[Ed]

Vin Maratty wrote:

ED  Why do you have a problem with criticism? 

Of the party? I don't. As long as it's accurate and truthful and for the right reasons i.e. to help the party progress. 

Vin Maratty wrote:

Do you think the party cant handle it?

In my opinion the comments you made about the party being homophobic have had lasting consequences. I'd never seen those kinds of accusations before and now they are commonplace. You didn't denounce the party to help it, you were looking for shit to throw. Trying to hurt the party when you thought you had been hard done by. The reality is the party bent over backwards to accomodate you and Steve and when you didn't get everything your own way you used your membership as leverage against the party. 

Vin Maratty wrote:

And while we are on why do you hate me? 

I don't hate you. But I don't trust you to not behave the same way again.

[Ed]

steve colborn wrote:

Ed, just chill m8 and get yourself to kip. You've said enough, knows the time to calm down.

Cool as a cucumber down here pal  Stroking my white cat, just got to go and feed the sharks in my swimming pool next

[Ed]

Yes Vin it's funny how it's always someone else's fault isn't it?

[Ed]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Ed wrote:

Vin you give me far too much credit and far too little to the other EC members if you think I have any influence on anyone. 

 You are a member of the EC and you voted to keep me out of the party and you have achieved that . I will not try again. I will send an email tonite.   I don't need to tell you of my long association/membersip with  this party. As a socialist you will understand there is no where for me to go.I do not intent to go thro' the f rejection again. I have had it turned dow three times.  I am sorry if I have caused you grief but you seem preety strong to me. Had we met face to face it may have been different, we are all working class.

It is of course up to you Vin. But as I'm sure your friends on the EC will advise you the decision is very likely to be overturned. I will continue to argue against. But when the EC met we were only just quorate with a 50% attendance. I certainly wouldn't put money on the vote coming out the same way twice.I won't be back to this thread. At least not until next month. I came to give you my explanation and I have.

[Ed]

Vin you give me far too much credit and far too little to the other EC members if you think I have any influence on anyone. 

[Ed]

Vin Maratty wrote:

 According to EC member  Mann criticisinfg the party is action detrimental????? "Marratty denounced the party as homophobic while still a member. Is this acceptable behaviour for a member of the party? Is this not behaviour which you would call detrimental to the party's cause"  Mann,  you are not a very democratic are you??? You reject my hand of friendship then deny my right to free speech!! 

So you still think the party is homophobic then? If that is the case why would you want to rejoin?

[Ed]

As per usual the tag teaming begins.Alan, Marratty denounced the party as homophobic while still a member. Is this acceptable behaviour for a member of the party? Is this not behaviour which you would call detrimental to the party's causeMarratty & Colborn you haven't changed. I can already see you resuming your usual tag teaming games. Painting yourself as victims when you were the perpetrators. Sickening. Accusing others of driving people out of the party when it is you who force members to the point of resigning. You hounded me across various threads for months. I did in fact go back and read them before I made my decision which certainly confirmed it. The way I was treated was disgusting and frankly the party failed to provide a safe space for me. I have no doubts that you will do the same to some other unsuspecting member. Probably after a few drinks…

[Ed]

Vin this is not a punishment. I believe that due to your past behaviour you pose a risk to the party if you were to be admitted as a member. This is a preventative measure. It is my opinion that the risk of you repeating your past behaviour is one that the party would be stupid to take. The fact that you don't even seem to remember denouncing the party as homophobic and undemocratic while you were still a memebre only shows that you have learned nothing from your past mistakes and proves to me that they would likely happen again.

[Ed]

Vin, at first I thought that you were just a liar when you continually made up things to say about me and about the party, the internet committee and the EC. I've come to the conclusion that you are not. I now believe that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE the things you say, probably due to constant repetition. This would make you a fantasist.Do you not remember denouncing the party as undemocratic and homophobic? Do you deny it?

[Ed]

I am perfectly happy to explain my reasons for moving that the form A from Mr Marratty be rejected. The main cause being the behavior of the former member when leaving the party. Where, when it was clear that the EC would not bow to his demands he set about a campaign to discredit the party across various forums and social media  Accusing the party of being undemocratic and homophobic among other things. In my opinion his actions have caused lasting damage to the party's reputation and thus qualifies as action detrimental to the party. A charge that would have been filed against the member had he not resigned before it could be put into action. A very convenient way to avoid such a sanction which would have excluded him from membership. It is my opinion that the former member would likely behave in the same way under the same circumstances if he were to be readmitted. On a personal note I no longer feel safe to post on these forums regularly or on the party's social media outlets due to the months long bullying campaign that was led against myslef and other members by the former member and his relatives. I would also hate for something like that to happen to anyone else.

