Another local by-election
- This topic has 25 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Four candidates speak The local online paper the Brixtonblog has started publishing the statements of the 8 candidates. The first 4, including us, are here. Here’s what we said:Things are not produced today to meet people’s needs. They are produced to make a profit. And that’s the cause of the problems people in Tulse Hill face. Under the profit system profits always come first. Before providing basic services like health care and transport, before improving conditions at work, and before providing decent housing. It’s profits first, people second. Under the profit system production is in the hands of profit-seeking business enterprises, all competing to maximise the rate of return on the money invested in them. Decisions as to what to produce and how much, and how and where to produce it, are not made in response to people’s needs but in response to market forces. As a result, the health and welfare of the workforce and the effects on the environment take second place. The profit system can’t help doing this. It’s the only way it can work. Which is why it must go. I know this is only a local by-election but make no apology for raising this issue. The reduced incomes and cuts to services that people in Tulse Hill are having to put up with are a direct result of the profit system being in an economic crisis. When this happens governments, whatever their political colour, have to cut their spending so as to give profits a chance to recover. As local councils are largely financed by central government this trickles down to the local level too. So, what’s the alternative? One thing is certain. The Tories, LibDems and Labour — and now UKIP — have nothing to offer. They all support the profit system and are only squabbling over which of them should have a go at running it. If we are going to improve things we are going to have to act for ourselves, without professional politicians or leaders of any kind. We are going to have to organise ourselves democratically to bring about a society geared to serving human needs not profits. Production to satisfy people’s needs. That’s the alternative. But this can only be done if we control production and the only basis for this is common ownership and democratic control. I have been put forward by the Socialist Party as a name on the ballot paper you can put an X against to register your rejection of the profit system and your agreement with the alternative. The others are from the Independent (a victim of the cuts to sheltered housing not prepared to take this lying down), TUSC and UKIP.
What’s happening on Saturday We underestimated the number of letter-boxes we would be able to access. It’s nearer 5000 than the 3500 we estimated. So we had to print some more. Unfortunately this meant that some postal voters may have voted before they got our leaflet. Talking about leaflets, we’ve seen discarded Labour, LibDem, UKIP, TUSC and even our leaflets but none from the Tories or the Greens. They don’t seem to have bothered. The Green candidate doesn’t even have a “Vote Green” poster in his own window.Tomorrow we’ll have a stall again in Brixton (meet Windrush Square at 11am) and after that we’ll go to the Lambeth Country Show in Brockwell Park (which borders on the ward). There are political stalls there (maybe we’ll meet the Green candidate) and the evicted Rushcroft Road squatters are planning something. Sounds more interesting than looking at farm animals. Then on Tuesday it’s the hustings with the other candidates. Details here.
Not all that much to report Today we held our stall in Brixton again, the only one this time as the SWP seem to have disappeared while the Militant group had theirs in Brockwell Park at the Lambeth Country Fair. We took their usual space but this didn’t seem to cause any confusion as the first person who stopped to talk started “Ah yes, you’re the anti-Leninist socialists” (yes, that’s right). Met the same (Roman Catholic) religious ranter as last week who claimed that the Shroud of Turin was genuine. We told him it was a medieval fake. Also an ex-SWPer who is now a David Icke follower who told us that all wars and all economic crises had been caused by the Rothschilds and who assured us that Icke wasn’t anti-semitic. At 12 noon there was a pathetic UK Uncut demonstration opposite outside the HSBC. Pathetic in terms both of turnout (perhaps a dozen) and appearance (a tatty banner proclaiming “Stuff the Banks”) and purpose. Their leaflet blamed the banks and in particular HSBC for causing the crisis and claimed:The government tell us there is no alternative, that public services and the welfare system are too expensive. This is a lie. They tell