 In the 1920's Trotski asked a question, through which stage are we passing, and that question has to be asked and answered in this particular meeting and in order to understand it we also understand that we cannot explain things in Britain without understanding the broad world situation, and as why we've always traditionally began Diogelwch yn oed, a'r Ysgrifennid, fy ystod yn syniadau. Cywethaf, mae'r ynwg cymunedol yn y cyflodau sydd yn ei gael cyflodau. Yn ystod, mae'r cyflodau sy'n cael ymddangosol yn ei gael ymddangosol. Felly mae'r cyflodau ar y gael y 2008. Yn y cyflodau sy'n cael ymddangosol yn y ffordd ar gyfer y 1930. ac yn ddefnyddio ar y dda iawn sy'n ei romant, yn ym individuallych yn y pongolo'r 12 oed. Felly mae'r symud yw erioedol. Yn amlwg iawn o'r cydyddur o'r adeiladau hyd held ar gyfer y dyfod logo'r ysgolwad, yn y dyfodol yw'n ffordd eu ddefnyddio ar gyflaen o'r periól. ..y ffordd i'r ffordd yng nghymru yw'r cyfnod yw'r eistedd yn ei ddweud. Mae'r ffordd yn ymlaen i'r ffordd yn ei ddau'r cyfnod o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r cyfnod yw'r ffordd. Mae'r cyfnod sy'n ddweud i'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod. Fyrtu'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod. Mae'r cyfnod yn ymddiseb yn ymwyng. ac mae'n creu'r warchfodwch y rhan o gyflawni, mae'r iawn i'r cyfrifio'r eich cyfrifio'r iawn. Yn amlwg, Mark i'r cyfrifio, ond, mae'r cynhyrchu'r erbyn gyda'r ffordd iawn. Ond o'r cyfrifio'r iawn, mae'n gofio'r ddechrau'r ffordd iawn o'r gyrfaen i'r ffordd iawn. Mae'r cyd-dyniad, mae'r cyd-dyniad a'r cyd-dyniad ar y system, sy'n edrych yn gweithio'r defnyddio'r Rhyngor o'r hyn mae'r dwylo. Mae'r cyd-dyniad ar y cyfnod, o'r cyfnod o'r cyfan o'r cyfnod o'r cyd-dyniad. ac mae'r strategistau eich bod yn angen i'r cyfnodd y system cyfnodd, ond nid i'r cyfnodd y gallu'n gweithio'r problem. Mae'n gallu'n cwmwylo'r stagnio'r cyfnodd. Mae'r cyfnodd yn y cwmwylo'r cyfnodd o'r ddechydig o'r stagnio cyfnodd. Mae'n rhai prognosec. A'n mynd i'r cyfnodd, mae'n cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd o'r sterdid. ac mae'r cyfnod wedi'i gweld yn ystagnau, ond mae'r cyfnod yn y cyfnod yn y system cyflos. Does that mean to say that there will not be any partial recoveries in one country or another? No, we don't say that. That also is inherent in the situation. You can't have just a continual decline of world capitalism. But that was the characteristics also of the 1930s, where there are also ups and downs in the general shift downwards of world capitalism. You could say that the curve of capitalist development, to use Trotsky's phrase, is on a downward trajectory. But within that trajectory there will be ups and downs. But nevertheless they cannot emerge from this crisis. We have even talked about a permanent crisis. But again doesn't mean to say it completely downward to it all the time. But nevertheless it characterises a situation where they can't get out of it. Unlike for instance in the 1930s where capitalism was in a depression and the capitalist could only get out of that depression by the Second World War and the destruction of the productive forces on that basis. Capitalism, because of the development of nuclear weapons and the international class balance of forces, cannot go down the road of world war to solve its problems. That doesn't mean to say there won't be small wars, local wars, which are taking place even at the present time, but a world war is ruled out. And therefore all the contradictions that are built up in capitalism become more exacerbated. All the problems are more internalised, and therefore the period you're entering will be even more damaging for capitalism, even more dangerous for capitalism than the 1930s itself. Even now the crisis is characterised by massive overproduction on a world scale. Steel has been mentioned many times, but steel, coal, raw materials, cars, houses, everything on a capitalist basis have reached this incredible state of overproduction and incapacity of capitalism to sell its goods because of a lack of demand, a lack of a market on a profitable basis. It shows the entire contradictions of capitalism linked up to this present crisis. This year was characterised by the Royal Bank of Scotland as a cataclysmic year for capitalism, and I think that is entirely true that the system is exhausted. The so-called recovery that we've had for the last five years is also completely exhausted, and therefore we are on the verge of a new world slump which will be far deeper than 2008, which inevitably will entail trade war between the different powers and a huge collapse again of the productive forces as we've seen in the 1930s on all the implications that will have for capitalism. Now, we must also say that not only can they not get out of this crisis and they tried all sorts of means to get out of the crisis, negative interest rates which have never been tried before or a desperate way of attempting to stimulate demand in Japan which has experienced something like three decades of a recession, three decades of stagnation. They are now trying, they've tried actually quantitative easing, the attempt to create artificial money to pump into the system. That hasn't worked, so they're now looking towards quantitative and qualitative easing, QQE, and they even ventured to talk about QQQE when this fails. In other words, it shows the way they're thrashing about, trying everything and anything in order to get out of this mess, this disaster situation that they exist, that they're in. But they can't get out of it because of the contradictions of capitalism itself and there's new contradictions which are emerging all the time. And therefore we can say in a general sense this is an epoch of revolution and of counter-revolution on a world scale which will affect all the countries of the world to one degree or another. And as a consequence, the bourgeois are very pessimistic about the future. They're quite alarmed about the future and what it holds because they can see for the first time that not only a deep economic crisis but it's