Class War at the 2015 UK General Election: Radicalism, Subversion and the Democratic Process

Home , Cereal Killer Cafe, Champagne socialist, Class War, Ian Bone, Stop the City, The Ruling Class (play)

Jon Bigger

Doctoral Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at Loughborough University

6th October 2020

Abstract

The anarchist movement Class War stood candidates in the 2015 UK general election. Anarchists tend to shun official politics so it is appropriate to ask why the group took part and what it hoped to achieve? In answering that question, this thesis provides the first ethnographic study of Class War, focusing on a small but significant subculture on the fringes of UK politics and society. In recounting their general election campaign, it examines how far radicals can utilise the mechanisms of the liberal democratic state for their own advantage. It highlights where the group was successful and how its subversion could be developed and improved. The thesis argues that the experiment punctured the normal, stale election process and provides a benchmark for radicals wishing to subvert it for their own ends.

Election leaflets, campaign launches, hustings events, media appearances and the election count were all used as forms of direct action, piercing through the fabric of constitutional activity and therefore forging liberated spaces within the electoral process. The research was conducted in the run up to, during, and in the aftermath of the election. Embedded within the group, I used Participatory Action Research as a reference point to write about my own experiences as an election candidate and those of my research participants during the research process.

The thesis provides a thick description of how one small group of activists attempted to fuse direct action with constitutional means in an effort to inspire the working class beyond the staid failures of leftist party politics. It is the story of Class War’s election told through the lens of their activists.

KEYWORDS Anarchism, Class War, Direct Action, General Elections, UK Politics, Subculture

Acknowledgements

I could not have completed this work without the help of all the Class War participants. Those that participated directly in this research provided their time and effort to help me understand their view of the world. There are some that I spent time with, staying in their houses and socialising. Their kindness and friendship made this an enjoyable project.

My supervisors at Loughborough University, Ruth Kinna and Ian Fraser were understanding, helpful and patient. Their gentle pushes in the right direction helped me learn a great deal formulating my thoughts and developing my analysis. I owe them both a great deal for their teaching. Dave Berry left the university before I completed but was also a supervisor for the first year. His help was invaluable as I headed into the field to gather data.

The work of photojournalist Peter Marshall is much admired by me. As Class War’s unofficial photographer, Peter was working during much of what this thesis describes, providing useful pictorial evidence. He has kindly allowed me to use some of his photographs. Likewise, there is a photograph by Guy Smallman of the moment when a participant was arrested, which conveys the drama of the moment perfectly. I would like to thank both Peter and Guy for allowing me to use their images.

Early in this research my finances dried up. I was very close to having to give the project up. I was given a grant by the Civil Service Charity, on account of being a former worker in that sector. I am extremely grateful for that help from former civil servants.

Loughborough People and Planet deserve a special mention for extra-curricular excitement. Being able to help kick-start the group with some imaginative direct action and generally helping to inspire left leaning undergraduates has been joyous. Gaining a policy change at the University on fossil fuel investments within a few months was an achievement for the group that I will look back on fondly. Taking coffee breaks with Steff to plan and plot and scheme is something I will really miss.

My parents have both supported me through my time at Loughborough University. I hope they enjoy the fact that this work is complete. The time that I’ve been able to spend on holiday with my mother has helped me to unwind during the process. The visits with my father to see Lincoln City (mainly) win games has also been useful.

Finally, I must thank my proof-reader and partner Anne. I didn’t really talk too much about my thesis in great depth with her until towards its completion. I’ve really made up for it in those final three months. She’s been the first person to read the work outside of my supervisors and she’s v very patiently helped me improve the grammar and reduce the typos. Beyond that, of course, it’s just been nice to spend time with someone so fun to be with.

List of Images / Figures

Figure 1, The first Class War front cover. Image credit: CW ...... 15 Figure 2, The front cover of the theoretical 4th edition of Class War. Image credit: CW 15 Figure 3, Class War supporting violent strikers. Image credit: CW ...... 15 Figure 4, Class War promoting urban rioting. Image credit CW...... 15 Figure 5, Class War front cover, promoting the Bash the Rich campaign. Image Credit CW. 16 Figure 6, Front page of Class War promoting their Spring Offensive. Image credit: CW. 16 Figure 7, Class War's take on the birth of William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor. Image credit: CW...... 16 Figure 8, Class War celebrating a royal wedding. Image credit: CW...... 16 Figure 9, A Class War scoop. Image credit: CW...... 31 Figure 10, The movement makes it clear how much it dislikes Thatcher. Image credit: CW. 31 Figure 11, Class War celebrates the poll tax disorder. Image credit: CW...... 31 Figure 12, Class War using humour to make a point about economic policy. Image credit: CW. 31 Figure 13, The front cover of the 1st Heavy Stuff. Image Credit CW...... 32 Figure 14, The Wolverine #1 front cover. Image credit CW...... 32 Figure 15, The Wolverine #2 front cover. Image credit CW...... 32 Figure 16, A cartoon from The Wolverine. Image credit: CW...... 32 Figure 17, Oscar Brand: The Finest Fucking Family...... 63 Figure 18, The WDB and the dancing banner at a Poor Doors protest...... 63 Figure 19, The design for the Lucy Parsons Banner. Image credit: CW...... 64 Figure 20, The design for the WDB banner. Image credit: CW...... 64 Figure 21, CW leaflet for the Criminal Justice Bill 1994...... 77 Figure 22, A CW image publicising the basic policies...... 78 Figure 23, A CW image utilising words from one of my articles...... 78 Figure 24, Ian and Jane at Tory event in Selsdon. Video credit: Jane ...... 78 Figure 25, My interview with the Croydon Advertiser was publicised in my local area.78 Figure 26, The published interview...... 78 Figure 27, A staff member guards the rich door at the first Poor Doors Protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 85 Figure 28, The Lucy Banner at the first Poor Doors Protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 85 Figure 29, The Police arrive at the first Poor Doors protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 85 Figure 30, Poor Doors soon attracted other housing campaigners...... 85 Figure 31, Music at the Poor Doors...... 85 Figure 32, A police free Poor Doors and a party atmosphere...... 85 vii

Figure 33, The alley to the poor door. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 86 Figure 34, CW advert for Poor Doors protests. Image credit: CW ...... 86 Figure 35, The rich entrance, occupied. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 86 Figure 36, Ian arrested. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 86 Figure 37, Courting the controversy from Ian's arrest. Image credit: CW ...... 86 Figure 38, Promotion for Poor Doors on the same day as the London Anarchist Bookfair. Image credit: CW...... 86 Figure 39, The CW promo for Poor Doors on November 5th, 2014...... 89 Figure 40, The police stand by as Boris burns. Image credit: Guy Smallman...... 89 Figure 41, CWP attempt to protect Jane, as the police arrest her. Image credit: Guy Smallman. 89 Figure 42, The WDB showing solidarity for Jane...... 90 Figure 43, The WDB, the week following Jane's arrest. Image credit: Peter Marshall.90 Figure 44, Another example of the dancing banner. Image credit: Peter Marshall. .. 90 Figure 45, Ian wonders if Griff Rhys-Jones is at home. Image credit: Peter Marshall.90 Figure 46, The CWP search for IDS in Chingford. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 90 Figure 47, The banner unfurled at the start of the March for Homes...... 115 Figure 48, The Lucy banner at the March for Homes...... 115 Figure 49, The March for Homes headed by a range of housing campaigns. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 115 Figure 50, A bridge provides a welcome respite from the elements. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 115 Figure 51, The design for the All Fucking Wankers banner. Image credit: CW...... 115 Figure 52, I was one of the first to reach Once Commercial Street. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 116 Figure 53, The CWP diverging for an impromptu Poor Doors protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 116 Figure 54, Lisa holds court at the breakaway. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 116 Figure 55, The CWP smoke bomb adds to the speactacle. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 116 Figure 56, The breakaway rejoins the back of the march. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 116 Figure 57, Cold and wet and holding a banner. Wondering if the day would be any use for my research. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 116 Figure 58, The rally at City Hall. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 125 Figure 59, Tooley Street blocked. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 125 Figure 60, Lining the pavement, ready for action. Image credit: Peter Marshall. ... 125 Figure 61, Going into One Tower Bridge...... 125 Figure 62, The view from the occupied balcony...... 125 viii

Figure 63, The liberated banner, held proudly in front of the cops...... 125 Figure 64, The area of the rally and the occupation. The rally took place to the left of City Hall on the map. Tooley Street runs roughly left to right at the top right hand corner. This is where the road was blocked. One Tower bridge faced City Hall, diagonally across the grass. Some of the buildings behind One Tower Bridge were building sites at the time of the protest. One Tower Bridge itself, was just a shell. Image credit: Google Maps...... 126 Figure 65, The banner-drop from One Tower Bridge. Image credit: Unknown, Facebook. 126 Figure 66, X's By Any Means Necessary speech. Image credit: Youtube...... 133 Figure 67, At the Poor Doors protest that week, the All Fucking Wankers banner had been taken by police and another arrest made. Image credit: Jane...... 158 Figure 68, A police officer in Chingford tells the CWP not to be offensive...... 159 Figure 69, Ian, mimicking the officer...... 159 Figure 70, At Chingford Station for the start of the launch. Image credit: Peter Marshall 163 Figure 71, Lisa enjoying the opportunity. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 163 Figure 72, A local Chingford man responds to the CWP. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 163 Figure 73, The CWP find a place to congregate in Chingford. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 163 Figure 74, Stan is warned about language. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 163 Figure 75, Stan pulls a face as the officer walks away. Image credit: Peter Marshall.163 Figure 76, I decided to have a go with the megaphone. Image credit: Peter Marshall.164 Figure 77, A trip to the office of IDS. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 164 Figure 78, The launch de-brief. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 164 Figure 79, In the pub afterwards with IDS Masks (1). Image credit: Peter Marshall164 Figure 80, In the pub afterwards with IDS Masks (2). Image credit: Peter Marshall.164 Figure 81, In the pub afterwards with IDS Masks (3). Image credit: Peter Marshall.164 Figure 82, A party of us headed to the Aylesbury Estate. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 165 Figure 83, The purple boarding with razor wire cutting through the estate. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 165 Figure 84, Getting to the squat wasn't easy. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 165 Figure 85, Lisa considers the view. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 165 Figure 86, The CWP at the Aylesbury Estate squat. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 165 Figure 87, The Lucy banner at the Aylesbury Estate. Image credit: Peter Marshall.165 Figure 88, The CWP assemble for the Croydon South launch. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 166 Figure 89, A good day for flags, but not banners. Image credit: Peter Marshall. ... 166 Figure 90, A quick speech before the march starts. Image credit: Peter Marshall. 166 ix

Figure 91, First stop, the local Tory office. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 166 Figure 92, Another speech, with the police watching on from behind. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 166 Figure 93, An alleyway to shelter from the wind. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 166 Figure 94, Adam on the streets of Soho...... 173 Figure 95, Adam, posing glamorously...... 173 Figure 96, The WDB marching through Soho...... 173 Figure 97, Adam takes the campaign to the local chippy...... 173 Figure 98, Heels taking their toll...... 173 Figure 99, CWP poster for Adam's trip to the Palace. Image credit: CW...... 173 Figure 100, Lucy assembles the CWP outside Buckingham Palace. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 174 Figure 101, Ian admires Adam's outfit. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 174 Figure 102, Ian knocks to see if anyone is home. Image credit: Peter Marshall. ... 174 Figure 103, Adam outside Buckingham Palace. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 174 Figure 104, Adam makes a speech. Image credit: Peter Marshall...... 174 Figure 105, Another CWP promo for the canvassing of Buckingham Palace. Image credit: CW...... 174 Figure 106, The final version, complete with my name as it would appear on the ballot paper. Image credit: CW...... 177 Figure 107, Al's leaflet was the result of an intense burst of imagination. Image credit: CW...... 177 Figure 108, The back of the leaflet for Croydon South. Image credit: CW...... 177 Figure 109, A Litchfield promo...... 178 Figure 110, A leaflet for the CWP in Norwich South. Image credit: CW...... 178 Figure 111, Adam, representing the CWP on the Daily Politics. Image credit: BBC.182 Figure 112, Dave asks a PCSO to justify his interference...... 186 Figure 113, Lisa chatting to potential voters in Chingford. Image credit: Jane...... 190 Figure 114, The CWP block Tower Bridge at Poor Doors, February 2015. Image credit: Geraldine Dening...... 194 Figure 115, The new All Fucking Wankers banner, unfurled at the first Fuck Parade.197 Figure 116, The police line up around the corner from One Commercial Street, at the first Fuck Parade...... 197 Figure 117, Materials for making CWP rosettes...... 198 Figure 118, Adam and Murray at the Fuck Parade...... 198 Figure 119, The Fuck Parade heading towards Tower Bridge...... 198 x

Figure 120, The Fuck Parade on Tower Bridge...... 198 Figure 121, An unknown protester was chased by police...... 199 Figure 122, Adam at the Lectern 1. Image credit: CW...... 219 Figure 123, I did not feature on the promotion for the hustings...... 219 Figure 124, CWP poster promoting the seven candidates...... 219 Figure 125, CWP continued to attack the decision to arrest Lisa...... 220 Figure 126, On the day of the hustings in Croydon South, Adam had a date with Andrew Neil. Image credit: Murray...... 220 Figure 127, Delivering my opening statement. Philp watches on. Image credit: CW.220 Figure 128, A wig and stick replaces Tory Candidate, Fabricant, in Litchfield. Image credit: Speakers Corner Trust, via Twitter...... 220 Figure 129, Jane, victorious outside the court...... 231 Figure 130, A black Rosette. Image credit: CW ...... 231 Figure 131, Jane, celebrating with her legal team...... 231 Figure 132, Andy's ballot paper, unused and framed. Image credit: Litchfield CW. 231 Figure 133, A promo created by a friend...... 231 Figure 134, The "trumpet of change" photo, inspiring the promo, left...... 231 Figure 135, On election day I was staying at Ian and Jane’s. Melvin, Jane's dog, wished me luck...... 232 Figure 136, A CW promo for election day...... 232 Figure 137, My election night team, preparing in the pub...... 232 Figure 138, A CW promo for Lisa, linking her arrest to the election...... 232 Figure 139, Adam's team assemble for the count. Image credot: Murray...... 232 Figure 140, A CW promo, subverting one used by the Liberal Democrats...... 232 Figure 141, Tory HQ learn of CW victories across the board. Image credit: Jane. 233 Figure 142, My Croydon South speech...... 244 Figure 143, An officer stands on a placard in Parliament Square, denoting the percentage of people that voted for parties other than the Tories...... 255 Figure 144, Discussing the protest with David Graeber, Lisa and Martin Wright. Image credit: Romayne Phoenix...... 255 Figure 145, The Lucy banner outside Downing Street...... 255 Figure 146, The Mail on Sunday, the next morning...... 255 Figure 147, Image used by CW for a new "Hospitalised Copper", shared to their Facebook page...... 255 Figure 148, CW enter into the spirit of things...... 255 Figure 149, The Whitehall protest turns ugly...... 256 xi

Figure 150, At Downing Street, the police are pinned back but retaking control. ... 256 Figure 151, Inside the kettle we are pushed and I take a tumble...... 256 Figure 152, State Opening of Parliament, promo 1...... 259 Figure 153, State Opening of Parliament, promo 2...... 259 Figure 154, State Opening of Parliament, promo 3: Subverting the mainstream narrative...... 259 Figure 155, A CW poster from around the time of the State Opening of Parliament.259 Figure 156, CW flag waving in Parliament Square...... 260 Figure 157, The view from the pub...... 260 Figure 158, The police waiting outside for CW...... 260 Figure 159, Followed by police vans all day...... 260 Figure 160, CW hog the stage. Image Credit: Facebook Candidate Support Group.260 Figure 161, A CW promo for the June demo...... 267 Figure 162, CW on the raised platform...... 267 Figure 163, Darting from St Paul's to the raised platform...... 267 Figure 164, A prop. Image credit: CW...... 267 Figure 165, The view from the march of CW...... 267 Figure 166, The poster for Oh! What a Lovely War. Image credit: Wikipedia...... 268 Figure 167, A reminder of the front page of Class War, inspired by the film poster. Image credit: CW...... 268 Figure 168, The design for the new banner. Image credit: CW...... 268 Figure 169, David Graeber joined us for a while...... 268 Figure 170, The WDB inspects the march...... 268 Figure 171, A smoke bomb on the march...... 269 Figure 172, CW at Downing Street...... 269 Figure 173, The boarded up war memorial...... 269 Figure 174, A party atmosphere on Whitehall...... 269 Figure 175, The design for a CW Midlands banner. Image credit: CW...... 269 Figure 176, Life's more fun with CW 1. Image credit: CW...... 270 Figure 177, Life's more fun with CW 2. Image credit: CW...... 270 Figure 178, Life's more fun with CW 3. Image credit: CW...... 270 Figure 179, Life's more fun with CW 4. Image credit: CW...... 270 Figure 180, The Fuck Parade, avoiding mediocrity. Image credit: Get germanized [sic]. 272 Figure 181, CW Fuck Parade promo 1...... 275 Figure 182, CW Fuck Parade promo 2...... 275 Figure 183, CW Fuck Parade promo 3...... 275 xii

Figure 184, CW Fuck Parade promo 4...... 275 Figure 185, CW promo for a protest at the Ripper Museum...... 276 Figure 186, The protests started to become weekly affairs...... 276 Figure 187, The first Ripper Museum protest...... 276 Figure 188, Jane points at the cops protecting the museum...... 276 Figure 189, The view from across the street, as the protest grew...... 276 Figure 190, An accident occurred...... 276 Figure 191, The Fuck Parade visit the Cereal Killer Cafe. Image credit: Ruptly. .... 284 Figure 192, Fuck Parade promo 1...... 293 Figure 193, Fuck Parade promo 2...... 293 Figure 194, The parade stops in an archway. Image credit: CW...... 293 Figure 195, Fuck Parade promo 3...... 293 Figure 196, CW response to the furore over the Cereal Killer Cafe...... 293 Figure 197, The cafe with pain on the windows. Image credit: Fuck Parade...... 293 Figure 198, CW Midlands at the cafe. Image credit: Fuck Parade...... 293 Figure 199, Jane outside the Ripper Museum. Image credit: CW...... 294 Figure 200, A CW promo for action at the museum...... 294 Figure 201, A cartoon shared by CW...... 294 Figure 202, The Ripper Museum protests would continue throughout the autumn, including this example which saw the brutal ripping of an effigy of the museum owner. Image credit: Ruptly...... 294

xiii

Contents

Frontispiece i

Certificate of Originality ii

Abstract iv

Acknowledgements v

List of Images / Figures vii

Table of Contents xiv

Introduction 1

Chapter One – Contextualisation 6

• Anarchism 6 • The History of Class War 8 o Beginnings 8 o The Miners’ Strike 10 o Growing Confidence 12 o Mainstream Media Attention 15 • Class War Publications 21 o Class War 21 o The Wolverine: Gay Voices of Hostility 27 o Heavy Stuff 28 o Unfinished Business 32 Chapter Two – The Class War Subculture 35

• Subculture 35 o Direct Action and Fun 36 ▪ Direct Action and Controversy 44 o Social Class 46 o “The Finest Fucking Family in the Land” and other structural issues 54 Chapter Three – Me and Class War 65

• A Note on Methods 65 • Becoming a Candidate 65 • The Pensioner Activist and the Youthful Anarchist 68 • The First Election Planning Meeting 70 • 2014 Local and European Elections 73 • The People’s Assembly and Owen Jones 73 • Gaining Trust for the Research 77 • Poor Doors 77 Chapter Four – Methods and Methodology 88 xiv

• Ethnography 89 o Authenticity 91 • Conventional Approaches 93 • Interviews 95 • Diaries 96 • Grounded Theory 97 • Confirming the Election Campaign 101 • Becoming a Researcher 102 o The March for Homes 109 o Triangulating a Story 117 • The First Interviews 121 • Methods Conclusion 124 Chapter Five – The 2015 General Election 125

• Prologue: The Decision to Register as a Party and Stand Candidates 126 • Class War Campaign Styles 133 o Protest Campaigning 133 o Face to Face with the Enemy 133 o Rationally Promoting Anarchism 134 o Don’t Vote 135 o Campaign Styles Conclusion 136 • Election Bureaucracy – Getting on the Ballot Paper 137 o Getting the 10 Nominations 138 o The Election Agent 142 o Becoming an Official CWP Candidate 143 ▪ The Other Constituencies 145 o Getting on the Ballot Paper Conclusion 151 • The Election Campaign 153 o Campaign Launches 153 ▪ Chingford and Woodford Green 154 ▪ Croydon South 159 ▪ Cities of London and Westminster 165 o “Fuck the Shithead Cunts”: Developing Election Leaflets 169 o Media Coverage 177 ▪ Adam 177 ▪ Andy 181 ▪ Dave 182 ▪ David 183 ▪ Joe 184 ▪ Jon 185 ▪ Lisa 186 ▪ Media Coverage Conclusion 188 o The Fuck Parade 189 o Hustings 197 o Election Day 220 o Election Night 230 ▪ The Declaration 238 • Chapter Conclusion 243 xv

Chapter Six – The Aftermath 244

• The Summer of Thuggery 245 o Whitehall Disorder 245 o The State Opening of Parliament 254 o End Austerity Now – Another People’s Assembly Protest 258 o The Camden Fuck Parade 268 o The Ripper Museum 270 o Middle Class Guilt War! 274 o Conclusions on the Summer of Thuggery 275 • Autumn: The Election Strikes Back! 276 o Andrew Fisher and the Labour Party 277 o The Cereal Killer Café and the Ripper Museum: fluctuating fortunes in public relations 279 ▪ The Cereal Killer Café 280 ▪ The Ripper Museum 287 o Million Mask March 293 o Conclusion to the Autumn 293

Chapter Seven – Reflections and Conclusion 295

• Thesis Review 295 • External Assessment 300 • Internal Reflections 303 o Increased Profile 304 o Repercussions 305 o Campaign Issues 307 o Standing in the Future 309 • The Case for Anarchist Participation 312 Bibliography 313

Appendices 333

• Appendix One - Research Participants 333 • Appendix Two - Participant Information Sheet 335 • Appendix Three – Participant Agreement Form 338 • Appendix Four – The CWP Election Results 340

xvi

Introduction

This thesis examines the election campaign of the Class War Party (CWP) in the UK general election of 2015. It constructs an analysis about the electoral practices available to radical parties through observation, interviews and the lived experiences of participants. The thesis contributes to existing knowledge by providing an account of the history of Class War (CW) as a movement, then explaining the subcultural norms and values of the people involved before moving on to describe, through first- hand accounts, how the movement organised as a political party to fight the election campaign. It then analyses what the movement gained from doing so and evaluates the strategy. The main argument of the thesis is that such an experiment in electoral politics provides radicals with opportunities for subversion. The example of the CWP therefore provides a benchmark for other groups, parties and movements to learn from.

As one of the CWP candidates in the election and someone active within the movement I have been granted an unprecedented level of access to the workings of the party during the campaign.1 The movement has a deep distrust of authority combined with a class analysis that considers academic research as a potential threat. Therefore, there is scant scholarly material linked to the movement. This is considered in more detail when looking at the subcultural norms and values of the movement in its current iteration. For now, it is worth noting that CW would be very sceptical of a researcher from outside its boundaries coming into the movement and conducting research on the individuals involved. The thesis therefore would have been difficult to write without the access I was granted and it provides a basis upon which other researchers can build. Despite remaining obscure in terms of scholarly research, CW has attracted voluminous national media attention.

CW are worthy of such in-depth research for the following reasons:

1. CW is not a large social movement but it is a significant one.

Within the context of anarchist studies as an academic field this thesis helps to contextualise the disparity between the notoriety of the movement and the lack of scholarly material on it. It is useful to acknowledge and understand that much

1 Appendix Four shows the CWP candidates, the constituency where they stood and the votes they received.

anarchist action occurs under the radar of public perception. Oftentimes, the public becomes aware of anarchism only through the mainstream prism of press reports of riots or stunts organised by anarchist groups. CW is well known by comparison to other British anarchist movements or groups because of such attention. The publications of the movement have contributed to this situation, most notably the movement’s paper, Class War which we shall see included dark humour, and violent content directed towards the rich and powerful.

2. Researching CW provides knowledge on class struggle anarchism in the UK.

Understanding CW’s activities and the way these were expressed in the 2015 general election provides us with a greater understanding of class struggle anarchism in practice. The foray into electoral politics is unusual and the thesis focuses on that experiment. It provides insight into the activities of a class struggle anarchist movement operating in spaces hitherto unexplored.

3. The 2015 general election

In standing candidates in the 2015 general election the CWP did something unusual within anarchist circles. This thesis explains the decision to stand in the context of a diminishing of working-class communities and voices, as CW see it, with decades of Thatcherite government policy. The context of the financial crash of 2008 and the reactions around the world to it are also important factors. The Arab Spring and Occupy! movement, the Spanish Indignados, the rise of Podomos and Syriza and the student protests in the UK in 2010-11 are the immediate backdrop to CW standing candidates in the election. Therefore, the decision to stand can be seen as a British class struggle response to that crisis. It was a response that criticised the mainstream politics from both left and right and categorically called for revolutionary change. It did so from the spaces and arenas that the state provided at the election. That opportunity brought the CWP into direct contact and conflict with the organisations which the movement considers to be the enemy. By analysing what the CWP did during the election campaign the thesis accordingly sheds a different light on electoral politics and the relationship anarchists have with that process.

This work provides an account of CWP activities during the 2015 general election not provided anywhere else, further indicating the originality of the thesis. The CWP

campaign is a relatively unknown aspect of the election. The first-hand accounts, stories, interviews and other data show the specifics of the CWP campaign and as such they raise a number of issues. Our understanding of elections is often gained through the prism of power politics and personalities: who will form the next government? This means that much writing on a general election will revolve around the two main parties and then third parties to a lesser extent. By focusing on the CWP this thesis shows how small parties operate at election time and helps us to reflect on the edges of the political system and those marginalised within it. The main research questions being asked during the process were as follows:

• What could be gained for CW in terms of subverting official politics by standing candidates? • How did the CWP organise themselves before, during and after the process? • How did the movement subculture influence the conduct of the CWP during the process?

The thesis begins with a chapter contextualising CW, which explains two areas of background detail: firstly, the history of CW as a movement, and secondly, the publications associated with it.

The first scholarly material to consider CW in any detail came in Twenty-First Century Anarchism: Unorthodox Ideas for a New Millennium edited by Purkis and Bowen in 1997. A chapter written by Karen Goaman and Mo Dodson includes a consideration of the CW movement’s newspaper Class War. Despite the little scholarly material that exists on the subject there is a wealth of material on the movement published in the mainstream press. A summary of press reports is used to show how CW promoted themselves via their own newspaper and mainstream media reports in order to gain notoriety. Considering the newspaper that gave rise to the movement also sheds light on the belief system involved. In addition, there were more theoretical journals produced by CW which add nuance to the populist2 style of the newspaper.

2 This term, and ‘populism,’ are used in the thesis to describe an approach to propaganda directed at appealing to working class people. As discussed later, internal discussions within CW over theoretical matters in their publications are contrasted with these populist approaches.

Chapter Two focuses on the subcultural traits of the CWP, bringing our understanding of CW as a movement up to date. These are important for subsequent chapters as they help us to understand what beliefs the people involved with the election campaign follow. It provides us with knowledge of why they believe and do the things they do via the observation of events from the election process.

Chapter Three provides a description of my involvement with the CW movement prior to the commencement of the research. It provides context of how I became involved through becoming a CWP candidate. It details events which took place before the research was undertaken and is therefore constructed from memory and before the research methods were utilised.

Chapter Four details how the research was conducted and explains the methods used. It explains how CW came to be researched and written about in the way that they were, utilising ethnographic storytelling techniques, derived from observation and facets of participatory action research (PAR). According to Rachel Pain, Geoff Whitman and David Milledge (2012), PAR ‘involves people who are concerned about or affected by an issue taking a leading role in producing and using knowledge about it’. The methods chapter includes the retelling of events on the first day of fieldwork for the research. It explains that plans to carry out a conventional observation and ethnography changed as the day wore on and problems with that conventional approach became apparent. It therefore also contains reflection on the process, combined with the style of storytelling used to detail the election campaign itself.

Chapter Five focuses on the election campaign. The prologue explains why CW as a movement decided to stand candidates. This is followed by the efforts potential candidates went through to get on the ballot paper. The CWP election campaign itself is then retold, narrating what they did in each constituency and more broadly.

Chapter Six concerns the aftermath of the election. This was a period of time during which the CWP was deregistered with the Electoral Commission but also a period in which CW activity rose, and with it, a fierce level of press attention. Such attention came in the form of attacks on individuals associated with the election campaign and informs our understanding of the risks and benefits of standing candidates. It also highlights the strategic problems of assuming that an election is over once the votes are counted and it finds the CWP lacking in preparedness for such eventualities.

The conclusion to the thesis draws the strands together and answers the research questions. It allows space for participants to reflect on the campaign and provides context on the benefits for anarchists in engaging, to a certain extent, with the electoral process.

There is a dilemma in engaging with the state for official purposes; namely the risk of validating the very system that you seek to eradicate in the longer term. CW were, however, able to take their direct action into spaces anarchists normally avoid and therefore I argue this dilemma can be offset by new and radical actions. This thesis analyses the effectiveness of such a strategy and considers what the decision to stand candidates tells us about electoral politics in the UK in relation to anarchism. It concludes that the liberal democratic state provides such contests that anarchists can subvert effectively. Such subversion is an experiment which the CWP did not perfect but their example sets a benchmark for others to copy and adapt.

Chapter One

Contextualisation

This contextual chapter provides information on two areas. The first comprises a history of CW as a social movement, beginning with its origins in 1983, followed by periods of decline and stagnation and eventual re-emergence in the early 21st century. The second area provides an account of the publications of the social movement, most notably the Class War newspaper via which the movement sprang. This chapter provides an understanding of CW which is useful before we turn to the subcultural traits apparent in the CWP, covered in Chapter Three.

Anarchism

Before focusing on the history and publications of CW, a view of anarchism is helpful. This small subsection is not designed to give a thorough history of anarchism as a political philosophy, or as a movement. Rather, it is focused on setting out anarchism as a rejection of hierarchy and dominance, with particular reference to state and economic power. Other elements of anarchism are discussed at relevant junctures throughout the thesis.

Ruth Kinna explains that the etymology of the ancient Greek word anarchia roughly translates as ‘the government of no one’ (Kinna 2019:11). Anarchists seek to progress this basic idea as one of ‘self-government’ (Kinna 2005:84) in which they show how ‘systems of government and authority can be incorporated into anarchy in a manner which provides social order without oppression, uniformity or social division’ (ibid). Anarchists, then seek to end domination, described by Kinna (2019:83) as their ‘colossal ambition’. David Graeber (2009:212) lists what he labels the ‘moral and organizational’ principles of anarchism as ‘self-organization, voluntary association, mutual aid, [and] the opposition to all forms of coercive authority’. It can be seen ‘either as a vision, as an attitude, or as a set of practices (Graeber 2009:215).

The colossal ambition of anarchism places an anti-hierarchical approach central to anarchist thought and practices, according to Randall Amster (2018:15). The state is

one area of focus for anarchists regarding hierarchy and combating it. Amster argues that on the face of it anarchist rejections of the state are straightforward in that ‘anarchism entails a clear rejections of the State’ (2018:19). However, this is made more complex by the fact that anarchists operate within state boundaries, subjected to state laws and will, to some level, support states (ibid). Amster notes that the prevailing view of state power is that of the ‘social contract’, in which citizens hand over power for the state to exist in return for protection (ibid). Kinna points out that this prevailing view is problematic for anarchism because people are said to submit to government to avoid violence and disorder. In other words, anarchy is what people are seeking to escape when entering into the social contract (Kinna 2019:11).

Anarchist assertions that disorder does not go hand in hand with anarchy rest on a distinction between notions of the state and of government. Whilst anarchists reject the state and most forms of government, they do not reject the idea of self- government (Kinna 2005:102).

At the same time as rejecting the state on hierarchical grounds, anarchism also focuses on the possibility of ‘participatory and non-hierarchical forms of economics (Amster 2018:22). Anarchism is anti-capitalist as the capitalist free market is hierarchical; it fosters domination and sets limits on participation based on the availability of money an individual may have. Anarchism sits firmly within a socialist tradition. Kinna notes that the break-up of the first International Workingman’s Association (IWMA) in 1872 is considered a watershed event in European anarchism (2019:13). The disagreements between Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) were myriad and complex3 but one area of contention surrounded the notion of the state and its relation to economics. Marx focused on the revolutionary potential of taking over the state, and as a result, the means of production. Bakunin considered that:

Control of the means of production would bring class equality, in the sense that it would wipeout the economic power of the bourgeoisie, but it would not

3 Robert Graham’s book We do not fear anarchy – we invoke it: the first international and the origins of the anarchist movement is particularly insightful on these matters.

remove hierarchy: workers would still be subject to the dictates of the law (Kinna:2019:18).

Moreover, the differences between Marx and Bakunin included distinct views on the notion of representation. Graham (2015:15 and 36) notes that prior to the International, Anarchists such as William Godwin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had spoken out against the idea of people handing their authority to a representative. Godwin saw the potential for this to lead to elite politicians debating amongst themselves before voting along party lines (Graham 2015:15), whilst Proudhon considered a post-revolutionary National Assembly in France would inevitably damage the revolution by being divided along class and regional lines (Graham 2015:36). In 1870, during the course of the First International, Bakunin wrote of his observation that representatives had a tendency to be less militant when elected into positions of authority:

Touched by this truth, I would not fear to express this conviction, that if tomorrow we established a government and a legislative council, a parliament, made up exclusively of workers, these workers who are today firm socialist democrats, would become the day after tomorrow determined aristocrats, bold or timid worshippers of the principle of authority, oppressors and exploiters (Bakunin 1870).

Bakunin rejected the idea that the working class should form parties with the intention of seizing power (Graham 2015:193). He took the view that such a party would, in reality, represent an emerging and new ruling class, creating a new hierarchy (ibid).

The rejection of representative politics formed an important distinction in the split within socialism and the end of the First International. It was a distinction through which anarchists developed the view that revolutionary movements should mirror the society they wish to achieve through their activities (Graham 2015:255). As Graham points out, the anarchists believed that for a ‘revolution to succeed in liberating people and to avoid one ruling class simply replacing another, the organizational structures used to transform society must be voluntary, nonhierarchical, noncoercive, and self-empowering’ (ibid). He goes on to state that:

Instead of party or governmental type organizations with bureaucratic hierarchies and “representatives” who at best represent the interests of a few, the anarchists insisted of individual autonomy, voluntary association, and the use, only when necessary, of recallable delegates, subject to imperative mandates with no independent policy-making powers of their own (ibid).

Anarchist rejections of the state, and notions of adopting state power, influence current anarchist approaches to liberal democratic elections. The idea of a socialism in which state power is embraced has become associated (reasonably) with Marxism and social democracy. This will be considered in more detail when looking at the CW decision to stand candidates.

The History of Class War

This first section of context considers the history of CW as a social movement from its origins in 1983 to its re-emergence in the 21st century. It utilises the existing literature to trace the history from that beginning, through to CW becoming a membership organisation followed by periods of stagnation and eventual re- emergence prior to the decision to stand candidates. It uses an article by Benjamin Franks and Paul Stott titled Class War from 2009 as a main source in establishing the history. The idea with this context is not to provide a thorough or complete history but to ensure that a general understanding of the movement is gained before considering the election in detail.

Beginnings

The origin of CW is linked to the production of a newspaper in 1983 in Swansea (Franks 2006:5). The co-founder of CW, Ian Bone, had been involved in producing a newspaper called Alarm. This was a satirical paper distributed around the housing estates and pubs of the city. It aimed to provide a mix of funny stories relating to life in Swansea with serious articles about the way the city was being governed. Bone4

4 In this thesis research participants are generally referred to by their first name. Where a research participant is being referred to via published literature they have written, they are referred to by their surname.

uncovered corruption at the highest levels of Swansea council and used Alarm to expose it. This resulted in arrests and imprisonment for a number of officials. Having achieved this, Bone was keen to move to London in an effort to unite class struggle anarchist groups into some form of new movement (Franks and Stott 2009:1). The resulting newspaper was called Class War. It was sold at protests, glorifying ‘everything that the dominant 1980s political culture - Thatcherism - condemned: working class solidarity, anti-market-communism, and violent hatred for the rich’ (Franks and Stott 2009:1).

The first edition of the paper was timed for distribution on May Day 1983. The paper was ‘marked by its combination of acerbic wit and aggressive working class politics; its humour distinguished the paper from the overly sombre papers of the orthodox left’ (ibid). The authors highlight the belligerent style which echoed Bone’s earlier newspaper Alarm, and the London based Xtra produced by Martin Wright, who joined Bone in producing Class War (ibid). Jim Donaghey (2016:51) writes about the affirmed intention of Bone to attract people from an anarcho-punk background. Bone was inspired by the propagandistic success of the punk band Crass (Donaghey 2016:284). As Donaghey points out, early editions of Class War had a punk aesthetic, mimicking fanzines on the subject and punk was mentioned liberally in the newspaper (2016:51).

In terms of the violent hatred of the rich that the newspaper fostered, CW found their support from distancing themselves from the pacifist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) where many anarchists at the time had been congregating (Franks and Stott 2009:1). CW supported and promoted revolutionary violence, not simply against the oppressive machinery of the state but also against rich people, defined as the ‘other’ based on cultural considerations and the areas they inhabited. The CW style would develop by disrupting the pacifist ethos of CND (Franks and Stott 2009:1), essentially attempting to re-direct attention towards social, class based divisions.

The Class War newspaper was also different from the mainstay of British anarchist publications and would challenge their pacifism too. Freedom for example had been published since 1886 (Freedom 2020), but had moved from its anarchist-communist beginnings, much to the annoyance of Bone, who described it as a ‘fucking boring,

awful liberal irrelevance’ (Bone 2006:167). Franks charts the liberal influence on post war British anarchism until the reinvigoration of class struggle anarchism and concludes that ‘[w]hile the liberal anarchist movement drew support from CND, Class War glorified in ridiculing their pacifism and its middle-class paternalism’ (Franks 2006:75). The core positions of CW were identifiable as anti-pacifism, aggressive politics, a focus on social divisions, the shunning of hierarchy and a belief in community based struggle as a route to working class liberation. This positioned CW as separate from much of the anarchist current and the wider Marxist left as discussed in relation to the Miners’ Strike of 1984-85 below.

The Miners’ Strike

Franks and Stott (2011:2) note that CW were able to link up with groups beyond the anarchist milieu, citing striking miners in Doncaster as an example. CW provided such groups a new avenue of publicity and some financial / practical help and in return they saw sales of the newspaper increase dramatically and crucially outside of London. They repeat the claim by members of the group that Class War sales were over 15,000 copies by the end of the yearlong Miners’ Strike of 1984-85 (Franks and Stott 2009:2, Bone 2006:123). It is important to note however that Franks has also written that despite this rise in readership in a few mining areas the newspaper and the movement were still ‘barely noticeable’ (Franks 2005:215).

CW developed as an anarchist movement, organising accordingly and resulting in approaches to specific issues which diverge from those by other leftist organisations. For example, Franks highlights how the Miners’ Strike allowed anti-hierarchical organising to flourish (2005:209), including organising contrary to the wishes of formal union hierarchy (2005:214). The emphasis that class struggle anarchism places on community and the multiple sites of struggle that extend beyond repression as a solely workplace arena opened up spaces for anarchist groups to build alliances with the strikers; spaces that were avoided by the Marxist-Leninist (formal) organisers of the strike (Franks 2005:216).

CW was able to support the striking miners while simultaneously criticising the union bosses and the Labour Party. They had this message for both organisations: ‘LOOK WANKERS... We don't need any moral justification to attack the cops, we won't wait to be attacked before we fight back. The police and the bosses are the enemies of the working class and class violence is not a moral issue but a necessary part of our daily struggle to get rid of these bastards’ (Bone, Pullen and Scargill (Eds) 1991:54).

This included, in the case of CW, the promotion of direct action and violence in relation to the strike (ibid). Direct action is an anarchist tactic and approach but not one that is necessarily accompanied by physical violence but for CW the two went hand in hand. Hit squads of striking miners took violent action in the Doncaster area (Franks 2005:214), and in conjunction, CW promoted inner city rioting in an attempt to link the various sites of capitalist and state repression (ibid). The tactics deployed by the hit squads were consistent with class struggle anarchism (Franks 2005:234). ‘For Class War and the other main anarchist groups, the working class was recognised as the revolutionary force that could obstruct the programmes of the almost impregnable Conservative government’ (Franks 2006:77). Stott (2015:99) notes that the agitational approach of Class War was ideally suited to the atmosphere of the strike. He uses the example of a quote from the newspaper following an incident in which the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Ian MacGregor, was attacked: ‘We should have finished the fucking bastard off there and then’ (Class War quoted in ibid). By use of the word ‘we’ the writers of the newspaper positioned themselves in the heart of the action, as if they were there, responsible for the attack and now regretting they did not go further. The writers clearly wanted their readers to think and feel the same way or at least they were being invited to do so.

The emphasis that CW placed on community allowed them to focus not just on the workplace as a centre for class struggle anarchism. This provided a difference between their growing movement and anarcho-syndicalist groups (Franks and Stott 2009:2). Through Class War they promoted urban rioting and gained attention from the mainstream press who blamed the movement for disorder (ibid). Presenting no difference between the violence and rebellion in pit villages as that seen in inner city riots, CW provided the working class with an insight into the ‘true ferocity and

violence of the state’ (Class War 1987:15). Pit villages and city estates could be linked in these struggles and Class War could be used to keep people from each informed about the struggles of the other.

Franks concludes his essay on the strike by observing that within the anarchist milieu class struggle anarchism rose (2005:219). He uses the example of newspapers like Freedom which began to change their stance on pacifist resistance following the strike and a general re-engagement of anarchism in Britain with industrial struggles (ibid). CW was one of the leading voices for such a change.

Growing Confidence

Beyond the strike, CW also attended wider protests and demonstrations. They took part in the Stop the City protests from September 1983 to September 1985 (Franks and Stott 2009:2), which were primarily anti-militarism protests organised by peace groups (Libcom 2020). The first Stop the City event was described by Bone as representing the ‘dying embers of pacifism, non-violent direct action and the peace camps’ (Bone 2006:154). The following iterations of the event would be very different. ‘We knew’, Bone writes, ‘this could be an important turning point in our movement and we played an active role in a series of meetings to plan the momentous events – with the usual violence versus pacifism debates to the fore’ (Bone 2006:158).

CW organised what they called ‘Bash the Rich’ protests. CW had identified the rich loosely as the ‘other’, to be despised. Bone ensured that the first issue of Class War contained on the front a quote from Lucy Parsons, one of his anarchist heroes (Bone 2006:123). The quote was ‘we must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live’. It symbolised the Bash the Rich protests perfectly as instead of marching through the centre of London as per the traditional protest route in the capital, they would transfer the protest to residential areas housing the wealthiest. CW had a theatrical identification of the enemy. Held in the affluent Kensington area of London in May 1985 the first such protest upset the local residents (Franks and Stott 2009:2), to the delight of those participating (Franks 2006:79). Further attempts to upset the rich took place at the Henley Regatta later that year and then a further Bash the Rich

event in September 1985 in Hampstead. This latter event was heavily disrupted by the police with many attendees detained or assaulted (Franks and Stott 2009:2).

Figure 1, The first Class War front cover. Image credit: Figure 2, The front cover of the theoretical 4th edition of CW Class War. Image credit: CW

Figure 3, Class War supporting violent strikers. Image Figure 4, Class War promoting urban rioting. Image credit credit: CW CW.

Figure 5, Class War front cover, promoting the Bash the Figure 6, Front page of Class War promoting their Spring Rich campaign. Image Credit CW. Offensive. Image credit: CW.

Figure 8, Class War celebrating a royal wedding. Image Figure 7, Class War's take on the birth of William Arthur credit: CW. Philip Louis Windsor. Image credit: CW.

In organising their own actions, the aim was to build up the ‘solidarity of their supporters, scare the ruling class and gain media publicity for their brand of free- communism’ (Franks and Stott 2009:2). Franks (2006:71-72) also wrote about CW’s tendency to use the media in a particular way to do this:

The [Sex] Pistols and many other punk bands set out deliberately to manipulate the mass media in order to provide free publicity for the band and provoke the established order. A few swear words during the Bill Grundy interview on television created a scandal in the mainstream newspapers and hence promotion for the group. Playing up to and shocking the media into reporting activities was a trick which others, in particular Ian Bone of Class War, attempted to emulate, and in Bone's case with some success.

We now turn to consider the publicity that CW gained through their actions.

Mainstream Media Attention

By April 1985 CW was receiving mainstream national media attention. The Daily Mail referred to the police infiltrating the group and implicated them in an ‘anarchist plot’ to turn a peaceful CND protest into a riot (Edwards and Elliot 1985). CW had already organised a ‘spring offensive’ which had been a series of events and with them a series of opportunities to sell newspapers. As Bone explained, ‘we decided to concentrate on the social events of the rich. Starting with the annual Rose Ball at the Dorchester Hotel and the rest of their social calendar from Henley to Cowes week’ (Bone 2006:157).

CW grew through mainstream newspaper publicised notoriety and the sales of their own organ, which glorified the same actions. Mainstream attention was nearly always negative, hyperbolic and extremely critical of the movement. Their own coverage was also hyperbolic but remained positive about the actions. The controversy from mainstream media publications helped cement the importance of the group among those that were already involved (and immune to the negative publicity) and helped to gain more recruits among the movement’s main constituency. Franks (2006:21) notes that anarchists tend to prioritise actions over

words. He goes on to point out, however, that the nature of text and action is blurred: that actions can cumulatively be ‘read textually’ (ibid). Likewise, text can be an action in itself. For CW, the words and visual material are routes to action. Much of CW’s publications deliberately avoid extensive theorising, instead relying on short, uncompromising articles or visuals that aim to shock and get a reaction, as do the banners the movement uses on demonstrations.

In a small article entitled ‘‘Anarchist mob’ held at Henley’ the Daily Mail (1985) reported that 43 people were arrested and cited CW for trouble at the Bash the Rich protest. In using the Class War newspaper to promote their actions CW published an article declaring that ‘[a]t henley regatta the hordes of rich parasites were made to feel our hatred, to see the first STORMCLOUDS on their horizon. We fucked up their day just as they fuckup our lives from the cradle to the grave’ (Bone, Pullen and Scargill (Eds) 1991:3). Whilst one publication aimed to shock and horrify their readers, the other sought to motivate and mobilise, using the same news story. In 1986 CW received further interest from the Daily Mail when it reportedly organised a campaign regarding the issue of ‘yuppies’ moving to parts of the East End. The report claims that CW sent leaflets to people moving into Hackney in an effort to expel them from the area (Daily Mail 1986).

The notoriety of the press reports brought new adherents to the movement. Franks and Stott (2009:2) note that the increased activity and participation in CW would lead to a restructuring and the transformation of the movement into a membership organisation titled the Class War Federation (CWF). This was partly a reflection of the interest the movement had gained and partly an ambitious attempt to organise the ongoing production of the Class War newspaper. The production of Class War had been passed around various factions within the movement resulting in editions of varying content and quality. Franks and Stott (2009:3) observe that some were of a populist tone and some were more theoretical. The debates around which direction the newspaper should take resulted in the creation of a second organ, the theoretical journal Heavy Stuff, discussed in more detail in the next section.5 The discussions

5 Heavy Stuff ran for five issues.

over the emphasis and styles taken by the publications of the movement led to the first formal splits in the group (ibid).

However, CW continued organising events. There was a rock tour featuring Joe Strummer from The Clash used to highlight working class issues in each town and city visited (Donaghey 2016:58) and a first entry into electoral politics by standing a candidate in the Kensington by-election, both in 1988. This second example was for purely propaganda purposes according to Franks and Stott (2009:3), citing a piece from Heavy Stuff published at the time6. There is very little information regarding the by-election campaign and the indications are that the movement stood the candidate simply for the late night mention when the result was read out.

The movement reached a peak in controversy and acknowledgment in 1990 during the widespread campaign against the Conservative government plans for the Community Charge, known as the Poll Tax. Franks and Stott (2009:3) point out that mass non-payment of the local government tax accompanied by riots (including large scale disorder in London on March 31st) led to the tax being abandoned and Margaret Thatcher falling from power. CW produced a paper for distribution on the day of the riot which included a comprehensive run down of disorder that had already taken place across the country and an encouragement to the working class to continue with direct action (Class War Classix 2010). CW’s connection to the riot helped cement the movement as the go-to anarchist menace whenever disorder needed to be reported on. CW received many mentions over succeeding years in the popular press, regardless of the extent of their actual involvement in rioting.

Following the riot, CW was, naturally, euphoric: ‘If you were there, you'll never forget the day we took central London, gave the cops a right battering, and then took the class war to the plush shops and cars of the idle rich, right in the heart of the city!’ (Bone, Pullen and Scargill (Eds) 1991:66). The riot brought the movement widespread media coverage. A representative for CW appeared on national TV

6 See Heavy Stuff #2.

defending the rioters whilst mainstream left groups called the riot an outrage. In one news report the newsreader set the scene as follows:

The Home Secretary told MPs that the investigation would look at the role anarchist group Class War played in the riot. This previously little known organisation claims some 300 members around the country and publishes a newspaper. They’re dedicated to the downfall of Parliamentary democracy and attacking the police as well as encouraging the non-payment of the Poll Tax. Earlier today I talked to their spokesman Andy Murphy. Many of you may find his views repugnant (TVtilt 2009).

Andy Murphy, a council worker in Hackney spoke for the group and made the case that CW was not responsible for leading the rioters: “It’s part and parcel of our political ideology that the working class do not need leaders” (ibid).

The publicity also led to an increase in membership according to one contemporaneous insider report.

Radicalised students wanted to join. It became trendy. And it degenerated after 1990, to become a leftist organisation. We [Bristol CW] always thought that if things took off, we’d have to dissolve. Our aim was agitation to create confidence. If that works Class War would self-destruct (Ex-member of Bristol CW 2017).

They go on to point out that ‘[o]nce you become an organisation you have to educate people [within your ranks]. You lose that influence [among the wider class], and just talk to yourselves’ (ibid). Franks and Stott (2009:3) claim that by 1992, CW had lost those responsible for many of their early stunts’, including Bone. In 1993 a breakaway faction called the Class War Organisation emerged but was short lived (Franks and Stott 2009:3).

In 1997 the remainder of the CWF split again producing a ‘final’7 edition of the newspaper (ibid). Those that remained continued to produce a version of Class War Franks and Stott (2009:3) and continued to work with those that had left on wider anti-capitalist struggle such as the 1999 Carnival against Capitalism and anti- monarchy activity. The group that continued to produce Class War were involved with the formation of the anti-fascist organisation ANTIFA (ibid).

They also helped Bone, Wright and others inaugurate the Movement Against the Monarchy (M’AM) which campaigned against the British royal family (Franks and Stott 2009:3-4). Franks and Stott end their short history of CW by pointing out that people involved with the Leninist Red Party helped revitalise what remained of the group. In 2006 CW started a new theoretical journal, A Touch of Class, and by 2007 Bone was back and the group was starting to organise events again. Franks and Stott’s history ends in 2007 and it should be noted that they both wrote for A Touch of Class indicating that much of the most detailed scholarly work has come from insiders.

This contextualisation on the history of CW has shown how it originated first as a newspaper and then as a movement. It has drawn together literature from scholarly sources with material from the mainstream media and wider anarchist writers. It shows that CW started from a desire to move anarchism away from pacifism. The movement showed a class based approach but situated that in communities and not just the workplace. The Bash the Rich protests showed that it was willing to engage in arenas that were residential rather than the usual commercial or central districts. They embraced action and used the notoriety they gained to attract new recruits to their cause. The CWP subculture and, in turn, the 2015 election campaign is prefigured in this history. As we shall see, the 2015 election campaign included marches through wealthy constituencies, the use of aggressive campaign slogans and banners and direct action in unlikely places.

7 Class War returned for a one off edition in May 2017. In 2020 Class War Daily was published for most of the Covid 19 lockdown in the UK, proudly declaring itself to be ‘The world’s only daily anarchist newspaper’. I contributed to the 2017 edition and a number of the Daily’s, as well as serving on its editorial board.

The following section looks at the specific publications of the movement. This provides context on how the movement uses communication as an action.

Class War Publications

The newspaper, Class War, was designed to provoke a reaction. This worked in two ways in that it would either attract people to its core messages or else repel them. This section discusses the various publications associated with CW in order to add context to the ways in which they operated and the belief system promoted. The publications should be seen as provocative actions in themselves. Moreover, they served as a call for further aggressive actions against the enemies they highlighted. Furthermore, the section shows that CW was not worried by the potential of repelling people, but they were concerned with reaching those that they thought might jump on board with the movement. The publications also show a tension between populist tendencies and more theoretical impulses and between working classism (the glorification of the views of working class people regardless of how problematic those views may be) and intersectionality.

The Class War newspaper that the movement grew out of is the most prominent CW publication and it ran on an ad hoc basis until the mid-1990s. That publication set the tone for the movement throughout that time and garnered the majority of scholarly discussion. There were also notable offshoots such as the gay rights newspaper Wolverine, the more theoretical Heavy Stuff and later Touch of Class. I have included these to provide a more complete picture of the publications of the movement.8

Class War

Class War was written with an ‘acerbic wit’ and promoted ‘aggressive working class politics’ (Franks and Stott 2009:1). Goaman and Dodson (1997:95) describe it as ‘written in an essentially humorous and irreverent style’, using ridicule as a tool. As discussed, the newspaper helped position the group away from currents in contemporary British anarchism, dominated by pacifist organisations with

8 This isn’t a complete list of offshoot publications. I have chosen to focus on the ones that are most prominent. For example, Animal is not listed, partly because there is little available information on it and partly because it was produced in 1997, after the publication of the ‘last’ regular Class War, at a time when CW as a political group was moribund.

connections to CND (Franks and Stott 2009:1). In his autobiography, Ian Bone, sets out what he and Jimmy Grimes decided one weekend in Swansea:

We wanted to produce a newspaper which would put 1) class and 2) violence back at the top of the anarchist agenda. It would be big and tabloid brash, lots of short articles and graphics, no long boring shit. It would be fucking funny as fucking fuck. It would plagiarise and pinch like there was no yesterday. It would be pro-action and violence. It would be like a punkoid fanzine mutated into a newspaper. It would have blood dripping circled As on the front to flag up our anarchist intentions and buy in those anarchists who only purchase any commodities with As on. It would hate the rich bastards and slag off CND and the Labour Party (2006:121).

By using quotations from anarchist writers and revolutionaries they also displayed a more than passing understanding of the history of anarchist thought (Home 1991:95). As already discussed, the movement would organise protests in the residential areas of wealthy people. That intention was evident from the front page of the first edition of Class War. The first front page headline was ‘we must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live!’ a favourite quote of Ian’s from nineteenth century Chicago anarchist Lucy Parsons accompanied with a ‘threatening image’ of ‘some ghastly creature from the film American Werewolf in London’ (Bone 2006:123). The first edition had been made in Swansea by Bone, Grimes and Grimes’s girlfriend Carolynne (Bone 2006:120-123).

Citing Wilhelm Reich, Bone claims he wanted to get anarchism away from papers that seemed to have no connection with the lives of ordinary people (Bone 2006:258- 259). ‘We had never sat down and talked about applying Reich’s ideas into a paper…. But we did know that we wanted to create a different kind of paper and social movement which took as its starting point experiences of everyday life not ‘politics’’ (ibid).

As the movement grew, the production of the paper was passed around to different members. As a result, tensions on style emerged, which were apparent with the release of the 4th edition. This took a theoretical direction rather than the previous

populist tone (2006:150). Whilst accepting that he did not really understand the contents at the time, Bone (2006:150-151) concedes that the articles could have led the group to have a proper discussion about theory and activity in order to shape future action. Instead, the populism of previous issues was re-embraced and the two people that produced the issue left the movement (Bone 2006:153). This early internal struggle would set the Class War style for many future editions.

The editors of the 4th edition leaving the group was a victory not just for the populists but also for those glorifying problematic views in the movement. Bone sets out the debates and the personalities involved in his autobiography. One early movement figure, Sean Mason, glorified what he perceived as working class norms and values, a stance known as working classism. According to Bone, Mason had once written of the working class that ‘we’re all racist and sexist but so what?’ (Bone 2006:153). Bone reports that Mason and his supporters within the movement gathered multiple copies of the 4th edition of Class War and burned them, so angry were they with the theoretical direction taken. Working classism is an appeal to promote the views of working class people no matter what those views are. By its nature it is anti- theoretical. The populist style had won through.

Goaman and Dodson (1997:95) question the effectiveness of this style. While they accept that the paper can be ‘enjoyable as a symbolic rhetorical statement of anger and injustice’, they note also that the

humour of the paper does, however, mask some of CW’s apparently serious belief in a particular form of militant 'us and them' struggle in which the ruling class and its defenders such as the police, are cast in the role of the enemy, who are to be attacked, perhaps in a mood of vengeance (ibid).

Indeed, Class War did both. It suggested that violence was the answer to class struggle and it did it in a humorous style. These are not in contradiction with one another as suggested. The movement grew exactly because it attracted people who could enjoy both the ‘symbolic rhetorical statement of anger and injustice’ found in the paper and believed in physically attacking the ruling class. The fact the style also repelled people is important but those being repelled were people that CW were not seeking to attract. The political style of the movement, then, reflected the reluctance within the newspaper to engage in theoretical debate.

The emphasis on expression: for example, expressing class anger, class pride, hatred of the rich and the mainstream left, added to the populist direction. Subject matter such as sport contributed to the cultural dimensions of a paper attempting to reflect what the writers saw as of interest to working class people. CW claimed that whilst the tabloids of the mainstream newspapers use their style to keep the working class passive, except for voting Tory once every five years, Class War was designed using the same style to inspire daily political activity (Class War 1987:9).

Goaman and Dodson (1997:93) compare Class War with the 1967 pamphlet The SCUM Manifesto by Valerie Solanas. SCUM is said to stand for the ‘Society for Cutting Up Men’, although Solanas never used that description. They note that the more humorous elements of Solanas’s manifesto act as a counterweight to the more ferocious elements (Goaman and Dodson 1997:95). Solanas calls on ‘civic minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females’ to ‘overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex’ (Solanas 1967).

To exemplify the use of promoting working class anger, the following quote from Class War ahead of the Poll Tax Riots in 1990 is typical: ‘[a] ‘community charge’ means running full pelt down a street with a brick in your hand and a ‘pig’ in your sights’ (Class War Classix 2010:3). The anger within the working class is something the group claim that the paper had seized on, and something the mainstream left had been ignoring (Bone, Pullen and Scargill (Eds) 1991:107). They claim to have put forward a straightforward analysis, ‘identifying the enemy not only as ‘the system’ or ‘the state’ but as the ruling class (not only as a class, but also as individuals)’ (ibid).

The pages of Class War were also surreal at times, using violent humour and parody. The ‘Class War Horoscopes’ for example provided an opportunity for violent predictions based on the sections found in newspapers. Described as the horoscope for ‘rich bastards’ (Bone, Pullen and Scargill (Eds) 1991:20) they were tuned to each star sign. For example, for Pisces (the fish) one read ‘[y]ou'll be seeing plenty of these in the coming year as you stand tall in your concrete D.M.s [boots] and take another breath of seawater’ (ibid). For Libra, ‘the liberal’ it promised ‘[a] wishy-washy year… with some serious injuries later on if you don't sort out your politics’ (ibid). The

advice for rich Scorpios is brief and to the point, suggesting that ‘[t]his would be a good year to fuck off and die’ (ibid). The humour and cartoonish violence are consistent with a comparison of Solanas’s polemic.

It’s impossible to know if Solanas really wanted to destroy all men (Goaman and Dodson 1997:94). The comparison with Class War is a good one inasmuch as the paper produces the same questions regarding the intentions of the authors. Both titles provoke a reaction: either bringing people together or else repelling them. CW appears to have thrived on people either ‘getting’ the jokes in Class War or else being offended. Those that laugh are welcome and those that are offended were obviously seeking a more polite style of politics. This will be looked at again in the section on the CWP subculture as it features in that iteration of the movement.

The use of language in Class War is interesting beyond the obvious issue of swearing. It is reminiscent of the British children’s comic The Beano whose characters often wear the red and black of anarchism. According to Ian Jack, Class War evokes The Bash Street Kids and Lord Snooty and His Pals in particular. In a 2007 article in which he interviews Ian Bone, Jack writes that ‘there is something Beanoesque - and therefore trivial and nostalgic - in a form of politics where Bone and his followers play The Gasworks Gang in the cartoon strip called Lord Snooty’ (Jack 2007). The Bash Street Kids strip is about a class of school children forever tormenting their long suffering teacher, who fails to keep order. Meanwhile Lord Snooty spends most of his time with the working class kids of town, known as The Gasworks Gang, as he finds his castle boring. Ian confirms this link to The Beano in his autobiography in a chapter that takes the name of that comic:

Well the Bash Street Kids were obviously a major influence on Class War but we were consciously trying to resurrect images of the rich from Lord Snooty and his pals. “Rich snobs” and “snooty rich bastards” resurrected the old certainties of “Them” and “Us” which the left had been attempting to blur for years… (Bone 2006:248-249).

Building on this idea he continues on the use of language:

It was working–class writers, such as Robert Tressell, the early Robert Blatchford and particularly Jack Common who I desired to imitate in their

determination to describe socialist ideas in everyday language and articulate a political philosophy which was rooted in the day-to-day experience of working-class people (Bone 2006:249).

Despite comparisons to a children’s comic and the populist style of the paper, theoretical debates did sometimes take place within the pages of Class War. For example, there is discussion of communities policing themselves in the article ‘What do we do when the cops fuck off?’ This was first printed in Class War and reprinted in Heavy Stuff. In keeping communities free from police activity they declare that ‘[t]here is no way that people are going to be grateful to see the back of the filth [the police] if they think that muggers, rapists, smack-dealers, wife beaters, and other anti-social bastards are going to have a free hand’ (Heavy Stuff 1988:3). Communities would therefore need to prove that they ‘can do a better job preventing anti-social behaviour than the filth’ (ibid).

Another article published in Class War in 1986 predicted a bleak future vision for British society: ‘[b]y 1999, the urban war will be a permanent feature of everyday life in every benighted city in the septic isle. There will be guns and deaths on both sides, as the cops mutate into daleks, and a host of scrapheap geniuses become the weaponsmiths of the ghettos’ (ibid). The group called for the creation of a network of community groups able to practice solidarity wherever working class struggle was engaged (Ryan 1987:17). It is pointed out that when groups take action it creates ‘new questioning of accepted attitudes, and changes the way people see themselves in relation to each other’ (Causer 1987:11).

Bone claims that those involved with writing the paper were ‘well-read but didn’t have to wear their learning on their sleeves or talk in that strange language that comes over people when they babble about ‘theory’’ (Bone 2006:252). ‘‘What do we do when the cops fuck off?’ could have been written ‘The creation of prefigurative forms of struggle, blah, blah’’, he writes (ibid).

Class War’s initial run was for 73 issues. It revulsed and inspired readers. It was an action in itself but it was also used to build the CW movement. It helped generate increased participation at future actions. Its populist tone was designed to give the readership stories that they wanted and in turn infuse them with some political desires at odds with the mainly Tory supporting tabloids on offer from the

mainstream press. The newspaper set the tone for CW: irreverent, dark humour and an emphasis on promoting direct action.

