FAQs
Answers to the most frequently asked questions about the IWCA.
How did the IWCA come about?
Is the IWCA socialist?
How does the IWCA itself define ‘working class’?
Is the IWCA only interested in people on low pay or benefit?
What, in political terms, is meant by the phrase ‘working class independence’?
‘Working class rule in working class areas’ is described as an interim objective. Can you explain what you mean by this?
How can one or two IWCA councillors here or there expect to change anything?
Is the IWCA an electoral party?
Can the IWCA ensure its representatives will not get sucked into ‘the establishment’ and become as corrupt as the other parties?
Does ‘working class rule in working class areas’ involve more than just running the council?
What type of administration do you think would adequately reflect working class interests?
Doesn’t all this leave the IWCA open to the charge of vigilantism?
Can you give another illustration of how ‘working class rule in working class areas’ might turn things around?
Can you explain what you mean by working class ‘self-government’?
What impact will the privatisation of public services have on the political parties who support it?
How will the IWCA respond politically to this situation?
How can the IWCA, on the one hand, reject this government’s policies on issues such as drugs, anti-social behaviour and policing, and on the other, insist these issues cannot be ignored?
‘Total social change’ is presented as the ultimate IWCA objective. Can you explain in precise terms what is meant by this expression?
What future role do you see for trade unions strategically?
The IWCA itself has been described as a ‘trade union for the community’. Please explain?
How do you respond to allegations by liberals that certain IWCA policies could be construed as ‘racist’?
Isn’t lack of social mobility what New Labour was elected to remedy?
Don’t all the major parties support the multicultural approach?
Where does the IWCA come down on the question of immigration?
How is the IWCA structured?
Can anyone join the IWCA?
Who would be regarded as an ideal IWCA recruit?
What is the role of an IWCA councillor?
Can you sum up the immediate political objectives of the IWCA?
How did the IWCA come about?
In the mid-1990s following the removal of Clause Four from the constitution of the Labour Party a number of people sat down to discuss the likely political ramifications. One calculation was the collapse of the Labour Party as an organisation with mass working class support. Another was that without a political voice the working class would go down the route of its American counterparts and become politically extinct.
After lengthy discussion it was decided there was a need for a new type of organisation. But rather than mimic existing political parties a series of pilot schemes were set up around the country in order to test and refine the theory, strategy and tactics.
In September 2001 the Independent Working Class Association became a registered political party. Less than a year later we had our first councillor.
Is the IWCA socialist?
Well, in the context of those who would still describe themselves as socialist—from New Labour to the student left—the answer has to be no.
It is only necessary to look at the history of the 20th century to conclude that socialism has failed. Many socialists give the impression that it is the working class who have failed the left. However, if blame were to be attributed it would be more realistic to conclude that it is the left who have failed the working class. In any case we are in a new century now and many of the old dogmas are no longer relevant. We need fresh thinking, fresh strategies and fresh tactics.
But how does the IWCA itself define ‘working class’?
Now on one level the answer is fairly straightforward. When people think of themselves in terms of class they tend to think in terms of background, education, occupation, income, and culture. According to recent research, if people are asked those questions in Britain today, the overwhelming majority define themselves as ‘working class’. And when you consider that only 7% of all school children go to private schools it is easy to see why the majority view themselves as working class and why they are also correct to do so.
While the factors mentioned earlier such as income and background naturally have a bearing, class is defined most easily by the relationship of an individual to his or her work. Now it must be said, there may sometimes be a difference between what people are and what they think they are. A managing director might work to maximise production but his income is nonetheless largely derived from the work of others. This can work the other way as well.
A recent court case witnessed an attempt to restrict the term ‘working class’ to those involved in manual work only. While by any standards to try and include the managing director would be too broad a definition, to insist on blue-collar workers only would be far too narrow. It could for instance classify those working on the checkout in a supermarket as non-manual and by default middle class, while shelf stackers under the same wage and conditions would be defined as manual and thus working class. So clearly, the thinking behind the white-collar/blue-collar grading is deeply flawed, particularly when you see that bank clerks, nurses, and even teachers, who in the past would have been considered middle class, are today in terms of pay and conditions far nearer to those occupations that are considered firmly working class.
Ultimately the core working class fall into two main categories: those whose work produces a direct profit for their employer (obviously by no means just blue-collar workers) and those engaged in supplementary occupations essential to the functioning of the economy who put in long hours for low pay. Most often these are the same people who most want change and so serve as the natural constituency of the IWCA.
