[SocialistPunk]

You still don't get it do you YMS. Hiding behind the rule book does not make the situ look any better. Institutions so often have an inability to see themselves as others do.I am no enemy of the SPGB, but I can recognise problems when I see them. I'll ask again, is the party perfect?

[SocialistPunk]

Again LBird, it seems our view of democracy being more than simply the majority vote, is seen to be strange by party members. You make some good points regarding scrutiny and accountability. They seem unable to grasp the conflict of interest of a member involved in online fisticuffs with another member having a pro active (as in tabling a motion about the other party) role in disallowing membership.Rule book procedure may not have been breached, but the spirit of democracy has been tarnished. I guess I was asking too much to think SPGB members would see a problem regarding a democratic loophole within their own sacred halls. Shame really, as every opportunity, when encountered, should be taken to make democracy not only work smoothly but appear to work. It's a case of learning from mistakes and improving, a keystone of scientific thinking, I would have thought. Unless of course the SPGB is perfect?As to my insistence in bringing back the issues (as Gnome so cleverly points out), I could be mistaken but I was not the one who rekindled the issues. Perhaps proving his inability to remain impartial. But I do believe that thread I posted a link to is where the discussion of party member homophobia originated from and is still there for all to see and judge for themselves.  

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

Wow! So, theoretically, all ten members could come from the same branch?Curiouser and curiouser. Clearly, I know little about SPGB 'democracy'.But, you seem happy…

Well LBird, it would seem most party members here are quite happy with the way this looks. To us, it looks decisively anti democratic, for an EC decision pushed forward by an EC member with a conflict of interest, backed up by Branch colleagues that happened to be a majority on the EC that day.I find it hard to believe that the rule book contains no guards against potential conflicted decisions such as this. Even the pseudo democracy we live in at present has rules regarding conflict of interests for MPs. Yet the SPGB does not have any such safeguards. Perhaps all SPGB members are flawless, ha ha. I don't know if Ed acted the way he did because of his past run in with Vin, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and put it down to naivety, not realising how it looks for a political party that claims to be the most democratic in British politics, to subvert the spirit of democracy, for little more than an issue of personal distrust. I mean, who gets to decide who is to be trusted. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.  

Ed wrote:

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

For me this has now gone way beyond personalities and is about the appearance of democracy in the SPGB. The party needs to be squeaky clean when it comes to democracy if it wants to avoid any future skeletons being unearthed by political enemies. Get it sorted out now while the opportunity presents itself, or regret it in the future. It's that simple.By the way, Ed kept on about Vin accusing the SPGB of being homophobic. I think I've found the thread that he gets this idea from. I could be mistaken in thinking the below link is the source of Eds confusion, but in the absence of any explanation from Ed, I ask everyone to judge for themselves if VIn is accusing the SPGB of homophobia?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/reason-party-so-small

[SocialistPunk]

Wow, seems things are getting hot under the collar on this one.Lets see if we can't get to the bottom of some of it.

Ed wrote:

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.

I think I know where the idea of the party being homophobic comes from, and if I am right, I too as well as a couple of others could be roped into accusing the party of homophobia. It was a long time ago and perspective is getting distorted. A link would be appropriate.

Ed wrote:

In my opinion his actions have caused lasting damage to the party's reputation and thus qualifies as action detrimental to the party.

The whole notion of action detrimental against Vin is ludicrous, as he and Steve point out they were asked to reconsider their form Fs by the EC. No sign of any major rule breach then.The most important issue here, one that all parties seem to be overlooking, is the action by the EC in rejecting Vin in the manner that took place actually puts the democratic nature of the SPGB in a bad light. By distorting the spirit of democracy.Put it this way, what is more damaging to the SPGB, a bit of bad mouthing on another political forum about moderation issues, or a majority on the EC, that happen to be from the same branch with the motion tabled by a member personally involved with a dispute, voting to reject a Form A (from an ex member involved in said dispute) accepted by the MAC?If any issue is likely to warrant Action Detrimental, it is the bringing into disrepute the democratic nature of the party and not a bit of frustrated bad mouthing bubbling over onto other forums. There is more to democracy than simply a voting majority.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Ed,We sorted the issue between us that sparked off the unfortunate events many, many months ago, no probs there. However, eventually the committee set up to look into the personal dispute that escalated on this forum, found issues with the way things were handled. Wisely no finger pointing was done, instead recommendations as to how the forum should be managed. It means that the issue really should have been a non starter.The forum member you think is so detrimental to the SPGB and therefore the socialist case, found his ability to get the issue resolved dwindling at every turn. I would dispute the idea that he attempted to discredit the party, as what started as criticism of the poor and at times undemocratic actions on the forum, ended up as a defence of the SPGB. So I suggest the criticizing of flawed actions of a party website, then defending the party, could hardly be described as an attack on the SPGB.You claim it is for his attacking the party that you and a Branch colleague tabled the motion of rejection, yet at the same time you talk of your personal fears of being bullied on this and other party sites. I see no evidence of any bullying behaviour towards yourself in recent months.If the issue was not of a personal nature, an approach in keeping with the spirit of democracy and openness would  have had your branch colleagues table the motion and you abstain from the vote. That way the issue could have been discussed and voted on without any hint of personal bias being demonstrated. Or table such a vote for when the EC had more members present and so reflecting a more varied set of views, than your branch majority on the EC that day..

