Brixton Hill local by-election
- This topic has 80 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Of course the Party must act in accordance with Conference resolutions, but here it's a question of what a Conference Resolution means (and has been interpreted over the years as meaning).I don't know, JonD, where you got the idea from the members can't argue against a Conference resolution with a view to getting it reversed or changed. This goes on all the time. There's even this Conference Resolution from 1973 (I hope it doesn't set the cat amongst the pigeons):
Quote:This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing.ALB wrote:There's even this Conference Resolution from 1973 (I hope it doesn't set the cat amongst the pigeons):Quote:This Conference reaffirms that nothing in the Party Rules should be understood as to prevent any member or members from expressing criticism of the Party verbally or in writing.I cannot see why this resolution should not apply to party forums.
There you go again gnome, inferring what I mean. When I say that va decision not to use a photograph is "outmoded trash", that is my opinion, surely I am allowed that. As for following a conference resolution not to allow photos on manifestos, of course I would follow and heed that decision! I do, after all, believe in the democratic will of the majority.However, no conference decision, either that one or any other has been passed stating that agreement of this conference decision stops us from discussing its merits or demerits and I am using my democratic right to voice opposition to this stance. Okay comrade? Yours for SocialismSteve.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I cannot see why this resolution should not apply to party forums.Well, yes, of course it does and, also of course, there are procedures for doing so which members need to follow.Sorry, Moderator, for veering off topic but I wanted to reassure JonD that members are entitled to criticise and work to amend or rescind any Conference Resolution and more. What they are not entitled to do is to not abide by it in the meantime.
I know that we are supposed to go through moderation about this and I apologise fro this off topic post but admin has ignored me. I refer to the obscenities in post #30. Are there double standards here? Why are some members allowed to do this?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I know that we are supposed to go through moderation about this and I apologise fro this off topic post but admin has ignored me. I refer to the obscenities in post #30. Are there double standards here? Why are some members allowed to do this?There is no ban on obscenities. If you think such words should be censored you are free to bring a resolution to conference via your branch.
admin wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I know that we are supposed to go through moderation about this and I apologise fro this off topic post but admin has ignored me. I refer to the obscenities in post #30. Are there double standards here? Why are some members allowed to do this?There is no ban on obscenities. If you think such words should be censored you are free to bring a resolution to conference via your branch.
He'll have to hurry as his Form 'F' comes before the EC tomorrow…… Beg pardon; off-topic!
gnome wrote:admin wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I know that we are supposed to go through moderation about this and I apologise fro this off topic post but admin has ignored me. I refer to the obscenities in post #30. Are there double standards here? Why are some members allowed to do this?There is no ban on obscenities. If you think such words should be censored you are free to bring a resolution to conference via your branch.
He'll have to hurry as his Form 'F' comes before the EC tomorrow…… Beg pardon; off-topic!
Bad news, you fucking prick, I have withdrawn my resignation and I am keeping an eye on you
admin wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I know that we are supposed to go through moderation about this and I apologise fro this off topic post but admin has ignored me. I refer to the obscenities in post #30. Are there double standards here? Why are some members allowed to do this?There is no ban on obscenities. If you think such words should be censored you are free to bring a resolution to conference via your branch.
ah, should have told me earlier. You and Chesham are a comedy fucking duo. But socialists you are not.
What can I add? nothing. The above say's it all. Certain comrades can swear, use abusive language use capitalisation, and it is justified. Others who do it, we all know who we are, cannot. Are moderated or banned for 7 day's! Is this not a joke? Is this not the ultimate irony, taken in context of course. The 2 Ronnies could do no better.Steve.
As i made clear earlier, i would oppose including a candidates photo or even assisting in it being used in election campaigns. We were presented by a similar situation in Livingston with 2 requests for pictures. Our replies were" I am afraid that the visitors to your blog-spot will have to remain disappointed with the lack of photograph from the Socialist Party candidate , Brian Gardner. We have a policy that it is the Party's case that should be voted upon, not the Party's face. It is the politics not the personality. Note also the lack of biographical information on the candidate in the election leaflet. We want you to vote for the Socialist Party, not the man "" Brian Gardner is the candidate for the Socialist Party. We are standing to argue the case that Capitalism is past its sell-by date, and can now be replaced by its alternative: a wageless, moneyless, classless world community based on production for human need, not profit. This change can only come about once the majority understand it and want it. It won't come about by following leaders or voting for someone else to do it. The birthplace, background, work history or face of our candidate is therefore a complete irrelevance. That's why we have no photo."One of the websites reproduced our explanation.The local newspaper also printed statements by all the candidates with their pics and ours took the opportunity to explain in his statement that "[social change] won't come about by following leaders or voting for someone else to do it. The face of our candidate is therefore a complete irrelevance. That's why we have no photo."http://realsocialism.blogspot.com/I would have chosen that option rather than submit to the personalising of elections. Perhaps every text of election leaflets should have a paragraph describing our opposition to the cult of the personality. It is integral to our approach to politics and should be used as part of our educational task.We came last and it resulted in the party adopting a policy of not contesting Parliamentary by-elections. I doubt a photo would have had any influence. The main problem as i see it is that when we are the only "Socialist Party" standing our vote increases – when another party with "socialist" in its name, our vote decreases. See Brian's post mortem at the blogsite above.There is a grey area of the conference decision in that it concerned our own election material as Adam indicated. I do not, however, find it to be a matter of great principle. It does not undermine my conviction that as a political party we are still the most democratic one. I can live with Danny's mug-shot being used by independent websites. If that is considered a loop-hole in the resolution then it is up to those who want it closed to raise the issue in conference, or at least complain officially to the EC on the validity of the candidates and/or committee's actions. If the election committee are convinced of the advantages of candidates pictures on leaflets then they too are obliged to put a motion to rescind the previous conference decision or at least include their criticism in their reports to conference and ADM, for branches and members to respond to.ADMIN NOTE: REFERENCE TO UNPUBLISHED COMMENT REMOVED
I've moved my comments to a more appropriate thread
ADMIN NOTE: The Old Grey Whistle has had posting rights suspended following a recent bout of personal abuse.
Some use personal abuse in a very clear, overt manner. In the main it is an expression of frustration and exasperation. There are those however, who give personal abuse in a more roundabout, clandestine manner. The sly dig's here, the sly asides there. Taken individually they seem innocuous, as an entirety, they take on a more sinister aspect. They are the domain of the intellectual coward.Personally, I would rather be called a prick right out in the open, than be nibbled away at by underhanded abuse, akin to bein nibbled to death by rats. Steve.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.