The Wolverine: Gay Voices of Hostility

The Wolverine ran for just two issues in 1984 and was produced by Steve Sutton (Bone 2006:155). It was not published under the CW banner but those involved with producing it were also involved with the early days of CW. It certainly conforms to the same style and tone that CW were known for. Ian claims that Sutton believed that ‘everyone should be bisexual’ and potentially be forced into practising that if they are ‘repressed’ (ibid). The first issue made the link between the Miners’ Strike and repression suffered by gay people:

In the last few months we’ve also seen our community under attack. In London The Bell was raided and Gays the Word had several thousands of pounds worth of books impounded by Customs and & Excise under the obscene publications act (The Wolverine 1984).

The Bell was a popular LGBT pub at Kings Cross and Gays the Word a bookshop. London is said to have had a growing gay scene at the time, but while venues like these were places of relative sanctuary, the raids by officials carried on, and on the streets ‘gay bashing’ was a regular hazard, according to Mark W. Turner (2012:55). The Wolverine called for ‘gay anger: each day and every day’ and, just like Class War, it vented that anger towards the police, the Conservative government, the middle class and the Labour Party.

The Wolverine did not avoid touching on theory and intersectional issues. Focusing on what it was like to be involved with class struggle anarchism from a working class and gay perspective, The Wolverine tells us ‘[g]ays in political groups walk a tightrope’. Revolutionary gays, it goes on, ‘acknowledge the fact that the revolutionary process does not exist on a single dynamic – it exists on the unique contribution of those amorphous sections involved’ (The Wolverine 1984).

The Wolverine was a short-lived venture. It existed to give voice to gay people within the fledgling movement. What comes across from its pages most strongly is the tension between sexual politics, class and the anarchist movement. The Wolverine was a call for solidarity and an attempt to link the struggles of working class people together. It was an acknowledgement that the hardest people to win over were working class men involved with ‘queer bashing’, men it labelled as ‘repressed gays’ (The Wolverine). This sets The Wolverine in opposition to ‘working classism’ or the glorification of all elements of working class culture. It clearly makes the case that working class norms and values can be wrong and, where necessary, should be challenged.

The Wolverine was an acknowledgment that class and other characteristics intersect, an issue that the CWF would largely reject in Unfinished Business in 1992 but embraced by the time of the 2015 election campaign.

Heavy Stuff

As discussed, Heavy Stuff, was formed to ensure that theoretical matters could also be addressed (Franks and Stott 2009:3). It ran to a handful of editions in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The tone of Class War caused some people to leave the movement. Those desiring a more theoretical output, eventually won the argument to a certain extent with the creation of Heavy Stuff.

The new journal’s first edition set out the reasons for the populist direction of the newspaper which included trying to produce something akin to tabloid newspapers (Murphy 1987:7), whilst simultaneously arguing the case for a more theoretical journal. This appears to reflect the tensions behind the scenes as CW adapted to competing visions within the movement, tensions which were apparent from issue four of Class War. Heavy Stuff defended some of the populist pieces in the newspaper that had received criticism. One was an article claiming the Queen was an imposter who replaced the real monarch as she was in an asylum, while another was based around the idea that Tory cabinet minister Norman Tebbitt had lost his testes in the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984. These articles and

Figure 9, A Class War scoop. Image credit: CW. Figure 10, The movement makes it clear how much it dislikes Thatcher. Image credit: CW.

Figure 11, Class War celebrates the poll tax disorder. Figure 12, Class War using humour to make a point about Image credit: CW. economic policy. Image credit: CW.

Figure 13, The front cover of the 1st Heavy Stuff. Image Figure 14, The Wolverine #1 front cover. Image credit Credit CW. CW.

Figure 16, A cartoon from The Wolverine. Image credit: Figure 15, The Wolverine #2 front cover. Image credit CW. CW.

those like them are justified in Heavy Stuff on the basis that they’re the type of unverified gossip found in the tabloids that might be true and in any case they considered them to be funny (ibid). The fact that CW created a theoretical journal and then used it to defend its standard populist content hints at unease around their new creation and the relationship between it and the newspaper.

Looking at some of the articles in Heavy Stuff shows how different it was to the usual short tabloid style fare in Class War. Heavy Stuff ran to five issues and contained longer articles than the newspaper, often looking at what a future society might look like and justifying CW positions on a range of issues. The first edition was published in December 1987 and had articles about issues such as human rights, ‘liberating everyday life’, world economics, ‘politics and its relationship to the masses’ and a translation of an article by the South German Autonomous Plenum titled ‘Down with Capitalism’. It ran to 35 pages. The second edition contained a justification for CW standing in the 1988 Kensington by-election, prefiguring some justifications for the 2015 campaign, particularly their stance that CW had not suddenly become reformists. It also included a lengthy article examining why CW hated yuppies, which chimes with the modern iteration of the movement and their hatred of gentrification. Issue three, published in 1990, took a close look at the middle class foreshadowing the CWF view of social class in Unfinished Business, discussed below. The issue also contained a detailed look at what it was like to live in the 1970s, the politics and economics of that decade. Issue 4 was published in 1991 and covered, amongst other things, issues of ‘mutual aid and community care’ and the relationship between language and power. The final issue came in 1992 and looked at European unity and what it meant for working class people. It also included an article about trade unionism and the lessons of the Miners’ Strike.

For five issues, Heavy Stuff allowed for deeper discussions within the CWF. Class War was still there, being passed around for editing amongst the federated groupings with its tabloid style. It should be seen as a mark of success for the movement to have grown to such an extent that it could muster enough writers to enable both organs to progress. It is also a sign of the tensions behind the scenes on the direction of the movement, the paper that started it and the decision to become a membership organisation.

Unfinished Business

This book was published in 1992 by the CWF and explains the philosophy and policy of the movement at that time. One notable area of discussion is around social class, which is something we will return to in the chapter on the CWP subculture. It indicates a shift in understanding within the movement between the CWF of the early 1990s and the CWP of the mid-2010s. A preface to the book explains that the contents were collected democratically (Class War Federation 1992:3), with editors assembling and writing the chapters from material in Class War and Heavy Stuff and through discussion with members. A conference was convened to discuss and edit the material further, before a final edit was established and agreed at a second conference. With the final alterations in place, the book was accepted following that conference and declared as ‘the first in-depth statement of the ideas and politics of the Class War Federation’ (ibid).

Unfinished Business describes a ‘traditional’ view of class (that of a structure comprising an upper, a middle and a working class) as holding true (Class War Federation 1992:55). In describing the three classes the CWF provide headings such as ‘size’, ‘identity’, ‘function’ and ‘origins’. The size of the classes mentioned in the book ranges from 5% of the population for the ruling class and 20% of the population in the middle class. The remaining 75% of the population were said to be in the working class (Class War Federation 1992:56-58).

The ruling class comprised top capitalists and state actors such as senior civil servants and senior judges (Class War Federation1992:56). The function of the ruling class was described thus:

To maintain their own and their class’s domination over society. Their favourite method is ‘divide and rule’; notably setting whites against blacks and other races against each other, called racism; setting men against women, called sexism and setting worker against worker. Of course, these divisions do not apply to the ruling class. They are intended only for working class

consumption. The morals, rules and laws of the ruling class do not apply to themselves, their purpose is to keep us in our place. The strategy of the ruling class is to keep their class united and others divided (Class War Federation 1992:56-57).

The assumption made is that ruling class people do not simply act in their own interests, but rather, they work as a coherent block of people, utilising a strategy. Despite this the CWF go on to point out that there is fierce competition within the ruling class for access to markets (Class War Federation 1992:57) and they make clear that the ruling class does not need to conspire against the working class. They operate in the open (Class War Federation 1992:83).

The middle class function is described as managing ‘the working class in the interests of the ruling class’ (ibid). Stott observed this view was also present within the pages of Class War (Stott 2015:99-100). The middle classes ‘watch out for potential crisis in capitalism and devise avoiding action’ (Class War Federation 1992:83). They also have the role of manufacturing ‘‘culture’, both high and popular: including pop music, fashion, philosophy, opera and TV’ (ibid). The middle class was also blamed for green economics and reformist diversions such as ‘Greenpeace, CND, feminism, trade unions – activities that at best will only modify your misery’ (ibid).

The inclusion of feminism as a middle class diversion is a rejection of intersectionality and what the CWF saw as single issue politics, a repeat of elements from an article on the middle classes in Heavy Stuff (Heavy Stuff circa 1989). In Unfinished Business, the CWF took the view that the working class can unite around the issue of domination, if only intersectional concerns were replaced with a focus on class (Class War Federation 1992:60-61). Kinna notes that ‘intersectional approaches to activism not only flatly reject this Class War dismissal of single-issue politics but also the label itself’ (Kinna 2019:157). The chapter on the CWP subculture shows that intersectionality has been embraced within the movement since Unfinished Business was written, resulting in the idea that there is a newness to CW in its most recent form.

Finally, Unfinished Business sets out what the working class is. ‘In general, the working class are people who live by their labour’ (Class War Federation 1992:58). They are presented as the people who can rise up, challenge and ultimately defeat capitalism (ibid).

Not surprisingly, Unfinished Business reads like a book written by a committee. Having agreed that a class structure exists in three parts, the writers find themselves in the unenviable position of having to define how those parts are constituted. In doing so, they decide for the classes exactly what they exist to achieve, providing them with complete character traits, as if each were an amorphous whole. The book presents social class as an arbitrary structural fact, mimicking sociological models. In the section on subculture I contend that it is more fluid, unrigid in structure and should be considered far from the sociological frameworks used to measure the phenomena. This is the way CWP attitudes present themselves around class showing that there has been a shift in the movement since Unfinished Business.

After a significant lull, a revived CWF produced a theoretical magazine titled Touch of Class in 2006 but this venture was short lived. This section has considered the publications of CW. It highlights how CW used their publications to garner support and repel those that it didn’t want to join it. This section also showed the tensions within the movement in producing written and visual material. There were early wins for populists and working classicists but the urge for theory, and lengthy explanation were also apparent.

The next chapter considers the CWP as a subculture, defining traits the people involved had in common. In doing so it prepares our understanding of the actions taken by the CWP in the election campaign.

Chapter Two

The Class War Subculture

Chapter One highlighted the irreverent and belligerent nature of CW. This chapter explores the cultural facets of the CWP, a group of people that stood candidates in the 2015 general election with no intention of competing with mainstream political parties in the usual manner. The culture of the CWP is explored here so that their motivations regarding the election campaign can be better understood. It is a particular world view explained through the eyes of those involved. It can be summarised under the following headings, extrapolated from the data gathered:

• Direct Action and Fun – they were focused on direct action as the main tool for political activity and believed action should be enjoyable • Social Class – through direct action a specific view of the working class emerged, based on solidarity and culture rather than sociological measurement or analysis, contrary to the view explained in Unfinished Business, written during the CWF period of the movement. • Structure – in some regards they resembled a family structure which helped keep them close-knit, but which also raises questions regarding hierarchy and authority

The approach taken in the campaign relates directly to these subcultural traits. Before considering these traits in more detail the issue of subculture itself is explained.

Subculture

The concept used here follows J. Patrick Williams, who describes subcultures as groups living outside the norms of society (Williams 2011:5). Subculture became a framework for viewing marginalised working-class groups in the 1840s (Williams 2011:5). In this context the word ‘culture’ refers to all of the resources needed by society in order to affect change and influence politics and economics (Williams 2011: 5). He makes clear ‘[w]hen groups that are somehow limited in their access to dominant cultural resources try to collectively solve their problems by alternative

methods, a subculture is likely to emerge’ (Williams 2011:7). When it does emerge, it starts to refer to itself in distinct terms and refer to others as outsiders; in this way a subculture develops behavioural traits and not just simply a shared demographic (Williams 2011:8). Subcultures want to be seen to be different and to use the deviation as a resource to effect change (Williams 2011:11). Subcultural behaviour can help those people involved to distance themselves from what they see as ‘mainstream straights’ (ibid). Subcultures comprise small groups of people. Ian (Interview 2015) told me ahead of the election that “Class War as it is now probably has about 20-25 people at most in the country.” The revived CW was not enjoying the kind of following it attained in the 1980s or early 1990s, although a Facebook group set up to support candidates contained over 200 people at one point. Ian’s figure is indicative of the numbers of people who would regularly attend events.

Where subcultures exist, it could be said that the vast majority of people have their needs met by the dominant culture (Williams 2011:11). Therefore, those people not having their needs met by the dominant culture may be attracted to subcultures. The conceptualisation in Chapter One showed some of the cultural elements of CW throughout its history. Already apparent through that discussion is a particular view of class politics focused on enemies, denoted as the ‘other’ such as the rich and ‘outsiders’ such as hierarchical figures and organisations on the left. A desire to conduct direct action and the use of publications as an action have also been highlighted. This chapter now turns to look at the CWP view of the world.

Direct Action and Fun

Graeber describes direct action as ‘the insistence, when faced with structures of unjust authority, on acting as if one is already free’ (2009:203). Graeber acknowledges the term has been used in different ways to describe all sorts of actions. Franks also describes the uses leading to ‘multifarious interpretations’ (2006:116). April Carter explains that the term is ‘ambiguous’ (1973:3) and goes on to distinguish it from ‘parliamentary styles of activity and on the one hand, and guerrilla warfare on the other’ (ibid). Franks follows Carter on the issue, making a distinction between direct action, symbolic action and constitutional activity.

Symbolic actions are designed to ‘raise awareness of an issue or injustice, but by themselves do not resolve the problem’ (Franks 2006:193). However, the distinction is blurred as Franks goes on to point out that it ‘can be argued that all direct action is symbolic as its means are a partial example of the wider set of anti-hierarchical interactions’ (Franks 2006:134). Symbolic actions can have the effect of bolstering solidarity and boosting confidence. As discussed earlier these were central aims of CW as it developed into a social movement utilising the newspaper as a propaganda tool.

Constitutional action is ‘macro-political’ (Franks 2006:122) in that the aims are to influence government through ‘petitions, lobbies of parliament, local councils or other legislative bodies’ (ibid). It is the appeal to those in positions of authority that set this type of action apart from direct action.

Cited by Graeber, amid a number of different and contradictory accounts of direct action, Voltairine de Cleyre is insightful in relation to the approach taken by the CWP. During a lecture in 1912 she said ‘[e]very person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions, was a direct actionist’ (de Cleyre 1912). This expansive definition of direct action is consistent with the CWP approach. She elaborated this definition thus:

Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are essentially direct action.

Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle, and went straight to the other persons involved to settle it, either by a peaceable plan or otherwise, was a direct actionist (ibid).

In this work, an expansive definition of direct action is used, consistent with the language of research participants. The research indicates a clear line between what participants call direct action and the constitutional activity described above. The lines between direct action and symbolic action are already blurred (as Franks indicates) and participants tended to use words like action, direct action, protest and

demonstration interchangeably. It is acknowledged that direct action conducted by CW might be more strictly defined as symbolic action on occasion. Here, the term direct action has been used in the way that research participants use it and it is therefore as interchangeable with these other terms.

In considering the CWP subculture, the issue of the relationship CW has with more dominant political cultures needs to be addressed as this will prefigure approaches taken to the election campaign. It should be noted that the theatres which the CWP were due to enter were ones provided by the state for the express purpose of playing the contest which sits at the heart of the dominant political culture.

Seeing themselves as separated from that culture, CWP research participants were keen to differentiate themselves from aspects of the left as well as the right. This showed an implicit belief that the various sections of left wing politics in the UK failed to provide them with the political action they desired. Their views on direct action also reveal attitudes within the CWP towards the powerful, the richest in society and establishment organisations such as the police. In discussing the subcultural traits of the CWP, direct action is a logical starting point as we will see that their activity was driven mainly towards promoting and carrying out such action.

The idea of having fun with political action was a major part of the CWP subculture. It was linked to the idea that many parties and organisations of the left conduct their activities in a very serious way. Jane characterised the left as “boring and the left is repetitive and the left is unimaginative and the left is colourless and the left is predictable” (Jane Interview 2017). Ian (Interview 2015) tells me "I think the left thinks we're silly and not serious. Well yeah, we're not serious. Life's a fucking misery, get on with it". This view welcomes the idea that the CWP is separate, or other from the mainstream left. It offers people who get involved something they can’t get elsewhere. “We have a similar sense of humour” Justine (Interview 2018) told me. David (Interview 2016) considered the contrasting position people on the left may have about CWP messages: [We] seem to say what they secretly feel but don't want to say and we're being, in Communist parlance, 'infantile' communists because we're not recognising that we need to compromise all the time and row back on what you actually believe in... Whereas we say “bollocks to that, this is what we

believe.” We represent our class and our class talk like that and [they] don't fuck about.

For Justine (Interview 2018) “much of the traditional left is quite authoritarian, it’s quite hierarchical. Through their involvements in these organisations and institutions people attain their social status and then they become invested in the hierarchy itself.”

When outsiders asked the CWP how they could join up they were often told that it was very simple: you join an action and you hold a banner with us. This enabled the group to quickly vet involvement to a certain extent but also to emphasise that action is the main purpose of the organisation. Action is also transformative for those involved. As will be seen throughout the election campaign, the CWP activities provided those involved with new roles and actions to perform. Stan (Interview 2016) talked to me about taking action with the CWP. “No doubt it’s been really empowering for me. It’s done a world of good for my confidence and my general trouble-making skills.”

Even during a discussion around decision making in meetings the priority of action came through. David told me “[w]e're not anti-intellectual. We're all quite smart but we don't talk about it at our meetings. The rule is 'leave it at the door. We know what your politics are... But when you come in here you talk about action'” (David Interview 2016). Al concurred, informing me that “one of the reasons I got involved with Class War… was because it was based on actually getting out and doing something rather than discussing theory” (Al Interview 2017). Again, emphasising action, Ian (Interview 2015) tells me that “we're just in the here and now. If you want to get off your fucking arse let's have a pop at the bastards.” Likewise, Helen (Interview 2015) told me that “grassroots political activism [is what] Class War do well. It's [about] identifying something that's important to people who are working class and actually doing something about it.” Murray (Interview 2017) indicated a similar position when he told me that “politics comes out of your experience.” He said “it’s about acting on that. You don’t need to go and read about that because you’re living it.” The desire for fun forms of direct action is a way of expressing confrontational feelings and doing politics.

CW, then, was seen as a model for action. Justine highlighted this when she said “It's very depressing being attentive to what's happening in the world. [You can] feel like everything is totally fucking doomed. One of the things I love about Class War is we refuse to take that attitude that we're doomed, that we should give up and we should all hang ourselves or something. First you have to puncture their pomposity (Justine Interview 2015). This also acknowledges that CW is often reacting to events. “We’re not making the politics”, Justine told me, “we’re responding to the politics” (Justine Interview 2018).

Puncturing the pomposity of their enemies in the establishment, the mainstream left and pacifist anarchist circles is a good description of CW activity through the newspaper, the banners and slogans they are associated with. It is also a good description of the fun the CWP wanted to have. It is a type of fun that not everyone will appreciate. It is a type that means that many will reject them and refuse to get involved, although as Justine told me “we’re not alienating everyone, are we?” (Justine Interview 2018), in the same way Class War did not alienate everyone. It is a type that therefore perpetuates the subculture, inviting rejection from the mainstream and attracting the marginalised. Stan (Interview 2015) was about to explain that so many ordinary people were fed up with the Tory government and reductions to welfare and benefits when he checked himself and said “I'd like to say ordinary people but we’re not exactly ordinary are we?", aware of the distinct nature of the movement.

Meanwhile, David (Interview 2016) speaks for the group when he states, “I'm afraid I am attached to the idea of violent insurrection or revolution”. Explaining his reasoning, he told me, “the ruling class, the establishment and the rich are not going to let go of what they have without a terrible fight”, he told me (ibid). David’s vision of CW as “a proper revolutionary, insurrectionary, anarchist group” (ibid) clearly appealed to him. Meanwhile, Dave, another participant, (Interview 2015) informs me he “like[s] the idea of scaring the shit out of the ruling class.” “You want to get in their [the rich] faces and cause them as much grief as possible, on a personal level", Ian (Interview 2015) told me. He explained that he “actually physically dislike[s] rich people” (ibid), linking back to his original plans for CW as a movement that attacked

the ruling class not just on a structural level but on an individual or personal front. This view was backed up by others:

I think with CW it's about people coming together and fighting back against the ruling class. The establishment. Those that seem to think it's their God given right to fuck people over at every opportunity because of the fact that they've got a lot of money and they've got a lot of privilege and stuff like that (Stan Interview 2016).

A group attached to the idea of insurrection could end up with a lot of members having brushes with the law. Indeed, the election story does include police activity, arrests and court appearances. However, the CWP display an acute awareness and experience of how far to push things without getting into legal difficulties. For example Dave (Interview 2017) told me that during action “you start to get to that time of day when the police are just looking bored and they’re looking at you and they’re going to just fucking mass arrest us all so we might as well just get out of [the action] at that point.” Ian also told me that there wasn’t much point in having a situation where there were mass arrests (Interview 2015).

CW’s loosely and theatrically defined enemies are in the ascendency, with CW presenting themselves as the authentic voice of a diminishing working class. Dave told me how he’d seen his community change over the years. “A lot of the politics seemed to drift away from class politics,” he said (Dave Interview 2015). “I didn’t follow that particular current” he continued, describing them as occupying “vegetarian cafes and the social centres and stuff like that” (ibid). Andy pinpointed the moment he feels that things changed totally for the working class:

Really the world changed in 1994. Not just for Class War, for everything. Like music, every type of political group, communes, everything changed when unemployment benefit became jobseekers allowance. Are you familiar with the term PANSE (Politically Active, Not Seeking Employment)? Those people have gone; they're not there anymore. If you're on the dole now they run you fucking ragged, applying for shit, jumping through hoops to avoid sanctions (Andy Interview 2017).

The CWP view of these changes in society and the way working class people are treated is that the choices on offer between the various parties will not fix the problems. At the March for Homes in January 2015 the group unfurled a new banner for the election period. It contained the pictures of the leaders of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP parties with the legend ‘All Fucking Wankers’, to highlight the subcultural view that none of the main political parties are worth voting for. They unfurled it before the march began in front of a large crowd made up of housing campaign groups and trade unionists. I was also in attendance and witnessed the unfurling. Both the unfurling, and the banner itself, were forms of direct action, with the unfurling being a theatrical moment. The inclusion of the Labour leader at a protest dominated by Labour Party and trade union activists a few short months before the election was confrontational. However, it was also consistent with the subcultural trait of being outside of mainstream politics and being hostile towards it. Dave told me that both his “parents were manual workers” and “staunch Labour [Party] followers” (Dave Interview 2015). He explained with frustration that he “never really saw anything change when Labour got in” (ibid). For Dave his parents “struggled to feed six kids whether it was a Tory or a Labour government” (ibid). Andy (Interview 2017) explained that part of the remit of CW was to be hostile towards mainstream politicians. “We're going to tell these people [they’re] full of shit. Are you up for that? If you're up for that then Class War's for you. It's accessible but only to a certain type of person.” Helen explained her motivation for getting involved by expressing her dislike of politicians:

I'm getting more and more angry about everything. And I can't sit by and watch while a bunch of fucking scum dismantle this country bit by bit; dismantle the things that I hold dear. Things like an education system, you know the NHS... I can't sit by and watch while that happens (Helen Interview 2016).

When the banner was unfurled people started to gather around taking photographs and laughing. There was a real buzz in the air around the banner. One woman turned to me and said, “it’s not the kind of language I’d use but I’m glad someone’s saying it” (Bigger Election Diary 2015). This anecdote seems to back up the views

that David expressed on the CWP articulating thoughts and ideas too polite for the mainstream but secretly liked. It also shows that the unfurling of a banner can be turned into a theatrical form of direct action.

A further instance of direct action occurred following a demonstration where the CWP occupied a luxury block of flats. Justine (Interview 2015) explains the group’s hostility towards the police and the way those views are linked to attitudes towards wealth:

You know the police are class enemies. This is absolutely fundamental to our understanding of how the world works. The police are there to enforce the power of the state against us. If they might incidentally protect us every now and again that really isn't their primary purpose. You know, it's by protecting us every now and again that they are able to have a false cloak of legitimacy. But really, they're a straightforward repressive force and what's more of course they're traitors to their class. I mean the cops that were in there preventing us from doing things - they're being socially cleansed out of London as much as we are, they're not earning that much. You've got to be incredibly wealthy to live with dignity in London now.

The faceless bureaucrats of the state also come in for criticism from the CWP. David tells me:

Part of why I'm an anarchist is because I spent so long in the state working as a civil servant and then in local government working as a public servant. I saw intimately and from the inside how the state works, how it makes decisions... and it is hopelessly inept and I would say at some levels corrupt (David Interview 2016).

This shows a disdain for the establishment which leads to a need within the subculture for more robust forms of direct action than protest marches, planned with the consent of the authorities. Justine (Interview 2015) asked:

But why should people engage [in official politics]? You know we had more than a million people out on the street peacefully demonstrating against the Iraq invasion. More than 50% of the country were against it and still it went

ahead. And now we have to face the threat of terrorist activities here… as we said all along, us the great scruffy unwashed.

Chapter Five shows how the CWP used the election campaign to stage spontaneous marches, sit-ins and other forms of direct action. This was partly a campaign to belittle and expose the hierarchy of the system. Justine developed her point about not being heard, even when you have the biggest demonstration ever, to develop a point about hierarchy. “Hierarchy”, she told me “is the root of abuse” (Interview 2018). “Abuse is not only an unfortunate aberration that occurs within a hierarchical system. Abuse is what maintains and structures a hierarchical system” (ibid).

Scott agreed and talked of the disparity between the lives of those at the very top of the UK establishment and the poorest. “There's people like the Queen”, he told me, “just because she's born in some family, get to live in luxury and probably can't even dress herself it wouldn't surprise me.” He then went on to talk about “poor kids born in impoverished families unable to get proper food or heating or education”, the implication being that this disparity is systemic and caused by hierarchy (Scott Interview 2016).

This section has shown that direct action was a major part of CWP belief. It built on the history of CW to highlight that action for them is seen as the best way to do politics. This is important context for the election campaign to come. They do not believe in the hierarchy and importance of elected politicians and the establishment. This election campaign would be prefigured by these subcultural norms and values. The desire within the CWP was for their election activity to be fun. Those involved showed a desire towards performative protests that pushed beyond the norm.

Considering the importance of direct action within the CW movement, it is possible to extrapolate a basic model that CW has run to with regards to direct action and the controversy it creates. This will be considered next and informs our understanding of CWP activity seen in Chapters Five and Six relating to the election campaign and its aftermath.

Direct Action and Controversy

As discussed in the section on the history of CW, their actions have generated press attention over the years. The data showed that this was a key part of the CWP subculture. It perhaps is not surprising that people standing for election want publicity for their cause but it cropped up in particular ways, clearly not related to getting votes. What emerged was a desire to generate publicity from direct action and for that publicity to increase the options for further action. This is an action and controversy cycle which the CWP put into operation to varying degrees of success. However, this model was not discussed within the CWP. Rather, it has been extrapolated from the data.

David discussed the way the CWP is newsworthy. “Definition leads to recognition”, he said (Interview 2016).

The great problem with politics in this country is there’s no definition. You can’t tell who’s who and what’s what; everything’s blurred in the middle. Class War stands out as something extraordinary and robust and rumbustious and aggressive and uncompromising. It’s an attractive thing to write about. It’s not an easy thing to assimilate so it kind of works for the media (ibid).

On his reasons for standing he said his “intention was to create publicity for Class War” (ibid). Helen also raised this issue, saying “Ian is incredibly good at generating publicity” (Interview 2015). For Al it’s a matter of CW having “always been shameless opportunists” (Interview 2017). Adam spoke of enjoying “causing chaos and spectacle” (Interview 2015).

Media attention can come out of the blue and lead to harsh criticism, as shown in the literature review. “We can’t predict how what we do will be reported” Justine told me (Interview 2018). “We’re operating in this environment where we have to be politically active but then we can’t control the narrative” (ibid). The desire to get the publicity is somewhat tempered by the fact that such media interest can be extremely uncomfortable.

The election would give the CWP plenty of opportunity to attain press interest. Ian told me ahead of the election that “we made it clear from the start that we wouldn’t be getting rid of direct action. Standing for Parliament was a way of getting publicity to increase direct action”, neatly describing the model (Ian Interview 2015). At times it worked to their advantage but at others the desire for attention backfired. The press attention that follows action is ironically under-prepared for. This is largely because it is unpredictable. It can also affect deeply and negatively the individuals who get the press attention, as seen in subsequent chapters.

The history of CW showed that direct action and belligerence were key features in fighting enemies broadly characterised as the rich, the establishment and the left. The consideration of the subcultural traits of the CWP builds on these notions by providing an understanding of direct action from their view. It includes the notion that publicity, of any kind, is worth having. We will now consider how the CWP view social class and how that contributes to their actions.

Social Class

Where do you place someone who was brought up by middle class parents who are on hard times but have brought that immense cultural capital with them?... I don't think working class is an easy thing to [define]. I think you can make simplistic definitions. I think it's about... It almost becomes... I think for me it's a redundant term. Not that you don't talk in terms of class (Steve Interview 2016).

As discussed in the chapter on the history and publications of CW, Unfinished Business included the CWF account of the class structure. It argued that there was a ruling, a middle and a working class, assigning types of jobs to each. It also gave each class characteristics within the capitalist system. This account was not repeated by any of the research participants. Steve’s quote above highlights how complex discussions of class can be, even within an organisation with the word ’class’ in its title and one that describes itself as a ‘working class action group’. “We need a word which galvanises action”, Steve tells me, “so we know who we're talking

about. It's like a common understanding rather than a dictionary definition” (Steve Interview 2016). Foxy (Interview 2017) concurred and told me that the “traditional definitions” were “becoming useless.”

The work of Marxist historian Edward Palmer Thompson is useful in framing CWP views on social class. In the preface to The Making of the English Working Class Thompson briefly discusses ways in which class can be understood. He considers that class cannot be fully understood without seeing it as a social and cultural formation, established through processes, carried out over a long historical period (Thompson 1991:11).

His approach to class is succinctly summarised:

If we stop history at a given point, then there are no classes but simply a multitude of individuals with a multitude of experiences. But if we watch these men over an adequate period of social change, we observe patterns in their relationships, their ideas, and their institutions. Class is defined by men as they live their own history, and, in the end, this is its only definition (Thompson 1991:10).

Thompson’s rejection of class or classes as a structure is compelling, placing it firmly with Marx’s original intention for the term. Nina Power states that ‘he is surely right that the objective facts regarding how many people work in what sector in a particular period tells us nothing about what this means, and also nothing about what class resistance, subversive activity and antagonism might look like’ (Power 2013:150). Thompson points out that Marxists have made the mistake of assuming that the working class has an existence that can be calculated, from which a notion of class consciousness can be assumed (Thompson 1991: 9). He warns that ‘[s]ince the crude notion of class attributed to Marx can be faulted without difficulty, it is assumed that any notion of class is a pejorative theoretical construct, imposed upon the evidence. It is denied that class happened at all’ (ibid). Thompson is right that class is defined by people living their lives. This section defines social class through the lives of those involved with the CWP.

Thompson later clarified and expanded the views he first expressed in the preface discussed above. In short, he made the following points, relevant to this study:

• Class is a historical category, derived from the observation of social processes over time. That people repeatedly behave in ‘class ways’ culminating in the formation of institutions and of a culture with class connotations. • Class structures are designed to give the impression of class as something that can be objectively recognised. This leads to the notion of class as a static structure with certain percentages of people attributed to each class and moving in relation to that static structure. Class as an observation of behaviour is lost as the structure itself is analysed and measured instead. • Class struggle is a prior and a more universal concept to that of class. Classes do not exist as separate entities searching for other classes to engage in battle. Classes emerge through struggle as people with similar aims recognise they share those aims with others. Class struggle is the start, whereas class and class consciousness emerge through the process and as a result of the struggle. (Thompson 1978:147-149).

With the use of sociological models, ‘we are launched, then, upon the endless stupidities of quantitative measurement of classes’ (Thompson 1978:149). The overwhelming view of class present in the CWP is one that is connected to culture and struggle. As discussed later, the views of class that those involved with the CWP have is cultivated through their experience of struggling together in the direct action they organise and participate in.

However, research participants did refer to class as a structure, so pervasive is this notion. One such structural definition some did refer to was the Great British Class Survey (GBCS) that was in the news at the time that I conducted some interviews. The GBCS was launched on the BBC website in 2011 (Savage 2015:25) and would include a questionnaire, as part of a ‘class calculator’ (BBC 2021). It was designed for people to complete and then be told via the GBCS algorithm what social class they fitted into. When I discussed the GBCS with Ian I asked him whether he’d

carried out the survey on the BBC website to discover which of the new classes he was in. “No, I didn’t”, he told me. “I don’t need to do a survey to work out my relationship to the means of production” (Ian Interview 2017), in reference to Marx’s starting point on class.

Thompson acknowledged that definitions of social class are ‘notoriously difficult’ (Thompson 2014:171). He notes that Marx did not offer an extended definition and concludes that for Marx ‘a class defined itself in historical terms, not because it was made up of people with common relationship to the means of production and a common life experience, but because these people became conscious of their common interest, and developed appropriate forms of common organisation and action’ (Thompson 2014:171-172). The CWP is a group of people who have become conscious of their common interest, become organised and used that to take action.

Building on Ian’s outright rejection of checking his place in a class structure, there were thoughtful comments from other participants. By way of an example, Helen (Interview 2016) told me that she occupies:

a management role but I identify as working class because of where I came from. I come from a mining village. I think it's who you feel comfortable with. And I don't necessarily feel comfortable with people who their main problem is whingeing on about which school their kids are getting into.

This difficulty in definition is mirrored by Steve (Interview 2016) who considers the changes in his circumstances throughout life have changed his position in class when viewed as a structure. “I was born into a working class family,” he tells me. “We lived in council housing, we were homeless, all sorts of things. I went to school you know because my parents had aspirations for me and I ended up being a teacher. So economically, I'm not working class at all.” In writing about how Thompson aides class definitions, Power tells us that ‘before we decide what the working class is, how big it is and what it ‘should’ think, we should remember to think always in terms of processes and relations, rather than static categories and

unhelpful aggregates…’ (Power 2013:155). Participants discussed both but gave a clear indication that the static categories were not useful for them.

The issue of job and salary are returned to by Helen when she told me that “having ambition or wanting to stretch yourself is not uniquely a middle class trait” (Helen Interview 2016), identifying problems with structural definitions of class. She went on to say that she considers nursing to be “a working class rather than a middle class job” before adding “even though I’m a nurse manager now” (ibid). She equated being ambitious with being “intellectually stretched and challenged” rather than being “motivated by money” (ibid).

This chimes with Dave who told me that wealth was not a motivating factor: “when I was growing up, you know 15, 16, it wasn't about that it was actually about how's your brother, how's your dad, how's the woman down the road.” (Dave Interview 2015), identifying class with displaying solidarity. He talked about how unions “played a big part in helping to support working class families and communities” (ibid). This was linked to memories of the Miners’ Strike and the financial help the community received through the union. It was also an acknowledgement that such experiences provided him with a particular outlook on life. He moved from discussing coal pits to the idea of working class people having a unique view of the world. He described it as “viewing the world… from the bottom of the shit pit” (ibid). In turn this was a subversion for Dave of the views popular culture promotes. He told me that working class people were “always looking up. You know, turn on the TV and it's all about how rich, how wealthy, how skinny, how tanned, even more rich you are. You know these vacuous people walking around worshipping material things” (ibid). Dave was clear that the common experiences of always looking up from the bottom was what brought working class people together.

These descriptions show how those involved with the CWP were not concerned as much about the wealth of their comrades, as the politics of their comrades. For example, and again through Helen, she considered sociological definitions of class. “I mean if you're looking at… the kind of formal social classifications, you know A, B, C, D, you know,… not even C1 or C2. Skilled manual workers is… what everyone

thinks of as working class” (Helen Interview 2016), before latter telling me that class is “who you feel comfortable with”, shunning the ‘formal definitions’ (ibid).

In turn that leads to a discussion on what it actually means to be working class. For Jenny (Interview 2015) for example, “there's a shared identity and a shared culture and it's not always easy to put your finger on what that is when you're actually part of it.” Joe told me that being working class “is a state of mind” (Joe Interview 2017), showing how hard it is to put your finger on it. Background plays a part, he said (ibid). Jenny insisted that it is not just “an economic thing but a cultural thing” (Jenny Interview 2015). She told me that “working class people share similar, sort of, cultural values” (ibid). Dave (Interview 2015) concurred: “it's about the culture and traditions that you are handed down through your family, your parents”. Al told me it isn’t “a simple hierarchy with very clearly defined layers.” He said someone “can be culturally working class and quite well off” (Al Interview 2017). Justine pointed out that she believes in the phrase “only the best for the working class”, subverting the idea that luxury is only for wealthy people. She went on to say “if we want to drink fizzy, we’ll drink fizzy. That doesn’t make us sell outs. If we like fancy coffee or go for a manicure every now and then it does not make us sell outs” (Justine Interview 2018). Stan meanwhile says he uses the phrase ‘working class’ to describe people doing “unskilled work” (Stan Interview 2016). He went on to mention working class people coming from a “particular background”, and a “particular school” (ibid). Steve (Interview 2016) says it consists of “people who are working for their living, earning their living, or unemployed, on benefits whatever who actually have to make a living, however they make it: that for me is working class”.

Thompson wrote about changes to the working class as automation of industry occurs (Thompson 2014:176). Such changes do not shatter the working class but rather they shatter ‘traditional notions of the working class as a fixed, unchanging category with a fixed consciousness and unchanging forms of expression’ (ibid). Ian talked about class as something constantly in flux. “The nature of the proletariat has always changed”, (Ian Interview 2017). He told me that “people delude themselves that they’re not working class if they’re so far up a pay scale” (ibid). Justine (Interview 2018) agreed: “the working class is very much atomised, partly because of people believing that they’re middle class because they sit down to work rather than

stand up, or they wear a cheap suit to work instead of overalls.” The alternative for Ian is to have faith that “Marx’s basic dictum was right” and therefore “a class is a class when it’s a class for itself – when it’s got the knowledge of its own independent existence as a class and it’s got its own separate interests to follow” (Ian Interview 2017). Then it becomes “about struggle and having a knowledge of yourself” (ibid).

Research participants also linked the idea that the term working class has lost meaning over the years to the politics of the day. Murray (Interview 2015) discussed working class pride: “No one champions it. And even Left Unity or TUSC [the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition] talking about workers… even they didn't say working class. Just saying the word working class [pause] no one's doing that”. “We’re invisible,” Dave told me (Interview 2015). “We’re probably not even a statistic.” When I asked Stan (Interview 2016) what the term working class meant to him he expressed sadness that the very notion has been in decline. “Wow, that's the $64m question isn't it mate? I don't know. I think working class these days doesn't really mean a great deal.” There is a sense that pride has become more important as the group has felt working class voices being squeezed from national politics. Murray (Interview 2015) added “I feel that working class culture and the lives that we've had are valid in their own right, without any kind of apologising. That is a good way to live. That doesn't happen anywhere else and Class War really promote that” (ibid). Dave (Interview 2015) tells me that CW “is a home for people who feel dispossessed, who feel alienated”. Dave’s sense of solidarity is coupled with an affinity to the people he sees as working class, heightened by this feeling that working class communities are getting smaller. “You know what a working class pub looks like” he told me. He went on to say that working class people are easily recognisable to him. “It's as much about image and identity as it is about how much your mum and dad earned” he says. “I know who they are and what they look like and what they smell like and what tattoos they wear and stuff like that” (ibid). JayJay described how “you get people who are working class but say they’re not, and then you get people who are not working class but act like they are. I can normally smell ‘em out” (JayJay Interview 2017). Meanwhile Al told me that “if you don’t know it when you see it, you’re probably asking the wrong question” (Al Interview 2017). For those involved with the CWP class is a shared experience, a lived experience and CW is the organisational means they have developed to express their

consciousness, just as Thompson argued in relation to Marx’s view on class and history (Thompson 2014:171-172) discussed above.

The anger and resentment levelled against the richest in society is explained by members of the group, often through stories and anecdotes about their lives. It is linked to the issue of the diminishing of working class communities. Jenny (Interview 2015) talks about attending university: “when I came to Uni I felt different to most of the people there. I felt that I hadn't grown up with their kind of cultural values. I felt different to them. I felt that I didn't have their privilege if you like. I didn't have their economic status.” Patrick, meanwhile, tells me that he has a daily reminder whenever he leaves his home. “I can step out my door and I would say that there was about eight of us left in the whole entire street - council tenants. Everybody else is either a hipster with a big bushy beard or a yuppie” (Patrick Interview 2015).

Gentrification is a clear area of frustration for CW. In the 1980s and ‘90s it manifested itself in the role of ‘yuppies’ and their moving into working class areas. They wrote of gated communities springing up with CCTV, wine bars and private healthcare (Class War 2015b:9). They claimed that locals were being ‘forced to live in poverty in the middle of the grossest affluence’ (ibid). Crucially, they considered that yuppies were infiltrating working class strongholds, including the organisations of the left: yuppies ‘are an invading army of the ruling class, bent on the elimination of our class and our culture’ (Class War 2015b:14). CWP attitudes to gentrification bear close resemblance to those historical examples.

This section explained CWP attitudes to social class, using E.P. Thompson as a guide. Interviews revealed the difficulty research participants had in defining the working class, with structural definitions obscuring a clearer view. However, wider discussions show that wealth and job role are not as important as cultural identity, solidarity and political belief. As Thompson tells us, the working class is not static. Rather than disintegrating Thompson makes the point that it changes its form (Thompson 2014:176). CWP activists are motivated by a shared sense that the working class is under attack. Their consciousness comes not just from resisting change that harms their interests but also from resisting the notion that class itself does not exist. This resistance gives rise to fun forms of direct action in which they express their anger and seek to rejuvenate their movement. They are willing to name

the assailants as the ‘rich’ and official politics of both right and left as the cause, and they hope to attract like-minded people who recognise and associate with them through their own lived experiences.

The CWP formed a close-knit group in organising and carrying out direct action. The following section considers the structure of the CWP and the way decisions are taken.

‘The Finest Fucking Family in the Land’ and other structural issues

This section focuses on the structure and decision making of the CWP by considering the notion that it resembled a family. In considering this it also explains the problematic nature of such an informal arrangement, particularly in relation to hierarchy and decision making. The discussion around structure also allows for acknowledgment regarding the strength of female voices within the CWP, which came to the fore in this iteration of the movement, leading to the idea that there was a New CW in development. The way the CWP operated with regards to decision making and hierarchy will be returned to when considering the election campaign.

"I think we are [like a family]" Jane (Interview 2015) told me. "We all really look out for each other. If somebody's going through a bit of a low patch people notice and people will look out for you" (ibid). Helen agreed and described the idea as “spot on” (Helen Interview 2016). Murray told me that “it is like mum and dad with Jane and Ian” (Murray Interview 2017). The idea took such hold that Jane shared on the Facebook candidate support page a link to a song in a Youtube video titled The Finest Fucking Family. It includes the lyrics:

Have you met my sister Tilly? She's a whore in Picadilly And my mother is another on the strand; And my father hawks his asshole round the walls of Windsor Castle We're the finest f***ing family in the land. Have you met my Uncle Hector? He's a cock and ball inspector At a celebrated English public school, And my brother sells French letters and a patent cure for wetters And an ointment for the sores upon your tool (Traditional Folk Song Lyrics).

The finest fucking family started to be used as a phrase to show how close-knit the CWP was. It is worth noting that this idea of family was not held by everyone, particularly those outside of London. A family structure hardly represents the non- hierarchical aim that many anarchists adhere to and it is obviously problematic in that it necessarily leads to assumptions beyond the idea that families look out for

each other. Not least is the issue that a heteronormative family structure can lead to figures of a paternal, maternal and childlike nature with behaviours to match.

David (Interview 2016) highlights Ian as the “sort of the spiritual father, the founder because he keeps coming up with great ideas. He's so plugged into recent British history. He's encyclopaedic on things like music and politics.” Ian meanwhile is conscious that he’s seen as the leader but he, and everyone else is emphatic that “we don’t have leaders”. Ian emphasised instead that the CWP has a “lot of leaders” (Ian Interview 2015). He said, "I'm often thought of (or the press will say) I'm the leader because I've been around since 19-fucking-82 but it's not me who's charging around at a rate of knots" (Ian Interview 2015). "The good thing CW does is it just relies on people's individual initiative, getting up and getting on with it” (ibid).

For the group, Ian is a compelling charismatic figure, able to not just conjure up ideas for action but also to convince others that they should be “charging around at a rate of knots”. It would be naïve to suggest such influence is non-hierarchical. The level of respect research participants had for Ian was obvious. David for example referred to Ian as “probably England’s greatest living radical” (David Interview 2016). Helen identified that Ian can be a persuasive figure. “Ian does that thing where he says ‘all volunteers please step forward’ and then everyone else steps back or you'll mention stuff and he'll say 'that's very good, right, you're doing it’. He's very good at delegation is the polite way of putting it” (Helen Interview 2016). She agreed that Ian is seen as the leader of Class War. “The press like to think Ian is the leader or Lisa, somebody like that but at the end of the day it's like herding cats. I think it's good that there's not one person in charge” (ibid). She told me that “we're a collective. If you don't understand collectivism you've no place in Class War. That's why we don't have a leader” (ibid). Adam (Interview 2015) said of Ian that “we can all learn a lot from him. In a way he’s a mentor. He’s like a dad, he’s got a paternal quality.” Joe told me that the CWP was not “a peculiar hierarchy with Ian Bone at the top telling his minions what to do” (Joe Interview 2017). He agreed that “there’s a lot of respect for Ian Bone and a lot of his ideas do go forward” but that “a lot of his ideas don’t go forward too” (ibid). Al also made this point: “quite often Ian will come up with something he thinks is really great. Everyone else will tell him ‘no, it’s shit, we’re not doing it’” (Al Interview 2017). “People are not afraid to contradict [Ian] and he will

back off if he feels that the feeling of the meeting isn’t going his way” David told me (David Interview 2015). Stan was more willing to go down the route of the CWP having a clear leader. “Ian’s the guvnor isn’t he,” he told me (Stan Interview 2015). He went on to implicitly reference potential issues with hierarchy by saying “sometimes I think if we were truly egalitarian it would be better but I don’t think it would function like that” (ibid). Steve (Interview 2016) told me that Ian has “ideas flowing out of his head like there’s no tomorrow”, always eager for more action.

Participants discussed how the structure of the CWP influenced direct action. Targets for action don’t just come from one source. “A lot of the time it’s someone’s personal passion” Justine (Interview 2018) told me, adding “we’re quite responsive to events. It’s largely about opportunities. Opportunities happen at the most random and unexpected of places” (ibid). In terms of taking action people are at different stages of experience and development. Justine pointed out that there needs to be a nurturing of confidence. “My anarchism isn’t just about myself standing up. It’s about supporting others to develop the confidence to do that” (Justine Interview 2018).

Jane is clearly conscious of possible negative connotations of being seen as one of the heads of this ‘family’. She explains that "I just see myself as somebody who can be a bit of a bossy matriarchist if I don't watch it” (Interview 2015). “But that's my age”, she goes on to explain, “and because I look out for people. [I look out for] some of the younger ones just to make sure they keep within the boundaries of keeping themselves safe really” (ibid).

The way decisions were formed by the CWP could not escape this family structure. However, David (Interview 2016) refers to the processes as being “classically anarchist”. He tells me “we arrive at these places by a form of consent. I don't like it when we vote. I think voting's pointless” (ibid). The vast majority of ideas come from Ian, although everyone has an opportunity to contribute. Generally, the group will find consensus without needing to vote, something David calls “more of an atmosphere. It’s not doctrine and policy. It’s feeling. A feeling that that’s the right thing to do and that fits with Class War” (ibid). A proposal that gets supported by the majority tends to become what might be considered by outsiders as a ‘policy’. It could be a target for action or an idea for a new banner for example. It is also fair to

say that ideas that get the support of Ian and Jane tend to be supported by the group at large. “Ian and Jane... are the twin pillars [of Class War]”, David (Interview 2016) informs me, referring to Ian as an “anchor” (ibid).

Dave noted, like Stan above, that “Class War is not perhaps completely democratic”, and the structure of decision making suits the fact that the CWP was a small group. “Decisions have to be taken quickly. Action has to be taken sometimes within hours of something happening. So what we lose in not having a vote on everything we gain in spontaneity” (Dave Interview 2015).

There was a marked difference in interviews between those that lived in London and those that lived away from the capital, regarding the idea of a family structure. Those living in London were more likely to see the CWP as a family. Dave, who stood for the CWP in the constituency of Sherwood did not consider the group to be a family. When I first told him that people in London were considering CW to be like an extended family he paused and thought for a while before saying “it’s a nice phrase but I’m not sure what it means” (Dave Interview 2015). “It might be true in London”, he added (ibid). Being removed from London allowed him and others to be more “autonomous anarchists in what we do and say” (ibid). He did talk positively about the structure, however. "I see it as [a] very fluid, non-hierarchical, inclusive and quite welcoming organisation. There isn't the usual paranoia and vetting people for years on end" (ibid). When I asked Andy, who stood for the party in Litchfield, if he considered it to be a family, he firmly told me no. On discussing this in more detail I asked him if it might only really apply to the London section of the CWP and he simply replied, “fuck London” (Andy Interview 2016). Dave was a little more forgiving: “I completely get” how the CWP is “London centric” (Dave Interview 2015). “You’ve got a huge city in terms of population. Numbers of people into any particular current are going to be represented more [in London]” (ibid). It is notable that Andy had scaled back his involvement with CW by the time I interviewed him. Discussing the idea of CW as a family he said “I don’t know where that leaves me because Ian Bone’s deleted me on Facebook. I’ve been excommunicated. It might be an accident” (Andy Interview 2017). Stan (who also left CW following the election period) had a less rosy view of the idea that it had a family structure. He agreed that it did but that it was one of a “dysfunctional family” (Stan Interview 2016). These comments were made prior to him leaving CW and were said in good humour.

Meanwhile, Steve (Interview 2016) dismissed the idea. He said “I don’t go along with that notion. I think it’s a nice cosy notion.” He added “we support each other beyond that I wouldn’t say it’s that much of a family” (ibid). Far from being a family, Jenny had heard Class War described by some young anti-fascists as an “old swingers club” (Jenny Interview 2015), although I’ve not found any evidence for this, either as a candidate myself or as a researcher.

In the chapter considering the history and publications of CW it was noted that the movement came down harshly at times on what it saw as single issue politics. An important factor in the CWP structure was the strong role played by women. According to Justine (Interview 2018) CW is “not essentially fighting gender politics but that’s one of the hierarchies we fucking hate.” The Womens Death Brigade (WDB) was set up as an informal feminist structure within the CWP during the Poor Doors protests starting in the late summer of 2014. As discussed later, CW was describing itself as ‘new’ in early 2014 to signify it was willing to behave and act in ways that were a departure from the past. Research participants cite the formation of the WDB, and the prominence of women within the CWP as the main source of this newness.

The section on the history of CW included discussion of gender in the publications of the movement. The rise of the WDB in the modern version of CW indicates a shift in the movement view. Jenny descried it to me: “it’s just the women in Class War. We hold the [WDB] banner and we sometimes message each other on Facebook to say, “we’ve got to sort the boys out”” (Jenny Interview 2015).

During the People’s Assembly demo in summer 2014 a new banner showing Lucy Parsons was unfurled and mainly held by women in the group. It utilised the quote from Parsons that Ian had used on that very first edition of Class War, calling for devastation in the avenues where the wealthy live. This time instead of a ghastly image from a horror film, it showed a portrait of Parsons. In discussing the production of the banners Andy explained to me the reason why the Lucy banner appeals so much: “the Lucy Parsons banner's my favourite. [It’s] the juxtaposition of a picture of a little old lady and then the call to violence". As Ian (Interview 2015) said, “the banners pull people together on demonstrations.” I have noticed how they

can become a focal point for people to coalesce. Around this time the phrase “Womens Death Brigade” started to be used on Facebook. It wasn’t until the group got a banner for itself that the term solidified within the group. Jane (Interview 2015) explains that "I had a bit of money and I thought 'what will I treat myself to? Ah, a banner.'... That's why I won't let go of it". It was via action, under the banner, that the WDB started to be seen as a distinct part of CW. Ian talks about the moment that the WDB started to dance at a demo, describing it as a “real sense of a liberated moment" (Ian Interview 2015). JayJay told me she “loved the dancing banners” (Interview 2017).

Figure 17, Oscar Brand: The Finest Fucking Family. Click for video.

Figure 18, The WDB and the dancing banner at a Poor Doors protest. Click for video.

Figure 19, The design for the Lucy Parsons Banner. Image credit: CW.

Figure 20, The design for the WDB banner. Image credit: CW.

I asked Jane who the WDB were: "[They’re women who] don't take no shit from no one" (Jane Interview 2015). She told me that they’re “feisty women but feisty in a nice way" (ibid). I pressed her to describe how the WDB works in practice. I’m told that, “we're not separatist in that we work with the men and we're part of the group, but sometimes it's just nice to have a mass of stroppy women who can tackle certain issues outside of the group, that comes better from women than it might do from men” (ibid). Justine (Interview 2018) informed me that “we’re a women’s group within Class War and we campaign on women’s stuff but it’s not just about those parts of politics.” “They’re women that are politically active in general, not just on women’s stuff.”

In early 2015 many on the left looked towards the electoral gains of Syriza in Greece as a beacon of hope because they had risen to power on the wave of protests directed against harsh austerity policies. Justine saw it differently, dismissing them as “just another bloke bloc. They're a bunch of straight white males with fancy educations, you know, telling other people that they've come to be the saviours. There's more women in Class War than there are at the forefront of Syriza and that's one of the things about Class War that cheers me up” (Justine Interview 2015).

Despite the creation of the WDB and the visibility of women within the CWP, Helen told me that a debate developed around the CWP view on intersectionality. “Jane and I were going we haven't got one because we are by nature as anarchists intersectionalists…... We don't need to talk about that because we're not about gender politics. We're about class politics” (Helen Interview 2016). This is a sharp contrast to the CWF view expressed in Unfinished Business that feminism was a distraction. In the modern iteration of the movement, feminism has been brought into the subculture. It marks a distinction between CW as a movement in the 1980s and 1990s in comparison to the CWP.

Kinna notes that social class features less prominently in anarchist literature written ‘by advocates of post-left anarchy, small ‘a’ anarchists and postanarchists’ (2019:157). Concepts of class feature frequently amongst anarchists asserting their links to a European tradition of anarchism (ibid). It is noted that as well as the description of classes in Unfinished Business, CW had published other texts postulating similar views on politics beyond class. Being in a position to promote

such ‘single issue campaigns’ was equated in the early years of CW with ‘class advantage’ (Kinna 2019:156). The working class were not concerned with such issues as they were busy trying to survive (ibid). As Kinna notes, the ‘conceptualization of class difference and antagonism thus has significant repercussions for activism’ (ibid).

Hilary Lazar also discusses these issues in relation to the way that anarchist currents have developed (2018:158). Here, a distinction is made between ‘classical anarchism’ and postanarchism around the idea of freedom (ibid). Early anarchists were concerned with ensuring freedom from domination in all its forms (ibid). The idea developed that freedom for individuals could only come when emancipation is achieved for everyone (Lazar 2018:159). A class based approach to emancipation follows from this idea. Postanarchists take the view that domination is much more complex and therefore look beyond a critique of the state for answers (Lazar 2018:161). Lazar suggests that by developing a deeper sense of freedom, one that seeks to understand domination from multiple settings, anarchists could develop an even more emancipatory politics (2018:170).

Whilst the CWP was accepting the importance of intersectionality, to a degree, class remained its overwhelming focus. In this way it could be seen to be leaning heavily towards a current that emphasises ‘classical anarchism’ or the European anarchists of the 19th century. It is also the case that this current did not ignore (and does not ignore) wider concerns. Prominent anarcha-feminist figures from the period such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre and Louise Michel promoted class and gender emancipation (Lazar 2018:159). That these figures also feature as important within the CWP subculture, helps posit the party and the wider movement within the currents of anarchism. Whilst figures like Parsons were prominent right from the start, the creation of the WDB changed the nature of the CWP.

Ian noted the change. He told me that the CWP was “really characterised by the strength of its women,” and that “Class War is not the same as it used to be. It’s radically different. It’s nowhere near as macho,” as it used to be in the 1980s and 1990s (Ian Interview 2015). He talked about how the organisational change is ahead of some of the individuals in this matter and that some people are on a personal journey within the New CW. “It was a bit more blokey in the ‘80s, definitely” JayJay

(Interview 2017) told me. Al, however, said “the characterisations of Class War in the ‘80s and ‘90s as a bunch of beery geezers weren’t accurate anyway. Women and disabled people were associated with Class War right from the outset” (Al Interview 2017). Whilst that might be the case, it is clear that the CWP had prominent women in influential positions, and that changed the way the movement operated. It could be seen as a family, and it crucially was by many insiders, but on top of this it had matriarchal influences.

A clear example of the new perspective that this created occurred after the election, when CW protested against the establishment of the Jack the Ripper Museum in Tower Hamlets, on the basis that the museum glorifies and profits from the sexual murders of working-class women. This will be considered in more detail later. Jane’s comments above show how the WDB developed out of a perception that a female voice was needed to tackle some issues effectively. The effect of the creation of this group within CW has been to allow for discussion where female voices are sometimes given priority within group discussions and it therefore has impacted on decision making and the structure of the group as a whole. As Foxy (Interview 2017) pointed out the CWP was “largely woman led which is no bad thing”. Andy agrees when he says that “nobody could describe us as a bunch of dick swinging manarchists” (Andy Interview 2017). “A bunch of women have made it happen. It's just organically happened. You’ve got characters like Jane. I've never met her but on Facebook she's a fucking force of nature,” he told me (ibid). David told me that “the more and more you see of what [Jane] does and the way she brings other women into Class War, and the prominence that women have in Class War the more important it is” (David Interview 2016). JayJay (Interview 2017) meanwhile referred to Jane as being like “a potty-mouthed nanny. I love her to bits.”

The idea of a family structure lends itself to a small grouping. The dissenting voices are noted. However, the notion had particular significance for those operating within the London part of CWP. It provides, for this thesis, an indication of the structure and the way in which decisions were made during the election campaign. The CWP was leaderless, in a conventional sense, but with charismatic people in informal positions, capable of pushing decisions down particular routes. These issues will become more apparent, alongside the impact they had on the way the election campaign was run.

Chapter Three

Me and the Class War Party

This chapter sets out my involvement with the CWP prior to the commencement of the research. It begins, though, with a note on methods, to ensure that this is contextualised.

A Note on Methods

There is a distinction to be drawn between the parts of the thesis relating to events prior to the research formally starting, and those events after it had begun. The chapters retelling the story of the election campaign and its aftermath were written from my status as an observing participant, as explained later. They include ethnographic writing and stories told from my perspective as an election candidate and include the views of research participants, to build an accurate picture of what the election was like from the inside of the CWP.

The period covered in this chapter ran from October 2013 to the end of January 2015, during which my involvement with the CWP began to change. My early involvement was not tempered, restricted or guided by scholarly concerns such as ethics. At some point in early 2014 I decided to try to form research from my experience as a CWP candidate. From late September 2014 I was preparing my research parameters but my formal observation had not begun. What I present here are recollections of these times, with information from other sources to provide validity and reliability.9

Becoming a Candidate

The first time I heard of CW was sometime during studying my A-Levels in 1992-94. My Sociology teacher, on hearing that I was to go to university on the outskirts of the City of London, asked me to stay behind after one class. He told me about the

9 Validity and reliability are concepts central to the trustworthiness of qualitative research and as such are explained fully later.

anarchist bookshop, Freedom, and of the anarchist newspaper Class War. He also showed me a photocopy of a front page from the newspaper showing a baby Prince William with his parents, complete with the headline ‘Another fucking royal parasite’ (see fig.7). At 18 years old, living in rural Lincolnshire, this front page was a revelation. I’d never really heard anyone be rude about the monarchy before and this image and headline appealed to me. I made many trips to Freedom bookshop but I didn’t see many copies of Class War there or anywhere else. I heard of CW only once while I did my undergraduate studies. It was in the first few months of being a student. I went on a demonstration about the Criminal Justice Bill, which seemed to be an attempt by the state to curtail partying by regulating the rave scene.

While not part of the rave scene, I was ready for my first protest. I remember two things about the march. The first was that the police lined the route of the protest and heavily protected Downing Street after riots had occurred at the previous demonstration on the matter. I recalled the scenes on the news of that previous demo which included people scaling the gates of Downing Street and trying to break them down. The second recollection is of getting home after the rally in Hyde Park to find that violence had broken out between police and demonstrators after the protesters refused to leave the park. Press reports later highlighted a CW leaflet calling for violence and warning protesters not to get in the way of flying objects.

That was my closest encounter with CW until 2013. After leaving university, I spent 13 years working in the civil service. Despite, or maybe because of that, I had gradually come to the conclusion that I was an anarchist. Upon being made redundant a great sense of freedom came to me in that I could finally be public about my own political convictions, something that is against the rules for civil servants. The one saving grace of my final few years in the civil service had been my role as a trade union activist, which allowed me to state opinions from an anonymous official union position. Now I could actually let my views be known.

On 22nd October 2013 Ian published a short blog piece titled ‘OK LETS HAVE SOME FUN………73 ‘CLASS WAR’ ELECTION CANDIDATES WANTED’ (Ian Blog 2013a). Later that day he published another post advertising the names of four people,

including mine, who had come forward to stand in London (Ian Blog 2013b).10 I had only recently started to read his blog and having always admired the CW style of expression thought it might be fun. I thought the suggestion of anarchists standing candidates to be a beautifully ironic statement. I had no intention at this stage of this leading to research.

Within a short space of time, Ian sent me an email requesting a little more information he could put up on his blog about me, and a picture:

I’m an anarchist who until recently was working in the Home Office – please forgive the contradiction. They made me redundant but not before I put up a good fight. I’ve spent the last 5 years fighting them as a PCS union activist. I’ve been involved with rank and file activism in the civil service and I’m currently completing an MA at Ruskin College in International Labour and Trade Union Studies (Bigger 2013 [email]).

Unbeknownst to me Ian and Jane lived in Croydon, like me, so it was easy to meet up. I met them in the Dog and Bull on Surrey Street on Wednesday November 27th, 2013. I found Ian and Jane in a quiet area of the pub just away from the bar and tucked away around a partitioning wall. After some introductions we spent the first part of the evening discussing politics and the election. Very quickly, all three of us eased into a discussion on the election. I joked that it seemed like a logical step for me to take after being dismissed from my role in the Home Office, after over a decade of service. Ian explained that, to his mind, so little was happening politically that doing something this unusual had merit. It wouldn’t simply be anarchists repeating a ‘don’t vote’ mantra on a five yearly cycle. Jane talked about how she’d previously stood as a candidate in local elections but would just be a supporter this time.

Even though my details had been on Ian’s blog for a while I still had the impression that they wanted to vet me in some way. The conversation on politics certainly gave both parties a chance to check the other out. Then a pub quiz started, and the evening took a more surreal turn. There was a picture round where we were asked

10 None of the three listed alongside me went on to be candidates.

to sort the pictures of 15 Blue Peter presenters in the order that they made their first appearance on the BBC children’s series. After getting 12 correct Ian just turned to me and jokingly said, “OK, you’re in”. I think the politics discussion probably had more to do with it but we’d crucially had a nice evening too.

