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.

He'll hust and He'll hust...

Well, while we wait for the various write ups of the Hustings, lets make do with the Twitter feed. Strangest one being the Green Party's "Socialist Party says system to blame for Labour Party's misdeeds. How about taking some responsibility?#tulsehillhustings" The personal responsibility when faced with a rotten system is to get rid of it, not try and run it differently (because you can't).

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 pursuemaximum 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 reeading the first statement).

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.

Stop the Thing!

People are always asking why we don't campaign for reforms, if only to win more support for our cause.

An illustration of why we don't play that game can be found here:

After many months of campaigning to keep Clapham Fire Station open Lambeth Conservatives welcome the news that the fire station will not close.

Commenting, Lambeth Conservatives Group Leader John Whelan said: “This is fantastic news for the community and the borough as a whole.

"The Lambeth Conservatives have opposed the closure from the start and are delighted that our constructive community lead campaign has been a success.

“This is in sharp contrast to Lambeth Labour who were all talk and no action.

.So, the Tories out reformed Labour by campaigning hard (against the, er, Tory Mayor).

As with our attitude to the Whittington Hospital closure, we want to put the security and well being of working folk first and foremost, and our only concern is not that the "local" service is saved, but that the protection provision remains adequate. But campaigning for that isn't our job *as socialists* our job is to put the case for socialism. Local people are capable of campaigning for their own interests without us (or, indeed, without socialist consciousness).

A vote for us is an act of rebellion, saying that politics as normal can't go on.

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.

Yet another day in the life of capitalism

And what the Independent candidate is protesting about.

This is the sort of thing that is happening all over the country as local councils, under pressure from the central government itself under pressure from market conditions, try to balance their books both by cutting spending and increasing their income through selling off assets. It's behind the Rushcroft Road evictions too. Profits before people again, but that's how capitalism works.

A day in the life of capitalism

Here.

Voting begins

I see from twitter that some people have already begun voting by post. We have to remember that the voting excitement isn't confined to the election day anymore. So, anyone out there sitting at home with a ballot paper in one hand and a stack of election literature in the other (doubtless you've just come to our blog from the listing on our leaflet) should think whether you want to use your vote to continue poverty and exploitation, or end it outright. If you want people to be poor, vote for our capitalist party opponents; but if you do want a society of common ownership and democratic control, let your fellow workers know by voting socialist.

Half-way there

Five of us were out on Saturday, doing a stall outside Brixton tube station and leafletting the ward. More than half has now been covered and the rest will be this week.

We came across an arty event in Josephine Avenue and took a break in a cafe in Upper Tulse Hill. The owner told us it was frequented by the Labour candidate, so we left some leaflets for her (and anyone else).

Some householders will have found our leaflet and the TUSC one together on their doormat. This might cause some confusion as the TUSC candidate is taking a risk, for a vote-catching party, by declaring "I am a member of the Socialist Party". He isn't. He's a member of the Judean Peoples Front. His claim is risky as our candidate will be described on the ballot paper as "The Socialist Party (GB)" and there's a shop front in Clapham High Street saying "The Socialist Party". This could lead to some people who meant to vote for him voting for us, not that we want reformist votes.

Lambeth Council has published on its website more details of the 8 candidates from which it emerges that the mysterious Independent candidate is standing to protest against the closure and demolition of a sheltered housing unit in Streatham.

Brixtonblog are organising a hustings on Tuesday 23 July. Details here.

What is Socialism?

A comment in another place reminds me that as well as talking about the process of the election and the details of the ward, we need to occasionally come back to the basic Q&A about socialism. To be lazy, and because it doesn't need to be said in a new way each time, here is our definition of Socialism:

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.

We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.

In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

OK, a bit longer than I'd normally put in a post, but sometimes things need to be said in depth.

Down on the farm

Of course, in Tulse Hill we also have the agricultural vote to think of. As can be seen at the Tulse Hill Polytunnel. This is a good example of the local growing out of the global: the polythene for the tunnel has to be refined from hydrocarbons using vast industrial processes, but it does allow residents of Tulse Hill to grow food efficiently and locally. There's no reason why thousands of like projects couldn't happen with all the energy and enthusiasm of this one (especially if instead of having to try and be a commercial 'Social Enterprise' the volunteers could just provide food to other volunteers in restaurants or in their homes). The point is the technology is there not just to feed every human on the planet, but to make effective use of even the most unlikely scraps of land. The labour is there, else people wouldn't be volunteering.

Think locally, act globally

Although we make no apology for raising the issue of world socialism in a local election (as it's the workings of world capitalism that are ultimately responsible for the cuts to local services) we don't neglect local issues. Here is an extract from the leaflet on this that we are distributing in Tulse Hill (and before in other parts of Lambeth) mentioned in yesterday's blog:

Feeding the Five Thousand
Capitalism is in crisis and they are making us pay for it. 'Austerity' means increased hardship, attacks on the living conditions and wages of the working class, and 'reforms' to Social Security. Here in Lambeth job losses, cuts in housing benefit, and low pay are forcing families to seek free, charity handouts of food from the Food Bank at St Paul's Church in Ferndale Road. The Church has said that it is feeding 5,000 people.
David Cameron likes Food Banks. His Cabinet Minister for Food Caroline Spelman thinks they are an example of good citizenship in Cameron's 'Big Society'. In reality it is a case of the capitalist state saving money by ridding itself of its role of providing basic support for destitute working class families – of, basically, feeding its hungry citizens – and forcing them to rely instead on religious charities.
Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat politicians all accept capitalism and apply its economic law of profit before people. If Labour was in government they would be following the same economic course. In fact Labour is in power in Lambeth and is imposing cuts to benefits and services.
'I was hungry and you fed me,' says the Food Bank’s mission statement, 'thirsty and you gave me a drink.' Socialism, as a society of common ownership and democratic control, will provide food and drink, and much more, to everyone as of right in accordance with the principle 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs'. Nobody should have to rely on charity and nobody would.

Bedroom Tax
As part of making the working class pay for the capitalist crisis, the Coalition government are changing the rules on Housing Benefit from April. The capitalist state will charge you for the bedrooms you have in your council or housing association house. It will be a 'bedroom tax'. The government says it will affect over half a million households.
The capitalist state will be taxing your living space if your children have flown the nest for college or somewhere else to live. If you have one spare room you will face a 14 percent cut in housing benefit, two or more spare rooms and the capitalist state will cut your housing benefit by a quarter ! The capitalist state is making rules on how many bedrooms you can have and who sleeps where. Your kids will have to share a bedroom if they are under 16 and the same gender, and if they are under 10 they have to share whatever gender.
Under capitalism people only get the housing they can afford. The lower your income, the worse your housing. In a socialist  society of common ownership, housing will be about what people need to live and not how much rent they have to pay.

