issue 7: May 2017

£1 (unwaged 50p)

By Ruth Cashman, Lambeth Unison branch secretary

At the end of September, Labour Party conference voted unanimously for amotion to scrap all anti-trade union laws – not just the 2016 Trade UnionAct, but also “anti-union laws introduced in the 1980s and 90s” by theThatcher and Major Tory governments. “For unions to be effective”, themotion said, “workers need an effective right to strike”. Much of the text,including the bits quoted here, came from the model motion promoted byThe Clarion.

This builds on the motion passed – also unanimously – by conference in2015, which called on the next Labour government to “legislate for strongrights to unionise, win recognition and collective bargaining, strike, picket andtake solidarity action”, ie everything that makes trade unionism effective.

After decades of defending the Thatcherite anti-union laws, Labour nowhas strong policy against them. We must fight to ensure it is carried out, bothin the party’s campaigning now and in government.

Despite a long history of fighting the anti-union laws, Corbyn and McDon-nell have often recently tended to merge into the Labour establishment line ofjust “repealing the Trade Union Act”. During the general on campaign,Labour’s election coordinator Andrew Gwynne told the Guardian that theparty just wanted to return to the situation that existed in 2015 – and no onecontradicted him.

We should follow up on the conference vote with a strong campaignthroughout the labour movement. The motion passed at October’s YoungLabour conference making the same demands is a good start. We need totake this into every CLP and union branch and use Labour’s new policy hasa starting point to put repealing the anti-union laws back on the politicalagenda. With upcoming battles like the Royal Mail strike, this is urgent.

• Read the motion here bit.ly/2lyLR0U • Read Charnwood CLP delegate Maria Bagnall’s speech proposing the mo-tion to conference: p11

Inside: CELEBRATING 1917 • conference analysis • sexual abuse • democracy reviewGCS or GMS • HARINGEY’S “HDV” FIGHT • WHAT IS LABOUR’S HOUSING POLICY? • ROYAL MAILFREE OUR UNIONS • CHRIS WILLIAMSON INTERVIEW • RADICAL DEMOCRACY • youth pages

A socialist magazine by Labour and Momentum activists

theissue 10: November 2017 clarionLabour votes to scrapall anti-union laws

After Labour Party conference, the left is on the offensive, but thereis no room for complacency. To win significant changes in Britishsociety, let alone put socialist tranformation on the agenda, requiresa thoroughgoing transformation of our movement.

As well as pushing forward the fight to change Labour we des-perately need to up the fight on the industrial level. Solidarity withevery spark of working-class struggle is vital. The Royal Mail strikewill pose a major test for the Labour left. An essential part of all thisis fighting to ensure repeal of all anti-union laws.

In all this, we can take major inspiration and learn important les-sons from the Russian revolution of 1917 — a hundred years agothis month.

The Labour Party and the country are standing at a crossroads.Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in 2015 opened a space

for socialist politics to re-emerge into the British mainstream. His re-election in 2016 confirmed that there are at least hundreds of thou-sands in Britain of people who want to see an end to austerity, toneo-liberalism and to the worst misery inflicted by the capitalist sys-tem. There are hundreds of thousands of people who at least aspire toa better society than capitalism. The socialist left of the labour move-ment has a historic opportunity now – we must seize it.

That means an open discussion on politics and principles, assistingthe grassroots of the labour movement to develop our own policiesand programme for a Labour government and for transforming soci-ety, building on and critically engaging with policies proposed by theleader’s office, the unions, the constituencies, and other parts of themovement.

It means democratising the Labour Party, preventing further coupattempts against the leadership, and preventing further unjust purges,suspensions, and expulsions. It means facilitating debate on Momen-tum, its purpose and its future.

The Clarion is a space for and a contribution to those debates. Inaddition to news and reports from the movement, our coverage willparticularly focus on

• Debate and discussion on class and class struggle today, and howwe go beyond “new politics” and “progressive politics” to revive work-ing-class politics.

• How we make socialism, a new society based on common owner-ship and need not profit, the basic, unifying goal of the left; and fightfor bold socialist policies in the here and now.

• Fighting nationalism, building working-class solidarity across bor-ders and between workers of different backgrounds and communities.

• To take a serious and consistent approach to equality and libera-tion struggles.

• To stand up for rational debate and against nonsense, against theculture of clickbait, conspiracy theory, and instant denunciation whichhas taken root in some parts of the left.

We welcome involvement from comrades who are in broad agree-ment with these points. We aim to complement rather than competewith existing publications on the Labour left, and to critically engagewith ideas from across the left.

page 3Labour Party conference report

page 4Politicians and sexual abuse Rosie WoodsMomentum and the NEC Michael Chessum

page 5 Labour’s democracy review Simon Hannah

The case for delegate GCs Maria Exallpage 6

Haringey against the HDV Phil Rosepage 7

Labour and housing after Grenfell Glyn Robbinspages 8-9

1917 and us Steff GraingerBeing a revolutionary Rida Vaquas

page 10-11 Building the Royal Mail struggle

Unshackle the trade unions Maria BagnallPicturehouse solidarity

page 12Interview with Chris Williamson MP

page 13Radical democracy and socialism Janine Booth

page 14-5 Youth pages: YL conference, TSOS, mental health,

NUS problems, free movementPage 16

Free education within our reach Sahaya James

Contents

editorial board

Get involved:• I want to contribute content to future editions ofThe Clarion• I want to take out a subscription for 6 months for£6       I want to take out a subscription for a year for£10• I want to be a local distributor. I will take 5 issuesfor 6 months for £24       . I will take 10 issues for 6months for £40      . I will take 5 issues for a year for£40       . I will take 10 issues for a year for £70      . 

Name: ................................................................Email: .................................................................Phone: ................................................................Address: .............................................................Send money via PayPal to the email address theclarionmag@gmail.com

This issue of The Clarion was printed on 1 November 2017Printed by Mixam, WatfordEmail: theclarionmag@gmail.comFacebook: www.facebook.com/theclarionmagTwitter: www.twitter.com/clarion_magWebsite: theclarionmag.wordpress.comAddress: BM Box 4628, London, WC1N 3XX

ISSUE 10

WHERE WE STAND

EM Johns, Rida Vaquas, Sacha Ismail,Simon Hannah, Rhea Wolfson, JillMountford, Michael Chessum, NikBarstow, Dan Jeffery, Sahaya James

the clarion : NOVEMBER 2017 Page 3

labour conference

By Maisie Sanders (Lewisham Deptford youth delegate, pc) and Sacha Ismail (Clarion editor)

There were many more delegates at this year’s Labour conference,something like 1,200, and they were much more left-wing, with a clearmajority of Corbyn-supporters.

The average delegate or observer was much more “scruffy” than inprevious years — lots of people with badges, etc, many of them young.Getting into discussions, selling the magazine (the conference specialwe produced as well as issue 9) and promoting left-wing causes was easy.Comrades collected £1,370 for the Picturehouse strike fund.

The Clarion supported and our editor Rida Vaquas spoke at a packedfringe meeting about fighting unjust expulsions and suspensions put onby Stop the Labour Purge. We held a joint social and produced a bulletinwith Red Labour supporters.

But the atmosphere was sometimes celebratory to the point of beingunthinking – one minute conference was cheering calls for dismantlingthe border regime, the next minute cheering MI5 and MI6 (literally).

More time had been allocated to policy discussion, with pointless ex-ternal speakers eliminated and speeches from shadows ministers, etc,squeezed. To some degree this time was used well. There was some in-teresting and inspiring discussion and contributions. Left-wing motionsgot passed on the NHS, on the right to strike, on housing and other is-sues. Over stopping and reversing benefit cuts, over NHS privatisationand over democratic control of schools, delegates used their newly es-tablished right to refer back bits of the National Policy Forum reports.

A clear majority of CLP delegates voted to reject the ConferenceArrangements Committee report after complaints about virtually allemergency motions being ruled out of order (though the CAC was savedby the union vote).

Left candidates Anna Dyer and Emine Ibrahim easily won the elec-tions for places on the National Constitutional Committee.

The two democratic rule changes proposed by the National Executive

Committee – to expand the number of elected members’ representativeson the NEC from six to nine, to reduce the nomination threshold forleader from 15 to 10pc of the parliamentary party, both passed easilywith little fuss.

However, delegates voted, at the instigation of Momentum andCLPD, to deny themselves the right to discuss Brexit and stand up forfree movement.

Some delegates seemed more comfortable making speeches aboutthemselves, their experience, how bad the Tories are, how great JeremyCorbyn is than about the motions on the agenda or specific ideas, issuesand demands.

As a result of the NEC’s call, all democratic rule changes except theones the NEC had proposed were remitted to the forthcoming democ-racy review. Brighton Pavilion refused to remit its proposal to removethe need for motions to refer to “contemporary” events, and it was voteddown.

The Momentum office did better than last year, when it had almostno intervention at all. Momentum played an important role in for in-stance the left victory in the NCC election and organising delegates torefer back sections of the NPF report.

But, with the exception of Momentum NHS, which is an autonomouscampaign with a different political bent, Momentum seems to have gotno motions submitted and discouraged discussion of motions in its pre-conference delegates meet-ups.

The World Transformed fringe featured many interesting and usefulsessions and speakers, but with glaring gaps – nothing on Labour counciland cuts, or the Russian Revolution!

The review announced by the NEC should be approached positivelybut not trusted. There is a real danger that it will be tightly controlledby the leadership and the big unions, with more radical proposals ex-cluded and thus made much more difficult to pass at conference.

As part of democratisation, we need a renewed fight to prevent furtherexpulsions and suspensions, reinstate expelled and suspended comradesand create a transparent, accountable disciplinary and membership sys-tem.