A meeting was planned for mid-January 2014 for election planning. Just a few days prior to that meeting events took a surprising turn, when a petition hand-in to my local Tory MP provided me with an unexpected publicity opportunity, explained in the following section. It was to have a knock-on effect in how I was able to contribute to the subsequent planning meeting and it set up my credentials as a CWP candidate.

The Pensioner Activist and the Youthful Anarchist

In early January 2014 I had signed a petition, organised by the lobby group 38 Degrees, calling for MPs to intervene in the government’s passing through Parliament a Bill to regulate lobbying.11 I was invited by that group to help them deliver the petition to my local MP, Richard Ottaway on January 17th. My subsequent blog post (Bigger Blog 2014a) highlighted how Ottaway had called the police because he didn’t know how many people were coming to his office. This was picked up by local news website Inside Croydon and then the local and national press. On January 18th in a blog piece titled ‘Up and Running in Croydon South’ (Ian Blog 2014a) Ian quotes something I had written on Facebook: ‘[I] had a small encounter with my Tory MP and the cops tonight. Hardly black bloc, more blue rinse but the assembled people of Purley were crying out for something different so I told them about Class War. They looked a bit startled.’12

On 21st January Inside Croydon (2014a) led with the headline ‘I might have been murdered, claims Croydon MP Ottaway’ and two days later they allowed me to write an article on why I was standing as a CWP candidate at the election (Bigger 2014b), starting an association with the website which would see me write for them

11 The proposed Bill seemed to focus more on the ability of trade unions to campaign in the run up to elections than it did to curtail the influence of big money in the form of lobbying firms. 12 I didn’t notice until many months after the general election that the protesters included the eventual UKIP candidate in the constituency, Kathleen Garner and her husband, who perhaps wouldn’t be swayed by my early campaigning.

periodically up to the general election 15 months later. On January 22nd the story hit the national press with The Telegraph headline ‘MP calls for police back up to protect him from pensioners’ (Perry 2014). In late January, Ottaway recorded an interview with Croydon Radio in which he was asked directly if he knew that I was going to attend the petition hand in (Croydon Radio).13 He denied knowing that I was attending but then on January 31st he wrote an opinion piece published by the Croydon Advertiser claiming that he was the victim of ‘Chinese whispers’ with the headline ‘Ottaway: “Youthful anarchist shows why we needed police at protest”’ (Davies, 2014). In the piece he claimed, contrary to his previous assertion, that he knew in advance that I would be attending and claimed that was the context for the police being called. In retrospect, and from memory, I may have tweeted that I was attending a few hours before the sign in so his claim may be correct. The implication in his article was that I was a threat to his safety. By February 13th, I’d been published again in Inside Croydon asking for Ottaway to tell the truth (Bigger 2014c).

In a handful of days I had been described as both a ‘pensioner activist’ and a ‘youthful anarchist’ and by sharing all the publicity and getting as many mentions for CW as possible I had cemented my position within the CWP as someone who wasn’t going to be shy in the election campaign to come. My actions were hardly old style CW either. I had gone to great lengths to explain and justify my views about standing in the election via my pieces in Inside Croydon and an interview in the Croydon Advertiser (Keate 2014) culminating from the publicity. I’d kept the Ottaway story going by exposing the holes in his arguments rather than simply sticking a metaphoric two fingers up at him and being abusive. This style would later be held up as an example at the election planning meeting of CW being able to have multiple approaches in the modern era – a ‘new’ CW. That meeting was held just two days after the petition hand in. Looking back, I observe that I was conforming to the subcultural trait of getting and keeping media attention for the CWP.

13 Croydon Radio had unfortunately closed and so the recording no longer exists. However, I have included the web address in the bibliography.

The First Election Planning Meeting

Meeting in London this coming Sunday for people standing or thinking of standing as Class War candidates in the 2015 general election. If you’d like to but not sure about legalities, deposits, what standing might involve then this is the meeting for you (Ian Blog 2014c).

The meeting took place in an upstairs room at a social club in South Norwood, Croydon. I felt a little out of place not really knowing many people. Online, Ian had expressed a lot of admiration for the events I’d been the centre of over the previous few days. Socialising downstairs though, he didn’t initially recognise me. It took me a while to feel at ease with a club full of CW people I didn’t know.

The venue had seen better days. The fabric on some seats was ripped and I guessed it hadn’t been decorated for decades. It was a run-down working class venue and it contrasted with Ian opening the meeting by joking that one day there would be a blue plaque on the wall outside, heralding this as the site where CW kick- started their election campaign. There were around 30 - 40 people from all over the country present. Having initially thought that the election would just be Ian standing in a prominent seat, Lawrie told me he was “surprised how many people were there” (Interview 2020). Whilst the meeting was organised to discuss how we might plan the election campaign, others were there more for information and to consider the proposal. One such person present wrote a critical blog post of the meeting a couple of weeks later:

So, a Class War meeting was called and we all found ourselves in an upstairs room in a workingmen’s club. There were old faces I knew and younger faces that gave me hope. There were about 40 of us and we were all asked to introduce ourselves and a little bit of background. So, the introductions from potential Class war candidates and supporters and I myself explaining that I needed to be convinced that what they [were] doing was the way forward, to enter into a system, the very system we are trying to bring down. A hierarchical structure serving a capitalist state. What were they going to be campaigning for? And was it not going to make Class war a laughing stock? The meeting convened and Ian Bone said my thoughts were irrelevant

because the decision had been made and they were going ahead with fielding candidates and it wasn’t up for discussion (Mac 2014).

I remember Ian dismissing the idea that CW shouldn’t stand, because the meeting was set up to discuss how the election should be fought, not whether it should happen at all. Nobody spoke-up in support of Mac’s proposals. These concerns though show the diversity within the anarchist movement in terms of strategy and tactics. They hint at debates around ends and means, prefiguration and direct democracy. They also explicitly highlight the issue of hierarchy.

The issue of election policies was a hotly debated topic at the meeting. Some people voiced the opinion that no policies were needed, whereas others wanted a handful of key policies to grab the attention of the working class. They ranged from a 50% mansion tax to the doubling of all benefits, the abolition of the monarchy, an end to tax on beer and an end to public schools.

There were many at the meeting willing to think about being a candidate, including someone who had gone through the process before and was able to talk about legalities and practical issues. I went away from the meeting feeling positive as we seemed to have people from all over the country ready to stand and also ready to help. The meeting was far from perfect from my point of view and I did wonder whether the structure of the organisation was something I could fit within comfortably. I considered it far from non-hierarchical and thought that many anarchists would be horrified by seeing CW’s foray into electoral politics (as the example of Mac shows).14 I was concerned by the issue of hierarchy, but I put aside these qualms at least for the time being. I decided to see how things developed and knew that I could always leave at a later date if my unease continued. For the time being, I decided that the fun to be had, and the experiment in standing in the election as an anarchist would be worthwhile in itself. I also liked the freedom the CWP was granting me as a candidate: a campaign to be run in whatever way I liked, a chance to influence the national campaign of the party, a lack of bureaucratic burden and process.

14 Another example is that of Floaker (2015), whose critique of the CWP entry into electoral politics is discussed in the conclusion.

For Mac (and I expect others) the feelings they got following the meeting were far from positive:

Not long after the Class war meeting Ian Bone released a blog and gave us a list of all [the] things had been agreed during the meeting. Hold on a minute I must have missed something. I can’t remember any consensus of any kind on anything. A few cheers in the odd place. So you want me to support a hierarchal class war group to get rid of a hierarchal class war system. Now let me think about that for a minute ok I have thought about it “Fuck Right Off” One thing that Occupy had managed it was a non-hierarchal system of working groups were [sic] decisions were made by consensus and that it was mature in its language and it’s [sic] message (ibid).

This shows the different views of anarchism that were present in the room that day. However, Ian’s blog post (Ian Blog 2014b) mentioned above states that the policies were still up for discussion before ratification at a future conference. Others left the meeting with similar feelings to my own. On his blog later that day Ian published a quote from an attendee from Norwich:

I had a great day with comrades at the class war election conference, one of the most remarkable political meetings I have ever had the good fortune to attend, I appreciate the ideological difficulties that electoral politics pose for anarchists, but I still feel positive about the future of the campaign, after all, we are the only game in town, and a united front under our banner is a real possibility (Unknown Comrade 2014).

This had been an interesting meeting, with more people present than I thought would attend. I went home feeling as though this election campaign could actually happen but I also felt I had some scope to pull out of it if it headed in a direction I didn’t like or I didn’t feel at home with the CWP for any reason. There was then a marked lull in CWP activity until the run up to the May 2015 local and European Parliament elections.

2014 Local and European Elections

There were local and European elections in May 2014. I proposed via the new Facebook candidate support group, that the CWP encouraged people to write ‘Class War’ on their ballot papers. I thought there may be the chance to build on the small flurry of publicity we had already gained.

In the run up to the local poll, there was a brief moment of fun for Ian and Jane, who took the CWP megaphone on a trip to Selsdon, in my constituency, where Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, was speaking at an event for local Tories. Attendees were charged £10 each (Inside Croydon 2014b), but Ian and Jane got in briefly for free before having to protest in a foyer.

On the election day itself people took pictures of their ballot papers with the words written on them and posted them to the group for propaganda purposes. It didn’t garner any publicity but it did bring a few people together online during a prolonged period of relative inactivity. Things would soon pick up though with more regular protests and direct action over the coming months.

The People’s Assembly and Owen Jones

In June there was finally a chance for some real world activity with the People’s Assembly march in London. In the run up to the demonstration, discussion on the candidates support group had centred on the lack of working class voices scheduled to speak at the accompanying rally. The demonstration’s official tagline was ‘Demand the Alternative’, highlighting that the then government policy of austerity was harming the interests of many people. The CWP approach to the march was not to demand the alternative, but to simply be the alternative. Ian wrote on his blog on May 29th, advertising the march that ‘WE HAVE NO DEMANDS TO MAKE OF YOU THERE ARE NO REFORMS YOU CAN MAKE TO GET RID OF US’ (Bone blog 2014d). A persistent frustration for CW is that the working class is often represented by people that have had Oxbridge educations. To highlight this, a banner was produced with the slogan, ‘we are the fucking alternative’, alongside a picture of one of the speakers at the event, journalist Owen Jones, who studied at Oxford University. The banner got a lot of attention on the march. I spotted a trade unionist

Figure 21, CW leaflet for the Criminal Justice Bill 1994.

Figure 22, A CW image publicising the basic policies. Figure 23, A CW image utilising words from one of my articles.

Figure 24, Ian and Jane at Tory event in Selsdon. Video credit: Jane

Figure 25, My interview with the Croydon Advertiser was publicised Figure 26, The published interview. in my local area.

friend at the start of the march who came to have a look and questioned me as to why Jones was marked down as the enemy. Jones wondered this himself in his Guardian column, providing the CWP with national press attention:

In a recent anti-austerity protest organised by the People's Assembly, Bone's Class War crew decided not to target, say, George Osborne or Iain Duncan- Smith, but mocked up an admittedly amusing banner featuring a still of me from a BBC programme clutching a bottle of champagne, adorned with the emphatic words: “Fuck off back to Oxford.” Bone is a disciple of Mikhail Bakunin, a 19th-century Russian anarchist whose aristocratic family owned 500 serfs, and of the even more aristocratic Russian Peter Kropotkin.

This background-baiting unites Bone with the vitriolic right, many of whom remain silent about class privilege until it becomes a convenient means to attack a leftwinger. While a socialist of modest means risks accusations of envy, anyone deemed to be of excessively privileged stock who wants a more just society invites the charge of hypocrisy…. Any leftist who does not decamp to an isolated hut, free of all modern appliances, to subsist solely on homegrown vegetables risks being labelled a "champagne socialist" (Jones 2014).

This explanation by Jones, with his reference to a ‘charge of hypocrisy’, is wrong and bears no relation to the reasons he was chosen. The choosing of Jones, as a target on the banner, was not obvious and the CWP made no attempts to explain the reason. I found the aftermath of this protest difficult as friends in the trade union movement, having read the article by Jones, expected me to answer the points he made. Most didn’t seem to accept the explanation, making it a rather futile exercise. My way was to try to explain and debate but it fell flat on this occasion, as the mainstream left pulled together in defence of the columnist.

The day itself enabled candidates, supporters and potential candidates to meet for the first time, demonstrate together and drink in the pub together afterwards. The day also saw the unveiling of a banner with a picture of the American anarchist and trade unionist Lucy Parsons, as discussed in the previous chapter.

Gaining Trust for the Research

I cannot remember exactly when I first approached Ian and Jane about the prospect of researching the election and writing about CW. I was at this time conducting research as part of my MA in trade unionism and one of my teachers had asked me if anyone had ever done an ethnographic study of CW. I started to explore this idea with Professor Ruth Kinna at Loughborough University via email and then formally applied to the university for a place as a doctoral researcher. Once I was accepted, I invited Ian and Jane for a meal at a restaurant near my flat in Croydon and suggested the idea of researching the election campaign. I figured that approaching them and getting agreement would make the process as smooth as it could be. I understood from the Owen Jones banner and fallout that CW had a dislike of academia but I wasn’t sure if that would extend to me. I outlined to them what I had in mind and we discussed a few concerns regarding safety such as the possibility of the authorities using the material to harm CW itself or individuals involved.

Gaining their agreement meant that I could work on moving to Loughborough and then finalising how I would approach the data gathering during the election period.

Poor Doors

The Poor Doors protests were a regular event through the second half of 2014 and continued beyond the election. Just as I became more involved with the CWP, these protests became more important to the CWP at large. They started just before I moved to Loughborough and I was therefore unable to attend them all. However, the ones I didn’t attend I followed from a distance, online, eagerly awaiting updates. The story of Poor Doors is so intertwined with the story of the election it should be told in detail. Many people became involved with the CWP through this series of protests, including three of the eventual seven election candidates, as well as election agents and numerous supporters.15 The election campaign was a regular talking point at the

15 There was a discussion within the CWP around the requirement for agents to be named publicly and how this might have a detrimental impact upon those that came forward. For that reason, I have only named the election agent for a candidate where they were also a research participant and where their actions as an agent have been relevant.

protests. It galvanised the sense of family as people fought together against gentrification.

In the summer of 2014, following the People’s Assembly demonstration, the CWP were looking for a regular action to take part in. This was presented initially as a way to build momentum and get people working together ahead of the election.

On July 26th a project that Ian, Jane and Helen were involved in was coming to fruition. The self-organised and totally unofficial South Norwood Tourist Board had been working on the ‘Sensible Garden’ for some time. It involved transforming a patch of derelict land into a community garden. This idea took on the name of Captain Sensible16 who had lived in the area and the grand opening took place with the Captain in attendance.17 Helen explained to me what happened as she was heading to the event:

I was sat reading the story of One Commercial Street18 on the train, and…. I barrelled in [to the pub] brandishing the paper and going ‘have you seen this? This is social apartheid, this is disgraceful. We should do something about this!’ And Captain Sensible had been holding court and I went ‘Hang on mate, this is really fucking important’, flung the paper at Ian… and two weeks later the first Poor Doors protest happened (Helen Interview 2016).

The article (Osborne 2014) described the growing phenomenon of social housing being built into new top of the range developments, with separate entrances depending on what type of accommodation someone might dwell in. Once inside the building residents are segregated. The group spent some time discussing the issue of poor doors and found that it was more widespread than initially feared. Poor Doors were an issue in New York City where they were being compared to British TV drama Downton Abbey and subsequently banned (Moyer 2015).

The issue struck a nerve not least because it was a modern variation of the issue of yuppies, which CW wrote and campaigned about in the 1980s. In the subsequent

16 Captain Sensible, a rock guitarist with the band The Damned (www.officialdamned.com/) had lived in South Norwood, hence the idea for naming the community garden after him. 17 A video of the event, including interviews with Jane and Ian, can be accessed via this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV6eZrs9QAI&feature=youtu.be 18 The original Guardian newspaper report into Poor Doors, mentioning One Commercial Street, can be accessed via this link https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats

decades, what CW saw as working class areas had become gentrified and the process was continuing. The Poor Doors protests would continue into the election campaign. This section considers the Poor Doors events which took place prior to my observation and data collection.

The first weekly event took place on Wednesday 30th July 2014, at the One Commercial Street development named in the newspaper report. It was photographed (as with many subsequent CWP actions) by photojournalist Peter Marshall who observed that three of the potential CWP election candidates were in attendance (Marshall 2014). He goes on to describe a brief tussle between protesters and staff at the rich door until the police arrive (ibid). That first protest was undoubtedly a small affair. It was decided to head there again the following week and, unlike the first event, I was able to attend.

As the weekly protests continued, events were bookended by visits to The White Hart pub on Whitechapel High Street, a few minutes’ walk from One Commercial Street. I found that behind the scenes, election planning was a topic now being discussed in person and not just via Facebook. The protests were becoming useful in terms of the general election.

In discussing Poor Doors with the group, it is clear that most had affection for the protests. Dave, however, was not too sure because of the tactic of a static protest week on week. “Hang on”, he told me (Interview 2015), “we’re against the idea of static demos… and yet for a lot of weeks there’s a static demo with banners, with placards, people are getting arrested, people are getting picked off. The police have got plenty of time to organise what they’re gonna do” (ibid). Dave was right about arrests. As shown later, the protests did result in police and court activity. He labelled it a kind of “sitting duck protest” (ibid). Ian, though, pointed out that “we’re not conspiring to cause a riot every night. We’re going there to organise a legitimate demonstration and hopefully have some fun” (Interview 2015).

However, Ian tells me that “we surprised ourselves and everyone else. It's been good because it's brought more people together" (Ian Interview 2015). David talked fondly of getting involved with CW through the protests: “after the experience of [attending] Poor Doors I felt at home. I felt that [Class War] was where my heart was,

as well as my head” (Interview 2016). “I started to read about Class War and what it did. Basically, everything fitted with what I felt” (ibid). Stan (Interview 2015) told me that he attended “every single Poor Doors. I love Poor Doors. Sad to say it's the high point of my week” (ibid). Ian talked about the usefulness of the protests: “In that experience what [newcomers] learnt as they’re going along was persistence, about fun, imagination, the banners, fun chants” (Ian Interview 2015).

As the protests gained momentum the average attendance grew. So too did media coverage and the opportunities for tension with both the staff in the building, the residents that used the rich doors and police. The first arrest occurred at the ninth protest on 24th September 2014. The group had tended to attract uniformed police, but on 24th September the group found the rich door at One Commercial Street unguarded. In the ensuing occupation of the foyer in that part of the building, Ian knocked a vase of flowers on the reception desk onto the floor. When the police came, he was arrested and later it emerged he had paid a fixed penalty charge. I discussed with Ian the way CW approach legality at protests. He told me that “there's no great virtue in being arrested all the time” (Interview 2015). He explained that CW does push things but that getting arrested en masse is not the aim.

The CWP used Ian’s arrest to its advantage in the publicity for the next protest when it subverted its own chant of “we’ve gotta get rid of the rich” to produce an online poster on behalf of fictional anarchist group ‘Vase War’, with the heading ‘we’ve gotta get rid of the chintz’. CW used their website to describe the protest as ‘fucking mental’19. The brief article described the event: ‘Poor Doors occupied, Ian nicked by TSG [Tactical Support Group officers], plod berated, cop car stickered, locals outraged at Poor Doors, toffs scolded!’ On top of this, protesters brought along vases to the next protest to give to the reception area of the rich door.

By now the weekly protests were attracting musicians and trade unionists, as well as other housing campaigners. Each protest seemed to have a slightly different feeling from the one previously. There were some outliers in terms of size, and the first came at the protest organised to take place after the annual London Anarchist

19 Unfortunately, this website has not been maintained and no longer exists because nobody knows the login details.

Bookfair, on October 18th. “There was a lot of people there for the Bookfair” said Al (Interview 2017), before taking a swipe at that event: “it was perfect for us because we could offer them something that was actually worth going to” (ibid). It was also the day of a Trades Union Congress march against austerity, and the start of actions by Occupy!, attempting to set up a camp on Parliament Square. The left was descending on London and it boosted attendance, with the protest taking up much of the expanse of pavement outside the building.

Jane’s arrest on November 5th was a little more complicated for the group. It came with bail conditions limiting her access to the protest in subsequent weeks and it would lead to a trial date of May 7th, 2015, which just happened to be election day. The arrest of two of the leading figures within the CWP, plus the bail conditions on Jane were seen within as a clear attack by the state on the group as a whole.20

The November 5th protest coincided with bonfire night, during which it is traditional to light fires in public spaces and burn effigies. The CWP had noted that the then London Mayor Boris Johnson sought to discourage the use of poor doors but refused to ban the practice (Osborne 2014), thus becoming a target at the protests. A poster was shared encouraging people to bring effigies, sparklers and devilry and vowing to ‘stick a rocket up the mayor’s arse’. An effigy of Boris was prepared and the protest went ahead with a police presence. At no stage did the police attempt to stop the burning of the Boris effigy and photographs from the night show them standing calmly behind it as it smouldered. The fire brigade was called, however, but only extinguished the fire upon the insistence of the police. Following this, the police arrested Jane. Asked a few minutes later why Jane had been arrested, Ian said he wasn’t sure but referenced the idea that the police were not really sure how to handle the WDB with their dancing banners (King 2014). David spoke for the CWP when he told me he was “very angry to see her arrested and shoved in the back of a van” (Interview 2016).

20 Indeed, there was even discussion within the group that the choosing of the trial date was a deliberate act of disruption.

Figure 27, A staff member guards the rich door at the Figure 28, The Lucy Banner at the first Poor Doors first Poor Doors Protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall. Protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 29, The Police arrive at the first Poor Doors Figure 30, Poor Doors soon attracted other housing protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall. campaigners.

Figure 31, Music at the Poor Doors. Figure 32, A police free Poor Doors and a party atmosphere.

Figure 33, The alley to the poor door. Image credit: Peter Figure 34, CW advert for Poor Doors protests. Image Marshall. credit: CW

Figure 35, The rich entrance, occupied. Image credit: Figure 36, Ian arrested. Image credit: Peter Marshall. Peter Marshall.

Figure 37, Courting the controversy from Ian's arrest. Figure 38, Promotion for Poor Doors on the same day as Image credit: CW the London Anarchist Bookfair. Image credit: CW.

When Jane’s bail restrictions prevented her from attending the next protest, the Womens Death Brigade attended wearing identical outfits to the one Jane was wearing when she was arrested. Jane describes the bail restrictions as “like being prevented from seeing my family once a week" (Jane Interview 2015). During Jane’s bail period, the CWP simply met at the closest pub that she was allowed to go to. It meant that she could still attend the before and after discussions, and this always ensured for a proper debrief each week.

As explained earlier, I couldn’t attend every Poor Doors demonstration but I felt invested in them. Each week that I was not at Poor Doors, I waited by the computer to see updates on social media. It was a sign of how close-knit we were and of my growing involvement that I cared so deeply and passionately about how it went.

Two weeks after Jane’s arrest, the owners of the One Commercial Street development sold the building. The new owners contacted the CWP and offered talks to resolve the issues. My gut feeling was against negotiation, as I believed it was a way for the new owners to simply stall the protests and prevent us building momentum. The majority decision was to engage and talks took place.

The initial meeting went well. It seemed that a solution might be found in One Commercial Street that could pave the way for an end to social segregation in similar apartments across the UK. CW immediately called a ‘ceasefire’ as a goodwill gesture towards the owners of the building, putting off any further Poor Doors action until further talks had taken place.

Ironically, the ceasefire meant that the group were looking again for a regular action. Having met throughout the autumn of 2014, they moved into 2015 with only sporadic and one-off activities. Just before the ceasefire there had been an action outside the home of actor Griff Rhys-Jones, who had claimed he would leave the UK rather than pay the Labour Party’s proposed Mansion Tax (Ellis-Peterson 2014). There had also been a bizarre trip to Chingford in an attempt to heckle government minister Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) at a careers fair in his constituency. After several hours pretending to be interested in jobs in the army, the police and banking we found out that he had actually attended early because of rumours that we would be there. A hastily arranged walk to his constituency office provided some light relief and reports of CW hunting IDS but it had been a total waste of time on a cold and wet day.

In early January 2015 there was a discussion around a regular action against the richest hotels of the west end of London but it resulted in one action taking place: walking between hotels with a banner and without a great deal of impact. Poor Doors was a hit because it was regular and people could relate to it. It was an obvious injustice. It was proving hard to replicate.

The Vice website was usually critical of CW activity but they observed that:

The poor door protests have been something of a revelation for Class War, a rag-bag group that first appeared in the 1980s but lay quiet for years. Over the last few weeks their activists have chased Ian [sic] Duncan Smith around his constituency in Chingford, paid a hostile visit to the £7 million home of mansion tax critic Griff Rhys Jones, and set up an election campaign for May 2015 (Kleinfeld 2014).

The ceasefire didn’t last long. There was very little progress with owners, Hondo Enterprises, over the coming weeks and CW declared the truce over on January 28th 2015. CW claimed that Hondo chief, Taylor McWilliams, offered only cosmetic changes to improve the poor doors areas of the building, crucially not offering to end the segregation which prompted the protests in the first place. The meeting was ill tempered and ended with some of those involved getting angry.

This chapter started with my initial involvement with the CWP. I had answered the call to be an election candidate, met Ian and Jane and very quickly found myself with local publicity. My Tory MP had highlighted my anarchism as a danger, and I’d gained enough attention about the election to be interviewed in the local press. I quickly became a part of the CWP, attending protests and making suggestions on the Facebook candidate support page. I was embedded within the movement and the party that had formed for the election. I had also moved to Loughborough to start my research on the CWP election campaign. My position within the CWP had implications for my research. The research had been accepted by the CWP as I was an insider. The next chapter explains how I went about planning the research and how that had to change once I was in the field.

Figure 39, The CW promo for Poor Doors on November 5th, 2014.

Figure 40, The police stand by as Boris burns. Image Figure 41, CWP attempt to protect Jane, as the police credit: Guy Smallman. arrest her. Image credit: Guy Smallman.

Figure 42, The WDB showing solidarity for Jane.

Figure 43, The WDB, the week following Jane's arrest. Figure 44, Another example of the dancing banner. Image Image credit: Peter Marshall. credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 45, Ian wonders if Griff Rhys-Jones is at home. Figure 46, The CWP search for IDS in Chingford. Image Image credit: Peter Marshall. credit: Peter Marshall.

Chapter 4

Methods and Methodology

The chapters on the election campaign, and the aftermath of that campaign, are written from my status as an observing participant, as explained later. They include ethnographic writing and stories told from my perspective as an election candidate and include the views of research participants, to build an accurate picture of what the election was like from the inside of the CWP.

The earlier chapters covered issues prior to my involvement with the CWP. Theoretical aspects like subculture have been written with a different level of detachment for the simple reason that they do not involve the storytelling in later sections. My status as a researcher, researching the CWP, developed over a period of months after moving to Loughborough in September 2014. This had profound implications for how the research was conducted. As seen from the above chapter I was heavily involved with the CWP from the moment I pledged to be a candidate.

My observations did not start until the March for Homes on January 31st 2015, some 15 and a half months later. The research methods cannot be divorced from my experiences. The differences between the theory of research, the ways in which a researcher plans their fieldwork and the reality of the experience provides a learning process that is documented here. I did not get involved with the CWP in order to research it or those involved. I developed my research methods between September 2014 and my participation on the March for Homes but found I needed to be flexible, reflective and agile as a researcher, which this chapter explains. It has been set out to show this developing situation emerging. It is designed to account for my position as an anarchist researcher, embedded in the CWP.

I have modelled the design on David Graeber’s The Democracy Project, a study of Occupy! which describes his involvement in US Occupy! camps to advance a conception of democracy, interweaving anthropology, history and political theory with participatory action research. A key feature is his embeddedness in the research. Likewise, my subjective experience is utilised to reflect on the CWP’s election strategy and contemporary British electoral politics. This has enabled me to extrapolate the key campaign objectives of the CWP from my observations and

experiences. These are explained later and used to form findings in relation to the research questions mentioned in the Introduction. Such research is necessarily from a subjective position where the researcher is not just embedded with a group to establish their norms and values but also invested in their aims. This chapter explains my subjectivity and details the steps taken to ensure the legitimacy of the research.

Using the first day of fieldwork as a guide, the chapter explains the methods and how their use changed. As such it contains a description of a day in the field, combined with how formal methods gave way to a more participatory approach.

Ethnography

David M. Fetterman (2010:113) tells us that ethnographic writing requires an attention to detail. ‘Ethnographers take great pains to describe a cultural scene or event in tremendous detail’ (Fetterman 2010:125). They go on to say that the aim of such writing is to convey the ‘feel and facts’ of what has been observed (ibid). In presenting a ‘thick description’ of events the ethnographer is not seeking to reproduce everything that occurred, but to convey the reality of the event (Fetterman 2010:126). This is storytelling, and I have utilised it in explaining what happened during the election campaign. It is, therefore, fitting to use storytelling in this chapter. I consider it a dynamic way of conveying the events. I have also utilised video and photographs throughout the storytelling as this aids the thick description of events. Where possible, I have sought to provide as much information as I can to help the reader feel close to the events described.

As my own position is also central to the thesis, much of the storytelling appears to be (because it is) autobiographical. This is an area where the thesis leaves the conventional methods aside because they are inadequate for the purpose. The conventional view is that the ethnographer should not dominate the setting (Fetterman 2010:128). However, my position as researcher and candidate places me at the heart of the narrative. This means that the account of the CWP is entirely subjective, but since the CWP functioned as a family of individuals, committed to subversive direct action, this does not invalidate the results. In fact, taking such a

position was the only way in which the data could be gathered. I could only be in one constituency at a time and so my own experiences necessarily come to the fore. There is a blurring of roles in which I am the teller of this story, a data gatherer and sorter, and added to this, a research participant. The use of data from observation in other settings, interviews and diaries ensures that my findings and reflections are tested against the views of others.

I have considered whether this constitutes autoethnography, which ‘combines characteristics of autobiography and ethnography’, according to Carolyn Ellis, Tony E. Adams and Arthur P. Bockner (2011). Whilst, in some regards this writing does combine characteristics of both, the methods utilised have allowed the voices of the participants a greater role. I have relied on elements of autobiography only where my own experiences were the most relevant, or only source. At every possible juncture it is the other participants that either tell the ‘story’, or else add to it. The section on my getting the signatures needed to be on the ballot paper is the closest the thesis gets to autoethnography.

I also find the idea of autoethnography elitist to some degree; it is a form that propels the views of the author above that of other participants. Mitch Allen is quoted as asking (in a personal interview with Ellis, Adams and Bockner) ‘[w]hy is your story more valid than anyone else's? What makes your story more valid is that you are a researcher. You have a set of theoretical and methodological tools and a research literature to use. That's your advantage’ (ibid). Whilst it can be accepted that being a researcher provides one with an advantage in terms of method and access to data, that does not imply an obligation to increase the researcher’s voice within the writing. This researcher has attempted to ensure that the voices of other participants were as prominent as possible, whilst accepting the significant role of the researcher.

Bryman (2012:467) highlights the idea of a feminist ethnography and visual ethnography. I have utilised visual material to help aid the storytelling process. Likewise, Nicholas Apoifis discusses another form of ethnography: militant ethnography (Apoifis 2017). Building on work by Jeffrey Juris (2007), Apoifis details that militant ethnography “requires researchers to demonstrate participation and political solidarity with their collaborators, alongside a commitment to distribute knowledge after the research is completed, in an equally politically minded fashion”

(Apoifis 2017:5)21. Having made no such commitment, I would be uncomfortable labelling this project a piece of militant ethnography, despite it corresponding closely with descriptions of it in other regards22. The key components of militant ethnography, according to Apoifis, which correspond closely to this project include the pursuit of partisan insights and a blurring between research and political activism (ibid).

Authenticity

Fetterman (2010:1) points out ‘[e]thnography is about telling a credible, rigorous, and authentic story’. This links to trustworthiness above and a truthful re-telling of events. CW are highly suspicious of outsiders, particularly those from what they see as elitist institutions such as universities. They are therefore unlikely to allow an outsider to study them using ethnography as a method. Ethnography, though, remains the most suitable means of accessing their authentic voices. An alternative would be to assess them via their published output. However, by interviewing those active in the campaign I was able to go into further detail about specific actions. Published output provides scant information on the internal discussions and decision making process. Combined with grounded theory, ethnography provides a clear picture of the group norms and values and how it operated during the election. This thesis is original, on top of which the methods, combined with the position of the researcher, enable a depth of understanding that would be otherwise difficult to reach.

Fetterman (2010:1) describes ethnography as giving a ‘voice to people in their own local context, typically relying on verbatim quotations and a ‘thick’ description of events. The story is told through the eyes of local people as they pursue their daily lives in their own communities’. Alan Bryman explains that ‘[e]thnographers are typically immersed in a social setting for a long time – frequently years. Consequently, they are able to observe the ways in which events develop over time, or the ways in which the different elements of a social system (values, beliefs,

21 See Practicing Militant Ethnography with the Movement for Global Resistance in Barcelona by Juris. This is a chapter of the book Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations / Collective Theorization edited by Stevphen Shukaitis and David Graeber with Erika Biddle, 2007, AK Press. 22 Whilst, I have provided no commitment regarding disseminating this research to activist circles in general, I will be sharing it with the other research participants.

behaviour, and so on) interconnect’ (Bryman 2012:402). As explained in Chapter Three, I have been ‘immersed’ in CW since 2013. By observing the CWP, before and after the election, I am in a position to see the changes that have occurred in the group behaviour, and the common themes relevant to this study.

In ethnography there is a distinction between the emic and the etic perspective. Whilst the emic perspective is an insider view, the etic perspective is the view from the outside. The former may not be objective but it is instrumental in gaining an understanding and describing accurately things observed (Fetterman 2010:20). It comes from the views of those in the culture itself, using interviews and written material from them. I could not avoid an emic approach to this research, being a CWP candidate. However, an emic perspective is a tacit acknowledgment that there are multiple realities as there are multiple perspectives (Fetterman 2010:20). Each research participant has provided their view of reality and from that the storytelling can emerge from multiple perspectives, lessening my own views and bringing into relief where they differ or are confirmed by those of others. This has already been seen with the section on CWP views on social class. That subsection contained multiple versions of reality but also conveyed a generalised view of the CWP conception of the working class. Although my subjective account of the election is apparent in this thesis, the views of others offer a balance and I have sought to include as many quotes and opinions from others as possible.

Fetterman (2010:24) argues that the ethnographer should make their biases explicit and that is the approach taken here, although it should be noted that Fetterman’s assumption here is that the researcher is likely to originate from outside the culture under scrutiny. The etic, or outsider, approach has been useful in the analysis of the data. I have embraced the role of critically assessing the CWP election from the inside. I have done this by formulating standards for the success of the project and judging it on that basis. This combines the insider and outsider approaches discussed above. The result is an honest but critical assessment of how well the CWP did in achieving the objectives I extrapolated from the data for the election campaign. This method was essential in providing trustworthiness and also providing anything useful for other anarchists wishing to exploit an election in similar ways.

Despite reaching a reflexive, participatory style of observation, I started the fieldwork with an array of conventional approaches, covered below.

Conventional Approaches

David Silverman (2005:210) puts the case for validity in qualitative research plainly when asserting that ‘[v]alidity is another word for truth’. Expanding on this Bryman sets out that ‘trustworthiness’ in qualitative research is made up of the following four components:

• Credibility • Transferability • Dependability • Confirmability (Bryman 2012:390)

Credibility can be achieved through triangulation of methods but also through ‘respondent validation’, where research participants are asked to confirm if a researcher has understood an interview or an observable event in the same way as the participants themselves. However, it can also potentially build barriers between researcher and respondents, where differences of interpretation exist (Bryman 2012:391). The view of those involved with the CWP has already exposed a difference of opinion regarding the idea that it resembles a family structure. Differences of opinion in a political group are hardly surprising and, where they have become apparent, I have identified them. Triangulation of methods (Bryman 2012:392) means that observations can be checked and clarified with reference to other data gathered. As I started my data gathering, I had several sources in mind:

• Observations (both in the field and of the Facebook candidate support group used by the CWP to plan events) • Interviews • Diaries written by election candidates

Transferability can be achieved by providing a ‘thick’ description of events (Bryman 2012:392), from which conclusions can be drawn. Fetterman (2010:125) calls this a ‘written record of cultural interpretation.’ It is an attempt to describe events in detail and an effort to convey the feel and the facts of an observed event (ibid). The sections of ethnographic writing and storytelling beginning with the March for Homes utilise interviews to back up observations in the field, thus aiding validity.

Dependability involves the possible auditing of the research and therefore the archiving of material for auditors to assess. This has not become a successful method of trustworthiness (Bryman 2012:392), and I am not convinced that keeping material for extended periods is best ethical practice. I have been guided by the Loughborough University approach to ethics as well as my own judgement with regards to storing CWP material. A copy of the consent forms and information letters for research participation can be found at Appendix Two and Three to this thesis.

Confirmability is a measure of trustworthiness associated with the positionality of the researcher (Bryman 2012:392). My status as someone embedded within the CWP, prior to the research starting, created a more dynamic and radical situation than that found in the conventional theory. The praxis here, from research design to the written thesis, has to acknowledge the researcher’s involvement and embrace it. Trustworthiness through confirmability comes, then, not from attempting to appear aloof and above the subject matter, but rather, from a confidently subjective position, backed up with rigorous analysis of the data. My unique position allowed a trustworthy description of events to emerge that simply could not have been achieved by an outsider to the CWP. An outsider would have been able to describe the events they witnessed. However, they would not have had access to interview data and they would not have been able to reach an understanding of the CWP subculture. Such research would, necessarily, place the actions of the CWP in a conventional frame, using conventional methods, and tell a different story.

As an insider, I have catalogued what happened in the CWP election campaign. I have cross referenced the events using the views of others who were there. Furthermore, I have described in detail the things that happened and how it felt to be there as someone who was invested in the project. Being an engaged insider, rather

than a conventional outsider, allowed me to tell this story with a trustworthiness other participants would recognise.

The research began with a broad question. It was essentially open ended but primed towards discovering what the CWP sought to gain through entering the election. This enabled the research to be directed by the data and findings as they developed and is a key component of ‘grounded theory’, described below. This research can be confirmed by the testimonies of those present during the campaign, which are included throughout. There is also a great deal of information on the CWP campaign in the public domain. The interviews conducted, and other information gathered as part of this research, build knowledge from the ground up to form a truthful retelling of events. Truthful, in that it is honest and accurate; a portrayal those who were there would recognise.

There is no hypothesis that this research attempts to prove or investigate. There is no theoretical framework that the research questions sit within. There is an open ended question which, using grounded theory, I hope will produce theory for others to use as a starting point. This thesis then, represents not just the answering of the broad questions that we began with:

It also provides groundwork for future investigation.

Interviews

In total I have conducted 29 interviews, with 24 research participants. Interviews are an essential part of ethnography (Fetterman 2010:40), as they enable a researcher

to investigate and clarify data that has been observed in the field, and also to ensure that important matters are considered in detail.

In qualitative research, according to Bryman (2012:380), ‘social properties are outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in its construction.’ Truth and knowledge are constructed via social interactions. Interviews are therefore a two-way process by which the ethnographer can gain a greater understanding from what they have observed (Fetterman 2010:40). Later in this chapter I describe events at a building occupation which highlight how this approach worked in practice.

Interviews can also lead to difficulties. I had two interviews during my data gathering process that could not be used. The first was conducted in a pub, as that is where the participant insisted on meeting. It was noisy and difficult to transcribe. In any case, the participant provided answers that did not relate to the questions, and were therefore unusable on the whole. The second unusable interview was conducted with someone who later decided that they did not wish the interview to feature nor for my observations of them to be utilised. I have honoured this request as part of the research ethics. I have ensured that any mentions of what the individual did in connection to the election period are only through the words of others or via publicly available material. I also wish to state that their decision to withdraw has caused no detriment. Details of the research participants can be found in Appendix One.

Diaries

As well as using data gathered from the interviews conducted with research participants, I was also keen to have information they had produced without a great deal of prompting from me as a researcher. Naturally, interviews are a discussion with participants reacting to what the interviewer asks. Diaries provide information driven by the thoughts and experiences of the participant in a more unfettered way. According to Andy Alaszewski (2006:33),‘Diaries provide a rich source of data for researchers who wish to explore the development of an individual life, and the activities and relationships of particular groups in society’. Alaszewski (2006:32) notes the top-down history associated with political diaries. The official record of

established politics includes memoirs and diaries, which shed light on the thought processes of leaders at the time they were making key decisions. This should be juxtaposed against ‘social history’, which looks towards marginalised groups and those whose voices are rarely heard (ibid). I consider this social history approach to using diaries highly suitable for a study of this kind, as it allows for grassroots voices to be heard. Having diaries from others involved with the research enabled triangulation, and therefore a more trustworthy description of events to unfold. When designing the research methodology, I was hoping to get all the other candidates to submit diary entries to me. In the end I received two sets of diaries, so this part of the data did not produce as much material as hoped.

Grounded Theory

The interviews have been an essential part of the grounded theory process, which enables a researcher to analyse the data they have gathered. This method was first posited by Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss (2008:1) in The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research in 1967. It involves generating theory during the fieldwork (Bryman 2012:387), rather than starting with a hypothesis and the intention to prove or disprove it. In grounded theory data is collected and then coded to allow themes and categories to emerge. Therefore, ‘initial decisions are not based on a preconceived theoretical framework’ (Glaser and Strauss 2008:45).

In grounded theory, where a researcher does not begin with a hypothesis, gathering of data can alter the analysis, and thus change the research questions the researcher uses in future interviews. It is the data that drives the research forward, and not preconceived ideas. This enables the research to be driven by events and opinions. This can challenge the assumptions of the researcher.

Bryman (2012:567) explains that providing a definitive account of grounded theory is not straightforward. Following the publication of their book on the subject, Glaser and Strauss pursued different paths with the method (ibid). Glaser was focused on using the method to generate theory, whereas Strauss emphasised the development of concepts (ibid). In a similar way to Donaghey’s research into punk music in

100

Indonesia and the UK, this research would be seen as problematic by adherents of what he calls a ‘classic’ or ‘traditional’ approach to grounded theory (2016:44). Such an ‘all or nothing’ approach has been advocated by Glazer (ibid). Like Donaghey, I have drawn upon grounded theory as a method, rather than adhered to it closely in any of its forms (ibid).

In explaining this, it is useful to consider the main parts of the process. Bryman sets them out first as tools:

• Theoretical sampling – generating theory from data in order to decide what further data to collect as the project develops (Bryman 2012:419). • Coding – breaking data down into component parts (Bryman 2012:568). • Theoretical saturation – data is collected until saturation point; new data is no longer necessary as it adds little (Bryman 2012:421). • Constant Comparison – theories emerge through the process of coding phenomena observed via the data (Bryman 2012:568).

These tools have all been used in the research process for this project. Bryman also looks at the method in terms of outcomes and discusses:

• Concepts – labels given to phenomena. • Categories – concepts that have been elaborated to represent real-world phenomena. • Properties – attributes of a category. • Hypotheses – ideas around the relationships between concepts. • Theory – the forming of a theoretical framework (Bryman 2012:570).

The methods observed for this research did result in theory and the generation of concepts and categories. This was utilised particularly regarding discussing the CWP subculture and in forming a conclusion to the research questions. However, the generating of theory as an outcome and the other stages of this process cannot be separated from my position as an election candidate for the party I was researching. In this regard, a ‘strict’ approach to grounded theory would have been impossible.

I took snippets of interviews and diary entries and coded them by grouping similar remarks together. These groups were then labelled as themes and similar themes were then grouped into categories. As Glaser and Strauss (2008:76) explain, the

101

researcher ‘develops strong confidence in his categories, since they have emerged from the data and are constantly being selectively reformulated by them’.

This process ran concurrently with further data collection, and each development in coding inspired new areas of research to test. In essence, that process of asking slightly different questions or heading down new paths suggested by the emerging themes, is the testing of theory generated by the data itself. In this way ‘[t]heoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyzes his data and decides what to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges’ (Glaser and Strauss 2008:45). Building theory is also part of the process of Participatory Action Research (Pain, Whitman and Milledge 2012:7), which is discussed later.

Interview techniques included both semi-structured and informal. The semi- structured style was useful at the start of the research, when it was necessary to ask research participants many of the same questions. Informal interviewing has benefits in as much as it often follows or is part of a naturally occurring conversation (Fetterman 2010:41). In this case it was part of a naturally evolving desire to analyse the experience we shared. It was a process of constructing knowledge.

In some interviews I was able to test theories that emerged earlier in the coding process. A good example of this has been the idea that CW structurally resembles a type of family. As this idea emerged, I was able to test it on each new interviewee and adapt the theory according to the new information. The people involved in the CWP election campaign have therefore led the research in new directions, helping me to construct reality from their perspective.

The snowball technique (McQueen and Knussen 2002:74) of sampling has been utilised in gathering interviews. I started with the intention of interviewing a wide variety of people. This became harder the more the project proceeded. It became clear that most people were really only active on Facebook. Furthermore, those most active on the social media website in terms of decision making, also tended to be the few who were regularly involved in person. My approach altered to focus on those most regularly active, particularly in a physical sense. I didn’t have the funds to interview people across the whole UK, so had to make decisions about where to go and who to speak to. The constituencies where candidates were standing took

102

priority, and as a result, I may be the only person in the CWP who has met all the candidates. This has also meant a London focus to the thesis as with three candidates this region dominated the activities.

There were also issues with Facebook observations that I had not anticipated, making interviews much more important as a method of collecting data. In the same way that a researcher cannot gain authorisation from an entire protest to observe that protest, I found it impossible to know if everyone on the Candidates Support group on Facebook was aware of my research. If I posted something to tell that group that I was a researcher I could not guarantee that it would be read by all or agreed by them. New people were joining regularly throughout the process, so it would be a never ending challenge to keep people informed and ask their permission. It would have been unethical to use quotes from this group, as I could not be sure that the people I was quoting would even know I was observing them for that purpose. Having access to the Facebook group is something that happened because of my involvement in the election and not my research. I decided to use the occasional quote from this Facebook group where it has been made by a research participant. I have also captured prominent discussions purely to provide an idea along a timeline of what the group was concerned with at any given time during the election campaign. This has been invaluable in mapping observations in the field with discussions and views behind the scenes. It has helped in matching my thick description of events with the views of people who also witnessed them.

My own involvement meant that the collection and sorting of data could not simply drive the research process. Whilst I there was no hypothesis, my own views and actions about CWP activity naturally influenced the process. An example of this was my own performance at a hustings event. Following it, I sought reflections on the event from the research participants. At other times I was able to be more detached. For example, in interviewing people about the actions of others and in particular, discussing the subculture of the CWP. Whilst I had an idea that social class and protest action would feature heavily in discussions around the subculture of the CWP, I also considered that punk music would feature. I decided not to pursue it when it failed to emerge in the data.

103

Prior to the March for Homes a meeting was convened in London to confirm the CWP election campaign. This is detailed in the next section.

Confirming the Election Campaign

In early 2015 an election planning meeting took place in London. It was attended only by people involved with the CWP in the capital. It confirmed that there would be three London CWP candidates. This decision was based on the amount of money that the CWP had, centrally. It was also decided that outside of London, people could stand, provided they had the resources to do so. Lawrie confirmed to me that “centrally we only paid about three candidate’s deposits, the others raised their own” (Interview 2020).

I had arrived to that meeting late, and when I settled in and heard the discussion, I was at first really concerned that my candidature wouldn’t be supported. I have already explained how I was invested in this election campaign as a researcher and not just as someone involved with the CWP. I started to think in the meeting how I could adapt my research. In some ways it would have ensured a more detached approach with more focus on other candidates and constituencies. Perhaps I would have attended a count other than the one in Croydon South and gathered data in different settings. In the meeting it was later confirmed that I would still be standing in Croydon South. This shows how my position as a researcher could alter very quickly. Adam would stand in Cities of London and Westminster and Lisa in Chingford and Woodford Green. I used the meeting to set out my intentions as a researcher, reminding people present what it was about. I got the agreement to observe the CWP during the election activities. There were some questions for me to answer around the safety of people involved with the CWP, should the state become interested in any activity I wrote about. This mirrored initial questions by Ian and Jane in 2014 when I first discussed the idea with them. I was able to explain that the CWP perspective would be at the forefront and that the safety of participants would be given consideration. I was ready to begin the research, at last.

104

Becoming a Researcher

On January 31st 2015 I set off for London determined to get my first interviews. I felt excited and nervous. There was a lot to remember and I was scared that I might return home with little usable data. Research is time-bound and therefore pressured and I felt that. Bryman (2012:449) explains that ethnographic research can be an open ended process, but we should also reflect on the fact that as researchers we have deadlines. I was conscious that events like the March for Homes happen on just one day, and that the election had a set date of May 7th. The observable phenomena relating directly to the election was in a short timeframe, adding to my desire to get as much data as I could.

In the build up to the March for Homes, I developed my research questions and used my previous experience to guide me. During conducting my research for an MA in International Labour and Trade Union Studies, I interviewed trade union activists in the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union in the UK and the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) in the USA. Despite that project running to a few months I had tried to use as many methods associated with ethnography as possible. I had served in PCS as a union activist in various posts so I could at least claim to be embedded in the culture of that union. In May 2014 I had gone to Chicago with a handful of email addresses of people who had tentatively agreed to meet for interviews. I had three nights in the city. I managed to arrange a group interview with some union officials and from that I got invited to a screening of a film about the activists in question. I was subsequently taken to a softball game between the union activists and another public sector team, where I was able to interview more activists. This gave me vital experience of getting information about a culture on top of the data from interviews and I used this to inform my planning.

I was aware that a thesis is a much larger project than an MA dissertation. Much of what I gained as data for my MA, I did so through the quick building of relationships as an outsider, at least in Chicago. Being a CWP insider would help me get more information and yet I often felt like opportunities were passing me by. Such feelings were present during the March for Homes as discussed later.

105

Reflecting on the research process, I concur with Tina Cook (2016) that it is messy. The finished product is designed not to convey that messiness. We write in order to iron all of that out of our work as Cook explains in relation to Action Research (AR):

[T]he writing of the work onto ‘hard copy’ in a relatively linear, coherent form had really been at variance with my experience of research work. When written down it all seemed so obvious, the steps taken so logical, and the outcome so clear. This had not been the case whilst in the midst of the research, when even the starting point was unclear to me (Cook 2016:93).

Learning that this is normal has been extremely helpful. I have come to realise that while I started out trying to be a conventional ethnographer, albeit one embedded solidly in the group under scrutiny, there are elements of AR and Participatory Action Research (PAR) that I unknowingly corresponded to. In this respect I refer to both terms in order to assess the most important factors.

Reflecting on their professional work and research Cook ponders mess:

As there are so many strands to the work, to the outsider it can look rather chaotic and disordered and some may wonder how I ever get an ‘outcome’ from all the jumble that is in my head, in my diary and on my desk. The old adage ‘a tidy desk, a tidy mind’ comes to mind. However, did I want a tidy mind? Does action research necessitate that or can having an ‘untidy’ mind be just as useful at times? (Cook 2916:94).

It’s not usual to consider how research is affected by everyday stresses and domestic situations, but my experience highlights how crucial these factors are. I am conscious that people will not necessarily see the mess of my research. The jumble of interview recordings, those quotes cut and coded into themes, the forms and bureaucracy, the scholarly works I’ve read, the newspaper cuttings. This, on top of everything I needed to do in order to become an election candidate myself. I would also add things that are not part of the written thesis, but are part of the experience of my time as a researcher. This includes the years I spent as a subwarden, in a hall of residence at Loughborough University; a role that included being on call all night several times a week to deal with emergencies. I routinely had to get out of bed in the middle of the night, to let people into the hall who had lost their keys, or to deal

106

with serious health issues. This naturally made my life messy, particularly the mornings after multiple call outs. Added to this, university management left me no choice but to leave the free accommodation being a subwarden provided, because they disliked my public support for a protest that took place on campus. Leaving Croydon in 2014 and then living in different flats on campus and in Loughborough itself, I have resided in eight different properties during the process of completing this thesis. I have belongings in multiple locations as a result of the small nature of student accommodation. I can add the teaching I did at Loughborough University and the private tuition I provided to A-Level Government and Politics Students in my spare time. Such distractions enabled me to afford to conduct the research and the writing and therefore form part of the messy process. Following the election, I was unwell for many months resulting in a prolonged period of counselling. This was connected to the fact that standing as a candidate is an extremely daunting thing to do. It exposes an individual to scrutiny by the press and levels of intrusion. In other circumstances being able to get away from the election by focusing on work would have been desirable. Unfortunately, my work was also about the election. There seemed no escape from it and ill health was the result.

Being dyslexic can be messy too. I have learned about how dyslexia affects me as my life has progressed. It slows me down all the time. It means that I cannot hold as much information in my mind at any one time as I would like. It calls for extra breaks during the writing process. Transcribing interviews became a painfully slow process, but I refused to let anyone else do that task, because I wanted to be immersed in the data. Understanding the data best comes from witnessing it several times over, in my experience. It has slowed me down, and without being granted extra time under disability legislation this research could not have been concluded. All these things have contributed to the messiness of the research.

Having written all the mess out of our projects we run the risk of our creative process being lost according to Cook (2016:106). When we do this we essentially ‘tidy everything up to fit in a system’ (ibid). Talking of how universities as institutions can affect research Brydon-Miller (2011:7) points out that research ‘is a collective enterprise influenced by multiple forces within and beyond academic institutions, forces that intersect and influence one another's actions, efficacy, and ethics in complex, multilayered systems.’ In relation to AR they go on to say that this ‘is simply

107

more explicitly recognized’ (ibid). In being open about my relationship to the system, the mess of research and the role university life can play, I hope to help others facing similar pressures.

Reflection is part of the process of participatory action research, albeit often in relation to actions being undertaken. Writing predominately around a health setting, Fran Baum, Colin MacDougall and Danielle Smith (2006:854) explain that:

PAR seeks to understand and improve the world by changing it. At its heart is collective, self reflective inquiry that researchers and participants undertake, so they can understand and improve upon the practices in which they participate and the situations in which they find themselves. The reflective process is directly linked to action, influenced by understanding of history, culture, and local context and embedded in social relationships. The process of PAR should be empowering and lead to people having increased control over their lives (adapted from Minkler and Wallerstein and Grbich).

They consider it a practice based on reflection (ibid). They note that as PAR has grown as a method, it has enabled researchers to work in partnership with communities to enact change (ibid). In this research, PAR was not the starting point of the methods. Opportunities for reflection with research participants were not planned in advance. They occurred naturally through the interview process and will, no doubt, occur through the publication process. The CWP foray in electoral politics can be seen as a developing strategy without an end date. This research forms part of that strategy, with much potential for reflection by those involved. Baum, MacDougall and Smith highlight that reflection in PAR is designed to lead to action (ibid). A further feature of PAR is the blurred lines between researcher and researched (ibid). The idea that participants become partners in the process is something that appealed to me at the start of the research, and there are some overlaps here in anarchist research practices. However, the semi-autobiographical nature of the project has been a barrier to carrying that out to its fullest degree. A great deal of the storytelling presented here comes from the eye of the researcher. Seeing this research as part of the electoral strategy though, rather than and end point, means that such an approach could still develop.

108

From developing research questions, to the final re-writes of the thesis, I found that I was learning all the time and honing my skills as a researcher. Not surprisingly then the research question that began the thesis as I travelled to the March for Homes was really the first step of a process. Indeed, Bryman (2012:386) explains the development of a research question can be an iterative one. My first draft was:

Why were the CWP standing candidates in the 2015 general election?

By the end of the day, as we will see, I had barely scratched the surface, and this question hadn’t even begun to be answered. My position, as a researcher regarding the election campaign, and as a candidate, gave me an election-focused agenda in everything I was doing. This agenda wasn’t at the forefront for everyone else involved. There were other things that were important and this pushed me towards explaining the CWP in subcultural terms. This enabled me to assess the norms and values of those involved and therefore focus more on their agenda rather than just my own. It had the added benefit of providing a lens through which to explore their approach to the election campaign.

Later I would develop some research questions along these lines of thought:

• What is the CWP subculture? • How did the movement subculture influence the conduct of the CWP during the election process?

What would not become apparent for several months was the way in which the CWP used what I describe as ‘set piece’ events for subversion during the campaign. This would include all the usual elements of the election process, such as hustings events, media interviews and campaign launches. Pretty quickly two further questions arose:

• What could be gained for the CW movement in terms of subverting official politics by the CWP standing candidates? • How did the CWP organise themselves before, during, and after the process?

These questions emerged from the relationship between being a researcher and being a candidate. For me, standing as a candidate was more than a few weeks of publicity stunts. I was invested in the election campaign in ways that other people

109

weren’t. This gave me a unique perspective, as I became more and more interested in how I would explain the campaign. I have remained invested in the 2015 election, long after others in the CWP have moved on from it, as I continued to write about it. I therefore see the CWP election campaign in a different light and can provide a unique insight on it.

From the moment I signed up to be a candidate, a friend who is extremely critical of CW repeatedly asked me why the CWP were standing candidates. Prior to the fieldwork I tended to say that it would be fun, which is what most people in the CWP were also saying in social media discussions, and later, in interviews I conducted. A few days after the election I went for a walk with the same friend and they asked the same question but this time with an added one about writing a thesis: “you can’t just say you did it for the LOLs”. It is entirely possible that for most people involved it really was “for the LOLs”. I found the question increasingly frustrating, but it has stayed with me as I continued to extrapolate the meaning from the data. The thesis provides meaning for the actions described, extrapolated from the sum of data gathered. It provides an analysis of what happened, why it happened and what could be learned from it. One area of learning, for example, concerns how effective the actions could have been, with a more serious focus on organising.

I had recently been granted my ethics approval from the University, and in the build up to heading for this protest, I had some qualms about how I should approach issues related to potential law breaking. On consulting someone senior in my department, I was told that the basic principle was to ensure that the researcher does no harm. I was armed with letters and approval forms for my potential research participants to sign, and I interpreted the “do no harm” principle to refer to research participants in the first instance.

What does “do no harm” mean though, if you’re standing in an election and using the opportunity to criticise other candidates in a robust way? It was clear that the CWP wanted to cause harm: to the establishment and the rich for example. As a candidate I felt the urge to cause as much harm as possible to the chances of the Conservative candidate, standing in Croydon South.

110

This emphasises the difference between my position and that of Fetterman’s idealised ethnographer. He describes (2010:16) how an ethnographer can feel becoming immersed in a ‘native’ and foreign culture:

Interestingly, living and working in another culture helps one objectify the behaviours and belief not only of people in a foreign culture but also of individuals in one’s native culture. After a period away, the returning ethnographer often feels like a stranger in a strange land – in the midst of what is most familiar. This experience is often referred to as “culture shock”.

As Uri Gordon (2012:87) makes clear, the role of anarchist researchers as observing participants is to enable and facilitate a reflexive approach, to whatever the group under study is undertaking. This is a form of participant observation that places the researcher, who is ‘already native’ (Gordon 2012:87), at the centre of events, so that research becomes something that is done with people, rather than on them.

My position changed over time. Initially, I was reluctant to influence the group to ward off accusations of bias. With further reading and understanding of anarchist research, I have established a much more overt influence within CW. Mary Brydon- Miller (2011:14-15) notes that when using AR, researchers ‘strive to change the world — there is nothing more dangerous than that, and we must take responsibility for the possibility of risk inherent in this commitment to change.’ On the day of the March for Homes, I was at the start of this process, aiming to stay as aloof as I could. I wanted to observe but keep my influence to a minimum, as per the conventional methodology. It was of course impossible and over time I learned to embrace my subjectivity as a way of explaining things with clarity and certainty. In recent times, I have been able to share my thoughts on CW standing candidates in the future and have expressed the need for thorough organisational learning, before such a venture is attempted again. As will be seen later, my involvement in the March for Homes protest was far from detached, so the conventional ethnographic methodology was redundant on my first day in the field.

As the research progressed, I started to think of ‘do no harm’ as a layered principle. The first tier contained the CWP and specifically my research participants. After that I considered there was an obligation to the public generally. The organs of the state, the police and those standing for election against the CWP were targets to be

111

attacked, and ‘do no harm’ did not apply due to their position as organisations and people that specifically harm the public by their actions and their existence. Indeed, the police and other state organisations represent an existential threat to CW, and therefore ‘do no harm’ cannot be taken at face value. My number one priority had to be the protection of my research participants.

The chapter so far has focused on explaining strands of thought in relation to the methods used in data gathering, processing and writing. It has been mixed with information about my preparations for starting the research. The following section is concerned with the first day of data gathering.

The March for Homes

This section explains what happened on the day of the March for Homes. This took place on January 31st 2015, marking the first day of observation for the research as explained above. In readiness for the day I had designed the data gathering around the conventional methods discussed above. This section utilises storytelling and is used to highlight areas where my planned research methods and data gathering needed to be adapted, in light of the reality of fieldwork. Ethnography itself is a creative process (Fetterman 2010:10) and the retelling of the story of the day is designed to emphasise this.

It was drizzling when I arrived and it took me some time to find anyone from the group. I later bumped into Steve and a few others and we awaited Ian and Jane with the new banner. There was a break in the rain for a while, and the mainly trade union, pressure group and Labour Party ranks of the protest began to swell. Justine later remarked how nice it was to see so many grassroots organisations involved.

Usually when we go on marches it's run by the trade unionists or the leftist parties and this time it's very much about grassroots groups. Focus E 15 mums, New Era, Class War. Now, you know, we might be a bit more militant than some on the march, but it's the first time I've ever seen so many grassroots groups come together and do something themselves, not under

112

the umbrella of some massive bureaucratic organisation (Justine Interview 2015).

As discussed earlier, I had prepared for a day of conventional fieldwork. Reality diverted from the conventional theory quickly. Ethnographers make notes; I’d read that! But when do they do that? And how do they not look like a researcher when doing so? It must really set them apart from their research participants and potentially create barriers. I started to worry about how I would record everything that happened. I could maybe record straight to the Dictaphone what was going on. That would look odd though. So too would lots of short interviews half-way through a protest. I was concerned that my research participants would start to see me as someone different and distinct. I didn’t want my relationships to change. My potential research participants happened to be my friends and comrades, my political family.

As discussed above, the use of diaries from research participants can provide insights from the bottom up. My own notes, from fieldwork, were essentially a diary and so could be utilised in much the same way. I was also someone who often posted photographs and videos to Facebook, and so these would also act as primers for my diary. The fieldwork tended to be at events I would normally attend, and so my normal experience could become a part of my research process.

The crowd started to arrive and mingle around the Trotskyist newspaper stalls, erected outside the church in Shoreditch, designated as the start of the march. So many, in fact, that people spilled over onto the road, stopping traffic. On the edge of the pavement, Ian assembled people to unfurl the new banner. A section of the crowd began to assemble, to see what the fuss was about on a traffic island and along the roadside. As the banner was unfurled CWP attendees cheered and clapped. More people came to look. I stood a little away from the banner in an attempt to get some good shots of it with my phone. A woman standing nearby turned to me laughing and said, “that’s not the kind of language I’d use, but I’m glad someone is saying it”. I mentioned this story to Justine later and she told me this is something she sees often. “A lot of the time we will say the things that everybody else is thinking. You can see it on their faces. They walk past our banners and they laugh or they look like a weight lifted off their shoulder or something (Justine

113

Interview 2015). There were also looks of horror on people’s faces. I guessed this was either at the use of language, the lumping of the Labour Party in with the Tories and UKIP, or perhaps both. As discussed previously, one CW trait is to attract people who like the style and statements they make, without worrying at all about offending those who react negatively.

