Mapping out the character and evolution of todays European far right.

 I once again appeared on a guest of the Outa Space podcast, again in the 'space staion'

The rising right in Ireland and the International Brigade creative link

 Below is an episode of the Outa Space arts podcast in which I I appeared as a guest in the 'space station'

The battle of cable street

The following article was originally written for the Xekinima website

Today marks the 85th anniversary of what became known as the “Battle of Cable Street”, and is a very apt time to revisit the history and learn the vital lessons from this. Britain first, the far-right organisation have recently re-registered as a political party. Throughout much of the world we have seen both fascist and far right populist organisations emboldened and confident to act often with violence.

[ 23 October 2021 09:28 ] ⁨Glyn Matthews⁩: What became known as the Battle of Cable Street was an attempt by Oswald Mosely and his British Union of Fascists (BUF) to solidify their position by marching through the east end of London in full fascist uniform (the British fascists were known as the blackshirts). This was also a deliberate act of provocation and intimidation. It was estimated that there were 350,000 Jewish people living in Britain at the time with roughly half living in the east end of London. Yiddish was often the lingua franca in many east end communities.

This was in 1936, a time when Hitler was already in power in Germany and where it was already official policy to persecute Jews. Mussolini was in power in Italy and the Spanish Civil war was underway. It was only a few years prior to the outbreak of World War two.

***

At the time the Blackshirts had been gaining significant momentum. Two years prior they held a notorious rally in London Olympia with 12,000 in attendance including 2,000 in full uniform ready to attack any opposition which dared to turn up. They claimed to have 40,000 members and had the active support of the Daily Mail, a national daily newspaper.

Had they been able to successfully march through the east end of London unopposed it would have been disastrous for the Jewish community in the east end as well as many other ethnic or religious groups, and also all socialists and trade unionists.

In the lead up to the march the BUF held a series of meetings throughout the east end to whip up hatred towards the Jewish community. There was an immediate response from the community the Jewish Peoples’ Council which started a petition to ban the march, which gained over 100,000 signatures within only two days.

***

However, the feeling of the community and rank and file activists was not matched by the leadership. The Jewish hierarchy organised sports day events to try an ensure that Jewish youth were out of the east end on the day of the march. The Labour Party’s George Lansbury, the hero of Poplar council who was jailed for resisting cuts to the poor, wrote: 

“What I want is to maintain peace and order, and I advise people who are opposed to fascism to keep away from the demonstration.”

The Communist Party leadership played an incredibly cynical role. They were in an very powerful position, having a very strong base of support and membership within the east end. Phil Piratin, who later became a CP member of parliament said: 

“If Mosley decides to march, let him. Don’t attempt disorder”. 

The Young Communist League had organised on the same day a rally in Trafalgar Square (central London) in solidarity with the Spanish republic, without the sense of irony that the best possible support for the Spanish republic in the civil war against the fascists was to oppose the fascists on their doorstep.

***

Fortunately, opposition from below grew from within the rank and file of the CP, Jewish groups and others like the Independent Labour Party. As a result, on the day of the march 300,000 emptied onto the streets to confront the blackshirts and the police who attempted to escort them. It was a real show of working-class defiance from all sections of the working class. Barricades were erected by Irish Catholic dockers around Commercial Road and Cable Street. Children were seen throwing marbles, preventing the advance of police horses, who were unable to navigate their hooves around the marbles. Chamber pots emptied overhead of the fascists, the streets erupted with Communists, trade unionists, Jews, Irish and all nationalities of all ages and genders. 

It was an embarrassing defeat for Mosely and the BUF. They were forced to retreat, even with the police attempting to aid them. The working-class communities had shown that not only were they not welcomed, but they would be prevented from being there at all. The BUF never recovered from this and every time far right groups like this have attempted to march throughout Britain, the spectre of Cable Street hangs over them and they always meet resistance.

