Tony Benn | ukwatch.net

What went wrong in the capitalist casino?

Ellie Keen — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:48:32 +0000

The great inter-war slumps were not acts of God or of blind forces. They were the sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men. These men had only learned how to act in the interest of their own bureaucratically-run private monopolies which may be likened to totalitarian oligarchies within our democratic state, They had and they felt no responsibility to the nation.

These words are from the 1945 Labour manifesto Let Us Face The Future which brilliantly identified the very same crisis which is now described as a “credit crunch” as if it were a mere hiccup in an otherwise wonderful neo-liberal globalised world which could be corrected with a vast subsidy from the taxpayers to put the Wall Street casino and its partners worldwide back into profit. It reminded me of the fact that when slavery was abolished it was the slave owners, and not the slaves, who received compensation from the government of the day.

Perhaps more important – and never mentioned in the media – is that all the news we get every day and every hour is all about the bankers while presidents, prime ministers and other elected leaders of the world have been reduced to the role of mere commentators who are expected to supply taxpayers’ money whenever it is needed to bail out the wealthy.

Indeed, what we are watching is nothing less than the steady transfer of real political power from the polling station to the market and from the ballot to the wallet – reversing the democratic gains we have made over the last century when we were able, increasingly, to use our votes to shape our economic future.

Our 1945 manifesto made that clear in the very next passage following the quote above. This is what it said: “The nation wants food, work and homes. It wants more than that. It wants good food in plenty, useful work for all and comfortable labour-saving homes that take full advantage of the resources of modern science and productive industry.”

That was the policy that swept Labour MPs into power in 1945 and gave this country the National Health Service, the welfare state and a massive house building programme, made possible by elected local authorities who had the resources made available to them by the Treasury.

Now, 63 years later, we are back facing a similar situation and we need to understand why it has happened if we are to see our way forward.

We have been told every day by the media that we should put our faith in the market and that elected governments are the problem and not the answer and, for that reason, should not interfere.

These ideas began to emerge in the political mainstream when Margaret Thatcher came to power and in 1994 “new” Labour adopted them as the basis of its own approach which explains why she once described “new” Labour as her “greatest achievement”.

Trade union rights are now more restricted than they were in 1906, wages have been held down and people have been advised to borrow and spend as an alternative – which explains why the stock market has fallen and locked more and more people into debt, which is a subtle form of slavery itself.

This is why so many people are frightened and frightened people can sometimes be persuaded to seek an answer by identifying an enemy who can be made a scapegoat for failure – as Hitler did when he blamed the Jews, the Communists and the trade unions for the mass unemployment in Germany and set up a fascist dictatorship which led to the Holocaust and war.

Hitler dealt with the unemployed by giving them jobs in the arms factories and the armed forces which led to the Second World War and the massive human cost it caused.

Whatever the left does it must never respond by splintering into a mass of tiny ideological sects forever fighting each other – for that way leads to failure, frustration and defeat.

This is the time for co-operation across the left to tackle the problems that face us on a non-sectarian basis as we have seen in the Stop the War Coalition, the campaigns for trade union rights, civil liberties, pensions, nuclear disarmament, council house building and a fair tax system – all of which require full trade union backing if they are to succeed.

If the economic situation gets worse, as it very well may, we have also to be on the look out for the “coalition” solution which could well be presented to us as the only way that these problems can be tackled, an argument that is being put forward now in America when George Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama rallied round to back the $700 billion bail-out that Wall Street demanded.

That same argument was used by Ramsay MacDonald in 1931 when he formed a National Government which nearly destroyed the Labour Party in the general election when only 51 Labour MPs survived and, without the courage of Ernie Bevin and the TUC, it might never have recovered, as it did in 1945.

I hope that the re-appointment of Peter Mandelson to the Cabinet in the latest reshuffle does not lead to that idea being re-floated as the best way to see us through the crisis for that could be the end of democracy – allowing the European Commission to prevent the re-emergence of public ownership and control of the banks which many will now see as the best way forward.

For the first time in my life, the public are to the left of a Labour government and common sense points us in a direction quite different from the one we have been following since 1979 when Thatcher set out to destroy the trade unions, cripple local authorities and privatise our public assets which we need now more than ever.

In 1945, the nation realised that the problems of peace required the same intensity of commitment as the problems of war.

And with the disastrous experience of Iraq and Afghanistan that argument, too, is beginning to register again and people are asking why we waste so much money on those illegal, brutal and unwinnable wars and on new nuclear weapons when people are losing their jobs and facing repossession of their homes.

