Right to Vote?

No doubt one or other of us Stroppybloggers will offer a comprehensive analysis of the General Election results pretty soon. But in the meantime, I feel the need to comment about people being unable to vote.

Frankly, I'm astonished that this has not provoked more outrage and more media coverage than it has. To my knowledge, it is unprecedented that thousands of people have been denied the right to vote despite turning up to the polling station on time. It is an affront to democracy, and promises that it won't happen again are just not good enough.

Some councils didn't even print enough ballot papers, others obviously did not have enough polling stations or sufficient capacity within the polling stations that they did have. Queues were, in some places, several hours long, so even people who turned up with plenty of time to spare were shut out.

Some may argue that it did not affect the result. That may be true, I'm not certain. But in any case, it is irrelevant. The working-class movement did not fight for the right to vote just to see people denied the right to exercise that vote.

Election night

Pizza+Red Bull+red wine +laptop +TV coverage = election night sorted at StroppOsler towers .

Tomorrow , if the Tories win i'm staying in bed for the next five years ...

Tactical voting ?

Below is a post written by Peter Tatchell for his website , also on facebook.

I have cross posted it here to kickstart a debate about PR, hung parliaments and tactical voting .

Another post you might want to check out on PR is by Dave , over here.

Lib Dems and Greens: Vote tactically

Peter Tatchell of the Green Party sets out the case for tactical voting by Lib Dems and Greens, to advance democracy and electoral reform



Progressive voters who do not normally support the Liberal Democrats have to admit that the sudden surge in their support has changed the possible election outcome. It is breaking the two-party duopoly that has strangled British politics since 1945 and lumbered us with parliaments that do not represent the full spectrum of voter opinion and with governments that are supported by only a minority of the public.

This election is our best chance in 100 years to get a government that will legislate for a fair voting system that will lead to the election of a representative parliament and a government with majority public support.

This change won’t happen if Labour or the Tories win. To secure change, we need a different result from past elections – a balanced parliament with more MPs committed to democracy and electoral reform.

This momentous, historic electoral opportunity for change has led me to qualify my call for people to vote Green. For the sake of the bigger prize of real democracy and fair votes, I have urged people to vote tactically for the Liberal Democrats in seats where the Greens are not standing, and in some other selected seats.

I urge the Lib Dems to show equal generosity and reciprocity by supporting the Greens in our key seats, such as Brighton Pavilion, Norwich South, Lewisham Deptford, Cambridge, Oxford East and elsewhere.

The Lib Dems have been very happy to accept Green support but they have not yet shown similar support for the Greens. This reciprocity is necessary in order to defeat the main opponents of democratic reform, Labour and the Conservatives.

I reiterate my appeal now:

We have got to end the corrupt voting system, whereby successive Tory and Labour governments have won a majority of seats based on a minority of votes.

In some constituencies, people should consider a tactical vote for the Lib Dems. In other seats, the Lib Dems should vote tactically for the Greens. This way, both parties benefit, as do all people who want progressive, democratic change.

Where are the Lib Dems who are calling for green and gold electoral cooperation in order to advance a democratic and fair election result? I don’t see any.

I am disappointed by the way some Liberal Democrats have sought to undermine the Greens in our target seats by misrepresenting and exploiting my appeal for mutual solidarity. This is cynical, manipulative politics. It is short-sighted, sectarian and selfish.

This election could be a real change-maker, or at least open up the possibility of future change. All progressive change-makers – including the Greens and the Lib Dems – should be working together to ensure that the old two-party ‘dictatorship’ is banished for good.

Where does this leave me and the Greens?

I still support the Green Party. I believe it has the best policies for a fair, green and compassionate society - and world. But like most Greens, I put values and ideals before narrow party interest. The lack of a democratic and fair voting system is the single most important issue on 6 May. If we don't have a representative parliament and a government with majority support, we don't have democracy.

The Conservatives and Labour oppose a fair voting system. They reject the democratic principle that a government should have majority public support. They accept that parties with a minority of votes are entitled to win a majority of seats, and that small parties with sizable public support, like the Greens, should have no MPs at all.

