Local Election Campaign 2017
- This topic has 171 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This may help to explain how Max managed to poll more votes than any of our other candidates
Another .explanation is that there was no Green Party candidate standing in Folkestone East..Incidentally, Folkestone was part of the UKIP wipe-out. Previously the councollors there were UKIP.
The party has a long history in Seaham in the North East of England and it seems we have an elected SPGBr at the local elections there, polling more votes than a Labour candidatehttp://www.durham.gov.uk/article/12696/Parish-council-4-May-2017-election-results#Deneside Ward of Seaham Parish
If this is Steve Colborn who thought was still a member of the party i am puzzled.I believe he is still a member and if he is then this is a very serious matter and openly flouting of the party rules, that can only lead to expulsion.6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.So who are the Seaham Community Party that he now represents?If this is Cde. Colborn and he is still a member of NERB then the following rules pertain 27. Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally28. Any Branch proposing to contest elections, National, European or Local, shall first obtain permission from the Executive Committee. I hope it is just someone sharing the same name for i woud hate our first elected member to be disowned by the Party.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If this is Steve Colborn who thought was still a member of the party i am puzzled.I believe he is still a member and if he is then this is a very serious matter and openly flouting of the party rules, that can only lead to expulsion.6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.So who are the Seaham Community Party that he now represents?If this is Cde. Colborn and he is still a member of NERB then the following rules pertain 27. Candidates elected to a Political office shall be pledged to act on the instructions of their Branches locally28. Any Branch proposing to contest elections, National, European or Local, shall first obtain permission from the Executive Committee. I hope it is just someone sharing the same name for i woud hate our first elected member to be disowned by the Party.Some clarification is clearly needed in this situation. I have sent PMs and an email to Steve in the last month, in my role as acting NE Branch Secretary and received no reply. If Steve is reading the mesage boards, an update would be appreciated, prior to any action being taken by the Party.
From the Seaham Community Party Facebook site: "We want local people from all backgrounds and age groups to join us to change Seaham for the better. Seaham Community Party are really proud of our town and we would like to continue this regeneration seen at the sea front in to other areas. We will protect Seaham' heritage, Tommy, George Emily Lifeboat and The British Legion. We will reduce Seaham Town Councillors from 21 to 11, therefore saving costs to invest in our town. We will not put the council tax up by 3% like the current party. We strongly support all our local health and well being/fitness. We will save and improve Seahams' Leisure Centre and Youth Centre. We will run activities and support local families and also organise a childrens' summer holiday programme, including trips, events and sports/clubs. We will clean up our streets and parks to make them free from litter and dog mess. A zero tolerance on dog fouling. We will strive to invest and protect our allotments and open green spaces for future generations. We will continue to sup port and improve all of Seahams outdoor events such as the carnival, armed forces day and the fireworks display. We will work hard to enhance Seaham as a tourist destination by doing all that we can to further Seahams reputation as a holiday destination. COME AND JOIN US! Seaham Community Party are honest, approachable, trustworthy and reliable. Vote for us and together we will improve Seaham!"Clearly a set of reformist demands, not exactly a Revolutionary Socailist Party. Incidentally they call us impossiblists for proposing the creation of a society based on common ownership and the abolition of the wages system, the idea of making Seaham into a holiday destination is much more far fetched!!If it is the Steve Colborn of NE Branch who has been elected on this platform, he should hang his head in shame.
It's true:Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishElectorate: 2933Ballots Issued: 775Turnout: 26.42%Rejected Ballots: 3 ALLEN, Brian (Labour) 309 BELL, Edward (Labour) 434 ELECTED BLEASDALE, Geraldine (Labour) 382 ELECTED COLBORN, Steven Paul (Seaham Community Party) 340 ELECTED DONALDSON, Michelle (Seam Community Party) 312 PAUL, James Ian (no description) 118 SOKS, Karen (Seaham Community Party) 259 TAYLOR, Barry (Seaham Community Party) 332 ELECTED
ALB wrote:It's true:Deneside Ward of Seaham ParishElectorate: 2933Ballots Issued: 775Turnout: 26.42%Rejected Ballots: 3 ALLEN, Brian (Labour) 309 BELL, Edward (Labour) 434 ELECTED BLEASDALE, Geraldine (Labour) 382 ELECTED COLBORN, Steven Paul (Seaham Community Party) 340 ELECTED DONALDSON, Michelle (Seam Community Party) 312 PAUL, James Ian (no description) 118 SOKS, Karen (Seaham Community Party) 259 TAYLOR, Barry (Seaham Community Party) 332 ELECTEDthey say that power corrupts, but bloody hell, Seaham Parish Council, it's hardly the Presidency, is it? Talk about setting your sights low!