The case for peace and socialism is intensely practical and, put like that, will command wide public and electoral support as it did then, in 1945, and could again do now.

Oppose the War Drive Against Iran

Ellie Keen — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:06:32 +0000

The war in Iraq has become so familiar that apart from a few news reports about suicide bombers and roadside explosions there is very little serious discussion about what can be done, apart from the ongoing campaign for British forces to withdraw, put forward by the peace movement here and in the US.

But the real danger arises from the growing risk that the outgoing Bush administration in cooperation with Israel may decide to attack Iran. Indeed a few weeks ago Israel did bomb a Syrian installation in direct breach of international law but which has hardly featured in the news.

The excuse for this possible war is that the US and Israel believe that Iran may be developing its nuclear power programme with the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons and this is held in Washington, London and Jerusalem to be completely unacceptable.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has responsibility under the Non-Proliferation Treaty for supervising nuclear establishments have made it clear that there is no indication whatsoever that this is true and ElBaradei, who heads the IAEA, is finding himself sidelined in the way that Hans Blix was sidelined when he reported that there was no evidence of mass destruction in Iraq, just before the war began.

Under the NPT every country is entitled to acquire nuclear power and indeed when I visited Tehran as Secretary of State for Energy in 1976 on an official visit to the Shah the policy of the then US government was to persuade the Shah to introduce nuclear power.

It is now becoming increasingly clear that if the US stiffens its severe sanctions to the point where it might be demanding military action, China and Russia would vote against. Just as in 2003 there were big power vetoes on the Security Council, which meant that when the US and Britain invaded Iraq, it was in breach of the Charter and an illegal war.

The aggressive statements made by Cheney, Bush and Olmert and even the more moderate statements by Senator Hillary Clinton that she would not rule out the use of military power are increasingly pointing to an attack between now and the end of the Bush presidency next year.

What is planned is a series of air raids on Iranian nuclear sites and there is even a hint that nuclear weapons might be used in these attacks although this has never been established.

The US would regard this as sufficient and, anyway, they do not have enough troops to invade Iran because their military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan leave the US military so heavily overstretched that another land campaign would not be possible.

But even without an invasion, the bombing of Iran would create a massive new crisis in the middle east, particularly if Israel was involved and it would stimulate a new wave of bitter anger in the Muslim world directed primarily against the US and Israel, and whichever countries supported them.

Quite apart from these dangers, the hypocrisy of US and Israeli policies is staggering. Israel, which is not even a signatory of the NPT, has a massive nuclear armoury of its own and the US finances that military programme and has done from the beginning.

There is also the case of Pakistan which did develop its own nuclear programme, has enjoyed full US military support and is now governed by Musharraf who has installed himself in power by the use of emergency laws.

The international peace movement and the labour movement in Britain must address themselves urgently to this danger and make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances whatsoever would we support a war against Iran. We must also seek categorical assurances from our government that it would oppose it in every way it could, at the UN and elsewhere.

The Post Office Test

JamieSW — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:54:15 +0000

Let us be absolutely clear. The Post Office is being systematically and deliberately destroyed. And the British government is standing by and letting it happen.

It was Charles II who established the General Post Office in 1660, and Rowland Hill who introduced the penny stamp (1840) and recognised that the cost of handling mail was not the distance the letters travelled but the number of times they were handled. The postal service in the 19th century was the equivalent of the internet. Local post offices were a public service too: in the early days, if you paid a shilling the postmistress would write a letter for you and explain how to deal with social security forms.

But now this great service is being challenged. First by the EU, which has insisted on liberalisation and demanded competition. If there were real competition, however, the competitors would have to put up their own blue pillar boxes, employ postal staff and open post offices, deliver to the most outlying areas at the same price, and deliver braille materials, free, for the blind.

Of course none of that is happening, and the “competitors” are being allowed to pass on their bulk post for the Royal Mail to deliver and being charged less than the 34p we pay for a stamp, thus being subsidised by the Post Office. Post office closures are going on apace and postal workers are threatened with the sack, a worsening of conditions, and the prospect of a reduced pension. Meanwhile the government does nothing, and that is why members of the Communication Workers’ Union are striking.

