00:00 John McDonnell: [...] about that. I left the vision to John. Thank you, John. Thank you, John — I'm working on this vision too, I don't know. Let me — I'll come back to some of the points. The reason I focused on those two issues — sorry, the reason I focused on those two is because at the moment they are so critical over this next 12 months that we've almost got to
00:30 shake the movement up. And the two issues I said [were]: basically [Heathrow] expansion and how we mobilise around that, 'cause we're now being steamrolled by the industry at the moment. And when I say the industry, I mean the people who now own Heathrow, which is Qatar, China and Ferrovial of Spain. So we're talking about — this is one of the most important battles against global corporations and sovereign funds that we could fight in these coming years. So that's why [I] focused on that. And the second, I focused on rail renationalisation because I think we're at the tipping point at the moment,
01:00 and if we can mobilise effectively we have a significant victory there, of securing some commitment from the Labour Party, backed by community campaigns and other left organisations, including the Greens swinging behind [it]. And if at the next general election we are in the same situation where it's a hung parliament and parties [are] negotiating, that coalition of trade unions, the left and the Greens in those negotiations could put this on the agenda, to ensure that it's implemented. So that's why I concentrated on those two things. But let's talk about the vision — but in very
01:32 practical terms. Thirty years ago at the GLC, as a councillor, as the chair of finance, my job was to deliver the funding for Dave Wetzel, some [of] you may have heard of him, [who] was the chair of transport at the GLC. And to implement that — what we considered was actually [that] it was more than a social-democratic transport policy, it was a socialist transport policy. And actually we went out and campaigned before the election around our vision for London, and actually many of the things that people are now quoting as good examples of what London does, we built in those five years. Quite remarkable. And it
02:04 wasn't just about transport: we had a vision for the planning of the — someone mentioned planning — for the planning of a capital city. That's why we were abolished, basically. And what happened was that the discussion that we had — we were part of that discussion about *In and Against the State*. Can you remember that discussion? The idea was, as a socialist, you go inside the state. The state isn't an institution — it is an institution, but it's a relationship as well, a relationship of dominance. So a group of us [in the] "in and against the state" groups [?] — so we go within the state
02:34 and you transform the relationship from one of dominance to one of democratic control. So, working within the state you transform it in that way. Might have been naive, but it was the first stage of moving on to a further confrontation at the national level with capital, at the national level, coinciding with other disputes like the miners' strike, etc. So the whole point of going into County Hall was to completely democratise it in every way possible — but to try [to] democratise it by bringing, integrating policymaking overall. So
03:04 the issue was about democratic control of our planning system and our transport system integrating together, based upon — remember — funding through direct taxation. As chair of finance I had the right, I had the ability, to raise the rates to whatever level I wanted, and raise a business rate at the same time. So what we did is, we hit the business rates and we redistributed the business rates around the boroughs. And we had a targeted funding programme — we called them community areas, those [were] the most deprived areas — we redistributed the wealth from
03:36 the taxes, from the rates, from the wealthy areas and business into those areas. That's why large numbers of deprived boroughs got such significant investment [in] that period. We also established our own — even with the support [of] the Tories — I went out into the City of London, we set up our own capital fund. So we borrowed money on the whole basis of London as an asset. We borrowed on the inter[national market], we borrowed through the City of London, we got possibly the cheapest rates in the world, and we put it into a capital fund. And over the years we then paid out from our own
04:08 capital fund at even lower rates. So actually it was a way in which you planned the London economy on a socialist basis, recognising that you were engaged within the capitalist system as well. What then happened is, we decided we would look at our overall planning policies: invest in the long term, of opening new lines and enhancing existing lines to where we wanted people to live and work. And the whole policy was around people living and working in the same area and not having to travel throughout the capital city, if you remember. And
04:39 this was really contentious — it might be now [too]. We also had local labour clauses we introduced: with companies that got a GLC contract you had to employ local labour, you had to train that labour. Now, there's issues there around, you know, that [it] could be used against certain types of workers, but it was a way of making sure that we got some investment back into the capital, and in some ways enhancing the skill base in London rather than just drawing it in from all over, sucking it in from the rest of the country. But it was contentious, that one, and eventually they took us to court and
