[ALB]

Part 3 of the translation has now appeared:http://sapiencia.eu/la-politica-del-marques-de-sade-3/

[ALB]

The comrade states his position here:https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/conversations/messages/18098 It both answers Sympo's question and shows Vin's assumption to have been mistaken.

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.

It is the issue. Nowhere is it suggested that the  comrade   posted  'Vote Labour' etc. We are talking about sharing or liking a comment posted by another party or Momentum.  As an example: Oxfam is not a revolutionary organisation it believes capitalism can work, but we all cut and past, share and like its statistics. It doesn't mean we support reformism.  We are a very small party and most nay ALL research is carried out by non SPGB members.  Much of what is said on twitter and Facebook relating to politics is the result of research by a non SPGB member. It is crazy to expel a member for agreeing with the result of a non SPGB member's research.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            For the sake of openess and fairness can we see the content of the offending posts? Do they say VOTE LABOUR!. I think not, so we should not cloud the issue.                                                                                                                                                                                                        

I thought the allegation was precisely encouraging a vote for Labour via a "like". It would as you say be crazy to charge someone merely for "liking" any comment by an opposing political organisation.For the record a member expelled by a branch has the right to appeal to conference.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

What was the nature of the posts that the expelled SPGB member shared? Were they saying something in the likes of "Vote Labour" or was it something like "The Tory's are bad"?I'm not a member and have no say in this matter but it would perhaps be good if people could find out what the posts actually said?

Sympo is right. The issue is not THAT members "like" something. It is WHAT they "like". As he says, there is a difference between "liking" some criticism, from whatever quarter, of capitalism, the Tories or Labour,  and liking a post saying "VOTE LABOUR" or "JEREMY FOR PRIME MINISTER".Of course there's no problem about members using the "like" facility. Banning that would be absurd but that's not an issue.

[ALB]

It seems that we are not the only party having to deal with (or not) comments on social media. This from the Minutes of the June Meeting of the EC of the WSP (India):

Quote:

Matters Arising: The EC asks comrade Tabrez Julaha Ajlaf to adhere to our OBJECT and DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, MANIFESTO and RULES while uploading or posting comments on the social media. He must restrain himself from upholding and giving random confused supports to violence, nationalism, religion, feminism, and other anti-socialist ideas in a mess. – AGREED

[ALB]

The election result has revived talk about this again, with Big Business and their voices in Parliament and the media saying the UK should stay in the customs union and even join the European Economic Area (EU + Norway, etc).Now it's the Brexshitters who are the moaners.Interesting side show.

[ALB]

I'm waiting for our feathered friend joining the fray so we can witness the battle of the hobby horses.

[ALB]

Yes, it would have been just one of the following postcode offices:

Quote:

E2 700,N1 3500,
N4 8000,
N5 12600,
N7 14100,
N16 1500,
N19 16500,
NW5 300

Hopefully E2 or NW5 (or even N16) !

[ALB]

I stll think election time is a good time to argue our case as it's a time when people read and discuss politics more. You get a better chance to present your case if you actually have a candidate because that gives you some standing (arguing without a candidate is not even half as effective). But we need to choose where we contest better in order to avoid getting a really derisory vote and becoming a laughing stock. Historically, we have always fared better, in terms of votes, in safe Labour seats. Maybe we should stick to that at general elections. Local elections are different as they cost nothing and are a focus for local activity. So, for a different reason, are regional elections, as in Scotland, Wales and London. The areas covered are much larger and the absolute number of votes is more even if the percentage is the same. Pity Brexshit is going to mean no more elections to the European Parliament.

[ALB]

For the record, the Money Free Party got 101 votes in Bristol West:https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/bristol-west-2017-general-election-result/That's about the same as we normally get (and did get in Swansea West). Don't know if this has anything to contribute to the debate about us using the word "socialist" when it means something different to most people to what we mean. Probably nothing.

[ALB]

By way of comparison, the Money Free Party candidate in Bristol West got 101 votes. Given that this was a bigger constituency than Swansea West, this was only about half the percentage Brian got  (0.14% compared to 0.25%).

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Bill is at Number 4 and might feel slighted that they didn't bother with his photo

Actually Bill's photo is there. In the picture of the candidates standing in Islington North under No 2 (the Trotskyist who got 7 votes).Seriously, DJP has a point. We don't contest elections to get votes but to get our message across. At the same time, however, we want to avoid a derisory votes that makes us a laughing stock and is counter-productive. The next time we get on the Daily Politics Show (if we do) one of the questions is likely to be "Nobody takes you seriously, do they, last time you only got 21 votes?" It was getting 32 votes in a by-election that led to the Party voting not to contest parliamentary by-elections any more.Basically, we shouldn't have stood in Islington North, for the same reason that we abandoned contesting by-elections — that, being the constituency of one of the Party leaders,  it was bound to attract joke candidates like Screaming Lord Sutch, Lord Buckethead, Mr Blobby, etc who get more votes than us.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

Yes we always need to be prepared for the "whatever" for with a hung parliament a further election can be called at any time.

Not quite. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act there's another condition — that two-thirds of MPs vote for it, i.e whoever the new Tory PM is they'll have to have the support of Labour to call a snap election. Maybe Labour will agree, but that could be a miscalculation. Might be better from their point of view, as YMS hints, to let the Tories make an even bigger mess of things first. But that's conventional politics. Interesting but only as a soap opera or passing show.As far as we're concerned, it's going to mean that the Trots and other leftists are going to be staying in the Labour Party. Back to the 1960s and early 1970s when we were the only "socialists" challenging Labour in elections.

[ALB]

Here are the detailed results:Swansea West:

Quote:

Geraint Davies Labour 22,278Craig Lawton Conservative 11,680Rhydian Fitter Plaid Cymru 1,529Michael Ely O’Carrol Liberal Democrats 1,269Mike Whittall Green Party 434Brian Johnson Socialist Party of Great Britain 92Turnout: 65.5%

At 0.2 percent (1 in 500) that's par for the course for us in general elections. The other two results are well below par.Battersea:

Quote:

Labour 25,292Tory 22,876LD 4,401Ind 1234Green 866UKIP 357Socialist 32

That's 0.06 percent or 1 in 1666, i.e. over three times worse than Swansea.Islington North:

Quote:

Labour (Corbyn) 40,086 (73 percent)Tory 6871LD 4946Green 2229UKIP 413Ind 208Monster Raving Loony 106Ind 41Socialist 21Communist League 7Turnout: 73.3 percent

That's 0.04 percent or 1 in 2500. Corbyn, incidentally, got more than 50% of the whole electorate. In 2015 we got 112 (0.2%, as in Swansea yesterday).  This drop is to be explained partly by the increased number of candidates (and so a wider spread for random votes) but also, maybe, that others were also prepared to vote for the Labour Party under Corbyn (see the other thread).

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I'm hoping that the minority government is too unstable to maintain and we have another election at the end of the year.

Oh no, not another one! People won't stand it. There are local elections in London next year. That's what we need to concentrate on.

[Author]

Posts