114

Figure 51, The design for the All Fucking Wankers banner. Image credit: CW.

Figure 47, The banner unfurled at the start of the March for Figure 48, The Lucy banner at the March for Homes. Homes.

Figure 49, The March for Homes headed by a range of Figure 50, A bridge provides a welcome respite from the housing campaigns. Image credit: Peter Marshall. elements. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

115

Figure 52, I was one of the first to reach Once Commercial Figure 53, The CWP diverging for an impromptu Poor Doors Street. Image credit: Peter Marshall. protest. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 54, Lisa holds court at the breakaway. Image credit: Figure 55, The CWP smoke bomb adds to the speactacle. Peter Marshall. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 56, The breakaway rejoins the back of the march. Figure 57, Cold and wet and holding a banner. Wondering if Image credit: Peter Marshall. the day would be any use for my research. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

116

As with many left-wing protests in the UK it took what seemed an age to actually start. There was a desire within the group to press to the front and get the banner displayed as much as possible. Justine was against doing anything that might detract from the Focus E15 Mothers, who were at the front of the march and at the centre of the housing crisis. She told me later that they are “a really powerful campaign, and they are grassroots women so during the march I wanted to let them take the lead” (Justine Interview 2015). We opted to keep a little further back in respect of this. In discussions leading up to the protest it was agreed that Stan should have a co-ordinating role at such events and this was going to be an important factor in the rest of the day’s activities. Stan had joined with the CWP during the Poor Doors protests and emerged as a key figure as the protests developed. He often scouted out venues ahead of events and he had links to groups across the anarchist movement. I have included this information on his operational role, as he was happy to discuss it at interview. Stan was, therefore, a really important witness to events and with that would come useful data on this first day.

AR and PAR involve critical examination of ourselves as researchers: ‘This process allows us to articulate our own value systems, our multiple identities and locations of power and privilege, and the ways in which these understandings influence our interactions with others and our research practices’ (Brydon-Miller 2011:9). Accordingly, I should reflect on what it means to consider another human being as a provider of useful data. To be in a position where you start to see your friends and comrades in such a way is not normal. It is, unfortunately, inevitable in such a project. It emphasises the complications of my role as a researcher and all the ethical implications that implies. It is also uncomfortable, as it lays bare my thoughts about people at the time and could imply that my views on people are reduced to whether they are useful to this project. There are issues here, that researchers should be aware about before they embark on such a project.

We knew the protest route went right past Commercial Street, scene of the Poor Doors protests, and as we got closer to there I observed Stan darting up and down the body of marchers trying to drum up support for a breakaway. As we walked, he gave instructions for us to be ready to split off and encourage others to join us.

117

When we got to the corner of Commercial Street, we saw that the police had anticipated this and the doors to the building were secured. We managed to hold an impromptu protest outside the building. Most of the marchers just filed past and I remember thinking how disappointing it was that people couldn’t deviate from the planned route even for just a few minutes. Later I reflected on how hard it is to organise a breakaway from well-established plans, on the hoof, in the middle of a demonstration. Not that the breakaway was a failure; just that it could have been much more powerful. The police clearly thought they needed to protect the building and we did manage to draw attention to the issue. That it didn’t dominate was also good in respect of the various groups marching in direct action of their housing circumstances. However, it was also something that could have been done much more convincingly with some planning and discussion beforehand. An article on the Vice website noted the Poor Doors protests of previous months and pointed out that on this wider march ‘[l]overs of an angry gesture, Class War were not about to pass up the opportunity to stop by and do some more shouting and banner holding’ (Bristow 2015). That is really all it amounted to.

It was a brief bit of excitement during a cold and wet trudge of a march. I was holding a banner declaring that CW were back and even though it was not especially cold that day the winter air and rain were leaving my hands feeling bitten by the elements. Fetterman (2010:113) tells us that ‘ethnographic writing requires an eye for detail’ and I was conscious of ensuring that I recorded how I felt physically and the sort of details needed to convey a story when I was observing. As ethnography includes creative writing, the ethnographer develops a literary style (ibid). My intention, as much as possible, has been to convey what it was like to be at the events I witnessed. The writing has been combined with photographs and videos to aid this process.

I was frustrated to be lumbered with this banner for the vast majority of the march. I dislike being lumbered with banners anyway, but I was also really conscious of being a researcher that day, and it felt like I was being held back. I wanted to be observing in a more freewheeling way, flitting between different areas of the march. However, looking back I was participating in a way that many people in CW do. I was holding a precious banner and indeed a banner that would go missing after this day was done, causing a great deal of worry and questions about its whereabouts for months to

118

come. There were rumours that it had gone north but nobody was ever sure. In terms of ethnography though I was living the life of the culture I was researching.

A brief stop under a railway bridge was respite from the conditions and it coincided with us being close to a group of musicians. We were momentarily warmer and dry. I was holding the banner with Justine and we’d got separated from most of the rest of the group. By the time we crossed Tower Bridge and made it to City Hall, I was unsure whether the rest of the CW contingent were ahead or behind us.

I spotted Steve in the crowd and stood with him, while the rest of the march assembled for the rally. In the distance, on a grassy bank, I saw the new banner with a group of people around it. Before long, the dreary speeches by trade unionist bigwigs and what I considered to be Labour Movement luvvies would begin. I was itching for this day to be about more than this. I was also conscious that I may be itching for more action, just to ensure that I had things to talk about in this thesis. What I didn’t realise was how close we were to a confrontation with the police, something that I’d been thinking about in relation to ethics for much of the previous few days.

Stan was continuing his flitting between groups at the rally, just as he had done on the march. He came to talk to me and told me that black bloc protesters were thinking of doing two things. The first was to take control of a building overlooking City Hall, and the second was a spontaneous march to the Aylesbury Estate, to show solidarity to the residents and the squatters in the building.23

He asked me if I was willing to try to occupy the nearby building. I nodded and thought quickly about the ethical implications. I was a CWP candidate on an action that they wanted to subvert down a more confrontational path. My research was to study the CWP. The two things dovetail, I thought; they don’t contradict.

The nearby building (One Tower Bridge) was only semi-complete. It very much resembled the type of building with Poor Doors. Indeed, as Justine (Interview 2015) said to me “find a part of central London that hasn't got some swanky overpriced towers with cheesy marketing shit going on. Everywhere, it's everywhere.” Crucially

23 The Aylesbury Estate was a housing estate in south London earmarked for demolition in favour of luxury flats being built. It included a squat where anarchists were trying to resist the moves.

119

for getting in, it had no barriers and was relatively undefended. It was a building that would soon be filled by rich businesspeople, and here we were on a protest about housing. It seemed like a gift.

I was fully up for using it to highlight the issue and told Stan that I’d get involved when the time came. As Vice points out:

Cold, wet and loomed over at all times by London's icons of super-wealth, the march itself seemed like some sort of allegory for the housing situation for the poor in London. Once the freezing march had reached its destination and some speeches had been made in the shadow of City Hall, everyone was just about ready to go back to their overpriced shoe-box apartments.

But then, someone shouted, "If you don't want the protest to end, follow us!" (Bristow 2015).

This call came from a small group of black bloc protesters. They were heading towards the entrance to the site, allowing them, and the smattering of CWP people present, to block the road for a while until we had an actual plan. I thought about just how much hard work and planning went into being spontaneous on a protest. I had observed this earlier when Stan tried to get people ready to break away from the march at One Commercial Street. I would notice it again at a number of spontaneous marches in the months to come. In fact, when I have observed what people call spontaneous action, it is, in fact, the practice of direct democracy. It takes place via discussions in makeshift assemblies along a protest route, with people confirming to one another what they are willing to do at that moment. Despite not being organised in advance, it can be incredibly effective as the authorities have no way of knowing what will happen next or where. I mentioned to Stan when interviewing him that he didn’t look comfortable in the meeting when he was tasked with the co-ordinating role. He told me that his involvement with the CWP had been “really empowering” (Stan Interview 2016). He went on: “It’s done the world of good for my confidence and just for my kind of general trouble making skills, if you like” (ibid). When I asked him about organising spontaneously to get ready to occupy the building, he told me that he knew “who could be relied on to do what at any given moment… It’s like

120

chess innit? Getting the right piece in the right place and then a set-piece unfolds” (ibid). CWP weren’t the only people involved with this after-march activity; they were in the minority. Stan used his links with other anarchist groups to co-ordinate the extra action.

Stan was finding the people he could rely on to make the action work. Meanwhile, I was making mental notes of the people I thought would provide good information. At an event like this, it involved me noticing who was doing what and remembering to interview those that caught my attention. There is a risk in researching a small group that the most active become dominant in the story. There is also a risk that the founder of the movement becomes more dominant. As it happens, I noticed Ian and a few others heading into a pub halfway through the march, having completed as much as they wanted to. Over the coming months I would be making decisions about who to interview and why. I wanted a balance between the most active and those that simply attend events regularly.

Triangulating a story

As mentioned above, triangulation allows for multiple voices to be heard and for a trustworthy account of events to be established. Mixed with ethnographic writing, it can also enable a compelling story to be told. This subsection describes events taken immediately after the march. It describes the occupation of One Tower Bridge. It is told using my notes, memory, interviews conducted and online reports. This provides a primer for much of the election campaign storytelling. It shows how the techniques of data gathering and collation have been used to provide an honest and reliable retelling of events from multiple perspectives.

Stan and others managed to assemble 40 or so people, in an area near the end of the march. Now was the time to be “spontaneous”. With only one police car attending the roadblock described above, we were pretty much free to enter the building site and the building itself. I first found myself in a large foyer area with big metal skips on wheels lining the wall. Someone started hitting one of them with a stick and generally trying to vandalise the area. Others told them to stop. The noise from the skip was loud and frightening, and then people started to head towards a

121

stairwell and up into the building. Bristow (2015) takes up the story: ‘Protestors piled through the entrance to the building site, passing security guards and attempting to barricade the way behind them. The police chased some of the activists and slogans were sprayed on the walls.’ They later note that ‘[s]ome people managed to reach balconies and hang banners off them, while most people got blocked at the foot of the staircase.’

I was already walking up the stairwell, so didn’t observe the police blocking that area. The building was thankfully only missing fixtures and fittings, and it felt safe to be involved. All the same, the incomplete state of the building seemed to up the ante. “It felt fantastic going in there because, to be honest, as I went in I wasn't aware that it was still a construction site... yeah it was thrilling,” Justine (Interview 2015) told me. “I was kind of subtly checking out the structural integrity of everything around me,” she added. I was doing exactly the same, and I found it thrilling too. It felt dangerous and exciting. If I was doing harm, it could only be described as such from an opposing political position, ethics continually in my mind.

The bare concrete walls looked brutalist in style, as cold as the day and unwelcoming. Then I heard someone yell behind me, “the cops are coming, run faster!” I ran up the stairs and followed people on to a landing, part way up the building. With no sign of the police we scattered into various parts of the large future apartment. A group sat on the floor to the right of the entrance and then I followed others to the balcony. Patrick and Stan had the All Fucking Wankers banner and it was dropped from the balcony. By the time this happened the rally was pretty much over and there was just a smattering of people between One Tower Hill and City Hall.

I’m not sure how long we were on the balcony before the police arrived. It didn’t seem long enough. There was a brief moment of calm. As a group we had decided to take the building and we’d done it. It was ours. It was over all too quickly.

Two police officers ran onto the balcony. A group of women, including some with CWP, immediately sat down and refused to move. One officer was shouting at them, while the other got into a battle with Patrick over the banner. He refused to give up and clung on desperately. Later I talked to him about his fierce determination to keep

122

hold of the banner. He said “you know when someone tells you, ‘right we're going to this building, and we'll do a banner drop’ and all that, that actually shows people that you are really committed to a cause” (Patrick Interview 2015). I suspected that arrests might be made, and several other people started to head off. I could still hear the shouting of the officers as I walked through the door and down the stairs. I met Stan at some point as I was heading out. He had just finished a brief discussion with a police officer, who was heading towards the floor we’d been on. We saw a sign for an emergency exit and decided that this might be a better way out, especially if the police had secured the entrance to the building. When we reached ground level, we opened the door to get out, triggering an alarm, and we left the building through a muddy mess of bricks and building supplies. I asked Stan what he had been saying to the police officer. “I said, ‘I’m not supposed to be in here’ and very politely slipped off” (Stan Interview 2016).

Turning the corner towards the entrance of the building, the alarm softened and we were greeted by a line of police in riot gear, barring any further access. We decided to stay near the entrance and ensure that the CWP people came out, and if necessary, were supported at a police station. Everyone came out and the final people from the CWP formed a line in front of the riot police and held the banner defiantly. Indeed, the banner had formed the basis for negotiations with police to end the occupation. They had given it back to the CWP on the basis that the protesters would then leave the building. For Justine (Interview 2015) the occupation was an important statement. “The opportunity to do something a bit more militant, a bit more direct at the end [was] very important because we can't leave them with the impression that we are happy to walk from A to B with banners and that's going to keep us quiet.”

This story was built up from the social interaction of the One Tower Bridge occupation, utilising subsequent interviews with people who were there. It has allowed the occupation to be described with trustworthiness. This technique is utilised throughout the remainder of the thesis.

123

The First Interviews

Following the occupation, a handful of us found a pub where we could relax and chew over the events. Others decided to join the main body of people from the occupation of One Tower Bridge on a spontaneous march to the Aylesbury Estate. I talked with Justine about that calm feeling on the balcony, before the police came to violently dispel the people there. It had been a very brief moment of liberation, which felt exhilarating. I was able to conduct interviews with her and Patrick. I also recorded an interview with another participant, who had committed to be a CWP election candidate. Ultimately, they did not stand and I have not included any quotes from that interview in this thesis. However, the interview was coded, using grounded theory, and helped in the initial round of generating theory. It was an interview that touched on the themes of why the CWP were standing candidates, and what they intended to do with the election campaign. Themes which we turn to in detail in the next chapter on that campaign.

124

Figure 58, The rally at City Hall. Image credit: Peter Marshall. Figure 59, Tooley Street blocked. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 60, Lining the pavement, ready for action. Image credit: Figure 61, Going into One Tower Bridge. Peter Marshall.

Figure 62, The view from the occupied balcony. Figure 63, The liberated banner, held proudly in front of the cops.

125

Figure 64, The area of the rally and the occupation. The rally took place to the left of City Hall on the map. Tooley Street runs roughly left to right at the top right hand corner. This is where the road was blocked. One Tower bridge faced City Hall, diagonally across the grass. Some of the buildings behind One Tower Bridge were building sites at the time of the protest. One Tower Bridge itself, was just a shell. Image credit: Google Maps.

Figure 65, The banner-drop from One Tower Bridge. Image credit: Unknown, Facebook.

126

Methods Conclusion

The March for Homes was my first chance to see the CWP on the streets, as a researcher. By taking the new banner out for the march, the CWP had made an election statement about housing in London: namely that the political parties vying to run the country were not the answer. Whilst the day wasn’t explicitly about the election, the CWP clearly linked the main issue of the march, housing, to its election campaign via the banner. I remarked to Justine that occupying a building isn’t a normal election campaign strategy. “In comparison to what?” she asked, before smiling and saying “well, we’re not a normal political party” (Justine 2015). Direct action, as we shall see, was a main plank of the CWP campaign.

This chapter has explained the methods and methodology of the research, via the re-telling of a day of protest in January 2015. The methods include aspects of AR and PAR, combined with data gathering and collation conforming to grounded theory. The writing is ethnographic, built up from my experiences, and triangulated with the views of others from interviews, diary entries and information from CWP sources such as the Facebook candidate support page. The chapter shows how my approach to research had to change in the field.

The protest had provided me with opportunities for brief interviews, for example. I had realised, however, that I would gain more depth to my interviews by making them longer. The practicalities of that would mean they would likely be a while after events. It would mean that I would be mostly interviewing people through the lens of hindsight. This could then be triangulated with the views of others, my own observations in the field, diaries and publicly available information in order to build up a trustworthy retelling of events. Crucially, this would enable me to participate in the CWP election campaign, without the research building barriers between me and other participants.

The election campaign was about to get underway and I was ready to be a candidate and researcher.

127

Chapter Five

The 2015 General Election

This chapter details the CWP election campaign. It begins with the decision CW took to stand candidates, as a prologue to that campaign. This is followed by an exploration of the CWP campaign styles that were utilised throughout the election period. Then the substantive sections of the chapter begin, with the story of candidates, and potential candidates, going through the bureaucracy of formally getting their names on the ballot paper. This is followed by the section on the election campaign itself. It covers:

• Campaign launches • The creation of election leaflets • Media coverage • The first of CW’s Fuck Parades (an anti-gentrification street party) • Hustings events • The day of the election • The vote counts • The declarations of results

Before these stories are retold, it is important to understand why CW decided to become a political party and register as such with the electoral authorities.

128

Prologue: The Decision to Register as a Party and Stand Candidates

This section seeks to explain the reasons why CW decided to register as a party, and the motivation individuals had to become CWP candidates. It explains what those involved hoped to achieve, utilising information gained through interviews. It provides context for the election campaign, detailed in the coming sections by showing the reasons CW had for their actions. They are subcultural reasons, not linked to the idea of electoral success in terms of amassing votes. They show that the urge towards direct action, and the courting of controversy, were at the forefront when the decision to stand was taken. This would frame the campaigning to come.

Before considering the reasons why CW decided to stand candidates it is helpful to provide some context around anarchist approaches to elections. In the chapter contextualising CW in terms of their history and publications, the long standing antipathy to notions of taking control over the state for the advancement of socialism was explained. Such ventures are associated with Marxism and social democracy. Kinna explains that ‘[t]raditionally, the anarchist critique of parliamentarism has extended from the refusal participate in electoral politics to the boycotting of elections’ (2005:162) and that the ‘main thrust of anarchism is directed against electoral activity’ (ibid).

The CWP decision to stand candidates in 2015 could be seen in a variety of ways. It was unusual, certainly. It could also be considered antithetical to the aims of anarchism. Franks makes the point that a uniting factor in British anarchism is around anti-election activities (2006:123), signalling just how much of a sea-change an electoral strategy might seem. However, as shall be discussed, the standing of candidates was not an attempt to take control of the state. It was an attempt to gain access to spaces provide by the state with the intention of subversion and direct action.

When considering the history and publications of CW, and latterly, the CWP subculture, it was noted that the movement is committed to combatting class based hierarchy. It has also been noted that the movement has a preference for propaganda and action. The Class War newspaper was initiated first to sell at protests, but later used to promote CW actions. Whilst the decision to stand candidates could be judged by some to be a derivation of the long held anarchist

129

rejection of representative politics, it is a decision that is in keeping with the CW subculture. It is a decision that allows for action and propaganda to be used hand in hand to reach a working-class audience.

As discussed in relation to the first CWP election meeting, an attendee (Mac) wrote a critical blog post about the hierarchical nature of the decision to stand in the election. By the time the meeting took place the decision was no longer up for discussion. I explained my own issues with the implications of such a hierarchy but took the decision to proceed and see how things developed. I soon began to realise that the campaign would be a chance to conduct direct action and was, in effect, a form of propaganda.

As mentioned, when considering the history of CW, the registration was not entirely novel: CW fielded a candidate in the 1988 Kensington by-election. Franks and Stott (2009:3) describe the tactic as ‘for propaganda purposes only’. John Duignan gained 60 votes, finishing 8th and just one vote behind Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party (UK Parliament 2003). CW claimed that ‘by getting in the thick of it we were able to say that ‘all politicians are bastards and that voting for any of them won’t do the working class any good’ and people actually heard it for once – the media made sure of that’ (Palmer 1988). The movement had previously made its views very clear on electoral politics by declaring that ‘[w]hoever they vote for we are ungovernable’ (Bone, Pullen and Scargill (Ed) 1991:44). They made every effort to inform their readers that by standing they had not changed their core beliefs in relation to the state (Palmer 1988). As discussed in relation to the CWP subculture, the motto ‘By Any Means Necessary’ should also be considered as important in the decision to stand in the election. It allows CW flexibility in terms of the activities they decide to undertake.

The chapter detailing the history of CW showed that the movement had declined in the 1990s, and then revived in the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. Chapter 3 explained how I got involved with the CWP, as the idea of standing candidates in 2015 was first publicised by Ian. This prologue to the election campaign itself shows the thinking behind the move.

The subcultural urge towards direct action could appear contradictory in relation to an election campaign, but Ian turned that on its head: “traditionally anarchists have

130

always opposed voting. But that's completely ineffectual - the absurdity of handing out 'don't vote' leaflets to people who weren't going to vote anyway” (Ian Interview 2015). I asked Jane her initial response to the idea. She told me that “the more I thought about it, I thought 'why not, one last push'. It's often like that with me and Ian 'one last push, why not try this?'” (Jane Interview 2015).

Lawrie, the long term CW and subsequently CWP treasurer told me he “thought it was an amazing idea but thought it would be just supporting Ian in a key seat” (Interview 2020). His role had been keeping the books up to date with regards to merchandise sales and using the money to support CW prisoners on release (ibid). Now he would spend “a long time researching the various requirements of [electoral law] and how to register candidates” (ibid). Registering the party with the Electoral Commission would end up being the job of Dave E. He told me that he “wasn’t sure initially as voting seemed anathema, but I was open to the idea of using it as a way of showing what we were about to more than the usual audience” (Interview 2020). He told me he had to provide the Electoral Commission with a constitution for the party and financial statements (ibid), something the movement was not used to doing. After that I chose the easiest of the 3 party jobs for myself - Nominations Officer” he told me (ibid). “Ian was Party Leader and Lawrie the Treasurer (both far more onerous)” (ibid).

Dave (Interview 2015) told me, during the campaign, that “it’s a bold move and Class War has always made bold decisions”. He added, “It’s alright having an anarchist scene and an anarchist culture and anarchist drop in centres and all the rest of it, but how often do you engage with the people?”. Al (Interview 2017) meanwhile, tells me that when he first heard CW would stand candidates, he “thought it was a wind up actually. I thought it was Ian having a laugh.” He went on: “obviously it was a departure from everything we’d said before” regarding electoral politics. He came to see that “there is a way to do this; use it as a platform” in order to “rekindle a bit of interest in working class self-organisation” (ibid). Jenny (Interview 2015) agreed, by telling me the purpose of standing candidates was to “get class politics on the agenda.”

131

It is this idea of the election being a target of opportunity that runs as a common thread through the group. Andy Bennetts, the candidate in Lichfield, tells me that his first response on hearing that CW were standing candidates was “what the absolute fuck? Why would you wanna do that?” (Andy Interview 2016). His campaign agent, Foxy, was more open to the idea from the word go: “I just thought it was great to just use the fucking platform against them” (Foxy Interview 2016). This view was echoed by Jane (Interview 2015) when she told me “we're not going to form a fucking government or be MPs or whatever. It's a platform. It's an opportunity to engage with people who wouldn't normally see our stuff." Ian backed these thoughts up by stating that “you get a lot of publicity and interest; you can generate some excitement so why not?" (Ian Interview 2015). Indeed, one of the reasons Andy came around to the idea, he told me, was “it occurred to me that the local press will print any old shit” (Andy Interview 2016). Helen pointed out the form that CW has had in getting attention, particularly through the man that co-founded the movement. “Ian is incredibly good at generating publicity,” she told me (Helen Interview 2016). Dave, meanwhile, (Interview 2015) told me about Ian’s powers of persuasion, in getting him to stand as a candidate. “His influence would be quite a big factor. He’s quite a persuasive guy when you get talking to him”. He also took the view that the system needs to be engaged with to a certain extent. “I don’t see a way forward for people like me, totally outside of the system anymore” he told me (ibid). Adam (Interview 2015) took the view that “it’s a good tactic to maybe raise more media [attention] around Class War” before informing me that he’s “shameless and brash,” as the campaign would confirm.

Using the platform is a theme picked up by Justine (Interview 2015) who told me ahead of the election

we are not going to win any seats. If we did anyway, very hypothetically, we wouldn't take a vow of allegiance to the Queen, so this is about the fact that in a so-called representative democracy, when elections are the only opportunity that we are permitted to participate in the political process, we've got to harness that and standing candidates is a way of harnessing that attention and getting our message out there by any means necessary.

132

Outside a Rock Against the Rich fundraising gig for the campaign in Nottingham I spoke to Al, the CWP’s security at such events. He told me that "we've got a lot of flak from the anarcho-purists, saying 'you shouldn't stand in elections. You’re undermining the cause.' But our motto has always been 'By All Means Necessary'. We just see it in them terms as a target of opportunity" (Al Interview 2015).

Al used the phrase “by all means necessary” but the common phraseology used by CW is, as Justine asserted, “by any means necessary”. This is taken from US civil rights activist Malcolm X. X’s position on black freedom was detailed in a 1964 speech where he used the phrase. ‘That’s our motto. We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary’ (Malcolm X 2020). X went on to say that it wasn’t his intention for people to wait until politicians decided that freedom, justice and equality could be given to black Americans. Instead, it was a call for direct action. His speech was not about looking for help from other communities either; it was about ‘self-organisation’, a phrase also used by Al, quoted above, in relation to the working class.

Figure 66, X's By Any Means Necessary speech. Image credit: Youtube. Click for video. Indeed, as discussed in relation to subculture, there was a great deal of belief within the CWP that waiting for Labour to get into power was not a helpful route towards ending class domination. David stood in Norwich South and on top of having “no

133

intention of winning, [his] intention was to create publicity for Class War” (David Interview 2016), and to oppose the Labour Party. Standing in a seat defended by the Liberal Democrats but with a long history of Labour victories he told me he wanted to “hammer the Labour Party because [he] felt the betrayals of the working class for decades” (ibid).

When Ian talks of generating interest, he’s referring to the potential of a "real big fun moment, when some of us bump into a major politician somewhere, and we're able to do that 'must see' moment.” (Ian Interview 2015). The kind of publicity he had in mind was the incident in 2010, when Gordon Brown labelled Gillian Duffy a bigot, after she questioned him about immigration. He didn’t realise he was still audible to the television crews (Rentoul 2020). There was a desire within the CWP to stage such moments, if possible. It was hoped that there would be enough people involved, and to be mobile enough, to intercept high profile targets in a short timescale.

At the heart of Ian’s desire to publicly confront major politicians, was the group’s method of angry and rude politics. In standing candidates, the CWP would not adhere to the normal tame and polite political discourse. "We can just be as nasty, abusive and as up front as we are" Ian (Interview 2015), told me. Helen referred to the prospect as, “exposing the electoral system for what it is and having a laugh at the same time” (Helen Interview 2016). Elaborating on this point she told me that the CWP would be “saying, actually yeah we are a bit of a mucking about protest group but we're here to highlight that you don't really have a choice. You know, you're choosing between different shades of blue” (ibid). Joe, an eventual candidate in Maidenhead told me they “just thought it’d be a laugh” (Joe Interview 2017). “It’s stuntism” (ibid). JayJay (Interview 2016) agrees when she told me that standing candidates “was a good stunt. Nothing more, nothing less”. Similarly, Adam (Interview 2015) called it “a clever prank.” Murray (Interview 2015) told me, “it gives us a licence to hijack the system.” He explained, “there’s this entire structure set up to publicise the same old neoliberal messages, so if we can get in there and infect it and disrupt it… that’s a brilliant thing to do.” He concluded that “standing candidates allows us to do that.” However, he also saw this as a stunt, despite his serious intent to ‘infect’ the system. On the one hand, he told me that “there’s an aggression

134

behind it”, and on the other he said, “it’s almost a Situationist prank” (ibid). This idea of having fun with something for a serious reason cropped up often when talking to those involved.

The words ‘stunt’, ‘stuntism’ and ‘prank’ have been mentioned several times by participants in relation to CWP activity. Franks and Stott (2009:3) also use the word ‘stunts’ to describe historic activity by CW. These words are used interchangeably by participants and loosely refer to the action the CWP organised. They hint at the idea that the action being undertaken is designed to grab attention. Later, I use the word ‘performative’ to describe CWP action. I do so in the same loose, normative way. The use of these words reflects the language of the various participants, myself included, rather than a scholarly interpretation of the words.

The idea that standing candidates represented “one last push” (Jane Interview 2015) is telling. It indicates a common theme throughout the reasoning presented here: namely that these anarchists considered they were at a political impasse. Their belief in the idea of achieving aims “by any means necessary”, including a foray into electoral politics in the hope of publicity, shows that they considered their usual tactics to be lacking. The experiment of standing candidates in the hope of achieving publicity through direct action stunts was appealing. Electoral politics is not being contrasted with direct action to provide an either / or scenario. Rather, the CWP would reconceptualise electoral politics as a form of direct action, creating new spaces within the theatres provided by the state. The decision to stand promised a campaign that would be a disruptive and seditious experiment.

The next stage would be to get those willing to do so onto the ballot paper so the campaign could begin in earnest.

135

Class War Campaign Styles

That each candidate could have maximum autonomy in their campaign was mentioned in the initial CWP meeting, in January 2014 discussed in Chapter Three. However, despite this vagueness in organisational intent, it is possible in hindsight, to extrapolate common types of campaigning that arose during the election. This section briefly explains each one in turn, describing why it was significant and how it was used. These will be referenced in subsequent sections and provide a framework for analysing the campaign.

Four styles have been identified. They are:

• Protest Campaigning • Face to Face with the Enemy • Rationally Promoting Anarchism • Don’t Vote

Protest Campaigning

Protest campaigning refers to moments during the campaign where CW’s subcultural urge towards direct action could be felt. Campaign launches being turned into spontaneous marches, is a good example, as is heckling at hustings. There was even an example in Sherwood where Dave and his supporters occupied the local Conservative candidate’s campaign office (Dave Interview 2017). It is also worth noting that the Poor Doors protests were continuing throughout the campaign period, resulting in a large spontaneous march through London a week before the election.

Face to Face with the Enemy

There were times when coming face to face with candidates from other parties was inevitable. This was true of hustings events, the vote count and the declaration of results, for example. Hustings events deserve some explanation in advance, as they feature prominently in subsequent sections.

136

Jon Lawrence (2009) writes about the changing nature of hustings events throughout British electoral history. On heckling in Victorian and Edwardian times, he notes that it ‘came to be seen as a cherished, rough-and-ready means of testing the mettle of would-be MPs, while more disorderly forms of popular intervention were also widely excused as examples of 'high spirited' enthusiasm’ (Lawrence 2009:9). In order to appear above the mass of the electorate (and those that could not vote but still came along to hurl abuse and perhaps vegetable matter) ‘Victorian and Edwardian election manuals advised candidates that there were no personal indignity that should not be borne with grim forbearance, or better still, with cheery goodwill, during a campaign’ (ibid). Hustings have changed greatly over the decades and are no longer the raucous affairs of the past. Phil Chamberlain (2015) notes: ‘The hustings I have participated in have all been organised and taken place in churches; so are naturally sober.’

The argument that political debate at hustings has become tame over time, is convincing, but a simple comparison between Victorian times and now is not. The nature of debate ebbs and flows and there is evidence that hustings events in the 1960s often contained heckling. A 1966 documentary, The Hecklers, by US film maker Joseph Strick documents heckling in British elections. Introducing the film Strick highlights how heckling tends to result in people being thrown out of events in the US. He talks about the ways in which politicians respond, with some rising to the challenge and he notes that politicians tend to respond in ways that reflect the quality of the heckle. In other words, they tend to give detailed and serious answers to heckles that deserve such a response, in that they challenge the politician to justify their policies (Strick 1966).

The CWP took the opportunity to return to a more robust style of hustings. They used the events to do stunts, heckling and to be exceedingly disrespectful. As will be seen, this worked well in some cases and terribly in others.

Rationally Promoting Anarchism

Attempts were made throughout the campaign to rationalise anarchism and promote it. Election leaflets, newspaper articles and interviews provided the CWP with

137

opportunities to advance anarchist arguments. For example, in the articles I was able to write for Inside Croydon I ensured I rationalised my actions, explaining a little of what anarchism means. My first article, for example, stated ‘[a]s an anarchist, I want a society not based on the hierarchy and power of the wealthy but one where we all have a stake. I want democracy extended so our voices matter. I want wealth and power to be shared amongst us all fairly’ (Bigger 2014b). There are plenty of examples where the CWP election campaign was more in tune with the belligerent aspects of the CWP subculture, but the following sections also contain examples where the group attempted to explain the reasons for them standing and what they were standing for. Reaching out to those the movement doesn’t normally reach was one of the reasons for standing, as discussed in the previous section.

Don’t Vote

The idea of encouraging people not to vote was apparent throughout the campaign. However, there wasn’t a consistent “Don’t Vote” message. On the whole, candidates in media interviews and campaign material tended to accept that they would not attract huge numbers, and often alluded to the pointlessness of the electoral system. One candidate, though, did have a consistent “Don’t Vote” message throughout the campaign. In Litchfield, Andy came to reflect on what he saw as massive flaws in the way the CWP handled the election (Andy Interview 2016). Rather than having policies, he considered a consistent ‘Don’t Vote’ message from the platform would have been more effective. “I stood on ‘Don't Vote, it’s a load of bollocks’. Part of that was because I genuinely believed that, and part of it was wanting to see the local paper print the word ‘bollocks’" (ibid). Foxy, one of Andy’s key local supporters, was interviewed at the same time. He retorted that "Double the Dole was a good policy” (Foxy, Interview 2016).

The following sections on the campaign will highlight how “Don’t Vote” was used and evaluate its effectiveness when stated from the platform of an election campaign.

138

Campaign Styles: Conclusion

The campaign styles above provide a reference point for analysing the CWP election campaign. They occurred throughout the campaign and show how those involved used the election to enact direct action and subversion within the various theatres of electoral politics. The following section shows how the seven candidates got onto the ballot paper so that these styles could be utilised in the campaign.

139

Election Bureaucracy: Getting on the ballot paper

Each candidate needed to secure 10 signatures from people living in the constituency where they were standing, provide £500, and show they were officially endorsed by the CWP. This section tells the story of how the candidates reached the position where their names would appear on the ballot paper, next to the party skull and crossbones logo. The section highlights the difficulties of achieving the nominations, dealing with bureaucrats at a national and local level, and how these difficulties reduced the number of candidates that would eventually stand. These learning points will be analysed fully in the thesis conclusion.

The CWP had two people behind the scenes ready for this part of the process. Lawrie acted as treasurer to ensure candidates had the funds they needed. He said:

“I filled in weekly reports on donations which were usually zero returns. On one occasion I made an error and was bollocked by the Electoral commission, for whom I have little respect now, as they made us fill in all these forms while the big boys seem to fiddle without sanction” (Interview 2020).

Dave E was the nominations officer. He told me, “I signed nomination forms and advised candidates as best I could on the requirements placed on them by the Electoral Commission” (Interview 2020). There were also the dozens of people now active on the candidate support page on Facebook, which was a source of moral support and ad hoc advice throughout the process. In addition to the people on the ground in each constituency this was a way in which the party could discuss events and support each other centrally.

The stories to follow show that this support functioned, but within limits. There are learning points from the exercise chiefly around the lack of experience everyone had in these processes and the knowledge that could only be gained through such experience. None of the candidates had stood before in a general election and the party was brand new. Each new challenge was also a new experience. Some of these could be anticipated, such as difficulty in getting the 10 nominations needed. The problems arose most acutely when unexpected difficulties occurred.

The CWP had a mix of candidates living in the constituencies they were representing, and those that were domiciled outside the constituency. The difficulties

140

for a small party in gaining those 10 signatures in the time available, emerges through the experiences of the candidates and the rest of the CWP. Candidates and election agents had also to deal directly with the bureaucracies of local councils running the elections in their areas. This resulted in some frantic discussions, in some cases, to ensure that candidates had filled in the paperwork correctly. There were also issues surrounding election agents themselves in terms of eligibility, as described later.

When I interviewed Ian at the start of the nominations process, I asked him if the election campaign really would be fun. He laughed and said, “looking at a stressed Jon Bigger opposite me. Once the nominations are in and all that technical thing is out the way the [actual campaign] will be fun” (Ian Interview 2015). He went on: “It’s a strain now, getting all the nominations, getting through all the bureaucracy. Once that’s done, we can have a great good laugh, basically” (ibid). At this stage, I had a plan for getting the 10 nominations I needed, but I was not confident that it would all run smoothly.

I received a pack through the post from Croydon Council with all the relevant forms. I was amused by the level of bureaucracy needed to engage in a process I didn’t have faith in. Anarchists and election forms aren’t a well-known mix. On Sunday March 29th, I was in London. I’d set aside a few days to get the nominations I needed and the paperwork completed, so that I could return to Loughborough knowing that I was on the ballot paper. I also needed to get myself an election agent and fill in a form with their signature. My trip had already been a busy time as two days previously we had completed our campaign launch for Croydon South with a depressing march through an uninterested Purley, discussed in the next chapter.

Getting the 10 nominations

Despite living in Croydon for 13 years, the amount of people I knew well in my constituency was quite low. Many of my friends were dotted around London as a whole. I did secure two nominations from close friends and one from someone I knew from my PCS union activist days. There was also a local anarchist who had

141

been involved with CW in the past, who Jane had put me in contact with. The other nominations would be hard to come by but it was a start.

Once my name was out there as a candidate, I received all sorts of emails about my views. Lobby groups were encouraging their members and supporters to contact candidates, to ask them views relating to their campaigns. I received eleven of these organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, all asking the same questions. I had been a member of this organisation in the past, so I chose to use my autonomy within the CWP to answer the emails. The CWP had no policy on Palestine, but I considered that my answers might resonate with the people who had requested the information.24 One person was impressed enough for them to later agree to sign my nomination papers. We met on Sunday March 29th, over a drink in the pub where I would soon be bookending an interesting night at the hustings in Selsdon. They told me their daughter had spent time in an Israeli jail, whilst campaigning for Palestinian rights, and I told them a little about the CWP. I was worried it might put them off but thankfully not.

I met up with my mate Nigel in the pub in Purley that same evening, and he took my nomination papers to a couple of people he had started talking to at the bar. There are people who just want to see a contest and will nominate candidates on the basis that it improves democracy to have as varied an array of voices in an election as possible. Not all the candidates took the same approach to the emails they received from lobby groups. Andy told me that he received a lot and he replied to all of them with the same simple message: "clicking send on this was not a good use of your time" (Andy Interview 2018). I’m not convinced of the efficacy of such a message as it doesn’t explain to the person or the lobby group what is meant by such a statement. Andy had a consistent “Don’t Vote” campaign style but this also conforms to a CW habit, more generally, of not fully explaining why an action has taken place. It is like the Owen Jones banner in that regard. The lobby groups, and those submitting the questions via them, would have been under the impression that the

24 Incidentally, on researching this I have now realised that one of the people that contacted me for this information was Kathleen Garner, the UKIP candidate. I didn’t reply to her email directly as the PSC website had already been updated with my answers by the time she contacted me. I am left wondering if she really is concerned by the issues she wrote to me about, or whether it was simply a part of her information gathering to be used during the campaign.

142

CWP was a normal political party. The responses would have no doubt surprised them, but not in a particularly useful way.

I had three signatures from people in two different pubs but I was starting to worry about their legitimacy. I needed to get the electoral roll from the council as soon as I could to ensure that they lived in the constituency, that being a requirement of the process. The first hints that other candidates were having trouble were starting to show. On the Facebook candidate support group, Ian posted a request for anyone who knew people in the Chingford and Woodford Green constituency to come forward, so the CWP could get the 10 nominations there as easily as possible. Neither the candidate, nor the election agent was a resident in that constituency, making the process harder with having to travel to the area.

By Monday 30th March, the level of bureaucracy was beginning to feel a little Kafkaesque. I seemed to go around in circles at Croydon Council and had a bizarre trip to Waterloo to see my proposed election agent (as explained later). At the council, I wanted the electoral roll for Croydon South. They helpfully told me that I needed to go to the library. The library, in turn, told me to head to the archive. The archive, it turned out, didn’t actually open on a Monday. On top of this I found out that despite the nomination period now opening, the council wouldn’t have any staff dedicated to helping anyone until Wednesday, the day I wanted to get back to Loughborough. I had made the assumption that the state bureaucrats would be eager to get bureaucrating from the moment the clock started to tick but this was wide of the mark. They were far too bureaucratic for that.

My frustration overflowed into my election diary: “[t]he whole system is rigged in favour of party bureaucracies who no doubt send the intern down to the council to do the paperwork” (Bigger Election Diary 2015). The CWP had no historical or institutional understanding of these processes to draw upon for guidance. It didn’t have the numbers of people needed to ease the bureaucratic burden. Crucially, none of us had really done enough to prepare for the process of getting on the ballot paper. We were focused on the campaign and the direct action but that is largely irrelevant if people don’t successfully get onto the ballot paper.

By the time the day ended though, I needed just two more nominations. It seems from my diary entry that I was very fed up with the process. I have chosen not to edit

143

the following entry severely or to curtail the feelings it displays, even though in retrospect I can see that my frustration was not leading to logical conclusions.

I want to be back in Loughborough on Wednesday. [The editor] from Inside Croydon wants me at an invite-only housing development thing near East Croydon station that evening as it may have poor doors. I’m not sure I give a shit. Actually, I really don’t. I’m not going to it. I just want to get on this ballot paper and then barely do any campaigning at all. I’m already pissed with it all. I want the election over, my flat to be sold and then I can cut my ties with Croydon. I think walking around on Saturday trying to engage the good people of Purley was the last straw. Nobody actually gives a shit about politics. And if it’s left wing politics then not only do they not give a shit but on the whole they think you’re a lunatic. I’ve just watched 28 Days Later because I needed something to do in this damn flat without an internet connection. Zombies. We’re a fucking zombie nation. Unfortunately, there’s more than 28 days left of this election and we already know the result: we end up with a government. That government will try to act like it controls capitalism and it will make the lives of the many harder. We know all this already. Maybe that’s why we’re a zombie nation (Bigger Election Diary 2015).

I was clearly not enjoying the process. I feel as though the words I wrote, reflect the alienation of being an anarchist standing in an election. No matter the prospects for subversion, the level of effort, just to reach that stage, was staggering.

The following day was ultimately very successful but it would be another hard slog. It was probably harder than it needed to be, as I spent several hours in the pub, drinking with Ian and Jane. A Croydon-based man, describing himself as a communist on a left wing Facebook group, had said that he and his partner would sign my nomination papers. I just needed to call by their place in the evening to get the signatures. Then I would need to have the £500 fee ready when I got to the council to get myself on the ballot paper. The money had been transferred to my account by Lawrie.

I got a text halfway through the afternoon from the communist, telling me he was heading out. I was starting to get a bit panicky at how difficult this was. I was the one doing all the leg-work in Croydon, not that I’d asked for any help. As I caught a bus

144

to find my potential nominee, I checked Facebook on my phone. I noted that other candidates were having trouble getting signatures. There were difficulties in Chingford and other potential candidates had suddenly gone very quiet about their prospects of getting on the ballot paper. I misjudged where to get off the bus and had to use the map on my phone to find the right street, which was on a very large and seemingly well-to-do estate. I managed to find the house just before my phone battery went dead. I was tired, a little drunk and badly in need of a few days off but I had done it. I had got the signatures. I still had the fear that some of them might turn out not to be on the electoral register but I was determined to get to the bank early in the morning, get the £500 and then get to the council to have this process nailed.

Reflecting later in my election diary I was still rather unhappy with the process. “This election has been so stressful – I’ve been doing this campaigning for over a year now, and I hope I don’t do much more trailing the streets. What’s the point? It’s not like I’ll get any more votes for my trouble. I might as well stick to being online.” (Bigger Election Diary 2015). In the morning I hoped to get everything sorted but I still needed to get my electoral agent to sign his part of the paperwork.

The Election Agent

Several weeks earlier, a guy on the Facebook candidate support group called Phil had agreed to be my election agent. Agents share the burden of parts of the responsibilities, laid down by the state, when standing in an election. These range from establishing a candidate’s eligibility to stand, through to obeying election laws and guidelines on a range of issues, such as spending. I had read about these rules in the briefing pack and was pleased that someone had come forward.

I only had contact details with Phil via Facebook. I sent him a message to tell him I needed him to fill in the form to be my election agent. I received one back telling me he was in a basement in Waterloo, without elaborating further. I had only met him once so he was not someone I knew well. He had set up a Facebook account just to get involved with the campaign. He had committed to be my election agent and then been very quiet for several weeks. He and his partner had created a CWP election

145

broadcast, which unfortunately is no longer accessible. He was one of the people that had emerged as a supporter through the publicity the CWP had garnered.

Once I got to Waterloo, I sent him a message. This time he gave me the name of a street: Lower Marsh. I went there and found a pub. I got a drink and sent him a fresh message asking him where to meet. He replied with the name of a shop (What the Butler Wore) and the instructions to simply say to the woman on the counter that I’m expected. So far this was resembling the plot of some spy thriller, or else a bloody horror film in which the protagonist eventually escapes a dungeon they’ve been lured to, but not without losing some body parts in the process. Phil was mysterious and I fancied staying in the pub and making him come to me. Except, I really needed that signature. I’d already spent more than an hour getting to Waterloo. I needed to find him, build an instant rapport, so we could work together for the next few weeks, and then get back to Croydon. That was the plan; I just needed to stick to the plan.

What the Butler Wore was a nostalgia type shop. There were vintage clothes and old vinyl records. I told the woman on the counter that I was expected and she said, “go through the door, down the stairs and follow the smell of paint.” Once down the stairs, I saw Phil was busy decorating the basement. He explained that he was doing the place up for his girlfriend to start a business down there. He signed the forms and we discussed plans for the election campaign.

I discussed with him the ideas I had for the various hustings events that might take place. I wanted as many supportive voices at those events as possible. We also talked about the night of the election and the potential for subverting that event, considering we would be in direct contact with the other candidates. I felt like we had got somewhere in a short space of time, despite the effort of travelling to Waterloo and the mystery of finding him. It felt like progress to have someone signed up as my agent. I had someone to shoulder the administrative burden, even if it had been a very odd day getting his signature. I was nearly there. The bureaucracy was nearly done. This story of the election agent wasn’t quite over, though.

Becoming an Official CWP Candidate

146

I had received the electoral roll from the council, enabling me to check the names of the 10 nominees to ensure that they were definitely registered as residing in the constituency. Thankfully all 10 were, so I was able to get a bus into central Croydon, withdraw the £500 cash and head to the council building on Katherine Street. It is one of Croydon’s finest buildings, which might not be saying much as there aren’t many buildings older than 50 years in the central part of the town. It looks like an old style town hall, complete with clock tower, but is mainly a library and museum, with much council business conducted a few streets away.

I met the acting returning officer and headed to their office which was a suitably stuffy but empty room. They were professional and courteous. I was conscious of being the anarchist in the room. I’d had this feeling many times, but it was rare to be the ‘known anarchist’ in the room. While he and his subordinate checked my paperwork, I began to wonder what they might view of me and the CWP. Would they treat my nomination the same way as any other? I was a little worried, perhaps paranoid, about being alone with the people who actually had the power in this situation. Arguing with Tories is far easier than arguing with bureaucrats. Bureaucrats don’t argue the politics of a situation. They simply argue in terms of what the rules state. You either win, according to their pieces of paper, or you don’t. I was getting nervous as they frowned over one of the pages.

“Your proposed election agent needs to live in the constituency, or in a neighbouring constituency”. Argh! My mind was racing. Who could I ask, in the next few hours, so I could get this sorted and head home? And what a waste of time that trip to Waterloo had been. The acting returning officer explained that I could be my own election agent, the only drawback being that I would become responsible for standing and making sure my activities were above board. I can’t recall ever seeing Phil again. His involvement online waned as the campaign progressed, before his Facebook account simply disappeared. This shows that the bureaucratic part of the electoral process was creating a need for flexibility. The planning hadn’t suggested that these problems would arise, and they highlight both the need for experience and a greater understanding of the rules. They also show just how hard the ‘democratic’ process is to enter, for certain people and groups of people.

147

The Other Constituencies

A mixture of feelings came over me as I headed back to Loughborough. I was now on the ballot paper, no matter what. In fact, I was the first CWP candidate to conclude the nomination process. Despite all those feelings around the bureaucratic process, the amount of effort it had taken, I had actually been the most efficient. I had set aside an amount of time to get this done and I’d done it. I had worried about not making it through that process but I had other worries too. I had worried about what not being a candidate would have meant for this thesis. As discussed in the methods chapter my involvement in the election as a researcher has shaped the data gathering and the writing of this thesis. This naturally impacted my approach at the time. I was determined to get on the ballot paper, in part because of the data that would provide me.

My new worry though, was around the sudden realisation that I might be the only candidate to get through the nomination process. It was now April 1st and I had this terrible daydream on the train home that the whole process was an elaborate April Fool’s. I was scared of being the only person taking the stand that the CWP were taking, of shouldering the entire campaign myself. I was scared too, of the implications for the research, in that I needed the views of different candidates to compare and contrast.

To my relief, confirmation came through later in the afternoon that Lisa had 10 signatures in Chingford and Woodford Green. Just to make sure, the Chingford team were looking for more than just 10 signatures. Lisa’s team would head to the council offices in the next day or so. Earlier in the day, I had responded to a request from Stan, who was helping get the 10 nominations in Chingford. He had asked what was meant on the nomination form by the words ‘significant letter’ and ‘electoral number’. These corresponded to details used to ensure nominees are on the electoral register. I’d had to check these on the Croydon South register myself. It is a further example where prior experience or fully researched knowledge of the system would have been useful.

148

On April 3rd it was clear that Andy was on the ballot paper in Litchfield, which was met with excitement on the Facebook group. Jane summed up my feelings with the comment “Yesss! Hoorah! Yipperdeedee!” (Jane, Facebook Observation 2015). Andy (Facebook Observation 2015) himself confirmed that he had a full set of signatures on a “beer stained nomination form”. Meanwhile in Chingford and Woodford Green, there were problems in ensuring that the candidate had an election agent. A discussion broke out in the Facebook group on whether or not this could be solved by having a PO Box number. A quick bit of research showed it needed to be a physical address. The proposer is the first of the 10 nominees and Ian pointed out this person takes on responsibilities if the candidate does not live in the constituency and has no agent. It could potentially result in legal writs going to that person. There was a brief discussion about the ethics of having writs sent to the address of someone who just happened to be the first nominee. A suitable address in Leytonstone was eventually found.

On the same day, an update was given confirming that the party had returned certificates for six candidates, to the corresponding local councils. These were needed from the party, to confirm that the individual did indeed represent them. There were six other potential candidates that had yet to carry out the paperwork at a party level. Even at this late stage, then, there were 12 potential CWP candidates. There was an appeal for the six to get their paperwork sorted as soon as possible.

It was quickly noted that three had actually already given up on being candidates. Al had answered a call put on the group page to provide an update on where each candidate was on March 30th (Ian, Facebook Observation 2015). He explained that without work, he wouldn’t have the petrol money he needed to get the nominations sorted. Ian advised him to stand down because of these difficulties (ibid).

On April 4th Ian confirmed, via Facebook, another candidate dropping out. Meanwhile, Dave E was ensuring that behind the scenes everyone who stood had the right credentials with the Electoral Commission. On April 7th Ian reported that it was a disastrous time for Lisa in Chingford (Facebook Observation 2015). It turned out that some of the form filling was incorrect, while some of the signatures came from an estate that wasn’t actually in the constituency. Ian told me later that, “I remember sitting here, [at home] desperately waiting to hear from Lisa” (Ian 2017).

149

Again, this was an issue that could have been avoided with experience and / or better preparation.

By the end of the day the problems had been sorted, with the forms completed correctly with new nominees. That same afternoon, Murray updated the group that Adam was on the ballot paper in Cities of London and Westminster (Facebook Observation 2015). Remarking on Adam getting onto the ballot paper, Ian wrote on Facebook: “It's been a long slog since deciding to stand candidates - registering the party, getting accounts done, bureaucracy x 100 - but now it’s done and we can have some shit stirring fun for the next month - SOHO HERE WE COME” (Ian, Facebook Observation 2015). Adam later told me that it was a struggle getting the 10 nominations as some people were worried about being on “a government list” (Adam Interview 2015). “There was quite a bit of pressure just to get the 10” he told me (ibid). He managed to get signatures from some people he knew in Soho by convincing them that signing the form was akin to signing a “character reference” (ibid). Others were willing to give their signatures “straight away” (ibid). Murray told me that they had to search for extra people, when it emerged that three nominees were EU citizens from outside the UK, and therefore ineligible (Murray Interview 2015). This is another example where experience and knowledge of the system can avoid wasted time and energy. Highlighting the role of the election agent, Adam told me that he “couldn’t do all that bureaucratic stuff without the help of Murray” (Adam Interview 2015). This shows how important it is to have help on the ground, during the process. The help is all the better if it is knowledgeable and / or experienced, and the CWP lacked in both these regards. There was also a perception within the CWP that this was all much easier for large, established parties. Such parties certainly have knowledge and experience and they also have the human resources to complete many of the tasks.

A day later (April 8th), Dave confirmed his papers were in order and he was on the ballot paper (Facebook Observation 2015), and Chingford was finally confirmed. The CWP now had five definite candidates (myself, Dave, Andy, Lisa and Adam) and there was still a chance to have three more. I wrote on the Facebook group, “[t]hank goodness I'm not the only one!”, showing my pleasure at not standing alone. Joe

150

was later confirmed as having 10 nominations and would go through the process of getting on the ballot paper the next day.

What had appeared to be a very smooth nomination process in Litchfield, wasn’t all that it seemed. Andy explained to the group that he “went to the council [the previous day] with Foxy and it turned out the nomination papers were shite so [they] spent the afternoon getting a new lot signed” (Andy, Facebook Observation 2015). Foxy called it the, “last minute run around to get signatures” (Foxy Interview 2016).

Andy updated the Facebook group: “I've had a productive morning. Got the tracking sorted on my motor, got fuel filters, oil filter and oil for my boat, and oh yeah, I'm an official candidate in Lichfield, nomination papers checked and submitted, deposit paid” (Andy, Facebook Observation 2015). There had also been some difficulties for Andy getting nominations. He explained to me that Ian had “fucked up getting the list [the electoral register]” (Andy Interview 2016). “Ian phoned [the council] and got [the register] and then lost the password or something” (ibid). Ian told me that “the Electoral Services Commission isn’t at all helpful, I don’t find” (Ian Interview 2015). Andy resolved the issue by getting the council to break their own security rules. He found out that once a password had been given out for an electronic copy, candidates and their teams could also have a printed copy sent. He told me that he spoke to the council and asked them, “do you really, for the sake of just emailing a [new] password… do you really want to print out 30,000 pieces of paper” (ibid). The password was received shortly afterwards (ibid).

I talked to Andy about funding for his campaign, considering that the main money in the group went to the London candidates. He told me that much of his funding came from “flogging t-shirts” (Andy Interview 2016), via Sabcat Printing. He later told me that a big order for t-shirts came from the RMT union. Foxy said, “we probably used the money from that” (Foxy Interview 2016). On getting to the council with the £500 cash, the returning officer asked Andy how he would like it to be returned (it is repaid providing a candidate get at least 5% of the vote). Andy explained that he wasn’t expecting to see the money again (Andy Interview 2016).

The following day (April 9th) at 4pm was the cut off time to get nominations in. It had been an intense two weeks. How many miles of walking people associated with

151

CWP’s election campaign completed in those two weeks is hard to gauge. I know from my experience that it was arduous and stressful. We had to learn a great deal on the hoof about election bureaucracy, the paperwork, the rules and the Herculean effort needed to just get a name on an official piece of paper.

Word came through on the candidate group that David had submitted his papers and later his candidacy was confirmed. I spoke to David about the nomination process and he appeared to have a different experience from others within the group. “That proved easier than I suspected in the end. I thought I wouldn’t make it but a lot of people were keen to support me” (David Interview 2016). He gained nominations from people he had befriended within the People’s Assembly, who he suspected were supporting him specifically rather than the CWP (ibid). “I said to them, do you know what we do? They said ‘yeah, yeah, yeah, but we know you David. We know you’re straight” (ibid). David had been concerned, though, about where he was standing. Originally another CWP candidate was to stand in Norwich North but pulled out and became his election agent instead. “I was a bit worried about that to be honest. Worried about [being] the only person standing [in Norwich]. I didn’t know what it would mean,” he told me. “I had a lot of people around me saying ‘don’t stand against Labour, stand against Chloe Smith,’ the Tory in Norwich North, but it was too late, the wheels had been set in motion” (David 2016). Reflecting on the changes and gaining an agent in the process he told me, “[we] built around us a team which I think was really effective” (ibid). David would be the only CWP candidate standing against a likely Labour Party winner. The choice of standing in Norwich South, rather than against Smith, in the north of the city, would have major implications for his campaign, as discussed later.

At 16:15 Ian, (Facebook Observation 2015), announced that Joe had made it onto the ballot paper in Maidenhead. Joe told me that he got his “papers in on the afternoon of the deadline” (Joe Interview 2017). He also told me that he wasn’t even convinced at that stage that he wanted to go through with standing; that he was “umming and arring over it” (ibid) but with papers signed and money received he had done it, despite the qualms over the level of publicity that could come. A few minutes after his previous update, Ian was again on the Facebook group, with ideas for the campaign: “aahhh...got it...... THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN” he declared, before he was reminded that it could still yet be eight (ibid). Then it went quiet. The list of

152

nominees for the Forest of Dean was published. This was the last hope for an eighth candidate but it did not mention the CWP. I reflected with Helen that we could have stood more people. There had been around 40 people interested at various times, since the initial call out in October 2013. She told me that 40 [candidates] would have spread us too thin” (Helen Interview 2016). Steve (Interview 2016) pointed out that “a lot of people were prepared to do it, but a lot didn’t have the money to do it”, referencing the tight funds the CWP had. He also made the point that some had dropped out as the deadline got closer and they’d looked at the rules. “People didn’t quite realise that if you have a criminal record… they weren’t going to let you stand” (ibid). Justine (Interview 2018) also told me that “there was somebody with an old conviction and they thought it might bar them [from standing] but the guidance on that is incredibly vague.”

I interviewed two prospective candidates who didn’t end up on the ballot paper. Mark was intending to stand in the West Midlands but eventually got behind Andy’s campaign. “I had no problem getting the ten nominations” he told me (Interview 2018). As the nomination period progressed however things changed. “I knew I wasn’t getting any traction” Mark told me (ibid). “There was no real anarchist support [at a local level]” (ibid). He pulled out accordingly, indicating that the CWP were spread a touch thinly, especially outside of London.

Similarly, Richard had been involved from the early stages and was due to stand in Penarth. He told me that he just didn’t have a lot of local support, with even local anarchists not wanting to be involved with the CWP:

I went to the Cardiff anarchist meetings a couple of times. They were very suspicious of me because I’d never been before, and suddenly going there and going ‘can you support me in this?’ Individuals would say ‘yes, we’d definitely vote for you but we’re not willing to be part of this thing which is engaging with the system’ (Interview 2018).

On the use of swearing by the movement he told me, “I found it very difficult to justify to a lot of the people I wanted to bring on board” (ibid). He also noted the London centric side of the CWP. “If we’d had meetings in different places [not just London],

153

invited people to come from London to somewhere, it might have given it a bit more of that solidarity and support network” he said (ibid).

This intense period ended with a flurry of press interest around the seven constituencies. In Croydon South I would receive some further attention from Inside Croydon. In those few days of intense, nominations-seeking activity, I had received a text message from the Inside Croydon editor asking me how I was getting on. I explained the difficulty of getting nominations and he had offered to ask his family to sign my nomination papers if needs be. I was surprised on April 10th to see myself being described as the ‘[o]xymoronic anarchist” who had “just about manage[ed] to scrape together the 10 nominators from the constituency for his name to go forward’ (Inside Croydon 2015a). From now on, that would be how the outlet described me.

Getting on the Ballot Paper Conclusion

This section explains the process the CWP went through to get the seven candidates on the ballot paper. The party’s support mechanisms worked but only to a point. The candidates, and their supporters, were able to access help when they needed it. In terms of providing clarity on the bureaucratic requirements, this worked remarkably well. However, the lack of experience showed on the ground, with issues around getting the 10 nominations (for example in Chingford where a housing estate provided plenty of help but it turned out to not be in the constituency). Mistakes like the losing of an electoral roll, added to the pressure in one constituency. Such issues come on the top of what can be an extremely stressful situation for the candidates. They are problems which hint at the need for people who have gone through this process before. If CW were to stand candidates again, then those who were involved in 2015 hold vital knowledge and understanding which should not be overlooked.

Moreover, these experiences explain just how hard it is for very small parties to partake in electoral politics. The fact that experience matters, highlights a hindrance for the inexperienced within the ‘democratic’ process. The fact that a candidate needs money to get on the ballot means that there is a financial form of ‘quality control’ within the process, designed to weed out potential candidates. It will,

154

inevitably, weed out the poorer candidates and parties. In the case of the CWP, it curtailed it to three London candidates, using funds from the London contingent of CW. Four further candidates, outside of the capital, had to find their own funding. Prior to the stage where the election could be subverted, and direct action could begin, this bureaucratic hurdle needed to be navigated. In retrospect, this is more off-putting than the idea that standing could reinforce the system but the experience shows the potential pitfalls any future foray into electoral politics would need to avoid. In any case, there were seven CWP candidates now ready for the election campaign and that is what the next section covers.

155

The Election Campaign

This section covers CWP activity from the March for Homes, described in the chapter on methods, up to the election day and night itself. It refers back to the CWP campaign styles explained earlier for analysis. It includes descriptions of campaign launches, media attention, hustings events, the election day, the vote count and the declaration of results. It details the direct action that the CWP were able to enact, in spaces anarchists rarely enter. As a candidate, I needed to be in Croydon South on a number of occasions, so could not attend everything in every constituency. Much of the retelling of the campaign has, necessarily, come from my own experiences, as detailed in the methods chapter. Utilising interviews and other data, the experiences are retold with reference to what was happening in all the seven constituencies where the CWP stood.

Campaign Launches

I attended three campaign launches, in the London constituencies where the CWP were standing, namely Chingford and Woodford Green, Croydon South and the Cities of London and Westminster. This subsection tells the story of these events. It was decided in the run up to the campaign, that each of the London constituency campaigns could begin with a march through the area followed by speeches and leafleting. The launches were driven by the subcultural urge towards direct action.

This section details the three campaign launches and then evaluates their effectiveness. The launches provided the CWP with opportunities for direct action, in place of the usual press conference, either nationally or in each constituency. This worked in some places better than others, and in particular in Soho which is part of the Cities of London and Westminster constituency.

The story starts, though, with the march in Chingford.

156

Chingford and Woodford Green

Iain Duncan-Smith appears to me to be of little rational intelligence but with a lot of blind right wing ideology. He calls himself the quiet man, well I am a gobby working class woman, and I look forward to the election, to shouting about class prejudice, to having a laugh with my class warriors, and to meeting Mr. Duncan-Smith (Lisa quoted in Diebelius 2015).

The launch was set for March 14th, and some publicity was gained a day in advance with local press coverage (Diebelius 2015). There were a mix of comments under the article, but the one that gained most attention within the CWP, was ‘God protect us from such women’ (Chingford lad in Diebelius 2015). This was seen as confirmation that Lisa was the right candidate for the constituency.

