When I suggested that DPUK needed to democratise I was cancelled & removed from its WhatsApp groups
Last June, with dire predictions of
massive rises in the energy cap, Don’t Pay UK
suddenly appeared on the scene. Where it came from was always a bit of a
mystery and how they were able to finance large amounts of leaflets and a slick
website, to say nothing of premises/phones/ admin etc. was even more a mystery.
But like most people I was more
concerned with mobilizing against the energy price rises than questioning where
DPUK had come from. The fight against
the Tories and neo-liberalism was the priority not navel gazing. And if
a benevolent capitalist had provided seed money so what?
All this occurred in the midst of
political paralysis as the government was convulsed over Boris Johnson’s future
as Prime Minister. In essence we had no government for nearly 3 months.
Not only was the rise in energy prices
forecast as hitting £3,800 in October, £5,000 in January 2023 and up to £7,000
by April 2023 but the Tory party was engaging in a fantasy contest between two
lunatic right-wingers who were competing as to who would hammer the poor most.
I was among a number of those in the
labour and trade union movement who were arguing that we had to consider a Can’t
Pay Won’t Pay campaign and look carefully at and learn the lessons of the
battle against the Poll Tax 30 years ago. Not that the two struggles were the
same. On the contrary there were
important differences which DPUK has never seemed to understand
On the socialist left there had already been a vigorous debate about the merits of not paying energy bills and there was an important constituency who said that not paying would not work. Groups such as Disabled People Against the Cuts were particularly vociferous in arguing that disabled people couldn’t take part in such a campaign. A position I disagreed with but which many people supported.
Some us had begun to set up a Can’t
Pay Won’t Pay campaign in Brighton with the aim of campaigning for a mass
refusal to pay. However we were all aware
of the differences between 30 years ago and now and the difficulties we faced.
.jpg)
Brighton & Hove Can't Pay Won't Pay/DPUK Meeting August 30
The Crispin Flintoft Show,
which is a twice weekly Zoom show consisting of mainly expelled and suspended Labour
Party members as well as those who have managed to cling on despite Starmer,
has regular attendances of around 500. In
May the featured speaker
was Tommy Sheridan,
the leader of the campaign against the Poll Tax who warned of the differences
between the Poll Tax campaign in 1989/90 and the battle against the energy
prices today.
On June 24, the Socialist Labour
Network held a meeting with Tommy Sheridan, Ian Hodson,
President of the Bakers Union and Paula Peters of DPAC on the theme of Can’t Pay Won’t Pay.
In Brighton we decided to hold an
inaugural meeting of Can’t Pay Won’t Pay
and I was approached by Andrew Farrar, an anarchist associated with DPUK, to
work jointly together. CPWP agreed to hold a joint public meeting on August 30.
.jpg)
Brighton & Hove Can't Pay Won't Pay/DPUK Meeting August 30
The meeting
on August 30 was jointly chaired by Nehaal, who is currently Vice President of the
National Union of Students and myself. Speakers included the President and
Secretary of the Trades Council, Matt Webb and Andy Richards and Sheila Hall, who
was a councillor in 1990 who was suspended along with 5 other Labour councillors
for refusing to implement the Poll Tax. Also speaking was the man who served
the longest sentence (30 months) for his part in the poll tax riot.
Over 150 people attended and it was
judged by all that it was a great success. But then things began to go downhill.
Activity fell off and it proved difficult to get people to run a weekly stall
in the town centre. The only activity since then was on October 1st
when a rally of about a 100 was held at Brighton Clocktower. Given that there
was a strike meeting at The Level of nearly 1,000 people it is clear that the
campaign had stalled.
Following the public meeting at a
weekly coordination meeting an objection by Farrah was made to my attending a
regional meeting (in fact a national meeting of regional groups). No doubt after words in his ear. However I did get out of him that these
meetings were attended by between 20 and 30 people, which for a national
meeting is pathetic.