now been reflected in the consciousness of the masses of the population. This anti-capitalist mood that is developing on a world scale is a product of the crisis and the attacks of the crisis. There can be no recovery if you like. There certainly can be no upswing as we had following the Second World War. That's ruled out, that the reforms they were able to grant are ruled out. Now it's a period of counter reforms are on the agenda and that stems from the crisis of capitalism itself. But this transformation of consciousness doesn't take place in a straight line, doesn't take place gradually, takes place in a very dialectical way where quantity changes into quality and that consciousness takes place or changes in leaps and bounds in a big bang. And that's what's taking place at the present time, particularly in the United States, but graphically with the emergence of the Trump phenomena and also of the Bernie Sanders phenomena of a colossal hatred of the establishment, a hatred of the rich, of the 1% and a need to look for a radical way out from their problems. And why Sanders has appeared to millions of calling for a political revolution to overthrow the billionaire class, a very revolutionary slogan to be used, which is radicalising effect in millions in the United States where yearning for fundamental change. The American dream is no longer, it's more like an American nightmare for large layers of the working class. There was one article that appeared in the financial times which summed up the kind of mood of the capitalist on a world scale. It's called warnings of the 1930s. It's from the financial times of the 14th of March, just a few weeks ago. Western democracy is going through an acute stress test. On both sides of the Atlantic, people have lost faith in their public institutions. We can no longer be sure the centre will hold. The most insidious trend is vanishing optimism about the future. Many have since had their homes repossessed. Medium incomes were lower in 2015 than in 2005. The majority on both sides of the Atlantic believe their children would be worse off than they are. Labour's share of national income keeps plummeting. Despite the US economy's recovery, 2015, so the sharpest rise in US wage inequality since the end of the Great Recession. More Americans are living in poverty than at any time since records began more than 50 years ago. The final echo of the 1930s is the declining global order. I think this quote sums up the enormous pessimism and the boos what I have in their own system and how it's creating a revolutionary mood in society, challenging the capitalist system in all countries itself. Today's Financial Times has an article about Iceland, where the comrades have seen the demonstrations in Iceland that have overthrown the Prime Minister and are threatening to overthrow the government. And it quotes a demonstrator that there are two nations in this country that once own everything and the rest of us. Another said, we are sick of it. It's just not change of government we want. It's a change of the system. And again reflects the real mood that exists. Another commentator said, I always felt the revolution was not finished. Now it feels like we are finishing the revolution. Again that the mood that exists even in Iceland is an indication of the changed consciousness affecting broad layers in America and also in Europe. Again I come across a quote from the Financial Times about France and it asks the question, is France on the brink of a revolution? Is President Hollande in danger of being dragged to the guillotine? These sound like silly questions. In fact they are silly questions. Yet talk of a revolution, of a new revolution, is surprisingly common in France these days. Now these bourgeois commentators are clearly trying to find out the mood as a warning to the ruling class. You had even the commentator from Donald Tusk, not a commentator, the head of the European Commission. You said that Europe is facing a potential 1968 scenario. And what he meant by that was in France in 1968. There was a month long six week general strike of 10 million workers and that the conditions in Europe are being replicated, profound and ease of profound hostility to big business, to capitalism and so on and so forth. And that's the general characteristic of the world situation. A whole series of revolutionary explosions are on the order of the day. Capitalism is creating these conditions. As it gets worse, as it attacks the working class, as it says there's no future for young people, then they react obviously in a very radical way in attempting to seek a way out of this situation, of permanent austerity, of no future, which is the situation at the present time. And therefore our starting point for any analysis about Britain or the world is that there's no way out on the basis of capitalism for the working class. There's no way out and therefore there has to be a move in the direction of revolution as they were in the 1920s and in the 1930s in the next period. And this is the background to what we are facing in Britain. And Britain has experienced quite a profound change over the last 12 months. But if you're looking at Britain, we should also analyse it from a long-term point of view and see how things are moving. We have the special crisis of British capitalism with Ted Grant analysed adequately in his writings. Which said that Britain has been in decline for the past 100 years. But this decline has been accelerated particularly over the last 30 or so years and is reflected in the inability of the ruling class in Britain to modernise and develop industry in Britain. They have failed to invest, they have failed to develop the productive forces in Britain in order to compete on a world scale. And therefore they have fallen further and further and further behind their competitors on a world scale. Further than behind all the European powers. And this decline is reflected in itself in a chronic de-industrialisation of Britain. Over the last 30 years, manufacturing industry has declined by two-thirds. It's a massive