Safety Second
Tory Mayor Boris Johnson wants to save £45 million from the Fire Brigade budget. So he plans to close 12 Fire Stations in London. This will affect people in Lambeth as among those he wants to close are the one at the Clapham Old Town and the one in the next-door borough on Southwark Bridge Road. These closures will put in danger the safety of millions of Londoners because people will have to wait longer for a fire engine. Economic considerations not people's safety are the priority in capitalism.

No more adventures
In August last year Lambeth Labour Council 'temporarily' closed four Children's Adventure Playgrounds in Lambeth.
The adventure playgrounds at Bolton Crescent in Camberwell, Lollard Street in Kennington, Loughborough Park on Moorland Road just off Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, and Wilmington Road, off Landor Road near Clapham North Tube Station all remain closed.
These Adventure Playgrounds were free to access for children ages 5 to 16 but are easy targets for the 'economic austerity cuts' required by capitalism and imposed by the Coalition government and Lambeth Labour Council. Former Lambeth Labour leader Steve Reed promised at a Council meeting in April 2011 that no adventure playgrounds would close. He has now moved up the greasy pole into the House of Commons where he can better serve capitalism when it’s Labour’s turn again to run capitalism, in the only way to can be - as a profit-making system against the interests of the majority class of wage and salary workers.
In a socialist society children's lives would be one great adventure playground, education a creative journey, and the free development of each child the condition for the free development of all children.  

More anti-EU than thou

According to this, TUSC are to target UKIP in this election by exposing its leader Farage as a tax-evader. This will be because when it comes to next year's European Parliament elections they will be vying with UKIP for the anti-EU vote. For these elections TUSC transforms itself in NO2EU. They won't stand much chance of making headway against UKIP, but they will contribute to the nasty xenophobic atmosphere from which UKIP benefits. We'll probably be contesting these elections somewhere but on the basis of YES2WORLDSOCIALISM.

Meanwhile we have almost completed the distribution of our newsletter giving the socialist perspective on local issues (food banks, bedroom tax, closing playgrounds, Brixton windmill) and will now be concentrating on getting our election manifesto to people (streets stalls, letter boxes).

Stat attack!

The people of Tulse Hill should be rich. Some 5,000 or so of you work between 31 and 48 hours per week. That is, Tulse Hill Ward alone is producing a minimum of 155,000 hours of work a week. There’s a further thousand working more than 49 hours. This is a highly educated workforce: over 800 work in education, 700 in Information and communication and nearly a thousand in professional and scientific activities. So, this is an area that would be called by some “middle class”, with professional office based work predominating.

Yet, in such an area, only 600 households own their home outright, and thirteen hundred homes are owner occupied with mortgages. Over two thousand households are in social accommodation, and fifteen hundred rent privately. 2,400 households have one dimension of deprivation (unemployment, overcrowding, lack of education or disability), twelve hundred have two and 490 have three of those four states.

The picture is, that the majority of people in Tulse Hill have to work in order to keep their home, or to keep deprivation away. They may work with their minds or skills, but they are working class non-the-less, selling their ability to work in order to access the means of living. So, they don’t get to use those 155,000 hours of weekly work to make their area better, to look after those unable to work, or anything of the sort. Those 155,000 hours are fed into a system that generates profits for the tiny minority who own the means of living and who demand our labour to get to it.

All statistics from here

UKIP misses the point

More of our newsletters were distributed in the ward yesterday. More evidence this time of political activity. In fact some streets would have received our leaflet and UKIP's at the same time. A LibDem leaflet carried the same "It's a two-horse race" bar chart that they all do, even though the figures they gave showed that it's really only a one-horse race (as everyone knows)since even if all the Tory voters switched to the LibDems that would only be get them to 35% compared to Labour's 51%. The Labour leaflet was a tribute to their councillor whose untimely death provoked the by-election.

UKIP is an opportunist, populist party but don't seem to have yet learnt (as all vote-catching parties must if they are going to get anywhere) how to adapt what they say to those whose votes they are chasing. Asking people to help them "End mass immigration" wouldn't seem to find much of an echo in this part of the world. They need to take some advice from the LibDems on how to be all things to all people (bringing back smoking in pubs and abolishing parking meters might not be enough). UKIP suffered a blow this week when their flagship policy of withdawing from the EU but still having access to the Single European Market as a non-member like Norway was rejected by the employers organisation, the CBI. They want Britain to stay in, so UKIP are on the own on this one as far as the major British capitalist corporations are concerned.

In any event, whether Britain is in or out of the EU makes no fundamental difference to the majority class of wage and salary workers and their dependents. It's not the EU that is the cause of our problems, but capitalism. So the way out is not to withdraw from the EU (the problems would still continue) but to establish socialism based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production so that production can be geared to satisfying people's needs instead of to making a profit. If there's ever a referendum on the EU (what a waste of time) we'll be writing "WORLD SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper.

Leafletting the Tulse Hill Estate

Two of us leafletted the Tulse Hill Estate this morning. On our way there we passed Strathleven Rooad (off Acre Lane) and saw it was closed with police everywhere. Apparently, two people had been shot while trying to evict a tenant, an example of the violence generated by capitalist society.

On the Tulse Hill Estate itself we saw Irby House where Ken Livingston was brought up but we couldn't find any blue plaque marking this. We also found a TUSC leaflet which made the dubious claim that:

If even a handful of councils defied the Con-Dems and refused to implement the cuts the government could be made to back down and fund social services properly.

Could they really? Could the government be made to "fund social services properly"? It's not as if the government is imposing cuts because they're bastards (even if some of them could well be) who want to deprive pensioners of their outings or kids of their playgrounds or drive people out of their homes because they've got a spare bedroom. It's because they are in government when capitalism is in one of its slump periods and in slumps government spending has to be cut to help restore profits.

Profits nefore people that's how capitalism works and can only work. There is no alternative within capitalism and it's misleading and even dishonest to suggest that there could be. The only way out is socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, with production directly for use not profit and the application of the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

And the candidates are...

And here are the opposition:

Amna Ahmed	Liberal Democrat
Mary Atkins	Labour
Bernard Atwell	Green
Timothy Briggs	Conservative
Adam Buick	Socialist Party
Elizabeth Jones	UKIP
Steve Nally	TUSC
Valentine Walker	Independent

Eight candidates for a by-election, political life in the Capital is interesting to say the least. Pleasing (though not unexpected) to not see the fash standing. It'll be interesting in the current terms of debate to see if the UKIP advance continues. Also, have to ask, are parties deliberately choosing people with names high up the Alphabet (including us)? 5 before we get past B. Who knows if that will have an effect for us.

The Tulse Hill parliamentary road...