The Lib Dems support electoral reform, which is good. But they have recently indicated that they might accept the Alternative Vote system, which is not true PR. AV favours larger parties (including the Lib Dems) and would perpetuate the present flaw whereby a party with a minority of first preference votes could end up with a majority of seats.

The Greens, in contrast, do not accept AV. We believe that each party’s proportion of MPs in parliament should correspond to the proportion of votes won by that party.

Nevertheless, in order to prise open the door to a fair voting system and a representative parliament, tactical voting for the Lib Dems may be justified in some constituencies. But not in constituencies where the Greens have a good local base and a strong showing – such as Brighton Pavilion, Norwich South, Lewisham Deptford, Cambridge, Oxford East and so on.

In particular, in seats where the Greens have strong and growing support, I urge everyone to vote for the Green candidate.

I urge the Lib Dems to behave honourably and to not misrepresent what I have said; to not exploit my generosity towards them in order to damage the Greens in our target constituencies.

To the Greens who have doubts about what I am advocating, I say this:

My support for tactical voting takes the long view. The Lib Dems are our best (albeit flawed) hope for some form of electoral reform and, as a result, to secure more MPs from left-of-centre parties like the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the SNP and the Greens.

If the Tories or Labour win the election, there is no hope at all.

Although Nick Clegg has recently alluded to compromising with AV, I am quietly confident that he and others will eventually have to accede to a more democratic form of PR (most of the Lib Dem grassroots will demand it, as will the wider public).

The long-term success of progressive politics depends on PR. This election is our best chance in a century to get it.

As to the accusations of disloyalty to my own party:

I have suggested tactical voting for Lib Dems in some constituencies not in order to undermine the Greens but to help secure their future success. In politics, sometimes we have to sacrifice short-term gain for greater gain in the long run. This election is, I think, one such occasion.

Should The Left Stand Against Nazi Nick?

Nick Griffin is standing as the BNP candidate in Barking & Dagenham, raising the prospect of Britain having its first fascist MP since Oswald Moseley. And part of the problem is that the Labour candidate, sitting MP Margaret Hodge, represents everything that is wrong with New Labour, everything that has driven many white working-class people into the arms of the BNP.

In an area with inadequate housing, run-down public services, unemployment and little hope, urging people to vote for more of the same maybe an uphill struggle. So should there be a left-of-Labour candidate in Barking & Dagenham?

Such a candidate may take votes away from the BNP which Hodge and Labour could not, as s/he could stand up for jobs and services, share voters' disgust at New Labour, but offer working-class answers as an alternative to racist pseudo-answers.

But on the other hand, what if a left-of-Labour candidate actually took more votes away from Labour and let Nazi Nick win?!

For me, there is no absolute principle one way or the other. It is neither beyond the pale to vote for Hodge nor to stand against her. In general, in this coming general election, I would advocate standing a socialist candidate against a New Labour candidate where it is credible to do so, and voting Labour elsewhere ie. in the big majority of constituencies.

In Barking & Dagenham, though, I don't think I, or anyone else without a fairly intimate knowledge of the area, is in a position to judge. Rather, I think we need an honest assessment based on reports from socialists active in the area about the reality on the ground.

Possibly, the vast majority of voters are so appalled by Hodge that no amount of knocking up for Labour will convince them to vote for her, but a credible, known-and-liked, socialist candidate could win their votes away from the BNP. If so, stand.

Or possibly, no such prospective candidate exists, and it is possible to convince enough people to bite the bullet and vote Labour, and hopefully convince at least some of them to get active in fighting for working-class interests. In which case, don't stand.

Both these options point to the conclusion that whether we would stand or vote against them or not, we want Labour to win the seat. Especially given that only Labour or the BNP will win it, this is quite right.

The end of the traditional election night ?

In light of this , I'm being lazy and re posting something I wrote a few years back:

I read with dismay that the traditional election night may come to an end. I love elections. Sometimes I have spent all election day at polling stations, getting people out to vote vote, running committee rooms. The day normally starts at 6 in the morning and ends at the count in the early hours of the next day, exhausted but still buzzing as the votes are counted and results declared. Everyone is tired from the day but keeping going on sheer adrenalin. I have been to counts where it ends in disappointment, elation or sometimes a fight even (not me, honest !). When not at a count I have spent the night either at the labour Club or in front of the TV until the early hours, and just at that point where tiredness kicks in there may be the excitement of a 'Portillo' moment ! I love the drama. I love working out what the results mean.

