General Election – Campaign News

[Anonymous]

The BBC will be coming to 52 Clapham High Street this Sunday 26 April to film the Election Meeting at 3.00pm. They wish to gather some pictures and interviews so they can use some of the footage on the BBC News Channel and Online. They'll be interviewing the Vauxhall candidate and members who are in an administrative role (as we do not have a leader).

[alanjjohnstone]

Quite liked that promo video by the hustings organisers…enjoyed the music…we can be heroes…a modern anthem…(as an aside i noted one occupy themed political advert..scored out NO Leaders…and replaced with WE ARE ALL Leaders…i wonder if that is a more positive message to offer, just as equally demanding to explain fully though) Once again the video highlighted our policy of pic or no pic. Was the fact our logo was depicted more effective than a photo of Cde Cox…no matter how flattering it might have been?Its something we will have to discuss in what i hope will be a lengthy and in depth debate on our whole learning curve of this (for us) unique experiment of electioneering. I really think we should have special event for this discussion, rather than crowd it into ADM or Conference…perhaps beginning with an online exchange and then an actual proper face-to-face general meeting at Clapham….

[alanjjohnstone]

I think DJP has a point but it is a very narrow line for members to walk and sometimes we understandably fall offThere are many issues that i have very strong personal feelings and emotions about and always have to be careful on the blog. Luckily we have the facility of deleting or re-editing and one of the bloggers performs a very useful role of looking over our shoulders to make sure we do not substitute individual opinion for party views. (It has happened so i readily confess mea culpa)As Howard did with his signing off omitting the The in Socialist Party candidate and quickly correcting it, i see no problem, Steve,  that if a similar question arises, you take DJP's point on board you explain the Party's non-commital position, or indicate the divergence of opinion within the party and express your own private view. Again, to refer to Howard on his tv appearance, he agreed with Andrew Neil that their are aspects of anarchist influences within the party…but we shouldn't drag him over the coals for admitting that, should we? (another previous section of the SPGB would certainly have done so, IMHO, but happily they went off to do their own thing…)  

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

8-9pm: "Come and hear why you should vote for Socialism" Election meeting at Caxton House Community Centre, 129 St John's Way , London N19 3RQ (7 mins from Archway tube). Our candidate, Bill Martin, will give a talk and answer questions.

We advertised this meeting, so it'll be a good test of the power of advertising.  Anyone free in London welcome to come along.

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think DJP has a point but it is a very narrow line for members to walk and sometimes we understandably fall offThere are many issues that i have very strong personal feelings and emotions about and always have to be careful on the blog. Luckily we have the facility of deleting or re-editing and one of the bloggers performs a very useful role of looking over our shoulders to make sure we do not substitute individual opinion for party views. (It has happened so i readily confess mea culpa)As Howard did with his signing off omitting the The in Socialist Party candidate and quickly correcting it, i see no problem, Steve,  that if a similar question arises, you take DJP's point on board you explain the Party's non-commital position, or indicate the divergence of opinion within the party and express your own private view. Again, to refer to Howard on his tv appearance, he agreed with Andrew Neil that their are aspects of anarchist influences within the party…but we shouldn't drag him over the coals for admitting that, should we? (another previous section of the SPGB would certainly have done so, IMHO, but happily they went off to do their own thing…)  

This doesn't seem like a non-commital position taken by the party in 1992 to me.

Quote:

this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that … all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[DJP]

jondwhite wrote:

This doesn't seem like a non-commital position taken by the party in 1992 to me.

Quote:

this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that … all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

Of course we are not non-commital when it comes to "sound ecological values" but the question then remains, "what is sound ecologically".To be honest we, as a political party not a scientific advisory board,  do not have all the expertise and knowledge required to really know all the details when it comes to certain technologies, eg. if fracking (or nuclear power of GMO) can or could be done in a way that is not damaging to the environment then we would have no reason to oppose it. But this ultimately is a question for people in socialism to decide, once the profit motive no longer clouds the issue, we should not dictate to the future…First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[steve colborn]

DJP, I was not dictating the future but stating a point of view, after much research. Sub surface pressures and shear, even at relatively shallow depths, make it highly unlikely that drill site sheathing would be able to cope. If this is indeed the case, then taking even the slightest risk with possible water table contamination, would be foolhardy at best and criminally culpable at worst.Talking to old miners regarding the stresses down the pit and the way, when one has a rock shift, that twists large girders and pops even the toughest rock like a balloon, makes one realise what these forces are actually capable of!First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[jondwhite]

DJP wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

This doesn't seem like a non-commital position taken by the party in 1992 to me.

