ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Further details including percentages and psephology here:http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/results-in-detail.html
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%).
But what if the Party candidate is asked for their thoughts on something rather than the Party position on it?
For comparison, here's the result in the same constituency in last year's general election:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/W07000047Turnout then was 60% compared with 40% on Thursday.
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.
ALB wrote:The real hard bargaining would be over the free movement of labour in and out of Britain. Or maybe not. If capitalist production grows again British capitalism will need more labour and where's the obvious place for it to come from? Those who voted to leave to "keep foreigners out" (which is what would be the deciding factor in such a vote) will find themselves disappointed.By coincidence the Times of the day before (2 May) had an article on growing the famous Jersey Royal potatoes on the island of Jersey. Jersey is not a member of the EU and has control over its borders, but:
Quote:Potatoes planted on the slopes are hand-lifted using seasonal labour, mainly from eastern Europe …Anyone for Jerxit?
After Obama, now a former Director General of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy (from France), re-inforces the view that it is in the overall interest of the British capitalist class to stay in the EU:
Quote:Trade negotiations are a world of hard-bitten talks, where even close allies set aside diplomatic courtesies for national advantage. (…)Brexiteers argue that EU countries will want to strike a deal because Britain has a large trade deficit with the rest of the EU. That is simply not true. The UK is more reliant on trade with the EU than vice versa.EU leaders will fear that anti-Europe parties in their own backyard will get momentum from Brexit, so will want to drive a hard bargain to avoid contagion. In a competitive global marketplace, they will seek any advantage they can get. My own country will probably be among the hardest to negotiate with. Imagine how eager French farmers will be not to have your beef or lamb on our supermarket shelves. And no one will show any love for the City of London.If it fails to get a deal, there is a real risk that the UK would have to fall back on WTO rules. Some in the Leave campaign have said this would not be a bad option. As the former head of the WTO, let me be dear: this would be a terrible replacement for access to the EU single market .Though tariffs have fallen, they are still high enough to hurt businesses and therefore jobs: 10 per cent for cars, 12 per cent on clothes, 70 per cent on some beef products.Some claim the UK could strike better trade deals on its own. Let's be honest, there has not been a major WTO deal in 23 years and the most significant agreements are being negotiated between regional blocs.(Times, 3 May)In other words, the politicians arguing to leave are talking nonsense when they claim (as in a leaflet "6 positive reasons to Vote Leave and take back control" that's been dropping through people's letter boxes):
Quote:If we Vote Leave, we can have a friendlier relationship with the EU based on trade, as well as regain our seat on global bodies like the World Trade Organisation.One of the British capitalist class's political representatives has taken the risk of submitting the matter for a decision by the working class, who won't necessarily follow the interest of the capitalist class.If they don't, and vote to leave, in view of what Lamy and the others are saying, the change will not be that dramatic. The capitalist class will be able to cope. In all probability, Britain will stay a member of the Single Market but not have the same say as now in its rules and regulations, i.e be in a similar position to Norway.The real hard bargaining would be over the free movement of labour in and out of Britain. Or maybe not. If capitalist production grows again British capitalism will need more labour and where's the obvious place for it to come from? Those who voted to leave to "keep foreigners out" (which is what would be the deciding factor in such a vote) will find themselves disappointed. Serve them right.
Looking for something else I found this from last year's general election:http://www.swlondoner.co.uk/israel-is-racist-and-apartheidist-twickenham-green-candidate-faces-backlash-after-ignorant-claims/The fact that the media did not raise a hue and cry about "anti-semitism" in the Green Party and call for it to be rooted out (even the Board of Deputies only accused the candidate of ignorance) suggests that the current fuss is part of the media's (and a section of the Labour Party's) campaign against Corbyn and is being used as a stick to beat him. And of course it has given the pro-Israeli lobby the chance to reinforce its view that any criticism of Israel is "anti-semitic" as a way of intimidating those tempted to make such a criticism.
A leftwing case for voting to Remain, by Nick Wrack formerly of TUSC (one of their candidates at last year's general election). A big change from No2EU of two years ago !http://www.socialistproject.org/issues/may-2016/brexit-international-socialism/
Quote:a Brexit will immediately jeopardise the rights of three million EU citizens living in the UK and those of two million UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU. No one can say with any certainty whether their current rights will continue or be removed. At the very least there will be a long period of uncertainty. The right of any EU citizen who might want to move to the UK, or of a UK citizen to move elsewhere in the EU after a Brexit will almost certainly no longer exist. On this basis alone a Brexit should be opposed.Not only this, though. The most obvious beneficiaries of a Brexit will be the right-wing of the Tory Party, UKIP, nationalists and xenophobes, the anti-immigration lobby, little-Englanders and racist bigots. A Brexit will bolster all of these reactionary trends within British society and across Europe, fuelling the anti-immigrant sentiment we now see on the rise within the EU. These are the people who will be cheering loudest if Brexit wins. They will have won on the basis of anti-immigrant scare-mongering and will be in a position to impose restrictions on immigration. Life in Britain will be more insecure and the atmosphere more hostile for immigrants after Brexit. This will be a worse environment for socialists to work in.They've got an interesting Statement of Aims and Principles.
