General Election – Campaign News

[Anonymous]

Text of a letter, as yet unpublished, to the Editor, Canterbury Times

Quote:

Dear Ms Smith,The Genuine AlternativeIn your report on a forthcoming general election hustings meeting (4th March, page 11) you mentioned “the five men vying for the seat of Canterbury and Whitstable”.All five listed accept that the way society is organised today – the market system (capitalism) – either cannot or should not be changed.The article missed the fact that The Socialist Party of Great Britain is also standing here, to raise the issue of ending this system, which we believe cannot be made to work for the majority of the people.We propose a world cooperative society where wealth is produced and owned in common, and freely shared according to need.  A classless democratic society where decisions are made for the common good rather than for the benefit of a rich elite, whose wealth and power comes only from the hard work of the rest of us.I hope all your readers will be able to attend one of the meetings to which I have been invited and have a chance to hear the case for a genuine alternative: a peaceful, democratic revolution via the ballot box.Yours sincerely,Robert Cox, prospective parliamentary candidate for Canterbury & Whitstable

An invitation has been received for Rob to address residents of a retirement complex on 19 March.  This is not a public event. 

[steve colborn]

Letter published in the Shields Gazette, Thurs 5th Mar; Questions about capitalism16:42 Thursday 05 March 2015 Have your say I WOULD ask Craig Robinson (Have Your Say, Gazette, Monday March 2), a couple of questions:• You say, “There are important left-leaning reformists who increasingly recognise the two great weaknesses of the prevailing approach to poverty.Firstly, they recognise that the war on poverty has been captured by vested interests who have become detached from the noble ambitions of the early left.”Who are these ‘left leaning’ reformists? • You say, “The left has become too Marxist and insufficiently Methodist.”Where is the evidence for this bizarre claim?You talk about the ‘left’ and of ‘left leaning’ but what do you, in actual fact, mean by these generalised terms?The ‘left’ you talk of, support the capitalist system, full stop!They are to be found on the spectrum of pro capitalist parties, from right-wing fascists to left-wing red fascists.All support this system (with slight variations) unequivocally. They want to, and think they can, tinker with capitalism and have a good impact!The fact is, they cannot. Capitalism runs one way and one way only, in the interests of a tiny fraction of the world’s population: the capitalists.I myself, and the party I represent, care not one wit who is the UK government of the day, Tory, Labour, ConDem, etc etc, they are all the same.We do not want to tinker with capitalism but abolish it! Moreover, as opposed to some of these, you would no doubt label so-called lefties, we do not want, nor believe we can, lead anyone to an alternative way of organising society. This must be done by the majority themselves, in an organised, class- conscious way, with no leaders nor led!Only in this way, will it be a truly democratic change.So if your letter was aimed at my previous two letters with regards to capitalism, you are wide of the mark. If it is with regards those you label the ‘left’, have no worries, they are fully committed to capitalism, just not in the way you appear to be! Steve Colborn,The Socialist Party PPC,Ivy Avenue,Deneside, Seaham,Co-Durham. 

[moderator1]

A general word of caution when replying to a mailshot from 38 Degrees.1. Do not CC your response, or you will likely get deleted from further mailshots. Instead use the BCC facility by typing your own email address in the address box and copy and paste the addresses to BCC.2. If you are thinking of using the emails as a mailing list please take note of this advice from their website:https://s3.amazonaws.com/38degrees.3cdn.net/fa05f477bdb57f7b98_iim6bhh77.pdfRespect the data protection act and other privacy protections – don’t, for example, assume if a voter emails you to ask a question about your policy on a specific issue, it means they wish to be added to your mailing list. What this will mean in practice is that all future emails after the election include an unsubscibe option:If you wish to unsuscribe from this mailing list please email gravediggers@talktalk.net

[Anonymous]

Another hustings invitation for our candidate in Canterbury.