***

Had many particularly in the CP listened to the leadership instead of organising a united front campaign of all sections of the working class in their communities to build mass resistance to ensure the fascists could not pass, then events could had turned out very differently than they had. That is the real legacy of the heroes of Cable Street.

Letter of resignation from Socialist Alternative

 Below is a copy of the resignation letter I co-signed from Socialist Alternative which should be read in conjunction with the announcement  of disaffiliation by the Greek, Cypriot and Turkish sections from International Socialist Alternative. 

Comrades,

The signatories to this letter are clear in their commitment to building a revolutionary Marxist international organisation, but have lost confidence that ISA and the sections in EWS can play a correctly orientated role in that struggle.  

Our reasons for leaving Socialist Alternative (EWS) and ISA can be summarised as follows.

A misguided approach from SA / ISA to democratic centralism, which has produced a top-down approach to decision making and political perspectives. 

A lack of communication with and support for comrades. 

Communication with branch comrades who challenge the orthodoxy of the leadership being conducted in formal and bureaucratic ways eg, the PC, as a body, emailing individual comrades demanding a written response to issues raised, rather than by a personal telephone contact in the first instance.

Institutional bullying of comrades eg, a comrade being criticised in a PC meeting, without the comrade’s knowledge or the right to reply. The criticisms were later to be proved to be completely fabricated.

Repeated mis-characterisation and distortion of TIDU comrades’ ideas. 

Repeated misrepresentation, or even concealing of events concerning international sections, especially relating to Australia and Taiwan. 

The adoption by SA of ISA policies on neoliberalism, deglobilisation, decoupling, China etc without any involvement of branch comrades.

A low level of debate and scrutiny by the NC of the PC even in instances where their actions have been proven to be wrong.

Totally inadequate minute taking of NC and PC meetings where branch comrades would have no way of knowing which comrades were making different points. This hinders branch comrades’ ability to see where new ideas and insights are coming from.

Re-writing history. Describing the reasons for the collapse of the old CWI as around political differences, rather than as a product of over-centralised authoritarian leadership. The emphasis on political differences was clearly the CWIs position and the minority comrades in EWS, generally denied significant political differences and pointed to structural problems and the authoritarian approach of the CWI leadership in particular. 

A mis-use of power in the organisation eg, a blocking of material from publication on the website. For example, comrade Vlad Bortun from the Spanish state was denied access to the international website for articles on neoliberalism, there are many other examples of individuals or sections being denied access to the website and this has also happened with the SA EWS website.

All content on the ISA website being decided on by a small editorial team. No place on the website for discussion of different perspectives. 

Leading comrades closing down discussions on Facebook without the authority to do so.

A leading comrade claiming to speak for the International Executive when having no authority to do so, as comrade EB did in the debate over Taiwan.

The inability to admit any mistakes or to listen in a constructive way to criticism.

An emphasis on training, rather than education in the development of cadre. 

An inflated view of ideas coming from the leadership and an assumption that they are correct on all matters.

Senior comrades behaving as managers, rather than leaders. Leadership is about a fluid dialectical dialogue with the comrades.   

A lack of understanding that many of our methods around structures and building are adopted from a neo-liberal / Stalinist framework, rather than a Marxist framework.

Some of the differences between the comrades who belong to TIDU and the majority comrades have been debated within the EWS section as well as internationally. What has been lacking from all of them is any attempt from the majority comrades to find a way to really consider the ideas of the minority comrades in a way that would avoid polarisation. This debate method, rather than a more discursive approach, is a method inherited from the CWI. It was not successful in avoiding polarisation under the CWI and has proved to be equally ineffective in avoiding polarisation under the ISA. 

We believe that there has been a complete failure to learn the lessons of the CWI, a failure to learn these lessons has resulted in a repetition of the same mistakes with regards to democratic accountability and henceforth perspectives, we reject the idea that a higher quantity of meetings translates to a higher quality of democracy, it’s how you control the apparatus that counts.

