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.

Unequal time

Just looking at the BBC's online election coverage is instructive. Here is the umbrella webpage and this is the candidates page. Would it have hurt the BBC to have at least hyperlinked party names? Or to give some sort of link through to a contact page of candidates (all that would be required would be one staffer to write/email asking for details and then updating the links). Looking at the hours of local radio output available on BBC London is noticeable that politics or current affairs are not listed as genres (they are, after all, not the same as news). Would it be impossible for BBC local radio to put out a couple of hours of broadcast dedicated to the election, which will take in over 7 million voters? If democracy is marginalised in the public space, then its not surprising that people feel uninvolved. It's bad enough that the mayoral race dominates, with its personality driven agenda, but that it's hogging the tiny slice of time given to coverage of elections means electors are denied a real chance to find out what range of options there are out there for them. In an election where there is no free mail out, which costs a thousand pounds just to contest, where each constituency is half a million strong, it would not be unreasonable to expect a public broadcaster to give more attention and effort. After all, our total airtime during the Euro elections was about 20 seconds of a quote taken out of context.


Democracy, if it is at all meaningful, is the right of minorities to have the opportunity to become majorities. The democratic structures in this country privilege established majorities and support an entrenched oligarchy.

Unequal time

Caught the end last night of a report on BBC London of a hustings meeting for the mayoral election organised by the London Evening Standard. As we've already stated, we are not interested in this election (we don't agree with the office of City Boss and there's no socialist standing anyway) but only 4 of the 7 candidates were on the platform.

One of the principles of democracy is that all candidates should have equal time to put over their point of view, but this is not happening in this particular election. Three candidates (UKIP, BNP and an Independent) were being excluded, and will be excluded from another planned hustings organised by a commercial TV station, despite the fact that they have overcome the considerable obstacles in the way of standing (raising a deposit of £10,000 and get 30 signatories in each borough or 330 in all).

No doubt they are being excluded because having 7 candidates would not have the same entertainment value, but elections are not supposed to be entertainment. Clearly, this election is not being run on fully democratic lines. They do things differently in France. There are 10 candidates standing in the first round of the presidential election on 22 April. Each of them are getting TV and radio broadcasts of exactly the same length.

Meanwhile back in Lambeth & Southwark we've received an invitation to a third hustings -- from Lambeth Cyclists on Tuesday 24 April. Not sure what we can say to them though, but it shows that, at constituency level, this election is being conducted more democratically.

Life in a democratic organisation

Well, so I had this wheeze, see, to get us a bicycle with a trailer to mount a billboard on for election advertising (and to let us have a "poster launch" press event). I submitted the idea to our elected executive committee: and they said no. One member told me he thought it was a low tech solution (actually, he said it would look like Steptoe and Son). Strangely, though, as I walked out of the room and along the street, I saw a commercial bicycle advertising hoarding, so it's not too low tech for the professionals.

Fair do's, though, I'm not going to waste the story; because it does illustrate that we are a democratic organisation, where our members call the shots, not candidates or organisers. That's what we mean by "It's up to you": we aren't leaders, we're not out to tell people what to do. If we're going to make change, you have to do it yourselves. Sometimes you'll be outvoted, others you'll win out, but, unlike the professional politicians, we're not staking "credibility" on an ability to "control" our members, in fact, it's the other way round.

Capitalism and democracy

Last night, after leafletting the area behind Waterloo station, three of us went to see the new "documentary play" Counted? put on in the council chamber of the old LCC/GLC. This couldn't be missed as it's in Vauxhall but also because it is largely based on research done by Stephen Coleman, professor of political communication at Leeds university, who used to be a speaker and writer for us.

The play takes the form of an actor playing Professor Coleman interviewing various different groups of people in Yorkshire about their attitude to voting. This requires some versality on the part of the six actors who have to change not just their clothes but their also their accents and age to perform the interviewees. It's well done and well worth seeing. It's on till 22 May. Sadly, there were only 35 people in the audience, perhaps because some who might have gone were at home watching the Three Stooges debate in what passes for "politics".