05:10 [had it] all [ruled] illegal. So the idea was that you, first of all, you massively raise funds, redistribute from the rich, particularly corporations and businesses, invest it in public services, plan those public services — and one of the key ones we had control over was public transport. So we invested massively, but at the same time we did [it] with a structure which engaged the workers and also community representatives. We put — I've forgotten his name — an anarcho-socialist on the, um... Ernest Rodker [?], one of the most creative people
05:41 I've ever met. We put him on the board. He turned up in his jeans, off his bike and all [that]. So actually it's Ernest — he's a well-known anarcho-socialist, and actually he was the one who disciplined [us]: "no, you can't, this is how ordinary people [see it]" [?]. And also we ensured there were consultative forums at every level in terms of the trade unions. We consulted workers via the trade unions, not separately from them. And we invested in public transport. We also developed the policy — even at that stage we were looking at the ideas
06:11 of car controls. We didn't have the power to introduce congestion charges or anything like that; that came much later under Livingstone. But even then we were looking at how you make it car-free, and what car controls were, and looking at rationing processes. We were, even then, [we] invested in the cycling campaign, and it was eventually implemented — one of the ideas that we had way back then, which was, um, Boris bikes. What they call Boris bikes were actually developed by Ken in advance of him. And we went through all of those issues around: how do you get people out of their cars? First of all
06:43 you reduce fares, so you make cheap fares. But in addition to that, how can we redistribute wealth in another way which actually is reducing the fares burden on working-class people — and how do you pay for that? You reach to wealth [through] the taxation system. And actually it was well in advance — and I give Dave and others their due on all this, my job was just to provide them with the money — it was well in advance of some of the early debates on climate change, etc. It was just seen as good transport policy. And back of [that], it was
07:14 even building on some of the stuff that Herbert Morrison talked about when the LCC was there too. So there is a vision, and we've actually implemented that vision for five years in London, and as I say it set the foundations for a lot of things that people now enjoy. But it was rolling that out. And if you look at what happened, for example, in South Yorkshire — a Labour-controlled metropolitan authority as well — they were the first with the low fares policy. And it was about that, investing. And we [were] arguing then about reopening railway lines that had been closed down under Beeching, and trying to again do that with the
07:45 national system. But it comes down to the fact that you have to own and control to be able to plan things effectively. And the reason that aviation is in the mess it is, and is so counteracting everything we're campaigning around [on] climate change and environmental improvements, is because BAA was denationalised, sold off. So there's no competition between individual airports; those individual airports are owned by corporations, global corporations and sovereign funds, that [are] looking for short-term profits and couldn't care about the long-term
08:16 environmental issues. So it is all around, I'm afraid, democratic — the democratic struggles that are going on. So I think there is a vision there, and maybe we'll do another session around vision. I think there is a vision there, but it's more than that — it's a concrete vision, 'cause we've already implemented it in one city, and if we'd have been in power another five or ten years I think we would have beaten [inaudible]. On the piece you mentioned with regard to vulgarisation: I don't like the concept "vulgarisation". What we call this [is] popular — we use popular language all the time. And the way we got that popular
08:47 language, believe it or not, is that I introduced market techniques. I introduced a company called BMP — Boase Massimi Pollitt — and they were the first advertising agency that worked within local government. And I brought them in, and we basically said: we're not going around doing qualitative groups, focus groups or polling, we're not going around saying "what do you want us to say". We're going to say, this is what we want to do; let's test some words on you about
09:19 how we sell that policy. So time after time I'd be sitting behind a glass screen listening to people talk about our policy, testing words on how we sell them. I was polling on a weekly basis, I was spending millions on polls. Why? Not to vulgarise, but to make popular the policies that we were implementing. And it wasn't asking "what should we do", [it was] saying "this is what we're doing, here's how we want to sell it, here's the words we want to use". And in that way actually we mobilised a
09:51 campaign — I don't want to go into golden age theory or anything like that, but actually the campaign against abolition of the GLC was one of the most effective campaigns that we had in this country. And it was all on the basis of one slogan, which I rejected time and time again every time they brought it to me, which was "Say No to No Say". It won every bloody award going. And the pollsters [?] decided that every time I rejected something, it must be the way. But it was a way of not vulgarising but making popular the concept that we had, [which] was around democracy, public ownership and
10:22 control.
