Victory!
Lewisham By-election 4 December 2003
News
and analysis of the May 2003 Council Election results 2003
Our manifesto for the May 2003 Elections:
Standing For The Millions, Not The Millionaires
Vote Socialist Alternative
THE SOCIALIST Party is standing candidates in
the local elections in England and for the Welsh assembly on 1 May.
We aim to provide a socialist alternative to the pro-big business,
pro-war policies of New Labour and the main capitalist parties.
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party national campaigns organiser, outlines
the programme that we are campaigning on.
End privatisation
In New Labour's Britain privatisation rules. If
your train doesn't arrive, if you're denied a hospital bed, if your
education services are cut, if your libraries are closed then
chances are it's because big business has decided it can't make
enough money.
Now New Labour are stepping up their
privatisation plans with the introduction of 'foundation hospitals'.
Privatisation means massive risk-free profits for the fat cats and
two-tier inadequate public services for us. The Railtrack fiasco
shows that privatisation doesn't work.
The government claim that privatisation can
offer good public services. This is rubbish. Private companies exist
to make a profit. They will only invest if they think they can make
money. When they invest in our public services, their profits are
coming from the taxes we've paid. That means money is being
transferred directly from our services into the fat cats' pockets.
For example, the privately financed hospital in
North Durham cost £22 million more than building an identical new
hospital in the public sector, yet New Labour opted for the private
option!
We say:
-
End privatisation.
-
No privatisation of the Post Office, the
NHS, education or any other public services.
-
End the role of the private parasites
-
Renationalise all the privatised
utilities under the democratic control of working-class people -
the people who use and work in these services.
Council Tax - crippling working-class
families
Year in, year out council tax bills increase.
But while we struggle and scrape around to pay the council tax the
services we receive for it are ever more decrepit or non-existent.
The council tax is a highly unfair way of organising local taxation.
It favours the rich and penalises working class people.
The highest level of council tax (paid by
someone living in a mansion) is only three times the lowest level of
council tax (paid for example by someone living in a one-bedroom
council flat). So if someone in a one bedroom flat is paying £500,
someone living in a mansion will only be paying £1,500.
The result is that in the course of a normal
25-year mortgage someone paying the highest band of council tax will
pay over between 16% and 32% of the value of their home in council
tax.
By contrast, someone in the lower bands will pay
between 46% and 60% of the value of their home.
In addition, the council tax is unfair because
it is based on property values which do not always accurately
reflect the wealth of individuals.
We campaign for the council tax to be replaced
by a progressive local income tax which, instead of taxing poorer
households more heavily than the rich as the council tax does, would
tax the rich most heavily.
Anyone earning under £10,000 a year would not
have to pay any local income tax.
Childcare
There are 6,000 nurseries in Britain. Only 240
of them are run on a 'not for profit' basis. On average, the cost of
pre-school childcare for two children is £6,000 a year - more than
the average family spends on housing.
In Britain, childcare is worse regulated, harder
to obtain, and more expensive than in any other country in the
European Union. Lack of decent childcare means that many parents, in
particular women, do not have the choice of going out to work.
Others are forced to rely on unqualified child carers.
A socialist council would build and directly
fund free, publicly owned nurseries, with fully qualified decently
paid staff.
Housing Crisis
Councils are systematically privatising council
housing across the country. The result is an ever more intense
housing crisis. Millions of people are being forced to live in
substandard, overcrowded private rented housing.
Once transferred out of council control, tenants
lose their secured tenancy agreements for less protected 'assured'
tenancies. On average rents increase immediately by £10 a week.
There is a desperate need for a large increase
in the amount of affordable, pleasant, good quality social housing
available. Yet, New Labour has not reversed Tory policy. Instead it
has stepped up the council house sell-offs.
Where local people have voted against New
Labour's sell-off schemes the reaction of local councils has been to
try and ignore local democracy and come up with another way of
privatising our homes. Public spending on housing has fallen
dramatically. From 1999 - 2001 only 400 council houses were built in
the whole of Britain!
The previous Tory government did all they could
to prevent councils building new homes. They made it illegal for
councils to spend the £6.5 billion that had been received from the
sale of council houses on building new council housing. New Labour
has only partially reversed this policy - allowing 25% of the £6.5
billion to be spent. Even this amount would be enough to create at
least 150,000 new or refurbished homes on a national basis. Yet,
that would only be a fraction of what is needed and possible. After
all in the 1930s half a million public homes were built every year.
To fully solve the housing crisis it would be necessary to do the
same again and more.
We campaign against the sell-off of council
housing.
