Five killed in Bodelwyddan Riots

On 5th March 1919, a First World War army camp at Bodelwyddan near Abergele in North Wales was the scene of a bloody riot that left five soldiers dead and 23 injured. Kinmel Park Camp was built in 1914 as a training camp for Lord Kitchener’s Army in preparation for serving overseas. It had its own branch railway line connecting to the main line at Rhyl. There was also a trench warfare training area which can be seen today to the rear of Bodelwyddan Castle.

Kinmel Camp
Buildings at Kinmel Camp

In March 1919, some 15,000 Canadian troops were billeted at Kinmel camp awaiting repatriation to Canada. In late February 1919, it was learned that troop ships originally allocated to the Canadians had been re-allocated to the American forces – who had certainly not served in France for half as long as the Canadians – it caused understandable resentment.

Then came the news that the Canadian 3rd Division – known to the military authorities as the Fighting Division – was to be given priority over other Canadian troops. The men at Kinmel were outraged, both at the implied slander on their reputations and on being once again pushed down the list for repatriation.

Conditions at Kinmel Park were very basic. The place was a sea of mud and strikes had held up the delivery of both fuel and food supplies. As a result, the men were on half rations and as many had received no pay for over a month.
They were sleeping 42 to a hut, in accommodation that had been designed for no more than 30. Men were taking it in turns to sleep on the floor and most of them had only one blanket to keep them from the cold of a north Wales winter. Several delegations were sent to the senior officers in the camp, protesting about conditions and the way the men felt they were being treated. Nothing was done.

Eventually, tempers boiled over and the discontent became direct action. Some groups started to loot the quartermaster’s stores and the sergeants’ mess. Officers quickly established a defensive perimeter and ammunition was issued to those soldiers considered to be trustworthy and loyal. The rioters had a few rifles but, in the main, they had to improvise weapons, strapping razors to broom handles or sticks.

When 20 of the mutineers – because it was by now considered a full-scale mutiny – were seized, the rest simply charged the guardroom and set them free. Rifle shots were exchanged and, when casualty figures were later added up, it transpired that three rioters and two guards had been killed in the affair. Many others had been wounded or injured. The rioting continued until 4.30 in the morning of 5 March when things seemed to fizzle out and the officers regained control of the camp.

Colonel G.W.L Nicholson wrote in the Official History Of The Canadian Army In The First World War

“In all, between November 1918 and June 1919, there were thirteen instances or disturbances involving Canadian troops in England (sic). The most serious of these occurred in Kinmel Park on 4th and 5th March 1919, when dissatisfication over delays in sailing resulted in five men being killed and 23 being wounded. Seventy eight men were arrested, of whom 25 were convicted of mutiny and given sentences varying from 90 days’ detention to ten years’ penal servitude.”

Four of the five Canadian troops killed during the riot were buried in the graveyard of Bodelwyddan church among 117 Commonwealth War Graves Commission memorials. Most of the war graves are casualties of the Spanish flu pandemic, including 83 Canadian soldiers who died at Kinmel Park Camp. One of the rioting Canadian soldier’s gravestone bears the inscription, “Someday, sometime, we’ll understand.”

Following the riots priority was given to repatriating the Canadian troops. The affair was, as far as possible, hushed up and by 25 March the Canadians had been transported home. The tragedy is that it could not have been done earlier.

trenchThe Daily Post reported plans to recreate First World War trenches alongside the remaining practice trenches from the original Kinmel Park Camp shown here on the left.

The EU and the 1975 prophecies of doom

The Road to the 23 June 2016 Referendum

FlagOnly a week into the EU Referendum campaign and campaign fatigue has overtaken the vast majority of us. In four months we will be asked  in English or Welsh:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? / A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig aros yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?

The last time Britain answered that question: 5 June 1975

I remember very well the campaign in 1975 where we voted for the first time on whether we should remain within the EU or strike out on our own.

