Local Election Campaign 2017
- This topic has 171 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin,this is strictly a personal opinion: Paula's comment, if true, is actionable: John's is more debatable, he's simlpy said he can envisage a circumstance in which he could vote Labour, he hasn't committed to doing so. A case could be made either way on that one, in my opinion.(BTW, I'm not on the party Facebook group hence why I've not commented previously).
Young Master Smeet wrote:Vin,this is strictly a personal opinion: Paula's comment, if true, is actionable: John's is more debatable, he's simlpy said he can envisage a circumstance in which he could vote Labour, he hasn't committed to doing so. A case could be made either way on that one, in my opinion.However injudicious it may be for members to declare publicly on a party forum their intentions to vote for a capitalist party nothing is actionable unless they openly confess to having actually done so in tomorrow's ballot. Furthermore, none of them, as far as we're aware, have joined another political party and that's the essential difference between their actions and those of Cde.Colborn's, despite what he may or may not do or say while on the parish council.
So three members are in the frame.Paula previously supported the nationalist Yes in the 2014 Independence referendum, if i remember correctly.As i said previously, announcing your intention to vote Labour is offering support and therefore is actionable under Rule 6. No proof of actual voting Labour is necessary. I read John Bisset's statement (if that is the only one) and yes, i still say it is actionable.I could say if i was still in the Post Office, a Corbyn-government and its re-nationalisation of Royal Mail may well benefit myself personally but our position as party members, is a class one, not sectional or individual so John's remarks about a possible better NHS helping his health issues is not valid. I will add a caveat that perhaps my own off-the-cuff remark that i would be tempted to vote for Derek Wall of the Green Party may also be an offence. i will not offer a defence here, but i think comparing my statement with John's is apples and oranges.I have stated previously, we should not conflate SC's rule-breaking with this discussion. I have much more to say on his situation but i have chosen not to be drawn deeper into the situation, heeding Vin's advice that the branch and EC are still to act (I suggest, though, that Vin, himself, makes note of the idiom "do as i say, not as i do" and heeds his own counsel to refrain from further comment so that the Party can carry out its procedures)
Its not for me to say, Alan, as I am not in the Party so you can take or leave my comments as you wish but, personally speaking, I would be inclined to let this whole Facebook controversy drop. I strongly agree with your comment that the members concerned should not have publicised their intention to vote Labour in the absence of a socialist candidate as that might well be construed as support for Labour. It was imprudent of them to do so and they should have kept their voting intentions to themselves. But thats as far as it goes, in my view. It deserves a rap over the knuckles but hardly explusion, That is going too far and I agree with Brian Gardener's observation on the Facebook page that perhaps some members are getting overly vexed about the whole matter. Its seem pretty clear to me that the individuals concerned dont have any illusions about Labour being anything other than a capitalist Party that is going to do what all capitalist parties do in the long run, But there are some differences between Corbyn's party and May's party and it would be folly to deny that. The few more crumbs offered by the former can count if you are personally affected and dependent, for example, on some sort of state welfare income, The Party talks of socialism being in our self interest but it is precisely self interest that has prompted a few members to consider voting Labour in this instance. I wouldn't do it myself but who can blame them? All the same they should not have blurted out their intentions and I suspect that was done more out of frustration at the prospect of another 5 years of Tory rule. In one way, even the illusion of change is better than no change at all. Incidentally, there are one or two other members I am in touch (who shall remain un-named ) who have also indicated they will probably vote Labour this time. Like the members mentioned, they have no illusions about what they are doing and are no less socialists for doing it, in my opinion. Rather than cause unnecessary upheaval and heartarche, I would suggest something along the lines of issuing a general reminder to the membership that the Party cannot support or appear to be supporting a capitalist organisation snd that declarations of intent by individual members to vote for the latter can be construed as apparent support. I would just leave it at that and allow the message to sink in. There is absolutely no point in expellling good socialists particularly when they want to remain in the Party and have no intention of joining some other Party. Doing that would amount to a self inflicted wound as I see it.
gnome wrote:Furthermore, none of them, as far as we're aware, have joined another political party and that's the essential difference between their actions and those of Cde.Colborn's, despite what he may or may not do or say while on the parish council.This is a lot worse. I don't have to spell out where this leaves our candidate standing against Corbyn in Islington. Many 'left wing' groups (all?) have thrown in their lot with Corbyn – 'without illusions' as Robbo says elswhere. I would call that bad judgement but it is honest bad judgement. These members have not only brought the party into disrepute but they reveal us as dishonest and hypocritical. They have declared their preference for reformism. The Left will have a great time with that one and we will never recover from it.We oppose Corbyn on the political platform, while we allow our members to vote for him. This is a lot worse than standing for a local community party. Unless action is taken against those members the party will remain exposed to serious criticism. I prefer the question 'didn't one of your members stand for a local community party in an attempt to improve his local community?'than 'Didn't some of your members vote labour while your party opposed them at the 2017 General Election. I can't see how we can expel Comrade Colborn and not the Labour Party supporters. That looks bad, too.