So I am saddened by news that the traditional count may be a thing of the past. I know its probably sensible , the need for checks on postal votes and officials very tired, but its not as much fun. Everyone goes off and comes back. Not the same buzz. But then I am an anorak and find elections fascinating . Hey its my idea of entertainment. Hmmm, perhaps shouldn't admit to that !

Thoughts ...

At the moment I'm very tired. Five hours sleep and then work. I wanted to stay under the duvet today and hope last night , the election of BNP MEPs , was just a very bad disturbed dream.

Today I haven't been hungover even after a night drinking Mint Bailey's and Jack Daniels, I just feel a bit numb and am trying to work out my thoughts. My feelings are clear, but need to engage the brain.

I'll post more later. Meantime, what should the left do ?

I'm not optimistic ...

European Elections

I'm afraid there won't be any live cat blogging on the results tonight, I'm at Dave's and no cats ...but he has bought mint Baileys and Jack Daniels (my other favourite JD after Jim D!). I have no idea why mint Baileys, but I think vast quantities of alcohol may be needed if we see the election of any BNP MEPs.

I may or may not post, depending if I am still able to master the keyboard .

Do please leave your thoughts here as the night progresses.

Its bloody scary the thought of the BNP making gains and the legitimacy and funding that will ensue if they have one or more MEPs.

The left , both inside and outside, should be getting its message across in what should be a sympathetic climate.

Outside the left should have a more united response and not stand against each other and certainly not play the nationalist card like No2EU.

Inside the Labour Party we should be pushing the need for a policy debate, challenge the focus on personalities and the bickering between Blairites and Brownites .

The issue is not about a new leader, a change , its about policy . Johnson, or any other New labour hack won't save the Party from electoral defeat . They won't unite the Party. We had all that with the Brown coronation...do we need ground hog day until we wake up and see Cameron in no 10?

I'm not even talking about anything really radical, but even a shift towards a Compassite Social Democracy would be a start. And yeah, we do also need a strong left of labour alliance to fight for more socialist policies, but id rather that done under a wussy reformist Labour Party than the Tories. Been there and done that and really don't want to go all back to the 80s thanks.

Vote...

to keep out the BNP.

Euro Election: An Opportunity Grabbed Then Wasted

If all the practicalities work out, there will be a list of trade union candidates on your ballot paper in June's European elections - but with the unfortunate title of 'No to EU - Yes to Democracy'. The first half of this statement should be great news, but it leads into a second half which is bad news.

With thousands of jobs being lost every week, workers facing pay cuts and public services being slashed and privatised - and Labour along with the parties that have always backed the bosses allowing this to happen - there is a crying need for an election campaign that stands for the interests and demands of workers. A socialist election campaign for jobs, services and democracy.

This need is even more pressing given the BNP's high chance of getting Euro seats and the big bucks that go with them. Mainstream anti-fascism's slogan of 'Vote for anyone but the BNP' is unconvincing and has limited effect when the 'anyone' is just a range of anti-working-class parties. To hope to mobilise working-class people to outvote the BNP, it seriously helps to have someone who deserves our vote.

So a national campaign fielding lists of trade-union candidates in every region is a great idea. And good on the RMT for looking to officially endorse such a thing.

But there is a problem, and a big one at that. In fact, there are three problems: the politics of the slogan, the narrowness of the platform and the way in which it has been put together.

As the recent oil refinery walkouts showed the need for the working class to fight back but to avoid nationalism, the slogan 'No to EU' encourages that nationalism just when it is important to challenge it. Our priority now has to be to promote and organise Europe-wide (and broader) workers' unity. We should offer an alternative vision of a workers' Europe rather than suggest that isolated British capitalism is somehow better than a European capitalists' club. We should indict capitalism - rather than simply 'the EU' - for the havoc its crisis is wreaking on working-class lives.