I made several attempts to discuss DPUK’s
strategy in the different chat groups and each time they were met with personal
abuse by a few anarchists who were more concerned with how oppressed they were
and how many identities they could claim than progressing the campaign. Comments
such as
I’m a woman. The mother of a disabled person. A
teacher in the most deprived area of Brighton. You don’t get to filibuster me
into silence. I’m big enough and ugly enough not to stand for this
was one such contribution from an
unnamed anarchist who harboured a deep grudge over the role of Militant in the
Poll Tax 30 years ago. I pointed out that I too had a disabled child to care
for but didn’t see what relevance this crass resort to identity politics had
for the campaign against energy price rises.
This particular person was obsessed
by the fact that Sheila Hall had spoken at the public meeting because Sheila
had been a supporter of Militant 30 years ago. Clearly she spoke for other
anarchists.
DPUK's key mistake was in making withholding payments conditional on the number of pledges
It is a fact that the All
Britain Anti Poll Tax Federation which was set up in November 1989 was
led by the Militant Tendency who had recently been expelled from the Labour
Party. Although Tommy
Sheridan had made some injudicious remarks about those arrested in the Poll
Tax Riot no-one can take away from him the fact that he had been gaoled for 6
months for defying the Scottish courts over his presence at a Warrant Sale or
for his leadership of the campaign against the Poll Tax in Scotland, which
suffered from the Poll Tax one year earlier than the rest of the country.
The fact that Tommy and 5 others had
been elected to Glasgow City Council spoke volumes about how the Glaswegian and
Scottish working class felt whereas the anarchist contribution to the campaign
was nugatory. Yet these sectarian
comments kept coming up from certain individuals and local Admins acted to
protect these sectarians.
When I responded to a few of these characters
I received a ‘final warning’ from an unelected moderator of one of the chat
groups. Clearly democratic debate is anathema to identity politics
anarchists. As a result I decided to
have no personal interaction with any individual and to simply post political
observations as to the current state of play. Nonetheless this didn’t satisfy
the flaky anarchists who had appointed themselves as Admins and I was removed
without warning or explanation last Tuesday.
I should add that at no time was any
Admin elected. All of them were friends
who appointed each other, as Nehaal admitted. Anarchists are opposed in theory
to leadership but in practice they are opposed to an elected leadership because of course nothing will happen unless
some people take the initiative.
Don’t Pay UK Nationally
So what is going on in DPUK? I
attended a national meeting of activists about 3 weeks ago. It was chaired by
Simon, a well-known Brighton anarchist. There were a total of 112 in
attendance. It was made clear that DPUK’s leadership consisted in essence of a
group of friends of a similar political persuasion.
All the speakers were pre-selected
and no audience participation was allowed. I guess this is anarchism in action.
There was though a vigorous discussion in the chat and the main theme in that
was the need to discuss a political strategy. However the meeting finished
after just one hour and those with their hands up were simply ignored.
What DPUK has are hidden, unelected and unaccountable leaders. We used to call it the ‘tyranny of
structurelessness’ in which feminist and other organizations, which
were leaderless in theory, ended up with unelected leaders by default and thus
were far more undemocratic than those bureaucracy ridden institutions of the
labour movement.
From my own impressions a large number
of people have been signed up as potential activists or organizers but, as is
common with anarchist campaigns, there is no direction or strategy. It has been
suggested that DPUK is deliberately engaging in the mass collection of data such
and email addresses for other purposes.
Whether this is true I do not know, however there is little sign of any
adherence to data protection legislation.
In 2-3 years time DPUK will be calling an energy payment strike
DPUK’s Lack of a Political Strategy
On its website
DPUK state that ‘We will take this action
[withholding payments] when we reach 1 million pledges to strike.’ The only
problem is that at the time of writing only 198,551 people have signed up
pledging to stop their direct debits. Three
days ago it was 195,510. In other words
the number of people signing up and pledging to stop paying via direct debit is
increasing by 1,000 a day. At this rate it will take over 2 years to reach the
figure!
