Why as an English socialist I’m supporting Scottish independence

It may sound odd and not my right to have a view on this and I accept those who will say it’s nothing to do with me but... I couldn’t help commenting and giving my opinion on the huge debate that is nearing its conclusion and the day of reckoning arrives for the actual vote if Scotland is to stay as part of the UK or will it choose independence. I look at the question as a socialist through the eyes of whose interest will benefit from independence if any. Of course there is not socialism or anything near it on the ballot paper come Thursday but you are not voting on if you like the SNP or Alex sallmond either. I think there is a big argument to be made that Scotland does not control its own destiny and has little in the way of powers to control its own direction and economic policies they are mostly decided and voted on in London at Westminster. I am a strong believer in the right to self determination as a socialist I believe it is down to the Scottish people and them alone to decide how they run their society. Indeed it’s even excited me living down south the debate up in Scotland of how can we run society better what could we do differently and make things fairer. All this has ignited a burning desire for change in many who believe in a hope over fear campaign is what will win out come Thursday. The negative campaign of the official NO campaign and its scaremongering tactics has backfired hugely on them as only recently a poll showed for the first time the Yes campaign was slightly in the lead. Now I’m not saying that independence will or won’t happen simply stating why I would support independence if I had a vote. If anything it could spark thought down here in England to begin to think how we can change things for the better. "After Thursday, Britain will never be the same again," the Observer newspaper accurately declared four days before the Scottish referendum. The referendum is on a knife edge, but whichever side wins, Britain's ruling elite will have suffered a battering which will leave it permanently damaged. If the Yes campaign wins it will be an enormous blow to the power and prestige of British capitalism. But regardless of the outcome, the independence campaign demonstrates graphically the power of working class people - the majority - to win victories even when the whole of the establishment is straining every nerve to try and inflict a defeat on you. In the week before the referendum - from the moment it became clear that the Yes vote had a chance of winning - 'Project Fear' has become 'Project Terror'. An avalanche of threats from major banks and corporations has rained down on the people of Scotland, promising hell-fire and damnation if they vote for independence. Virtually the whole of the capitalist media and establishment have been united in their desperate attempts to prevent a Yes vote. At the same time, for millions of Scots the referendum has become a means to express their anger at austerity and the capitalist politicians. Growing numbers of workers in England and Wales have also begun to urge the Scots on to vote Yes. They hear Cameron saying it would "break his heart" and grasp what a blow it would be to the same capitalist politicians who are implementing savage austerity in England and Wales. Now I’m no nationalist and neither are my family who my dad’s mum’s brothers family who were always solid labour voters are now backing independence with the SNP. These sorts of changes you simply can’t ignore. The Scottish referendum answers decisively the myth that working class people and young people are 'apathetic' and not interested in politics. Wit the vote being granted to 16 year olds the young have been as much of this debate as anyone else and why not its their futures too which are being discussed. I don’t expect to wake up on Friday morning if Scotland has voted for independence for socialism to be declared it can only be one step towards that idea but to dish out a blow to the British state which has gone through wars invasions and all sorts of awful things in its history then I am all for that. To see David Cameron’s face if Scotland leaves the union on his watch will be a picture to behold. 97 % of people who are entitled to vote in Scotland have registered with the turnout on Thursday set to be in the 80s of % there is a groundswell of feeling of change is on its way. The hatred of the capitalist politicians has reached new highs in Scotland. The most recent YouGov polls show that Cameron's trust rating is minus 46% in Scotland. So hated are the Tories in Scotland (with only one MP) that the leader of the Scottish Tories publicly pleaded with Scottish voters to vote No - by promising that it is safe to do because the Tories won't win the general election! Cameron came close to do the same thing, saying that his government "would not be around for ever". Prime Minister David Cameron survives the fall-out from a defeat on the referendum. The loss of prestige for a British Imperialism – who once held one quarter of the globe – would be disastrous. From the US to Europe – and in particular in Catalonia – the outcome of a Yes majority would introduce a new period of instability and challenge to capitalist elite There has been huge anger, including among journalists and employees, at the BBC’s scandalous partisan role in acting as an uncritical mouthpiece for Project Fear. Any pretence at impartiality and balance has gone as the corporation has acted in the interests of British capitalism in its time of need. Both the Scotsman newspaper as well as the FT has formally come out for a No vote this week. Only one paper, the Sunday edition of the Herald, is backing yes, thus far. Even former ‘lefts’ like George Galloway have become advocates of Project Terror. Galloway, incredibly, claimed on the BBC’s Question Time that Britain had now “escaped from austerity”. He’s certainly not living on the same planet as working class people including in his own constituency of Bradford West, who face savage attacks on their wages and benefits by the Con-Dems – which Labour have promised to continue. The “economic Armageddon”, “flight of capital” and “corporate exodus” line of attack – as opposed to the pleas from the discredited Cameron and Miliband – has shown some signs of having an effect. There may have been some movement in the polls away from Yes in the last couple of days. The blackmail, intimidation and scaremongering can, if it goes unanswered, raise doubts in the minds of some who have been thinking about voting yes. Indeed, polls regularly show that most people think that an independent Scotland will be worse off economically. For example, the YouGov poll on Thursday reported that 48% thought that Scotland would be worse off compared to 37% who believed it would be better off under independence. When asked if they personally would be better or worse off, 42% said worse off and only 21% better off. This reflects the impact of Project Fear on the one hand, and the lack of belief that the SNP’s policy of continuing with pro-business policies, and the austerity that goes with it, can offer any way out for the working class. Only Scotland can decide the outcome on Thursday no matter what the media down south try and whip up I wish Scotland luck and solidarity and hope they make the right choice for themselves at the end of the day. I will be watching with interest from down south.

