- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by Anonymous.
August 20, 2015 at 1:02 pm #84080AnonymousInactive
Minutes of North East Regional Branch eMeeting held between 17th and 19th July 2015
Present: V.Maratty, J.Davison, E. Colborn, S.Colborn
1.Election of chair. Motion (SC,EC ) “JD take the chair” AGREED
2.Amendment/adoption of previous minutes.
MOTION (SC,VM) “They are a correct record of the meeting at The Alexander in March” CARRIED 3-0-1 (E.Colborn was not present at previous meeting).
3.Matters arising from previous minutes
Item 1: BB’s Form F was discussed briefly and it was note that it was accepted by the Executive Committee
4. No Forms F or Forms A
5. EC minutes Chair noted that The last full branch meeting was held in February, so Item 5 covers four E.C. Meetings.
(VM) Comrade Barry's Form F has been accepted, A few problems with the Form F but eventually dealt with after EC were fully informed of the situation
6. 2015 Elections.
Discussion on election strategy
(JD)Regarding an election strategy, without active members, our efforts would seem to be limited
(SC)If the Party is to repeat the election project in 5 years, then we must start "Now". Letters to the local press may seem dated, but I can assure members, over time, they do have an impact!
Branches should have a "Press Officer", who serves as a conduit for Party Press releases, or views on specific topics, or to put over the Party case, as an official of the Branch, in this capacity.
Motion (JD, EC) ” I move that we appoint Steve as our Press Officer and Vin as our Social media officer” CARRIED 4-0
7. Annual Conference
(JD)Branch has the opportunity of an informal discussion with the green party. How Does the conference ruling on ‘hostility clause’ affect this?
(VM ) It doesn't. We should go ahead with the meeting, as long as we don't join or support them – not that I would want to.
(SC) I'm not a Moonie, Scientologist or Roman Catholic. I have no intention whatsoever, of being hostile to other members of "My Class" for hostility sake. I'm only hostile across the board, to any and "All", pro-Capitalists Political Party's, not the individuals, per se!!!
Apologies from VM as he was going on a prearranged camping trip for a couple of days.
It was agreed to adjourn and recommence Wednesday at 3pm
Meeting recommenced Wed 22nd 5.10pm
8.(a) JD TreasureReceived a message from our Party Treasurer, asking about the branch contributions we requested be returned, to help us with our election campaign
It was agreed the treasure inform HO Treasurer that money requested for the election is no longer required.
(b) (JD)Just one little reminder. QUOTE; "all members are urged to pay what they can afford as a voluntary contribution." As branch treasurer, I am feeling somewhat underused. We have 20 members and very little coming in the way of contributions. I must stress, I am not pointing fingers at any member, we do what we can.
9. (a) SC wished to discuss again item 7 above.
(SC)I am in no way comfortable with the way in which it "appears" that the "Hostility Clause" is being pushed! Are we trying to "talk" to our fellow workers, (wheresoever they may be) or push them away!It is one thing to be hostile to a pro-Capitalist political Party, and no one is more hostile than me, but appears there are moves afoot to broaden this "hostility" to include individuals! I have many friends, some are members of Labour, but they are not "screaming" pro-Capitalist bigots and I will not be bound by any decisions that may be taken to try and force me to be hostile to them, even in a political sense. That would do one thing, alienate them, and prevent any possibility of future agreements or discussion.
(VM)I'm not sure it is necessary, steve. There has been a bit of confusion about a floor resolution which we can ignore. We are hostile to capitalist parties not workers
(JD)I am in agreement withSteve’s statement
MOTION (SC JD) “NERB considers any move towards stretching the "hostility Clause" to include individual members of 'our class', to be a retrograde step. We wish to make it known, that we are in favour of "inclusivity" with dealings which we have with 'our class', in order to further the case/cause of Socialism, our ultimate goal. Any "gesture" politics aimed at "hostility" for hostilities sake, weakens our position, making us "appear" as a sect, not a "movement for revolutionary change".
10.(a) (VM)I would like to discuss NERB attendance and the branch's future. There are members active on the internet and I don't know why they don't attend here. Is there a reason for this? I just don't get it.
(JD)So we could, on that count, have nine of our members on-line, if everyone turned up
I make a passionate request, that ALL nerb members make an effort to attend the next on-line meeting, to ensure the survival of our branch. As you say steve, how do we encourage participation and I certainly don't want the branch to fold
(b) (VM) I think we should revert to the last weekend of the month, then they all know when we are here. This was AGREED
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.