'As far as I can glean from Comrade Waller,' said Psmith, 'about twenty years ago, when he and Comrade Bickersdyke worked hand-in-hand as fellow clerks at the New Asiatic, they were both members of the Tulse Hill Parliament, that powerful institution. At that time Comrade Bickersdyke was as fruity a Socialist as Comrade Waller is now. Only, apparently, as he began to get on a bit in the world, he altered his views to some extent as regards the iniquity of freezing on to a decent share of the doubloons. And that, you see, is where the dim and rusty past begins to get mixed up with the live, vivid present. If any tactless person were to publish those very able speeches made by Comrade Bickersdyke when a bulwark of the Tulse Hill Parliament, our revered chief would be more or less caught bending, if I may employ the expression, as regards his chances of getting in as Unionist candidate at Kenningford. You follow me, Watson? I rather fancy the light-hearted electors of Kenningford, from what I have seen of their rather acute sense of humour, would be, as it were, all over it. It would be very, very trying for Comrade Bickersdyke if these speeches of his were to get about.'

[...]

For just one moment Mr Bickersdyke's memory poised motionless, like a hawk about to swoop. Then it darted at the mark. Everything came to him in a flash. The hands of the clock whizzed back. He was no longer Mr John Bickersdyke, manager of the London branch of the New Asiatic Bank, lying on a sofa in the Cumberland Street Turkish Baths. He was Jack Bickersdyke, clerk in the employ of Messrs Norton and Biggleswade, standing on a chair and shouting 'Order! order!' in the Masonic Room of the 'Red Lion' at Tulse Hill, while the members of the Tulse Hill Parliament, divided into two camps, yelled at one another, and young Tom Barlow, in his official capacity as Mister Speaker, waved his arms dumbly, and banged the table with his mallet in his efforts to restore calm.

He remembered the whole affair as if it had happened yesterday. It had been a speech of his own which had called forth the above expression of opinion from Strowther. He remembered Strowther now, a pale, spectacled clerk in Baxter and Abrahams, an inveterate upholder of the throne, the House of Lords and all constituted authority. Strowther had objected to the socialistic sentiments of his speech in connection with the Budget, and there had been a disturbance unparalleled even in the Tulse Hill Parliament, where disturbances were frequent and loud….

P.G. Wodehouse Psmith in the city.

Obviously, our socialist candidate will not recant his socialistic sentiments, but hopefully we can bring some frequent and loud disturbances to the by-election debate.

The other candidates

According to twitter and facebook, it looks as if the line-up is going to be the same as in Brixton Hill in January, i.e. us v Labour, Tory, LibDem, Green, UKIP and TUSC. In fact, it looks as if some of these parties will be putting up the same candidates as then. We'll know officially at noon on Tuesday when the list of nominated candidates will be announced.

Another local by-election in Lambeth

Due to the sudden death of a Labour councillor, a sudden by-election has been called for 25 July in the Tulse Hill ward of Lambeth council. As this is next door to Brixton Hill ward where we contested a by-election in January, we will be putting up a candidate in this by-election too. Our candidate will be Adam Buick. The nomination papers have already been handed in and accepted. Nominations close tomorrow at noon and it will be interesting to see what the line up will be.

Tulse Hill ward is a safe Labour seat and is part of the parliamentary constituency of Streatham. This is the second by-election in this ward since the last full council elections in May 2010. The result of the last by-election, in July 2010, was:

Labour 1235 (52%)
LibDems 745 (31%)
Green 256 (11%)
Tory 94 (4%)
UKIP 36 (2%)

The turn-out was 21% (which is pronably about what it will be this time too).

The breakdown for the ward (not counting postal votes) in the Greater London Assembly elections in 2012 when we had a candidate in thee Lambeth & Southwark constituency was:

Labour 2233 (64%)
Green 518 (14.8%)
Tory 345 (9.9%)
LibDems 242 (6.9%
Socialist 95 (2.7%)
UKIP 59 (1.7%)

So 95 people in the ward have already recently cast a vote for socialism when given a chance to vote for one or other of the pro-capitalist parties. One of our aims in contesting will be to make contact with them. Leafletting has already started.

The turnout

Official result here, showing that the turnout was 24.2%.

Socialist election activity in Islington

We have stood in Islington before, but mainly in the south, in the Islington South & Finsbury constituency, three times in general elections (1979, 1983 and 1987) and in 1981 in the GLC election. Despite having a super-active branch we never did well in terms of votes or percentages (around 0.2%). This was attributed to the constituency being a marginal Labour/SDP (remember them?) one. But then we contest elections, at the moment, to publicise the case for socialism.

We did contest Islington North (into which Junction ward falls), forty years ago, in the 1973 GLC elections and got one of our best results ever in London:

Labour 7463, Con 2798, Socialist 284 (2.7%)

But no doubt this was in part due to us being the only opposition to the two main parties, but there was an unpopular Tory government in power centrally under Ted Heath.

Our percentage of 0.8% in Junction ward is in fact higher than the 0.3% we got in Vauxhall in the 2010 General Election. If we'd have got that percentage there, we'd have had 300 votes.

We'll probably be back again in the London borough elections in May next year.

Just a bit of fun...

Just a bit more analysis, based on the vote movement:

Junction:

#Lab 1343 (62% +23%), #Green 381 (18% +6%), #LibDem 276 (13% -27%), #Con 120 (6% -4%) #BNP 31 (1%) #SPGB 18 (1%) #Lab GAIN

Also last night, this ward took a vote too:

St Georges:

#Lab 1,698 (71% +37%), #LibDem 371 (16% -27%), #Green 206 (9% -5%), #Con 87 (4% -6%) #BNP 20 (1%) #Lab HOLD

Noticeably, Labour have gained, hugely. I recall noting when going through our historic London votes how our vote rose during an unpopular Labour regime, and then fell under the Tories, as people veered back to Labour. I would have expected a higher vote for us if we'd stood three years ago, say, in the same ward. Those numbers look horrific for the Lib-Dems (and the Greens in Junction may be soaking up some of their votes and the general protest vote).

Out for the count

If it'd had been an episode of some soap or other, the audience would have tutted at the lazy clichés: the tousle haired besuited Tory; the shabby bejumpered Greens; the studenty Labourites; the naked goat sacrificing Lib Dems (OK, small lie, earnest and bebeiged Lib-Dems); and the BNPers keeping themselves to their own, which in this case meant two lads in bomber jackets and DMs, and an agent-cum-ring master in a smart suite and dodgey glasses.

There were more polling agents than counters, and for some reason they spent the night trying to guess the result, rather than just watching the process for fairness. Why on Earth they were trying to count the votes for their party during the ballot verification count I'll never know. As you'll have seen from the size of the turnout, the whole process didn't take long, about an hour and a half, beginning to end.

