Greater London Assembly Election Campaign
- This topic has 40 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:Candidates' Hustings invite for the London Assembly South West constituency at United Reformed Church, First Cross Road, Twickenham TW2 5QA on Tuesday, 12 April between 7.30pm and 9.30pm. About ten minutes walk from Strawberry Hill rail station..
Local press report with photo of this event here:http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/14447309.Candidates_Compete_for_South_West_Seat_in_London_Mayor___Assembly_Election_Hustings___by_Hugh_Dollery__Hampton_School/
News from the South Western Front Today's (29 April) Richmond and Twickenham Times has a full page on the six candidates standing in the South West constituency. Unfortunately it is about who I am rather than what the Party stands for. The information on our candidate was not supplied by us but was taken from wikipedia. The nearest it gets to saying what we stand for is where says I am a "speaker and writer about a moneyless and wageless society". We have agreed, though, to supply a photo for the online version despite that for us it's "the case not the face" that counts, on the grounds that a "face" will attract more people to read what's underneath it than just plain text. But don't worry, the chosen photo shows a Party banner in the background saying "Abolish the Wages System". The same paper's online edition also carried a report on the hustings in Twickenham on 12 April (where the candidate's face can also be seen). It's here. The Surrey Comet only has a page on 5 of the 12 candidates for mayor and nothing on who's standing for the GLA but we can't really complain as they had published two letters from us. The Liberal candidate will have more reason to as she's never been mentioned and the UKIP candidate might not have liked being reminded on the front page that he once denounced the "gaystapo" (on the other hand, maybe he accepts that any publicity is better than none). We have now finished distributing our quota of one-third of the 30,000 election manifestos and only have an 1000 or so, found at Head Office, left to do. By chance they have been distributed more or less equally between the three boroughs of Kingston, Richmond and Hounslow. This was not the plan as the intention was to concentrate on Hounslow where the branch meets. 11-12000 is slightly more than a token coverage as it's only about 4% of the total number of postal drops in the constituency. A hundred were distributed in Oxford as on a visit there for a William Morris event (saw the room in University College where Morris gave his first talk as a socialist entitled "Art under Plutocracy", part of which we first republished in 1907 as Art, Labour and Socialism. I noticed that nearly all the streets near where I was staying had houses displaying "Vote Green" or "Vote Labour" posters in their windows. They all got the only leaflet I had with me (our GLA manifesto). Assuming that those displaying posters are among the 5% of the population said to follow politics this is a self-selected target and 100 delivered to them should be the equivalent of 2000 delivered to all doors. It will also serve here as a reminder that, after contesting both the Euroelections in 2014 and the General Election last year in Oxford, we are still around. More of the leaflets will be distributed at the Mayday trade union event in Oxford on Saturday. Today (30 April) we will be having a street stall in Kingston but not in Brentford as announced.ALB
A not entirely accurate "profile" of our candidate in Lambeth & Southwark in this week's Southwark News:http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/9166-2/
Another if belated (only published on polling day after voting had begun) interview with our candidate in Lambeth & Southwark but this time Kevin at least got a chance to correct a misinterpretation (scroll down to comments). The SW Londoner is an online newspaper published from Streatham.http://www.swlondoner.co.uk/4-5m-houses-make-mockery-system-lambeth-southwark-socialist-gla-candidate/
These two interviews bring out a point that was made in the discussion at ADM on "WB of Upton Park" (on how a minority of MPs would vote on issues that came before parliament, but also has implications as to how our candidates should answer questions). We say it's the case not the face that counts and this is true, but this is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation. If, as during the general election, we stand candidates who are not from the area they are unable to comment on local issues. If, on the other hand, as in this GLA election, we stand candidates who are local to the area they are going to be asked for their personal thoughts on local issues on which they will have an opinion — or if they don't or won't they will come across as unconcerned. I'm not sure of the way out. We don't want people to vote for us on the basis of the candidate's personal views on local issues but we don't want to come across either as unconcerned about local issues.