So is the IWCA only interested in people on low pay or benefit?
Not only, because as we pointed out before, we believe the working class make up the majority of people in Britain. And as this is the case, it is vitally important that at all times the IWCA is, and is seen to be, at the disposal of the entire class. For having abandoned the working class and no longer attempting to organise it, the Labour party is not neutral but, in tandem with other middle class parties, is instead actively organising to undermine the interests of its former constituency. So apart from our own initiatives, organisation and agenda, the IWCA must reach out to become a focal point and political centre for authentic working class struggles on an all-island basis.
What, in political terms, is meant by the phrase ‘working class independence’?
At the heart of the IWCA lies the principle of self-determination. By this we mean that the working class must take an active role in determining its future. At present the political set-up no longer concerns itself with the interests of working class people. Therefore, we must begin to look after our own interests. Putting it simply, liberal democracy has failed the working class.
How is this failure reflected?
It is reflected in a number of ways: In the on-going privatisation of society; in the ever widening gap between rich and poor; in the turn-out at the last general election; and in the rise of the ultra right.
Taken together it shows that the interests, concerns and aspirations of working class people have not been in the past, will not be in the future, and realistically ought never to have been expected to be, represented by middle class agendas, ideologies and parties.
In addition, it is fairly common knowledge that the major parties— Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tories—all vie with each other for the votes of what is called ‘middle England’. By and large they do so, not by championing the sectional interests of this grouping in opposition to big business, but by promoting its interests in opposition to the less well off—the classic strategy of divide and rule.
Accordingly, where the mainstream parties set their face against the working class it is not unreasonable for the working class to be against all mainstream parties. We have already seen the lowest turn-out (since women got the vote in 1918) in the 2001 general election. Obviously, where it is perceived only middle England is represented, increasingly only middle England will vote. It follows, therefore that if the decline of working class participation in political affairs is to be arrested the only sensible way forward is for the working class to have an organisation free from all establishment parties and institutions.
‘Working class rule in working class areas’ is described as an interim objective. Can you explain what you mean by this?
By and large working class people have become accustomed to being represented by councillors and parties that come from outside the areas they govern and, more pertinently, from outside the working class of which they themselves are a part. While these parties may claim a democratic mandate, more often than not they get by through sharing out between them the vote of the small minority who still participate in council elections, which leads to the suspicion they have actually come to rely on as much as 80% of the electorate not taking part. This means that where a party like the IWCA is able to convince enough people in between elections that with their support we can make a difference, the electoral impact caused by the return of these previously disillusioned non-voters can cause what were assumed to be unassailable majorities to crumble overnight.
Such a development at the grassroots is vitally important because before the working class can expect to return to the national stage as an independent force we must first learn to do so locally. This is why one of the strategic aims the IWCA is geared toward the ‘re-conquest of working class neighbourhoods by working class people’. It goes without saying that in the absence of the social foundation of working class rule in working class areas, radical change may be possible but progressive change seems inconceivable.
But how can one or two IWCA councillors here or there expect to change anything?
You’re right of course. A lone IWCA councillor confronted by the closed ranks of the old parties cannot expect to change how the council is run overnight, but he or she can change how the ward they represent is run from the minute they are elected. So there is an obvious and immediate return for the working class people who have elected them. And while accepting that outside of what he or she may be able to do for his or her constituents an IWCA councillor may be unable to wield real power, the demonstration of a working class that is thinking, organising, and acting independently does tend to shake up the middle class incumbents of the other parties. For the simple reason that many individuals who vote IWCA may not otherwise have voted, the other parties realise the IWCA can tap into a constituency over which they cannot hope to have any influence. Accordingly, they tend to see every single vote for the IWCA in the context of what it might mean for them in the longer term and it frightens them. Simply by putting up candidates the IWCA can have a positive affect on the performance of the council as a whole because the mainstream parties know that if they don’t improve there is someone who will replace them.
Is the IWCA an electoral party?
While the IWCA has contested a number of elections in areas where we have built a base of support we would not view ourselves merely as an ‘electoral’ party. First and foremost the IWCA sees itself as a campaigning party, fighting on those issues which are of most concern to working class people—regardless of whether there is an election just around the corner—and we believe our track record so far supports that claim. Quite rightly, a significant proportion of the population now view conventional ‘electoral parties’ as a group of very cynical, professional politicians who turn up on your doorstep every four years or so to ask for your vote and then disappear off to the town hall, never to be seen again.
