could ultimately produce the untutored, the spontaneous Socialist. The existence of the SPGB is evidence enough that some workers have understood the Socialist case. My belief is that these workers are of a special “type”.

An example of a social trend I see currently unfolding: Many of the restricting inner railings in a large park near here have been removed. The perimeter fence remains — soon this barrier will be seen as an affront. Down it will come (where traffic and safety hazards allow) permitting at last, free and unrestricted access. This changing attitude will widen and deepen until it embraces the whole economy. Workers will then be more readily aware of the restraints on their lives. I visualize conditions in which workers will leave your meetings convinced at a first hearing of the need for Socialism.

To summarize, I am saying the SPGB can’t achieve its aim without a riper ethos, itself a product of evolving capitalism. In the spin-off of an ever-accelerating technology I see many signs which encourage me in the belief that, although at the rather advanced age of 61, I shall yet witness the triumph of Socialism.

F. C. West, 

London E.2.

Reply:

Your letter has had to be shortened for space reasons, but its chief point is that we have to wait upon capitalism itself creating certain trends.

Unfortunately, your examples do not lead us anywhere. In the absence of Socialist understanding people who give up religious beliefs have, generally, only exchanged them for other fruitless ones. You are right in suggesting that capitalism needs religion less now; but it is not short of opiates. And if railings being taken down creates ideas of freedom, that is depressing news because of the number of railings being put up now in the streets and therefore (on that argument) conditioning people to more restraint.

There are simpler, more prosaic reasons why we can “get through to the working class” to only a small extent. In the forthcoming General Election Wilson, Heath, Thorpe and their party programmes will fill the television screens and the newspapers all day every day for three weeks non-stop; our “coverage” will be a flash on TV, if we are lucky, and a sentence or two in the papers.

But do you mean that at 61 (not an advanced age at all) you are waiting to see Socialism brought about? We have active members old enough to be your parents; we are not waiting for Socialism, but working for it. Why don’t you ?

Letters: Progress and Socialism (1978)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Progress and Socialism

In reply to my letter, “Technology and Socialism" (March SS), you give some evidence to support your contention of scientific progress making men happier in regards to medical science making the many diseases which were once rife to be things of the past, but you forget that this is a very fleeting sort of happiness in form and content, as it very quickly vanishes due to a host of other serious diseases which arise in society to cancel this ephemeral happiness out of men’s minds, and by doing so add to men’s miseries.

And even though the human lifespan is about twice as long on average as it was in Marx’s day this prolongation of life has not in the main added to man’s happiness on earth, nor has it in any manner or form motivated the workers develop Socialist ideas.

And if man has doubled his life-span since Marx’s day he certainly has not doubled his drive to attain Socialist ideas since Marx’s day. For even in 1848 Marx tells us that a spectre of communism is haunting Europe, but even today with the worker’s life-span being doubled the spectre of communism is virtually non-existent in Europe. It would be interesting to know what the historical materialists have to say about that, for this seems to be regress rather than progress, that is, of course assuming Marx’s Communist Manifesto was correct about the spectre of communism haunting Europe.

My letter never mentioned anything about the expense of technological inventions in regard to the workers, so I do not know where you got that idea from. And you certainly did not try to explain what you meant by progress, in regards to a change from hand mills to steam mills, for it is only too obvious that the steam mills did not motivate the working class to attain Socialist ideas, but rather on the contrary, dehumanised the workers by soul destroying work which turned them into robots, so where is the progress here? You disagree with this view of course, but 130 years of capitalistic technological dehumanisation is against you, plus the fact in our age of 1978 Socialism is a non-existent drive in working class politics. And also historical materialism which is supposed to operate independent of man’s will and consciousness has done virtually nothing from the steam mill in Marx’s day to the present atomic technological age to bring about any great progress towards Socialism, which, of course, you say is the only real progress, although no real evidence exists in society, to make this real progress a reality.

I would like so much to hear your comments on all that.

Ian Campbell

Dundee, Scotland

Reply:

There are two conditions necessary for the establishment of Socialism; the development of the productive forces to the point where they can provide an abundance, and acceptance by the world’s working class of the case for Socialism. Technological and scientific progress has for some decades now ensured the attainment of the first condition. Under capitalism these developments and inventions are not utilised for the good of mankind. However, in a Socialist society the fruits of human ingenuity will be able to benefit everybody. Technological progress will mean social and individual advancement. The 'soul-destroying work’ you mention has not turned the workers into robots— that is, unthinking machines which simply respond to instructions. As we said in our reply to your first letter, “Society is too complex to be operated by robots; instead it is living, feeling and thinking workers who run society.’’ The very existence of the Socialist Party shows that Socialism is by no means “ a non-existent drive in working class politics". It is no good looking to historical materialism to bring about progress towards Socialism; it is people, not history, who will carry out the revolution. The second condition for the establishment of Socialism means a world-wide majority of convinced Socialists, and this is what Socialist propaganda aims at achieving. Rather than worrying about the meaning and nature of progress, you should take a step forward yourself and join the Socialist movement.

Editors.

Facets of Trade Unionism

I recently attended the Civil and Public Services Association annual conference as a delegate for our local Branch. All facets of Trade Unionism were covered; pay, hours and leave. Conditions cf service (including superannuation), welfare, safety, "industrial democracy", racism, relations with other unions, etc., etc.

It became evident to me that what we were doing, basically was trying to get the best possible deal for our union members under capitalism.