This is simply no way to run a campaign.
Before Liz Truss’s pledge that bills would be capped at an average of £2,500
DPUK were receiving 10,000 pledges per day.
In other words there has been a precipitate drop in people pledging to
stop their direct debits. Yet there has
been no mention of this. Complete radio silence.
In practice a pledge is unenforceable
anyway and it is anyone’s guess how many people who have signed a pledge have
thought twice about it. In any event
stopping a direct debit doesn’t mean not paying. There are a number of ways of
paying energy bills of which direct debits are just one. In short DPUK have been
blind sided by the government’s decision to stuff the mouths of the energy
companies with gold to the tune of £170 billion.
As Catherine Furae of Live Chronicle wrote,
Don’t Pay UK halts energy strike as
it fails to sign enough people. Except
that DPUK hasn’t told its own supporters that it has called off the action.
Instead they simply urge them to greater efforts.
Where has DPUK gone wrong?
Because DPUK was set up undemocratically without any attempt to involve
people in the wider anti-cuts and trade union movement they embarked on what
was clearly a very risky strategy without any discussion or prior thought about
involving wider forces.
It is obvious that at a time when working class people and trade unions are
engaged in mass strike action that there is a need to engage the unions and
workers in any campaign against the energy prices rises. But unfortunately these
anarchists tend to have little involvement with unions nor do they care much
for what they see as just another manifestation of the labour bureaucracy.
In my view there was absolutely no need to make an unrealistic target of
1 million the pivot of a campaign against the energy prices. Instead there should
have been an attempt to involve the wider labour movement for example by
calling a conference. The fact is that
Britain’s anarchists are not exactly well placed in the trade union and labour
movement.
If there had been an attempt to hold e.g. a large zoom conference then
the follies and dangers of setting an unrealistic target figure as the be all
and end all of the campaign could have been pointed out. Instead of media gimmicks and there is no
doubt that DPUK attracted a lot of media attention, a strategy of building in
local communities could have been put in place and leaflets highlighting the
estimated energy costs could have been used instead of simply saying Don’t Pay.
Whether even this would have worked is open to doubt but as things stand
DPUK have failed at the first hurdle.
I should add that although I disagree with anarchism politically I have
respect for many anarchists who are involved in anti-fascist or Palestine solidarity
work. But I find it difficult to muster much enthusiasm for those whose
contempt for democracy matches that of Sir Keir Starmer.
Has DPUK Anywhere to Go?
Any Can’t Pay Won’t Pay campaign is going to face very serious obstacles
not least the fact that 4 million households have pre-payment meters. To date DPUK has simply ignored this problem.
It is also a fact that millions of people are simply going to be unable to pay
their heating bills this winter. The question is how to marry these together.
It seems to me that any campaign has to focus on working class areas of
high deprivation where the issue is of most concern. The problem of pre-payment
meters has to be addressed. I’m no technical expert but if it is possible to
physically neutralize or bypass these meters then this should be done – en masse.
I certainly do believe that a CPWP campaign can succeed but it will be
difficult if divorced from the wider labour and anti-cuts movement. The current
DPUK policy of clamping down on any discussion of strategy and focusing instead
on how many leaflets one can distribute, to the point of cancelling and
removing troublesome activists, show that this organization, given its secrecy
and lack of democracy, isn’t up to the task it has set itself, which is
reversing the present price rises.
No mass movement that isn’t democratic can hope to succeed in a battle
with this government. Democracy isn’t a luxury it is a necessity.
DPUK’s Refusal to Speak About Public Ownership
When I opened the public meeting in Brighton I was interrupted by applause
when I mentioned that the crisis could not be resolved until the utility
companies were under public ownership again. It is obvious to all and sundry
that as long as energy in Britain is owned by private monopolies there can be
no solution to the continuing price rises.
