jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:The only reason at present is because that is the only way the yahoo groups lets you do it..
If there are any, then how come they're not on this website?
admin wrote:This is the party's twitter page. I think you've been looking at some fans pagehttps://twitter.com/officialSPGBI think the 4socialismnow was the official twitter of the party for a number of years, or at least being linked to from the official party materials including websites.
As a result of the defection I was reading up on Carswell. I wondered if the bloviate Daniel Hannan had discussed the Tory defection to UKIP and found that libertarians are quite sympathetic to Ukip (more pity for ukip). Anyway, it turns out Hannan-Carswell have written a number of works together including a popular print-on-demand book The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain.
I think the questions about the WSM identity have been addressed. SPGB and SPC don't fit in to the custom of new companion parties being called World Socialist Party but SPGB and SPC are being kept because of tradition and simply because members keep reaffirming they want to keep these names. SPGB and SPC are some of the earliest groups to exist so this is a factor too. The SPGB and SPC were names already commonly used before World Socialist became popular. Ditching the original names wouldn't make a great difference without discarding other historical baggage too.
slothjabber wrote:If you want to say that you were refused stalls in 2008 (or whenever you last asked for one) and then again in 2014, then that would also avoid ambiguity. But I think your problem is not with me, here, but with members of your own party. What much of the first five or so pages of this thread are concerned with is the use of the term 'ban' on several forums by members of the SPGB, and my attempts to demonstrate that if one is 'banned' from something, one must first attempt to do it and be prevented, not just assume on the basis of a previous situation that it would not be allowed.Unless the Anarchist Bookfair organising committee are some permanent House of Lords type body full of life members or the anarchist objection to political parties so important and strictly enforced, then its probably simpler to use the term 'refused' or not to use the term 'ban' at all. Its been suggested the CWO also (mis)use the term 'ban' for one refusal from (even merely attending) multiple meetings, hence why probably not the clearest term to use.
Not saying you can't use the term 'ban', but why not just say the SPGB have been rejected, declined or stopped from having a stall at the Anarchist bookfair? Surely this would be more accurate and possibly wouldn't oblige us to ask every year for avoidance of ambiguity?
slothjabber wrote:I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you don't understand what I mean. If and when the SPGB says it has been 'banned from having a stall this year', I shall agree that you have. Asking for something, and being told you can't have it, constitutes 'banning'. My understanding, however, is that the process is reconsidered anew every yearYou might not object to the term 'ban' but I do.
Comment
byu/Timanfya from discussion
inMHOCQuote:As we get bigger new parties can be created. You will need at least 5 members, yourself included, to start a party. I will not allow one man bands for a while because I want to see how the house acts and interacts with each other. But at some point in the future I will allow independent candidates to stand.
