IN 1919 the ruling class was worried. The end of World War I had developed into something close to a revolutionary situation in Britain as working-class militancy, the Russian example, rising anti-imperialist agitation in the colonies, discontented troops and economic dislocation combined to threaten the rule of the capitalist class.

Sir Basil Thomson, head of the intelligence and security services, reported to the Cabinet on the problems stirring up revolutionary feelings.

They included profiteering, bad housing, the foolish ostentation of the rich, “extreme” trade union leaders, a growing pro-Labour Party press, unemployment and the circulation of Marxist literature.

There were countervailing factors working for stability, Thomson added. Just two in fact — sport and the popularity of the royal family.

Boy, Thomson’s successors should be worried. Profiteering — check. Bad housing — check. Ostentatious rich — double check. Fighting union leaders — check too. And so on.

On the other hand? A quarter-final defeat in the World Cup. And Prince Harry.

OK, we are not in a revolutionary situation — although we ought to be. But were one to develop, we would be up against the popularity of the Lionesses (the players themselves would surely stand with the masses) and of Prince George and perhaps his mother — although not his father.

It is not unusual for child siblings to scrap on the floor — but in your thirties? More Dynasty than monarchy, although a Hollywood soap might discard the dog bowl.

Whatever Harry thinks he is doing — and as a newly minted Californian he is in the right place to secure expensive explanations — he is actually taking an axe to a prop of the social order.

The royal family is exposed in all its lurid dysfunctionality, as if Prince Andrew’s depredations were not already sufficient.

It is not an institution in a fit state to ride to the rescue of a beleaguered bourgeoise, should that prove necessary.

Thomson somewhat undersold the assets the elite had in its service in 1919. Divisions in the working class inculcated by imperialism and expressed by short-sighted reformists helped a good deal.

But the point holds. I recall 1981 — unemployment was rocketing to record post-war levels highlighted by a hugely successful People’s March for Jobs.

Anti-police riots broke out in London, Liverpool and elsewhere. The IRA was organising hunger strikes by its imprisoned soldiers in Belfast. And Thatcher had to back down in the face of the miners’ opposition to pit closures.

Not a revolution, but a very serious strain on society.

And then, all of a sudden, the present King got married, amid tremendous hullabaloo and feasting, to a woman he transparently cared little for. When there’s no bread, put on a decent circus.
There was still gas in the royal tank then.

Now after 15 years of mounting immiseration and growing social dislocation, not to mention a country increasingly sceptical of the supernatural, according to the recent census, it is running on empty. The funeral of the late Queen may be the last royal event to engage emotions on a significant scale.

Harry gets no sympathy here. A man who boasts of killing 25 Afghans during the disastrous US-British occupation of that country while emoting on Netflix about nasty media briefings merits none.

But if this soldier of the empire gives Britain a nudge towards a republic, he will have done it an unwitting service.

And if that blows apart one of the ideological and institutional obstructions to revolution, it will be an even greater one.

That would only leave Arsenal and Manchester City. I think we can handle that, particularly if we look a bit more lively about the circulation of Marxist literature.

Balance on ‘the Man of Steel’

There was an interesting juxtaposition on the Star’s letters page last week.

On one side, a letter published under the heading “Time to ditch Stalin praise.”

On the other, the regular Eighty Years Ago column, reporting the January 1943 Daily Worker headline “Red Army’s triple victory” as the expulsion of Hitler’s armies from the Soviet land continued.

Not all praise, perhaps.

Lord Mandelson’s vested interests

Bad as Keir Starmer is, Labour could get worse. Lord Peter Mandelson is ready with helpful advice, and for much less than his normal professional rates.

Labour should, he wrote recently in the Times, take on vested interests.

His example of an interest to be confronted was, of course, trade unions, a bugbear of his for the last 45 years or so.

Starmer should also ditch his commitments to green industrial development and abolishing the House of Lords, Mandelson counsels.

Yes, this is the Mandelson who profitably advises energy oligarchs while also sitting in the Lords.

“I’m a fighter, not a quitter” Mandelson, then a commoner, told his Hartlepool constituents upon re-election in 2001.

To which the only response must be — there’s always room for improvement. He did indeed quit Hartlepool soon after, incidentally.

His Lordship is in fact a walking, talking vested interest all in himself. It is time Mandelson was taken into public ownership, or at least placed under workers’ control.

Unite leader Sharon Graham deserves full support

Some Star readers will know of a left-wing news blog called Skwawkbox, run by a Liverpool entrepreneur.

It poses as a fearless champion of the genuine left. Yet it is presently running scurrilous attacks against Unite the union and its general secretary, Sharon Graham.

Some of the stories I know from my previous service as the union’s chief of staff are — at the very least — misleading. Others seem inconsequential, whether accurate or not. All drip malice.

Unite is on the front line of industrial struggle, winning battles for working people against the cost-of-living crisis up and down the country, many in the private sector.

Tens of thousands of its members have been on strike over the last year. Graham, an elected leader, is a tireless fighter for working people.

The question is — who is this campaign to undermine Unite and its leadership serving?

Sir Basil Thomson would approve, for sure. The left of 1919 was famously not assisted by infantile disorders.

So too today. Only the bosses gain from such intrigue. More solidarity and less sectarian “skwawking” please.