There was a great deal of online discussion ahead of the march. Online news outlet, Vice, were coming along to film the march. Stan was adamant that he wanted leaflets that contained swearing. “I ain't gonna go Chigwell [sic]”, he wrote on the Facebook group, “and hand over flyers that don't say ‘fuck’ on em” (Stan, Facebook Observation, 2015). Meanwhile, the Poor Doors protest that week had involved a testy altercation with the police, exactly because of swearing. It was over the All Fucking Wankers Banner, which was taken by police and an arrest made.25

25 The banner was confiscated and a person who refused to let go of it was arrested. Meanwhile, the CWP had another, identical banner made and later unfurled it, pretending that they had liberated it from Bethnal Green Police Station. The trial of the individual in question, subsequently collapsed, because the police had, seemingly accidentally, destroyed the evidence (i.e. the banner they seized).

157

Figure 67, At the Poor Doors protest that week, the All Fucking Wankers banner had been taken by police and another arrest made. Image credit: Jane. Click for video.

By accident, rather than design, the majority of people attending the launch found themselves on the same carriage of a train to the constituency, at Liverpool Street station. I had been in Purley, getting the nomination signature of my PCS union contact. I bumped into the CWP contingent on the train. There was a good atmosphere on the way to the area with people wearing IDS masks. “Being typical Class War there was no plan as such”, Jenny (Interview 2015). “We turned up at the station and it was a case of let’s unfurl the banner and let’s have a go on the megaphone. It was just a case of do what we feel is appropriate at the time” (ibid).

The vibe changed a great deal during the course of the day, as the difficulties of campaigning in a Tory stronghold became clear. Marching with the small numbers we had, could only really be done on the pavement. On top of which, we were followed closely by a van of police officers. The urge to take the streets is always there with CW, so marching on the pavement felt a little lacklustre. There was time for some speeches and numerous people took turns with the megaphone. Jenny was at first a little reluctant to have a go but did a speech. “We perhaps offer something to people that wouldn’t normally vote, for the reasons that they don’t think there’s anything worth voting for,” she told me later. “I wanted to get that across, that

158

there is someone worth voting for” (Jenny Interview 2015). Leafleting was largely joyless and the only respite came from Ian doing some impressions of a police officer. The officer was intent on telling us that we shouldn’t be offensive and threatened arrests if we were. Without the All Fucking Wankers banner, we were standing on the road-side with the Lucy banner, and posters of David Cameron with the legend ‘Wanker’ on them.26

Figure 68, A police officer in Chingford tells the CWP not to be offensive. Click for video.

Figure 69, Ian, mimicking the officer. Click for video.

26 These posters had already been the subject of police activity. In 2010, the photojournalist David Hoffman, had displayed one in his window and received police attention. He was handcuffed and eventually received an apology from the police.

159

The police attention may have been brought on by the way the march was publicised. On March 11th, the CWP website had advertised the event with the headline, ‘March for Lisa – Hang IDS’.

By talking to some passers-by, a couple of young men committed to signing the nomination forms and voting for the CWP, but it had been a disappointing morning. The police parked a van outside and watched us while we were drinking. “Myself and Lisa went and challenged [them]”, Jenny told me (Interview 2015). “At that point they drove off” (ibid).

Photojournalist Peter Marshall, summed up the day in a piece accompanying his photographs: ‘There were a couple of ang[r]y reactions to Class War, including one elderly man on a bus who made his opinion clear in an appropriately Churchillian fashion27, but most others took the flyers and were amused, with a few expressing a wish to help with the campaign’ (Marshall 2015). On angry responses Justine said “old ladies were winding down their windows to shout ‘scum’ at us. We’ve never been so hated in a place” (Interview 2018). There was also a corresponding report in the Andover Advertiser on March 16th. Describing Lisa as a ‘political anarchist’ (Glanvill 2015a), it explained that the march ‘received a "mixed response" from the public and a "personal escort" from the police’ (ibid). Lisa was quoted as saying:

Wherever we go, police give us a personal escort. This time they followed us all the way back to Chingford station and made sure we got back on that train. Police insisted the banner was taken down or everyone present would be arrested under the Public Order Act. We remained defiant as we wanted to let Chingford know that we exist (Lisa in Granvill 2015).

Lisa mentioned the young men willing to vote for her and the locals who were not so keen. She also used the opportunity to get out a consistent core CWP message regarding class. ‘I'm not going to win this election and I'm not sure I would even want to be an MP. What I want is to put class back into politics. Social mobility has stopped and inequality is widening but none of the parties will address this’ (ibid).

27 The man gesticulated two fingers towards the CWP.

160

This statement is close to saying “don’t vote” without actually stating it, and so it utilises a CWP campaign style.

In the debrief at the pub, a suggestion was made to visit the Aylesbury Estate, Lambeth, which had been earmarked for demolition for the purpose of ‘regeneration’, or gentrification in CW terms. Marshall also documented this:

Two Class War election candidates, Lisa McKenzie standing for Chingford and Jon Bigger for South Croydon, along with several supporters, travelled from Chingford to the Aylesbury estate to show solidarity with occupiers who continue to highlight the shameful treatment of residents whose homes there are being demolished (Marshall 2015).

Only a few flats were still occupied and whole sections of the estate had been fenced off, with security guards watching on. There was, however, a squat deep in the belly of the estate. In parts it resembled a war zone, with areas boarded up and patrolled by security guards. The estate was characterised by “barbed wire fences and hoardings”, Stan described later (Interview 2016). To get to the squat involved some climbing and wriggling through metal barriers, adapted by the occupiers. As Peter Marshall observed:

The lift in Chiltern [one of the blocks] was still working - there were still a dozen families officially living there, and we took it to the eighth floor, from where we had to walk up some stairs and then swing through a narrow gap onto the stairway leading up to more stairs and to the occupied flat in the top southeast corner of the building (Marshall 2015b).

This was the first squat I’d been in. It struck me how organised it was in terms of security. I recognised a few people inside from protests I’d been on. Some of the residents were eyeing the influx of people into the flat with suspicion. The flat itself had areas of mess, sleeping bags and rubbish. There were people having detailed discussions, and others were just relaxing, smoking and drinking. Stan was having a detailed conversation with a photographer, who would later get more involved with CW. He was explaining his theory for why flats like this were being pulled down, how it connected, in turn, to some social housing residents being relocated to places

161

outside of London. I stood for a little while on the balcony of the flat and observed the amazing view. It was clear from this vantage point why luxury flats here would sell.

Being here cemented in my mind what we were trying to highlight with the election; namely the chaos of the system and the effect it has on people. The election was a way of getting an alternative message out and a small act of solidarity with everyone we were struggling alongside. The campaign launch had felt lacklustre but the visit to the squat had been an inspirational extra activity.

Croydon South

This was another rather joyless affair. Like Chingford, Purley on a Saturday afternoon is quiet, with people not interested in chatting politics. We met at the large Tesco at Purley Cross. It was a blustery day, good for black flags, which would soon be flying on our march, but not so great for banner holding. When I arrived, I saw my friend Nigel from my undergraduate years, and some CWP supporters, including Ian and Jane. I introduced Jane to Nigel by saying, “this is ‘fuck off Nigel”. A minor Facebook disagreement had occurred between the two of them and ended with Jane posting that comment. As a result, it had become a pet name for him. That should cut the ice I thought, and they took it well.

There were a couple of police officers a few yards away. Jane told me that when she arrived and sat on the bench, they had come to her. “They told me that I might not want to sit where I was sitting, because that was where this groups of activists would be meeting. He wanted to make sure I was safe” (Interview 2017). So clearly our advertising was working, if only to get a police presence. Jenny wasn’t impressed with them attending. “Turn up and again, there’s the police. I thought they were deliberately being intimidating for no reason” she told me (Jenny Interview 2015). I had hoped that the publicity I’d gained by writing for Inside Croydon, might have brought a few extra people out onto the streets, but it was effectively friends and around 10 CWP comrades, plus the police officers.

162

Figure 70, At Chingford Station for the start of the launch. Figure 71, Lisa enjoying the opportunity. Image credit: Peter Image credit: Peter Marshall Marshall.

Figure 72, A local Chingford man responds to the CWP. Image Figure 73, The CWP find a place to congregate in Chingford. Image credit: Peter Marshall. credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 74, Stan is warned about language. Image credit: Peter Figure 75, Stan pulls a face as the officer walks away. Image credit: Marshall. Peter Marshall.

163

Figure 76, I decided to have a go with the megaphone. Figure 77, A trip to the office of IDS. Image credit: Peter Image credit: Peter Marshall. Marshall.

Figure 78, The launch de-brief. Image credit: Peter Figure 79, In the pub afterwards with IDS Masks (1). Marshall. Image credit: Peter Marshall

Figure 80, In the pub afterwards with IDS Masks (2). Figure 81, In the pub afterwards with IDS Masks (3). Image credit: Peter Marshall. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

164

Figure 82, A party of us headed to the Aylesbury Estate. Figure 83, The purple boarding with razor wire cutting through Image credit: Peter Marshall. the estate. Image credit: Peter Marshall.

Figure 84, Getting to the squat wasn't easy. Image credit: Figure 85, Lisa considers the view. Image credit: Peter Marshall. Peter Marshall.

Figure 86, The CWP at the Aylesbury Estate squat. Image Figure 87, The Lucy banner at the Aylesbury Estate. Image credit: Peter Marshall. credit: Peter Marshall.

165

Figure 88, The CWP assemble for the Croydon South launch. Figure 89, A good day for flags, but not banners. Image credit: Image credit: Peter Marshall. Peter Marshall.

Figure 90, A quick speech before the march starts. Image Figure 91, First stop, the local Tory office. Image credit: Peter credit: Peter Marshall. Marshall.

Figure 92, Another speech, with the police watching on from Figure 93, An alleyway to shelter from the wind. Image credit: behind. Image credit: Peter Marshall. Peter Marshall.

166

The march began with a trip across the road, from the Tesco to the Conservative Party office. We put some leaflets through the door and I delivered a very short speech. I later discovered that there are laws around candidates campaigning directly against their rivals in such spaces but by then I had already done so. Discussing this with Dave, I asked him about his campaigning in Sherwood. He told me that he had gone into the campaign office of the Labour candidate. “Some of them [the staff] were like, ‘shall we call the police?’” (Dave Interview 2017) he told me. He then informed me that he’d gone much further by occupying the office of the Conservative candidate, while he was conducting a surgery. “We held a little reception / meeting / action at the Conservative candidate, Mark Spencer’s, office” (ibid) he said. “We knew we wouldn’t meet him at any of the media led events like hustings so we door-stepped him basically” (ibid). Turning up unannounced, “we went in there without making an appointment to see him, plastered the place with Class War posters, leafleted people who were coming in and out, telling them about his voting record [in Parliament] and telling them what he really represented” (ibid). I asked how the candidate had responded. With “absolute terror,” Dave told me (ibid). “He back-doored us and told us he had to make a quick phone call. He shot out the fire exit” (ibid). “Within ten minutes there were loads of [police officers].” Dave summarised the action thus: “we shut his cosy operation down for a few hours. No arrests” (ibid).

In Purley, we moved from the Tory office and distributed some leaflets, hiding from the wind in an archway. We were in the pub even quicker than the Chingford experience. Once there, we dissected the events of the day, reflecting on the two launches so far. Both had been disappointing but the atmosphere in the pub was positive. Stan remarked that he’d enjoyed the fish ‘n’ chips afterwards, even if the launch hadn’t been great (Interview 2016).

As well as the police presence, I was followed around by a team of students, making a documentary about direct action. They had interviewed me on campus at Loughborough and now wanted a follow up at an actual event. The interview on campus had gone really well, with a discussion of interesting, performative protest.

167

Unfortunately, the event didn’t give them much of that sort of material. Perhaps not surprisingly, I never heard from them again and never saw the finished video.

I wrote a blog post about the police ‘intimidation’, in an effort to link this to the Chingford event but it garnered very little in terms of press interest (Bigger 2015a). The launches hadn’t delivered that sense of fun, as yet, but the next one would have a totally different vibe.

Cities of London and Westminster

Adam chose to conduct his march through the streets of Soho, the part of the constituency in which he lived. He told me that “he wanted to look slightly like a glamorous sort of Joan Collins [figure]” (Interview 2015). Helen clearly thought he’d achieved that look: “Adam dressed as like a Joan Collinsesque drag queen and we marched through the streets of Soho, with Stan in drag and Jenny in sort of S&M gear” (Helen Interview 2016). The procession attracted tourists and interested others. It was a totally different feeling to the ones that preceded it. Stan described his approach to the march:

It’s traditionally an area for gay people to feel safe. It’s a space where eccentricity and alternative sexual practices are kind of allowed to flourish somewhat. Like every other aspect of London that’s any good, it’s all being fucking steamrollered in the name of profit, and so I thought I’d enter into the spirit of things. I do have a bit of a kinky streak so I dressed up in rubber, with fishnet tights and platform shoes and chains and whips (Interview 2016).

“My feet were fucking killing me afterwards”, he added (ibid). Murray expanded on the ideas behind the march, telling me that “Soho has always been full of showgirls so we needed a showgirl to get the political message across” (Interview 2015). “It’s about playing with gender roles, disrupting them and getting rid of them, and so you present as male and female at the same time” he added (ibid).

168

Once in London, I headed to the area on foot, passing through some of the back streets between Euston Road and Soho. I was in London just for the day and wanted to see some of it in the open air. Heading towards the British Museum, I passed through Russell Square and took in some of the spring ambience. It was warm and I quite fancied being a tourist. The thought of another dreary march didn’t appeal at that moment.

On reaching the start point of the march, I hung back, hidden from everyone around a corner to observe. I looked at the group of people assembling and tried to imagine how it would seem to a bystander. There was no police presence (indeed there wouldn’t be all day) and half a dozen photojournalists had gathered. I wasn’t sure what Adam and his election agent, Murray, would have planned for the day but I was fairly sure that it would be different from the previous two, Adam being a performer.

Adam had chosen gentrification of the area as a major campaign theme. Immediately, this launch had a sense of theatre, of spectacle about it, suitable for the showman / showgirl candidate in this constituency. When we moved off Adam started to talk through the CWP megaphone, directing his comments at residents and talking about how the area was changing. Abuse was hurled at new shops and love was offered to the old Soho.

My choice of Croydon South as constituency, was only based on the fact that I lived in the area at the time the election campaign was first mooted. In the case of Chingford, the draw was the opportunity to battle Iain Duncan Smith. In Soho, Adam had seen gentrification at work. He may have been standing in a Tory stronghold but their part of it was far from conservative in attitude. “I can’t afford to live around here anymore,” Adam told me (Interview 2015). “To think that not even Soho exists anymore [because of gentrification] is devastating”, he said. “We’re being shit on but we all gave colour and energy to this area” (ibid). Gentrification was a threat to livelihoods here. Adam’s authenticity resonated with the locals. “Adam is such a character as well,” Helen (Interview 2015) told me. He “went into a hairdresser’s and then crashed someone's hen party. "Don't get married! I've done it twice and it's crap"” (ibid).

169

The march meandered through the streets and as it did so, people from a local squat came to support it and it generated a good deal of interest from shoppers, tourists and locals. Ian later told me, “there was a lot more people tagging along behind us asking what was going on” (Interview 2017). JayJay told me she observed “working girls… hanging out of windows going ‘woohoo’ at Adam” (Interview 2017). She concluded that the march was “like a little carnival.” Jenny said, “tourists want a photo-op, and there it was” (Interview 2015).

It was loud, combative and looked striking but at the same time not at all out of place. We eventually settled on a pub opposite the Soho squat as a debrief venue. People were happier. I made my excuses after a while and headed for home. Later I would see from the photographs that were released online that Adam and others would enjoy the rest of the day in the same spirit as the march itself.

The launches in London had been designed as marches and their effectiveness really rested on what sort of atmosphere they generated. The first two failed to generate a positive vibe, and while they included plenty of CWP people, they failed to attract any interested others. Speaking of Croydon and Chingford, Stan told me that “I felt like we were unwelcome” (Interview 2016). Soho was different, as it attracted a crowd and that allowed for the CWP to be bold in taking to the streets. It helped that so much of the area was largely free of traffic. Murray chose the meeting point of the march on the basis that “there wasn’t any room to put a police van” (Interview 2015). There hadn’t been a police presence unlike in Chingford and Croydon. However, “there were four other protests in Westminster on the same day” (ibid).

There was a national CWP manifesto launch at Buckingham Palace, which featured on the BBC Parliament channel on April 29th, including an interview with Ian. He told me later that “I did an interview with the BBC which unfortunately has been wiped, I think. I think it was the best interview I’d ever done” (Interview 2017). Buckingham Palace is situated in the same constituency as Soho. The CWP used it in propaganda to encourage the workers of the royal household to vote for Adam. Murray told me, “we found there were at least 30 people registered to vote in the

170

servant’s quarters of Buckingham Palace. So, we went down and demanded to speak to the servants” (Interview 2017), without success.

It may not have been as good as the BBC interview, but Ian did get published on April 22nd, in the International Business Times (Croucher 2015). It provided some national media attention ahead of the national launch. Outside of London, the same form of CWP campaign launches did not occur. In Lichfield a pub was hired and some musicians gathered. A banner was unfurled and used as a focal point for people to coalesce around (Andy Interview 2017).

The launches had provided the possibility for direct action. To a certain extent they delivered. For example, in Chingford the march included some direct interplay between the CWP and the police, with Ian mimicking an officer threatening the group. In Croydon, I’d delivered a speech outside the Conservative constituency office. Both these marches lacked something though. The Soho march was a different matter and included two of the CWP campaign styles explained earlier. It included the protest campaigning of the previous two but combined it with a fun, raucous march, which meandered through streets, allowing the CWP to get face to face with the enemy of gentrified businesses. The national launch outside Buckingham Palace received some national media attention.

171

‘Fuck the Shithead Cunts’: Developing Election Leaflets

There was a great deal of discussion, in the run up to the election, around having leaflets to give out in the various constituencies. These could have multiple uses. They would be useful for campaign launches, sharing online and posting to voters in each constituency. This section explains how the CWP used this communication method. This started before the candidates had gone through the nomination process. The subsection explains the ways CWP subcultural norms affected the design of the leaflets. It shows that there is a great opportunity for subversion via such media and that this was not utilised to the extent that it could have been. I struggled to get my leaflet how I wanted it. I was keen to get the message right in terms of my style of campaign, which had been to try to explain anarchism to a wider audience. I was also facing concerns from family about the language used by CW generally. On top of this I was feeling worried and scared about how Loughborough University might view my election message. My concerns were to have a profound effect on how the election leaflets developed, as explained below.

My first instinct when deciding wording, was to use something fitting my involvement from the early stages of the election. I wanted the leaflet to match the narrative of my Inside Croydon articles. I had used those to make a case for anarchism, avoiding much of the language and style CW was known for. For this reason, I suggested on the Facebook group that I opt for a very simple and clear message: ‘for freedom and equality’. This received a lot of criticism. As discussed in relation to the history of CW as a movement and in the chapter on subculture, there is an anger and a belligerence that sets CW apart from the mainstream. For some, my slogan just wasn’t CW enough. I accepted that it needed revision. At the very least it was bland. I explained I was trying to not swear on the leaflet and people started to contribute ideas, accepting my wishes.

172

Figure 94, Adam on the streets of Soho. Figure 95, Adam, posing glamorously.

Figure 96, The WDB marching through Soho. Figure 97, Adam takes the campaign to the local chippy.

Figure 98, Heels taking their toll. Figure 99, CWP poster for Adam's trip to the Palace. Image credit: CW.

173

Figure 100, Lucy assembles the CWP outside Buckingham Figure 101, Ian admires Adam's outfit. Image credit: Peter Palace. Image credit: Peter Marshall. Marshall.

Figure 102, Ian knocks to see if anyone is home. Image Figure 103, Adam outside Buckingham Palace. Image credit: credit: Peter Marshall. Peter Marshall.

Figure 104, Adam makes a speech. Image credit: Peter Figure 105, Another CWP promo for the canvassing of Marshall. Buckingham Palace. Image credit: CW.

174

Swearing on the leaflets, and the issues of the efficacy of that tactic, was accepted by some. As discussed above in the subsection on the campaign launch in Chingford, some were very keen to use bad language. There was a tension between the general clamour for vulgarity, and the respect for candidates to run their campaigns in the way they wished. Candidates’ voices were generally respected above those of others.

It also spurred others on to find wordings for their own campaigns. This became a fun bonding session on the Facebook group, with people trying to outdo one another for the most extreme curse-laden slogan. It is fair to say that Al won with, ‘fuck the shithead cunts’. His election poster was released, online, to an unsuspecting world. Had he made it onto the ballot paper, it would have been interesting to see the reaction of people, on the streets, to such a leaflet.

The outpouring of creative activity produced a house style for the leaflets and slogans for each candidate. Chapter Four discussed how my role as a researcher and candidate affected my behaviour. These issues developed throughout the process. Reflecting on this, I can see my role as a researcher was at this time holding me back, in some regards. My concerns regarding the University view of my research was pulling me back, making me nervous. It was affecting how I participated and how I influenced other participants.

My initial ‘freedom and equality’ leaflet was replaced by one vowing that the CWP would kick ‘the toffs out of Croydon South’, which I was comfortable with. Across the other 6 constituencies leaflets were also being prepared, some in the same visual style and others where the candidates went their own way. Weeks after expressing my qualms about a swear-riddled leaflet, the debate started regarding the leaflet prepared for Chingford, which initially declared ‘Vote Lisa McKenzie: She thinks IDS is a cunt too’. The CWP had another discussion around whether they wanted to alienate potential voters with such words.

175

As described above, Stan was adamant in his desire to go to the Chingford launch with vulgar leaflets. While another leaflet was prepared for the campaign launch, Stan had printed the offensive ones too. The agreed leaflet for the launch contained pictures of the high-profile Tories to have held the seat prior to Iain Duncan Smith, including Winston Churchill and Norman Tebbit. The leaflet declared simply that it was ‘Time for a Change’. Stan’s eagerness to get into the area with material that could well offend, showed what felt like a move by some in the CWP to push candidates into areas they were not necessarily comfortable with. On several occasions during the build up to election day, people within the Facebook group had to be reminded that it was primarily a group set up to support the candidates.

The leaflets also contained prose on the back and this offered an opportunity to actually explain. Some candidates used the opportunity and so the leaflets include the campaign style of rationally explaining anarchism. Despite going to the lengths of designing and printing leaflets this was a very underused part of campaign materials. Each candidate in the election was allowed a free mail shot to every voter in their constituency.

No CWP candidate opted to use this state provided facility. Andy didn’t think it was necessary. “What we found,” he said, “was we made an outrageous leaflet and then put a pdf of it on Facebook and it just got shared to shit... it reached far more people than if we'd gone round leafleting” (Andy Interview 2017). Joe spent some time posting his leaflet through letterboxes. Of those four hours of campaigning, conducted throughout the election period he said, “I handed out leaflets through doors in Twyford.” The leaflet declared that ‘Theresa May but Joe Will(cox)’ (Interview 2017). It was just a simple pun on the surname of the two candidates, something I tried to avoid with my own. Speaking of the time he spent knocking on doors, Joe told me that “those four hours… were pretty tedious” (ibid).

176

Figure 106, The final version, complete with my name as it would appear on the ballot paper. Image credit: CW.

Figure 107, Al's leaflet was the result of an intense burst of Figure 108, The back of the leaflet for Croydon South. Image imagination. Image credit: CW. credit: CW.

177

Figure 109, A Litchfield promo.

Figure 110, A leaflet for the CWP in Norwich South. Image credit: CW.

178

The leaflets provided opportunities for hard-hitting direct action visuals and messages, combined with rational explanations for an anarchist view. Most of the leaflets produced did just that, but the CWP did not promote these enough for them to be truly effective. It is acknowledged that getting the leaflets online can mean that they can be forwarded far and wide. The initiative in Lichfield to get them distributed via a Facebook advert was a sensible move. The inability by the CWP at large, to get leaflets sent via the free mail shot, was a missed opportunity. It could have been an example of direct action in the avenues where the wealthy live, for example, or a call to understand anarchism better and an encouragement for people not to vote. As it was, it seems to be something lost because it was an onerous, bureaucratic task.

179

Media coverage

This section details some of the press coverage that the group received as a result of standing in the election. There was very little national media attention for the CWP. The main news sources in the UK were focusing on the two-horse race between the Conservatives and Labour, plus the possibility of a likely Hung Parliament. Most of the coverage the CWP gained, would come from local news outlets on a constituency by constituency basis.

This section is designed to provide a flavour of the media interest and analysis on how the CWP used it. It is not an exhaustive list of everything written about each of the campaigns. I have focused mainly on mainstream media sources, rather than information and discussions on blogs and forums, for example. It shows that each of the candidates gained media attention at a local level. Different campaign styles came to the fore, as each candidate had the autonomy to suit things to their constituency. It shows how an election campaign opens up spaces in the media which radicals do not normally gain access to.

Adam

Mainstream national television coverage came just once during the campaign. That appearance, on Daily Politics with Andrew Neil, gave the CWP five minutes. This was consistent with the approach that programme took with many other small parties during the campaign.

When the request for a representative to appear on the show was accepted, the group started to plan for the event. The focus was on maximising the opportunity and hoping for something that could go viral. Key to this, was considering who should represent the group. It was decided early on that it should really be a candidate and that London candidates were best placed. I was a contender for this task for some time but the more I thought about it, and added to seeing more of the campaign in Soho, I thought Adam could really make an impact. He often performed as character Jimmy Kunt, and the idea of him going on the show as that character appealed. Adam’s drag act was outlandish, lewd and exceedingly rude for middle of the day BBC television. I suggested this to Ian and with his agreement it started to gain

180

ground. Crucially, Adam was up for it, despite never seeing the programme and not knowing anything about who he would be interviewed by.

There was a sense that this could lead to a sensational or shocking television moment the like of the famous Sex Pistols interview with Bill Grundy. Speaking prior to the event Adam told me, “when we go on TV… I want to look like a right Essex old slapper basically… and sexualise it” (Interview 2015). “I think those politician presenters are always quite pervy, so I want to play with their psyche” he added (ibid). He also told me that he needed to “do more research”, not knowing a great deal about the programme (ibid). “It is a prank and I think we should do it in the style of the Sex Pistols on that Grundy show… We should present ourselves as the mob. [Class War] is shameless, brash.” (ibid).

Speaking after the event Murray talked me through the preparations. Adam is “completely unintimidated by that environment. He did train to be an actor” (Interview 2017). “He wanted to go on as his character”, Jimmy Kunt (ibid). “He asked me to type up all kinds of information about what he might be asked about and potential points of interest for Class War so I actually did a lot of research and presented it to him. He was reading it and said ‘this is all boring, what am I gonna wear?’” (ibid).

At the time of the appearance I was heading to London by train for my hustings event, detailed later. I could not see the interview live but kept checking Twitter to see if it got any mentions and Facebook to see what the CWP were saying about it. On Twitter it got mixed reviews. On Facebook the CWP were lauding it. It is now looked back on as one of the highlights of the campaign.

181

Figure 111, Adam, representing the CWP on the Daily Politics. Image credit: BBC. Click for video. Watching from afar in Nottinghamshire Dave told me, “it was absolutely brilliant. His persona that came across was clearly making everybody else who was in that studio squirm” (Dave Interview 2017). Unprompted, he said “it reminded me a little bit of the Bill Grundy Sex Pistols interview on Nationwide TV, on prime time BBC. It was so confrontational” (ibid). It was also unconventional: “what he was saying were just ideas that you do not hear” (ibid), meaning the discussion of revolutionary change that occurred on the programme. It was another example of protest campaigning.

Adam’s answers in the interview were not always coherent. He did not always answer the questions in the way Andrew Neil intended. For example, his opening question of “how is the class war going”? was clearly designed to lead into a general point about class politics in the UK and instead Adam chose to talk about the CWP in his answer. This had the effect of sidestepping and also avoiding potential difficult follow up questions. Reflecting on how the interview could have been if I’d been there instead of Adam, I think the CWP made the right decision. Utilising my desire to explain anarchism, I might have conducted a fairly straightforward interview and fallen headlong into a boring theoretical discussion.

The interview gained some publicity, in particular from the Daily Mirror, picking up on an answer from Adam regarding a phrase on the CWP website, reading ‘by the brick

182

or by the ballot,’ indicating that electoral politics was a tactic towards revolution. When pressed on whether he wanted a violent revolution Adam replied, “well yeah, why not?” (Adam on Daily Politics 2015). The resulting headline was ‘Class War Party candidate calls for violent revolution during live TV interview’ (Smith 2015), which was exactly the sort of coverage the CWP had hoped for. The report also detailed how Adam was sat next to the father of the then London Mayor, Boris Johnson. Stanley Johnson reacted to the CWP policy of abolishing all public schools with enthusiasm stating that “if you abolish them then you jolly well have to have a good state education” (Johnson on Daily Politics 2015). Johnson was also confused as to why Adam was “dressed up as a woman” (ibid). Murray explained to me that Adam wanted to appear on the show dressed like the girls he used to go to school with. Under questioning Adam said, "because this is gender politics. It's part of being queer. I'm a gay man. I've been married twice. I've got two children. I’ve got nothing to hide. I love being working class and I love doing politics in this way” (Adam on Daily Politics 2015). There was a perception that the way Adam dressed was useful for the CWP. “Adam got away with stuff because he was presenting himself in this way. If he hadn’t been, I think people would have got much more enraged about the content of what he was saying,” Justine told me (Interview 2018). That is a plausible explanation for why the call for violent revolution only received minor press attention. “He got away with putting that on the table” she told me (ibid). “It was done in an eye-catching, attention grabbing way but also people recognised it as ‘real talk’. We’re used to turning on political programmes and hearing mostly bullshit” (ibid).

The video of the interview was used by the Metro newspaper’s website, to highlight the CWP in an article on the 9 oddest parties and candidates in the general election on April 30th (Payton 2015). The interview conforms to all four of the CWP campaign styles. It is a protest stunt on national TV. It sees Adam face to face with the enemy (in this case Tory journalist Andrew Neil and the father of Boris Johnson). It might be a stretch to say that Adam was rationally promoting anarchism but he was certainly attempting to do so from a CWP perspective. Finally, his message was that voting is largely pointless. On this basis we can declare the interview a success.

183

Andy

Andy used two CWP campaign styles consistently. The first was rationally explaining things from an anarchist position. The second saw him consistently maintaining a ‘Don’t Vote’ message.

On April 13th an article was published by Lichfield Live entitled Class War candidate says young are ‘stitched up’ by mainstream politics (Deakin 2015). In the article Andy is quoted as saying, ‘I’ve zero interest in the election – but standing gives me a platform to talk about politics, and not this pantomime. Voting won’t make any difference’ (ibid).

Andy told me his view on policies: “I just stood [with the message] 'don't vote for that bollocks,' and part of that was because I genuinely believe that. Part of it was because I really wanted to see the local paper print the word bollocks” (Andy Interview 2017). He used his publicity from the local press to get out the idea that voting for anyone is a waste of time. He did so with some success. Reflecting on the cost of the election, Andy told me that his team had paid the £500 deposit plus £40 on Facebook adverts. “For that we got an original press release, they printed verbatim in the Mercury, a 300 word ‘eve of the election’ address which they printed verbatim” (Andy Interview 2017). On top of this, he found they also wanted to conduct interviews because they were, “desperate for content” (ibid). The election provided an appetite in the media and presumably a readership. “You cannot for 500 quid buy that level of coverage… and have people actually fucking reading it” he concluded (ibid). Despite the desperation for content, Foxy noted that “the local media tried to put us in the ‘quack-bag’ straight away… on the lines of the Loony Party” (Foxy Interview 2017). Getting the coverage, then, comes with not being in total control of the content. Andy is right though, to a certain extent, that once the campaign begins, “they have to publish your stuff dry” (Andy Interview 2017). The fact that Andy had thought about coverage from the start, helped contribute to his success in utilising it when it came.

The day before the election, Lichfield Live gave all the local candidates a chance for one final statement. Andy chose to present his view of the financial crisis of 2008

184

and how it had affected politics (Bennetts 2015). Again, focusing on a ‘don’t vote’ message, he appealed for politics to be about action at a local level:

Politics doesn’t end with the election. It doesn’t even begin with it. From privatisation of NHS services that are set to give us the grotesque spectacle of cancer and end of life care conducted for profit in Staffordshire, to HS2 tearing up the countryside the issues that effect us are ours to tackle. There is no alternative on offer in the ballot box. The alternative, if there is to be one, must come from us, the people of this constituency, whether we have lived here all of our lives or moved here only recently (ibid).

Andy stuck to his main campaign style of encouraging people not to vote throughout. In doing so, though, he engaged with issues put to him and rationally explained that anarchist message.

Dave

There was a lack of press coverage in Sherwood. This despite Dave and his small band of merry people occupying the offices of the Tory MP during the campaign, as detailed earlier. I asked Dave about the lack of coverage. He told me that he was barred access to hustings events and radio interviews. A short article appeared locally (Dave FB Message 2019) but that was about it. “In the end I thought ‘fuck this’. I was more interested in talking to people on the streets and estates anyway” (ibid) he told me.

I witnessed this, when I joined him to leaflet in Hucknall. Dave and his election agent were spending April 23rd leafleting, and it was an opportunity for me to join in and later interview him. I also managed to catch another altercation between the CWP and the police. On this occasion, the swearing came not from a banner, but from a track blaring out of a sound system. The leafleting was therefore turned into street theatre, with a local Police Community Service Officer duly obliging from the wings. It was another example of protest campaigning and Dave’s style was to rationally explain anarchism to those he talked to. This included the officer, who was concerned that people might be offended by the swearing on the track. Dave

185

responded by pointing out the offensive nature of the Tory government’s austerity agenda.

Figure 112, Dave asks a PCSO to justify his interference. Click for video. Dave’s campaign ended up not being about media coverage but about the people he met in the constituency. It was a campaign consisting of discussions with real people about the way government and society worked and the effect it had on working class people. It was an example of the CWP reaching out to people through the election.

David

David received some publicity on March 13th via the Eastern Daily Press announcing his intention to stand (Dickson 2015). During a radio interview, he talked about getting class issues back in the spotlight but was also steered away from discussing issues like occupying buildings which the interviewer considered to be ‘illegal’ acts (Future Radio 2015). Unlike some other candidates, David got into a discussion around the official CWP policies, explaining that abolishing the monarchy would release a lot of money to ensure that the pledge to double benefits under a CW government could be met.

186

In an April 16th election diary entry, David bemoaned that an “occupation of the balcony of Norwich City Hall, and speech on homelessness which boomed out across the centre has been ignored by local media so far” (David Diary 2015). He described the incident: “we walked into city hall, took the balcony and hollered our messages to the city. People all over, heard us advocate squatting to take back empty homes and stealing to take the food you and your family needs and the benefits system will not provide” (ibid).

David also took to social media, delivering several ‘communiques’ throughout the campaign. “I had an admiration for the Angry Brigade and how they used to communicate their work” he told me (David Interview 2016). “I thought I’d use that as a format but also I’d use it as a way of… provoking reactions” (ibid). For example, on March 18th a communique was issued on Facebook declaring that the then two Norwich candidates (this was issued before the nominations were in) would only accept the national average wage if they won. They would ‘give the rest of their MP’s salaries to community organisations and charities in the city,’ the communique stated (Facebook Observation 2015). This was a good way of regularly getting messages out. It is very different from the approach taken in Lichfield, for example, where Andy was against having policies. It was policy laden. Watching from afar, I considered it thought provoking and relentless. It was also a campaign attempting to rationally explain anarchism, with the excerpt above suggesting ideas of solidarity and mutual aid, simultaneously suggesting politicians are greedy and overpaid.

Joe

The Windsor, Ascot & Eton Express noted Joe’s candidacy but without further comment (Matthews 2015). Explaining a lack of media coverage, Joe told me he didn’t go out of his way to get any. He described the situation as having a lot to say but “not an eagerness to say it” (Interview 2017). This could have been a much talked about campaign, as Joe was standing in the stronghold of then Home Secretary, Theresa May. Joe had plans for the vote declaration but during the campaign, the media were not paying a lot of attention and there is a sense, in this constituency at least, of some missed opportunities.

187

Jon

In the early months of 2015, I was still writing for Inside Croydon and I began the year with an article on the potential closure of Purley Pool (Bigger 2015c). I used the article to examine what the Conservative and Labour candidates were saying about the closure. Inside Croydon itself ran an article on January 15th bemoaning the prospect of a dull election.

Croydon South threatens to be a comedy-free zone, with four months of worthy polemics about the deficit and Purley Pool, yet the grim prospect of little else to lighten the mood.

Chris Philp? Deadly dull. The Hon Emily Benn? Well-connected, but still dull. That Jon Bigger bloke..? There’s not even a Tricky Dicky Ottaway villain figure, sneaking away with a swag-load of public cash, to attract the public’s pantomime-like boos and displeasure this time around (Inside Croydon 2015b).

They were looking for someone ‘ready to prick the pomposity of the politicians and inject a titter or two into proceedings’ (ibid). They clearly thought that wouldn’t be a CWP candidate.

The final piece I wrote for Inside Croydon had to be heavily edited after it had been published. I had got my facts wrong about a building project I had linked to Chris Philp, a property developer and my Tory rival. In fact, he had pulled his involvement. I had checked and double checked and had others check the details but I was wrong, and in my haste to link Philp to poor doors developments, the editor had to rework the piece. My relationship with Inside Croydon didn’t recover from this. I had written some good pieces since coming to their attention but I would from this point on always be referred to by them as the ‘oxymoronic anarchist candidate’.

On March 23rd, the South West Londoner published an interview with me stating that I wished to smash the establishment and give the Tory candidate a ‘hell of a time’ (South West Londoner 2015). I also used the interview to discuss the BBC’s

188

Question Time programme. I had argued that for balance, the BBC should have invited me to a recent recording of the programme, made in Croydon.

In April, The Croydon Citizen reprinted an article I had written for their website some months ago, explaining my views on the direction politics could take in the future (Bigger 2015d). This also damaged my relationship with the Inside Croydon editor who, presumably, saw the Citizen as a rival. When I contacted him with an idea for an article, I got a short email back telling me to get it printed in “The Shitizen”.

I had been lucky to have gained publicity over a year before the election, with regular articles in Inside Croydon from then onwards. I focused on rationally explaining my anarchist position as much as I could, mixing it with messages around the futility of voting. I also had opportunities to directly challenge the Conservative candidate with some campaigning on the closure of Purley Pool.

Lisa

Lisa was interviewed on a number of occasions, and also used a growing media presence to write articles for national publications in the run up to the election.

On April 8th the East London and West Essex Guardian reported the arrest of Lisa that week, at the regular Poor Doors protest. Lisa was charged with criminal damage, after allegedly placing a sticker on a window at the development. Lisa was quoted as saying ‘[t]his is an attempt to silence me, to stop me protesting and to stop me talking about social apartheid and the democratic process.’ (Lisa in Glanvill 2015b). A CWP spokesperson was quoted as saying:

She is a political prisoner. I cannot remember when a parliamentary candidate of any party has been treated in this way. This is political policing at its worse [sic] and evidence that the government is using the police to subvert the election. Lisa is accused of putting up a sticker and she's thrown in a cell. It tells you a lot about the corruption of the ruling class and whose side the police are on (CWP in Glanvill 2015b).

The response by the CWP was to rationally explain the events from an anarchist perspective. This would not have been possible without the election campaign, as

189

Lisa’s position as a candidate made the arrest newsworthy. The subsequent trial would see Lisa acquitted. The arrest though meant that Lisa would continue in the election, with the trial hanging over her. Following on from the other arrests, including Jane’s whose trial date had been set as election day, there was a strong feeling within the CWP that a coordinated campaign by the police was in operation.

On the same day as the report into Lisa’s arrest, she also gained some national publicity with an article she wrote for The Guardian. She used the opportunity to highlight inequality as one of the reasons she was standing against Iain Duncan Smith (McKenzie 2015a). The article reads like a condensed account of the CWP subculture, with references to how voting Labour isn’t the answer and how class politics seems to have disappeared. The article is also peppered with stories of the discussions Lisa had with people on the streets and in the pubs of Chingford. As Ian points out “Lisa has that ability to talk politics [with anyone]” (Interview 2017).

Figure 113, Lisa chatting to potential voters in Chingford. Image credit: Jane. Click for video. On April 21st further national coverage came via Red Pepper who linked her popularity in the media to her ‘respectable’ position as a research fellow at the London School of Economics (Red Pepper 2015). In the article Lisa gets close to saying “don’t vote,” signifying she would be ‘mortified’ if she actually won (ibid). This allows a broader discussion to take place on the reasons for standing if not for

190

‘personal ambition’ (ibid). The opportunity is used to talk about working class pride and the negative stereotypes used around working class culture (ibid). In particular, Lisa focuses on the New Labour years and the idea of providing working class people with aspirational opportunities. She concludes that this period ultimately blamed communities for not progressing. The fact people had to behave differently, rather than being accepted as they are, is one of the messages that comes through from the piece. Communities that don’t progress along the lines set out from government are seen as lacking something (ibid). Finally, the article discusses gentrification, albeit without making a clear link between that and aspirational politics (ibid).

On April 22nd, Lisa was published in the East London and West Essex Guardian with a piece highlighting five reasons why people should vote for her (Glanvill 2015c). Lisa used her autonomy as a candidate to discuss personal policies, including support for the NHS, of council housing and an anti-racism message. Autonomy was something prized by Dave in his campaign. “What we have, thank God, is freedom and flexibility”, he told me (Dave Interview 2015). “Having that flexibility… not to be tied down to a party line all the time actually helps broaden the message I think” (ibid).

Lisa grew a public profile during the campaign and utilised it to present her view of class politics and campaign against gentrification. Her pieces in the national press and her interviews qualify as protests in their own right. She rationally explained her position at every opportunity and highlighted the futility of voting.

Media Coverage Conclusion

Across the seven constituencies the CWP had garnered both local and national coverage. In interviews the candidates had managed to explain the rationale for standing and to promote their style of anarchism. Most of the coverage came at a local level. The level of national coverage was hard to predict. The TV interview with Adam was part of a five minute slot that particular programme had each day to consider small parties. The CWP spent time planning the appearance, setting out to get an anarchic, internet sharable moment, and succeeding in some regard. The

191

national coverage Lisa achieved was largely because of her academic standing and therefore hard to predict. Her academic standing is consistent with the CWP view of social class but this might have looked at odds with the CWP if people viewed it through the eyes of sociological definitions of class being a wage bracket or a set of job roles.

The CWP had a few short weeks of campaigning in order to get their message across in the media. With more people involved perhaps a more coordinated response to the media could have been established but with most coverage being at a local level and the candidates being inexperienced at dealing with such matters, this was largely successful in generating coverage.

The Fuck Parade

As the campaign started to gain momentum an idea was forming, around the fringes, to hold what would hopefully be a massive party. Planned for May 1st, it would happen just a week before the election. The term ‘fuck parade’ was being used on the Facebook group and I had no idea what this meant. My initial reaction to the idea was one of despair, as it seemed like a huge distraction from the election campaign. I was putting my neck on the line, very publicly. All I really wanted from anyone connected with the CWP was support. Suddenly, I found people working on this other event and it seemed to make little sense. It was an indication to me that people had taken their eye off the main event. I feared the election would start to take second place behind a series of other activities. Jenny told me that the WDB were having similar concerns. “Lisa was very adamant that our money should be spent on the candidates at this stage”, she told me (Interview 2015). These behind the scenes discussions resulted in the WDB intervening, in what was a largely male instigated street party. According to Jenny, “the Womens Death Brigade came into force to say to the boys ‘this is great but don’t take money away from the candidates. The election is really important.’”

Those within the CWP latching onto the idea were linking the street party with gentrification. The idea took wings when it was discovered that the owner of the One

192

Commercial Street development at the centre of the Poor Doors demonstration was also interested in techno music. A Fuck Parade starting at One Commercial Street became the goal. Stan explained to me that the initial idea was mooted in the final negotiation meeting with the owner of the poor doors development, as discussions made way for heated debate:

I casually mentioned to him, ‘I hear you’re a DJ’. He said, ‘yeah that’s right.’ I said, ‘well have you ever heard of Love Parade in Berlin?’ He said ‘yeah, I have’. And I said, ‘have you heard of the Fuck Parade?’ ‘No’. I said, it’s an anti-gentrification thing. They get all the squatters and all the tramps… and they have a big fucking gather-rave. It brings down property prices…If you don’t stop your fuckery, we’ll do a fuck parade (Stan Interview 2016).

Planning this so close to the election day was another example of how Poor Doors intertwined with the election.

My instincts that the Fuck Parade was a distraction were wrong. It was a great success for a number of reasons. It galvanised a massive turnout, with people attending following the traditional May Day march through London. In doing so it helped to show that CW were still an action group and had not turned to constitutional activity. By meandering through the streets of London, stopping traffic and blocking roads, it was perhaps the most successful CW gathering in decades.

The plan that day was to meet in The White Hart pub, close to Freedom Bookshop, and a short walk from One Commercial Street. My plan was to join the aftermath of the traditional trade union march in the capital. On my train journey, I had spotted on social media that protests were happening near Parliament. Once in London, I headed on the underground to Westminster. I got to street level and stood for a while at the corner of the Houses of Parliament, near the start of Westminster Bridge. It was a nice spring day and the place was packed, as usual, with tourists. I couldn’t

193

see anything on the streets denoting political activity, so I used my phone to check Facebook to see where people were and what they were doing. I picked something up about an impromptu protest near Tower Bridge. Perhaps One Tower Bridge had become a target, as it had after the March for Homes.

In fact, like One Commercial Street, One Tower Bridge had become a target for the CWP. Following the occupation of the balcony back in January, we had learned that the building was to have socially-segregated garden space. We had even organised a march, a few weeks later, from One Commercial Street to One Tower Bridge as a special edition of the Poor Doors protest. On the route we had blocked Tower Bridge. The theatre of the event was completed with a supply of circus torches. The prospect of repeating that theatre was tantalising.

Figure 114, The CWP block Tower Bridge at Poor Doors, February 2015. Image credit: Geraldine Dening. Click for video. On May Day, as I was debating whether to walk to Tower Bridge or to get another tube train, I spotted David and his candidate supporters from Norwich. They had seen the same online indications that Westminster was the place to go. After a short discussion, we decided to get to Tower Hill on the underground and then on foot to Tower Bridge. On leaving Tower Hill we could hear police sirens and when we got on to the bridge police vans and cars passed us at speed. The Norwich group all walked at different speeds and there was no clear plan as to where we were going or what we would do if we got split up. Normally on CW actions I felt like someone had my

194

back but this was different. I was essentially with people I’d met just a handful of times and others I’d only just met. The unease at being with strangers who weren’t really looking out for one another, made me stop. Whatever was happening over the bridge could happen without me. Meanwhile, a short walk away at the White Hart, people I knew better were starting to assemble. I left the police sirens behind and walked away.

At the Hart, there was already a really good turnout for what was going to be a big Poor Doors protest with a difference. It was a good opportunity for people to discuss and plan the election too. One of the bureaucratic tasks I’d recently had to complete was to provide a list of names of people who would be attending the count with me. This pub gathering meant I could discuss the plans for the election night with a few of them. I was considering how the count and results declaration would be an opportunity for direct contact with the Tories and thinking through how that could be handled. Others were discussing being at the counts for Chingford and in Westminster. I also heard, in the pub, that people had seen a police presence at One Commercial Street from 9am, presumably in case we were early.

The Poor Doors protest was due to start, though, at 6pm and we started to assemble just before. At the beginning of the protest Ian decided to unfurl a replacement All Fucking Wankers banner. This would be accompanied, online, by the suggestion that it was the original, liberated from Bethnal Green Police Station in the middle of the night.

There were police vans in the area and a few officers protecting the rich entrance to the building. The normal protest took place and then in the distance from the direction of LARK (London Action Resource Centre), a building used by anarchist groups for projects promoting radical social change, music could be heard. It got louder and eventually a portable sound system came into view and a street party started. “Nobody expected that many people to turn up” David (Interview 2016) told me.

After a while it became clear that the police were not simply going to let the party continue. It had spilled onto the road blocking traffic, which was not unusual for Poor Doors when it had a good attendance. The attendance was beyond the usual though and from the middle of the road I saw two van loads of police officers forming in lines

195

around the corner from One Commercial Street. I logged that they were City of London Police, rather than the Metropolitan Police and to me this was a sign of how stretched policing was in the capital that day.

The police build up had been prepared for by the organisers, who were already getting the sound system into position to move the party off on a spontaneous march. David (Interview 2016) describes the moment: “we were off; unmanageable, uncontrollable.”

The party moved off towards the south, blocking the City rush hour traffic wherever it went. A feeling of liberation came over me, similar to that felt when we’d occupied the balcony at One Tower Bridge or blocked the bridge itself. What other political party was doing this a week before an election? I wondered if this would receive mainstream media coverage or whether it would just be a social media event.

196

Figure 115, The new All Fucking Wankers banner, unfurled at the first Fuck Parade. Click for video.

Figure 116, The police line up around the corner from One Commercial Street, at the first Fuck Parade. Click for video.

197

Figure 117, Materials for making CWP rosettes. Figure 118, Adam and Murray at the Fuck Parade.

Figure 119, The Fuck Parade heading towards Tower Bridge. Figure 120, The Fuck Parade on Tower Bridge.

198

Once again, the CWP took Tower Bridge and stopped a while. There were some scuffles with the police and as the protest moved towards One Tower Bridge, one protester was chased by police and dragged to the ground before being put in a van. I didn’t recognise them. This event had attracted so many people I didn’t recognise and at times on the march I couldn’t see people I knew. As the march headed towards London Bridge, I managed to combine with some CWP regulars and we headed to a nearby pub for a rest and debrief.

Figure 121, An unknown protester was chased by police. Click for video. It had been a fun protest and as it continued on, I had a drink and a discussion about social class which helped in my understanding of the subculture, defined in Chapter Two. It focused on a perceived difference between the working class and the middle class and how that drives activity. People told me that the sense of anger they have, combined with having nothing to lose, propels them towards direct action. This was contrasted with polite forms of political activity, as they saw it, by middle class people, such as petitions and writing letters to MPs.

The first Fuck Parade had attracted a large attendance. It later meandered across London Bridge and settled at a squat in Soho. It didn’t gain the media attention I thought it might have. What it did achieve, I feel, was to signal very clearly, that CW was still about direct action. From the inside we knew this, of course. It showed that the election and direct action could coexist.

199

Hustings

This subsection will tell the story of the hustings I attended using my first-hand account. Lawrence (2009) writes about the changing nature of hustings events throughout British electoral history. On heckling in Victorian and Edwardian times, he notes that it ‘came to be seen as a cherished, rough-and-ready means of testing the mettle of would-be MPs, while more disorderly forms of popular intervention were also widely excused as examples of 'high spirited' enthusiasm’ (Lawrence 2009:9). Helen told me that she hadn’t realised that there was a “long tradition of heckling at hustings”. It was a tradition that was about make a come-back.

There are two independent accounts of the evening that are used to provide context and alternative viewpoints. The first appeared on Inside Croydon the following day. The second is a lengthy article written by Guy Rundle. Rundle has written extensively for publications in the UK and Australia such as Crikey, The Guardian, and Arena. As discussed, I had written for Inside Croydon over the previous year but by this time its focus had shifted, hence naming me as ‘oxymoronic’ and treating my involvement in the election as either humorous or pointless or both depending on circumstance. On meeting Rundle, it was clear he held some affection for CW and knew of its history and this comes through in his writing.

There are themes common to all the hustings events and these are discussed where appropriate. They relate to the way in which the CWP used the events for direct action, in a space created only because an election was in progress. They provided an opportunity for the CWP to engage directly with pre-established enemies: politicians. The CWP would utilise them as such.

In Croydon South, I was aiming to make some kind of impact with my appearance at the hustings. An online report the following day suggested that I’d achieved that:

[T]hese were easily the liveliest of local hustings staged so far, because in the audience of fewer than 100, there were several supporters of the Class War candidate, Jon Bigger. Between them they haphazardly punctuated proceedings with sustained heckling and a less-reverential approach to the self-important candidates on the platform. There seemed little point in the hustings chairman calling for courtesy and an end to the disruptive shouting

200

when the principal aim of anarchists is a rejection of [the] governing structure (Cronxite 2015).

As with much discussion of anarchism on the pages of that website, it contained a clear indication that the writer understood the central tenets of anarchism but it also fell into lazy mainstream stereotyping:

The contradictions in his [my] position were underlined during the evening when he claimed that the Conservatives would bring “chaos”, which you would have thought would be just what anarchists want (ibid).

In theory, hustings events would provide the CWP with an opportunity to directly interact with the public and also other candidates, with an equal amount of time allocated to each person standing. In reality, there was no guarantee that having your name on the ballot paper would automatically result in an invite to an event. I heard about one hustings event in Croydon South, only after it had taken place, for example. The one I did attend only included me after I’d seen an advert for it which omitted my name. I contacted the politics teacher at the school where it was being organised and requested an invite.

Dave told me that a hustings event in Sherwood refused to invite him, even after he requested attendance. Taking up the issue with BBC Nottingham on Facebook and a variety of other forums he asked them:

[w]hy is the class war candidate for Sherwood not invited to the Sarah Julian political hustings show this Thurs pm? I am Dave Perkins, not hard to find as I'm on the official candidates list as well as the BBC election 2015 website. Is this lazy journalism or political bias at play? (Dave via Facebook 2015).

‘Thank you for your email, your text and your Facebook post’, BBC Nottingham replied, referencing BBC election guidelines (ibid). In particular, they said that ‘candidates with no history of previous electoral support and parties which field candidates in less than a sixth of constituencies in our editorial area (Nottinghamshire) would not normally be included’ (ibid). They concluded by saying their decision still stood. Discussing this incident, Dave (Interview 2017) told me that

201

“not being from a main party… you’re just not on [the BBC’s] radar.” He said that “even though I emailed them, emailed them again, sent them information, said I’d like to appear on their BBC Radio Nottingham programme, talk about the issues I was never invited.”

Such a policy obviously makes it hard for new parties and small parties to be heard during the campaign. It encourages parties and candidates to contest multiple elections, assuming they want to be heard more regularly. The CWP may have benefited from greater knowledge and experience of these BBC rules. Dave, though, was quite clear that being spurned by the establishment in this way was not a barrier to him campaigning, as he wanted to be out on the street talking to people (Dave Facebook message 2020).

On the morning of the hustings in Croydon South, I travelled to the constituency by train. I had printed out an opening statement for the evening, timed to last a minute. I had been instructed by the hustings chair that an opening statement and a closing statement were needed. Each of the seven candidates would have a minute each to answer each question. It seemed to correspond fairly closely to an account by Chamberlain (2015) on how hustings have worked from his experience as a Green Party candidate: ‘The ritual at these events is the same. The candidates shake hands and exchange pained jokes. They are given the rules by the chair and asked to abide by his (it is always a he) command. A selection of questions submitted in advance are read out and each candidate given a couple of minutes to answer.’

I was getting very used to the train ride between Loughborough and London. I knew where the mobile phone signal would completely disappear on the journey. I had a preferred side of the train to sit, depending on the time of day and the position of the sun. I was bored with it. It had become a far too frequent journey. What a distraction, living so far away from the constituency was. What an effort it felt like to get to the place. Should I have switched to fighting Loughborough instead? The thought had occurred to me when I moved but I’d hit the ground running with the publicity from the petition hand in at the Tory constituency office. I felt like a fairly well-known candidate. The fast trains only stopped at Leicester, but the slower ones included stops at Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and Luton Airport Parkway. I didn’t really want to be focused on these places; I wanted to feel

202

confident about the night ahead and only focus on Croydon and the hustings. I was nervous.

These feelings increased as the journey wore on, partly because I had not written a closing statement. Each time I had tried, it just resembled the opening statement and I quickly realised that what a candidate tends to do is just recap their overall message, normally to the point of tedium. I became determined to subvert this aspect of the event in some way. During a moment of half decent mobile phone connection, I decided to check Facebook and noticed a former trade union colleague had written that it was International Worker’s Memorial Day, during which people are encouraged to remember all those who have died at work. I thought how fitting it was, that on this day I would basically spend the evening arguing that Tory policies result in people dying. This provided the inspiration I was seeking. The Facebook friend and I had once campaigned within the Home Office for a minute’s silence in the workplace for Holocaust Memorial Day, unfortunately without any success. This memory led me to my closing statement idea. Instead of recapping all the things I planned to say during the hustings, in the closing statement I would invite the candidates and the audience to join me for a one minute’s silence.

My Croydon flat no longer had much furniture in it. It wasn’t a good place to relax but I had to spend some time there before being picked up by Helen, Jane and Ian in the early evening. We headed the short car journey to Selsdon, to prepare for the hustings in the local Wetherspoon’s pub, a little walk from the school. I felt sick with nerves. Everyone else seemed excited. I was offered drinks by several people but the idea of having a pint before the event did not appeal. I wanted to be sober and lucid. I recalled a meeting I had as a trade union activist where I was tipsy and how it descended into a verbal joust with a senior manager. Maybe, though, what was bad and unprofessional in the civil service might be OK for the CWP. Either way, I wasn’t feeling it. I just wanted to get on with the event.

I had decided that my interactions with the Tory candidate, Chris Philp, would be hostile throughout. On arriving at the school, I was ushered into a separate room where the candidates would be placed before the event began. Other CWP people went to find seats in the audience. I was very pleased that we had a good turnout and I wasn’t alone. I had no idea what the CWP would be like when the event began

203

but I knew they would have my back, which was vital for me being bold and strong during the event. In the makeshift green room, everyone had arrived apart from Philp. I had a bit of small talk with Peter Underwood, the Green Party candidate. We had met earlier in the campaign when we discussed the proposed closure of Purley swimming pool. Peter was someone I respected. Had I not been standing and assuming that I voted, in all probability I would have voted for Peter.

I skilfully ignored the UKIP candidate, was polite to Labour’s Emily Benn and had a brief discussion with Gill Hickson, the Lib Dem, who had an A4 lever arch file subdivided into policy areas (I guessed) in readiness for the evening. I might have even exchanged pained jokes with them as Chamberlain (2015) sets out. However, I wouldn’t be shaking hands with Philp. This would be the first moment of the evening where the form that hustings takes would be subverted. I was determined to be rude and this had contributed to the nerves I’d felt for most of the day.

Philp arrived and was ushered into the room. He knew he was the next MP for Croydon South and his confidence was obvious. After some introductions with the others he looked at me, said my name and outstretched his hand. I paused and then looked at him, simply saying “no” and staring into his eyes. The small room seemed to get smaller and the air a little tighter. The drama of the moment escaped nobody. All the candidates were focused in on it and what might happen next. It felt like an age, that moment of slow motion resistance, where everyone would have heard a pin drop, and it was scene setting. To refuse to shake someone’s hand in the UK, is seen as highly anti-social and I felt it. Philp looked away and started to talk to one of the others but it had been done now; the drama to come had been presaged. No matter that I felt terrible for being rude; I had done what I thought a CWP candidate should do in such a circumstance. Murray (2017) helpfully reminded me, that “politics is so polite now and the chance to break that up or even just to make people think about it; you can't really miss that chance”. I took that opportunity even with just a small audience. Maybe the obvious embarrassment in the green room felt by the other candidates was also a tacit acknowledgment of this politeness and its prime result: a politics where very little is at stake, in constituencies which have largely kept one political affiliation for decade after decade.

204

As explained above it is not a given that a candidate will even be invited to a hustings event. Joe, for example, was not invited to attend in Maidenhead (Interview 2017). Moreover, prominent politicians get invited but they do not always attend. In Chingford and Woodford Green, a hustings event took place without Iain Duncan Smith, preventing a direct CWP battle with the senior Tory. This was frustrating, as Justine explained: “we decided to stand [in Chingford and Woodford Green] originally so we could get him [IDS] in hustings. Then he decided not to do hustings” (Interview 2018). It was possible though, for the CWP to empty chair him and this received a little publicity (Keeley 2015). “IDS didn’t show up so we put ‘coward’ on his mask and put it on his chair” according to JayJay (Interview 2017).

In Lichfield, a no show by incumbent Tory, Michael Fabricant, gained the CWP some national publicity. Instead of empty chairing him, Andy Bennetts and his supporters replaced him with a stick and a wig. “We banged the wig on the stick”, Andy said (Interview 2017) “and put it on the chair and the woman from the church [said] ‘ooh, I don’t know if you can do that’” (ibid). The stick and wig stayed though, with the BBC covering the incident on its website, alongside other odd things that had occurred at hustings (BBC 2015a). Catching up with Fabricant later on in the campaign, the incident got mixed reviews from him. “He thought it was ingeniously funny” according to Foxy (Interview 2017) but Andy told me that, “he called me a bastard” (Interview 2017). It had though, got the CWP a tiny bit of national media attention.

A local political blog described Andy, who at the time lived on a boat, thus:

Water-gypsy and angry T-shirt printer Andy Bennetts burst onto the Lichfield political scene as the Class War Party candidate. Class War is a party of shaven-headed banner-waving drunks, the Provisional Wing of the Labour Party (Five Spires Live 2015).

Describing Andy as ‘refreshing’ and ‘articulate,’ it went on to describe his response to a suggestion from a Green Party supporter at another hustings debate. They were encouraging attendance at a protest against Trident nuclear weapons, being held outside the Waterstones bookshop in Birmingham. ‘I don’t think there are any

205

nuclear weapons in Waterstones Birmingham, so if you’re serious about protesting get a train to Faslane’, Andy retorted (ibid).

At a hustings event in a local college Andy’s message of don’t vote didn’t go down very well. Foxy puts this down to the students at the college, presumably many voting for the first time, not liking the prospect that their vote might be meaningless (Foxy Interview 2017).

In Lichfield then, the CWP were engaged with the various other candidates and the public with humour. Their candidate had those qualities of being personable, quick witted and merciless in his put downs. This was a contrast to the minor rudeness of me refusing to shake hands in Croydon South, just before the hustings was due to get going.

We left the green room and went to the school hall. The chairs and lecterns were arranged in alphabetical order by party, starting with Class War and Conservative through to UKIP, fittingly on the far right of the stage. I was to be sat next to Philp throughout and I was to begin both the opening and closing statement sections. Rundle made the following observation about the way the stage was set out:

Bizarrely, the entire hustings was arranged left to right in degrees of skill. Class War, Tory — a smug young man who had “started a business with one van!” he had said (“yeah for three months until his uncle gave him a whole franchise,” Class War said later), the Green, a former IT public servant whose cogent good sense got regular rounds of applause, and then the fall-away: Benn, a Lib-Dem of the new breed of candidate, i.e. absolutely anyone who sticks their hand up to be hated, an idiot for “Put Croydon First” who couldn’t even put nuisance value to good use, and finally the UKIP woman, who had chosen tonight of all nights to dress in the colours of communist anarchism, red and black (Rundle 2015).

Whether or not I was the most skilful is difficult to say and on what criteria could such an assessment even be made? I was there to get a message across. If that’s the assessment here; that I got my message across better than anyone else, then I accept the verdict. Before any assessment could be made, when I sat down on the stage, ready for the event to get underway, I saw the CWP contingent in the hall.

