ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Even state-capitalist and so-called "Marxist" China practises superstitious animal sacrifice:http://www.newsbangladesh.com/english/Padma%20Bridge%20piling%20work%20begins%20thru%60%20sacrifice%20of%20animals/76Which shows of course that the regime there has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism.
It seems we're not the only people discussing this:http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-decliningAnd I thought Pinker was a pessimist …
alanjjohnstone wrote:I have seen some sad cases of suffering cows that cannot be put down by a vet due to religious custom.So has my brother. Fortunately he could put this one down:http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jul/27/ruralaffairs.topstories3
This exchange of emails with the Electoral Commission explains the rather narrow circumstances in which legal action could be taken or, rather, a complaint made that the regulations have been breached. Other than that we've got to rely on arguments based on fair play and the democratic principle that all the candidates in an election should have equal time.This arose out of the hustings organised in Oxford by the Federation of Small Businesses. We wrote asking if, in the Electoral Commission's view, in view of the reasons given by the FSB, this should be regarded as a "selective" hustings.
Quote:A non-selective hustings is a hustings which will not reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or oppose particular policies or issues. If a hustings is non-selective, it will not be regulated. The best way to ensure that a hustings is non-selective is to invite all of the political parties standing in a constituency and give them an equal opportunity to participate.If it is not practical for an organiser to invite all parties, they should be able to give impartial reasons as to why they have not invited other parties. Our good practice recommendations on page 6 of the hustings guidance give some examples of impartial reasons. An impartial reason could, for example, be that you have invited the three parties with the most MPs. In their email, Robyn Bourne explained that they based their reasons on the results of the 2010election as well as current national polling data. These reasons are impartial reasons.We replied:
Quote:Thanks, but this interpretation of yours permits virtually anything:"An impartial reason could, for example, be that you have invited the three parties with the most MPs. In their email, Robyn Bourne explained that they based their reasons on the results of the 2010 election as well as current national polling data. These reasons are impartial reasons."We can't agree that the first could be regarded as an impartial reason. It would be hard to think of anything more partial except perhaps to invite only the two parties whose leader has a chance of becoming Prime Minister.Allowing such a decision as impartial opens the door to discrimination against parties as long as you can think of a general principle that excludes them.As regards the reason invoked by Robyn Bourne, that's not so bad but they would need to explain to parties not invited what the exactly were the criteria for judging the results and polling data. They did not do this.Finally, we would like to ask to whom should be addressed any complaint that an allegedly non-selective hustings was in fact a selective one and who makes a decision on this.They came back:
Quote:As previously stated, in some instances it may not be practical for an organiser to invite all of the parties or candidates standing to their hustings. In these instances, if the organiser provides impartial reasons as to why certain parties or candidates have been invited while others have not, the event will not be regulated, as it cannot be reasonably regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidatesI note from the emails below that the Federation of Small Business explained that they had to ‘cap the number of speaking places on the panel in the interests of running an efficient event’. In line with our guidance, they appear to have made a decision about who to invite based on the results of the last election and current polling data. The Electoral Commission makes decisions in response to complaints as to whether an event is regulated, this will include decisions about whether a hustings is non selective, taking account of all circumstances. Please see our guidance here for more information on making an allegation. Please note allegations must have some supporting evidence. I would also advise that you read our guidance on non-party campaigning as spending on any single hustings event is not likely to reach the threshold that requires a non-party campaigner to register with us. It is not against the rules to hold a selective hustings, a breach of any rules will only occur when the spending of a non-party campaigner goes above the threshold and the non-party campaigner does not register with us and the spending is not properly reported. Spending in relation to a selective hustings may in some circumstances need to be reported as candidate or party spending. Again a breach will not occur unless this spending does not appear in the appropriate returns.Here's a sympathiser's report of what happened at the selective hustings organised by the Fawcett Society at Ruskin College in Oxford last night at which we were no-platformed:
Quote:Had a successful intervention at Ruskin. Here below is a report of my intervention which I have just sent to some Ruskin staff who I know, some of whom attended the hustings.It is disappointing that such no-platforming of socialists is happening but it is reflective of the power of bourgeois ideology in this period.PhilDear all, I attended the Fawcett Society general election hustings tonight at Ruskin in order to make the meeting aware that the candidates of two organisations – the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition – were not present. This was because the Fawcett Society had taken a decision that only candidates of parties that had MPs in parliament were to be invited. I pointed out that when one considers that 40 percent of the population did not vote at the last general election and more than 10 per cent voted for parties that do not have any MPs, what the Fawcett Society are effectively saying is that they care not a jot for the opinions of more than 50 per cent of the population. My question to the Fawcett Society was, "How are you defending the interests of all those women who want to vote for explicitly socialist parties or who merely don't want to vote for any pro-capitalist party?". This question remains on the table. I was rather unpleasantly shouted down by some low-culture people, mainly women, with middle class prejudices. But having more or less made my point to the meeting I then left because I had another meeting to go to, and because I do not wish to spend my time listening to politicians from pro-capitalist parties. I would be interested to know whether the Fawcett Society also no-platformed the other minority parties such as the NHS party? Also, as I left the building I was spoken to by someone who seemed like a porter (hope I'm not doing him an injustice) who told me that he had been informed by "a member of staff" that I am banned from the building. I have no knowledge of such a ban. Can someone please clue me in as to what has been going on?Some good arguments for us to use at other hustings where we are no-platformed.
It wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened. After the general elections in 1910 the Irish Nationalists virtually held the balance of power between the Liberals and Tories and a Liberal government was formed with Irish Nationalist support. Let's hope it's true that when history repeats itself the second time is a farce. Luckily, it probably will be.
Is it this you are looking for:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22073434
When Chomsky first formulated his universal grammar hypothesis people wouldn't have known much about DNA and how genes worked, would they? And he is positing a gene (or group of genes) for language. Until it is found (if it is) his hypothesis must remain just that.
Reply from the Thames Valley branch of the Federation of Small Businesses as to why they didn't invite us to their hustings:
Quote:Thank you for expressing an interest in our Oxford East hustings event that took place on Thursday 5 March. The purpose of the event was to give small businesses the opportunity to hear from candidates on how best they will support small businesses if elected as their MP.Electoral Commission rules stipulate that we must invite all political candidates unless there is an impartial reason for not inviting certain candidates or parties. Our policy is to only invite candidates who have a realistic chance of becoming the next MP in that constituency. We base this decision on the results of the 2010 General Election and current national polling data. We also have a national policy of non-engagement with the BNP.The rules recognise that it is not always practically possible to invite all candidates. They also stipulate that we must invite candidates who represent a reasonable variety of views from different parts of the political spectrum as was the case for our hustings.I hope you understand why we have to cap the number of speaking places on the panel in the interests of running an efficient event that is focused on what each candidate will do for small businesses.Kind regards,Robyn Bourne Thames Valley Development Manager Federation of Small BusinessesThe reason they give for not having invited us — that they "only invite candidates who have a realistic chance of becoming the next MP" in a particular constituency — was clearly not applied impartially as neither the Greens nor UKIP (both lost their deposit at the last election) nor the Tories (they have no seats on Oxford City Council) have a realistic chance of being elected. So it will have been a "selective" hustings. It would certainly have been if there had been a BNP candidate. They should have been clever like the Fawcett Society and say they only invite parties which have MPs (incidentally, for the record, the Fawcett Society did invite UKIP but their candidate couldn't come).We'll write to the Electoral Commission for confirmation that this hustings was "selective".
I shan't be there at the Fawcett Society meeting in Oxford, but one of our supporters has said he will try:
Quote:I will try to go because the smug middle-class complacency of the Fawcett Society obviously needs to be challenged.He is right. Mrs Fawcett was never a democrat. A capitalist herself she campaigned for equal rights for capitalist men and women, eg for the Married Women's Property Act of 1882 (which allowed married capitalist women to keep their property rather than it becoming their husbands as before) and Votes for Rich Women (votes for women on the same terms as men, which would have left most women and one-third of men without the vote). So their democratic credentials are not very strong.Thanks for the link. So they do have an election campaign fund even though they are not a registered "third party". They could be in trouble for this. And I check if they really did invite UKIP since, if they didn't, the reason they have given for not inviting us will be spurious.
imposs1904 wrote:the biographical information on Cameron which is provided on the dustjacket of the book is a wee window on who made up the membership of the Party in the inter-war years.Just read what it says on the dusthacket that you've put up on your site but are you sure about that? He doesn't sound like either a typical member of the working class or of the SPGB though I can see why he would have been attracted to the Party. Or didn't you mean to suggest that he was a typical member of the time?
This has prompted me to dig out some articles he sent me in 2003. Besides the one Alan mentions, there another on "Post-modernism, the Return to Ethics, and the Crisis of Socialist Values" which has since been published on the internet here:http://www.democracynature.org/vol8/ojeili_ethics.htmIt's heavy going but you can see where he's coming from (and going to).
Chamsy Ojelli knew the New Zealand party and entered into correspondence with us. He visited us when he was over here in the 1990s (I think). So he knows us fairly well. We asked for a review copy of his 2003 book From Left Communism to Postmodernism but the publishers never sent us one. Although sympathetic to postmodernism (as reflected in his views on science) he is another example of how we have more influence than we sometimes realise..
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Ah well, you can't win them all.Ah well, maybe not, but is there any prospect of members or supporters, including those from the Oxford Communist Corresponding Society, attending this hustings and, how shall I put it, making their presence felt?
Yes, a couple of those who have signed Kevin's nomination paper live near Ruskin College in Headington and have already been alerted. Hopefully, they'll be able to get along to the meeting.Incidentally, I noticed after I sent the email that UKIP will not be represented and they do have a couple of elected MPs. I wonder whether they were invited.
