Lewisham Unemployed invade Council Meeting, 1908

Times were hard in the Winter of 1908, with widespread unemployment. There were protests in many places demanding work and relief including a weekly unemployed demonstration from Tower Hill to the wealthier areas of Mayfair and Belgravia.

In Lewisham, the Council 'found its public gallery invaded... by a crowd. One councillor, the Rev. J.C. Morris, vicar of St Mark's, Lewisham, was told that he had a pebble where his heart ought to be; and when Councillor Trenchard looked up to the gallery cries of "Scamps" and "Rotters" were frequent. Others shouted: "Our wives and children are starving; you have got plenty: beware! look out! If you don't listen to us  you will know it. We don't want your half-sovereigns: we want work' (The Woman Worker, December 23 1908).

(Woman Worker, paper of the National Federation of Women Workers, December 23 1908).

The socialist paper Justice (26 December 1908) reported that there were similar scenes in other Council meetings including at St Pancras and Portsmouth, but in Lewisham 'the council went into the cowardly silence of committee and had the gallery cleared'.

(The Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham was created in 1900, and covered the Lewisham, Blackheath, Lee, Hither Green, Catford, Brockley, Forest Hill and part of Sydenham - but not Deptford and New Cross which were under the separate Deptford Council until 1965. Not sure of the political make up of the Council in 1908, but it would have been either Liberal or Conservative in this period)

Bedroom Tax in South London

Changes to Housing Benefit regulations came into effect yesterday with the new 'Bedroom Tax' penalising social housing tenants judged to be living in 'under occupied' accommodation. Essentially those judged to have too many rooms for their needs will have a reduction in their housing benefit (Shelter has a clear guide to the details). Since by definition those receiving housing benefit are either unemployed or working on low income it's hard to see where they are going to find the money to make up the rent... except by going without other essentials. As a banner on Saturday's 'bedroom tax' protest in London put it, more cuts equals less food.

A policy like this is bound to have a big impact in inner South London boroughs where so many people live in social housing. In Lewisham for instance, almost a third (32%) of the housing stock is social housing (14% Council, 18% housing association). In Southwark, a full third of residential properties are Council-rented (33%) and another 12% by Housing Associations (as detailed in this report).

Get a Room?

The Government claims that by reducing housing benefit in 'under occupied' housing, people will be encouraged to move into smaller properties freeing up accommodation for those who need bigger properties. It is true that there is a shortage of properties for larger families, but this is hardly the fault of tenants. Councils have been more or less stopped from building on a large scale for a generation, and private housing building in London is delivering few genuinely affordable family homes.

In any event if everybody living in 'under occupied' housing was willing and able to downsize,  there simply wouldn't be enough smaller properties for them to move into (any more than there are jobs for the unemployed to move into). Last year the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research looked at Lewisham (and the Lee area in particular)  in its report 'Under-occupation and the Housing Benefit Reforms: Four local case studies'.  They found that in Lewisham 'households currently looking to downsize from a 2 bedroom property to a 1 bedroom flat are waiting an average of 4 years' and are competing with a huge number of people needing one bedroom flats - with more than 6,700 households on the waiting list for a one bedroomed property.

The myth of the 'Spare Room'

Plenty of media reports have talked of the changes as amounting to a tax on 'spare rooms' but few explain how the Government has defined a 'spare room'. Its definition is certainly not one Ministers would tolerate for their own families.

For a start the regulations assume that a couple only ever need one bedroom. There are of course many cases where people are ill or disabled and unable to comfortably share with somebody else. Tough, give up the second room or have your benefit cut.

Or perhaps you're a disabled person who needs a spare room to keep specialist equipment in. Tough, give up that room or have your benefit cut.

The regulations assume that children of the same sex under 16 should always share a room. So a fifteen year old studying for GCSEs must share with a toddler having sleepless nights or their parents will have their benefits cut. Great for their education! Likewise two children under ten of the same sex are not deemed to need their own room though there would be many circumstances when it would be better if they did.