I did at least come close to taking Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn's seat from him, when I realised he was sitting on my jacket, but he stood up anyway before I could make that joke. Bum. When the results we announced he cried "Shame!" when the BNP vote was announced. For a while I thought we were in with a chance of beating them (I was disturbed to hear their Glorious leader say they'd only distributed a couple of hundred leaflets on their easier to post-through streets). I spotted him looking twice at a Labourites lap-top why was emblazened with "This machine kills fascists" on it's top, he didn't seem fazed by it.

Thanks and praise are due to the election count staff who did their job efficiently and accurately (and with good humour). Also they gave out a little sheet explaining the process of the night, which I told them other councils haven't done, it was good to have some grasp of the order of events.

The people have spoken...

Labour	1343	(61.9%)
Green	381	(17.6%)
Lib Dem	276	(12.7%)
Con	120	(05.6%)
BNP	31	(01.4%)
Socialist	18	(00.8%)

Turnout:2,181 (24.2%)

Vote early, vote once...

Well, that's what I did today. I made my way round the warren of a School to find the ballot box (I kind of went through the wrong door, but was pleased to see, unlike my old school, this primary school has a school council made up of infants, so at least in Islington they are being taught about democracy from a young age).

There was a Labour polling agent, who informed me that they were only checking my number so they didn't come round later knocking me up: I'd be impressed if they were actually organising a get out the vote campaign. More likely, they just want the data for future canvassing purposes.

So, for the third time in my life, I vote me! (No ego kick there, then). I always enjoy voting, it's strange how a quiet prosaic act, so insignificant in itself, can wield such power and, I'll say it, majesty. I look forward to the time when we have enough of a base to put out polling agents and a get out the vote campaign, that's the other lesson of contesting election, you see how it's done and organised, something stay away rrrrrevolutionary groups won't see.

Better late than never

The Islington Gazette's website has this morning published the names of all the candidates. This, apart from the official council communications, is the first time that any of the local media have published the names of all the candidates together. So, in most cases those going to vote will only discover who they can vote for when they get their ballot paper. It is unclear what a team of foreign election observors might make of this. A low turn-out seems inevitable.

No doubt, our candidate, who lives in the ward, will be reporting later today that he voted for himself for a change.

Beware of fakes

The ex-Militant Tendency organised a meeting earlier this evening in Archway using our name. Their leaflet for the meeting, about the Whittington hospital, could have caused confusion but, while we can stop them using "Socialist Party" on the ballot paper when they contest elections, unfortunately we can't stop them using this on leaflets. For the election tomorrow we're on the ballot paper as "The Socialist Party (GB)".

We made sure that all 8 people who turned up received a copy of our election address.

Last pushes

Well, I've not done my Robo-leafletter routine this time out, for many and several decidedly pedestrian reasons. I finally got out last night, and, is it me, or are the stairs getting steeper? I only did one street and council estate. I decided to disregard my usual compliance with 'No Junk Mail' stickers, since I was giving out so few. I know our counter argument is that an election address isn't junk mail, but that won't make people actually read it or look to twice to see it isn't a pizza flyer.

I was looking forward to leafletting Aveling House (a reminder of Islington Loony Left days, no doubt), however, I found that having got myself buzzed past the external intercom, that each landing had a locked door/intercom system. Obviously, people on an estate are entitled to feel secure, but there is a democratic question of how we can get to deliver leaflets to them. I know I've ranted about this before.

On my way home, I discovered quite a crowd of Labour activists actually canvassing my street, which is quite intensive to any local election. They didn't call on me, someone must have had the sense to take my name off the list.

Maybe Labour are learning the lesson of Eastleigh, national level elections are won one ward at a time. Certainly, we've now leafletted the entire ward, so thanks and congratulations to hard working comrades for managing that at short notice. I overheard one woman point blank telling the Labour canvassers that she simply wasn't going to vote, I hope there's not too many of them, and of those who do vote, they at least consider the message we have distributed.

Turn up again, Dick Whittington

As I write, otherwise placid people are outside, demonstrating. In modern political parlnce, demonstration simply means the right to petition. More pertinently, it means demonstrating how strong you are; how many you are; and just who you are. Clearly, the civil society of Islington, Camden and other nearby boroughs have turned out, and a good couple of thousand are marching in the cold and rain; supported extempore banners from nearby residential windows and the beeped horns of cars. I wonder if politicians take their holidays in summer, because that is the time we'd have bigger and better demos -- best for them to make the unpopular decisions at cold times of the year.

A small group of us turned up at Holloway tube, and handed out our leaflet (based on my blog post, below, about the Whittington sell off). The march passed us by in fifteen minutes, and we got shot of a few hundred leaflets. We'd turned up a bit too early, because I'd suggested meeting at the same time as the march's muster, even though that meant it wouldn't be passing that station for another 45 minutes. My appologies to those who waited in the cold and rain. Our leaflets were taken pleasantly,by the contingents in the march. As predicted, Jeremy Corbin, the Islington North MP, and the leader of Islington Council were at the forefront of the march (actually, behind the jazz band in the bus, only in Islington). The Green Party, Labour Party and even the Liberal Democrats had contingents. There were leafleteers from the SWP, Militant andeven the fabled Socialist Equality Party.

The campaign has already had some success, the hospital had an advert in the Gazette for a series of public meetings, so that's going to be the second chance top make the point clear, whether or not the cuts are stopped or changed, a clear point has been made by the local community.

What they printed

Here's what they printed:

In contrast, Bill Martin, the Socialist party candidate in Junction, highlighted their lack of focus on his election. “My colleagues out and about have run into someone from the Labour party, but it has been a very low key,” he said.

“I haven’t had any leaflets through my door, put it that way. I haven’t seen anything that looks overtly Liberal or Labour in the area, which you do get in other campaigns. I think it’s treading water. I’ve only seen one or two election posters in windows; one was Green and was I think the other was maybe Labour, but that could have been from five years ago.”

The grammar is all wrong as Bill was talking about the Labour campaign not ours. At least people will know we're standing.

Talking to the press

I have a horrible habit of just chatting to journalists, forgetting that their lizard brain is constantly on the search for a story angle. I dislike treating them the way that professional politicians do: ignore what they ask, give them your prepared statement, and duck and weave around inconvenient questions. Of course, these formats are a game, and both sides know they're playing.

Anyway, I got a call from someone at a local news outlet call Islington Now. His line he was trying to establish was that the Liberal Democrats and Labour aren't really campaigning in Junction Ward, because it is expected to be a Labour victory, and there is a tighter contest in St. George's. I said that local elections don't normally see much action, and by-elections often less, since, given the participants usually have to actually have to work, the lack of a decent lead in to take holidays and plan (and the like) means activity will be limited.

