The majority of non-payers at present are those who simply can't afford to pay (even with rebates). This includes a layer of the working class that has been thoroughly marginalised from the mainstream labour movement with little or no experience of independent self-organisation. Organising this layer was never going to be easy. As the campaign began, many activists found themselves starting from scratch. The problems of how to rise to this challenge have not been seriously approacher or tackled by the majority of the anti-pol tax movement.
Consequently, there is a gap that needs to be bridged between non-payment that has occurred on a mass scale and a movement that seeks to defend, to organise and to give leadership to non-payers.
Mass non-payment does not automatically equal mass movement. A movement capable of giving expression to these forces is urgently required if non-payers are not to be picked off individually by use of courts, bailiffs and the whole gamut of legal powers now in the hands of the local state.
Most non-payers will have a good basic grasp of the political issues involved, mainly around the unfairness of the tax. "Poll Tax! I ain't paying that!" will have been heard many a time, but unfortunately that is often the end of the argument as far as many people are concerned.
Their direct involvement and participation in the mass action of not paying remains an individual act. The existence of an anti-poll tax movement has certainly built confidence in terms of people knowing that they are not alone. But this knowledge has not yet fully transformed the individual act into a collective act so that we can begin to realise the full potential that non-payment could unleash.
In recent months local authorities' use of the courts to pursue non-payers nas provided an important focus for the antipoll tax movement. An opportunity has been created to involve wider layers. trade unions and the Labour Party. We call for a general election to kick the Tories out and for a reversal of all Tory cuts. Local services should be funded by a wealth tax, a tax on the profits of big business and cuts in defence spending. We call for an amnesty for all non-payers when the People have become politically active for he first time. Many local anti-poll ta strengthene and broadened beyond the smiled base of the been Achieving mass non-payment, however, is a constant battle. At each new stage in the struggle more people may well get involved but many others will be intimidated into payig.
The struggle around the court hearings has provided victories - even if only small ones. There have been relatively large and important mobilisations and demonstrations in some very diverse areas. One in ten of those who have been summonsed have turned up to court.
Where limited victories have occurred inside the courts (gaining adjournments, for example) it has largely been due to the attendance of such large numbers of nonpayers outside the court waiting for a hearing that the proceedings were blocked. This has given a much needed breathing space to consolidate the movement and build further mobilisation.
The role of the magistrates is to grant, on behalf of the local council, liability orders against people who have not paid the poll tax. They may wish to be seen to arbitrate between non-payers and the councils and they may make compromises or concessions within the framework of existing law, but they will not do more than this. The arguments that have been taking place in many courts over the use of 'friends' are a useful illustration. The legal right of each respondent (the non-payer) to take advice from a 'friend' on how to deal with the pro cedures of the court and what type of questions to ask the council officer is set out in a 1970 Court of Appeal ruling, which is clearly referred to in Stones, the procedural bible for magistrates courts.
Consequently, each respondent should have a legal right to be advised by a 'friend'. It 3 number of areas a summarised account ::
the original ruling has been read out by one of the respondents who has successfully forced the magistrates to agree to compromise on this specific issue.
But invariably this is where the concessions stop. The reference to the conduct and status of the 'friend' in the 1970 ruling is interpretation and more open to magistrates have used their authority to interpret the case in a narrow way. To give one example, respondents have been called in batches of five but have only been allowed one 'friend' between them.
It is becoming clear that many magistrates are attempting to intimidate non-payers, by imposing exorbitant costs on those who make political statements in court, by denying the use of 'friends' and so on. There are attempts to push through liability orders in large numbers and counter the attempts of anti-poll tax groups to delay proceedings by encouraging non-payers to appear in perSOn.
These attacks are combined with police attempts to prevent demonstrations against the poll tax through the use of repression such as the attacks on demonstrators earlier this year in Trafalgar Square and outside Brixton Prison.
These tactics of intimidation are likely to be redoubled as the use of bailiffs becomes widespread. Camden's Labour council is using liability orders which state that once bailiffs are called in no arrangement to pay in instalments will be accepted.
Without having sympathetic lawyers on tap it is hard to challenge successfully the decisions of the magistrates as it is difficult to know what is within their authority - especially as each week they make the rules up as they go along. Time wasting by the WICE use of 'friends' has therefore only really been successful when there are respondents who are eloquent, confident and well the magistrates have briefed, and when decided against continuing until every case is heard.
Adjournments in any case are only partial victories as liability orders are only delayed. The real victory has been a small but important rise in the level of confidence and militancy of those who turn up at court. The overwhelming majority leave the court still committed to non-payment. Those turning up are a minority of non-payers but an important one. There is a responsiveness to new ideas; people can clearly see that links can be made between different areas and forms of struggle. The more well organised the anti-poll tax movement is both inside and outside the court the more this will be the case. The movement needs to sustain, and to develop further, the confidence and militancy of those who are fighting back if this victory is not to be lost.
However, resistance around the courts has generally been very uneven and the movement as a whole needs to assess what has happened so far. This unevenness is also becoming apparent in relation to defence against bailiffs.
Local anti-poll tax unions should, of course, come into their own at this stage. But in order to provide real defence of millions of non-payers they must be broadened out. small groups of overstretched activists hurtling round from one front door to another Will not be adequate to the scale of the task. The movement must be strengthened and extended if we are to defend non-payers and prevent the grinding.
down and demoralisation of this layer through a war of attrition with local councils.