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

NSW Coucil election results

Expand Messages
  • dave_r_riley
    I m keen to find out the figures for the NSW Council election -- especially the results for the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. If no one has them on hand
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm keen to find out the figures for the NSW Council election --
      especially the results for the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. If
      no one has them on hand can you let us know where these figures can
      be found on the web. Here in Brisbane the BCC poll was run by the Qld
      Electoral Commission but I gather that centralsisation was not the
      case in NSW.

      dave riley
    • Kim B
      Hi Dave, the results for the NSW Council election can be found eventually at: http://www.election.nsw.gov.au/ However, the last time I checked it (about half
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Dave,

        the results for the NSW Council election can be found eventually at:

        http://www.election.nsw.gov.au/

        However, the last time I checked it (about half hour ago) the results had still not been posted (keeps coming up "count still in progress").

        I expect the results probably won't be up there until tommorrow (but probably worthwhile checking late this afternoon as well).

        cheers,

        comradely, Kim B


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
      • Peter Boyle
        The NSW State Electoral Office is very slow. They might have some figures up tonight or tomorrow or at least a notice telling us when they figures might be
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 28, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          The NSW State Electoral Office is very slow. They might have some
          figures up tonight or tomorrow or at least a notice telling us when they
          figures might be available.

          Today's Daily Telegraph provided some interim figures but I am not sure
          if it is available on its website as they just post their lead stories.

          See: <http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/>

          I might have time to type some of these numbers in later tonight. SA's
          best results were running at 2.5% in Bankstown (with no donkey) and
          around the 1% mark elsewhere.

          The Greens made big gains in inner-city councils and in Byron Bay and
          held their own in other suburbs around the 10% mark. ALP took serious
          losses in the inner-city but held their vote or gained a little in the
          Sydney outer suburbs and in regional cities. In other words, the
          Coalition did not gain from the backlash against Carr ALP and/or the
          hatred of Howard outweighed the hatred of Carr in those areas.

          Senior ALP figures on the booths indicated in conversations on Saturday
          with comrades that their internal polling had prepared them for the
          inner-city backlash.

          Peter Boyle
        • Peter Boyle
          Three interesting articles in today s Sydney Morning Herald. 1. More on the Greens’ major gains in inner-city Sydney and Byron Bay councils:
          Message 4 of 28 , Mar 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Three interesting articles in today's Sydney Morning Herald.

            1. More on the Greens’ major gains in inner-city Sydney and Byron Bay
            councils:
            <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/29/1080544424588.html>

            2. Where right-wing columnist Paddy McGuinness attacks Greens’ win in
            the Sydney inner city councils as a “middle-class protest” and a
            “tantrum” of the ageing baby-boomers. He concludes that "only solution
            may eventually have to be the abolition of local government in its
            traditional form". Is Sussex St thinking the same way?

            <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/29/1080544422325.html?from=storyrhs>

            Clover Moore’s article:

            <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/29/1080544419790.html>

            Anyone interested in social change should recognise that it would be a
            big mistake for socialists not to engage constructively with this revolt
            against the Lib-Lab neo-liberal consensus. Socialists whose “theory”
            would have them run behind the ALP’s skirts are on the wrong side of the
            class line on this.

            Peter
          • ozleft
            Peter Boyle draws what he calls a class line By Bob Gould For some weeks a debate has been proceeding on the Green Left site and in the Socialist Alliance
            Message 5 of 28 , Mar 29, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Peter Boyle draws what he calls a class line

              By Bob Gould

              For some weeks a debate has been proceeding on the Green Left site
              and in the Socialist Alliance about the action of the leadership of
              the DSP and the ISO pushing through the Socialist Alliance the
              proposition that it was progressive, necessary and leftist to give an
              ultimate preference to Clover Moore and her team over the ALP in the
              Sydney City Council elections.

              Several of the smaller Alliance affiliates have disagreed sharply
              with this and a number of significant individuals in the DSP and the
              ISO have privately indicated disagreement with preferencing Moore and
              indicated that they favoured preferencing the ALP.

