The Point
Last updated: 14 June 2018. sky thinking for an open and diverse left

Visit our Facebook page

Follow us on Twitter


Recent Articles

In Praise of Beethoven

Arthur C Clarke - A Very Modern Odyssey

Tackling Private Landlords

Investigating the Value Form

The Eternal Dark Heart of Empire

If You Build Them, They Will Come

21 big things to make an indy Scotland progressive and post-capitalist ready

Steve Arnott, editorial co-ordinator of The Point online platform, outlines 21 big musts he thinks left progressives of all parties and stripes should get behind for our future indy Scotland.

The pro-independence press and social media have lately been full of different economic and social visions for an indy Scotland. Common Weal have regularly published papers, Business for Scotland published their economic model this week, and the SNP’s own growth commission will report in the next month or so. Of course, it’s perfectly right that everyone lays out their different visions of what an indy Scotland could look like, but within an overall paradigm that getting independence is about giving ourselves CHOICE: the right to choose democratically our own route as an independent nation.

So bearing in mind that indy is about democracy and the normal state of being for a nation, and that’s what unites us all – here’s my sketch of what a left leaning, post-capitalist, socialist Scotland could look like (if we make that choice) after a couple of Parliaments.

So, let's play imagine.

We are in the twenty twenties and Scotland has achieved its independence with an interim constitution in place. Capitalism internationally by this time will almost certainly have had Crash 2 - a loud echo, if not a downright repetition of the great financial crash and recession of 2007 to 2012 - because they never resolved, and, in fact, are incapable of resolving, the underlying issues that caused the first crash in the first place. It is increasingly clear, at least to a growing progressive minority, that capitalism as a socio-economic system no longer represents the future of mankind - if it ever did. An alliance of socialists, anti-capitalists, left-Greens, and left independence supporters is coalescing around the idea that our new indy Scotland can be a shining beacon for a better future internationally, by becoming the world's first post-capitalist ready state.

By post-capitalist ready we mean a state that has created the initial conditions for an organic and ongoing evolution towards a higher level of democracy, society, equality, culture, science and economics than the capitalist mode of life is capable of providing.

What is the progressive and radically transformative program that can get us there?

My shot at it is probably not exhaustive and it’s certainly not meant to be overly prescriptive - though it is meant to be pragmatic and doable as well as principled and transformative. It is one that can dovetail well, I think,  with some of the work and policy suggestions of both the Common Weal and Business for Scotland independence think-tanks. It also serves as a general but adaptable template as to how other countries might seek to achieve such ‘initial condition’ status – including our neighbours elsewhere in these Islands.

It's an ambitious program and clearly one for more than one Parliament. Obviously, a sense of urgency is always contending with our patience and sooner is better. Some of these policies are probably more immediately urgent than others, a few we already partially have and  are in need of perfecting and setting in constitutional stone, but, if we are to do things right and, take people with us, then implementing this program in full over three independence parliaments, say by the mid 2030’s, fifteen years or so years after independence becomes a reality, it would be a huge and lasting achievement. For brevities sake I haven't incluuded things that are already 'in wi' the bricks' of the indy movement, like the removal of Trident nuclear weapons and ongoiong support for  policies we already have, like free tuition, personal care, free prescriptions etc.

• Democratic Public Ownership, using various competing models, of key utilities, key finance, key production and key distribution networks – including energy exploration and supply, banking and finance, public transport, water, and in telecommunications and digital communications, engineering and construction. This would be a program that would have to be implemented over more than one Parliament, in all probability. Part stakes in industries and sectors can be taken initially and then expanded, and costs kept as low as possible using a combination of long term bond schemes and windfall offset financing*.

• Reversal and cancellation of all PPP/PFI schemes on a minimum possible compensation basis and a return of all assets in health, education and elsewhere to full democratic NHS or local authority control

• A democratically elected and accountable Public Ownership Commission to sit in permanent session tasked with reviewing the efficiency and contribution of publicly owned industries to the Common Weal, and with making recommendations to Government on the expansion of public, social and common ownership within the economy.

• The setting up of a bespoke nationalised pharmaceutical and biogenetics company to provide generic and new drugs and gene therapy CRISP(R) based treatments to the Scottish NHS on a not-for-profit basis.

• Abolition of the monarchy and all feudal title and privilege. Creation of a modern democratic republic, with an elected ceremonial Head of State. Scotland's feudal estates and privately owned wild lands to be owned and administered for the Common Weal, either through national public ownership via an expanded and democratised Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish National Trust, or though community ownership and buy out within a regulatory framework that supports common weal practices and aims.

• Community and social enterprise buy-out schemes to be developed and extended to urban areas and farm lands

• The setting up of a sovereign oil and gas fund, with mass democratic oversight and control

• The setting up of a Scottish Public Patenting Fund* to drive new technology research and ensure it contributes to the national Common Weal, financially, technologically, socially and ethically.

• A progressive and redistributive taxation system, and the effective abolition of tax avoidance through a simplified and transparent tax system, to reduce the income gap and maximise tax take for social and productive reinvestment.

• The introduction of a Universal Basic Citizen's Income as of right, to replace large parts of the welfare state, tax credits and, where necessary, part of tax allowances, index linked to inflation and set initially at a level not less than the current higher rate of Employment Support Allowance. Housing benefit to continue to be paid additionally and seperately on the basis of need. To be introduced alongside a legally binding National Living Wage.

• Education, social and health services to be free at the point of need and paid for through general taxation. No private sector queue jumping and privileges for wealthy elites.

• Maximum devolution of democracy though a massive expansion of local democracy. Strategic local authorities to be reduced from 32 to 16 but to be given massively enhanced powers and responsibilities, including powers of fiscal competence to borrow within agreed limits for structural, capital and social investment. Cantons of 8-10,000 electors within each authority to be created, given a percentage of the annual budget to spend, and run by a combination of mass direct democracy, elected councillors and jury type selection by lot.

• Radical reform of local government financing to raise extra money and promote local taxation fairness; scrap the council tax and local business rates and replace with an income based Scottish Service Tax and a Land Value Tax respectively. Give cantons the right to raise local tourist taxes for special projects.

• A huge expansion of quality affordable social housing for rent, to be administered municipally.

• A single fully funded, comprehensive and secular education system, with an end to segregation of Scottish school pupils based on their parents' religion. Educational methodology to cease being a political football - with a permanent Education Commission composed of teachers, university specialists and neuroscientists replacing all current quangos and tasked with ensuring and monitoring the best, empirically verified, age appropriate teaching practice at each stage of education, commensurate with the values of humanity, dignity, excellence and the Common Weal.

• An ongoing expansion of mass direct democracy through the use of referenda and digital voting at national, regional and canton level. An elected Democracy Commission to be elected to oversee the process, and ensure democratic fairness, and factual information availability in all referenda and democratic elections.

• Gender balance at parliamentary and other elected levels of society to be achieved through constitutional electoral pairing* Equality rights – including a woman’s right to choose and basic biogenetic rights – to be included in any Scottish constitution.

• All elected politicians and officials to receive no more than the average income of a skilled professional worker in renumeration, with agreed bonuses for taking on ministerial, portfolio, chair or other additional responsibilities, and fully audited expenses. All elected officials to be recallable from post between elections if impeachable legal proceedings are laid against them, or more than 50% of their electorate signs a legal petition to that effect.

• An elected Technology and Infrastructure Commission, advised by technical and scientific staff, to sit permanently and progress and advise on capital projects and the development of the country's science and technological base, with a view to making Scotland a world leader in technological, science and infrastructure innovation and implementation.

• A renewables/clean energy only domestic energy policy and an ongoing and deep commitment to environmentalism, and meeting Scotland's international moral and legal obligations in combating climate change

• No membership of international institutions that promote neo-liberalism and capitalism, or membership of imperialist or first strike nuclear alliances such as NATO. Scotland to play its full part in solidarity with other nations seeking to become post-capitalist ready, and with working and oppressed people across the globe, to take as full a part as possible in international science and space exploration, and to take its seat in its own right at the United Nations.

(More detail on the idea of a public patenting fund* can be found here, on gender balance and Constitutional Elected Pairing* here and on the idea of windfall offset financing* at )

This article was initially published in a partially different form as part of a part of a larger piece by Steve "Everything you wanted to know about how to get rid of capitalism and replace it with something nicer but were afraid to ask". This can be found in full on The Point magazine homepage or its Big Idea section.

Universal Basic Income: Why the Victorian Tories just won't buy it

UBI might have something going for it, writes Rob Dewar, but we should sound a note of caution. the Tories are almost never going to sign up for it anyway.

