Livingston and Glasgow Cathcart by-elections thread

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> So the two movements need to come together, in terms of practical activity and in terms of developing ideas. The class nature of the two movements would probably make a synthesis difficult but common goals can be achieved through initially dialogue but in terms of publishing policy, discussion documents and direct action. Granted there are sections of the green movement and socialist movement who would not be able to travel such a road but they cannot be the ones allowed to frame the debate.

One immediate common goal would be for example the public ownership of rail and other forms of transportation rather than the more individualist car economy.

I can suggest some other potential goals. Food security and shelter. Both industrial food production and most of our housing stock are dependent on large fossil fuel inputs to function. Such inputs are not compatible with sustainability in the long term and alternatives need to be sought out.

edited to add: we should probably take this back to the sustainability thread though, to avoid derailing this one.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> The class nature of the two movements would probably make a synthesis difficult but common goals can be achieved through initially dialogue but in terms of publishing policy, discussion documents and direct action. Granted there are sections of the green movement and socialist movement who would not be able to travel such a road but they cannot be the ones allowed to frame the debate.<snip>

I think this statement is absolutely spot on, especially the bit I've underlined.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> "Environmentalism" without a class analysis <snip> just amounts to flat taxes on working class people.

Interesting comment. Where would you recommend that one look to find environmentalism with a class analysis?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Interesting comment. Where would you recommend that one look to find environmentalism with a class analysis?

Socialism.

I know that sounds a bit glib, but that really is my answer. Socialists have to get to grips with environmentalism, and I think we are beginning to do so (see for instance that pamphlet I linked to on that other thread). It will be a process rather than an instantaneous transformation, but I don't see any other way of going about it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> (see for instance that pamphlet I linked to on that other thread).<snip>

I missed that. Which thread?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Ah hang on. I remember now. This one?

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2002/08/19environment.html

I thought that was quite interesting.

edited to add: again, in order not to derail this thread, I'll copy it over onto the sustainability one. I read it superficially last time, but it looks like it's got some real meat in it and it'd probably be quite useful over there.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Ah hang on. I remember now. This one?

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2002/08/19environment.html

I thought that was quite interesting.

edited to add: again, in order not to derail this thread, I'll copy it over onto the sustainability one. I read it superficially last time, but it looks like it's got some real meat in it and it'd probably be quite useful over there.

This one's interesting too:

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=178

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thanks

I'll copy that over to the other thread too if I may? In order to leave this one free for those who want to take cheap shots at middle-class hippies without having to address the more serious issues of how to achieve sustainability.

I'd very much welcome any contributions over there though, so feel free to join in.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting article Fisher_Gate, I'm going to re-read it tomorrow and try to pull some discussion points out of it on the other thread.

Coming back to parties for the moment, and please excuse my deliberate provocations on this subject, but I was a) trying to get a response from the traditional left who seem oddly quiet on the substantive issues and b) pissed off at some of the miserably witless stereotyping going on above.

For those of us who are actually Green Party members, here's a question.

What percentage of your party members would you guess would want to say that sustainability and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible?

 

[Matt S]

Hmm...interesting question - god knows being the answer.

I can say that last year there has been at least one convinced and
self-described 'anti-capitalist/eco-socialist' on both of the national decision
making bodies, and that that this will continue to be the case this year.

I think that quite a high proportion of members (a significant minority) would agree with the proposition that capitalism is
inconsistent with ecological sustainablity. The proportion of members who
have actually thought through what this means for policy and action by
elected representatives is probably very much smaller.

In other words, there is an anti-capitalist mood in much of the party,
which lies under the surface and is not properly worked out in most
cases.

Matt

 

[parallelepipete]

What percentage of your party members would you guess would want to say that sustainability and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible?

*have posted Q to SGP discussion list*

Will work out percentage if enough people reply...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thanks. I think that'd be an interesting statistic

 

[parallelepipete]

Thanks. I think that'd be an interesting statistic

*crosses fingers and hopes its a nice high percentage*

I suppose I could put it on a GPEW list too if Matt hasn't already?

 

[Matt S]

You could if you wanted, although to be honest I am skeptical about the representative nature of most GPEW email lists. They are largely populated (not entirely) by people who have the time to write very long email replies to things, and not necessarily the most active/involved GP people...

Matt

 

[parallelepipete]

You could if you wanted, although to be honest I am skeptical about the representative nature of most GPEW email lists. They are largely populated (not entirely) by people who have the time to write very long email replies to things, and not necessarily the most active/involved GP people...

Matt

Unlike urban, of course!