Can I suggest that in the interests of the Party we all follow Vin's advice on the matter with SC the moment and leave the issues of voting intention and election as councillor to the branches concerned and the EC. If there is debate to be had it can be done through the correct Party channels when the time comes. I think this may prevent future acrimony and things being said that might be thrown up in the future.
I'm sure some members will take your view, Robbo and suggest let sleeping dogs lie rather than poke about a hornet's nest…to mix metaphors.Some will say we simply are not in a healthy state of membership to conduct expulsions and reduce our numbers even further. I for one have repeatedly drawn attention to the pessimistic demographic projection for the future and highlighted the need for new members before we reach the tipping point of no longer functioning as a political group and then, even more, members will seek solace elsewhere in the pro-capitalist parties. In one post i suggested that these members may well be symptomatic of a deeper malaise within the Party, that we are losing touch with the Party principles because we are losing contact with each other and it is causing a lowering of morale and a weakening of the Party ethos. More than once i have suggested we devote a special conference to the everything involving the Party, where we presently stand, what we stand for and where our stand should be made in the future. It means questioning our sacred cows even if it is simply to reiterate our commitment to them. I'm on the record of saying our hostility clause should not be focused on like-minded even if rival organisations. But i rather the Party debated and discussed as whole such ideas than for every individual member go off and do their own thing. That is not letting a thousand flowers bloom but a re-formulation of what the party is…becoming more like a World-In-Common informal grouping than a political party with commonly agreed purpose.No-one is suggesting ostracisation for those who do not toe the party-line – there, i have said it, just that if they do not abide by the democratic rules, they have privileges of membership withdrawn ie participation in how we write the rules or run the party. BrianG might be right and taking the issue to conference and party polls might be cutting one's nose off to spite the face
Quote:31. A Branch or member acting in a manner deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the Principles or Rules, or detrimental to the interests of the Party shall be immediately suspended by the EC from all Party business except the matter in dispute. The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.Let the Party decide and i will accept the ruling of a Party Poll.Put it to the vote, initially of the EC to adjudicate if Rule 6 has been broached and then let the members either accept of reject that view of the EC after full debate
alanjjohnstone wrote:Some will say we simply are not in a healthy state of membership to conduct expulsions and reduce our numbers even further. I for one have repeatedly drawn attention to the pessimistic demographic projection for the future and highlighted the need for new members before we reach the tipping point of no longer functioning as a political group and then, even more, members will seek solace elsewhere in the pro-capitalist parties. In one post i suggested that these members may well be symptomatic of a deeper malaise within the Party, that we are losing touch with the Party principles because we are losing contact with each other and it is causing a lowering of morale and a weakening of the Party ethos.Your post is generally sympathetic and understanding, Alan. I guess you will continue to refer to the Labour Party supporters as 'comrades'. I certainly will, just as I will be refering to Comrade Colborn until the matters are dealt with democratically by the membership.Well I'm off to the polls. Any advice
Vin, did i refer to anyone as "comrade" in either of my last two posts and did i retract my opinion that charges should be brought? Again, folowing on what Tim counselled, follow your own advice and keep two separate issues separate. I find it easier enough to do.
Vin wrote:This is a lot worse. I don't have to spell out where this leaves our candidate standing against Corbyn in Islington. Many 'left wing' groups (all?) have thrown in their lot with Corbyn – 'without illusions' as Robbo says elswhere. I would call that bad judgement but it is honest bad judgement. These members have not only brought the party into disrepute but they reveal us as dishonest and hypocritical. They have declared their preference for reformism. The Left will have a great time with that one and we will never recover from it.This is more than a little bit hysterical: we have party democracy so we can disown the actions of a few individuals, the party's position remains unchanged. Members ar entitled to express opinions (as Gnome pointed out, correctly, even saying you will vote Labour is not quite actionable, unless you actually do and are daft enough to openly admit it). I've heard tell of members in the past who used to vote communist on the sly.
Young Master Smeet wrote:This is more than a little bit hysterical:Well perhaps a little.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Vin, did i refer to anyone as "comrade" in either of my last two posts and did i retract my opinion that charges should be brought? Again, folowing on what Tim counselled, follow your own advice and keep two separate issues separate. I find it easier enough to do.OK Alan, you were kind enough to take my advice. I will say no more
If this article is anything to go by, then we aren't the only ones who have adherents challenging principleshttp://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-anarchist-revolt-against-the-ideology-of-not-voting-is-finally-taking-shape-in-2017/
alanjjohnstone wrote:If this article is anything to go by, then we aren't the only ones who have adherents challenging principleshttp://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-anarchist-revolt-against-the-ideology-of-not-voting-is-finally-taking-shape-in-2017/Followed your link Alan, and found this at the bottom of the page. Amusing, a great idea for a video (no, I am not a 'corbynista' and even if I was, I would keep it to myself)http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/jeremy-corbyn-what-was-done/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.