206

This was a spacious place and not even half full. They were slightly to the right of the stage but on a raised area with seating. They were level with the stage but above the main body of the audience. I noted we had a good turnout, with more people arriving for the CWP since I left the pub. I started to feel confident to have that support as I rose to begin my opening statement and my nerves started to ebb away. “That was the first hustings I'd ever been to,” Murray (Interview 2017) told me. It was also the first for Helen (Interview 2015). I explained that it was my first too. “You as well,” Murray said somewhat surprised. “I think sometimes not knowing what's going on is an advantage because you don't know what to be scared of” (ibid). This is an interesting point. There is spontaneity in such times and that can work very well. However, examples already highlighted in this thesis show how the CWP could have used experience to their advantage. The hall was quiet for me as everyone listened to my opening statement detailing how Tory policies result in people dying. My main aim was to present anarchism as sensible and Conservative Party policies as destructive:

Good evening. I imagine that chaos is a word many of you associate with anarchy. But I want to talk about the chaos of the last 5 years and the threat of more to come. Some call it neoliberalism, Thatcherism or capitalism. One thing is for sure: it is unjust. Tonight it is a chaos that Chris Philp will present as common sense and necessary. Reject his cynicism.

Every issue we discuss is really about people. Unfortunately much of the debate seems to revolve around how useful individuals can be to the capitalist economy. We hear of controlled migration, getting to grips with the deficit by reducing benefits, and cutting services.

We have witnessed a massive rise in the use of food banks. We have seen a major rise in suicides amongst those claiming benefits. Malcolm Burge couldn’t pay his bills. He drove to Cheddar Gorge, poured petrol on himself and set it alight. David Clapson was a former soldier who had his benefits stopped. He was diabetic. He died 2 weeks later. These stories are repeated up and down the country.

We hear talk of working people and hard working families but we rarely hear about the working class anymore. We still exist and we’re angry. At the

207

Aylesbury Estate in South London the vast majority of people have been forced out of their homes. Residents got a below market pay out meaning they have to leave the area they’ve lived in for decades. This chaos is backed up by the authorities with brutal and violent force. When the bailiffs are brought in to remove people, they are backed up by the police. This pattern is being repeated up and down the country.

Just as capitalism causes chaos within our borders it does so beyond them. When we see hundreds of people die in the Mediterranean we are moved. If we end the chaos at home and abroad we will not need to talk of control, or restrictions, or punishments, or sanctions. We can get back to being a civilised society. We can reduce the suicides and the deaths.

On May 7th you have an opportunity to reject the chaos that Chris Philp stands for and the death and destruction that it causes.

Anarchy is order – Vote Class War (Bigger 2015b).

The CWP contingent in the audience burst into cheering and clapping. Ian later described it as an “electrifying speech” (Interview 2017). Describing my performance overall he said, “I’d not heard Jon speak at a formal meeting before and I tell people now that it was one of the most coruscatingly vicious face-to-face speeches I’ve ever heard. People were quite shocked” (ibid). He added that I “sailed into Chris Philp, face-to-face, and spat out [my] class hatred of him” (ibid).

Then it was Philp’s turn to speak and as he stood up, those from the CWP shouted “murderer!” at him. He made the mistake of opening his statement by saying “this is the first time I’ve been accused of being a murderer”, presumably hoping to simply dismiss the link between policies and life expectancy. Immediately “murderer” was shouted again by someone within the CWP section and then further shouts resulting in Philp not being able to deliver his speech. The teacher in the centre of the stage called for order and Philp began to speak again. The heckling restarted and Philp continued as best he could. Emily Benn for Labour received some too.

208

The beaky-nosed headmaster turned his eye on them [CWP supporters]. “We heard you in silence,” he said, and couldn’t help himself adding “whatever you had to say. Now extend the speakers the same courtesy.” They calmed down a little. The UKIP lady, a small woman in her 60s, and a flaming red-and-black dress, cleared her throat and began again: “I–“ “Raaaa-cist!” Class War yelled.” Rundle 2015.

As this pattern repeated itself throughout the event, the teacher realised that he couldn’t control the CWP supporters. Rundle (2015) again:

Class War’s appearance as a raucous, chaotic, often funny encounter — “we want to hear the candidates,” one woman said to them, “then shut up,” they replied to her, which got a guilty laugh — had the appearance of panto, but it was the only real encounter on offer. The crowd there knew it, which was why they refused CW applause from the start, but they could do nothing about it. To exclude was to acknowledge a division; to include was to bring a rejection of the common ground of the other candidates into question (Rundle 2015).

As Helen put it, “nobody knew what to do with us as a group” (Helen Interview 2016).

Rundle’s assertion that the CWP offered the only ‘encounter’ is a reference to the fact that Croydon South has been solidly Conservative supporting for decades. The seat was first contested in the February 1974 election, with boundary changes that merged some areas of Surrey (Purley and Coulsdon) into the London Borough of Croydon (Wikipedia 2020b). The below table details the percentage vote the Conservative Party candidate received in each election to date (ibid):

209

Election Conservative Candidate Vote Share (%) February 1974 William Clark 59.1 October 1974 William Clark 57.9 1979 William Clark 64.9 1983 William Clark 65.1 1987 William Clark 64.1 1992 Richard Ottaway 63.7 1997 Richard Ottaway 47.3 2001 Richard Ottaway 49.2 2005 Richard Ottaway 51.8 2010 Richard Ottaway 50.1

If the history of the seat suggests the future, Chris Philp was destined to win and begin a political career that could last the rest of his working life. In seats like this then, there is a chance for a small party and a radical candidate to be the ‘only encounter’ on offer. If that opportunity is not taken, it is an opportunity missed. The other candidates also knew they wouldn’t win but some may have had a desire to use the experience, as a stepping-stone for a future election. This is a mainstream electoral tactic. Emily Benn and Gill Hickson have both served on Croydon Council and Peter Underwood has campaigned to be elected to the London Assembly. My ambition, however, was to speak truth to power, and to rationally discuss anarchism. The fact that the only real target for the CWP was the Conservative candidate, made this task easier. It meant that we could focus mainly on him, while still having fun with the rest.

Benn was heckled by the CWP as a “toff” throughout. As it was ironically noted on the pages of Inside Croydon: ‘That Class War just have no class was confirmed when they called the Labour candidate a “toff” and “Lady Benn”, when Inside Croydon’s loyal reader knows very well that the correct title to be employed when addressing the daughter of a[n] hereditary Viscount is ‘The Hon Emily Benn’’ (Cronxite 2015). 28

28 In fact the Honourable Emily Sophia Wedgwood-Benn would be more precise.

210

Philp was subjected to continuous calls for him to reveal how many properties he owned. “How many houses?” was the cry from the CWP. Inside Croydon devoted their entire report of the hustings to this issue, which is unlikely to have cropped up in quite the same way without the CWP being there. The headline ‘Testy Tory Philp refuses to answer property questions’ (ibid) really was the kind of successful outcome we’d been looking for.

Rundle (2015) also noted this moment:

Philp can look forward to decades in the House while building his businesses, fattening out, getting a country pile, joining a hunt, etc. So he almost relishes the Class War challenge: “’ow many ‘ouses have you got?’ ‘None of your business my friend, that’s the private enterprise system!’

The heckle around housing came directly from Ian. Murray tells me that “Ian was shouting to the Tory candidate ‘how many homes you got?’ ‘how many houses you got?’ There's a class divide in there alone” (Murray Interview 2017).

As discussed earlier, hustings used to have a reputation as confrontational events in which prominent politicians were expected to respond to heckling by either giving as good as they received, or else by answering questions and criticisms seriously. In some respects, Rundle’s view that Philp was almost relishing the challenge poses a problem for a robust approach to hustings events. Heckling provides an opportunity to return to a style of working class action but with it a return also for the ruling class response. Philp did not handle the situation badly, apart perhaps from his first remark which suggested shock and dismay at being called a ‘murderer’, as this just produced a barrage of further abuse. His quip about the private enterprise system was much wittier and harder to handle for the CWP, in that he was stating his pride in capitalism and what it can achieve. It had the effect of incensing his enemies but giving his supporters something to get behind. The opportunity only arose because the CWP provided him with it. We can conclude from this that the opportunity to heckle at hustings is a double-edged sword. The impact, like so much direct action, is unpredictable and may in fact boost the people being lampooned.

211

In answering a question about how the government could save money, I wanted to turn the tables by making a quip about the cost of the Royal Family and the oncoming arrival of Princess Charlotte. The audience would be expecting a discussion on cutting public services. Rundle observed:

There has only been one moment in a month of hustings when I thought that the audience might storm the stage, or break into a fight, and it wasn’t in Glasgow, or in the North. It was in the large, modern auditorium of Croydon High School, England, when, before an audience of 300 or so stockbroker- belt folk, Jon Bigger, the black-clad candidate for Class War, stood up, sucked air through his teeth and said “Well, given the happy event coming up as far as the royal family goes, I think a compulsory sterilisation program would be in order,” and you could feel all the air leave the room (Rundle 2015).

Likewise, this moment was noticed by Inside Croydon, stating that ‘[a]ny faint amusement at the antics of Class War was lost when Bigger called for the ‘enforced sterilisation’ of all members of the Royals. This had overtones less of a Republican ‘reign of terror’, and more of the eugenics of Nazism’ (Cronxite 2015). When I said it, I noticed the open mouth response of a woman of pension age, clearly shocked by the attack on the royals. The charge of Nazism is a little overblown but it was certainly dark humour, in front of an audience that did not want to hear such things. It went down well with my core supporters though. Rundle (2015) noted, with some hyperbole, that ‘[o]ver to the left-hand side, Class War’s small base of gothish, punkish, middle-aged reprobates were applauding and feet-stamping. Everyone else was watching them, teeth clenched, fists bared.’

Many months after the general election, I asked a friend who attended but is not an anarchist, what he thought of the hustings. He said that the CWP weren’t doing themselves any favours in terms of getting votes. When I said we didn’t want votes he was surprised. To him, and I suspect many others, our direct action in places where anarchists don’t normally take action, just looked like normal, but poorly executed, electioneering.

One thing my research participants noticed as the night progressed was the way the crowd started to embrace the idea of a good heckle. “By the end there were other people heckling.... It became contagious and I think that's part of the role of Class

212

War, to show people that they can be disrespectful” Murray (Interview 2017). Murray links this evening to his wider political activities. It was on this night that he put heckling into practice for the first time. “Part of [me] getting involved with Class War”, he tells me, was wanting, “to learn how to do politics in a way that made sense to me. Heckling was a skill I wanted to learn and I learned a lot that night!” (ibid). He explains further: “I shout at politicians a lot now” (ibid).

Before turning to the closing statement in Croydon South, heckling at the Cities of London and Westminster, where Murray was the election agent for Adam, is considered. Chamberlain (2015) notes: ‘The hustings I have participated in have all been organised and taken place in churches; so are naturally sober.’ The hustings in Cities of London and Westminster took place at St Mary-le-Bow church. “I’d never done heckling before”, Stan informed me (Interview 20016), adding that it “felt a little bit rude” (ibid). Murray (2015) described an incident at the event:

There was some very good heckling. Stan was particularly angry at the Tory [Mark Field] and was just shouting "liar", "fucker" "wanker" and the Tory had never experienced this and he was getting angry. He was just getting redder and redder. It ended up interrupting his speech that he'd written and he broke off and said, "you be quiet".

Stan concurs that he gave the Tory “a hell of a hard time” (Interview 2016). In the 2017 general election it was reported that Mark Field refused to attend the hustings at the same location because ‘[t]he 2015 hustings at St Mary-Le-Bow degenerated into foul-mouthed abuse and my wife and the then Labour candidate were insulted in the most deplorable terms’ (quoted in Polianskaya 2017), suggesting Stan and the CWP had quite an impact on this individual politician.

However, while Field had his opening statement interrupted it was merely a prologue for what would follow: an incident which has divided opinion within the CWP. Stan had what he described as “a bit of an epiphany” (Interview 2016). “I thought these people, they don’t need a platform to get their views across. They don’t have any interest in serving the people they’re supposed to represent” (ibid). This epiphany explains Stan’s following interjection in proceedings. Murray (Interview 2017) retells the story:

213

The verger went round with a microphone, and Stan had put his hand up and they said "is there anything you'd like to ask?" and Stan just went, "Yeah I'd just like to ask the Tory: mate, why are you such a cunt?" It boomed across the speakers in this very expensive church” (ibid).

“I didn’t get an answer,” Stan told me, as if he was still hoping to hear from Fields at some point (Interview 2016). “Not in the house of God!” the verger had bellowed, when snatching the microphone away according to Murray (Interview 2017). “There was just this hushed silence,” Helen told me (Interview 2015). “Even me and Jane were like, ‘no he didn't say that!’” (ibid). I asked if she considered it an effective action. “I'm not sure effective is the right word,” she told me. “It certainly got their attention” (ibid). Jane, meanwhile, labelled it “childish and unnecessary” (Interview 2017). Ian told me that “it changed the atmosphere” (Interview 2017), adding “it took the level down a peg or two and then Adam gave a speech and it was all a bit flat” (ibid). Steve was particularly annoyed by the tactic. “I thought some of the Class War people were a) rude but b) stupid,” he told me (Interview 2016). “There’s a point at which swearing is just counterproductive” (ibid). Specifically on the question Stan asked he pointed out that “these people have got every right to turn round and say, ‘why don’t you fuck off?’”, labelling it “not a question” (ibid) under circumstances where it can be dismissed out of hand. “It made us look like a bunch of idiots,” after which, “it was very difficult for Class War to get a question in” (ibid). He concluded that “whether you like it or not there will be things that are productive and things that will be counterproductive” (ibid), leaving no doubt which he considered Stan’s intervention to be. Jane expanded on why this was not effective. “You don’t have to be asked to heckle,” she told me (Interview 2017). “[But] you have to be chosen to ask questions. Therefore, the questions need to be just a little bit more thought out” (ibid). She explained “our heckling has a point” (ibid), and that means that it is strategic, even if, by its nature, it appears shambolic and disorganised.

Stan was unrepentant, however, telling me that calling a Tory candidate a ‘cunt’ is the right thing to do, even in a church. Murray (2017) agreed with Stan: “I know that Lisa thought it went too far and actually there were more constructive ways to engage and expose the Tory but I don't agree. I'm with Stan on that. You call a Tory a cunt and the grander the environment and louder the speaker the better.” Stan

214

noted that “a couple of the people with us were a little bit disappointed with my performance” (Interview 2016). He considered that “there’s no point trying to debate with [politicians], there’s no point trying to be reasonable with them” (ibid). He also pointed out that “Jane didn’t like how [he] heckled the Green Party woman either”. “I called her ‘love’,” he told me, noting that he “probably could have been a bit more constructive” (ibid).

Stan’s actions, along with Murray’s defence of them contrast with the views of others within the CWP. For Stan and Murray, it was clear that getting an opportunity to be rude to a Tory candidate shouldn’t be rejected. Others disagreed with the action, but it should be noted, not the sentiment, citing issues around the timing of the interjection and the difference between heckling and asking questions. This was an action driven by the subcultural norms of the CWP and, as Ian told me, “some things work and some things don’t” (Interview 2017). Within the CWP subculture, using such a term to describe a right of centre politician, is both normal and expected. The focus can then be centred on whether that was the most effective thing to do at that moment. Following Stan’s question, it would prove difficult for CWP supporters to get close to it again that evening. There’s also an issue here around the way that CW had changed: the idea of a ‘new’ CW, forged through the prominence of women in the movement. Women were at the forefront of criticising Stan’s interjection. The calling of a female candidate, ‘love,’ was frowned upon as being misogynistic and patronising in style. The idea of CW changing as a movement, should be juxtaposed with the journey individuals within the movement were on. Several research participants made reference to this in relation to the Womens Death Brigade, who occasionally intervened to ensure that individuals were not expressing views that breached their standards. In this way the WDB had a role in steering the CWP.

In Croydon South, as mentioned above, I had a plan for my closing remarks. I hadn’t told anyone about my idea for a one minute silence. I didn’t want to have anyone try to change the idea, rule it out or make suggestions. It would either work or it wouldn’t and part of it working was the element of surprise.

I stood up and did a little preamble about the nature of my previous answers being about the callous reality of life under capitalism. I then talked about the horrors of waving people off to work, for them never to return home, except in a coffin. I then

215

told the audience that “today is International Workers Memorial Day. I would like to invite you all to observe a one minute’s silence, for everyone that has died at work”. The audience fell silent as I remained standing, head down and hands behind my back in a respectful pose. Murray (Interview 2017) told me he turned “round to Ian and Jane because now the Tory candidate had to do a minute's silence for the people his party killed”. Steve said, “they couldn’t just dismiss you” (Interview 2016). As a result, “they couldn’t just dismiss us” either (ibid).

I desperately wanted to look around me. What were the elderly couple doing in the front row? They had been turning around at the CWP hecklers and shushing and tutting but I really wanted to know what they were doing now. What was Philp doing? I could see his suited trouser legs, just out the corner of my eye. Was he looking round the room? Was he fidgeting? Did he look as uncomfortable as I wanted him to? This felt like an incredibly long minute, even for me. What it must have felt like for Philp and his supporters in the audience. I asked Murray if he could see Philp from his position in the hall. “I couldn't see his face. I wanted to see his face to see if he was embarrassed or sorrowful or angry that he'd been basically snookered” (Murray 2017). He continued, “It [was] moving because… depending on your class, you know people who have died in the course of having their labour exploited” (ibid). The silence lasted a full minute on top of my preamble, so polite were the organisers. When the bell rang to end the minute, I looked up and said, “thank you,” sitting down to a round of applause.

For that minute, there was a unity in the hall, provided by the anarchist on the stage. The CWP were silent and the audience had nothing to shush or tut about. I wondered, though, if what I’d done was actually a stunt. But I’d meant it and I spent the minute thinking about the horrors of the system, the wage slavery, the death and how revolutionary change feels such a long way off. I felt triumphant and desperately sad. It had gone amazingly well and now Philp had to follow it, with his dull, pre- arranged, summing up. The CWP heckles started again but felt a little less satisfying. Perhaps I just wanted the last word. While Inside Croydon failed to mention this part of the hustings, Rundle (2015) waxed lyrical:

216

The whole thing ended with a nice twist by Class War’s Bigger, who used his summing-up time to stage a minute’s silence for those killed in the workplace (it being the international day of that). What could the buggers do then? They had all but jeered when he had spoken of the suicides and deaths under the new “fit to work” system applied to the disabled, but if they spoke through this … well they were just as bad as Class War! It was a small victory for the unrepresented, manifested there in silence, a move that took poise, and the particular type of courage required to teeter on the edge of ridicule, harder in some ways, than getting biffed.

Very quickly it seemed, the last speaker summed up and we were done. The audience started to leave or huddle in groups. The candidates mingled, including Philp who was signing autographs for the sixth form politics students. The CWP contingent watched on. Helen allowed her hatred of the establishment hierarchy to shine through when she told me, “I'm still traumatised by those girls flocking around fucking Philp at the end of it” (Helen Interview 2016). One of the other candidates came over and was clearly emotional. They thanked me for the silence, telling me that their grandfather had died at work down the mines. I hadn’t given any thought to the fact that there would likely be at least one person in the room directly affected by what I was doing. Again, at this moment it felt like a stunt, except their thanks were genuine and I’d actually touched someone by my action, in a way that was just completely unpredictable when I’d set out that morning.

I joined the CWP attendees at the pub for the usual de-brief. Ian asked me if it really was International Worker’s Memorial Day and said the silence was a stroke of genius. I received the plaudits from everyone for this. “Making the Tories and fucking UKIP stand in silence for a minute, commemorating dead workers, was just a stroke of genius” Helen told me (Interview 2015). Ian described the moment: “Jon pulled another masterstroke out of his pocket, by ending by calling for a minute’s silence for International Workers [Memorial] Day” (Interview 2017). He said, the “sight of the predominantly Tory audience doing what Jon Bigger had told them to, in a very obedient fashion, was quite hilarious” (ibid). “I doubt it got you anymore votes” he told me (ibid), describing the moment as “100 Tories, antagonistic to us, who Jon’s suddenly got dancing to his tune” (ibid).

217

A short time into the drinking, a man walked over to the table and shoved a book into my hand. It was some self-published thing with the name, Guy Rundle, on the cover. He stayed with us for a while, talking CW, and then a few days later I spotted the long article he’d written about the evening. He captured the essence of the event quite well with the by-line, ‘Communist-anarchist-socialist troublemakers Class War heckled and jeered their way through a pantomime hustings in a Tory stronghold. Was anything truly at stake?’ (Rundle 2015). In a constituency where the Tories were guaranteed a win there wasn’t anything truly at stake, other than speaking truth to power. What we achieved was a subversion of the normal form at hustings. This was an old fashioned working class approach and the establishment, on the stage and in the audience didn’t like it one bit. We had also had a test of our solidarity. As the person on the stage, alongside the Tory candidate, this solidarity was crucial for how I could behave on the evening. It felt like we all had each other’s backs at this moment. The confidence I felt enabled me to answer the questions in the way I wanted. Myself and Philp spent some of the evening debating issues, while other candidates were giving their answers to the questions. “We are not privatising the NHS!” he whispered at me, harshly, after I’d answered one question and sat down. “Yes, you fucking well are!” I had whispered back, trying to be a little harsher in my response but no louder. Knowing I had the CWP contingent in the audience really helped me handle those situations.

Ahead of a hustings event in Norwich, David felt his campaign was getting somewhere. He told me, he had “really wound up the Labour Party and for some unknown reason they began, I think, to believe that we were some sort of threat” (David Interview 2016). They had utilised an alternative to the ‘don’t vote’ strategy. “We were mixing things up by saying vote Green, don’t vote Class War to get this lot out because we don’t want an ex-soldier in Parliament. We want this nice environmentalist… he’s truly anti-austerity” (ibid). David was standing in the only constituency where the CWP would likely see a Labour Party victory. Clive Lewis, the Labour candidate was the former soldier David was referencing. It was a marginal seat, though, and it’s possible Labour were worried about a prominent working class candidate taking votes away from them.

218

Figure 122, Adam at the Lectern 1. Image credit: CW. Figure 123, I did not feature on the promotion for the hustings.

Figure 124, CWP poster promoting the seven candidates.

219

Figure 125, CWP continued to attack the decision to arrest Figure 126, On the day of the hustings in Croydon South, Adam had a Lisa. date with Andrew Neil. Image credit: Murray.

Figure 127, Delivering my opening statement. Philp watches Figure 128, A wig and stick replaces Tory Candidate, Fabricant, in on. Image credit: CW. Litchfield. Image credit: Speakers Corner Trust, via Twitter.

220

In this seat, something was at stake, at least for Labour, and that may account for their behaviour. At this hustings event it was the CWP on the receiving end of the heckling. David explained how this came to pass.

I posted up [on Facebook] some footage from Malcolm X making his very famous ‘field negroes and house negroes’ speech, that’s what it’s known as, where he basically characterises black politicians who get into power and then betray their community. House negroes, he says, they’re the ones in the slavery days who used to live with the master. They ate the master’s food and slept in the master’s house. If the field negroes came to him and said ‘let’s go. All of us, we’re leaving, we hate this,’ they’d say ‘why? I’ve got a lovely house, I eat the master’s food, I don’t want to go’ (ibid).

Clive Lewis is a black politician. “I suppose that Clive Lewis took the insinuation that he was one of those black politicians who was going to betray his community,” David told me (ibid). I asked David if Lewis was correct to take that insinuation. “Yes, I was warning him, in a way that only I could, by quoting Malcolm X. I couldn’t say it to him because I’m not black but this is what Malcolm X said.” I have no doubt that David did not approach this with the intention to offend but that’s exactly what it achieved.

Labour would take the offence far and amplify it, accusing David of racism and of using the N word (for which there is no evidence and David strenuously denies). However, it is noted that the word ‘negro’ is also offensive, regardless of whether the N word was used or not.

David told me that the anger was apparent at the hustings event. “Clive Lewis turned around and accused me of having called him the N word. Not negro, the N word” (ibid). “I was dumbfounded” he told me. There followed heckling from the floor with shouts of “you did!” from some people. David later reposted the entire communication again, which on the one hand clearly showed he hadn’t used the N word but at the same time included all the material that had caused the initial offense.

221

The incident was clearly troubling for David. “I seriously considered dropping out,” he told me. He added that he “had trouble getting on any other hustings after that” (ibid). He persevered though and attended a hustings at the University of East Anglia, even though he wasn’t invited. “We held up placards and I sort of put a gagging thing over my mouth” (ibid).

The example of Norwich South shows that a radical subversion of politics can bite back. Heckling had worked for the CWP at other hustings, as had the stuntism of wigs and sticks. The question asked at the Cities of London and Westminster hustings, had not been effective and in Norwich some poorly worded campaign literature had badly backfired.

The Labour Party used the communication to their own advantage. Ian told me ahead of the election, that the autonomy given to candidates could lead to problems down the road. “If someone does something horribly out of order, they’ll be dealt with but people should just be free to take whatever initiatives they can” (Ian Interview 2015). The communications from David were not ‘horribly out of order’. It is possible that they genuinely offended some but it is also the case that the Labour Party used that. The CWP view at the time was that Labour had been opportunistic and had lied about the issue. I concur but consider that the door was left completely open for them to do so via the use of language and target of the communication. It is a learning point, that in the only constituency where Labour were expected to win, the CWP really seemed to anger them and were seen as enough of a threat for them to opportunistically lie about an incident in a public forum.

222

Election Day

When May 7th finally arrived, I was in Croydon, staying with Ian and Jane. I awoke early. My hopes of a relaxing day, in preparation for a long night at the count had already been dashed. It was Jane’s trial regarding the arrest at the Poor Doors protest on November 5th the previous year. I had agreed to accompany Jane to Stratford in East London and support her until others arrived.

It was a warm and dry day. In normal circumstances on election day I would have time to look at the news. I imagined that the weather would lead to comments on a potential high turnout, along with footage of party leaders voting.

On reaching Norwood Junction station, we saw the local Labour Party out in full force, attempting to entice voters. Their candidate, Sarah Jones, was trying to talk to as many voters as possible as they headed towards their trains. A man came up to us, who we both recognised enough to talk to but without knowing him particularly well. It was Andrew Fisher, who I recognised from PCS; I may have met him on one of my visits to the headquarters of the union when I was an activist. Jane later told me that she and Ian had met him when they found a child stuck on the roof of a local house, a situation they had all helped resolve. What I didn’t realise was the significance he would have within the Labour Party in just a few months’ time. Fisher would work closely with Jeremy Corbyn when he became leader of the party. He had already played a very minor role in my election campaign, by tweeting support for me the previous year, in exasperation at the prospect of Emily Benn being the candidate for his party (Cooper 2015). In August 2014 he had written ‘if you live in Croydon South, vote with dignity, vote @campaignbeard’ (ibid), @campaignbeard being my twitter name at the time. This seemed insignificant at the time. It was just a socialist supporting a socialist candidate. On election day, I did not link in my mind the person I was seeing to the tweet he wrote the previous August. I just vaguely recognised him. We exchanged polite conversation, while a handful of Labour activists hurriedly thrust leaflets at commuters asking them to vote Labour. He wished me luck and I expressed hope that the Tories would be kicked out of office, before we were on our way.

The journey took a while and when we arrived the signage around the venue was disorientating. It took us round the back of the building, looping in a block and finally

223

getting us to the entrance. This just seemed to add to the nerves. I felt nervous on Jane’s behalf. I’ve been to court a number of times as a trade union activist, representing members. Most occasions went really well but on my final one I was poorly briefed, had no idea what I was doing, and it was obvious. The result was being told by the judge to apologise to the taxpayer, in front of the court, for wasting their time and money. It was an utter humiliation. This time I would be able to sit still and be quiet throughout. When we got inside, there was some time that Jane spent at the reception, while I went to a waiting area. It was large and arranged in compartments relating to adjoining courtrooms. Each waiting area had little hubs of seating, which meant that different teams of people connected to a case could huddle together, waiting and discussing their chances. Around six police officers entered the building, walking past Jane and into our compartment. Jane then came to join me. She told me that as they passed her, one of them had said to the others, “there she is with her coloured hair,” and the others had laughed.

There followed a great deal of waiting. Waiting for witnesses to show up, waiting for the lawyer to discuss matters, and waiting for the actual session. After a while, Helen and Ian arrived, having driven to the court. We were eventually invited into the court room. The evidence the police had, hinged on a disc of video footage from the Poor Doors event of November 5th. The police had determined that it was Jane that had set fire to the effigy of Boris Johnson and had arrested her on that basis. Their initial charge on the night had been one of setting fire to the public highway but this had subsequently been changed to endangering the public. This is a charge that could have amounted to a sentence of life imprisonment.

The court papers submitted by the police, made specific mention that it was an effigy of a prominent public figure. Initial proceedings focused on the legitimacy of such an action. The prosecution was forced to admit that being able to set fire to effigies on November 5th was a matter of freedom of expression. One of the solicitors for Jane later remarked that:

It is… encouraging that the prosecution agreed that the burning of an effigy of Boris Johnson constitutes legitimate freedom of expression in the context of this peaceful protest against the use of 'Poor Doors' (Bindmans 2015).

224

It then emerged that the DVD containing the evidence they were relying on was faulty. Asked if they had a back-up, it was determined that they would need to go back to their station and get a new DVD made of the incident. The Magistrate allowed them time to do this. Meanwhile, the police also changed their charge, as they were unable to find any witnesses willing to say they felt in any danger at the time of the fire. They were now stating that a specific individual was put in danger of their life, again requiring a witness. They chose one of their number as the witness.

We adjourned for lunch and Jane, Helen and I found a restaurant where we could chat about the case and the election for a while. We discussed what seemed to be a pretty poor showing from the police. They seemed to be desperate to change the charge, the evidence could not be displayed and their Crown Prosecution Lawyer (CPS) had apparently been assigned the case at the last moment. Things seemed to be going our way but such things are difficult to gauge.

When we got back, we prepared for what we hoped would be a speedy end to the case. The defence lawyer spoke with us for a while and highlighted that he had a picture of the police officer who was now their star witness, PC Cook. The picture showed him standing behind the burning effigy of Boris Johnson, smiling and with his hands behind his back. He didn’t look like someone in fear for his life. This provided a lot of hope to us.

Meanwhile the police arrived back with the DVD evidence, which their lawyer had shown to the Magistrate. The CPS lawyer emerged from the court room, crossed to the six officers and loudly said, “is this all we’ve got? This is rubbish! This shows nothing”. We watched these exchanges eagerly, prying ears and eyes focusing on the officers huddled around seats at the other end of the compartment. They had acted bullish when they had clapped eyes on Jane but their case was now falling apart.

We were allowed back into the court room. The CPS lawyer explained that she had reservations about the case. None of the police officers were present in the courtroom itself. The magistrate had granted their lawyer time to get fresh instructions and the lawyer had been told to proceed by the CPS, seemingly regardless of the now hopeless task. The lawyer now expressed doubts stemming from notes written by the various officers which, she claimed, indicated collusion.

225

Events in the courtroom were beginning to get shocking. There were regular open mouths and gasps for air, so surprising was the prosecution’s lack of evidence and credible witnesses. We added collusion to the list of tactics the police had used against us.

PC Cook’s notes said that he had ‘recoiled’ at the fire but only because he had been too close to it. In other words, he felt he could safely get away from it and did so. They also indicated that he had only left the fire once he had learned that an arrest was going to be made, not because he felt at danger. Another officer, PCSO Crow, wrote about the fire alarm going off in One Commercial Street as a result of the fire but nobody else mentioned this. There was no evacuation of the building. Other inconsistencies in the police account meant that they would have had to rely on one of the previous charges, to proceed. They simply didn’t have the evidence, as the previous few hours had highlighted.

As the magistrate dismissed the case, there was much jubilation as we cheered in the court room. When we emerged into the waiting area and we saw the police witnesses looking humbled and deflated, the cheers turned to jeers, with court security attending to ask the CWP contingent to be quiet. We had won on Election Day! If the CWP paranoia was correct and the state had used this date deliberately to upset our election plans, such a strategy hadn’t worked. We’d emerged from the process victorious and everyone just felt jubilant. There was still plenty of time to get the other things done that each of us had planned.

Jane was supported by lawyers from Bindmans who updated their website with details of the case:

[A]fter initially claiming that a passer-by had been 'injured, interrupted or endangered' by the burning Boris, the Prosecution was unable to provide any evidence to support its claims and on 7th May 2015 the case was dismissed by the Judge at Stratford Magistrates' Court (Bindmans 2015).

The decision was used as suitable propaganda purposes by the CWP. There were articles in the Croydon Guardian (2015a) and Inside Croydon (2015c), who noted that there had been many months of police activity around the CWP:

226

The demo was staged by the Class War group, who appear to be targeted increasingly by the police, with expensive and time-consuming prosecutions which ultimately fail when brought to court.

One Class War election candidate was charged by the Met with criminal damage after committing the terrible offence of sticking a poster to a window of a Poor Doors development. Croydon South’s very own oxymoronic anarchist, Jon Bigger, saw the march to launch his election campaign last month attended by more than a dozen police officers, all presumably on weekend duty overtime at public expense, who traipsed around Purley monitoring his every step – even though Class War that day failed to attract enough “protestors” to fill a park bench.

Later Jane posted two updates in the candidate support group. The first was her version of the events in court:

POOR DOORS: Case was thrown out. When I first got there 6 cop witnesses all sat in the waiting area pointing, whispering and laughing about me. CPS barrister totally unprepared. Agreed setting fire to the effigy was lawful CCTV footage cops brought along was cracked so 3 (!) of them had to go and get another copy. CPS kept trying to change the charge, including arson with intent to endanger life (life sentence!) - then cop who'd claimed fire had endangered his life (video showing him calmly standing by so obviously a lying little cunt). CPS barrister couldn't carry on with case as lying cop would have had to swear on oath! We all left court with shouts of LOSERS to the cops! (Jane, Facebook Observation 2015).

The second was a rallying cry for the election:

I'd like to wish all the candidates a fucking fine night out at the counts counting the cunts. And I'd also just like to say a big thank you and lots of love to all my comrades for the support since my poor doors arrest. Lovely to be back with you all with no bail conditions! XXXXX (ibid).

After leaving the court, we headed to a nearby pub and we had drinks with the legal team and then I decided I should head back to Croydon to vote. I made my excuses

227

and travelled back south of the river. I was able to call in my flat, pick up my polling card and then make the short walk to the polling station at St Augustine’s Church, just off Brighton Road, South Croydon. I had walked through the grounds of the church on a number of occasions.

Approaching the back entrance, I saw a cat close by. I stopped to stroke it in the sunshine and reflected on the various elections I’d voted in. The first general election was 1997. I was home from university just to vote and had decided to spoil my ballot paper as I felt disenfranchised at the choice on offer. The day before the election the Conservative candidate, Edward Leigh, had come to the village to drum up support. I spoke to him for over an hour explaining my reasons. He told me that spoiling my paper would be a waste. My small-scale protest in 1997 was to write the word, ‘myself’ on the ballot paper. In 2015, my name was right there on the paper, so I could finally vote for myself properly. I would come full circle in my voting behaviour, and I would finally vote for someone I could trust.

I walked through the gate and towards the main entrance of the church. I spotted the UKIP candidate, Kathleen Garner, outside the polling station, no doubt fishing for information again. I went past her, and we exchanged glances. Had she twigged it was me? She looked puzzled. Neither of us said anything. I went in, got the ballot paper and took it to the booth. There was my name and next to it the skull and crossbones of CW. Only seven people would have this experience today. Thousands would see the emblem of the CWP. I wondered what people would make of it. I suddenly felt like I’d spent an age in the booth staring at the paper. I made sure that I was putting the X in the right place, conscious that now I had the chance to vote for myself, I didn’t want to screw it up. And then I was done.

When I left the church Kathleen Garner was waiting. “Can I ask you who you voted for?”

I looked at her sternly. “Who do you think?”

“Oh, I thought I recognised you”.

“See you later”, I added and walked off. It would have been far too easy to get into a silly row with UKIP and there would be plenty of time for that at the count, I thought.

228

Dave (Interview 2017) told me he had an encounter at the polling station with the person handing him the ballot paper. The person said “’have you seen this?”, holding up the ballot paper. Dave asked, “What?” and “he held up the ballot paper… he was pointing at my name on the ballot paper with the Class War logo and he’s saying, “what’s this?”. It hadn’t occurred to me how weird and strange it might be for someone to see” (ibid). It’s not clear if the person was holding it up because he recognised Dave’s name printed alongside the logo, or whether he was doing this routinely whenever anyone voted. It is a reminder of how unusual the logo is in a mainstream setting. It could be argued that it is an action in itself, just having it on a ballot paper.

I got back to Ian and Jane’s and wrote a quick blog post on the court proceedings. Then I took some time to see what else had been going on with regards to the CWP election campaign. A nap was needed but it would have to wait. One discussion that was starting on the Facebook group was the idea of attending a demonstration in Westminster in two days’ time. There was scant information on what the demo was for and for some the priority was to face the English Defence League, the fascists having organised a march in Walthamstow on the same day.

Understandably, a lot of discussion was around supporting the candidates at the counts and declaration. Justine and others were arranging how to support Lisa in Chingford and what time they should arrive. Justine wanted to make sure that people were with Lisa. Around lunchtime, an article from the CWP website was distributed to the group. It called for people to ‘fuck the vot’” and instead ‘prepare for class war’.29

Vote or don’t vote or spoil your ballot paper, it will make no difference. Politicians will sell you and take you for their personal power. Elections are just a choice between spokesmen of the rich. We don’t have to settle for it. We’ve got to get rid of the rich!

This wasn’t quite a “don’t vote” message but it made the more nuanced point that voting wouldn’t achieve the sort of changes CW want to see. The piece went on to encourage people to attend the protest in Westminster on the Saturday after the

29 The CWP website no longer exists.

229

election, now scheduled to take place outside Tory Party HQ and seemingly organised by the group London Black Revolutionaries.

Meanwhile, Andy in Litchfield was taking the “don’t vote” idea further than anyone. He had gone to the polling station, picked up the ballot paper with his name on and taken it home as a souvenir. I didn’t like this at the time. I was thinking of all the effort it took to get on the ballot paper and the stress of being a candidate. However, I also wondered what it would have been like if we’d followed his example consistently throughout the campaign. We might have managed to generate some publicity about the fact that seven candidates had all refused to even vote for themselves, on the principle that the political system is broken. Each candidate could have liberated their ballot paper in the name of anarchism or CW. Dave was unimpressed with the idea. He said, “I wouldn’t personally have gone and campaigned on a ticket of ‘don’t vote’. From a tactical point of view that’s just confusing to people” (Dave Interview 2017).

It had been a long day. I found a small opportunity to rest before the events of the count and declaration would begin. The trial hadn’t really got in the way of the day and it had been a success. It would later impact on how many of my supporters could be at the count. For most candidates it was a day in which they could finally see their ballot paper and vote for themselves. For one candidate it was an opportunity to subvert the process and grab a memento, a small gesture maybe but one laden with irony and potential. That potential required a united strategy and for that reason it was a missed opportunity.

230

Figure 129, Jane, victorious outside the court. Figure 130, A black Rosette. Image credit: CW

Figure 131, Jane, celebrating with her legal team. Figure 132, Andy's ballot paper, unused and framed. Image credit: Litchfield CW.

Figure 133, A promo created by a friend. Figure 134, The "trumpet of change" photo, inspiring the promo, left.

231

Figure 135, On election day I was staying at Ian and Jane’s. Melvin, Figure 136, A CW promo for election day. Jane's dog, wished me luck.

Figure 137, My election night team, preparing in the pub. Figure 138, A CW promo for Lisa, linking her arrest to the election.

Figure 139, Adam's team assemble for the count. Image credit: Murray. Figure 140, A CW promo, subverting one used by the Liberal Democrats.

232

Election Night

This section discusses events at the counts and the declarations of the results. Back on March 24th 2014 the CWP had started sharing a fictionalised account of the 2015 election night. Taken from the film Downfall, which depicts the final days of the Second Word War, the video provides fake words for the Nazi hierarchy, as Hitler realises that he has lost. The CWP version presents David Cameron in the role of Hitler and hints at CWP victories across the board. It was a good bit of propaganda which never failed to raise a smile. It came to my mind on the night itself, over a year later.

Figure 141, Tory HQ learn of CW victories across the board. Image credit: Jane. Click for video. The Croydon South result was expected at around 3am. Helen came to pick me and Jane up to meet the other members of my team in the Spread Eagle pub on Katherine Street, next door to the old town hall building where I’d had my nomination papers processed. This is where the count would be taking place; specifically, an old library room with marble walls and ornate decoration. It was a contrast to all the sports halls I’ve seen on TV, when watching the election night coverage down the years.

233

When I’d gone through the bureaucratic nightmares of getting on the ballot paper, I had also submitted a list of people who would be attending on the evening. The day had been gruelling and I was hugely disappointed that Ian couldn’t attend. I would have found it very interesting to see the founder of CW in the ‘belly of the beast’ as he might have put it.

I still had Jane, Helen, and three other supporters in attendance. I had a non- alcoholic drink in the pub because I knew I’d fall asleep if I had anything else. I talked to the group about what I wanted for the night ahead. I explained that this was our chance to actually speak truth to power. The Conservative candidate would win by a large margin and we should use the opportunity to ensure he was held to account. I wanted the event to annoy him. I wanted to exasperate him and generally cause a nuisance, so that his time in power would start with him feeling deeply uncomfortable. One supporter told me he would be more than happy to follow Philp around for the evening, generally heckling him. I was conscious that I still wanted a team around me at 3am when the declaration came. At that moment, I would be allowed to perform a speech, possibly with TV cameras in attendance. Having a good turnout at the hustings had made all the difference and I wanted to make sure I had back-up when I had my chance to speak. If a supporter or supporters got thrown out for heckling too much, too early, I’d be lacking help when I really needed it. I was assured by the supporter earmarked to annoy Philp, that he knew exactly how far to go without being thrown out.

Across the other six constituencies, CWP candidates were also gathering with their teams, with varying levels of preparedness for direct action and face to face hostility. Apart from one, that is. In Sherwood, Dave stayed at home. The count and declaration was to be held at some country house in rural Nottinghamshire and following some threats from the far right Dave had weighed up his options. He said, “it wasn’t something I’d ever thought about in terms of needing to be there” (Dave Interview 2017). “Everything is done and dusted by that point,” (ibid) he continued. What happened in some of the other constituencies shows that not everything is done and dusted. The votes may be in but the count and declaration is a place where all the parties gather, offering areas of contest and possibilities for subversion.

234

In Cities of London and Westminster, Murray told me that they “got really drunk” (Interview 2017). Justine was at Walthamstow Town Hall for the Chingford and Woodford Green count. She wanted to support Lisa on the night but she also told me that she has “a particular hatred of Iain Duncan Smith” (Interview 2018). “I ended up standing in for her election agent on the night as well” (ibid). Lisa’s election agent had gone AWOL. “He was sending us updates all night really” (ibid), including a message to say he was lost, somewhere in a field with four cans of beer and a cake: a bizarre report he also lodged on the Facebook candidate support page. Back in the Town Hall Justine noted that “the police were watching us constantly. More so the guys than me and Lisa. More so Lisa than me” (Interview 2018).

In Norwich, David had an early encounter with a Labour councillor while he was speaking on live radio, which turned into a melee. “My comrades wanted to get pissed and stoned before we went in” he told me (David Interview 2016). “We went in without any particular plan but we… got there quite early”, he said (ibid). He told me how it had “kicked off” while he was “being interviewed by Future Radio,” when a local Labour councillor “leaned into the microphone and said, ‘I hope you’re not going to say the N word again’” (ibid). “He squared up to me and I squared up to him and within minutes we had two Tories holding us apart” (ibid). David described how the “count descended into utter chaos” (ibid), claiming “there were officers running around trying to stop this happening. There were candidates trying to get in the way. It was exactly what Class War should do at a count really – cause mayhem” (ibid). It is noted, however, that the mayhem wasn’t instigated by the CWP. It was started by the Labour Party, who were provoking David.

It wasn’t nearly so lively in Croydon. When we got to the hall, we immediately noticed how cramped it was. The counters were ready arranged at desks in rows, filling most of the small hall. You couldn’t help but get in the faces of the other candidates. There was a small lobby area and to the opposite side from the hall, the David Lean Cinema. This had been closed by the council, thanks to austerity, but here it was, open tonight and showing the BBC election night results programme. At least we would know which of the austerity parties would be forming a government. It was, at least, a place to gather and watch the results when not in the counting hall. What did

235

the candidates and their supporters do in there anyway? I’ve watched every election night on TV since 1992 and I wasn’t really sure what we were officially here for.

Very early on in the evening I bumped into Gill, the Lib Dem candidate and made some snide comments about her not needing her lever arch file, as she didn’t need to remember the party’s policies now. This was a reference to the way she organised herself at the hustings event. Gill consistently had a very quick and witty put down for me. I quickly learned to give up on that. Who was the enemy that I was trying to cause trouble with? How long can it be kept going? There wasn’t enough energy to have an ongoing battle with the Lib Dem candidate all night.

Back in the cinema the Tories were doing better than expected. The polls had suggested a hung parliament and sure enough the BBC exit poll at 10pm had predicted the Tories as the largest party but ten seats short of a majority (BBC 2015b). Once the real results started to be declared, however, things were looking up for David Cameron’s party. It was possible that the Tories might need a coalition again, or else try to form a minority administration. Hearts sank in those cinema seats. The longer the night went on the harder it got, seeing the country, once again, turn towards the party that harmed the working class the most and most ruthlessly.

Peter, from the Green Party, reported that he’d seen a vote for me. He had been totting up his tally. I wondered if it was my ballot paper, completed a few hours previously. I wanted to say that elections were not a popularity contest but of course that’s exactly what they are. We had all said that we weren’t doing this for votes, that we hated this system, but in the early hours of the morning seeing the thousands of votes pile in for the Tories and for Labour, it wasn’t much fun. Seeing my tally rise so slowly in comparison was ego-bruising. I had really tried to connect to people with my writing for Inside Croydon. I had effectively been campaigning for over a year. I had trudged the streets of Croydon to just get on the ballot paper and I had travelled between London and Loughborough to attend numerous campaign launches and hustings events. I knew I wouldn’t get many votes, but I really wanted so many more. My efforts to rationally explain anarchism hadn’t been converted into votes, and my frustration at this was and still is paradoxical. Apart from just wanting to be popular, it might also relate to the CW subcultural trait of provoking a reaction, but such reactions tending to repel people.

236

By the time I’d reached 10 votes I was learning to accept the lack of popularity. I was secretly focusing on the speech I would deliver later. What was I going to say? I hadn’t even seen Philp yet at the count. What about those moments that could occur where fate ensures Philp and I are alone? What do I say then? Would I be hostile, or would I try to do something less obvious? It struck me that Philp could have a political career lasting many decades. He could reach a ministerial position young, and in theory he could be a leading light of the Conservative Party in a few years. Bumping into him alone could present an opportunity to get under his skin in a different way to simple hostility. I plotted out a scenario in which I would congratulate him before telling him that I think he can achieve any position he wants to. Then I would use the opportunity to request that he really focuses on the harm he could do in his decades long political career. To urge him to be nice in power was my rather pathetic and futile plan.

As it happened, I didn’t see Philp for quite a long time into the night. Two of my party had gone looking for food, away from the Town Hall. Jane had gone home after a tiring day, while the other two were sleepily watching the BBC results programme. For a brief moment I was alone with Emily Benn, at the edge of the counting hall as she finished off a packet of crisps. Salt and Vinegar McCoys: good choice, I thought, we have something in common. We talked pleasantly for a few minutes. Like Gill, she was hardly the enemy. Emily was on the right of the Labour Party and so in theory deserved as much scorn as any Labour candidate. Here she was though, a young candidate given the impossible job of campaigning in a very safe Tory seat. She knew she wouldn’t win. She was here to get some experience. Maybe Labour would repay her in the future, for playing her part in the cosy two party system. The prospect of being mean to her for hours on end, though, wasn’t very appealing. So, we exchanged some uncomfortable small talk.

I went outside to search for members of my party and when doing so the Tory contingent arrived. As Philp’s party was heading into the counting area, I could see one of my supporters coming up the road. I told him that Philp was now inside. In the hall, he started to follow Philp around. Philp was inspecting the piles of ballot papers, assessing how well he was doing. My supporter was very tall and he loomed over the Tory candidate, whispering something in his ear. Immediately, Philp came towards me but only because I was standing next to a security guard. He spoke to

237

the guard saying something about a man attempting to intimidate him, adding “I believe he’s with the anarchist candidate”. The security guard moved off to talk to my supporter and I took my opportunity, grabbing Philp’s attention. “You mean me, I think,” I said to him. “Was he asking you about your tax affairs?” I asked. There had been a report in Inside Croydon the day before the election, concerning the tax paid by a company Philp set up (Inside Croydon 2015d). He told me that everything was above board. I wanted to rile him. I’d already made several jokes throughout the campaign about him continually mentioning that he drove his own van when he started his business. “I bet you didn’t even tax the van”, I said. This did the trick. For a second, I thought he was going to hit me. The stern face; the fierceness in the eyes. This was what I was looking for. Getting punched could have triggered all sorts of excitement in this staid, sterile area. A contrived punch up, in the very room where people were counting the votes, certainly subverts the form. Unfortunately, the moment passed, though, and he took his scowl away. He retreated, sensibly, and I look back on this moment as one where I could have pushed further.

I took my supporter outside. I explained that getting thrown out wouldn’t be very smart at this stage and that my key moment was still the speech. Again, he told me he knew how far to push things. He had made a judgement that the council would not want to be in a position of throwing anyone out because of the press interest that would generate and the disruption it would cause to the counting. While we were talking, the Returning Officer arrived and, seeing us having this animated discussion, asked if everything was alright. He seemed very suspicious of us but I told him all was fine and we headed back in. Meanwhile in Maidenhead, there were similar scenes, with a supporter of Joe’s “following [Theresa May] around calling her a murderer” (Interview 2017). “She seemed less bothered [than the security people],” he concluded.

There was very little to do between then and the declaration. I gave a short interview to the Croydon Guardian. Their journalist, Robert Fisk, told me that the rest of the press were up the road at the Fairfield Halls, where the declarations would be made. It was also where the other Croydon seats were being counted and declared. This was news to me. I had no idea the declaration would take place at a different location. Back in the counting hall, my votes had crept up to 20, then 30 and beyond. We had also crept past 3am and we now had a declaration time of about 6am.

238

Hearts sank further at the news. By this time, the half-awake bodies of candidate supporters were arranged, in sprawls, in the cinema seats at the David Lean. Whole lines seemed to slouch even lower, in unison, at the prospect of an extra three hours.

I went to talk to one of the counters as I was feeling very sorry for them. I asked if they’d seen any votes for me. There was a rumour of some on a table a bit further down, apparently. She asked me what anarchism was. In the early hours of the morning, I suddenly had an opportunity to explain anarchism to someone counting election ballot papers. I gave a short explanation, pleased to exercise my campaign technique of rationally explaining anarchism. After I’d finished, she mentioned riots and petrol bombs, clearly not being totally convinced. I gave a short clarification, about leaderless structures, an end to government and capitalism. I talked about how we could rid ourselves of people in authority. I presented anarchism as the harmonious society I believe could be reached. Her response: “that would never work. It just sounds like anarchy”. I stared at her briefly before giving up and moving on.

One of the ways I’d considered subverting the system was to demand a re-count, despite the result being a foregone conclusion. Normally, re-counts are demanded in close results. What fun, I thought, if we got to 6am and I made them count all over again. Looking at the people doing the counting, finally beginning to wind down and talking to my team I decided against this course of action. There’s no way I could have done it to them or myself. There was still some fun to be had though in looking through the spoilt ballot papers.

Some people had spoilt their ballot papers in imaginative ways like writing their own little manifesto on the paper, others had simply made odd marks and it was for us to argue who the votes should be attributed to. I found this oddly reassuring. There were several ballot papers which had clearly been meant for a particular candidate but filled in technically incorrectly. For example, some people had put ticks instead of crosses. Candidates were asked if they minded whether the votes were attributed to the candidate that the voter had marked their tick against. I liked this because it meant that people could make a mistake in the polling booth but still have their vote cast. It got a little sillier when candidates were arguing over a smudge mark and

239

trying to determine who it was in favour of. Frustratingly, I saw several ballot papers with the words, ‘none of the above’ adorned on them. I kept saying, “but I’m the ‘none of the above’ candidate” to no avail. In Maidenhead, Joe was observing the same phenomena. “Anywhere else a tick would mean they had voted for that person” Interview 2017). Joe ended up acting the arbiter in trying to get people the votes they clearly wanted. “It got to the stage where I would get the first say [on spoilt ballots].” At Cities of London and Westminster, Steve was supporting Adam and he found the count reinforced his dislike of the system. “I just couldn’t believe how revolting the political parties are”, he told me. “I watched them argue over one ballot paper like it’s the end of the universe” (Steve Interview 2016).

In Croydon, there was some hostility between the CWP and UKIP when we were presented with a ballot paper that had comments written against the names of some of the candidates. Against Kathleen Garner for UKIP, the voter had written simply “Herman Gorring”. Garner initially laughed at this and then said, ‘that’s not how you spell Goering’”. “Fancy the UKIP candidate knowing that”, I got in quickly, to which one CWP supporter loudly added “it doesn’t surprise me you know that, you Nazi cunt”. Garner’s partner went very red in the face and then scurried off for security muttering something about having us thrown out.

Once the spoiled ballots were allotted, we were told that the result would be made known to us in a few minutes. We would then make our way to the Fairfield Halls for the declaration by the mayor. I came seventh out of seven with a massive 65 votes.30 I had been beaten even by the bizarre Putting Croydon First candidate. We finally made our way to the declaration.

The count offers hours of potential for subverting the official process. Perhaps the greatest subversion on the night though came from Dave, who simply didn’t attend his count in Sherwood. Looking back, it is a part of the process that could require strategic thinking. The tiredness makes it a hard slog. The close proximity to the enemy creates possibilities, outweighed by the fact that closeness lasts for hours. The way I handled it in Croydon South: by being there all night, with a roaming

30 See Appendix Four for the results from all seven constituencies.

240

hostile group of supporters, didn’t really work. The exciting thing, for everyone involved, was that it was over. Well, bar the ranting at the declaration.

The Declaration

Once at the Fairfield Halls I went to Emily Benn and said, “bad luck Emily”. I suspect she didn’t know whether I was serious or not, considering that we all knew she wouldn’t win and so she gave me a rather dismissive “thanks,” and moved away. It was at this time, that I realised that the couple who were supporting her all through the evening were her parents. Emily’s grandfather, Tony Benn, had famously renounced his peerage to gain election to the House of Commons. Since his death, the heir to the title and Emily’s father, Stephen Wedgewood-Benn, had reclaimed it to become the Viscount Stansgate. I had repeatedly asked Emily via Twitter for her views on this but never got a response.

Standing here before me then, was a Lord, a man that could seek election to the House of Lords through his fellow hereditary peers, in the most elitist of democratic processes. I had to do something and there wasn’t much time. Tony Benn’s five questions for people in power came to my mind. I had to have a word with the Viscount Stansgate immediately. I strode over to him and asked him very simply, “why did you reclaim your father’s title?” He was startled and said “Look. My father died” and then told me that I shouldn’t be making politics out of that situation. He walked away. I followed him. I explained that I was simply interested in why he reclaimed the title. Again, he told me that I was trying to make an issue out of his father’s death and walked away. I was astonished by this refusal to discuss the matter. The way he was backing out of the discussion, using the death of his father, was horrendous. I later wrote a blog post, explaining how the Viscount Stansgate was not willing to answer the five questions his father suggested we pose to people in power. This had been an unexpected opportunity to speak truth to power and had I recognised him earlier in the evening, the night might have panned out differently. If I’d thought about the possibility of him being there, I would have planned some activity around this.

241

It was time for the result to be announced. I went onto the small platform with the other candidates and the result was announced. I had had no sleep, I had spent the day in court and traveling around London but still had a speech to deliver. I had three people left in the room to support me and I had a rough idea of what I wanted to say.

Philp had won with 31,448 votes. Benn received 14,308 votes. Garner got 6,068 for UKIP and Hickson 3,448 for the Lib Dems. The rest of the candidates lost their deposits of £500. Underwood got 2,154 for the Greens, Samuel 221 for his Putting Croydon First idea and then me a distant seventh with just 65.

Philp got the cheers from the crowd in the venue and congratulations from the candidates. He was invited to make his speech and as he did so he came towards me with his hand outstretched. “Will you shake it now?” he asked. Should I shake the hand of the victorious Tory? He was offering me the opportunity for civility but with it, an opportunity for rebellion. “Fuck off!” I shouted and it was the last thing anyone said to him before he accepted his new role as a Member of Parliament. “That, to me, is what Class War is about” Helen told me after witnessing the exchange (Interview 2015).

On the speeches, Andy (Interview 2017) takes the view that, “the only time a losing candidate’s words are of any interest to anybody is if they were the incumbent and they’d lost.” There is truth in this but I was determined to use the opportunity and try to grab some attention for what we’d been standing for.

Philp did the standard Tory victory speech. The part that angered me, as this man started his career in national politics, was the thanks he gave to the police. That day, I’d watched them change the charges against Jane, time and again. Their incompetency and their devious efforts to get Jane imprisoned, ensured I was in no mood to listen to this propaganda. I was invited to speak by the mayor and took the lectern.

At the time of the speech, it was clear that the Tories would be heading to government but perhaps not with an overall majority. One of the main things I wanted to get across, was that they had lost every election from 1992, yet since 2010 we have had to suffer them in government.

242

Well forgive me if I don’t thank the Metropolitan Police but yesterday I spent most of the day in court supporting a friend who was on trumped up charges by those bastards. Let’s not forget that the Metropolitan Police have the power to murder people in broad daylight and get away with it. (Bigger Declaration Speech 2015).

It was at this point I realised that, unlike at the count where we had been limited to a handful of supporters, the declaration was packed with Tories who were now jeering me loudly. One of my supporters managed to be heard above the jeers, by shouting erroneously, “Yes, who killed Michael Duggan?”, meaning Mark Duggan, the killing of whom had lit the spark for the demonstrations in London and other parts of England in 2011. I continued:

Let’s just think about this election because the Tories keep losing general election after general election but we seem to be stuck with them don’t we? It’s absolutely scandalous. And we know what happens don’t we? We know every single time that they get in we see attacks on the poorest people in society. People will die because of this man here… (ibid)

I jabbed a finger repeatedly in Philp’s direction. One of my supporters shouted “murderer” several times and the Tories started shouting “shame” at me. My words were drowned for a while when I was linking Tory policies of austerity to deaths in working class communities. I wanted to make important points about food banks and people starving in 21st century Britain and then I made a rallying call, thinking forward to the protest planned for the coming Saturday:

I will tell you this. In the next few days if the Tories try to form a government, this country needs to mobilise, get onto the streets and make sure that they cannot. We need to wreck everything they plan to do (ibid).

To clapping from my three supporters and a shout of “well done Jon” I went back to stand with the candidates. It was a fiery speech, delivered on an empty stomach and a lack of sleep. “Where you got the strength to do that I really don’t know,” Helen said later (Interview 2015).

243

Figure 142, My Croydon South speech. Click for video. In Cities of London and Westminster, Adam was first up on stage. “He was in a very little skirt and those legs go on forever” JayJay told me (Interview 2017).

Adam cared about going up on stage, obviously. He was first up the steps and he looked behind him and the others hadn’t followed him up. He had the stage to himself and didn’t know what to do so he pulled his skirt up. There were some Labour people next to [us watching] and they said ‘he’s just sending the whole thing up, it’s a disgrace (Murray Interview 2017).

In Maidenhead, “only Theresa May was allowed to be given a speech,” according to Joe (Interview 2017). This prevented his plan to go over her record in office over immigration and gay rights (ibid). Joe opted for plan B and relied on heckling instead, as she delivered her speech. “Neither the BBC nor Sky broadcast Theresa May’s acceptance speech because my act was to call her a murderer, as she was walking up and then as she walked off stage. All the other 14 or so people [for the CWP] were then heckling her”, Joe told me (Interview 2017). “She was taken aback by that and clearly upset about it” (ibid). It was a similar situation in Walthamstow Town Hall where “it was only Duncan Smith that got to say a few words” (Justine 2018). Patrick “heckled Duncan Smith during his speech somewhat” but “we weren’t able to do

244

anything that made an impact” (ibid). Meanwhile, In Lichfield, Andy stuck to his ‘don’t vote’ message even now. He’d said the whole process was all just theatre and he “grabbed the microphone and stated ‘the pantomime’s over. We can all go home’” (Andy Interview 2017).

Very soon afterwards I gave thanks to my supporters and then Helen and I headed back to her car for the journey to Ian and Jane’s house. We reflected on being so tired and also being so fed up that the Tories had done so well.

It was all over. At Ian and Jane’s, I put the TV on to check the results. Ian joined me and we discussed the night. He hadn’t heard about my speech but the video was already on the Facebook support group and so we watched it. He congratulated me. I watched the results for a while and could see now that the Tories would be forming a government. After an hour or so, I went to sleep exhausted.

Chapter Conclusion

This chapter has told the story of the CWP election campaign in 2015, using four campaign styles as a guide. They were protest campaigning, getting face to face with the enemy, rationally explaining anarchism and a stance of ‘don’t vote’. Each candidate was given autonomy over their campaign. The chapter considered key areas of campaigning, referencing the campaign styles when appropriate.

These events, retold here, show both the possibilities and the problems of a radical election campaign. They highlight how spaces, created purely for the election, can be subverted and utilised for direct action. The hustings events are a good example of this but the pitfalls are highlighted too. Some things worked better than others and the name calling at the Cities of London hustings is a good example of ineffective direct action. The campaign launch in Soho worked extremely well because of the area and the distinct character of the candidate. Leaflets could have been utilised to better effect. It is hard to control media attention, but as Andy showed in Lichfield, radicals can take advantage of local press, desperate for material to publish. The election night and the declarations are hard to subvert because of tiredness and the hours of being in close proximity to those people marked out as the enemy. It

245

dampens spontaneity and therefore, would benefit from strategic planning. My speech in Croydon South was something that I was determined to carry out and Andy’s was a neat way of pointing out the futility of the system.

The election was not over though. A thorough examination of what worked and what didn’t is contained in the overall conclusion. The aftermath to the election was just as dramatic as the campaign itself. It resulted in national media attention, focused on election candidates and supporters of the CWP, with a renewed indignation regarding the dangers of anarchism. As a movement, CW had now got the attention of the media in ways nobody had prepared for.

246

Chapter 6

The Aftermath

During the months that followed the election, it was decided to deregister the CWP, preventing the urge for any further excursions into electoral politics. There was little appetite to be a political party now the election was over and candidates at the meeting were adamant that they would never want to stand again. The CWP was at an end and CW, as a social movement, was back. However, the excursion into electoral politics had been noticed. The direct action, as always, continued, and it would attract attention from the mainstream media to an extent it hadn’t during the election campaign. In writing this chapter I have considered the following research questions:

• To what extent can a legacy from the election begin to be seen in these first few weeks following the poll? • What do these events tell us about radical election campaigns and the pressures they place on people?

This chapter includes a description of CW’s visit to Whitehall two days after the election; the day of the Queen’s Speech, and a protest organised by the People’s Assembly. Once these three events were over, I took a rest from political activity and a holiday. CW activity continued with another Fuck Parade and then I was back in time for the first of the protests at a newly opened museum in east London dedicated to the Jack the Ripper murders. The chapter then moves on to discuss activities in the autumn including a period of intense negative publicity following a further Fuck Parade, which included an altercation at a focus point for gentrification in the East End of London: a café specialising in breakfast cereal.