Quote:

As one of six General Election candidates, we invite you to take part in a unique, high-profile hustings at 7.30pm-9pm on Tuesday 28 April in Canterbury's Westgate Hall.The hustings will seize the moment of this year's 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. With Canterbury being a major centre for organising the Charter's challenge to tyranny, we will present Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury of the time, as a courageous leader who used his power wisely to empower others. Inspired by him, we invite you to share how you will use the power entrusted to you by your constituents if you are elected. The focus for audience questions will be the issues and interests of constituents who feel unjustly unequal and disempowered. The event organiser, Skillnet Group CIC (registered in central Canterbury), is a social enterprise comprised of people with and without learning difficulties working together equally. Our people represent one such disadvantaged group, but the hustings will embrace all kinds of people who have encountered social injustice.We regret we cannot offer a selection of dates, because the timing is strategic to optimise press coverage. The Kent Messenger will promote the hustings in the 16 April print edition, and then report on the event in the 30 April edition, crucially the last to impact hearts and minds before voting day.Our press release will highlight the live broadcast of the hustings by Canterbury Student and Community Radio on 97.4 FM, and the chance to listen on demand online afterwards.We will also press release to every significant media outlet in Canterbury and more widely in Kent and the South East.The hustings will be non-selective (accessible to all candidates equally) and open to the general public.

This matter of equal accessibility has been taken up with the organisers of two hustings in the Brighton area who have so far omitted to invite our candidates.  We await the outcome…

[ALB]

Very significant that hustings organisers are themselves beginning to distinguish between "selective" and "non-selective" ones and are preferring the latter.Meanwhile Thursday's Oxford Mail reported another de facto "non-selective" one:

Quote:

Election candidates in business debateOXFORD: A General Election debate will take place tonight at Unipart Conference Centre in Garsington Road, Cowley, at 7pm.The public are welcome at the free hustings event organised by The Federation of Small Businesses.Candidates for the Oxford East constituency are Labour MP Andrew Smith, Melanie Magee (Conservative), and Ann Duncan (Green).UKIP candidate Ian Macdonald is unable to attend because of ill health. John Howson, the Lib Dem candidate for Banbury, will stand in for Alastair Murray, who cannot attend.

Two declared candidates (us and TUSC) were not invited.Mind you, not sure what we would have had to say to the representatives of the local petty-bourgeoisie (though no doubt TUSC would have promised them some protection from competition from the big bourgeoisie). Still, we ought not to let this sort of thing pass without protesting, so I'll have to look up their address.

[alanjjohnstone]

As this hustings appears to have the Magna Carta as its theme perhaps someone may draw the candidate's attention to an article i recently wrote if he intends to swot up on the topic ahead of the hustings. http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/02/the-greater-and-better-charter/I don't want to bang my own drum but it highlights that the Magna Carta was more to do with the rights of barons but a lesser known charter was also produced that promoted the rights of the commoners and protected their access to the commons – the Forest Charter. This is the real peoples' charter that socialists should be emphasising and at the hustings it may very well get a receptive welcome if mentioned to any questions about the Magna Carta and the candidate can make it relevant to socialism today…free access.I also hope an edited radio recording of our candidates contributions will be made available.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

As one of six General Election candidates, we invite you to take part in a unique, high-profile hustings at 7.30pm-9pm on Tuesday 28 April in Canterbury's Westgate Hall.The hustings will be non-selective (accessible to all candidates equally) and open to the general public.

This matter of equal accessibility has been taken up with the organisers of two hustings in the Brighton area who have so far omitted to invite our candidates.  We await the outcome…

The omission has been now been rectified in one instance with an invitation for us to attend the Hustings on 13 April, organised by the Brighton & Hove LGBT Community Safety Forum.And a further quite unrelated invitation:

Quote:

Thank you so much for your quick response and your willingness to take part in this project. Don't worry about the video, we will be very happy to meet with you at a place and time that suits you to make the video. Just let me know when you are ready. Before the end of the month would be great. And yes it would be great to have you along to the event itself. it will be in the evening of 19 April at Gloucester Place Baptist Church.