us the only way to deal with the deficit is to slash public spending. This is also a lie. Austerity isn’t working and there are alternatives to the cuts. Make the banks pay, stop the tax-dodgers and hands off our public services and welfare state.Yes, these are lies and there is an alternative, but not within the capitalist system. They didn’t spell out what “the alternatives” were, but whatever they are supposed to be (“make the banks pay”, “stop the tax-dodgers”?) they see them as being applicable under capitalism as, when we crossed the road to talk to them, they told us that they weren’t interested in socialism but wanted to do something now. We still don’t know what and of course it’s not true that the banks caused the crisis (any more than that the Rothschilds did). The whole capitalist system did. It’s just what happens from time to time under capitalism as all business enterprises pursue maximum profits and cutback on production when there are no longer so many profits to be made. The only alternative is replace the profit system with one based on common ownership and democratic control so that there can be production to satisfy people’s needs instead of for profit. We went on to Brockwell Park and the Lambeth Country Show. Thousands there enjoying the music and the food. We visited the “Trade Union Village” and looked at the books on the Labour Party stall. Noticing that they were all novels we asked if they any political ones. The man laughed and said “What, at a Labour Party stall!” We exchanged our election leaflet for one of theirs saying “You can’t trust David Cameron with the NHS”. Failed to find the Militant stall masquerading as “Lambeth Socialist Party”. On leaving we found 4 people ftom the “South London Anti-Fascists” distributing leaflets at the gate advertising a confrontation between them and the “English Volunteer Force” (apparently a breakaway from the EDL) in Croydon next Saturday. We gave them our leaflet. Only sign of the Rushcroft Road (ex) squatters protest we saw was a sticker saying “Lambeth Council. Eviction Council”. Actually, there was quite a bit to report. Meanwhile the Brixtonlog has added the statements of the Labour and Green Party candidates (scroll down towards the end after reading the first statement).http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/
"a pathetic UK Uncut demonstration opposite outside the HSBC. Pathetic in terms both of turnout (perhaps a dozen) and appearance (a tatty banner proclaiming "Stuff the Banks") and purpose." Perhaps a rather uncharitable assessment, imho. According to the Glasgow Herald, the mere threat was suffice to close down Glasgow, Sheffield, Brixton (which later re-opened once the protresters departed) and Regent Street in London – branches which HSBC initially said would be "open as usual". The Regent Street branch should have remained open until until 3pm but closed its doors at 11.30am when between 50 and a 100 Uncut protesters made their presence known . What is it they say? The most effective strike is the one that does not need to take place, similarly with a protest , the mere fact of its threat had sufficient power to have an effect. I actually look forward to the day that our own party holds its own protest demonstrations and if they start with a "pathetic" dozen participants, so be it.
The reference was just to what happened in Brixton. Maybe elsewhere the action was more successful in terms of numbers who turned up. I imagine they expected more to turn up in Brixton. We did and even printed a few more leaflets.The other criticism — for blaming the banks and in particular HSBC for the crisis — remains valid as it is diverting popular discontent away from capitalism as a system on to banks and their top executives. Here is another extract from their leaflet (presumably also distributed in Regent Street, Glasgow, Sheffield, etc):
Quote:Today people all over the country are targeting HSBC – shutting down the UK's biggest bonus-munching, crisis-causing, tax-dodging bank. We are bringing food banks into the big banks. It's time that the tax-dodging fat-cats and the banks that caused the financial crisis were made to pay up, not the public.Popular resentment against banks and bankers may be understandable, but it is still wrong to blame them for causing the crisis. In fact we need to argue against this misdirected resentment and its populist exploitation by UK Uncut and TUSC, one of whose election leaflets and frequently in their paper raises the slogan "We won't pay for the bankers' crisis!" Maybe UK Uncut can be excused to a certain extent because they don't claim to be Marxists.I'm not against us organising propaganda stunts (as discussed in the workshops we held) but they need to be correct politically.