I am familiar with the ideas of the SPGB. I read the Socialist Standard each month and I have on rare occasions attended meetings.

The ideology of the SPGB is difficult to oppose and I found myself thinking: there are no solutions under capitalism, Socialism is the answer. It is a pity, I thought, that the energy devoted by delegates in trying to improve the conditions of their members under capitalism is not harnessed to establishing Socialism. And there’s the rub! The majority of the wage-earning class either do not understand Socialism or clearly they do not want it. The SPGB has, I understand, been campaigning for over seventy years! I accept that the SPGB have been hindered by the Labour Party and various left-wing groups, all purporting to be fighting for Socialism, clouding the issues, disillusioning people and making it hard for the SPGB to spread the work and create the majority understanding necessary for the establishment of Socialism.

You may ask why, if I sympathise with your views, I do not apply for membership and help the cause? Well, we all consider our time important and I am no exception. When I occasionally state the Socialist case they think I’m living in a dream world. What about human nature? Greed? or ‘look what’s happened in Russia!’ are the usual responses. It seems that people generally do not believe in the possibility of changing society, or they do not want to.

The SPGB undoubtedly have experienced all this before and, hopefully, have the appropriate answers. Can you give me any heart to become more involved, and suggest ways of dealing with the prevailing attitudes of people?

K. Parkin

London, S.E.1

Post-Structuralism and Post-Postmodernism (1999)

Book Review from the April 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Post-Postmodernism by Madan Sarup. Manchester, Wheatsheaf.

The postmodernist view is that grand “narratives” like Marxism have failed and are no longer an adequate way of looking at or making sense of the world. That what is more relevant is to break down the big picture (the grand narrative) into a series of smaller, discrete pictures (little narratives); to deconstruct and de-layer the “whole structure” and thereby find out how meaning is put together. One can liken this to a puzzle which is purposely made up of a number of individual pieces that assembled together make a whole picture. It is from the whole picture that we usually make sense of the individual isolated parts. When put together (connected) a meaningful picture is formed.

Amongst some postmodernists the view is that in the deconstructed puzzle each individual piece, or each random construction of smaller pieces of the puzzle occupy a philosophical terrain of their own, have meanings that can be construed without recourse to the bigger picture. If this is so we arrive at a place where the grand narrative is at an end and all that is left is “playing with the pieces” (Jean Baudrillard). This appears unduly pessimistic and without hope of a way forward. Fortunately there are people like Madan Sarup on the scene to counter this view.

Madan Sarup makes some interesting comments in his introduction. He says that “the controversy over postmodernism is one example of class struggle at the cultural and political level. On the political level postmodernism is an attack on Marxism . . . about the validity of Marxism and its belief in progress” as many postmodernists declare that progress is a myth. He goes on to state that the “project of modernity (which postmodernists attack) is one with that of the Enlightenment and that Marxism is a child of the Enlightenment”.

In a passage that comments on the Marxist position, he states that, “a characteristic of human beings is that they make a distinction between the ‘real’ and the ‘ideal'”. By the real he means an awareness of the present situation, and by the ideal, some notion of what life, the world, could be like. Human beings, he continues, “have a sense of what is possible in the future and they have the hope that tomorrow will be better than today. Marxists not only have this hope, this orientation towards the future, but they try to understand the world, to develop a critical consciousness of it, and try to develop strategies for changing it. Of course, they realise that progress is uneven, not unilinear; because of the nature of contradiction there are inevitably negative aspects, sad reversals and painful losses. Marxists struggle for a better future for all, but they know that this does not mean that progress is guaranteed or that the process of the dialectic will lead to the Perfect”. He believes that it is important for people to support the Enlightenment project because education is closely connected with the notion of a change of consciousness and that gaining a wider, deeper understanding of the world represents a change for the better. And this, in turn, implies some belief in a worthwhile future—something the postmodernists seem sceptical about.

Kevin Parkin

The trade in footballers (2020)

We Need to Talk About Kevin

From the April 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

English Premier League (EPL) football clubs will be returning to the former transfer window closing date of 13 August. This decision was made at a three-hour–long shareholders meeting that took place in London on 6 February.

For the last two years the windows closure date has taken place on the eve of the new Premier League season. This arrangement caused frustration for English clubs as their football counterparts in Europe continue to buy and sell players because their transfer windows allow them to continue trading in the market and thereby giving them an ‘unfair advantage’. A leading critic amongst others of the European advantage in the transfer market this season has been Maurice Pochettino, the ex–Tottenham Hotspur manager, who has made no bones about the restless effect it has had on some of his players, citing Christian Eriksson in particular.

During the English closure period, foreign clubs consider strengthening their squad by making discreet and indiscreet enquiries as to whether a particular club would consider selling one or more of their top players for the forthcoming season. Individual players, upon learning from their agent or possibly from a newspaper article that the enquiring football club would be prepared to pay a large some of money to procure their services (and increase their wages), may be sorely tempted to leave their parent club, especially if they are feeling unsettled.

So despite the large sum of money that premier footballers earn from their skills, they are in fact traded on the ‘market’ in much the same way as commodities in ‘futures markets’ are sold on financial exchanges. Each year the January Sales remind us that people will queue for hours in the cold to buy a fur coat or a desired consumer durable on sale at a reduced price.

In a socialist society where money no longer exists, people wishing to play football will be free to discuss their playing options, while goods and services created by the people will no longer be subject to the whims and caprices of a capitalist market system.