[Anonymous]

And the first invitation to a Hustings in Folkestone has been received:

Quote:

We would like to hold a hustings for our Primetime group on Wednesday 8 April at 2pm in St John’s Church Hall, St John’s Church Road, Folkestone. Accordingly, I am writing to invite you to represent your party at this event.Primetime is a weekly social club held at St John’s Church, St. John’s Church Road, Folkestone, for the over 60s. We have in the past had similar hustings events that have been very successful and well attended. There will be an opportunity for you, and each candidate, to lay out key policies for 5-6 minutes followed by a time of questions. The event will be chaired by Mr Robert Grieve who hosted previous hustings at this venue.

Our candidate in Folkestone & Hythe, Andy Thomas, will be attending.

[ALB]

We ventured outside the city borders of Oxford today to Cumnor where our candidate Mike Foster helped clean up part of the area:https://twitter.com/DeanCourtCC/status/574546617547751424Also taking part were Dr Helen Salisbury, the National Health Action Party candidate, and the LibDem hopeful, Layla Moran (it was a LibDem seat till the last election). Also a LibDem candidate for the Vale of White Horse district council where elections are also taking place on 7 May.At the same time we got the remaining three signatories on the nomination paper. So that chore is now over.Also learned of a couple of other hustings, to which we have not yet been invited.Back in Oxford we met local sympathisers and planned literature stalls in April, one every Thursday evening (starting 9 April) and one every Saturday morning, as well as a presence at the Oxford May Day event (no, not the students jumping off Magdalen bridge).

[ALB]

Exchange of emails with the Fawcett Society about a hustings they have organised for this Thursday:

Quote:

As election agent for candidates standing in both Oxford constituencies in May I notice you have organised a hustings on Thursday 12 March in Ruskin College but that our candidates have not been invited. This would appear to be an infringements of the rules on hustings laid down by the Electoral Commission, as set out in this document, particularly pages 7 and 8: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/169480/sp-hustings-npc-ukpge.pdf Hopefully, this is just because you didn't know we were standing. Adam Buick Election Agent for Kevin Parkin, Prospective Socialist Party candidate for Oxford East and Mike Foster, Prospective Socialist Party candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon.

Their reply:

Quote:

Thank you for showing an interest in this event. When planning the hustings, we agreed to only invite candidates with MPs. As you can see on pages 5 and 6 of the Electoral Commission document, this is a legitimate impartial reason meaning we are not infringing on these rules. The hustings we are holding is of course non-selective, as Fawcett is politically unaligned we would not be able to use this event to promote voters to support a particular party in any case. We just want to encourage people to vote, and to engage on the policies that affect women in particular. We would of course welcome you to join us at the event as part of the audience.

Our response:

Quote:

Thanks. We don't accept that your reasons necessarily make your hustings
"non-selective" but as the Fawcett Society is not a registered "third
party" and are not likely to spend more than £9750 per constituency it
makes no practical difference either way.

Your meeting may encourage people to vote (for the parties invited) but it
won't contribute to the spread of the basic democratic principle that in
any election all the candidates should have an equal say.

We assume that you will be taking account of the Electoral Commission's
view that you should announce that we also will be standing in both Oxford
East and Oxford West & Abingdon and that the names of our candidates are,
respectively, Kevin Parkin and Mike Foster. Also, that, as we say in our
declaration of principles drawn up in 1904, "the emancipation of the
working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without
distinction of race or sex."

Ah well, you can't win them all.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Ah well, you can't win them all.

Ah well, maybe not, but is there any prospect of members or supporters, including those from the Oxford Communist Corresponding Society, attending this hustings and, how shall I put it, making their presence felt?

[ALB]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

Ah well, you can't win them all.

Ah well, maybe not, but is there any prospect of members or supporters, including those from the Oxford Communist Corresponding Society, attending this hustings and, how shall I put it, making their presence felt?