As we are all aware, Margaret Thatcher initiated a fundamental shift in Britain’s economy - broadly, from manufacturing to services. (The term “Britain” as used here includes Scotland for historical convenience. The writer is a supporter of Scottish independence). Successive governments, both Labour and Tory, have accelerated this shift. As Britain’s manufacturing base has shrunk, so at the same time economic globalisation has gained ground

Mechanisation of once labour-intensive jobs, and computerization of once skilled jobs, along with Thatcher’s closure of technical colleges and their translation into low-end “universities”, also play a part in the difficulties experienced by many British workers in earning a living today.  So too does the phenomenal increase in part-time, temporary, and zero-hours work. 

The globalised economy pits Britain’s workers not only in manufacturing and industry, but in downstream services also, against far eastern competitors who undercut our markets.

It is of course due to the generally poor working conditions and low living standards for the many that prevail in countries such as India, China and Vietnam, that Britain’s far eastern competitors can undercut her in so many markets: their labour costs, quite simply, are so much lower than ours. 

The Conservative Party would have Britain’s own workers adopt similarly low working and living standards that we might compete with China, Vietnam, etc, in producing goods and services. This is the logical outcome of embracing a global economic system: the lowest common denominator must prevail in the workers’ global race to the bottom.

That it ought not, on moral and ethical grounds, to prevail, is neither here nor there to the Conservatives.  However, it is certainly relevant to those of us who love our compatriots just sufficiently not to wish to see a sizable number of them reduced to becoming desperately underpaid slum-dwellers once again, negating all the advances in working conditions and workers’ pay of the later 19th, and first half of the 20th, centuries. It may be argued that since the late 1950s, no further such advances were made in Britain. It has been downhill ever since for British workers. (Excluding only those members of the working class who benefited under Thatcher from acquiring their council homes at hugely subsidized prices, and who were able thereafter to get onto the residential property ladder: the working class children of these beneficiaries of Thatcherism today mimic the children of the middle class in eagerly awaiting their plump property inheritances).

As long as the United Kingdom remained a member of the EU, there existed a seemingly inexhaustible supply of workers from eastern Europe who were willing to work for low wages. With the UK’s eventual exit from the EU now seeming probable, this supply will dry up. I have come across many apocalyptic stories about entire industries in Scotland that are threatened with collapse for lack of these eastern European workers in the future. Strangely, I have read not one report that suggests that if a business will not or cannot pay a living wage – or pro-rata – it does not deserve to survive. Scotland’s soft fruit will not remain unpicked once her supply of workers from Eastern Europe dries up - if the pickers are paid a decent wage.

We should not blame Britain’s educational systems for unemployment and under-pay. (The corollary is this: let us not assume that better educational systems will overcome unemployment and under-pay). Rather, we should blame economic globalism, which means that there are ever fewer jobs in Britain that pay a genuine living wage. For those workers who are unsuited to attaining advanced vocational qualifications, for those workers who cannot attain advanced vocational qualifications, there remains only work in the horribly inaptly-named "hospitality industry", or in the (retail-dominated) service sector. Living wages are scarce in either of these sectors.

And blame also the new national spirit that prevails in Britain: a spirit of callous disregard for one's compatriots, which means that a great many people in work have been taught to feel scorn for those out of work, and that to derive vicarious delight from persecuting them (along with the sick and the disabled) via successive benefits cuts, is an acceptable, even praiseworthy, attitude. At present, judging from voting patterns, this new national spirit is a little more advanced in England than it is in Scotland – but that could easily change: the Scots are not (contrary to popular Scottish folklore) an intrinsically “nicer” folk than the English. They merely have rather different political priorities. That the percentage of the electorate voting Tory is lower in Scotland than in England, had more to do, during the heyday of the Labour Party in Scotland, with the working class’ loathing for the boss-class, and for capitalist exploitation, and today, has more to do with a sizable percentage (possibly as high as 48%) of the Scots electorate favouring Scottish independence. 

We have eagerly embraced globalism. It is therefore morally incumbent upon us to care for those whom economic globalism has rendered forever unemployable, forever poor, in our own country.

Or we must reject globalism entirely. 

Perhaps we should not after all be looking at decently paid work for the many, rather than only the few, as the answer. Perhaps that is an antiquated concept. Perhaps we can get round the creeping impoverishment of the many that economic globalisation has brought into being in Britain, not through opting out of globalisation, but through advocating the idea of a “universal basic income” which is being increasingly discussed in even the mainstream (ie, neo-liberal) media: whereby everyone of working age is paid, whether in or out of work, the same basic living income by the state. For the capitalist, such a scheme has its appeal: one, it relieves them of “social guilt”; two, it serves to ensure that demand for the products and services they produce continues to exist. (For on present trends, a time is fast approaching when too few people will be left able to afford to pay for what the capitalists produce).  

Given that a majority of the population is not blessed with a creative, entrepreneurial spirit, but prefers to slot into a structured, ready-made working environment, in an ideal world it ought to be possible (as once it was) for those who lack academic skills to earn a genuine living, however modest. However, in a global economy, where more and more unskilled or manual or low-skilled jobs have been relocated to the Far East, it is becoming very much more difficult for the less academically able to earn a genuine living in Britain. (It is also becoming harder for even those with good university degrees to find secure, well paying jobs). The gulf between those who just about manage to survive economically, and those who can no longer survive at all in Britain, may be a tiny one in terms of income – but it is increasingly unbridgeable.

The gulf between the rich and the rest has grown phenomenally wide; indeed, it has never been so wide since the early years of the 20th century. British society is being re-Victorianised. The introduction of a universal basic income that pays everyone a genuine living income, would avoid such a total re-Victorianisation of Britain.

However, the creation of a new Victorian age in Britain, symbolised by the crudest expressions of nationalistic chauvinism, by widespread hardship and poverty, and by a shockingly wide gulf between the incomes of the richest and the poorest, seems precisely what the Tories intend. What, after all, is the point of being filthy rich, if there are not plenty of desperately poor folks around to envy and admire your good fortune?

And THAT is probably why a universal basic income that pays a genuine living income will never be introduced in Britain.     


You can read more of Rob at his personal blog

The Russian Revolution: Is it time for revolutionaries to define the future rather than be defined by our past?

Part of our series commemorating the October Revolution of 1917 and exploring its relevance, this article by Jade Saab challenges a discourse based on orthodox Trotskyist, Leninist, or Stalinist rationalisations of past events,  insisting instead we should look to our present and future.


1917: the dream that never was

Historical milestones are strange things, they give us moments of pause and reflection allowing us to decipher events of the past, assess what, if anything, has changed, and lessons for our future.

When it comes to the struggle for greater democracy – which is ultimately what I view communism to be - not much has changed. Capital and the liberal states that have developed out of the capitalistic models still rule supreme. Neo-liberalism continues to be the go to economic model, nationalism still the wax that holds people together and intervention/imperialism has managed to unlock beasts long dormant in the Middle East now terrorizing the world all over. What other than the capitalistic model can we assign all these symptoms to?

In our current state of global flux the Russian revolution seems to be a beacon of hope for many, and in its centenary it is shining brighter than ever. And why shouldn’t it? The revolution delivered a nation from a ruthless imperialist war, removed a despotic regime, and empowered its citizens and presented progressive policy and freedoms still fought over in present day democracies.

But there is an ugly truth to the revolution that we revolutionaries are quick to dismiss in our romanticization of the world’s first communist revolution; a massive death toll brought forth by a brutal 5 year civil war with atrocities easily classified as war crimes by any standard today.

The events of the Russian civil war can easily be dismissed as a result of counter-revolutionary activity to be expected, and analysis into the atrocities committed could probably be explained or undercut as a climate of violence imposed by the Tsar already gripped Russia even before the revolution. Nevertheless, they remain atrocities that need to be recognized for the human suffering they have caused.

The theoretical underpinnings

The violence resulting from the Russian revolution is not the only blemish the revolution holds. Lenin’s theoretical underpinning also posed the state at the centre and the NEP built up the bureaucratic machine that enabled a usurpation of power.

Lenin’s State and Revolution is full of excerpts that today seem reactionary themselves. The differentiation between formal and actual equality, the reliance of phased communism, and the totalitarian obsession with engaging everyone in bureaucracy are all examples of how post-revolutionary transformation held the kernel of changing the socialist dream to nightmare.

These are not just problems brought forth by Lenin but continue with Marxist theory as a whole. In our review of a 100 years since the revolution is it not equally important to look at these elements with criticism and a healthy dose of scepticism? How else do we expect to not only learn for the future of our movement, but distance ourselves from the lapses in communistic thought?

Lessons learned

With this in mind I find myself at odds with my fellow revolutionaries. I don’t see the Russian revolution as something to hold up and I definitely don’t see it as the emancipatory light that will lead us in the future.

If we remove the romanitcization of the revolution, what are the real lessons we learn? Well, not much. A revolution needs a strong leader to carry it through, a revolution will have its opponents willing to viciously fight against it, power seized is easily usurped, and that revolution holds the power of transformative change. But is there any difference between these lessons and the lessons learned from any other revolutions ancient or recent?

Novelty, then, is the only thing the revolution of 1917 offers. Is that worth the applause it has received this month? I find not.