I did point out that the Whittington Campaign is predominating in the area, and that, unlike other campaigns I've seen around London, no party was trying to get their name on the campaign (I was thinking of a campaign to stop a Police station closure in Willesden Green a couple of years ago I'd seen where the Lib-Dems put they're name over lots of posters).

I told him we expected to come last: best be honest with journalists, eh? But that it was quality not quantity that counted. We don't want people to vote for us, unless they mean it and understand what socialism is. I also said our platform was to promise nothing: if they vote for us, they're making the promise. Promising to campaign and fight for socialism, and letting their fellow workers know this.

We'll have to see what comes of the chat.

A day's leafletting

Most of the ward was leafletted yesterday by 5 of us. Only about 400 or 500 of the 3000 leaflets remain and a few streets near suicide bridge to cover. We met a Green canvasser and a Labour one and saw some LibDem leaflets but no sign of the Tories or the BNP. The Green leaflet called for a 20mph speed limit on Holloway Road, but as Holloway Road is the A1, the main road out of London to the North and three lanes both ways in some parts, this seems a bit nimbyish. The Labour man said that he had explained to his fellow Labourites that we were not trotskyists. We thanked him. After the leafletting we went to a local pub for a drink just in time to see the start of the Ireland-France rugby match. It turned out to be an Irish pub and when the Irish national anthem (the Soldiers' Song) was played a couple of the customers stood up to attention, the ejeets. A reminder that this used to be an Irish area with an Irish MP.

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.

Ah, go on then...

Some rotten buggers seem to have found footage of a previous time I stood as a candidate, when I attended the GLA Hustings at the famous location of the Putney debates...

Obviously (very obviously) it's the case not the face that counts, and the clip does give (very briefly) the case.

Our election address

Here's our leaflet (click to enlarge). The first 400 were distributed today. As the last post said, the big issue seems to be Whittington Hospital as there are a number of "Save Whittington Hospital" posters from the Labour Party in people's windows. This is Labour territory, where Old Labourite Jeremy Corbyn is the MP.

A BNP sympathiser claimed that there was a website www.benefity.pl. He's right. There is, but it's www.benefity.org.uk. So what? They are just propertyless workers moving from one part of the world to another in search of an income on which to live. As it's a local election, as EU citizens, they can also vote. Perhaps we should do a leaflet in Polish. In the meantime there's the articles on the World Socialist Movement website.

Save the Whittington

The big issue in the Junction ward by-election is the campaign to save the Whittington Hospital, and their plans for a major sell off of land and reduction in beds, see here.

On Wednesday 23 January 2013, the Whittington Health Trust Board agreed an estates strategy that will see more services provided in health centres across Haringey and Islington. The strategy responds to the health trends of our local population. More people are receiving healthcare in their homes, health centres and GP surgeries. Technology will increasingly support more care, especially for people with long term conditions. The frail elderly are often best cared for in community settings. Over time, the dependency on hospital wards will decrease, which will see some staff relocate to health centres.

You could expect, if clinical need was the driver of the change, that they would roll out the community service, and then reduce beds and staff accomodation based on proven reduced need. This press release from a local MP suggests this is at least nominally the case:

Following a meeting with Lynne Featherstone MP and Cllr David Winskill, the Whittington Hospital has offered assurances that no services will be lost during their reorganization until equal or better replacement services are in place.

It is more likely, that the below quote from another of their leaflets is the real driver(PDF):

All hospitals are obliged to become Foundation Trusts or risk acquisition by other Foundation Trusts – our investment plans are a major part of our effort to become a Foundation Trust.

This is the reality, and why the hospital is threatened (again), and will be (again) even if the campaign succeeds. Hospitals forced to behave like businesses rather than providing a needs based service must start looking at the value of their estate as a priority. The position of the Socialist Party is clear: we will not campaign for election based on supporting any given set of reforms: but we do support the struggle of workers to defend their living standards and services (indeed, Unite The Union is at the forefront of the Whittington Campaign). We will not seek to take over the campaign like so many other organisations do. It's too easy for a Councillor or an MP to campaign to Save our Hospital/School/Police Station, because they can't lose. If the campaign succeeds it was because of them, if it fails it was despite their valliant efforts. If elected to council, our delegate will vote, as instructed, in the interests of the workers, but we won't kid on that we will be the saviors of them. Our election promise is to fight for the common ownership of the wealth of the world so that our health needs can be met directly without commercial consideration. That is the real issue behind the repeated campaigns to "Save the Whittington", as government funds are squeezed by falling commercial profits (and thus reduced tax take) they seek to cut or commercialise the costs of health care.

A press cutting

This week's Islington Gazette mentions that we are standing. Their main article on the by-elections (there are two on the same day, but we are only contesting one) will obviously be appearing next week or the week after. What it says can be found on page 6 here:

New Hopeful
A new leftwing candidate has entered the fray in the forthcoming Junction ward by-election. Bill Martin, 36, a university librarian, who lives in Hargrave Road, Archway, will stand for the Socialist Party of Great Britain on March 21.

In the meantime the 3000 election leaflets arrived in Clapham. Distribution starts next week.

BNP also standing

The official list of candidates was published at noon today.

As can be seen the BNP is standing. They seem to prefer North London. The last time we clashed directly with them, in the Kentish Town ward in Camden in 2010, they got 180 votes; we got 113.

The Islington Gazette phoned for details this afternoon. We sent them the manifesto, some details of the candidate (but no photo) and this soundbite:

Democracy won't mean much until we can actually run our own community,and that won't be possible until we collectively own and control the wealth of the world. That's why the Socialist Party is putting me up as a candidate in this by-election.

Let's see what appears on Friday.

The other candidates

The list of candidates won't be officially announced till Tuesday but we know from the local electronic press who they are likely to be:

Junction ward – Axing gyratory an issue

• Labour hopeful Kaya Makarau Schwartz said: “This election is an opportunity to back Islington’s Labour fairness agenda, which is making a difference to the lives of local people, despite unfair Tory-led government cuts of £4,000 for every household in the borough.”
Born at cuts-threatened Whittington Hospital, she said: “It’s always provided the vital health services we all need.” A governor at Yerbury Primary School, Ms Makarau Schwartz works for a mental health charity.

• Lib Dem candidate Stefan Kaspryzk was mayor in 2008-09 when he raised a record £40,000 for the charity Islington Kids Afloat in association with Islington Boat Club. Mr Kaspryzk, who lives near Archway roundabout, will campaign to have the gyratory traffic system removed. “Archway is a wonderful community, but has its problems with threats to small shops and the rise of gambling outlets,” he said.