de-industrialisation far bigger than any other major industrial power in the world. In terms of steel, which is obviously the bedrock of a modern industrial economy. Steel is the foundation, so it's the basis of the industrial revolution. We see the way the steel industry has collapsed in Britain. And there's now a threat of it being wiped out altogether. In the 19th century, Britain had 40% of the world's production of steel. Now it's got 0.7% of world production. It's collapsing because of the massive overproduction arising from China and elsewhere. They cannot sell this amount. And therefore we've seen in terms of steel, in terms of metals, in terms of chemicals, which is the basis of industrial production. Britain has faced the biggest fall in any country of the world. That gives you an indication of the decline of British capitalism over the past period. Because the working class are suffering because of that. Whole industries are being wiped out, coal industry, steel going, ship building. All the basic industries have been undermined because of the capitalist classes refusal in Britain to invest. They prefer to invest abroad. They prefer to invest in speculation and property speculation, in antiques, in gold, in anything, but in manufacturing industry and so on. In fact, they are caught up with Armenia, as Marx once said, of an attempt to make money out of money without going through the process of production. And that's why we see the consequences of British capitalism's foundations, which are crumbling really, and have crumbled in the past period. Now the threat of 40,000 job losses in the steel industry. If Talbot goes and other steel plants go. And they're all owned by foreign corporations. This once the workshop of the world has been taken over, companies have been taken over even by Indian companies, which is quite ironic. And even now an Indian billionaire is talking about intervening by the remnants of the steel industry. But on one condition, on two conditions. First of all, state aid, masses of the state aid. And secondly, the workers in those industries take a reduction in wages and conditions. In fact, the discussions going on in Scunthorpe, we've got a community here from Scunthorpe. There's a ballot taking place in Scunthorpe of the workers. And now for them to take lower wages, lower conditions in order to keep their jobs. In other words, they've been blackmailed into this kind of position. And this is how British capitalism has developed over the past period. As a consequence, we've got the biggest balance of payment crisis in history since records began in 1948. £100 billion worth of deficit because of an inability to compete on a world scale. 7% of gross domestic product has to be covered by borrowing from abroad in order for us to survive because of the decline of British industry and the decline of British capitalism in the past period. We've seen recent figures, I think they were out yesterday. Industrial production continues to fall. It fell in February by 0.5%. Manufacturing industry fell by 1.8% over the last year. I mean, these are disastrous figures when they supposed to be re-balanced in the economy because of the basis of banking financial services, which become far, far more dominant in the British economy than at any time before. In fact, the city of London is booming while the industrial areas are suffering enormously or in decline, and that reflects the topsy-turvy nature of British capitalism. We've destroyed industry and boosted banking and boosted financial services and other speculative aspects, if you like, of capitalism itself. London, far from being just for Britain, it's become an international centre of finance capital. It's going to be an international centre of parasitic capitalism, if you like. What goes through the city of London is equivalent, I think, of 70% of all bonds traded on the world's stock markets go through London. 70%. In relation to derivatives, 40% of the world's derivatives go through the London stock exchanges. It shows how dominant, how super-dominant this sector is in Britain at the present moment. On a daily basis, the city of London has a turnover of £1.4 trillion on a daily basis. At the same time, you can see this illustrates far more than anything else. The parasitic nature of British capitalism and the failure of the British capitalists is their responsibility for this huge decline that we've experienced, which is going to have major effects on the living standards of workers of young people and so on has had and will have in the future. Of course, we've seen what's been created here. In fact, they talk about the city of London and so on and the financial service of the banking as a kind of strength to the British economy, but it's the weakness. It shows a weakness of the British economy, and that's why Britain was hard hit in 2008. It suffered a bigger decline in 2008-2009 than Britain had in 1929-1931, bigger than the depression, again mainly because of the reliance on service and on banking industry. But this collapse has meant also the rise of a low-skilled, low-waged economy as compared to the past. The British workers have suffered the greatest flexibility of labour, possibly next to the United States of America, where conditions have been continually ground down, where wages have been forced down, where terms of conditions have been ripped up over the past a period. Agency work, which is the epitome of flexible working. You've got more agency work is in Britain than a whole of Europe combined. That's the position. It shows that the nature of work in Britain now is transformed. And what does it mean? It means enormous stress on the working class, which has been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed at every single turn, and that squeeze is not finished by any shape or form. And if you look at the areas, I saw a figure produced by Eurostat recently, which said that the gross domestic product per individual, per person in west Wales, is lower than Poland. It also pointed out that in Teeside and in Durham you have a lower GDP per head