What these months tell us is that elections do not simply come and go. They may be discussed in such terms as the ‘2015 general election’, for example, but they are wrongly considered as one off events. Their influence can be felt weeks, months and years later. That is true of the big policy decisions by the major governing parties but it is also true of the minor parties and their candidates. It was emerging that electoral politics had made a difference to those involved. The name for the study of voting behaviour, psephology, comes from the ancient Greek for pebble, as citizens used to

247

drop pebbles into jars to register their vote. Each part of the CWP election campaign was as if those involved had taken their pebbles and, instead of voting with them, had dropped them in a lake. The ripples were spreading outwards over time, hitting the banks of the lake and rebounding. They are still doing so. The election campaign they waged occasionally impacts on wider politics today. Two days after the election CW gathered in Whitehall for a protest. It would be the first instance where the impact of the election would be felt.

The Summer of Thuggery

Whitehall Disorder

I’d watched much of Friday’s BBC election coverage with Ian. We talked about the inevitable resignations to come throughout the day. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg duly obliged. Martin Wright (who had been involved with CW since the early days) rang Ian and spent some time discussing issues of psephology. What mattered now to CW was the direction that a Tory government, unfettered by the Lib Dems, would take. Our fears were that we would see increased attacks on the poor and vulnerable. We had expected a hung parliament, with days of discussions by the parties, leading to some coalition government. What we’d got was a Tory government that should last five years, barring anything ludicrous happening.31 Opposing it would be a challenge.

In the afternoon, I went with Jane for a walk in Norwood Country Park with her dog, Melvin. We talked more about the CW activity on election night than the overall result. Of particular interest, was the CWP election agent in Chingford and his Facebook post about getting the wrong bus and ending up in the middle of nowhere, with some cake and a four pack of lager. Neither of us was convinced, assuming that they probably just couldn’t be bothered in the end. Thankfully, Lisa hadn’t been alone at the count but it highlighted again just how thinly spread we were in terms of support. It mirrored the issues many of the candidates and potential candidates had faced, just trying to get on the ballot paper. Two or three extra active supporters in

31 The word ‘Brexit’ had not yet been coined. The elections of 2017 and 2019 could not be foreseen.

248

each constituency could have made everything a lot easier, for each of the candidates.

The following day, I arrived at the protest at around 2:30pm and got a pint from the Red Lion pub, historically a drinking hole for politicians, journalists and civil servants but also a busy tourist pub. JayJay turned up next and we watched an odd bunch of around 20 protesters, marching up and down Whitehall with homemade placards. I feared that this would be the extent of the protest; a boring affair that simply accepted the election result without the anger we felt. When Jane arrived, she started to hand out the CW posters declaring David Cameron a ‘wanker’. These went very quickly to the growing group of protesters. We stayed near the pub for a while to see how things would develop. Eventually, I walked with the protest. It meandered spontaneously from point to point, including trips to the Tory HQ, before finding itself outside Parliament, where the police were attempting to stop the protesters from leaving Parliament Street at the end of Whitehall. The protesters were pushing the police line, simply because it was there. They successfully pushed it back and broke it into fragments. The police had to leave and regroup. This was the first indication that perhaps the authorities weren’t quite ready for a protest. It was growing all the time, with each new band of police reinforcements being met with an increase in protesters. In Parliament Square, a tourist walked up to a police officer to ask what was happening. The officer replied, “it’s an anti-democracy protest”, providing an insight into the police views that day (or perhaps merely the view of that particular officer).

In the previous chapter it was explained that the protest planned for Whitehall coincided with a far right gathering in Walthamstow. Many of the CW people that had gone there, came back just as the protest was altering in tone. It increased our numbers and the protest as whole swelled. I was now close to Downing Street, with most of the CW group standing near the Cenotaph. I went to join them. In front of us, a group of protesters had decided to do a sit-down protest. Someone shouted for everyone to sit down so that we could prove to the police that we’re all peaceful. I shouted back that people should stand up, telling them all that the police will have an easy day if everyone sits politely.

249

A few moments later, the sit down protest ended, as the police forcibly cleared the area, marching officers right through the middle of it. Those sitting down got up as quickly as they could, darting for safety. There appeared to be pushing and shoving near to the gates at Downing Street. I went for a closer look. When I did so I then realised that there was more shoving from where I’d come from. A blue smoke bomb had been set off. A line of police officers was advancing backwards towards me, being pushed by protesters, from the Trafalgar Square end of Whitehall. Shouts of “withdrawal” sprang up from the police lines. I didn’t move when they reached me. An officer turned around and advanced towards me, clearly ready to strike. When I backed off, fearing being hit he looked at me and said, “yeah, exactly”. In the distance I saw a traffic cone flying through the air. It struck the head of a police officer.

The battles with the police lasted at least a couple more hours. For a time, myself, Helen and Murray were kettled, along with perhaps 150 people, near the Ministry of Defence. We were pushed along Whitehall by the police. At one point I was shoved hard against some railings. The officer was telling us to move back and kept saying “this is a sterile area”. “You can say that again”, I shouted back, thinking it was a great description of the street where the Executive congregates to conduct its business. The officer couldn’t see that I was pinned against a bicycle that was locked to the railing. On giving me another shove, I took a tumble, landing on a knee with another protester landing on top of me. We scrambled up, a dull ache developing in the knee that had softened my fall. Moments later the kettle was broken and we were free to go. I decided that it was enough for one day.

The following morning, I headed back to Loughborough and as I passed a newsagent, I saw the headline on the Mail on Sunday: ‘Hate Mob in No.10 Rampage. Their online article going further: ‘Anarchist mob plotting a summer of thuggery’ (Martin 2015). This article cited CW a number of times. ‘[M]embers of anarchist group Class War – who clashed with riot police in Whitehall over the weekend – released incendiary posters calling on comrades to take part in violent protests later this month’ (ibid). Indeed, CW used the extra publicity of the riot to their advantage by encouraging people to disrupt the State Opening of Parliament, attempting to ignite public anger at the prospect of another five year term in office for the Tories.

250

The Mail article highlighted some CW propaganda from Facebook: ‘Class War wrote on Facebook that it 'salutes all those who fought the cops at Downing Street yesterday. We are a hate mob. We hate the f****** rich32, the Tories and the cops,'’ before going on to explain that four police officers had been injured during the protest (ibid). CW had been busy on social media after the event. As discussed in the section looking at the history of CW, the pages of Class War often contained a ‘Hospitalised Copper’ on page three. This was resurrected for Facebook and Twitter. The second of these was a picture of the police officer, receiving the knock to their head via the flying traffic cone. Mimicking the alliterative captions from The Sun, which accompany their page three pictures of topless women, the caption read ‘P.C.CONEHEAD'S CONK CRUSHED BY COLLIDING CONE - CONGRATULATIONS CONSTABLE CRAPHEAD’ (CW Facebook 2015a).

As the Mail had predicted, the same ‘violent mob’ would be protesting at the State Opening of Parliament. CW capitalised on their phraseology but subverted the idea by showing lines of riot police, rather than the black clad anachists the Mail would have envisaged. On the CW Facebook page a picture of a t-shirt Murray had got made up was being shared. It declared that 2015 was indeed the ‘Summer of Thuggery’, just as the Daily Mail had proclaimed. The caption next to the picture read ‘A must for this year's discerning rioter...... another CW sensation...’ (CW Facebook 2015b).

It emerged that during the protest, somebody had written the words ‘fuck Tory scum’ on a war memorial commemorating the sacrifice made by women during World War Two. This was featured heavily in the Mail article. I tweeted a great deal from the protest and afterwards. The defacing of a war memorial, commemorating women who had lost their lives defeating fascism, did not go down well with CW. There were many CW comrades fighting the far right in another part of London that day. I shared the view that it was not a suitable target for graffiti, but I tweeted about it, trying to be humorous because I also didn’t think it was the most important thing in the world. I tweeted a remark about the words being easy to clean off. It appears that these remarks (presumably amplified by the fact that I was an election candidate) had gained the attention of the Mail. A Daily Mail journalist was snooping around various

32 The original CW post did not include this censorship displayed in the Mail.

251

Lincolnshire locations, gathering information about me and had left his telephone number with my cousin. He’d tried, without success, to interview my father but he had managed to track down my mother, asking her questions about why I was an anarchist. Getting very little, she had later observed him going down the street knocking on the doors of neighbours. I spoke to Ian about how to handle the press. I was toying with the idea of ringing the journalist and Ian told me this was a good idea. He pointed out that what they would try to do is write a story about me being privileged and middle class, in order to present a story about the ‘hypocritical’ nature of my activism.

Indeed, in October 2016 a fellow PhD student at Loughborough went through exactly this treatment by the Mail. James, a fellow anarchist, was researching the migrant camp in Calais and the violence subjected against people there through the system (Murphy 2015). The headline Call him Doctor Anarchy: YOU funded this student to study violence in the Calais Jungle... and guess what? He’s in the ‘No Borders’ group linked to the camp riots, was the start of an article framed to do two things. The first was to suggest that anarchist research should not be publicly funded. The second was to show that James had a good upbringing, grew up in a nice area and therefore should not be involved in such matters. I feared such a report about myself.

At this stage I could only guess how the University would respond to such a report about me. I gained an insight into the possible reaction when I was approached at a football match on campus, by a senior operations officer, the night before the Mail article on James was published. They told me that James had been told to be quiet on the matter. When I suggested it was a good opportunity for the university to robustly promote the research, I was left with the impression that management wanted the incident to blow over quickly.

The day after I spoke to Ian, I set my alarm early with the intention of ringing the journalist at an unsociable hour. He answered the phone.

“Hello, I’m Jon Bigger. I understand you’re planning to write a story about me. I thought you might want to interview me directly, rather than just people who may know me”.

252

He was taken off guard. He told me he needed his pen and paper and I heard what I assumed was frantic rummaging in a bag or maybe even a desk close to his bed. I was enjoying the sense of panic from him I could feel down the line.

He asked me some basic questions about what he considered my ‘humble’ background, confirming to me that Ian’s assessment was spot on. He talked about the family business being small. He asked me why I was an anarchist, to which I replied, blandly, that I believed in freedom and equality. Finally, I thought, an opportunity to use the original slogan on my election leaflets.

I conducted an interview around the same time with the Croydon Guardian. With both interactions, I got the sense that the journalists suspected I was responsible for the defacing of the war memorial. In the case of the Croydon Guardian, a report was published, written by their politics correspondent Robert Fisk. His report said ‘[t]he exhaustion of a long-fought election campaign and a sleepless Thursday was not enough to keep a parliamentary hopeful from protesting outside Downing Street’ (Fisk 2015).

In the first edition though, the word ‘protesting’ read ‘rioting’. I contacted Robert by email and asked him to change a few things and he did so, taking out the references to me undertaking anything that could be considered criminal. I had built up a good working relationship with Robert during the campaign. In fact, he contacted me for solidarity some months later when journalists at the paper went on strike, figuring correctly that I would instinctively be on his side. Fisk’s article was full of quotes from our interview. It had been an opportunity for me to explain why we were protesting and why the election result didn’t just have to be accepted, as this selection shows:

‘At the declaration on Friday morning I said people need to mobilise as quickly as possible and I’m glad that people did.’

‘What I want is five years of rebellion, five years of civil disobedience.’

‘Every time the Tories try to do something with their Government, we will protest against it.’

‘We are not going to give in, we are not going to give up. We are not going to stop fighting.’

253

‘The £12bn cuts will cause widespread devastation. We will see more suicides, NHS privatisation and more foodbanks.’ (Jon in Fisk, 2015).

I was now feeling as though my speech at the Croydon South declaration had actually set the scene for much recent CW activity. Of course, I was just one person and others were more active than me. It shows though, how someone can have influence within the group by their actions. For example, Adam’s direct action on the Daily Politics show, had enabled CW to reach new people and in a fashion never achieved before. In Lichfield, the stunt of replacing Michael Fabricant with a stick and a wig had also set the tone for irreverent hustings. Each of us was having an impact in different ways.

The urge I felt to check the news every day for a potential attack piece by the Daily Mail, was exceedingly stressful. At the same time, with CW using publicity to maximise interest in the hope of increasing boots on the ground for direct action, I was also hoping for it. I found myself in the centre of that urge within CW for action and controversy, with one feeding off the other. It was very much taking its toll on me, though. When a report failed to materialise, I was relieved to stop my daily look at the Daily Mail. Our next stop would be the State Opening of Parliament and after the protest in Whitehall, CW seemed to suddenly have a heightened significance.

254

Figure 143, An officer stands on a placard in Parliament Figure 144, Discussing the protest with David Graeber, Lisa and Square, denoting the percentage of people that voted for Martin Wright. Image credit: Romayne Phoenix. parties other than the Tories.

Figure 145, The Lucy banner outside Downing Street. Figure 146, The Mail on Sunday, the next morning.

Figure 147, Image used by CW for a new ‘Hospitalised Figure 148, CW enter into the spirit of things. Copper’, shared to their Facebook page.

255

Figure 149, The Whitehall protest turns ugly. Click for video.

Figure 150, At Downing Street, the police are pinned back but retaking control. Click for video.

Figure 151, Inside the kettle we are pushed and I take a tumble. Click for video.

256

The State Opening of Parliament

It was a hot day on Wednesday June 27th. There were thousands of people lining the route between the two palaces: Buckingham and Westminster. It would prove hard to move through the crowd and any opportunities to disrupt the events would be impossible. I called at Ian and Jane’s on the way, helping to carry some banners to the event. Once we got to the pub where we’d arranged to meet people, we saw Jenny and Stan, then Adam and Murray arrived and later Justine. We headed towards Parliament Square and started to be followed by police officers. As we went through the crowd, we all got separated into smaller groups. There was a large police presence and as we passed officers, their radios burst into life.

“That’s Ian Bone”, I heard from one, “Follow him!”. Clearly our public profile was high enough following the election, the Whitehall protest and the resulting ‘summer of thuggery’ publicity, to earmark us for special attention.

“We’ve got two people with a banner. It says, ‘all fucking wankers’ on it”, came from another officer’s radio as I passed. That was Stan and another who made a valiant effort to ensure the banner was in place above the crowd at the end of Parliament Street, before being forced to take it down amid the risk of arrest. Meanwhile, Adam and Murray were delayed with a talking to from the police. Murray told me later that the police had said over the radio, “We’ve found the one in the orange wig.” To which Adam replied, “How do you know it’s a wig? My luscious locks are real.” The rest of us finally waded our way into Parliament Square.

I could see that the police were congregating in groups around people they didn’t like the look of. I witnessed a man being dragged away for holding a banner up which read, ‘Austerity is Stupid’. Nothing could be allowed to spoil the monarch doing her constitutional duty, of reading out the lines written for her by No.10. After a while in the square, we knew that the chances for subversion or meaningful protest of any kind were fruitless. There was really only one thing for it: the pub! We found one between the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and Methodist Central Hall a few minutes’ walk away and settled in. Once inside, it became clear that we had a police escort, with officers and an armoured van parked outside. Now that CW had a base, it became clear it also had a brilliant turn out, with people reminiscing in the pub. There were some old hands, as well people who had got involved with the CWP.

257

As the day wore on, there was talk of a protest in Trafalgar Square later in the day. I joined a CW grouping walking up Whitehall, followed by three armoured police vans. Others stayed in the pub. Student group, the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) were the protest organisers. As we congregated in the square, those vans stayed with us throughout. There was no doubt that today, unlike the riot in Whitehall after the election, they were ready. Indeed, in a surreal moment before the protest, police suddenly swooped into the square and took away a man for no obvious reason. The rumour was that they had recognised him from that Whitehall protest but nobody was sure. It added to the tension of being monitored and followed all day long. We would wait all afternoon in the square, being watched, for the protest to start at 5pm.

When the NCAFC rally began CW stole the show, getting the banner onto the main section of the plinth supporting Nelson’s Column. Getting a cheer when it was unfurled meant that the group’s message was on photos of the event and the videos that were uploaded and shared on social media in the days ahead. Chants of, “one war, class war” rang out across the square. After a few speeches I headed for home. It had been a long and hot day, mainly just to stand around. Maybe there was the potential for more interesting political action now that the tourist crowds had gone. I figured the police interest in CW would probably prevent that.

While traveling, Murray texted me to tell me more people had turned up to the square to protest. A spontaneous march was on the move. Later that night, it emerged that UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell, had been surrounded while heading for an underground station. Protesters apparently shouted, “UKIP Scum” and there was some pushing and shoving (Quinn 2015). When the media wrote up the events of the day, CW once again got the headlines. An article in the Mirror detailing arrests during the day was accompanied by photos of Stan parading in Parliament Square with a Class War flag (Bloom 2015).

It had been a frustrating morning and an afternoon of waiting but once the NCAFC protest started and the tourists had dispersed things became more interesting for CW. Well, those that had left the pub, at least. It had been another day resulting in column inches as the Summer of Thuggery continued. CW had the attention of the media to an extent that hadn’t been witnessed for many years.

258

Figure 152, State Opening of Parliament, promo 1. Figure 153, State Opening of Parliament, promo 2.

Figure 154, State Opening of Parliament, promo 3: Figure 155, A CW poster from around the time of the Subverting the mainstream narrative. State Opening of Parliament.

259

Figure 156, CW flag waving in Parliament Square. Figure 157, The view from the pub.

Figure 158, The police waiting outside for CW. Figure 159, Followed by police vans all day.

Figure 160, CW hog the stage. Image Credit: Facebook Candidate Support Group.

260

End Austerity Now – Another People’s Assembly Protest

By 2015, the slogan ‘end austerity now’ seemed a bit feeble to me. Five years of Tory / Lib Dem rule had been replaced by a full blown Conservative government and austerity was very much on their agenda. Such a slogan, at the start of a new term of government seemed to be an admission of failure over the preceding five years. The People’s Assembly proposed a protest on June 20th under this heading, however, and the trade unions obliged with huge support. The Labour movement was about to have a day out in the sun. As it got nearer it seemed that a large CW contingent would be on hand.

Frustrated by the simple idea of a march from the Bank of England to Parliament on a day when both would be closed, CW organised to arrive an hour early and planned to behave in such a way that would prevent a kettle by the police (Neilan 2015).

Class War slammed the End Austerity Now demonstration, which tens of thousands of people are expected to attend, as “boring A-to-B marches organised by self-appointed committees working alongside police, with dull speeches either end” saying it was “kettling our anger.”

The group said: “We intend to occupy this belly of the beast [the Bank of England]. We didn't choose it, on a day when it's closed. But we will not march away from it into a Parliament Square "kettle" for speeches we have all heard before.”

It added: “If there is violence on Saturday, it will come first from the State and its police forces. If we are attacked, we will defend ourselves” (ibid).

From the moment the People’s Assembly announced their event, CW were urging for something more radical. When it was rumoured that the end of the protest would include a picnic the following was posted on their Facebook page:

'THE PEOPLE’S PICNIC'...... it gets worse.....the PA ANTI-AUSTERITY MARCH has now become 'THE PEOPLES PICNIC and music festival'. Just in case you were harbouring any nasty hostile thoughts we are now to be treated to two hours of ambient whale music before you get in your coach

261

home at 5pm prompt. The tens of thousands who want to express some anger or....do something will be offered a picnic. A FUCKNG PICNIC - THEY ARE OFF THEIR FUCKING ROCKERS!! Meanwhile in another part of the city CLASS WAR and MANY others who are angry and pissed off will be on the streets. Ask yourselves - have you come all this way for a fucking picnic!!! (CW Facebook 2015c).

The mood within CW as this event approached changed dramatically. I stayed with Ian and Jane the night before. Reports were reaching us of people being arrested and given bail conditions to prevent them attending the protest. This was also noted in the article quoted above (Neilan 2015). It seemed that the police were swooping on people they saw as trouble-makers from the Whitehall protest. We started to feel uneasy about how high on their list of priorities we may be. On June 13th the Mail on Sunday had once again written about CW and this time claimed to have undercover reporting to highlight what they called the ‘[a]usterity riot plot of the facemask anarchists’ (Mohamed and Ellery 2015). I was worried this might include the information they had been gathering about me. I prepared myself, expecting to see tweets I’d written, with a subplot around my ‘middle class’ upbringing and my penchant for enjoying the odd afternoon tea.

The Mail article didn’t feature me, however. Ian had managed to get an interview into the article, in the process criticising the organisers for inviting celebrity Russell Brand, as one of their chief speakers at the end of march rally:

Last night, Ian Bone, the founder of Class War, said: ‘We are not going to be there to cause violence but if the police wade in then we will defend ourselves. I think this will be the biggest gathering of Class War militants because of the Tory election and five more years of their government. We are not planning just to occupy the Bank of England for one day, but overnight and the following day too.’ He added: ‘I think Russell Brand is a waste of space and will not stay the course’ (ibid).

The vast majority of the article focused on what the so-called ringleaders of the planned disruption, had said in meetings; meetings with no official CW

262

involvement.33 The suggestion that the Mail had undercover reporters at these meetings, is offset by the fact that these were public events, where anyone could attend and state their opinions. The meetings were not therefore ones in which detailed planning was taking place by the organisers. Indeed, the video accompanying the online report, merely showed a protester talking about “disrupting the narrative” of the march, by utilising Twitter hashtags or stopping at St Paul’s Cathedral, to set up a camp like that of Occupy London Stock Exchange (ibid). Regardless, CW found pictures of the two reporters and added them to their Facebook (CW Facebook 2015d) page, warning activists of their appearance.

The article had been hyperbolic, but at Ian and Jane’s, the night before the protest, we started discussing the possibility of police knocking at the door in the middle of the night, arresting us on some charge or another and keeping us safely locked away for the day. There was a feeling of foreboding that night. The weeks since the election had heralded some of the most violent protests in London for a number of years. CW had been there and was seen (at least by some newspapers) as one of the orchestrators of the ‘trouble’. It felt like we were being taken seriously and that there would be consequences for that. As Justine told me later “there was a sense of threat” around the protest (Interview 2018).

There were no knocks at the door in the middle of the night. I made my way to the protest separately from Ian and Jane. Eventually I found the start of the protest, only to then get a text telling me CW were congregating near St Paul’s Cathedral. This was to be no Occupy! style camp though. There were more CW people than I’d seen since the Poor Doors protest, which had coincided with the London Anarchist Bookfair the previous October, and some people I didn’t recognise. I was never sure what to expect of Adam in terms of clothing. On this occasion he was wearing a top which included large fake breasts and holding a baby doll he was pretending to nurse. A red wig and love heart shades adorned his head. Al was holding his toy (but quite realistic looking) chainsaw. Or maybe it was a real chainsaw that just looked like a toy. There were lots of punks and plenty of people clad in black. We were going to stand out today more than usual.

33 It is possible that people involved with CW were at the meetings but as individuals rather than representatives of the movement.

263

Having publicly announced that we would not do the A-B march suggested by the organisers, we hadn’t actually discussed what we would do instead. There was a vague idea that we would intercept the march and show off our banners. This included a large banner based on the Class War front page depicting a graveyard, with the legend ‘we have found new homes for the rich’. The original image for this was reminiscent of the film poster for Oh, What a Lovely War, a film based on a play about elite power politics and the manipulation of workers sent to the slaughter of the First World War. The poster for the film and the CW equivalent focused on what was obviously a First World War graveyard. This new version was darker, lacking the already subtle link to the film poster. It didn’t appeal to me for this reason and I avoided holding it.

After some trailing around, with disagreements about where would be best to congregate, someone pointed down an alley which led to a raised platform. It was a vantage point where CW could stand, with the marchers parading below them. It had a Soviet military parade feel to it, with CW standing like the Communist Party’s highest figures above the marching troops below. Perched on the edge of this raised area, I could see to the left in the distance the protesters turn a corner, their trade union banners and placards held high. They filed past us in their tens of thousands.

To the left I saw a group of CW lookalikes, with one man in a gasmask. I had seen him (or someone dressed exactly like him) at the Whitehall riot. A trade union friend later told me that she found CW frightening in their gas masks as she and her family filed past. In Chapter Four, I discussed interviewing the main players in the CWP. These were always people I knew. Who is and who isn’t CW, is perhaps difficult to determine from outside of the movement and the subculture. I considered explaining to my friend that they weren’t with CW and that we’re not scary and then I remembered the chainsaw, the dark banner with its gravestones and the looming presence we had on that platform.

From below the raised area CW looked formidable indeed, gasmasks or not. The banners dominated and looking like an eclectic mix of punks and misfits we got everyone’s attention. People stared right to view us as they marched past, again giving the illusion of an ad hoc military parade. The rest of the protesters looked like they were having a family day out; they may even really have had picnics, for the

264

rally at the end. People didn’t salute CW as they passed. Many looked a little shocked. Others cheered and clapped. One person wanted to have a picture with our banner but they were holding a placard made by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). This did not go down well with Justine. “This was just a bit of a red mist moment”, she told me (Interview 2018). “Some guy was twatting about. He wanted to be photographed in front of our banner with an anonymous mask and an SWP placard and I didn’t want him to. He was twatting about and he wasn’t listening to anybody and I just wrestled his placard off him” (ibid). He looked shocked and headed off.

Back on our platform, the last of the marchers were in view. Some in CW wanted to join them and others wanted to go to the pub. The pub won for most, mainly because we’d made a great deal about not marching. Some did head off though. I went to the pub. We had been at the platform for 90 minutes, watching people file past. There is something eerie about the tail end of a protest march. Gradually the roads are reopened and life gets back to normal. Before long there is no sign that a protest happened at all, save the odd discarded placard.

A group of us from various parts of the Midlands discussed the setting up of a regional CW group. The Robin Hoods, or The Robyn Hoods, or maybe The Robyn Hoodz. Some name would emerge, alongside a vague plan for a banner drop at Nottingham castle. Later I would work with Foxy, describing what I would like a banner to look like, for him to design.

Then people started talking about getting back out there and heading towards the rally in Parliament Square. The police had monitored us on the platform earlier and soon spotted us, back on the move. They followed us on foot. Realising we were not acknowledging that the roads had been reopened, they had to swing ahead of us to block traffic. Provided we kept moving, we couldn’t be accused of blocking the highway. This seemed a great way to subvert the A-B protest. The police were forced to second guess us and ensure safe passage by controlling the traffic ahead, providing they knew where we were heading. The mood changed when we reached the Strand and found the Savoy Hotel. We decided to stop there and get our banners in front of the hotel. In doing so we were blocking the vehicle entrance. A taxi tried to

265

enter and this produced a heated exchange with the police who were eager to move us along.

With the threat of arrests in the air, we moved on down Whitehall, eventually stopping outside Downing Street where there was more of a carnival atmosphere. Whitehall hadn’t been reopened to traffic. People were trickling back up the street, presumably having eaten and digested their picnics. The road was still closed to traffic and we were able to pose outside the gates of Downing Street with banners. There was music and dance. I noticed that the authorities had put a wooden shield around the war memorial that had been previously vandalised. I walked towards it and discovered that someone had written ‘Fuck Tory Scum’ on the wood in roughly the place it had been on the memorial. This struck me as a rather neat little bit of direct action. I wondered if it had been done by the same person as the original. Outside Downing Street, someone had got hold of a megaphone and it was open to people who wanted to say their piece. Smoke bombs were let off, one of which found itself over the gates and into Downing Street itself, plumes of purple smoke rising from behind the police control hut.

One of the people to pass us and stop for a chat was Guardian columnist, Polly Toynbee. In the following day’s edition of the paper she waxed lyrical about the thousands of people against austerity (despite supporting the Labour Party herself who had been committed to making cuts just a few weeks previously). Describing the protest as a whole and her encounter with CW she wrote the following:

Sober indignation was the tone. The Labour party has added 60,000 members since the election, but despair at parliamentary politics was there too – including the photogenic fruitcakes of Class War, who fetched up outside Downing Street, waving fists at the gates and for some reason chanting, “Let Labour die!” David Cameron and George Osborne might have leant out to give them the thumbs-up to that. Jeremy Corbyn’s strong speech in Parliament Square was greeted with loud applause, alongside Mark Steel and Russell Brand (Toynbee 2015).

Photogenic fruitcakes! I felt another t-shirt coming on.

266

Figure 161, A CW promo for the June demo.

Figure 162, CW on the raised platform. Figure 163, Darting from St Paul's to the raised platform.

Figure 164, A prop. Image credit: CW. Figure 165, The view from the march of CW.

267

Figure 166, The poster for Oh! What a Lovely War. Image Figure 167, A reminder of the front page of Class War, credit: Wikipedia. inspired by the film poster. Image credit: CW.

Figure 168, The design for the new banner. Image credit: CW.

Figure 169, David Graeber joined us for a while. Figure 170, The WDB inspects the march.

268

Figure 171, A smoke bomb on the march. Figure 172, CW at Downing Street.

Figure 173, The boarded up war memorial. Figure 174, A party atmosphere on Whitehall.

Figure 175, The design for a CW Midlands banner. Image credit: CW.

269

Figure 176, Life's more fun with CW 1. Image credit: CW. Figure 177, Life's more fun with CW 2. Image credit: CW.

Figure 178, Life's more fun with CW 3. Image credit: CW. Figure 179, Life's more fun with CW 4. Image credit: CW.

270

CW were consistently urging for a more radical response to the election result and the forming of a new Conservative government. At the same time they were presenting themselves in two ways. One was like a mob of punks, hell bent on violence, knowingly putting people off from standing with them but attracting their subcultural allies. The other was presenting the movement as fun. A selection of shareable images were created showing life being ‘more fun with Class War’. They used images from direct action, along with the occasional bit of surrealism to promote the movement. By standing candidates, CW had gained an increased interest from the press and whilst that didn’t manifest in masses of media coverage during the election campaign itself, it was now evident that the media had been paying attention. CW hadn’t convinced the masses to reject the A-B march, but they had mobilised their supporters in larger numbers than usual for both the State Opening of Parliament and the End Austerity Now protest. It’s hard to imagine they would have done so without the coverage that followed the Whitehall riot, just two days after the election.

The feeling within the movement was that we were being observed closely. The paranoia over arrests ahead of the protest was a symptom of that. The next stop in the Summer of Thuggery was the second Fuck Parade, which would garner more attention for CW.

The Camden Fuck Parade

Following the success of the first Fuck Parade on May 1st, the organisers started to plan another. Just a week before the election, this anti-gentrification party wound through the streets of London, blocked Tower Bridge, London Bridge, and culminated in Soho. It had been a massive success in terms of numbers. CW put up some funds and started to advertise the second Fuck Parade. In reality, though, the Fuck Parade was a separate organisation. There were people involved who happened to be in both but tensions started to emerge between the two. The CW promotion of the event centred around the theme of the Fuck Parade striking back, using imagery from Star Wars. These were shared online and turned into stickers, posted far and wide around London.

271

The parade took place on July 11th. I had decided that I needed a break from political activity and so I observed from a distance. It seemed the parade spent at least some of the time outside a pub, where an altercation flared between the parade and a group from the far right. The violence was reported in several media outlets but the context of conflict with the far right was not. The Evening Standard reported that police were attacked and they quoted some Fuck Parade posts on Facebook (Alwakeel 2015a). A BBC report focused on the hospitalisation of an individual and the injuring of police officers after glass was thrown (BBC 2015c).

Stand told me that he knew the first Fuck Parade would be a great success (Interview 2016). This one though, involved a long period of time standing in a road without any real impetus of where it would head. In Stan’s view, the parade “descended very quickly into a very, very violent riot,” adding that it “saved us from mediocrity” (ibid). Once again, the summer of thuggery was in flow, this time directed against the far right and gentrification, with the police in the middle.

Figure 180, The Fuck Parade, avoiding mediocrity. Image credit: Get germanized [sic]. Click for video. Again, the action resulted in more attention from the media. A pattern was emerging. This was in stark contrast to the level of coverage the CWP had during the election campaign itself. The election was the preamble to this coverage. CW was suddenly visible. The election was a clear part of that, along with the Poor Doors campaign.

272

The Ripper Museum

The final act in the Summer of Thuggery was the start of a semi-regular protest, a few minutes’ walk down the road from the One Commercial Street poor doors development. The Jack the Ripper Museum had caught the attention of the WDB. The owners had proposed a museum dedicated to the women of the east end of London. However, they had, instead, created a museum that showcased the brutal and sexualised murders of sex workers, most probably by a rich gentleman (Frizzell 2015). At the first lively protest, a window was broken (Low 2015). An article on the Vice website also contained a number of interviews with people connected to CW. One was Martin Wright (aka Martin Lux):

Martin Lux, author of the street-fighting memoir Anti-Fascist and a long-time resident of Cable Street told me, "The East End isn't just the Kray Twins and Jack The Ripper. It's the battle of Cable Street, the siege of Sidney Street and countless other examples of working class resistance against the ruling class and their agents. "If there should be any museum on Cable Street, it should be an anti-fascist museum commemorating the resistance of local people to Mosley's blackshirts in 1936. The Ripper murders weren't even associated with this area, they were all in Whitechapel and Spitalfields! Believe me, the campaign against this insult to the memory of East End women is going to be the second Battle of Cable Street and, again – we won't be letting this pass." (ibid).

Jane also had a few words for the reporter as described here:

Jane took a breather from brandishing the Class War Womens Death Brigade banner and haranguing the cops, security guards and anyone else deserving of a spleen-venting to add, "This is the beginning of the end for this temple to misogyny. Women are fucking angry about this and they aren't going to tolerate bullshit like this anymore." (ibid).

The article also highlighted that this would become a regular target for CW:

273

Later, nursing a pint in the pub, veteran anarchist and Class War founder, Ian Bone was in reflective mood: "Tonight was a missed opportunity. We could have taken the place over, squatted it and turn it into the museum celebrating the history of the East End's women it was originally supposed to be. But don't think this will be the end of it." (ibid).

Quite a crowd gathered outside the museum with people from other feminist groups joining CW. Soon the protesters swelled the streets and it was blocked to cars. There were private security along with the police and once a pane of glass was broken, the museum owners took the decision to close the shutters. Speeches via the trusty CW megaphone were being conducted in the street.

Lisa managed to get a piece into Times Higher Education. In it she wrote about being both an academic and an activist, touching on why it is important to find time to be both, something I agree with passionately:

As a sociologist, I can’t help myself. I know too much about the world, and I know too much about the injustices, unfairness and inequalities within our society. I feel that I have to react to those injustices. I am an activist academic.

The protest at the Jack the Ripper museum has dragged me – very easily – away from my summer writing.

(McKenzie 2015b).

The Ripper Museum protests would continue into the autumn, considered again in the next section. There was a similar feeling around the Ripper Museum protest as around Poor Doors. Both appealed to a moral position, in that the victims were clear. There were obvious enemies too. In the case of Poor Doors, it was the owners of the building. In the case of the museum, it was a rich owner who professed to be doing something good for the community but wouldn’t alter how the museum was organised. It was safe ground for CW and it resulted in positive publicity, just as Poor Doors had done. Such campaigns are rare for CW.

274

Figure 181, CW Fuck Parade promo 1. Figure 182, CW Fuck Parade promo 2.

Figure 183, CW Fuck Parade promo 3. Figure 184, CW Fuck Parade promo 4.

275

Figure 185, CW promo for a protest at the Ripper Museum. Figure 186, The protests started to become weekly affairs.

Figure 187, The first Ripper Museum protest. Figure 188, Jane points at the cops protecting the museum.

Figure 189, The view from across the street, as the protest grew. Figure 190, An accident occurred.

276

Middle Class Guilt War!

Further proof of CW’s renewed prominence in British politics was coming. It was not because of a protest, or a negative tabloid newspaper piece. It came in the form of a satirical website called News Thump. News Thump specialises in taking prominent figures in the news and writing subversive articles around them. To make it into the online pages of a highly shared site like this, was recognition of just how much the British press were talking about CW. Their article focused on the oft-made mainstream criticism, that CW is actually made up of middle class individuals. This, of course, had been the fear of any article that the Mail may have published regarding my own life. Class War to rebrand as Middle Class Guilt War, read the headline (DavyWavy 2015):

The move is intended to better reflect their membership and assist in recruitment from their core demographic of people who went to private school and feel really bad about it.

Their aims will remain the dismantling of the elitist class system and abolishing all private schools just as soon as they have left.

Society will be rebuilt according to democratic socialist co-operative principles and run by people like them.

“I totally got into politics when I read a book about poor people at Cheltenham,” said Class War spokesperson Poppy Ogilvy-Frears.

“Did you know some people are poor? I didn’t until then, but I felt totally awful about it for days and decided to do something about it.”

“Me and my bessies Olympia and Tamsin have been on loads of super exciting dems about how people should pay more tax.”

“Not pater, obvs, as he’s totally skint after school fees, but other people. The greedy ones. We set shit on fire and threw dog mess at the babylon.”

“Smash the system,” she added (ibid).

As discussed in the section on subculture, social class with regards to CW is measured not by wage levels or occupation, but by relationships. Solidarity between

277

people and groups defines what class is and how it influences a person. However, the article used the normative definition of social class to good effect at the expense of CW. Most people within the movement took it well. Crucially, it showed just how talked about CW had become in a short space of time.

Conclusions on the Summer of Thuggery

Following the election, CW had rarely been out of the newspapers. By standing candidates, CW had been barely noticed by the press at a national level during the election. Once the campaign was over though, the movement was suddenly thrust into the spotlight, on a regular basis. The Summer of Thuggery was coming to an end but in the Autumn two election candidates and an election agent would find themselves in the news. It was starting to become clear that general elections don’t simply end. Elections have consequences. CW had dropped a stone in a pond and the ripples were expanding outwards, hitting the banks and then rebounding to emerge elsewhere in new forms.

278

Autumn: The Election Strikes Back!

The events outlined here show that an election campaign doesn’t simply end the day after the polls close. This is obvious when we think of national politics, for the repercussions can mean years in office for one party and years in opposition for another. We look back at particular elections, considering them ‘watershed’ polls that changed the course of British history. The 1945 Labour landslide, for example, bringing forth the NHS, an enhanced welfare system and the post war consensus. Thatcher’s 1979 victory, which brought that consensus crashing down and brought neoliberalism to the mainstream. The 1997 Labour landslide with Tony Blair’s modernising agenda of freedom of information, devolution and enshrining human rights in law. The influence of such elections is felt daily, even if we still pigeonhole them to a specific year. Likewise, campaigns which do not result in electoral success can have repercussions. The inability of UKIP to win parliamentary seats in the UK, can be juxtaposed with the influence that party had in encouraging the Conservative government of David Cameron to hold a referendum on the UK exiting the EU. The subsequent decision to leave the EU in the referendum can be noted as a large contributing factor in the Conservative Party moving from a position of wishing to remain in the EU, to becoming the main voice of Brexit voters. The fact that it also subsequently adopted other UKIP policies, notably on immigration, should not be overlooked. Clearly the CWP has not influenced national politics in these ways. However, it is important to remember that when people discuss the 2015 general election, they may be discussing a fixed point in time, but they can also be discussing an evolving political event.

It is historical fact that those seven candidates stood for the CWP. They are tied to it for future reference, as part this evolving political event. It made them suitable for public discussion if the press or politicians decided so. What they did by standing, was present themselves for scrutiny by the public and press; not simply for the duration of the election campaign.

Standing in an election is for life and the CWP hadn’t given any thought to this possibility. No discussion took place regarding possible longer term aims of the strategy. The party was deregistered very quickly after the election. The Facebook candidate support page was turned off because, it seemed, there were no longer

279

candidates to support. In retrospect, this period of time would have benefited from more detailed discussion.

The previous section considered the immediate weeks after the 2015 general election, with the resulting ‘summer of thuggery’. This section accounts for the autumn, during which CW’s election campaign was back in the news, with three candidates and an election agent featuring heavily. I found myself in the news, as Andrew Fisher took a position high up in the Labour Party, making his supportive tweet the previous year newsworthy. There were contrasting public relations for CW in terms of the continuing Ripper Museum protests and a new Fuck Parade. Finally, there was the annual Million Mask March, which created another spot for Adam on the Daily Politics.

Andrew Fisher and the Labour Party

As discussed in the section covering the election day, I bumped into Andrew Fisher on the morning of the election, whilst traveling to court with Jane. I only really knew him to say a brief hello to. I’d certainly forgotten his tweet supporting me in Croydon South rather than Labour’s candidate, Emily Benn. I was on a train heading from Lincoln to Loughborough one day in October, when I got a message from a friend telling me I was all over the papers. Ironically, I was reading Ian’s autobiography on my journey. Moments earlier, I’d read a passage about him finding out he was being called the ‘most dangerous man in Britain’ by a tabloid. Ian writes about a friend finding the reports amusing. Ian was labelled as an ‘evil man who preaches hate to children’ (The Sunday People quoted in Bone 2006).

Alongside the text was a photo of me and my daughter Jenny taken on the 12 May BUAV animal rights demonstration a couple of weeks earlier. The children I was allegedly peddling hate to were my own daughters but The People had failed to mention that minor detail. I was completely fucking shocked. I’d never been in the paper since winning third place in the miniature garden competition in Goudhurst Village Show. (ibid).

On getting the message, my thoughts immediately turned back to the prospect of a Daily Mail hack piece and the worry this could cause my family. Although they had

280

researched my upbringing back in May, the story they were working on had never materialised. I assumed, though, that it was on file somewhere if they suddenly decided I was newsworthy. I started to think about the need to contact family members and warn them. Such incidents don’t just affect the individual at the centre of a story.

The cycle and relationship between action and controversy for CW has already been explained. Very quickly in these circumstances you see opportunities as well as feeling the fear of press scrutiny and exposure. Already I was wondering if I’d get interviewed or if I’d get the opportunity to promote some anarchist views in some way. My instinct was to carry on the style I’d developed as a candidate. My instinct was also to run as fast as I could away from any publicity.

Putting Ian’s book down, I started to look online for relevant news articles. I soon found out that it was about the Labour Party. With Jeremy Corbyn now the leader, some key positions had been filled with people from the “far left” of the party. Andrew Fisher had got the role as a policy adviser and suddenly his suitability was being called into question, all because of a year old tweet. ‘The tweet from August last year, which has been deleted from Fisher’s account, said: “FFS if you live in Croydon South, vote with dignity, vote @campaignbeard.” @Campaignbeard was Bigger’s twitter account’, said an article in The Guardian (Helm and Zeffman 2015).

This story wasn’t about me at all. It was about the internal pain of one side of the Labour Party trying to secure power. The other side was doing whatever it thought was necessary to get back into office as soon as possible. In any case, it wasn’t just the tweet concerning me. Fisher had been tweeting more generally about Labour and their previous policies. He had described the entire Labour front-bench, under Miliband, as ‘the most abject collection of complete shite’ (quoted in Wintour 2015). The problem for Fisher was that this language was rather CW in style.

I’d changed my Twitter name after the election to become more incognito. It fitted in with my desire to take a break from politics. I hadn’t thought that my Twitter name would be in the newspapers. It would have been helpful for publicity purposes to change it back and use it. It was too late. I found that someone had started to use @CampaignBeard, calling themselves Bon Jigger. Having a fake Twitter account just for me was bizarre. On top of this, though, journalists were interacting with it, thinking

281

it was me. I started to interact with it too, copying the journalists in so they could see, hopefully, that it was a fake account. The story wasn’t about me but I could certainly try to subvert the narrative. I started to feel a little less stressed.

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, set out to dampen the story on October 26th, when questioned on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. I watched as he claimed that Fisher’s tweet about voting for me had been satirical. He went on to say that Fisher was, in fact, challenging why an anarchist was standing in an election. Once again, we were seeing the total opportunism of Labour under pressure. I was angry, so took to Twitter, expressing displeasure at his remarks, describing it as ‘fucking bullshit,’ which did receive some publicity (McSmith 2015).

This is a clear example of the election campaign ‘coming back,’ both to candidates and CW as a whole. Fisher has been mentioned in the press many times since, often accompanied with mentions of me (see Sparrow and Johnston 2015, Perraudin 2015, Sears 2015 for examples). I have grown used to the idea. Nobody has ever tried to interview me about my links to Fisher or the Labour Party. Both CW as a movement and myself individually, failed to utilise this story for CW beyond the interest my criticism of McDonnell garnered. What is clear though, in retrospect, is that CW could have been more prepared as a movement for such an occurrence. As the CWP prepared for the election, the focus had been on getting through the bureaucratic hurdles of being on the ballot paper and then enjoying a subversive campaign. The aftermath, the public recognition, the long term notoriety hadn’t been anticipated.

The Cereal Killer Café and The Ripper Museum: fluctuating fortunes in public relations

Throughout the thesis, CW has been shown to take a stand against gentrification. In the 1980s, this was often directed at the notion of yuppies. By the time of the CWP the movement was more concerned with hipsters. Renowned for moving into working class areas and opening quirky businesses, hipsters caught the eye of Adam in his campaign in Cities of London and Westminster, for example. A café, a stone’s throw away from the Poor Doors development, had been discussed within

282

the movement for some time. The Cereal Killer Café was an architype of the hipster business. Situated in Whitechapel’s Brick Lane, which had long been a street associated with Indian restaurants, it was selling expensive breakfast cereal from all over the world, at all times of day.

Meanwhile, in Tower Hamlets, the Ripper Museum protests were continuing. These two premises would be visited by CW, within weeks of each other. The response to CW by the Ripper Museum owners was a PR disaster for the owners. Meanwhile, an incident at the Cereal Killer Café did not work so well for CW.

The Cereal Killer Café

Another Fuck Parade was set for Saturday 26th September in and around Shoreditch, East London. This subsection details the event and subsequent press coverage.

For CW, the Cereal Killer Café is the type of business that prices locals out of their own areas. The setting up of such businesses runs hand in hand with people moving into the area who can afford the lifestyle they offer. This squeezing out of people in the communities, where they and their families have lived for generations, is what CW has been fighting in terms of gentrification. The existence of venues like the Cereal Killer Café, confirms to CW their view that working class communities are being eroded.

On the night of the parade, news started to come through that as the spontaneous march progressed down Brick Lane, there had been an incident at the cafe. I was not present but knowing how spontaneous marches work I would expect that the organisers had a rough idea of where they wanted to go. I have already detailed how much work can go into spontaneity on protests.

The Guardian reported that:

Hundreds of protesters attacked a Cereal Cafe in east London on Saturday night, daubing the word “scum” on the shop window and setting fire to an effigy of a police officer.

283

Riot police were called in to defend the Cereal Killer Cafe in Shoreditch after it was targeted by a large crowd of anti-gentrification activists carrying pigs’ heads and torches.

The owners of the cafe, which has been seen by some as a symbol of inequality in east London, said on Sunday that the attack left customers including children “terrified for their lives” (Khomami and Halliday 2015).

The report included a short video, shot from within the café, where staff had moved people downstairs, whilst awaiting the police (ibid). The report also quoted the police, who said there had been a ‘criminal element’ within the protest (ibid). In one passage a protester was quoted describing the café as a ‘symbol of gentrification’ and explaining that an estate agent premises had also been attacked, on the route of the march (ibid).

Figure 191, The Fuck Parade visit the Cereal Killer Cafe. Image credit: Ruptly. Click for video. The article included criticism, from the owners of the café, that the protest targeted the wrong business. They wondered why the Pret A Manger down the road hadn’t been attacked. ‘If you want to talk about gentrification and different classes, you don’t go about attacking independent businesses who are putting their whole life on

284

the line to open a business, you go to the conglomerates and big companies’ Gary Keerny, an owner of the café, was quoted as saying (ibid).

On the whole, the article focused on the reasons for the attack and as such it was just the kind of publicity CW thrives on. It conforms to the subculture of a direct action group, wanting the outside world to believe that it can actually produce a mob of people to defend working class communities. It again conformed to the action and controversy cycle.

On the same day, The Guardian also published a short article by someone at the protest (Harvey 2015). The writer (whose identity is not known to me) manages to set out the reasons for the protest. They state that 49% of children live below the poverty line in the area and describes the protest as having a party atmosphere (ibid).

The incident also made some news outlets abroad, including a piece in in the USA’s Daily Beast titled ‘London’s New War: Hipsters Vs. Anarchists, With Breakfast Cereal as a Weapon’ (Hines 2015). An Associated Press article was published by various outlets including NBC (2015) and CBS (2015). The Daily Beast article made links to hipster culture in New York, claiming the battle was part of a backlash against the ‘Manhattanization’ of London (ibid). CW were again cited, this time as the Class War Party (ibid). Just because the movement had deregistered their official links to the electoral process, didn’t mean that those observing its actions had noticed that detail.

The Posh, Broke & Bored website provided an eyewitness account. The writer starts by explaining they’re writing the account at 3am, hours after the event happened (Posh, Broke & Bored 2015). The writer describes hearing fireworks as they closed their shop. They went outside only to be confronted by a ‘mob’ (ibid). There were ‘[h]undreds of people close to my age (male and female) stomping down the street in a cacophony of blaring music, drunken sing-song, vicious and vulgar taunts - basically baying for blood’ (ibid).

One of the conclusions the writer reached, was to ask the question, ‘[i]f you have such a problem with capitalism, why don't you demonstrate outside Westminster or

285

even the Pret and Tesco just up the road?’ (ibid), continuing the theme that the parade had targeted badly.

This was an issue taken up by Ian who was quoted as saying:

We were campaigning outside 1 Commercial Street for 10 months last year, which is quite funny when people are now saying we should concentrate on property developers. There was lots of stuff going on there – arrests, burning effigies – and not a peep in the press. Then someone throws a couple of bags of paint at a cereal cafe and it’s in the newspapers from Italy to New Zealand (Ian quoted in Walker, P., 2015).

Ian was right to point out that CW had campaigned for months about property development. However, it was wrong to suggest that Poor Doors hadn’t gained any publicity. As discussed, it had gained CW publicity throughout, particularly regarding arrests. Moreover, the Poor Doors protests had a moral advantage. They highlighted an obvious injustice, which spoke to millions of people across national borders. The arrests and trials at the protests were seen as embarrassments for the authorities. There is no moral equivalence between that and terrifying people while they just want to eat cereal.

Like the hustings in the cities of London and Westminster constituency we can draw a line between the justification for the action and the efficacy of that action. At the hustings, Stan’s question to the Conservative candidate (“why are you such a cunt?”), was defended by some as justified in relation to the subcultural norms of CW. If we accept that it fits the subcultural traits, we can also accept that the effectiveness of that is a different issue. The CWP attendees at the hustings who did not like the question, were not arguing with the accuracy of Stan’s description. They were arguing that it didn’t work well at that moment.

With the Cereal Killer Café, we can clearly see that CW attempted to justify the action, on subcultural grounds. Just as Stan was saying it was right to name the Tory candidate in the way he did, CW were saying as a whole that it was right to target the café because of gentrification. Those subcultural responses, of which I am guilty of perpetuating myself in this instance, mean that this action backfired. It was not effective because the moral imperative was lost the moment the owners of the café

286

and perhaps more importantly the customers were seen to be the victims by the wider public.

The owners of the Cereal Killer Café had managed to get interviews in many of the newspapers and were clearly using the coverage as a marketing strategy. Ian was quoted as saying ‘I give those two brothers their credit. They’ve milked this brilliantly. They’ve run a masterful campaign. I salute them for that’ (ibid). This was a common view within the movement. Andy told me he “loved people crying over” the incident (Interview 2017). I wrote blog posts and articles defending the action. Stan told me that it was “the first time [the Fuck Parade] did what it was supposed to do” (Interview 2016), saying he was glad that it happened (ibid).

The suggestion from CW that the owners were seen as the victims and had benefited from the actions, was absolutely correct. If anything, though, this is an admission of a failure to recognise a battle as lost. In this case it would have been better not to keep the controversy going. Individuals involved with CW would suffer from the publicity this fresh notoriety would bring.

In a piece titled ‘Dear Class War ‘activists’, anarchism isn’t turning bins on their sides and breaking windows. You’re doing it wrong’, Leah Borromeo gave a point by point critique of CW and the Fuck Parades. ‘You’ve probably read more on anarchism and socio-political structures than people give you credit for,’ (Borromeo 2015). ‘You genuinely care about the world and want to make it a better place. But you can’t quite understand why the masses won’t jump on the bandwagon and burn down Babylon with you’ (ibid). They end the article thus: ‘But that’s alright. You’re Class War. You’re the Millwall of activism. No one likes you and you don’t care.’ [original emphasis] (ibid).

The subculture is described accurately. There are problems caused by the desire to create controversy through action, in order to drum support for further action. They cannot be explained away. CW could have either ignored the urge to defend their actions or shock further after the Fuck Parade. Sometimes publicity isn’t good publicity. I didn’t make such a judgement call at the time and neither did anyone else. I agreed with Stan that “the media are never going to report anything [CW do] favourably” (Interview 2016). In retrospect though, Poor Doors goes against this view somewhat. Stan also insisted that the incident was actually “a minor thing. A little bit

287

of paint and someone shook a box of cornflakes at them” (ibid) but the reports in the press didn’t present it as a minor thing. Knowing when to stop courting controversy is a useful skill.

Following the news that the attack had happened, people within CW were then targeted themselves by the press. Understandably, the focus was on prominent people they could identify. As Stan told me, “they were victimising people like Murray and Lisa who had nothing to do with it” (ibid). This tells us something about what standing candidates meant in terms of press scrutiny, although by this time for many the election period was long gone.

Lisa caught the attention of The Times and The Telegraph, being described as a ‘middle class academic’ (Brown 2015, Telegraph 2015 and Rouse and McLelland 2015). The Daily Mail went further, publishing pictures of Lisa, taken from her Facebook account, drinking champagne and enjoying a holiday in the Caribbean (Rouse and McLelland 2015). The implication of many of the articles was that the protest was either organised or supported by significant numbers of middle class people, equating academia exclusively with the middle class. As discussed in the section on the CWP subculture, social class within the movement is not a simple wage bracket or a matter relating to job description. For the CWP being working class was a matter of your political activity, empathy and solidarity. However, it is also clear that this definition is not a mainstream one. The press highlighted issues of hypocrisy, as they saw, from that normative view of class. It is a difficult charge to turn around, and CW had little inclination to do so.

A pattern emerged with the press interest. The trouble in Whitehall, the ‘summer of thuggery’, Andrew Fisher’s tweet and violence at two Fuck Parades had brought CW some attention. However, when it came to the focus of the publicity, those involved directly and publicly with the election campaign were the ones targeted. The election is what binds these events and the people involved. CW were newsworthy because they had made themselves newsworthy through the election. “To an extent we were still riding the wave of the election campaign when [the café incident] happened” Al told me (Interview 2017).

Murray was said to own a £600,000 home built on the former site of a council block (Burrows 2015). The Mail were following up an article in The Sun. Murray was said

288

to have chased a reporter, from that paper, down the street wielding a bottle of urine he threatened to pour on them (Ibid). Reflecting on the ups and downs of these few days, he told me positively, “I got to chase a Sun journalist down the street with a bottle of my own piss. If he hadn’t got out of my way it would have gone over him” (ibid).

Jane was mentioned in connection to her arrest, the previous November at Poor Doors (ibid). She was reported to live in a £200,000 house which she owned after moving from Bristol to London (ibid). For Adam, the report focused on him declaring the Parade, “the best night out in ages” (Adam in Burrows 2015). They then quoted his appearance on the Daily Politics programme where he had talked up the idea of a violent revolution (Burrows 2015), as discussed in the chapter on the election campaign.

Lisa also received their ire, describing her thus:

She lives in a £1,300-a-month flat in the trendy Limehouse area of London and posts details on her Facebook page of holidays to exotic destinations such as Barbados, Las Vegas and Jamaica as well as New York, Milan, Rome, Paris and Barcelona.

She stood as a Class War candidate in the General Election in May this year in Iain Duncan Smith's Chingford and Woodford Green constituency, where she won just 53 votes (ibid).

With both Adam and Lisa, the links to the election are made explicit. Politicians are there to be scrutinised and while none of the CWP candidates saw themselves as such, it is reasonable to assume that journalists would consider them in those terms.

From within the CW subculture, the criticisms were seen as ludicrous but the personal impact on each individual was hard. One person changed their name on Facebook to avoid the type of prying that Lisa had suffered and everyone started to check their privacy settings. The election had been an intense time for everyone. The subsequent press coverage provided further evidence that the election didn’t simply end with the votes being counted.

289

Confronting the Cereal Killer Café was justifiable from the subcultural position CW takes on gentrification. The actions of a few in attacking the venue was defended by CW, but the public were not convinced. This was in stark contrast to the Poor Doors protests. It was also in stark contrast to an imaginative election period in which the first Fuck Parade had blocked Tower Bridge. The CWP had subverted events like hustings with wit and intelligence and candidates had got an anarchist message out to a wider public. Events at the café were crude in comparison. The media were watching and ready to report with individual, personal details. Apart from Lisa’s attempt to draw out a wider discussion on housing issues from the controversy, CW’s main response was to play up to the idea of being the Millwall of politics.

Stan gloried in the action: “[The media] consistently say we’re this shadowy organisation that gets hundreds of people out and all that. So, I thought let’s make that a fucking reality. If we have got a thousand nutters that will come out and smash stuff up then we’ll start making a real difference” (ibid). This wasn’t the experience of the night. CW made no real difference. They got days of negative publicity not just for the organisation, which is easily absorbed, but for individuals who played no part in the incident. The action therefore exposed those individuals in ways the perpetrators of the action have not had to cope with. Those who carried it out are no longer involved with CW, adding to the problematic nature of the incident.

CW was also being watched from a short walk away by the owners of the Ripper museum. As CW promised to continue their campaign against this target, the owners watched the PR disaster of the café unfolding and looked to gain an advantage from it.

The Ripper Museum

CW actions around the Ripper Museum continued through the autumn of 2015. The owners of the museum, keen to exploit the bad publicity CW had received over the Cereal Killer Café attack, took to social media in an effort to present CW as a threat to east end businesses as a whole.

CW had gained press interest around the museum campaign. The Express on September 29th (Batchelor 2015) stated that ‘[t]he group said of the upcoming

290

demonstration: "This isn't a new 'target', it's something that CW have been condemning because we oppose anything condoning sexual violence.’ (ibid). The article also gave space for the museum owners to suggest that ‘those campaigning could even become part of a future exhibition’ (ibid). The next day, CW gained some positive publicity, after the owners of the museum called for community action against the protests. A Guardian article on September 30th included a statement from the owners, designed to promote activity against CW. It said the museum was

trying to mobilise supporters with the Twitter hashtag #PROTECTELONDON, the statement concludes: “It’s time for locals and local business to band together and show that we won’t accept it! Join the Jack the Ripper Museum and other local businesses and locals to counter-protest Class War” (Gayle 2015).

The article also explains how the hashtag was quickly subverted and used against the museum. The museum owners had failed to note that CW was not the only group protesting their premises. Fourth Wave feminists were also mobilising regular protests at the venue. One such example coincided with Halloween, after it emerged that the venue was offering visitors selfies, taken with models of the Ripper’s victims (Silver 2015). The museum had erroneously taken the view that they were only up against CW. In fact, they were up against a range of protest groups, with CW simply prominent in the news at the time.

The original call for community action was presented on Joshua Walker’s web page. Walker was acting for the Museum in a public relations capacity. It was quickly taken down once the message was ridiculed. The archived version is titled ‘Extremist political group – Class War are coming after East London local businesses and residents’ (Walker, J., 2015). After mentioning the attack on the Cereal Killer Café, the #PROTECTELONDON declaration continues:

They [CW] are now planning to do the same to the Jack the Ripper Museum - a museum set up at 12 Cable Street as a dedication to the history of East London in the 1880s, providing a serious examination of the crimes of Jack the Ripper within the social context of the period. For the first time it tells the story of the man known as 'Jack the Ripper' from the perspective of six of the women who were his victims (ibid).

291

Attempting to be historically accurate, Walker made comments that the Ripper hadn’t sexually assaulted his victims and therefore many of the emails received by the owners from CW and others were unfounded. As a matter of historical accuracy, according to John J. Eddleston, the Ripper removed the uterus in some of his attacks and also stabbed his victims in the groin and removed breasts (Eddleston 2001). It should also be noted that the victims were sex workers. Walker didn’t agree with this, however, and tweeted that ‘they weren’t sex workers – they were forced into casual prostitution to be able to just live’ (RooftopJaxx 2015). Walker was also reported to have deleted a tweet which read ‘[t]elling a story from the perspective of women - it's a tough job but someone has to do it.’ (Bowden 2015).

The fact the museum owner decided that PR was necessary, showed that CW were having an impact on the attraction. The PR was such a disaster for the museum and a gift to CW. More publicity was gained for the action the museum was hoping to subvert. On Twitter, people were readily using the hashtag Walker created to announce what London should be protected from. Ideas included protecting London from ‘dickheads opening shit museums’, ‘gentrification by the violent forces of local councils’ and from Walker himself, who is ‘so shit at PR even the other PR people probably laugh at him all the time’ (#PROTECTELONDON Twitter hashtag search 2015).

Jane was quoted in The Guardian on the issue of the museum organising a counter protest: ‘If that’s what they want it really is going to be class war,’ she said. ‘It’s going to be posh businesspeople of the area up against working class warriors’ (Gayle 2015). Jane had visited the museum to see what the exhibits were like and was quoted as saying ‘we all left in absolute shock. It’s just so disturbing. I’m pretty tough, but I just couldn’t get the images out of my head. It’s just very unpleasant’ (ibid). Quotes like these confirmed CW’s moral superiority on the issue, an upper hand over the museum that CW could not claim to have over the Cereal Killer Café. ‘The whole museum is like the workings of a sick mind,’ Jane is quoted as concluding (ibid).

292

Figure 192, Fuck Parade promo 1. Figure 193, Fuck Parade promo 2.

Figure 194, The parade stops in an archway. Image credit: Figure 195, Fuck Parade promo 3. CW.

Figure 197, The cafe with pain on the windows. Image credit: Fuck Parade.

Figure 196, CW response to the furore over the Cereal Figure 198, CW Midlands at the cafe. Image credit: Fuck Killer Cafe. Parade.

293

Figure 199, Jane outside the Ripper Museum. Image credit: CW.

Figure 201, A cartoon shared by CW. Figure 200, A CW promo for action at the museum.

Figure 202, The Ripper Museum protests would continue throughout the autumn, including this example which saw the brutal ripping of an effigy of the museum owner. Image credit: Ruptly. Click for video.

294

The protest planned for Sunday October 4th had become a major news story, one in which both sides had promised large numbers of people. A decision was taken by CW to postpone the protest, on the grounds that the police could use the demonstration to make mass arrests. An article in the Evening Standard quoted the museum owners: ‘We, like the brave owners of the Cereal Killer Café, will not give in to bullies. We will be open as usual on Sunday and would ask all Londoners who believe in free speech and freedom of expression to come down to the museum this weekend and show the world that we do not give in to bullying.’ (Alwakeel 2015b).

On the same day I published the first of a number of blog posts on the Huffington Post. Having come to their attention during the Andrew Fisher incident, I had been offered a blog on their website. Still trying to get better publicity around the Cereal Killer Café, I used it to link that action to those directed towards the Ripper Museum and some general points about gentrification. I included a few quotes from a CW comrade:

My Class War contact was keen to describe the process of gentrification from their perspective and how the museum fits into their story. "I'm a disabled woman working as a sex worker for many years, until recently. [The museum sits in] "an area that sex workers have been brutally cleansed from, some being imprisoned by the use of ASBOs. It's insult to injury. First the gentrifiers clear us out, then they gloat over our 'sexy' murders. They're sexy and not tragic because we're seen as bodies to be carved up for titillation and not as people". When I asked what they thought of the man who has set up the museum they replied with one word, "pondscum". (Bigger 2015e)

The Ripper Museum would continue to attract protests for some months, before fizzling out. The incident with the café was brief but high profile. The people the media targeted following it, were at the protest but not involved with the attack on the establishment. They were chosen, I assert, because they had been involved in the election campaign and therefore had some standing. The attack on the café and the CW response to the furore was influenced by subcultural traits concerning action and controversy, highlighting issues around the effectiveness of maintaining the story. Like Stan’s use of the word “cunt” at the hustings in Cities of London and

295

Westminster, CW can argue that the action was the right thing to do but they cannot convincingly argue that it helped them into a useful position.