Having said that, 'No to EU' is RMT's policy, and I am very much in favour of unions fighting for their policies in the electoral arena. It would be wrong to say that unions should assert only those of their policies that I agree with!

But even if you agree with RMT's policy (as probably the majority of activists and members do), 'No to EU - Yes to democracy' is far too narrow a focus. Although there is some logic to a candidacy in the European Union's elections to focus on the politics of the European Union, there is no reason at all why it should do so exclusively. This is a reckless missing of a good opportunity to fight for a broad programme of working-class demands.

A socialist electoral challenge should not just be a bare political statement. It should be something through which current workers' struggles can express themselves in the electoral field. Current fights such as those against Post Office privatisation or the thousands of job losses in the railway industry will not find an expression in 'No to EU - Yes to Democracy'. On the other hand, workers involved in those struggles could well have used a broader jobs/services/democracy platform to express our grievances and give impetus to our fightback.

It is as though the union has picked up a powerful weapon then pointed it in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, most other unions either continue to wield a weapon that for several years has been pointing at themselves (the Labour Party), or refuse to wield a weapon at all.

RMT's support for 'No to EU - Yes to Democracy' has been agreed by the union's Executive, but not until after a letter from 'No to EU - Yes to Democracy' had circulated implying RMT's support! It was then presented to the union as a done deal, with no opportunity to debate the name or the platform. It came upon us with very little warning: it was not mentioned at the RMT-sponsored conference on working-class political representation in January, and when Bob Crow spoke at our Regional Council meeting at the end of January, he suggested that there might be 'People's Charter' candidates in the Euro elections (a much better, if imperfect, prospect). Many RMT activists are unhappy at having this imposed without debate, and even if there is no outcry, neither will there be a great deal of enthusiasm or active involvement in the election campaign.

The source of both the poor politics and the undemocratic practice is the same: the CPB / Morning Star. Fresh from helping Derek Simpson limp to re-election, the Star has now reverted to the obsession that has gripped it for decades: that All Bad Things Come From The EU. It is a dead-end that leads away from the internationalist socialism we need and which succours the nationalism that divides our movement.

Stalinism casts a long shadow.


By the way, there is already a blog called 'No2EU'. It links to the UK Independence Party and is written by someone called 'Bulldog'.

Stoke Newington Goes To The Polls: Nominations Please

Stroppyblog's favourite London neighbourhood - ooh, it has such a villagey feel - has been thrown into political turmoil as Stoke Newington Labour Councillor Jamie Carswell (he in the picture) has resigned.

More than a mere Councillor, Jamie was indeed the Deputy Mayor, responsible for such hideous and unpopular policies as 'Estates Plus', under which the Council plans to flog off patches of estates to housing associations at a fraction of their worth, allowing them to build new homes to squeeze in ever more people into already-crowded estates, covering up green spaces and blocking your view of the sky. Such policies have so impressed Tower Hamlets Homes - the Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) that runs housing in our neighbouring borough - that it has lured Jamie away from his £48k post in Hackney's Town Hall for one which we can only assume pays a little more.

So, Stokey residents will soon being voting in the consequent by-election, and Stroppyblog's readers are hereby invited to suggest candidates. Will Dave Osler volunteer himself for the Labour nomination? Will Paddy the Puritan stand, attracted by the prospect of creating more non-drinking zones in N16's streets? Or perhaps Mark Fischer, determined to fight off such reactionary moves and defend his right to lurch around Stokey High Street? Does Stroppybird spend enough time in Stokey to qualify as a resident and stand as a 'We hate Stokey' candidate? And will Clive write a really gripping TV series about the whole affair?

Over to you ...

Women campaigning in Glenrothes By-election

Women activists in the Scottish Socialist Party were out campaigning in Glenrothes for demands for women and to encourage women to use their vote.

Our candidate is a great activist - Morag Balfour, she has campaigned for many years against Trident and is a "militant" peace campaigner, she is also the Co-Chair of the SSP alongside Anthea Irwin.