              It's a commentary on the authoritorian conception of organisation
              that the DSP and the ISO seem to share that none of the people in
              either organisation who disagree are apparently in a position to
              express their point of view publicly. The only voice of signifcance
              on this question on the Green Left discussion site is the ubiquitous
              Peter Boyle, who seems to be the public face these days of the DSP
              leadership.

              Boyle posts articles from the bourgeois press praising Clover Moore
              and today asserts that there's a class line in preferencing the
              conservative populist Moore over the ALP.

              This proposition doesn't seem to bode too well for those in the DSP,
              the ISO and the Alliance who disagree, because when you start talking
              about class lines in that way in a socialist organisation, the
              implication is pretty clear. The tendency is to try to get rid of
              those who cross "class lines".

              Boyle, and presumably the DSP and ISO leaderships, have now drawn
              a "class line" between themselves and anyone who disagrees with
              preferencing Moore. It would be interesting to know what Boyle and
              the two leaderships intend to do in the short term about this "class
              line" that they've now drawn so belligerently.

              The problem with Boyle's "class line" is that insofar as there is any
              objective class line, a substantial part of the working class, and
              certainly it most oppressed part, are on the side of voting for the
              ALP.

              All the booths the Laborites won, the seven or eight of them, often
              by substantial majorities, are the booths in or around Housing
              Commission flats and poorer working-class housing. They're also the
              booths at which the Aboriginal community votes.

              The booths that voted overwhelmingly for Clover Moore included the
              concentrations of most expensive housing in the inner city, and a
              number of these booths in federal elections vote overwhelmingly
              Liberal. In terms of economic class, the class line is between the
              poorer people on the Labor side and the richer people on the Clover
              Moore side.

              Boyle has an eccentric, convoluted notion of class. By a process of a
              kind of political voodoo or witchcraft he manages to associate Labor
              voting with a privileged trade union bureaucracy, and then by a kind
              of sleight of hand manages to assert that anyone who votes against
              the Laborites and for Clover Moore, including the super-rich in
              Elizabeth Bay, etc, are on the proletarian side of his "class line".

              That's crudifying Lenin in the cruellest way to create political
              mystification. It's ideological fraud. Boyle hangs all this together
              on some notion of political movement. Well there's plenty of
              political movement at the moment. The Liberal government and pretty
              well all the bourgeois media are yapping at the heels of Mark Latham
              and the Labor Party, trying to embarrass Latham for saying he'll
              withdraw Australian troops from Iraq.

              Boyle gets his little widow's mite of venom in by chiming in that
              Latham is contradictory and he won't really withdraw the troops.
              That's not how the ruling class sees it. They're terrified that he
              will withdraw the troops, otherwise the ruling class hullaballoo is
              meaningless.

              The same bourgeois press in the City of Sydney are flat-out,
              universally in favour of Clover Moore, and the same Liberal Party in
              Sydney council elections belligerently preferenced Clover Moore over
              Labor in the same way that Boyle and Co induced the Socialist
              Alliance to do.

              However, of the 340 people who voted for the Alliance for mayor, two-
              thirds had a much clearer notion of class, and what it means, than
              Boyle and Co. The majority stopped after the Greens, and almost half
              of the rest preferenced Labor over Moore.

              There certainly was a kind of class line in the Sydney City
              elections, and Boyle and his associates were clearly on the wrong
              side of it. What I fear, however, from this loaded language of Boyle
              about a "class line" in support of Clover Moore is that the vicious
              hostility of Boyle and those like him to any united front with the
              ALP is leading them into a mood of hysteria against anyone in the
              Socialist Alliance, or even the DSP and the ISO, who disagrees.

              Those opposed to Boyle's Third Period line in the Alliance, the ISO
              and the DSP would be well advised to watch their heads.

