Newgate Prison and Its Inmates in September 1819

Newgate Prison�west view

Loretta reports:

My recent book, Dukes Prefer Blondes, features a barrister (trial lawyer) who�s familiar with Newgate Prison and the Old Bailey. As I researched the book, I was already aware that, during the Regency era (some years before my story) England had an extremely high number of capital offenses. According to Albion�s Fatal Tree, �The most recent account suggests that the number of capital statutes grew from about 50 to over 200 between the years 1688 and 1820.�*

As a consequence, we tend to believe that people were being hanged by the droves. What I learned was, people were hanged, yes, including children, but more often, mercy was sought and granted, and the sentence changed to transportation or prison. This may explain the rather shocking nil in the category �Convicts under sentence of death.� You will notice that, even though more men than women were convicted of crimes, more women were sentenced to transportation. At the moment, I can�t explain that one.

*Figures based on Sir Leon Radzinowicz, A History of English Criminal Law and its Administration from 1750.

Newgate Statistics 1819

Newgate Statistics 1819

Jeremy Corbyn's Prime Ministerial Speech

Interviewed in the wake of this year's Labour leadership contest, Progress director Richard Angell conceded that not only were they out-organised, they had lost the battle of ideas because, well, they didn't got any. Witness poor Owen Smith, who offered only Corbynism minus Corbyn but with nuclear weapons and immigration controls, and last year's candidates whose managerial, vision-free politics fell flat. To underline the vacuity Richard spoke of, Jeremy Corbyn's conference speech today was, to borrow a phrase, ram-packed with them.

Old favourites were dusted off - the national/lifelong education service, an end to punitive DWP sanctions, restoration of rights at work, the national investment bank, the return of the migrant impact fund, and house building. And newbies shown off too. Allowing councils to borrow against the value of their housing stock, restrictions on private rents, support for small businesses, greater access to the arts, all are entirely welcome. It was also good to see Jeremy spell out Labour's opposition to a hard Brexit and the party's commitment to a Lexit politics - if the Tories are determined to make working people bear the cost, or they come to an arrangement with the EU by which the sorts of interventionist policies our economy needs are disallowed, we will oppose. More important for the future health of our politics, I was pleased to see Jeremy not shy away from immigration. Given Rachel Reeves's disgraceful and cynical speech yesterday, the real "tough decision" is not to ape UKIP and decades worth of tabloid lies, but stand up to them. He made it absolutely clear this means concentrating on economics, housing, on unscrupulous employers and deregulated labour markets, not capitulating to scapegoating and hate. Good.

There was something quite unusual about the speech. Perhaps it's the darker suit, but whatever. Jez was a man transformed. Jeremy came over as articulate, polished, and convincing. He avoided lefty jargonbabble while setting out the stall, sounded passionate and firm in his belief in what he was saying was right (a sincerity, alas, that always evaded his predecessor), and was as assured as he was galvanising. Readers know I don't do uncritical cheerleading, but this was Corbyn at his best. A man with the vision of the good life, with a coherent policy agenda, and a confidence in his leadership and our movement's capability to deliver it. Jeremy has had more stick than any other mainstream politician, but today's performance gives hope that it can be turned around. We had a glimpse of something we never expected to see from Jeremy Corbyn, that rarefied and seldom spotted commodity: prime ministerialism.

A Note on the NEC Vote

A quick note on the conference vote that gave extra seats on Labour's NEC to representatives from Scotland and Wales. Very quickly Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale revealed her appointed rep was ... herself. Don't be too surprised if Carwyn Jones takes up "his" seat too.

There are plenty of delegates and Labour watchers who've decried this as a stitch up by the outgoing committee. You'll remember that NEC, the one who, by banning party meetings over the summer, gave credence to the meme that Labour is a thuggish bear pit. This is also the very same NEC who altered conference eligibility criteria for CLP delegates to ensure newer members were crowded out by older, more "reliable" folks. Lo! When this package of rules came before conference a "sensible" result was arrived at. And what does this amount to in practice? It ensures the already underrepresented majority for Corbynism in the party on the NEC is now eclipsed, assuming that Carwyn and Our Kez set their faces against party reform proposals coming from this direction.