• The Greens’ Mick Holloway, 60, is a lay minister at his local church. A qualified civil engineer, he has worked on homeless and ex-offender projects and was instrumental in setting up Union Chapel’s homeless shelter. He said: “The big issues are traffic and air pollution, which is very high. I believe the gyratory must be removed as has been promised by successive administrations.”

The Tory candidate is Patricia Napier.

The by-election was caused by the resignation of one of the LibDem councillors for the ward. The result last time in the 2010 borough council elections was (top 3 elected):

BURGESS (Lab) 2338
WOOLLEY (LD) 2125
GRAVES (LD) 2182

KASPRZYK (LD) 2071
PARKER (Lab) 1899
SCHWARTZ (Lab) 1878
BINEHAM (Green) 713
WRIGHT (Green) 597
COLEMAN (Con) 556
CAMPBELL (Con) 533
BURGESS (Green) 529
KERBY (Con) 480

The turnout was 64% but that was no doubt because the election was held on the same day as the general election. It is likely to be much less this time.

We're off again

We're contesting the by-election in the Junction ward of Islington council on 21 March. The nomination papers for Socialist candidate, Bill Martin, have just been handed in and accepted. We don't know if there will be any other candidates apart from the usual suspects (Labour, Liberal, Tory, Green).

The ward is a stone's throw from Highgate Cemetry but Marx won't have a vote.

TUSC's take

Here, for the record, is TUSC's view of the result.

Insofar as it is legitimate to add together our vote and theirs as the total of people prepared to vote for the word "socialist", this would mean that of these nearly a third would choose the revolutionary option offered by us compared with two-thirds for the reformist option offered by them.

The post mortem

Three of us went to the count yesterday evening from 10.30 to midnight and, like everyone else there, were victims of the cuts, as the Returning Officer and Chief Executive explained that there was no money to provide for the usual tea and coffee and sandwiches, not even for the counters (a bit surprising UNISON put up with that).

Here's the official result from the Lambeth Council website (they round to the nearest whole figure).

This is the sort of vote that Labour used to get in the mining valleys of South Wales and the North East, as LibDem voters deserted to Labour rather than to the Greens (as the Greens had expected). The UKIP vote confirms once again that xenophobic parties do badly in this sort of area where people whose parents and grandparents came from different parts of the world have lived together and mixed for a couple of generations. "Fascism" is not the threat some people like to claim it to be. TUSC did not do as well as they had expected. Their campaign was based on trying to blame the cuts on the local council, but Labour were more successful in getting people to blame the government. But at least TUSC, as the combined forces of Militant and the SWP, will be satisfied that they avoided the indignity of being beaten by the SPGB, though they are still in the same league as us. Our vote corresponded to what members speculated it might be -- between 20 and 50.

But we didn't contest primarily to get votes, but to publicise the case for socialism and, from this point of view, can be quite satisfied. We leafletted the ward three times, given equal time on the Brixtblog (which reproduced the Big Smoke video interview), and had our views discussed seriously on various blogs:

Statement on Brixton blog (including Big Smoke video)

Hustings report

Candidates 30 seconds on unemployment

Urban 75

Vote UK discussion forum

We should be back again, here and in some other wards, in the local council elections. in May 2014. In the meantime, we will extend our four-monthly newsletter distributed from Larkhall and Ferndale wards to Brixton Hill.

The result

Result (announced an hour ago):

Lab 1593 (62.6%) +20.0%
Green 344 (13.5%) -3.4%
LD 274 (10.8%) -17.6%
Con 164 (6.5%) -5.6%
TUSC 72 (2.8%)
UKIP 63 (2.5%)
SPGB 34 (1.3%)

Turnout: 22.8%

Comments tomorrow morning.

Leafletting all done

Yesterday 3 of us did a tour of the ward to distribute 900 or so leaflets to housing estates we hadn't done before.

For those who want to see the leaflet in glorious technicolour here it is

To see it bigger click here.

An opponent's meeting

They must be disappointed. TUSC lined up an impressive top table: April Ashley, UNISON Executive Council member, Steve Hedley, RMT London Regional Organiser, Paul Holborow, of the SWP and a founder and leader of the Anti-Nazi League, and Steve Nally, one-time organiser of the Anti-Poll Tax Federation. All people more used to addressing mass meetings but faced last night with an audience of 12, 4 of whom we brought along. All the same it was an interesting and revealing meeting.

Holborow, for the SWP, said he'd been out leafletting in the ward for TUSC but he chose to criticise trade union leaders for being cowardly and high-paid and to say that Len McCluskey of UNITE was just a talker (apparently there's a disagreement amongst leftwingers as to whether or not to back his re-election, the SWP being against, Militant being for). Steve Hedley, who spoke next, took him to task for this, saying that it was not the case that the working class was eager for a general strike and was being held back by cowardly trade union leaders; the working class did not (yet) want this as, he pointedly remarked, the attendance at this meeting showed. He criticised other unions for still giving money to the Labour Party which acted against the working class. He said that the unions needed to resist the cuts but in the end there would have to be political action to get rid of capitalism and replace it by a socialist society. We nodded in agreement. Nally, the TUSC candidate, didn't go that far but merely described the human consequences of the cuts without offering any alternative beyond "no cuts".

In the discussion we said we agreed that socialism was the only way-out but that this was not what TUSC was advocating in this election whereas we were. This brought Hedley back on message. The Bolsheviks, he said, had not won power on the basis of advocating socialism but on the slogans of "Peace, Land and Bread". The SPGB, he said, agreed with the Mensheviks that the Bolsheviks should not have seized power but should have handed the keys of power back to the capitalists. He's probably more of a Stalinist than a Trotskyist (he actually looks like Bob Crow). Even so, he was the best speaker of the evening, making some valid points.

Apparently, they think they are going to get 200 or so votes which, according to Holborow, would be enough to have the Labour Council shaking in their boots. We doubt either.

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.”

Before the snow

Three of us did at stall in Brixton for an hour or so. We were outnumbered two to one as there were two other stalls (SWP and Militant) handing out "Vote for TUSC" leaflets. Then we went leafletting door-to-door to get as many of the manifestos as possible distributed before the snow threatened for Monday. We chose the Roupell Estate in the south of the ward, near the South Circular Road.

We met Labour canvassers delivering personally addressed "vote for me" letters for their candidate and a card saying "Your Labour candidate for Brixton Hill called on you today". We didn't see him and don't suppose he did, but that's the sort of thing politicians have to pretend to do to catch votes.

Halfway through we stopped for a coffee. A client in the cafe in Upper Tulse Hill recognised our candidate from a video on the internet and we had a long chat with him. He had his baby daughter with him, but we don't do kissing babies to gain votes -- that's for vote-catching politicians. He might vote for us anyway as he understood what we are advocating.