The professor opens by saying that his research starts from the premiss that democracy is a good idea but does it work. It doesn't seem to, when there are turn-outs of less, sometimes much less, than 50% in local elections, which are the only elections in which people could have some influence on what is done, such as the provision of community centres, sports facilities and other amenities or the positioning of traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. So, why do people vote -- and not vote?

In the first scene the professor is trying to interview young mothers at a community centre, the day after an election, about why they hadn't voted. They are not interested. It's not something they do. He does manage to extract from them that they are interested in choices (his definition of politics, as opposed to what goes on at Westminster) and that they do make them on an individual basis and also that they do vote, by mobile phone in programmes such as Big Brother and the X-Factor.

The next scene is in a golf club. Everybody interviewed votes and they think it's a good thing, even a duty. Their local concern was to prevent the opening of a Tesco superstore. And they too had voted by telephone, for Strictly rather than Big Brother.

There are interviews with an Independent councillor and an Independent candidate who are concerned about purely local issues. The councillor explains what's involved in being a councillor, dealing with individual cases and pressing for amenities in his locality. That this is what most people see as the role of those they elect is re-inforced by the one interview that doesn't take place in Yorkshire, with MPs assistants in Westminster. They explain that most of the letters MPs get from constituents are about individual cases (and that not too much importance is attached to circular letters about Saving Whales, fox-hunting and the like. So, so much for petitioning by single-issue groups).

What's the conclusion, then? It seems to be that democracy might work at local level if people were consulted more about what they wanted for their locality and could be persuaded to participate by making it easier and more interesting to vote. Maybe, but this ignores the constraints that capitalism places on what people can get even with the most democratic of institutions and practices.

You can have the most democratic structure in the world and people can vote to have decent housing or whatever, but they won't get it as the economic laws of capitalism dictate that priority must be given to making profits and accumulating capital. In short, capitalism prevents democratic decisions to improve things from being implemented. And what local councils can spend on amenities depends on what they get from central government, which is never enough. What local councils can do, even with more popular participation, is limited by what is possible under capitalism.

Capitalism also prevents democracy working properly as under it some, those with more money, are more equal than others and so, as the case of Lord Cashcroft shows (there are many others), have more say and more influence. A real, properly-functioning democracy is only possible in a classless society where the means of production are owned in common by the whole community. Then there'd be no restrictions on the amenities that could be provided at local level. If, after discussion and debate, people voted that they wanted something they could go ahead and implement it.

The audience were invited to fill in a ballot paper asking such questions as "I tend to vote as my parents do", "I regard voting as my duty", "I know the names of my local candidates". We were tempted to write "WORLD SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper but didn't. Even so, one of us inadvertently spoilt his by putting an X for no and a tick for yes. How often has he voted?

Taxi Rank

OK, things are ticking over - I've been to Camden council and I've got hold of the nomination papers for standing in Kentish Town: I'll pick up the electoral roll on the 29th and so will be hitting the streets looking for nominations pretty much straight away.

Until then - the thing overlooked by the media. Polly Toynbee comes close regarding the Byers/Despatches affair:

If a fish rots from the head, Labour's contamination with money was smelled from those earliest days of being "intensely relaxed about the filthy rich". But Tony Blair's behaviour since 2007 defies the ravings of his worst enemies. No conspiracy theorist guessed he would take money for Iraqi oil from a South Korean company – to add to £1m from the Kuwaiti royal family, an estimated £20m from anyone anywhere, £4m for his book, plus properties fit for a Brunei prince. That all this mammon is collected in the name of God is worthy of the faith-based business school of L Ron Hubbard: God can make you very rich indeed. Did Blair go to war in Iraq to get rich quick? Almost certainly not, but the cashflow from American adulation ever since will leave the slur on his tombstone.

This is nearly there, the point is that the desperate, petty, piddling corruption of the type Byers has been engaged in isn't the end of it. There are lucrative and legal and "honourable" ways to get rich post politics. Those in the loop know that there is always the way out into business. The capitalists aren't offering bribes, directly, but capitalism and the prospect of riches does offer an incentive to tow the capital line.