The beginning of the end for Corbynism then? No. Well, not necessarily. A check, certainly. The elections to the Conference Arrangements Committee now assume greater importance, and a win for the left here mean blocking actions from the NEC can be circumvented eventually as more Corbynist motions from CLPs get through gate-keeping. And the Welsh and Scottish leaders cannot be seen to act in overly partisan ways lest their positions be threatened. In the mean time, however, it only adds more fuel to the democracy fire. As we live in a liberal democracy in which majorities theoretically have the right to be majorities (don't get me started on the iniquities of first-past-the-post), to have the NEC conniving to fall short of its tepid standards doesn't contribute to the unity folks have been pleading in recent days.

Therefore in the spirit of peace and reconciliation, I have a proposal of my own to make. As we are all agreed democracy is a good thing, and we want to harness the collective power of our membership, it is only sensible that members' representation be increased on the party's governing body via the seats reserved for CLPs. Six seats sufficed when the party was knocking around the 200,000 member mark, but now we've almost tripled in size the composition of the NEC should reflect the new situation. Therefore, for every 50,000 above 200,000 full members, the party should add a NEC seat. That would not only ensure more proportional representation of our party's lifeblood, but increases the likelihood all shades of members' opinions are heard on the leading body. That way all groups in the party have a vested interest both in expanding the selectorate, ensuring the party connects with our constituencies and communities, and taking democratic discussion over stitching more seriously.

How about it?

From the Archives: A Gold Box for Rouge & Patches, 1783

Isabella reporting:

An 18th c. French lady could take literally hours dressing for an important ball. Just like modern celebrities preparing for the red carpet, a Parisian court beauty required a team of experts to dress and powder her hair, apply her make-up and patches, fasten jewels around her throat and wrists, lace her into her stays, and pin and her into her gown.

But even this carefully crafted magnificence might need a touch-up or two in the course of the evening, and a lady had to be prepared. This little gold box, left, contained a looking glass, a tiny brush, rouge, patches - those black velvet faux beauty marks so well-loved in the 17th-18th centuries.

Just as fashionable artifice reached new heights in the 18th c., so, too, did the craftsmanship that produced this box. This is the work of a master goldsmith: precisely cut and meticulously soldered, with inset hinges and perfectly fitted panels as well as separate compartments for the rouge and patches. The surfaces of the box are beautifully decorated as well in contrasting yellow and white gold. All of this is done on a miniature scale: the box measures only 2-1/8" x 1-1/2" x 5/8".

It's easy to imagine a lady using such a piece for artful flirtation, gracefully opening the little box and fluffing the brush over her cheeks, and, perhaps, coyly using its gleaming reflection to check the interest of the gentleman sitting behind her....

Above left: Box for Rouge and Patches, French (Paris), 1783-84, Varicolored gold. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of Kate Read Blacque. Photos copyright Susan Holloway Scott.
Lower right: Les Adieux, engraving, Jean-Michel Moreau le Jeune, 1777.

Work and the Second Machine Age

Albert Dock has seen a bit in its time. A centre piece of the industrial revolution, the goods of trade and the spoils of empire were offloaded, stored, and transported from here to all over the country. Long after the dockers had gone, it symbolised the sort of go-getting regeneration Thatcher and friends pined for in the 1980s - at the same time Liverpool was making headlines for the city's defiance of the government and all its works. Showcased by Richard and Judy, and the weatherman we can't really talk about anymore, Albert Docks was now a place for media companies, cafes, entrepreneurialism, and reinvention. Apt that it should play host to a joint TUC/Fabian fringe on the future of work. Titled 'A second machine age or business as usual?', Jim Waterson of Buzzfeed presided over a discussion with TUC Genereal Secretary Frances O'Grady and Yvette Cooper. Readers may recall that rather late in the day, Yvette tried seizing the white heat of technology mantle from, well, no one to distinguish her 2015 leadership campaign. It's something she has variously associated herself with since.