In addition to the political discussions being suppressed by our romanticism, there is also one of tactical importance to be had. Here the words of Podemos leader Pablo Iglesias ring in the ear:

“The enemy wants nothing more than to laugh at you. You can wear a T-shirt with the hammer and sickle. You can even carry a huge flag, and then go back home with your flag, all while the enemy laughs at you… That’s how the enemy wants us. He want us small, speaking a language no one understands, in a minority, hiding behind our traditional symbols. He is delighted with that, because he knows that as long as we are like that, we are not dangerous.”

Isn’t our glorification of the 1917 revolution just us holding to our symbols and flags that bit tighter for the enemy to laugh at?

In organizational development, an academic by the name of Edgar Schein developed a three level model for culture. The most superficial expression of culture, according to this model, is the artefacts displayed the rituals and icons. These are followed by the deeper levels of values, and core assumptions.

Marxism has so much more to offer than the base artefact of our history and struggles; our romanticization of 1917 however, keeps us operating on that superficial level, near idolatry. Isn’t it time we start focusing on our core assumptions and display those to the world letting them loose to do the talking on our behalf instead of leaning on iconic historic events that hold no parallel to today’s conditions?

A final take away

Today, we know more about the Russian revolution, and any other communist inspired revolution, than ever before. And as is customary to the left, we are using this knowledge to further drive sectarianism, to bicker about whether or not the revolution became a bureaucratic dictatorship or state capitalism!

We have chosen to be insular and paralyse the development of a left that can engage with politics as it is today. with our intellectualization of not just the revolution and its fall out, but of Marxism itself, we have lost the ability of practicing the same level of concrete analysis that allowed Lenin to seize power.

It’s time to move past our intellectualisation of Marxism and communism, if 1917 taught us anything it is that those who mobilize for the revolution will not do so for the ideal put forth by a political philosophy, nor will they do so for some sort of glory gone which is what most leftists see 1917 as, but for something much more immediate and necessary – bread and peace.

It’s time we stop daydreaming about a nightmare, and start looking for our own bread and peace.


Jade Saab is a Lebanese/Canadian writer and political theorist based in Toronto. His writings cover topics of Liberalism, governance, and Marxism with occasional forays into current affairs. He is currently writing his first book – Finding Left

Consequences of Capitalism: creating mental health issues for millions


Every day there are more reports in Britain's newspapers about the growing mental health crisis. There is little written about its fundamental cause.

Which is: the extreme material insecurity that affects more and more people.

Food is the most basic human need of all. After that, comes shelter/housing.

More and more people in Britain cannot afford to eat. The number of people needing help from food banks has risen by 7% in the last 12 month period alone. Between 2010 – 2016, the number of people reliant on food parcels has risen from 41 000, to more than 1 million.

Britain's largest food bank provider, the Trussell Trust, says that the 2016 – 2017 rise in numbers of food bank users is in great part a direct consequence of the chaotic new Universal Credit system of administering social security benefits, introduced by the Tory Westminster government: this system succeeds (a) in instituting lengthy benefit payments delays, and (b) in bringing about radical benefits cuts (always a vote-winner with Tory party supporters). 

In a report in today's papers, we find that there are more millionaires in Britain than in any other European country. The Malthusian paradigm (which it has long been popular to discredit) does now appear to hold true in Britain: it can sometimes appear that there is indeed only so much wealth that can be distributed, and as the rich get hugely richer in Britain, the poor become correspondingly poorer and more numerous - in order, one is tempted to conclude, to finance the rich.

I'm no psychologist - but even so, I'm fairly sure that fear of gradual starvation can lead to extreme mental health problems.

But fear of hunger is not all that Britain's poor have to contend with: fear of homelessness (with shelter - ie, a home - being the second most basic human need) continues to rise in Britain, where many people - even people working at two jobs - can no longer afford the astronomical rents being demanded by private landlords for renting a home. That such high rents can be demanded is only possible due to the grossly inadequate number of council housing units.

But even if poor people can afford to pay these mammoth rents for housing, tenants enjoy no security of tenure. Poor people almost always rent their homes from private landlords (for lack of Council housing), on a basis of a 6 month tenure that may thereafter be "rolled over", but which the landlord can discontinue (ie, serve the tenant with notice to quit their home) on a month by month basis.

The very real threat of imminent or likely homelessness that afflicts tens upon tens of thousands of people in Britain must surely pose a major threat to their mental health.

The Westminster establishment does not in fact so much as fail to address this problem, as simply refuse outright to concede such a problem exists, perhaps on the grounds that something like 30% of MPs are themselves private residential landlords, and residential and buy-to-let rentiers constitute one of the Tory party's major electoral constituencies.

"More must be done about Britain's mental health crisis!" cries the media.

"We shall address the mental health crisis" declaims the Tory government.


The Scottish administration is bucking the national British trend: in the last 7 years of the SNP-led Scottish administration, more than 34 000 social housing homes were built (19.5% more than during the preceding 7 years of the Labour-led administration).

And yet, between 2015 – 2016, according to the Scottish government, 28 000 people were assessed as homeless. In 2016, for example, 1 215 council houses were completed in Scotland.

It is plain to be seen that the Scottish administration is not building council houses in the numbers needed, or anything like the numbers needed (indeed, only a huge rise in tax-take could begin to fund such a project), and homelessness, or the potential threat of homelessness at short notice that private tenants suffer from, afflicts many thousands of people in Scotland.

The ever-present threat of hunger and homelessness that burdens so many people in Britain and Scotland today is surely the major cause of the "mental health crisis".

Underlying these material causes of the growing mental health issue is the fundamental cause of widespread poverty in general in both Britain and Scotland: namely, an economic system horribly skewed in favour of Capital – an economic system prejudiced against the worker. A symptom of this unbalanced economy is to be seen in the employment market, wherein the number of part-time, temporary and zero hours jobs (in relation to the number of full-time jobs that earn the worker a genuine living) continues to rise.

Attempts to address the problems of poverty (of which hunger and homelessness are the major symptoms) will not succeed unless the economy is re-structured; the pro-Capital bias eradicated, along with the rise in numbers of jobs that cannot earn the worker a living. Truly draconian legislation to this end is required, but discussion of such legislation requires a good deal more time than I can afford here and now.

Suffice it for now for me to say: Britain’s (and Scotland’s) widespread and growing economic imbalances, and the poverty these imbalances cause (of which the end result is what the papers like to call the “mental health crisis”), cannot be addressed until we get genuine socialist governments in power.   

We know what to do, but until we get a socialist government in Britain, and a socialist government in an independent Scotland, we cannot do what must be done.   

Stiffen The Sinews, Summon Up The Blood: There's More To Come from Corbyn Yet

Scottish Corbyn supporter and YES voter, Bruce Wallace, looks at the scale of Corbyn's achievement, argues that Brexit played a role, and sets the stage for battles still to some.

“In terms of share of the vote, Labour’s result in June will draw comparisons with Michael Foot’s disastrous campaign against Margaret Thatcher in 1983.” – Former Labour MP Tom Harris, Daily Telegraph, 19 April. (Labour’s share in 1983 was 27.6 percent).

“The Conservatives are likely to gain a series of key target seats in the general election, capitalising on their strong position in the polls. An analysis of the 2015 general election results by the Telegraph has shown that around 58 seats in Labour’s North and Midlands heartlands are under threat due to the Brexit effect in the upcoming snap election on June 8.” – Ashley Kirk and Patrick Scott, “data journalists”, Telegraph, 2 June

“We have to face up to the fact that Brexit, in its own way, was a revolutionary act and the trouble with revolutions is that they tend to breed further revolutionary acts as a consequence.” − Dominic Grieve MP, Anti-Brexit campaigner and member of the Tory cabinet 2010-14,  Daily Politics 13 June 

In Beyond Brexit published just after the June 2016 EU referendum I wrote:

“In Britain, amidst the crisis of the Parliamentary Labour Party, we are experiencing a historical realignment of workers and young people in a new mass movement that is crystallising within the grassroots of the party. The traditional far left, which remains outside of the Labour Party, has been sidelined. It’s very difficult to say what will happen next. But if Corbyn survives as leader of the Labour Party, it cannot be ruled out that a new General Election will sweep out the Blairites and bring a radical reformist government into power: a Syriza moment in the world’s fifth largest economy”.

This hypothetical trajectory was the object of some mirth at the time and I’m loathe to say I told you so.  However, we need to move on…as Jeremy Corbyn is now within sight of political power just one year after the Brexit result!

With her coronation as Tory leader following the Brexit result in the referendum in June 2016, May appeared unassailable. But her disastrous result in the UK General Election revealed to all the venal decay at the heart of the Tory government. May was exposed as having her own camarilla closeted with her special advisors. She decided policy initiatives without even consulting her cabinet, and it was her decision alone to call the General Election after publicly stating, time and again, that she had no intention of doing so. Her mind was made up on a walking holiday with her husband somewhere in Snowdonia. The result, she assumed, was preordained - as Corbyn was ‘unelectable’ according to all the pundits, polls and most of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

The Tory election strategy was based on the simple idea that May should declare this the Brexit election and call for a national endorsement of her leadership as she began Article 50 negotiations with the EU later this month.  Far from it being the Brexit election it will be forever known as “May’s folly”.

