BNP thrashed in Becontree
The nazi British National Party thought it could benefit from stirring up racism and Islamophobia after the London bombings with a disgusting official election leaflet showing a picture of the wrecked bus, and an illegal hate sticker that used the local council's logo. The voters of Becontree saw through them and voted overwhelmingly against the BNP.
From day one of the campaign the BNP struggled to get more than a handful of activists out canvassing. From the very first leaflet it was clear the fascists were looking for serious confrontation. Last Saturday a gang of BNP canvassers threatened councillor Jeff Porter and his wife with violence. This must have been the most stupid thing the BNP could have done. Jeff had appeared all over the national and international press as the heroic driver of one of the tube trains involved in the terror bombings in London. Despite his cab being damaged, he led all his passengers to safety.
On election day the BNP made up for its small numbers by its activists' aggressive behaviour and illegal distribution of leaflets within the precincts of polling stations.
Frustrated by yet another defeat in Barking and Dagenham, one female BNP member punched Councillor Val Rush, the Labour election agent and a grandmother, viciously in the breast. Fortunately the assault was witnessed by several people and captured on CCTV. Charges are expected to follow.
Searchlight and the London Together groups were pleased at the widespread support from the trade unions for a genuine community based campaign.
Barking and Dagenham council, Becontree ward by-election 14 July 2005
Results
CandidatePartyVotes%
Alok AgrawalLabour1,17159.8John LuisisBNP37819.3Anthony ChytryConservative28314.5John BoltonUKIP1256.4
Turnout 25.9%
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
oh
Err only 1 in 4 people voted !! democracy is not working
very well then. I wonder why this might be ....
Democracy not working
Democracy under capitilism does not work because it's not real democracy. It's a democracy of the rich, the parties of capitalism only can be ellect to put foward pollicies for the rich and big bussinies. The alternative is socialism, and the can only be acheved by a revolution by working class struggle
I Support Your Sentiment - BUT
I support your sentiment that under capitalism everything is rigged in favour of the capitalists, and in large part that is true. Obviously, I agree with your conclusion that socialism is the answer, but using the tried and tested method of Karl Marx - that is to honestly analsyse the situation in which you find yourself in order to understand where you are, what's going on, and what you need to do - it is impossible to agree with some of your other observations.
You say democracy under capitalism is not real democracy. In what way is it not real democracy? Its not real because the rich have lots of money to influence ideas, the media etc. Yet despite that workers have on many occasions voted in ways which are contrary to the interests of the rich. Its not likely that the rich wanted people to vote for Attlee in 1945, but they did in vast numbers. And that government carried out most of its programme. TRue the programme was not as radical as is often portrayed, and many things such as the nationalisation of staple industries such as coal, steel and transport were vital for the regeneration of British capitalism given the huge underinvestment in htose industries.
But there were other reforms introduced by that government such as the NHS from which workers have benefitted in a very real way for the last 60 years. At the beginning of the last century even the Liberals put forward policies, under pressure from the Trade Unions which were hardly in the interests of the rich, for example, legislation overturning anti Trade Union legislation, and the introduction of pensions.
Democracy under capitalism is definitely flawed, but it is better than no democracy at all. It is a democracy that has allowed the development of a mass workers party, and provided a channel by which the working class can simply by virtue of its own size and strength influence the policies of governments - even government's dominated by the parties of the rich. For hundreds of years workers and peasants fought for that democracy and we should not dismiss it out of hand. Instead socialists should seek to strengthen it, to make it a more real democracy, and should use it to demand yet more policies which benefit and strengthen the position of labour as against capital. Only on that basis can the working class as a whole begin to feel its strength, understand its role as the future of society, and begin to see that the way things are now is not the way things have to be.
But at the same time, we should bear in mind marx's warning that ultimately when this process develops to the stage where what is being proposed is no longer simply an improvement of the workers position, but the replacement of rule by the rich by rule by the workers, that the rich will try to hold on to their privileges by whatever means, democratic or otherwise. It will be necessary as Marx put it, to put down a slaveholder's revolt.
