General Election – Campaign News
- This topic has 529 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:Is Howard on the far-left?
No, he's a socialist.
Capitalist Pig wrote:our canidate decleared from the start that he was unelectable? what does this mean?It's a misquote. He said he was unlikely to be elected.
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Is Howard on the far-left?No, he's a socialist.
Lol
The Sussex Express requested a 200 word profile of our candidate standing in Brighton Kemptown; this is what was provided:
Jacqueline Shodeke wrote:I am not seeking votes for what I am but for what I stand for — replacing today’s capitalist system of ownership by the few and production for profit by a system where the Earth’s resources are owned in common and used to directly produce what people need.I became a socialist when I realised that capitalism could never be made to work for people like me, born with no wealth and so having to sell themselves on the jobs market to get the money to buy the things needed to live and never being paid enough to live decently.Capitalism’s basic economic laws of “no profit, no production” and “can’t pay, can’t have” work to create problems for the vast majority of people because they mean that making profits always takes priority over meeting needs. In its pursuit of profit capitalism causes economic crises, the destruction of the environment, everything having a price and, on the world scale, wars, global warming and world poverty.That’s why it must be replaced by a society where people have free access to what they need as of right and without having to work for an employer and without having to pay.Jacqueline Shodeke,Socialist Party candidate for Brighton Kemptown http://spgb.net/brLooks like today is Republic day. Here's my email I sent:
Quote:The Socialist Party is campaigning for the creation of a society based on common ownership of the wealth of the world, so that it can be directly administered in all our interests, rather than in the interest of the minority who currently own it.Our core principles affirm that we intend to "overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic" and that includes replacing the monarchy, and government, with the self-active democracy of the population. If our delegates find themselves serving as a minority in a parliament dominated by pro-capitalist parties, our membership will instruct them to vote (after a democratic debate) in the best interests of the working class.Young Master Smeet wrote:Looks like today is Republic day.Actually, it's the queen's real birthday. Here's what our candidates in Oxford replied:
Quote:Yes, the socialist society we envisage is incompatible with the existence of the monarchy as well as with all other aristocratic and capitalist privilege but equally with the existence of the capitalist state, whether republic or monarchy.Meanwhile one of our candidates there, Mike Foster, in Oxdord West & Abingdon, is described in a letter in today's Oxford Mail as "an unreconstructed 'commimist'". Actually, he is but doubtless not in the sense the writer meant.
Part of a long email received by our candidate in Brighton Pavilion:
Quote:Dear Howard Pilott, Will you support a democratic alternative to the monarchy – or at the very least support an end to royal secrecy, royal power and royal abuse of taxpayers' money? I'm thinking about who to vote for on May 7 and want to know if you will support the Republic Manifesto, put together by the campaign group Republic.Howard Pilott wrote:Thanks for your email. The real essence of democracy is that in some sense our views have equal value. This means that the system we currently endure is not a democracy other than in some sham sense: we cast votes but the decisions are taken by others.In my view the monarchy is a keystone of the class system which sees privilege accorded to class and as such I am opposed to it. However this fails to address the extent to which the monarchy is really just symbolic, wielding little power, and it exists more for ideological reasons rather than those of control: having a monarchy which is promoted within our society reinforces the idea of privilege and disparity of wealth. The real power base of this society consists of those who have the most money: in our world money buys influence and most of it is utilised to the benefit of those with money. Until something is done about this power imbalance, the presence or otherwise of a monarchy is pretty much irrelevant – the United States has no monarch but it is not particularly more egalitarian than the UK. Only by removing the power of money and thereby those with large fortunes will we see a difference: only by working for socialism are we moving in any direction which will effect meaningful change. The rest, whilst nobly meant, is redundant. Best wishes Howard Pilott SPGB Candidate for Brighton PavilionCouple of examples of The Socialist Party of Great Britain going by the name of a rival err…socialist organisation. What's with that? I always thought the abbreviated version of the Party name was The Socialist Party?
Quote:Yours sincerelyRobert CoxSocialist Party Parliamentary Candidate – Canterbury and Whitstableand
Quote:Jacqueline Shodeke,Socialist Party candidate for Brighton KemptownSocialistPunk wrote:Couple of examples of The Socialist Party of Great Britain going by the name of a rival err…socialist organisation. What's with that? I always thought the abbreviated version of the Party name was The Socialist Party?SPEW uses "The" Socialist Party to… But in elections we are the only ones allowed to use Socialist Party. SPEW use Socialist Alternative…
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Couple of examples of The Socialist Party of Great Britain going by the name of a rival err…socialist organisation. What's with that? I always thought the abbreviated version of the Party name was The Socialist Party?SPEW uses "The" Socialist Party to… But in elections we are the only ones allowed to use Socialist Party. SPEW use Socialist Alternative…
This is only partially correct. SPEW is known simply as 'Socialist Party' but is not permitted to use that name at elections. We have a total of six alternative names registered with the Electoral Commission: "The Socialist Party of Great Britain', 'The Socialist Party (GB)' and 'SPGB' in addition to 'World Socialist Party (UK)', 'World Socialist Party (EU)', and 'World Socialist Movement'.I concede that we should not omit the definite article even in shorthand as this only leads to further confusion.