The Tory plan was to target a selected group of voters in key Labour marginals where there was a significant Brexit vote. They doubled down on winning over the UKIP vote and Labour Brexiters, seeing themselves as the natural representatives of jingoistic nativism. It was a no brainer that, as UKIP weren’t standing in many constituencies, their voters would automatically shift over to May as she bathed in the aura of Brexit. Add on the 13 percent UKIP vote and win Labour supporters who had voted Leave then the Tories would win by a landslide as Labour languished up to 20 percent behind in the polls.

Hence May’s verbal diarrhoea about the Tories being the real party of the working class as the hapless PM was teleported into northern Labour constituencies, like Halifax, where she launched her now notorious Dementia Tax U-turn manifesto only to become a national laughing stock.

It might not have been the Brexit election that May had hoped for, but it was Brexit that shaped the political dynamic…as it now mutated into almost everything but Brexit. Brexit was revolutionary in the sense that it was a revolt against the elites and the status quo where a majority in the UK voted against the position of every major political party save UKIP. It forced a major breech in the dam of the Blairite consensus that had dominated British politics for the last twenty years and, as I argued, opened up a significant opportunity for the left to pose an alternative. It had forced one Tory PM to resign and has now thrown a weak government into political and constitutional crisis after their reversal at the polls. The natural party of government can no longer govern as a majority and needs to rely on the DUP just to survive. What a nightmare (for everybody). 

Batley Women's Guild re-enact "The Strong and Stable Leadership of Theresa May"

The Tories completely misunderstood the meaning of Brexit. Rather than being the natural standard bearer for Brexit May was regarded as a typical representative of the political elite and even presented herself as the Strong and Stable continuity candidate of the status quo that Brexit had defied. Her real motivation for calling the election was to bolster support within her own party against Europhile MPs lukewarm about Brexit. It had absolutely no basis in terms of strengthening her position in the negotiations with the EU as Article 50 had triggered the process of leaving by the deadline of 2019, a full year before the end of the government term.

A welcome outcome for the elites would be the crushing of Corbyn and his resurgent Labour Party. If, as was widely predicted, Labour had an electoral wipe out like 1983 Corbyn would either be deposed by another internal coup or the LP would split. A Blairite plot for a split and the formation of a new centre left party was in process. In any case May was assured an easy win. It was just a question of how big?

An extraordinary achievement.

The effect of Brexit on UKIP was predictable and it quickly began to disintegrate after the referendum.  It was never an ideological political grouping but had built up a populist base of support made up mainly of both ex Tory and Labour voters opposed to EU membership. With Brexit decided upon UKIP supporters were bound to examine what was being offered by the other main parties in this election. And this time there was a distinctive choice on offer where many of UKIP’s policies, which are more to the left than most people think - apart from on immigration - cohered far closer to Labour’s electoral programme than the Tories. The result was a split in the UKIP vote along class lines.  So while the Tories benefited to some extent from the UKIP  collapse, so did Labour, especially in  traditional working class areas.

Take the constituency of Hartlepool for instance. In the 2016 referendum this was one of the most hardened Leave areas with 69.57 percent for Leave and only 30.43 percent for Remain. Ideal territory for a Tory coup you would think if the main issue was Brexit?  In 2015 there was a Labour majority of only 3,024 over UKIP who had gained 30.2 percent of the vote and the Tories on only 22.6 percent in third place. Hartlepool was held by Labour in 2017 with an increased majority of 7.650 against the Tories who came second. UKIP’s vote had practically halved. Labour was up to 52.5 percent with an increase of 16.9 percent. The Tories were up by 13.3 percent.

Portsmouth South was a Labour gain in solid Brexit territory, but the size of the surge to Labour was a staggering   21.5 percent with a 9.4 percent swing from the Tories to Labour. The UKIP vote had collapsed and obviously most of it went to Labour who had come third behind the Lib Dems in 2015. A detailed analysis of the election results is needed but they appear to support the point I made in Beyond Brexit that the working class, using the referendum as a conduit, had found a way to give the people it didn’t like (the Tory government and the political elites) a kicking . In the election the working class returned to Labour in droves to deny the Tories an outright victory. Rather than Labour being annihilated it emerged strengthened, while the Tory government has been plunged into another crisis.

40 percent of the vote usually automatically wins a majority but nevertheless it was still the biggest vote for Labour since Attlee’s historic victory in 1945 with Corbyn adding 3 million votes.

True Labour didn’t win a majority of seats and the Tory government continues, but under a zombie caretaker PM with a Tory party riven with division over Europe amidst rumours of an impending civil war. Politically, the result far outweighs the fact that the numbers were slightly against a Labour victory. It didn’t diminish the scale of Corbyn’s political triumph. Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite, rightly described the result as “an earthquake”.

 Policies Decisive

The leak of Labour’s manifesto a few days before the official launch, depicted by the MSM as showing that the Labour campaign was a shambles and that Corbyn planned to take Britain back to the 1970’s, actually had an electrifying effect. The BBC headlined the key policies such as nationalisation of the railways, post office, the national electricity grid, build 1,000,000 homes, £10 minimum wage, increased taxes on the rich, increases in corporation tax, the abolition of student tuition fees in England and Wales, a fully funded and non-privatised NHS, fully funded social care and the ending of the public sector pay freeze.

Far from damaging Labour it was their manifesto, usually just a footnote in the election process since Blair, that ignited the campaign for Labour. Not only were the electorate presented with a manifesto that attacked Tory austerity directly it also tore neo-liberal economic orthodoxy to shreds. It announced that class politics and socialism were back centre stage in British politics.

The manifesto contained policies that had significant majority public support but, more importantly, was in stark contrast to the Scrooge-like thin gruel of more austerity offered by the Tories; of vicious attacks on the disabled, pensioners, children and just about everybody who wasn’t a billionaire . This programme inspired the youth, workers and layers of the lower middle class expected to share the burden of a disintegrating health and education system. True, the manifesto was relatively modest in many ways - but commentators noted that it meant that it had not just buried Blairism, but that Thatcherism was dead too!

No longer did we have a Tory and Labour Party offering either austerity or austerity -lite. Now we had a struggle between the Tory hereditary foe of the working class in the form of May’s government and a Labour Party that had recovered its soul (except for the leadership in Scotland and Wales for specific reasons).

Corbyn was prepared to indulge in some realpolitik on nuclear weapons. It was a compromise with the Blairite right  to support the £167 billion cost of replacing Trident. Everybody knows Corbyn is opposed to Trident and he had voted against renewing the (non)independent nuclear deterrent in Parliament on a free vote, but it was LP policy to support it. Corbyn was standing as a Labour leader and throughout the campaign he presented party policy not his personal position. Although Labour’s defence policy will come under greater internal party scrutiny in the future, I’m sure.

And then there was the campaign itself.

Labour’s clear left anti-austerity programme created genuine enthusiasm, even fervour, amongst the working class. As the polls started to narrow, it became clear that people had at last seen hope that this brutal Tory government could be beaten. Tory campaign headquarters was warned via focus groups that Labour’s policies were proving very popular but this was ignored, along with critical polls that Labour was dramatically reducing the Tory lead.

Leon Trotsky wrote in 1938, of capitalists "tobogganing towards disaster with their eyes closed". Here the Tories totally underestimated what the movement for Corbyn, and the man himself, represented. Described by the MSM as “preaching to the   converted” Corbyn’s campaign in June energised a mass movement on the political plane in opposition to the Tories. Mass rallies, sometimes only at a day’s notice, had turnouts in the tens of thousands. Captain Ska’s  “Liar Liar” remix (you can’t trust her. Tories Out!) went to number two in the independent music charts (the BBC banned it) as the Tories tobogganed with their eyes closed towards an electoral disaster. They received the biggest shock in the history of British politics. All the better that it was completely unexpected.

Corbyn has now emerged as a Labour leader of profound historic significance, in the tradition of Thomas  Paine, John Bright, George Lansbury and Keir Hardie; a very British phenomena of the outsider, anti-establishment troublemaker who just won’t go away, no matter what’s thrown at him.

What about Scotland?

Alex Salmond was a victim of the Tory recovery − I would hardly call it a resurgence − in Scotland. I was a wee bit sorry to see this SNP big beast go, especially to a Tory, not least because he had some insight into the obstacles that Corbyn needs to overcome. He thought it wasn’t what lay before Corbyn that was the problem but what was “behind him”. In other words the Blairites of various hues within the PLP and the Labour apparatus generally. In England there was evidence of the party HQ funneling resources to anti-Corbyn candidates while Welsh Labour excluded pushing Corbyn in an autonomous campaign. Other Blairite candidates excluded any mention of Corbyn in their own campaigns only to be flabbergasted that their majorities had ballooned. A wave of faux contrition followed.