But to deny in the meantime that any improvement in the workers condition is possible, that only socialist revolution is the answer is to deny what is patently obvious to most workers, is to demobilise the labour movement for the very real, very necessary poltical struggle here and now.
Arthur Bough
Democracy not working
Of course I agree that the democrcy we have is better than no democrcy at all, I was just making A quick comment in the earley hours of the morning. All the reforms of the last centrevy were gained by the working class throuth stuggle at the time of an upswing in the world econamy when capitalist was progressive. The 1945 nationalismwere nesseryto save vital services for the good of the ruling class. An healf reforms were caryed under presher of the working class looking for a better post war socienty, and ruling class had give a lot of crums, which suited the boses at the time too. The gold war and unpressented post war boom give a huge opertunity for the worker to make gains. But the working class been in defeet since the mid 1970s, due to the relative delcline of british capitalism. During wich big attaks have taken place ie privatisations miner's ect. The ruling class has been taking back the worker gains aide by the trade union beauracrcy. I can be posible to fight bag, but this is very difficult with the u=nion beacrcy alliad with boses. Orkers neet go above the union beacracy such as in Gatecormay, witch is being sold out. Reform are very difficle I time of decline, only the gains will be safe after the end of capitalism
Difficult but Necessary
I agree that some of the actions of the Attlee government happened to coincide with the interests of the ruling class, as I said about the nationalisations, and even the NHS to some extent served the needs of the ruling class by creating a healthier workforce at a lower cost than was the case with private medicine - which is why their are calls for a National Health Service in the US now.
But simply seeing these actions in the light of how they could be seen to benefit capitalism does not capture the motivation of those that sought to bring about these changes, and, however, inadequate thier perspective of socialism and how to achieve it, by and large the people in the Labour Movement, including the Labour leaders of the time, introduced these changes not because of a concern to prop up capitalism, not as part of some clever conspiracy, but out of a concern to improve the conditions of ordinary workers in a meaningful way. And even though some of these changes in reality benefitted capitalism it is important to remember that at the time they met with resistance not support from the capitalist class. That resistance was inneffective because of the strength of the working class at that time, and that in itself is a lesson about how effective reforms won through political struggle can be when backed by the active support and mobilisation of the working class as a whole.
I agree that many of the improvements of the working class in developed countries sicne the second world war have been achieved at a time of a booming capitalism, which has made it easier for the capitalists to make concessions, and also the development of consumer driven capitalism of itself sets up a certain logic within which workers living standards have to be kept up in order to fuel their spending, in order to maintain the profits of the consumer goods industries which now dominate the capitalist economy. It is true that faced with icnreasing competition from low wage producers in Asia and Eastern Europe, together with the defeats inflicted on the working class (though these defeats were really only decisive in Britain and the US), along with the defeat of Stalinism which gives western capitalism a freer reign in its worldwide operations capital will increasingly seek to claw back some of those concessions, and is already doing so - I have posted elsewhere about the cuts in healthcare benefits for workers in the US at GM, Ford and now Chrysler are seeking similar cuts from their workforce. However, workers are not impotent in such situations - the alternative is not between on the one hand defeat and further reductions in pay and conditions, and on the other hand socialist revolution.
During the 1930's capitalism suffered a more severe crisis than it is in now (though not necessarily more severe than what may happen in the next few years) yet faced with growing radicalisation of the workers movement in the US, the growth of the US Stalinists and fearful of revolution (remember this was only a dozen or so years after the Russian Revolution) American capital introduced the New Deal, provided work schemes to hire the unemployed, set minimum wage rates, established unemployment benefits etc.
If the Russian revolution achieved anything positive it is that it put the fear of God into the capitalist class. It showed them they can be beaten, and workers can take control. Like the revolutions of the capitalists themselves against feudalism its main benefit was not what it achieved of itself, but the limits it set on what the old ruling class felt they could get away with. The collapse of the Soviet Union does not take away anything of that fear for the capitalists. They know now that if pushed too far the workers response may be swift and decisive. BY and large capitalism rests on very shaky ground. It depends on the consent of the workers who accept its limitations provided that for the majority of them it brings about a reasonable and usually rising standard of living. Take that away and the whole basis of that consent disappears.