We have deliberately kept this letter of resignation brief because we have become increasingly aware that the differences between us and the majority have become too great to reconcile. We had hoped that this would not be the case. It is our view that the current structures of Socialist Alternative and ISA produce loyal members rather than revolutionary cadre as was also the case in the Socialist Party.

We stand in solidarity with the comrades from the Greek, Turkish, Cyprus and Spanish sections as well as many other comrades internationally who are leaving ISA in order to build an organisation that is Marxist, reflective and democratic. An organisation that agrees with the principles of democratic centralism, but finds a balance between democracy with centralism, rather than an organisation where most of the politics come from a small centralised grouping.

If any comrade would like greater detail, please feel free to contact us at our temporary email address. 

The national question in Wales – interview Glyn Matthews

 

National antagonisms are on the rise in general in the epoch that we are going through. This has been the case for the past few decades but these processes intensify rather than subsid, reflecting the general and deepening crisis of capitalism and engulfing also “developed” industrially, rich countries. One of them is Britain which has been facing not only the Irish question, but in the past couple of decades the Scottish question and, more recently, the rise of “Welsh nationalism”.

“Xekinima” spoke with comrade Glyn Matthews from Socialist Alternative (ISA section) in Wales about recent developments there.

• Hi Glyn. It is well known that there is section of the population in Wales which is raising the demand for independence or greater autonomy within the UK. How extensive is this feeling?

The first thing to say is that, at present it is only a minority of the population who currently support independence. However, support has been rising to historically high levels, a recent opinion poll conducted by You Gov showed a third in support. In fact, 33% said they would vote for independence if a referendum were held the next day, with higher numbers stating they would support greater autonomy.

Whilst this is of course a minority of the population and a much lower level of support than for example Scotland where support for independence currently stands at 55%, it is still high, very significant and rising. One year ago, support stood at 22% and prior to that support for independence has wavered between 8-10% historically. Support for independence has more than trebled over the past few years.

• Has it taken the form of mobilisations, demonstrations, etc? What were the main demands behind them?

There have been quite a lot of demonstrations though not recently since the beginning of the pandemic, but prior to this there were some significant demonstrations. There were notable demonstrations in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, as well as demonstrations in Caernarfon in North Wales of 7,000 and Merthyr in South Wales of 5,000. These are towns with a population of 9,900 and 43,000 respectively – although it must be said, particularly with the demonstration in North Wales, this did involve wider mobilisations based of the population of North Wales.

The likelihood is once the pandemic eases and/or a vaccine is rolled out, that there will be many more demonstrations particularly as there are Welsh Parliament elections next year.

The main demands have been, in my view deliberately vague. Simply slogans such as ‘Yes Cymru’ or “A fair deal for Wales” (Cymru being Welsh for Wales)

• What are the roots of it, historically?

I hope you are sitting comfortably! I will try and give just a brief overview. Wales was taken over by England much earlier than either Scotland or Ireland. As a result, it is much more integrated into Britain or rather England than compared to Scotland. Just to give one significant example there is an England and Wales legal system and a separate Scottish legal system, similar examples could be given in other spheres. This explains why generally support for independence is lower, Wales is much more intertwined with England than Scotland is and without the North Sea oil which is held up as an example of how an independent Scotland could be economically viable.

That does not mean that there has always been a happy relationship, there were serious attempts by the ruling class, almost all of English descent, to wipe out the Welsh language. For example, in the past children were beaten in schools for speaking Welsh. In north Wales quarries workers would organise in the median of Welsh, much to the annoyance of the quarry owners and management, all of English origin, who could not understand a word being said!

Over the years there have been battles which are brought to the fore and highlight the rights of Welsh people to their identity and culture. In the 1960s a Welsh village was completed flooded to create a reservoir for the use of industry in the North West of England, in the 1980s there were successful campaigns for a Welsh language television channel and continuous battles in different local areas over Welsh median schools as well as many other issues.

