Skip to Content

Party Notes

Comrade Scholfield. of 77, Parliament Street, Burnley, is keeping our Party well to the front locally. He and others heckled Philip Snowden after his recent address there, when the latter made the remarks concerning drink and gambling which were criticised in Justice. But these same remarks were loudly applauded by members of the S.D.F. who were present.

-++-

Manchester comrades are still active, so active that when Philip Snowden lectured at the Free Trade Town Hall on February 2nd, their questions were met with cries of "Throw 'em out"!

-++-

At that meeting over then shillings' worth of Socialist Standard were sold. Up to time of writing the Manchester comrades have taken 26 doz. of the February issue.

-++-

The advertised debate between Councillor Day and Comrade Anderson drew a large audience to Grovedale Hall, Holloway, on February 6th, every inch of space and also the staircase being occupied, while scores were unable to gain admission. Councillor Dey presided and a stated that Alderman Saint, who was to have done so, was seriously ill, and that owing to the stress of recent business arrangements he (Mr. Dey) had been unable to devote the necessary time to the subject and therefore had secured Councillor Freeman to take his place. Councillor Freeman opened and was followed by Anderson. Both speakers had an attentive hearing and the S.P.G.B. is quite satisfied with the result. The collection realized 1 8s. 3d.

-++-

The meetings will continue at Grovedale Hall during March under the auspices of the Islington Branch but will commence at 8 p.m. On Wednesday, March 18th, an evening's relaxation will be provided. A Social and Dance will be held, commencing at 7.30, to which all comrades and friends will be heartily welcomed.

-++-

The debate between the Islington S.P.G.B. and the S.D.F. is "off," owing to the action of the latter. The facts are as follows: On Sunday, December 22nd, the chairman of the S.D.F. meeting at 231, Liverpool Road, accepted a challenge, issued on behalf of the S.P.G.B., to debate "The Palliative Position of the S.D.F. v. The Non-Palliative Position of the S.P.G.B." When, however, the S.D.F. Committee met, they desired to twist the subject into "Non-Palliative v. Palliative Socialism, without reference to parties." Our Islington branch wrote asking what the S.D.F. meant by "Palliative Socialism" and why they desired no reference to parties? To this the S.D.F. replied that their general meeting had confirmed the Committee's acceptance of the challenge, but they now submitted as the subject, "The Non-Palliative Policy of a Socialist Party v. The Palliative Policy of a Socialist party," and they desired no reference to parties as "this would engender acrimony." In a further letter the S.D.F. wrote: "We do not intend to debate with your Party as to whether we are a Socialist Party or not."

-++-

And there, for the present, the matter ends.