Why would membership of the SPGB be refused

[Ed]

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

[steve colborn]

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

[Anonymous]

Ed wrote:

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

 Ed, you know you love me   

[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

[Anonymous]

ED  Why do you have a problem with criticism?  Do you think the party cant handle it? And while we are on why do you hate me? 

[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.

[Anonymous]

mission accomplieWell done!!  

[Anonymous]

It seems we are getting somewhere. ' members who question the basic democratic nature of the party will be expelled or their form As rejected''Member who accuse the party of being homophobic or undemocratic will be expelled' Had a look at the party rule book and D of P but can't find anything like it. If it is not there then some EC members have made up their own rules. I think that any memberseeking election to the EC should take a course and sit a test on the meaning of 'democracy' and the importance of criticism in a free and democratic organisation. 

[Anonymous]

Ed, you are b eing vindictive about something or nothing that is in the past anyway. I have offered you my hand in friendship and comradeship on a number of ocassions and I can do no more. As a friend and sympathiser has said to me: Vin, when a man steps forward and offers a hand in friendship and is rejected, there is no humiliation in that.Rather it is those that reject the hand of friendship who are humbled. 

[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.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

There is more to democracy than simply a voting majority.

I'm not a member, and I don't know personally anyone involved in this thread.I think that I've argued vehemently (about other issues) with both sides in this dispute, so have no particular 'friendly bias' towards either.I don't know whether the 'charges' against Vin are justified, or not.But SocialistPunk is correct, the 'political methods' exposed by this dispute don't do much for the party's 'democratic' credentials.

SP wrote:

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?

Do the EC have the power to interpret the rules to suit their own tastes? Especially when it appears that the EC was nearly inquorate, and is 'stacked' with members who are from the same branch?I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.That, to my mind, is far more damaging than the 'content' of this dispute; that is, whether Vin is 'guilty or not' of homophobia and 'dissing' the party.I'm only an outsider looking in, but perhaps my opinions are worth something, as a comrade friendly to the SPGB.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Do the EC have the power to interpret the rules to suit their own tastes? Especially when it appears that the EC was nearly inquorate, and is 'stacked' with members who are from the same branch?

No, but it does have the power to reject applicants for reasons other than not understanding or complying with the Party's case.Obviously any organisation/association has the right to determine (and discuss) who shall or shall not join it, but this has to be done in accordance with its constitution. As to a member applying to rejoin, a branch or the EC should legitimately check the reason for the member leaving and that it's no longer valid and also that the re-applicant has done nothing against the Party while not a member and that, if they have, they now repudiate it.  Once again, if all these conditions are satisfied it would be difficult to reject the application.As to the EC being "'stacked' with members who are from the same branch" this is a complete red herring and co-incidence.  Although not currently an EC member, I'm a member of the same branch and my views don't necessarily correspond with my fellow-branch members on this or any other issue.

Quote:

I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.

You're right on this one at least; you don't know all the details about a dispute which has been dragging on now for at least eighteen months, not only on numerous threads on this forum but elsewhere too.  I recommend further investigation before making subsequent interventions.Those who wish to continue this farce, and I make no exceptions, must ask themselves that what they're doing by conducting incessant public bickering which will inevitably help to diffuse much of the positivity we gained from our recent election campaign is truly and genuinely in all our interests.

[Anonymous]

You are right gnome this is a farce that could have been avoided on Saturday. History is repeating itself.I always thought that members hated me for ‘forum disruption’ but the real reason is bizarre.Just to put the record straight, the minority on the EC immediately tabled a notice to rescind the resolution at the next EC Meeting.  Proving that democracy will eventually win through in the Socialist Party.

[ALB]

L. Bird, I don't think there was anything unconstitutional about the decision in question. The EC is not obliged to accept the recommerndation of one of its sub-committees and 5 members present is a quorum and so can make valid decisions.What was unwise was for those 5 (out of 10, actually 9 as there was a vacancy) not to have postponed a decision on such a contraversial issue to a meeting at which more EC members would be present.If 5 members shouldn't make any decision then all the other decisions made (e.g to follow up the election campaign and to implement the Conference motions voted on by the membership) would be equally invalid.So we are talking about the wisdom and appropriateness of a decision not about whether it was against the rulebook.Decisions can be reversed (a move to try to do this has already been made and recorded in the minutes of the same EC Meeting). More generally, EC Members can be called to account for what they do at the next Conference or Autumn Delegate Meeting or even be made subject to a recall vote.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

I don't know all the details, and I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick about the complexion of the EC, but this thread puts the SPGB and its 'democracy' in a bad light.

You're right on this one at least; you don't know all the details about a dispute which has been dragging on now for at least eighteen months, not only on numerous threads on this forum but elsewhere too.  I recommend further investigation before making subsequent interventions.

Well, since my 'intervention' was about 'the bad light in which SPGB democracy now appears', rather than 'the details of the dispute', I'm not sure 'further investigation' of this case is required, gnome. It's clear to outsiders, I think, that 'SPGB democracy' has been tarnished, by all the accounts of its methods on this thread, now including yours. Put simply, shouldn't the EC be composed from the widest range of branches, rather than one or a few, even if the members from the few branches disagree between themselves on an individual basis (as you say so do)?Any 'further investigation' by me will be about 'party democracy', rather than 'Vin's specific case', but perhaps that requires a new thread, which would give party members a chance to outline the SPGB's political methods to 'interested outsiders', and perhaps to settle a few 'queasy stomachs'?

[Author]

Posts