Free Speech – Preserving the right to express and share opinions


We share these concerns expressed, of information of individual members being suspended, for what would seem to be expressing personal opinions, or sharing others, and look upon the Labour Party to preserve the right of free expression.  Please see below the text of a motion from Henley BLP and reasons for their support of the motion.

(Permission to post given from member of Henley BLP:)


This branch believes that there should be no infringement on the rights of free speech and free criticism within the Labour Party. The thousands of suspensions of Labour members during the 2016 leadership election, based often on one-off comments on social media, unsubstantiated claims or association with left wing organisations, appears to have been politically motivated.

This process was an affront to democracy and this CLP condemns the entire process. Legitimate grievances should be dealt with according to the principles of fairness, with suspension as a last resort not a primary action. We demand the reinstatement of all those still suspended without a hearing.

Regarding expulsions, there should be no ban on memberships of campaigns or organisations as long as they are not campaigning against the election of a Labour government or Labour councils.
The only acceptable political limitation on membership of the Party, other than the exclusion of proscribed organisations, is that people who join or are members or supporters, commit to support Labour candidates in future elections. Earlier electoral activity is of no importance.

We call on the CLP to welcome in any supporter and member prepared to make such a commitment.

We call on the National Executive Committee to ensure that these principles are reflected in the membership application process, so that all party units will welcome in any supporter and member prepared to make such a commitment.

We demand the Party implement the proposals in the Chakrabarti report.


I believe that if there is to be any real unity in the Labour Party, we must have transparency, fairness and people must be free to express their opinions freely, without fear of reprisals.

In the run up to the election thousands of members were purged; the figure is now given as 182,000.

The entire Brighton and Hove District CLP were suspended – the Labour Party’s biggest CLP with 6,000 members – days after a vote that installed officers supportive of Jeremy Corbyn in key posts. The entire Wallasey CLP, was also suspended after they threatened to pass a vote of no confidence in Angela Eagle when she was nominated as a candidate in the leadership election.

Others have had the most tenuous accusations to justify their suspensions: retweeting a tweet from the Green Party in 2013; posting a tweet supporting a rock band, the ‘ Foo Fighters’; unsubstantiated accusations of ‘ abuse’ with no details of rights to appeal, or pending investigations.

The Labour Party have gone through members’ Facebook and Twitter accounts for periods up to three years back, in order to dredge up treasons to purge them, contravening their democratic and human right to free speech, a right of privacy and due process.
Many of the purged have had no reasons given to them at all, such as two bed ridden grannies with terminal cancer who have participated in no political activity whatsoever. We have no idea how many conference delegates were suspended.

What most of the purged have in common is that they supported Jeremy Corbyn.

Anti-Corbyn supporters have not been purged in the same way despite a tide of insults, including one who described Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters as Nazi Storm Troopers.

Given the timing it is reasonable to assume, it was intended to reduce Corbyn’s mandate.

Many of those who have been suspended remain distressed. One woman claims to have developed depression. Others are afraid to say what they want on social media, for fear that their accounts will be snooped and things will be used against them – because the purge continues.

Last week Labour suspended the black Jewish vice-chair of Momentum, Jackie Walker, after she asked questions deemed inappropriate.

People must be free to express their opinions freely in the Labour Party. There must due process and the right of appeal. These things are natural justice and the Labour Party, must be seen to enact them. The Labour Party has always been a broad church and we must not conduct a witch hunt of our members or silence people by exclusion and force.

Housing in Crisis : A Clear Failure of Free Market Policy


Housing in Crisis:

By Henry Stewart : @happyhenry

If councils had continued to build homes at the rate they did from 1974 to 1979, we would by 2014 have had 4.1 million extra dwellings.

That fact perhaps on its own explains the current housing crisis. Now it might not have been possible to build that many homes. Perhaps, due to available land, they would only have built half that, or a quarter of that, number. But even just a quarter would have meant we would not have the same level of housing shortage or, probably, prices as unaffordable as we face today.

The decision to stop local authorities building houses was a political one, taken by the government of Margaret Thatcher. It was based on a belief in the market. Surely, the argument went, if the housing market was not “crowded out” by public construction then the free market would respond and provide the homes that were needed.

Restrictions on council house building were not only continued by her successors, but further tightened. The average 32,000 council houses built each year from 1979 to 1990 was well down on Labour’s 152,000 from 1974-79. However under John Major it fell to an average 3,500 from 1990 to 1997. Under Tony Blair, from 1997 to 2007, just 357 council homes were built each year on average.