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

""I would sincerely hope that if the party turned to reformism that all genuine socialists would immediately resign and denounce the party's opportunistic behavior as a betrayal of working class interests."Yet again reforms and reformism are being used as synomyns. They are not. The Party does not advocate a policy of reforms as stepping stones towards socialism but we have recognised particular reforms as beneficial to the working class and also to ourselves as a socialist political party. The bigger the movement for socialism, the more demands we will be making on capitalism. That is what i was referring to. i cannot envisage day-to-day problems being ignored by an increasingly class conscious working class. We aren't begging, we aren't pleading, we are demanding. A socialist trade unionist, for example, will support the reform of the law to permit secondary picketing and solidarity sympathetic strikes. He will campaign for such through his unions. The party will report such actions and endorse it as an improved strategy in conducting the class struggle…We won't be condemning it as a futile reform or be charging the member for reformism. Hospital old folks homes schools and fire station closures are resisted by communities. We sympathise with their cause, encourage their self-activity for that are the foundations that sociailist organisation will be built upon. A previous SPGB candidates response to local issueshttp://realsocialism.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html"So, good luck to the organisers of last nights hustings, the Fire Reform Action Group of Livingston. …. a genuine grassroots community group.I wont be signing your petition: not because I don’t think the issue is important, but rather because I simply don’t think that petitions work. " That party sympathy will be ten-fold when members are involved both as public and also as fire-fighters. In local branches these issues will be tackled on their merits and whatever assistance will be decided.But to repeat…this will not be an issue for those who believe the Socialist Party will NOT transform into a mass class party. What was that Trot group who also decided that it was not going to be THE socialist party of the working class and became a think-tank instead. And of course i forgot the Fabian Society. 

In your previous comment that I replied to it seemed to me that you were talking about the party's attitude to reforms changing. Now it seems you're talking about individual members or the working class as a whole taking part in trade unions. Two very different issues. Or are you suggesting that a symbiotic relationship should be formed between the party and trade unions? Like the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions.Anyway God God Godgod'da make sure we stay on topic

[Ed]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I will also suggest that when (if) our numbers grow our approach to reforms will become more practical and pragmatic (don't try and tie me down to a debate over its form now because i gladly leave the determination to future members to be considered under their circumstances and situation, not the ones i face today) which will make those such as StuartW part of the WSM, activists who believe words are not sufficient to defend the working class and as a one-time trade union activist, i concur that class struggle does mean engagement for whatever we can grab. 

I would sincerely hope that if the party turned to reformism that all genuine socialists would immediately resign and denounce the party's opportunistic behavior as a betrayal of working class interests.Surely if you want to endorse reforms you should advocate doing so now. Otherwise you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Ed]

Hi Mike, I was under the impression that you had withdrawn your membership application. When the matter came before the E.C the membership application committee had already recommended that the E.C. accept your application. I suggested that we defer the decision on accepting your application as you had expressed doubts about whether you had made the right decision in this very thread just days previously. Rather than rushing a decision where you may have changed your mind it was agreed to give you a bit more time to make sure that you were sure. I was told that you would discuss this further with the members of North London Branch. The next month when your application did not come up on the agenda I was informed that it had been withdrawn. If this is not the case perhaps there has been an error in communication? On evolution vs creation.If there was a creation. Does that not mean that there must be a creator? An intelligent being somewhere who did it. If we were indeed intentionally created does this not necessitate a god of some kind, probably of the all powerful persuasion?I can't explain all the ins and outs of evolution in great scientific detail because I have not taken the time to study it. I accept the unanimous consensus scientific view of people who have studied it that it is the case. From what I have read/seen/heard it is completely irrefutable.In ancient times people believed that the sun and the moon were god/s as they did not have the tools or knowledge to prove otherwise. Astronomy and later space travel has irrefutably proven that this is not the case. I can't tell you all the in's and out's in great scientific detail about the sun and the moon. But I'm sure you'd agree that they are not gods.My advice is to take the time to study the scientific theory behind evolution if you have serious doubts. Just as you should study astronomy and physics if you doubt that the sun and the moon are not sentient beings. If you need help getting the resources to study the subject then I'm sure the party would be happy to help.I hope you'll be able to make it to summer school. I think it will help to talk it through face to face with fellow socialists. And I hope in time you come to a conclusion about your beliefs and feel able to reapply. p.s.I'm certainly open to the idea of getting rid of the religion question.

[Ed]

ALB wrote:

Ed wrote:

I thought we recieved a higher percentage of the vote in the south east than we did in Wales. 0.19% in Wales compared to 0.23% in SE. Unless of course we put that down to votes being cast for us in the SE due to the lack of 'competition' from left wing parties. In which case perhaps we did not convey the fact that we are not a left party strongly enough.

I think my hypothesis (confirmed by other examples) that we do better in Labour than in Tory areas still stands. As the results from Rhondda and to a certain extent Neath (areas where we had our manifesto distributed to every household) show, if we had had them distributed in the other ex-mining and solid Labour areas too (where our results were ridiculous: 23 in Blaneau Gwent, which includes Ebbw Vale were Aneurin Bevan and Michael Foot were MPs, and 26 in Merthyr, where Kier Hardie was once MP) we'd have got more votes in Wales. Whether they'd be fully socialist rather than nostalgic trade union conscious votes is another matter.As I said in the thread on the election in Wales I don't regard No2EU as being "left" even in the confused sense of this term. If it's any consolation to you, when I spoke in the hustings in Lewisham someone asked all those on the platform who considered themselves leftwing to put their hand up. I didn't (nor did Lewisham People before Profit) while No2EU, the Greens and the National Health Action Party did.

I agree that I would have expected that we should get a higher percentage of the vote in Wales. Yet we didn't. Albeit by only a small margin of 0.04%. Do you think that the greater distribution of leaflets in the SE helped to produce this anomoly? Does this tell us anything about the power of leaflets over the PPB?

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

Why did so many SPGBers back then think otherwise, I wonder?

Because nobody wants to fix the roof while the sun is shining.

[Author]

Posts