General Election – Campaign News

[Brian]

The debate  last night in Swansea with the Greens attracted 19 visitors and 9 members.  Their candidate focused on a more robust tax system to provide the investment for the environment, welfare and community. A member mentioned they sounded like old labour.

[ALB]

Reply from the Thames Valley branch of the Federation of Small Businesses as to why they didn't invite us to their hustings:

Quote:

Thank you for expressing an interest in our Oxford East hustings event that took place on Thursday 5 March. The purpose of the event was to give small businesses the opportunity to hear from candidates on how best they will support small businesses if elected as their MP.Electoral Commission rules stipulate that we must invite all political candidates unless there is an impartial reason for not inviting certain candidates or parties. Our policy is to only invite candidates who have a realistic chance of becoming the next MP in that constituency. We base this decision on the results of the 2010 General Election and current national polling data. We also have a national policy of non-engagement with the BNP.The rules recognise that it is not always practically possible to invite all candidates. They also stipulate that we must invite candidates who represent a reasonable variety of views from different parts of the political spectrum as was the case for our hustings.I hope you understand why we have to cap the number of speaking places on the panel in the interests of running an efficient event that is focused on what each candidate will do for small businesses.Kind regards,Robyn Bourne Thames Valley Development Manager Federation of Small Businesses

The reason they give for not having invited us — that they "only invite candidates who have a realistic chance of becoming the next MP" in a particular constituency — was clearly not applied impartially as neither the Greens nor UKIP (both lost their deposit at the last election) nor the Tories (they have no seats on Oxford City Council) have a realistic chance of being elected. So it will have been a "selective" hustings. It would certainly have been if there had been a BNP candidate.  They should have been clever like the Fawcett Society and say they only invite parties which have MPs (incidentally, for the record, the Fawcett Society did invite UKIP but their candidate couldn't come).We'll write to the Electoral Commission for confirmation that this hustings was "selective".

[Anonymous]

As part of our General Election activity we will holding a literature stall in Brighton this coming Saturday (14 March) from 12 noon in an area known as The Lanes, which is close to the Town Hall and seafront.  Precise location to be determined upon arrival but click on link below for street map of the area:http://www.visitbrighton.com/dbimgs/June2014%20Brighton_Lanes_and_Seafront_map2014.pdfShould there be any difficulty finding us on the day please phone one of these numbers:07973 14270107766 297130

[Anonymous]

Another hustings to which we were not invited and the ensuing exchange of emails between our candidate and the organisers: 

Rob Cox wrote:

Election Hustings Meeting Friday 13th MarchPlease would you explain to me what grounds you have for deciding not to invite me to this event.I take it that you are aware of the electoral law concerning such events, and the implications of holding “selective hustings" (i.e. excluding some candidates).There is clear guidance available from the Electoral Commission which I hope you intend to follow.

Quote:

Dear Mr Cox,Thank you for your email about the Langton Canterbury Question Time event on Friday.We based our invitations primarily on recent election results in the Canterbury constituency, especially the 2010 general election. Friday’s event follows on from the first of these question time sessions which we held last year, with the same five parties represented. As it is a school-based meeting we are also tying it in with preparations for a school mock election, where these five leading parties from the previous general election are represented.You, or another representative of the Socialist Party are of course very welcome to attend and speak from the floor. We will be making clear, following the guidelines, that more candidates/parties will be standing than are appearing at the meeting.Kind regardsImogen Brawn,Chair of the LPA

There may well be a case for taking this matter further.

[Anonymous]

Letter from Max Hess in today's edition of the Folkestone Express:

[alanjjohnstone]

Again, it should be pointed out to those selective hustings that some on the platform would not have been invited a few years according to the organisers guidelines and that it is a policy which discourages new-comers to the political scene….an example would be the present Greek government Syriza …or the party currently heading opinion polls in Spain…Podemos…would likewise be excluded from the hustings. This is particularly shocking in the case of mock school election…just what sort of example of democracy are we presenting to young people today. I also suggest that the within a reasonable time and in advance of any official protest to the Electoral Commission…we issue a press release announcing our intention to seek legal advice for possible future legal action against those hustings that have excluded ourselves. (note my phrase of intention and possible…i'm not saying we will make a legal challenge. just use the threat as a frightener) I think perhaps concerning the tv debate issue, some media may well pick up on it This should be in concert with  broader more political statement press release concerning what has been discussed here…the suppression of democratic expression …a policy of exclusion… etc etc etc..Let us reclaim the  mantle of Social Democracy

[alanjjohnstone]

Probably escape the national news but the Scottish Green Party are a little bit peeved that they have been excluded from Scottish Television's debate even though they have two Scottish Parliament MPs and had had  European Parliament MPs and have a number of town councillors. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31858913

[ALB]

Here's a sympathiser's report of what happened at the selective hustings organised by the Fawcett Society at Ruskin College in Oxford last night at which we were no-platformed:

Quote:

Had a successful intervention at Ruskin.  Here below is a report of my intervention which I have just sent to some Ruskin staff who I know, some of whom attended the hustings.It is disappointing that such no-platforming of socialists is happening but it is reflective of the power of bourgeois ideology in this period.PhilDear all, I attended the Fawcett Society general election hustings tonight at Ruskin in order to make the meeting aware that the candidates of two organisations – the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition – were not present.  This was because the Fawcett Society had taken a decision that only candidates of parties that had MPs in parliament were to be invited. I pointed out that when one considers that 40 percent of the population did not vote at the last general election and more than 10 per cent voted for parties that do not have any MPs, what the Fawcett Society are effectively saying is that they care not a jot for the opinions of more than 50 per cent of the population.  My question to the Fawcett Society was, "How are you defending the interests of all those women who want to vote for explicitly socialist parties or who merely don't want to vote for any pro-capitalist party?".  This question remains on the table. I was rather unpleasantly shouted down by some low-culture people, mainly women, with middle class prejudices.  But having more or less made my point to the meeting I then left because I had another meeting to go to, and because I do not wish to spend my time listening to politicians from pro-capitalist parties. I would be interested to know whether the Fawcett Society also no-platformed the other minority parties such as the NHS party? Also, as I left the building I was spoken to by someone who seemed like a porter (hope I'm not doing him an injustice) who told me that he had been informed by "a member of staff" that I am banned from the building.  I have no knowledge of such a ban.  Can someone please clue me in as to what has been going on?

Some good arguments for us to use at other hustings where we are no-platformed.

[alanjjohnstone]

As some know i tend to suggest theatrics to hopefully draw attention to ourselves and i wonder if we could actually stage a picket/protest at one of those hustings we are excluded from. We should choose a high profile hustings that is blatantly ignoring guidelines and organise transport so we get a substantial number of members present and provide placards for participants…Inform the media of our intended actions and have a press release issued justifying the protest. Make our own video clip to upload to You Tube. We are often criticised for just being interested in socialism and nothing else BUT we are equally concerned on the means of achieving socialism…democracy, fair access to a public hearing for the free access casePerhaps the tactic should be an open-air public meeting at the entrance of the venue to make the point that we will not be silenced. "We will NOT be No-Platformed"…not very catchy slogan..i am sure someone can raise a better one…Shouldn't we have a general leaflet to distribute at these no-minority party hustings even if you think i'm OTT with the protest idea. This can all be tied into my earlier suggestion of press releases on possible legal action.I know the problem…hard enough to get volunteers to turn up at a hustings …so that why i suggest we address logistics and draft them them in …and perhaps pick a hustings which has refused us in a place where we have sympathisers…Oxford Corresponding Society?  

[ALB]

This exchange of emails with the Electoral Commission explains the rather narrow circumstances in which legal action could be taken or, rather, a complaint made that the regulations have been breached. Other than that we've got to rely on arguments based on fair play and the democratic principle that all the candidates in an election should have equal time.This arose out of the hustings organised in Oxford by the Federation of Small Businesses. We wrote asking if, in the Electoral Commission's view, in view of the reasons given by the FSB, this should be regarded as a "selective" hustings.

Quote:

A non-selective hustings is a hustings which will not reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or oppose particular policies or issues. If a hustings is non-selective, it will not be regulated. The best way to ensure that a hustings is non-selective is to invite all of the political parties standing in a constituency and give them an equal opportunity to participate.If it is not practical for an organiser to invite all parties, they should be able to give impartial reasons as to why they have not invited other parties. Our good practice recommendations on page 6 of the hustings guidance give some examples of impartial reasons. An impartial reason could, for example, be that you have invited the three parties with the most MPs. In their email, Robyn Bourne explained that they based  their reasons on the results of the 2010election as well as current national polling data. These reasons are impartial reasons.

We replied:

Quote:

Thanks, but this interpretation of yours permits virtually anything:"An impartial reason could, for example, be that you have invited the three parties with the most MPs. In their email, Robyn Bourne explained that they based  their reasons on the results of the 2010 election as well as current national polling data. These reasons are impartial reasons."We can't agree that the first could be regarded as an impartial reason. It would be hard to think of anything more partial except perhaps to invite only the two parties whose leader has a chance of becoming Prime Minister.Allowing such a decision as impartial opens the door to discrimination against parties as long as you can think of a general principle that excludes them.As regards the reason invoked by Robyn Bourne, that's not so bad but they would need to explain to parties not invited what the exactly were the criteria for judging the results and polling data. They did not do this.Finally, we would like to ask to whom should be addressed any complaint that an allegedly non-selective hustings was in fact a selective one and who makes a decision on this.

