Barnes result

Here it is, announced at 4.30 in the morning:

Brandreth (Con) 2017
Hodgkins (Con) 1919
Palmer (Con) 1985
Emerson (LD) 1539
McKee (LD) 1486
Albon (Green) 1058
Enright (Lab) 234
Patel (Lab) 185
Lever (Lab) 153
Buick (Soc) 28

Turnout was over 50%. This ward was exceptional in that it is the only ward in Richmond where the Tories won all 3 council seats. The LibDems won at least one seat in every other ward. The Greens' alliance with the LibDems (under which they stood aside in some wards in return for the LibDems only contesting 2 seats in others) gave them 4 seats.

Elsewhere, we know that in Borough & Bankside ward in Southwark the LibDems won all 3 seats and that our candidate got 27 votes. No further details yet. Islington's votes are being counted this morning.

LibDem-Green Election Pact

As we suspected from the LibDems putting up only 2 candidates and the Greens only 1 for the 3 council seats in Barnes ward (four years ago they each put up 3 candidates), they have done an electoral deal. As this is sort of historic in terms of conventional politics, we record what an item in a leaflet distributed in the ward says:

Greens Back Lib Dems to WIN
The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have decided to work together to help bring an end to eight years of Conservative misrule. In twelve areas there will be three Lib Dem candidates and no green candidates. In Barnes, South Richmond and Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside there will be two Lib Dem candidates and one Green candidate.

Of course this is just two reformist parties getting together and won't make any difference to solving problems the excluded majority face under capitalism or to the way capitalism operates, and must operate, to put profits before people. As an outgoing LibDem councillor, Penny Frost, noted in another leaflet distributed in Ham, Petersham & Riverside ward:

Even housing associations are now more interested in speculative development than in looking after their elderly and vulnerable tenants.

What do you expect? That's the way of the capitalist world.

Housing Crisis Hustings

Hustings last night in Peckham, organised by the Southwark Group of Tenants Organisations, with speakers from Labour, LibDems, Greens and us. The Tories were invited but apparently are boycotting all hustings. About 40 people present. The main theme was housing, a major problem in Southwark due to demand for housing near the Thames with easy and quick access to central London driving up land prices, so making it profitable even for the council to encourage up-market housing projects proposed by developers. This has given rise to criticism of "social cleansing". In fact the hustings was filmed by someone making a film on the subject.

Our candidate, Kevin Parkin, said that we had nothing against tenants association -- he himself was vice-president of his local one -- anymore than we were against trade unions; but they were only defensive organisations for workers under capitalism; the solution to problems workers faced could only be found within socialism; the housing problem, for instance, arose because under capitalism houses were built for profit.

Councillor Peter John, the Labour Leader of the Council, conceded at one point that councils could only tinker with the problem as long as they had to rely on profit-seeking businesses to build houses; to get (so-called) "affordable housing" (80 percent of the market rate, still unaffordable for most people in an area of rising land prices) they had to do deals with developers which allowed these to make a profit.

This is true. Having to provide social housing reduces their profits, so if pushed to provide too much the "developer" can simply walk away, resulting in no "affordable housing". Peter John said this could only be rectified by national legislation to allow councils to build houses themselves. This of course (though he didn't say so) would still involve paying money to capitalists as the money to finance this would have to be borrowed from the money market.

The LibDem representative, Tim McNally, billed as "a former Councillor and Cabinet Member" was completely demagogic, promising to stand up to the developers and accusing Councillor John of being in bed with them, as if the LibDem/Tory coalition, of which he was a Cabinet Member, that had run the council from 2006 to 2010 hadn't had to behave in the same way. For instance, here is what a what a Tory former Cabinet Member of that coalition, the one in charge of Housing, Kim Humphries (now, incidentally, himself a Developer -- the revolving door operates at local council level too),said at a hustings for the 2008 Greater London Assembly election in April 2008:

Councillor Humphries was surprisingly honest. He was against having a quota of "affordable housing" in all new housing developments as this could sabotage such schemes. In other words, would reduce the profits of the developers who would take their money and invest it somewhere else where they could make a bigger profit.