              PS Isn't it about time that Boyle and those who agree with him
              address the issues raised by the sociology of the voting pattern in
              the Sydney City elections?
            • Ambrose Andrews
              ... Progressive, necessary and leftist? Thanks for the hot air. ... This is a pretty brave conclusion to be drawing from your available evidence. No. Not
              Message 6 of 28 , Mar 29, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ozleft wrote:

                >Peter Boyle draws what he calls a class line
                >
                >By Bob Gould
                >
                >For some weeks a debate has been proceeding on the Green Left site
                >and in the Socialist Alliance about the action of the leadership of
                >the DSP and the ISO pushing through the Socialist Alliance the
                >proposition that it was progressive, necessary and leftist to give an
                >ultimate preference to Clover Moore and her team over the ALP in the
                >Sydney City Council elections.
                >
                >
                Progressive, necessary and leftist? Thanks for the hot air.

                >It's a commentary on the authoritorian conception of organisation
                >that the DSP and the ISO seem to share that none of the people in
                >either organisation who disagree are apparently in a position to
                >express their point of view publicly. The only voice of signifcance
                >on this question on the Green Left discussion site is the ubiquitous
                >Peter Boyle, who seems to be the public face these days of the DSP
                >leadership.
                >
                >
                This is a pretty brave conclusion to be drawing from your available
                evidence.

                No. Not brave. Malicious.

                >Boyle posts articles from the bourgeois press praising Clover Moore
                >and today asserts that there's a class line in preferencing the
                >conservative populist Moore over the ALP.
                >
                >This proposition doesn't seem to bode too well for those in the DSP,
                >the ISO and the Alliance who disagree, because when you start talking
                >about class lines in that way in a socialist organisation, the
                >implication is pretty clear. The tendency is to try to get rid of
                >those who cross "class lines".
                >
                >
                Another Fantasy from Bob.

                Tiresome to be the subject of constant sniping and linguistic trickery
                from Bob.

                In fact it was Bob who fulminated about a retreat from class politics,
                and it Bob who's inventing, in disgustingly dishonest journalistic
                style, a campaign to get rid of an oppressed opposition inside the DSP
                and/or ISO and/or SA.

                >Boyle, and presumably the DSP and ISO leaderships, have now drawn
                >a "class line" between themselves and anyone who disagrees with
                >preferencing Moore. It would be interesting to know what Boyle and
                >the two leaderships intend to do in the short term about this "class
                >line" that they've now drawn so belligerently.
                >
                >
                belligerently? this has absolutely got to be a joke.
                it wasn't peter boyle who 'belligerently' drew class lines on this
                issue, it was you.
                it wasn't peter boyle who in response to a Guardian article on clover
                moore launched into a comical rant about the moscow trials, for that
                matter, but thats an unrelated strange stretch.

                >The problem with Boyle's "class line" is that insofar as there is any
                >objective class line, a substantial part of the working class, and
                >certainly it most oppressed part, are on the side of voting for the
                >ALP.
                >
                >All the booths the Laborites won, the seven or eight of them, often
                >by substantial majorities, are the booths in or around Housing
                >Commission flats and poorer working-class housing. They're also the
                >booths at which the Aboriginal community votes.
                >
                >The booths that voted overwhelmingly for Clover Moore included the
                >concentrations of most expensive housing in the inner city, and a
                >number of these booths in federal elections vote overwhelmingly
                >Liberal. In terms of economic class, the class line is between the
                >poorer people on the Labor side and the richer people on the Clover
                >Moore side.
                >
                >Boyle has an eccentric, convoluted notion of class. By a process of a
                >kind of political voodoo or witchcraft he manages to associate Labor
                >voting with a privileged trade union bureaucracy, and then by a kind
                >of sleight of hand manages to assert that anyone who votes against
                >the Laborites and for Clover Moore, including the super-rich in
                >Elizabeth Bay, etc, are on the proletarian side of his "class line".
                >
                >That's crudifying Lenin in the cruellest way to create political
                >mystification. It's ideological fraud. Boyle hangs all this together
                >on some notion of political movement. Well there's plenty of
                >political movement at the moment. The Liberal government and pretty
                >well all the bourgeois media are yapping at the heels of Mark Latham
                >and the Labor Party, trying to embarrass Latham for saying he'll
                >withdraw Australian troops from Iraq.
                >
                >
                Is it crudifying Lenin to simply extrapolate class interests from the
                correlation of property values with preference allocations?