than in the Czech Republic. That's how things have developed in many areas of Britain at the present time. Lower than the standards in Eastern Europe, which are also very low compared to Western Europe. On top of that, we've had six years of austerity, biting austerity, which also has reduced living standards. The biggest fall in real wages for 150 years is taking place in Britain. So, therefore, this has a big impact on the way people begin to assess the situation, assess their lives and so on. Of course, the capitalists are not satisfied with this. They want to raise to the bottom. And that's no accident why Jeremy Hunt, for instance, who is well in the news at this point in time, has said that the British workers need to take a leaf out of the workers in China. They should work as hard as the workers in China and probably live on the same wages as the workers in China. That's the real future that the British workers have under capitalism in Britain. In other words, this is a continual downward spiral of living standards and conditions. And other factors, homelessness in London over the last two years, homelessness has grown by 38%. You've got cases of tuberculosis affecting large parts and cities of England and Wales in London. I was surprised to see that in the boroughs of Brent and in Newham, they've got levels of TB on the same part as Iraq and Algeria. Now, that says it all. But Britain has been reduced to a third world country in many respects, which shows the devastating crisis of British capitalism and what it means. Of course, they've risen the minimum wage, so therefore all workers are cheering to their afters quite clearly. First of all, not everybody will get it. That's quite clear that there will be employers who will get round it and the way they do it in many, many ways by increasing the workload. If they have to pay it, they'll make it work damn harder for it or they'll make people redundant. In other words, you have to do the same work in the same hours or more work in the same hours rather. And therefore, this will also be eaten away. We've got council tax rises, rent rises, prescription charge increases. We've got increases through services. We've been cut by the Tory government. All those will eat into the living standards of the working class and reduce the living standards over the next period. And this has resulted in frustration, anger, bitterness in British society. And the deeper you go into the working class, the more angrier, the more bitter and the more great is the discontent. And that's what we have to understand what's taking place in Britain. Of course, the trade union leaders, instead of basing themselves on this anger, basing themselves on this frustration, the leader battle against the Tory government and a battle against the employers have capitulated. They are the most trots he said in the 1920s that the British trade union leaders were the most conservative force in history, in society rather. And he's absolutely right. They are a break on the movement, the barrier to the struggles of the working class. And that's why you've had a relatively low level of strikes in the past period. However, you know, the workers being squeezed, like in the steel industry. But what has community done this, this great trade union leaders, they've even came out against the idea of nationalisation. They want a cosy relationship with the employers, they said, like they've had till the last 35 years. That's what they've been talking about. They're prepared to accept the cuts, they're prepared to accept the reductions in order to keep the jobs, the same old argument that they've used time in and time out. But the working class is still, its anger is not going away, it's getting worse, it's getting more and more. And it's like a pressure cooker. If you keep it sealed all the time, it just keeps building up and building up. There's no safety valve here. And it's a very explosive position in the British working class, as is the case in the working class in other countries. And without this safety valve, it means there's going to be one hell of an explosion when it comes. And it's got a paradox that the people who are on strike now, the junior doctors, you know, he's not even affiliated to the TUC. But it's a young layer, a fresh layer, which was always a privileged layer in the past, quite clearly. But because of the actions of the government in trying to proletarianise this layer, the forced down conditions, they've reacted in a very militant fashion. And that's a reflection also of the youthfulness of this layer, obviously. They don't have to have the hang-ups of the past on their shoulders. And that's why they've taken this action, which is a very important symptom of the situation. I think the teachers have also threatened to go on strike as well over this question of academies being introduced, again a symptom of the situation. But the generally the Trajan Leesor are holding the situation back. Just like in Grangemouth, a few years back, where they had enormous possibility of making a victory out of that dispute, a petrochemical plant that could take action which would paralyse the whole of the economy. What power, more power do you want? And all you had was McCluskey running up to Glasgow saying, this is a scandal. We should be discussing this issue for its real and industrial relations, he said. And that was the kind of outlook of the trade union leaders. In fact, I just saw a speech by McCluskey the other day about what Jim said to me about the EU. And I was saying, well, we have to stay in the EU despite all the problems. And it means yes, we have to vote yes together with Cameron, that's why Cameron's the most anti-working class leader. We still have to vote with them. Why? Because we have to be statesmen like. That's the thing of the court, we've got to be statesmen like. This is an indication, the kind of rottenness you have at the tops of the trade union movement at the present time. Of course, they can be on the basis of a wave, they either ride the wave or they will be thrown out, thrown by the