The point the media have missed is this: you cannot have democracy in an unequal society. End of. The lure of riches and reward will always draw power and decision making towards the owners of the world. You can regulate, adjudicate and officiate to buggery and back, and you still won't stop the allure of lucre. Beat that home: in a world where money talks louder than votes, you cannot have democracy.

Glum Councillors

One of my favourite blogs is Glum Councillors a collection of stock photos of local councillors posed, pointing at graffitti, vandalism or potholes in the road. Much like the one here.

Now, this phenomena relates to a style of boss politics - vote for me and "I'll get things done for you." A kind of gift relation, we give our votes, they give us public service. Of course, really, fixing the roads is a technical matter for the highways officers, councillors are there to be political - to decide priorities, direction and style of a council. Most of the time they are simply there to oversee moneybeing handed down to them from Whitehall to spend on non-discretionary matters.

Once, I'm sure I've written about it here, when out campaigning, someone asked us 'What are you going to do about the potholes in the roads?' the comrade who was with me suggested giving the guy a shovel. That's not far off our attitude, not necessarilly dig it yourself, but you can organise yourselves, and if you have a problem, get it sorted, without asking the boss man to do it for you.

Doubtless I could (and probably will) write about roads, road transport and its condition, but the point I want to make here is anyone can go around saying 'I'll do my best for you' and promise to nag officials to do their jobs (Fib-Dems are very good at that) but we're not contesting elections for that reason - we think there is a political decision to be made about the type of society we are living in, and that is the platform we stand on.

Your vote counts

Well, electoral reform is back on the agenda.

Our view? In a nutshell: so long as the mechanics are in place so that a majority of workers can organise to effect socialism, then it doesn't matter precisely how you count the votes. So far as we're concerned, it is the movement of the vast majority in the interest of the vast majority that matters. Getting a technical victory by counting one more nose than the rest isn't what we're about.

What we remain more concerned about is the rights of minorities to try and become majorities, which are hampered by the mainstream media focusing on the existing parties and making it difficult for candidates to be heard on the stages where they need to be in order to make their case.

Not what we meant

Certainly not in Lambeth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7377724.stm

A not so secret ballot

Well, it happened, ten past seven this morning - I know, I lknow, I slept in a little coz I'm on holiday - I went and cast my ballot for world socialism. My polling station had moved from the primary school to the church run nursery across the road.

I was greeted by a chart asking "How tall are you" and the good news is that I am considerably taller than all those five year olds.

Actually, I wrote "World Socialism (SPGB)" on all three of my ballot papers in large friednly letter, and put them nicely, unfolded, into the box. I chose to add the little rider for two reasons:

Because I've heard canny agents have occasionally blagged World Socialism for Labour or leftist candidates, and I wanted to make sure.

Because at the count spoilt ballots are displayed on a screen, and I wanted to advertise.

The polling staff must have guessed I was up to something, because I was in that booth scribbling for ages.

I didn't, as some members have in the past, poke my head out and ask how you spell "Bastards", I just quietly got on with business and then went about my day, another of my small lifetime ration of votes used up, and still unable to vote positively for the party of my choice.

Only Labour had a polling agent outside, I cheerfully let him know my polling card number - half the point of the write-in vote is to positively let it be known that we've been to cast a vote, a good discrepency between tallied voters and valid votes cast sends a significant message.

Good luck, fellow socialists.

The last leaflet

The last of the nearly 20,000 leaflets distributed in the constituency was put through a letter box in Woodsmansterne Road, SW16 this afternoon. This is a long road at the southernmost point of the constituency. It's actually in Streatham (part of Lambeth), but continue too far along it and you end up in Croydon, take a wrong turning and you end up in Merton (one Labour canvasser had done the opposite as we saw a Labour leaflet supporting their candidate in Merton).

