Brixton Hill local by-election
- This topic has 80 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It's up. The face that is:http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/DemocracyElections/ElectionsVoting/StatementOfPersonsNominatedBrixtonHill.htmI know we say and mean "it's the case not the face" but surely "the face is better than the empty space" …
Great response from Danny!and I can't see anything wrong with a picture of our delegate!
ALB wrote:It's up. The face that is:http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/DemocracyElections/ElectionsVoting/StatementOfPersonsNominatedBrixtonHill.htmI know we say and mean "it's the case not the face" but surely "the face is better than the empty space" …Not when it contravenes a democratically binding Conference resolution:-"That this Conference instructs the EC to ensure that in future no photograph of the candidate appears on the election material." (1989)Or is it now a matter of observing the motions we agree with and ignoring those we don't?
I already explained that this resolution refers to election material we produce ourselves. It arose from a case where a branch put the candidate's photo on the election manifesto. The 1989 resolution repudiated and banned this. Photos have been supplied to local newspapers both before and after this 1989 resolution.For what it would have looked like if we hadn't provided a photo, see here:http://www.northdevon.gov.uk/index/lgcl_council_government_and_democracy/lgcl_elections/nonlgcl_election_results/lgcl_districtparish2011_results_district-2.htm
I think I speak on behalf of most comrades, Danny, when I say that you are doing a great job for the party and socialism and may you continue to do so in 2013
ALB wrote:I already explained that this resolution refers to election material we produce ourselves. It arose from a case where a branch put the candidate's photo on the election manifesto. The 1989 resolution repudiated and banned this. Photos have been supplied to local newspapers both before and after this 1989 resolution.And as I have already explained our case is that people vote for us if they understand and agree with our ideas. A person who decides his or her vote on the presence of a photo of our candidate is a vote we do not want. It's not a popularity or beauty contest but a gauge of socialist consciousness and a measure of our own effectiveness as a party.We should have declined the photo of our candidate when it was requested and explained the reasons for its non-appearance. This in itself would have singled us out from the rest of the pack in much the same way as an organisation without a leader does. The fact that photographs may have been supplied to local newspapers on previous occasions does not legitimise its use on this occasion; several wrongs do not make a right.
Gnome.why do you use letters in bold? What does that mean?
I have stood in countless elections, from town council up to and including the Euros. My face has appeared in the press but not on our election material. I must state however, that in all elections I have contested I have made it plain, "if you do not agree with our case and analysis, the party does not want, nor require your vote"We do not require your vote on personal terms! If you agree with us, vote for Socialism. If not vote for the many pro-Capitalist partys, FULL STOP. A picture, notwithstanding.No personalities, just Socialism.Yours For Socialism,Steve.
steve colborn wrote:I have stood in countless elections, from town council up to and including the Euros. My face has appeared in the press but not on our election material. I must state however, that in all elections I have contested I have made it plain, "if you do not agree with our case and analysis, the party does not want, nor require your vote"We do not require your vote on personal terms! If you agree with us, vote for Socialism. If not vote for the many pro-Capitalist partys, FULL STOP. A picture, notwithstanding.No personalities, just Socialism.Yours For Socialism,Steve.I know you have done a hell of a lot for the party and socialism over the years, comrade, and the party's name is well known in the the north east of england because of you and other comrades in the area but I always thought that we would have benefited from a mug shot of you in the local rag, lol. It would have linked your face with the case for socialism. "The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. "Karl Marx
I notice that for a local election we aren't standing a local man. The rest of the candidates are SW post codes, ours BR.It's not the case or the face but his place that will determine some votes cast.
I think you misunderstand me OGW, or, more specifically, I have not made myself plain enough in my language. I have not now, nor have ever, opposed a picture of a Socialist candidate on our manifesto. Outmoded trash, that idea. If comrades do, as I did, and state explicitly that you vote for the idea not the candidate, then what is the problem. I know that certain tribes thought that having their picture taken would mean their "sole" was stolen. Having no sole I cannot speak to this. But however, I can say that anyone who is afraid of a photo, needs some serious help. Maybe a witchdoctor or voodoo priest would be of assistance : )Yours for Socialism,Steve.
steve colborn wrote:I have not now, nor have ever, opposed a picture of a Socialist candidate on our manifesto. Outmoded trash, that idea.Would you also regard democratic decisions taken by the party as "outmoded trash"? There may well be case for a photograph of a socialist candidate to appear on our election material or in the press but the argument should be put to Conference which is where our decisions are made. At the moment an extant instructed Conference motion prohibits the use of candidates' photographs.
I certainly think we should stick by conference decisions but that should not prevent us expressing an opinion on the subject. Some conference resolution have been changed by opposition to them and comrade expressing this opposition. It is called free speech and democracy.
Yes, the party is bound to act according to conference decisions. However, if no-one could ever talk about disagreeing with conference decisions, conference decisions would never be changed at future conferences and exist in perpetuity. Minority positions could never become majority positions.Incidentally, do those opposing use of photos for our candidates, think that Liberal, Labour or Tory candidates should use candidates photos or win support exclusively on their ideas? Are we really against personality politics, or is it utopian exceptionalism for our little section of the working-class?
jondwhite wrote:Yes, the party is bound to act according to conference decisions. However, if no-one could ever talk about disagreeing with conference decisions, conference decisions would never be changed at future conferences and exist in perpetuity. Minority positions could never become majority positions.Sorry, but who said no-one should ever talk about disagreeing with conference decisions?
Quote:Incidentally, do those opposing use of photos for our candidates, think that Liberal, Labour or Tory candidates should use candidates photos or win support exclusively on their ideas? Are we really against personality politics, or is it utopian exceptionalism for our little section of the working-class?I couldn't give a flying fuck what other parties' candidates do; they can show pictures of their arses for all I care. They're the ones who thrive on personality politics; not us. Hardly needs saying, does it?'
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.