We need reforms to how conference itself functions – basic things likeclear standing orders, motions being published in advance, speeches forand against, proposers getting a chance to respond.

We need to firm up and develop policy. We need to insist that itshould be conference that decides what Labour policy is.

We need to build constituency-level Young Labour groups and cam-pus Labour Clubs as vibrant centres of discussion and campaigning.There was almost nothing about this at the conference, except whatClarion supporters raised.

We need to mobilise the party, at every level, to actively supportworkers’ struggles, linking this to Labour policies for higher wages,security at work and, now, abolishing the anti-union laws.

On 24 October the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign held a successfulbriefing at Parliament on the current situation in Ukraine, hostedby Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. The key speaker wasSergey Yunak, head of the Western Donbass section of the TradeUnion of Coal Industry Workers of Ukraine.

• Report by Chris Ford, Walthamstow CLP, at bit.ly/2gYkJXN

John McDonnell welcomes Ukrainian miners to Parliament

The world (partly) transformed

The clarion : NOVEMBER 2017 Page 4

politics

By Rosie Woods, Harrow Momentum

I’m reminded of dominoes or a house of cards when thinking aboutthe way the sexual harassment scandal has led to more and more alle-gations about more and more men.

There has been multiple revelations about Tory MPs. This includesStephen Crabb, former work and pensions secretary, and trade ministerMark Garnier, as well as 18 other current ministers. From touchingwomen inappropriately, to sexual language and requests to shop for sextoys, to outright sexual assault — the allegations are disturbing.

As Theresa May spins from one disaster to another, anyone temptedto feel for the despicable woman would think again as it was also re-vealed that she was appraised of much of this unpleasant and unlawfulbehaviour in weekly briefings. If more proof were needed that having awoman in power doesn’t mean things get better for women, then this isit. Theresa May, aider and abetter of sexual harassment.

Labour are likely to fare little better as the dominoes continue to fall.Jared O’Mara has already been suspended for his disgusting commentsand lets not forget the conduct of one Simon Danczuk, previouslyLabour MP for Rochdale, who was deselected after it was revealed hewas sexting a 17 year old girl who had applied for a job in his office.

What was equally shocking about the Simon Danzcuk affair was theoverwhelming silence from the women who had so loudly decried sex-ism from Corbyn supporters. Jess Phillips took to twitter to suggest peo-ple shouldn’t “delight” in the reports about the MP. This coming fromthe woman who seemed to positively relish any and every opportunityto accuse Corbyn supporters of sexism and joined in a sexist and racistmockery of Diane Abbott to boot.

It is likely that more of Phillips’ political allies will come a cropper asallegations continue to be made.

A deadly combination of wealth and power has made some MPs feel

untouchable. Of course, sexual harrssment and abuse is also perpetratedby men with no wealth and little power, but there are particular circum-stance with MPs.

Often MPs consider themselves to have a job for life. A well paid job,with a lot of perks and a great deal of power. For many, mainly Tories,it is just an extension of the power they have had through their wealthand connections. The treatment of women as yet another “perk of thejob” seems endemic, and accompanies an embedded sense of entitlement.

Danczuk was, reportedly, inappropriate in his interactions withwomen for years, but seemed untouchable.There are very few mecha-nisms through which you can hold MPs to account for this behaviour.Who do you report them to? Whether their “boss” does anything candepend on whether they are a political ally or an enemy. Many womenwill have remained silent because there was nowhere for them to speak.Those that do can be wilfully ignored, as illustrated by Liz SavilleRoberts MP’s report of a female staffer who reported instances of sexualabuse in parliament four times but had nothing done.

The opportunities to remove sitting MPs through deselction are small.In the Labour Party we need to end the structures and culture whereMPs are seen as sacrosanct and unchallengeable. The opportunities forthe electorate to hold an MP to account are non-existent barring a waitfor the next election. This is not good enough.

The Tories’ own investigations show there are at least 36 of who ap-pear guilty of this. But while they may lose a ministerial position orthe party whip for a time, it is unlikely any of them will lose their jobs.That needs to change.

• The allegations made by former NEC member Bex Bailey becamepublic just as we went to press and we were not able to cover themhere. Please see our website. This must be taken extremely seriouslyand investigated properly.

Parliament and sexual abuse

By Michael Chessum

Having made it onto the shortlist of 7 of 48 applicants, I nervouslyawaited the email. “The panel had to select possible candidates froman extremely strong field”, it eventually read. “After much considera-tion…” Had I applied for a job?

No – this was my rejection email from Momentum’s selection processfor candidates for the three new places on Labour Party’s National Ex-ecutive Committee.

The problem was not who this process did and didn’t select. It is thatthe process lacked any kind of democracy – entirely unnecessarily.

Time was tight to get candidates selected, but Momentum is a bigorganisation with more than 30,000 members and a fair amount of officecapacity. A call for nominations and an online vote would require littlemore administration than an application process. This is what unionsand other political organisations do very regularly, and it is what Mo-mentum already does with its own (limited) internal elections. A quotasystem could easily have produced a slate that was balanced geographi-cally and in terms of liberation strands.

Instead, applicants were given less than 48 hours to complete the ap-plication form! Whereas an election might need a 500-word statement,this process required you to provide a full professional and political CV,and to answer several 250 word questions. My application containedover 3,000 words, ran to several pages and took me a number of hours.

Being on the Labour NEC is a political role – and there are differingperspectives within the left about policy, democratic reform and expul-sions. The idea that you can boil the choice down to a job-style appli-cation process is insidious, because one political perspective (that ofwhoever is in a majority in the process) will get to define what “compe-tence” is.

If I’d been able to, I’d have run for NEC on a political platform. I’dhave been a vocal advocate for free movement and migrants’ rights; foran orientation towards workers and communities in struggle; and for aninclusive party that debates ideas rather than expelling this or that group.

This episode demonstrates is something wrong with the way that Mo-mentum is intervening in Labour. The idea that we can select candidatessimply on the basis of competence, without a proper political debateamongst ourselves, is utterly self-defeating.

To rise to the challenge, we will have to become a political movementthat can debate its ideas openly. This isn’t just a matter of principle: it isthe only way we have of identifying the best and most coherent policies.

Sooner, rather than later, Momentum must become a home for allof the left’s ideas and strands, not just a fiefdom for one of them. Thatstarts with having a basic level of internal democracy, including incandidate selection.

• For a longer version of this article see bit.ly/2zVeJCN

The Clarion supports a vote, CLP nominations, etc, for the threeofficial Momentum-backed candidates, Jon Lansman, Yasmine Darand Rachel Garnham, in the upcoming election for three newplaces on Labour’s NEC.

As Michael’s article makes clear, this is not because we are happyabout the process by which left candidates for the NEC are chosen.It is certainly not because we have no political disagreements orcriticisms.

We understand why some comrades will disagree, but we thinkthe priority in this election is for the left, however inadequate, towin all three seats. In the situation as it is, supporting other candi-dates will undermine that goal.

Behind Momentum’s NEC selection process

Page 5The clarion : November 2017

Labour democracy

By Simon Hannah, Tooting CLP 

In 2011 Labour was undergoing a democracyreview — boldly titled Refounding Labour.The idea was to undertake the most thoroughgoing changes in Labour’s constitutionalmake up since 1918.

You would imagine such a huge event wouldbe burned into the living memory of mostLabour Party members. But it isn’t. Fewchanges emerged apart from allowing support-ers to vote in the affiliates section of a leader-ship election, something that was expanded onin the Collins Review shortly afterwards.

This exercise in rearranging deck chairs didhowever produce a comprehensive pamphlet byCampaign for Labour Party Democracy (“ALiving, Breathing Party”) which proposed awhole series of changes. In the light of the en-ergy and dynamic of the current Corbyn move-ment, they seem pretty tepid, but some areworth considering.

The current democracy review, headed up byKaty Clark, reporting to Ian Lavery the partychair. The terms of reference provided by JeremyCorbyn cover a range of topics from “Developingdemocratic policy-making procedures” to “Gen-der representation”, “The composition of theNEC” to “strengthening the links between theParty and its trade union affiliates locally and na-tionally”. Let’s look at the 2011 CLPD proposalsand see what we can learn.

A living breathing partyOn the National Policy Forum (NPF) CLPDproposes a fix instead of the more radical aboli-tion. Surely it is the role of the NEC and its subgroups to produce the initial drafts of policies,

programmes and manifestos and then submitthem to conference for consideration and adop-tion. As the CLP go on to propose “The role ofoverseeing policy-making in addition to cam-paigning, organisation and finances should berestored to the National Executive”. But CLPDalso proposed that the NPF be made demo-cratic and inclusive, “overcoming party mem-bers’ cynicism.”

On the leadership elections, CLPD proposedreducing the MP nomination threshold to 5%.Far more democratic would be to require lead-ership candidates to be nominated by CLPs,much as trade union leaders are nominated bytheir branches. For instance 20 branches wouldbe required to get on the ballot paper. Thiswould require CLPs to properly discuss leader-ship contests rather than the current systemwhere CLPs endorse candisdates but this has noimpact on the overall process. This would alsotake the pain out of relying on MPs to act as gatekeepers for allowing left candidates to go for-ward. As the history of Labour shows, the MPshas always been a bulwark of the right.

One area where CLPD is certainly right is

when it comes to selections of political candi-dates: “Selections are central to members em-powerment and voice – members rights to selectand reselect their candidates should be para-mount and party officials’ role should be to pro-tect these rights, rather than to protect existingrepresentatives or advance the careers offavoured sons.”  They go on to argue that all se-lections of MP candidates should be placed onthe same footing, namely that sitting MPs areafforded no privileges for automatic re-selection.