Just thought comrades would like to see some activity, all three elections are on 6th November 2008.Robert Richard, SSP candidate in Forth ward, Edinburgh

Morag Balfour, SSP candidate, Glenrothes by-election, Fife

Daniel O'Donnell, SSP candidate, Bailieston, East Glasgow

And just to let you know we are also standing in Forth Ward in Edinburgh - Robert Richard and the SSP's very own Daniel O'Donnell is Bailieston Ward in East Glasgow.

For more information - check out the SSP website here

East Glasgow by-election report from SSP

Sorry can't post a picture - it'll no let me!

By-election appears to be going well had over 30 comrades out over the first weekend. Getting lamp posters up, leafleting and canvassing.

Here are some of the press coverage from this weekend.

Scotsman article this morning, Labour under attack from the left,
Frances Curran; here


Herald this morning, Frances attacking Labour; here


The Daily Record this morning, Frances attacking Labour; here


And this one is not from Viz but from the Daily Record. Unbelievable, I know. Came from a real press release!
Frances Curran was horrible to me at school says Solidarity candidate; here

Scotttish Socialist Paarty is to stand in Glasgow East by-election

Frances Curran is our candidate.

Frances grew up in the Barlanark Housing Scheme - she'll be a fantastic candidate and she has stood here before. Will report further news later on.

If anyone wants to make a donation send donations to SSP- Suite 308/310, 4th Floor, Central Chambers, 93 Hope Street, Glasgow, G2 6LD.

An Oasis In An Electoral Desert

Good news reaches us from the polling stations of Barrow-in-Furness (where, entirely co-incidentally, my uncle used to be the MP). Anti-Academy campaigners stood six candidates and won four seats, and ousted the Tory Leader of the Council. Of the two who did not get elected, one missed out by just one vote.

I wouldn't want to leap to any hasty conclusions, as I don't know anything about their broader politics. Maybe they will disappoint. But it does tell us something about fighting neo-liberal attacks at the municipal ballot box. Although some may be tempted to conclude that the lesson is to fight on single issues, I'd say that instead, the key issue is that successful left candidacies must come from genuine mobilisations of local working-class people.

Anyway, here is the campaign's website.

Hat tip: Patrick

Who's Sorry Now?

The Left List's explanation of the results of Thursday's elections strongly suggests that the SWP is stubbornly refusing to learn the lessons or even face reality. We can only hope that some of its more thoughtful members will notice that their emperors have neither clothes nor answers, and will call them to account and/or join with others in renewing and reorienting socialism.

The Left List's claim that voters punished New Labour for ten years of privatisation and warmongering is not exactly wrong, but certainly simplistic. Of course war and privatisation are two of the main issues that have pushed voters away from Labour, major symptoms of the New Labour project of pushing the working class out of politics. But voting Tory, BNP or not voting at all is not a show of left-wing rebellion but of reaction and confusion. If this is 'punishing' Labour, then it is like punishing your husband for his excessive drinking by running off with George Best. This needs a response based not on soundbites about 'punishing', but on the need to renew working-class representation in politics.

Some things in the article are plainly true, such as New Labour's failure to defend its core working class voters and Livingstone also brought this defeat on himself. But it goes on to explain that Livingstone did this by associating himself too closely with New Labour, by rejoining the Labour Party and having Blair- and Brownites, and members of other parties, on his team. Valid points, but the SWP's criticism of Livingstone is limited to who he links up with, not his politics. So there is no condemnation of East London Line privatisation, the creation of City Hall fat cats, siding with the police over issues such as the Stockwell shooting, or Ken's advice to bosses to sack sick workers. Sure, the Left List made some of these points during the campaign, but omitting them from its post-election analysis seems more than careless. There are other unsavoury aspects of Livingstone's politics, such as his welcoming of al-Qaradawi, that we could not expect the SWP to criticise because they agree with them.

And the Left List's explanation for its own dismal vote? It was too
recent an invention to make its full mark on the electoral process and
many people who voted for Respect did so in error, believing that it was
the old Respect. Why bother with a political explanation when a couple of technical ones will do, eh? Even if every single person who voted for Respect did so thinking it was voting for an SWP front rather than a Galloway front, they would still have got only 3ish% of the vote! And obviously, not every single person did. The fact that the Left List was a 'recent invention' is not simply an issue of 'brand recognition' but a product of the SWP's political zig-zaggery, dumping the Socialist Alliance, lashing up with Galloway, then rebranding itself following the entirely predictable split.