In the old days the postmaster general was answerable to the Commons, with parliamentary questions about deliveries. It was not a very good system because the Treasury collected the money for stamps sold and gave the Post Office a grant to run the service – which is why I, in my then position in that role, recommended it be turned into a public corporation. It was obvious it had to change and expand, which is why we set up the National Data Processing Service, the Giro, which was a public bank run through the Post Office and used its vans in the countryside as buses. The Giro was sold off by Margaret Thatcher, and the Post Office is now concreted in to the mechanical function of delivering mail, while urgent communications now go by electronic means.

The CWU knows better than most the need for change, but in its dealings with this management its members are back to the master-servant relationship that prevailed in industry 200 years ago. If they take action that is “unofficial” they risk being taken to court under Thatcher’s anti-union legislation, which New Labour promised to repeal but never did – and I would love to see stronger support for them from all unions, many of which face similar problems.

We are told the Post Office loses money – but so do the police, and if we are going to follow this neoliberal doctrine, what about establishing low-cost private police forces, to challenge the “police monopoly”? This is a big, big issue, and it is a test of our society as to whether we are to organise everything to make a profit, or see that needs are met.

If the Post Office is to be run on a competitive basis, it could charge pounds and not pennies to deliver in the Orkneys and Shetlands, and make those who depend on braille pay the huge charges that the heavy material would attract on a commercial basis.

And if Digby Jones, the former director general of the CBI, can work with the government, what about asking Brendan Barber from the TUC to be postmaster general in New Labour’s big tent, which now appears to include Thatcher herself?

The Legacy of Iraq

Tim Holmes — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:55:46 +0000

Tony Blair’s legacy will forever be his decision to take orders from President Bush, invading Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting Israel in its oppression of the Palestinians and its attack on the Lebanon, combined with threats against Iran for its desire to develop nuclear power.

As a direct result, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died, mainly civilians including many women and children. Their memory will remain and feed hatred amongst the people of the Middle East and Muslims across the world that could poison the prospects for peace for years to come.

In this country the memory of the lies told to get us into the war, the secret negotiations that took place in Washington beforehand, the erosion of civil liberties and the Islamophobia whipped up to justify what was being done, will also make things hard in many communities. The discrediting of New Labour could affect the outcome of the next election.

All this has to be understood if we are to make sense of the decisions that are now needed to extricate ourselves from wars that were illegal, immoral and are all unwinnable — facts that are becoming as clear to the US voters as they are to our own electors here.

Although the United Nations has many defects and needs reform, it remains our best hope for a world of peace at a time when chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are spreading and could endanger the human race, and our obligations to the Charter must remain central in our foreign policy. Our strategy must be to plan for a complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever policy is adopted by the White House, knowing that even Bush could not remain there without our support. This withdrawal will take some time given the number of troops and bases that will have to be evacuated.

The US’ retention of permanent bases — which is what Bush wants — is simply not acceptable and Britain should insist on complete withdrawal. It is here that the UN could have some part to play. If a multinational force made up of soldiers from the Muslim world was necessary, that could best be negotiated through the UN itself and the funding should come from those countries that did the damage, by way of compensation.

Threats by the US or Israel to attack Iran must be stopped. Such an escalation of violence could trigger a world war, and the hypocrisy of Israel with its own massive armoury of nuclear weapons taking part in such an operation beggars belief. Indeed the central problem in the Middle East is Israel, and the treatment of the Palestinians, with the encroachment of illegal settlements in the West Bank, the denial of rights to the Palestinian refugees to return and the occupation of east Jerusalem. These, combined with the erection of an illegal wall, are major factors in the destabilisation of the region. There will never be peace until Israel withdraws to its internationally agreed borders, restoring the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, the Golan Heights to Syria and the She’ba Farms to the Lebanon, and, were it feasible, to absorb both Israel and Iran into a nuclear-free zone.

To tackle these issues in a new way will not be easy, but a start must be made at once by indicating clearly and publicly that our future policy will be based upon these ideas, combined by an international campaign to win support which would also attract a lot — maybe a majority — of Americans who are sick of seeing their soldiers coming home in coffins or desperately wounded. But such a policy would inevitably involve a major breach with President Bush and there would be consequences for any government that dared to do at — not least that Britain is dependent on US technology for the Trident programme.

If we alienated the White House, we might expect that that support would be withdrawn, which for many inside and outside, the Labour Party would be welcome news.

These are some of the reasons why Iraq and the Middle East must be near the very top of the political agenda as the new prime minister takes office, forms his government and presents himself to the public seeking support now and in the general election due in two years’ time.

