There was a meeting of election agents last night at Lambeth (formerly Brixton) Town Hall to learn about the mechanics of the election. Each voter will get 3 ballot papers: a yellow one for the mayor, a peach one for the party lists, and a pink one for the constituency vote. So we'll be on the pink 'un. The organisers are anxious to avoid the fiasco of the last Scottish Parliament elections where voters were also faced with three ballot papers and when there were tens of thousands of rejected votes (and there are more electors in London than in Scotland). Whether they will succeed remains to be seen, especially as for the mayor you can vote 1, 2 whereas for the other two you just put one X.
Party tellers at polling stations are now entitled to harrass you for your electoral number before you go in to vote (rather than only after you come out, as up to now). They are being asked to be polite but there's nothing in the rules banning voters from being rude to them.
The count (for Lambeth and Southwark and 5 other constituencies) will take place in Olympia in West London on Friday 2 May. It is going to be done electronically (which means that, if it breaks down, the count could last as long as it has in Zimbabwe). The ballot papers will go into a scanner and then be shown on a screen. Spoiled and unclear votes will show up and be set aside for adjudication, as now, by the Returning Officer after discussion amongst the candidates' election agents.
If we come within 500 votes of 5 percent of the votes cast we will be entitled to demand a recount to try to get our £1000 deposit back. Which would delay the result by another 8 hours.
Socialist Party Election Blog : The blog by Socialists involved in Socialist Party campaigning in London Elections. For the main party website click Here
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
News from the Hust
Right, so Danny couldn't make this hustings called by the Lambeth Cyclists Group last night, so I was asked to go in his stead. The chief concerns were thus transport based.
The speakers were Shane Collins (Green) ; Shirley Horton (Conservative) ; Raoul Patel (Left list, stand in for their candidate who couldn't make it) ; Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal) ; Val Shawcross (Labour) ; Janus Polencius (English Democrat - though the chair kept caling him James, I'm sure).
It was very short notice, but I remembered this gem of an article from our centenary publication Socialism or your money back an article from 1913 called The pace that kills. I was able to use it to point out that little has changed in the meantime (up to, and including, the humbuggery regarding trams).
I observed how private property in land and the labour market have created conditions of social concentration into cities, and mass transit on a daily basis, aggrevated by the fact that we work too long and too many days anyway.
I also noted that anti-congestion measures really are just for freeing up space which will be filled immediately by economic growth (this is the reality, traffic has risen despite the congestion charge, all it has done has been to clear some room for that growth). Cycle lanes, cycling, etc. are all just ways of clearing up space on busy roads to allow businesses to operate just-in-time operations and limit their expose buy keeping inventories to a minimum (I noted it was significant that the Tory had focused on circulating the traffic above all else, they know where the heart of business lies).
I managed to get in a dig saying that nationalisation is bunkum, chiefly at the Left List speaker, who revolutionary platform included more bus conductors (oh, how the milk of trotskyism curdles).
Overall the debate was good humoured, especially when the English Democrat spoke because he'd forgotten to bring his manifesto with him, but he was certain he liked cycling (except someone had nicked his wheels).
The only flare up was right near the end when the issue of Herne Hill Junction was broached, and possible encroaching of roads onto Brockwell Park to help encourage "modal shift". One man was called a fatty, and he when to square off against his insulter. But no violence occurred, and I took the opportunity to simply say that the Socialist Party exists solely to help bring about socialism, if people want their junctions altering, they can do it themselves - hopefully in a democratic and friendly way.
There were about 58 people there all told.
Update: Here is a review from the Southwark Cyclists.
The speakers were Shane Collins (Green) ; Shirley Horton (Conservative) ; Raoul Patel (Left list, stand in for their candidate who couldn't make it) ; Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal) ; Val Shawcross (Labour) ; Janus Polencius (English Democrat - though the chair kept caling him James, I'm sure).
It was very short notice, but I remembered this gem of an article from our centenary publication Socialism or your money back an article from 1913 called The pace that kills. I was able to use it to point out that little has changed in the meantime (up to, and including, the humbuggery regarding trams).
I observed how private property in land and the labour market have created conditions of social concentration into cities, and mass transit on a daily basis, aggrevated by the fact that we work too long and too many days anyway.
I also noted that anti-congestion measures really are just for freeing up space which will be filled immediately by economic growth (this is the reality, traffic has risen despite the congestion charge, all it has done has been to clear some room for that growth). Cycle lanes, cycling, etc. are all just ways of clearing up space on busy roads to allow businesses to operate just-in-time operations and limit their expose buy keeping inventories to a minimum (I noted it was significant that the Tory had focused on circulating the traffic above all else, they know where the heart of business lies).
I managed to get in a dig saying that nationalisation is bunkum, chiefly at the Left List speaker, who revolutionary platform included more bus conductors (oh, how the milk of trotskyism curdles).
Overall the debate was good humoured, especially when the English Democrat spoke because he'd forgotten to bring his manifesto with him, but he was certain he liked cycling (except someone had nicked his wheels).
The only flare up was right near the end when the issue of Herne Hill Junction was broached, and possible encroaching of roads onto Brockwell Park to help encourage "modal shift". One man was called a fatty, and he when to square off against his insulter. But no violence occurred, and I took the opportunity to simply say that the Socialist Party exists solely to help bring about socialism, if people want their junctions altering, they can do it themselves - hopefully in a democratic and friendly way.
There were about 58 people there all told.
Update: Here is a review from the Southwark Cyclists.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Don't vote for what you don't want
Two people commented on our election manifesto we posted yesterday, asking in effect what do we think they should do where there is no socialist candidate standing, as in Lewisham (sorry, Anomymous, we're not standing there or anywhere else in London, we just don't have the resources) and in the mayoral election. Basically, we never tell people how to vote but let them decide for themselves. We just say what we'll be doing: either abstaining or (better) writing "WORLD SOCIALISM" across our ballot paper.
The logic of this position is explained in the editorial in this month's Socialist Standard (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html ):
Don't vote for what you don't want
We don't have to accept the self-fulfilling prophecy that "capitalism is the only game in town".
Imagine that all the people in the world made a set of informed, collective and democratic decisions about what kind of system would best meet their needs and solve global problems. Would they choose a money and property system that forced nearly half their total number to try to survive on a dollar a day? Or would they prefer to organise production and distribution of goods and services on the basis of what they need, without the profit system?
Would they, if and when given the chance to vote, do so overwhelmingly for candidates who -- whatever labels they attached to themselves or their parties -- stood for the continuation of some form of capitalism? Or would they elect delegates, from among their own number, to initiate the process of setting up and running a fundamentally new form of world society, a system based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution?
Would they embrace nationalism, involving armed forces paid to kill and injure other groups ("the enemy") with whom they have no quarrel? Or would they regard themselves and behave as citizens of the world, regardless of any geographical, cultural or philosophical attachments they may feel?
Would they divide themselves into classes, rich and poor, leaders and led, privileged and unprivileged, dominant and submissive, superordinate and subordinate, master and servant, powerful and powerless? Or would they, despite individual differences in abilities, personalities, interests, tastes, likes and dislikes, think and behave as members of the one human race, not perfect, sometimes fallible or irrational, but never deliberately cruel or anti-social?