Kevin.

Football TV rights: Amazon joins the game (2020)

'You don't know about The Casa?'

From the January 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

By the time you read this, ten English football clubs will have played seven competitive games stretching from 3 December to 27 December. The TV rights for showing these fixtures were purchased by Amazon Prime in a three-year deal struck in June 2018. According to CityAM (3 December), if Amazon, the biggest company ever to have bought English Premier League TV rights, is to make its mark it will have to sign up plenty of new customers to its Prime membership.

At present, this intervention does not threaten the current status quo, under which Sky Sports and BT Sports dominate the current televising of Premier League fixtures, with a few smaller competitors including DNZA who are interested in the procurement of streaming rights, etc. Having dipped their toes in the water, Amazon Prime will surely consider increasing their investment by procuring more broadcasting rights in the near future. However, there is so much money sloshing around in the EPL at the moment that there will definitely be a future feeding frenzy in which all of the competitors will attempt to grab what they can.

If we liken the current EPL to a large cake – we can say that there will be plenty of cake to go round but not sufficient for everyone’s wants or needs. So there will be losers as well as winners. Capitalism will separate the rich from the not so rich, rewarding as ever those that pay the most, by allocating them a place at the table. The unfortunates who were unable to bid enough for inclusion will just have to sit out on the bench. Like the working class have to all the time under capitalism.

Kevin.

Why Just Fight Austerity? (2015)

From the April 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

Consider the following:

• The world has a million or so multimillionaires, with disposable wealth of over $7 million each
• About 100,000 people have assets of over $50 million
• A fifth of the UK population say they can barely get by financially
• One family in three in Britain has a member who suffers from depression or chronic anxiety disorder
• Life expectancy in Britain can vary by as much as twelve years depending on where you live
• There is no difficulty in producing enough food for everyone on the planet, and bad harvests are not the reason people go hungry

The above points are taken from the writings of Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography at Oxford University. So he clearly sees that there is much wrong with the current social system in terms of inequality of wealth and health and the pressure it places on so many people. In a recent letter to the local press, however, he has recommended merely voting for the National Health Action Party, as a way of expressing support for the NHS.

Why just fight against the attacks of austerity and cutbacks which are continual and relentless given the present way of organising society? Instead let’s fight for a totally new system, one where the resources of the planet belong to everyone rather than to a tiny class of super-rich (the one percent as they’re often called nowadays). Where production takes place to meet human need rather than the profits of the few. Where effort is put into producing food, housing, clothing and the other things and services we need, rather than wasted on advertising, armed forces and the paraphernalia of the money system, such as credit cards, banks and insurance. Where people are free of the oppression and exploitation caused by class and state.

Don’t be satisfied with reforms. If you think the arguments above show that the present system, capitalism, does not serve the interests of the vast majority, consider supporting the Socialist Party and the World Socialist Movement in our fight to replace capitalism with a global socialist society. Danny Dorling should be a socialist – and so should you.

Our local candidates will be Mike Foster in Oxford West & Abingdon and Kevin Parkin in Oxford East

(General election leaflet issued in Oxford)

Action Replay: The Big Fight (2015)

The Action Replay column from the June 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

After all the ballyhoo and razzmatazz the big fight was disappointing. All three judges scored Floyd Mayweather the winner by a unanimous decision against Manny Pacquiao.

Pacquiao’s best period was the early part of the fight, his bustling style unsettling Mayweather but Floyd kept Pacquiao at bay with some stinging jabs. In round 5, Floyd started to dictate the fight, using his speed, footwork and superb defensive skills to outpoint his opponent.

It later transpired that Pacquiao had entered the ring with a shoulder injury. Revealing that he had suffered a ‘torn rota cuff’ in training but had decided to continue with the contest. The Nevada State Commission (NASC) was unaware of this until they received a request from Pacquiao to have an anti-inflammatory injection 90 minutes before the fight started. Pacquiao could now face NSAC penalties and possible law suits, after not disclosing the injury in a medical questionnaire prior to the fight.

Before taking up professional boxing Floyd and Manny experienced difficult starts in life. Pacquiao once slept on beds in a gym and fought for 5 dollars in scraps organised for gambling. If he won he bought rice, if he lost he starved.

Floyd’s childhood was brutal, his mother was a drug addict and his father a loose cannon prone to violence. The story goes that when barely a year old, Floyd senior used his boy as a human shield when his uncle (mother’s side) came seeking retribution. He hoisted Floyd into the gun sight forcing the assailant to shoot him in the leg.

As far as money is concerned early indications of pay-per-view sales in the US suggest that Mayweather will earn $200m and Pacquiao in excess of £120m – not bad for one night’s work. Floyd’s next scheduled fight is in September against an opponent of his choice. Several fighters are ‘lining up’ to take on Mayweather including Britain’s Amir Khan and Kell Brook but Floyd may prefer Miguel Cotto or Saul Alvarez both previous opponents or perhaps Danny Garcia who defeated Amir Khan. Whoever the opponent is, you can be sure it will be the opponent who generates the most money at the box office and pay-per-view, because in Floyd Mayweather’s world, it’s all about the ‘Money, Money, Money’.

Kevin Parkin

Action Replay: Heading for Trouble (2017)

Jeff Astle Gates

The Action Replay column from the May 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last year the Daily Telegraph (30 May) published an article on the link between football and dementia accusing the powers that run football of behaving like the notorious tobacco industry of the 1960s. It warned about its ‘scandalous’ failure to carry out research into the alleged link, in the world’s most popular sport, between heading the ball and dementia.