The Green representative wanted people to be nice to each other.

The SWP were selling "Socialist Worker" outside the venue.

Reconnaissance

Visited Barnes today to find a spot to set up a literature stall (the branch is planning one there on Saturday 28 April from noon till 2pm). Found one, where the Tories had one today. Spoke to them, said we were standing and gave them a leaflet. It turned out that one of them was Paul Hodgins, who is standing in Barnes ward and is the current Leader of the Council.

Plenty of Tory placards in gardens saying "I'm voting to keep weekly rubbish collections" (talk about parish pump politics !). Only one Liberal one. According to a leaflet found in a rubbish box, the LibDems have formed a coalition here with the Greens, presenting a joint list and leaflet of 2 LibDems and 1 Green for the 3 council seats up for grabs. No doubt payback to the Greens for not standing in the December 2016 parliamentary by-election and so helping the LibDems to unseat the Tory MP, Zac Goldsmith (he got back in, just, at last year's general election).

No Tory posters in the northern part of the ward near Hammersmith Bridge, where the residents are less well off. Crossed the bridge into Hammersmith to find a spot for a stall there (planned for next Saturday 14 April at noon). Plenty of room in King Street. In fact, the main reason for contesting Barnes is its proximity to Hammersmith where the branch has to decided to concentrate its activity.

After the count

Was at the count in Wandsworth Town Hall last night where the votes for Putney and Tooting as well as Battersea were being counted. Saw Labour take Battersea from the Tories and nearly taking even Putney. Labour held Tooting, though a Green we met as their candidate in Wandsworth & Merton in the 2012 Greater London elections pointed out that the first thing she did after winning the by-election to replace Sadiq Khan (he was there) when he became Mayor of London was to vote for Trident.

Anyway, here are the results (not good) for the two London constituencies we contested:

Battersea:

Labour 25,292

Tory 22,876

LD 4,401

Ind 1234

Green 866

UKIP 357

Socialist 32 (0.06 %)

Islington North:

Labour (Corbyn) 40,086 (73 percent)

Tory 6871

LD 4946

Green 2229

UKIP 413

Ind 208

Monster Raving Loony 106

Ind 41

Socialist 21 (0.04%)

Communist League 7

Turnout: 73.3 percent

Last time we got 112 votes, so it seems that some who voted Socialist last time have been carried away by Corbymania.

A letter on housing

Letter from our candidate in South West published as the main one in this week's issue of the Surrey Comet under their headline of "Proof that capitalist system is flawed":

Green Party mayor candidate Sian Berry has a point (Surrey Comet, April 1) when she says that the present model for providing so-called affordable housing, as housing at a rent or price below the going rate, isn't working as it is based on signing "big deals with developers".

These deals have to allow the property developers to make a profit but the more below-market-rate housing the mayor requires them to provide in any project the less their profit. So there are limits as to how far they can be pushed.

If they aren't allow to make enough profit they will just walk away.

Not enough profit, no production. That's the way the capitalist system works and why it should be replaced by a society based on common ownership and democratic control, which will allow production, including of houses, for use instead of for profit.

ADAM BUICK, Socialist Party candidate GLA South West constituency.

News from the South West

Met a Green Party leaflet distributer when I went to buy my newspaper this morning. It promised something which neither the Mayor nor the Greater London Authority has the legal power to do: "cap rent rises". This would require national legislation and in any event would be like King Canute trying to stop the rising tide.

The local paper, the Richmond and Twickenham Times, has a letter from our candidate in South West London, not directly about socialism just pointing out an example of the hypocrisy of the Tory candidate for Mayor:

In the referendum on the Alternative Vote Zac Goldsmith campaigned to retain the existing first-past-the-post system as the fairest. The mayor of London is elected by a variant of AV. So, if Sadiq Khan finishes top, will Goldsmith congratulate him on being first past the post and renounce taking into account the second preference votes from Liberals and Greens that his leaflets dropping through our letter boxes are so obviously courting?