Whatever words they use to explain or sloganise their ideologies, all parties except the Socialist Party stand for the continuation of some form of capitalism. From their point of view, a vote for their own candidate is best; a vote for one of their competitors is second best. Not voting could be a worrying sign of alienation from the system. Worst of all, a vote for the Socialist Party candidate -- or, where none stands, writing "Socialism" across the ballot paper -- would indicate the beginning of a resolution to replace capitalism with socialism.
Don't forget:
Before the first Labour government came into power, and when some members and supporters used to profess socialism as their eventual goal, there was some justification for the argument that: "The Labour hell is one degree cooler than the Tory hell." So "Choose the lesser of two evils."
Today, after successive administrations of the same system, the difference in temperature is too small to get excited about. The same applies to others lining up to be our government -- the Lib Dems, etc. We don't want them and we don't need them.
Support for socialism isn't a matter of campaigning to make the poor rich in today's terms of material consumption. That wouldn't be environmentally sustainable. The socialist aim isn’t even equality in the sense of sameness, like amounts of work contributed or goods and services consumed. Socialism is essentially about social equality, encouraging and enabling every human being to realise their full potential as giver and taker, not buyer and seller, in the context of society itself moving towards reaching its full potential.
The logic of this position is explained in the editorial in this month's Socialist Standard (see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html ):
Don't vote for what you don't want
We don't have to accept the self-fulfilling prophecy that "capitalism is the only game in town".
Imagine that all the people in the world made a set of informed, collective and democratic decisions about what kind of system would best meet their needs and solve global problems. Would they choose a money and property system that forced nearly half their total number to try to survive on a dollar a day? Or would they prefer to organise production and distribution of goods and services on the basis of what they need, without the profit system?
Would they, if and when given the chance to vote, do so overwhelmingly for candidates who -- whatever labels they attached to themselves or their parties -- stood for the continuation of some form of capitalism? Or would they elect delegates, from among their own number, to initiate the process of setting up and running a fundamentally new form of world society, a system based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution?
Would they embrace nationalism, involving armed forces paid to kill and injure other groups ("the enemy") with whom they have no quarrel? Or would they regard themselves and behave as citizens of the world, regardless of any geographical, cultural or philosophical attachments they may feel?
Would they divide themselves into classes, rich and poor, leaders and led, privileged and unprivileged, dominant and submissive, superordinate and subordinate, master and servant, powerful and powerless? Or would they, despite individual differences in abilities, personalities, interests, tastes, likes and dislikes, think and behave as members of the one human race, not perfect, sometimes fallible or irrational, but never deliberately cruel or anti-social?
Whatever words they use to explain or sloganise their ideologies, all parties except the Socialist Party stand for the continuation of some form of capitalism. From their point of view, a vote for their own candidate is best; a vote for one of their competitors is second best. Not voting could be a worrying sign of alienation from the system. Worst of all, a vote for the Socialist Party candidate -- or, where none stands, writing "Socialism" across the ballot paper -- would indicate the beginning of a resolution to replace capitalism with socialism.
Don't forget:
Before the first Labour government came into power, and when some members and supporters used to profess socialism as their eventual goal, there was some justification for the argument that: "The Labour hell is one degree cooler than the Tory hell." So "Choose the lesser of two evils."
Today, after successive administrations of the same system, the difference in temperature is too small to get excited about. The same applies to others lining up to be our government -- the Lib Dems, etc. We don't want them and we don't need them.
Support for socialism isn't a matter of campaigning to make the poor rich in today's terms of material consumption. That wouldn't be environmentally sustainable. The socialist aim isn’t even equality in the sense of sameness, like amounts of work contributed or goods and services consumed. Socialism is essentially about social equality, encouraging and enabling every human being to realise their full potential as giver and taker, not buyer and seller, in the context of society itself moving towards reaching its full potential.
The colour of money...
This piece could have been called "Booting Sian".
Anyway, I got a Green Party election address through the post last night. The usual fayre, but I read them anyway. I looked at this one. Blinked. Rubbed my eyes. Rubbed the page. Held it to the light,and in other ways checked it was real.
It was.
there on their election material was an advert.
It turned out, not one advert, but many adverts.
Cunning.
See, election law means you have to declare donatons, and spending limits (such as exist) mean that donations are controlled. But a payment at a commercial rate for an advert in a magazine that will reach millions of Londoners will not qualify as a donation.
Effectively, through advertising, the Greens have subsidised their election literature, whilst circumventing donation rules (though not spending limits). Quite how Green Party activists feel about being used in this commercial adventure is anyone's guess.
What's interesting, though, is how this emeshes the Green Party with the "green pound" industry and turns it into the political wing representing those economic interests. Especially as they promise to promote "small business" against the "multinationals" - I wonder which small businesses?
Just another capitalist party...greens mean business.
Anyway, I got a Green Party election address through the post last night. The usual fayre, but I read them anyway. I looked at this one. Blinked. Rubbed my eyes. Rubbed the page. Held it to the light,and in other ways checked it was real.
It was.
there on their election material was an advert.
It turned out, not one advert, but many adverts.
Cunning.
See, election law means you have to declare donatons, and spending limits (such as exist) mean that donations are controlled. But a payment at a commercial rate for an advert in a magazine that will reach millions of Londoners will not qualify as a donation.
Effectively, through advertising, the Greens have subsidised their election literature, whilst circumventing donation rules (though not spending limits). Quite how Green Party activists feel about being used in this commercial adventure is anyone's guess.
What's interesting, though, is how this emeshes the Green Party with the "green pound" industry and turns it into the political wing representing those economic interests. Especially as they promise to promote "small business" against the "multinationals" - I wonder which small businesses?
Just another capitalist party...greens mean business.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Danny's election address
Well, our election leaflets are on their way from the printer, if you live in Lambeth & Suothwark you might well see them in the flesh (they look good) - and of course, if you want to distribute any, just drop in and we'll be glad to give you a bundle.
Anyway, without further ado - here it is...
What’s the alternative to the profit system?
That's the issue in this election, says THE SOCIALIST PARTY candidate in Lambeth and Southwark Danny Lambert
On 1 May, you will have your occasional ration of democracy with the opportunity to vote for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly.
It's all very well having a vote but are you normally given any real choice? Let's face it, if it wasn't mentioned on the front of the election leaflet, could you tell which party was which?
It's tempting – in the absence of any real alternative – to get drawn into the phoney war that is political debate today. Whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Greens or the others, they all spout empty promises. And it all amounts to the same thing – vote, vote for us and we’ll do this, this or this for you. As if they could.
None of them offer any alternative to the present way of running society. That’s why they always fail to deliver. The profit system requires them to put profits before people, to put saving money above meeting people’s needs.
Do you really think who wins an election makes any difference to how you live?
And do politicians actually have much real power anyway? Can they control world market and financial forces or do they have to adjust and trim their policies to fit in with these?
Reality Check
Do any of the political parties address any of the real issues:
Why can money always been found to fight a war while hospitals, schools and local services are always strapped for cash?
Why do some people get stressed working long hours while others get stressed from the boredom of unemployment?
Why are there homeless people in the streets and empty houses with "for sale" signs?
Why is there still child poverty even in Britain?
Why is there no world agreement to limit carbon emissions when scientists say this must be done to avert the threat of global warming?
Why is there world hunger in a world that can grow enough for all?
So what's the alternative?
This time, in this constituency, you have a real choice. We in THE SOCIALIST PARTY are standing to put forward an alternative to capitalism and the madness of the market – a society of common ownership and democratic control. We call it socialism.