That said, the IWCA certainly sees elections as another battlefield on which to engage the mainstream parties. For instance, there is no way we are going to be working hard in an area only to step aside at election time to allow the usual collection of charlatans, carpet-baggers and careerists a free run. We want people to be left in no doubt that we are not just a pressure group complaining about this closure or that cut, only to get behind the ‘lesser evil’ at election time. We want these people voted out, but failing that, we aim to ensure that they at least know they’ve been in a fight and are forced to come out, face the community, and defend their sorry record in public.
Can the IWCA ensure its representatives will not get sucked into ‘the establishment’ and become as corrupt as the other parties?
It is true that some people think that by merely standing for election your principles are somehow already compromised. However corruption, double-dealing and being two-faced is not inevitable. The reasons why the mainstream parties often appear strangers to the truth are fairly easily explained. As we see it, the membership of the mainstream parties is increasingly made up of middle class people, while the bulk of the electorate comprises people who consider themselves working class.
Which means so long as the mainstream parties continue to present their policies as ‘being good’ for big business, middle England and ordinary people, though the interests of each are often in direct conflict, they are more or less forced to be economical with the truth simply in order to get elected. Furthermore, as a consequence of all the mainstream parties sharing the same objectives there is the tendency to focus on the minor detail while having a gentlemen’s agreement not to exploit the issues that most concern the electorate. Rather than reason with ordinary people they opt instead to try and manipulate them. All of which has caused the cynicism with which the major parties are regarded to run at an all time high, leading many to conclude that politicians are ‘only in it for themselves’.
By contrast, rather than pretend to be ‘all things to all people’, the IWCA founding statement makes clear that the singular purpose of the IWCA is ‘to pursue the political and economic interests’ of the working class without ‘consideration for the consequences to the existing economic structures’. This is where the IWCA is different. As working class political independence is both the stated means and the objective, so even issues of universal concern such as the environment are looked at from that perspective. The task we have set ourselves is to fight the corner of the working class pure and simple. So there is no pandering to rival class interests. Thus the handicap of having to say one thing but do another that besets all the other parties does not arise for the IWCA. But if this is not sufficient deterrent to those individuals who might be motivated only by furthering their own careers or lining their own pockets, we have put in place some further safeguards.
First, perhaps uniquely, the IWCA structure and constitution ensures the real power within the organisation lies with its rank-and-file members. Which means that if any IWCA representative betrays the stated principles when in office they can be quickly and easily removed. Second, and more specifically, rules in the constitution bar any of our members who are voted into electoral office pocketing the large salaries that councillors like to award themselves nowadays.
Does ‘working class rule in working class areas’ involve more than just running the council?
Well to a certain extent councils with limited ability to raise revenue through taxes and so on have very little real power. They are in many ways mere administrators for national government. And while this is clearly wrong it will, until challenged politically, continue to be the case.
In the meantime our political task is to make the existing system conform to the wishes of the people it is constitutionally accountable to. Where, over time, a system of administration has proved itself hostile to the interests of the local population, then the community will have to face up to the challenge of replacing it with the type of administration that adequately reflects its interests.
So what type of administration do you think would adequately reflect working class interests?
Well, in the situation we have at present, where all the establishment parties seem agreed that, what in previous generations were considered basic human rights—the right to work, the right to decent housing, the right to adequate health care, the right to silence or even trial by jury—have to be abandoned to meet the interests of the system, this is a tall order.
When on top of this you are faced with a situation in many working class areas where the police fail to offer effective protection from crime within the community, it is clear something must be done. Politicians often argue when police fail to respond to routine calls in working class areas that it is down to lack of manpower. But this is not necessarily the case. More often it is to do with the police deciding other, usually better off areas, must take precedence. This is a situation that is not likely to improve so the community must put up with it or step in to fill the vacuum here too. What this means is that the onus is on the community to protect itself from the criminal element, and in some cases as a consequence, particularly in drug-related crime, from victimisation by the police.
Doesn’t all this leave the IWCA open to the charge of vigilantism?
It does, but what we are actually talking about is something entirely different. In repeated surveys in the disparate areas in which the IWCA has run pilot schemes, crime has come top of the agenda. This reflects the fact that fear of crime has a deeply corrosive effect on working class people as they suffer from it disproportionately, but as well as that, their inability to compel the authorities to respond makes them despair of real progress being achieved in any other area either.
Over time the affect is hugely demoralising, causing many to retreat from any active political, community or even social engagement as a result. So obviously this is an area of concern that must be addressed.