Million Mask March

One final event took place in the Autumn of 2015 that is worthy of consideration in relation to the election. The Million Mask March is an annual march on parliament with links to the Anonymous movement of hackers. It draws on the film V for Vendetta for inspiration, particularly the final scene in which thousands of people, dressed in Guy Fawkes masks, descend on parliament to demand freedom.

In 2015 people involved with CW attended the protest, with Adam invited onto the BBC’s Daily Politics to discuss it. Adam’s status as a candidate a few months previously and his appearance on that show during the campaign, were clearly integral to his invite onto the programme a second time.

Adam was to be interviewed alongside journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer and they started to argue before the interview even began. On this occasion Murray played Adam a video of the journalist arguing with Lisa on Newsnight and this got Adam in the mood.

It was interesting inasmuch as it was an example of CW being invited onto a programme to discuss an event that it had little involvement with. Lisa was also enjoying a media profile of her own at this time. It was developing along similar lines. People involved with the CW election were moving towards punditry. With all the controversy, then, there was also a degree of acceptance that CW viewpoints needed to be heard.

Conclusion on the Autumn

The election didn’t end with the declaration speeches on May 8th. It may have felt like it to many in the CWP. The party was deregistered, the candidate support group fell silent and CW went back to direct action without the election as an ever-present influence. This was a mistake.

296

The election had provided CW with an enhanced profile in British society and the press. The overblown and exaggerated coverage of very minor scuffles in Whitehall two days after the election, was the start of a continuing presence in the pages of newspapers and websites around the world. The press related new events back to the election campaign, drawing specific CWP candidates and supporters into the story where they felt necessary. CW was often invited to comment, and duly obliged, to mixed effectiveness.

The attack on the Cereal Killer Café lacked the charm and wit of events carried out in the election campaign. It lacked the moral dimension of the Poor Doors campaign and the protests against the Ripper Museum. CW opted to defend what many people thought was indefensible. This created an opportunity for the press to target specific individuals and provided hope for the owners of the museum, with their ideas of counter-protest.

On the museum CW were on much safer ground. The moral arguments against the museum were sound and CW gained support. It was helpful that they were not alone in opposing the museum. When they decided to cancel a protest they showed the restraint needed to keep the moral high ground. It was a contrast from the actions relating to the café.

Elections do not end. The future activities of candidates can become newsworthy and be linked back to their election campaign. Following an election, radical parties are likely to gain publicity. They can expect press intrusion and, crucially, they can prepare for it. The deregistering of the CWP and a lack of aftermath planning prevented CW from being prepared for these eventualities.

297

Chapter 7

Reflections and Conclusion

The conclusion starts with a review of what the thesis has looked at. This is followed by a discussion of work by Franks, which sets out four models of anarchist engagement in constitutionalism. This was published since the research was completed and thus after the framing of the thesis. It is valuable in that it provides an independent lens for assessing the CWP campaign. This is used to showcase the reflections of participants on the campaign and its aftermath. This provides an understanding of how the experiences of those involved interact with the external analytical frame by Franks. Finally, the chapter sets out the case, considering the evidence, for anarchist participation in election campaigns.

The introduction included these research questions:

• What could be gained for CW in terms of subverting official politics by standing candidates? • How did the CWP organise itself before, during, and after the process? • How did the movement subculture influence the conduct of the CWP during the process?

The contribution to original knowledge is evinced by the general finding that the CWP were able to subvert the election campaign for their own purposes and to varying degrees of success. This allows a consideration to be made regarding the usefulness of future forays into the electoral process. I conclude that anarchists should exploit the spaces created by official politics because, as the CWP strategy illustrates, such activity subverts rather than reinforces the political system.

Thesis Review

In answering the research questions, the thesis first detailed a history of CW as a movement including consideration of their publications. Focusing on their publications enabled us to consider how CW uses expression as an action. This

298

provided context for the subsequent chapter on the CWP subculture. These early chapters allowed for an understanding of the world view of CW and how it has changed.

In considering the CWP certain subcultural traits became apparent. The first was the desire for direct action and, as a consequence, the publicity that can emerge through it. The second was a view of social class that is not structural or defined objectively. The CWP view of the working class is subjectively defined, through culture. Working class people recognise each other through similar experiences in life and similar attitudes. Thompson’s views on class were used as a guide to the CWP conception. The CWP was made up of people who had that recognition and decided to use the movement as a way of expressing their political views. Their views include a hatred of multiple enemies, theatrically described in broad terms as ‘the rich’, or ‘the left’, for example. Their enemies are seen as either causing direct harm to the working class, or else preventing effective resistance against those causing direct harm. It is in this context that the mainstream left can receive as much ire from CW as a Conservative government. The subcultural view on class produces different distinctions from mainstream and structural definitions. As the working class is not a set of job roles or a wage bracket, but rather a culture of solidarity and similar experiences, relatively wealthy people can be seen as working class.

The close bond between CWP members is described as a family. There are clear implications around the hierarchy of such an arrangement and whilst some rebelled at the notion, others warmly embraced it. Direct action, according to the CWP subcultural traits, should be fun and imaginative. A certain type of performative action has developed, designed to shock and entertain, attract and repel. The Poor Doors protests allowed for this to be practiced on a weekly basis in the run up to the 2015 election, and in turn those protests enabled the election to be planned, informally, in the pub before and after the action. There was also the sense that CW had changed with prominent women leading the movement. This was cemented by the creation of the Womens Death Brigade (WDB), leading to a different emphasis on protests and a different choice of enemy targets. The Ripper Museum is a clear example of this but there were also more subtle differences, such as the dancing the WDB conducted whilst holding their banner. The CWP was a changed organisation

299

from the previous iterations of the movement; more playful and joyous but just as angry and raucous.

The methods chapter showed how this research changed once I got into the field. I found that a conventional approach to ethnography placed a barrier between myself and other participants. The fact that I was also a participant pushed me towards conducting elements of Participatory Action Research. Being a candidate would ensure that my observation would centre very much on my own campaign. That, in turn, would mean that my ethnographic writing would focus on my own actions to a large degree. In order to provide a rigorous account of the CWP election I used grounded theory. This ensured that the themes discussed were derived from my research participants so that the retelling of the election campaign could focus on their issues and not simply what had happened in my personal election campaign. As a result, the ethnographic retelling of the election draws on the views of research participants to explain the phenomena being witnessed, and is a reliable account of events.

The remaining chapters detailed how the CWP went about the election itself. They show why CW decided to stand candidates and draw together four campaign styles. These were:

• Protest Campaigning • Face to Face with the Enemy • Rationally Promoting Anarchism • Don’t Vote

All four styles were utilised during the campaign. In Chingford, Soho and Purley campaign launches resembled spontaneous marches, to particular effect in Soho where Adam combined it with performance as a drag act. The first Fuck Parade, a week before the election, attracted a huge crowd which meandered through the streets of London, blocking two bridges and ending at a squat in Soho.

The election allowed for face-face activity with the established enemy. At hustings events the CWP used heckling to create an additional stage in the theatre of the event. At Croydon South the CWP controlled the event to an extent, with the

300

organisers unable to prevent the heckling. It was effective but it was also handled well by the Tory candidate and so it produced a contest in a safe Conservative seat where no electoral contest really existed. The theatre of the one minute silence at the end of the event resulted in a clear win for the CWP on their own terms. In the Cities of London and Westminster the theatre took place in a church with Adam, again in drag. The potential was there for a repeat of the scenes from Croydon South but a misplaced piece of swearing overshadowed the heckling and prevented the CWP from being able to ask any further questions. In Chingford and in Lichfield, incumbent Tory candidates were empty chaired, most notably in Lichfield where the Tory was replaced with a stick and a wig, receiving national media coverage. David’s visit to a hustings event in Norwich saw him accused of racism by the expected Labour winner in the constituency. This was a piece of opportunistic and underhand campaigning by the Labour team, picking up on a Facebook post by David concerning Malcolm X. David had not used the N word but was accused of doing so in front of the assembled crowd. This shows a dangerous side to entering an election. Everything is already stacked in favour of the establishment parties, who will likely win the seat, and on top of that they are used to political opportunism and the platform electoral politics provides them. David was not invited to further hustings events and considered quitting the election. Meanwhile, in Sherwood, Dave took some supporters to the Conservative candidate’s constituency office and occupied it one afternoon. Throughout the campaign, the mechanism of the election, provided by the state, was being used as an opportunity for direct action.

There were also opportunities to come face-to-face with the enemy on the election night itself where the votes are counted and the results declared. Efforts were made in Croydon South to hassle the Tory candidate during the count and there were altercations between the CWP and the UKIP candidate. There were scuffles between David and Labour Party officials in Norwich, but these were initiated by Labour, rather than the CWP. The declarations allow for speeches and Andy’s speech in Lichfield, that “the pantomime is over” was a neat end to a successful campaign. In Croydon South my own speech was used as a call to arms to disrupt the Tories in office. The winner performed a drab and stereotypical victory speech by thanking the police, his family, the counters and the council. The final words he

301

heard before performing it though was me telling him to “fuck off”, therefore subverting the normal theatre of the event.

Throughout the campaign, detailed in Chapter Five, CWP candidates and supporters spent time rationally promoting anarchism through conventional methods of persuasion. In Croydon South I had been able to write a number of articles for Inside Croydon setting out why I was standing and what I stood for. Lisa used her increasing public profile to write articles for mainstream news outlets, explaining her vision of class politics and why she wanted to stand against Ian Duncan Smith. Andy used wit in his campaign to respond to questions at his hustings event on a wide range of issues, including the deployment of nuclear weapons. His suggestion that people should not protest in Birmingham but go to Faslane where the UK’s weapons are stored and would be deployed from was not just a witty retort; it was also a call for people to take appropriate direct action. It was a critique of the mainstream left in which they are cast as posing over issues, rather than tackling them in a meaningful manner. In Sherwood, Dave focused on a campaign of talking to people in his community about the issues they faced and how they could be alleviated. As discussed in the chapter contextualising the history of CW, the movement did not always go out of its way to explain its views. Growing, as it did, around production of a populist newspaper, CW had always had an internal tension around attracting people with short articles and visuals, versus an urge from some to be more theoretical. An election campaign pushes candidates towards explanation.

Andy was the only candidate to consistently put forward a ‘Don’t Vote’ message to the public. However, it was a feature of the campaign across the board inasmuch as the CWP consistently campaigned around the notion that electoral politics was a farce. The ‘All Fucking Wankers’ banner, unfurled at the March for Homes on 31st January 2015 presaged how the campaign would disparage the idea that voting would achieve the changes the CWP felt were necessary. Candidates consistently told hustings events, reporters and potential voters that the differences between the two main austerity-supporting parties were meaningless. Andy linked his Don’t Vote strategy to what he saw as a mistake in the CWP having policies. He did not promote them during his campaign. Whilst they were designed to be simple headline grabbing messages, they are clearly contradictory to a Don’t Vote strategy. They

302

invite people to vote for the changes being proposed and accompanying them with a message not to vote is just confusing and inconsistent.

Chapter Six considered the aftermath to the election. What was discovered was that the election did not end. The events that took place during the campaign and even before it can still be newsworthy. They intertwined during the summer and autumn of 2015 with new events, allowing the media to link key CWP election figures with new CW activities. This was not planned for and the CW propensity towards maximising publicity produced mixed results. The experience suggests that forays into election campaigns require a longer term strategy, with support for those affected by both the campaign itself, and the repercussions to it.

Having set out the main areas covered by the thesis we will now turn to an external assessment of the CWP election campaign, provided in a paper by Franks.

External Assessment

This section considers a paper by Franks entitled Four models of anarchist engagements with constitutionalism. Theory in Action (Franks 2020). As explained above this was published after the research was completed and therefore it played no part in the framing of the thesis. It provides a scholarly lens through which the CWP election campaign can be assessed. In doing so, it also provides a frame for the reflections from participants to come in the following section.

Franks notes that the majority anarchist position with regards to elections is to abstain from the process (Franks 2020:17). Amongst the minority position of engagement with the process, Franks identifies four different types of anarchist engagement (ibid). The CWP campaign did not confirm to the first three of these, which are:

• Minor formal engagement - voting for the lesser evil (the least worst candidate) in an election (Franks 2020:18). • Horizontal, Structural Reformism - supporting parties that have developed from horizontal social movements (Franks 2020:21).

303

• Revolutionary (Anti-)Representation -standing on a revolutionary agenda but refusing to take seats if elected (Franks 2020:22). For Franks, CW’s electoral strategy fits the form of Guerrilla Activism (Franks 2020:23). He refers to it as the ‘most consistently anarchistic of the engagements in constitutionalism, as it involves engaging in electoral processes but without participating in the institutions of representative state power or seeking to make reforms’ (ibid). He highlights that the aim is not to get people elected (Franks 2020:24). I concur that the CWP campaign falls into this category.

Franks helps to confirm parts of the analysis already discussed. In particular he highlights areas that reflect three of the four campaign styles discussed in the previous section. With regards to Protest Campaigning, he makes the point that the CWP campaign did not present candidates as mouthpieces, instead promoting the actions of the wider working class (Franks 2020:24). While this does not reference directly the direct action the campaign engaged in, it highlights the desire to resist the notion of representation, even by CWP candidates.

Franks quotes Floaker34 (2015) who states that using an election as a platform to discuss politics ‘has been the call of many small minority parties…, and today it is used by the anarchist group Class War’ (ibid). Floaker wrote of groups entering elections that ‘it wasn’t taking part in electoral politics that contributed any success these groups had, it was direct action at the points where we had struggles in our lives’. Floaker goes on to say that ‘if anything, for CW formal involvement in elections has weakened their argument and made their position seem contradictory and muddled…’ (ibid).

This view was posted online on March 19th 2015 (ibid), with no indication that it has been updated since. It was therefore written and published before the nomination deadline of April 9th. It doesn’t take into account the way that the CWP conducted their campaign. It engages only with the notion of standing candidates and concludes, erroneously that such actions are incompatible with direct action.

34 As mentioned in footnote #9.

304

The views expressed, whilst a little premature, are a legitimate concern within the anarchist community and they will now be addressed. Franks (2020:25) discussed a potential problem with the election campaign as it could damage the possibility for direct action. CW as a movement did not cut direct action in favour of hustings events, campaign launches, election counts and media spots. It crucially took its style of direct action into those state theatres, whilst simultaneously aiding squats (as seen at the Aylesbury Estate on the day of the Chingford campaign launch), continuing the Poor Doors campaign, starting a campaign against the richest hotels in London, attending demonstrations such as the March for Homes and those organised by the People’s Assembly. The usual direct action, therefore, did not stop. The election campaign galvanised the CWP into increasing amounts of additional direct action in places unused to the notion and ill-equipped to respond effectively.

Franks notes the cost of the election as a problem, cited by some anarchists (2020:24). The criticism though is countered best by Andy in the section on the media coverage the CWP garnered during the election campaign. He was adamant that the coverage he received for his messages was good value for money, spending £500 on the deposit and £40 on a Facebook advert but finding a local media desperate for content. The cost may be high but what can be achieved with it is worthy of further experimentation. For example, none of the CWP candidates utilised the free mail shot provided by the state, mainly because it was a bureaucratic process. An opportunity was missed in reaching more people in their own homes. It could have been an audacious piece of direct action reaching out to potential supporters whilst striking terror in the houses on the avenues where the wealthy live in equal measure.

With regards to Rationally Promoting Anarchism, Franks explains how

candidates used the opportunities presented by the election and the exposure they received… to draw attention to the inherent power structures of representative democracy. They used the platform to make many of the key anarchist critiques of representative democracy, including the promotion of anti-hierarchical, extra-parliamentary activity (ibid).

He highlights Adam’s appearance on Daily Politics as an example.

305

As discussed, Andy took the Don’t Vote campaign style and combined it with a refusal to embrace policies, which he considered a mistake. Franks notes that having policies runs the risk of resembling social democracy (Franks 2020:24). ‘Anarchist abstentionists’ he tells us ‘fear a slippery slope where guerrilla activism becomes revolutionary (anti-)representation and then horizontal structural reformism until it becomes no different from the increasingly neo-liberal institutions of social democracy’ (2020:25). I have not spent a great deal of time referring to the policies in this thesis for much the same reason. They were also rarely referred to by research participants. The notion that the CWP policies produced a confused message is more compelling than the idea that it resembled a social democratic party. Such a consideration assumes the public viewed the policies in isolation from everything else the CWP was doing. For example, the fact that there were only seven candidates, the fact the candidates and party were utilising a Don’t Vote strategy, and the fact they used their platform to call for revolution are all important as well. Taken as a whole, the campaign could not be seen as reformist or social democratic. It was radical and anarchist.

Franks provides a scholarly assessment of the CWP’s election campaign as an example of Guerrilla Activism, presenting an independent lens through which to assess the CWP campaign. We will now turn to the reflections of the participants. They highlight the themes already discussed in this conclusion, touching on the issues highlighted by Franks.

Internal Reflections

I asked my research participants if they thought the election campaign had been a success and whether it was something CW should do again. It is worth remembering that there had been no strategy by the CWP entering the election. There was no guiding set of principles against which anyone can judge the success or otherwise of the campaign. The reflections of those who were involved are important in two ways. Firstly, they explain, in retrospect, how participants have come to judge the successes and failures of the election campaign. Secondly, they provide ideas for future strategy.

306

This section presents their views under four headings. These are:

1. Increased profile. Participants noted that CW gained a profile in the media following the election campaign. 2. Repercussions. This focuses on the fact that the election of 2015 is an ongoing process. 3. Campaign issues. Participants discussed how the campaign was conducted and how it might be improved. 4. Standing in the future. The idea of standing candidates again was considered.

These reflections provide a strategic assessment of the CWP election campaign from those who were directly involved.

Increased Profile

In the section on why CW decided to form a party and stand candidates, the idea that it would raise publicity for CW was discussed. This was a theme that research participants came back to in reflecting on the election campaign. JayJay told me that standing candidates “raised the profile” of CW (JayJay 2017). Dave concurred. “The media profile [of CW] went up a bit” he told me (Interview 2017). Likewise, Foxy told me that “we got the media coverage at the end of the day. I mean we made it onto the BBC News!” (Foxy Interview 2017). This was an important issue for Al too, who noted that in the “early 2010s people had largely forgotten about Class War. It was only the fact that we got involved in that election and made a nuisance of ourselves that got us back in the papers and on telly” (Interview 2017). Dave E pointed out that “unless you can maintain a constant level of publicity (like the Poor Doors campaign) folks’ memories tend to fade” (Interview 2020). He thought that the election had been “a great publicity effort that allowed us to reach ‘non-anarchists’ who may share some or all of our views but had never heard of us before” (ibid).

Chapter Six showed how CW were regularly in the news following the election. I concur with the other participants, suggesting that the election raised the profile of the movement. Franks reminds us that this was part of the reason to stand

307

(2020:24). It started with Poor Doors, which itself came from a desire to meet regularly ahead of the election. Candidates and their teams had a great deal of involvement in the process of getting publicity. That the publicity lasted for months and even increased after the poll is testament to those willing to stand.

An elevated profile brings with it repercussions, some predictable and others a surprise, as detailed next.

Repercussions

The issue of the legacy of the 2015 election campaign was addressed. Murray said, “after the election they really went for us” (Murray Interview 2017), referring to the press. He added “I think they must have seen us as a bit of a threat.” He reminded me of the Andrew Fisher tweet and how I occasionally crop up in news stories years after the election. “It’s amazing” he told me, “the repercussions can go on for years” (ibid). It’s worth highlighting that there is no way such matters can be controlled but it potentially means such electoral endeavours can have a positive impact. Incidentally, in the Cities of London and Westminster where Murray was the election agent for Adam, Mark Fields - the Conservative winner in 2015 - retired from politics ahead of the 2019 election claiming that politics was divisive and fractious following the EU referendum (PA Media 2019). As discussed in the chapter on the election campaign, at the 2017 election he had refused to take part in hustings events, particularly in churches. Is it possible that the hustings event in 2015 in which he was labelled a “cunt” by a CWP attendee contributed to his decision to drop out? I would argue that it may have done. We can also argue that the CWP was ahead of the curve when it comes to fractious politics.

Potentially, then, there are repercussions for the people the CWP stood against, as well as for the CWP and the candidates themselves. Ian said ahead of the election that the campaign was designed for people who wanted to “have a pop at the bastards” (Interview 2015), and that is what the CWP had done. Helen reminded me of the testy campaign in Norwich South against the Labour team of Clive Lewis. “We ruffled feathers”, she told me (Interview 2015). “David definitely did in Norwich. He

308

nearly got into a punch up with several local councillors and the fucking Labour MP you know. I think we got under the skin of a few people” (ibid).

Indeed, in Norwich South the campaign was gruelling and intense. I have already written about my own experiences in the chapter on methods, which included prolonged counselling after the election. David told me how it affected him. “It took me six months to get over the election before I started to get to normal” (Interview 2016), signifying the difficult repercussions and profound impacts on some of those involved.

Meanwhile, Justine considered that CW had hit upon something in their campaign that resonated with the times:

There were other people at the same time in other spheres of life, like academia for example, also going ‘we have to talk about class again’. So, I think we were part of the zeitgeist. But I do think we were very influential in making class a point of political conversation again (Justine Interview 2017).

CW got noticed during the election. The national media attention may have been slight but the election did not and has not ended. The Summer of Thuggery and attention gained during the autumn showed that CW was newsworthy. On top of which, I would add the fact that some of those associated with the CWP election started to be used as pundits by sections of the media in the autumn. The press gave CW increased scrutiny and the trade-off for this was an increased presence as working class spokespeople. This was not sustained, as CW dropped from the headlines and people started to be seen as speaking in a personal capacity, rather than for the movement.

The health repercussions for people standing in an election in the way CW did, should not be underestimated. Standing in an election, particularly as an anarchist, is demanding. It invites scrutiny from the media but also from other anarchists. It invites ridicule from the mainstream left. Getting under the skin of the Labour Party in Norwich South is revealing. The ruthlessness of their actions, the unpleasant and

309

opportunistic nature of their tactics is a warning. Anarchist candidates can expect a backlash. They can expect to spend time recovering from an election campaign.

Campaign Issues

Steve highlighted the subversive element of the campaign, confirming that it did nothing to bolster the system: “everything we did during that election, in every hustings I went to was counter to what is the norm” (Steve Interview 2016).

Lawrie felt that there hadn’t been a case put forward “for anarchy… during the campaign” (Interview 2020). For Steve the CWP just hadn’t tried as hard as it could, providing a hint for how a future campaign might work. “I would have been more prone to doing more sort of election stuff” he told me. “I don’t think we picked up enough on producing election material.” He made the point that “there was still money in the kitty” (Steve Interview 2016). Andy was also critical of the campaign. “I think we made massive mistakes with the whole election campaign” he told me (Interview 2016). “We had policies” he added, “I don't think we should have had any policies. I think what we should have done is just stuck with the criticism” (ibid). “The moment you put forward a policy, any policy, you’re in danger of being accused of [endorsing the system]” (ibid). His second criticism was a reiteration of the campaign style of telling people not to vote, which he adhered to but the CWP as a whole didn’t. The idea of “Class War actually asking people to vote for them was a massive mistake”, he continued (ibid). “Ironically, I specifically said don’t vote for me. I didn’t vote for myself and I got more votes than any [other] Class War candidate” (ibid). I’m not convinced that having policies is equivalent to endorsing the system. I do admire, though, the way Andy conducted his campaign.

Andy’s point is one of strategy and he was continually referring to ways in which the electoral system itself could be shown up for the sham that it is. His campaign was successful on those terms. In reference to the hustings event where his team empty- chaired incumbent Tory candidate, Michael Fabricant, with a stick and a wig, Helen told me about the establishment control over the process.

310

They put a stick and a wig in his chair and he still fricking won with a huge majority... That was really symbolic and it pointed out that actually in certain areas of the country [established parties] have to do fuck all to get elected (Interview 2016).

Meanwhile, the CWP candidates sometimes struggled to even get their name in a local newspaper, showing just how much the system is stacked in the favour of the two main parties and incumbent candidates.

Helen thought it was “a shame we couldn't stand more candidates” (ibid), but that “the right people ended up standing in the end” (ibid). This is an important point that there is a balance to be had between quantity and quality. My view during the election was that we could have done with more supporters, not just on Facebook but in the constituencies. I put this point to Ian and he told me “the reply might be why don’t you look at why you don’t have more people? Is it an act of God or is it because your politics over the last 50 years have been hopelessly out of touch?” (Ian Interview 2017).

Andy’s idea of a ‘no policies’ and a ‘don’t vote’ campaign would be worth investigating. The issue of policies is addressed also by Franks, above. Whilst I do not consider that a smattering of policies for a party standing just seven candidates is tantamount to social democracy, I can see the confusion in the messages. On the one hand the CWP was acting like other parties and on the other it was saying ‘don’t vote’. I can see value in standing on a Don’t Vote ticket as an experiment and without any policies. On the issue of support, I’m convinced that having more people active in constituencies would have been beneficial to the campaign. Contesting fewer seats is the obvious answer; contesting some key seats for maximum publicity seems sensible as a future strategy. Reflecting on 2015 though, I find it hard to pick a campaign and earmark it as extraneous. Each candidate deserves the plaudits for standing up and going public with their anarchism. Each campaign was fun, subversive and fascinating.

311

Standing in the Future

I was recovering from the election when the CWP met to discuss future electoral activity. I was surprised by the decision to deregister the party. Despite needing to be away from politics, I was brimming with ideas about possible future campaigns. I had missed my opportunity to speak on the matter.

I asked the other participants whether the CWP should have been deregistered with the Electoral Commission. “It was strongly felt”, Ian told me (Interview 2017). At the time of the interview he felt as though the experience had been “waste of time and energy” (ibid) but that there may be “certain times when it might work, when it might be useful” (ibid).

Other participants were much more positive about the idea of standing candidates again either in targeted seats as Ian was suggesting or more widespread. “We blundered in before” Murray told me. “We’d probably blunder in again but with a better idea of what to expect”, he added (Interview 2017). Lawrie wasn’t keen on it happening again, unless in a targeted way. He told me “months later I was still filling in forms to carry the party on as an official political party and then to de register [it]” (Interview 2020), clearly fed up with the bureaucratic burden of it. “We could stand in local or Parish council elections. At parish level we could probably get in,” he said (Interview 2020). Joe admitted that he had only really spent around four hours campaigning in Maidenhead and told me that if he stood again he’d “probably do more campaigning” but wasn’t “sure how [he’d] do it” (Joe Interview 2017).

Jane picked up the idea that Ian had on standing in targeted seats. It would be best “not to concentrate on too many areas” she told me (Interview 2017). She said that a strategy to “stand maybe one or two people in decent areas” may be more effective (ibid). It was certainly the case that the CWP could have used more people on the ground in each constituency. Dave thought that breaking away from London would be a good idea. Standing more candidates “could sort of spread that message perhaps a little wider than just London” (Interview 2015). As explained in the section regarding the CWP getting on the ballot paper, those outside of London faced extra hurdles such as a lack of money and local support. The growth of the Facebook

312

candidate support group was not matched by a growth in activity across the country. The focus remained in London. More could have been done in the early stages to foster the support into local groups. Those local groups could have then targeted a seat or seats in their area. That was, ultimately, what happened in the West Midlands, with Lichfield ending up being the seat as other options fell. It happened by accident but worked, producing one of the most dynamic and interesting of the CWP campaigns. If Lichfield had been chosen from the start, without the distraction of others standing in nearby constituencies, that small group of supporters may have found extra time and resources at their disposal.

The decision to deregister the party was taken in the period immediately after the election when all the candidates were recovering from the experience. As explained above and in Chapter 6 on the aftermath to the election, I needed time to take stock of the experiences I’d had during the campaign. David talked about similar issues, particularly in relation to the way he was treated by the Labour Party, which impacted on his relationships with a broad section of people on the left where he lived. It isn’t the case that everyone felt like David and myself but those feelings were a factor in the decision. David told me that “we’re all now in the position where we don’t think we should ever [stand] again because a lot of us still bear the scars of the experience but it was an extraordinarily smart thing to do. It was an ingenious piece of political strategy” (ibid). David, along with others weighed up the fact that “it cost personally” (ibid), with the positives the exposure provided for stuntism and publicity.

Despite the party being deregistered there was actually a lot of support for standing candidates again at some point. Despite the mistakes he thought CW had made, Andy still saw merit in standing in the future. Talking of the understanding gained about the way the system works he told me that “we have that now” (Interview 2016). “It’s whether we think we could build from what we were doing in 2015”, he added (ibid). David told me that “I’d be much smarter about my approach because I’d know what was coming” (Interview 2016), if he were to stand again. He warned though that “It’d start to look suspiciously like we were becoming something else” (ibid) if CW regularly stood candidates, hinting that there is a point at which standing candidates does simply start to reinforce the system. Likewise, Al told me “If we did it again we’d

313

just start looking like another political party” (Interview 2017). However, he added “we could certainly do it a lot better [if the CWP stood again]” (ibid).

This is the reason for Ian’s insistence that standing in a particular seat or at a by- election could be a way forward. Since 2015 Ian has suggested this to the CW London group on a number of occasions, including standing a candidate in the high profile race for London mayor. I consider a series of occasional forays into the electoral process, which utilises the knowledge gained from the 2015 campaign has the potential to be highly effective. I also feel that a wider general election campaign with a handful of targeted seats would also work well. Murray told me that immediately after the election he was against the idea of ever getting involved in an election campaign. “I’m not wasting my energy doing that again”, he said (Interview 2017). He changed his mind after a while though and after thinking through what he’d learned. “Now I know how we can take it further in disrupting it [the official process]” he told me (ibid).

As discussed, we should not see the 2015 election as an historical event but as part of an evolving strategy. We should consider the pebbles dropped by the CWP in the lake, rebounding and continuing their ripple effect into the future. Jane is right to say that it cost “a lot of money we know we’re not going to get back” (Interview 2017), but I would argue that for a one-off payment it could actually be seen as an investment. This is especially true if planning and strategy includes the immediate and long term aftermath of the venture. For the CWP, election activity simply stopped the day after the election and in retrospect that was a mistake. It made it hard to judge the events of the aftermath and react in suitable ways. For example, no thought had been given to the press intrusion that people would face. That key CWP election figures were targeted months after the election was not anticipated. Despite CW feeding off publicity, it had little readiness and preparedness in supporting those affected. This is not to mean that they got no support; it is simply to point out that CW could be better prepared in future to help those that end up singled out, individualised in the name of the movement. Such moments need to be collectivised, with a strong communal and movement-wide message of support about the issue. Individualised discussions with the press, at times when they are targeting CW individuals, are best avoided.

314

As discussed above I do not consider that having policies risked the CWP from resembling a social democratic party. I consider the direct action that can be utilised by such a venture to make up for the pitfalls.

These subsections have focused on the words of the participants, referring to the external assessment by Franks as appropriate. Combined they provide an assessment for strategy concerning elections. The final section provides a rationale for anarchists wishing to subvert the electoral system by participating.

The Case for Anarchist Participation

This section sets out the case for anarchist participation in elections. Radicals have a choice when it comes to elections. They can choose to reject electoral politics or they can choose to engage. Guerrilla Activism provides a mechanism for engagement and the CWP provides an example of how such a campaign might work.

The CWP showed that there is little risk from standing candidates in reinforcing the system, when only a handful of candidates stand. That being the case, deciding to stand candidates is bold and imaginative. Providing a group can navigate the pitfalls, make easy work of the bureaucracy, has the money to stand (and is willing to lose it), then there is much to be gained in terms of publicity and attracting more people to their cause. It is an experiment worth repeating, not just by CW but by groups able to learn from the mistakes the CWP made. Others might do it better, or worse or differently.

The charge that anarchists run the risk of morphing into social democrats, if they practice this experiment too much, invites a careful approach. It shouldn’t signal a complete rejection of the idea. Providing we learn from the experience of taking the risk we will have gained an understanding of that slippery slope and potentially how to avoid hitting the bottom. The risk is not that great, as the CWP experience shows.

315

The idea of anarchists (such as Floaker and others) telling other anarchists they are doing anarchism wrong is an all too frequent frustrating feature of the movement. If we accept anarchism as an experiment in organising, in action, in combating top down power, then we can seek new areas of experimentation. We can accept that as individuals and groups we are not perfect. We make mistakes. Some activities will work and some will fail but in the process we will meet new people, inspire each other and progress.

The election created opportunities for occupations, marches, shutting down bridges, heckling, and direct altercations between anarchists and prominent Conservative and Labour politicians. It allowed for an anarchist critique of the system to be heard within the mechanisms of that system. The CWP experimented. It could have been more effective at times, it could have done things better, it could improve for a hypothetical next time.

CW reached a position prior to 2015 where it was searching for a different approach to politics. The feeling of stagnation following the financial crash demanded something different and the election campaign was the result. It was described by Jane as “one more push”. I would argue that there could be further pushes into official politics by anarchist groups.

This thesis has concerned CW: the subcultural beliefs of a small group of people and how those beliefs influenced the actions they took. The state will provide regular opportunities for experimentation at election times. Such opportunities do not need to be considered as alternatives to direct action. They do not need to be considered as money and time wasted. With planning and strategy, they can become direct action in new spaces. They can get anarchist messages out to a new audience. They can speak truth to power and yet still maintain a core ‘don’t vote’ message.

Whilst some will shun the very idea of getting anywhere near the process, others may look towards the pitfalls and the benefits and dare to stand as candidates to subvert rather than endorse the status quo. In this respect the CWP election campaign of 2015 stands as a trailblazer.

316

Bibliography

Al, Interview 2017.

Alaszewski, A., 2006. Using Diaries for Social Research Sage, London.

Alwakeel, R., 2015a. Camden protest: Violence follows anti-gentrification demo as police pelted with bottles and wood [online] Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Alwakeel, R., 2015b. Class War Ripper Museum protest 'cancelled' as organisers fear 'large-scale arrests' [online] Available at: [Accessed 25/09/2020].

Andy, 2016. Interview.

Andy, Facebook Observation 2015.

Amster, R., 2018 Anti-Hierarchy in Franks, B., Jun., N, and Williams, L., Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge, London.

Apofis, N., 2017. Anarchy in Athens. Manchester university Press.

Apoifis, N., 2017. Fieldwork in a furnace: anarchists, anti-authoritarians and militant ethnography. Qualitative Research Vol. 17, #1, (3-19).

Associated Press, 2015. Something Snapped: Cereal Café a Flashpoint in Class- Riven London [online] Available at: [Accessed 06/10/2018]. And Angry Protesters Target Hipster London Cereal Café [online] Available at: [Accessed 06/10/2018].

317

Bakunin, M., 1870. The Bears of Berne and the Bear of Saint-Petersburg. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22/06/2021].

Batchelor, T., 2015. Jack the Ripper museum targeted by Cereal cafe protesters over 'glorification of violence' [online] Available at: [Accessed 17/09/2018].

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., Danielle Smith, D., 2006. Participatory Action Research, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol 60, #10, pp854-857.

BBC, 2015a. Election 2015: The weird world of hustings [online] Available at: [Accessed 22/09/2020].

BBC, 2015b. Exit Poll [online] Available at: [Accessed 22/09/2020].

BBC, 2015c. Camden anti-gentrification protesters 'threw glass at police' [online] Available: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

BBC, 2021. The Great British Class Calculator [online] Available at: [Accessed 12/04/2021].

Bennetts, A., 2015. Eve of the election statement: Andy Bennetts (Class War) [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/09/2020].

Bigger, Election Diary, 2014.

Bigger, J., 2013. Candidate profile [email].

Bigger, J., 2014a. We went to lobby our MP so he called the cops! [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

318

Bigger, J., 2014b. Bigger plans to bring anarchy to Coulsdon and Purley [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

Bigger, J., 2014c. Anarchist wants Tory MP Ottaway to tell the truth [online] Available at [Accessed 18/09/2020].

Bigger, J., 2015. #CLASSWAR IN ELECTION DAY COURT VICTORY! #GE2015 Trade Onion 07/05/2015 [online]. Available at: Accessed on 25th May 2018.

Bigger, J., 2015a. POLICE INTIMIDATION ON THE #CROYDONSOUTH ELECTION CAMPAIGN – #VOTEBIGGER [online] Available at: [Accessed 18/09/2020].

Bigger, J., 2015b. Hustings Opening Statement.

Bigger, J., 2015c. Purley Pool shows Tories and Labour are both in shallow end [online] [Accessed 21/09/2020].

Bigger, J., 2015d. Politics is in Flux: Good! We Can do Better [online] 22nd Jan 2015 Available at [Accessed on 21 February 2018].

Bigger, J., 2015e. Hipsters, Property Developers and Gimmick-Owners Beware: The Fightback Against Gentrification Has Barely Begun [online] Available at: [Accessed 17/09/2018].

Bindmans, 2015. Case dismissed against ‘Poor Doors’ protester who set alight Boris Johnson effigy [online] Available at: Accessed on 25th May 2018.

319

Bloom, D., 2015. Queen's Speech: Two men arrested outside Westminster as tensions mount during State Opening of Parliament [online]. Available at: [Accessed 01/08/2018].

Bone, I., 2006. Bash the Rich: True-Life Confessions of an Anarchist in the UK Tangent Books, Bath.

Bone, I., Pullen, A., and Scargill, T. (Eds) 1991. Class War: A Decade of Disorder Verso, London.

Borromeo, L., 2015. Dear Class War ‘activists’, anarchism isn’t turning bins on their sides and breaking windows. You’re doing it wrong [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2018].

Bowden, G., 2015. Jack The Ripper Museum Public Relations Effort Backfires Online [online] Available at: [Accessed 17/09/2018].

Bristow, G., 2015. London Housing Activists Gave Cops the Run Around On the Building Site of Some Luxury Flats [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/02/2018].

Brown, D., 2015. Middle class academics led the attack on hipster café [online] Available at: [Accessed: 03/10/2018].

Brydon-Miller, M., 2011. The SAGE handbook of action research SAGE

Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods 4th Edition Oxford University Press.

Burrows, T., 2015. Cereal café riot leader who protested against the working class being priced out of London lives in a £600,000 flat built on the site of a former council block [online] Available at:

320

3259726/Cereal-caf-riot-leader-protested-against-working-class-priced-London-lives- 600-000-flat-built-site-former-council-block.html> [Accessed 03/10/2018].

Causer, C., 1987. Liberating everyday life. Heavy Stuff, #1. Class War

Chamberlain, P., 2015. “A Storm of Groans and Shouts”: The Media and Hustings in Jackson, D. and Thorsen, E. (Eds), 2015. UK Election Analysis 2015: Media, Voters and the Campaign CSJCC, Bournemouth.

Class War Classix, 2010. Poll Tax 20th Anniversary Special Re-print

Class War Federation, 1992. Unfinished Business AK Press, Stirling

Cook, T., 2016. The importance of mess in action research Educational Action Research Vol 6, No.1 pp93-109

Cooper, C., 2015. Jeremy Corbyn adviser Andrew Fisher criticised after claiming call to back Class War Party was a joke [online] Available at: [Accessed on 21/06/2018]

Cronxite, W., 2015. Testy Tory Philp refuses to answer property questions [online] 29 April. Available at: [Accessed on 26 July 2017].

Croucher, S., 2015. Election 2015: Meet Class War, the party standing 'because all other candidates are scum' [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/02/2020].

CW Facebook, 2015a [online image]. Available at: [Accessed 30/07/2018].

CW Facebook, 2015b. [online image]. Available at:

321

828.1482412238643065/1607402636144024/?type=3&theater> [Accessed 30/07/2018].

CW Facebook, 2015c. [online (rant)]. Available at: [Accessed 30/07/2018].

CW Facebook, 2015d. Daily Mail Scum [online] Available at: [Accessed 30/07/2018].

Daily Mail, 1985. Anarchist mob' held at Henley Daily Mail (London, England), Monday, July 08, 1985; pg. 8

Daily Mail, 1986. Hate mail war as Yuppies move in Daily Mail (London, England), Saturday, November 01, 1986; pg. 14

Daily Politics, 2015. The Class War Party [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/09/2020].

Dave, Facebook, 2015. Message BBC Radio Nottingham and Reply. [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2020].

Dave, Interview 2015.

Dave, Interview, 2017.

David, Election Diary, 2015.

David, Interview 2016.

Davies, G., 2014. Ottaway: ‘Youthful anarchist shows why we needed police at protest’ [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

322

DavyWavy, 2015. Class War to rebrand as Middle-Class Guilt War [online] Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Deakin, L., 2015. Class War candidate says young are ‘stitched up’ by mainstream politics [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/09/2020].

Dickson, A., 2015. Anti-austerity and disability campaigners announce plans to stand for Norwich election [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/09/2020].

Diebelius, G. 2015. Anarchist Group to March Through Chingford [online]. Available at: [Accessed on 16 November 2017].

Donaghey, J., 2016 Punk and Anarchism: UK, Poland, Indonesia PhD Loughborough University.

Eddleston, J.,J., 2001. Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopaedia ABC-CLIO, Oxford.

Edwards, C., and Elliot, H., 1985. Police warn of 'anarchist plot' to turn CND demo into battle Daily Mail (London, England), Monday, April 08, 1985; pg. 5

Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An Overview. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4 (138)), 273-290.

Ellis-Peterson, H., 2014. Griff Rhys Jones: I may flee UK over Labour’s mansion tax [online] Available at: [Accessed 15/09/2020].

Ex-member of Bristol Class War, 2017. Crass and Class War in the Thatcher years, by an ex-member of Bristol Class War [online]. Available at: [Accessed 27/11/2018].

323

Facebook Observation 2015.

Fetterman, D., M., 2010. Ethnography: Step by Step Sage, London.

Fisk, R., 2015. Five years of anti-Tory protests promised by Class War Croydon election candidate Jonathan Bigger [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2018].

Five Spires Live, 2015. Vic Reeves [online] Available at: [Accessed 22/09/2020].

Floaker, 2015. This is what democracy looks like? [online] Available at: [Accessed 01/10/2020].

Foxy, interview 2016.

Franks, B, and Stott, P., 2011. Class War in The International Encyclopaedia of Revolution and Protest, I. Ness (Ed.).

Franks, B., 2005. British anarchsims and the miners’ strike Capital & Class, 29(3), 227–254.

Franks, B., 2006. Rebel Alliances: The means and ends of contemporary British anarchisms AK Press, Edinburgh.

Franks, B., 2020. Four models of anarchist engagements with constitutionalism Theory in Action, 13(1), pp32-69.

Freedom, 2020. History [online]. Available at: https://freedomnews.org.uk/history/ [Accessed 10/09/2020].

Frizzell, N., 2015. London Man Promises to Open Museum Dedicated to Women; Opens One Dedicated to Jack the Ripper Instead [online] Available at: londons-disinterest-in-remembering-its-women-121> [Accessed 06/08/2018].

324

Future Radio, 2015. Jasmine interviews David Peel, Class War Parliamentary Candidate for Norwich South [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/09/2020].

Gayle, D., 2015. Jack the Ripper museum ridiculed for urging Class War counter- protest [online] Available at: [Accessed 17/09/2018].

Get germanized, 2015. Camden Riots [online video]. Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Glanvill, N., 2015a. Around 20 activists given 'personal escort' during Station Road march on Saturday [online]. Available at: [Accessed 18/09/2020].

Glanvill, N., 2015b. Arrested election candidate 'a political prisoner' [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/02/2020].

Glanvill, N., 2015c. Five reasons why Class War's Lisa McKenzie thinks you should vote for her [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/02/2020].

Glaser, B., G., and Strauss, A., L., 2008. The Discover of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research Aldine Publishing, Chicago.

Goaman, K., and Dodson, M., 1997. A Subversive Current? Contemporary Anarchism Considered in Purkis, J., and Bowen, J., (Eds), 1997. Twenty-First Century Anarchism: Unorthodox Ideas for a New Millennium Cassell, London.

Gordon, U., 2012. Participant Observation in Kinna, R., (Ed) 2012. The Bloomsbury Companion to Anarchism Bloomsbury, London.

Graeber, D., 2009. Direct Action: An Ethnography. AK Press, Edinburgh.

325

Graeber, D., 2013. The Democracy Project: A History. A Crisis. A Movement. Penguin, London.

Graham, R., 2015. We Do Not Fear Anarchy: We Invoke It. AK Press, Edinburgh.

Harvey, W. 2015. I was part of the Cereal Killer cafe protest – here’s why [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/09/2018].

Heavy Stuff, 1987. Heavy Stuff 1 [online] Available at: [Accessed 10/09/2020].

Heavy Stuff, 1988. Heavy Stuff 2 [online] Available at: [Accessed 10/09/2020].

Heavy Stuff, circa 1989. Heavy Stuff 3 [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/09/2020].

Helen, Interview 2016.

Helm, T., Zeffman, H., 2015. Tony Benn’s granddaughter delivers blow to Corbyn by calling for policy chief to go [online] Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Hines, N., 2015. London’s New War: Hipsters Vs. Anarchists, With Breakfast Cereal as a Weapon [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/09/2018].

Ian Blog 2013a. OK LETS HAVE SOME FUN………73 ‘CLASS WAR’ ELECTION CANDIDATES WANTED [online] Available at: [Accessed 06/10/2020].

Ian Blog 2013b. “CLASS WAR” LONDON GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES UPDATE [online] Available at [Accessed 10/10/2016].

326

Ian Blog, 2014a. Up and running in Croydon South [online] Available at [Accessed 11/11/2016].

Ian Blog, 2014b. Double the Dole and a Maximum Wage [online] Available at: [Accessed11/11/2016].

Ian Blog, 2014c. Thinking standing as a Class War candidate? [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

Ian, Facebook Observation 2015.

Ian, Interview 2015.

Ian, Interview 2017.

Inside Croydon, 2014a. I might have been murdered, claims Croydon MP Ottaway [online] Available at: [Accessed 06/10/2020].

Inside Croydon, 2014b. Come and meet London Mayor Boris. Only 10 quid a time [online] Available at: [Accessed 14/09/2020].

Inside Croydon, 2015a. Croydon Election Candidates Go Through Moving Experiences, [online] Available at: [Accessed 16/05/2018]

Inside Croydon, 2015b. Croydon needs a comedy candidate: Run, Jonny! Run! [online]. Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2020].

Inside Croydon, 2015c. Police drop case against Croydon protester who ‘burned’ Boris [online] Available at: [Accessed 22/09/2020].

327

Inside Croydon, 2015d. Taxing questions on business for Philp the parachutist [online] Available at: [Accessed 23/09/2020].

Jack, I., 2007. From Henley to Notting Hill: Class War is on the move again [online]. Available at: [Accessed 11/12/2018].

Jane, Facebook Observation 2015

Jane, Interview 2015.

Jane, Interview 2017.

JayJay, Interview, 2017.

Joe, interview, 2017.

Jones, O., 2014. Mocking an Eton Boys Death is the Worst politics of Envy [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/10/2016].

Justine, Interview 2015.

Justine, Interview 2018.

Keate, G., 2014b. Anarchist sets out his campaign to be next Croydon South MP [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

Keeley, A., 2015. No show for Iain Duncan Smith at Chingford and Woodford Green hustings [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2020].

Khomami, N., and Halliday, J., 2015. Shoreditch Cereal Killer Cafe targeted in anti- gentrification protests [online] Available at:

328

news/2015/sep/27/shoreditch-cereal-cafe-targeted-by-anti-gentrification-protesters> [Accessed 25/09/2020].

King, J., 2014. Class War Protest at 'The Poor Doors' London 5th November 2014 [online] [Accessed 15/09/2020].

Kinna, R., 2005. Anarchism. One World, London.

Kinna, R., 2019. The Government of No One: The Theory and Practice of Anarchism Pelican, UK.

Kleinfeld, P., 2014. British Anarchists Have Nearly Defeated the 'Poor Doors' On a London Block of Flats [online] Available at: [Accessed 15/09/2020].

Lawrence, J., 2009. Electing Our Masters: The hustings in British Politics from Hogarth to Blair Oxford University Press.

Lawrie Interview, 2020.

Lazar, H., 2018. Intersectionality in Franks, B., Jun., N, and Williams, L., Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge, London.

Libcom, 2020. A brief account of the Stop 'The City' protests - Dave (London Greenpeace) [online]. Available at: https://libcom.org/library/brief-account-stop-city- protests-dave-london-greenpeace [Accessed 10/09/2020].

Low, C., 2015. Anarchists Smashed the Windows of East London's Crappy New Jack the Ripper Museum at a Protest [online] Available at: [Accessed 07/08/2018].

Mac, J., 2014. Class War: What is Class War and is it still valid today? [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

329

Malcolm X, 2020. By Any Means Necessary Speech [online] Available at: < [Accessed 16/09/2020].

Mark, Interview, 2018.

Marshall, P., 2014 Class War – Rich Door, Poor Door [online] Available at: [Accessed 12/010/2016].

Marshall, P., 2015. Class War Chingford Election Launch [online]. Available at [Accessed on 10 November 2017].

Martin, A., 2015. Anarchist mob plotting a summer of thuggery [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 July 2018].

Matthews, L., 2015. Find out who is standing for election in Maidenhead and Windsor [online] [Accessed 21/09/2020].

McKenzie, L., 2015a. Why I have to stand against Iain Duncan Smith in the general election [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2020].

McKenzie, L., 2015b. Why I am protesting against the Jack the Ripper Museum [online] Available at: [Accessed 07/08/2018].

McQueen, R., and Knussen, C., 2002. Research Methods for Social Science: An Introduction Pearson Education, Harlow.

McSmith, A., 2015. Andy McSmith's Diary: Labour MPs left unconvinced that backing of anarchist was 'satirical' [online] Available at: [Accessed 25/09/2020].

Mohamed, J., and Ellery, B., 2015. Austerity riot plot of the facemask anarchists: Far-left activists secretly filmed by MoS bragging about plans to hijack peaceful

330

demonstrations in London [online]. Available at: [Accessed on 30/07/2018].

Moyer, J. 2014. NYC bans ‘poor doors’ – separate entrances for low-income tenants [online] Available at: [Accessed 18/11/2016].

Murphy, A., 1987. Class War – a serious business. Heavy Stuff. #1. Class War

Murphy, S., 2015. Call him Doctor Anarchy: YOU funded this student to study violence in the Calais Jungle... and guess what? He’s in the ‘No Borders’ group linked to the camp riots [online] Available at: [Accessed 23/09/2020].

Murray, Interview 2015.

Murray, Interview 2017.

Neilan, C., 2015. End Austerity Now: Far left group Class War organises separate Bank of England demo amid claims that police are banning people from the march [online] Available at: [Accessed on 30/07/2018].

Osborne, H., 2014. Poor doors: the segregation of London's inner-city flat dwellers [online] Available at: [Accessed 14/09/2020].

PA Media, 2019. Mark Field, MP who manhandled protester, to stand down over 'divisive' politics [Accessed 26/09/2020].

331

Pain, R., Whitman, G., and Milledge, D., 2012. Participatory Action Research Toolkit Durham University.

Palmer, T., 1988. The Kensington Bye-Election [sic] Heavy Stuff #2 Class War.

Payton, M., 2015. 9 oddest political parties and candidates in the General Election [online] Available at: [Accessed 20/09/2020].

Perraudin, F., 2015. Anger as Jeremy Corbyn aide Andrew Fisher readmitted to Labour party [online]. Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Perry. K., 2015. MP Call for police back up to protect him from pensioners [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

Polianskaya, A. 2017. Mark Field rejects church hustings to avoid ‘foul mouthed abuse’ he got last time [online]. Available at: [Accessed on 20 October 2017].

Posh, Broke & Bored, 2015. #FuckParade – An Eyewitness Account and TWO Open Letters [online]. Available at: [Accessed 19/09/2018].

Power, N., 2013. Thompson’s conception of class: the flesh and blood of self- emancipation in Fieldhouse, R., and Taylor, R., 2013. E.P. Thompson and English Radicalism Manchester University Press.

Quinn, B., 2015. UKIP MP Douglas Carswell Surrounded by anit-autsterity protesters in London [online] Available at: [Accessed 24*09/2020].

332

Red Pepper, 2015. The Pitchforks are Coming [online] Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2020].

Rentoul, J., 2010. Gillian Duffy and how the Labour Party lost part of its working- class vote [Accessed 16/09/2020].

Richard, interview, 2018.

RooftopJaxx, 2015. .@JoshuaWalkerPR seems you've deleted a good few tweets. why didn't this one make the cut? #protectELondon [online] Available at: [Accessed 17/09/2018].

Rouse, A., and McLelland, E., 2015. Don't worry about the hipsters whose cereal cafe got vandalised - they're enjoying the publicity, says Class War academic [online] Available at: [Accessed: 03/10/2018].

Rundle, G., 2015. Class War and Vodka Cheesecake [online] Available at: https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/05/06/rundle-class-war-and-vodka-cheesecake/ [Accessed 26/07/2017].

Ryan, D. 1987. Politics and its relation to the masses. Heavy Stuff, #1 Class War.

Sears, N., 2017. Hardline socialist who will write Labour's manifesto: The controversial views of the policy chief who was kicked out of the party for urging voters to back an ANARCHIST [online] Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Silver, L., 2015. Protesters Slam The Ripper Museum For Offering Selfies With Dead Women On Halloween [online] Available at: [Accessed 25/09/2020].

Silverman, D., 2005. Doing Qualitative Research Sage, London.

333

Smith, M., 2015. Class War Party candidate calls for a violent revolution during live TV interview [online] Available at: [Accessed 19/09/2020].

Solanas, V., 1967. The SCUM Manifesto [online] Available at: [Accessed 10/09/2020].

South West Londoner, 2015. South Croydon Class War candidate vows to smash establishment and give Tory candidate ‘a hell of a time’ [online] Available at: [Accessed 23/09/2020].

Sparrow, A., and Johnston, C., 2015. Labour suspends Corbyn political adviser Andrew Fisher [online] Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

Stan, Facebook Observation, 2015.

Stan, Interview 2015.

Stan, Interview 2016.

Steve, Interview 2016.

Stott, P., 2015. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: two responses on the British left to the rise of identity politics – the cases of Class War and Red Action Twentieth Century Communism, Volume 9, Number 9, August 2015, pp. 96-120(25)

Strick, J., 1966. The Hecklers [online]. Available at: [Accessed on 17/06/2020]

Telegraph reporter, 2015. Cereal Killer cafe protesters revealed as middle class academics [online]. Available at: [Accessed 03/10/2018].

334

The Wolverine, 1984. The Wolverine: Gay Voices of Hostility [online] Available at: [Accessed 10/09/2020]

The Wolverine, circa 1983. The Wolverine: Gay Voices of Hostility [online] Available at: [Accessed 10/09/2020]

Thompson, E., P., 1991. The making of the English Working Class Penguin

Thompson, E., P., 2014. In Winslow, C., (Ed) 2014 E.P. Thompson and the Making of the New Left: essays and polemics Monthly Review Press, New York.

Thompson, E., P., 1978. Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle Without Class, in Social History, Vol. 3, No.2 pp133-165.

Toynbee, 2015. In Labour’s leadership race, Yvette Cooper is the one to beat. [online]. Available at: [Accessed 01/08/2018].

Traditional Folk Song Lyrics, 2020. The Finest Fucking Family [online] Available at [Accessed 14/09/2020].

Turner, M., W., 2012. Gay London in Kerr, J., and Gibson, J., (Eds) 2012. London from Punk to Blair Reaktion Books, London.

TVtilt, 2009. The Poll Tax Riot 3 [online]. Available at: [Accessed 26/11/2018].

Twitter, 2015. #PROTECTELONDON [online] Available at: [Accessed 25/09/2020].

UK Parliament, 2003. By-election results 1987-1992. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15/06/2021].

Unknown Comrade, 2014. Class War lection meeting – a Norwich comrade writes [online] Available at: [Accessed 11/11/2016].

335

Walker, J., 2015. #PROTECTLONDON [online] Available at: [Accessed on 17/09/2018].

Walker, P., 2015. Class War accuses Cereal Killer Cafe owners of ‘milking publicity' [online]. Available at: [Accessed 21/09/2018].

Wikipedia, 2020b. Croydon South Constituency [online] Available at: [Accessed 22/09/2020].

Williams, J., P., 2011. Subcultural theory: traditions and concepts Polity press, Cambridge.

Wintour, P., 2015. Labour MPs demand answers over views of Jeremy Corbyn's new policy chief [online] Available at: [Accessed 03/08/2018].

336

Appendices

Appendix One: Research Participants

Below is a list of research participants. This does not include the names of the two interviews not used for coding. The first of those interviews was with a participant who later decided they did not wish to feature. The second was an unusable interview with a participant because of the nature of the material gained.

Lawrie and David E were interviewed via email. All other interviews were face to face.

All participants provided names they wished to be used. In some cases, these were their first names. Two participants gave the name David and in that instance, I added a letter to differentiate between the two.

The research participants were interviewed as follows:

Participant Interview Date(s) Adam 15/04/2015 Al 31/03/2015 19/04/2017 Andy 11/09/2016 Dave 23/04/2015 21/04/2017 David 24/02/2016 David E 30/06/2020 Foxy 11/09/2016 Helen 30/03/2016 Ian 31/03/2015 27/04/2017 Jane 31/03/2015 27/04/2017 JayJay 22/04/2017 Jenny 21/04/2015 Joe 24/04/2017 Justine 31/01/2015 12/09/2018 Lawrie 30/06/2020 Mark 31/05/2018 Murray 15/04/2015 23/04/2017 Patrick 31/01/2015 Richard 31/05/2018

337

Stan 14/03/2015 28/03/2016 Steve 28/03/2016 Tim 31/01/2015 Scott 29/03/2016 Unused 1 10/09/2015 Unused 2 29/03/2016

338

Appendix Two: Participant information

The below information was given to each participant or discussed prior to interview.

Class War and the General Election 2015 Adult Participant Information Sheet

Jon Bigger David Collett Hall Loughborough University Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3US

What is the purpose of the study?

I am researching Class War as they conduct their general election campaign. As you know I was also a candidate so I am researching the group from the inside. Very few people have studied anarchists that are standing in elections and Class War has rarely been studied in depth. I have observed the way the group operates and am interviewing people involved. I hope to provide a detailed story of Class War during the election campaign and add to our understanding of the way anarchists approach elections.

Who is doing this research and why?

This research is part of a PhD thesis supported by Loughborough University. I am the researcher and my supervisors are Ruth Kinna and Ian Fraser. I am self-funded in this project so this research is not sponsored by any third parties.

I am conducting the study to extend knowledge of anarchism in relation to elections. I want to provide a clear and detailed story of how Class War operates and how it approached the general election. I am not conducting the research for any commercial gain. There is no financial incentive for your participation.

What will I be asked to do?

Participants may be asked to give detailed information about their activities as part of Class War and their values and beliefs in interviews as the research progresses. At other times, for example at events such as protests, short interviews may be requested which will focus on clarifying things that have happened during the event. Interviews will be recorded so that they can be transcribed in full at a later stage.

339

Interviews will simply be an opportunity for me to gather information about your views and to clarify my understanding.

For example at a protest I may wish to confirm from participants what I’ve witnessed rather than just rely on my own observations.

In a more detailed interview I will want to find out why you are involved with Class War and what you hope(d) to achieve. It will provide me with more time for detailed discussion on what Class War is and why you were involved with their election campaign.

There will also be times where I ask people for permission to quote them in relation to posts they have made on the Candidate Support Group on facebook. Obviously that Group is a closed group and any information I use from it will be handled securely. I may also wish to conduct short interviews via email in such circumstances in order to clarify my observations. As with all the information gathered, nothing that you have written on the facebook page will be used without your direct, written permission.

Once I take part, can I change my mind?

Yes! After you have read this information and asked any questions you may have I will ask you to complete an Informed Consent Form. However if at any time, before, during or after an interview you wish to withdraw from the study please just tell me. You can withdraw at any time, for any reason and you will not be asked to explain your reasons for withdrawing.

Will I be required to attend any interviews and where will these be?

I will wish to interview some people in depth. These interviews are likely to include as many of the candidates as possible and supporters. Interviews are likely to last between one and two hours. Interviews will be conducted at a mutually agreed place.

What personal information will be required from me?

I will need your name but can also use pseudonyms in written work and may ask questions about your involvement with Class War and other activities. I may want to discuss the length of time you’ve been involved with Class War and what you’ve done in the group since you got involved.

Are there any risks in participating?

There are limited risks to taking part. It is possible that sensitive issues may surface during interviews but you are under no obligation to answer specific questions and any issues that do get discussed will be handled appropriately.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?

Information that I gather will be kept by me and only shared with my supervisors at Loughborough University. The final thesis will be examined and then made available

340

online. The information may also be used to compile additional academic papers by myself during the completion of the PhD. Anonymity can be requested and in any event all information will be destroyed within 10 years of the research being carried out. All information will be handled in accordance with data protection laws..

The data will be collected via recorded interviews and stored securely. Storage and analysis will be conducted via computer which I have the sole access to.

I have some more questions; who should I contact?

Jon Bigger (address and contact number is at the top of the page)

What will happen to the results of the study?

The results will comprise my PhD thesis which is due for completion in 2017.

What if I am not happy with how the research was conducted?

If you are not happy with how the research was conducted, please contact Ms Jackie Green, the Secretary for the University’s Ethics Approvals (Human Participants) Sub- Committee:

Ms J Green, Research Office, Hazlerigg Building, Loughborough University, Epinal Way, Loughborough, LE11 3TU. Tel: 01509 222423. Email: [email protected]

The University also has a policy relating to Research Misconduct and Whistle Blowing which is available online at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/committees/ethical/Whistleblowing(2).htm.

The university framework regarding ethics can be found at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/committees/ethics/framework/Ethical%20Policy%20Fra mework.pdf

341

Appendix Three

Participant Agreement Form

The below was provided to participants where appropriate. In order to not provide too much of a barrier between researcher and participant, on occasion these issues were discussed in advance instance. All participants used in this study provided wither their agreement via this form or their verbal agreement.

Class War and the General Election 2015

INFORMED CONSENT FORM (to be completed after Participant Information Sheet has been read)

I have read the participant information sheet. I understand what my involvement in the research entails and that it has been approved by the Loughborough University Ethics Approvals (Human Participants) Yes  No  Sub-Committee.

I have had an opportunity to ask questions about my participation. Yes  No 

I understand that I am under no obligation to take part in the study. Yes  No 

I understand that I have the right to withdraw from this study at any stage for any reason, and that I will not be required to explain my Yes  No  reasons for withdrawing.

I am happy to be quoted directly in any written and or published work Yes  No  resulting from my participation.

I am happy to be quoted in any written and or published work Yes  No  resulting from my participation but I do not want my name to be attributed to such quotes.

I am happy for my name to be listed as a participant of this study in Yes  No  any written and or published work resulting from my participation

I agree to participate in this study. Yes  No 

342

Your name ______

Your signature ______

Signature of investigator ______

Date ______

343

Appendix Four

The CWP Election Results

Constituency Candidate Votes % Share Chingford and Woodford Green Lisa 53 0.1 Cities of London and Westminster Adam 59 0.2 Croydon South Jon 65 0.1 Litchfield Andy 120 0.2 Maidenhead Joe 55 0.1 Norwich South David 96 0.2 Sherwood Dave 78 0.2

344