Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/david-davis-we-dont-want-hard-border-post-brexit-northern-ireland-still-open-for-business-35011702.htmlInteresting from the Brexit Minister:
Quote:This won't be about Government ministers telling you what is going to happen – it will be a two-way conversation – and we need to hear what people want our relationship with Europe to look like….We have promised the devolved administrations will have an important role in the forthcoming negotiations. We will be true to our word. Everyone has a voice as we strike out and take our new place in the world.So, they don'#t lknow what they want, or they're not saying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143Well the "Unique deal" sounds liek the Canada option, which will involve leaving the single market and striking a deal: that will mean the City of London will lose passporting rights. That is, unless this is all a long bluff to try and get some control of migration within the EU (but one that will be called, if it is).
If a branch permanently excluded a member of the public from their meetings, I wouldn't expect there to be a convoluted procedure, and frankly I'm against appeals for spammers. Such a persopn excluded could always complain about the branch to the EC (and I beleive appeals to the EC have happened in parts of this case). With a party member, personally my view is that they should be afforded the protection of rules 29 and 31. After all, persistent disruptive behaviour sufficient to get a member excluded from a branch meeting would be action detrimental in anyone's book.
It's not the EC's decision (often it tries to micromanage, and has to be reminded), it is the decision of cofnerence (I think even expressly, but if not implicitly, over several decisions). It's not actually clear if the EC can dismiss a committee member, technically I suspect a charge is necessary under rule 31 (there is nothing in rule giving the EC power to dismiss committee members).
Linda,your question isn't all that clear. Rule 17 is the operative rule here, this section:
Quote:and otherwise generally administer the work of the Party in accordance with Party polls, Party rules and Conference decisions, and to this end may appoint sub-committees. Names shall be called for, subject to the Executive Committee being authorised to appoint members directly to these sub-Committees if no nominations are received.The EC may take work from its sub-committees back to itself where necessary: saving where there is a conference decision in place (the SSPC and the Publications committee are subject to some rigorous conference resolutions regarding their structure and operation: there is a general understanding that the EC ought not to micromanage sub-committees, but sometimes for many and several reasons that falls down). Now, it may well be the AV committee could benefit from being structured more like the SSPC, with a division between content and production…
gnome wrote:That's expecting a great deal when we have members stuck in a time warp and questioning the rather obvious fact that an introductory video to the party is long overdue. But no, they'd rather spend the party's time and energy conducting a port-mortem on Brexit.If it's obvious perhaps you can explain why? And Devon forfend the party actually discusses, you know, politics and the most significant political event in decades, that has serious implications for our organisation, for our propaganda and our theory. And, oooh, the time and energy involved in reading and writing a few emails and having a discussion at a branch meeting.I'd agree a video would be nice, but it is not essential.
gnome wrote:Literature (noun)* Written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.* Books and writings published on a particular subject.* Leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice.It's an open and shut case, M'lud, so in this case we can safely dispense with the views advanced by our learned resident Philadelphia lawyer…The rule was drafted before any meaningful other media were available, so whilst a strict reading of "literature" is indeed the above, we have 40 or so years of the EC controlling non-written material (and also control of speakers).However, if we're looking at extant conference resolutions: "This Conference instructs the EC to extend and enlarge every avenue of propaganda, particularly the holding of a series of well-prepared indoor meetings in London and the Provinces" (1965)"That this Conference holds that in the best interests of the Party no further private advertisements by individual members using the name of the Party should be permitted until a thorough investigation into the implications for the reputation and effective democratic functioning of the Party has been made" (3, 1971) "That this Conference instructs the EC together with its appropriate subcommittees to make practical plans to be reported to the membership before or at ADM for the production of a Socialist Video Film" (1984)."This Conference recognizes the important need for our total propaganda effort, both locally and Party-wide, to be more streamlined and integrated; this to be accomplished by making the best use of available resources and within a framework of comprehensive, democratic forward planning –suitably varied and continuously adjustable– and including specific propaganda targets. The EC is therefore called upon to take all necessary steps to thoroughly investigate how this objective is to be achieved, with a view to Reports being prepared for 1987 A.DM and 1988 Conference" (1987).Conference has given the EC a broad remit to conrol propaganda of the partyu, and specifically to produce a video.