Yes, a couple of those who have signed Kevin's nomination paper live near Ruskin College in Headington and have already been alerted. Hopefully, they'll be able to get along to the meeting.Incidentally, I noticed after I sent the email that UKIP will not be represented and they do have a couple of elected MPs. I wonder whether they were invited.

[Anonymous]

Invitation received by our candidate in the Brighton Pavilion consituency.

Quote:

Dear Mr Pilott,We are preparing a presentation for our church congregation (One Church Brighton – formerly Florence Road Baptist Church & Gloucester Place Baptist Church) focusing on the subject of social justice. This is scheduled to take place on 19 April – a few weeks before the general election.We are hoping to represent the views of local candidates on a selection of issues in order to help with the voting decisions we will need to make in May.We would be most grateful if you could assist in this project by letting us know your personal views on the five questions listed below. We would like to offer TWO options for making your response: (1) a written reply, (2) your agreement to video your responses at a time and place to suit yourself. This would be our preferred option, facilitating a more dynamic and engaging production.We would also like to ask your permission to distribute your responses to a wider audience, possibly using social media. We undertake to respect your wishes in this regard.I look forward to hearing from you.Yours truly,John Weaver

Our candidate has provided a written response to each of these questions (see below), will take part in a vdeo presentation AND personally attend the event.

Quote:

FIVE QUESTIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATESIt is said that the gap between rich and poor is wider in the UK than any other EU country and it’s getting wider. Do you see this as a problem and, if so, what do you believe are the best ways of tackling it?

SPGB wrote:

My guess is that this is true, and my analysis would be that this is because we have a more naked version of capitalism in this country than in most of the EU. For one reason or another Europe has a much more collectivist tradition than the UK and this has resulted in things like the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. Remember Germany had state welfare provision before we did. Anyway the upshot is that the forces of capitalism are stronger in UK than in EU and the way capitalism works is to attract power and money to those that have power and money: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The state colludes in this. Note that in the recent scandal involving swiss tax evaders, there were no prosecutions [or possibly one] whereas if it were you or me, we’d be done, no questions.Apparently it’s too expensive or difficult to prove with rich people. Lord Fink saying his tax avoidance was ‘vanilla’ and everyone does it reflects the fact that he doesn’t know anyone on PAYE – which is most of the working class. So much for the premise of the questions, and so, yes, it is a problem: of course it is not right that so many should ensure hardship so these greedy pigs should further increase their wealth. The obvious way of tackling it is to abolish capitalism: it’s only been around for a few hundred years and has now outlived its usefulness. Let’s work together for a socialist future where the wealth of the world is shared collectively.

A very tangible example of the rich/poor divide is the difficulty many people have in affording a home. First time buyers are in competition with Buy-to-Let landlords and rich speculators using property as an investment. How can this issue be addressed?

SPGB wrote:

When I grew up nearly everyone I knew lived in council houses. They weren’t brilliant but they were ok and we weren’t all constantly feeling inadequate because we didn’t own our own house and have something to pass onto our children. The public were bribed into this house buying stuff by being given houses at knock down prices and once all the good houses are gone, council housing becomes more undesirable – a happy spiral for the tories who dreamt this one up. As the property market builds up the usual make-a-quick-buck operators move in. If you have money you can buy a house and use it to make more money through rental. The system is recycling money from the renters [those who do not have] to those who already own property – another example of capitalism in the raw. The governments of whatever hue may or may not choose to try to regulate this but it is an aspect of the system so they work against the grain. Unless property is collectively owned there will never be fairness in its distribution, there will always be those at the bottom losing out badly and those at the top doing very nicely thank you. Again the only real solution is the abolition of capitalism.

The reduction in Legal Aid has impacted many people seeking justice in their varying situations. For example, the number of separated parents accessing family courts to resolve their children’s access rights has halved and the number of children using contact centres went down to 9,000 last year compared to 15,000 in 2013. As a result, many contact centres are now closing. How can people with limited means get the justice that their circumstances demand?