A Socialist council would launch a programme of
mass council house building alongside a programme refurbishing
existing stock.
If it was necessary to spend more than the 25%
of funds that the government has released, we would be prepared to
defy New Labour and spend more in order to provide good quality,
affordable, democratically controlled public housing.
Schools
Tony Blair claimed education was his top
priority but Labour's polices are failing our children. Years of
underfunding and mounting pressure on teachers has led to a
widespread shortage of teachers, and overcrowded, under-resourced
classrooms.
Now Blair has announced the end of comprehensive
education and the wholesale re-introduction of selective schools. He
is inviting big business, companies like McDonald, Shell and
Schweppes, to make profits from our schools.
If New Labour's plans are fully realised, tens
of thousands of working-class young people are going to be condemned
to second-class sink schools that 'teach' students how to work in a
burger bar or a petrol station.
Yet, to provide decent education for all is
achievable. To reduce class sizes for all schools to the level they
were ten years ago would take around 27,000 extra teachers. This,
combined with the cost of repairing our crumbling school buildings,
would cost around £5 billion a year.
This could be paid for just by partially
reversing the changes in what big companies pay in National
Insurance that the Tories introduced while they were in office.
A socialist council would lead a campaign,
alongside teachers, parents and school students, for an immediate
significant increase in school funding and for all schools to become
genuine comprehensives under democratic local control.
The money's there - for war but not for
decent wages
New Labour have already pledged £3 billion for
the war on Iraq, and the final bill will be far higher. No doubt
Blair will pay up for the costs of killing innocent Iraqis, but it
is a very different story when it comes to providing decent services
and wages.
To meet the firefighters' full claim would cost
£400 million, yet Brown declared that 'no government on earth'
could agree to that. The £3 billion New Labour is handing to Bush
would, for example, if used in the NHS provide in one year over
150,000 extra staff nurses or provide five years' wages for 25,000
new teachers.
But New Labour's priority will never be decent
services. They are a capitalist government whose priority is
protecting the interests of big business men and women like Lord
Sainsbury - why else has he given them £8.5 million since 1997?
The only way working class people can improve
our living standards under this government is by fighting for them -
as the firefighters have demonstrated.
This raises the need for a new party - a party
that would bring together trade unionists, community anti-cuts
campaigners, anti-capitalists and anti-war activists to provide a
mass political alternative to New Labour - a party that would
represent the interests of working class people.
The electoral successes of the Socialist Party
give a glimpse, at a local level, of what such a party could
achieve.
-
End low pay.
-
For a minimum wage of £8 an hour. No
exemptions.
-
No more blood for oil. Get the troops out.
-
For a new mass workers' party
For socialist change
Under capitalism we have to battle constantly
for every single improvement in our lives; as soon as we relax the
bosses try and take every concession back.
As far as they are concerned any improvement in
our living standards means less profits for them. Real equality will
only ever be achieved on the basis of a fundamental change in
society.
The Socialist Party is fighting for socialist
change. We don't want the kind of regimes that existed in the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe which, while they were based on a planned
economy, were completely undemocratic.
Socialism can only work with the fullest
democracy.
We want real socialism - a democratic society
and economy run to meet the needs of all instead of the profits of a
few.
Based on co-operation and equality, socialism
would create the possibility of building a society free from
poverty, exploitation and war.
Unexpected Praise For Councillors
THE THINK-tank IPPR conducted research on
peoples' attitudes to local democracy. They interviewed people in
three Coventry areas one of which, Hillfields, is part of the St
Michaels ward where the Socialist Party has three councillors. IPPR
did not talk to our councillors or to other representatives of the
Socialist Party. They are generally considered to be sympathetic to
New Labour. Extracts from the report are printed below (our
emphasis):
..."Very few people in the areas studied
could even name their councillors, let alone express trust in
them. The one exception was again in Hillfields where several
residents spoke in glowing terms about their representatives. Here
the difference appeared to be, once again, a more empathic
understanding; the candidates referred to not only live in the
area but make many house visits to residents and are well-recognised
local figures."
..."As stated in the introduction,
Hillfields residents showed a surprising degree of trust in their
political representatives. People we questioned in the other two
areas studied were far more cynical about the value of their
political representatives, and none of the residents in the
Earlsdon focus groups could even name their councillors.
Before this sounds as if Coventry councillors
are particularly ineffective, it should be pointed out that such
negative views are actually very common. Local democracy itself is
often portrayed as suffering a crisis of legitimacy with electoral
turnout at local elections recently very low. What is remarkable
then is not the extent of residents' disaffection with their
councillors in Earlsdon or Canley, but rather the levels of
approval and trust displayed by several of the Hillfields
respondents."