The industrial decline in the UK throughout the 1980s had a devastating effect on South Wales in particular and this is where the majority of the Welsh population are located. As a result, wider political issues in the UK have an increasing impact on the national consciousness within Wales.

• To what extend is it related to the economic and political developments of the recent period?

I think this is an important question, really this is the answer to the recent rise in support of independence. Since the inception of devolved government in Wales, it has always been led by Labour, either alone or in a coalition, but never by the Conservatives. Of course, in Britain we have had a Conservative government for the last decade, and that decade has been marked by huge austerity measures stemming from the last financial crash in 2008. Whilst the Conservatives at present do have many elected representatives throughout Wales, there have been times where there has not been a single conservative MP sent to London from Wales, and there would certainly be no possibility of a Conservative government of any kind being formed within Wales.

Hatred for the Conservatives and the policies they have implemented over the last decade, and the legacy of what they had done in power previously, presiding of the industrial decline of South Wales and with it, well-paying jobs, definitely plays a significant role in increased support for Welsh autonomy. Though it is not the only factor involved. Brexit has also played a large role in this, and it is no coincidence that support for Welsh independence has sky rocketed since Britain withdrew from the EU.

• How would you describe the political characteristics of the “independence movement”? What is the impact of left ideas on this? Are there Welsh political organisations? Is there a Welsh Left?

It is hard to define, the issue has largely been boiled down to a call for Wales to have its say and to choose our own destiny, without a lot behind that. At the same time there is certainly the use of left leaning rhetoric, “Wales has been given a raw deal” in the context of the industrial decline and without the replacement of equally well-paying jobs – before the expansion of the EU in eastern Europe, Wales received category 1 funding because it was one of the most disadvantaged areas of the EU. There are certainly many politicians talking left on the issue, attacking the right-wing Westminster government and the cuts and austerity by the Labour led Welsh parliament as examples.

Plaid Cymru –The Party of Wales– is the main nationalist party within Wales. It had previously ruled out the idea of independence at all, but now many within, including the leader Adam Price call openly for a referendum. In recent years they have used slogans like “Don’t vote labour for your fathers, vote Plaid for your children”. The intent behind it is to say that they represent the social democratic values that Labour used to but no longer ring true. There is truth in that assertion.

We could talk for hours about the nature of Plaid Cymru, but to summarise it is a broad-based party which has members and representatives which range from centre-right to fairly left. Some of whom we have in the past worked closely with. Leanne Wood, the previous leader for example, took a worker’s wage, though the exact details of this are unknown. The workers’ representatives on a worker’s wage, of course is something which ISA has always prided itself on. Though she herself, whilst not smeared in the same way Corbyn was, still suffered the fate of attempting to appease the right of the party, not anyway near to the extent of Labour, but certainly diluted her socialist policies as leader of the party.

There is also a geographic divide to a certain extend where the more rural areas of Wales see a more right-wing version of the party where the more urban areas are more left.

There is not really a Welsh left as such, there certainly is a left-wing of Plaid Cymru and the same is true of Welsh Labour. There is also a much smaller Welsh Nationalist Party set up by Neil McEvoy a maverick politician, hated by activists as a breakaway from Plaid Cymru, which currently has elected McEvoy as a member of the Welsh Parliament, often talking left.

The Labour left, and the Labour party more generally do not support independence, but polls also indicated that amongst those who do support independence, a higher proportion are Labour voters. More recently the Green Party of England and Wales announced a policy change, stating that in the event of a referendum they would campaign for an Independent Wales.

Of course, aside from this you also have organisations like Socialist Alternative active in Wales which would form part of a Welsh left.

• Has the phenomenon of Corbynism had an effect on the Welsh independence movement?

This is an interesting question, I don’t think Corbyn had much effect on this to be honest.

