Davey Hopper's Funeral: A Man Who'll Be Missed

On Friday the 29th of July, Dave Hopper, the General Secretary of the Durham Miners' Association who had died the previous week, was laid to rest. Dave Hopper was a lifelong socialist and with his comrade David Guy he was the General Secretary of the Durham Miners' Association from 1985 until his death. Dave saw the death of the mining industry in Britain throughout his time as General Secretary- however that did not stop him from fighting for the welfare of former miners. He fought for pensions and compensation for retired miners and fought to keep the Durham Miners' Gala alive, after it was almost stopped when the final mine closed in 1993.

The funeral officially began at 9:45, despite many people being there a long time beforehand. MPs Richard Burgon, Ian Lavery, Pat Glass, Grahame Morris and Jeremy Corbyn himself had all come to pay their respects. The hearse arrived not long after 9:45; and the coffin was greeted mournfully as it was lifted into Miners' Hall. The masses stood in silence and respect whilst mournful music played in the background. After the coffin was carried into Miners' Hall, we stood silently and took a few minutes to remember the man.

After Dave's family arrived in the building the rest of the guests made their way into Miners' Hall. So many people went in that many were actually refused entry to the building so they had to watch the eulogies and speeches being projected on a screen. He truly was a popular man.

The first speeches were from Dave's personal friends and were sharing the memories and peculiar stories that they cherished about him. After that was his comrade Jeremy Corbyn's euology, who's leadership he was a huge supporter of. Jeremy talked about how much of a credit Dave was to the socialist and labour community, and how he fought Thatcherism and neoliberalism right up until his death.

When the speeches were finished, guests sang the Red Flag in honour of Dave; a socialist who triumphed working-class values and justice for miners. A man who'll be missed.

One Nation Labour: The Party We Need

The first piece from our new columnist, the Lanchester Council and 2020 Parliamentary Candidate and socialist activist in Durham, David Lindsay.

On the scale of public ownership and on the extent of trade union power, Jeremy Corbyn is well to the right of Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home. That is not hyperbole. It is fact. As it is that Margaret Thatcher presided over publicly owned railways, and over a 60p top rate of income tax well above that proposed by Corbyn. And as it is that Tony Blair promised to renationalise the railways in several speeches leading up to the 1997 General Election.

Why would Corbyn’s position not be the centre ground? You can have all the private health insurance that you like. But if you were hit by a car, or if you collapsed in the street with a heart attack, then someone would call 999, and an NHS ambulance would take you to an NHS hospital. That that call would certainly be made, even by a perfect stranger, is testament to the definition of the United Kingdom’s culture by the social democratic legacy of previous Labour Governments, and supremely of that which was elected in 1945. Everyone benefits, of all classes and in all areas. Such was always the intention behind it.

This is the only British identity that almost anyone alive can remember, or that almost any of the rest would wish to have. Today, however, it is under threat as never before. Even in the 1980s, nothing came close to the scale of the attack, not merely since the 2015 General Election, but since that of 2010; under the Liberal Democrats, who never moderated a thing, as much as under the Conservatives.

Labour grew from many and various roots. Trade union and co-operative. Radical Liberal and Tory populist. Christian Socialist and Social Catholic. Fabian and even, in the space both on Labour’s fringes and on Marxism’s fringes, Marxist, subject to the balancing and moderating influences of the others. Giving the wrong answers does not preclude asking the right questions. Much of the Fabian tradition also gives the wrong answers.

Labour has always had a right wing. It always will have. It always should have. People who would prefer the purity of a Stalinist, Trotskyist or Maoist groupuscule have never been short of options. The point is to have a right wing of the Labour Party, and not merely a right wing in the Labour Party. The Leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and the Deputy Leadership of Tom Watson can achieve that.

From the Trade Union Act, to public ownership, to the proper centrality of rail and coal, to foreign policy and wars, to Trident, to civil liberties, to the case against the European Union from the very start, Corbyn’s views are the views of Peter Hitchens, who, unlike John McDonnell, still openly wishes to disband MI5. Many of them are also shared by Peter Oborne and by several other commentators who could hardly be described as “Loony Left”.