..."What appeared to make a difference in
Hillfields, we were told was a combination of two factors.
The first and most important was that
councillors such as Dave Nellist and Karen McKay were seen as
open, approachable and accessible. People commented that they
would take or return your call at almost any time of the day, that
they would listen to residents' concerns and act on them and that
they went out of their way to make themselves known even to new
residents.
The second factor which people referred to was
the commitment these councillors showed towards the area. Again,
this is not to say that councillors in other areas are not so
committed, but rather to note that residents' perceptions in the
three areas differ. One reason we were given for this was the
party background of the councillors concerned."
Coventry Socialist Party councillor
Making A Difference
THE SOCIALIST Party has four elected
councillors. One of these, Karen McKay in Coventry, who is standing
for re-election on 1 May, spoke to the socialist about what it means
to be a Socialist Party councillor.
Why did you become a socialist?
It's in the blood, I think! A lot of my family
were active in the trade unions - socialist ideas and politics were
often discussed.
Inequality and poverty in my own experience and
across the world has always made me angry. When I understood that
capitalism creates poverty and ever increasing inequality, then I
saw the need to change the whole system.
I became a socialist when I joined the Socialist
Party. I was impressed by the way our party led the anti-poll tax
campaign and by the way it linked socialist ideas to different day
to day struggles to improve the living conditions of working class
people.
The Socialist Party believes we can take control
of our world for the better - by putting people before profits. This
attitude - rather than the powerless 'nothing will ever change'
cynicism of many people - is what I like about socialism. We know
what we are against, but also what we are for - and we're out to try
to get it.
You are one of three Socialist Party councillors
in Coventry City Council, which is controlled by New Labour. Are you
able to make a difference?
In the council meetings we are mainly a voice of
opposition to the coalition of Labour and Tory councillors who vote
the same way on all major policy. We are the only ones who
consistently oppose their privatisation and cuts in services. We've
opposed the sell-off of the council housing, Private Finance deals
for our hospital and schools, school closures, tuition fees and
attacks on the pay and conditions of council workers.
We make a difference, not because of the council
meetings, but because of the work of the Socialist Party. Being on
the council adds another dimension. Having council positions helps
us to support workers who are fighting back. We put motions and
questions to every council meeting - such as in support of the
firefighters in their battle with the government.
We also work in the community alongside local
people to help fight for more resources. We've even won praise from
the Labour-friendly think-tank IPPR for our local work.
The red 'Socialist Group' sign on our office
door says you can stand for socialist ideas and be elected. The
three positions gives our party a credibility and a 'foot in the
door' when engaging with people across the city.
How have you campaigned against the war?
We put a motion to council in November in
opposition to any future war in Iraq. The Labour councillor active
in the anti-war campaign moved their amendment, which was passed -
to support a war if a UN resolution was 'achieved' (my word not
theirs).
We have not held back from bringing politics
into the anti-war movement. While we welcome the diversity of the
anti-war movement, socialists need to explain why we believe only a
new socialist world can bring peace and security.
We called for a council debate before the war
started. It was granted - but for after the bombing began. Our
motion was to oppose the war. Some councillors said the meeting was
a waste of tax-payers money! Such 'concern' for the pennies while
the pounds pay for bombs. The Liberals and almost all of the New
Labour councillors supported the troops and de facto the war. The
Tories well....no prizes for guessing. Only one of the previously
'anti-war' Labour councillors supported our motion.
Most of our anti-war campaigning has not been in
the council chamber. With the local party we have campaigned on
stalls, helped set up a local Stop the War branch, and played a
leading role in local demonstrations and in organising for protests
on Day X, the day war started.
How do you see the Socialist Party in Coventry
developing in the future?
I'm confident we'll keep on recruiting and
getting stronger. This will only happen if we all put the work in.
We have had some excellent people join us recently - particularly
young people. We are putting down deeper roots across the city. We
have members in leading positions in a number of trade unions.
I think that the Socialist Party will continue
to gain in strength and that in the future we will play a key role
in forging a new wider socialist movement that draws in all of the
workers and communities fighting privatisation and cuts and will be
able to challenge New Labour's control of the council.
We are standing candidates in
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Stockton-on-Tees,
Sheffield, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Pontefract, Leeds, Barnsley,
Merseyside, Worcester, Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester, Stevenage,
Southampton, Swindon and Bristol.
We are also standing two candidates for the
Welsh Assembly - Dave Bartlett for Cardiff South and Penarth and Rob
Williams for Aberafan.
If you would like more information about our
campaigns contact Hannah Sell on 020 8988 8767.