But real socialism. Not the elite-run dictatorships that collapsed some years ago in Russia and East Europe. And not the various schemes for state control put forward by the old Labour Party. For us socialism means something better than that. We're talking about:
A world community without any frontiers where the Earth’s resources would be the common heritage of all.
Wealth being produced to meet people's needs and not for sale on a market or for profit
Everyone having access to what they require to satisfy their needs, without the rationing system that is money.
A society where people freely contribute their skills and experience to produce what is needed, without the compulsion of a wage or salary.
If you agree
If you don't like present-day society ... if you are fed up with the way you are forced to live ... if you think the root cause of most social problems is the profit system, then your ideas echo closely with ours.
We are not promising to deliver socialism to you. We are not putting ourselves forward as leaders. This new society can only be achieved if you join together to strive for it. If you want it, then it is something you have to bring about yourselves. Nobody can do it for you.If you agree with what we say, you can show this by voting for THE SOCIALIST PARTY candidate, DANNY LAMBERT.
And if you want to know more about us, call in at our election office at 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 or return the reply coupon on the last page (no stamp required). You can also.phone or email us or visit our website at www.worldsocialism.org/spgb.
Anyway, without further ado - here it is...
What’s the alternative to the profit system?
That's the issue in this election, says THE SOCIALIST PARTY candidate in Lambeth and Southwark Danny Lambert
On 1 May, you will have your occasional ration of democracy with the opportunity to vote for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly.
It's all very well having a vote but are you normally given any real choice? Let's face it, if it wasn't mentioned on the front of the election leaflet, could you tell which party was which?
It's tempting – in the absence of any real alternative – to get drawn into the phoney war that is political debate today. Whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Greens or the others, they all spout empty promises. And it all amounts to the same thing – vote, vote for us and we’ll do this, this or this for you. As if they could.
None of them offer any alternative to the present way of running society. That’s why they always fail to deliver. The profit system requires them to put profits before people, to put saving money above meeting people’s needs.
Do you really think who wins an election makes any difference to how you live?
And do politicians actually have much real power anyway? Can they control world market and financial forces or do they have to adjust and trim their policies to fit in with these?
Reality Check
Do any of the political parties address any of the real issues:
Why can money always been found to fight a war while hospitals, schools and local services are always strapped for cash?
Why do some people get stressed working long hours while others get stressed from the boredom of unemployment?
Why are there homeless people in the streets and empty houses with "for sale" signs?
Why is there still child poverty even in Britain?
Why is there no world agreement to limit carbon emissions when scientists say this must be done to avert the threat of global warming?
Why is there world hunger in a world that can grow enough for all?
So what's the alternative?
This time, in this constituency, you have a real choice. We in THE SOCIALIST PARTY are standing to put forward an alternative to capitalism and the madness of the market – a society of common ownership and democratic control. We call it socialism.
But real socialism. Not the elite-run dictatorships that collapsed some years ago in Russia and East Europe. And not the various schemes for state control put forward by the old Labour Party. For us socialism means something better than that. We're talking about:
A world community without any frontiers where the Earth’s resources would be the common heritage of all.
Wealth being produced to meet people's needs and not for sale on a market or for profit
Everyone having access to what they require to satisfy their needs, without the rationing system that is money.
A society where people freely contribute their skills and experience to produce what is needed, without the compulsion of a wage or salary.
If you agree
If you don't like present-day society ... if you are fed up with the way you are forced to live ... if you think the root cause of most social problems is the profit system, then your ideas echo closely with ours.
We are not promising to deliver socialism to you. We are not putting ourselves forward as leaders. This new society can only be achieved if you join together to strive for it. If you want it, then it is something you have to bring about yourselves. Nobody can do it for you.If you agree with what we say, you can show this by voting for THE SOCIALIST PARTY candidate, DANNY LAMBERT.
And if you want to know more about us, call in at our election office at 52 Clapham High Street, SW4 or return the reply coupon on the last page (no stamp required). You can also.phone or email us or visit our website at www.worldsocialism.org/spgb.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Booting Ken
The big problem with Ken is, he has no excuse. He can rattle off the ills of capitalism till the cows come home; but all he has to offer is realpolitik of today.
Look at it this way, on housing, he says 50,000 affordable new homes over the next three years. Boris says 50,000 affordable new homes by 2011. the only difference is where they want to put them, with Ken's 50% quota imposing new build on Tory suburbs. Obviously, things like that do matter; but questions like, "Is that all?" and "What do you mean by 'affordable' anyway? Affordable to whom? How?" do spring to mind.
For instance, he cites the figure that there are 60,000 households with over 90,000 children in them, in temporary accomodation. This is an appalling scandal, and just the tip of the iceburg. 2.7 %, he says, of the housing stock is empty, because private owners are keeping them so.
On this he says
Indeed, his accomodation with the market is his hallmark. I've heard him discussing that jobs in industry just aren't coming back, and so we have to live with a nservice economy based London.
The bottom line is, his strategy is fatally flawed, he admits time and again that the power doesn't lie with him, and that he is doing little things here and there (some of which I'll discuss in coming posts) here and now.
We think that isn't enough, and the urgency of the situation is such that we need to mobilise to fundamentally change the system of society, and remove the burden of responsibility from people like Ken to ourselves.
Finally, Ken's constant reference to "Ordinary Londoners" would make Danny, our candidate, spit. Doubtless he'll tell you all about that himself soon.
Look at it this way, on housing, he says 50,000 affordable new homes over the next three years. Boris says 50,000 affordable new homes by 2011. the only difference is where they want to put them, with Ken's 50% quota imposing new build on Tory suburbs. Obviously, things like that do matter; but questions like, "Is that all?" and "What do you mean by 'affordable' anyway? Affordable to whom? How?" do spring to mind.
For instance, he cites the figure that there are 60,000 households with over 90,000 children in them, in temporary accomodation. This is an appalling scandal, and just the tip of the iceburg. 2.7 %, he says, of the housing stock is empty, because private owners are keeping them so.
On this he says
Policy has to be sensible and related to the real world. Boris Johnson’s 1 per cent target for empty homes is completely unachievable in practice: it couldn’t be achieved without stopping the private sale market from functioning.Vile Trot that Ken is, he's protecting the housing market.
Indeed, his accomodation with the market is his hallmark. I've heard him discussing that jobs in industry just aren't coming back, and so we have to live with a nservice economy based London.
The bottom line is, his strategy is fatally flawed, he admits time and again that the power doesn't lie with him, and that he is doing little things here and there (some of which I'll discuss in coming posts) here and now.
We think that isn't enough, and the urgency of the situation is such that we need to mobilise to fundamentally change the system of society, and remove the burden of responsibility from people like Ken to ourselves.
Finally, Ken's constant reference to "Ordinary Londoners" would make Danny, our candidate, spit. Doubtless he'll tell you all about that himself soon.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Booting Boris
An anonymous commentator says of the last post:
I've now looked in vain for his epic housing manifesto online at his site, and can't find it, after a good deal of searching. Now, maybe I'm a eejit, or maybe he's just not being very forthright about putting his policies forward.
