The cuts and what to do about them

Although this is not an issue in this election as there is no candidate standing on anti-cuts programme promising to oppose all cuts, this passage from an introduction to a reprint a couple of years ago to a pamphlet Unwaged Fightback: A History of the Islington Action Group of the Unwaged, 1980-1986 makes the same point as us against this strategy:

In Islington itself, Labour councillors implement savage cuts to services one day and lead the 'anti-cuts' marches the next. During the 1980s rate-capping struggles many people invested much support and hope in their elected representatives; disillusion was probably bound to follow, partly because brave lefty leaders get cold feet, or end up sacking workers and making cuts in the end ('with a heavy heart'), usually on the grounds that it's better for them to be in charge than someone worse, they have no choice. In reality they do have little choice, because their real room to manoeuvre IS limited, by central government funding, legal obligations, and so on, even more now than in the '80s.

What to do, then? Harry Lynch, the author of the 2011 introduction, says:

It would be great to have an independent workers movement, that answered both austerity and attempts to co-opt rebellion by Labour councillors, union full-timers, and professional lefties with the proper politeness: occupy the lot, strike, not for a day but for good, and lets run the world ourselves. Time will tell as to if that develops, and how.

Yes, of course. If such a movement existed, then socialism would be just round the corner, not that staging a syndicalist General Strike to try to overthrow capitalism would be the most intelligent way of proceeding.

Still, it is true that, given capitalism in an economic crisis, there is not much that workers can do other than protest in the hope of getting a few exemptions or slowing the cuts down.

The real lesson is that, since all that capitalism has to offer is austerity and cuts, we should concentrate on organising to bring it to an end by political action aimed at ushering in a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production so that there can be produce for directly for use and not for profit, and distribution on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Socialism.

What we said at the hustings

We were out again yesterday in the southern part of the ward. Our leafletter there reports that she saw Green canvassers going from door to door. Apparently they think they can win. We have received one reply to an ealier leaflet we distributed here (this particular part of the ward has been leafletted three times).

In the meantime the Brixtonblog has published a report of the hustings here.

Here's a couple of quotes from our candidate:

In times of recession public services are the first thing that gets cut. This is the nature of capitalism and it’s time to wake up. We’re in a society that doesn’t work in our interests. There’s nothing we can do about it unless we dump the capitalist system.”

Danny Lambert said the pub’s closure was one of many symptoms of capitalist economics. “If this pub can’t be run at a profit it’ll get closed down and something else will open that can,” he said. “People come a poor second to profit. Until we get shot of capitalism we’ll have this problem over and over again.”

The hustings

About 70 people (including the local MP, Chuka Umanna) attended the hustings organised by the Brixtonblog last night. All 7 candidates were present and were given more or less equal time. The questions were not confined to purely local issues but also included the cuts.

A leaflet by Lambeth Save Our Services listed some of the cuts made by the local council (playgroups, library services, housing co-operatives, etc). The would-be Labour councillor justified these on the grounds that, given government policy, some cuts had to made and it was better that the local council choose where the cuts were to fall rather than (the only alternative) have the central government in the form of Tory Minister Eric Pickles come in and decide this. The Tory candidate said that the cuts were inevitable and that we had to grin and bear them. Our candidate said that, given that capitalism was in an economic crisis, cuts were inevitable but rather than grinning and bearing it we should work to get rid of capitalism. The Trotskyist candidate, who is standing on an anti-cuts platform, argued that they were not inevitable as the money was there in the City; this should be taxed and used to maintain services. The UKIP lady (the only way to describe her) argued that the money could be found by stopping the war in Afghanistan (I hadn't realised till then that UKIP was against both the Iraq and the Afghan wars) as well of course as withdrawing from the EU. The Green candidate was against the cuts too but didn't say where the money to stop them was to come from, though he did float the idea of raising council tax.

The main local issue was the closure of a local pub, the George IV, which is now boarded up and whose site Tesco wants for one of its supermarkets. The first question was from the person who used to run the pub. He pointed out that it had been running at a loss and that it could be re-opened as a community pub if the same amount of money could be raised as Tesco were prepared to pay for the site. This was a gift for our candidate who was able to make the point that this was how capitalism worked: if a business did not make a profit it went under and that land for sale went to the highest bidder. The Tory candidate made the same point. The Green man said he had launched the campaign to keep the building as a pub and community centre and had even invited the Green Party Leader, Natalie Bennett, down the other day to support the campaign. In fact, in all his replies, the Green candidate presented himself as the defender of local businesses, thus confirming what we have said about the Green Party: that it is the party of petty (as opposed to big, corporate) capitalism.

The Tory candidate revealed, when he spoke immediately after Danny, that when he was a student he had been a Marxist anti-capitalist (I meant to ask him afterwards which group he had been in but forgot). In his answers the TUSC candidate demonstrated his reformism by saying, in answer to the various questions, that money should be spent on affordable housing, apprenticeships, community pubs, etc, etc. as if capitalism could be reformed to put "people before profit". He never once mentioned any alternative to capitalism (not even the state capitalism misnamed "socialism" his party is committed to on paper). UKIP got slapped down by everybody when they raised the question of immigration and "overpopulation" (apparently, under EU regulations, 30 million Rumanians and Bulgarians are coming to live in Britain next year).

Before the meeting, the candidates were filmed for 30 seconds answering a question about what to do about unemployment in the ward. Their answers will be shown on the Brixtblog today. As will various questions posed by email, to which the candidates were invited to respond. Naturally we will. Watch that space.