Local authority Housing Association Private Total
Labour, 1974-79 151,678 21,978 144,240 295,920
Thatcher, 1980-90 31,905 14,684 166,417 211,147
Major, 1990-97 3,584 33,052 147,114 183,323
Blair, 1997-07 357 23,712 180,657 202,738
Brown, 2007-10 680 29,847 123,437 153,963
Cameron, 2010-14 2,830 27,158 106,345 140,335

Source: Table 208 House building: permanent dwellings started, by tenure¹ and country2


The number of dwellings built by housing associations during Blair’s years in office also fell, to 10,000 less per year than under Major. We know from Nick Clegg’s memoirs that, for Cameron and Osborne, there were clear political reasons not to increase social housing. He remembers one of them saying “I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters”


Why Labour did remove the ban on councils building more homes is more of a mystery. Owen Jones has said that he once asked Hazel Blears, who had been Secretary of State for Local Government, why Labour did not ensure more public housing was built. The reply: “None of us knew anybody in social housing so we weren’t aware of the scale of the problem.”

Private sector house building did rise. But the 22,000 extra houses built each year from 1979 to 1990 did not come near to making up for the 120,000 annual shortfall in council houses. Neither was a shift made to housing associations, which built an average 7,000 homes a year less during the Thatcher years than under the previous Labour government.

Free market advocates would probably claim that the failure of the private sector to bridge the gap was down to market flaws, such as a shortage of land and planning restrictions. However a successful free market creates a balance of supply and demand, but there is no reason to suggest it will meet a public need for affordable housing.

Faced with a choice between using a piece of land for a £20 million mansion or 90 affordable homes at £200,000 each, it is always going to be the mansion that is more profitable. That is an extreme example. But the choice between 45 expensive home or 90 affordable ones is probably more common. It is clear that, without planning intervention, private developers will tend to build for the more affluent part of the market.

“Subsidised” housing? Or efficient housing?

David Cameron liked to describe social housing as “subsidised”, suggesting that the lower prices faced by council or housing association tenants was due to public subsidy. However social housing in the UK receives no such subsidy.

Cameron’s description was a recognition that social housing provides more affordable homes. It is also a recognition that the public sector can provide homes, without subsidy, at a better price (and often better quality) than the private sector. It is simply more efficiently provided housing.

The housing sector is a clear example that the free market cannot provide the solutions to all our public needs and indeed that it is often the public sector that can do so more efficiently and at lower cost.

Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to build 100,000 council house a year if elected. It does seem to be a policy that makes simple sense. It does not even need an increase in central government expenditure or in taxation, but only a removal of the restrictions on local authorities securing loans to build homes.

During the 2015 election the Green Party leader had difficulty explaining where the money would come from for public house building. Evan Davis on Newsnight explained it very simply: all that is needed is for councils to borrow the money on the public bond markets, and then to to use the resulting rent to pay both the loans and the interest. No extra public expenditure is required.

The housing crisis is a problem created by political ideology being put ahead of what was society needs. But it is also a problem that can start to be solved very easily by a return to public housing.



What makes a Leader?



by Rhys Jolley previously published here

“Jeremy Corbyn is not a leader”, the cry goes out, “he’ll destroy the Labour Party. Replace him!” Media pundits and plants repeat this mantra daily. Even the left leaning Mirror blasted out its front page demand “for the sake of your party and for the sake of your country, Go now!” It is one thing to have to face up to your opposition, but another level of challenge altogether when your supposed friends turn on you so viciously.

There are many qualities a leader needs: intelligence, toughness, determination, clear objectives and vision. But a leader with responsibility for the lives and welfare of an entire nation must also demonstrate exceptional moral fibre, standing up for clearly stated principles, even when under sustained attack from opponents, with dignity. That rather sounds like Jeremy to me.

Owen Smith, says all the things expected of a challenger, but little is new. An end to austerity and the Tory nationalisation of private debt. “That’s the kind of revolution I’ll deliver,“ he passionately declares. Fine words, but will he have the guts to do what is necessary to achieve it should he be given the chance? Such courage doesn’t come easily.

The great leaders of the past had to go through decades of preparation. Mahatma Ghandi underwent an extended initiation in South Africa where he first employed nonviolent civil disobedience as an expatriate lawyer involved in the resident Indian community’s struggle for civil rights. He was imprisoned many times. On returning home, he was called to stand up to the full force of the British Raj. He and his small army of ordinary people were able to face them down because he had honed the necessary moral stature and did not budge from his objective.

The Labour Party faces an enemy with an incredible determination to destroy what is left of the socialist structure in this country for its own ends. Already the multi-national corporate agenda has reached deeply into the fabric of our society with its network of CEO’s quietly strengthening their hold on the levers of power by employing devious and complex tactics while claiming the best of intentions. They enable the notorious 1% to profit from these hard times, promoting austerity, though not for themselves, of course, while herding the sick and the disabled to their deaths from neglect. Over 50% of the wealth of this country is seemingly not enough for them. They want it all and are willing to engineer the destruction of the much loved NHS and bring the profit motive into our education system by economic sleight of hand. The Tory party and many of its elected politicians are firmly in their pocket.