This issue was brought into sharp focus because it coincided with the 50th anniversary year of England’s 1966 World Cup triumph. Four of the eight surviving outfield players of England’s greatest team are suffering with significant memory problems. Ray Wilson, Martin Peters and Nobby Stiles were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in their sixties while Jack Charlton has struggled with memory loss since his late seventies. The incidence rate among the 1966 heroes was said to be ‘frightening’ but alarm was already spreading due to anecdotal evidence of the devastating stories affecting hundreds of other former footballers. John Stiles said of his father ‘It can’t be a coincidence – it seems almost to be of epidemic proportion’.

According to the Alzheimer’s Society, the number of men suffering from dementia in the wider national population between the ages of 65 and 69 is one in 75 or 1.25 percent. In 2012, an inquest ruled that former England striker Jeff Astle died of an industrial disease caused by the damage to his brain from playing football but a promised joint Football Association and Professional Footballers’ Association study into the wider risks was never published.

Since that inquest, Jeff Astle’s family have been contacted by hundreds of other families with similar experiences. They have tried to work constructively with the authorities to find answers but have become exasperated and suspicious at football’s lack of action.

Dawn Astle, Jeff’s daughter, said ‘they have tried to sweep dad’s death and the verdict from an inquest under a carpet because of fear for the implications of football. I think they are terrified of what this research is going to show. For a coroner to say dad’s job killed him and then 15 years on to be no further forward is shocking, It was a landmark decision that would have had earthquake repercussions in any other industry. It feels like a huge conspiracy. It’s a disgrace no one in football wants to find out if football is a killer.’

She met representatives of the FA in 2014 and was told that they would forward research questions to FIFA. Dawn was subsequently enraged when the FA altered their terminology to say that it would ‘imminently’ put questions to FIFA. She sent an immediate email to FA chairman Greg Dyke and PFA deputy Chief Executive John Bramhall stating that the ‘lack of respect for those who have died and their families who have seen them stripped of all dignity is beyond belief’.

Dyke and the PFA chief executive, Gordon Taylor, replied to Dawn and a meeting was arranged with Charlotte Cowie, the FA’s head of performance medicine. Taylor said the PFA had been approached by ‘quite a number’ of former professionals with symptoms of cognitive decline. ‘I share the frustration, this does need addressing,’ said Taylor.

Pressure to do something is gathering. Dr Willie Stewart, of the University of Glasgow is the neuropathologist who examined Astle’s brain and found chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) – a condition that can cause similar symptoms to Dementia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease but can only be diagnosed in a post-mortem. Stewart stated ‘it shouldn’t take 15 years to answer the question: Does participation in football alter your risk of dementia?’ and feels football’s authorities need to allocate a fraction of the vast sums of money they have to answer the question. ‘We have teams in the 1950s and 1960s where five or six of the players have developed dementia, said Stewart. One player perhaps would be in the odds but when you see this in team after team you have to start wondering. I’m surprised football isn’t embracing this.’

Dr Michael Grey a motor neuroscience physiologist at the University of Birmingham likens the situation to the old smoking debate. In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco companies were saying there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but of course we now know there is. ‘I am shocked at FIFA, the FA and the PFA. I just do not understand why they have not invested in independent research.’

Well, one answer maybe is that the governing bodies of football may think that by kicking the problem into the long grass, affected parties may just give up and go away. They may have to think again because the courts could rule that they ‘owe a duty of care to current and former players’. By doing nothing about existing problems they could end up facing similar action to the American Football authorities who have been sued for $1 billion [£684 million]. That might get them to do something if nothing else will. Money talks, in fact it never stays silent.

Kevin 

Action Replay: Colin Veitch – Pioneer Football Trade Unionist (2016)

Colin Veitch (22 May 1881 – 26 August 1938)

The Action Replay column from the October 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July Bobby Moore was honoured with an English Heritage blue plaque, but he is not the first footballer to be recognised in this way. In 2013, Heaton History Group ran a successful campaign to have Colin Veitch awarded a Newcastle City Council black plaque on his house.

Colin Veitch was born in Heaton in Newcastle in 1881. He captained Newcastle Schools in 1895. At Rutherford College, where he studied after leaving school, he played for their football team, then regarded as one of the finest amateur sides in the North East, attracting the attention of Newcastle United for whom he played as an amateur before turning professional in 1899. 

He was a versatile and talented football player who captained Newcastle United during their Edwardian heyday when the team won three Football League Championships (1905, 1907 and1909), the FA Cup in 1910 and finalists five times between 1905 -1912. A one-time schoolteacher, he introduced the idea of using a blackboard to illustrate and develop tactics diagrams in pre-match planning and post match analyses.

He was an activist in the Association Football Players Union (AFPU) set up in 1907. In November 1908 Thompson’s Weekly News announced that several leaders of AFPU including Colin Veitch would write regular articles for the paper, providing a forum for the union’s views. The AFPU began negotiations with the Football Association but in April 1909 these ended without agreement. The union threatened a strike and in June the FA ordered all players to leave the AFPU, and warned that if they did not by 1 July, their registrations as professionals would be cancelled.