The job of socialists is to explain to workers just how strong they really are, to use that strength to increase the politcal strength and social position of the workers as against capital. Unless the working class, educated and led by socialists and its more class conscious elements, can develop that understanding, enhance its strength and win those reforms hopes for socialist revolution will remain a pipe dream.
Arthur Bough
I agree
I agree with that. Ps sorry about the spelling! Creating contitions were the working class know thier strenth is difficult, Mainly due to the small forces of Trotskyism.
A Good Win For Labour - BUT
This was a good win for Labour even allowing for a low turnout - in fact with a higher turnout Labour's share would probably have been even bigger, but the BNP's share of the vote at nearly 20% beating the Tories and UKIP is way too high. If Britain had a proprtional representation system of elections (which all consistent democrats should support) 20% would give the BNP over 100 MP's.
This is at a time when Britain has been enjoying a fairly lengthy period of relative economic prosperity and low unemployment. If as many economic forecasters predict that period is coming to an end then the easy solutions provided by the BNP will undoubtedly appeal to many in the absence of a clear, strong well organised independent working class answer to the problems of capitalism. Indeed, given the current policies of New Labour the response of the workers party is likely to be to move further to the right on issues such as immigration, which will give even greater cover for the BNP just as the adoption of more nationalistic policies by the main German Parties in the 1930's simply gave cover for the Nazis.
The kind of community based campaign that was waged in Becontree is the most effective in defeating the BNP in these kinds of election, but the Labour Movement needs to begin to drain the swamp of ideas that provide the basis for the BNP's racist and fascist ideas, and needs to do it fast. The Trade Unions need to ensure that their adopted policies against racism are put into practice in all spheres, and they need to challenge the racist immigration policies of the Government. But equally important they need to begin the ideological and political battle to explain that the coming severe economic crisis is a crisis of capitalism, not a crisis caused by foreigners - neither foreigners producing cheaper goods in other countries, or foreigners coming to Britain to escape tyrannical regimes, or to do jobs in Britain. At the present time the ability to do that is woefully lacking. There is some prospect that the current crop of union leaders will respond to such needs, but we should not rely on our leaders, we cannot expect them to do things for which there is no mass support - no sensible shop steward for example would threaten management with a strike if they knew none of their members would respond - and the best way of ensuring that the leaders do respond is by building a strong movement from below.
Arthur Bough
BNP/LOW UNEMPLOYMENT
Actualy there is much higher unemployment than the Govenment states. They way the figares are counted has been changed many times. There are more than 2,000,000 on the Long term Disablity for axemple. And many people working part-time or do low payed jobs or under employed. There has a masive cut in sociule services and housing provesion, and we have Labour govenment following thaterite pollices. The BND and NF has long had a pressence on the massive Becontree Estate. Becontree Estate has had lots of youth looking for alternatives and if they were not found by the left they found the right. There very few Black or Asain ppeople in Barking or Dagenham in the 1970s. During the Wilson Government the NF grew on Becontree Astate. During the early 80s they had oppisition from Millatant. Millatant confronted them on paper sales a number of time at Becontree Station. During 1980s The black and asian poplation incressed as some people move to posher areas. The Millatant collaped during the late Eightes. During the 90s the SWP had a branch in Barking but were only interested in Studant work. The socialt Allince never stood a candidate in Barking when the BNP was stood with the Labour candidate Being not much futher left. Outrages. If the Left doed not organise in these places then workers may look towards the BNP.
Voters
Actually i think youll find that in Britain people are not going to swing to the far left, people here are far more conservative and would go right. And since the BNP now has a more respectable face than it did it is becoming more of an option for people to vote for, especially the middle classes.
http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/april/ak000015.html