wayside. And therefore, we shouldn't rule out, this growing discontent can reflect itself on the industrial field. However, he could say that this mood in society, if it's not going to reflect itself in an industrial struggle, certainly reflect itself in a political radicalisation that's taking place at the present time. An anti-establishment feeling, an anti-big business feeling, you know, them and us kind of feeling, which exists everywhere in Britain. And that's not going to go away, that's going to deepen in the next period. Of course, this anger, this bitterness, this frustration has been reflected as we've seen. First of all in the referendum in Scotland. That was an indication of a huge change in the consciousness of the people in Scotland, of against austerity, against capitalism as they represented and caused a fundamental change in Scotland. A result in the collapse of the Labour Party, which was a dominant party in Scotland, who were completely collapsed in the general election that followed in May of last year. I mean, they reduced to one seat. Why? Because the SNP put on a left face and the Labour Party paid for years and decades of betrayal of the Scottish workers. Enough was enough, they said. And that's why they were, they failed this time to support the Labour Party in Scotland, particularly in the Jim Murphy and the right wing Blairites, who led the party into the general election. But this radicalisation also will not go away. In Scotland also it's worth pointing out, it was said yesterday, that Labour will not recover very easily in Scotland. There's been a fundamental changer. And even over the elections now, the Hollywood elections in Scotland, Labour is 30 points behind the SNP. That's the gap, 30 points. In fact, the discussion in Scotland is whether Labour will be pushed into third place behind the Tories. Can you imagine it? It's an incredible position. And even with the PR representatives you've got there, the SNP are going to win a landslide there, again coming out on the left reformist approach. It's going to take a while for any changes on that front because the national question as well. But this surge that we saw in Scotland was missing in England and Wales. The mood was there, but it didn't have anything to connect with. And clearly, although the mood represented in the last election, certain changes. For instance, the growth of UKIP, although it's a right wing party, nevertheless it's seen as an anti-establishment party. And it garnered something in nearly 4 million votes. The Greens took nearly a million votes in that election. The Labour Party, on the contrary, although it's a vote, went up by 1%, that is true. The Tories only went up by 1%. There's a large amount of abstentions that took place. But Labour couldn't capitalise on the previous five years of austerity government. They couldn't capitalise on it because they were offering austerity light. They were offering much of the same. And therefore, how could that enthuse anybody? How could that generate a colossal interest when there was nothing to choose fundamentally as people saw it? And therefore the Tories were able to get back to power. The first time since 1992, they have a majority. They didn't win the election, they were handed it to them on a plate by the Labour Party and the Labour leaders who had sold the workers down the road from that point of view. And the victory of the Tory Party, nevertheless, was not a huge success for the ruling class. That the Tories got a majority, what, of 12. Very, very small majority. Compare that to Margaret Thatcher in what, 1983. 144 majority for the Tories. That's a swampy majority. That's a strong government to take on the working class, which it did. But a government, they know of 12, when there's splits and divisions opening up, it is very, very weak altogether. And we've seen that in the past period. Soon after the election, they would talk about cuts in benefits. And that had a reaction. And I think the comrades saw it on this single mother on news night who voted Tory in the general election, when she heard that she was due for a benefit cut. She attacked the Tories and remember the person on the platform, shame on you. Shame on you, shame on you. And that had a big effect on those people looking at it. It kind of had an impact on those layers were now becoming affected and attacked by the Tories in an outward way. Of course, Osborne shrugged it off and in December of last year, talked about everything was going fine, that the organisation of budgetary responsibility have told them that growth was going to continue, tax was going to go up, and they were on par, they were on line to achieving a budget surplus by 2019-2020. And he was boasting out the position of British capitalism and the position of the Tory government. But within one month, he was singing a different tune. He was talking about a toxic cocktail of events that are facing British capitalism, or he was mainly talking about the world economy. But also in Britain, as we can see with the balance of payments crisis. And then very shortly, he was informed that the black hole in the British budget was £18 billion. And the only way they could make up on that was further austerity, deeper austerity and deeper cuts to the livelihoods of working people. And that's what they tried to embark upon. The only thing is, the Tory government now is in extreme difficulties. It's like a perfect storm. The economy has gone belly up. There's a huge slowdown in the British economy. Obviously, taxes are not being raised. The deficit is getting larger. They have to borrow more money. So they're in grave difficulties. And they want to carry out further attacks and further cuts. But the Camerons opened up a gang of worms now in relation to Europe. Europe has paralysed the government. And the question of the European referendum was a means by saving the skin of Cameron and hoping to win a majority government by undermining support for UKIP. It was a political ploy, which is not in the interest of British capitalism, to create this colossal uncertainty