Veitch resigned from the AFPU in order to carry on negotiations with the FA and led the struggle to have players reinstated. In August 1909, the FA agreed that professional players could be members of the AFPU and the dispute ended. Veitch was later the chairman of the AFPU, now the Professional Footballers Association, for a number of years. In politics he was a leftwinger and had once been asked to stand as a Labour candidate but turned this down.

He died in 1938 after contracting pneumonia while recuperating on holiday in Bern in Switzerland at the age of only 57. He is still remembered in Newcastle as one of their greatest players.

Kevin Parkin

Action Replay: 888online - Gambling’s Bête Noire (2017)

The Action Replay column from the December 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recently the online gambling company 888 was fined £7.8 million by the Gambling Commission after it was discovered that thousands of its customers who had voluntarily banned themselves from gambling online were still able to make wagers due to a technical glitch in the system. The company reported the problem to the commission in February this year which prompted a review of its license.

Roughly £3.5m has been wagered over a year by ‘self-excluded’ customers. One gambler bet £1 million, £55k of it stolen from their employer. Sarah Harrison, CEO of the Gambling Commission said ‘safeguarding customers is not optional. The penalty package of just under £8m reflects the seriousness of 888's failings’ (i newspaper 1/9/2017).

The 888 site currently provides online casinogames in download and web-based instant play for PCs, tablets and mobiles,including classic table games such as blackjack, roulette and baccarat. A Random Number Generator is used to ensure that performance is truly random.

Statements from 888 proclaim their commitment to 'a proactive policy of corporate and social responsibility reflecting the high ethical standards it sets for itself' and emphasise that ‘self exclusion’ is a tool used by the gambling industry to enable customers to cease playing for at least six months. Should a customer cease gambling with a particular account after a ‘self exclusion’ period, 888 and other gambling firms are duty bound to close the account and return any residual money to the customer. However, despite all the procedures, in the case of 888 it didn't work.

We need to ask why advice offered by (a) the alcohol industry to ‘drink responsibly’ and (b) the gambling industries advice to bet responsibly i.e. to ‘stop (betting) when the fun stops’ is dubious. Gambling, like smoking and drinking alcohol is highly addictive and creates dependency and social problems. Online betting is the new ‘cash cow’ of gambling. The puerile advice offered by both industries is ineffective because it puts all the responsibility on the consumer and none on itself. Both gambling and alcohol are lucrative businesses and under capitalism wherever there is money is to be made profit will always be more important than people.

Kevin.

Action Replay: Sky and the Market for Sports Coverage (2017)

The Action Replay column from the September 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July Sky re-aligned its sports channels, dropping the numbered services in favour of separate channels devoted to their core sports ‘properties’, including cricket, Formula One, golf, and two football channels (with one specifically dedicated to the Premier League), and three channels dedicated to general sports coverage.

The change reflects Sky’s concern at the threat to its dominant position in the UK broadcasting market from viewers watching of sport via the internet both legally and illegally. Roughly 10 percent of live sports viewers use illegal streams.

With each passing year viewers become more adept at circumventing legal ways of watching live sport. This is why the Premier League has stepped up attempts to combat pirate viewing streams which deprive Sky of viewers and revenue.

Sky’s rebranding can also be seen as an attempt to protect its position against upstart rivals offering sports content at a cheaper price. In Germany DAZN, which broadcasts sport on demand via the internet for only £9.99 a month, has been rapidly collecting rights to broadcast sport since its launch last year and is already posing a challenge to Sky.

Other threats are other looming to traditional broadcasters. Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have already begun live streaming sports in the US, and will soon try and show marquee sports events to a UK audience.

There is also the risk of sports leagues streaming their content directly to the fans, as Major League Baseball and the National Football League do in the US. If this happens over the next decade or so, the foundations on which Sky has built its commercial empire will become more than a little shaky.

For sports themselves, the future is just as uncertain. Games are competing against each other more ferociously than ever before, and some sports may realise they are not as popular and worth less then they imagined. But surely competition and business rivalries are the very ingredients that constitute capitalism?

If the sports economy is seen as a large cake Sky Sports is used to enjoying the largest slice. With every potential rival that enters the lucrative Sports TV arena (streaming or otherwise) the risk to Sky’s market share increases, their share of the cake may diminish and create unhappy shareholders. This is a mirror image of the inherent ruthlessness of capitalism.

Kevin.

Action Replay: Comic Belief (2017)

The Action Replay column from the June 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comic Relief is a British charity, founded in 1985 by the comedy scriptwriter Richard Curtis and comedian Lenny Henry in response to famine in Ethiopia. The highlight of Comic Relief's appeal is Red Nose Day, a biannual telethon held in March, alternating with sister project Sport Relief. The idea for Comic Relief came from the charity worker Jane Tewson, who established it as the operating name of Charity Projects, a registered charity based in England and Scotland.

Lenny Henry travelled to Ethiopia to celebrate the first Red Nose Day on the 8 February 1988. The event raised £15 million and attracted 30 million television viewers on BBC1. Richard Curtis and Lenny Henry are still active participants of the Red Nose Day Telethon which continues to raise funds for numerous charities that help children in need and tackle worldwide poverty.

The most prominent symbol of Comic Relief is a plastic/foam 'red nose', which is given in various supermarkets and charity shops such as Oxfam in exchange for a donation to the charity and to make others laugh. People are encouraged to wear the noses on Red Nose Day to help raise awareness of the charity. This year’s event took place on Friday 24 March and was broadcast live from Building Six at The O2 in London.