They came back:

Quote:

As previously stated, in some instances it may not be practical for an organiser to invite all of the parties or candidates standing to their hustings. In these instances, if the organiser provides impartial reasons as to why certain parties or candidates have been invited while others have not, the event will not be regulated,  as it cannot be reasonably regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidatesI note from the emails below that the Federation of Small Business explained that they had to ‘cap the number of speaking places on the panel in the interests of running an efficient event’. In line with our guidance, they appear to have made a decision about who to invite based on the results of the last election and current polling data. The Electoral Commission makes decisions in response to complaints as to whether an event is regulated, this will include decisions about whether a hustings is non selective, taking account of all circumstances.  Please see our guidance here for more information on making an allegation. Please note allegations must have some supporting evidence. I would also advise that you read our guidance on non-party campaigning as spending on any single hustings event is not likely to reach the threshold that requires a non-party campaigner to register with us. It is not against the rules to hold a selective hustings, a breach of any rules will only occur when the spending of a non-party campaigner goes above the threshold and the non-party campaigner does not register with us and the spending is not properly reported. Spending in relation to a selective hustings may in some circumstances need to be reported as candidate or party spending. Again a breach will not occur unless this spending does not appear in the appropriate returns.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

we've got to rely on arguments based on fair play and the democratic principle that all the candidates in an election should have equal time.

That begs the question…How do we present our arguments if we cannot rely upon the Electoral Commission's guidelines which do little to prevent discrimination?I suggest we (or rather the Outreach or the Election Committee) draft a leaflet explaining our grievance to distribute at these selective hustings. That the leaflet's text is used as the basis of the press release and circulated by the Media Committee to all the newspaper addresses it holds on file. And if a suitable opportunity arises we do stage a physical protest or picket. I hesitate to suggest we invite the other non-represented candidate's parties to participate but i don't exclude it as such but if we can rope in non-aligned activists (as i proposed) all the better. By making a stand we do show we are as much concerned about contemporary issues of freedom of political expression  about demanding socialism. If we are committed to using Parliament we must also be determined to ensure we support certain democratic principles. i don't think it is the start of the slippery slope into reformism, but perhaps other members may interpret it as that, rather than simply object on the grounds of the Party's lack of capability to mount such a protest, which i can sympathise with. Too much is placed upon too few shoulders but that cannot be helped in a voluntarist organisation as ourselves. We got to live with it and adapt where we can.i have been on my own for union pickets and turned back lorries…i have been on mail deliveries and been confronted by a solitary picket and have returned to the office with the mail. A token protest can become symbolic (Rosa Parks?)Anyway, i'd like to hear what others think…

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Rugby Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition launches its camapigns for the 2015 general and council elections this Saturday, March 14 – but not with traditional speeches. We are not a traditional party, and we have no intention of doing things purely in traditional political ways. This is why we are launching our campaign with a rock music event – a benefit gig.

http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1049/letters/Can i suggest that TUSC are making a big song and dance over their pitiful menu of palliatives. 

[Anonymous]

Interesting exchange of emails in Folkestone:

Quote:

Dear Susan,I understand you contacted the Socialist Party after reading Max Hess’ recent letter in the local paper.I’d like to introduce myself as the parliamentary candidate for the Socialist Party of Great Britain standing in the Folkestone & Hythe constituency. If there’s any more information I can give you on the party and its policies, please don’t hesitate to ask.Kind regardsAndy ThomasParliamentary candidate for Folkestone & HytheSocialist Party of Great Britain

Quote:

Hi Andy,Thanks for your quick reply.Actually it was yourself that I wanted to know a bit more about, because that letter from Max Hess was the first I knew about a Socialist standing, and if I'm to consider voting for you, I need more info.I'm a life member of the Green Party, but I'm still interested in other possible systems for society, and am not convinced that I'll vote Green, or vote at all, in this election.I heard about SPGB a few months ago (can't remember where!) and have downloaded your info-pack from the website, but it's natural, isn't it, to want to know a bit more about candidates and their backgrounds.  Eg, do you live in Folkestone?  Are you holding any local meetings where potential voters can meet and chat with you? Thanks.Kind Regards,Susan

[alanjjohnstone]

Hmmm.???..Susan's interest in the person of the candidate may have some of us questioning "its not the face, its the case" argumentShould it be raised with her, that we do not do personalities…or do we need to provide full bios of our candidates to relate more on human level to prospective supporters?…My opinion has always been the former rather than the latter but it is not engraved in tablets of stone.Perhaps Andy should ask her why his personal details should be included as well as his political positions so that we can actually start the process of learning from this electoral venture of ours, Maybe we should engage in direct discussion with her if she is willing and has time to express her thoughts…it is the relevant feedback we wish to seek rather than draw conclusions from assumptions.   

[jondwhite]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Rugby Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition launches its camapigns for the 2015 general and council elections this Saturday, March 14 – but not with traditional speeches. We are not a traditional party, and we have no intention of doing things purely in traditional political ways. This is why we are launching our campaign with a rock music event – a benefit gig.

http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1049/letters/Can i suggest that TUSC are making a big song and dance over their pitiful menu of palliatives. 

Wouldn't this count as the 'theatrics' you propose?

[Author]

Posts