gnome wrote:The overriding issue, other than the long overdue introductory video to the party, is the overstepping by the EC in applying Rule 17 in this instance. The privilege of amending the rulebook is explicitly reserved for the party membership.Well, I'd dispute that an introductory video is long overdue: but the EC has to interpret the rulebook, and this resolution is a reasonable reading of a rule that was written a long while ago, and reflects party practice in terms of otehr non-print materials (e.g. tape cassettes) going back a long while. In this specific case, the EC was asked to endorse a video, which they haven't been in the past.In any case the basic principle is simple: nothing is an official party product unless endorsed by the EC or by an authorised sub-committee. That's the good news: members can make whatever videos they want, the only copntraint is that party money can't be spent on them.
gnome wrote:(emphasis added)"Literature" specifically and solely refers to the written word. In interpreting Rule 17 to apply to anything other than literature the Executive Committee has acted recklessly and undemocratically. If the membership had any gumption it would demand the instant dismissal of those EC members who voted for this motion.I think a fair reading of that is that the EC is in charge of all publication in the name of the party: the substantive purpose of the rule is so we can disown material that does not reflect the party case and ensure conststency in the output of the party.Members are free to produce poor quality videos in their bedrooms if they like, but the only consideration being asked is that they do not pass them off as party products.
We already have negative interest, given inflation is below most available interest rates, however liquidity preference means a lot of people would rather hedge with depreciating cash, than risk their shirt on negative equity in houses or in shares.
Wez wrote:Stalin 'understood' politics? I thought he was merely a gangster with about as much knowledge of politics as has Peter Hitchens.He ran rings round the ineffectual Trotsky.
lindanesocialist wrote:Vin said:YMS Do you think that the video was in part rejected because it displayed some of the horrors of capitalism? This was not mention by the EC Nor has any member objected until now.My opinion is we shouldn't join the staving-baby-a-thon along with the charity mongers, if we have to convince people capitalism isn't working, then we're wasting our time. That's only my opinion. I've avoided commenting on the video, — I don't think much off it — because too many cooks spoil the broth. I only mentioned my opinion in the context of a general procedural approach that needs to be considered.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is Resolution 6 in conflict with Resolution 7? Perhaps the Party's pet barrack-room lawyers can say whether a committee such as the internet or blog committee can ignore seeking EC approval as stated in Resolution 7.No, resloution 6 says that the EC can delegate it's authority to act per resolution 7.Strictly, what should be happening is a treatment for a proposed video should be circulated, followed by a script, followed by a rough cut: the division between content and layout (per the SSPC) should be observed.More generally, repeated conference resolution that we should put the positive case for socialism (so no starving babies pictures of the Shave the Children kind).
By joining your are assumed to have approved of the rulebook, whether you have been provided with a copy or not (I think I posted a quote to that effect earlier). The court would uphold the corporate charter of Sherborn Publications.
Quote:* * * * * * * * * * COMPANY INFORMATION * * * * * * * * * *INCORPORATION DATE: October 10, 1991 JURISDICTION/PLACE OF REGISTRATIONEngland/Wales LEGAL STATUS: Private Limited with share capital OPERATING STATUS: Small company ; Live companyApparently there are 100 shares, between, currently, 2 people. Simon Basketter and Roger Cox. As of this year, it had net assets of -361,000, with no turnover. The assets on hand fell from 126K to 88K, last fin. year.Anyway, those are the only 2 who would have poer to vote out a director: arguably they might be bound by contract to obey the CC, but it would be fascinating to see that go to court…
Unincroporated associations don't exist, as the judges said, really it's personal contract law (so our rulebook is a cntract between each member of the party); some Leninist organistion would be trated as such under the law, but if they set themselves up as a company, then they a a corporate entity, and would be regulaed under corporate law.Sadly, as this court ruling shows, the leninist model of party can be upheld within the law, so long as all members sign up to a rule book giving the CC sweeping powers (subject to fairness, reaonableness, etc.).