David Cameron’s “Big Society” followed Tony Blair’s “Third Way” into oblivion. The country is more unequal then when they began. Theresa May recently said that she will bring about “a fairer society”, but unless she is willing to stand up to this hidden enemy, her efforts will be largely cosmetic. Equal rights for women is certainly a passion of hers, but there will be no fundamental change to the other basic inequalities. Her corporate paymasters won’t allow it.

The right wing press did direct some moral outrage at the bankers, but it was short-lived and little changed. They are still raking in their millions. The current scapegoat, Philip Green, is only one very visible and especially greedy example of his ilk. He broke no laws, so why have the laws not been changed? Something very easy to do, I would have thought. Many big multi-nationals pay little tax. Is Mrs May racing to close the loopholes. I don’t see it.

So, it is up to Labour to push for the changes that will bring about Owen Smith’s equally lofty vision of a ‘more equal society’. But does he actually know what it will require? A cleansing of the corporate lobbyists who have such a hold behind the scenes on the philosophy and actions of so many in Westminster, for one thing.

Donnachadh McCarthy’s excellent book, “The Prostitute State” clearly shows the extent to which many in the Labour Party have also been corrupted, through their directorships and other links to the companies they are there to regulate, gradually watering down the principles that Labour was set up to promote.

A true leader cannot be bought. That’s Jeremy Corbyn again. His earnest challenger has not yet shown any resilience and courageous action in exposing the mechanisms behind the corruption embedded deep within our political and financial systems. You can’t change what you don’t entirely understand.

To become a true leader, Owen needs to go through his personal baptism of fire, requiring him to withstand ridicule and the inevitable personal attacks that will start when the establishment bigwigs see that he is a serious threat to their power base. Until then, he will cave in to the very first challenge from those ruthless corporates and water down his resolve in crucial ways.

So, Owen, I implore you, ‘for the sake of your party and for the sake of your country, withdraw now!’ and do your advanced moral endurance training. Generalities are not enough. Ideas are two a penny. Go onto the front line of the revolution you say you want to lead, and forensically expose the neoliberal agenda with redistributive policies that will be gunned down by the right wing press. Show them that you cannot be swayed by their threats or their bribery. Earn your stripes and then we may embrace you as our leader.

Jeremy has already proven he has what it takes to shepherd the Labour party into the next phase of its mission to achieve a much more balanced and integrated society. He should be wholeheartedly supported.




A Daring Prediction: New Labour is Finished


 A Daring Prediction “New Labour is Finished”

By Martin Odoni:

Previously Published here:  The Great Critique

I am reminded of Genady Yenaev.

If that name is unfamiliar to you, twenty-five years ago, during the dying months of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, President Mikhail Gorbachev was briefly overthrown in a coup, or ‘putsch’, by hardline Communists. Yenaev was their leader, and he was unhappy with Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika/Glasnost‘ reform programs. The putsch lasted days, but eventually, when the Red Army refused to attack its own citizens, Yenaev and his colleagues backed down and Gorbachev was restored to the Presidency. It was one of the most foolish, ill-judged attempts to topple a political leader since the brief restoration of Henry VI of England at the expense of Edward IV in 1470. Yenaev’s failed attempt to maintain the Soviet Union pre-dated its demise by all of four months; the Hammer & Sickle flag was lowered for the final time on Christmas Day that year, and the coup was what started the countdown to the empire unravelling.

This week, the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party have attempted their own putsch against their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and it has proven as foolish and self-destructive. The whole fiasco has been a speculative ‘hail-mary‘, chiefly because it has been almost entirely reliant on that most undependable of weapons – hope. Yes, their attack has included all the classic dirty tricks and intricate co-ordination with overly-helpful media who are gasping to curtail any resurgence of the real Left. But in the end, the whole strategy of the coup has hinged almost completely on the hope that Corbyn would simply be the first to blink. For the ‘Red Tories’, the hope was that because Corbyn is an honourable, decent, unaggressive man, that must mean he is a wimp. If he is a wimp, they could simply bully him into resigning. Right?

But decency and being a wimp are two very different traits. Given all the character assassination Corbyn has had to endure throughout a career in the House of Commons for thirty-three years, and especially over the last twelve months, this assumption about him seems laughably simple-minded. Having soaked up relentless, uncivilised pressure for half a lifetime, and still come out of it the same person, Corbyn has become as tough a politician as they come. He has shrugged off so many insults, so many blatant lies about his character, so much intimidation, and still he maintains an air of cool, patient dignity, honesty, graciousness and down-to-Earth good manners. To resist so much unfair provocation and hardly ever lose his temper is a quality that I can only envy. Having been in politics for so long, Corbyn will also have seen every dirty trick ever played, and he was always going to be ready and waiting for them. Sure enough, he had contingencies in place against the coup, including having a new Shadow Cabinet assembled before the stream of resignations was even halfway through. He was never just going to crumble and submit.