More on them here:http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP4182
It seems that the 'seaham community party' is knocking labour out as is the NorthEast Party in other areas.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:From the Seaham Community Party Facebook site: "We want local people from all backgrounds and age groups to join us to change Seaham for the better. Seaham Community Party are really proud of our town and we would like to continue this regeneration seen at the sea front in to other areas. We will protect Seaham' heritage, Tommy, George Emily Lifeboat and The British Legion. We will reduce Seaham Town Councillors from 21 to 11, therefore saving costs to invest in our town. We will not put the council tax up by 3% like the current party. We strongly support all our local health and well being/fitness. We will save and improve Seahams' Leisure Centre and Youth Centre. We will run activities and support local families and also organise a childrens' summer holiday programme, including trips, events and sports/clubs. We will clean up our streets and parks to make them free from litter and dog mess. A zero tolerance on dog fouling. We will strive to invest and protect our allotments and open green spaces for future generations. We will continue to sup port and improve all of Seahams outdoor events such as the carnival, armed forces day and the fireworks display. We will work hard to enhance Seaham as a tourist destination by doing all that we can to further Seahams reputation as a holiday destination. COME AND JOIN US! Seaham Community Party are honest, approachable, trustworthy and reliable. Vote for us and together we will improve Seaham!"Clearly a set of reformist demands, not exactly a Revolutionary Socailist Party. Incidentally they call us impossiblists for proposing the creation of a society based on common ownership and the abolition of the wages system, the idea of making Seaham into a holiday destination is much more far fetched!!If it is the Steve Colborn of NE Branch who has been elected on this platform, he should hang his head in shame.Not sure if the above would actually qualify as a "set of reformist demands" though, Tim. Reformism, to me, essentially only applies at the level of state power (and above) and has to do with the attempt to ameliorate the consequences of capitalism through centralised legislative and political enactments. In other words, it is capitalism you are trying to reform, not the shoddy state of Seahams' Leisure centre which may need a lick of paint or whatever. Contesting local elections strikes me as being much closer to voting for representaives in your local Residential Association. This Wikipedia link on Residents Associations is particuarly interesting and pertinent – in particular this:"While generally eschewing national party politics, since the reform of UK electoral law in 2000 several British residents' associations have been obliged to register as locality-based political parties to enable them to participate in local elections for borough and county councils." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residents%27_association) The Party has no objections to members joining Residents Associations. Providing these essentially locally based poliical parties, like the "Seaham Community Party", are not linked to national parties based on an unequivocally reformist platform, I wonder if there really is much harm in what Steve Colbourn is doing from a socialist standpoint. You might want to argue that it is all a bit pointless – though that is a moot point – but that does not necessarily make it reformist as such. There are lots of things that the Party opposes which are not in themselves reformist. Racism for example is not in itself reformist though it can certainly be associated with a reformist programme that for example privileges one particular so called racial group
Robbo, you may be interested in this thread i began and the question of whether the placement of bins and park benches were reformist or not…i think the answer that while they were not revolutionary demands, they were not reformisthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/parish-councilsHowever, i concur with Tim that ex-comrade Colborn should hang his head in shame for his new political party has support for the British Legion, a dubious charity, and recommends the improvement of Armed Forces Day,a celebration of militarism.Unlike Vin's breaking news, no SPGBer was elected in Seaham. The Party did not stand and the candidate did not do so on the platform of socialism. His participation can be likened to the Trotskyist entryist with no regard to his voters for as the Manifesto states, a communist disdains from concealing their views and aims.I think ex-comrade Colborn disgraced himself personally by not resigning in advance and now leaves the Party with the unpleasant and time-consuming task of expelling him.Another of my concerns is if there were members locally who knew of ex-comrade Colborn's candidacy and failed to inform the NERB branch or the Party of it. I would consider that a breach of Rule 6 as well "… or otherwise assist any other political party."
Yes Alan I agree with what you say. I did not know of his new Party/s support for the British Legion and presumably also the distribution of red poppies – that obnoxious hypocritical annnual event that the jingoists like to engage in, promoting patriaotic values on the pretext of remembering the war dead. Even so, though completely objectionable from a socialist standpoint, this does not really constitute "reformism". My only observation concerning this sad and sorry state of affairs is that, if you are going to initiate expulsion proceedings against Steve Colbourn, you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him. I am not entirely convinced that the charge of reformism will withstand scrutiny for the reasons outlined in my previous post On a more personal note, does anyone know what prompted Steve to take this course of action? Why did he not simply resign from the Party in the first place? I got the impression that he was a pretty active member of the NE branch so why this sidden change of heart? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story if he is willing to give it
Yes Alan I agree with what you say. I did not know of his new Party's support for the British Legion and presumably also the distribution of red poppies – that obnoxious hypocritical annnual event that the jingoists like to engage in, promoting patriotic values on the pretext of remembering the war dead. Even so, though completely objectionable from a socialist standpoint, this does not really constitute "reformism". My only observation concerning this sad and sorry state of affairs is that, if you are going to initiate expulsion proceedings against Steve Colbourn, you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him. I am not entirely convinced that the charge of reformism will withstand scrutiny for the reasons outlined in my previous post On a more personal note, does anyone know what prompted Steve to take this course of action? Why did he not simply resign from the Party in the first place? I got the impression that he was a pretty active member of the NE branch so why this sidden change of heart? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story if he is willing to give it
Quote:you need to be clear about the grounds on which you are expelling him.Rule 6 is quite sufficient and very clear for his branch to proceed to expel him, Robbo. We need not engage in any complicated debate or discussion about the nature of reformism or reforms.
Quote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party.He stood on behalf of the Seaham Community Party, which is registered as a political party by the electoral commission.What is more that he felt the need to do so without resigning and underhandedly maintaining it a secret from the Party. I ask myself, would we have ever heard of his candidature if he had failed to be elected? In fact, would we have ever known if Vin did not have the decency to relay the information to us al?. But i do have to now ask Vin and Linda, directly, when were they aware of this development. The question is unavoidable, i'm afraid, considering their close family ties with ex-comrade Colborn. BTW, i do find it difficult not to say ex-comrade, as his actions count louder than any words he may have in mitigation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.