We distributed some 500, so only about 600 remain for distributing on Monday or Tuesday depending on the weather. That shouldn't take 3 or 4 of us more than an hour even if it is snowing. Then we're done.

30 seconds of fame

Here's the video of the candidates speaking for 30 seconds on unemployment:

http://www.brixtonblog.com/hustings-video-what-would-you-do-about-unemployment-in-brixton-hill/9336

When we call for equal time at elections for all candidates we didn't quite have in mind reducing this to what we usually get but increasing what we get to what the media grant to the candidates they designate as worth hearing.

But, fair dos, the Brixtonblog have scrupulously given equal time and space to all 7 candidates. The South London Press has also been even-handed : all the candidates have had zero time.

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?

The candidates state their case

While we were out leafletting yesterday the local online newspaper, the Brixtonblog, put up statements from the other candidates. They are all there now except the UKIP one, including the one from our delegate/candidate together with a photo of him speaking from the Party's platform at Hyde Park and the video interview he did for the Big Smoke during the GLA elections in May.

In her statement the LibDem candidate states:

“Lambeth under Labour has cut funding for school crossing patrols, Brixton Library and home care services for vulnerable elderly people."

This is true but, as others have pointed out, this is because all councils have been forced to do this sort of thing by the central government which is a Tory-LibDem Coalition -- which, we add, has itself been forced to do this because they are administering capitalism in one of its economic crises. A Labour government or a Lib-Lab coalition would have had to do the same. It's the only policy a government can pursue when capitalism is in a crisis. That's the way the system works and the only way it can work.

Our election manifestos are due to arrive from the printers this morning. When they do we'll start delivering them door-to-door, at the hustings meeting tomorrow and at a stall we will be having in Brixton on Saturday. TUSC is organising a meeting on Monday evening. We'll be there too.

Leafletting and leaflets

Five of us went leafletting yesterday, 3 in the north and 2 in the south of the ward. Pending the arrival of the manifesto on Wednesday, we were distributing a general leaflet about Socialism and the Socialist Party. As a couple of thousand of these had already been distributed we must have distributed another thousand or so. So that's the ward leafletted twice.

As yesterday was rubbish collection day, we were able to recover leaflets issued by the other parties: Labour, Tories, Greens and TUSC (yes, we know, some of our leaflets are going to end up like this too).

Ok, this is a local election but the leaflets were pathetic. Labour's was about a "Back Our Bobbies campaign to keep police on the streets". The Tory's about the Council's licencing policy encouraging "booze-fuelled idiots". The Green man concentrated on stopping Tesco converting a closed pub into a supermarket. Only the TUSC leaflet raised wider issues.

The Tory leaflet criticised "the Loony-Left Council" (only a loony could describe New Labour as this) for taking out "a poster campaign claiming that the government was 'forcing' them to make cuts". As it happens, this is the case. But, according to the TUSC leaflet:

But Councillors have a choice! They don't have to make these cuts. In the 1980s, Lambeth and Liverpool Councils made a stand against Tory Thatcher's demands for cuts.

But neither Derek Hatton nor Ted Knight stopped the cuts, did they? Councillors could in theory do what TUSC asks them to do, but they would have to pay for it -- literally, by being surcharged. And the cuts would go through anyway.

As our manifesto points out, while the government has forced councils to make cuts it's because they have themselves been forced by the workings of capitalism to do this. That's the way capitalism works and a good reason to get rid of it. TUSC, however, think there is a solution within capitalism:

People before Profit. Make the bosses pay for their crisis. Tax the rich.

So, they envisage the continued existence of profit, bosses and the rich ! And think that this system can be reformed to work in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers and their dependants. This, despite the weight of evidence and experience which disproves this.

Meanwhile the Brixtonblog has started publishing the statements of the candidates. So far they've only done the Labour and Greens ones. Our turn should come towards the end of the week.

Our election manifesto

This was adopted yesterday and will be sent to the printers on Monday to be ready by Wednesday or Thursday:

Vote for yourself for a change?

Why, when the resources exist to provide a decent standard of living for everyone, are we going through “austerity”?

It’s because the present system is not geared to meeting our needs but to making profits for businesses and the rich people who own and control them. At the moment this capitalist system is in an economic crisis where profits have fallen The only way out for the system is to restore profits at our expense.

That’s why what our wages can buy has shrunk. It’s why benefits are being slashed. And it’s why Lambeth council has been cutting local services.

It’s not just Lambeth. It’s councils everywhere, whichever party is in control. Councils get most of their money from the government, but market forces have obliged the government to reduce this. National and local politicians are just running the system in the only way it can be – as a profit system where priority has to be given to profit-making over meeting our needs.

It’s the system that’s to blame, not those elected to run it. That’s why changing the politicians in charge makes no difference. As the saying goes, “changing governments changes nothing”. It will be like this as long as the profit system lasts. So there is no point in voting for parties that accept this system.

The alternative is to change to a new system based on satisfying our needs, where the places where wealth is produced will no longer be owned by profit-seeking businesses but will be owned and democratically controlled by us all. That’s what the Socialist Party stands for. We are contesting this by-election to raise this issue, and to give those of you who agree a chance to be counted.

You can do this by voting for the Socialist candidate, Danny Lambert.
And then get in touch to help bring an end to the system that can never be made to work in your interest.

Update

A couple of interesting items in today's South London Press.

On page 8 there's a feature article entitled "Lack of job opportunities sees dole queue lengthen". According to this,

Over the past four years the number of people claiming Jobseeker's allowance in Coldharbour ward has almost doubled from 661 to 1,078. The numbers have also risen in Ferndale ward with 406 unemployed people four years ago compared to 594 today. In Brixton Hill there are considerably more people out of work, from 384 four years ago to 611 today.

By coincidence (or not) these were the three wards where, relatively speaking, we did best in the GLA elections in May.

On page 18 Streatham MP Chuka Umunna has a column headed "Bright pupils let down by the coalition". It is illustrated by a photo of a students' demonstration against the cuts in which can be clearly seen someone selling ... Socialist Worker. I don't suppose he's too pleased but, then, the SWP probably voted for him at the last General Election.

In the meantime Lambeth Council has put up the list of candidates for Brixton Hill together with their photos.

Tomorrow the Executive Committee will be adopting the election manifesto. On Monday we'll be leafletting the ward again. Meet at 52 Clapham High Street at 12 noon.

Two hundred words

Here's the 200-word reply that the Brixtonblog has asked the candidates to submit in answer to the question of "what they would do specifically for Brixton Hill":

Parties promising to do things for others is not my idea of politics, so I’m not making any promises to do anything for anyone. The Socialist Party is standing to give people the chance to show they reject the capitalist system where making profits always comes first.