</facetious>

I imagine the E&W membership is a lot bigger than Scot. The SGP lists seem to represent fairly well the discussions I've had face-to-face with other members, and I recognise quite a few names - curiously biased towards the more active members (MSPs and parliamentary team, local organisers). I wonder why the apparent difference?

 

[parallelepipete]

The exit polls say...

Members of the SGP discussion list were asked: "Do you agree with the statement that sustainability and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible?"

The current total of replies is as below:

Yes 5 v 1 No (83%)

18:30 - must be all out at their yoghurt-weaving co-operatives

21:30 - Yoghurt duly woven. We're all off to crystal guitar therapy now...

22:19 - Back home for some macrobiotic ayurvedic tea

01:32 - Is that the time? I won't be up in time for to hear the dawn chorus!

13:49 - SGP member in swing-to-right shocker!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The reason I was interested in that statistic is that I was thinking about this challenge, of finding common ground between greens and the traditional left.

If you're green (small 'g' because I'm not just talking about party members) then I think the basis for having some common ground is the realisation that capitalism and sustainability are fundamentally incompatible.

If you're left, the basis for having common ground is probably some sort of acknowledgement that sustainability isn't exactly optional and that the problem is too urgent to leave until "after the revolution" (Fisher_Gate's article above is pretty good on this topic, as is any amount of stuff by people like Bookchin )

That's the starting point, but then there are a whole lot of other niggles. For example, I've noticed traditional left parties really can't seem to get their heads around the principle of subsidiarity and localised decision-making. As we've seen on this thread, that causes all kinds of pointless shit fights.

What I was sort of thinking (and trying to do over on the other thread) was that a worthwhile step would be to thrash out some common analysis. I think that means greens getting their heads around the tools of class analysis (without which a purely ecological analysis tends to lead greens to say dumb things about population control and so on).

The traditional left meanwhile, needs to be getting its head around the tools of ecology, systems theory and other quantitative approaches (I think this is why many on the left tend to underestimate the severity of the problem and have all kinds of odd ideas about what a workable solution might look like)

Political strategies like decentralisation and direct democracy seem to arise naturally from ecology-based analyses. It appears to me (but I could be wrong) that it's a bit easier for the anarchist end of the left to make that leap than it is for the authoritarian end, because the decentralisation thing doesn't freak them out as much. It also appears to me that without actually sitting down and working out the details of sustainability, it's too easy to misunderstand the implications for production relations and social structures.

 

[parallelepipete]

At this point I feel I ought to apologise for having caused the complete derailment of this thread but nice work Bernie! More results in when they're, er, in. I'm hoping people check their e-mail carefully as there's a fair amount of Cathcart stuff flying around.

In the meantime I'm off to try and catch up with the ever expanding list of links to reading suggestions which seems to be expanding like popcorn...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I don't think there's much point in trying to resolve these Green Party vs (whichever) Socialist Party issues until both groups have some basis for communication about fundamental issues, which to me means a sustained effort towards a common analysis. Otherwise it's just playground stuff IMO.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Meanwhile ... back in Scotland ... Thursday's by-elections loom closer

Scottish Gas company Caledonia Oil and Gas has been taken over by German utilities giant E.ON, bringing closer the possibility that they will succeed in their bid for Scottish Power. This is anathema to the SNP who would rather have Scottish capitalists exploiting Scottish workers than foreign capitalists (including the English). In Glasgow Cathcart it appears most people have very little regard for any politicians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4282438.stm
http://www.scottishpolitics.org/cathcart/cathcart90.html
http://www.scottishpolitics.org/cathcart/cathcart108.html

 

[Fisher_Gate]

and Robin Cook returns from the dead to address the Labour Party conference ...

http://www.scottishpolitics.org/livingston/livingston48.html

 

[Matt S]

So - any predictions, o followers of Scottish politics?

Matt

 

[Fisher_Gate]

In Livingston the Labour Party have apparently broken election rules on size of posters, have been ordered to take them down by yesterday, but claim they can't because ... it's too windy! http://www.alba.org.uk/livingston/livingston61.html
http://by_elections.blogspot.com/2005/09/labour-blame-wind-for-delay-over.html

And the real shock news is that the Lib Dems have issued a leaflet saying it's neck and neck between them and Labour real surprise, eh?

Good Scottish Socialist Party leaflet on the 'net:
http://by_elections.blogspot.com/2005/09/scottish-socialist-party-leaflet.html

I didn't know the Greens were against Sheridan's local services tax bill? What's the story behind that?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

So - any predictions, o followers of Scottish politics?