which exists at the present time. And certainly, it's opened up what might must be described as a bloody civil war within the Tory party. I mean, the question of Europe was always a kind of fractured line within the Tory party. Always. It's led to the removal of leaders created the biggest crisis in the Tory party in the past. And they thought in some way they could overcome that crisis. They will get by. They'll sort it out. But it's come back with a vengeance. And now, of course, you had the resignation of Ian Duncan Smith. You know, on the basis of all, he did look at all these cuts. I'm against these cuts. And the last five, six years, he's been carrying through the cuts. Thirty billions worth of cuts in relation to the bedroom tax alone. And of course, he's on television in tears. He was crying because he felt sorry for the poor. Even Boris Johnson was in tears. The blubber of Johnson, he was, oh, the steel workers. I feel so sad for them, he said. I feel heart for bleeds for them. The only reason why he said that because he used the issue to stick the knife into Cameron more in relation to the European question. So the old things unraveling. Now we've got the Panama business, the steel strike. And the Panama business is very serious. It undermines the authority, the moral authority of the government, and Cameron in particular. And how far is this prepared to go? We don't know. And scandals and corruption is endemic in the capitalist system and pops up in the precise impeds of crisis. Look, a Spain at the present time, the popular party, up to their eyeballs in corruption. So is the monarchy. In fact, they now declare a new election, the 23rd of June, they have a new general election because there's no government in Spain. There's no government in Ireland. It shows the complete instability of capitalism. And that instability is affecting British capitalism and the British government itself. It's all show on the top. In reality, the knives are out. And they're terrified. I think it was Liam Fox who was on the television a few days ago saying, I don't know whether we'll be able to put it back together. I hope our leaders will stop attacking themselves in this particular way in the most vindictive manner. And the reason they're terrified of what's going to happen is Britain going to leave the EU. I don't know. It's on the life edge, the way things are looking. But if they do leave, Cameron will be forced to resign. They'll be absolutely upheaval in Britain. There'll be a continued warfare in the Tory party. If they don't leave Europe, there'll be deeper divisions in the Tory party, vengeance against those who didn't call for an out vote. The whole party can disintegrate, as a matter of fact. It's seen very carb. This party has been in existence for hundreds of years. But we've seen everywhere else. The crisis of capitalism is a crisis of the bourgeois parties, the crisis of all parties, as a matter of fact. And they could split. And if they split and moved to the right wing split, which is entirely possible under these circumstances, you can add the creation of a party similar to the National Front in France. They have a kind of Bonapartis party, a right wing nationalistic Bonapartis pro-monarchist party. It would absorb UKIP and be a very pernicious force on the right of British politics. If you like the embryo of a future movement towards fascism, that was the case. Very reactionary party. And this is the possibilities we're in. The crisis of British capitalism, a fracture within the Tory party. Whatever happens, they're going to be in the doldrums. They're going to be losing support. They're going to be hemorrhaging support in the next period because they have to carry through further cuts and they're not able to do it in such a way. They're going to be split. There's going to be huge divisions. Johnson's going to try and go for the leadership. Others are going to be jockeying for leadership position. The whole nightmare scenario is opened up. And this is just the beginning because there'll be further problems as far as the government is concerned in the next period. So there we have a split that could be could develop within a period of sharp and sudden changes, as Ted explained. And therefore a split in the Tory party could easily happen at lightning speed. Of course, there's volatility also. If we go back a bit further, it has taken place, has affected also the situation in Britain with the election of Corbyn as the leader of the Labour party. And this came from nowhere. It was an accident born out of the necessity of the situation to get some form of expression for this radicalised mood in society. The right wing had blundered. The right wing had made the biggest mistake of their lives in allowing Corbyn on the ballot paper, on the one hand, secondly lending in their votes or their nominations. On the other hand, and thirdly, opening up the process to the general public on the payment of £3 they could participate in the election of the Labour leader. What an absolutely blunder they made. And as a consequence of this blunder, the whole thing began to unravel where we had this mood in reflection, the Labour party membership. At that stage it was about 200,000, but the time you added all those people who joined or registered in different forms in our own ways, it had gone up to 600,000. Over that, of course, they weadled a few people out, including a few comrades, as far as the voting was concerned. But nevertheless, you would see that Corbyn's simple anti-osterty message was hitting home, as opposed to the Blairites. And therefore, he got 60% of the vote on the first ballot. And poor old Liz Kendall, the Blairite, got 4%, 4.5%. It was a devastating blow to the right wing. When Corbyn went into the room to be told the result, the Labour party officials there were part of the right wing. They told him what the result were. They looked as if they were telling him that his father had died. He was like they were going to a funeral. They were looking at their boots and everything, you know. And they were demoralised that