Furthermore, they are popular. For example, the renationalisation of the railways is consistently supported by between 65 and 70 per cent of the population, stable across all parts of the country and across the electoral bases of all parties. There is strong public support for rent controls, and for a mandatory Living Wage properly so called. Defending the NHS is massively popular. But even if none of those things were the case, a political party does not exist purely in order to follow public opinion. What would be the point of the Labour Party if it did not campaign for such policies as these?

Labour needs to be a broad alliance between the confidently urban and the confidently rural, between the confidently metropolitan and the confidently provincial, between the confidently secular and the confidently religious, between those confident in their liberal social values and those confident in their conservative social values. It must seek that alliance across all ethnic groups, across all social classes, and across all parts of the country: One Nation.

The basis of that alliance includes the contribution-based Welfare State, with contribution defined to include, for example, caring for children and caring for elderly relatives. It includes workers’ rights, with the trade unionism necessary in order to defend and advance them. It includes John Smith’s signature policy that employment rights must begin on the first day of employment, and apply regardless of the number of hours worked. It includes Corbyn’s recent reiteration of that policy, as well as his accompanying proposals for pay ratios and for the requirement that the Living Wage be paid if dividends were to be.

That basis includes community organising. It includes profit-sharing and similar arrangements: not “shares for rights”, but shares and rights. It includes the co-operative movement and wider mutualism, not least in the provision of financial services, especially following the loss of the Co-op Bank precisely because it was not itself a co-operative, but was merely owned by one. 

That basis includes consumer protection. It includes strong communities. It includes fair taxation. It includes full employment, with low inflation. It includes pragmatic public ownership, including of the utilities, of the postal service and of the railway service, and always with strong parliamentary and municipal accountability. It includes publicly owned industries and services, national and municipal, setting the vocational training standards for the private sector to match.

That basis includes local government, itself including council housing, fiscal autonomy, the provision as well as the commissioning of services, the accountability provided by the historic committee system, and the abolition of delegated planning decisions.

That basis includes the State’s restoration of the economic foundation of the civilised and civilising worker-intellectual culture historically exemplified by the pitmen poets and the pitmen painters, by the brass and silver bands, by the male voice choirs, by the Workers’ Educational Association and the Miners’ Lodge Libraries, by the people’s papers rather than the redtop rags, and so on. In order to restore a civilisation in continuity with it, that culture must be rescued from “the enormous condescension of posterity”. 

That basis includes the Union, the Commonwealth (unsentimentally understood), and the ties that bind these Islands, recognising that only social democracy guarantees the Union and that only the Union makes possible social democracy in these Islands, so that the erosion of social democracy is the most powerful of separatist arguments, despite the fact that the separatists could not possibly deliver social democracy, and very largely would not wish to deliver it, in the entities to which they aspire.

That basis includes economic patriotism, itself including both energy independence and balanced migration. It includes the recognition that we cannot deliver the welfare provisions and the other public services that our people have rightly come to expect unless we know how many people there are in this country, unless we control immigration properly, and unless we insist that everyone use spoken and written English to the necessary level.

That basis includes an approach to climate change which protects and extends secure employment with civilised wages and working conditions, which encourages economic development around the world, which upholds the right of the working classes and of non-white people to have children, which holds down and as far as practicable reduces the fuel prices that always hit the poor hardest, and which refuses to restrict either travel opportunities or a full diet to the rich.

That basis includes the full compatibility between, on the one hand, the highest view of human demographic, economic, intellectual and cultural expansion and development, and, on the other hand, the most active concern for the conservation of the natural world and of the treasures bequeathed by such expansion and development in the past.