We've had a phone call from a subscriber/sympathiser from Leatherhead offering to help out. All she has to do is drive 5 miles and cross the Surrey/Greater London border but the nearest place is the village of Malden Rushett which could be in Surrey and is probably also full of Tories. In fact it's in the Green Belt and surrounded by farmland (and horseyculture), not typical outer London let alone inner London.

And now the ex(?)-Trots

One of the handful of Left Unity candidates in the general election will be standing in Vauxhall. Their candidate here is Simon Hardy, formerly of Workers Power, the Trotskyist group who stood in Vauxhall in the last general election in 2010 (and got less votes than us). He has moved on from orthodox Trotskyism but still seems to have a soft spot for Lenin.

Meanwhile the Green Party candidate in Vauxhall in 2010, Joseph Healy ,has also joined Left Unity and is calling on people to vote for Simon Hardy rather than for his successor as Green Party candidate, Gulnar Hasnain.

TUSC is not standing as the sitting Labour MP, Kate Hoey, is a member of the RMT Parliamentary Group and TUSC don't want to alienate RMT. Steve Nally, who we've come across in various local by-elections in Lambeth, has been shunted to the other side of Brixton High Road to contest Dulwich and West Norwood for TUSC.

Clapham results

Three of us attended the count this afternoon in the Recreation Centre besides Brixton railway station. The results for the three wards we contested can be found here:

Clapham Town

Ferndale

Larkhall

The results in the two wards we contested both times (Ferndale and Larkhall) are almost exactly the same as last time in 2010.

The new council will be completely dominated by Labour with 50 seats to 3 for the Tories and 1 for the Greens.The Liberals have been excluded from being a serious contender for council seats in the future, with the Greens taking their place as the main opposition to Labour. UKIP got nowhere (look at their result in Ferndale) and, although TUSC got more votes than us in the two wards we both stood in, in the other wards they contested they didn't do much better than we would have done.

Campaigning over

We have now finished leafletting Clapham. In the end we did manage to distribute door-to-door and at our three literature stalls some 9000 of the 9500 allocated to us. The Labour Party must have spent a lot on trying to retain control of the council, with glossy leaflets, posters and personalised voting cards. We saw no leaflets from either the Liberals or the Tories. Presumably they are only running a token campaign in the three safe Labour wards we are contesting and concentrating on leafier parts where they think they can win. Surprisingly we saw no TUSC leaflets in the two of these wards they are contesting. Only a Green Party leaflet in Clapham Town ward denouncing the Labour Council for betraying residents who had moved into abandoned properties in the 1970s and refurbished them and who are now to be evicted so the council can get more money by selling the land off to property speculators.

More news about Clapham after the count on Friday.

Too many leaflets?

We finished leafletting Clapham Town ward yesterday. Larkhall has been done too and Ferndale is nearly finished but at the moment it looks as if we could have over a thousand left. We had 12000 printed, with 2500 for Junction ward in Islington and 9500 for the 3 Lambeth wards, i.e 3100 or so each. This was based on our experience of the by-elections we contested last year. We may still be able to get the figure down by revisiting blocs we left out because we couldn't gain access or streets which were difficult. We've also got a literature stall outside 52 Clapham High St later today (from noon). And we could leaflet the 4 tube stations in the area (Clapham North, Clapham Common, Stockwell and Brixton). We'll see.

Labour seem to be putting a lot of effort into holding Clapham Town with two glossy leaflets and more posters than usual. In fact they seem to be up to the old Labour Council trick of putting up some of their posters in empty council-owned houses. The only other posters are those for the Green Party in nearly every house in Rectory Gardens. Not surprising since the residents of this car-free street with insecure tenancies are threatened with eviction by the Labour council so that the area can be handed over to property developers to build upmarket flats (with a few "affordable" ones facing the dustbin area thrown in).