Yes No

Every household at the time received three booklets. One from the government titled “Britain’s new deal in Europe” summarised the Government’s position with the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson recommending that we stay. The other two booklets which were simply entitled “Why You Should Vote YES” and “Why You Should Vote NO”.

There are some striking similarities to the current campaign and the quality of the literature is as abysmal as that of the rhetoric we read and hear currently.

“Why You Should Vote NO” booklet   

The NO booklet started with a fascinating quote. “The present government, though it has tried, has failed to achieve the ‘fundamental renegotiation’ it promised at the last two General Elections. All it has gained are a few concessions for Britain, some of them only temporary. The real choice before the British peoples has been scarcely altered by renegotiation.” Exactly what the NO campaign are saying today.

The main concern of the NO booklet is a fear of movement towards merging into a single nation. It trots out the expected line that the Common Market (as it was then known) makes our laws and decides our policies on food prices, trade and employment. Their main thrust mirrors that of the Ukip mantra on Briish loss of sovereignty.

It makes much of the fact that the Common Market is making our food more expensive with punitive import taxes on such things as butter. It makes great capital on the food mountains of beef, butter, grain et cetera. Fortunately, those mountains are no longer in existence.

Bizarrely, it warns of job losses because of the drift of industry southwards and to the continent. It warns of interference with the oil market which, of  course has not happened. It points out that our trade deficit with the Common Market was running at £2.6 billion annually (£19.7 billion at 2015 prices – Bank of England calculator), whereas in 1970, trade was almost in balance. In 2015 the goods deficit with the EU was £8.1bn, less than half of the1975 adjusted figure.

It lists four main reasons to leave

  • Common Market policies prop up inefficient farmers on the continent and cause our food prices to be high
  • We need to have control of our own agricultural policy and our fishing waters
  • our links with the Commonwealth will be further weakened. And, “we shall cease, in practice, to be a member of the Commonwealth”
  • We will become a mere province of the Common Market

Finally, we would be able to remain members of the European Free Trade Area and it lists seven countries, most of which subsequently joined the EU.

It finishes “in a very few years we shall enjoy in North Sea oil a precious asset possessed by none of the Common Market countries”. It obviously had no idea what was going to happen to oil prices in 2015.

“Why You Should Vote YES” booklet

My natural inclination is to continue to be in membership of the EU. However, the case made in the YES booklet would never have convinced me. It summarises the four reasons for staying as:

  • it makes good sense for our jobs and prosperity
  • it makes good sense for world peace
  • it makes good sense for the Commonwealth
  • it makes good sense for our children’s future

Hardly a compelling case!

The booklet is full of worthy quotes from leading politicians of all parties and Commonwealth leaders which actually don’t amount to anything.

Probably their major case is made on the grounds that “Our friends want us to stay in”. They go on to say that the old Commonwealth (Australia, Canada and New Zealand), the 34 members of the new Commonwealth, United States and the other members of the European Community want us to stay in. They go on to say “outside, we should be alone in a harsh, cold world, with none of our friends offering to revive old partnerships.” Ahh, bless,

The arguments on why we can’t go it alone are probably the most embarrassing paragraphs and are all insubstantial rhetoric. My suspicion that this booklet had been written by a former Army Colonel who is now a Daily Express journalist were reinforced when it went on to talk about the position of the Queen being unaffected and English common law being safe.

The argument about jobs is also very shallow with statements like, “It is very doubtful if we could then negotiate a free-trade agreement with the Community.”

They did try some scaremongering about the future of our food supply and the major statement in the section, written in bold, read, “But Britain, as a country which cannot feed itself, will be safer in the Community which is almost self-sufficient in food. Otherwise, we may find ourselves standing at the end of the world food queue.”

In their summary of the alternatives they include statements like:

  • some want an isolationist Britain with a “siege economy” – controls and rationing
  • some want a Communist Britain – part of the Soviet bloc

To be honest, were it not for the fact that probably nobody read these two rubbish booklets, and relied on the fact that they made up their own minds without the benefit of properly reasoned argument, it is amazing to me that we secured a “Yes” vote.