CLPD proposes Charter of Members’ Rightswhich would be a huge step forward from thecurrent situation where people are suspended orexpelled with impunity by party bureaucrats.How about abolishing the Compliance Unit aswell?Katy Clark has said that matters such as re-

selection of MPs and abolishing the Compli-ance Unit are not in the remit of the terms ofreference. This means that the terms of refer-ence need to be changed.

• Read the whole of the CLPD document “ALiving, Breathing Party” at bit.ly/2z46u8c

Democracy review: learning from the past

By Maria Exall, Dulwich and WestNorwood CLP

The General Committee is the structurewhere the whole of the Party membership isrepresented – by delegates with a mandatefrom wards/branches and delegates from af-filiated organisations. This representation ison Executive Committees too, but obviouslyGCs include more people. This is the in-volvement of activists at all levels and is howwe can develop local Parties on the ground.

The problem is that previously in the yearsof Blairite dominance GCs were downgraded(in the name of OMOV!) and often CLPs justhad all member meetings for outside speak-ers/discussions and ECs for decisions and or-ganisation. Left activists should campaign forGCs to have a compulsory minimum numberof meetings a year. Greater individual mem-

berships in CLPs should be an incentive to de-velop this representative structure where itdoes not exist. GC meetings are the best op-portunity for collective informed debate ratherthan rhetoric or grandstanding.

In my own CLP, our GC of a 100-150 del-egates will make a better decision and involvemore people, through the representation ofward and affiliated delegates, than the allmembers meetings which can have about 400(in many CLPs, note, this number will bemuch lower). The number of people attendingthe combined ward meetings (and from affil-iated organisations who will have their owndecision making meetings) will exceed thenumbers involved in all members meetings.

A meeting of 400 individuals or so is a rally,and it is difficult to have detailed or developeddebate with such large numbers in an eveningmeeting (a day Conference maybe more ap-propriate). Also such large rally style meetings,

where people do not know others, lend them-selves to grandstanding scenarios rather thandebate. In areas outside of big urban areas aGC structure is also more likely to allow for afair geographical representation.

This is crucial: representative democracy (i.e.electing delegates to act on your behalf and thenholding them to account) is actually a goodthing. With proper accountability it has muchgreater reach and validity than individual click-activism and all members meetings.

To develop CLPs as working class-basedparties with a reach into the electorate we mustbuild up affiliations from local union branchesand encourage them to send delegates regularly. The way forward for developing the politi-

cal structure of affiliated organisations shouldbe a matter for them, but a CLP (and the na-tional LP for that matter) can facilitate an in-terface and encourage more union delegates.We should look to promote the idea of work-place branches.

• This is taken from a much longer article onthe kind of Labour Party we need whichMaria wrote for The Clarion. Seebit.ly/2z0A4xK

Why the left should support delegateGeneral Committees in CLPs

The clarion : November 2017 Page 6

Local Government

Phil  Rose,  centrally  involved  inHaringey’s  StopHDV  campaign,spoke to The Clarion.

The HDV is a company that will be jointlyowned, 50% each, by Haringey council and themultinational firm Lendlease. Haringey willbe put land and assets into the deal. They orig-inally said that would be worth £2 billion,though they have since claimed less.

Lendlease will put in an equivalent amoung,borrowing against the company. It’s a limitedliability partnership. If it goes bankrupt,Haringey will lose all its property, butLendlease will lose nothing.

Lendlease will carry out all the maintenance,and make money, while the HDV makes noth-ing. They will be able to charge pretty muchwhat they like. Haringey will be handing overto a company with a record of overcharging allover the world – they have just had to make amulti-million settlement with New York Statebecause this problem got so out of hand.

The council says it will have a veto, but that’sblatantly not true – it’s 50-50. In France publicauthorities have to have at least 51pc, for thisvery reason. this lack of veto will hand Lendlease a free run at overcharging

The people who lives on the estates takenover by the HDV – it will happen in tranches– will be moved off. The council says there’s aguarantee they can come back, but that’s notwhat the official business plan says. The councilsaid, oh, we’ll change that, but they haven’t. Inany case, it will take years for people to comeback – and many won’t want to. Those who docome back will come back to completely dif-ferent buildings, with “poor doors” for instance.

And that’s not the worst of it. When peoplemove back, these will no longer be councilhouses. People living in them will not have thesame rights. HDV will operate like a privatecompany, with the fundamental goal of makingprofits. It will not be covered by the HumanRights Act, the Equality Act, or Freedom ofInformation, in the way the council is.

The council leadership says they are doingthis to tackle homelessness in Haringey, butthis is surreal, because under this scheme thecouncil will lose its right to nominate who getsa home. Taking thousands of tenancies out ofcouncil control will make the problem worse!

Why is a Labour council doing this?It’s intriguing because on one level, this is so

extreme, you’d think even Blairites would op-pose it, anyone in the Labour Party really. Andprinciples aside, it’s not good politics either,alienating your entire community. The LibDems have opposed the HDV so there’s a realpossibility they will suge in the 2018 councilelections. Some areas of the borough are verysafely Labour, but some aren’t. So it’s madnessand hard to explain, to be honest, though therewas a recent article in Vice that people shouldread [see bit.ly/2A3Ypk0]

I’ve read their supporters saying that the cam-paign against the HDV is middle-class.

This is typical nonsense. We’re a broadbasedcampaign that includes some middle-class peo-ple in areas like Highgate and Muswell Hill butalso working-class people in Broadwater Farmand Northumberland Park. Look at who’sturned out for our recent protests and actions,it’s a very diverse group of people – represent-ing the entire Haringey community, prettymuch. Last night, at the AGM of theNorthumberland Park residents’ association,which has previously been stuffed with sup-porters of the council, our people won six of theeleven places on the committee. Perhaps theywere manipulated by middle-class campaign-ers? This is a typical patronising and manipu-lative attitude to working-class people.

The reality is that it is the council leadershipand their supporters in the press who are well-off middle-class and who are afraid of a broad

based community movement that would takeaway properties for rent and create more coun-cil housing.

So what happens now?The big thing at present is the judicial review

which took place last week. Obviously we don’tknow what will happen, what we hope for isthat he will order them to start again which willcause a delay which is important as it allows theelectoral process to decide what happens. Byfighting the court all the way they have poten-tially delayed things further and made life moredifficult for themselves. Either they are stupidlystubborn, which is entirely possible, or there’ssomething we don’t know. Anyway, good!

There’s a risk of the council imposing thedeal before next year’s elections, but it’s notstraightforward for them. That would alienateeven more people, and the courts. Lendleasemay not be willing. Even if they ended up get-ting compensation, they might have to sue forit, and suing a poor borough in that way wouldbe a PR disaster. In any case, they probablydon’t want the risk and uncertainity. I also sus-pect that the council rushing to sign the dealwill make them more vulnerable to further legalchallenges. So we have a chance.

What’s your view on how Labour councilsshould deal with the cuts they face?

The HDV campaign is made up of lots ofdifferent people and organisations, and wefocus on the HDV. We don’t have an officialposition on the wider issues. In any case thereis a lot Labour councils can do to support or-dinary people rather than big property devel-opers. That’s the most important first step.

What involvement has the Labour Party, as aparty, had in this campaign?

Many individuals from the Labour Party, in-cluding myself obviously, are involved. Labourhasn’t been a campaigning party for a long time.It remains a party focused on getting peopleelected. This is my biggest frustration andsomething we need to work on changing.

• More at stophdv.com

Fighting to stop Haringey’s “HDV” sell off

Labour councils and the cuts, some reading•”Better a dented shield?” The left and Labour councils, by Dan Frost, New Socialist blogbit.ly/2zTCVW1•Councils should resist cuts! Speech by Sacha Ismail at Lewisham Momentum debatebit.ly/2ly8KBH•Statement by Momentum Wandsworthbit.ly/2z5MFiO•How Labour councils can beat the Tories, by Matthew Turner in the Independentind.pn/2ygHw8t

The clarion : NOVEMBER 2017 Page 7

HOUSING

Glyn Robbins, Defend Council Housing and Unitethe Union, housing workers branch

After Grenfell, housing policy and what it’s doing to our communitieshas rarely been more in the political, media or public eye.

Housing campaigns are popping up all over the country. In Bath,Southend and Rochdale housing association tenants are fighting thedemolition of their homes. Council tenants on at least 50 estates inLondon are doing the same. As housing associations become more cor-porate, tenants of Notting Hill Group and Genesis are fighting the latestmega-merger. In Newham, One Housing Group has backed away froma 40% rent rise targeting “key workers” in our NHS and schools. InBristol and Sheffield, the Acorn campaign group is one of several help-ing to organise hyper-exploited private tenants. People in Haringey areopposing a fire sale of public assets to the same property developers whoasset-stripped the Heygate estate in Southwark.

Housing is now a critical political issue — a vote winner and a votelooser. Amidst Brexit chaos, the government’s housing policy is in com-plete disarray. Under huge pressure, it had to drop or shelve elementsof its potentially ruinous Housing and Planning Act. Its FebruaryWhite Paper admitted the housing market was “broken”, but offered nosolutions. Now it’s planning a Green Paper, but as Theresa May’s con-ference speech confirmed, they don’t know what they’re doing.

This creates a huge opportunity for Labour. The housing crisis is na-tional and historic in scale. Millions of people are suffering. Homeless-ness has risen by 60% since 2011, 1.8 million households are on councilwaiting lists and many more are condemned to sub-standard, over-pricedand under-regulated private renting. Across much of the country, thegap between average earnings and average house prices has never beengreater. Universal Credit will only makes things worse. Lives are beingruined by our decades-long obsession with the housing market, whichreceives £20 in government subsidies for every £1 invested in affordablerented homes.

Jeremy Corbyn has been a supporter of grassroots housing campaignsfor many years. Unlike most politicians of his generation, he gets council

housing and isn’t embarrassed to talk about it. As he said in one of hisfirst speeches as leader “There’s no solution to the housing crisis thatdoesn’t start with council housing”. His commitment that a futureLabour government will build one million homes in five years, of whichhalf will be council homes, has won him and Labour widespread support.Council housing isn’t a panacea, but it is the route to reducing housingneed.

Diluted

But there are worrying signs of attempts to dilute Corbyn’s pledge.Some Labour politicians still talk about “social”, or the even moremeaningless “affordable” housing.

These terms are widely discredited because of the increasingly com-mercial role of housing associations who now build more homes for theprivate market than for genuinely affordable rent. They have failed tofill the gap in housing provision left when councils stopped building.Whatever their benevolent origins, many housing associations are nowindistinguishable from private property developers. If they are to play apart in future Labour housing policy, they must be brought under properdemocratic control and reminded of their social purpose.

For too long, Labour councils have been complicit in policies that, asCorbyn said in Brighton, are now widely seen as social cleansing in thename of so-called regeneration. It has to stop. At the very least, any suchprojects should be subject to a ballot of local residents before they goahead. But more fundamentally, we need policies that put local peoplein control of what happens in their communities, not property compa-nies.

Labour policy also needs to set housing in its wider context: theknock-on effects on health, education, social care and other public serv-ices that shape our quality of life. We need a break from the falseeconomies of the past that are sacrificing a whole generation on the altarof the market. We need to rethink the place of housing in society andsee it as a social asset, not a private commodity.

Many said the Grenfell tragedy had to be a turning point, but we needmore than words. Labour and Momentum must step up their involve-ment in local housing campaigns and help build the national movementto demand decent, secure, truly affordable and safe homes for all.

That’s the purpose of the housing summit on 25 November at NUTHQ in London. What we do – and don’t do – over the next two yearswill decide housing policy in the UK for the next generation.

• The Housing Summit will happen on 25 November, 11am-5pm,Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9BD. More de-tails: bit.ly/2yiyqrS

Labour and housing after Grenfell

By Martin Wicks, Swindon Tenants Campaign Group Secretary

Jeremy Corbyn’s conference an-nouncement that Labourwould be carrying out a review“of social housing policy – itsbuilding, planning, regulationand management” is welcome.

So is his comment that“Labour would speak to socialhousing tenants all over thecountry” and bring forward “aradical programme of action” intime for next year’s Labour con-ference. However, one criticalissue needs adding – funding...

With the prospect of a Labourgovernment, something whichwas widely considered as im-probable before the GeneralElection, there is an urgent needfor supporters of council housingto campaign now for a genuinelyradical shift in Labour’s policy,from its concentration on homeownership to make councilhouse building its first priority.

We should be under no illu-sion that the review will involvea fierce debate and a politicalstruggle against resistancewhich strives to cling to thecorpse of New Labour’s hous-ing philosophy.

• More at bit.ly/2gR1q1n

Labour needs a “radical programme of action”

the clarion :November 2017

The Central issue

The Russian Revolution

By Steff Grainger

In October 1920, Grigory Zinoviev travelled to speak for the Commu-nist International at a congress of the Independent Social DemocraticParty of Germany (USPD), a party of 700,000 members, weaker elec-torally than the official Social Democratic Party but surely stronger inworking-class activist terms.

The congress voted to join the Communist International. The majoritymerged with the already-existing but much smaller Communist Party of

Germany, founded by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and ClaraZetkin. Only a right-wing rump continued the USPD name, and most ofthem collapsed into the SPD in September 1922.

The new united Communist Party became the strongest revolutionarysocialist party outside Russia. That was grievously late: revolutionary op-portunities in 1919 and early 1920 had already been missed, while the CPwas small and unconsolidated.

In October 1923 the new mass CP came to the brink of leading a revo-lution. The proto-Stalinist bureaucratic influences in the Communist In-ternational - not yet all-shaping, but already strong - and the weaknessesof the German CP’s own leadership meant that opportunity was missed.

In the following years of relative stabilisation of German capitalism, thegrip of Stalinism tightened. A new and tragic chapter began. The end ofthat chapter: Hitler. The German capitalist class taking bloody revenge forthe annoyances and concessions inflicted on them after 1918.

Zinoviev recalled a previous visit to a Social Democratic Party congress,before World War 1 and the split of 1916-7 over war policy which pro-duced the USPD.

That, he said in 1920, was “around ten years ago”, so, around 1910. TheSPD was proud and confident, with approaching one million members anda growing and very loyal electorate. By 1912 it would be the biggest partyin the German parliament (Reichstag).

The Russian socialists, by contrast, were on the defensive. A wave of revoltand mass strikes in 1905 had been defeated. The Tsar’s new minister,

What being a revolutionary meansBy Rida Vaquas

On the eve of February 1917, none other than Lenin gave a speech inwhich he said, resignedly, “We of the older generation may not live tosee the decisive battles of this coming revolution”. In the next monththe Tsar was overthrown. Whatever being a revolutionary requires, wecan be certain that it does not require the power of prophecy.

October 1917 remains an enduring turning point in the history of so-cialist and labour movement. It was the Bolsheviks who, in Luxemburg’swords, “went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world” and daredto conquer political power. At the time, and even still today, the revolutionmade by the Bolsheviks remains one of the most incandescently audaciousacts ever achieved by the world labour movement.

What were the makings of the many thousands of people willing tomake this dare? What can we learn from them today?

It is not the intention of this article to craft a beautiful history of each ofthose thousand revolutionaries, but sketch a few brief guiding notes.

First, an obstinate determination that society would be changed by theirown hands and to refuse any compromise with those who would take therevolution from them. In 1917, this meant lending no legitimacy to theKerensky government, and declaring the workers’ interests as fundamen-tally opposed to an imperialist government continuing the war, regardlessof the latter’s sweet words and promises. Now it means vigorously assertingthe political independence of the labour movement and to organise our-selves as a class. Revolutionaries do not see politics as a game of musicalchairs to play oh-so strategically at the very top of the bourgeois state, butas a movement to abolish those chairs and that game. Revolutionaries donot make peace with the present order of things, but constantly strive tochange it.

Second, to be unafraid of being in a minority. Lenin found no friendafter his initial arrival in Russia. Even in the ranks of the Bolsheviks, veryfew were willing to be open political allies of his explosive April Theses,in which he called for no support for the Provisional Government andthe building of a new International. Even those sympathetic to him

thought that perhaps his long time in exile meant he was simply out oftune with the democratic developments following the February Revolu-tion.

Yet Lenin exhibited a sharp political clarity, recognising the ProvisionalGovernment as inseparable from its continuation of an imperialist war.He spurned the ideology of “revolutionary defencism” that had becomeprevalent amongst Russian Social Democrats, in which they argued thesocial and political character of proceeding with war had changed, owingto the change in who was carrying it out. Clearly and simply, Lenin de-clared in April “Consolidation with the defensists – that is betrayal of so-cialism. I think it would be better to stand alone like Liebknecht – oneagainst a hundred and ten.”

Karl Liebknecht was the only Reichstag deputy to vote against warcredits in August 1914. This is not to say that revolutionaries take pridein isolation and in taking doomed, yet heroic stances. Rather, it is betterto be in a minority and to speak a truth than chase fashionable clichéswhich will discredit you when they collapse. The oppressed came to theBolsheviks in October 1917, as Lenin argued they would, because it wasthe Bolsheviks who consistently and intransigently pushed forward a pro-gramme which corresponded to their needs and refused to make peacewith a government opposed to their interests.

In other words, the way out of being in a minority is not to sacrifice asocialist position on the altar of “public opinion” but to carry out a processof persistent dialogue in the labour movement and patiently convincepeople of your ideas and tactics.

Third, revolutionaries are not in the business of establishing themselvesas great men or women, upon whom the world depends. It is the practicaland sober study of how the world works and how it can be changed.Human liberation does not hinge upon the outstanding nature of indi-viduals, but every one of us in a mass movement knowing the right mo-ment to throw a wrench in the barbarous works of the world. In the wordsof Victor Serge: “We must be precise, clear-sighted, strong, unyielding,armed: like machines, you see. To set up a vast enterprise for demolitionand to throw ourselves into it with our whole being because we know wecannot live as long as the world has not been made over.”

There are no certainties about what can be achieved. But there is anhonour and hope in being willing to make the dare.

A hundred years ago this month, the Russian workers, led by the RussianSocial Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), carried out their secondrevolution in ten months and created a socialist government, based onworkers’ councils (soviets).

This government carried out the key demands of Russia’s labourmovement — an end to the war, land to the peasants, workers’ controlof production and collective ownership of the banks, transport andcommunications and, eventually, the factories.

The Russian workers’ seizure of power set off a revolutionary wavethroughout the world, with political consequences from the industrialcities of Europe to rural Ireland, from anti-colonial struggles to the blackliberation movement in the US.

What does it mean for socialists today?

The Central issue

Pages 8-9

Stolypin, combined fierce repression with meas-ured social transformations from above.

According to Trotsky’s later account, the Bol-sheviks were down to 30 or 40 reliable activists inregular communication across the whole of Rus-sia. They had just parted ways with an ultra-leftfaction, the Vpered group. The Mensheviks, withwhom the Bolsheviks were still in a commonparty, were in no better condition, and grievouslydivided among themselves.