The charity’s clearly stated aim is to 'bring about positive and lasting change in the lives of poor and disadvantaged people, which requires investing in work that addresses people's immediate needs as well as tackling the root causes of poverty and injustice'. A fundamental principle operating at Comic Relief is the 'Golden Pound Principle' where every donated pound is spent on charitable projects. All operating costs, such as staff salaries, are covered by corporate sponsors, or interest earned on money waiting to be distributed.

Large amounts of money flow into Comic Relief, for example the July 2010 accounts for charity registration showed grant payments of ￡59 million, net assets of ￡135 million, with an investment portfolio held in managed pooled funds and fixed term deposits. The average full-time staffing complement was 214 (with 14 staff paid over ￡60,000). Remuneration for the year, excluding pensions, for Kevin Cahill, Chief Executive, was ￡120,410.

On the 13 March 2015, the Red Nose event took place at the London Palladium and raised £99,418,831. At the end of the 2015 Red Nose Day telethon it was announced that in its 30-year history, Comic Relief, the Red Nose Day and Sport Relief appeals had raised in excess of £1bn (£1,047,083,706).

Obviously this is a very well-meaning charity whose stated aim is to improve the lives of people at home and abroad. Many people will experience a sense of wellbeing from donating money to a good cause – feeling that they have made a contribution to ease the suffering of others, and this is, in a way, laudable.

However, one does not want to be perceived as a killjoy or to be lacking the ‘milk of human kindness’ but we might ask ourselves why a charity that has operated for over 30 years has not been able to remedy or overcome the problems of famine or bring about real change in the lives of poor and disadvantaged children.

These problems continue to persist despite large sums of money thrown at them. Could it be that well-meaning initiatives like Red Nose Day and their like, deal only with the symptoms of poverty and famine and not the causes? We live in a world where we could produce enough food for all and yet people still starve. We learn from Economics text books that ‘demand’ is identified as the ability to pay – so food, shelter and other necessaries of life will not be made available to the starving and dispossessed unless they have the money to purchase them. It’s a crazy system that needs to be replaced by socialism – a world without money where people democratically produce and share the goods and services they create. In a socialist society there will be no need for Red Nose Day, Sport Relief, Comic Relief or any other ‘sticking plaster’ initiative, however well-meaning to exist, because we will have created a society where these problems are firmly left in the past.

Kevin.

Action Replay: Another Club in Financial Crisis (2017)

The Action Replay column from the April 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leyton Orient is facing a winding-up order over an unpaid tax bill and could face the threat of liquidation if they cannot settle their debt to HRMC, thought to be in the region of £250,000. This would be a disaster for the crisis-hit club who would therefore face exile from the Football League after 112 year's membership. An Orient spokesman has declined to comment on either the winding up petition or the size of the unpaid bill. A Football League spokesman said only ‘we are aware of the situation at Leyton Orient and in contact with the club…’

Members of the Leyton Orient Fans Club (LOFT) have set up a fund to raise a £100k rescue package to protect the club, should current Italian owner Francesco Becchetti decide to sell up or if the club goes into administration.

Becchetti is unwilling to part with Orient for anything less than £4 million he paid to Sports Promoter Barry Hearn to purchase the club in 2014.  Hearn became Chairman of Leyton Orient in 1985 after the club was put up for sale for £5 by the then chairman Tony Wood. He has admitted that he now regrets selling the club to the Italian businessman but has ruled out buying it back. He has also remarked ‘thank goodness I kept the ground because otherwise goodness knows what would have happened.’ Leyton Orient's home ground was originally called Brisbane Road but is now officially known as the Matchroom Stadium after Hearn's sports promotion company.

Much has been made about Becchetti’s ‘malign’ influence over the club as a 'foreign owner' despite the fact that several clubs in the English Premier League are owned by foreigners, e.g. Manchester United and Liverpool (American) Chelsea (Russian) Manchester City (Arab) and Leicester City (Asian). The nationality of the owner makes no difference.

It is short-sighted and stupid nationalism to blame foreign owners for a football club's decline. Football, as well as being a sport, is also a business that attracts investment from foreign or home-based capital if there is the prospect of a profitable return on investment. Football operates within capitalism as does any business enterprise and that’s why profit and loss has precedence over a long term ‘footballing strategy’ and why the balance sheet is more important than where the club plays, especially if that provides a chance for property speculation.

Kevin.

Action Replay: 'Crack Cocaine Style’ Gambling (2017)

The Action Replay column from the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

The trade body for bookmakers has criticised a report by MPs on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) after it called for the maximum stake to be reduced from £100 to £2. The recommendations came from the All Party Parliamentary Group as it came to the end of a six month inquiry into FOBTs, following growing concern about the harm being caused on Britain’s high streets by the machines. The high- stake, high- speed electronic casino games have been branded ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’ by campaigners, who argue that they are dangerously addictive (i newspaper, 1 February).

Carolyn Harris, leading the group of MPs involved, said ‘these machines are easily accessed in the most deprived areas, sucking money out of the pockets of cash strapped families’, adding ‘there is nothing responsible about how FOBTs are currently being operated.’

However, the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) warned that such a move would be a ‘hammer blow’ to high street bookies and would threaten thousands of jobs in the industry (British bookmakers currently employ more than 43,000 staff). It demanded an immediate inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into the group of MPs, saying the body was a ‘front for vested commercial interests.’ Malcolm George, the ABB chief executive, commented that ‘Betting shops are closing at the rate of more than 100 a year and if the findings of this rigged report are implemented it could spell the beginning of the end for the high street bookmaker.’