Quote:

this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that … all writers and speakers in the presentation and content of our case lay stress upon the positive aspects of it, i.e. they should ensure that we are understood to be advocates of a new world society,  where sound ecological values underlie productive activities

Of course we are not non-commital when it comes to "sound ecological values" but the question then remains, "what is sound ecologically".To be honest we, as a political party not a scientific advisory board,  do not have all the expertise and knowledge required to really know all the details when it comes to certain technologies, eg. if fracking (or nuclear power of GMO) can or could be done in a way that is not damaging to the environment then we would have no reason to oppose it. But this ultimately is a question for people in socialism to decide, once the profit motive no longer clouds the issue, we should not dictate to the future…

But if we're not a scientific advisory board, why are we practising clairvoyance instead – suggesting that fracking can or could be done in a way that is not damaging to the environment? Safe-fracking seems to only be a vague claim (and no more) originating from the fracking industry which stands to benefit.Another SPGB pamphlet Ecology and Socialism (1990) puts it more clearly and doesn't speculate about a form of nuclear power that doesn't exist.

Quote:

Future generations will rightly regard the decision to utilise nuclear power on a widening scale for electricity generation, let alone for military purposes, as an act of folly, especially as right from the start it was known that there was no satisfactory solution to the problem of disposing of the radioactive waste that inevitably results from the process. Dumping this in the sea or burying it in the ground is merely to pollute a part of the biosphere for generations to come.

Second warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Anonymous]

Returning to the topic of this thread here are five videos featuring our candidate for Brighton Pavilion, Howard Pilott: The Divide: the gap between the affluent and the poorhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_VlIqLqaEwHousing in Brightonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNrQ6CNQokELegal Aid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQXcZCpwgAA Just Societyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6fv_BNQ4M8Engaging with Politicshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq4BURXAR5E

[steve colborn]

Here is a statement sent to the Sunderland Echo and various other local papers; The Socialist Party are contesting this election, advocating a Revolution in the way Society is organised! From one where production is for profit, benefitting a tiny section of the worlds population, to one which is based on production for "direct human use", to benefit every man, woman and child.This Revolution will entail a Revolution in the way we, the ordinary folk, see the world we live in and the Social relationships within it.By necessity, it will involve "Real Democracy". Each person having a direct say in decisions that effect them, not the sham we have today, where we vote in "Representatives", who more often than not, do precisely what "they" want, and not what benefits the majority.There will be no Leaders, nor elites, but merely human beings working together, collectively, to organise society in such a way, that "we all share" in the resources of the world, as free and equal people.The other Party's contesting this election, all offer variations on a theme, Capitalism! A system, that by its very existence, leaves the majority in various degrees of poverty, want, and insecurity.The World has the resources to offer us ALL, so much more but only if it belongs to "us all", equally!

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Again, to refer to Howard on his tv appearance, he agreed with Andrew Neil that their are aspects of anarchist influences within the party…but we shouldn't drag him over the coals for admitting that, should we? (another previous section of the SPGB would certainly have done so, IMHO, but happily they went off to do their own thing…)

Just a small point, but nevertheless a very important one when discussing the origin of ideas.  The ideas of anarchism originated from the socialism tradition.  So historically, the anarchists are following us not us following them.This question was put to me during the Euro election on BBC Radio Wales and I pointed out to the interviewer that: In actual fact and historically, its the anarchists who are following us for the idea of anarchism originated with socialism.

[ALB]

Nearly forgot but our half-page advertisement will be appearing in tomorrow's (Friday) Morning Star.

[Anonymous]

Here's a proof of the ad which will be appearing in the Brighton Argus this weekend and next and also online:

[Anonymous]

Letter to the Folkestone and Hythe Express:

Quote:

Why is the TUSC candidate claiming to be “the only unashamedly socialist party in these elections” (p.10, April 22) when he clearly wants to see capitalism continue?!He’d like a better “minimum wage” for workers, but waged work is a fundamental part of capitalism’s system of profit-driven production!He’d also like to nationalise various public services, which means they would still have to be paid for!In a genuine socialist economy there will be no need for wages or money as you won’t have to pay for anything.When we collectively and directly own all the farmland, factories, natural resources, power stations etc. then everything produced will also belong to all of us, and so, will be freely available.TUSC need to change their name to the Trade Union and Statist Coalition because, in truth, that’s what they are.They want to run capitalism themselves in a way that’s been tried many times before (and always fails!), whereas The Socialist Party will get rid of it and we’d move on to something infinitely better.The “only unashamedly socialist party in these elections” is actually The Socialist Party!Max Hess

[maxhess]

Looks like a postie may have been offloading leaflets in the Islington area going by this tweet to @OfficialSPGB

[Author]

Posts