Just to clarify that i was not endorsing Uncuts analysis which we rightly dismiss as inaccurate and would lead to adopting a policy of ineffectual reforms and legislation of just one sector of the capitalist economy. We hold the entire capitalist class as culpable in the robbery of the workers. The extension of the campaign to tax havens and corporation tax loopholes may now involve the non-financial companies but it still remains at the root, the rich stealing from the rich. How we highlight what is a ultimately a diversion is a difficult one. I was more motivated in qualifying what could be mistaken as a rather dismissive attitude to protests, generally. Accepting that there was not overwhelming numbers protesting Uncut still showed what publicity and coverage can be obtained by targeted demonstrations, or just the mere threat of them. The fact that no great numbers were involved should present us with hope that we too can, as you suggest engage, in similar propaganda stunts. How we do it i think requires some imaginative ploys mainly because our case cannot simply be reducced to sound-bites and scapegoats.
Redistributing misery Lively hustings meeting last night with all the candidates (but with the Tory arriving half way through) and much heckling. Ninety people present (which is more that you usually get at a hustings for an election to parliament). Maybe it’s this part of Brixton or maybe a local election generates more interest amongst a minority. In any event, the Brixtonblog is to be congratulated for organising it. The Labour candidate was in a hopeless position, trying to blame the ConDem government for the cuts but defending the way Labour-run Lambeth Council were implementing them. The LibDem candidate was also in a hopeless position because she was unable to criticise what the government was doing and the effect this was having locally and was reduced to extolling her own virtues. No wonder the Tory turned up late as what could he say (beyond, as he did, that they hadn’t done much leafletting or canvassing as Tulse Hill was not an area where they were strong on the ground)?. The Green Party candidate didn’t really follow through his strong case that “right across Lambeth Labour is pursuing a programme of evictions in order to sell housing to developers and profit from high property prices” (he didn’t even switch his mobile phone off). The UKIP candidate was more prepared than last time (she was also their candidate in the Brixton Hill local by-election in January), specifically targetting Labour rather than Tory voters, presumably in pursuit of some UKIP national strategy for inner London and Northern cities; interesting display of populism, though. The TUSC candidate put across their single-issue “No cuts” campaign and got denounced by UKIP as “Bob Crow’s fan club”. The Independent candidate explained his case against the Labout council’s plan to move him and his fellow residents from their sheltered housing and sell off the land to developers. Our candidate said that it was capitalism, not the government or the local council (or the EU), that was responsible for the problems facing people in Tulse Hill (and elsewhere) and that the other parties’ claims to be able to solve them were just empty promises worth nothing as many non-voters already understood. What the Green Party had called “Labour’s programme of evictions” turned out to be one of the main issues of the meeting. It really is the case that the Labour Council has decided that, to raise money to try to compensate for the cut in grants from central government, it will sell off part of its land and housing stock to private developers. This of course involves removals and evictions. This was not popular with the audience which gave the poor Labour candidate a hard time (she’ll probably still win, though). Local councils do have a choice, not to not make any cuts, but to decide how to apply them. It’s as if the central government (which is responding to the current economic crisis by cutting its spending so as to give profits, the life-blood of the system, a chance to recover) has said to local councils: “you’ve got to make cuts, but you choose where to make them”. Lambeth Council has decided to sell off some of its housing assets. It may well be true that this will provide them with some money to avoid cuts elsewhere but at the cost of bringing misery to those affected. They could have chosen not to do this, but they would then have had to make more cuts than otherwise and impose the misery on someone else. That’s the sort of choice of redistribution of misery you have to make if you assume responsibility for running capitalism at local level. Not even the TUSC policy of the council refusing to make any cuts and acting illegally would work. The central government would just send in a commissioner and impose the misery anyway. Quite simply, there is no way under capitalism in an economic crisis of avoiding cuts and the misery they bring; one way or another, in one form or another, they will be imposed. It is good that people don’t like this but discontent and protest is not enough. The only way out is to get rid of the capitalist system and replace its minority ownership and control and its production for profit by common ownership and democratic control and production to meet people’s needs. As one persistent heckler, a socialist, put it, get rid of the system.