Unite, Grangemouth and what we can learn from the last week and a bit

So the Grangemouth Oil refinery is to remain open but at what cost to the workers and the labour movement as a whole? Operator Ineos had announced on Wednesday that the plant was to shut, with the loss of 800 jobs, after union members rejected a survival plan. But the decision was reversed after the union agreed to Ineos's conditions. Ineos confirmed it would reopen the plant and the neighbouring oil refinery "with immediate effect", ending a bitter dispute with the Unite union which began over the alleged mistreatment of a Unite official. The company said the move to reopen the plant followed a "dramatic U-turn" by Unite and its "belated recognition" that the company's survival plan was the only way to ensure Grangemouth's long-term future. Jim Ratcliffe, chairman of Ineos, said there had been a "significant change in attitude" from the unions Unite Scottish secretary Pat Rafferty said: "Relief will ring right round the Grangemouth community and across Scotland today. "Hundreds of jobs that would have been lost can now be saved and £300m will be invested into the plant." The main points of the Ineos announcement included: • Ineos will reopen the petrochemical plant and oil refinery at Grangemouth immediately • An undertaking by Ineos to invest £300m at the Grangemouth site on a gas terminal to handle shale gas brought in from America • Workers agreed to a three-year pay freeze • The union agreed not to stage strikes at the plant for three years until the new gas terminal is built • Changes will be made to current staff pension arrangements • Up to 2,000 contractors who were laid off after the complex was shut will be re-hired First Minister Alex Salmond described the announcement as a "tremendous fillip for the workforce and the whole Grangemouth community, following what could have been a potential disaster". He said it had been "a great team effort from all concerned", including the unions and workforce, the management and governments. This shows to me the absolute weakness of the labour movement at this time with Britain’s biggest trade union caving in days after it said it would stand and fight is an absolute disgrace in my opinion. The 1,800 Grangemouth workers have found that neither the Unite union leaders, who they pay for, nor Labour or SNP representatives they voted for, would stand with them, if they decided to mobilise a real fight against Ineos. In an amazing display of solidarity and determination, the majority of the Unite members had voted to strike and reject the company’s blackmail. But within hours of their vote on Wednesday, the message from all sides was that there was no alternative to accepting destruction of living standards and the pensions of any future workers. A media outcry held the workers responsible for the fate of the 10,000 related jobs in the local area. So yesterday, their union leaders simply caved in. Unite general secretary Len McCluskey left earlier negotiations up to local officials but hurried up from London to capitulate in person. Within hours he had unreservedly accepted the company’s terms, “warts and all”. Shocking but true. McCluskey has breathed fire and brimstone since the ConDems coalition took power, threatening strikes, and civil disobedience, even a general strike against austerity, the public sector wage freeze and pension curbs. When it came to the crunch, he had no fight. Hot air and nothing more. I was a socialist party member up until a month or so ago and the party backed Len McCluskey in the last Unite general secretary elections I didn’t agree with backing him and couldn’t bring myself to voting for him in the end. It now turns out that I made a wise decision to note vote for either Len or Hicks. Its looking a little embarrassing now for the SP who had backroom meetings with Red Len to agree to back him now it looks a shameful stitch up from the unite leadership. No doubt Len and unite have one eye on the 2015 general election where they will be backing Ed Miliband and Labour to the hilt so any embarrassment for Red Ed must be avoided it would seem. As for the potential of an independent Scotland being better for workers it is hard to say but for as long as capitalism exists there will not be a better deal for workers in the UK or in an independent Scotland. SNP claims that a capitalist Scotland would be in some way better for Scottish workers have been exploded. Ineos, like all Scotland's key industries from oil to whisky, is not "Scottish". They are run by freebooting global capitalist transnationals with no care for local conditions, except where they impact on profits. The adjacent oil refinery, whose waste product is processed at the threatened plant, is owned by Petroineos, a refining and trading joint venture between Ineos and the Chinese government-owned PetroChina. Its other refinery is at Lavera, near Marseilles. As the recession continues and fracking throws cheaper US coal and gas on to the world market, who knows what will happen to the offshore oil refining business. There is no such thing as security for workers, whatever the status of their country's governance. The Unite members were ready to fight and their union could have organised an occupation to prevent the dismemberment of the plant, but they did not and will not. Independence will not change that. The state will always behave in the interests of the state. Holding hope that someone else can fix things for us is only going to lead to half-measures and the disappointment. It is only by building up our ability to take action together at the heart of the problem that will give us any real measure control of our lives. The way in which the unions and the politicians have behaved is not the victory for common sense that is being billed; it is a stitch-up against all of us as a class. The people on the shop floor know their business better than any union bureaucrat, better than any politician, and better than any boss. We should learn the lessons from this fight and stand in solidarity with workers at Grangemouth and beyond, lending them support where we can and taking their lead on how to fight this struggle and to hell with anyone that stands in their way.

