fight hots up: but are we winning? by Roland Wood Many councils in England and Wales are well into the process of Court action to obtain Liability Orders against those who haven't paid the Poll Tax.
The number of summonses issued represents a very significant level of mass non-payment - a combination of those who simply can't pay (the majority) and those who can but have stood in solidarity with the poorest layers of the working class.
The Courts have provided an important focus for an anti-poll tax movement that was, since the end of March, fast losing momentum. Once again new people have become politically active for the first time. Local anti-poll tax groups have been strengthened and broadened beyond the limited base of the organised left.
At each new stage in the struggle more people will get involved; but many will have been intimidated into paying. If the mass character of the movement is to be maintained we must continually fight for collective solidarity
The Court cases have also highlighted many of the problems within the anti-poll tax movement.
Militant tells us that "We are winning!" The Socialist Workers Party proclaim that "Court cases make the difference!" But are we, and do they? Yes and no: but more no than yes.
The struggle around the Courts has
BRIDGWATER ANTI-POLL TAX UNION BETTER TO BREAK THE LAW THAN BREAK THE POOR John Harris (NUJ) Poll Tax provided victories of one kind or another. In some very diverse areas there have been relatively large and important mobilisations and demonstrations. Overall, one in ten of those who have been summonsed have tumed up to Court. But how can this new level of participation be sustained?
Militant and the SWP overestimate the strength and solidity of the movement, attempting to show a mass movement that is on the offensive when it is actually on the defensive. We are defending people in Court; we are defending people against the possible use of bailiffs ... Of course as socialists we are for the defence of the independent interests of the working class and defence of working class living standards; so what is the problem?
The problem is this: The movement's aim is to defeat the poll tax; many would also like if possible to bring Thatcher down with it -but neither the Militant or the SWP are building any bridge to link the current stage of the movement with the fulfillment of that aim, any strategy that will genuinely take the movement onto the offensive.
This confusion has been reflected, certainly in the case of Militant, in the generalised approach that they have argued the movement should have to the Courts. If we are winning" generally, then are we winning in the Courts. Again, yes and no. Where 'victories" have occurred (eg. adjournments) it has been largely due to the physical presence of hundreds of non-payers turning up at Court for a hearing.
Page 9
This has been the major factor in blocking Court proceedings and preventing (for the mo- ment) Liability Orders being granted against hundreds of people - thus giving breathing space to consolidate the develop further mobilisation. But to argue, as Militant supporters have done, that in a show- down between some vague notion proletarian justice and the reality of bourgeois law 'we will win", does a disservice to the movement. The aim of the magistrates, on behalf of the local council, is to grant Liability Or- against people ders who have not paid the poll tax. They may wish to appear as inde- "arbitrators", pendent but as an arm of the bourgeois state they are not neutral. Arbitration does not take place in a vacuum; it takes place the within existing framework of society. and in this case the framework of bour- geois law - including the poll tax. Of course, conces- sions will sometimes be made by arbitrators; usually this depends the balance of upon forces. But the basic aim of arbitration is to maintain the status quo as such, if necessary by compromising a bit on secondary questions. Arguments that have been taking place in many courts over the 'Mackenzie's use of friends" are a useful il- The legal Justration. precedent for the right of each Respondent (the non-payer) to have advice from a "friend" on how to deal with the procedures of the Court and what type of questions to ask the Council Officer is set out in a 1970 Court of Appeal ruling. This ruling was consequently incor- porated into Stones, the procedural bible for Civil Courts. Non-payment of the Poll Tax is a civil matter. Consequently, the right of each Respon- dent to have a 'Mackenzie' ought to be an ad- mitted fact. In Sutton, a summarised account of the original ruling was read out by one of the Respondents forcing the Court to agree - Page 10
FEATURES is after all, a bourgeois game. movement and of it collect Don't pay Organising in the unions as well as in the community is now vital of either the "Mackenzie" or the Respondent. use of Mackenzies.
to compromise - on this specific issue. In order to force this limited concession it was necessary to play by bourgeois rules in, what
But this is where the concessions stop. Reference to the conduct and status of the Mackenzie in the rest of the 1970 ruling is more open to different legal interpretation. The magistrate's ruling on interpretation will always have more authority than the opinion
Moreover, concessions can of course be taken away, or indeed refused. If a consistent mobilisation of non-payers is successful — two or more Courts may well be used. This is now the case in Sutton, with the right to a Mackenzie recognised in one Court but not in the other. Many Courts have never allowed the
Further to this, the Courts will use their
authority to limit the potential for dragging cases out for as long as is possible by insisting upon strict adherence to Court procedures. Short of having sympathetic lawyers constant- ly on tap, the decisions of the Court are much harder to challenge successfully. The Courts are changing their tactics from week to week, using their authority to make the rules up as they go along. Time-wasting has only really been success- ful when one or two of the Respondents are eloquent, confident and well briefed enough to just keeping going. Unless the Court has pre- viously decided that it will sit right into the evening until all cases have been dealt with then adjoumments will be given. But adjoumments are only partial victories. Liability Or- ders have been prevented, but only in the short term. The real victory is the rise in the numbers, and the level of confidence and militancy of those people who tum up at Court. The overwhelming majority leave the Court still committed to non-payment. More people are also seeing the links that can be made be- tween different areas and forms of struggle. This is a minority - but it is an impor- tant minority. The better or- ganised the anti-poll tax movement is - both inside and outside the Court - the more this will be the case. Revolutionary socialists need to sustain, to the best of their ability, the confidence and militancy of those layers of the working class that have shown a willingness to fight back - regardless of who wins the next election - or John Harris ( these victories will be lost. Resistance around the Courts is very uneven. In some areas campaigns are at- tempting to cope with Court cases four or five times a week. If a local campaign is weak the problems of responding effectively to the levels of non-payment can multiply hor- rendously. No amount of triumphalist gloss can hide these facts. Once again we return to the problems of sustaining the momentum of a mass move- ment: of organising previously unorganised layers of the working class. Certainly in Sut- ton and probably in other areas, many non- payers are not in unions - and of those that are many have not been active. They have little or SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990