There is, in addition, a growing perception that the policy of the police in regard to working class communities is one of ‘contain and control’, whereby hard drug dealing and the serious anti-social behaviour that inevitably follows are controlled by being contained within working class communities. Where that happens, as well as being a criminal problem it also becomes a political problem and, again, this is an issue that an organisation like the IWCA simply cannot duck. Put simply, to enjoy the support and confidence of local communities, whoever polices the community must be accountable to that community. Clearly that is one of the cornerstones of any democratic administration.
Can you give another illustration of how ‘working class rule in working class areas’ might turn things around?
Take housing for example. If a borough has 2000 homeless and three times as many empty properties then simple division should provide an instant solution. But what has happened over the last twenty-five years is that there has been a decisive change in the priorities of the governing parties, and with this has come the tendency for politicians to place the stress on the obligations of individuals as tenants, parents and citizens while at the same time ignoring, diluting or side-stepping their own statutory obligations. But where a system will not, or cannot, administer positively in allocating decent housing then is it reasonable to stand by as it administers negatively, in terms of rent arrears, bailiffs, evictions and so on? The answer must be no.
And obviously, if because of decisions taken at national level, local government cannot be made to work in accordance with the wishes of the electorate then ‘local democracy’ has no meaning. For democracy to be given real meaning under these conditions administration must become the act of the working class itself: de facto self-government.
Once again can you explain what you mean by working class ‘self-government’?
Under Thatcher, a series of changes in local government funding took place whereby funding was increasingly doled out and, all importantly, controlled by central government. This has caused two things to happen: on the one hand an absence of proper funding for working class areas has seen the infrastructure which previously catered for people’s needs devastated, with the ‘savings’ made through the cuts being returned to the better off in the form of tax concessions.
And along with the inability to provide proper services, we have also seen the tendency to ever-larger wards with a correspondingly greater gap between councillors and the people who elected them. Along with these two fundamental reverses, the role of elected councillors in the decision-making process has been minimised; the substitute is a ‘cabinet’ style system where as few as nine councillors decide on who gets what. Priorities again. Needless to say, this erosion of democratic accountability will, at some stage in the future, see the need for any form of representative government at all at the local level being called into question. Already well-salaried cabinet-run councils are regarded in some quarters as a preparation for affairs at a local level being administered by un-elected appointees.
It is a trend that, should it continue, will see working class people confronted with the choice of either self-government and democracy, or no services and no democracy.
Will the privatisation of public services not have an impact on the political parties who support it?
Undoubtedly this will prove to be the case. Particularly as all the mainstream parties continue to look for more and more ways to divest responsibility from the state and onto the private sector at a speed previously unimaginable. We can see the process at work across the board, in hospitals, schools, housing, and policing. Naturally as they abandon responsibility for sections of the population socially they will be forced as a consequence to abandon (an increasingly paramilitary police force apart) these areas territorially as well—just like the Tory party, which has practically no say in any working class areas now.
Labour too is destined to lose all influence with this constituency. 1997 was arguably the last election in which Labour candidates campaigned in working class areas with any real confidence. What this means is that organisations who still seek to influence events in working class areas will do so largely free of competition from the mainstream parties. That is not to say that the establishment parties will just disappear, but equally, popular support for their policies will continue to fall. For those determined to build a political alternative in working class communities this represents a gigantic and historic opportunity.
So how will the IWCA respond politically to the situation described?
As the state gradually withdraws from areas of social responsibility, rather than condemn their desertion and plead for them to come back, the IWCA will seek to fill the void both socially and politically.
So in any area where the establishment wants to break the working class from reliance on the state socially—‘break the culture of dependency’—rather than rely entirely on an often futile resistance we must instead seek to compliment this development by bringing it a step further and using the momentum to break the working class from any reliance or allegiance to the state politically. What we mean by this is not the rejection of existing state social provision but the working class taking increasing responsibility for all areas of policy implemented in its name.
So on the one hand, the IWCA rejects this government’s policies on issues such as drugs, anti-social behaviour and policing, and on the other insists these issues cannot be ignored?
We reject the government’s policies on these issues, firstly because we believe they are not effective in addressing the problem and secondly because we believe the impact of these policies on working class communities can actually prove to be counter-productive.
Moreover, unlike some liberals, we do not believe anybody attempting to address these issues can automatically be considered reactionary. On the contrary, the IWCA has a proven track record of responding to issues such as drug dealing and antisocial behaviour in our communities.
