Local Election Campaign 2017

[alanjjohnstone]

I have heeded your advice, Vin, and stuck to my pledge made in message #105, repeated in various other messages since. 

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Vin wrote:

This situation has nothing to do with the past conflicts. Comrade Colborn's contribution of many years will not be wiped off the slate by petty mindedness and knee jerk reactions and dragging other members into the conflict. 

But those long years are irrelevent to the question at hand, and provide no mitigation.

I didn't say they did. But it should not be seen as an opportunity to raise matters allegedly done in the past. Cde Colborn never had to make reassurances to anyone because he had done no wrong.  In fact if my memory serves me well, he refused to undertake reassurance, why should he?All I am saying is that we should stick to the issue at hand, which Alan has agreed.Now, how can we rescue something positive out of this? 

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

gnome wrote:

Of course, neither you nor I yet know that he won't be putting the party case at every opportunity.

If he were to put the party case, he'd have to resign and stand on the party platform first. And I don't recall you taking this position over Jim Laurie.

Lawrie's case was different insofar as he threatened violence against fellow-members and when he refused to resign was expelled by Central London branch.

gnome wrote:

There's literally a world of difference between a member expressing an opinion down the pub to a handful of other members and broadcasting it to thousands on Facebook.  The latter couldn't be further from a "lesser matter".

YMS wrote:

No, there's not.  Social media is just a big pub.

But the crucial distinction is in the 'bigness' and the nature of the audience. Party members (and there's now been two) announcing to the whole world on the SPGB's Facebook group page their intention to vote for the Labour party cannot be anything but immensely damaging to the Party and, IMO, constitutes 'action detrimental'.

[alanjjohnstone]

It may be a wise move to shift this thread to SPOPEN or SPINTCOM if we are worried about the effect it may have on any visitors to the forum. 

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

But the crucial distinction is in the 'bigness' and the nature of the audience. Party members (and there's now been two) announcing to the whole world on the SPGB's Facebook group page their intention to vote for the Labour party cannot be anything but immensely damaging to the Party and, IMO, constitutes 'action detrimental'.

I have just checked this out. This not on. Our Facebook used to encourage workers to vote Labour. They should be removed from Facebook.Voting labour and asking workers to vote labour is a lot worse than Comrade Colborn's actions. The anti working class history of the Labour Partyis should be sufficient to invoke principle 8The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.Members who signed up to this principle and who now oppose this principle on Facebook should leave the party. If they don't leave then they should be expelledWhy are members turning a blind eye to this ??Plenty of opinions on comrade Colborn but very few on the issue of supporting the capitalist labour party and using party outlets for Labour Party propoganda?

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not on Facebook so i am totally ignorant of what's happening.Is this the Party's Facebook or individual member's personal Facebook? Don't we have the equivalent of a moderator on the Facebook who monitors posts on it? But let's not conflate two separate issues. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm not on Facebook so i am totally ignorant of what's happening.Is this the Party's Facebook or individual member's personal Facebook?

The two members referred to in #122 expressed these opinions on the Party's Facebook group page.

ajj wrote:

Don't we have the equivalent of a moderator on the Facebook who monitors posts on it? But let's not conflate two separate issues. 

Good point.  Yes, there are five 'admin' members although it's only two who are prominent and it is they who appear to be quite selective about who or what they censure.  In addition the Party's Facebook is not under any kind of overall Party control.  However, a 'Notice of Business' concerned with addressing the situation is currently awaiting consideration and should be dealt with by the EC at its next meeting in July.

[Young Master Smeet]

gnome wrote:

Lawrie's case was different insofar as he threatened violence against fellow-members and when he refused to resign was expelled by Central London branch.

That isn't what the charge was, though, was it, the threat of violence came after you charged moved the charge against him.

gnome wrote:

But the crucial distinction is in the 'bigness' and the nature of the audience. Party members (and there's now been two) announcing to the whole world on the SPGB's Facebook group page their intention to vote for the Labour party cannot be anything but immensely damaging to the Party and, IMO, constitutes 'action detrimental'.

Nope, not actin detrimental, breech of rule 6, yes, but not action detrimental.

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

gnome wrote:

Lawrie's case was different insofar as he threatened violence against fellow-members and when he refused to resign was expelled by Central London branch.

That isn't what the charge was, though, was it, the threat of violence came after you charged moved the charge against him.

You do realise I've been playing devil's advocate here, Shirley?

gnome wrote:

But the crucial distinction is in the 'bigness' and the nature of the audience. Party members (and there's now been two) announcing to the whole world on the SPGB's Facebook group page their intention to vote for the Labour party cannot be anything but immensely damaging to the Party and, IMO, constitutes 'action detrimental'.

YMS wrote:

Nope, not actin detrimental, breech of rule 6, yes, but not action detrimental.

Interesting.  So, the rule that 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 no longer describes actions considered to be detrimental.  What's the purpose of the rule then?

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Interesting.  So, the rule that 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 no longer describes actions considered to be detrimental.  What's the purpose of the rule then?

 Sooooo…. it is OK for member to vote for Corbyn in this election? Shirley not!

[ALB]

Voting for another party is a hanging offence.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Voting for another party is a hanging offence.

after a good flogging

[ALB]

That's going too far. The member who voted for the SDP only got hanged.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

That's going too far. The member who voted for the SDP only got hanged.

No drawing and quartering then? 

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm the moderate here, it seems. I only recommend the speedy application of Rule 31Publically making it known that you are supporting a rival political party with your vote undermines our whole campaign for a spoiled vote where the Party is not standing.It undermines our fundamental position that our rival political parties do not represent working class interests regardless of how much they wrap the People's red flag around themselves.We campaign against a vote for the lesser evil because a lesser evil still remains an evil and leads to unintended consequences.We campaign against election promises because we understand that they are invariably broken pledges. We decline to place our trust or faith in political leaders because no matter how genuine or sincere, or how nice they are as individuals, the system runs them and they do not run the system. I think our problem though is we do not have vigourous virile branches to promote and protect the ethos of the Party's ideals.I'm betting those on Facebook threatening to vote Labour are Central Branch members…Or am i mistaken? If i am, i do hope their branches take the appropriate action, ASAP.Better no member than a token phantom member. 

[Author]

Posts