lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That's one hell of a coincidence. An abandoned video project uses this voice-overEuro Vid Part1In June this year There will be a referendum held to decide whether or not Britain should remain in the European UnionFrom now till then we will have the usual political pantomimeWe have Clowns to the left and Jokers to the rightAnd even they don’t agree amongst themselvesSome clowns are ‘for’ and some clowns against Some Jokers are ‘for’ and some jokers are against Wear this t shirt wear that t shirt. The European Union is a capitalist business club. Some capitalist want to be in it and some capitalists want to be out of it Referendum is a sideshow a diversion from the real problems we face
SocialistPunk wrote:Alan,If you, me and Brian knew, I fail to see how the others didn't know?I suppose if "usual channels" had been followed straight away, it wouldn't have made a good public argument first.see post 32They were sent to EC by Vin and posted on here on his behalf by me. The more members are aware the better, don't you think?
Brian wrote:The problem with some of the posters is they presume that by posting a message titled 'A statement to the EC' on this web site it will by some magic wand waving in the ether automatically end up on the EC table.see post 32How do you know these statement were not also sent to the EC. The statements do state 'to the EC' and that is exactly where they went as well as on this chat room. The more informed the better?
gnome wrote:Quote:Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May ECIt is vital that this statement finds its way to individual EC members in some way, shape or form, because, without going into any specific detail for much the same reasons the EC minutes were deliberately vague in some respects, it is quite apparent that due to most EC members' reluctance to visit the forum, confirmed by the absence of any contribution from them towards this thread in the eight weeks it had been running prior to the May EC meeting, they are inescapably and understandably labouring under certain misapprehensions. They need bona fide, unbiased information. Fast.
It has been sent and the Acting Gen Sec has said it will be submitted to June EC
As to comments about vin perhaps you should direct them at him. At the moment he has no way of responding. YFS Linda
Brian wrote:In this respect his experience and his postings on this forum is not doing him any favours.I posted it on this forum, it is a statement Vin has sent to the EC. The only posts vin has posted on the forum since receiving an indefinite ban have been on the NERB site to enable him to attend a branch meeting or where I have specified it was from him.
Statement from V Maratty re EC Motion 9 2016 May EC The videos were produced openly and with full consultation with as many members as possible on the SPGB Forum and Facebook. All members that commented made positive comments and recommendations and at no point did I feel I was being underhanded.I stated clearly that I was seeking membership approval via the EC when the video was almost complete, which is why it was in front of the May EC.All through the process copyright issues were consideredAt that time I was social media officer for NERB with a mandate to produce Videos for consideration. I had also been nominated onto the AV committee.I cannot think of a more democratic way of producing a video.I regret that the EC has taken this attitude to my genuine intentions.To accommodate the EC regarding AV committee appointments, I suggested that I don’t need to be on a committee to make videos. Perhaps the EC has misunderstood and took the statement as an act of defiance. That was not my intention.I have the motivation, knowledge and equipment to produce videos free of charge, without payment. I hope the EC and membership reconsiders rejecting my offer.YFSV. Maratty
Regarding Video production and on-line democracy a member once wrote in 2009:"Since this is in some sense an innovative project I'd like to suggest an innovative approach to organising it. Shoot me if you want over this, but I propose a (groan) separate discussion list for this, as an experiment in online democracy. My idea is this: if you want in, you have to subscribe, but in subscribing you should be prepared to take an active part, either in research, writing, technical support, production or presentation. Those who don't want to do anything won't be able or entitled to interfere. If and when projects are near to completion, they could of course be subject to review by the membership at large via the Party website, or by the EC at least, so that nobody can say they weren't consulted. At that stage, however, opinion will be limited to 'accept' or 'reject'." The doc can be found here and is signed Paddyhttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spopen/conversations/messages/7168Seems he has had a change of heart about 'chat rooms' and video production
alanjjohnstone wrote:I will confess we have issues that you seem to be insistent upon trying to connect to this thread. But they are utterly unrelated.I think AJ's OP addresses some interesting questions. It would be interesting to hear opinions on these rather than to see the thread derailed in this manner.
By way of information a lot more members attend this forum and facebok than attend Spopen, spintcom or any other collection of SPGB members, 'physical' or otherwise.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Recently we have had a party member explaining that we do not conduct Party business via a "gossip chatroom" i.e. he means hereAnother comrade has explained "May I suggest that you satisfy your curiosity by raising your concerns directly with the EC – rather than call for its members to jump through your proffered hoop?" I take this to mean that individual EC members are not obliged to respond to questions raised on this forum and, by inference, certainly not the EC itself, and being asked for an account of their voting is a "hurdle"Am i the only one who is beginning to wonder that this just might have a consequence for accountability in the Party? Is a few hours once a month sufficient to perform all the tasks of the EC?Would it be suffice if everyone who has a question for the EC contacted the EC direct and filled their agenda by "raising their concerns directly with the EC" with perhaps many minor issues that could easily be addressed through this forum? Surely, we now have modern means of communication that members of the EC can engage directly with the membership. We are not expecting decisions to be made via this "gossip chatroom" but it does help if we understand why the EC or certain individual EC members make particular decisions, not just the fact that they did.Our EC meetings are open to full scrutiny if attended in person but, of course, most cannot avail themselves of that privilege.Some members have taken issue before when i have said we have the capability of much more exact minutes (even verbatim) and insist that minutes should simply be left as a brief summary of decisions taken with minimum of description of the discussion that led to those decisions.I'm not sure if that is the right course for a leader-free organisation like ourselves since to function as such, the members must have full access to the administrative process. Relying on procedures from the past which are now redundant with new technology may not be the best way forward to involve the Party as a whole in the practice of its participatory democratic practice. (We note in another thread, discussion on standing orders being changed to make online branch meetings more efficient)I feel this particular section of the forum – dedicated to WSM matters – is a vital part of the forum. I find it unsettling that some members and some EC members decline to use it for Party business …and i don't mean for making decisions but to engage in discussion and debate and to gauge Party members opinions and views. This is called interaction. To avoid such is to make decisions in a self-imposed cocoon. For sure, this forum is not the 100% answer, but making use of it more is an improvement upon requiring the EC to answer every query once month from a crammed agenda within the constraints of time imposed as members of the EC have travel connections and family commitments to meet. I'd like to know if others share this unsettling feeling growing in me that we are not adjusting to new expectations.