Zinoviev recalled that the German party’s sec-retary, Friedrich Ebert, known for his efficiencyand stamina but not for any revolutionary flair, had“laughed at our Russian grouplets and said: ‘Thereare so many grouplets in Russia’.”

Ten years later, Ebert had become (in late 1918)simultaneously Chancellor of the bourgeois coali-tion government set up in collaboration with thearmy general staff to “save” German capitalismafter defeat in World War 1, and chair of a Coun-cil of People’s Commissars.

They pushed through a number of reforms.They promised they would move to socialist meas-ures, but those first had to be prepared and plannedby careful committees and commissions.

The socialist plans faded. Ebert became pres-ident of the German Republic from 1919-25,and his party became the means of heading offthe German working class from the social revo-lution which it had wanted to make.

Ebert, or at least some of his colleagues, mayhave sincerely wanted socialism, in some generalsense. But, faced with social ferment, their prior-ity was to restore stability - which meant resta-bilising capitalist rule.

The USPD made a better claim to continuethe tradition of the pre-1914 SPD than Ebertdid. But in the years of revolutionary upheaval,they were indecisive. The revolutionary sailorswhose mutiny sparked the revolution in 1918

went to Berlin to seek advice from the USPDsecretary, Luise Zietz. She was no counter-revo-lutionary, but she had no idea what to suggest.

The old SPD radical left, round Rosa Luxem-burg, Karl Liebknecht, and Clara Zetkin, didwhat they could. But they had no well-based, ed-ucated, coherent organisation, only a CommunistParty, mostly of very young activists, hastily as-sembled in the midst of revolutionary turmoil.

And the “grouplets” in Russia? The differenceis that, through good times and bad, they had al-ways educated themselves, discussed, and organ-ised in order to prepare themselves not just forthe day-to-day piecemeal tasks (though they didthose), but for action in periods of revolutionaryupheaval and tumult.

When the February Revolution of 1917 burstopen them, they were surprised, but they quicklygeared themselves to the new times, and built upthe strength, the courage, and the sense of initia-tive that would enable them to lead the workersto power in October 1917.

The Corbyn surge of 2015 was as unexpectedto the whole left as the November 1918 mutinieswere to the German left, or the February Revo-lution of 1917 to the Russian left.

Too many on the left had spent the previousyears focused only on unambitious day-to-dayprotest, dismissing education and debate aboutmore radical prospects as sectarian luxuries.

The result has been a team around Corbyn as-sembled helter-skelter by skimming the top layersof bourgeois society (the Guardian, PR firms, theLondon Mayor’s office, union officialdom) forleft-wingers, but left-wingers who previously hadbeen pursuing sedate careers in the assigned left-wing spaces of bourgeois society, not organising tostir up the rank and file. As Alex Nunns puts it inhis very sympathetic book on Corbyn, “In no sensewas [Corbyn] or his team ready” for the challengesof party leadership.

Thus the fumblings, most notably on partydemocracy and on Brexit and free movement.

We still have time to turn things round. Thelesson for us from a hundred years ago is thatsocialist politics based on complacent perspec-tives of gradual improvements is a snare and anillusion. The future depends on those whomthe complacent mock as “so many grouplets”.

From the summer of 1918, significant UK armed forces actively inter-vened in Russia to help crush the Bolshevik government. Over the nextthree years, socialists in Britain built an impressive movement of solidar-ity. This appeal, from August 1918, was published by the British SocialistParty, a Labour Party-affiliate soon to become a central component in thenew Communist Party, as socialists in Britain united under the influenceof the Russian revolution.

Deaf to the protests of financiers, but inspired by the ideals of internationallabour, the Bolsheviks are wresting the main industries from the hands oftheir capitalist owners, declaring the means of production to be the com-mon property of the Russian people, and imposing on the workers in eachindustry the responsibility for its control. Hence every capitalist and fin-ancier, whatever his nationality, cries, ‘Down with the Bolsheviks!’

In placing the power of the franchise in the hands of the workers, sol-diers and peasants, the Bolsheviks swept away the false bases for the rightto vote known to western nations, such as property qualifications or, in thecase of women, age and marriage, and made the title to vote dependent

upon the performance of social labour. Hence every reactionary, whateverhis nationality, fearing the consequence of a labour franchise, cries, ‘Downwith the Bolsheviks!’

Their enemies allege that the Bolsheviks have made mistakes and com-mitted excesses. But what are their alleged mistakes and excesses comparedwith the known crimes of their critics who rule the world now? … It isbecause the control of natural resources by labour is dreaded by the greatmajority of the rich and wealthy that they call for war on the Russian so-cialist republic.

The British Socialist Party therefore urges all organisations whose mem-bers realise that the defeat of Russian socialism is the defeat of laboureverywhere, to pass the following resolution and make it known as widelyas possible:

“This meeting of workers protests against the armed intervention inRussia in opposition to the declared wishes of the soviet government andin direct contradiction to the Allies’ pronouncement in favour of the self-determination of all nations. This meeting believes that the overthrow ofthe soviet administration would be a disaster to the organised labour move-ment throughout the world, and could only be construed as evidence ofthe intention of governments to make war on the working class. It callsupon the British government to abandon its present policy with regard toRussia and instead to offer Russia the technical and economic aid requiredfor her reconstruction.”

The Call (BSP newspaper), August 29 1918

1918: British socialists appeal for solidarity

n and us

the clarion : November 2017 Page 10

workers’ struggles

By Nik Barstow, Stretford Branch Labour Party secretary

“This is an important dispute, in which the Royal Mail workers willneed support from the whole labour movement. Labour and otherunions should mobilise at every level to support them, linking this toa vocal and active public campaign for renationalisation of RoyalMail.”

A renationalised Royal Mail should be democratically reorganised tobenefit its customers and workforce, along the sort of lines advocated byJeremy Corbyn for the railways in his first leadership election.”

That was the unanimous message from Stretford and Urmston CLPwhen they met in early October at a meeting with over 80 members pres-ent.

An emergency motion was agreed by local activists and CWU repsusing the Clarion’s model motion and, to make sure Labour Party mem-bers knew about the issues, we reprinted the material from the Clarion’sweb-site as a flyer at the CLP. A local CWU postal member and Labourcouncillor, Laurence Walsh, put it forward.

That meeting was a great sign that Labour is now taking up supportfor workers in dispute – the other main discussion, again unanimouslybacked, was on support to the “McStrikers”.

To maintain support after the scandalous court judgement on 12thOctober, that stalled the dispute for now, activists are still working to-gether to keep the Party up-to-date and stressing the need for continuingsolidarity. We’ve produced and distributed hundreds of fliers to members’homes with the support of the CWU setting out the case for action.

We are rebuilding our movement from the bottom up – a great by-product of work to support the CWU is that they are now enthusiasticbackers of our campaign to re-launch a local Trafford Trades Councilvery soon.• For The Clarion’s model motion in support of the Royal Mail work-ers, see bit.ly/2lA2Pf9

Get your Labour Party to support the posties

Letter: the SingleMarket rules outnationalisationBank nationalisation is excellent stuff, sowell done [see Young Labour conference re-port, p14).  But banks based in other Mem-ber States of the EU/European EconomicArea can invoke their Treaty right of free-dom of establishment which accords thema fundamental right to establish branchesand subsidiaries in other EEA MemberStates. 

There can be scant doubt that our na-tional courts and the Court of Justice of theEuropean Union would hold that outrightnationalisation constitutes a disproportion-ate limitation on this right and thereforeunlawful.  Under the EU law doctrine of su-premacy such a judicial ruling would prevailover any Act of Parliament nationalising thecorporation.

Wake up, comrades, the Single EuropeanMarket is incompatible with socialism!

Take away the Left’s recent Groupthinkand it’s obvious stuff really. Every othersupranational economic organisation de-fends capitalism — WTO, IMF, CETA,NAFTA, TTIP. No reason why the EUshould be different — and it isn’t.

Danny Nichols

By a RM worker and CWU rep

Royal Mail bosses used the courts to get ourstrike declared “unlawful” and force us into“mediation”, aiming to break the momentumof our massive 89 per cent vote for strike ac-tion.

Their cheek is unbelievable after they blankedthe union through 18 months of talks, forcingus to ballot. And it’s no surprise that an un-elected, anti-trade union judge took the side ofa handful of millionaire shareholders over130,000 postal workers.

Delaying tactic

This is a delaying tactic, pure and simple. RoyalMail admits it aims to talk out the busy Christ-mas period, when a strike would hit hardest.

Unfortunately there are worrying hints offurther delays ahead from CWU leaders: “Thisstrike was never just about Christmas, never justabout the desire to take strike action, it’s aboutgetting agreement…whether that takes threemonths, six months or a year.”

Maximum pressure comes from striking andescalating quickly, not dragging it out formonths. We need to make sure further injunc-

tions don’t stop us. Royal Mail bosses had 18months to talk, it’s time for action.

Organise the rank and file

We don’t have to sit on our hands and see whatcomes out of mediation. Let’s put our campaignon a footing that can deliver the action we needto win:

• Regular meetings of local reps and membersto build links across the different sections – de-livery, distribution, processing, etc.

• Solidarity meetings, high street stalls and abig demonstration involving other unions andthe Labour Party

• A national rank and file meeting could de-bate our red lines and the best strategy to winthem, and organise a grassroots network to pushfor this and where necessary carry it out.

Our union has run a good campaign to winthe ballot, but the only way we can be certain ofwinning our demands is to strike.