One of Corbyn’s weaknesses was his support for the continued union and not openly supporting Scottish independence and remained totally silent on the issue of Wales. I think what is likely to happen is that since the attacks on Corbyn by the Labour leadership, support for Welsh independence will rise further from an already historically high point, as disenfranchised Corbynistas, particularly young people, will be looking for an outlet to fight back against the Westminster government.

• Would you describe the movement for independence as left-progressive, or as right-wing nationalist?

I certainly would not describe it as right-wing nationalist, anyone who would fit that mould is likely to be a British nationalist and ardently opposed to the breakup of the union including any form of Welsh devolution or independence.

I would describe it as generally left or progressive. Much of the intention behind it can often be attributed to avoiding Conservative rule from London – that’s obviously an over-simplification of the issue but it certainly plays a big part on the rising movement. Though equally, there are many on the left (the Labour left being the most notable but others too) who would oppose independence, with some sections of the welsh working class seeing the Welsh parliament as useless and ineffective, because they have been completely ineffective in their opposition to austerity measures.

• How do the Welsh workers and youth see the EU and Brexit?

A complex question to answer really, I think that workers and youth in Wales, like the rest of Britain, see the EU in a very mixed way. The EU of course is a neoliberal institution which only operates in the interests of big business. I think that was very clear in the Greek movement against the EU, however that was not clear in the Brexit referendum in the way it was understood by many, particularly many radical young people who saw maintaining membership of the EU as a kind of internationalism. As Marxists of course we would argue that internationalism is for workers organisations and not for capitalist governments, but that does not stop many from viewing it that way.

In many ways, this has probably played a part in the rise in the support for Welsh independence, the idea of an Independent Wales staying in the EU. Plaid Cymru have always been big supporters of the EU and this is the kind of thing being advocated by the Scottish National Party in Scotland (not to mention the problems created in Northern Ireland with either a north/south or east/west border after withdrawal from the EU).

Other movements across Europe undoubtedly have played a part in influencing the rise of Welsh independence as well, the movements in Catalunya to give just one example.

• Last but not least, what in your opinion is the way forward for this movement?

I am glad you asked, this of course is the most relevant question. I think the most important aspect is to look at what type of Wales we are trying to build. We only have to look at the history of the Welsh Assembly, which earlier this year changed its name to Welsh Parliament to reflect its increased powers. Since its establishment in 1999 it has presided over cuts in many areas, health and education, whilst always presenting themselves as better than London, the results were either the same or nor far off.

On this basis an independent Wales run by either Labour or Plaid Cymru would simply show us more of the same with no real change. More important than independence, would be the policies put forward – whether they are in the interests of working class people or the interests of the rich.

The key has to be forging a new left workers’ party in Wales to put forward a genuine Socialist Alternative for Wales, to hold the Welsh politicians particularly Labour and Plaid Cymru to account, and to aim to build and campaign on policies in the interests of ordinary workers and young people throughout Wales, for a Socialist Wales as part of a voluntary federation alongside England, Scotland & Ireland as a step towards building a Socialist Europe

The death agony of the Fourth International

 I have recently read 'The death agony of the Fourth International - and the tasks of Trotskyists today' A wordy title for a book to say the least. For those familiar it is an obvious play on the full title of the transitional program by Leon Trotsky - The death agony of capitalism and the tasks of the Fourth International.

Written by Workers Power - now known as Red Flag in 1983 it is a very good explanation of the demise of the Fourth Internationals origins and its ultimate demise. I do not agree with their conclusions in the book which led of course to them renaming their international the League for a Fifth International, however their insights into the Fourth International itself are illuminating and something that all Trotskyists need to back to and tackle today as the issues have not been resolved.

They start quite correctly by looking at how the Fourth International came to exist in the first place. initially a tendency within the Communist International and therefore the mass communist parties that had developed after the Russian revolution of 1917, arguing correctly at the time to reform the International and only after the huge betrayals of Stalin and by extension the International is the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany was a break and a new international required.