This is a reminder that "Lambeth and Southwark" includes areas which are not traditionally associated with these two historic places. Another is a letter we received from a Miss Wright of Pymers Mead, West Dulwich, SE21. She wrote:

"Dear Sir/Madam,
I am returning the leaflet you put through my letterbox as I don't you putting anymore of your leaflets through my letterbox again".

We don't know if she wrote similar letters to the other parties about the leaflets they put through her letterbox, but they seem a polite lot down in Dulwich (she actually put a stamp on the letter, if she'd read the leaflet properly she could have sent it to our freepost address and saved herself 27p). Normally, people who don't like our leaflets tear them up in front of us and tell us they're voting for the BNP.

But the most common reaction we got on the doorsteps was "it doesn't make any difference anyway who gets in". Which corresponds with our analysis and shows that workers are not stupid: a lot of them do realise what's going on. Only they don't think they can do anything about it, so they just abstain and don't bother to vote at sll. It is highly likely that, tomorrow, the abstainers will be the absolute majority.

So, why if it makes no difference who gets in, were we standing? First, to use a period of heightened interest in politics to put across our case for a society of common ownership, democratic control, production for use, and distribution on the basis of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". And, second, because if workers use their votes intelligently in their own interest they could change things, they could use the vote to help get rid of the profit system and bring in socialism.

It's voting for leaders to try to run the profit system in the interests of the majority that makes no difference, not voting in itself. That's why, where there's no socialist candidate, instead of abstaining we go to the polling station and vote, even if it's only a write-in vote. A way of keeping a potential weapon sharpened for the time when a majority are ready to use it in their own interest. Where there is a socialist candidate standing, we vote for them.

And there is a socialist candidate in Lambeth and Southwark.

The last leg

Well, I'm off work for the week to try and put in one last push - I'm currently in Clapham, in the Party head office, after a couple of hours leafletting, including Albert Square! (well, the one in Stockwell, that is, where it turns out, according to the blue plaque, Arthur Rackham - the guy who illustrated Peter Pan- once lived). Behind this gorgeous Georgian square is a spraqling council estate - which is much more pleasant to leaflet (fewer stairs - built low letter boxes, bugger).

Over the weekend I listened to the Wstminster Hour on Radio Four - it was interesting to hear the politicos and pundits trying to assess what would be a good outcome for each party - and it struck me how tawdry the passing show of the professional political pantomime really is. It wasn't a discussion of politics, policies, benefits, or even principle, but machine politicians trying to assess the fall of votes like a farmer watching the weather.

What matters for us is not the nose count (although we're always happier with more votes) but the number of people reading, discussing and agreeing with us. We don't want passive voters, but people to join us, or at least join the debate. Politics should be a two way process, not the passive spectator sport of the professionals in the mass media.

Here's something I wrote on this topic a while ago:

It's no wonder that people feel no pragmatic connection between their voting preferences and the outcomes; and no wonder that people feel so little connection with any of the parties. All these become are technocratic career structures for advancing politicians, a platform from which to project policy ideas to be reflected off the undifferentiated mass, which has no control over what is projected, beyond passive reflection.

This process of “mass culture” has, of course, been assisted by the spread of the mass media. The social relationship is the same, a few technocratic broadcasters/media barons, projecting images and ideas to be passively reflected by a land mass of consumers. Indeed, representative politics follows the same course. Instead of abstractedly measuring response in terms of money, it reads response in terms of flat votes, formally equal but failing to register differences in value or quality.

Hence why I'm happy to sprey leaflets around the place, and on new streets, to try and see if we can reach a new person and light the spark that sets them arguing.

Roght, off to lunch.

A local issue

At the first hustings meeting in Herne Hill when Bill stood in for Danny he must have promised a questioner from the Friends of Brockwell Park a reply from us on their objection to Lambeth Council's plan to take 1,000 sq metres of Brockwell Park for a new road. In any event we received an email reminder. Here's the Socialist candidates reply:

"Although you may have a valid case, I am standing in this election on the single issue of the profit system or socialism. I would be less than honest if I said the Socialist Party wanted you to vote for us just because we were against Lambeth Council's plan concerning Brockwell Park. The Socialist Party only wants the votes of those who agree with a fundamental change in the basis of society to one of common ownership and democratic control where things would be produced to meet people's needs rather than to make a profit as at present. In such a society human welfare would come first and there would not be commercial pressures that there are today to encroach on park lane to build a road."