In Scotland, Kezia Dugdale distanced herself from Corbyn’s campaign and didn’t even attend his election rally in Glasgow. Labour in Scotland was not doing well in the early stages of the campaign. Then the Corbyn effect, based on the manifesto, took hold in Scotland, bypassing the bankrupt policy of Dugdale, which was to place the defence of the Union above all else. Instead of Labour getting 18 percent as polls had initially predicted they got 27 percent of the vote with big shifts in support back towards them from the SNP in the West of Scotland and Fife. They won seven seats but could have done much better, coming very close in a number of other constituencies.

There were many independence Yessers who gave their votes to Labour on the 8 June. They didn’t endorse Dugdale, but Corbyn and the manifesto. Imagine if Labour had campaigned recognizing the right of Scotland to be independent, and to be prepared to enter discussions with the Scottish government to examine our demand for greater devolution and independence? It could have transformed the political map of Scotland.

It still could transform the political map of Scotland.

Corbyn has a far more nuanced position on self-determination than the Unionist/Blairite cabal leading Scottish Labour. Yes, the manifesto opposed independence but that is still national Labour policy given that Scottish Labour is only an “accounting entity”: not an independent party of the Scottish working class but an extension of British Labour.  Conversely, the rabidly Unionist Dugdale leadership actively unites with the Scottish Tories in blocking the democratic demand of the Scottish nation for self- determination. 

The SNP suffered major reverses, mainly due to polarisation over the national question, which benefited the Tories in their traditional rural areas and that more than cancelled out the limited Labour recovery.

The SNP suffered partly because they were bound to lose ground after the freak result of 2015 where they nearly swept the board save for three seats but their policy of tying a second referendum to the question of Scotland’s membership of the EU has been a disaster.

Like the Tories they have put party before country and played with the possibility of an indyref2 when there is neither a majority in favor of it, nor a proven majority – as yet - in favor of independence. They are being exposed as endangering Scotland’s path to independence and showed themselves up as just another establishment party. Were Sturgeon to attempt to call a premature indyref2 successfully, which I now doubt she will achieve, it would be a major strategic blunder, putting back the chance of independence for decades. The Brexit decision is NOT the decisive issue on which a referendum should be called.

In my view socialists in Scotland have everything to gain from a Tory defeat in the next General Election and I do believe that Corbyn’s Labour Party can win it.  Only a 3 percent swing to Labour nationally could mean a Labour government, and for me that is a mouth watering prospect. Socialists in Scotland should reflect on what they can do to help him achieve it.

We await the next act of this enthralling political drama, whether it be on the parliamentary or extra-parliamentary plane, but burning questions remain. When will May be deposed? Who in the Tory party has the gravitas to take on Corbyn? What are the possibilities of another UK general election?

The Tories will attempt to cling on with RoboMay for as long as possible. They fear, rightly, that in another election, defeat is a real possibility.

All I can say is bring it on.

Tories Out! Viva Corbyn!



Grenfell: Courage and Grief, and the Desire for Justice

Regular Point contributor and Editorial Board member Graeme McIver visited the scene of the Grenfell tragedy today to show solidarity with the victims, their families, and the working class people of the borough and of London. This is what he found.


Saturday, June 17th 2017 - The acrid smell of smoke has largely dissipated - but it is still there. It catches you unawares with a sudden change of direction of the wind or when you turn a corner or pass a road end.

There are other smells too. Sweeter scents of candles and flowers.

There is a reverential hush as you walk the streets from Latimer Road Tube Station towards the Westway and the walls of remembrance that have sprung up all around.

 Everywhere there are posters of the missing. On lampposts, trees, taped to walls and shop windows. Their smiling faces staring back at you as the sun beats down on Bramley Road.

 Jessica Urbano aged 12. Mr Raymond "Moses" Bernard. Morjorie and Ernie Vital. Desperate family members and friends have covered the area in these posters. Heartfelt pleas for news. Any news.

"It's too much", says one women being comforted by friends. "It's just too much."

Messages of condolence and remembrance are everywhere. We are used to these appearing on our streets during times of tragedy. Football tops, candles and flowers. But there is something different about the messages on the streets of this part of West London. There is a rage and demand for justice.

Tory politicians and their lackeys in parts of the media have criticised the politicisation of the tragedy at Grenfell.

But the blackened tower stands as a monument to politics. And this community knows it and it won't be silenced.

"People's Lives Don't Matter Under Capitalism" screams a sign attached to the railings. "Theresa May has blood on her hands...She is Responsible."

"The Wealth of the Rich in Kensington will never match the love in Ladbroke Grove."

"The crowds will pass but we will continue to fight for justice!"

The quiet reverence of streets surrounding the tower stand in stark contrast to the anger that has erupted in other parts of this borough, areas of which are amongst the richest in the developed world.

Yesterday protesters stormed the council building demanding answers whilst protests erupted across London. There are plans for bigger demonstrations tonight and in the future. The flames in Grenfell have at last been extinguished but the burning anger in this community and others across the country is rising.

I watch as a man pins a series of demands aimed at Kensington and Chelsea Council to a wall. "Be prepared for a period of buck passing" he states. "Did they have regular checks on the subcontractors on their ability to manage and safely implement these improvements? Did they have regular meetings to discuss fire prevention, access to all floors and include the wishes of the tenants? Did they audit the suitability of the materials used carry out proper fire inspections once the work was completed? Did they endorse the advice for tenants to stay in their flats during a fire?"

These questions and many others should be put to politicians at an inquest, not a public enquiry and messages stating that are everywhere.

"Tenants die when landlords don't listen - full funding for fire safety".

"Cuts Cost Lives".


If the council and the government are held in contempt then there is a genuine respect and affection for the fire fighters who risked their lives to save others in Grenfell. Years of cuts have impacted on the service but the fire fighters who attended did everything they could...and more.

A red London Fire Brigade t-shirt attached to the railings contains a message from the crews in attendance. "We did our best...", it states. Everyone here knows that to be true. 

The community response to the fire has been astounding. Notices abound thanking those who have contributed for donations and stating that local centres can no longer accept any more food or clothes as they have been overwhelmed with generosity from ordinary people in West London and beyond.

I do not seek to interview those looking at the tributes or staring at the tower. It seems crass and intrusive at this time. The mainstream media is everywhere, and you sense growing numbers are resentful to their presence.

My friend Stewart and I make our way back to the tube station and travel back towards the city on the Hammersmith line. As we pass under the tower a woman with tears and anger in her eyes looks at us both.

"I watched it burn from my own block. At first a small fire. I left to make a cup of tea and came back to the whole building ablaze...all of it. I couldn't believe it."

"I tell you, if we have to wait as long for justice as those poor people at Hillsborough then this community will go mad."

"I hear the contractor was a Tory donor. I wish the election was this week...not last. She'd be out...they'd all be out."

She leaves the train at Ladbroke Grove, too upset and unable to say any more.

But this is a community that has much more to say.



For more articles by Graeme McIver in The Point please click here 



Grenfell is a monument to Tory Britain

by John Wight

Neither oversight, negligence, nor malfeasance lies at the root of the Grenfell Tower fire in West London. Strip away the sickening obfuscation and platitudes, peddled by the usual parade of confected politicians, and the roots of this disaster lie in the virulent disdain, bordering on hatred, of poor and working class people by the rich in a society which in 2017 is a utopia for the few and a dystopia for far too many.

What will future historians say about a culture in which there is more than enough money to pay for nuclear weapons, to finance the bombing of other countries, to fund tax cuts for the rich, but not enough to provide decent housing for people whose only crime is that they happen to be poor and on low incomes? Given the scathing nature of the evidence, it’s a fair bet that the verdict issued will be a scathing one —and rightly so.

If this mind numbingly awful event does not mark the end of 7 long years of callous cruelty that describes the previous and current Tory government—unleashed in obeisance to the god of austerity—then nothing will and we deserve to end up in the abyss where, make no mistake, we are headed unless we rise up with a collective and resounding cry of “No more!”

No more living in a country in which cruelty has been raised to the level of a virtue and compassion relegated to the status of a vice, in which foodbanks, benefit sanctions, zero hours contracts, homelessness, and crumbling public services are justified on the basis of moral rectitude and fiscal responsibility, when in truth they are symptoms of the class war unleashed by the Tories on working people and which up to now working people have been losing.

The hollowing out of the state, deregulation, the near free rein accorded to property developers and private landlords, all at the expense of people’s wellbeing and safety, is tantamount to a crime committed by the rich people who govern us in the interests of other rich people.

Don’t politicise the Grenfell Fire, they tell us. Are they serious? Are they having a laugh? This event is verily dripping in politics. Indeed it could not be any more political, coming as it does as the logical conclusion of decades of under investment in social housing that is a badge of shame and refutes any claim by Brexit Britain to the status of a civilised country.