This historical juncture though was marked by both mass social democratic parties and mass or semi mass communist parties throughout the world and with a few notable exceptions, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Bolivia which much smaller agitational groups around the new international, struggling with perspectives and orientation, with groups of varying characteristics involved initially, including many centrist groups which later parted ways.

 This was a necessary break and with a figure like Trotsky to coalesce around able to give it a theoretical backbone the international was able to develop its own identity, but with both the assisation of Trotsky and a changed world post war in which his perspectives were not borne out. The post war boom of capitalism in the west and the expansion of Stalinism, meant that the fourth international began very quickly to loose its way. in essence, it forgot why it existed!

It became a power struggle of various factions, no figure had the political authority to carry it, so organisational maneuvers became the order of the day, from the antics of Cannon and his interference in the British section, even before the founding congress in 1938 to the split and subsequent reunification of the International secretariat and the International committee. 

This has been the legacy of not just those organisations directly descended from the fourth international but has been inbedded in the trotskyist movement throughout its history. Most recently seen in the most obvious way by the moves of the refounded CWI.

 A movement specifically set up to inject democracy back into the workers movement has been severely lacking in democracy from the offset. The Bolsheviks of which all Trotskyists would agree is the basis for their organisation, prior to the rise of Stalinism  was an open and democratic organisation with a thriving and living internal life with open disucssion and differences, which helped the organisation truly become the revolutionary and democratic force it was, a lesson that the Trotskyist movement is sorely lacking and strongly needs to relearn in order to build a dynamic international capable of the task of transforming society.

Thoughts on AEW Full Gear

This review is a bit late, better late than never. But AEW recently held its Full Gear event, which was a fantastic show.

The buy in match was an unusual one. Simply because the window to the show proper was an NWA women's title match with Serena Deeb defending against Alison Kay, it was a decent opener with Deeb coming out on top only to be confronted by Thunder Rosa at the end who recently lost the title to Deeb. Whilst this all centred on the NWA Women's championship it does suggest that all three of them are not done with AEW yet, and perhaps a deepening of a working relationship between AEW and NWA.

Those show proper opened with a bang. The tournament final for the #1 contednership of the AEW World championship. Kenny Omega vs. Adam Page.

This match could have easily main evented the card and did not fail to deliver. A real back and forth of equals with a fantastic ending. Both were still in the fight Page was desperately attempting to counter Omega's One Winged Angel, however as soon as it was hit, the match was over. Great in so many ways. Omega, was the right person to win, Page was kept strong and needs to be, he is positioned as the future of AEW and also the One Winged Angel is still that most rare thing in wrestling. A protected finisher.

Next up we saw the Dark Order's John Silver taking on Orange Cassidy. Silver is absolutely gold as a personality, this his by far his biggest singles match to date so it is interesting to see what he can do. This was the match i didn't realise I wanted. The match started off playing on the comedy strength of both competitors and was brilliant but when the match got going, it got going and both could really go, a fantastic match over all with Cassidy coming out with the win. 

Next up Cody Rhodes defended the TNT championship against Darby Allin. It was a fantastic match with an old school mentality to the match, Cody just keeps getting better an better as a character and in ring worker. In a very solid match up a very surprising victory for Darby Allin and  Cody graciously handed over the title to a very emotional Allin. 

This led to Taz coming out to cut a promo on both before Brian Cage and Ricky Starks attacked both from behind. A great use of two top performers who did not feature on the card. Setting up a future angle.

Next up was the AEW World women's championship match with Hikaru Shida defending against Nyla Rose. A solid match with Shida coming out victorious, disappointing simply because I believe that Nyla Rose should completely dominate the division for a long time.

The tag team championship match was up next with FTR defending against the Young Bucks with the stipulation that if the Young Bucks do not win they will never challenge for the tag titles again. This is not the same as when Cody won did the same, there is no likely to be a secondary tag title so I cannot see them loosing, likely to be a count out of disqualification win as I don't see them picking up the titles either. 

