General Election – Campaign News
- This topic has 529 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
fair comment. to explain, i think i start from not wishing to alienate people unnecessarily [we're against alienation, right?]. yes i didn't give him both barrells of sigh of the oppressed beast, etc, rather stressed areas that we might have in common and try to move forward from these. It doesn't strike me as sensible for those who advocate collaboration and cooperation to be constantly emphasising what sets up apart. I suspect gaining adherents to our cause is not a case of lots of Damascene conversions. My inclination is that [as with some of our extant members] they may come from what i dare to call fellow travellers.
A James Kenny wrote:As a Manchester United fan and a voter in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency, before I vote on May 7th I would like to know whether you will support legislation to reform football governance? We believe legislative changes are necessary as outlined here: http://www.votefootball.org/proposalHoward Pilott wrote:Hello James, Thank you for your email. My understanding is that Manchester United plc is registered in the Cayman Islands and quoted on the NYSE, and as such is a multinational company. In 2014 they made over £400m. This is a business which exists for the benefit of the shareholders [mostly US family the Glazers] selling shirts and viewing rights and merchandising, oh and also playing some football. Players are predominantly from overseas. The association with the town of Manchester or England is coincidental to their activities: if they thought they could make money out of it they'd move to Milan or Los Angeles. I have nothing against those who enjoy watching football or those who play it. I have an issue with a created marketing culture which treats a local sport as a product to be ruthlessly advertised and merchandised. I grew up living locally to Arsenal football ground where you could see players walking along the local streets, and talk to them; some dated girls at my secondary school; friends went for trials and we could get in for a song. Now players earn more in a matter of months than many fans do in a lifetime; they are super celebs. The £250+m wages bill at Old Trafford means £250+m has been sucked out of our economy when it could have been spent on schools, hospitals, railways, care of the elderly, etc…but that's what happens in this cockeyed system. The current system may produce some great players and even sometimes some great games, but what is hidden is the real cost of doing so. Somehow our world spent £5.1bn on premier league viewing rights while we have 4hrs+ waits in A&E. Ask yourself if that is a good balance. Because football is now big business, you cannot make meaningful reforms: it's like trying to reform a scorpion – what will always come out top is what is good for business. A reform here and there – they'll find ways around it if they want to. However if capitalism was abolished, football and football teams would no longer be big business: the whole thing would be run by whoever is involved, not by non-doms or overseas billionaires. Games would be free and players could play for the sport of it. Ask yourself why footballers need millions of pounds to play well whereas olympiads do it for nothing. I prefer the model of the olympiads myself. Not sure this answered your questions but hopefully it may raise some others. Regards, Howard Pilott The Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/Don't really think we should be saying the following;The £250+m wages bill at Old Trafford means £250+m has been sucked out of our economy when it could have been spent on schools, hospitals, railways, care of the elderly, etc.It is of no interest to me, as a Socialist, if £250 is spent on players wages, as opposed to being spent in "our" economy. First of all, its not "my" economy", nor I suspect many other people who peruse or contribute to this site. Nor, I suspect, if this £250 was not spent on players wages, would it be spent on schools, hospitals, railways, care of the elderly or, indeed, any other of the many things that could/would benefit "we", the majority!We have to be careful, when answering these emails, so as not to "take sides", "make choices", about how Capitalism is run/organised, or its priorities are organised.
Quote:"We have to be careful, when answering these emails, so as not to "take sides", "make choices", about how Capitalism is run/organised, or its priorities are organised."…Is this the same Steve that got pulled up for a too personal opinion on fracking?Take that as a comradely dig, Steve, nothing serious to get upset about. I already said much the same as yourself previously on the thread but i certainly don't want the party to be seen as always putting forward abstract opposition devoid of the human touch.We all got our own distinctive styles of presenting the case for socialism and what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. I've said it before…let a thousand flowers bloom…I also want the party to be perceived as its own debating chamber…an organic animated organisation where disagreements and differences are welcome (and even sought) – as long as they eventually lead to an agreed party position even if that may well be that we agree to disagree. Apologies if i am showing the LBird trait (apologies to him too for taking his name in vain) …of linking all exchanges to one idiosyncratic purpose….my desire for a special post-election conference on the party and its future.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Apologies if i am showing the LBird trait (apologies to him too for taking his name in vain) …of linking all exchanges to one idiosyncratic purpose….my desire for a special post-election conference on the party and its future.I'm not so sure about having a "special post-election conference on the party and its future" is necessary. I would have thought ADM and Conference is suffice for such a discussion. However, I do urge all candidates, agents and members generally to be making a start on drawing up the positives and negatives so the Election Committee have feedback to add to the list the members of the committee are also drawing up.There will, obviously, be a post-morten by the Election Committee and our findings will be put to the Outreach Committee for further discussion and conclusions. That said, we knew mistakes would be made and accepted that they were part and parcel of the learning curve. We were also aware that there would be some suprises in store. So personally, I'm more than satisfied with our efforts so far and pleased to see that the enquiries for membership are of an even better quality than the Euro elections.