Not just a economic depression

As we inch further and further towards another recession a double dip some may call it or we could say a longer depression it has been found that people taking anti depressents is on the rise quite dramatically. But is this a surprise. With teh demand for more and more out of workers day by day to work longer and longer hours for less and less. If you have a family this is extra demand on you to bring back a good pay packet.

The number of anti-depressants being prescribed to people in Scotland is continuing to increase, according to the latest figures.

Statistics from the Scottish government suggest that more than one in 10 of the population are on the drugs.

In the last financial year a total of 4.6 million anti-depressants were prescribed in Scotland, up more than 350,000 on the previous year.

It is estimated 11.3% of Scots, aged over 15, take the drugs daily.

The rate of growth in the prescribing of anti-depressants increased from an annual growth of 7.6% in 2009/10 to 8.1% in 2010/11.

The continued rise in anti-depressant use comes despite a Scottish government pledge to reduce it.

The SNP had said they aimed to bring the yearly increase down to zero, and then by a further 10% each year.

The figures also showed a variation in the percentage of the population using anti-depressants across Scotland, with 8.3% of people living in Shetland taking the drugs compared with 12.9% in Greater Gl


Although this report states prescribed drug use in Scotland this is also the case right across the country during these tough times people will be driven to more desperate measures to gt by and make ends meet. It is a sign that workers are being worked too hard and are feeling the strain.

SO if we are facing a economic depression in the next few years lets not forget the human capacity to withstand this and the mental damage it can do to people and their families. This will have a big impact as people fear loosing their jobs and homes. This could be devastating for people. But lets not forget that behind this story is also a private drug company making a huge profit out of producing anti depressent drugs for people to take further exploiting people.

This is all very worrying and further signs of capitalism and its harsh realities.

Are the scotish election results a sign of waht is to come for labour ?

Last week in Scotland the SNP were voted back in under a new historic majority north of the border. For what has always been a safe labour haven the labour party has been shaken to its foundations by being utterly crushed at the scotish parliament elections. So big was the result Iain Grey the leader of the Scotish Labour party has already announced his resignation in the autumn. Labour were not expecting this and has shocked their members and activists across the land. But this for me and many others on the left raelise this is what can happen when you take your core working class vote for granted.

This is very key i think for the rest of the country and the opputunities this can create fora new workers party as and when it comes into exsistence which i feel will happen sooner rather than later now as a response to the huge savage cuts.

As landslides go the 2011 Holyrood election was huge. Scotland has been shaken to its political foundations as voters again voiced their contempt for the Tories, their coalition partners the Lib-Dems and New Labour. The Scotsman described Thursday’s result as a ‘victory of hitherto unthinkable proportions’ for the SNP.


