Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
https://twitter.com/RTEdubSCENTRAL/status/704631683941834752Dublin South Central's last seat (Anti-Austerity Alliance v. FF), 170 disputed ballots: see, spoiling votes does have an effect…
I've been trolling them in the Islington Tribune:http://www.islingtontribune.com/1916heroesA reply: http://www.islingtontribune.com/cashfreeutopiaMy reply: http://www.islingtontribune.com/irishindependenceI have no plans to try and sell this issue in The Boston Arms. Might go in and leave it, maybe, but I'd have to run…
While I'm in the praising mood, this is a strong article also, and I like the detailed analysis of the tensions within Irish politics (notably, the old Officials as a wing of the Labour party have born the brunt of austerity and imposing on the Irish working class).
Oh, and lest we forget the sort of nonsense he spouted:
Quote:the frontiers of Ireland, the ineffaceable marks of the separate existence of Ireland, are as old as Europe itself, the handiwork of the Almighty, not of politicians. And as the marks of Ireland’s separate nationality were not made by politicians so they cannot be unmade by them.https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1916/02/whtfrnat.htm
This is a blinder of an article, prepare for the brick-bats to be thrown our way by the loyal devotees of Connolly.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/busted-24-tories-how-broke-7467603This is how a proper scandal works, Crick beaks it, all goes quiet, while oither papers do some digging, then they start breaking their own stories. Drip. Drip. Drip.
Quote:None of the MPs we name below declared the party's controversial RoadTrip battlebuses in local budgets, with Tory HQ picking up the tab instead.If the estimated £2,000 cost of the bus had been included locally, some of the MPs could have breached strict spending limits.Five Tory RoadTrip battlebuses crossed the country to help handpicked candidates in the final stages of last year’s election campaign, with head office picking up the tabSo, this all rests on whether these buses were national or local spend, but if that, surely, should be for a jury to decide. This will be bureaucratically smothered, because the question is so marginal, and the risks to CPS careers so large…and so the smell will remain.Oh, and they ahve a stabdard reply:
Quote:"My election expense return for the 2015 General Election was completed and returned by my election agent in accordance with the law."It included all items authorised by my election agent for use in my campaign. I signed the necessary declaration as the Candidate on that basis."I am aware that CCHQ campaigned across the UK for the return of a Conservative Government, including in various seats such as mine."Such campaigning would be part of the national election expense return and as such not within our local (General Election or local government) expense return."So, they have an excuse that it was a misunderstanding of the law, but they must know that if those volunteers hold up placards with their name on, or give out a single leaflet for their campaign, it counts towards that seat.
FG remain the biggest party, with 6 seats yet to declare, they are up to 49 (79 is the goal). If they hoover up all the independents, they can govern.I suppose the main message is the turnout – 65% – and that there is no left-wing alternative, apolitical populism seems to bbe winning out: across Europe it's the same, there appears to be no vision of a transformation of the situation, either grudging (or gleeful) acceptance of austerity, or anti-politics.
I think the priority is:1) Holding an authorised list of what are 'official' party accounts.2) Ensuring that no one person has exclusive access to those accounts.3) Ensuring that twitter account operators are clear in their obligations to the membership4) Having the capacity to remove an account operator by the responsible bodies (EC or branches).5) Having a clear process for appointing removing and complaining about social media account operators.Personally I would not want deliquient tweets deleted (although, now oyu mention it, if tehre is a risk of legal jeopardy, that could be a useful thing). Pursuant to rule 18, the EC nmeeds to be able to suspend a member's access, at least.
Vin wrote:Who would remove control of th account from the 'errant' member?As I have said above for the 'party' to do it would require a party pollUnless we have a two tier membershipIt wouldn't require a party poll if the party agreed a mechanism in advance. For instance, in a rule 18 cmplaint it would be the EC, acting under rule and under the membership's instruction that would suspend a twitter account operative. Otehrtimes, it could be the branch directly.
As noted above, rule 18 could operate, removing control of an account from the hands of the errant member and issuing an apology, expulsion of the offending meber, etc. Its why we have a party, so we can state authoritatively what is and isn't the party case. (that's why we'd need a register of passwords)A code of conduct would be the easiest way, since we could say that a tweet fell outside the code that was agreed by the membership at large.Oh, and being able to say what is and isn't an official party account is important, to avoid confusion.
Well,
Rule 10 wrote:All Branch monies are Party funds.I'd argue by extension all branch property is party property.Anyway, just to get towards a motion to put to conference in 2017, what I think we need is something like this:
For future use wrote:This conference instructs the EC to create a register of authorised Party social media accounts. The register should include: the platform, login name, named holders of the accounts, and the passwords of the account. Also, the EC shall produce a Social Media code of conductSomething like that.The important thing is to be able to hold social media activity to account, and to be able to authoritatively disown rogue tweets.
Well, with ten seats yet to declare FF and FG have 90 seats between them, so, unless I'm missing something, it would be impossible to form a coalition without one or other of them. Some whisperers did talk of an FG/FF coalition, and it looks like the only stable government, so it is the most likely, I don't think it can be ruled out, and to be honest, it could achieve the left/right orientation in Irish oplitics some think has been needed, this is probably Adam's last throw as SF leader, so the coming generation will have clean hands, and maybe may be able to form a broad nationalist-left coalition.That said, depending how the last 10 fall, I think FG could go for it with Labour and the Social Democrats, plus a couple of Independent, in either case, I suspects Kenny remains (technically it shouldn't matter, but Higgins is a Labour president, so that may edge things a little).
Meel wrote:YMS, I struggle with economic concepts and usually have to keep things very simple, with clear, straight forward examples. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is a certain “cake” to be shared out among workers; this can be distributed via wages or via state services like the NHS. Currently they are shrinking the health service and in theory they could increase our wages to buy these services in a private market place – and we would be no worse off. I’m not disagreeing with this analysis.It's more simple than that. The only way we get health care is if our employers pay for it — we have no other source of money. They pay for it, eitehr through the taxes they pay, or through our wage packet. It's not about a share of the cake shared among workers (the cake is in fact divided between our share and the emplyers share, if our share goes upm, theirs goes down, so they are tryingt o minimise what they spend on our health care, and w're tryign to push it up. It's not charity, or benevolence, its the gains fo class struggle). Neverbe 'grateful' for the NHS, just as you should never say thank you for a pay check, we've earned it and fought for it.The point is to continue the struggle, and not get blinded by the state/private flim flam.
SocialistPunk wrote:"Is the NHS a benefit?"Not sure what planet that statement belongs to. For an answer I guess we'd have to go back in time to a place before the NHS was set up and try to compare health care provision for us working class?I see this issue as one in which it could be possible for the SPGB to connect more with the public, via an issue important to us all. Yet statements like "Is the NHS a benefit?", shows how disconnected the SPGB are with other workers.It's not that straight forward, we'd also need to consider the post-war boom, and the rise in living standards generally that occurred then; it's a question of whether there would have been a greater wage for workers through the labour market than it was administered through the state (I suspect it would be impossible to tell, but we can't give all the credit to the NHS, it was the postwar boom what done it).The element of the social wage that comes through the NHS is under attack, but, again, I'd suggest our position should be to concentrate on the quality of care, and the overall spent on it, rather than whetehr it's in state hands or not.
http://www.rte.ie/news/election-2016/2016/0228/771304-live-election-2016-national-updates/Live updates, Left diaspora doing well, but Fine Gael and Fianna Fail well ahead. 60% of seats declared, so far.