The real challenge for anybody involved in progressive working class politics is to develop short, mid and long-term strategies that can begin to address what is a massive issue within our communities. Make no mistake, any party seeking to represent the interests of working class people who ignores these problems or simply pretends they do not exist will not be taken seriously by them, and rightly so.
‘Total social change’ is presented as the ultimate IWCA objective. Can you explain in precise terms what is meant by this expression?
Well, in the economic arena, in dealing with what are otherwise presented as intractable problems, from pensions to railways, the private sector is constantly promoted as the ultimate saviour. But if the privatisation principle holds good in the economic sphere it would be illogical to deny its vitality in the political sphere.
And it is not denied. Increasingly, the model at national and local level is government by the few for, inevitably, the betterment of the few. In short, minority rule in minority interests.
The alternative vision is the democratisation of both politics and the economy: ‘total social change’. The means to bring it about is the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.
What future role do you see for trade unions strategically?
Britain was the first industrialised country. Industrialisation drew people from the land to the cities, and today we are going through a similar metamorphosis in reverse. The collapse of large-scale industry such as mining, steel and shipbuilding has not only rendered the industries redundant but has also led to the methods of resistance, like trade unions, becoming defunct as well.
Millions of workers now operate in businesses employing 25 people or less. Understandably, though they might personally benefit from being in a union, collective bargaining through trade union representation is not an option for them.
Unions too have adapted themselves by operating more like businesses, offering pensions and private health care to potential recruits. And again, while this may benefit the individual member, there is no longer any wider social or political role whereby unions can advance the interests of the working class as a whole.
Yet the IWCA itself has been described as a ‘trade union for the community’?
Yes, and it is a description that is accurate to the extent that much of the time IWCA work can involve dealing with the failure of the authorities to listen to the local community or carry out their statutory responsibilities, in regard to basic safety, maintenance and repairs in the properties that are under their control. As none of the mainstream parties are consistent on such issues it often falls to the IWCA to take the council to task on behalf of those in the affected community. It is also impossible to talk of greater advances on other fronts if ‘bread and butter’ issues are ignored.
Liberals would argue that certain IWCA policies could be construed as ‘racist’. How do you respond to such allegations?
The IWCA is not a racist organisation. For us, skin colour is of little relevance politically so we do not feel morally obliged to support aspects of race-related policies with which we do not agree, particularly when we believe them to be wrongheaded and divisive. Examples abound.
Up until around 1980 anti-racism was all about opposing discrimination on the grounds of colour or nationality: ‘treating everyone the same’. It was a limited measure but contained an element of fairness most people understood then and would probably agree with today. Since then, under the banners of ‘identity politics’, ‘positive discrimination’ and ‘promotion of diversity’, agendas have been adopted for treating different races differently.
This has led among other things to the case being made for separate housing and schooling; in other words for racial exclusivity. All too predictably this perception of preferential treatment has resulted in confusion and serious resentment.
In general terms, however, both politicians and the media present racism as the last great injustice and, as a consequence, justify the drive to push race to the forefront of practically every debate. In the process society has become increasingly ‘racialised’. And while it is accepted that racialisation is not always a welcome development, it is often defended in the erroneous belief that white people are ‘inherently racist’. We believe this to be wrong.
Equally flawed is the tendency to ignore social and economic factors and use ethnicity alone to identify or solve problems. Inevitably, a one-sided view can just as easily serve to conceal as reveal just solutions.
Take, for instance, the most recent example. The Department of Education released figures in March 2003 showing that while only 30% of black Caribbean children sitting GCSEs got top grades, 51% of white students did so. This was automatically presented as damning evidence of racism, followed by a government promise to improve performances for ethnic minority students generally. But, when examined, the statistics point to a different conclusion.
A closer study of the evidence shows that in all, just 42,146 black Caribbean students sat for GCSEs in 2002. Of these 70% were deemed to be un-academic. Although the rate of underachievement among white children was lower, at 49%, this percentage was extracted from a total of 2,707,404 students. The official conclusions ignore the fact that the latter group was more than 60 times larger than the former.
Put another way, if almost one in two white children across all classes do not get top grades, it is a level of failure that can only be explained by factors other than racism. To reinforce that point you also have the 73% and 64% success ratio achieved by children from Chinese and Indian origin, while Pakistani children are 24% less successful than Indian students.
Does this not show different levels of ability in different national groups?