…whoooooo-hoooooooo..somebody actually has now responded to my repeated messages. Cheers, Brian. I believe you are the first …I think it is not a matter of management of the election campaign i have centred my thoughts upon but the broader and deeper issue of how we are being perceived by electors and how we project ourselves to them. No amount of applause compensates if voters decide we are still not worthy of an actual vote, much less the much required necessity of actual membership. My concern with simply using Conference and ADM resolutions is that it will be crowded out. I seek that members and branches concentrate attention on one area of the Party. That special branch meetings are held…that a dedicated internet thread is used for online discussions, (I'm still astounded that some members still insist in not using this forum and stick to Spopen and even WSM)I should add i am not seeking hasty decisions being made but that the debate commences in some sort of structured way that leads to a determined definitive conclusion at the end of it all. I have already hinted that imho there should be no sacred cows, no off-limits …everything should be up for criticism and analysis. A fundamental re-thinking of the party as a whole….even if we do, at the end of it all, merely reaffirm what we already are and should become. Nothing wrong with getting to know ourselves even better.Obviously this thread is not the place to engage in this discussion, nor is this the right time to begin ……When we have some empirical and anecdotal evidence from the general election campaign (see moderator – i am still on-topic) we can as you say use existing committees for feedback …but also to go well beyond their remits and include every member's view and opinion. Nuff, said now…i've given my notice of a future new thread, so i will remain for the moment quiet on our future as a party
gnome wrote:A James Kenny wrote:As a Manchester United fan and a voter in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency, before I vote on May 7th I would like to know whether you will support legislation to reform football governance? We believe legislative changes are necessary as outlined here: http://www.votefootball.org/proposalHoward Pilott wrote:Hello James, Thank you for your email. My understanding is that Manchester United plc is registered in the Cayman Islands and quoted on the NYSE, and as such is a multinational company. In 2014 they made over £400m. This is a business which exists for the benefit of the shareholders [mostly US family the Glazers] selling shirts and viewing rights and merchandising, oh and also playing some football. Players are predominantly from overseas. The association with the town of Manchester or England is coincidental to their activities: if they thought they could make money out of it they'd move to Milan or Los Angeles. I have nothing against those who enjoy watching football or those who play it. I have an issue with a created marketing culture which treats a local sport as a product to be ruthlessly advertised and merchandised. I grew up living locally to Arsenal football ground where you could see players walking along the local streets, and talk to them; some dated girls at my secondary school; friends went for trials and we could get in for a song. Now players earn more in a matter of months than many fans do in a lifetime; they are super celebs. The £250+m wages bill at Old Trafford means £250+m has been sucked out of our economy when it could have been spent on schools, hospitals, railways, care of the elderly, etc…but that's what happens in this cockeyed system. The current system may produce some great players and even sometimes some great games, but what is hidden is the real cost of doing so. Somehow our world spent £5.1bn on premier league viewing rights while we have 4hrs+ waits in A&E. Ask yourself if that is a good balance. Because football is now big business, you cannot make meaningful reforms: it's like trying to reform a scorpion – what will always come out top is what is good for business. A reform here and there – they'll find ways around it if they want to. However if capitalism was abolished, football and football teams would no longer be big business: the whole thing would be run by whoever is involved, not by non-doms or overseas billionaires. Games would be free and players could play for the sport of it. Ask yourself why footballers need millions of pounds to play well whereas olympiads do it for nothing. I prefer the model of the olympiads myself. Not sure this answered your questions but hopefully it may raise some others. Regards, Howard Pilott The Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/Yes I agree with Northern Light – that is a model answer by Howard which exactly hits all the right spots
What's Mike going to reply to a similar letter from someone who says they're a supporter of Oxford United? Hardly in the same league as Man United.
Here's a recreation of one of our candidates in lego (this might mean we will need to change "it's the case not the face" to "it's the logo not the lego"):http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-england-32531812Incidentally, this shows what the ballot paper will look like with our name and (for the first time for us) an emblem. Presumably it will be the same in other 9 constituencies.
Adam, already seen the Islington paper:https://twitter.com/tim_nicholls/status/592362616355495936/photo/1And had a nice chat about why I think such tweets are inadvisable.
Ah, and here's Lambeth:https://twitter.com/Biltawulf/status/593846244201607168
A quick exchange between me and someone who wants my CV:
Quote:I'm not applying, the Party is, so you can our CV at: http://spgb.net/nnYou're absolutely right that Cuba is basically a gangster dictatorship. You cannot have socialism unless and until the vast majority of people want to do it. That's why we refuse to be leaders, or "try and seize power" or any of that nonsense.Since capitalism exists worldwide it can only be abolished worldwide, and countries such as Russia, China and Cuba have only ever succeeded in creating a local variation on capitalism called state-capitalism, where the government does the exploiting.What we know, though, is that humans have lived in many different systems of society, and capitalism isn't the only way we can organise. We co-operate daily within our workplaces, we don't charge colleagues for every act we perform, and we can extend that into a worldwide system of co-operation.Regards,Bill Martin.Elector wrote:Thanks for your email. You are effectively apply for a job. So surely its reasonable as "the employeer" that I know what I’m electing and if the candidate has a suitable background and education to represent us. That said, you do seem to be rather radical. Can you give any examples of where capitalism has been abolished and a socialist system has worked. We were recently in Cuba and while it is the only sustainable country on the planet with a great health system (relatively), the people there are all equally poor, food is terrible, every tenth person works for the secret police, and everyone we could speak to privates dreamed of getting out or seeing a change in government.steve colborn wrote:Don't really think we should be saying the following;The £250+m wages bill at Old Trafford means £250+m has been sucked out of our economy when it could have been spent on schools, hospitals, railways, care of the elderly, etc.NoSounds like something Russell Brand might say
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.