jondwhite
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Good news for the party perhaps, but bad news for the twitter account and Standard?
Quote:Most voters say they want Labour to provide a radical, socialist alternative to the Conservatives, according to a new poll. The survey found that of all voters, 52 per cent believed a radical socialist alternative would be a force for good and change Britain for the better were it in power. The voters were however split on whether such a party could win a general election, with only 43 per cent saying it could. Counter-intuitively, voters who deserted Labour in 2015 for right-wing parties did not necessarily view a shift to the radical left by Labour as a bad thing.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/most-voters-would-welcome-a-more-radical-socialist-labour-party-new-poll-finds-10494366.htmlSo now we have Corbynwho is popular among Labour memberswho is popular among Labour supporters who are not memberswho has purportedly engaged non-political people with high turnout meeting rallieswho is averse to personality politics, more keen on movements than leadership and not seemingly a product of focus groupswhose policies are popular among the general publicSo do we continue to attack the man or play the ball?
Could do but the document is a history of disputes with members names, and not all disputes pertain to this issue.
I have just e-mailed the document but I think it was shared by archives committee at one time. There are no further details on the charge in the document only the names of members involved.
Owen Jones meets his troll (who he eventually blocked on twitter) in this videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ygUXqhyJs&list=PLTYmWuFco1_089houzfDL0CzYdmlP1Wq9&index=5Perhaps he could meet Vin
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps we could use them as a web-based radio station, a constant streaming channelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_radiohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_mediagood idea! this has been proposed to a branch.
Peter Hitchens writes favourably about Jeremy Corbyn at a Corbyn rally herehttp://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/09/my-evening-with-jeremy-corbyn.html
Peter Hitchens wrote:I warmed to Mr Corbyn personally for two things . One was the unaffected, barely conscious way he bent down to scratch the head of a dog belonging to someone in the crowd. The other was when he acknowledged the majesty of the setting, the beautiful heart of one of the loveliest places in England, at sunset. I suspect that most readers of this blog, if they heard the speech without knowing who was delivering it, would have thought it workmanlike and commonsensical, though obviously of the left. It was not high-flown, it contained a reasonable amount of self-mocking humour, it was proudly free of personal abuse or political invective. It was also (this made it easier for me) free of anything about the wild enthusiasm for comprehensive schools and multiculturalism which Mr Corbyn shares with David Cameron. It was completely coherent, delivered fluently without notes by a man who obviously still writes his own speeches and understands what he is saying. Every statement in it obviously resulted from a long and considered examination of the subject, and he could have defended every assertion if he had had to. This was itself a refreshing change from most modern political speeches, crafted by professional experts in blandness, rehearsed and spoken by the ‘leader’ (what a horrible term this is) more for effect than for edification. I simply don’t think any of his rivals could have done this, not because they’re stupid or bad speakers, but because they don’t actually have coherent political positions. They have to supercharge their words with emotive claptrap, slogans and clichés to get them off the ground at all, and ,while they might briefly soar they quickly sink to earth again. Mr Corbyn’s speech, by contrast, took off in an orderly, well-piloted fashion, flew at a sensible height for the correct amount of time, droning gently, and then landed smoothly at the intended destination. I think this is the sort of thing people used to do in the 1940s, and perhaps the 1950s, when we still had real-live contentious politics in this country. But they have forgotten how since the PR men took over in the 1960s.Quote:The comedian and political activist announced he would be taking a breaking from his weekly YouTube programme, The Trews, in an episode on Thursday. His hiatus came a day after Brand released a YouTube video backing Jeremy Corbyn despite swearing off politics after the general election.Young Master Smeet wrote:Nope, the organisation has as our purpose our emancipation. We're not doing this for anyone else.If by 'our' you mean the working-class and not the party membership alone, then that's my point.
DJP wrote:We are engaged in a battle of ideas. We cannot co-operate with people who hold ideas counter to ours, at the present point in time this includes the vast majority of the working class. The working class have to realise that there ultimate interest lies in the abolition of capitalist social relations, it's up to us to try and help speed up the process and in doing so some members of the ruling class will be drawn to our side.DJP wrote:You're right the socialist party on it's own cannot and will not bring about Socialism. But at a time when our ideas are not shared with the vast majority we cannot just act is if they where.I don't think anyone is saying the vast majority of the working-class either in general elections or those who might vote in an open SPGB primary, share the ideas of members. Isn't that the problem? Wouldn't open (primary) elections by workers of SPGB members to the SPGB EC speed up the process?
Young Master Smeet wrote:And that free association controls the message it puts to those workers through elections under universal franchise. A requirement for primaries denies minorities the opportunity to become majorities, imnsho, and are anti-democratic.To change tack a little, would you describe the Corbyn surge as a minority becoming a majority through open (primary) elections or has Labour been subverted?
The working-class non-members aren't our opponents, our opponents are the ruling-class and their political parties.
In open primary elections to EC, the message would still be controlled by that free association. A requirement for parties to use primaries sounds like the US system and perhaps if I avoided use of the term primaries and said open elections it would avoid these connotations.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Workers can. First, though, they have to join the party. Members choose based on past performance, and suitability and ability, not policy.The party is a free association of socialists, who have come together for a purpose, I don't see why people outside that association should have any say in how it is run.because that purpose those workers have come together for is the emancipation of the working-class as a whole.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Here's how an open primary for the Socialist Party EC would look:Candidate 1 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 2 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 3 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 4 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.Candidate 5 wrote:If elected, I will carry out the instructions of conference.So if members can choose between these, then why can't workers?