                (Yes, it is a matter of political movement. We think its imperative to
                create an independent politcal alternative to the ALP. You appear to
                think its imperative to counter such a development)

                >Boyle gets his little widow's mite of venom in by chiming in that
                >Latham is contradictory and he won't really withdraw the troops.
                >That's not how the ruling class sees it. They're terrified that he
                >will withdraw the troops, otherwise the ruling class hullaballoo is
                >meaningless.
                >
                >The same bourgeois press in the City of Sydney are flat-out,
                >universally in favour of Clover Moore, and the same Liberal Party in
                >Sydney council elections belligerently preferenced Clover Moore over
                >Labor in the same way that Boyle and Co induced the Socialist
                >Alliance to do.
                >
                >
                Fanstastic Bob.

                >However, of the 340 people who voted for the Alliance for mayor, two-
                >thirds had a much clearer notion of class, and what it means, than
                >Boyle and Co. The majority stopped after the Greens, and almost half
                >of the rest preferenced Labor over Moore.
                >
                >
                this is fascinating in light of your earlier claim that the socialist
                alliance vote wasn't a conciously socialist.

                >There certainly was a kind of class line in the Sydney City
                >elections, and Boyle and his associates were clearly on the wrong
                >side of it. What I fear, however, from this loaded language of Boyle
                >about a "class line" in support of Clover Moore is that the vicious
                >hostility of Boyle and those like him to any united front with the
                >ALP is leading them into a mood of hysteria against anyone in the
                >Socialist Alliance, or even the DSP and the ISO, who disagrees.
                >
                >
                I hope this isn't Bob being belligerent... its so hard to tell.


                --
                Ambrose Andrews
                LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
                http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
                +61-415544621
                CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
              • Peter Boyle
                ... So if most blue-collar workers vote for a neo-liberal ALP government does that change the class content of their actions as a government?
                Message 7 of 28 , Mar 29, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bob Gould wrote:

                  > PS Isn't it about time that Boyle and those who agree with him
                  > address the issues raised by the sociology of the voting pattern in
                  > the Sydney City elections?

                  So if most blue-collar workers vote for a neo-liberal ALP government
                  does that change the class content of their actions as a government?
                • Peter Boyle
                  Bob Gould wrote: Boyle, and presumably the DSP and ISO leaderships, have now drawn a class line between themselves and anyone who disagrees with preferencing
                  Message 8 of 28 , Mar 29, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bob Gould wrote:
                    Boyle, and presumably the DSP and ISO leaderships, have now drawn
                    a "class line" between themselves and anyone who disagrees with
                    preferencing Moore. It would be interesting to know what Boyle and
                    the two leaderships intend to do in the short term about this "class
                    line" that they've now drawn so belligerently.

                    The problem with Boyle's "class line" is that insofar as there is any
                    objective class line, a substantial part of the working class, and
                    certainly it most oppressed part, are on the side of voting for the
                    ALP.
                    Hello? Who was it who drew the "class line" in the Sydney City Council election and started making threats on this list? Wasn't it Bob Gould? Wasn't it the same person who then announced that some "small affiliates" had lodged a protest about the Sydney Central Socialist Alliance branch's decision to give second preferences in the mayoral ballot to the Green, third preferences to Clover Moore, and the next to the ALP? And then that same protest materialised... days later. And didn't I suggest that the SA was capable of having a democratic discussion about this issue, indeed that there was a discussion within the two largest SA affiliates, the DSP and the ISO on this question of preferences? But Gould kept on his belligerent "class line" bluster on the list and outside the King Street, Newtown polling booth. As I pointed out to him when I dropped in on that booth for a sticky beak, he may be the main "entertainment" on that booth but on the booth I was staffing for Socialist Alliance, the ALP Mayor of Marrickville, Barry Cotter, provided the "entertainment" by being the butt off  vociferous criticisms from  local residents for pro-developer bias.

