steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Ozy. I think most of us can empathise with you even though all our circumstances are different. It just goes to show what an insular, alienating world Capitalism is.but not for the wealthy however. Mental ill health! you can put that down as an occupational hazard of being a member of the working class and I don't believe for one second, that it only affects 1 in 4 of us.I have found, moreover, that being a Socialist sets us apart from the vast majority of our fellow workers and often leads to ill feeling, even amonst our family and friends, because of their inability to get over their history of socialisation into Capitalism and thus, an inability to see "anything but" Capitalism.Do we feel sorry for them in their ignorance, or anger, that their acceptance keeps us in our position as wage slaves and allows a tiny fraction of humans to live opulent lives, at the expense of the majority? I don't know the answer but what I do know is I'd rather live with my eyes wide open, than wide shut!!!
This is against the 1988 Conference resolution, which was confirmed and backed up by the 1991 Party Poll. There is no criteria for this to be sanctioned. I realise that I am bringing attention to this, at a stage in the process which may not be to the benefit of the Party finances, nevertheless it needs addressing. It is, unless someone can provide evidence, "against a Party Poll", "the Party Poll from 1991".Comrades need to be cognisant of the fact, that the 1991 Party Poll, has never been rescinded, nor could it be, but for another Party Poll. So the restriction on the Name used on the Head Office frontage, is still in place.The 1988 Conference resolution may! have been superceded, (but only the resolution) however, the substantive criteria of the 1991 Party Poll, (unless and until a subsequent Party Poll, over rules it) is still in force. Ergo, the design for the Head Office frontage and moreover the "heading" of the Socialist Standard, are constrained within the parameters set out by the 1991 Party Poll!!!A Party Poll supercedes and "overawes" a conference resolution.
ALB I'm not claiming democracy is not, or does not work within the Party per se. I'm saying that, in respect of the use of the Party name, the laxity with which the Party Poll has/has not been observed, is to our detriment. Members have, in many cases, merely ignored it! Remember, 2 Branches were expelled over the issue which, if nothing else, shows its seriousness!
I'll say it again, show me in the rule book, where it says a vote on a Conference resolution carries as much weight as a Party Poll! Or where it says a Conference vote supercedes a Party Poll?
You are talking about a Conference resolution DJP. As has been pointed out to you before, a Conference resolution "Does Not" nor can, overide a Party Poll.
Forgive me, but the Party Poll itself, has not been superceded, nor can it be without another Party Poll. The use of the full name of the Party, contravenes the wishes and instructions of the Party,
"Of course, Vin, you're absolutely correct. My area of disagreement with you is about what we call ouselves.It will come as no surprise that I favour using the full name of the party on most occasions and certainly where confusion with a similarly named organisation is not only likely but virtually unavoidable. Of course, Vin, you're absolutely correct. My area of disagreement with you is about what we call ouselves."All well and good gnome, however, you are forgetting something! There is still in force, the outcome of a "Party Poll", which has never been overturned, expressly forbidding the use of the full Party name, unless to use the abbreviated version, were to cause confusion with a similsarly named organisation.Ergo, the use of the full Party name on the top of this site, is unconstutional. The use of the full Party name on the Head Office frontage, is unconstitutional. Using the full Party name on the proposed Logo is unconstitutional. Using the full Party name, indeed, on the Standard, is unconstitutional.No one can say that "any", of the above could be confused with any other similarly named organisation, so not even that excuse is relevant.Others need to address why this has been allowed to happen, over time and put it right!!!
Thought gnome would have said "no" regardless, because if they are trusted enough to run a Party stall, they should be applying for membership! As has been said by someone, ( cannot recall who that could be) about non members on another related Party issue. Could that be contributing to Party Forums E.T.C.? my minds gone a blank.
The Party Poll often refered to, about the use of the abridged Party name, expressly forbids both the Edwardian version and more importantly, the designs that have been drawn up recently. If the Party goes ahead with "ANY" of these designs, we are condoning unconstitutional behaviour. The Party Poll, on this issue, regardless of individual Party members claims, that a conference vote nowadays, is on a Par with a Party Poll (which isn't backed up by the rule book) is still in force.As others have said, the Party Poll result, has been slowly whittled away. The result of this, is not only unconstitutional but undemocratic.
Hi Vin, I to remember the "withering away" v "dismantling" of the state, debate!I think I will do, what I advocate on a lot of revolutionary issues, leave it to those involved at that time! That is not to say, I'm averse to debating various issues! You know me, I love a good debate.
As you've previously alluded to, the "revolution" will be transnational. I cannot envisage "any" scenario, that would lead to a mass Socialist consciousness in the UK, that is not replicated in a majority of other states. It is only my humble opinion, but I do not think ideas would or do spread in this way and most assuredly not, in the Internet age, with universal communication being so quick. It's been proved that ideas and images can go viral, in a decidedly short time, why not revolutionary ideas?Once a universal majority conscousness pertains, the dismantling of the superstructure of Capitalism will not take long, IMHO.I think "Delegates" would be a more applicable term than MP's.
As I stated earlier Vin, non-members, indeed members to, should be encouraged to take part in the fullest possible range of Party activities and forums and contribute to the same within, of course, Party rules. It is something SPunky and myself have dicussed on numerous occasions and IMHO I think it would give credence and added credibility to our democratic credentials!
It's not a case of favouring using this or that name! A Party Poll stated members were encouraged to use the abbreviated name, unless confusion could arise. Unlike gnome, I do not see as much confusion arisng, perhaps because we have a 36 year history of propogandising in Seaham and the North East and are fairly well known.The Party Poll did not state, "just do what you please"! In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to not be more proscriptive. It would certainly appear that some, rather than adhering to the intent of the Poll, have decided merely to ignore it.
ALB, the intent of this thread is being led astray. It was to be about non-members commenting on Party issues and sites. To try and discern the limits, or otherwise of this. I personally think ALB, it could or would be to the betterment of the Party, to attempt to allow as much inclusivety as possible, in this area. It would be a good way of engageing with our fellow workers, as well as letting them partake in a truly democratic movements discussions.The last NERB was run in this way and as far as I'm concerned, it was a success!