The one hope we can cling onto is that despite the inordinate and sustained efforts by the Tories and their rancid media cohort to pit working and poor people against one another in recent years—Muslim against non-Muslim, low waged against unwaged, migrant against non-migrant, refugee against native—it has failed. Out of Grenfell, along with the recent terrorist attacks in Manchester and London, has come incontrovertible evidence of the innate solidarity of people of every background, ethnicity, faith, and creed when the chips are down. The outpouring of kindness, support, and humanity in response stands as a rebuke to those who want us to believe there is no such thing as society, that we are not connected by a common humanity but instead are merely a vast agglomeration of individuals, just like so many atoms spinning in the air.

Then, too, as a further rebuke to these rotten Tory values we have our emergency services. Made up of men and women who have no hesitation in risking their lives when tragedy strikes, they deserve better than a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich—and so do we. They stand in sharp contrast to a Prime Minister who cannot even summon the decency to face angry and traumatised residents during her recent visit to the scene of what bears all the hallmarks not of a disaster or a tragedy but a crime.

The survivors of this crime are traumatised, angry, and broken with grief. They will carry with them forever the scars of what has not only been a physical, emotional, and psychological ordeal, but the knowledge that they were casualties of a system that considered them less than human, mere flotsam in the eyes of a Tory establishment that wages war not on poverty but on the poor, not on hunger but on the hungry, and not on injustice but on the victims of injustice.

In memory of those who perished and whose deaths are indistinguishable from the fact they were poor and working class, let Grenfell be the line over which Tory greed and mendacity does not pass.

Yes, Theresa May you are right: enough is enough.

Is Britain about to have its own October 'Revolution'?

Green Party Activist Adrian Cruden celebrates and analyses the tumultous events of the General Election...and sounds a small note of caution.



“October is the fallen leaf, but it is also a wider horizon more clearly seen. It is the distant hills once more in sight, and the enduring constellations above them once again.”

 -  Hal Borland 

I was driving home from the station after working with the Green Party in Sheffield Central, hard fought by our former leader Natalie Bennett, fatigued from the day and apprehensive of the night ahead, when the somehow ever-calming tones of Jim Naughtie announced the BBC/Sky Exit Poll. “The Conservatives will be the largest party, but will not have a majority…”

I whooped aloud. Yet, although the Corbyn surge had been palpable on the doorsteps and streets for at least the last fortnight, I still didn’t dare to assume anything. But later, at the Kirklees Met count in Huddersfield, the glum faces of the Tory workers cemented the fact that Mrs May’s great gamble to become the British Erdogan had failed and failed badly. In a borough where a few weeks earlier there had been talk of going from 3 Labour MPs and 1 Tory MP to 3 Tories and 1 Labour, the outcome ended up with a clean sweep for Corbyn: the stone faced Tory MP who lost and the would-bes who went home empty-handed lighting up at first-hand the unexpected outcomes that were popping up across the UK.

   Tories lose Colne Valley

Unexpected? Certainly at the start of the campaign, with the Blairites still sounding off and the Tories’ hubristically planning an electoral coup, the outcome we ended up with seemed fantastical. So the euphoria of a Tory Government denied its seemingly inevitable victory is both understandable and deserved. The blow to the Establishment, delivered by a coalition of young and old, reversing the divide-and-rule strategy propagated by the Tories post-Brexit, is substantial and to read of tearful Theresa anxiously awaiting the blessing of the Red Hand is a joyfully terrifying mix of farce and tragedy.

And yet, in the midst of left-wing celebration and a chipper Corbyn popping up everywhere to announce the end of the ancient regime, a note of caution which may surprise some of the more vocal celebrants.

Labour did not win the election. Labour remain a long way from reaching the level of support it needs to win outright. And if the Tories cling on long enough to implement the boundary changes, Labour will by default be even further away from the winning-post.

No problem, some will say, pointing to post-election polls showing Corbyn equal to May finally in popularity stakes and his party now six points ahead. Yet this ignores the long-established pattern of a short-lived swing in favour the outperformers in elections – just look back at the temporary rises in Lib Dem showings after by-election successes in the 1980s and 1990s, or UKIP’s after Euro-election advances through the 2000s. Whether in six weeks, six months or two years, there is little left for Labour to squeeze on the figures of last week, and arguably a further advance in Scotland could in fact propel the Tories back to an outright majority.

The headlines suggest that this election has seen the British electorate in England and Wales and even partially in Scotland, re-embrace the two-party politics of 1945 to 2010. The SNP shed 19 seats, UKIP evaporated, the Greens stalled on the Brighton ring-road and the #Libdemfightback didn’t get out of the paper bag. The 82% Tory/Labour showing was the highest since 1970.

            Were you still up for Clegg?

And yet, there can be little doubt of that electoral volatility has never been greater. Quite aside from the polls themselves, graphically outlining first the UKIP collapse into the arms of the Tories, followed by the rise of Labour, anyone on the ground could sense the swirling, changing instincts of many voters. From Ukippers in the former BNP strongholds in North Kirklees switching to strong and stable Brexiteer May before finally delivering near record majorities to Labour MPs; to Green switchers on polling day telling us in Labour-held Sheffield Central that they were “voting for Jeremy” (when in truth they were helping re-elect a profoundly anti-Corbynite MP), the absence of the tribalism beloved of political activists was decisively absent from many electors. While Labour had rebuffed Green and Nationalist offers of a progressive alliance against the Tories, it seemed many voters had decided to make their own. Ironically though in a slew of Scottish seats this handed SNP constituencies to the Tories, yet another cruel twist of our lottery of a voting system.

And this is where, now, the Left need to take stock. We may rightly ridicule the spectacle of the Coalition of Bigots for a few days or weeks yet. We may wonder if the DUP-sponsored regime will make it past the start of the Brexit negotiations; we may furiously fulminate at any return to Direct Rule in Northern Ireland as the Good Friday process unravels; and we may continue to try to will PM Corbyn into reality. But in truth, the Tories are as resilient as cockroaches at survival and it will likely take far more than “one more heave” to dislodge them in favour of a genuinely progressive government.

The greatest risk now is that Labour continue on a tribalist path which excludes all others. In Scotland, Dugdale’s proxy approval of tactical voting against the SNP rather than the Tories, as well as the backwash of the Corbyn surge itself, clearly boosted Conservative numbers in Westminster by as many as five or six of the seats lost by the Nationalists. There needs to be a recognition that Corbyn will need the SNP if he is indeed to ever walk into Number Ten.

In England, Labour’s refusal to even discuss a pact with the Greens may have cost them half a dozen new MPs by one analysis of seats where the Green vote exceeded the Tory majority over Labour. By contrast, the Greens’ decision to stand down unilaterally in Labour’s favour on nearly three dozen seats, and perhaps more controversially in a few for the Lib Dems, seems to have swung nine Tory seats to the opposition, decisively depriving the Theresa May of her majority.


                   Caroline Lucas campaigns

The time for a formal progressive alliance is almost certainly gone, as indeed it was as soon as Corbyn denounced the SNP and insisted Labour would try to unseat Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion. The tragedy could yet be that by doing this, he has blunted the anti-Tory tide and buttressed his own detractors within his party, who remain largely in place and who will in due course re-emerge, while freezing out potential political soulmates. In any case Labour’s invocation of their constitutional requirement to always fight every election everywhere is a troubling sign of bureaucracy trumping the generosity of spirit that should be at the heart of a genuinely pluralist movement for social change.

Yet it would be pathetically sour grapes for those of us outside Labour to not welcome and celebrate the successes of last Thursday. The surge in the final fortnight was breath-taking and Jeremy Corbyn played every card right, his genuine radicalism shining through and striking a chord even with those Brexiteer ex-BNPers in Batley who hopefully all along were more raging against the effects of liberal capitalism than embracing the racism of Griffin and Farage. Just as the juxtaposition of Trump and Sanders’ voters in last year’s US elections showed that rightist populism is only effectively neutered by a socialist antidote, Corbyn’s rise, finally winning back a big chunk of the Kipper vote, shows we are on a journey leftwards. Still, it is one with a far from straight path and with the destination as yet unknown.

For underpinning the election outcome, the same concerns continue. The same shifting tectonic plates that threw up Cleggmania, Occupy St Paul’s, the BNP bounce, the IndyRef revolution and the SNP Westminster tsunami, the Green surge, the march of the EDL, the rise and fall of Ukip, Brexit and now Corbyn – all these remain in place, grinding up against each other to produce ever more unpredictable outcomes. And in this context the real danger is that, as quickly as the Corbynista tide surged forward, so it might ebb to who knows where. To paraphrase Marx, himself channelling his inner Shakespeare, all that is solid melts into the political air and Labour are no less vulnerable to that than any of the previous beneficiaries of the collapse of all that was once holy and profane.