this thing had happened overnight. And the ruling class also would draw in those conclusions. But Christ said, we've lost the Labour party. We've lost control of the Labour party. That's unheard of. And they said it was an editorial in the financial times. What's going on? This is not Podemos. This is not Syrza. This is the Labour party that's been in existence for over 100 years, and they had prime ministers and governments. And the Labour party was a very important weapon and tool by the ruling class to create stability and to keep the working class in check using the Labour leaders, of course, to carry out that message. And for them to lose political control of the Labour party was a devastating setback for the ruling class. Of course, things got worse then. MacDonald immediately appointed, sorry, Corbyn immediately appointed John MacDonald as the shadow chancellor would send off the alarm bells even further. The only thing is that the right wing obviously controlled the Parliamentary Labour party. All the MPs were left over from the past out of the 230 odd only what 17 supported them. Probably less than that, really. It shows the balance of forces within the Parliamentary Labour party. Overwhelmingly Blairite. Overwhelmingly right wing dominated. And they, as we know, elements in within the PLP said they would have staged an immediate coup to get rid of Corbyn. But they had to backtrack on that because they knew that they had won such a landslide victory they couldn't move in that direction immediately. So they tried to undermine him at every single stage, denouncing him, attacking him in the press, in the media, even when they elected a new shadow cabinet. Even the shadow cabinet members were undermining and attacking Corbyn in the PLP meetings. It was like a bear pit where they were attacking Corbyn and his supporters. The whole thing was extremely hostile and that is the character of what's happening in the tops of the Labour party. It's a civil war, still get away. It's a civil war in the Labour party and particularly at the top with the nicer out the stab Corbyn in the back if they can get away with it. Of course he even brought into the press question of tried and emerged and then generals would appear on the television saying that they couldn't work with the Labour government if they go down this road of reducing arms expenditure and decommissioning trident. It's a threat of a coup and of course there's no threat of an immediate military coup in Britain but that's the music of the future when parliamentary democracy will not deliver the results for the ruling class. They will turn towards a military solution but they'll have to think a thousand times because that will stoke up civil war in Britain as well. It just shows how the ruling class will use this auxiliary weapon and other auxiliary weapons to protect its own interests. Then we had this vote on the bombing of Syria where Corbyn was pressurised to provide a free vote and on the basis of that free vote and the pressure that was being exerted from below maybe through momentum which had to be created. Corbyn had to create some balance some forces that would help him beat the right wing which put pressures on MPs around the country but even then 66 right wing Labour MPs voted with the Tories in order to get the measures through for the bombing of Syria when 70% of Labour party members were absolutely opposed to the bombing. It shows how out the touch these people are and then you had Hillary Ben who was seated next to Corbyn as his shadow foreign secretary who then got up and made a speech attacking Corbyn attacking the leader and making an impassioned plea for support to bomb Syria and at a standing ovation clapping and standing ovation in the House of Commons which is unheard of again is an indication of the right if you like the the real position in the parliamentary party and these right wing rogues who have no different from the Tories and the Liberals what's left of them and that's why we have to understand that there's a class divide within the Labour party at the present moment. We have to understand that well in the words of Lord Mandelson Mandelson there are two Labour parties absolutely right and in the words of Frank Field that anybody challenged through deselections should stand against the Labour party and have the backing of all right wing members of the Labour party in other words split the Labour party vote that's what he's proposing he wasn't disciplined of course or anything like that but that's these these these are the the real rogues who are only interested in their careers and interested in maintaining capitalism and therefore the question of a split in the Labour party is inherent in the situation itself of course how this is how this opens up is another matter but clearly the ruling class has a kind of choice before itself a very difficult choice on the one hand he looks at the Labour leaders and he weighs them up and of course you can see that mcdonald now has gone far to the right you know mcdonald said oh he was some favour of of marx and reading capital and so on a few years ago because the 2008 crisis now he's talking about well we want to work we want to have capitalism to work for us capitalism has got to be made to bring us a bit more equality we've got to make it different they've got to have a human face and so on and so forth we've got to use kanjanism and he's got this circle of economists of pickety and and stiglitch and other people like that of of kanjans dictate the or decide the policy of the Labour party of kanjanism that's all they got to offer although it's true they have come through forward with the renationalisation of the railways or very very popular although that'll take a long time on the basis of what how they propose it is true that the camera um that cobbin cobb countphone said we should nationalise the steel industry although the Labour party's now retreated on that so it's short to nationalisation to find a buyer and mcdonald have said basically he's prepared to balance the books as well we've got to be