But, lets look at what specifics I could find:
Release GLA-owned land and £130 million from the Regional Housing Pot to launch a new 'FirstSteps Housing Scheme', which will be open to first-time buyers frozen out of Government schemes
Work with the boroughs to build 50,000 more affordable homes by 2011
Invest £60 million from the Regional Housing Pot to start renovating the capital's 84,205 empty properties to help low-income Londoners off waiting
lists
Incentivise the boroughs to release dormant housing to those stuck in bed and breakfast accommodation, by returning the Mayor's precept to them
These are all driven by free market privatising dogma - as if lowering the precept (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek) is not itself going to be used by boroughs (esp. Liberal and Tory boroughs) to cut their own taxes (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek), even if strings are attached, money is fungible, and the boroughs would just reallocate the budgets elsewhere. Likewise, "releasing GLA land" is just more state shrinking.
As for the pittances outlined above, that renovation scheme amounts to about £700 per property, might do for a lick of paint, I suppose.
Like I said, Johnson is going to actively and as a matter of principle do nothing but channel the interests of the wealthy. The rest is bluster, blather and distraction from the reality of an exploited working class whose needs and interests always come in second place to the interests of profit and capital. A beautiful home is worthless if you can't afford to buy it.
Tired
Old
Tory
Ideas
Sorry I must disagree. You're clearly well out of your depth.Now, I did actually check out Boris' policy pages before posting (the clue to that, anonymous, was that I linked to his webpage), and all I saw on housing was a vague commitment to work in partnership with councils to raise more affordable homes (note his objection to a quota, what that means is Tory suburban strongholds not wanting to develop affordable housing on their patch, which is what the current situation does). Likewise his promise to protect "historic views".
Boris has come up with a range of policy proposals - I advise you to look at his policies on www.backboris.com/policy.
Manifesto's galore (just a small one for you, Ken's Housing Manifesto was 11 pages long, Paddick's 1 page long...Boris' 38 pages). He's the only candidate with new ideas and the only one capable of leading this city at a time where corruption in City Hall is rife.
I've now looked in vain for his epic housing manifesto online at his site, and can't find it, after a good deal of searching. Now, maybe I'm a eejit, or maybe he's just not being very forthright about putting his policies forward.
But, lets look at what specifics I could find:
lists
These are all driven by free market privatising dogma - as if lowering the precept (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek) is not itself going to be used by boroughs (esp. Liberal and Tory boroughs) to cut their own taxes (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek), even if strings are attached, money is fungible, and the boroughs would just reallocate the budgets elsewhere. Likewise, "releasing GLA land" is just more state shrinking.
As for the pittances outlined above, that renovation scheme amounts to about £700 per property, might do for a lick of paint, I suppose.
Like I said, Johnson is going to actively and as a matter of principle do nothing but channel the interests of the wealthy. The rest is bluster, blather and distraction from the reality of an exploited working class whose needs and interests always come in second place to the interests of profit and capital. A beautiful home is worthless if you can't afford to buy it.
Tired
Old
Tory
Ideas
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
The whited sepulchre
By special request, it's time to put the boot into Boris Johnson.
Essentially, I agree with Dave Osler, the chief characteristic of this campaign is the absence of policy, apart from a few populist gripes Johnson doesn't really say anything.
Of course, over the years he has said plenty, and is well known to be a hard Thatcherite and opponent of so-called "political correctness." And that is just it, it's known for those who care that he will veer to the wild right, and act in a manner to please the saloon bar bores of which he is one in extremis.
That's why he is policy light, because he is not a typical managerial machine politician, but a walking cipher for a certain Tory gut reflex - hence the "seat of your pants" approach he is trying to downplay.
The fact is, that his bluster plus his Chatshow Boris plus a few populist measures (lets plant some trees, do away with Bendy buses, etc.) might just sneak him in. Maybe the plan is to give him a competent team to delegate to like he did while he edited the Spectator; but, just as likely, he will blunder and bluster around like a loose cannon.
The real secret will be that he doesn't believe in doing anything, he will be sabbotaging the local administration so that his Tory mates, the city capitalists and the saloon bar bores can carry on without someone even having the temerity to try an alleviate the ills of capitalism.
Now, socialists are clear that the attempt to run capitalism against capitalist interests is doomed to failure; but Boris, behind the buffoonish facade represents capitalism's uncaring heart of darkness. It's easy to laugh at Boris the joke, but what he stands for, capitalism and elitism without even the pretence of caring, is no joke.
Whilst the wild ideologues have dreamed of such unrestraint, in practice, in power, they're usually kept in check by reality. Anarcho-capitalist wingnuts usually do not get within sniffing distance of power. Even Thatcher barely managed to reduce the size of the state, as she found after years of fruitless turmoil. Sadly, Boris' reality check would be unpleasant for us all.
Essentially, I agree with Dave Osler, the chief characteristic of this campaign is the absence of policy, apart from a few populist gripes Johnson doesn't really say anything.
Of course, over the years he has said plenty, and is well known to be a hard Thatcherite and opponent of so-called "political correctness." And that is just it, it's known for those who care that he will veer to the wild right, and act in a manner to please the saloon bar bores of which he is one in extremis.
That's why he is policy light, because he is not a typical managerial machine politician, but a walking cipher for a certain Tory gut reflex - hence the "seat of your pants" approach he is trying to downplay.
The fact is, that his bluster plus his Chatshow Boris plus a few populist measures (lets plant some trees, do away with Bendy buses, etc.) might just sneak him in. Maybe the plan is to give him a competent team to delegate to like he did while he edited the Spectator; but, just as likely, he will blunder and bluster around like a loose cannon.
The real secret will be that he doesn't believe in doing anything, he will be sabbotaging the local administration so that his Tory mates, the city capitalists and the saloon bar bores can carry on without someone even having the temerity to try an alleviate the ills of capitalism.
Now, socialists are clear that the attempt to run capitalism against capitalist interests is doomed to failure; but Boris, behind the buffoonish facade represents capitalism's uncaring heart of darkness. It's easy to laugh at Boris the joke, but what he stands for, capitalism and elitism without even the pretence of caring, is no joke.
Whilst the wild ideologues have dreamed of such unrestraint, in practice, in power, they're usually kept in check by reality. Anarcho-capitalist wingnuts usually do not get within sniffing distance of power. Even Thatcher barely managed to reduce the size of the state, as she found after years of fruitless turmoil. Sadly, Boris' reality check would be unpleasant for us all.
Left Opportunists
Bought the "South London Press" yesterday to see if any mention of the election. There wasn't but on page 3 there was an item about a protest meeting against the threatened closure of wards and units in a hospital in Lewisham (actually, outside the constituency). The accompanying picture showed a woman with a loud hailer and behind her 3 people carrying placards saying "NO CUTS. NO A&E CLOSURES. DEFEND THE NHS. DEFEND OUR PUBLIC SERVICES". Popular sentiments these days but the top of the placard read "LEFT LIST. www.respectcoalition.org" and on the bottom something like "Vote Against War and Privatisaion 1st May". A change from "SOCIALIST WORKER", but only a formal one since the Left List is an SWP front. Demonstrators will now have to get used to tearing off "LEFT LIST" rather than "SOCIALIST WORKER" from the top of the free placards the SWP hand out on any popular protest demonstration.
But the SWP weren't the only vote-gatherers trying to exploit the situation. According to the news report so were "Mayor hopefuls Brian Paddick and Sian Berry" (of the Liberals and Greens respectively).
The SWP are always accusing us of "parliamentary cretinism" for saying that the workers can use the vote to get power to establish socialism. True, we do, but we always make it clear that what is important is not the vote as such but the socialist understanding behind it. We never go in for voting catching and never make any promises: we just advocate socialism and ask only people who want it to vote for us. But look how they behave when they contest elections: just like any other gang of vote-catching politicians. You wouldn't know that they are really a bunch of Citizen Smiths who in private dream of an armed uprising in Britain (Tooting is just outside the constituency too)..