Corbyn understandably wants another election by October; but we need a path not for the next four or five months or years – we need one that will take us on for four or five decades, creating a new socialist consensus for an equitable and sustainable society. As we face a world sliding into deeper and deeper crises around climate catastrophe, resource scarcity and millenarian violence, a party still with Blair, (Hilary) Benn, Dugdale and Tom Watson in its ranks is not yet the transformative answer to Rosa Luxemburg’s eternal question of socialism or barbarism.

Genuine change doesn’t come in a night nor in a fortnight, and the forces of reaction are already marshalling, and not only behind a row of Orange banners and badly tuned flutes. We need to urgently adopt a clear programme to engage and embed the genuine majority of progressive, if not yet radical, left voters in Britain. While the NHS and welfare may be urgent social concerns, absolute political priorities must be electoral reform, heavy regulation of campaign finance, state funding of political parties and democratisation of the mass media.

Only this way can we ensure that, once dislodged under our current system of pretend polls, the Tories and their ilk are driven permanently from power through genuine elections founded on the principle of equal votes and proportional representation. With all votes having the same value, the progressive majority will be able to turn once and for all to the dismantling of the power structures of crony capitalism with no drift to the antiseptic centre nor fear of a Tory regime re-installed by less than a quarter of the electorate. If such a democratic voting system was in place now, Jeremy Corbyn would have just announced his new Cabinet of Socialists, Greens and (temporarily, perhaps) Nationalists. Who knows, he might even have been clutching the repossession notice for the Palace as he kissed the Queen’s hand.

Let’s enjoy the Tories in trouble for a few days yet. We are privileged not only to be witnessing the lingering death of neoliberal capitalism, but to have the chance to participate in its final rites. The old certainties are gone indeed and the choices facing us are growing ever sharper, ever clearer. But euphoria can fade too easily into complacency and in the end deliver only defeat. Perhaps the biggest risk in the internet age is of faddism logging off in the absence of instant gratification. If we want our own October revolution, there’s still a lot of work to do.

So be ready, comrades, but persevere too - it might not be this October.

General Election 2017? Tommy Sheridan reminds us there is much to be cheery about

While there are - and will be - many articles on socialist media analysing why the SNP lost seats or how the Corbyn movement builds from here, Tommy Sheridan writing in the weary hours of Friday morning after the UK General Election, reminds us there are many reasons to be optimistic. 



As a committed socialist all my adult life it is essential to develop the ability to see the positive in all situations and remain optimistic about the future. This morning, tired and bleary eyed like many thousands of others, I strongly suggest we have much to celebrate and rejoice about.

Blairism is finished. The election of Jeremy Corbyn, a real and honest socialist, to lead the Labour Party, twice, was a challenge to Blairism. The dastardly attempts to undermine him and force him out of office from his enemies within were the unprincipled actions of the Blairite old guard and clique. They failed. They were injured. They secretly hoped Corbyn would fail miserably. They toured TV studios and courted journalists everywhere like a dark cloud trying to undermine the man and his ideas. This morning they stand exposed as sick bystanders whose time has passed. Corbyn and his radical socialist manifesto is what inspired the 10% increase in vote share despite the obscene and hysterical campaign of the British media and Establishment to demonise him.

Corbyn and socialist ideas won last night. Blairism is finished. Rejoice.

May is politically finished. She is now damaged goods. Shorn of political authority and credibility. She may try and cobble a lame duck government together with the support of the right wing DUP but she is in reality finished. Her tactical nous, personal talents, ability to lead have all now been put under the microscope and the result is abject failure on all counts. From a parliamentary majority to a shambles of a campaign during which her exposure guaranteed even more lost support, May is now on borrowed time. She is a cold, callous, cruel and calculating politician on the Tory right and her standing is now in shreds. June really was the end of May. Rejoice.

UKIP, the media-promoted bunch of bigots and bumbling racists, has been decimated. They now muster less than 2% of the popular vote. Their regular reserved chair on prime programmes like Question Time must surely be over for good. Their poisonous attempt to divide ordinary communities along racial lines and blame immigrants and immigration for the problems caused by an economically rigged and unfair system designed to benefit the elite and impoverish the rest is now lying in ruins. These horrible racists are finished as a political force. Rejoice

Despite the disappointment of Tories winning seats in Scotland the dust will eventually settle and anyone with an operational brain cell will have to admit that the main party of independence in Scotland actually WON the election in our country. In the history of the SNP before 2015 the largest number of Westminster seats they had ever won was 11. Last night they won 35 seats. It is their 2nd best result ever. They won more seats than all the rest added together. They will now be a reduced force in Westminster but a potentially influential force. They as a party cannot any longer oppose austerity cuts in words but implement them locally at council or Scottish Parliament level. If the SNP wants to retain loyalty from working class voters it must promote defiance of Westminster Tory cuts and not compliance with those cuts any longer. Independence as an aim and a means to delivering a better and fairer Scotland is not defeated. Far from it. Young people in particular want an independent Scotland but for the SNP to remain the vehicle for independence they must be more defiant and radical and less compliant with cuts. Class politics is now firmly back on the Scottish and UK political agenda. That class concern will eclipse the constitutional question for a while but the 35-strong group of SNP MPs simply can't do anything but support a Corbyn-led minority government and display complete and utter opposition to the continued governance of the Tories. Scotland voted decisively anti-austerity last night. Defiance of austerity is now the order of the day. Rejoice.

Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and their election campaign team have fought a simply incredible election and delivered a political miracle in such a short space of time. From 24 percentage points behind and a minus 40 popularity rating, Corbyn, in less than 7 weeks, has taken his radical and socialist manifesto the length and breadth of the UK and received a warm and enthusiastic response. Socialist ideas and socialist policies are firmly back onto the political agenda and the neo-liberal nonsense of privatisation, public service cuts, low wages for the poor and low taxes for the rich is now blown asunder. Politics has changed for the better. Jeremy Corbyn is the most radical and left-wing leader in the entire history of the Labour Party and he has secured a brilliant result in the face of incredible barriers both from within and outwith his party. What a brilliant achievement. Rejoice.

Whatever the next few weeks and months hold, and I would not rule out another general election which Labour will win, the idea that Tory austerity will be meekly accepted any longer is gone. Hardworking public service workers within the health service, social care, local authorities and other essential services will no longer accept that they, the low paid, students and pensioners should pay the price of economic greed and incompetence of the rich and their political friends. Austerity will now be fought tooth and nail with a renewed vigour. Trade union leaders not up the fight should prepare to step aside. The political landscape across the UK is now changed. The rich will have to not just start paying their bloody taxes but paying considerably more, so ordinary folk can have a secure and decent standard of life. At long last the carbuncle of an expression, 'the working poor' will be challenged and hopefully removed from the dictionary forever. No one in work should ever be poor. Real and living wages must now be the norm not the exception. Sharing out the vast wealth of society is an idea whose time has come. Rejoice.

The great Muhammad Ali once said, "Inside or outside the ring there ain't nothing wrong with going down. It's staying down that's is wrong" That is the spirit that underscored Jeremy Corbyn's campaign. Those who believe in socialism, fairness, public services, peace, trade union rights, independence and internationalism have much to rejoice about this morning. Thank you, Jeremy Corbyn. You have brought honesty, integrity, intellect, compassion and radically just and fair ideas to the political table and you have been rewarded with mass support. You are a credit to politics.

Tommy Sheridan

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Local Elections 2017

Confused about the voting for the local elections? Member of the Scots diaspora and fellow independenista and socialist, Derek Stewart Macpherson, has had thirty years to get his head round the system in Australia, and offers this sage advice...

Since 2013 these 'Hitchhikers' electoral guides (for both Scotland and Australia) have become a bit of a tradition on my blog ( I've now covered two Australian federal elections, a European Parliament election, a Westminster general election (No.2 coming soon), a Scottish Parliament election and of course two very different referenda. This will be the first time I've written a guide to local elections, and the first one I've also shared with readers of The Point, but it would appear the need is great, so time to step into the breach.

People are unsure of how best to use their vote. I’ve already been answering questions on social media. What’s become clear is that the parties still don’t understand the system, and their confusion is confusing everyone else. Now in the lead up to publishing an election guide there is of course a bit of research involved. I have a number of pollsters and psephologists I look in on, the better to advise on tactical and strategic options. One of the latter is James Kelly of Scot Goes Pop, where I found this rather frustrated sounding article. He’s getting a bit sick of fielding questions about it. Well, I’m here to help.

You see the thing about this STV (no, not the TV channel, Single Transferable Vote) is that it’s a system I’ve been using for 30 years. It’s the system for all Australian state and federal elections. What’s more, in recent years (and at successive elections) both my kids turned 18 and got to vote for the first time. Both came to me for advice, so I have been thinking about this. It’s really not as complicated as it seems. Let me walk you through it.