If there is another injunction, that meansbeing willing - and organised - to act even ifour leaders don’t.

• The author is a supporter of Red Flag maga-zine. Check out its postal workers bulletinat www.redflagonline.org

After the injunction, keep up the momentum!

The CWU isn’t taking the court ruling lying down. They called onevery office to hold gate meetings with dispute updates on 7 November — 89.1% and proud!

the clarion : November 2017 Page 11

workers’ struggles

“Conference, my name is MariaBagnall, I’m from CharnwoodCLP, and I’m speaking to Com-posite four, into which the mo-tion from my constituency isincorporated.

“The workers at McDonald’sare amongst the lowest paid in thecountry, with entirely unsatisfac-tory working conditions. On Sat-urday I had the honour ofattending Women’s Conference.Those of you who were there may

have heard Shen speak. She wasone of the first ever McDonald’semployees to take strike action.Shen is a phenomenal woman.She’s also a phenomenal youngwoman. Many of the workers atMcDonald’s and in other serviceindustries are young people.

“Shen told us about some of theconditions that McDonald’s work-ers face: bullying and harassmentby managers are rife. One youngwoman who was a victim of do-mestic violence became homelessafter speaking out against thispractice. Workers are at risk of in-jury and people have lost shifts forspeaking out against the cultureimposed by management, who useany means they can to get themost profit out of people’s work.These conditions should not behappening in the 21st century. Allworkers deserve the right to safeand secure workplace.

“McDonald’s workers were pe-nalised for joining a union, butthrough the utterly courageous ac-tions of Shen and her colleagues,staff at two restaurants voted over-whelmingly to strike, with thesupport of the BFAWU.

“But the BFAWU and otherunions could do a lot more to sup-

port workers without the onerousrestrictions of the Trade Union Actand all the anti-trade union laws.This motion commits Labour torepealing the Trade Union Act andall anti-trade union laws intro-duced in the 1980s and 90s. Forunions to be effective, workersneed the right to strike – includingin solidarity with other workersand following political goals – andto picket freely.

“Strong unions should be freedfrom legal shackles and bolsteredby positive legal rights. This is keyto attacking the poverty, insecurity

and inequality that so many en-dure in Tory Britain. This willtransform society through aneconomy working for the many,not the few.

“The McDonald’s strikers, thePicturehouse workers and thosein service industries are oftenyoung people. At the last electionwe saw the highest turnout ofyoung voters for 25 years. Thoseyoung workers turned up for us:now we must turn up for them.Please unanimously support thismotion — thank you.”

By Chris Walentynowicz,public sector workerOn the last day of Labour Partyconference, Angela Rayner madea speech which included the onething many workers will be mostdisappointed to hear from JeremyCorbyn’s frontbench: that aLabour government would notmeet the incredibly moderateunion demand for a 5% pay in-crease for public sector workers.

An increase so moderate that ifimplemented would barely scratchthe surface of the real-term pay-cut experienced by those of usworking in the public sector overthe past decade.

Disappointing stuff, and foolish,but not by any stretch unsurprisingor unprecedented. Wage restraint,draconian incomes policies and at-tacks on workers fighting for a fairerslice have been the one thing thathas consistently brought every sin-

gle Labour government into con-flict with the workers’ movement.

If a Corbyn/McDonnell govern-ment is going to fulfil its promiseto put the ‘Many’ before the ‘Few’then it needs to learn the lessons ofall previous Labour administra-tions. Understand that much of thehardship experienced by working-class people is in their pockets, and– as a minimum – pay the debtowed to workers and reverse thepay cut of the past decade.

If it won’t, then the unions willneed to mobilise pressure – in-cluding ultimately action –against them.

Labour and pay restraint

Release trade unions from their chains

clps build picturehouse solidarityBy a Picturehouse worker

As Picturehouse cinema work-ers’ dispute enters its secondyear, Labour Party activists areplaying a crucial role in sup-porting our struggle.

Labour Parties and Momen-tum groups have visited picketlines, held meetings, organisedsolidarity events and raisedmoney from Hackney to Glas-gow, from Lewisham to Chester.

Clarion supporters collectedover £1,300 for our strike fundat Labour Party conference.

Labour activists have beenparticularly crucial in the areasaround Picturehouses on strikein London.

In Lambeth Labour comradeshave been central to the regularpicket of the Ritzy and othersolidarity actions.

In Lewisham they have col-

lected money, held a benefit gigthrough Lewisham YoungLabuor and a a fundraisingshowing of “Nature of the Beast”through New Cross Learning,and are lobbying the council notto give a major redevelopmentcontract to Picturehouse.

The newly left-controlledHackney South CLP raised£500 at one benefit gig and hasswung its support behind thecampaign at Hackney Picture-house.

With four of our reps sackedand our management playinghardball, we need more solidar-ity! Please raise our strike inyour CLP and Momentumgroup.

Support for struggles likeours are crucial to make Labourpolicies on ending low pay andstrengthening workers’ rights areality.

• picturehousefour.org

The following speech was deliv-ered by Maria Bagnall, delegatefrom Charnwood CLP in Leices-tershire, to Labour Party confer-ence in support of a motion,largely based on text promotedby The Clarion, calling for repealof all anti-union laws and a“strong right to strike”. For themotion see bit.ly/2lyLR0U.

the clarion : novemeber 2017 Page 12

interview

Clarion: On the democracy review – is there adanger that it will slow down the process?What would you like to see come out of it?

I think it’s pretty clear that the Review won’tbe allowed to drag on for more than a year. Je-remy was very clear that it needs to report backto the next conference. I think hopefully it willgive us time to give a considered response. Theterms of reference will need to make sure thatwe are democratising the party. I think theterms of reference are a bit limited but the keythings for me are the way regional structuresoperate: that needs to be substantially democ-ratised. I would like to see a one-member-one-vote situation where members of regionalboards or regional committees are elected byevery member in the region. I think that waywe’d be more likely to get a regional committeethat is reflective of the party as a whole. One-member-one-vote elections for the Leader andthe Conference Arrangements Committee sawprogressive candidates elected. That democra-tisation is really important.

What I’d like to see in the democracy reviewis mandatory reselection of MPs. I’ve been call-ing for that for some time. The present systemisn’t fit for purpose. But if it was a routineprocess and everyone had to go through it, likeeveryone in elected offices has to do, from tradeunion leaders to councillors to the chair of alocal bowls club to the secretary of an allot-ments association, that would be somethingthat would help to consolidate the role of theMPs, keep them rooted and keep them fromdrifting off into the Westminster bubble. MPsshould be able to command the confidence andrespect of the members of the party where theyare standing. I know that some MPs argue thatMPs are subject to a democratic process withthe electorate, who give them their mandate.That’s true up to a point but they’re standingas Labour MPs. My response to that is: if that’swhat you think, stand as an independent andsee how far you get. They rely on the Labourbadge and the hard work of ordinary activists.

Clarion: Do you think that’s possible?Anything’s possible. If you see a groundswell

of support, but not in a hostile way, but just asa matter of calling for democracy. Grassrootsmembers calling for that will be important.Also of course the democracy review will belooking at the way in which a candidate getsnominated onto the ballot for the leadership.My view is that the MPs shouldn’t have a gate-keeping role in that. If anyone has a gatekeep-ing role it should be the membership. We havefour hundred thousand members and growing.If there are gatekeepers, it should be the con-stituencies. We should make it as easy as pos-sible. The leader should be a member ofparliament. But to give MPs that right of gate-keeping is not right. They shouldn’t be arbitersof who should be the candidate.

Clarion: What do you think of expulsions?Clearly there is wide discontent about left-wing activists being expelled on various pre-texts.

I am very unhappy about the way that mem-bers are being expelled, on the flimsiest of rea-sons. A guy, John Dunn in Derbyshire. JohnDunn is a pillar of the labour movement, anicon, a person who should be venerated, he wasone of the rent rebels in Clay Cross in 1972,who was barred from office, and made bank-rupt for standing up to the Heath legislation,the so-called ‘fair rent law’. They refused to im-plement a rent increase. He went on to becomea distinguished councillor, he was chair of theFire Authority; I served on the Fire Authoritywhile he was chair in Derbyshire, he was astriking miner, he was out for the duration ofthe miners’ strike. To suspend him on the flim-siest of grounds was a travesty. It is no coinci-dence that he was suspended shortly afterchallenging Owen Smith, whom he had ac-cused of stealing their history when helaunched his campaign at Orgreave.

John is one of the key organisers within theOrgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, he was

at Orgreave when it happened, and he wasupset about Owen going there, so he chal-lenged him and a few days after, he was sus-pended. So when you’re getting suspensionslike that it’s completely beyond the pale, com-pletely unacceptable in my view. There aremany others who are less well-known thanhim. There are questions that need to be askedabout how the National Constitutional Com-mittee and the Compliance Unit operate.That’s not to say that you should just have afree-for-all. You can imagine a situation wherean entryist, like a bloody fascist, joins the party.But it’s been overkill, definitely.

Clarion: What would you say about peoplewho are expelled for being members of socialistorganisations that support the Labour Party?

I am in favour of a broad church. Anyonewho supports the aims of the Labour Partyshould be able to participate as a full member.So that seems a rather flimsy reason for kickingsomeone out. Perhaps those organisationsought to think about affiliating to the party.That comes with difficulty, but you have theCo-Op Party that’s affiliated. I welcome peoplesupporting the Labour Party and I like to thinkthat we can build a progressive alliance withinthe party.

Clarion: What are the most important ofLabour’s policies?