This was a great show case of tag team wrestling throughout. A great match with the urgency of the stakes showing through. Battling through injury the Young Bucks picked up the victory in dramatic fashion, there will clearly be a further match between the bucks and FTR and this is not a bad thing at all.

Next up was a cinematic match involving the originator of the cinematic match. Matt Hardy vs Sammy Guevara in an Elite Deletion match. Cinematic matches are obviously very different. This one did not fail to deliver, with cameos from Private Party, Santana and Ortiz, Hurricane Helms and Gangrel. The closing moments had references to recent botches, Sammy went through a table and cut the back off his head, then Hardy to him in the face with a chair a reverse of what had happened recently. A great addition to the cinematic match catalogue.

Next up was Jericho vs MJF for the rights to join the Inner Circle. This had to end in a win for MJF it is the only logical ending with MJF joining the Inner Circle to see what happens next. There was an ingenious finish, Jericho caught using a baseball bat, though he didn't and actually was setup by MJF who then used the distraction to role Jericho up for the win, which was the perfect finish for this match.

Jericho then announced that both MJF and Wardlow had joined the Inner Circle. It was disappointing to see Wardlow join as well, I thought it would have been better for MJF TO Beat him down along with Jericho and Hager and for him to subsequently break out on his own, maybe they are playing to long game with this one though.

Now it was time for the main event. Jon Moxley defending the AEW World championship against Eddie Kingston. Kingston is a veteran who up until now has not had a run in a major promotion befitting his talents. With this taking place as as no dq submission match and knowing the history of both in such stipulations I was looking forward to this match. Brutal is the only word you could use to describe this hard-core affair. It ended when Kingston quit whilst in a choke hold utilising barbed wired. This raised both competitors, Morley has not been top dog as champion and Kingston relatively new to the promotion  both had their stocks raised by the end of the night.

Overall a fantastic show, I think it really is a question of quality over quantity. AEW only have 4 ppvs per year and as a result they can build storyline and put everything into them. A great show for sure.

Old Tin Works Road

 I had planned to publish the essays I had written here, however the first piece of work I have submitted would not make any sense to a reader without the background information and reading materials so there is little point. However one part of the work. A description of a street I am familiar with can stand on its own.

Old Tin Works Road, connecting Treforest to Rhydyfelin in South Wales,  also connects people. As the name suggests it is the site of a former tin works long since gone representing the industrial decline. It has no houses or shops simply an allotment and a noticeably quiet scrap yard. The street runs parallel with the main road, it is predominantly pedestrianised, the people found here are generally either dog walkers, older people or families out for a walk or younger individuals traveling between the connected areas avoiding the busy main road. What connects everyone is the isolation and quiet they have sought, they have this in common.

Thoughts on NJPW Power Struggle

Recently NJPW held its Power Struggle event on the 7th November.

The first match up saw 'provisional champion' for the KOPW 2020 Toru Yank defend against Zack Sabre Jr. The KOPW is an interesting concept as it features non-standard matches which generally do not feature in NJPW, however rather than it being a division where we would see things like ladder matches, table matches or cage matches, we instead get some weird and minor stipulations. This match bring no exception, being contested as a 'no corner pads' match. This could have been a very interesting stipulation, though it did not really come into play.

The match itself highlighted the technical style of Zack and the comedy styling of Yano equally and was a very decent opener match, in the end Toru Yano picked up the victory after tying ZSJ's shoe laces together around the guide rail after he had Yano in a leg lock around the rail.

The second match up was Shingo Takagi challenging Minoru Suzuki for the NEVER openweight championship. We have seen this particular match up several times recently. A hard hitting strong style affair, this time with Takagi coming out on top as the new NEVER openweight champion.

The third match up on the card saw Obama take in the Great O Khan, a match really as a placeholder toward Obama vs Osprey. Which was set up for Wrestle Kingdom after the match. The match itself was OK, there is not a lot more to say about it other than that. Okada took the victory.