                    Given all this, list readers will understand why I find it a little tempting to point out that the correct side of the class line to be on the the looming confrontation between Greens and anti-big developer independents who may end up running three inner-city councils in Sydney is not with the neo-liberal Carr ALP government, even if the ALP still got the votes of most blue-collar workers in Sydney.

                    And Gould's attempts to scare people about the nasty, "authoritarian" DSP and ISO leaderships are pathetic. These are as pathetic as him carrying on like a pork chop about a one-liner from Alan Bradley! Oh! Horror of horrors, it becomes nothing less than an "ugly little Toowoomba-Moscow Trial"!!! Melodrama is not enough win you the great spot in history you obviously covet.

                    Take a Bex and have a lie down, Bob. You may find thinking clearly, a bit easier.

                    Peter Boyle

                  • dave_r_riley
                    I find all this discussion about the NSW council elections fascinating reading. I hope it all comes together in an overview analysis both in the pages of GLW
                    Message 9 of 28 , Mar 30, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I find all this discussion about the NSW council elections
                      fascinating reading. I hope it all comes together in an overview
                      analysis both in the pages of GLW and in more detail in the pages of
                      Alliance Voices -- the SA discusion bulletin.

                      As I wrote earlier -- I was disappointed how little impact the Greens
                      have been able to make here in Brisbane at the local level.
                      But "local" here is a big corporate entity -- the BCC -- which has a
                      massive GDP and 26 individual wards, each quite large. So it isn't
                      easy to equate experiences.

                      What I'd be interested in learning is how much actual campaigning
                      went into these Sydney results -- not so much electioneering but pre-
                      existing activity on the issues?

                      My impression after spending some time on polling day here talking to
                      two mayoral candidates-- Drew HUtton(Greens) and Russell Hall( a sort
                      of would be Ted Mack independent)-- that there is a basis of shared
                      positioning that could be put to good effect at a later time. I was
                      thinking especially of some form of ongoing community forum system
                      that could be fostered in the ward areas.

                      Here the media locked out the alternative candidates brutally and
                      Hutton had to winge like mad to even get his face up on the Lib/Lab
                      orchestrated debate. But aside from that it was kept to the main
                      parties and their listed agenda. As was obvious from the result here -
                      - when you lock out the alternative voices -- you encourage the
                      electoralte to fall back on the Liberals as THE option to Labour.

                      I was thinking a "community/peoples' forum" approach -- once, maybe
                      twice per year -- which addressed in a broad coalition way the key
                      issues in the area and others (like war) that impinged on local
                      residents, could begin to bring together broader forces that exist
                      currently and showcase that through a very public process which could
                      begin to steal the running -- actually the ALP occupies a default
                      position -- at the local level away from the ALP.

                      Working the suburbs, especially the new post WWII suburbs -- isn't
                      easy -- so I'm thinking we need to look at other means of organising
                      beyond the current arsenal we employ in the "big "issues like war,
                      refugees, rights., etc . Similarly unless you work hard to generate a
                      higher threshold of discussion at the local level, communities tend
                      to fall back on NIBYism alone. It can be very lowest common
                      denominator stuff as it is sustained by the massive alienation of
                      suburban life.

                      dave riley
                    • ozleft
                      Peter Boyle s new class line: proletarian revolution centred on Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutter s Bay, Moore Park, Glebe Point and Pyrmont Point By Bob Gould One of
                      Message 10 of 28 , Mar 30, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Peter Boyle's new class line: proletarian revolution centred on
                        Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutter's Bay, Moore Park, Glebe Point and Pyrmont
                        Point

                        By Bob Gould

                        One of my closest friends has just been out scrutineering for the
                        Labor Party at Villawood, and brought me back an hour ago the updated
                        figures progress count for all booths for the councillors' positions
                        in the City of Sydney, at the close of counting on Sunday night.

                        These figures give some insight into the class forces in play in the
                        inner city in the council elections.

                        There were 53,026 votes recorded of which 4097 were informal. The
                        total formal votes were 48,929. There were six ungrouped candidates,
                        who were off the radar, so to speak: Dayley (4), McDermott (12),
                        Spanos (37) and Sue Price of the Socialist Alliance (93, or 0.17 of
                        the vote).