In truth the extent of the victory surprised even the SNP. They emerged with 45% of the vote [their largest ever], 69 seats [out of 129] and the first overall majority in Holyrood’s history. At counts across the country SNP candidates arrived expecting third or fourth place and walked out hours later ‘as the newly elected MSP for the said constituency’. The front page of Saturdays Edinburgh Evening News said it all. It led with a photograph of the newly elected MSP for Edinburgh Southern emerging from a bookmakers with his £750 winnings after he put £50 on himself to win at 14/1 just a fortnight ago. That former Lib Dem seat was, according to all received wisdom, Labour’s for the taking.


It is impossible to underplay the scale of the SNP victory. Even the ‘certainties’ of the D’Hont PR system employed to distribute Holyrood seats were swept aside. So many people voted for the SNP on Thursday that after wining all the constituency seats in some regions they also got MSPs on the same regional list! Legends are made of this. The SNP’s message, albeit deceitful, that ‘the list vote elects the First Minister’ brought them huge dividends.


The SNP’s sophisticated, multi-million pound election campaign, with its navigational tools for activists and social networking operations completely outstripped the once powerful Labour machine. Pollsters YouGov report that 80,000 Labour voters across Scotland switched to the SNP in the final 36 hours in disgust at its increasingly negative campaign and incessant targeted mail shots. When they had constituency activists on the ground Labour knew when to leave people well alone!


Can it really only be a year since every Labour MP in Scotland increased their majority? This time the all-conquering Labour Party of Lowland Scotland fell to pieces like a Laurel and Hardy car. If definitive and final proof were needed that people vote one way in Westminster elections and another for Holyrood this is it.

In Labour’s Central belt ‘heartlands’ its seats toppled like ninepins. And comparing Thursday’s results with the notional results from 2007 [itself a bad night for Labour] does not sufficiently explain the scale of their collapse. A better comparison would be to look at how Labour’s five figure majorities from last year poured into the SNP corner.


Labour imagined the Lib Dem protest vote would go to them, so why didn’t it? The answer is that Labour like the Con-Dem Coalition also support public spending cuts and tuition fees. They offered no real alternative. Former Lib-Dem voters were also seduced by Salmond’s claims of managerial competency at Holyrood. These SNP’s achievements in wooing disenchanted Liberals should not be regarded lightly. There is little love lost between the two parties, but on this occasion the support the SNP won from the Lib-Dems was the difference between winning and winning an overall majority.


As it turned out even the so-called ‘rogue’ poll of April 21st ,which first suggested the SNP had an overall majority, underestimated their support. And let’s not forget that Labour started this election campaign with a 15% lead!

The fact is Salmond attracted votes not just from disaffected Lib Dems, but also Labour, Green, Tory and SSP supporters too.


EPHEMERAL OR EARTH SHATTERING

The central question is how much of this change is ephemeral, a one off, a freak result, and how much of it has broken the political mould?

Those who tentatively suggest the former must reckon with the 5-year term the SNP majority now has in this Parliament. That’s certainly not superficial. Neither is the scale of Labour’s collapse.

On the other hand those who suggest we are now in permanent new territory must ask how can the SNP keep seats like Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh West when they have virtually no activists there and little natural support as its political opponents wait to pounce? And what will be the consequences in next years Council elections after a year of public spending cuts


There are those of course who argue that the result on May 5th illustrates a certain ‘political promiscuity’ by voters who voted for Labour in huge numbers last year and opted for the SNP equally emphatically this time. This demonstrates, so it is argued, an inherent volatility in politics because there are no ideological differences between the 4 establishment parties. And this is certainly true if you examine Alex Salmond’s economic programme, his business plan, or international policy in regards to say Libya or Afghanistan. And the public spending cuts which he delayed until after this election sit in his in tray awaiting his scissors.



Above all it is the issue of the cuts which will now test Salmond’s popularity most. Popularity levels like his can only go one way. Ask Nick Clegg! And the SNP has very difficult choices now to make during continued economic stagnation. It faces making severe public spending cuts. And it has as a party no compunction in voting for them, unlike the SSP. It votes through cuts every day in Councils across Scotland and it will do so again at Holyrood. Of course Salmond will try valiantly to pin the blame on Cameron and Clegg. And rightly so, but in the end he will not fight the cuts, he will make them. That brings huge public opposition and with it huge opportunities for the left.


Salmond must make £3bn of cuts over 5 years and these will be severe and unpopular. A shrewd and cunning political operator he might be - look at the way he announced his five year Council tax freeze for example at the same time as he unceremoniously and largely unnoticed dumped the SNP’s commitment to an income based alternative- but he will make them nonetheless.