The stuff around the economy, taking con-trol, bringing key services into public owner-ship, investing in the economy to create securejobs, a national investment bank, tackling thehousing crisis — this is vitally important, es-pecially in places like London. All these thingsare linked together. My view is that the mostsignificant policy is the right to own – givingworkers the right to buy out their companywhen it’s at risk of being asset-stripped or sold.That will enable us to take back power foreveryone. That would prevent the sort of scan-dals that we’ve seen over the last forty years asour heavy industry and manufacturing bases arerun down and destroyed. We have ended upwith a nation that, to a large extent, has verylow-paid, insecure jobs. Looking to try andgenerate some security in the workplace isgoing to be really important.

Clarion: Doesn’t this rely on a push to or-ganise the unorganised? So – how do you thinkthe Labour Party should relate to strikes?

John McDonnell and Jeremy have made itclear that they believe that the party shouldstand shoulder to shoulder with colleagues inthe industrial wing of the labour movementwhen they are in struggle, when they’re onstrike, they deserve our support.

• A much longer version of this interview isonline at theclarionmag.org

Chris Williamson MP on democracy, theeconomy and stopping expulsions

the clarion : NOVEMBER 2017 Page 13

DEMOCRACY

Democracy is an essential part of socialism. It is not some little add-on, something that’s nice to have, or something you do because peoplesay that you ought to. You cannot have socialism without democracy.Where that’s been tried, in countries that call themselves socialistsbut are not democratic, those countries are not socialist.

Not only can you not have socialism without democracy, but you alsocan’t have democracy without socialism. The society we live in at the mo-ment has a very limited democracy. Yes, it’s better than living under to-talitarianism; but electing MPs once every five years, who can then dowhat they want, and pass laws saying you can’t go on strike unless youget turnouts and percentages of support higher than they’ve ever got –all presided over by an unelected civil service, a monarchy and an un-elected second chamber – that is not democracy.

In the first place, we want the repeal of the anti-trade union laws, notjust the 2006 Trade Union Act, butall the anti-trade union laws thatcame before that.

It’s great that we have a leader-ship that’s finally ready to rena-tionalise the railways – I work onthe railways – but we need the rail-ways under public ownership,under democratic workers’ and pas-sengers’ control.

We need our MPs to be electedmore often; we need them to be re-callable; we need them to be on aworker’s wage; we need to abolishthe monarchy; and we should re-place the House of Lords. We needelectoral reform, we need votes at16, and we need time off work tovote. In fact, we need a shorter working week in order to enable moreparticipation in politics.

We need the right to protest; we need to take direct action – anddemocracy, yes, sometimes involves breaking bad laws. From the PoplarRebellion a hundred years ago, to the Poll Tax more recently, to climatechange activists now, blocking the way to fracking – breaking bad lawsis very much a part of our movement.

So we want to make Britain and the world more democratic. If Labouris going to make Britain more democratic, it has to make itself moredemocratic. And if Momentum is going to make Labour more demo-cratic, Momentum needs to make itself more democratic. That means,for instance, having a sovereign conference, not policy forums like theLabour Party has, and not a Members’ Council pulled out of a hat likeMomentum has.

Democracy requires participation. If we didn’t know before, we surelyfound out during the EU referendum, that yes/no plebiscites are not anadequate form of democracy. All they enable you to do is vote yes or noto a question posed by somebody else, in somebody else’s interest thatyou’ve had no part in putting together. What we need is active, informedparticipatory democracy, and we need to look at what’s getting in theway of that and therefore how we can increase it.

We need more political education, so that people feel knowledgeableenough and confident enough to take part in democracy. We need eventsand meetings that are accessible to people with sensory impairments andso on. We need to talk about transporting people to and from our meet-ings, arranging childcare, looking at the timing of meetings...

Can digital technology help with this? Yes it can. Can digital tech-nology replace participatory forums and decision-making meetings? No,it can’t. We are now a year on from a discussion in Momentum, wherethe idea of online digital plebiscites about policy decisions was touted asa great participatory way forward. A year has passed since then, and therehaven’t been any online policy decision-making votes in Momentum, atall.

Of course digital technology is exciting and it helps you do things.But more than 5 million homes in the UK do not have internet access.More than 16 million people aged 16 and above do not have basic onlineskills. Only 55% of disabled people access the internet as against 83% ofnon-disabled people. Democracy, discussion and debate is a far betterway of progressing politics than disciplinarianism, exclusion, and cen-sorship. I think censorious attitudes have got too much of a grip withinthe left and the labour movement at the moment, and there’s a too-com-mon attitude that says, “I don’t like what you say, I find it offensive, soI’m gonna ban you, or expel you, or refuse you a platform”, or, in its milderform, “ritually denounce you.” What we’ve got, unfortunately, is a breedof what you might call “how-very-dare-you politics”.

One example of this that I see within the Labour Party is “how verydare you suggest that members be able to choose their Labour candi-

date?” That, really, is all thatmandatory reselection amountsto.

If I get a post in my tradeunion, I’ve got to re-stand forthat post every year. You don’tsee me, or the other thousandsand thousands of trade union-ists who do that, going, “Howvery dare you? I ought to be ina job for life.” All we’re askingMPs and candidates to do is todo that once every five years!

When we do have a genuineissue – for example, a genuineissue of anti-semitism in thelabour movement and the left –with very few exceptions, by far

the most effective way to tackle that is through political education anddebate. Vigorous and challenging debate to challenge the views that peo-ple have a problem with, and explaining why they’re wrong, rather thancreating martyrs out of people and not taking the issue forward.

I am not a member of the Labour Party because they won’t let me join.And they won’t let me join because I’m a member of Workers’ Liberty. Idid explain at my appeal that I’m in favour of the right to form groupsand factions within the Labour Party. Progress are allowed to do it;Labour First are allowed to do it; Momentum are allowed to do it; whyshouldn’t Workers’ Liberty be allowed to do it?

And one of the things you get of course is, “We can’t have these leftwingers infiltrating or entering the Labour Party.” Can someone pleaseexplain to me why left wingers “enter” the Labour Party, but rightwingers “join” the Labour Party? How are these things different at all?

Progress ran a campaign called “Saving Labour”, to recruit people tothe Labour Party, with the explicit aim of removing the democratically-elected leader of the Labour Party. Nobody called that entryism. Nobodycalled it infiltration.

It seems to be OK for scabs and warmongers to be members of theLabour Party, but not OK for some Marxists to be members of theLabour Party. And to me, that isn’t acceptable.

Comrades, we have an opportunity. It has been through member-led democracy that we’ve pushed the Labour Party back in the rightdirection, to the left. If we are going to keep that momentum (ahem),then we must put our own house in order; we must become more dem-ocratic ourselves.

Radical democracy and 21st century socialismAt The World Transformed festival running alongside LabourParty conference, Clarion supporter Janine Booth spoke to apacked meeting on “Radical democracy and 21st century so-cialism”, on a panel with Jeremy Gilbert, Jon Lansman and CliveLewis MP. This is what she said.

Minnie Lansbury being sent to jail during the Poplar rates rebellion

the clarion : NOVEMBER 2017 Page 14

young labour conference

Youth pagesCLARION Youth pages Edited by: Maisie Sanders, Rida Vaquas,

Tom Zagoria, Justine Canady

By Alex Stuart, Surrey University Labour Students

On the weekend of 14-15 October, around 300 Young Labour mem-bers met at the University of Warwick for Policy Conference, to dis-cuss policies to submit to the National Policy Forum and hopefullythe next Labour Party manifesto.

The very first motion of the conference, submitted by Clarion sup-porter Zack Murrell-Dowson, calling for nationalisation of the bankingsector, passed by a big margin. We insisted that a Labour governmentshould place these assets and under democratic control, unlike Brown’sbailout after the financial crisis.

Other motions called for repealing all anti-trade union legislation, a£10 per hour living wage for all workers, and supporting all strikes.

Saturday afternoon saw Q&A sessions with Jeremy Corbyn and CatSmith. After the obligatory chanting and whooping, Corbyn settleddown to answer a series of bland questions.

Cat Smith’s speech focused especially on young members’ contribu-tion at the general election, thanking us for our support on the #Labour-Doorstep. The next task, she said, was winning a vote in Parliament onvotes at 16. This speech came across as accepting that young membersare doorstep fodder or only useful for sharing content on social media.We continue with our work to create a network of Young Labour groupsacross the country that campaigns in schools, streets and on picket lines.

After the speeches, there followed a large swath of uncontroversialmotions that passed almost unanimously. While the content of the mo-tions was largely ok, it is a problem that delegates were not allowed toamend motions. It was not possible to explore nuances without takinga speech against a motion and looking like a bigot.

The three most debated motions came on Sunday. Some comradesproposed one for a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine. Many on theleft opposed, arguing that most Palestinians support the Boycott, Di-vestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The motionfell by two votes. Clarion supporters voted different ways.

Our motion to defend and extend freedom of movement was defeatedafter being denounced on the grounds that “the European Union is a

capitalist cabal” and “we need to dismantle Fortress Europe”. As ifpulling up the drawbridge over the Channel would improve things!

We supported a motion for the UK leaving NATO. Kate Dearden,former Chair of Labour Students, claimed that NATO had been “oneof the greatest achievements of Clement Attlee’s Labour government”,but the motion narrowly passed by four votes, with 37 abstentions.

The next stage is the NPF, where it is likely most of our motionswill be diluted or completely ignored. We continue to create vibrantYoung Labour groups to raise the political level of young peopleacross the country.

By Nadia Whittome

The Labour Party was founded as the party of workers, not migrantworkers vs British workers. It is this founding principle of interna-tional solidarity, and an evidence-based outlook, that must guide ourBrexit policy-making.

