Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

25345[GreenLeft_discussion] Re: the left in the Labor Party

Expand Messages
  • Nick Fredman
    Jan 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      A brief comment in reply to Ed lewis, I've got a couple on the ALP to
      make later. Ed, without very little evidence, made some claims about
      SA being a "dead duck".

      >two layers of independent leaders of the Socialist Alliance have
      >been put through the DSP mincer and tossed away

      Rather gruesome (and mixed) metaphor there Ed, for a rather more
      prosaic reality. Also fits rather well into my previous points about
      the penchant of some people for "proving" bureaucratic behaviour by
      using hyper-dramatic language. At the last SA conference a grand
      total of 3 people, who were, indeed, part of initiating the
      'Non-Aligned Caucus' in SA in 2003, didn't get re-elected to a
      smaller national executive. I've no idea what the other "layer" is.

      >Most of the Socialist Alliance branches don't meet,

      And how do you know this Ed? The truth is that while some of the
      branches in Sydney and Melbourne haven't apparently met for some
      months, other branches in those cities and all those nearly
      everywhere else have continued to meet regularly, generally monthly.
      SA branches are fairly loose and autonomous, and go up and down with
      the movement and other factors, maybe like the Greens. In my area,
      which one would think, given its history of environmental activism
      (including forest blockades being invented here), and its Greens vote
      of around 10%, would be a centre of Greens activity, the Greens don't
      seem to have met since 2004, and certainly have had no public profile
      since the last federal election, at all. I write this not to "bash
      the Greens" and start any more pissing competitions, but as a real
      comparison.

      >and the
      >organisation is probably half the size, at best, that it was when it
      >started.

      "Probably", Ed? How very objectively scientific of you, you wouldn't
      want to be making definitive claims without any evidence at all,
      would you? Actually in terms on financial members, SA is about double
      the size of when it first started, that is when 8 socialist groups
      with about 5-600 members combined agreed to form it. As I've stated
      before, the minutes of the last 2 SA conference state financial
      membership was 1070 in mid 2004 and 1150 in mid 2005. Unless Ed has
      some evidence that this has "probably" dropped to 600 or less since,
      I'm not inclined to believe him.

      There were, at some point, claims of 2000 members, but as far as I'm
      aware actual financial has not been higher than 1150.

      SA is very far from the party needed and has some real problems, but
      that's no reason to make exaggerated claims about ita death.


      --
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic