[ALB]

That shows that some people for whom English is only their second language have a wider vocabularly than some native English-speakers ! I'd too hadn't seen it used before but it's obvious what it means but then I had to study Latin in school. If it's not obvious see here for instance:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veridicalMight be a parliamentary way of accusing someone of not telling the truth.

[ALB]

Fair enough but how come you still have the vote? Don't expats get cut off after a number of years?

[ALB]

I hope not because West London branch has booked a stall there on the Saturday:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/levellers-day-burford-oxon-1030amMembers from West Midlands branch will be there too.

[ALB]

Have you looked at this section of the website as well as the one on pamphlets as such?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education

[ALB]

You beat me to it, JohnD ! That's the definitive article on it. Its analysis is also referred to here.

[ALB]

I think that's the article the one in this month's Socialist Standard quotes extensively from.

[ALB]

Here's one, rare, point for the Leave side (from a capitalist point of view of course). In one of its leaflets the "Britain Stronger in Europe" group claims that British capitalism being in the EU is:

Quote:

GREAT FOR FAMILIES with lower prices in our shops thanks to free trade.

This is not true as there is ‘free trade’ only within the EU. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the EU is a customs union which imposes tariffs on goods from outside it, in particular agricultural products. This means higher food prices; which was one reason why some were opposed to British capitalism joining the EEC (as the EU was then called, more accurately) in the first place in 1973.This is still the case, as Gerard Lyons, of Economists for Brexit, pointed out in an article in the Times (6 May):

Quote:

There is a tariff wall around the EU that protects agriculture, largely for the benefit of France, and parts of manufacturing, because of Germany. In these protected areas, people pay higher prices than in world markets. Caribbean sugar producers, for instance, or African agricultural exporters have frequently complained about the difficulty of selling their cheaper produce into the EU market.

So, if British capitalism left (and if it is decided not to protect UK farmers – a big If) there would be lower food prices. But this would not benefit workers. Lower food prices by reducing the cost of living would lead to lower wages, leaving workers in the same position as before. So, while this might earn them a point against the Remain camp, it cuts no ice from the working class point of view.

[ALB]

A review of Mason's book by a one time/sometime contributor to this forum:http://moneyweek.com/book-review-postcapitalism-a-guide-to-our-future-paul-mason/

[ALB]

Now that the election is over I've had the time to read this. While I'm sure Ticktin has always argued against so-called "market socialism" in favour of some sort of planning I don't think he was arguing this in 1997:

Quote:

A distinguishing mark of socialism is that distribution would operate according to need, rather than input

Quote:

people will be able to walk into a distribution point and pick up what they need. Obviously there will be no such thing as finance, and whole sections of economic activity will no longer exist because they are completely wasteful and unnecessary. There will be no arms production, no advertising and, of course, no City of London – you can go through the different wasteful forms that will cease to exist. It is quite clear that the standard of living could very quickly be raised if such waste is removed.

Quote:

In a socialist society you would expect workers to work in the way that they judge is correct. Since a worker’s incentive under socialism is not money, they work as best they can in order that they not only fulfil what they are doing for the collectivity, but for themselves. You would expect that they would work as well as they can, without any need for discipline from outside.

Quote:

Under a situation of relative abundance, there will be a high level of production without shortages. In that case growth rates will be relatively low. The green demand for lower growth will be realised, because there will be no need to go on producing and producing for its own sake. The bourgeois concept of the human being having infinite needs is ridiculous, but it is the basis of bourgeois economics. Since they say there are infinite needs, growth could reach any level. In fact there is a limited amount that needs to be produced for a given society and consequently under socialism we will be able to identify the limited areas in which increased production is needed.

I find in hard to believe that he has not been influenced in some way by what we have consistently and persistently said over the years that socialism involves.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

North East result here:https://www.londonelects.org.uk/sites/default/files/North%20East%20-%20Constituency%20Member%202016.pdf

Respect seem to have done rather well here but then they were standing as "Respect (George Galloway)" and so this would be largely a vote for this leader. I imagine he has now set his eyes on the by-election in Tooting now that its MP has been elected mayor of London.The two of us who went to the count for the London elections at Olympia met two counting agents from Respect. The one we talked to was a decent enough person though evidently a follower of "George" as he called him. He seemed a typical leftwinger: anti-EU, anti-corporations, anti-US and said he'd cast his second preference vote for Mayor (after George of course) for the Green candidate.A bit worrying that leftwing parties with a well-known leader such as Respect (Galloway) and SLP (Scargill) do better at elections than those with a more "it's the case not the face approach", e.g. SWP, SPEW, TUSC (even though their leader is an ex-Labour MP, Dave Nellist). I suppose it's a general protest vote against the system.

[ALB]

Further details including percentages and psephology here:http://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/results-in-detail.html

[ALB]

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%).

[ALB]

But what if the Party candidate is asked for their thoughts on something rather than the Party position on it?

[ALB]

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.

[ALB]

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.

[Author]

Posts