When I was a kid my father once said a properly wise thing to me. He said his job was to teach me how to think, not what to think. I’ve always taken the same view with my kids. They’re smart, they know what they think, they didn’t need me to tell them who to vote for, just how to use the system to get to their desired outcome. So what I needed to work out was the simplest, most explanatory thing I could possibly say about it, and it’s this :It’s not who you put first that matters, it’s who you put last.

Now in the UK we’ve been used to a very simplistic voting system known as ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP). We get one vote, which we indicate with an ‘X’ (as though it was designed a very long time ago, for an illiterate electorate). Whoever gets the most Xs wins. Simple. It has it’s disadvantages though. It makes it very difficult for minor parties and independents to get a foothold, and it often allows an extremely unpopular candidate to be elected. How? Because it’s designed to elect the most popular candidate, and in a three or four-way contest, the most popular candidate can often be the most unpopular too. Think of the Tories. STV, on the other hand, is designed to elect the least unpopular candidate.

Here’s how it works. You get your vote, and let’s say you vote for Candidate A. FPTP says ‘Right, next!’ STV says ‘Right. But if you couldn’t have Candidate A, who would be your second choice? And your third? Your fourth?’ and so on. Now, the No.1 question seems to be, ‘Do I have to number all the boxes, and what difference will it make?’ To which the answers are ‘No’ and ‘Potentially quite a bit.’ I have seen some major party candidates asking their supporters to vote 1 for them, and leave the rest blank. That is bad advice. No, you do not have to number all the boxes. But number all the boxes!

To understand why, you need to understand the counting process. To make a preferential system (that’s what we call it in Australia, if you call it STV nobody will know what you’re talking about) work, counting has to be a process of elimination. So they count all the first preferences, the 1s. Now with FPTP that would be it. And if everybody took that bad advice I mentioned, only voted for their favourites and left the rest blank (which won’t happen), that would also be it. But in an STV system that’s not it. The candidate with the highest first preference total hasn’t won yet, unless he/she has over 50%, which is rare.

What happens next is that the candidate with the least first preferences is eliminated. All first preference votes for that candidate are then redistributed to whoever each voter put at No.2. Then they update the tally and repeat the process, eliminate the new last placed candidate and redistribute all their votes, including the ones they gained from the first candidate to be eliminated, which now go to those voters’ 3rd preferences. Repeat the process until only two candidates (or 4, if there are 2 seats – I’ll come back to this) remain. You then have what we call a Two Party Preferred (2PP) tally, and that is the result.

One important point about all this is that the candidate who was ahead in the first preference count, the one who would have won under FPTP, may well be overtaken by preferences flowing from defeated candidates. Another is that your vote cannot possibly end up with your last preference. Second last is the lowest down the order it can possibly go, because by that time you’re down to only two remaining candidates, and in order for it to get that far all of your other higher preferences would have to have been eliminated. It is, remember, a single transferable vote. It can’t be counted twice. It stays with your first preference as long as they remain in the contest.

Does STV Lend Itself to Tactical Voting?

Yes. Very much so. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this system is that it allows you to be far more flexible about expressing your true preferences than FPTP does, because as I said, it’s not who you put first that matters. It’s who you put last. Let’s imagine an example. Let’s say there’s a great local independent you have your eye on. And maybe you quite like a minor party like the Greens too. Realistically however, you think it’s probably going to come down to a battle between the major parties. With FPTP the logic is that you have to vote for the major party you want, not your wishlist candidate, because that would probably be a wasted vote, and might help the bad guys.

With STV there are no wasted votes. You can afford to give your first preference, or your first few, to whoever you like, as long as you put your major party preference ahead of those you definitely don’t want. Once they get used to the system, the parties will work out how best to direct their preferences to their advantage, preference swap deals will be done between them, and they will distribute ‘How To Vote’ cards showing exactly how they’d like you to fill out your ballot paper, just like they do here. Of course, by then you’ll be getting the hang of it too, and you can do what I do – refuse all their cards and work it out for yourself.

However, they don't understand it yet. The SNP, Labour and the Tories seem to be following three different tactical approaches, all of them wrong. It's now that we have to discuss multi-member constituencies, but don't worry, it's basically the same. In Australia we have single member constituencies in the House of Representatives, and multi-member ones in the Senate. Senate elections are usually for six members, or twelve in the case of a Double Dissolution (don't ask if you don't need to know, it's very boring). I've been using the single member example for the sake of simplicity. In Scotland wards have two or more councillors, three or four in Glasgow for instance. That just means it's your last two, three or four preferences your vote can never go to, instead of your last one. Now, this is where it starts to get a bit weird.

Remember I said back at the top that the parties don't understand the system? Well, it turns out I didn't know the half of it! Certain things have been pointed out to me since then (thanks Steve) which make that the understatement of the year. I was hoping to avoid talking about the Senate, because if you think next week is going to be complicated, this will give you the heebee jeebees. At the election last July my Senate ballot paper was well over a metre long. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which is important, so bear with me.

In a normal election we have a House of Reps election and a half Senate election, because the HoR has a three year term, but Senators have six year terms, so half of them go up for election every time the HoR does. However, in certain circumstances (again, don't ask if you don't need to know), the government can call a Double Dissolution election, which means HoR plus a full Senate election. That's twelve Senators to be elected for each state. But that's not the important bit. This is - every party or grouping which has the resources to do so fields a full slate of candidates. Six in a normal election, twelve in a DD. That's why I found myself wrestling with a four foot ballot paper with about 90 boxes on it. But that is how you do it. Not to field a full slate is at best incompetent, at worst it's running up a white flag. It breaks a political golden rule, namely never to concede a seat, not a single vote, until the polls close.

And yet none of the parties are doing this. Apparently when the STV system was introduced, nobody thought to take a look at a country that already had it, and where political strategists have had decades to work out the optimum approach. The Tories are only fielding one candidate in many wards. That makes some sense for them I suppose, as they are unlikely to be in a position to win two anywhere in Scotland, and they know that, and we know that, and they know that we know it. Labour are typically fielding two, which is the white flag option. Even if they were all to get elected, which isn't likely, they still wouldn't have a majority.

The SNP seem to be fielding three candidates in the four member wards I've looked at. That at least gives them the possibility of forming a majority, but it's far from ideal. It makes no sense not to run a full slate, and I've never seen anyone do it here, apart from independents and minor parties who lack either sufficient members or sufficient funds for the deposits. But if you are going to do it, you'd better be 100% sure that all your supporters know what order to rank them in, otherwise you'll split your own vote, and it will cost you seats. Perhaps what one friend suggested was right, and they are trying to adapt their (spectacularly unsuccessful, as I predicted) Holyrood AMS strategy of SNP1&2. Just... be really careful. Remember, it doesn't matter whether you put them first, as long as you put them ahead of their unionist opponents, but it very much does matter that you put them in the right order. Similarly there is a tactical advantage in putting your opponents, if they're fielding more than one candidate, in reverse order.

Is There A Strategic Angle?

Always. In Scotland, in the interests of consistency with my previously stated strategic objectives, I'd like to see the unionist parties removed from the political scene. The basic strategy for that would be to put all pro-indy parties and candidates ahead of all unionists. But consider also the value, especially in these local government elections, of a greater plurality of pro-indy representation. If we are to wipe out the unionist parties we'll have to replace them with something. These elections are a good opportunity to get some good local independents and maybe some minor parties elected. You can take the chance, and if they don't make it your vote will end up with the SNP anyway. In some cases you might even get, say, a Green and an SNP member. They clearly should be doing a preference swap anyway, but you don't have to wait for them to realise that. And it might increase the overall number of councils with a pro-indy majority.

Tactics vs. Principle

This is perhaps the No.2 question I've been asked. What if there's a UKIP candidate standing? Should I put them last on principle (many people, including myself, consider them a fascist party after all), or is it more important to put the Tories last for tactical reasons? The answer is that in Scotland it's highly unlikely to matter, but the elections aren't only in Scotland. They are taking place in some parts of England and Wales too, and it might matter there. The thing is, it would only matter if it came down to a contest between a Kipper and a Tory. That would mean you're down to your last two preferences and all your others have already been eliminated. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen to you, but it just might (see local polling I suppose). Then it might matter, but only if the Tories are running a full slate. And there I'm afraid you're on your own. Personally I think I'd put the Kipper last, but it's ultimately a moral question, isn't it? I can give you tactical and strategic advice, but moral issues are between you and your conscience. The third option, not making a choice, by leaving them both out, would be abdicating from that moral judgement. Of the three, I'd say that would be the least morally justifiable choice. But that's just me.

Hitchhikers' Guide to UK #GE17 Coming Soon!

External links:

Bella Caledonia

Bright Green

George Monbiot

Green Left


The Jimmy Reid Foundation

Laurie Penny

New Left Project

Newsnet Scotland

Richard Dawkins

Scottish Left Review

Socialist Unity

UK Uncut

Viridis Lumen

Wings Over Scotland

Word Power Books