Lord's Reform

Alex Doherty — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:43:35 +0000

The overwhelming Commons vote for a fully elected second chamber marks a turning point in our constitutional history – and how relevant that history is, even today. When the Lords came into being, in the 14th century, it was made up of rich powerful landowners whom the king needed to win over to support the laws he wanted enacted. They were all appointed for life – hereditary peers came later – so that the most recent reforms, which reverted to life peerages, were a throwback to those early days.

The bishops were added when Henry VIII nationalised the Church of England. They were an addition to his power: each bishop, even today, is required to do homage on appointment, declaring the Queen “the only supreme governor of this your realm, in spiritual and ecclesiastical things as well as in temporal” – and even today they are appointed by the prime minister who could, nowadays, be a Jew, Muslim or atheist.
Indeed, the Lords has survived because it remains the greatest source of patronage available to the prime minister. And all prime ministers have used it to buttress their own power, and some as a means of raising money, a practice at which Lloyd George excelled.

It took more than 600 years – from the Model Parliament of 1295 to the abolition of the business and university votes in 1948 – to establish a fully elected House of Commons, based on one person one vote. Why then this sudden conversion by the Commons? It comes after so many botched attempts, the most recent one being the defeat by MPs of all the options put to them four years ago.

The hereditary system has long been discredited. No one would go for treatment to a man who claimed that his father was a very good dentist, or dare to fly in an aeroplane flown by someone whose only qualification was that his grandfather had flown Spitfires in the Battle of Britain.

The cash for honours inquiry, whatever its outcome, has finally undermined any remaining public trust in the integrity of prime ministerial patronage, and the proposed substitution of an appointments committee to do the job for him has not inspired any confidence.

Maybe the claim that the UK is fighting to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan has inspired the thought that perhaps the time has come to win democracy here too. The fact that the decisions on Lords reform were reached as a result of “free votes”, without the guidance of the whips, gives special authority to the result. It should point towards far more occasions when decisions are reached in that way.

Among the members of the present Lords who will have to go if the law is changed will be three members of the cabinet: Lord Falconer, Lord Goldsmith and Lady Amos.

Given this decision, the government must open talks with all the political parties to work out the details in preparation for a white paper and a bill for introduction when the new session opens in the autumn. There will need to be provision for the election of the new senate, as it should be called, setting out the constituencies – if that way is chosen – the timing of the election, and of course the powers the upper house will have in relation to the Commons, which must have the final say.

Much has been made of the danger of two chambers that might be in conflict. But when you consider the control that the unelected Brussels commission, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all exercise over government, this is not a factor. One can imagine a senate with special powers of scrutiny over the reserved powers that have not been transferred to the Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly, and it might even be possible to imagine a way that the West Lothian question could be referred to it.

Undoubtedly senate committees could and should examine and cross-examine those who now exercise great power granted to them by ministers, including political advisers and appointees who are completely unaccountable to the public.

In arguing for this major constitutional reform, no one should interpret it as a personal attack on those who have worked hard and conscientiously in the present Lords, and who have made an impact in securing changes, as for example in some anti-terrorism legislation – for they have done a good job, and some might want to stand in a senate election.

When the reform bill is presented to the Commons, it must be assumed that MPs will vote for it; but, given its radical nature, the present Lords might decide to reject it and we have to consider how to deal with that possibility.

It would be possible to pass the reform bill under the Parliament Act and see it enacted before the next general election, but there is an alternative that would be more decisive: a referendum comparable to the one which established the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly. It could be argued that this would be desirable to secure a public debate, and necessary to win public support.

If all this goes through I might be tempted to stand myself – so I could devote even more time to politics.

Tony Benn was first elected as a Labour MP in 1950 and retired in 2001; he renounced his hereditary peerage in 1963 tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk

Atomic Hypocrisy

Alex Doherty — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:14:07 +0000

Britain has played a leading role in the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear programme and the risk that it might lead to the development of an atomic bomb, and may well seek to take the matter to the UN security council.
Given that the prime minister himself is determined to upgrade Trident and appears to be committed to a new series of nuclear power stations, his position as the defender of the non-proliferation treaty is not very credible, and if we are to understand the depth of western hypocrisy on this question we should look back at the history, which has been conveniently forgotten.