But the SWP weren't the only vote-gatherers trying to exploit the situation. According to the news report so were "Mayor hopefuls Brian Paddick and Sian Berry" (of the Liberals and Greens respectively).
The SWP are always accusing us of "parliamentary cretinism" for saying that the workers can use the vote to get power to establish socialism. True, we do, but we always make it clear that what is important is not the vote as such but the socialist understanding behind it. We never go in for voting catching and never make any promises: we just advocate socialism and ask only people who want it to vote for us. But look how they behave when they contest elections: just like any other gang of vote-catching politicians. You wouldn't know that they are really a bunch of Citizen Smiths who in private dream of an armed uprising in Britain (Tooting is just outside the constituency too)..
You want another reason?
OK, so water is becoming dearer, what about food?
Well, the BBC has this excellent webpage charting the current rises in food costs this has lead to social disturbances around the world especially recently in Ivory Coast and Argentina. It will especially hit hard those countries already dependent on food aid, according to the UN. Even Australia where the persistent drought has slashed wheat exports.
The bottom line is, despite the capacity to produce, and the availability of wheat and water sufficient to feed the current and an even greater population, the market, which is based solely on effective demand not need, is failing to produce and distribute this food.
And don't think just because the demonstrations and riots are happening in far flung lands this won't have an effect here. We live in a global word, political instability spreads, and we're part of that market for food. Just as with water, when teh price starts to rise, it will be the poorest who are hardest hit first.
Well, the BBC has this excellent webpage charting the current rises in food costs this has lead to social disturbances around the world especially recently in Ivory Coast and Argentina. It will especially hit hard those countries already dependent on food aid, according to the UN. Even Australia where the persistent drought has slashed wheat exports.
The bottom line is, despite the capacity to produce, and the availability of wheat and water sufficient to feed the current and an even greater population, the market, which is based solely on effective demand not need, is failing to produce and distribute this food.
And don't think just because the demonstrations and riots are happening in far flung lands this won't have an effect here. We live in a global word, political instability spreads, and we're part of that market for food. Just as with water, when teh price starts to rise, it will be the poorest who are hardest hit first.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Why we are standing
Well, here's one reason:
"The number of people in "water poverty" will rise, says the water consumer watchdog for England and Wales.
"The Consumer Council for Water uses the term for people whose water bills cost more than 3% of their income after tax.
"It estimates a third of people living in the South West will fit this criteria by 2010."
A resource that's free from the sky and ground, and thousands of people in the UK - fourth wealthiest economy in the world, they keep telling us, will be struggling to pay.
This is the kind of insanity we think the concerted co-operation of working folk could end. The capacity and capability is there to ensure security for all in the basic necessities of life once we are freed from the constraints that the market system is clearly imposing on us.
"The number of people in "water poverty" will rise, says the water consumer watchdog for England and Wales.
"The Consumer Council for Water uses the term for people whose water bills cost more than 3% of their income after tax.
"It estimates a third of people living in the South West will fit this criteria by 2010."
A resource that's free from the sky and ground, and thousands of people in the UK - fourth wealthiest economy in the world, they keep telling us, will be struggling to pay.
This is the kind of insanity we think the concerted co-operation of working folk could end. The capacity and capability is there to ensure security for all in the basic necessities of life once we are freed from the constraints that the market system is clearly imposing on us.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
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.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Back on the campaign trail
OK, we're back again, here is the list of official candidates for the Lambeth and Southwark constituency in the GLA elections:
Lambeth and Southwark
London Elects for the full listings.
It'll be interesting to see where we come. Be nice to beat Polenceus again. It would also be good to come in above the Left List. 1,000 votes? Why not.
Lambeth and Southwark
| Candidate name | Party name |
| Shane Collins | Green Party |
| Jasmijn De Boo | Animals Count |
| Shirley Houghton | Conservative Party |
| Daniel Lambert | The Socialist Party |
| Geoffrey Macharia | Christian Peoples Alliance |
| Caroline Pidgeon | Liberal Democrats |
| Janus Polenceus | The English Democrats Party |
| Valerie Shawcross | The Labour Party |
| Jens Winton | UK Independence Party |
| Katt Young | Left List |
London Elects for the full listings.
It'll be interesting to see where we come. Be nice to beat Polenceus again. It would also be good to come in above the Left List. 1,000 votes? Why not.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Over to our resident psephologist
Although of course, at this stage, we are not concerned with the number of votes we get at an election but with how much and how effectively contesting allows us to get across socialist ideas, the result both in number of votes (240) and percentage (0.6) terms is the "best" (relatively speaking) we have had in London since 1970, also, coincidentally, when we contested the seat into which fell our head office at 52 Clapham High Street (then called Clapham Wandsworth). In between, in the 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and 1997 general elections (we didn't stand in London in 2001) our vote and percentage was only half this.
By way of comparison, the result for the other candidates calling themselves "socialist" (but actually standing for reforms and state capitalism) in the area covered by the South London Press was: Scargill Labour Party 149 (Dulwich & West Norwood) and 132 (Camberwell & Peckham); "Workers Revolutionary Party" 127 (Streatham) and 113 (Camberwell & Peckham) ; Councillor Ian Page of the "Socialist Alternative Party" 742 (Lewisham & Deptford); and Respect 700 (Tooting), no doubt mainly Muslim votes.
We make this point to show that there is nothing to be gained even in terms of votes by having an attractive programme of reforms. We contested this election (as we do all elections) on a straight socialist programme of common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, with production to satisfy people's needs not profit, and distribution "from each their ability, to each their needs", with the disappearance of the market and money. They promised higher pensions, minimum wage, etc, etc. Yet they don't do any better in terms of votes, probably because if people want reforms they're going to vote for a party that they judge has got some chance of being able to implement them.
Another example of this was in Swindon North, where there was an independent candidate, Ernie Reynolds, standing on an "abolish money now" platform (even if, confusedly, only in Britain). He got 195 votes compared to 208 for a "Socialist Unity" candidate (rump of the old "Socialist Alliance" after the SWP dumped it) offering the full range of reforms that Trotskyists always do.
So we shall continue to plug away, in between as well as during elections, at putting across the case for socialism and nothing but.
By way of comparison, the result for the other candidates calling themselves "socialist" (but actually standing for reforms and state capitalism) in the area covered by the South London Press was: Scargill Labour Party 149 (Dulwich & West Norwood) and 132 (Camberwell & Peckham); "Workers Revolutionary Party" 127 (Streatham) and 113 (Camberwell & Peckham) ; Councillor Ian Page of the "Socialist Alternative Party" 742 (Lewisham & Deptford); and Respect 700 (Tooting), no doubt mainly Muslim votes.
We make this point to show that there is nothing to be gained even in terms of votes by having an attractive programme of reforms. We contested this election (as we do all elections) on a straight socialist programme of common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, with production to satisfy people's needs not profit, and distribution "from each their ability, to each their needs", with the disappearance of the market and money. They promised higher pensions, minimum wage, etc, etc. Yet they don't do any better in terms of votes, probably because if people want reforms they're going to vote for a party that they judge has got some chance of being able to implement them.