Next up was Kenta defending his briefcase for a shot at the IWGP United States championship against Hiroshi Tanahashi. A solid match with Kenya coming out of top retaining the title shot. The only question really is when will the title shot be? John Morley is unlikely to travel to Japan anytime soon to defend the title, hopefully at Wrestle Kingdom, but with travel restrictions still likely to be in effect it is unlikely.

In the semi main event, in another defence of a briefcase, Kota Ibushi defended his shot at the IWGP heavyweight championship. For the first time in history the briefcase changed hands. A completely unexpected twist i was absolutely convinced that this would have been an Ibushi retention!

In the main event Tetsyu Naito defended both IWGP heavyweight and intercontinental championship against Evil, to determine who the other participant would be in the Wrestle Kingdom 15 main event.

Transport for Wales nationalised - Kick privateers out of the rail industry!

 

This article was originally published on the website of Socialist Alternative. Transport for Wales is to be nationalised as of February. This unfortunately was not a deliberate act by the Senydd (Welsh parliament) but rather was a result of the break down of bailout talks with Keolis Amey who have decided to walk away despite having received £267m in subsidies from the Senydd in just 2 years in which they held the franchise.

The Welsh government does not have the power to nationalise industries and rail unions have also stated that under current UK law it is not possible for governments to step in permanently. What we have instead is that the Welsh government will only take control for the remainder of the current franchise term,still a significant 13 years to go. 

The crisis erupted during the covid-19 pandemic, with falling passenger numbers the logic of capitalism began to unravel the franchise as it became unprofitable and the bailouts offered were not enough to satisfy Keolis Amey as they decided to walk away.  Scandalously though, they have not walked away completely, they have walked away only from passenger services which have become loss making. However, as part of the original franchise deal which began in 2018, the ownership of the tracks and infrastructure of the valley lines (the main commuter lines into Cardiff from surrounding towns,) previously owned by the Welsh government,  was handed over to Keolis Amey. They have decided and been allowed to retain ownership of the valley lines tracks as they still see a profit to be made. With big infrastructure projects still to be completed as part of the ‘South Wales Metro’ this side of the business will certainly remain a profitable asset for them.

This is a continuation of the neoliberal ‘privatise the profits, nationalise the losses’ policy that bailed the bankers out while the rest of us were made to live with austerity.  The scraps are handed back to governments to pick up the bill and provide the necessary investment.

Keolis Amey took over the franchise with huge fanfare  The previous franchise holders Arriva had become hated due to poor services, late running trains and cancellations with rising fares. However Keolis Amey were able to achieve what many people had thought impossible: more late trains and cancellations than had happened previously, in some cases several trains in the same route concurrently meaning half hourly services became 2 hourly services! As a regular passenger myself I witnessed chaotic scenes of rail staff themselves unable to find out if services were running or not!

As things stand nationalisation was only able to take place under the creations of ‘operators of last resort’.  This means that with no provider company willing to run a loss making service, the Welsh government was able to step in. The implication of this is that as soon as passenger numbers begin to rise back to previous levels, the service will once again be privatised to be run by a parasitic multinational once again.

The time is now for the Labour government in Cardiff Bay to carry out permanent nationalisation of the rail franchise along with all other public services – but it shouldn’t be the current ineffective management which are left in charge. It should be under the control of workers in the rail industry, and people who use the service, who make decisions. If the Westminster government tries to block this, there should be a campaign linking both unions like the RMT, ASLEF AND TSSA in the rail industry service users in the wider community to demand not only nationalisation on a permanent basis but a service which can allow for increased wages, lower fares and better investment in trains and infrastructure. Wales is in desperate need of this, it has 10% of all rail lines in the UK, but currently only 3% of investment. If you remove the need to pay out dividends and profits to shareholders, then It is perfectly possible to do all of this and highlights why private companies have no place in public services.