In her opening remarks, she suggested that the new wave of automation is here and, for a movement with work at its core, presents us a series of difficult challenges. Part of this is understanding the intertwining of opportunities and threat, of understanding that new, exciting businesses can dissolve existing power structures and offer the potential of greater autonomy for workers, such as self-determination of work hours and control over work/life balance. The positives, however, cannot be fully harnessed if we ignore the fact networked workers face new forms of exploitation, a fragmentation of solidarity, and new levels of precarity - Yvette cited a report that stated up to 15 million jobs could be at risk, concentrated primarily in white collar occupations. With a two-tier workforce pretty much a reality already (and the subject of much forecasting in the 80s), the policy and organising challenge is looking at new laws, the use of investment, and thinking about what constitutes new, fulfilling jobs (and how to encourage their creation).

Frances noted that our discussion about change is nothing new. In the 1930s there was talk about leisure-based societies in which the fruits of technology are shared out. The 80s saw a different kind of industrial change driven by political calculation, and one in which our communities were left to rot. What's worrying now is not just the pace of change, which seems to be intensifying, but how they're multiplying exploitation and unjust working practices. The new business models are all too often about increased surveillance at work, zero hours, and making workers slaves to their apps. This is just not sustainable. From the standpoint of social security, how can people access support when their incomes are so unpredictable? And what happens when workers can neither pay into a pension, nor acquire a property that could later be sold to provide care in their old age?

Asked whether demand would be enough to create new jobs and this is an ado about little, for Yvette the problem is the pace of change is so fast that workers cannot acquire skills fast enough. And where is the opportunity for them to do so? We've also seen that left to its own devices, the market prefers to churn out lower paid, insecure jobs in greater numbers. However, where there is one area of work that will appear resistant to automation for some time is care - it is massively undervalued and needs to undergo a huge expansion. On the perennial question of training, Frances notes that we already have an over-trained, over-educated workforce. If there was an industrial strategy in place, the kinds of mismatches whereby graduates are undertaking unskilled work because there's nothing else on offer can be overcome.

Other unintended consequences of the new economy is the concentration of these kinds of businesses in cities, not towns, even though they could be done anywhere. As such towns are getting left behind, and this was one of the feeders into the Brexit vote. Another consequence is the combination of old school with new organising techniques. Citing the example of North Sea divers, who recently won a hefty pay hike from the employer, this variegated and otherwise atomised group of workers networked and discussed matters through Facebook. Likewise, social media was and is a useful adjunct to organising in Sports Direct.

There followed a number of questions about education at school, the nationalisation of robots, industrial democracy, care, and our old friend the basic income. For Frances, the robots question forces us to focus on where the state should intervene and where it shouldn't: if infrastructure is essential, be it digital or automotive, then isn't there a case? On industrial democracy, having elected workers on boards would only bring Britain into the mainstream of European policy, and it has a proven track record of ensuring businesses make more rounded investment decisions that tend to benefit the company as a whole. On the basic income, for Frances it's pretty clear the jury is out. While passed at the latest TUC congress, it was with the proviso of undertaking a detailed consideration of what it would mean. Yvette was more dismissive. Acknowledging the problems raised by the sceptical questioner (she noted how it wouldn't address unpaid domestic labour, which still falls heavier on women, nor how the poorer would lose out), she didn't think it would be helpful for the party of work "to give up on work". i.e. Because there won't be enough jobs to go around doesn't mean Labour should give up and opt for what amounts to a welfare solution instead. As far as I'm concerned, while there are difficulties attached and more work has to be done about the level it should be set at, affordability, impacts on existing social security recipients and so on, I don't think leaving millions at the tender mercies of the DWP and capricious employers is much of a starter.

Overall, a very interesting discussion. It seemed to me Frances showed greater awareness and radicalism than our future-facing Yvette, perhaps because her bread and butter is organising and attending to the concerns of working people. For Yvette, unfortunately, while absolutely right on care and the creative destruction wrought by the new technologies, her unthought dismissal of the basic income shows she's not just strait-jacketed by the old politics, she's grown snug and comfortable in it.

Carlton House's Conservatory

Carlton House Conservatory 1811

Loretta reports:

Regency aficionados will recognize the famous 19 June �entertainment� referred to in this description of the Prince Regent�s Conservatory.

What I wanted to point out was the lack of plants in the picture. Apparently, this isn�t just a function of the artist�s wanting to show the space without a lot of trees and flowers in the way. I recall reading somewhere (but have not been able to find the source) that plants were moved into and out of the conservatory as needed. One assumes, consequently, that it didn�t truly house a horticultural collection, in the way we think of conservatories doing. If you have further information about this, please feel free to comment.