Neither will an SNP Government confront the employing classes or redistribute the great wealth of Scotland. Salmond may be a populist but he will defend the interests of big business in Scotland as mercilessly as anyone else.


The message from the people of Scotland to Alex Salmond however remains unequivocal - these cuts are utterly unnecessary and indefensible and he must fight them! The economic crisis wasn’t caused by the greed and recklessness of working people and the poor after all.


‘The SNP has been good for Scotland’ boasted Salmond defending his 4 year record at Holyrood. But which Scotland does he mean? The 200 businessmen who endorsed him on polling day? Sir David Murray? Sir Jackie Stewart? Sir Tom Farmer? The Scottish Sun and News of the World whom also blessed him with an endorsement? The Scottish Sunday Express? They all believe the SNP has been good for them and that’s why they backed Salmond on Thursday!

‘Alex Salmond has been good for Scotland’ they said in unison ‘That’s why we support his re-election as First Minister.’ John Swinney welcomed their backing and said ‘Captains of Industry have benefited from the SNP.’

The Sunday Times Rich List came out at the weekend and what’s remarkable about the table of Scots billionaires and millionaires is the number who came out last week in support of the SNP. As New Labour found to its cost you can support the millionaires or you can support the millions. Getting it wrong has devastating consequences electorally.


So there’s the rub. Millions of Scots voted for the SNP to fight the cuts and to stand up to the Tories but the SNP now supports a regressive council tax freeze, cutting corporation tax and cuts in public services, jobs, pay and £3.3bn off the budget over the next 5 years.


INDEPENDENCE

Undoubtedly the most profound impact of last weeks astonishing is made on the likelihood of a referendum on Independence. The SNP did not present the Bill in the last Parliament they said because they had no majority. Now they do. Independence just took a great leap forward as Mao might have said.

There is no doubt that the case for independence took a battering during the election campaign itself as the SNP leadership barely rose to its defence whilst the unionist parties, sensing a weakness in the SNP’s armour, poured endless cold water on it. In these circumstance its little wonder the polls show support now down below 30%.

Supporters of Independence like the SSP therefore have a huge task on our hands to win the argument for Independence outside Holyrood in the pubs, clubs, community centres and workplaces across the land. But it can and must be done. The case for independence must be won before the referendum is called.


This offers an unprecedented opportunity for the left. The SNP is incapable of delivering a majority for independence on its own and to be fair it has acknowledged this frequently in the Independence Convention which the SSP joined.

It remains our job on the left to outline the alternative vision for independence. The alternative to neo-liberalism, warmongering, privatisation and profiteering. How many of the 69 SNP MSPs for example will protest at having to swear the oath of allegiance to the Queen? The party favours independence with the Queen as Head of State.


Alex Salmond is undoubtedly a shrew politician who closely courts popularity but he also supports the NATO attacks on Libya and the British occupation of Afghanistan. He also supports the monarchy and cutting corporation tax for employers and retaining the unfair Council tax. The SSP are better able to persuade progressive Scotland of the case for Independence.

Some initial observations on TUSC in the local elections

The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) stood 174 candidates in the local elections in England on 5 May 2011.

It’s always important to have a sense of proportion. When dealing with election results, it’s vital. It’s easy to exaggerate election results; to put a favourable gloss on them in order to bolster the morale of your supporters. Elections are brutal. You can’t argue with the results. But how we interpret them must include looking at them in context.

Overall the results are a good initial foray into the local elections. Given the difficulties that the socialist left has had working together to present candidates in elections over the last decade, it was a success to be able to put forward 174 candidates, representing the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers’ Party and independent socialists and trade unionists, with the significant backing of RMT general secretary Bob Crow and other senior figures in that union. In addition the Walsall Democratic Labour Party stood under its own name but endorsed the TUSC programme.

TUSC was standing on an explicit ‘No Cuts’ platform. Whilst there is massive opposition to the cuts, as shown by the massive TUC demonstration on 26 March, there is still a large section of the population that believes that some cuts are necessary. That argument still has to be defeated.

Labour has undoubtedly benefited from the anti-Con-Dem coalition mood. The Lib-Dems were trounced because of the way they betrayed those who voted for them in last year’s general election. Those opposed to the cuts will have voted overwhelmingly for Labour, even though Labour is implementing the cuts at a local level. In most places, it has to be remembered, there were no ‘No Cuts’ candidates to vote for, even for the minority of people who, at this stage, would be prepared to cast their votes for a new, unknown party putting forward that position. In the face of the Con-Dem attacks on public services and the welfare state Labour is seen as a line of defence; as being better than the Tories.