Another example of this was in Swindon North, where there was an independent candidate, Ernie Reynolds, standing on an "abolish money now" platform (even if, confusedly, only in Britain). He got 195 votes compared to 208 for a "Socialist Unity" candidate (rump of the old "Socialist Alliance" after the SWP dumped it) offering the full range of reforms that Trotskyists always do.
So we shall continue to plug away, in between as well as during elections, at putting across the case for socialism and nothing but.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
The result is in!
Vauxhall
Lambert (Socialist): 240
Hoey (Labour) : 19,744
Anglin (Lib-Dem) : 9,767
Heckels (Con) : 5,405
Summers (Green) : 1,705
McWhirter (UKIP) : 271
Polenceus (English Dem.) : 221
Spoilt: 163
Well, the count was fascinating.
The counters were energetic, efficient and effective. The hall was packed with cheerful polling agents of the other parties, and I did my best to stay clear of the UKIP Dalek, who was trying to convert the vote counters to his cause, even when all the votes were in.
As agent, I had to view the rejected ballots - a good many were simply spoilt with all candidates crossed out, or minor technicalities. I did notice a good couple of voters who put too many marks on their paper were either voting for us and the Greens or us and Labour.
One vote was someone who had written BNP next to our candidates name, I insisted that we didn't want that vote! There were a couple more we could have blagged but my attitude was that we only wanted clear conscious votes. 240 in the end.
I managed to raise a wee laugh - one rejected ballot had Tony Blair, Iraq Liar next to Hoey's name, and I suggested it was a clear vote for her - sadly the returning officer disagreed.
240 isn't a bad number, we didn't come last, and we came within an ace of the vile nationalists of UKIP who had so much media coverage.
Overall, it was worth doing, lets see how it all looks when the dust settles, but we can say already, people in Vauxhall had a chance to vote for a clear socialist case, and 240 took up the opportunity.
Lambert (Socialist): 240
Hoey (Labour) : 19,744
Anglin (Lib-Dem) : 9,767
Heckels (Con) : 5,405
Summers (Green) : 1,705
McWhirter (UKIP) : 271
Polenceus (English Dem.) : 221
Spoilt: 163
Well, the count was fascinating.
The counters were energetic, efficient and effective. The hall was packed with cheerful polling agents of the other parties, and I did my best to stay clear of the UKIP Dalek, who was trying to convert the vote counters to his cause, even when all the votes were in.
As agent, I had to view the rejected ballots - a good many were simply spoilt with all candidates crossed out, or minor technicalities. I did notice a good couple of voters who put too many marks on their paper were either voting for us and the Greens or us and Labour.
One vote was someone who had written BNP next to our candidates name, I insisted that we didn't want that vote! There were a couple more we could have blagged but my attitude was that we only wanted clear conscious votes. 240 in the end.
I managed to raise a wee laugh - one rejected ballot had Tony Blair, Iraq Liar next to Hoey's name, and I suggested it was a clear vote for her - sadly the returning officer disagreed.
240 isn't a bad number, we didn't come last, and we came within an ace of the vile nationalists of UKIP who had so much media coverage.
Overall, it was worth doing, lets see how it all looks when the dust settles, but we can say already, people in Vauxhall had a chance to vote for a clear socialist case, and 240 took up the opportunity.
Marx's birthday
This day, in 1818, Karl Marx was born in Trier in Germany. It is also, this year, the western Christians' "Ascension Day" which, for Catholics, is a "holy day of obligation". It's also voting day, though there are no penalties either in this world or the imaginary next for not voting. Some in fact have already voted, by post, some even, Laborites in Birmingham and Tories in Bradford, seeming to have followed the good old Northern Ireland tradition of "vote early, vote often".
Election days are the occasion when the capitalist class ask the working class to endorse their control of political power which is used to maintain their dominant position in society, and in particular their ownership and control of the means of production. Canvassing returns and opinion polls suggest that, unfortunately, 98 per cent of those who vote will vote to keep capitalism going by voting for one or other of the political parties that represent capitalism in one form or another. The only counter-information we have is the result of a school election in West London where an 11-year old candidate, standing for "a moneyless world community" won.
Except in Vauxhall, those who reject capitalist rule and want to see established a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production, with production geared to meeting people's needs and not for profit, and distribution according to the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", only have a choice of not voting or (better) going to the polling station and casting a write-in vote for socialism by writing "SOCIALISM" or "WORLD SOCIALISM" or something like that across the ballot paper. Or they can do what one Socialist Party member used to do: take the ballot paper, go into the booth, and then return to ask the polling clerk in a loud voice how to spell "Bastards".
In Vauxhall, those who want socialism don't have to go to this extreme but can show this by putting an X against the name of Danny Lambert, the Socialist Party candidate.
Election days are the occasion when the capitalist class ask the working class to endorse their control of political power which is used to maintain their dominant position in society, and in particular their ownership and control of the means of production. Canvassing returns and opinion polls suggest that, unfortunately, 98 per cent of those who vote will vote to keep capitalism going by voting for one or other of the political parties that represent capitalism in one form or another. The only counter-information we have is the result of a school election in West London where an 11-year old candidate, standing for "a moneyless world community" won.
Except in Vauxhall, those who reject capitalist rule and want to see established a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production, with production geared to meeting people's needs and not for profit, and distribution according to the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", only have a choice of not voting or (better) going to the polling station and casting a write-in vote for socialism by writing "SOCIALISM" or "WORLD SOCIALISM" or something like that across the ballot paper. Or they can do what one Socialist Party member used to do: take the ballot paper, go into the booth, and then return to ask the polling clerk in a loud voice how to spell "Bastards".
In Vauxhall, those who want socialism don't have to go to this extreme but can show this by putting an X against the name of Danny Lambert, the Socialist Party candidate.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Rain stops play
Well, we've had rotten weather this election - I much prefer leafletting in the brilliant sunshine.
Anyway, this morning, I hiked round the constituency. Last minute requests for info-packs as a result of our election mailout. Well, since the mail wouldn't get to them till tomorrow, I thought it best to drop the packs off by hand.
I got lost a couple of times, found myself in a couple of pubs - to use the lavatory, but I bought a courtesy half while there, your honour - and eventually found my last point of call to be some sort of gated old folks community, so I asked an old woman to pass the packet on, because I couldn't get to the door.
I'm now knackered, so that and the weather puts me off that little bit of canvassing we were going to do this afternoon. but, seeing as how that was largely just a token effort it doesn't matter much.
More important is that Danny is on the Interweb radio again tonight, via http://www.raidersbroadcast.com.
Me? I'm gonna go home and sleep, things to do tomorrow, not least of which is stay up until an unbobly hour watching the votes get counted.
Labour posters say If you value it, vote for it, wel...
Anyway, this morning, I hiked round the constituency. Last minute requests for info-packs as a result of our election mailout. Well, since the mail wouldn't get to them till tomorrow, I thought it best to drop the packs off by hand.
I got lost a couple of times, found myself in a couple of pubs - to use the lavatory, but I bought a courtesy half while there, your honour - and eventually found my last point of call to be some sort of gated old folks community, so I asked an old woman to pass the packet on, because I couldn't get to the door.
I'm now knackered, so that and the weather puts me off that little bit of canvassing we were going to do this afternoon. but, seeing as how that was largely just a token effort it doesn't matter much.
More important is that Danny is on the Interweb radio again tonight, via http://www.raidersbroadcast.com.
Me? I'm gonna go home and sleep, things to do tomorrow, not least of which is stay up until an unbobly hour watching the votes get counted.