No, but it does demolish the arguments of official anti-racism which can make no sense of such disparities, as they choose to ignore the overwhelming social and economic inequality that make up the bigger picture. In reality the relative underachievement of Caribbean and Pakistani children is a straightforward symptom of wider under-funding combined with a pre-existing disadvantage that affects all working class children. Other reports show that children from middle class homes are three times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs than classmates from less well-off households, and that family income delivers 66% of GCSE results. It is also now accepted that sometime in the mid 1970s social mobility stalled and went into reverse, which means the class you are born into is increasingly the class you stay in. As the statistics demonstrate, this applies to those from immigrant groups as well as everyone else.
Isn’t lack of social mobility what New Labour was elected to remedy?
Yes, many thought so, but to be effective it would require the disadvantage suffered by the entire working class to be reversed to have any effect.
Labour has no stomach for such a radical overhaul so they opt instead for a smaller, less expensive and more tactically advantageous target: the racial quota. This is, at best, a superficial approach that addresses the effects but not the real causes of the effects.
But don’t all the major parties support the multicultural approach?
Yes, there is generally cross party support for parity among racial groups but it is largely related to self interest: a strong black and Asian middle class helps reinforce the existing white middle class, the mainstay of the Labour, Lib-Dem and Tory parties, and as a result seen as the support base for the social and political status quo.
A by-product of constantly emphasising apparent disparities between racial groups is that it can also serve to camouflage what they have in common, with the result that the poor are set against the poor in the name of anti-racism. In brief, while other parties rush to put social issues in a racial context the IWCA believes the greater truth is revealed through placing racial issues in a social context.
Which is why the IWCA will instinctively continue to oppose policies that discriminate against, divide, or serve in any way to weaken the working class as a movement. As we have seen, prior to the 1980s the argument was that everyone should be treated the same. In our view politics would be more clear-cut, the solutions more straightforward and democracy healthier if genuine anti-racists restricted themselves to that original message.
Where does the IWCA come down on the question of immigration?
In Britain today the gap between the rich and poor is ever greater and, in terms of housing, health and education, the provision of resources is wholly inadequate.
There are those who complain about asylum seekers and immigrants as being partially responsible for housing problems, over-crowded classrooms, and hospital waiting lists. This is wrong. These problems existed long before refugees started arriving in significant numbers. The counter position is to argue in a politically correct way that in terms of waiting lists and so on, the interests of the new arrivals, as those with the greatest need, must supersede those of the established population. This too is wrong.
Given the way society is structured, it succeeds only in polarising the argument along the lines of nationality or race, often setting the poor against the poor, while leaving the decisive question of how resources are allocated and priorities defined fundamentally unchanged. Moreover, if in the near future Britain fully integrates within an expanding European Union, the question of borders in a European context will be irrelevant (meaning that all within the European Union can come and live here legally) while, nonetheless, the problem of deciding how resources are to be allocated will be acute.
As this is an evolving situation and the IWCA is an evolving organisation we will have to wait and see. In the meantime the IWCA will fight for greater resources for working class communities that play host to large numbers of political refugees and for the integration of those refugees within the community.
How is the IWCA structured?
Like a lot of parties the structure of the IWCA resembles a pyramid except, unlike all other parties, power resides at the bottom with the rank and file.
This is achieved by electing recallable delegates at the local level to make decisions regionally and nationally. Furthermore, officers elected at the annual general meeting, to deal with matters affecting the IWCA nationally, remain subordinate to these delegates in regard to the implementation of IWCA policy in between AGMs. Decisions at the AGM are made according to the principle of one-person one vote.
Can anyone join the IWCA?
Yes the IWCA is open to any working class person in Britain. This does not mean middle class people are excluded. On the contrary we welcome them as allies, but at the same time the class character of the IWCA, if it is to function politically, must remain overwhelmingly a working class one. So accommodating working class people will be our primary goal.
Who would be regarded as an ideal IWCA recruit?
Someone who already operates politically and is socially active in his or her working class community, sees the need for change, and is prepared to take on some responsibility for making it happen. However, we of course welcome the support of everyone regardless of how much previous organising experience they have, or the amount of time they are able to commit. Everyone has a role to play.
What is the role of an IWCA councillor?
He or she has two basic functions. To serve as a delegate for the people who elected them and, as an IWCA member, to bring an independent working class analysis into the heart of local government wherever that might be.
Can you sum up the immediate political objectives of the IWCA?
The objective of the IWCA is to make a difference rather than propaganda. Only by addressing the day-to-day concerns of the working class where they live can the IWCA help develop communities of resistance able to withstand and then politically exploit Labour’s collapse as a mass working class party. It has to be done. There is no alternative.
