Future elections
- This topic has 138 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just been reading a few of the comments re my request for assistance, on the spintcom site and I am quite puzzled by some of the comments there.I'll deal with one only for now! I am not seeking political office at all. I am standing, so that a name, recognised and linked with Socialism, will once again be there at these elections, in the full knowledge and understanding of those who have heard me and read me over the years. As I have said, 32 years of the advocacy for Socialism, in Easington and moreover the larger NE area, has my name inextricably linked with the espousal of the same. As for saying, or doing, something that would bring the Party into disrepute, in the infinitesimally small chance of "being elected", I could not nor would not. Why on earth would I mar my opinions and reputation for advocating Socialism and promoting the Party, as I have done assiduously in all this time?It would make no logical sense.You may question why I have left the Party, we all have the right to our opinions. What you cannot do, is question my credentials as a Socialist, in or out of the Party. If anyone does so, they do not know the kind of person I am. Steve.
Nice idea by the way Paddy, a bathroom suite, or just a bath! I could get some slogans on the side, site it outside Seahams main shopping centre as a publicity stunt and talk to people passing by about the case, while I sit in the water, in my birthday suit, scrubbing of, metaphorically speaking, al the shite of Capitalism I have been exposed to for decades.Thanks for the idea Paddy ) Steve.
I am heartened to read that Party members do not hold grudges against those who have the individualism in them, to voice contrary opinions. It is heartwarming to know that 32 years of fighting for Socialism in The Socialist Party have, in some small way, been appreciated. I will read the comradely comments again, when Capitalism depresses me. It is nice to know that the brotherly, comradely, friendly union of Socialists is alive and kicking "now", even before Socialism has been established.PS dont for an instant "dare" to suggest that I would traduce my Party in the forthcoming election. It is still my Party, in it, or outside of it. I did not spend the whole of my adult life to throw it all away. Steve.
I have had a look at SPintcom regarding this issue and I am heartened to see some who are concerned about putting the socialist message forward. However there are some who seem unable to actually read plain english. Quite simply those so called socialists are the type I have concerns about. Too petty minded to see that there are more important things than their own petty egos. No wonder the party is so small, with little minds like that among the WSM.Bloody pathetic morons!
SocialistPunk wrote:I have had a look at SPintcom regarding this issue and I am heartened to see some who are concerned about putting the socialist message forward. However there are some who seem unable to actually read plain english. Quite simply those so called socialists are the type I have concerns about. Too petty minded to see that there are more important things than their own petty egos. No wonder the party is so small, with little minds like that among the WSM.Bloody pathetic morons!How do we understand the motives of such people? What motivates them to attack socialists like that. I suggest readers of the forum use there logic and imagination. A look back on spintcom reveals those responsible. These same people appear to have be immune to any criticism as any criticism is considered 'flaming' and yet they are allowed to viciously attack good hardworking honest socialist like Steve Colborn and it is not considered flaming. They present their side as 'party feeling' and this is absolute rubbish.
Absolutely OGW.Some of those same names cropped up, to have a go at you and Steve not so long ago. Seems they can't help themselves and can't see their own hypocrisy.But what is the most pathetic thing about this, is that the disagreements this petty minded lot can't get past, that caused a stir among the party, were issues of democratic principle, not personalities. They are now so small minded that they place personal dislikes above that of positive socialist activity."Cutting of the nose to spite the face" is very appropriate for those idiots. At the end of the day, not all socialists will be friends, but putting the cause before personal likes and dislikes is obvious if at all serious about what we claim to be here for.
The European Court of Human Rights has just upheld the UK ban on paid political advertisements on TV and radio:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22238582Their argument was that this helped democracy by not giving the wealthy an unfair advantage and, anyway, political parties and campaigning groups were still allowed to advertise in the press. Not very convincing.The hypocritical reaction of the government was expressed by Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary:
Quote:The government welcomed the verdict, saying the ban helped sustain a "balance of views" on British TV.Nothing about the imbalance resulting from the major political parties being able to use TV and radio to get their message across via party political broadcasts denied to smaller parties. And now the ban on smaller parties paying to advertise on TV and radio stays. So the monopoly of the major parties on presenting their views, as they wish to present them, on TV and radio continues. We remain denied this.If we go ahead with the suggestion to contest Wales and/or Scotland in next year's European elections we might get our first — three minute– political broadcast ever. Not that that will restore the imbalance.
I just noticed that at yesterday's by-election in South Shields there was a candidate standing for "The Independent Socialist Party" which was only registered on 17 April. It seems to be a one-man show. But, in view of the arguments over registering "The Socialist Party" which resulted in a ruling that nobody could, I wonder whether the Electoral Commission would have agreed to register him as "The Independent Labour Party" or, for that matter, anyone as "The Independent Conservative Party". I doubt it, especially as representatives of the parties with MPs are now on the board of the Commission (which they weren't originally).Incidentally, looking through the list of registered parties, I noticed that freelance Trotskyist, Andrew Burgin, registered, on 26 March this year, a "Left Party". Could this be a precursor of the "United Left" party that Ken Loach has called for?
Here is the result in the two-member Deneside ward in the Durham County Council elections yesterday:
Quote:BELL, Edward (Labour) 972BELL, Jennifer (Labour) 920COLBORN, Steven 263Electorate: 5893Turnout: 20.57%That means that of the 1212 who voted, about 21% cast one of their votes for Steve Colborn.
Even if all the votes cannot be regarded as positive, conscious votes for socialism (rather than mere anti-Labour votes), past experience of our contesting local elections suggests that up to a quarter of the votes we get may be. That would suggest that there could be up to 50 or so potential socialists in the area. What we have been doing in London as a follow to local elections is to distribute every few months a "News and Views" leaflet putting the Socialist case on local as well as general issues. These can be found in the files section of spopen (by those who are members of that forum) under Leaflets/Local Lambeth Leaflets, including the latest currently being distributed (in fact today in Clapham High St).
Town council result; Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishCandidatePartyVotesElectedALLEN, BrianLabour Party Candidate460ElectedBAIRD, Margaret RoseLabour Party Candidate494ElectedBELL, EdwardLabour Party Candidate499ElectedBLEASDALE, GeraldineLabour Party Candidate426ElectedCOLBORN, Steven Paul 157 3123Electorate:20.97%Turnout: Steve.
This is just an idea Steve but, wouldn't it be better for none of us to stand in elections?I mean correct me if I am wrong, but representative democracy is just pseudo democracy and if we, the SPGB, want REAL democracy, then surely it would be a better idea for us to campaign for a society without gods, masters and rulers, and instead have a society by where the people are in charge and there is direct democracy.
Alex Woodrow wrote:This is just an idea Steve but, wouldn't it be better for none of us to stand in elections?I mean correct me if I am wrong, but representative democracy is just pseudo democracy and if we, the SPGB, want REAL democracy, then surely it would be a better idea for us to campaign for a society without gods, masters and rulers, and instead have a society by where the people are in charge and there is direct democracy.At this stage the parties electoral activities are purely propagandist. We stand with the intention to make people aware of alternatives to capitalism, in other words to spread the message. It's also a great way to judge how many socialists there are in a certain area. Have you read the pamphlet what's wrong with using parliament?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.