Ian Bone to stand for Parliament
- This topic has 38 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
As i tried to say this is a wider issue. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/police-students-threat-law-and-order-politics But once again it seems we missed the boat to add our voice of protest and perhaps get a mention . ahhhh, well…maybe we might have another opportunity another time, another place.
Anyways i sent Chakrabortty a personal belated email briefly explaining our own situation and experience.I don't expect anything to come of it but i think it would have had a bit more effect if written in the name of the party rather than just a member of it.
The crackdown on student politics continue – now the atheists are banned.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/23/censorship-in-uk-universities
ALB wrote:Of course we wouldn't support him, especially as he's not even standing for anarcho-communism but on a simple "bash the rich" programme. Here's one of his posters:Having said that, he's still a sympathetic guy with a sense of humour. Other anarchists hate him for doing things like this. By participating in an election he has of course committed the worst crime in the anarchists' book.The Socialist Party member mentioned in the report is the person who expresses concern for free speech in view of the police tactic which could be used to prevent other meetings.Several years ago it was the same slogan of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, (MLPC )and the Marxist-Leninist Party of the USA (MLPUSA ) when they were part of the Albanian tendency
gnome wrote:….a functioning Media Committee would be making these complaints and protests as a matter of course.Exactly! Any reason why they are not? Is there a Media Committee?
It seems that he really is going to go ahead with this:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/thinking-of-bing-a-class-war-candidate-want-to-meet-the-rest/
After Ian Bone, Russell Brand? According to this, he told students at Cambridge the other day that he hadn't ruled out running for parliament:
Quote:Aside from his joke, Brand focused his speech on his distaste for the British government, and reportedly told students that he may run for Parliament.Or perhaps that was another of his jokes that evening, as another report has him saying that he wouldn't "run" for parliament but "saunter".
Going beyond a joke if they really are going to stand against us in Vauxhall:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/three-more-class-war-candidates/This would be a contest between their reformism (merely "Bash the Rich" within existing capitalist society) and the revolutionary position put forward by us of a classless society, with neither rich nor poor, based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, with production for use not profit and distribution in accordance with the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."
Latest: they have now withdrawn their candidate to give us a free run ….http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/three-more-class-war-candidates/#comments
Their decision is much appreciated. But i am curious about their decision-making which seems surprisingly speedily for a democracy.!!Since they are neighbouring constituencies (i'm assuming) perhaps there may be a case for perhaps joint public meetings, suitably titled to distinguish our two differing viewpoints to the election . For ourselves, the advantage may come in attracting a larger audience plus drawing more local attention to the existence of HO and for Bone the benefit being lowering his campaign costs.
If they contest Streatham which is next door to Vauxhall there will probably be a joint hustings for these two constituencies and a third, Dulwich & West Norwood, as there was last time (for some reason the centre of Brixton is divided between these three constituencies, all solid Labour). They would also be up against Labour shadow business secretary Chucky Obama who recently told the Financial Times:
Quote:The big difference between 1979 and 2013 is that we are all capitalists now. The question is what sort of capitalism do we want? We endorse free markets but we want competitive and free markets and more responsible capitalism.We're not and we don't endorse markets, whether supposedly "free" or not, and we don't want any kind of capitalism.
From a comrade in Norwich: http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/stan-cullen-grant-to-stand-for-cw-in-norwich-south/http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/vic-koenick-to-xstand-for-class-war-in-norwich/
Quote:I guess it's good that some "anarchists" are muddying the waters with other anarchists' anti-election de facto stance… But look at the clueless, confused (and very dangerous to an understanding of real socialism) quote (if true) from said Victor Koenick in the responses to that post.Here's his draft list of election promises:http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/the-most-radical-programme-ever-put-before-the-electorate/The most radical programme of reforms, perhaps. This is Screaming Lord Sutch stuff, but I suppose they are making a point through mockery.
Latest news:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/left-unityorg-peoples-assembly?page=29#comment-11958The variants on their name that they have registered and can use on the ballot paper are:
Quote:50% Mansion Tax Abolish the monarchy Abolish all public schools Double dole, double pension, double benefits Affordable housing for allI thought they might be able to do better than that but then, unlike the Trotskyists who also propose to big increases in pensions, etc, they are not being serious.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.