Thirty years ago, on January 7 1976, as secretary of state for energy I went for a long discussion with the Shah in his palace in Tehran, and much of the time was spent discussing the plans he had to develop a major nuclear-power programme in Iran.
I had been well briefed on his proposals by Dr Akbar Etemad of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, who had told me that he intended to build a 24 megawatt capacity by 1994, which was bigger than the programme Britain itself had at that time, and he expressed an interest in the centrifuges that are essential for reprocessing, while assuring me that he was anxious to avoid nuclear proliferation. My diary covering my talk to the Shah about the sources of his nuclear technology reveals that he told me that he was “getting it from the French and the Germans and might even get it from the Soviets – and why not?”

It was only a year later that Dr Walter Marshall of the Atomic Energy Authority, my own adviser, announced that he was also the Shah’s adviser on nuclear policy, and had prepared a scheme under which the Shah would order the Westinghouse pressurised-water reactor (PWR) if Britain would do the same, and that Iran was prepared to put up the money – a plan that I was determined to fight. It was actually being suggested as part of this deal that Iran would become a 50% owner of our nuclear industry for the purpose of building the PWRs.

Marshall had, without any authority from me, apparently suggested that Britain abandon our advanced gas cooled reactors and order up to 20 PWRs, and I formed the impression that he took the view, as many in the nuclear industry did, that proliferation was inevitable and there was not much you could do about it. Indeed he almost said as much.

For all these reasons I was totally opposed to this whole idea, and what was most worrying to me was the virtual certainty that it would lead to nuclear proliferation and the development of atomic weapons by Iran. It was never approved. Sir Jack Rampton, my permanent secretary, who seemed to be as keen as Marshall on the adoption of the PWR, and who was directly consulted by the prime minister, was clearly pressing this approach, and Jim Callaghan himself wanted me to go along with it.

At a cabinet committee meeting held on May 4 1977, Jim, while expressing his concern about nuclear proliferation, argued that we should not reject the Iranian approach since he thought that either the Germans or the French would take it up.

An added complication arose when it turned out that since nuclear power was, under Euratom, seen by the Foreign Office as being within the legal competence of the European commission, the British government might be unable to take its own view.

Most astonishing of all, in the light of the present discussions, is that the problem of Iran developing such a huge nuclear capacity caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help.

There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel’s huge nuclear armoury, which is itself a breach of the non-proliferation treaty.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, were recently awarded the Nobel peace prize for their work on non-proliferation, but since that treaty provided that the nuclear-weapons states should negotiate their own disarmament agreement, which has not happened, it is clear that for them the NPT does not matter.

Now there is a proposal to report Iran to the UN and ElBaradei could find himself in the same position as was Hans Blix, the Iraq arms inspector who was used by Washington for its own purposes, with the US seeking a UN resolution to condemn Iran and then, if that fails, acting unilaterally using force, as in Iraq.

If the problems now being discussed can be dealt with in a practical way through the IAEA, there is a real chance of an agreed solution, and that is what we should be demanding since neither Bush nor Blair is in a position to take a high moral line.

As I am strongly opposed to nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power, these comments should not be taken as endorsing what Iran is doing; but Britain’s past nuclear links with Iran should encourage us to be very cautious and oppose those whose arguments could be presented as justifying a case for war, which cannot be justified.

Tony Benn was the secretary of state for energy from 1975-79

tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk

Not Apathy, but Anger

Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:14:17 +0000

General election campaigns have degenerated into an exchange of personal abuse which puts most people off; a flurry of election promises marketed by high-pressure salesmen; and the usual solemn warnings about apathy – as if the real problems in Britain were caused by the inactivity of the people, rather than the activity of the parliamentarians.

Apathy has its advantages for the political class – by which I mean the party leaders, their spin doctors and their embedded correspondents in the media, who live in the Westminster village and rarely seem to get out to listen to what is being said.

It encourages ministers to do what they like on the grounds that the public are not really interested. For the same reason, it entitles the media to dumb down their coverage as if that is the only way to win attention. This suggests that those at the top have little confidence in people’s intelligence.

My own experience, four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.

That is why we have seen so many popular movements growing up which provide a real outlet for those who no longer feel connected to the parliamentary process and its media entourage. The result is that real politics increasingly focuses on the issues of peace, the environment, civil liberties, pensions, student debt, and the rights of women and trade unions, whose activists get far less coverage than the personalities in the major parties, and are often described as troublemakers or rebels.

The big peace demonstration this Saturday in Trafalgar Square will be a test case. If past practice is followed, the only media interest will be if there is a scuffle or an arrest, while the speeches made from the plinth will be completely ignored.

Meanwhile, even those who voted against detention without trial have been denounced as soft on terrorism. This is despite the fact that one of them was Lord Irvine, whom the prime minister had appointed as lord chancellor, suggesting that New Labour’s election campaign is to be based on fear.