Vote socialist Well, maybe you’ve had the leaflet, and bleary eyed you’re just getting ready to go out and vote, and you’ve decided to quickly look online and see what we’re saying. So, let’s be clear: we don’t want your vote. We’re not in this for office, or power, we’re in this to abolish a society in which people are made to work for the people who own all the property. We’re in this to call you to revolt. If you want a stateless, classless, moneyless society where we co-operate to produce the things we need, then you need to revolt. You need to say that that is your priority, not where to put the bus stop or the new roundabout. You need to tell your fellow workers that you want them to revolt too.That is what putting a cross next to The Socialist Party candidate means, it means a rejection of the whole system of government and society, with no compromise. It’s a big leap, let’s see you make it.
A bit of psephology Here’s the Tulse Hill result with percentages: Labour 1575 (69.3%) Lib Dem 277 (12.2%) Green 177 (7.8%) TUSC 76 (3.4%) Con 74 (3.3%) UKIP 64 (2.8%) Ind 20 (0.9%) Soc 11 (0.5%) Turnout: 20%. Everyone knew that this was a one-horse race, but nobody predicted (see yesterday’s blog) a landslide Labour victory of this proportion. It’s the sort of percentage that Labour used to get in the mining valleys of South Wales when the pits were still open. It looks as if inner London is becoming a Tory no-go ahead like the Northern cities. Although everybody was expecting Labour to win, there were other contests going on — LibDems v Greens for second place; UKIP v the Tories, even us v TUSC) — and it can be seen who won these. Whether we like it or not (and we don’t), in the public perception where there are two candidates describing themselves as “socialist” they are seen as rivals for the votes of those who consider themselves socialist. But not just in the public perception, but also amongst those who consider themselves socialist. Although we don’t attach all that importance to the number of votes we get, it is undoubtedly true that we get more when there is not another candidate calling themselves socialist. In fact the combined vote for TUSC and us is about the same here (3.9%) as it was in the Brixton Hill by-election in January (4.1%). That would seem to be the measure of the “anticapitalist” audience. In any event, TUSC must be pleased with the result. Finishing ahead of both UKIP and the Tories, they have shown that they can consistently get about 3% in elections with their “anti-cuts” campaign. This will be a protest vote against the cuts rather than for Trotsky’s transitional programme or for Militant’s strategy for combatting them and, as such, will have some significance. But 3% is not enough to launch a general strike over the issue. UKIP will also be disappointed. This time (compared with Brixton Hill) they ran a much more professional campaign (expensively produced glossy leaflets, etc) specifically aimed at winning over Labour voters. They got nowhere. It looks as if they really are just an external faction of the Tories in rural and seaside areas, especially those with a noticeable presence of migrants from East Europe. They are not going to make a breakthrough in the big cities. It is difficult to understand why they thought that their appeal to old-fashioned Britishness was going to have an impact in a ward where, in the 2011 census, only 5116 out of a population of 15,771 (a little over 32%) put themselves down as “White British” (see here). Parties such as the BNP and them are no threat in places like this despite the fuss made about them by “anti-fascists”. One of our reasons for contesting these by-elections (apart from the wards being in walking distance of our Head Office) was to get us known more locally in preparation for next year’s full borough council elections in May next year (which are going to be held on the same day as the Euroelections, which should increase the turnout a bit). We will almost definitely be contesting the Larkhall and Ferndale wards as we did last time. Ferndale ward is also in Brixton (bordered by Brixton High Street and Acre Lane). In the meantime we’ll be continuing leafletting them and adding the nearby parts of Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill wards.http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/
The postal voters Lambeth Council has just made available statistics which show that, although the overall turnout was only 20%, the number of postal voters who voted was much higher at 46% (there were 1023 postal voters out of a total electorate of 11,236, 484 of them voted). In one voting district the turnout was only 16%. This must mean something, probably that it’s easier to vote from home than to go to the polling station or maybe that those who go to the trouble of registering for a postal vote are more interested in voting. The Green Party agent said that they had sent their manifesto only to postal voters. The trouble is postal voters get to cast their vote before the election campaign is over, which means they can’t take into account any last-minute developments.
To show that TUSC can sometimes do as well as us in council by-elections, see this:http://democratic.lincoln.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=1&RPID=28039
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.