Conservatory description

Conservatory description cont'd

For more images of the long-vanished Carlton House, you might want to take a look at David Watkins�s The Royal Interiors of Regency England: from watercolours first published by W.H. Pyne in 1817-20.

You can see some of the images, from the Pyne�s Royal Residences, online here and here.

Clicking on the image will enlarge it.  Clicking on the caption will take you to the source, where you can learn more and enlarge images as needed.

On Shadow Cabinet Elections

No sooner had Jeremy Corbyn's leadership been confirmed by a vote decisively larger than last year, sundry MPs have taken to the airwaves and television studios calling for elections to the shadow cabinet. Longer-term members and politics watchers will recall this has been a staple of the Parliamentary Labour Party for decades, until it was abolished by Ed Miliband five years ago. The elections saw honourable members put themselves forward not for particular positions, but rather as a potential pool from which the leader appointed successful candidates. For argument's sake, suppose Angela Eagle put herself forward and was voted in by her peers, Jeremy could appoint her to any portfolio he sees fit. Though politics being politics, a wise leader with a view to party management would sift through the nominated to ensure those with the biggest following/support/standing get the juiciest roles. Competence, sadly, is not always the primary consideration.

Given these elections were abolished by a PLP vote in 2011, why do a large number of MPs want them back? As with all things, there are the good reasons, and there are the real reasons. From the PLP rebel standpoint, a great many of whom are unreconciled and irreconcilable to Jeremy, on the face of it elections to the shadow cabinet are one way of healing the rift between themselves and the leader's office. Quite how this makes it easier for them to come back isn't explained, it's not like they've found the confidence they lost in June. After all, the leader is still the same man he was before summer, except now strengthened and, dare I say it, a wee bit more polished and battle hardened. Nor have they explained why the party benefits from this process. We've had our Chukas, Tristrams, and Heidis talking about the need to face outward in unity and that these elections make this possible, but they haven't said how yet another period of internally focused campaigning and the pushing out of present shadow cabinet members creates the sorts of good party vibes we need to take on the Tories.

It's also unavoidable to view this call without a factional hat on. Whether these elections are a good in and of themselves is something the party can't decide on. Some local council Labour groups have them for shadow and incumbent administrations, some don't. It varies from locality to locality. Likewise, the old system saw us hold elections for the shadow cabinet, but these are deemed no longer necessary when the party is in power. Why? I suppose you could argue that having the party's permission to for a cabinet doesn't look good when you're trying to stamp your authority as a prime minister. But it that's true then, surely it's true for the potential PM role that comes with being the Leader of the Opposition.

The second point is far from engendering trust, shadow cabinet elections in this context could be a means of disciplining the leader. For one, as already stated, many of the incumbents are unlikely to get in. John McDonnell has had himself crossed off many MPs Christmas card lists, so he stands as much chance of getting into the shadow cabinet as I do. All of those Corbynist MPs friendly to the leader could also lose out. Jez could still appoint some, but only with attending as opposed to voting rights. That this would spark off another round of ill-feeling and hostility from an antipathetic membership isn't a calculation that appears to have been made. Second, it gives successful members a legitimacy that doesn't depend on the leader's grace and favour. Rebel MPs have grown quite attached to their (non-existent) personal mandates of late, so you can imagine some using that to misbehave, flouting collective responsibility, and otherwise stirring up trouble because they have an independent base of power. On top of that, with a rebel shadcab majority Jez would be hard pressed to get his policy positions through: we talk about a wide unanimity on domestic policy, for instance, but there are still MPs even now wedded to market fundamentalism, which is a politics fundamentally at odds to our party and movement. And lastly, there's NEC shenanigans to consider. The occupation of the seats reserved for shadow cabinet by MPs opposed to democratising the party rubs out the majority the party majority presently has. This would permanently put the reform agenda into stasis until the logjam in the rest of the party works itself out.

In short, the call for shadow cabinet elections now means, in practice, a perpetuation of the open warfare and an undermining of the leader's power. It's about asserting the primacy of the minority over the majority, just as that has been emphatically defeated in the needless, unnecessary leadership contest just gone. If Jeremy wants to carry on unimpeded, then this suggestion should be rejected.