Thanks for clearing that up Gnome.I knew I was correct about SPEW being commonly known as Socialist Party. I agree there is potential for further confusion.
Report of Hustings yesterday at the Centre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent.
Robert Cox wrote:This was my biggest event so far and all the other Canterbury parliamentary candidates attended. I was very apprehensive about this one, and the questions we might get. Despite Howard's tutoring, I have now given up on speaking without notes (not being able to remember what to say!), especially to an audience like this. As it turned out other candidates were just as worried about this one and also spoke from notes.I was surprised to get as much, if not more, applause for my opening statement and answers to some questions, than did other candidates, despite not having any supporters placed in the audience.The questions were not as technical as I had feared, and gave me lots of scope to explain how the world is run on behalf of the rich, and about how socialism will put need before profit, do away with rationing and buying and selling etc. It went down well when I gave “poverty and inequality” as being two “pressing issues” for the local health service. It also helped having some local stories and statistics to quote.Unfortunately the Tory MP went and agreed with one of my remarks (about the need to sort out the causes of mental illness), but the UKIP candidate rounded the evening off nicely with his foot in his mouth again after referring to “normal people” in an answer to a disability question.Here were my opening remarks:“Last week the Kentish Gazette carried a survey of Kent voters, which identified the NHS as their second highest priority when deciding how to vote.Most of us rely on the NHS and I think people are worried whether the funding will be there to meet the increased demands on the service in future years.Promises are being made by the main parties to protect or increase health care services, but much seems dependant on “efficiency savings” which may just be a polite word for “cuts” elsewhere.They also argue over whether there should be more or less private provision of NHS services.As you will be aware, much of the NHS is already run by profit taking concerns, and with the exception of some wages and salaries, most of the money spent on the NHS is directed to suppliers of various commodities, who also make a profit from the health ‘business’.Further, the government itself applies the profit motive to its funding of the NHS. Rationing of health care provision, including spending on drugs, takes place every day on the basis of cost benefit analysis, where there is a ‘price’ on life.The Socialist Party believes that the best way to ensure people have access to high quality health care is to change the economic system which the other parties either support or accept. Under this system, capitalism, making profit takes priority over meeting people’s needs.Around the world many diseases and health conditions go without proper treatment because it is unprofitable for the pharmaceutical industry to develop cures, or more profitable to keep selling drugs which maintain ill health rather than cure.The market system is hugely wasteful and inefficient and its abolition is urgently required.“So that is, for members and candidates, "The Socialist Party"! The "The", makes a lot of difference and is something I, personally, never forget.
Regard the name of ourselves, do you think the general public understand this rather pedantic grammar lesson we are trying to make, to differentiate two separate distinct parties with the same name?SPEW will often write in their articles and promotion material that they are "the" Socialist Party…and we are countering by emphasising that we are "The" Socialist Party…I think the man and the woman in the street would rightly not appreciate the difference. Actually to be even more pedantic…aren't we simply "a socialist party"…(all small letters) in the context of the wider world socialist movement or what will become so. In some of my longer blog posts, i endeavour to use all three common usage terms for ourselves…the full name at first …the Socialist Party of Great Britain, then the abbreviation, the SPGB, and then the Socialist Party (i rarely capitalise the) and hopefully if the blog topic is appropriate i also get the opportunity to call ourselves the World Socialist Movement (or WSM). I think we can have our cake and eat it and use all the titles. We have precedents for changing our name…the Workers Socialist Party of the United States became the World Socialist Party (WSPUS) and the Socialist Party of Australia becam the World Socialist Party of Australia… the Irish and the New Zealand comrades adopted the 'World" because there already existed a local "Socialist Party" when they were set up. Like ourselves, the Socialist Party of Canada endeavours to protect their historic legacy by retaining , having returned to the name of the SPC after it broke up and then was re-constituted. Some critics will claim the old and present SPCs are not the same but we will counter that they do indeed share the same tradition, history and principles. I think what we have to decide…are we a party more concerned with our past….or a party for the future…If the latter then i suggest we can dump some of our old baggage and seek a new identity…if we choose to opt to base our politics on our history, this means a completely new way of presentation…and can be formulated in the slogan…"back to the future" or "return to the future" or whatever…in some ways we try to explain the importance of socialism by exactly that…expounding on "primitive communism", countering human nature arguments by emphasising our communal past. I'm not saying we MUST change our name…Or that it is IMPERATIVE that we do. Only saying we have to (as we have done before) discuss the pros and cons of re-branding our organisation every several years. As Andrew Neil said we are what it says on the tin…some suggest that we add qualifiers…"natural, organic, wholesome" to the label…well, at least "world." Apologies for off-topic…i won't respond here to any replies to the above, moderator.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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.