The Left List says: What is necessary now is not a left that runs the line 'Labour at any cost' but a left that stands by working class people and struggles alongside them. That's true enough. But over the last few years, the SWP itself has failed to stand by working-class people, and instead moved away from working-class politics in pursuit of mythical shortcuts based on religious and communal loyalties. If it were now turning back again, then good, but I see little evidence of it.

'The Galloway operation' merits a whole paragraph of criticism, something which would have earned anyone else a denunciation for sectarianism until quite recently. But again, it is devoid of political criticism, and just crunches a few numbers. Nor does it acknowledge any role that the SWP have played in creating the Frankenstein's monster that now upsets them so. There is no attempt to distance themselves from Galloway politically - after all, that would inevitably open the questions as to why they were in bed with him previously - but rather, the SWP leadership is just faintly sneering that it has taken Galloway's footsoldiers away.

And what next? There is a hint of backing away from elections - This will not necessarily be a primarily electoral struggle - but also an indication that candidacies will continue - there will still be an electoral dimension, and claims of a few good votes outside London.

The article claims that The Left List does have serious trade union support. You are having a laugh. The honest version of this statement would be "Lots of SWP members hold posts in trade unions, and a few of them are quite popular". Any notion of the Left List having 'serious trade union support' beyond that is delusion.

And finally ... We must now use this to assist in the rebuilding of an alternative to New Labour that will not be derailed by the surge in Tory and Nazi support at the ballot box. If this meant, "We will admit our gross mistakes and turn towards unity with other socialists in renewing the cause of working-class political representation", then that would be great. But hands up who thinks that it actually does.

An Appeal to Ken Livingstone and the Left List. Stop putting stuff through my door.

I have decided to vote Lindsey German 1 Ken Livingstone 2 for Mayor, Left List for the GLA. I have no enthusaism for doing so whatsover, and bitterly regret that the left and the labour movement did not get their act together to run a decent, socialist slate standing up for working-class demands. But, you know, I can't be indifferent between Livingstone and Johnson, the only two candidates who can win and between whom every vote counts; and the preference system allows me to vote for a no-hope candidate first and Livingstone second, thus registering in some weak, insipid way that I do actually thing privatisation is bad, striking Tube workers are not the devil incarnate, and it is not OK for the police to bully and kill innocent people. And I can't abstain on the GLA vote because that will help the BNP get elected (amongst other reasons).

Problem is: every time I get a leaflet through my door from either of my two preferred candidates, it makes my decision even harder to stick to.

Ken's card popped through the letterbox yesterday, pleading with me to Imagine Boris in charge of running London. Suddenly he's not so funny. Good point, but a candidate chasing after my vote should really do more than point out that the other geezer is a clown. Ken's card damns Boris for, amongst other things, voting against automatic five-year sentences for people caught illegally carrying guns. In the pamphlet of candidates' election addresses that the Post Office kindly put through my door, Ken boasts of increasing the numbers of London coppers, without so much as suggesting that they should be more accountable or behave a bit better. Strangely, none of his election material that I have yet seen says Vote for Ken - Privatising the East London Line was a stroke of genius.

The Left List's election material appears to have had the words 'socialism' and 'working-class' surgically removed - totally absent from the leaflet they put through my door yesterday. Although Lindsey does manage to mention in her election address that she is a socialist, her vision of the agency to change society is "a new movement of Londoners", rather than the, erm, working class. Need I really go into why this is both unprincipled and counter-productive? Indeed, wasn't it embarrassment at the S word and the W word that marked the start of Labour's swing to the right under Kinnock in the 1980s (not that it had been exactly 'left-wing' before then!)? The Left List's election material is really lukewarm and uninspiring, a list of worthy slogans about housing, transport etc and bland statements about London's wealth.

Independent working-class representation and principled socialism is more important - but, sadly, seems more remote - than ever.