That basis includes the organic Constitution, with the full pageantry and ceremony of the parliamentary and municipal processes, and itself including a very British trait of inbuilt self-criticism: variously Radical and republican, populist and pacifist, Celtic and regional, proletarian and intellectual (often both at once), exemplified in the present age by the distinct role of Dennis Skinner at the State Opening of Parliament, a role as much a part of the event as that of the Queen, with each of them as the latest, but far from the last, in a long, long line.

That basis includes the national and parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom in the face of all challenges: from the United States or from the European Union, from Israel or from the Gulf monarchies, from the Russian oligarchs or from the rising powers of Asia, from money markets or from media moguls, from separatists or from communalists, from over-mighty civil servants and diplomats (including in the intelligence services) or from over-mighty municipal officers, from the ownership of key parts of our infrastructure by other people’s states instead of our own, and from inappropriately imported features of the economic and political cultures of the Old Dominions, such as the behaviour of Lynton Crosby. This list is not exhaustive.

That basis includes the understanding that the national and parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom is, with municipalism, the only means to social democracy in the territory that it covers, and is thus the democracy in social democracy. It includes, no less than the previous point, the understanding that only social democracy, and not least the public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, is capable of safeguarding that sovereignty, national and parliamentary, and that democracy, parliamentary and municipal.

That basis includes conservation and the countryside, especially the political representation of the rural working class. It includes personal freedom through superb and inexpensive public transport, ultimately free at the point of use, with every rail franchise taken back into public ownership over the course of a Parliament, and with its fares structure thereafter determined by the House of Commons.

That basis includes academic excellence, with technical proficiency, refusing to compromise on either, and extending to apprentices and trainees all provisions enjoyed by their peers in further or higher education, as well as vice versa, with a national UCAS-style system for apprenticeships.

That basis includes civil liberties, with law and order, including visible and effective policing, and including an end to light sentences and to lax prison discipline through a return to a free country’s minimum requirements for conviction.

That basis includes fiscal responsibility, of which neoliberal capitalism is manifestly and demonstrably the opposite. It includes a strong financial services sector, with a strong food production and manufacturing base, and with the strong democratic accountability of both. It includes a total rejection of class war, insisting instead upon “a platform broad enough for all to stand upon”. 

That basis includes a large and thriving private sector, a large and thriving middle class, and a large and thriving working class; all depend on central and local government action, and with public money come public responsibilities. It includes very high levels of productivity, with the robust protection of workers, consumers, communities and the environment, including powerful workers’ representation at every level of corporate governance. It includes a base of real property for every household, to resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State. It includes an absolute statutory division between investment banking and retail banking.

That basis includes a realist foreign policy, itself including strong national defence, and precluding any new Cold War against Russia, China, Iran or anywhere else. It includes British military intervention only ever in order to defend British territory or British interests. It includes a leading role on the world stage, with a vital commitment to peace, supremely a complete absence of weapons of mass destruction; in place of Trident, we need flood defences, we need civil nuclear power, we need a return to the exploitation of our vast deposits of coal, and we need properly paid, properly equipped Armed Forces.

And that basis includes the subjection both of Islamism and of neoconservatism to an approach defined by our proud history of equal opposition to Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, Nazism, Fascism, and the Far Right regimes in Southern Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.

This is the road to victory in 2020.

The new Prime Minister has been announced

 

by: Nicholas Hayes

Earlier today (7/11/16) the Conservative party announced our new PM; a grand total of 331 MP's determined the leader of the nation's 65 million inhabitants. Our Head of State is formally the Queen but is really now  Theresa May, who's mandate consisted of 199 people. After the EU referendum, in a statement David Cameron resigned and since then we have had a turbulent 3 weeks in which the Tories had their leadership election and the candidates where whittled down to Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom. During the course of the campaign we saw the mainstream media attack Andrea Leadsom in a similar manner to the relentless and shameless attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. Through the as the leadership campaign progressed we noticed the bias of the media, such as LBC's comment on Theresa May. LBC said that it was a good tactic that Theresa May kept a low profile so she wouldn't be stigmatized by Euro-septic Conservatives, whilst complaining about Jeremy Corbyn's stance on the election as "lukewarm" and deliberately not reporting any of his pro-Euro activities.