Labour posters say If you value it, vote for it, wel...
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Tony Blair is irrelevant
Yesterday we received the following email:
"Subject: Appeal to vote the Labour Party minus Tonny Blair
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:55:52 +0100 (BST)
Dear friends,
Please cast your Valuable vote in favour of the Labour Party for protecting the interests of the Workers, Women and Children. But defeat Mr. Tony Blair in his constituency, because he with his God Father Bush has killed hundreds of children in Iraq war, which was initiated by him and Bush by giving false information to world. If you support this idea of ours, please forward this e-mail to at least 10 friends of yours through e-mail within 4th May, 2005.
In solidarity with,
Malay Dewanji
For and on behalf of the World Socialist Forum"
Judging it to be genuine (a not a clever attempt by the Labour Party to get doubters to vote Labour, in the full knowledge that Blair will be re-elected in his own constituency) we sent the reply below. We should add that the "World Socialist Forum" is not to be confused with the forum of the same name, sponsored by the World Socialist Movement of which the Socialist Party here in Britain is a part, and which can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/
Thank you for this email, but we cannot agree with what you say. The decision to go to war in Iraq was not just that of Blair but of the whole Labour Cabinet and was endorsed by a majority of Labour MPs. In other words, the Labour Party as a party supported the war. This was normal in view of the fact that governments under capitalism have to run the capitalist system in the only way it can be: as a profit-making system in the interests of the tiny minority of profit-takers in the country concerned.
The Labour government, supported by a majority of its MPs, judged that the Saddam regime was such a threat to the security of oil supplies from the region for western capitalism that participation in the US attack on Iraq was justified. In similar circumstances, they would do it again as they have in the past (for example, the colonial war in Malaya in the 1940s, the Korean War).
In any event, changing leaders changes nothing. In fact, changing governments changes nothing. In the unlikely event of Blair losing in his own constituency, another Labour Leader would emerge who would do the behave in the same way, because obliged to by the nature of being a government within capitalism. It's not bad leaders that are the problem, but a "bad" social and economic system. Wars are built-in to capitalism because capitalism involves competition and conflicts of interest between rival groups of capitalists, backed by governments, over sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and innvestment outlets and strategic points and areas to protect these. Normally, these are settled by diplomatic methods (in which armed might, ie the threat of force, is a factor, which explains why the waste of resources on weapons of destruction and preparations for war is also built-into capitalism), but, when a particular State feels that the "vital interest" of its capitalists are at stake (as the Bush administration judged in Iraq) it goes to war. This means that, as long as capitalism lasts, there will be the continual threat of a war breaking out somewhere and a continuous waste of resources on arms.
World socialism, where all the resources of the Earth, natural and industrial, would have become the common heritage of all Humanity, is, quite literally, the only way to have a world without wars, the threat of war, and preparations for war. In such a world the resources now wasted in this way could be used to contribute to the satisfaction of people's needs, so that no man, woman or child in any part of the world goes without proper food, clothing, shelter, education or health care.
"Subject: Appeal to vote the Labour Party minus Tonny Blair
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:55:52 +0100 (BST)
Dear friends,
Please cast your Valuable vote in favour of the Labour Party for protecting the interests of the Workers, Women and Children. But defeat Mr. Tony Blair in his constituency, because he with his God Father Bush has killed hundreds of children in Iraq war, which was initiated by him and Bush by giving false information to world. If you support this idea of ours, please forward this e-mail to at least 10 friends of yours through e-mail within 4th May, 2005.
In solidarity with,
Malay Dewanji
For and on behalf of the World Socialist Forum"
Judging it to be genuine (a not a clever attempt by the Labour Party to get doubters to vote Labour, in the full knowledge that Blair will be re-elected in his own constituency) we sent the reply below. We should add that the "World Socialist Forum" is not to be confused with the forum of the same name, sponsored by the World Socialist Movement of which the Socialist Party here in Britain is a part, and which can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/
Thank you for this email, but we cannot agree with what you say. The decision to go to war in Iraq was not just that of Blair but of the whole Labour Cabinet and was endorsed by a majority of Labour MPs. In other words, the Labour Party as a party supported the war. This was normal in view of the fact that governments under capitalism have to run the capitalist system in the only way it can be: as a profit-making system in the interests of the tiny minority of profit-takers in the country concerned.
The Labour government, supported by a majority of its MPs, judged that the Saddam regime was such a threat to the security of oil supplies from the region for western capitalism that participation in the US attack on Iraq was justified. In similar circumstances, they would do it again as they have in the past (for example, the colonial war in Malaya in the 1940s, the Korean War).
In any event, changing leaders changes nothing. In fact, changing governments changes nothing. In the unlikely event of Blair losing in his own constituency, another Labour Leader would emerge who would do the behave in the same way, because obliged to by the nature of being a government within capitalism. It's not bad leaders that are the problem, but a "bad" social and economic system. Wars are built-in to capitalism because capitalism involves competition and conflicts of interest between rival groups of capitalists, backed by governments, over sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and innvestment outlets and strategic points and areas to protect these. Normally, these are settled by diplomatic methods (in which armed might, ie the threat of force, is a factor, which explains why the waste of resources on weapons of destruction and preparations for war is also built-into capitalism), but, when a particular State feels that the "vital interest" of its capitalists are at stake (as the Bush administration judged in Iraq) it goes to war. This means that, as long as capitalism lasts, there will be the continual threat of a war breaking out somewhere and a continuous waste of resources on arms.
World socialism, where all the resources of the Earth, natural and industrial, would have become the common heritage of all Humanity, is, quite literally, the only way to have a world without wars, the threat of war, and preparations for war. In such a world the resources now wasted in this way could be used to contribute to the satisfaction of people's needs, so that no man, woman or child in any part of the world goes without proper food, clothing, shelter, education or health care.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Yesterday was May Day
We only went to the starting point of the WRP's march in Kennington Park because it was something happening in the Vauxhall constituency. Frankly, it turned out to be a pathetic affair. Not more than 30 people. We did give out some leaflets and talk to a few people, including Sanjay Kulkarni, the WRP candidate in Camberwell & Peckham. Their other candidate (in Streatham), John Colvill, wearing a big red rosette (how these Trotskyist groups which accuse us of "parliamentary fetishism" really play the vote-catching politicians when they contest elections), made it clear that he resented our presence, possibly because on Saturday in Brixton our candidate had denounced him to his face as a Vanguardist who wanted to come to power on the backs of the working class. But he ought to have welcomed us since our presence swelled the numbers by over 13 percent. We were never going to go on their march of course, so we left, leaving the 30 of them to march to Brixton with a police escort of one copper for every two marchers.
After calling in at 52 Clapham High Street to pick up a paste table, we headed for Trafalgar Square where the official TUC rally was taking place. The first thing that struck us was the absence of the usual paper-sellers from the SWP and Militant. Presumably, they were all out trying to win support for the candidates of, respectively, RESPECT and the "Socialist Alternative Party". Anyway, this cleared the ground for people with other ideas such as "action not ballots" (anarchosynicalists), "withhold your vote" (some sort of Maoists), and of course us with "cast a write-in vote for socialism (except in Vauxhall)".
