Why would membership of the SPGB be refused
- This topic has 259 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I appreciate your comments and suggestions but without some input from Conference I have been left with two alternatives: apply to a NERB inquarate meeting and later ratify my own Form A, or apply to an EC that has already rejected my application on two separate voting occasions.
What a totally shambolic way to run a Party, that has as it's aim, bringing about a totally different way of organising society. We should all be rightfully ashamed of ourselves, that this issue has not been "put to bed". Well, onwards and upwards, I had hoped but now? who knows!Steve.
gnome wrote:I can think of one very good reason. The local branch, despite the best efforts of several comrades, is still not a functioning unit of the Party. I may be wrong but a recent online meeting of North East branch was inquorate.Other branches have gone through periods of inquoracy in the past (Central London certainly did), the point is, if Vin comes back the branch would cease to be inquorate.There is another option which is that the inquorate branch meeting proposes a postal ballot of branch members, that would just require a quorate vote to be effective (and would not be underhand). Last time this was mooted Vin seemed reluctant to draft a supporting statement, but that would work, and we'd have a functional branch back.That, or we get the physical meeting organised, I'm looking into that.
Young Master Smeet wrote:There is another option which is that the inquorate branch meeting proposes a postal ballot of branch members, that would just require a quorate vote to be effective (and would not be underhand). Last time this was mooted Vin seemed reluctant to draft a supporting statement, but that would work, and we'd have a functional branch back.I still maintain that an application to the Membership Applications Committee would be the preferable path to take.On the question of party membership there have been 18 applications to join so far during May, not all necessarily as a result of our electoral activity but some of them most certainly are.
gnome wrote:I still maintain that an application to the Membership Applications Committee would be the preferable path to take.On the question of party membership there have been 18 applications to join so far during May, not all necessarily as a result of our electoral activity but some of them most certainly are.It may appear that I am attempting to hide my Form A in amongst the18 applications and join unnoticed But seriously that is excellent news. I think I will apply thro' the MAC. making it 19.
MINUTES OF THE 6th MEETING OF THE 111th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THESOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HELD ON 7th JUNE 2014 Motion 7: Mann and Cox mobed That the Form A from Vincent Maratty berejected. Carried 3-2.Division. For: Cox, Mann, Shodeke. Against: Buick, Craggs. I am confused and disappoint that my application to join has been rejected.I have offered my hand of friendship and comradeship and it has been rejected.I will have to leave it to members and sympathisers to decide who looks shameful and who humiliated.
"Why would membership of the SPGB be refused". The title of this thread. Read the post below and one is even more confused, not least because against all "reason" a Form A has been refused and once again, no reason, nor explanation has been given!!! 4. Forms A and FMembership Applications Committee recommended acceptance of Forms A fromLewis Hayward-Hopkins (EU election leaflet), Darren Williams (SocialistStandard and website), Kieran Isaacson (Internet and elections) andVincent Maratty (ex-member).Application to rejoin also received from John Bathurst (ex-member).Motion 6: Craggs and Cox : “That the Form A from Lewis Hayward-Hopkins beaccepted“. Agreed. “That the Form A from Darren Williams be accepted“.Agreed. “That the Form A from Kieran Isaacson be accepted”. Agreed. “Thatthe Form A from John Bathurst be accepted”. Agreed.Motion 7: Mann and Cox mobed “That the Form A from Vincent Maratty berejected”. Carried 3-2.Division. For: Cox, Mann, Shodeke. Against: Buick, Craggs. I had to read the minutes twice, before I could believe my eyes! All applications accepted, with the exception of ex Comrade, Vincent Maratty.As Comtades will notice, not "one" reason, by way of explanation for the turning down of this Form A has been included. Even if this is not "required procedure", one would have thought common "decency" would have compelled those of a comradely disposition to provide an explanation!Obviously, being a member of a "Socialist" Party, does not require those within it, to act in a way which would set them apart from the run of the mill, biased and partial member of the working class, that inhabit the environs of Capitalism.A sad day for The Socialist Party, indeed for a Party that professes to espouse the ethos of "Social"ism.There is, as far as I can see, no logical reason why the Form A should have been rejected.There is one consequence, those who voted against acceptance should consider. It will now be much harder for positive Socialist activity to once again take a foothold in the North East.. When taken in conjunction with Kent & Sussex Regional Branch, conference motion, that Rule 9 be implemented in full, one can see the obvious outcome, the fledling North East Branch being "stillborn".From the report of the Conference discussion, around this motion and also the interpretation of some contributors to the same, that their appeared to be an "air" of animosity,indeed aggression, towards North East Branch one can only conclude, "objective achieved".Finally, it is most interesting to note, the three votes against Vincent Maratty's readmission, were all from the same Branch.
Well it has certainly scuppered my plans. As I said on the Branch's Yahoo forum I intended to represent the party at the coming Miner's Gala http://durhamminers.org/Gala.html I now have no authority to represent the party at this event.
Steve Colborn wrote:Finally, it is most interesting to note, the three votes against Vincent Maratty's readmission, were all from the same BranchMr 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?
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 wrote: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".The last conference allowed the previous EC to run roughshod over the party rules and this the result. It is of little comfort to talk about the EC being an administrative committee when its members make up their own minds.
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.
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. In my opinion his actions have caused lasting damage to the party's reputation and thus qualifies as action detrimental to the party. A charge that would have been filed against the member had he not resigned before it could be put into action. A very convenient way to avoid such a sanction which would have excluded him from membership. It is my opinion that the former member would likely behave in the same way under the same circumstances if he were to be readmitted. On a personal note I no longer feel safe to post on these forums regularly or on the party's social media outlets due to the months long bullying campaign that was led against myslef and other members by the former member and his relatives. I would also hate for something like that to happen to anyone else.
Ed what you say is part fabrication, unbalanced and ignores your own role in attacking members and sympathisers, particularly a whole branch in the north east of england, and driving them away – which is certainly action against the interests of the party. If it were not for you the NE would have stood at the election and the next election.You have also prevented official representation at the Durham Miners Galaex cdes Shodek and Cox obviously believe you and I don't know how you have convinced them but I would like to hear it from their own mouths why they have rejected me. Even if it what you say was true , that was then and this is now and I again extend my hand of comradeship to you.The vast majority of worker oppose you at the moment. Do you intend to keep them out of the party?Keeping good socialists out of the party is hardly in the party's interests I hope that members, ex members and sympathisers in the north east of England do not to allow this situation to be used by those who would like to say 'I told you so' and close the branch.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.