Allegations that Jack Jones was a Soviet agent taking cash from the KGB are laughable, says Geoffrey Goodman
If the cremated remains of James Larkin Jones have not already turned to dust they may, I suspect, be jumping around with great mirth in their casket. I feel quite certain it is laughter rather than anger that is their response to the extraordinary campaign which has been launched to discredit their owner.
Mirth is my preferred reaction, too, especially since Jones’ critics clearly aimed at rousing anger and fury. Their prime motive, we must assume, has been to discredit the left in general, trade union leaders in particular and, notably, Jack Jones’ lifetime work and achievements.
The allegations in The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 by Christopher Andrew that he was a Soviet agent taking petty cash from some odd itinerant KGB spy hovering in London dressed up in diplomatic clothing is, indeed, laughable. I have no intention of taking it seriously and my advice to those who have stumbled across the drivel in various Conservative newspapers and magazines as well as the odd book would be to follow the example of Jack’s jumping ashes – just laugh.
Of course in one sense it is intriguing. Why should they bother to do this? Why spend time – and, without doubt, a good deal of money – pretending to offer grave and sensationalised disclosures about a trade union leader, albeit a rather special one, by dishing up such fiction, various half-truths and a huge amount of calculated, crude, fatuous and even childish material designed. if anything. to paint a picture of alleged treacherous behaviour damaging to the nation’s interest?
All this about a man who spent the greater part of his life helping the under-privileged and fighting for social justice, quite apart from being seriously wounded in the battle against fascism. Why, I must repeat, do they bother?
Yet in wrestling with an answer perhaps it is also worth reminding a younger generation that some, though not all, of the anti-Jones campaign group represent a section of society that supported fascism in the 1930s – while Jones was fighting General Franco’s anti-democratic forces in Spain. The Daily Mail in those pre-war years was well known for its pro-fascist views; so it is no great surprise to find that newspaper prominently involved in seeking to discredit this man who died earlier this year aged 96.
But to return to the big question: why? The only explanation I can think of is malice, posthumous malice that was always close to the surface when Jones was alive and fighting for social justice and decency for all his fellow citizens.
True, Jack Jones was a socialist. He never denied that. Why should he? He remained convinced to his dying day that some form of democratic socialism was the best formula for Britain and its people. Disagree with his views if you wish, but to label him a “traitor” to his country? Come off it. That is pure malevolent rubbish.
To be sure, in his earlier years he was also a great admirer of the achievements in the Soviet Union. So, too, were millions of others across the globe. Yet when the Stalinist record became public knowledge Jones never flinched from denouncing that tyrannical behaviour as entirely unsocialist. Indeed, I vividly recall when, some 35 years ago, I was reporting a TUC delegation to Moscow led by Jones as chairman of the TUC’s international committee he took the lead in attacking Soviet policies in face to face meetings with Soviet leaders. I wonder if that is recorded in the secret archives of the security systems in Moscow or, for that matter, here?
In my obituary tribute to Jack Jones (Tribune, April 24 2009) I described his early background in the poverty stricken area of Liverpool as “a virtual generic inheritance of the socialist ethos” and so it was and remained his guiding code. In everything he did the ethical, moral and political fibre of that belief was always publicly evident – never under secretive political wraps.
Of course he was resented by those on the right who, during his lifetime, spent considerable time, money and powerful influence seeking to undermine him and his trade union activities. Some of his opponents were even from his own side of the political divide – well known members of the Labour Party at that time.
None of his critics demurred at supporting dubious elements to combat Jones, especially when he was general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, then the strongest trade union in Britain and, indeed, across the non-communist world. Do I detect similar influences at play today in this campaign to discredit his reputation as one of Britain’s greatest trade union leaders and a fighter for social justice? Do I detect this posthumous bid to humiliate his record as the usual coward’s way of speaking ill of the dead who cannot answer for themselves? Perhaps.
Then let me again remind a younger generation who probably know little of Jones’ record in fighting for what is finest in British democratic tradition that this was a man whose personal modesty never changed as he rose in trade union power and influence; a man for whom financial or any other form of corruption, political bribery, or even the odd expensive lunch was anathema. In short, the anti-Jones clatter is about a man of principle and sheer integrity that was unshakeable by spies or newspaper proprietors.
Jones the traitor? Don’t make me laugh along with his lively ashes…