From this we can clearly deduct that a lot of Politics is based around mass media and the elite.
We will not be having another democratic election until 2020, announces Mrs. May.
"there should be no general election until twenty twenty" she says in a speech. It is now fixed; our next Prime Minister ,Theresa May, will be serving as an unelected Head of State without any form of a democratic mandate for one political term.

Just a few thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn

by: Nicholas Hayes

Many of us left wingers are troubled; we hear things about Jeremy Corbyn being "uneletectable" and "Uncharismatic"  but I can reassure you that all  through this dark and desperate time we are following the right path and Jeremy Corbyn is the right way forward...

Jeremy Corbyn shouldn’t be resigning. I will be dealing with three charges against him covering his stance on the EU, his “non-leader” qualities and his “unelectable” qualities.
Despite the allegation that he has not been participating enough in the EU referendum, Jeremy Corbyn has worked tirelessly to defend the EU. He has been visiting workplaces, posting slogans and posters on social media as well as personally knocking on peoples’ doors. Therefore, these accusations against Mr. Corbyn are a fabrication.
He has also been attacked for “Not being a leader,” but when it comes to it could we call Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown or even Tony Blair a “leader”? I think not. His alternative is Angela Eagle, who clearly doesn’t represent what the Labour Party stands for. Her voting record proves that she is pro-tuition fees, against the Chilcot inquiry (she voted for the Iraq war) and against lowering the voting age to 16. From these non-left views we can safely state that she is only a Conservative in the clothes of a Labour politician. Therefore, the only Labour MP that wants to be our next leader, that will help the common good and who wouldn’t alienate Labour’s backbone supporters. is Jeremy Corbyn. I do not believe Angela Eagle could meet these standards if we put her to the test. 

Another attack on Mr. Corbyn is the so-called fact that “he isn’t electable”. We can gather that this may not be the case as in the last Police and Crime Commissioner’s election Labour performed strongly in areas such as Bristol and London. Another test that goes against this is that the overwhelming support for him would not have existed as party members if he was “unelectable”.

I would also like to question the evidence of the opposition as a general election hasn't taken place under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

For these reason I assure you that we can stand by Jeremy Corbyn.

The New Tory Government - Mandate or Not?

The New Tory Government - Mandate or Not?
by: Jack Wilfan

Number 10 Downing Street

The Tories are in a difficult position after the referendum with many having to rebuild bridges after burning them during the campaigns. In fighting still taking place after the fight for whether a pro or anti Brexit PM should be selected but my question is: Should there be a Tory PM anyway and do they have a mandate.

In 2015, David Cameron was able to form a government with a very thin majority of 21 but that was a year ago and as people say "A week is a long time in politics!" So, if any new Tory leader whether that be Michael Gove or Theresa May become PM - Do they have the mandate to control the country. In my opinion they don't. In October when a new PM has been decided there should be a General Election on which each platform either Labour or Conservative can put across there points on our negotiation with the EU. 

This would be important to gain the right mandate from the country to either pull us out of Europe or to keep us in. It should be important whoever gets in because there will be a large amount of pressure on any candidate to do this since back in 2007/08 when Blair handed power to his Chancellor Brown he was ridiculed by his own side and by the media for not calling a General Election. If this would not happen it would not only make any premiership discredited but also make it harder to go with confidence with the plan of action which could be anything from pulling us out of the EU to holding a second referendum.

We'll have to see whether Labour can put forward a clear alternative or whether the infighting will continue and also which path the Conservatives go down.

Welcome To The Socialist Perspective

Hi, if you're reading this it means you have come across The Socialist Weekly blog where we will be sharing articles from different contributors.

We'll be writing pieces on: politics, current affairs, satirical content and any breaking news.

