ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:What will be the name we will be contesting the seats under?
Same as last time, "The Socialist Party (GB)" in the two London seats and "The Socialist Party of Great Britain" in Swansea. They invoked the confusion clause last time as TUSC was also standing.TUSC won't be standing this time but backing Labour, but us using the same as last time can be justified on the grounds of being consistent.
Why not? We could do both, but the timescale is short, to mention anything new on the official Election Communication for free postal delivery. Could still use it on facebook, etc.
The Seaham Community Party was not formed just to stand for Seaham Town (Parish) Council butit also stood for the Durham County Council in three electoral wards. For a list of such local parties standing, alongside us, for Surrey County Council see:https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=5&V=0Quite apart from Rule 6, I can't see how a member could possibly stand for one of these. In some councils they are in coalition with one or other of the national parties to run the council.
alanjjohnstone wrote:BTW, i do find it difficult not to say ex-comrade, as his actions count louder than any words he may have in mitigation.It would be disrespectful to call him other than Councillor Colborn.
More on them here:http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP4182
It's true:Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishElectorate: 2933Ballots Issued: 775Turnout: 26.42%Rejected Ballots: 3 ALLEN, Brian (Labour) 309 BELL, Edward (Labour) 434 ELECTED BLEASDALE, Geraldine (Labour) 382 ELECTED COLBORN, Steven Paul (Seaham Community Party) 340 ELECTED DONALDSON, Michelle (Seam Community Party) 312 PAUL, James Ian (no description) 118 SOKS, Karen (Seaham Community Party) 259 TAYLOR, Barry (Seaham Community Party) 332 ELECTED
Another .explanation is that there was no Green Party candidate standing in Folkestone East..Incidentally, Folkestone was part of the UKIP wipe-out. Previously the councollors there were UKIP.
Here's the result was Guildford West:https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=211&RPID=506775711Turnout: 29%. Our percentage 0.5%.
Here is the result for LewesIndependent 2370LibDem 757Labour 568Green 307Con 263Socialist 19 (0.4%)Turnout: a massive 52% for a local election. Not a result the Tory pundits on the radio and TV will be highlighting.Official result here (if you can navigate it):http://www.eastsussexinfigures.org.uk/escc_elections_2017/atlas.html
Here are the results for Folkestone:https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=577https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=547Although the percentage figures both show 1%, in Folkestone East the percentage was 1.5% and in Folkestone West 0.6%
What you probably don't understand as a non-Londoner is the reluctance of people from North London to cross the Thames.
Six members and sympathisers, 4 from Surrey, turned up in the intermittent rain yesterday to hold our final election stall in Guildford. With more handing out leaflets we distributed more. Some political discussions too, one with a UKIP supporter who, when asked why UKIP still existed now that they had won Brexit, replied that he didn't trust the Tories to deliver it; another with someone who said that the Tories just wanted to grind down the poor; a rather confused third person said he was voting for May in the General Election but for the Greens in the local election.
LATEST NEWS: NO DELEGATES VOTE TO STOP THE PRINT EDITION OF THE SOCIALIST STANDARD. On an indicative vote the motion was rejected at Annual Conference today by nil votes for, 12 against and 2 abstentions. The motion now goes to a vote of the whole membership
ALB wrote:This is what happens if you don't send a photo. Mind you, in this case they didn't ask for one though they were sent our manifesto. Scroll down to Guildford West:http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-county-council-elections-who-12911967They have now updated this. I did send them the logo saying we'd prefer this to a photo, but they chose the photo (Alan should be pleased it's in colour, though I didn't expect it to be that big):http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-county-council-elections-who-12911967The statement is based on the Folkestone one and reads (for those who don't want to see the face):
Quote:“I am standing to raise the issue of the need for the shared and democratic ownership of the Earth’s resources, with all goods and services produced for use, rather than for profit.“The current crisis in social care in Surrey is a pressing example of why this change is necessary. Its root cause is today’s outdated system where finance determines what can, and cannot happen."Socialists suggest a better way. At a time when we can easily feed, house and care for every human on the planet, it no longer makes sense to use money to ration access to what we need, especially not to the needs of the most vulnerable.”"I am standing to make the point that local problems arise from the economic system of production for profit that exists everywhere and that they cannot be solved unless this system is replaced by one based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, and access for all to what they need on the basis of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."Our comrade Binay Sarkar in India has written an article about "The Bolsheviks and the Abolition of Money":https://www.academia.edu/24449687/THE_BOLSHEVIKS_AND_THE_ABOLITION_OF_MONEY
Not really (and of course he's better than them as he wants socialism and they only wanted some workers-controlled market economy).To tell the truth, I don't think he has the same definition of class as we do, i.e relationship to the means of production (in capitalism between owners and non-owners). Or rather sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't. At one point he talks of "wage slavery" and "the general economic slavery of the majority".but most of the time he sees class as defined by wealth and income levelHe sees the inequality of wealth, power and esteem built-in to capitalusm (and in fact to all class societies) as resulting in the "oppression" of the "lower classes" by the "upper class" (his terms), i.e of those at the bottom of the heap by those at the top. This oppression, he says, takes the form of the poor having worse health and living less long than those at the top (this of course is a confirmed fact). He calls this "structural violence" and sees it as a "war" of the rich against the poor. So his "class war" is one initiated by the rich against the poor rather than the "class struggle" we see initiated by the producers against the owners. One criticism of this approach is that it leaves out those who are neither the rich nor the poor, those in the middle of the heap, the majority in developed capitalist countries.