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/
I see from todays papers that Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland is "firmly against Brexit". I didn't know that but I'm sure it's true. I always thought Sinn Fein in the south of Ireland was anti-EU. I think they used to be. With a name like theirs– "Ourselves Alone" — they ought to be. In fact, perhaps the Leave camp should change their name to "Sinn Fein" as that's their policy for British capitalism.
I can't see how, on the basis of what he said (stating a verified fact), the Labour Party can find Livingstone guilty of anti-semitism but they're in a bind. If they don't find him guilty the media/zionist/Israeli rat pack will accuse the party of failing to deal with anti-semitism within its ranks which would be a vote loser. Historical accuracy or losing votes: which will Labour chose? Some of the more ambitious, career-minded politicians in it have already chosen.
To add to the picture, 2 members and 2 sympathisers ran the announced stall in the centre of Kingston for two hours on Saturday. Slow start but it picked up later with discussions on the EU referendum (the Leave and Remain leafletters were out again, amazing how people are concerned with the British capitalists' trading arrangements while the only thing they trade is is their labour-power) and Ken Livingstone's alleged anti-semitism rather than the GLA elections. Leaflets (both on the election and on the referendum) handed out. A couple of pamphlets sold and a couple taken without paying (the person chose carefully as he took How the Gods Were Made and Marxism and Darwinism). Contacted by a member of the Zeitgeist movement who had come from the other side of London to do this.This will be the last of the election stalls. Next date: polling day, Thursday 5 May (also Marx's birthday).
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:Comment on this received by email at Head Office:Quote:To the Socialist Party of Great Britain,I have read the statement issued by your executive committee this month titled "The problem is not the EU… it's capitalism." I believe, too, that the problem is capitalism. But I am absolutely sure that the EU is irredeemably linked to Capitalism, whereas at Westminster we conceivably have the power to make the interests of big businesses a less dominant factor in politicians' decisions. Because the EU Commission is not elected. It is conceived as a capitalists' charter, and acts as such. Westminster, freed from the anti-democratic influence of the EU, will be once more the seat of a democratic government, and with democracy comes the opportunity for people who have the intention and the courage to stand up to the massive power of capitalism to be elected. I urge you to choose the devil that you can get rid of in an election, rather than the devil that you can't. Can we not try to claim Britain for the people rather than surrendering it indefinitely to a group of unelected bankers?Brendan Kjellberg-MottonThe Oxford Communist Corresponding Society have adopted a similar position:
Quote:MAGGIE MAGGIE MAGGIE…The Left and the trade union movement—the proletariat, organized—have always fought passionately for democracy: workplace democracy, economic democracy, political democracy. As the majority class, democracy is in our interest.And this isn't the first time that the popular movement has been correct to cry "Out! Out! Out!" when commenting on the issue of the day.We (or our predecessors) fought against Thatcher because she ruled in the interests of a minority class of business-owners.We fight to get out of the E.U. for the same reason: it operates in the interests of the capitalist class, and is not amenable to democratic control by the people as a whole.We cannot expect to make progressive changes to the E.U. from within, any more than we could have opposed Thatcher by joining the Conservative party.By leaving the E.U., we can bring control of law and of the economy closer to the hands of the proletariat.Let us not place the levers of power too far from us. Let us not be fettered by bodies that we do not elect. Let us take this opportunity to democratize society.Vote LEAVE on Thursday 23rd JuneThis is the only respectable argument for Leaving but it doesn't hold water. Britain withdrawing from the EU may give an elected government here more formal control over what it decides but not any more real control as it's not governments that control the way capitalism works but the other way wrong as governments are forced to give priority to profits and conditions for profit-making. As a capitalist trading nation on its own outside a bigger block Leaving might even give the government less control. The argument is also based on the illusion of "reformism in one country" which has tried and failed many times.
At our stall in Kingston yesterday three people came up to us separately to tell us that they thought Livingstone was being unfairly accused of anti-semitism because all he had done was re-state a historical fact (about the Nazis in the 1930s supporting the Zionist idea of establishing a Jewish State and that discussions between them and the Zionists took place). It's difficult to understand why the Zionists would want to deny this as it was a logical thing to do to further their aim. It looks as if the media and the pro-Israel lobby may have misjudged the public mood and that Livingstone will come out of this vindicated and Zionism discredited.
