ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:I think there's a far simpler explanation. Corbyn comes over as being far more radical than Blair and Brown ever did. So much so it seems that even some of our own 'inexperienced' members have been taken in by the rhetoric.
Something like that was what I was trying to say. We know that one or two have already left to join the Labour Party.
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:That's going too far. The member who voted for the SDP only got hanged.No drawing and quartering then?
Voluntary exile would be the lesser evil, an argument they will surely understand. That is, if anyone does actually vote Labour rather than simply discussing whether or not to. Why we shouldn't is an argument worth going over but asking questions about it is not something that is out of order in itself. It's only actually voting Labour (or anti-Labour as for Seaham Popular Front) that would be.There is another aspect to this. The fact that even a few of our own members are questioning this is a sign of a change in the mood of critics of capitalism. After all, we never had this discussion when Blair and Brown were the Labour Party leaders. No member even dreamed of voting Labour in 2001, 2005 or 2010.The Green Party, apparently has the same problemwww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40110713and, despite being wishy-washy and touchy-feely, don't let it pass ….
It's not that rare. I think we've already got more than one copy. Better for it to be in circulation than stored in our archives !
The Tories are going to win, especially now that "security" has become an issue. They always were but this is going to seal it. Even so, it seems that Labour is going to do better than the media pundits predicted (and wanted). This in itself is an interesting phenomenon worth discussing. After all, the people who will be attracted by Labour under Corbyn and its leftwing programme are the sort of people who will be open to what we have to say, i.e discontented with capitalism as it is and wanting to do something about it.I think one of the reasons Labour is doing better than expected is that its current programme (a bit like the one Harold Wilson won the 1964 election on, less radical if anything) is attracting back not just the Trotskyists and other Old Labourites who deserted it when it openly embraced capitalism but also Greens (whose party stole their old clothes) and even UKIP voters (May is harbouring a big delusion if she thinks that the traditional working class voters are going to flock to her as a snooty vicar's daughter who still goes to church).
Yes, he's right. The money is there, in the form of accumulated profits that in theory the government could tax or borrow. Our case is not that it isn't (as the Tories claim), but that if a reformist government took too much of this it would provoke an economic downward as profits are what makes the capitalist economic system go round, i.e it wouldn't work and the government would have to backtrack and accept and apply that priority has to be given to profits and conditions for profit-making. As we've seen time and again. In short, the money is there but you can't touch it without disrupting the system. Profits are the forbidden fruit on the Money Tree.Incidentally, in the video that follows the one you link to, the bloke interviews Aaron Bastani who once advocated "Fully Automated Luxury Communism". Now it's Jeremy Corbyn. Quite an effective pro-Labour video, I'd have thought. Trouble is it would all end in tears.
More from Swansea. Letter published in the South Wales Evening Post on 31 May:
Quote:Your correspondent Karen Laurence argued that we should use our advanced technology to create not to destroy (Postbox, 26 May). In other words we should use it to give everyone decent and peaceful lives rather than to produce weaponry to disrupt and destroy those lives. How can anyone disagree with this? But the fly in the ointment is that the system we live under is simply not geared to using its inventions, its discoveries and its technology in this way. Its sole purpose is to produce goods and services to sell on the market and make a profit. This system – whether it’s in Europe, USA, Russia or China – is not called capitalism for nothing. Its purpose is to allow those who own capital to invest it in order to accumulate more wealth not to further human wellbeing. Under this system technology, whether old or new, will be used in this way, and if the consequences are negative or destructive to humanity (e.g. environmental degradation or war), then so be it. 'Progress perverted' it can be called. What’s the alternative? Well the only possible alternative is a worldwide society of common ownership and production for use not profit. We are talking about a society without states and frontiers, without owners and wage/salary workers, without buying and selling but based on democratic cooperative organisation where everyone has access to what they require to satisfy their needs without the rationing system that is money. It’s only in this context that we’ll be able to use advanced technology and the resources it gives us rationally and sustainably to produce what we really need when we need it. Only in this way will everyone be enabled to contribute their, knowledge, skills and experience freely to ensure a decent, comfortable life for themselves and for the whole of humanity. Howard Moss.Unfortunately they left out: Agent for Brian Johnson, Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate for Swansea West constituency
There is something in what you say but it depends on the constituency. In Swansea there have been at least two hustings and local press coverage which have not yet been reported here.There never was that much press coverage in the London constituencies as there is no real local press there. The London evening paper covers the whole of London and is not going to give coverage to 70 or so individual constituencies while the print versions of local papers have been reduced to free advertising rags distributed along with pizza menus. Hustings were due in the two constituencies we are contesting but both were cancelled because of the Manchester massacre. We actually got more publicity contesting the local election in Guildford than we have had in London.If we had contested Oxford and Brighton, which for various different reasons we chose not to, the situation would have been different. In fact, in both places we received invitations to hustings before nominations closed. On reflection we should probably have contested these, even if it would have been more difficult to organise the campaign.There are on-line newspapers and it remains to be seen if they will mention all the local candidates and what they stand for (and a photo or equivalent).