The theme of the rally was "unite against racism" and the official stewards were handing out a leaflet saying "use your vote against the BNP". The basic idea seemed to be to get a high turnout by voting for "any of the democratic parties" so that the percentage (if not the actual)vote for the BNP would be reduced. A high turnout is generally thought to favour the Labour Party, so this advice might not have been so innocently naive as it seemed. In any event, the organisers clearly saw the rally as a pro-Labour (though not a pro-Blair) exercise since speakers such as Jeremy Corbyn MP and Tony Benn were unlikely to urge people to vote for any other party (and didn't). But, to give them their due, they didn't go as far as one of the other speakers who declared that a vote for any small leftwing party would be a vote for the Tories. This was greeted by a chorus of boos, some no doubt from people who thought that a vote for Labour was the same as a vote for the Tories.
Although our main aim was to hand out free leaflets and Socialist Standards, we did sell a number of pamphlets, the best-seller being "How The Gods Were Made" by Keracher. We don't know why. Perhaps it had something to do with a neighbouring stand, from some Leninist group from Iran, playing Lennon's "Imagine there's no heaven . . ." Not something RESPECT is likely to encourage. We must confess to changing the words and singing "Imagine there's no leaders", but are not sure if our Leninist neighbours got the point.
The afternoon ended in the nearby "Sherlock Holmes" put where we went through the leaflets we'd been given and discussed with a former SWPer how the SWP worked internally as a top-down organisation. And we understood why there were hardly any people there trying to sell "Socialist Worker" (now headed "Vote Respect"). They had been ordered to be elsewhere, preparing to return George Galloway to Westminster.
Somewhat disappointedly our ex-SWP drinking companion, a GMB shop steward, said he was considering voting for the Lib-Dems. To tell the truth he hasn't been the only person who has told us this. It seems that ex-street fighting man Tariq Ali's call to "vote Lib Dem without illusions" is finding some echo, but of course a Lib-Dem government would be no more able to make capitalism work in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers than have Labour and Tories ones and would end up, like them, managing capitalism in the only way it can be: as a profit system in the interests of the profit-takers (for the record, the last Liberal government, before the first World War, was the last government to shoot down striking workers. See "Remember Tonypandy" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/centenary/tonypandy(1910).pdf).
A vote for the Lib-Dems is just as much a vote to hand over political power to the capitalist class and keep capitalism (and its problems) going, and so should be out of the question for anyone who wants to see established a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production so that things can be turned out and services run just to satisfy people's needs and not for profit. OK, there's only one candidate in the general election standing for this. But, as our leaflet said, if you don't live in Vauxhall you can show you want socialism by writing the word "SOCIALISM" across your ballot paper. That's a far better gesture than voting Lib-Dem in a bid to give Tony Blair a bloody nose.
After calling in at 52 Clapham High Street to pick up a paste table, we headed for Trafalgar Square where the official TUC rally was taking place. The first thing that struck us was the absence of the usual paper-sellers from the SWP and Militant. Presumably, they were all out trying to win support for the candidates of, respectively, RESPECT and the "Socialist Alternative Party". Anyway, this cleared the ground for people with other ideas such as "action not ballots" (anarchosynicalists), "withhold your vote" (some sort of Maoists), and of course us with "cast a write-in vote for socialism (except in Vauxhall)".
The theme of the rally was "unite against racism" and the official stewards were handing out a leaflet saying "use your vote against the BNP". The basic idea seemed to be to get a high turnout by voting for "any of the democratic parties" so that the percentage (if not the actual)vote for the BNP would be reduced. A high turnout is generally thought to favour the Labour Party, so this advice might not have been so innocently naive as it seemed. In any event, the organisers clearly saw the rally as a pro-Labour (though not a pro-Blair) exercise since speakers such as Jeremy Corbyn MP and Tony Benn were unlikely to urge people to vote for any other party (and didn't). But, to give them their due, they didn't go as far as one of the other speakers who declared that a vote for any small leftwing party would be a vote for the Tories. This was greeted by a chorus of boos, some no doubt from people who thought that a vote for Labour was the same as a vote for the Tories.
Although our main aim was to hand out free leaflets and Socialist Standards, we did sell a number of pamphlets, the best-seller being "How The Gods Were Made" by Keracher. We don't know why. Perhaps it had something to do with a neighbouring stand, from some Leninist group from Iran, playing Lennon's "Imagine there's no heaven . . ." Not something RESPECT is likely to encourage. We must confess to changing the words and singing "Imagine there's no leaders", but are not sure if our Leninist neighbours got the point.
The afternoon ended in the nearby "Sherlock Holmes" put where we went through the leaflets we'd been given and discussed with a former SWPer how the SWP worked internally as a top-down organisation. And we understood why there were hardly any people there trying to sell "Socialist Worker" (now headed "Vote Respect"). They had been ordered to be elsewhere, preparing to return George Galloway to Westminster.
Somewhat disappointedly our ex-SWP drinking companion, a GMB shop steward, said he was considering voting for the Lib-Dems. To tell the truth he hasn't been the only person who has told us this. It seems that ex-street fighting man Tariq Ali's call to "vote Lib Dem without illusions" is finding some echo, but of course a Lib-Dem government would be no more able to make capitalism work in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers than have Labour and Tories ones and would end up, like them, managing capitalism in the only way it can be: as a profit system in the interests of the profit-takers (for the record, the last Liberal government, before the first World War, was the last government to shoot down striking workers. See "Remember Tonypandy" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/centenary/tonypandy(1910).pdf).
A vote for the Lib-Dems is just as much a vote to hand over political power to the capitalist class and keep capitalism (and its problems) going, and so should be out of the question for anyone who wants to see established a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production so that things can be turned out and services run just to satisfy people's needs and not for profit. OK, there's only one candidate in the general election standing for this. But, as our leaflet said, if you don't live in Vauxhall you can show you want socialism by writing the word "SOCIALISM" across your ballot paper. That's a far better gesture than voting Lib-Dem in a bid to give Tony Blair a bloody nose.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Mayday greetings!
Supoer saturday went well, fifteen comrades turned up and helped out, helping us reach out across teh constituency.
Today me and Danny went down to Brixton - the very bottom of the constituency and one of its most lively social centres - to do a bit of manic street preeching, and for photo opportunities for the party archive - got what I hope will be some nice ones of Danny in front of Lambeth Town Hall.
Sadly, people were too busy getting from A to B to stop and listen, but at least we tried.
Otehr comrades have gone to see a Workers Revolutionary Party march, and then off to the official TUC march at Trafalgar square.
Just remember, 364 days of the year are the capitalist's days, tyoday is our day.
Speaking of days, Danny made an appearance on Raiders Broadcast internet radio last weeek, and is due on again on wednesday coming...
This week, we go into wind down, it is almost all over, just a couple of days canvassing, and then a possible bunfight on Thursday before the count, to say thankyou to everyone...
Today me and Danny went down to Brixton - the very bottom of the constituency and one of its most lively social centres - to do a bit of manic street preeching, and for photo opportunities for the party archive - got what I hope will be some nice ones of Danny in front of Lambeth Town Hall.
Sadly, people were too busy getting from A to B to stop and listen, but at least we tried.
Otehr comrades have gone to see a Workers Revolutionary Party march, and then off to the official TUC march at Trafalgar square.
Just remember, 364 days of the year are the capitalist's days, tyoday is our day.
Speaking of days, Danny made an appearance on Raiders Broadcast internet radio last weeek, and is due on again on wednesday coming...
This week, we go into wind down, it is almost all over, just a couple of days canvassing, and then a possible bunfight on Thursday before the count, to say thankyou to everyone...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)