The candidates we're standing against

Just been anounced.

South West
ARBOUR, Tony - The Conservative Party Candidate
BUICK, Adam John Lewis - The Socialist Party (SP-GB)
CRAIG, Alexander Alan - UK Independence Party (UKIP)
FRIEZE, Andree Michelle - Green Party
ROBSON, Rosina Jane - London Liberal Democrats
WHELTON, Martin James - Labour Party

North East
ALLEN, Tim - Respect (George Galloway)
ARNOLD, Jennette - Labour Party
JERAJ, Samir - Green Party
MALIK, Sam - The Conservative Party Candidate
MARTIN, Bill - The Socialist Party (SP-GB)
SILBERMAN, Jonathan - Communist League
STACY, Terry - London Liberal Democrats
VACHHA, Freddy - UK Independence Party (UKIP)

Lambeth and Southwark
BUKOLA, Michael Adewale - Caroline Pidgeon's London Liberal Democrats
ESHALOMI, Florence - Labour Party
FLINT, Robert - The Conservative Party candidate
KANUMANSA, Amadu Santigie - All People's Party
NIX, Rashid - The Green Party
PARKIN, Kevin Leslie - The Socialist Party (SP-GB)
RAMADI, Idham - UK Independence Party (UKIP)

Elsewhere in Lambeth

The full list of candidate for Lambeth reveals that TUSC are contesting 10 wards with a total of 13 candidates (3 in Brixton Hill and 2 in Tulse Hill) and that the Pirate Party is standing in Vassall (as is TUSC). TUSC is standing in 2 or the 3 wards we are contesting (Ferndale and Larkhall).

Labour, Liberals, Tories are contesting all the(three-member) seats and UKIP all the wards. There is one independent. It was rumoured that Respect would be standing but there's no sign of them nor of Left Unity.

An appreciation from Germany

We have received an election statement from the Wine and Cheese Appreciation Society of Greater London. Yes, but read on. This is the name of the London section of a German political group and their statement can be found here on the site of this group (it's the article beginning with quote from Douglas Adams).

It is a bit of an essay on political philosophy but it makes some good points about the role of state, government and elections under capitalism. For instance, on the populist demands to "Make the Rich Pay" put forward by left-of-Labour groups and others, they make the point that this assumes the continuation of the rich, who are to be allowed to continue exploiting us but whose profits will then be taxed to pay for social reforms:

Even fringe left-wing parties like Respect bow to the dictates of 'realism' and respect private property through their demands of "taxation on the big corporations and the wealthy to fund public services" – a demand which requires big corporations to make the kind of profits which can then be taxed.

They have singled out Respect but it applies equally to the Trotskyists of TUSC in this election and, of course, to our own independent Trotskyist opponent here in Vauxhall who says:

The Government gave £1 trillion to the banks. We want it back! Anticapitalists say take over the banks, who are making giant profits again, and raise taxes on the rich. Spend the money on a massive programme of public works -- creating three million jobs, a million new affordable homes and a national repair and improve programme for council flats and houses.

We think the Wine and Cheese society might be over-estimating the extent to which these leftist groups (or anyone else, for that matter) really believe this to be possible. It's probably more of a cynical ploy to try to win a following. Still, there's a need to analyse what they say as if they really meant it. In this vein the Appreciation Society go on:

Left-wing parties for instance claim that mass poverty was unnecessary and within capitalism the problem could be solved quickly once they were in power and could tax the rich appropriately. Thus poverty was not a necessity of the mode of production which the state fosters for its own sake. Instead poverty was an unnecessary result of the wrong people in management.

Good point. Hence their general conclusion about all political parties that "the common feature of all these political parties is their affirmation of the basic principles of the capitalist economy". However, in a footnote, we are exempted from this:

The Socialist Party of Great Britian is a notable exception to this rule. The SPGB "claims that there can be no state in a socialist society" and "that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership". The SPGB "seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism." (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/differences.html) Leaving aside for the moment of whether this is a good strategy or not, it is clear from their party programme that the SPGB does not affirm the basic principles of the capitalist economy.

It's nice to be appreciated.

Cheese and chalk

Following up on the mistake by the journalist on the Streatham Guardian saying we were not the same as the Socialist Party (whereas we are, of course) a look at the Militant Tendency's website (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ -- we forgot to register that one) is revealing. Nobody is really likely to confuse them with us. They think that nationalisation is socialism and as would-be Leninist professional revolutionaries offer themselves as a vanguard to lead various trade union and reformist campaigns. They also want to put the clock back a hundred years and start up a new trade-union based Labour Party so as to have a "mass party of the working class" for them to "enter" and bore from within again as the Militant Tendency. At the moment they are clearly feeling like parasites without a host.

On the London elections, they say that workers should vote for the SWP candidate for mayor (standing under the disguise of "Left List"), though they are not at all happy that the SWP has put up a candidate against theirs in Greenwich and Lewisham. They also say that the workers should give their second preference vote for Mayor to Livingstone while "holding their noses" (variation on "without illusions") as if Livingstone cares whether they hold their noses or not as long as they vote for him, especially as he might need all the second preference votes he can rake in.

As far as the party list vote is concerned, they give workers a free hand to choose between the Left List, George Galloway's Respect (apparently he wants to draw a second salary as a councillor as well as his one as an MP) and the "Communist" Party (wheeled out of the museum of antiquities and disguised as "Unity for Peace & Socialism", ie for the old state-capitalist USSR). Incidentally, that's a stupid policy as, if the "left of Labour" votes are dispersed among three lists, none of them may reach the threshold to get a councillor; it would make more sense to plump for the one most likely to do best (probably Galloway's list) but then we're not Leninist tacticians and don't aspire to be.

Outside Greenwich and Lewisham they say vote for "anti-cuts, anti-privatisation candidates", ie mainly their SWP rivals, we imagine.

According to the Electoral Commision's site, they are registered as "Socialist Alternative", with the following variations:

Socialist Alternative
Socialist Alternative (Ian Page Team)
Socialist Alternative (Nellist)
Socialist Alternative - Defend Our Health Service
Socialist Alternative - Save Local Health Services
Socialist Alternative - Save Our Baby Unit
Socialist Alternative - Save Our Health Service
Socialist Alternative - Save Our Schools
Socialist Alternative - Save Our Services
Socialist Alternative - Save Our Special Schools
Socialist Alternative Candidate [The]

So, they've got their slogans all prepared even before the campaigns have started! That shows they're a real party of professional . . . reformists.

Who are the "Left List"?

In case people are wondering who they are, they're a new front organisation for the SWP formed after they lost the name RESPECT to George Galloway and his followers. Their programme can be expected be the same list of reformist demands as before when they were Respect. Incidentally, they are still calling themselves this but can't do so on the ballot paper. So there's going to be 2 rival Respect lists, ensuring that as in the Scottish Parliament elections following the split in the SSP neither of them will get anywhere -- though Galloway's list should do better than the SWP's.