The All Party Parliamentary Group are disappointed that the bookmakers have declined to participate. ‘We fear this is a reflection of their denial of the problems associated with FOBTs and reluctance on their part to speak to policy makers about appropriate regulation.’

Around £3.3bn was generated by the high street betting sector in the year to March 2016, according to the latest figures from the Gambling Commission. Over the same period online gambling operators generated £4.5bn, the National Lottery contributed £3.4bn and £1bn came from traditional casinos and contribute more than £1bn a year in taxes according to the ABB.

Evidently the gambling industry is a lucrative business with FOBTs becoming its new ‘cash cow’. Despite the human misery caused by this form of gambling the bookmakers will fight for FOBTs to be promoted in their betting shops with little if any regulation – yet another example of profits being more important than people under capitalism.

Kevin.

Action Replay: The January Sales (2017)

The Action Replay column from the February 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month, The English Premier League winter transfer window opened from 1 January to 31 January. Joey Barton transferred to Burnley; Gabriel Jesus to Manchester City, and Oscar's £60 million departure from Chelsea to a Chinese football club grabbed the most attention in sports news.

According to the EPL, the present system was introduced in 2002/3, as a compromise agreement with the European Commission about how the transfer system worked and how to preserve contractual stability for the player and the club, while allowing movement at prescribed times during the year (transfer windows). The alternative was to bring football in line with most other industries where contracts were not enforceable or liable for compensation, i.e. notice periods being served and players moving at will (Bosman ruling).The football authorities across Europe felt this would undermine the ‘footballing economy’ by reducing incentives for clubs' investment in younger players.

Some managers including Arsène Wenger feel the transfer window should close when the Premier League season begins. In an ideal world the EPL might support this initiative; however football operates within a European and global market, so if transfer windows closed in England, witnessing Spanish, German or Italian rivals continue to trade and pursue their transfer targets with impunity would put English football at a disadvantage.

Effectively English football clubs operate within a market economy that buys and sells commodities (in this case individual footballers). A striker’s worth is mainly influenced by goals scored, defenders are rated by defensive qualities and goalkeepers by ‘clean sheets’. Despite the high wages some players earn, economically they are ‘for sale’ in the same way as pork belly, rice yields and the futures markets within a capitalist world.

To make the point, compare football's economic activity with the recent January sales. In the UK many shoppers descended on high streets the night before the sales took place, tucked into sleeping bags in order to be the first crossing the shop floor in the hope of securing bargains. Among those offering big reductions were familiar names like Harrods, Selfridges, Liberty, House of Fraser, Next, and Marks & Spencer.

Myf Ryan of Westfield shopping centres said the January sales remained a 'huge attraction'. Westfield operates two large shopping centres in west and east London and she anticipated exceptionally busy days yet again, due to the excellent retail offers and special deals with over 50 percent off by many of our retailers.

The Next fashion chain opened at 6:00 am and at one of its stores on Oxford Street in London's West End, 600 people queued. In Birmingham, some shoppers had been queuing since 02:30 am outside the Bullring branch of Selfridges, with store deputy manager Sam Watts estimating some 2,000 were queuing by opening time. Crowds of up to 150,000 descended on Sheffield's Meadowhall Centre.

Let’s not forget the sales bonanza from shopping online: according to the data firm Experian and online retailing trade association IMRG, internet shoppers were expected to spend £748m on Boxing Day, (£519k) a minute. They also predicted some 167 million visits to online retail sites, up 29 percent on 2013.

So we see, that whether it's footballers, fur coats, washing machines or flat screen televisions, the people and products bought and sold in our present society are mediated by the market. Under capitalism, we learn the price of everything but not its intrinsic value.

Hasten the day that socialism (a world system) arrives so that as a society we produce for social use and not for profit and the supply of goods and services are determined by the needs and wants of the people and not the realisation of profit at our expense by the capitalist class.

Kevin.

Hillsborough (2016)

From the August 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

The former Liverpool chief executive Peter Robinson presided over Liverpool Football Club during their most successful period, the mid-1960s to the 1980s. He was well known for his shrewdness and informal management style. It’s only with hindsight we learn, that on the 20 March 1989, he telephoned Steve Clarke, the competitions secretary of the Football Association and urged him not to stage the upcoming FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough, and suggested Old Trafford, as a more suitable venue. Clarke returned his call later that morning to say that ‘the committee had selected Hillsborough’ and ‘the police would not agree to the allocation being altered’ either (the i newspaper, 28 April).

The most striking thing about the vast body of evidence gathered on the Hillsborough disaster is that the English game’s governing body (the FA) has, from the immediate aftermath of the disaster never acknowledged that it made a disastrously bad call by failing to heed Robinson’s advice about the inadequacy of Sheffield Wednesday’s ground. Graham Kelly, the former FA chief executive, drafted an initial six-page report two days afterwards, but there is no indication that he was looking to investigate how the venue, which did not have a safety certificate, had been chosen. The document also reveals the FA’s overwhelming preoccupation after Hillsborough was with covering its own back and getting the story straight. 

96 people aged from 10 to 67 years old died at the stadium, in the ambulances, or shortly after arrival at hospital. A total of 766 people suffered injuries  of some kind. On 19 April, the death toll reached 95 when 14-year-old Lee Nicol died in hospital after his life support machine was switched off. This total rose to 96 when artificial feeding and hydration were withdrawn from 22-year-old Tony Bland after nearly four years, during which he had remained in a persistent vegetative state. This followed a legal challenge in the High Court by his family to have his treatment withdrawn, a landmark challenge which succeeded in November 1992.