UKIP's no brains

We started distributing the election manifestos yesterday and came across something from UKIP. Not published by their candidate but a back issue of UKIP London News from the time of the Olympics. It had an intriguing headline: THE DEPRESSION: ONLY UKIP CAN GET BRITAIN OUT IT. And what is their miracle solution?

"We are in sore need of an injection of NEW money which does not involve borrowing (...) There is such an action which could be taken -- tomorrow -- which would have the effect of saving Britain around £100 bn a year -- free money ! (...) This is an obvious 'no-brainer'."

In other words, finance government spending not by borrowing (and having to pay £ 100 bn a year in interest payments) but simply by printing the money. A bit like in Zimbabwe. This would of course cause runaway inflation and make the depression worse. The trouble is that the UKIP candidate doesn't have to do anything and can put forward any crazy policy (there are others) as UKIP is currently the media flavour of the month.

But at least UKIP is to be commended on raising a more important issue than where the candidates live, as in another, Labour leaflet we found. In it, apart from emphasising that he lived "right here in Brixton Hill" while the Tory and LibDem candidates didn't, the Labour candidate made the rather rash promise: "I'LL ALWAYS PUT PEOPLE FIRST".

Always? But as part of the Labour majority on the council he will, if elected, have to implement further cuts in council spending on services and amenities, as a result of the government's policy of putting profits first to try to get out of the depression. If he does chose to "put people first" by not voting for the cuts he'll be suspended and have to sit as an independent (the fate of one Lambeth Labour councillor who dared to do this). And of course, at national level when in office, Labour has always put Profit before People as any government of capitalism is forced to. That's the only way capitalism can work. It can't be reformed to "put people first". How many times has that been tried, and failed?

A Trotskyist candidate?

Friday's South London Press carries a letter from a Steve Nally signing himself "Lambeth Socialist Party". Needless to say, it's not from us but from the Trotskyist Militant Tendency. So that people can see the reformist crap they are putting out in our name (as it there wasn't a shop front in Clapham High St, in Lambeth, with a fascia saying "The Socialist Party") here's the letter in full:

Voting to keep public services

Our public services are under massive attack. This Government is savaging jobs, public services and benefits. Around Britain, four out of five councils have cut library services and nearly 200 Sure Start children's centres have closed. Since 2010, Lambeth Labour council has cut 1,000 council jobs, closed down the park ranger service and privatised council call centres and adventure playgrounds. Yet the money is there in Britain today to keep all these services going. Between 2011 and 2012, £13billion was paid out in City bonuses. Just half of this would have been enough to avoid all the council cuts made that year.

All we hear from our councillors is that they have no alternative but to pass on the cuts. But they can fight for an alternative budget that would defend jobs and services. Lambeth council could, in the first instance, use its reserves and prudential borrowing powers to avoid passing on these cuts while arguing that the best way to mobilise a mass campaign that is necessary to defeat the cuts is to set a budget that meets the need of the local community and demands that the Government makes up the shortfall. As part of the battle against the cuts, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC )in Lambeth will be standing anti-cuts candidates in the 2014 elections and in any by-elections. We appeal to local trade unionists and anti-cuts campaigners to stand as candidates in 2014. Anyone interested in this can contact TUSC on www.tusc.org.uk or call 020 7702 8667 Steve Nally Lambeth Socialist Party.

Of course there's enough money around to avoid the cuts but to use it for this would run counter to the way capitalism works, and can only work. Capitalism runs on profits and currently it's not profitable to invest to the same extent as before (one definition of a "slump"). The only way that capitalism is going to get out of this is by cutting living standards and encouraging profits (which is why Osborne announced last week yet another cut in corporation tax, a tax on profits).

Militant probably know this but are pursuing the dishonest and condescending Trotskyist policy of trying to lead the working class down a cul de sac in the hope that when they reach the brick wall they'll turn to them for "leadership". It's the same with their advice to local councillors to fix a budget without cuts and send the bill to the government (which planet are they living on?). They know perfectly well the result. The councillors would be surchanged and banned from public office (as happened to Ted Knight and his fellow Lambeth councillors who tried this in the 1980s)and the central government would take over the running of the council and impose the cuts anyway. Which of course is what Militant wants to happen. It would be another brick wall.

The last paragraph of Nally's letter suggests that may be contesting the Brixton Hill by-election. Fair enough. We're prepared to take on all opponents of socialism

Cuts and anti-cuts

A local member leafletted this demonstration yesterday evening outside Brixton Town Hall (or Lambeth Town Hall as it's now called). So, the local public sector trade unionists and SWP paper sellers who were there are aware that we are standing.

This is a not an easy thing to explain to protestors but the fact is that under capitalism there is nothing that can be done to stop the cuts. All that can be achieved is a few concessions here and there and robbing one service to finance another. Of course people should protest at things getting worse but they shouldn't have any illusion that they can stop this. At most they can only slow it down a bit.

Cuts are what the economic laws of capitalism require at the present time and no government can defy this. In fact they have to enforce it, as they did in 1984 when Ted Knight and Lambeth Council did what some of the protestors last night were demanding: refuse to make the cuts. Knight and the others were surcharged and bankrupted and banned for being councillors. The cuts went through.

These sort of protests have been going on since the end of the 1970s, as the reforms brought in in the 50s and 60s have been gradually whittled away (here's what the Socialist Standard said about this in 1993). Which is why most demonstrations these days are not to demand improvements but merely to stop things getting worse.

What this shows is that capitalism is a system that is not geared to meeting people's needs and ought to be replaced by one that is, one based the common ownership and democratic control. We are standing candidates with a view to raising awareness of this.