Matt

Livingston:

Turnout 35%

Lab 45%
SNP 25%
Tory 10%
LibDem 10%
Green 4%
SSP 3%
UKIP 1%

 

[hibee]

Labour to win both, handsomely in Livingston. SNP to lose ground. SSP will be grateful to stand still.

(I am the man who took £75 off the bookies by predicting Labour would hold Dumfries and Galloway in the general election, even though it was down as the most marginal seat in Britain. Best I've done out of the Labour party).

 

[Fisher_Gate]

So - any predictions, o followers of Scottish politics?

Matt

Cathcart

Turnout: 28%

Lab 35%
SNP 25%
Tory 15%
SSP 8%
Green 5%
Lally 5%
Lib Dem 5%

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Labour to win both, handsomely in Livingston. SNP to lose ground. SSP will be grateful to stand still.

(I am the man who took £75 off the bookies by predicting Labour would hold Dumfries and Galloway in the general election, even though it was down as the most marginal seat in Britain. Best I've done out of the Labour party).

I think SNP will pick up Lib Dem votes - people aren't stupid, they can see the LibDems don't have a hope, and some will desert them for the 'anti-Labour challenger'. There's no tory threat either so I think Labour voters will be reluctant to turn out and they will lose ground. SSP will be doing very well if it can hold its previous votes, I think they'll lose ground too after all the recent events. Tories might appear to pick up support, as their supporters are more likely to vote in a low turnout.

 

[hibee]

If the nats pick up any votes it won't be off the Lib Dems. Maybe in a place like Angus but not in the central belt. The liberals outpolled the SNP across Scotland in the general election and, while I don't see Kennedy's lot doing anything here, these are ultimately two rural parties with little resonance in Glasgow or Livingston. Don't think it will be all that tempting to jump from one to the other. The SNP will take a few votes off Labour in Cathcart but ultimately the whole Watson episode will keep people away from the polling booth.

The Liberals are already irrelevant in the cities apart from around the universities. You're starting from a very low base line.

The story of Scottish politics in the last few years is the SNP crumbling. Whether this can be reversed remains to be seen.

 

[parallelepipete]

I didn't know the Greens were against Sheridan's local services tax bill? What's the story behind that?

Well, it's not because of any attachment to council tax, as they support scrapping it. It's because of the Green preference for Land Value Tax.

The disadvantage of LVT as opposed to SST is that (a) you need strong planning laws, so that low tax on peripheral sites doesn't lead to development on out-of-town sites, and (b) that there would be some extra administration involved in assessing land values with respect to location, size and permitted uses, whereas SST would use existing Inland Revenue structures.

The advantages are that (a) it's extremely hard to hide land, whereas many high earners make extensive use of tax avoidance measures, so you couldn't dodge LVT, (b) it automatically shifts taxation burdens away from deprived areas and (c) it becomes uneconomical to speculate on land in desirable sites (e.g. city centres) and would encourage redevelopment of derelict sites.

Personally I think it would be better to support Tommy's Scottish Service Tax bill, because it's definitely much fairer than Council Tax (not difficult ) and because I think there's a reasonable chance of getting sufficient support for it if we did. LVT is used in some countries successfully, but the discussion isn't far enough advanced in the UK yet, whereas many people seem to support a local income tax already, and as Greens we should be supporting redistribution.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Well, it's not because of any attachment to council tax, as they support scrapping it. It's because of the Green preference for Land Value Tax.

The disadvantage of LVT as opposed to SST is that (a) you need strong planning laws, so that low tax on peripheral sites doesn't lead to development on out-of-town sites, and (b) that there would be some extra administration involved in assessing land values with respect to location, size and permitted uses, whereas SST would use existing Inland Revenue structures.

The advantages are that (a) it's extremely hard to hide land, whereas many high earners make extensive use of tax avoidance measures, so you couldn't dodge LVT, (b) it automatically shifts taxation burdens away from deprived areas and (c) it becomes uneconomical to speculate on land in desirable sites (e.g. city centres) and would encourage redevelopment of derelict sites.

Personally I think it would be better to support Tommy's Scottish Service Tax bill, because it's definitely much fairer than Council Tax (not difficult ) and because I think there's a reasonable chance of getting sufficient support for it if we did. LVT is used in some countries successfully, but the discussion isn't far enough advanced in the UK yet, whereas many people seem to support a local income tax already, and as Greens we should be supporting redistribution.

Thanks - this is a really useful post. I remember debating property taxes in the 1980s when Thatcher wanted to get rid of rates - most groups of Labour Party activists (those were the days!) were split down the middle between those defending rates and those supporting local income tax/Service Tax. There's a socialist case for taxing land, but I'm not sure if it's a better alternative to the proposed Service Tax. Maybe another thread looms ...