Our fight should not be against immigrants, but the economic andemployment conditions that allow anti-immigrant rhetoric to thrive andstrike a chord with Labour supporters.

Since 2010 the UK has seen plummeting pay and working conditions,stretched public services and the biggest housing crisis since 1920. Wemust have the courage to place the blame for this crisis squarely whereit lies: an ideological programme of Tory austerity, that promotes theinterests of multinationals and unscrupulous employers above that ofthe people.

A motion to ‘Defend and Extend Free Movement’ was debated atNational Youth Policy Conference. This presented a unique opportunityfor Young Labour members to demand only the most progressive Brexitdeal. The motion fell, with arguments against citing the myth that mi-gration lowers wages; and stating the need to heed immigration con-cerns, and prioritise electability.

The Labour movement clearly needs to rebuild support for freemovement, but how can we do this without firmly and forthrightly sup-

porting it ourselves?As Diane Abbott argues in Freedom Movement and Beyond: Agenda

Setting for Brexit Britain, an injury to one is an injury to all and we holdpower in unity. It is imperative that we do not allow the Conservativesand global right wing to undermine workers’ rights by dividing theworking class. Migrants are central to our struggle and scrapping freemovement not only alienates them but weakens the Labour movement.

A feat of Corbynism has been its break from apologism on Labour’seconomic and migration policy values. It’s one of the reasons I begangalvanising support for Jeremy from the moment he announced hisleadership bid in 2015.

We’ve slowly learnt that the left will never win the argument by con-ceding ground to the populist right. My generation will not forgive usif we give them a free pass at the most critical point in history of ourlifetimes.

In two years we’ve shifted the economic ground to an anti-austerityargument. Let’s now have the guts to reframe the immigration debate.

For Labour to be electable not just in five months or five years, butin 25 years, we must be on the right side of history in 2017 on Brexitand free movement.

• Nadia was a delegate to youth policy conference. She is a tradeunionist, care worker and student, and is seeking to be Rushcliffe’sLabour PPC

Labour should take a lead on free movement

the clarion : NOVEMBER 2017 Page 15

CLARION Youth pages

Why do we need to take the stress out of studying?School pressure goes way beyond what is needed to motivate us: it is

exams, it is regimentation, rigidity of the curriculum, and it is everythingthat removes democracy from the running of education.

Students often deal with this stress by misbehaving in lessons, or notwanting to be in school. Regimented schools are not the sort of educa-tion we need. We want an education that allows us to think for our-selves.

What could be done to make studying less stressful?We should abolish exams. Detentions could be abolished or reformed.

Teachers need more support, resources and smaller class sizes so theyare not stressed when dealing with students, and passing that stress ontothem. We should abolish academies, and bring all existing academiesback into local control. Students need more individual attention andsupport. Lessons should be about the subject, not about how to pass theexam. Stop and reverse cuts to special education needs support. We alsoneed to fight against the huge cuts coming to schools.

This happens in universities as well. 27% of university students reporthaving mental health problems while studying, with higher ratesamongst women and LGBT students.

How can school workers (teachers etc.) be involved in a campaign totake the stress out of studying?

The National Education Union should organise a serious campaignaround school worker stress, but also the causes of this stress. We needideas about how to create a different form of education system which isnot based on jumping through exam and assessment hoops.

We want them to unite with students who face stress, and are organ-ising against it.

What can people who want to get involved do for the campaign?In your school you could organise a petition around a specific issue/s

that affects you and your school mates or the workers in the school.

• People can sign the Take the Stress Out of Studying statement onthe website: www.tsos.blog• You can find out more on Facebook: bit.ly/2z0A3d6

By Andrew Tromans

“If you feel comfortable to doso, raise a hand if you have di-rect experience of dealing withmental health services”. Al-most every hand went up at theOctober Stourbridge YoungLabour meeting.

The often repeated statisticthat “one in four adults in theUK will experience a mentalhealth problem each year” maywell be a conservative estimate,especially when considering chil-dren and young and people. Arecent poll suggested that 35% of18-24 year olds had experienceda mental health problem thisyear.

Despite warm words aboutgiving mental health ‘parity ofesteem’ with physical health, thereality is that seven years of Con-servative government has pro-duced a postcode lottery.According to Young Minds, amental health advocacy charity,the average maximum waiting

time for an appointment withCAMHS (Child and AdolescentMental Health Service) is sixmonths. Furthermore, CAMHSare turning away nearly a quarter(23%) of children referred tothem.

For more severe cases wherehospitalisation is necessary, theresimply aren’t enough beds. Ear-lier this year, it was reported byThe Independent that in the lastquarter of 2016, patients in Eng-land were sent out “out-of-area”for treatment on 2037 occasions.Patients are being sent to mentalhealth units up to 200 kilometersaway from their homes.

In their 2017 General Elec-tion manifesto, Labour pledgedto give an extra £37 billion to theNHS and encouraged the ringfencing of mental health budg-ets. At the end of the Stour-bridge Young Labour meetingwe resolved to campaign to im-prove local mental services.

We encourage other groupsto do the same.

Send us your YL report!More local Young Labour groups are now being set up around the country. In the next issue we’ll carry a series of reports. Pleasesend a report of your group, long or short, to theclarionmag@gmail.com

By Anastazja Oppenheim, NUS NEC

On November 15, the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts isorganising a national demonstration for free education.

The demo is backed by Momentum and has been endorsed by Je-remy Corbyn and John McDonnell, alongside multiple other membersof the Shadow Cabinet. Meanwhile, in a shockingly undemocraticmove, NUS President Shakira Martin ruled out a motion about sup-porting NCAFC’s action from even being debated by the NEC. In-stead, she gave a speech declaring that big demonstrations are “not apriority.”

If not fighting for free education, what is NUS up to? Martin’s flag-ship project is the #ClassDismissed campaign which will include shar-

ing success stories of working class students in order to “destigmatisepoverty”. Instead of militant action on sky-high fees and living costs,for living grants and against poverty pay — all of which NUS has policyon — we’ll get a set of recommendations on “representation,” “lobbying”and “working with your institution” and inspirational stories posted onsocial media. Other major campaigns launched by NUS recently in-clude encouraging students not to use straws in order to protect theenvironment.

There is now both a need and an opportunity to build an effectivegrassroots student left. This does not only mean winning key NUS po-sitions but mobilising for the national demo, maintaining and growingthe boycott of the National Student Survey, setting up anti-cuts cam-paigns on our campuses and organising in solidarity with underpaid,casualised and outsourced university workers.

Let’s build a radical student movement both inside and outsideNUS — join the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts!

Where is NUS?

Campaigning on mental health

The Clarion spoke with Joe Booth, a school student and socialist ac-tivist in Labour in Hackney.

take the stress out of studying!

theclarionmag@gmail.com@Clarion_MagFacebook.com/theclarionmag

By  Sahaya  James,  University  ofthe Arts Labour

The General Election transformed the fightfor free education. Labour’s pledge to tax therich and fund free education was so popularthat the Government are now on the back footand feeling the pressure.

As students and workers united together,now is the time to go on the offensive. If we do,we can keep up this pressure on the Conserva-tive Government and make sure that if aLabour Government gets into power it followsthrough on its promises. That’s why we’remarching on November 15th.

Right now our education is being attackedfrom every angle. The marketisation of Furtherand Higher Education is driving enormouscuts in courses and staff across the country. Thislets big business and private companies in tomake money, and shuts out those who wantand need accessible education the most.

Tuition fees are at the heart of this marketi-zation. They lead to inequality between insti-tutions and eroded job security and workingconditions of staff and campus workers. The

Teaching Excellence Framework meant to‘drive up standards in teaching’ is directly linkedto the intensifying exploitation and casualisa-tion of university staff.

Scrapping all fees cuts the legs out from un-derneath this marketization agenda. We mustdemand that no student, home or international,should pay a penny in tuition fees. We want anend to the cash cow treatment of internationalstudents. And we want an end to the regressivemaintenance loan system which sees poorest

students graduating with the highest amountof debt. This is a debt which is causing a wide-spread mental health crisis amongst students.

But this system could be about to change. Inits place we demand living grants for all: everystudent across further and higher educationshould get enough money to study and live on.No more working part time jobs, no more hav-ing to depend on family for money, and finallyan end to dealing with the bureaucratic messthat is Student Finance and SAAS.

You may have heard people argue that wedon’t have the money to pay for free education.That is a myth. We know there is no shortageof wealth in our society: enormous riches liehoarded in the pockets of a few. We should taxthe extortionate wealth of big business and cor-porations and put it to better use by investingin an education run by and for students, work-ers and communities, just as we should forother public services like the NHS.

Join us in organising action to win: on ourcampuses, in our communities, and on the streets.

Free education accessible to everyone iswithin our reach. By taking action in ourthousands, we can seize it now. March withthe National Campaign Against Fees andCuts on 15th November: for an end to tuitionfees and for living grants for all students,funded by taxing the rich.

• NCAFC: www.anticuts.com

Free Education is within our reachJoin the 15 November demo!

Repression in CataloniaCatalonia has the right to self-determination.Support for Catalan separatism does notcommand a majority (roughly 45% for to 45%against) and nationalism is no answer to theproblems facing working-class Catalan peo-ple. Nevertheless international solidarity withthe people of Catalonia against Spanish po-lice repression is urgent.

• Interview with Jordi Aragunde, GeneralCoordinator of the International Dockwork-ers Council and dockworker union activist inBarcelona: bit.ly/2z0j7U4

issue 7: May 2017

£1 (unwaged 50p) A socialist magazine by Labour and Momentum activists

theissue 10: November 2017 clarion