At the moment, most voters think Labour is opposed to the cuts. Many do not realise that Labour in government would implement similar cuts, albeit more slowly. My own experience campaigning in Peckham was that most traditional Labour voters did not know that the Labour-run Southwark council had implemented £33 million cuts with a further £18 million cuts to follow next year. Others thought that there was no alternative to the cuts and that Labour would protect services better than the Tories. There was a section who weren’t going to vote for any party as ‘they’re all the same’. There was another group who were interested in what we had to say and we persuaded some of those to vote for us.

Over the next year, as the cuts begin to bite, the harsh reality of Labour cuts at local level will lead many Labour voters to question their loyalties. Whether they stop voting Labour and whether they cast their votes for socialists depends to a large degree upon what socialists do. The process of Labour voters breaking with Labour will be a slow and uneven process and socialists can only win the votes of those who do decide to break with Labour if they present an alternative for them to support.

In the limited number of wards where TUSC did present an alternative to the cuts programme supported by Labour, Lib Dems and Tories, the results were encouraging.

13 candidates polled over 10%, with three receiving over 30% and a fourth getting 28%. A further 31 candidates polled between 5% – 10%; 56 polled between 2.5% – 5%; 44 polled less than 2% but of those, only 5 got less than 1%.

We are commenting here on generally small votes and low percentages. That is to be expected for a party that has no real national or local profile. In most, if not all, areas where TUSC stood, the voters will not have heard of TUSC until the last few weeks before polling day. And most voters will have received only one or two leaflets. We do not have the forces, at this stage to do much more than this. In this context, some of the votes are quite good.

Clearly we need to address the issues of profile and publicity and find ways of raising our profile and inserting ourselves into the public eye.

Where TUSC candidates stood against a background of previous work, where there was a knowledge and recognition of what the candidate represented, some very good results were obtained.

It was extremely disappointing to lose sitting councillors Michael Lavallette in Preston, Ray Holmes in Bolsover and Pete Smith of the Walsall DLP but their votes were very good, winning 39.8%, 28.2% and 34% respectively. Rob Windsor, a former Socialist Party councillor in Coventry, polled 30.3% in his attempt to win back the seat he lost last year. Former councillors George Tapp in Salford and Jackie Grunsell in Kirklees won 16.1% and 14.8% respectively.

Elsewhere, Maxine Bowler polled 14% in Sheffield and Tom Woodcock polled 12% in Cambridge. Both have stood for election before and have built support in the local electorate. Other notable TUSC results include winning 7% of the vote in four wards in Carlisle and in two in Gateshead.

In Rugby TUSC stood in seven wards and polled an average of 7%, with high points of 16.2% and 12.1%. Candidates included the regional chair of the FBU and the secretary of Warwickshire Unite. They raised £2,000 in donations, including a personal donation of £500 from FBU general secretary Matt Wrack. There is now a local TUSC branch with links to local trade unions.

Where there has been consistent work, the results are better. The lesson is obvious. If socialists want to get better election results we need to stand regularly and campaign consistently in between elections. But even the lower votes polled by TUSC candidates confirm that there is a constituency for a working-class party putting forward socialist policies.

One point is obvious but is worth making. You can only get votes for your programme and party if you stand candidates. Otherwise, the people who might have voted for you will either vote for another party or won’t vote at all. A large number of people do not vote – 35% at the last general election. Many don’t think there’s anyone worth voting for.

If TUSC had been in a position to stand candidates in every ward in England its vote may have been small in percentage terms at this stage but the aggregate vote would have been significant. I do not have figures for the number of voters in these recent local elections but in last year’s general election just over 25 million people voted in English constituencies (65.5% turnout). An average vote of two percent would mean half a million votes. That’s not a bad place for a small socialist party to aim for. But it means developing the profile, resources and supporters to be able to stand candidates on a much wider basis than we were able to do on this occasion.

This will take a lot of patient hard work and determination but it is an achievable target. How quickly we get there depends on many factors, not least what happens in terms of class struggle over the next few years and how TUSC responds.

When we stand in elections, we prefer to win. Having elected representatives like Michael Lavallette and Dave Nellist is a great advantage to the socialist cause. Nobody like losing. But standing without winning is an inevitable but necessary part of the process of building support for socialist ideas. The more regularly we stand and the more widely we stand the greater the accumulated support will be. We have to stand to get votes.

In the context of the number of local elections contested on 5 May, 174 candidates is a very small number. But it is a start. The TUSC initiative has the