Our Team:

Jack Wilfan: Editor-in-Chief & Assistant Political Editor

Aren Pym: Chief Political Editor

Nicholas Hayes: Director of Satire & Royal Editor

Charlie Wilkinson: Occasional Contributor

Tory Leadership Election: The Candidates

by Aren Pym

Theresa May

Theresa May, 59, has been the front runner of the tory leadership election since Boris Johnson, former Tory mayor of London pulled out of the bid for downing street, the unlikely frontrunner, a campaigner to remain in the EU, has been Theresa May. Tough on human rights laws and tougher on immigration, she is often perceived as the "moderate" candidate, quite the opposite of here opponents Gove and Crabb.  A Sky Data Snap Poll showed that  47% of the people polled would support her as PM. She has been endorsed by many of the Tory front bench, and also 96 Tory MPs. But is this out of choice? Or is she the only candidate that seems likely out of the other contestants? Well, I think it is certainly the latter. The home secretary since the coalition government, she considers herself a one-nation tory, believing that she can appeal "to all" despite almost always supporting further austerity. She sometimes differs from her colleagues, however, and consistently votes against tuition fees, unlike most of her neoliberal pals on the front bench. But can Theresa May deliver for Britain? Will she rally the public support needed? And is she truly the leader the tories need, or is she just more credible than the other candidates? And would she be willing to initiate the process of leaving the EU?

Michael Gove

"Whatever Charisma is, I don't have it." Said Michael Gove on his speech announcing his candidacy. The right-wing eurosceptic and former education secretary, aged 48, was chairing the former frontrunner Boris Johnson's campaign, and has said time and time again that he "does not want to be Prime Minister." But as soon as Gove announced his candidacy, Boris announced that he would no longer be standing for PM. Political assassination, or coincidence? Many tory party MPs, despite sharing many views with Mr. Gove on the EU and sharing the same right-wing stance on most issues, have refused to endorse him in so-called "solidarity" with Boris. But does Gove have the public's support? Does he have the "charisma"? The answer is no. Michael Gove is one of the most unpopular british politicians at the moment, causing many teachers to go on strike frequently during his 4 year term as education secretary. Gove generally sits on the right-wing of the party, even once shockingly calling for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced by corporate health service. However, his views on gay-marriage and race are fairly liberal, unlike the next controversial candidate, Stephen Crabb.

Stephen Crabb

The first MP to announce candidacy was the welsh Pembrokeshire MP, Stephen Crabb. Often criticized for his homophobic views on gay marriage, Crabb, 43, has been the work and pensions' secretary since Iain Duncan Smith resigned over George Osborne's terrible budget earlier this year. Stephen Crabb has been endorsed by Gary Streeter, a Devon backbencher, but few others. Generally seen as the underdog of the campaign, the thatcherite has been considered a 'rising star' in the tory party for quite some time now. Having grown up on a council estate in Glasgow by a single mother, Crabb claims he can "Build a future for the poor." But we will have to see if he can deliver, won't we?  Crabb has NEVER rebelled in the current parliament, only rebelling on one issue in his term as an MP, which is on the issue of removing hereditery peers from the House of Lords, which Crabb supports. Crabb has also controversially voted against gay marriage and gay rights, 'due to his religious beliefs'. 

Andrea Leadsom

The most right-wing candidates, Andrea Leadsom is the 53 year old thatcherite MP for South Northamptonshire, and despite being one of the less popular candidates she has been endorsed by high-profile tories Iain Duncan Smith and former London mayor Boris Johnson. Being a Brexiter, Leadsom has vowed to invoke article 50, which will formally begin the process of Britain leaving the EU. Pro tuition fees and anti-minimum wage, Andrea Leadsom is certainly the most anti-working class candidate on this list. She also cares little for the enviroment, promoting selling British forests and is pro-nuclear power. Andrea Leadsom is also hugely in favour of the 'British Bill of Rights' and scrapping the human rights act. In short, Andrea is certainly the thatcherite candidate. (And you thought Gove was bad)