Our candidate in Swansea West gets a brief passing reference here. Better than nothing, I suppose:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/gower-labour-candidate-reveals-came-13126096
While the EC met to deal with routine business, 4 comrades ran a stall, in shifts, outside Head Office in Clapham High St from 11am to 5pm. They reported more interest in politics, no doubt because election day is approaching. The last "Only Sheep Need Leaders Mug" was sold. Pity there weren't more as the Tories were up the road, handing out leaflets for their candidates in Vauxhall and Streatham pictured with "strong and stable" Theresa May.Two others went to Clapham Junction again, which is in the Battersea constituency (Clapham High Street is half a mile outside it). They too reported more interest and political discussion compared with last time, mainly with Labour supporters who, in view of the opinion polls, were on a roll. Two canvassers for the Independent candidate, Chris Coghlan, passed by. His leaflet proclaims "Opposing Brexit. Standing for a new centrist movement". He seems to expect to repeat Emmanuel Macron's exploit in France, not that it would amount to anything worthwhile if he did.
Election curiousity. This is not the first time, apart from in the 2015 general election, that we have stood against Corbyn. We did in the 1977 GLC elections but it was not Jeremy but his brother Piers standing for the IMG. He got 219 votes. We got 101.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The respected member Robert Barltrop believed his local community would benefit from his personal contribution. He stood as an independent.Barltrop was a member of Radwinter Parish Council, near Saffron Walden in Essex, but this was in the 1960s during one of his periods outside the Party. His situation could be considered even more anomalous as he was then moving in anarchist circles but I suppose that raises one of the issues at stake here — are parish councils part of the machinery of government or more residents' committees? In any event, some are more politicised than others with the main capitalist political parties standing for them.
Ok, my apologies. It does seem to be April this year. I was confused because the first item on the Seaham Community Party's facebook page is dated 2016.I, too, emailed you, in February (the 5th to be precise) asking if you were prepared to stand again for the Party in the Durham County Council elections as you had done on many previous occasions (with my help in getting your manifestos printed at Head Office and sent to you) but got no reply. I am afraid that I can only conclude that your priority was to get elected as a local councillor but that you felt you had a better chance as a candidate of the Seaham Community Party than as a Socialist Party one. Sad, very sad, after 36 years as a staunch Socialist.As a reminder of the past, here is the part of the manifesto you drafted when you stood for Durham County Council in 2005:
Quote:Durham County Council election, Thursday 5 May 2005To the voters of Deneside Wardfrom THE SOCIALIST PARTYCandidate Steve ColbornWhat matters – profits or people?In Deneside and Seaham as a whole, things have been made very much worse over the past 20 or so years with the closure of three collieries. Collieries that have been closed not because no-one wants coal but because we are told it cannot be produced profitably. No profit – no production! That's the basic economic law of capitalism.For over a century millions of pounds worth of coal has been extracted from these mines. The cost has been high. Hundreds killed and thousands injured as a direct result of their employment with thousands more still suffering today as a result of industrial disease. And what has been our reward?Insecurity for ourselves and an insecure future for our children and grandchildren. A lack of amenities that all ought to enjoy after a hundred years of sacrifice. They even tell us that, with the closure of the mines, there can be no more swimming pool. Even though a majority of us are in favour of building a new one, the council has decided no.Why? Is it because the councillors and council officials are uncaring people? We are sure most of them genuinely want to help others. So why are they against improving local amenities? They say they haven't got the money. True, but why haven't they got the money? Because the government won't give it to them. But why won't the government give it to them? Because it hasn't got the money either, and can't get it because its job is to run the profit system and under the profit system businesses must not be taxed too much or the economy will slow down. It's 'no profit – no production' again.You were of course also our candidate in Easington at the last general election, only two years ago.
Vin wrote:The party has a long history in Seaham in the North East of England and it seems we have an elected SPGBr at the local elections there, polling more votes than a Labour candidatehttp://www.durham.gov.uk/article/12696/Parish-council-4-May-2017-election-results#Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishFound this explanation of Councillor Colborn's action on the Seaham Community Party's Facebook page from April last year (so it had been long planned without telling us):
Quote:Steven Colborn Good to finally get on this page. Don't usually do face book, prefer doing debates and public meetings but they don't seem to happen nowadays, so needs must, as they say!LikeShow More Reactions· Reply · 2· 12 April at 18:30Paul Jorgenson Thought you used to stand in elections for the socialist party, curious why the change.Like· Reply · 1· 24 April at 08:28Greg Bewick He is with the National Socialists now 24 April at 08:56Steven Colborn I had a conversation with Barry Taylor and we discussed the merits/demerits of the situation, as it pertains to "Seaham" and what was needed for its population. It is fine to have a long term goal of changing society, for the betterment of everyone but it was/is (as I considered it) and probably most people do as well, an aim for the future.The ethos of the SCP is something that can be achieved, now! There are aims, within the sphere that the SCP operates, that I feel my background can help. After all, 5 years as a Tenant board member of East Durham Homes, 36 years immersed in the political arena and a Degree in Politics/Sociology as well as, over the years, assisting various people in their efforts to navigate the convoluted mess that passes for civilisation, has afforded me perspectives that I feel can be useful.Other than that, at 55 years old, with a progressively debilitating neurological illness, I may not have that much more time to contribute to a town/people that I hold dear!As with everything else I have done, it is not about the pecuniary benefits for myself (I feel councillors should be unpaid, as was the case years ago) but about can "I" make a difference! I feel I can.That, in essence, is why I have done, what I have done! No change whatsoever but a chance to do something good/worthwhile "now"!Like· Reply · 3· 24 April at 09:11Steven Colborn Greg Bewick Did you consider what you were typing, when you typed it Greg? The terms National/Socialist are mutually exclusive! (One cannot be one and also the other).Were you also aware that "National Socialists was/is a term forever linked to the German National Socialist Party of Hitler and his ilk, the NAZI party? Are you suggesting I am a NAZI?LikeShow More Reactions· Reply · 24 April at 09:31So we have been implicated and will need to say something at some point.