I re-read the Government booklet and I don’t think it’s worth trying to summarise their arguments here. Their leaflet was heavy on graphics, heavy on difficult-to-understand statistics and light on reasoned arguments as to the consequences of a Yes or No vote.

Conclusion

There are two differences between the 1975 and the 2016 campaigns. In 1975 the role of the Commonwealth was a recurring theme through the booklets and there was no mention of immigration. In 2016 the reverse is the case.

In 2016, the best summary I have read for remaining in the EU was a letter written by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian. Although it is a little out of date – it was written in 2013 – it still makes a compelling case for the achievements of Britain being in the EU.

For an objective document about the consequences of a British withdrawal from the EU, I recommend the paper written by Dr Patrick Dixon.

We have four months of spectacularly tedious campaigning to endure which will be full of scaremongering and made up ‘facts’. I hope at the end of it that the decision will have been arrived at by careful consideration of the real facts, by rejecting nonsense, scaremongering and hyperbole. I’m fairly sure that the reality will be that, like in any election, the vast majority of people have made up their minds based on their own prejudices and the final result will be decided by the 15% or so people who have an open mind.

In 1975, of the 25 million people who voted, 67% voted to remain in the EU and 33% to leave.

It’s interesting to compare the 1975 figures compared with the latest polling (Survation, 20 Feb 2016). There is a huge disparity between England and the other UK nations.

 

  Stay % 1975 Stay % 2016
England 69 55
Wales 64 77
Scotland 58 77
Northern Ireland 52 77

The worrying prospect is that the overwhelming numbers in England will weight the results with a scenario that England, were it to vote to leave the EU, would wipe out the majority of the other nations who voted to remain. Without doubt, that is a great danger to the unity of the United Kingdom and would weaken the Union. We face difficult days ahead.

 

Clem Attlee – Britain’s greatest Prime Minister

 

Attlee at his Nefyn holiday home
Attlee at his Nefyn holiday home

Britain’s greatest Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, was born 133 years ago on 3 January 1883. He was Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951 and the longest serving Leader of the Labour Party from 1935 to 1955. He led the Labour Party to a landslide election victory in 1945 and a narrow victory in 1950 becoming the first Labour Prime Minister ever to serve a full five-year term.

The Attlee government was committed to rebuilding British society after WWII using public ownership and controls to abolish extremes of wealth and poverty. What a contrast Labour’s Socialist ideology is with today’s Tory Party’s defence of income inequality. Jeremy Corbyn’s grass-roots Socialism is a welcome return to those values.

There were many landmark achievements during his premiership using principles which cry out to be copied today.

 

  • His Government undertook the nationalisation of public utilities and major industries,
  • His Government created the National Health Service – a project led by Wales’ greatest hero Aneurin Bevan. I was born an NHS baby six weeks after the NHS itself was born.
  • He created full employment and ran budget surpluses
  • The government implemented William Beveridge’s plans ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state and set in place an entirely new system of social security by means of the National Insurance Act 1946, in which people in work paid a flat rate of national insurance. In return, they (and the wives of male contributors) received flat-rate pensions, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit.
  • Four out of five houses constructed under Labour were council properties.
  • His Keynesian fiscal policies were followed by all parties for over three decades until Margaret Thatcher’s destructive reign.
  • His Government also presided over the decolonisation of a large part of the British Empire, granting British India, Burma, and Ceylon independence, as well as ending the British Mandates of Palestine and Jordan.
Attlee with Aneurin Bevan
Attlee with Aneurin Bevan

Although he lacked charisma and was not a good public speaker, his achievements were very much behind the scenes especially in committees where his depth of knowledge, quiet demeanour, objectivity and pragmatism proved decisive. He kept its multiple factions in his very diverse party together – possibly Jeremy Corbyn could learn from his success. His leadership style of consensual government, acting as a chairman rather than a president, won him much praise from historians and politicians alike. A style decisively rejected by Thatcher, Blair and Cameron.

He died, aged 84, on 8 October 1967