On the10th anniversary in 1999, at least three people who survived were known to have committed suicide as a result of the emotional problems brought on by the disaster. Another survivor had spent eight years in psychiatric care. Numerous cases of alcoholism and drug abuse were also attributed to lingering effects from the disaster, and it contributed to the collapse of a number of marriages involving people who had witnessed the events.

Professor Scraton was an important member of the Hillsborough Independent Panel (2010-2012) and primary author of Hillsborough: The Report of the Independent Panel (2012). He provided extensive submissions to the 1997-1998 judicial scrutiny undertaken by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. These submissions included disclosure of the 'review and alteration' of police officers' statements. Following negotiations he eventually accessed and researched all police statements in their original and altered form in the House of Lords Reading Room. Professor Scraton has remained highly critical of the Stuart-Smith scrutiny, describing it as a ‘debacle’.

Scraton's book Hillsborough: The Truth is widely accepted as a definitive account of the disaster and its aftermath. It focuses on the inadequacies of the police investigations, official inquiries and inquests, and reveals the extent of the systematic review and alteration of South Yorkshire Police statements. It also details the treatment of the bereaved and survivors in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, and the ‘inhumanity’ of the body identification process.

Following the 20th anniversary of the disaster in 2009, the government gave a commitment to the full disclosure of all documents relating to Hillsborough, appointing the Hillsborough Independent Panel to manage the process of the disclosure and to produce a report explaining the work of the Panel illustrating how its work added to the public's understanding of the disaster. Professor Scraton was appointed as a member of the Panel. He led the Panel's research team, based at Queen's University Belfast. In a parliamentary debate following the publication of the Panel's Report, Scraton’s work was commended in parliament by Andy Burnham, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, as ‘a huge service not just to the Hillsborough families but to this country’. The Report led directly to: the quashing of the 96 inquest verdicts of 'accidental death' and the ordering of new inquests by the Attorney General; a full investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Authority; and a full criminal investigation.

Sir John Goldring was appointed as Assistant Coroner for South Yorkshire (East) and West Yorkshire (West) to conduct the new inquest. On 26 April, the inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in respect of all 96 victims. In 2012-13, Scraton received the Queen's University Vice-Chancellor's inaugural award for research impact. In May 2016 the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, announced that Phil Scraton was to be given the Freedom of the City in recognition of his work, spanning twenty five years, on the Hillsborough tragedy.    

This tragedy has been looked at from many perspectives including the police, the judiciary, newspaper reportage and the families fighting for justice. But what about the typical Liverpool fan? Peter has been a Liverpool supporter for over 50 years. Conscious of the campaigns for the past 27 years but not emotionally involved like families and friends of the 96 killed, he attended the 20^th anniversary memorial service at Anfield and witnessed the ‘Justice for the 96”’chant when Andy Burnham was attempting to speak that moved him to take the campaign back to government.

When lies were being told almost immediately after the disaster, he struggled to believe them and even when some were convincingly refuted, he didn’t imagine the conspiracy was as deep and widespread as it turned out. As the years passed he still felt for the families, admired them, but did not forget them because LFC fans would not let that happen.

The second inquest that took over two years was important because it allowed the personal stories that were not heard previously to be told, and helped families to grieve, knowing more clearly what had happened to their loved ones. In Liverpool when the verdicts were announced, the emotions could be felt throughout the City, culminating in a huge gathering in front of the famous St George’s Hall.

Peter is proud of the families and all connected with the campaign, their dignity, perseverance etc. He is proud to be a scouser in the fullest sense, noting that the other Merseyside team, Everton were also united in grief, along with much of the football world –with tributes coming from Dortmund and Villarreal fans.

Although still appalled at the tactics and behaviour of police and other institutions that tried to justify the lies and cover ups, he is delighted that after 27 years, a serious injustice has been put right, giving hope to other long campaigns, such as the Orgreave miners who were also victims of the South Yorkshire Police. We hope that their fight is taken as seriously.

Kevin

Party News (2016)

From the June 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party stood 3 candidates in the Greater London Assembly and 1 candidate in the Welsh Assembly elections on 5 May. Here are the results:

Lambeth and Southwark: Lab 96,946 (51.63%), Con 34,703 (18.48), Green  25,793 (13.74), LibDem 21,489 (11.4), UKIP 6,591 (3.51), Kevin Parkin (Soc) 1,333 (0.71), All Peoples Party 906 (0.48).

London North East: Lab 134,307 (58.7%), Con 32,565 (14.23),  Green 29,401 (12.85), LibDem 14,312 (6.26), UKIP 11,315 (4.95), Respect 5,068 (2.22), Bill Martin (Soc) 1,293 (0.57), Communist League 536 (0.23).

London South West:  Con 84,381 (39.47%),  Lab 62,937 (29.4), LibDem 30,654 (14.34), Green 19,745 (9.24), UKIP 14,983 (7.01), Adam Buick (Soc) 1,065 (0.50).

Swansea West: Lab 9,014 (40.6%) Con  3,934 (17.7%), Plaid Cymru 3,325 (14.5), UKIP 3,058 (13.8), LibDem 2,012 (9.1), Green 883 (4.0), Brian Johnson (Soc) 76 (0.3)