The ‘strategy’ of the coup throughout has been feeble and basic, relying on bullying and then hoping everything responds and pans out in a particular way. The minds behind the coup have given so little thought to the ‘what-ifs’ that there were no contingencies in place for anything. No one asked, for instance, “What if the national support sticks with Corbyn?” or “What if Corbyn refuses to blink?” And in behaving so deceitfully and treacherously, they have damaged, perhaps permanently, their own reputations, and to an extent that of their party. Such is the damage that, even if by some Excalibur-like miracle they succeed in dislodging Corbyn,they will still be in a helpless position afterwards. They have sacrificed everything, including their own futures, for the sake of controlling the future. That they did not see the impossible contradiction in that gamble says little for their intelligence.

The Red Tories’ only apparent chance since their failure to yell Corbyn into resigning on Monday has been more blind hope; they hoped to find a way of interpreting the rules so that Corbyn could be barred from standing in a leadership contest. With fewer than fifty MP’s backing him, they hoped they could argue that he did not have enough support to be nominated. But he does not need to be nominated; that rule quite explicitly applies only to challengers, not to the incumbent. The idea of the leader being nominated would make no sense on various levels; if Corbyn is being challenged for the leadership, by definition he has to be given an opportunity to meet that challenge, with or without nominations. Otherwise he is not being challenged but usurped, ergo the challenge cannot proceed. Indeed, his election to the leadership itself is his nomination, in a sense, and if he is no longer wanted, he will simply be voted out anyway.

Of course that is not going to happen, because Corbyn is still wanted by the great majority of Labour members nationwide. It is therefore right that Corbyn should stand. Corbyn will stand. And he will win. All signs are that his support in the Labour Party nationwide is, if anything, even greater than it was in September last year. The ten biggest Trade Unions in the country have all reaffirmed their support for Corbyn, which may even be enough to give him an unassailable lead even before the wider membership have their say.

Angela Eagle seems poised to be the ‘sacrificial lamb’ who will be sent to challenge Corbyn, but that is another self-destructive move; not only is she almost certain to lose to Corbyn, but she could also be put in danger of losing her seat in Parliament. This is because  her own constituency party has come out very publicly in support of Corbyn, explicitly protesting against the coup. It seems that, if Diane Abbott’s insights are the truth, this pattern of MP vs. constituents could have been replicated in Labour seats up and down the country, had the coup not been carried out with such indecent haste that there was no time allowed for discussion.

This speaks of the superiority complex of ‘Blue Labour’, the contempt in which it holds the public. It therefore also speaks of exactly why Tony Blair’s vision of the Labour Party has to die. Its refusal to respect the right of the party’s grassroots to be heard will be mirrored in the wider public, and that constitutes a threat to democracy. Blairism will die too if the Red Tories continue on their present course, for if the constituency parties are alienated from their own candidates, the basic foundation of an MP’s election-to-Parliament will crumble.

There is no way out now. The Parliamentary Labour Party has trapped itself by its refusal to respect its leader’s mandate, and its unwillingness to give him a genuine, fully-supported chance to prove himself. Even Ed Miliband got more of a chance than Corbyn, and most of the party regarded Miliband with professional contempt. They have now presented Corbyn potentially with the authority to purge the party of the neoliberal elite, and to restructure the party so that its MP’s can no longer trigger leadership contests without the approval of the grassroots. The party will probably split into two once more, like it did in the early-1980’s.


What that means for the future is not necessarily the return of a genuine left-wing Government; the breakaway of the Social Democratic Party in 1981 not only split the Labour Party but also split its support, and there is bound to be at least some measure of lost support during the split ahead. The hope is that the rapid groundswell of support Corbyn has drawn can offset that, if it continues to grow, while the Conservative Party are dragged backwards by the equal chaos in their own ranks – a chaos that was not duplicated in the 1980’s. Also, future generations of Labour MPs will doubtless include once more many from the political ‘centre’, or from even further right. Yes, they will have to be watched closely to make sure they do not resurrect the parasite of ‘watered-down Toryism’.

But for now, the back of the current incarnation of ‘watered-down Toryism’ has been broken. With the Chilcot Report just days away, and likely to associate the Blairite philosophy permanently with the spectre of war crimes, the whole brand of neoliberalism-with-a-queasier-conscience will be irredeemably tarnished, as will all current politicians who subscribe to it.

I may regret making this prediction, but I shall say it anyway. New Labour is finished.

See also Think Left: What the Labour Leadership didn’t want us to know