Bromley and Croydon Disabled People Against Cuts banner in Trafalgar Square on Saturday - later around 1,000 people marched to Downing Street.

Along with other benefit cuts, such as the benefit cap, this is a policy designed to screw the poorest people in society and will have long reaching and damaging effects in South East London and everywhere else it is implemented. The Government clearly hopes that it can continue to scapegoat the unemployed and low paid and win the support of some of those lucky enough not to be in that position. But many of those whose resentment they are trying to stir up are only the next job cut or pay cut away from themselves joining the ranks of those threatened with losing their homes and just about surviving on reducing benefits. The anger is rising and the tide is beginning to turn.

Deptford Poundland Protest

Last Saturday there was a protest at the Poundland store in Deptford High Street, part of an ongoing campaign against shops involved in the workfare scheme ('Mandatory Work Activity') whereby unemployed people are made to undertake unpaid work. South London Solidarity Federation, who organised the Deptford action, point out that employers are using work placements to do work that they would otherwise have to pay staff to do - thereby actually reducing the real jobs available for unemployed people. 

Other companies have pulled out of the scheme following protests, including Holland & Barrett who were targeted in Catford and elsewhere.

Holland and Barrett Pickets

(look away if you want to maintain your illusion that a shop that sells vegetarian scotch eggs must be beyond criticism)

Last Saturday, the movement against workfare schemes (compulsory unpaid work for the unemployed) once again targeted Holland & Barrett stores locally, the company being a significant participant in the scheme. In protests called by South London Solidarity Federation, a group of people first picketed the Blackheath branch of the chain and then headed into Lewisham shopping centre where they briefly occupied the shop there before being removed by police and security (full report here).

A similar action on 31 March 2012 targeted the Catford branch of the store (pictured, from The Void).

Lewisham Workfare Protest

Earlier this month (3rd March 2012) there was a national day of action against 'workfare' - the various schemes whereby unemployed people are compelled to work without pay or lose their benefits. Up to 50 people took part in a mobile protest in Lewisham town centre targeting shops involved in the government's programme including Primark, Boots, Greggs, BHS and McDonalds, chanting slogans such as "No wages: Outrageous!"

The call-out for the Lewisham action stated: 'The government and some in the media present it as a way of encouraging people back into work by gaining experience. This ignores two things – first, there are not enough jobs available for those who want them; and second, workfare placements themselves are taking jobs away from paid workers. We have no problem with people learning while working – this used to be called apprenticeships. But workfare tells the unemployed that they will lose their benefit if they do not work for their it. In every other context the minimum wage applies, so why not here?'.

Nick Turner, Branch Secretary GMB Goldsmith’s student workers branch said; 'The government work programme forces mandatory work onto job seekers with multi-billion pound profit making companies who can otherwise more than afford to pay their staff. The government have denied that benefit claimants are forced into their work but it has become clear that those refusing to work for free are being told their benefits will be stopped if they do not take part.This is not only completely unfair on the individual but also depresses the job market - why would a company employ a paid member of staff if they can get them from the dole for free and without a fuss? We are calling on Goldsmiths students and Lewisham residents to fight for the revolutionary concept that if when you work, you should get paid for it. As the old slogan has it “a fair days work deserves a fair day's pay"'.

Another day of action is planned for Lewisham Town Centre on the afternoon of 31 March (exactly 22 years since the London poll tax riot, but can't guarantee it will be quite that big or exciting).  In the lead up to it South London Solidarity Federation have called a 'Public meeting in a public space to discuss the growing direct action campaign against workfare' on Saturday 17th March at 2 pm - venue and possible action to be confirmed, but facebook event details here.

See also: report of recent Lewisham protest at East London Lines; report of a Socilalist Party protest outside Lewisham McDonalds on 25 February; report of Right to Work campaign picket outside Tesco Express on Lewisham Way, 22 February.