careful on spending i'll be hard on spending he said you know you can rely on me you can trust in me he's obviously talking to the city of london to get some credibility until they so they really understand that these individual left reformists who base themselves on capitalism would bend to their pressures they know that they can look elsewhere the problem for them is what lies behind the left reformist leaders that's what the ruling class is terrified of the class balance of forces the enormous pressures that would be unleashed if you had a left Labour government in the trade unions and the working class all this this pressure cooker that were under would could explode on the base of that and then they would not know exactly where things would go that is the danger they got so they have a have a problem so what could they do well they could allow a Labour they could allow a Labour government to come to power that's a possibility um there will be boundary changes it is true and there will be a number of deselections taking place so there'll be more civil war in the Labour that is true but the the the Tories are going to be completely discredited in the next period and therefore the Labour is likely to get back to power with the help probably of the SNP the SNP will have a a big contingent they'll support a minority minority Labour government but that'll be a government of crisis clearly we're into a deep capitalist crisis it will be a government of crisis and under pressure from the ruling class to do the dirty and we saw what happened in Greece where Syriza was elected an anti austerity program and capitulated and carried out a betrayal of the working class in Greece and that could be the fate of a crisis Labour government if you're not prepared over capitalism you have to carry out the dictates of capitalism there's no other way for it so they could choose that as as an option or the other option would be why not split the Labour party that's another easy thing to do the right wing is prepared to go anytime and with the full backing of the ruling class all the media the press and everything else you know the you could have the formation of a another sdp kind of a formation but it grew up with the splitting the Tory party you've got the right the the so-called progressive wing of the Tories the left Tory so to speak could link up with the Blair rights to form this center kind of party as they would call it and they could form a national government under those circumstances in 1931 you know there was no way out for capitalism they needed a strong government not a weak one it's no good and therefore a national government would fill the bill as far as that's concerned the only danger with a national government and splitting the Labour party is the right wing will go over to a national government and carry out big cuts and be equally as unpopular as the Tories were before and on its left you have a radicalised new revived Labour party on an anti-stherity basis moving to the left under the pressure of events and eventually that national government will also collapse and you could have the the the election of a new left Labour government and what would that left Labour government be by the way it would be a government again of crisis I mean Totski talked about a Kerenski type government taking play a development in Britain in the 1920s early 30s that and a Kerenski government in 1917 in Russia you know it lasted nine months before the revolution obviously a Kerenski type government in Britain it would last a lot longer it'd be far more protracted that's quite clear but it's the it's the break on the revolution you're talking about then because of a victory of a Labour government or left Labour government under those circumstances could provoke a pre-revolutionary crisis in Britain or the election of a national government could do the same as what Totski explained in 1931 a national government came to power and Britain was characterised as a pre-revolutionary period opened up to the ideas and that was reflected in the ILP splitting away from the Labour party as a centrist formation and this is the times we are entering ones of splits of divisions of a turmoil of politics nothing will hold together creating more revolutionary waves in society in one form or another consciousness being risen much more than in the past and that's the kind of situation we're entering huge clashes on the scenes class battles and with that obviously the possibility our tendency making a huge gains under those circumstances you know if we grew to a force of a thousand under objective conditions like that where are the right place at the right time with the right ideas you can go to 10,000 or more i mean in the in the heat of the spanish revolution in 1936 the centrist organisation of the poem on the basis of the lightning heat of the revolution grew from 1000 to 60 000 in the space of six weeks but that showed the way in which events can unfold and therefore we have to understand what's at stake and our responsibilities in that outcome because the problem we've got is a lack of a subjective factor in Britain without that factor being developed the revolution will not succeed as ter explained the subject in fact is the most important factor in history and we are building it with the only ones you can build it but it means that we have time against us we have to raise the level of consciousness of our own comrades to build the tendency to build the organisation and that is at the fundamentally means mainly open youth work which can be linked to trade union work and the radicalisation of the working class itself for every one we can win now and train and educate we can win 100 in the future that's the way we have to look at things you know we always quote Karl Marx and Alan always quotes and he will quote tomorrow from the bible but i like to quote John Wayne when he was at the Alamo and they were surrounded he said when the going gets tough the tough get going and comrades we've got to get going it's going to be tough out there but we can do it let's make it