## Corrections
- "the people who now own ethro which is Qatar China and fuu and Spain" → "who now own Heathrow, which is Qatar, China and **Ferrovial** of Spain" — the Spanish group that led the consortium which bought BAA, alongside Qatar Holding and China Investment Corporation. - "rail inter nationalization" → "rail renationalisation". - "the funding for Dave wetel... the chair of Transport from the GLC" → "**Dave Wetzel** ... the chair of transport at the GLC". - "30 years ago as a GLC Council as the chair of finance" → "thirty years ago at the GLC, as a councillor, as the chair of finance". - "that discussion about in and against the state" → *In and Against the State*, the 1979 pamphlet; the captions have it right and it is set as a title. - "a further consentration confrontation at the national level of capital" → "a further confrontation at the national level with capital". - "other disputes like the Min stri Etc" → "like the **miners' strike**, etc." - "we redist the business rates around the bar" → "we redistributed the business rates around the **boroughs**"; "large numbers of deprived bers" → "deprived boroughs". - "we had a **Ted** funding program" → "a **targeted** funding programme". - "enhancing the **school space** in London" → "enhancing the **skill base** in London" — the sentence is about local labour and training clauses. - "eventually they took us to **cor** and all the illegal" → "took us to **court** and had it all ruled illegal". - "an **Aros** socialist" / "a well-known **anarchos** socialist" → "an **anarcho-socialist**". - "on the um **erest rodo**" and later "so actually is **earnest**" → the first name **Ernest** is given twice and is secure; the surname rests on one garbled token, so "Ernest Rodker" is marked with [?]. He was put on the London Transport board. - "consultive forms on every every level" → "consultative forums at every level". - "that came much later under **Livingston**" → "under **Livingstone**". - "fairs" → "**fares**" throughout: "you reduce fares, so you make cheap fares"; "the fares burden"; South Yorkshire's "low fares policy". - "closed down under **beaching**" → "under **Beeching**". - "the **leason** that Aviation is in the mess it is" → "the **reason**". - "because **baa** was denationalized" → "because **BAA** was denationalised". - "Herbert Morrison talked about when when the London LCC was there" → "when the **LCC** was there" — the London County Council, which Morrison led. - "I introduced a company called BMP **B bone MOS poet**" → "**BMP — Boase Massimi Pollitt**", the agency that ran the GLC's anti-abolition advertising. - "one slogan ... which was **say no to no say** it won every bloody award going" → "**Say No to No Say**" — the actual slogan of the campaign against abolition of the GLC, and the point of the anecdote: he rejected it every time it was put to him. - "not having to travel **without** the capital city" → "throughout the capital city". - Marked as uncertain and not to be relied on: "so a group of us [in the] 'in and against the state' groups [?]" (captions: "a group of us talk in the state groups"); "he was the one who disciplined [us]: 'no, you can't, this is how ordinary people [see it]' [?]"; "I think we would have beaten [inaudible]" (captions: "we would have beaten fber off"); "the pollsters [?] decided" (captions: "the poers decide"). - The opening seconds are a handover between speakers and cannot be cleanly attributed; the first sentence and a half are left as the captions give them.