SPGB wrote:

Simply put, they cannot. The trajectory of recent policies is to remove any safety nets for the less well off, because the benefactors of the government resent paying taxes to fund this: their greed literally knows no bounds. Added to the fact that the legal profession is a petit bourgeois cartel that ensures its members can charge a fortune for their paltry efforts. The following was quoted in the Express in 2013: “Last year for every pound the NHS paid out in compensation, 54.9p went in legal fees.”[24/9/13]. If working people have access to the law they are more likely to hold the wealthy to account and therefore the wealthy will try to stop this: that’s capitalism.

As political parties focus on pleasing the groups of people most likely to vote for them (e.g. pensioners), the needy in our society are being ignored and marginalised. For example, as a result of central and local government cuts, many people with learning disabilities have lost some or all of the services they rely on – leading to social isolation and a loss of skills, as well as placing huge burdens on their carers. What ideas do you have for fostering a compassionate and just society where hardship, need and isolation are addressed?

SPGB wrote:

I think I can honestly say this passes us by. We cannot be accused of courting the squeezed middle or any other sub group – we just want to connect with YOU. Often disabled people are marginalised because employers perceive them as more bother and less worth: easier to get someone without a disability. I have yet to meet an employer who cares beyond a bottom line; might do for a bit but there will come a time…Building a society where the competition for jobs money and the necessaries of a decent life are a thing of the past engenders a certain spirit of togetherness: we’re with each other not against each other. We are not threats to each other but potential allies in what we achieve; we all become neighbours with a collective interest in our community – which includes its members. The society we have was justly christened the rat race: it doesn’t have to be like that – we can change it all.

A lot of people, especially the young, feel disengaged and disenchanted with politics. They feel that the challenges they face are not understood and they distrust politicians. What do you believe are the most effective ways in which ordinary people in this country can influence national and world affairs for the better?

SPGB wrote:

Simple: by taking control of them. Leaving control of this world to the rich and greedy has resulted in incredible deprivation and despoliation of the planet. Big business has treated the ground the sea and the atmosphere as a cost free dumping ground with terrible repercussions. Overseas engagement usually results in things going from bad to worse – where do you want me to begin – and here we are seeing the end of a government running on a platform which nobody voted for. There is an alternative: we can land satellites on tiny comets at the other end of the solar system; we can make the lame walk; we can do a lot better than this. Socialism IS the alternative.

[alanjjohnstone]

ALB , i pretty sure you will be in attendance at the hustings which refused our attendance and you no doubt will raise as your very first question the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the policy the Fawcett Society has followed by this rejection of full participation that is tantamount to censorship of minority views.  Simply to add that in this question you will make it clear to the chair that you expect the prospective candidates (or representatives) and not just ours will be given the floor to pose questions or respond to answers more than just a token one time, that he or she will be provided opportunities for several interventions to compensate for this lapse of commitment to full democracy by them.   

Quote:

"Analysing the different parties’ manifestos, examining what their policies would mean for women  and women’s rights – and publicising our findings"

This from their own website.   http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/general-election-2015-fawcetts-plans/ 

[ALB]

I shan't be there at the Fawcett Society meeting in Oxford, but one of our supporters has said he will try:

Quote:

I will try to go because the smug middle-class complacency of the Fawcett Society obviously needs to be challenged.

He is right. Mrs Fawcett was never a democrat. A capitalist herself she campaigned for equal rights for capitalist men and women, eg for the Married Women's Property Act of 1882 (which allowed married capitalist women to keep their property rather than it becoming their husbands as before) and Votes for Rich Women (votes for women on the same terms as men, which would have left most women and one-third of men without the vote). So their democratic credentials are not very strong.Thanks for the link. So they do have an election campaign fund even though they are not a registered "third party". They could be in trouble for this. And I check if they really did invite UKIP since, if they didn't, the reason they have given for not inviting us will be spurious.

[Author]

Posts