Wilhelm Liebknecht titled his pamphlet 'No Compromise, No Political Trading'. The only people arguing for 'No Compromise' alone back then (and arguably now) would be religious ascetics.When the Socialist Party was formed, this slogan was what they printed on their flag 'No Compromise, No Political Trading'. You can see this in the conference photo from 1905.The October 1904 Socialist Standard Editorial was headlined 'The Futility of Reform'. Does the particular choice of wording indicate anything? It wasn't 'Reform never temporarily benefits the Working Class'So when in 1910 WB of Upton Park wrote 'What would be the attitude of a member of the SPGB if elected to Parliament, and how would he maintain the principle of ‘No Compromise’?' the Standard replied with agreement from EC.This was restated in Forum Journal in the 1950s.The supporting statement to Conference 2016 was
Quote:The original and famous (within Socialist Party Law) answer to W.B. of Upton Park, in 1910, was: “as we progress and new situations arise, our membership, ever guided by the revolutionary principle of NO COMPROMISE, by our general understanding of Socialism and the requirements of the greatest interest of the working class, its emancipation, will DEMOCRATICALLY direct the action of its representatives. Each new situation, will have to be faced and Socialist action be decided upon the merits of the case.” This answer stands as the party’s position on what would happen were one of our delegates to be elected to any political office. 8 This remains our answer today, and Party candidates at the General Election relied upon this formula when answer questions about what they would do on specific issues, from pot-holes in the road to broader matters such as TTIP or the NHS. It was noticed (in social media chatter) that our candidates largely had no answer on many issues. Do we have any better way of expressing our view? Or a better approach? The answer to WB of Upton Park has been variously interpreted. Some members, in the past, have taken the answer to mean that our delegates may be required sometimes to vote against specific measures (but never for). There are many options: we could cease standing candidates (and say we will only stand when we are confident of victory); we could adopt the Sinn Fein approach (our candidates would refuse to take their seats until we were confident that we could carry the revolution); we could draw up a policy platform of how we would vote on an issue of the day as if we had a delegate we could mandate. This question also needs to be addressed with the growing use of referendums, where our members may be called upon to vote “on the merits of the case”. In any case, it is worth revisiting the question, and recalling that this is a tactical, rather than a strategic matter.So it seems pretty straightforward to me if asked
Quote:What will the Socialist Party candidate do about [local provision]?that the candidate can reply
Quote:It is a a result of the profit system that [local provision] is funded the way it isthen the question will come
Quote:Will the Socialist Party candidate cast a vote to save [local provision]?the candidate ought to reply
Quote:Not necessarily, we only want to receive votes on the basis of support for socialism where welfare won't be rationed by the profit system. Does the questioner want socialism?But what if the Party candidate is asked for their thoughts on something rather than the Party position on it?
North East result here:https://www.londonelects.org.uk/sites/default/files/North%20East%20-%20Constituency%20Member%202016.pdfLambeth & Southwark result here:https://www.londonelects.org.uk/sites/default/files/Lambeth%20and%20Southwark%20-%20Constituency%20Member%202016_0.pdfSouth West result here:https://www.londonelects.org.uk/sites/default/files/South%20West%20-%20Constituency%20Member%202016.pdfSo that's respectively, 1293 (0.57%), 1333 (0.71%) and 1065 (0.5%).
Well done to all candidates and comrades who helped.
Further details including percentages and psephology here:http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/results-in-detail.html
The London Elects site has now published the results by borough (and ward). Here are our results by borough:Lambeth 729 (0.74%)Southwark 604 (0.69)Hounslow 504 (0.65)Waltham Forest 496 (0.64)Hackney 464 (0.60)Kingston 293 (0.50)Islington 333 (0.45)Richmond 268 (0.35)This confirms past experience that we do better in Labour areas than elsewhere, though it is not clear why this doesn't seem to be the case in Islington, especially as we have contested many elections there over the years. Or has it become gentrified but by Labour-voting gentry, so giving the false impression that it's still a traditional Labour area (both its MPs are Labour, including Jeremy himself)?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.