[SocialistPunk]

I must be either nave or mistaken. There was me thinking that socialism meant a global society of truly open, democratic participation. A society with no leaders or bodies with unaccountable power and privilege. A society where decisions by administrative bodies are made openly with the emphasis and encouragement on scrutiny. It's not rocket science, just a matter of making everything fully open to scrutiny. If it's hard now with only three hundred or so members, then just imagine what a mess will be made on a global scale.The SPGB better gets its act together, because if the establishment ever get the slightest bit concerned, laughably undemocratic loopholes like these will be taken advantage of at the drop of a hat and the movement discredited. If you think that couldn't/wouldn't happen, then by all means continue.

[SocialistPunk]

Something strikes me as being rather daft about this situ. If the Membership Application Committee or a Branch accept a form A, surely if the EC disagree with it and decide not to accept the new member, then a valid reason should be forth coming. And when I say  "valid reason" I mean a bloody good one at that.I expect most form A's that are submitted for acceptance by the MAC or Branches will be rubber stamped by the EC. Unless the EC is privy to some info the MAC or submitting Branch is not. Therefore it makes sense for such info regarding the non acceptance by the EC, of such a form A, be given at the EC meeting and recorded in the minutes.It's just common sense for a truly openly democratic organisation like the SPGB. to operate like that. It will be a case of "God help us" if this is how some see a socialist society being "managed".   

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Alan and everyone else who have been the recipients of the Love Bug.Did the msg appear in your private email list as being a private msg from the forum, yet do not appear in your forum website private msg box?

[SocialistPunk]

Steve Colborn wrote:

Finally, it is most interesting to note, the three votes against Vincent Maratty's readmission, were all from the same Branch

Mr Hyde;  "Starting to look like personal issues are at work."Dr Jekyll;   "Surely not, why would socialists allow a personality issue to affect the spread of socialist activity and thus ideas, especially as the SPGB is on form in attracting more attention than ever through electoral activity, recently and next year?   

[SocialistPunk]

Unbelievable Vin!Ad infinitum.Can't help wondering what the reference to "mobed" means?

[SocialistPunk]

Hope you get a nice day for it. 

[SocialistPunk]

I wonder, could the hostility between the French and British, that is often jokingly referred to, stem from  this period of the second world war? 

[SocialistPunk]

Brian wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Brian wrote:

We have learnt from our experiences in the North East that once a particular Branch, or a combination of Branches have committed themselves to election activity it has to be sustainable in respect of Branch resources being sufficient to cover the activity in the long-term. In short, one-offs are a nono.

Hi BrianIt was during my time in the North East I believe you are referring to and we contested a general election, a euro-election and several (if not more) local elections. There was a lot of activity going on then and the branch became very focused. The intention was to contest more future elections, but things have a tendency to happen.I certainly would not describe the hard work and effort put in as a one-off affair.

Neither do I for I was also in on the ground during the euro election and was fully aware that the intention was to contest further elections.  But with foresight all that hard work and effort has to be tempered with some thought on the pace of election activity matching Branch resources, and developing an election strategy which also matches Branch resources.   Otherwise the election activity is in danger of becoming overstreched and  unsustainable, which in truth is what occured in the North East.I'm partially to blame for this occurring in the North East for I was on the Election Committee during this period and encouraged the comrades there to contest elections at every opportunity without giving any thought to the necessity for pace and election strategy.

As this thread is now looking at lessons to be learnt and possible tactics for future elections, I think it important that Brian clarifies what he means in the above quote regarding the overstretching and unsustainable nature of the North East election activity. If mistakes were made, they need to be exposed and avoided in future.During that period in the North East branch the election activity helped to focus and motivate the branch with most members pitching in according to their abilities etc. I wouldn't say we were overstretched. Of course we could have done with more members, show me a branch with too many members.As for the unsustainable aspect, I think it safe to say that most parties see an increase in propaganda opportunities during election time, and as election "fever" dies down so to do the opportunities, more so for small parties. So full on electioneering sustainability is not an issue. Between elections it is business as usual, with branches forever seeking ways to promote socialism. Hopefully with an extra member or two.What is meant by branch resources? I'm assuming it refers to both finances and people power. Either way, a party branch is not, or should not be an isolated entity when it comes to resources. If resources are running dry during intense periods of activity, it is up to the party as a whole unit to pitch in, after all it's what socialism is about.Lessons must be learnt whenever possible and strategies always need fine tuning. But it is of little use just to knock words such as overstretched and unsustainable about, with little clarification.  I was there at the time and I haven't a clue what is meant by those comments.I think the SPGB has been pacing itself for far too long now. It's long overdue a high octane injection.  

[SocialistPunk]

The slow issue is back again, thought it had been sorted.I just lost a post as I was using the preview function to check a quote was showing correctly, as I always do.The bloody thing timed out. Bollocks! 

[SocialistPunk]

Sorry there Steve, I was writing my post as you were posting yours. I grossly underestimated the amount of local election activity that took place as a branch and as a solo effort by you over the years, as a party member. My memory aint what it used to be.

[Author]

Posts