The Tories and Starmer Labour are opposed to public ownership. But here
is the curious thing. Try as you might, it is impossible to find a single
reference to public ownership of the energy companies on the DPUK site. As far
as those who control DPUK are concerned such questions are irrelevant because
both involve capitalist production. Of course DPUK don’t say what their real
position is. They simply don’t mention
it as they hide behind their curious identity politics.
According to We
Own It 66% of the public support nationalisation. The fact that both Truss and Starmer are opposed to public ownership
might tell our youthful anarchists something about neo-liberalism, which is
founded on a hatred of public ownership. However anarchists combine both
liberalism and ultra-leftism. Ultra
leftist because they make no distinction between private ownership of energy
companies and public or state ownership. Unfortunately bodies like the IMF do
make such a distinction.
I have deliberately avoided the speculation of people like Ben Timberley
and others
as to whether or not DPUK is a genuine group or not. I always tend to assume
the best but there is no doubt that DPUK is now seriously floundering as its
lack of any meaningful strategy has caught up with it. It seems like a good
idea that got lost along the way.
I have also sent an Open Letter 'The Silencing of Dissenting Voices' to members of Brighton & Hove DPUK!
Tony Greenstein
An Interesting ‘Conversation’ with Morrigan, one of
the Founders of DPUK
My falling out and expulsion from Brighton DPUK
began with a ‘conversation’ with Morrigan, a teacher and one of the founders of
DPUK. She objected to my report on the
above national meeting of DPUK (and implicitly that of Dave Hill) on how it was
a controlled affair before going off on one.
First she
felt the need to establish her identity – not only a woman, but a teacher in a
difficult school, a carer for a disabled son etc. I pointed out that I too care
for a disabled son but I’m not sure what relevance that had to the discussion!
However to
Morrigan, displaying the fine arts of anarchist identity politics this was all ‘mansplaining’,
which is shorthand for having the temerity to disagree with a woman!
Anarchists?
Anarchists
come in all shapes and sizes, from syndicalists to lifestyle and personal
politics anarchists. For many anarchism is a rebellion against capitalist
conformity but that often leads to a rejection of collective action in favour
of individualism and a rejection of the labour movement and trade unions.
Morrigan
above demonstrates a deep hostility to the left and the idea of class as the
motivating force in society in favour of identity politics where anyone can
claim to be oppressed. Indeed on the basis of ID Pol. you can claim
multiple oppressions. Her vitriol is directed at what was Militant but it is
more applicable to all socialist groupings. Along with this is a rejection of
theory in favour of spontaneity. It is but a short step to adopting the anarchy
of the free market.
Anarchism
rejects the idea of leadership but only in so far as that leadership is elected
and accountable. As demonstrated in my expulsion by unnamed moderators (one of
whom, Steve J has just written to me suggesting that my writing to individual
members of Brighton DPUK was motivated by ‘sadness’ (!) there is no concept of
due process or evidence. Hence Morrigan can lie quite blatantly about Militant
and a speaker that I invited to the public meeting without any comeback.
There
are of course anarchists such as the Bristol anarchists who have been sentenced
to savage terms of imprisonment or those involved in Palestine Action who
reject identity politics and the ideas of ‘safe spaces’ but many
anarchists like Morrigan reject the very idea that they are on the left.
DPUK
shows every sign of being a hidden political project masquerading as a campaign
against the fuel price rises. It has been suggested that it is also a data
harvesting project.
However once
in her stride Morrigan had no compunction about attacking Sheila Hall, a former
Labour Councillor in Brighton who was suspended for refusing to implement the
Poll Tax. Apparently she was a supporter
of the Poll Tax according to the said Morrigan and guilty of numerous other
sins.
At the end
of the ‘conversation’ Morrigan complained of being bullied. Presumably
disagreeing with someone in authority, as Morrigan clearly is in the group, is
bullying. Well the Moderators certainly thought so.
The whole
conversation is here and an extract is below.
