Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alastair Campbell wrote:As for the idea that it sets Brand up as some kind of serious commentator on politics, he already was. That is why it is Cameron, Murdoch and Dacre who are the jokes here, not Brand and certainly not Miliband.
Well worth a read, a well written peice, and whatever you think of the man's politics, he remains a clever operator.
Alan,I did make that clear, but a formatting error vanished it. I ended that one "</personal rant>"Anyway,Full interview wih Adam Here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05vdx7t/election-2015-socialist-party-of-great-britain-manifesto-launch
Islington Gazette online hustings (link)This was last night. As I'm sure you all know, I'm loathe to have an argument over the internet. But. Well. Someone had to do it…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32478443They're recycling Danny's clip rather than any footage from Sunday, it seems…
Max, can you email any addresses you have to nlb.spgb@gmail.com — I have a complaint in train. I'll be speaking to otehr candidates this afternoon.
Yes, I would, and the conference resolution you've cited, to my mind, is no barrier to fracking per se…
Put another way, we will need gold in socialism for electronics, etc. So, will we continue to use cyanide extraction is socialism?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining#Cyanide_processMy bet is almost certainly yes.
Just to bring the discussion back here. So, even if any of our candidtes are personally against fracking, they are of course pledged to vote for it is the party instructs them to do so after a democratic debate.A couple of drive by quotes from Wikipedia:
Public Health England wrote:"An assessment of the currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated. Most evidence suggests that contamination of groundwater, if it occurs, is most likely to be caused by leakage through the vertical borehole. Contamination of groundwater from the underground hydraulic fracturing process itself (ie the fracturing of the shale) is unlikely. However, surface spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater may affect groundwater, and emissions to air also have the potential to impact on health. Where potential risks have been identified in the literature, the reported problems are typically a result of operational failure and a poor regulatory environment."and
Quote:Hydraulic fracturing fluids include proppants and other chemicals. These may include toxic chemicals;[3] In the United States they are allowed to be treated as trade secrets by companies who use them. Lack of knowledge about specific chemicals has complicated efforts to develop risk management policies and to study health effects.[4][5] In other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, these chemicals must be made public and are required to be non hazardous in their applicationNow, my view is that fracking is probably no more harmful than any other extractive industry, per se, but that for AGW reasons that gas/oil should stay in the ground. As a party member, if I wa given the choice between 5,000+ deaths from winter cold and fracking, I'd vote for fracking, and expect our delegates to abide by the vote.
Quote:8-9pm: "Come and hear why you should vote for Socialism" Election meeting at Caxton House Community Centre, 129 St John's Way , London N19 3RQ (7 mins from Archway tube). Our candidate, Bill Martin, will give a talk and answer questions.We advertised this meeting, so it'll be a good test of the power of advertising. Anyone free in London welcome to come along.
A history of British socialism Author:Max BeerPublisher:London : G. Allen & Unwin Ltd., [1953]The general history of socialism and social struggles. Author:Max BeerPublisher:New York, Russell & Russell [1957](The latter goes back to ancient times, and may be a little tendentious). Socialism by James Ramsay MacDonald Print book View all formats and languages »Language: English Publisher: New York : Kraus Reprint Co., 1970. IIRC it's an interesting account, that starts with Godwin, read with pinch of salt. Also:William Morris and E. Belfort BaxSocialism From The Root UporSocialism Its Growth & Outcome https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1886/sru/
Looks like today is Republic day. Here's my email I sent:
Quote:The Socialist Party is campaigning for the creation of a society based on common ownership of the wealth of the world, so that it can be directly administered in all our interests, rather than in the interest of the minority who currently own it.Our core principles affirm that we intend to "overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic" and that includes replacing the monarchy, and government, with the self-active democracy of the population. If our delegates find themselves serving as a minority in a parliament dominated by pro-capitalist parties, our membership will instruct them to vote (after a democratic debate) in the best interests of the working class.Islignton Gazette Hustings last night, full slate of candidates. It was a bit hectic, the chair moved the goalposts a couple of times, and at one point it turned into a version of Juat a Minute with candidates having to quickly work through about 10 questions each. Got a couple of points across, that seem to have been picked up on the twitter feeds (search for Islington North and scroll down). Kind of fluffed my last lines (partly because the chair suddenly told us that instead of summation, our last batch of answers was a wind up as well). I made it about 60 present.
ALB wrote:The passage in bold comes from part 2 of the Communist Manifesto:Who'da thunk it would become the Tory manifesto…
http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2015/apr/%E2%80%98use-right-buy-money-get-more-people-private-homes%E2%80%99Below is the full text I sent to the tribune (when asked) I've bolded the buit I quoted. Anyone get the reference? "The new extension of the right to buy is another hilarious example of the Tories making despotic inroads into the rights of private property: after changing the law to allow fracking under people's homes, they now want to seize the assets of private charitable associations to give away as electoral bribes.It is part and parcel of the problem of reforming capitalism, that so long as the market remains in place, any reform can be undone in a knock down fire sale by any party in government. In this case, the right to buy seems, to my mind, to be a smoke screen for making councils sell off their most valuable homes. In any case, the temptation to buy votes with state assets will always exist for governing parties.If any party succeeded, through taxation or borrowing, in building thousands more new social properties, they can be given away by the stroke of a secretary of state's pen at any future date. This is what we call primary accumulation, or accumulation through expropriation, where piles of money are made for individuals by sales of public or common properties. It has a history as old as the dissolution of the monasteries and the Enclosure Acts. As long as representatives of the capitalist class wield political power this sort of thing will go on.Bringing the wealth of the world into common and democratic ownership would prevent such accumulation of wealth, since land assets would have no economic value, only use value. There would be no more buying and selling, so there would be no means of disposing of common assets as private wealth. There would be no state power to sell them off a the whim of a minority. This is especially so, as common ownership is not possible without the active conscious decision and action of the overwhelming majority of people: why would they vote to give their homes away again?The Torie's plan is to enrich a minority. We could all own our homes, and have secure tenures, through common ownership."