What happened at the Brixton hustings

60 Lambeth residents or political activists attended the Brixton Blog hustings in a room upstair of the pub 'Prince of Wales' in Brixton on tuesday evening. The most surprising thing of the evening was the appearance as the Labour Party repesentative, of Lib Peck, the Leader of Lambeth Council. The Lib Dem rep was also a councillor from Streatham.

The increasingly 'notorious' Elizabeth Jones was there representing UKIP. Her appearance there and her statements drew lots of boos, hisses, haranguing and cries of racism from the assorted Trotskyites (SWP, SPEW) and Leftists (Left Unity were there but not standing candidates in the elections) in the room. She mentioned Alan Bennett but there were no protests... but when she mentioned 'Saint' Bob Crow and the 'No2EU' campaign that was too much for TUSC/RMT/SPEW activists!

The venom in the room was directed mainly at Lib Peck and Lambeth Labour Council with UKIP coming in second. The questions were about cuts to libraries, the poor performance of Lambeth Council's 'arms length' housing organisation 'Lambeth Living', pavements, car pollution in Brixton, social exclusion, immigration, Lambeth College lecturers strike. It was dealing with the symptoms and not the cause which is capitalism. The hustings saw the debut of the Pirate Party who advocated libertarianism and also transparency of council meetings.

All the speakers apart from Danny Lambert, our party representative, were clearly mesmerised with capitalism and could not see beyond its existence and all believed if they were in power they could tweak it and it would be a positive and good thing for people. Steve Nally for TUSC, sponsored by Trots SPEW and SWP and RMT trade union, would oppose all cuts and declare 'illegal' budgets, the usual activist reformist nonsense with no mention that the working class have the power to emancipate themselves, abolish capitalism and transform society to a socialist society of production to meet human needs and democratic control.

Danny put forward the Socialist case, he was on good form, and got a good reception from the assorted Leftists in the room although they would probably still vote TUSC or Green. Afterwards a man came up to Danny to say how much he enjoyed what Danny had to say but it turned out he was a Green Party candidate from another part of London...
Steve

The last leaflets

Finally managed to get yesterday evening into the flats in Cormont Road and to distribute our leaflets to the occupants, with the help of a non-member volunteer. He particularly wanted TUSC to do badly. It appears that their tactic of trying to hi-jack other struggles really puts some people off. Anyway, that's virtually the whole ward covered by 4,500 or so leaflets.

Came across some TUSC leaflets for the first time, on the ground. Also a Liberal leaflet in red and giving the impression of a being a leftwing Labour one critical of the Labour-controlled Council. As we know, the main parties play dirty in their scramble for votes.

Not seen any Green activity, but their candidate does make a valid point in her statement on the Brixtonblog about Labour's claim to have frozen Council Tax for everybody:

freezing council tax for the wealthiest while taking away council tax benefit from those who earn the least,

This is a reference to the fact that Council Tax Benefit has been reduced for those under pension age on other benefits, meaning that they have to pay some Council Tax whereas they didn't before. One of the cuts imposed on local councils by the government, imposed in turn on them by the economic crisis and the need to reduce spending and so taxes on profits.

Nothing more to do before the count tomorrow after the polls close at 10pm. Three of us will be there.

The postal voters

Lambeth Council has just made available statistics which show that, although the overall turnout was only 20%, the number of postal voters who voted was much higher at 46% (there were 1023 postal voters out of a total electorate of 11,236, 484 of them voted). In one voting district the turnout was only 16%.

This must mean something, probably that it's easier to vote from home than to go to the polling station or maybe that those who go to the trouble of registering for a postal vote are more interested in voting. The Green Party agent said that they had sent their manifesto only to postal voters.

The trouble is postal voters get to cast their vote before the election campaign is over, which means they can't take into account any last-minute developments.

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.

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.

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 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 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.