Capitalism is going through one of its economic crises and the only way out for it is to restore profits by cutting the living standard of working people and their dependants.

That’s why what our wages can buy has shrunk. It’s why benefits are being slashed. And it’s why Lambeth council has been cutting local services.

It’s not just Lambeth. It’s councils everywhere, whichever party is in control. Politicians, local and national, are just running the system in the only way it can be. It’s the system that’s to blame, not those elected to run it. That’s why changing the politicians in charge makes no difference.

Instead of trusting in politicians we’ve have got to change the system ourselves, to one where the places where wealth is produced are no longer run as profit-seeking businesses but owned and democratically controlled by the community and used to provide a decent life for all.

In the meantime a political newsfeed has picked up a statement on the by-election from our other blog.

The10 January hustings

The online Brixton newspaper, the Brixtonblog, has just announced the details of this hustings they are hosting:

So, it's 7pm on Thursday 10 January at the Catholic Church, 11 Trent Road, SW2 5JB.

We'll be there.

They've also asked for 150-200 word statement from candidates "on what they would do specifically for Brixton Hill". We'll have to say that it's not possible to isolate Brixton Hill from the effects of capitalism ...

Votes for prisoners' (guards)

Brixton Prison is in the ward as is the accommodation of some of the warders. At the GLA elections in May one of those on the TUSC list was Joe Simpson, the Assistant General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association.

Here is his election speech and statement

He says he has joined the Socialist Party but he hasn't. He's joined the ex-Militant Tendency which has tried to usurp this name that we've been using since 1904 and which is the main political group behind TUSC. Naturally we object to this, but it could be counter-productive for them in this election since the party name next to our candidate will be "The Socialist Party (GB)". If so, serve them right.

OK, prison warders like the police are "workers in uniform". It is odd, though, that someone calling themself a socialist should take a job guarding other workers who have been imprisoned, most of them for crimes against property. But the fact that some "workers in uniform" are prepared to call themselves "socialist", together with the Mitchell affair, refute one of the arguments (put forward, amongst others, by Trotskyists) that it wouldn't be possible for a socialist-minded working class to take power peaceably via the ballot box because the ruling class would not accept this and would set the "workers in uniform" at their service against the socialist movement. These show that workers in the police force, prison service and the armed forces are still workers with minds of their own who don't always think or do what the ruling class tell them, and would be highly unlikely to do this in the event of a socialist victory at the polls.

Online publicity

We haven't contested a council by-election for a number of years. (The last was in 1996 in Clapham Town ward of Lambeth when we got 20, or 0.7%, the equivalent of 200 in a parliment election). But that was before the internet took off.

This time we've been invited to a hustings on Thursday 10 January organised by an online Brixton newspaper, the Brixton Blog. More details (time, venue) later.

Also, the Council have asked for a photo of our candidate to put on their website, as a means of publicising the election (they probably expect a low turn-out), which they will tweet to those who follow them.

Who would have thought that a local by-election would provide such opportunities to publicise socialism?

It's a 7-horse race

Nominations closed today. There are seven candidates (in alphabetical order):

Briggs (Conservative)
Child (Green)
Jones (UKIP)
Lambert (Socialist)
Maffei (LibDem)
Nally (TUSC)
Tiedemann (Labour & Coop)

"Why We Are Against Capitalism"

Letter published in last Friday's South London Press in reply to Trotskyist Steve McNally's in the previous week's issue :

Why we are against capitalism

Steve Nally (Letters, South London Press, December 8) is right. Local services and amenities are being cut and people shouldn't put up with this, but this is the fault of the capitalist profit system as it goes through one of its economic crises. So, it is misleading to blame those who administer this system at local level, as he does, rather than the system itself. In calling on Lambeth council to adopt an alternative budget without cuts, he is encouraging the illusion that things could be different under capitalism if only there were militant leftwingers in charge. But the only way capitalism can get out of a crisis is by cutting living standards.

This is why Socialists should be campaigning for the abolition of capitalism, not for a change in the people running it or trying to make it work in a way it just cannot. We, too, will be standing in some wards in the Lambeth council elections in 2014, just as we did in 2010.
Adam Buick The Socialist Party, Clapham High Street

They chose the title (which is not bad). The only change they made was to replace "Militant" (with a capital M) by "militant" (without one). Perhaps the capital M was too subtle -- or too unsubtle.

Nomination accepted

The nomination papers were handed in this morning and accepted. So we'll be on the ballot paper, as LAMBERT Daniel Peter, THE SOCIALIST PARTY (GB)

The other news is that there will also almost certainly be a Trotskyist candidate from TUSC.

Greens fancy their chances

It looks as if the Greens consider this by-election to be (as the Liberals would say) a "two-horse race" between them and Labour:

http://lambethgreennews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/lambeth-labours-deception-in-brixton.html

They're right about the dishonest table in the Labour leaflet (which we saw too and availed ourselves of their Freepost address to point this out). The result (without postal votes) for the ward in the GLA elections in the constituency vote was:

Labour 1898
Greens 541
Tories 482
LibDems 303
Socialist 101
UKIP 72

Nomination papers

Collected the nomination papers from the Town Hall in the morning. There is no deposit to stand in local elections but the candidate needs to have a proposer, seconder and 8 assentors, all 10 on the electoral roll for the ward. Danny Lambert (our candidate)and me got the 8 assentors to the nomination in the afternoon in one street in less than two hours. We explained that we weren't asking them to support us but only to allow us to stand. Those who signed understood the difference and were prepared to let us exercise our democratic right to stand. One knew of us and had seen and liked the Marx "I told you so" poster in our Head Office window. Fixed 12.30 on Thursday as the time to formally hand them in.

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

The result last time

The result in the ward at the local elections in May 2010 can be found here.

In other words:

Labour 43%
Liberals 29%
Greens 15%
Tories 13%

Brixton Hill council by-election

Following the move up the greasy pole from Local Councillor to Member of Parliament by Steve Reed, the Leader of Lambeth Council, he has resigned as a councillor and a by-election will be held in the ward he represented. This happens to be Brixton Hill, which is within 10-15 minutes walking distance from our office at 52 Clapham High Street and also one of the wards where in the Greater London Assembly elecions in May we got 3 percent or more of the vote. It is just outside the parliamentary constituency of Vauxhall which we normally contest.

We will be contesting this by-election whih will take place on Thursday 17 January. Nomination papers have to be in by Tuesday 18 December, so next week we'll be going round collecting to 10 signatories by electors in the ward needed to stand.

As there was no chance of Steve Reed not being elected as Labour MP for North Croydon we had anticipated the by-election and have already leafletted the ward. On the basis of this we reckon that 3000 leaflets can cover this. With this relatively small number we should be able to leaflet it twice before the election.

You'll be able to follow our campaign on this blog.