Everyone would do well to remember that polling day belongs to the electors and not to the party machines, for it is the one day in five years when every voter has exactly the same political power as the prime minister, and the media coverage could – and should – focus on that.

Opinion polls which predict the outcome, though they are of interest to the party managers as they plan their campaign strategy, do not help the electors, who want to know what the candidates believe before they cast their vote. What is needed now is for some imaginative polling organisation to send a questionnaire to all candidates with, say, 20 key questions and a commitment to publish their answers, nationally and in their own constituencies, making it clear that if they decline to answer, that refusal will also be made public.

It would not be hard to draft the most relevant questions since, before we vote, we are entitled to know the attitude of all our local candidates towards the war, the UN, nuclear weapons, policies to end third world poverty, the EU constitution, education, the environment, student fees, privatisation, means tests for pensioners, civil liberties, taxation, trade union rights, council house building, and other key questions.

Democracy is about representation, but many people now feel that we are being managed all the time. It may be that the real legacy of New Labour will be the erosion of democratic rights, with our conference disregarded, parliament taken for granted and the cabinet told what has been already decided by the prime minister and his coterie of personal advisers – like Lord Birt, who has not been elected, cannot be questioned and is in no way accountable.

This is why so many people are wondering how it is that a leadership which presented itself as being so moderate could have launched us into four wars, abolished Magna Carta, and banned demonstrations in Parliament Square under the banner of modernisation.

But none of this should, in any way, discourage us, for historically all progress comes from below, as the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists and the Suffragettes came to realise. So too did the “terrorists” we imprisoned for their role in the colonial liberation struggle, who ended up having tea with the Queen as heads of Commonwealth countries.

For the first time in my life public opinion is well to the left of a Labour government and that is why – at nearly 80 – I am so optimistic.

Review - The Vote

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:05:10 +0000

Paul Foot was throughout his life a passionate fighter for freedom, justice, internationalism, socialism and democracy. Though his death has silenced his voice, his ideas and his commitment are still available to us through the printed word and the recording of his speeches. The Vote, his best, most scholarly and readable book will, I believe, be remembered as his most influential. It looks at the struggles we had to win our rights, re-assesses the struggle to maintain them and looks forward.

Paul had a wonderful sense of history and he writes in a way that makes it all live again. We can understand what these old battles were about, why they mattered and why they matter still.

He starts with the famous debates that took place in Putney Church in 1647 between the Cromwellian grandees and the radical Levellers. They read with a resonance that links us directly to the same arguments that now take place between governments and big corporations on the one hand and the people on the other.

He goes on to explore the faltering progress made in the 19th century that was only sustained by the Chartists, the suffragettes, the labour movement and the socialists who demanded the right to be represented in the House of Commons as the franchise became extended.

Pauls account of this dramatic story is meticulous in its detail, allowing us to understand what a massive change in our system of government was involved by extending the vote. The powers that be conceded defeat only when they realised the strength of the popular movement that was demanding the vote.

The second part of the book deals with the way in which the progress made has been undermined by a series of factors. These include the capitulation of the social democrats to the onslaught from the growing power of capital, which was quick to see how it could recover the ground it had lost when the pressure on it eased.

He takes us through the industrial struggles of the 1920s and explains the differences of opinion, analysis and tactics that opened up inside the labour movement and the Labour Party, which still exist today.

Paul moves on to the classic betrayal by Ramsey MacDonald when he capitulated to the bankers in 1931 and formed a coalition with the Tories and Liberals. In the general election he then called, Labour was reduced to a mere 50 MPs. This ushered in the grim 1930s with slump, fascism, rearmament and war.

It is impossible in a review to do justice to the beautifully documented account that Paul has provided of the machinations of the right wing in the Labour Party to sidetrack the more radical and relevant campaigns that the left was seeking to develop.

Any serious student would do well to read and re-read it. I know of no better record of those years from a socialist perspective.

Paul goes on to explore the election of a left wing government in 1945. This government was demoralised by Cold War propaganda and the rising confidence of international business in its ongoing war against the interests of labour, which it had been elected to represent.

The last part helps us to understand the counter-revolution launched by Mrs Thatcher and the conversion of New Labour to its philosophy.

This important book is a major contribution to an understanding of British politics and the way it developed.

It gives us a new perspective for the future, to which we will often need to turn if we are to make sense of what is happening and rebuild the democracy to which Paul was so passionately committed.