Having said this, this sort of problem will also arise in a socialist society. Since apparently some people don't like us criticising the SWP, Militant and Gorgeous George too much and want us to be more positive, here's how William Morris explains in his socialist utopian novel News from Nowhere how this sort of problem might be tackled in a socialist society:

"Well," said he, "let us take one of our units of management, a commune, or a ward, or a parish (for we have all three names, indicating little real distinction between them now, though time was there was a good deal). In such a district, as you would call it, some neighbours think that something ought to be done or undone: a new town-hall built; a clearance of inconvenient houses; or say a stone bridge substituted for some ugly old iron one, - there you have undoing and doing in one. Well, at the next ordinary meeting of the neighbours, or Mote, as we call it, according to the ancient tongue of the times before bureaucracy, a neighbour proposes the change and of course, if everybody agrees, there is an end of discussion except about details. Equally, if no one backs the proposer - 'seconds him,' it used to be called - the matter drops for the time being; a thing not likely to happen amongst reasonable men however, as the propose is sure to have talked it over with others before the Mote. But supposing the affair proposed and seconded, if a few of the neighbours disagree to it, if they think that the beastly iron bridge will serve a little longer and they don't want to be bothered with building a new one just then, they don't count heads that time, but put off the formal discussion to the next Mote; and meantime arguments pro and con are flying about, and some get printed, so that everybody knows what is going on; and when the Mote comes together again there is a regular discussion and at last a vote by show of hands. If the division is a close one, the question is again put off for further discussion; if the division is a wide one, the minority are asked if they will yield to the more general opinion, which they often, nay, most commonly do. If they refuse, the question is debated a third time, when, if the minority has not perceptibly grown, they always give way; though I believe there is some half-forgotten rule by which they might still carry it on further; but I say, what always happens is that they are convinced not perhaps that their view is the wrong one, but they cannot persuade or force the community to adopt it."

"Very good," said I; "but what happens if the divisions are still narrow?"

Said he: "As a matter of principle and according to the rule of such cases, the question must then lapse, and the majority, if so narrow, has to submit to sitting down under the status quo. But I must tell you that in point of fact the minority very seldom enforces this rule, but generally yields in a friendly manner."

"But do you know," said I, "that there is something in all this very like democracy; and I thought that democracy was considered to be in a moribund condition many, many years ago."

What do we want?

A common complaint is that we spend a lot of time knocking capitalism and rival candidates - all well and good, people say, capitalism is terrible, but what are you saying should be done about it?

Thus, having spent the first few weeks of capmaigning concentrating on the failings of other parties, I'm going to spend the rest publishing excerpts from our literature on why we think socialism is the solution.

To begin with, and this is relevent to the comments on yesterday's post, an excerpt from Socialism as a Practical Alternative, on democracy.

Under capitalism, governments, through their control of the state machinery, lay down the law and impose it on the whole of society, if necessary by force.[...] With socialism this dominant feature of the structure will be immediately abolished. The power of the state, which operates from the concentration of centralized power in the hands of governments, will be replaced by a fully democratic system through which decisions will flow from the broadest possible social base to represent the views of the whole community.

A democratic system of decision-making would require that the basic unit of social organisation would be the local community which could elect is delegates to a local council which could be given the responsibility for local administration. If, for example, local communities in socialism began by operating from the basis of the existing structure of district councils in England, this would give 332 local communities. This would be a democratic development of the existing procedures for electing local councils which could become the basic means for dealing with day-to-day local issues. Then, regional councils could provide organisation through which decisions affecting wider populations could be made at the regional level. Similarly, global decisions could be made by delegates elected to a world council.