                        Price got 10 votes at the Town Hall, three at Alexandria, one in
                        Beaconsfield, none in Chippendale booth one, none in Chippendale
                        booth two, none in Darlinghurst booth one, none in Darlinghurst booth
                        two, seven in Darlinghurst booth three, none in Erskineville, two in
                        Elizabeth Bay, nine in Forest Lodge, two in Glebe booth one, nine in
                        Glebe booth 2, six in Glebe booth three, one in Glebe booth four, one
                        in Haymarket, none in Millers Point, none in Newtown booth one, 11 in
                        Newtown booth two, none in Paddington, none in Pyrmont, three in
                        Redfern booth one, three in Redfern booth two, eight in Redfern booth
                        three, six in Redfern booth four, none in Rosebery booth one, none in
                        Rosebery booth two, none in Rushcutters Bay, none in Surry Hills
                        booth one, one Surry Hills booth two, none in Surry Hills booth
                        three, three in Surry Hills booth four. Price got two in Ultimo, one
                        in Waterloo, none in Wooloomooloo, none in Zetland, no postal votes
                        and three pre-poll votes, total 93.

                        When you get to the serious forces, Clover Moore got 17,902 (36.6 per
                        cent), Labor got 12,113 (24.8 per cent), the Greens got 6804 (13.9
                        per cent), the Liberals got 5825 (11.96), Sydney independents got
                        1385 (2.8), Matt Laffan 1391 (2.8), Peter Collins 1279 (2.6),
                        Democrats 1269 (2.6), Dixie Coulton 815 (1.7).

                        There was, in fact, a very distinct class line in these electoral
                        results, and the Labor and Green forces are on one side of that class
                        and most (although not all) of the Clover Moore vote is on the other
                        side of that divide.

                        Evidence of that class divide is obvious in even the most cursory
                        examination of the geographical voting pattern. Labor beat the Clover
                        Moore forces, in most cases overwhelmingly in 10 booths: Beaconsfield
                        (a strong blue collar working class area), one Glebe booth (located
                        close to the Department of Housing estate), Millers Point (which
                        still has a large concentration of public housing), three of the
                        Redfern booths (which are in or around Housing Department flats or in
                        blue-collar residential areas), the two Rosebery booths (a blue-
                        collar residential area), Ultimo and Waterloo (probably the most blue-
                        collar residential area in the old South Sydney council).

                        There was a second category of booths where Labor and the Greens both
                        did very well and where their combined vote beat Clover Moore's vote:
                        Sydney Town Hall, the two Chippendale booths, the poorer area of the
                        four Darlinghurst booths, Erskineville, the three Glebe booths in the
                        south end of Glebe outside the Glebe Estate, Haymarket and Zetland.

                        The Greens did very well in Erskineville and the Newtown church
                        booth. These booths where Labor and the Greens together outpolled the
                        Clover Moore forces are areas where there is still some blue-collar
                        housing and where the gentrification is at bottom end, with people
                        who work in hospitals, the public service, teaching, etc.

                        These areas are inhabited by people who Peter Boyle would describe,
                        when he's using theory demagogically, as part of the "labour
                        aristocracy".

                        The other 13 booths were won by Clover Moore overwhelmingly, and they
                        also happen to be the ones that delivered by far the largest chunk of
                        the Liberal vote. These booths vote overwhelmingly Liberal in federal
                        and state elections.

                        These booths are: Darlinghurst one, two and three; Elizabeth Bay,
                        Glebe booth four, Paddington, Redfern booth three, Rushcutters Bay,
                        Surry Hills one, two, three and four, and Wooloomooloo. Even a
                        cursory superimposition of ABS figures on the electoral pattern shows
                        that these Clover Moore booths are hotspots of extremely high
                        incomes, and ABS figures also show that the Labor-Green majority
                        booths are areas of middle incomes, and the Labor-voting booths are
                        islands of very low incomes.

                        To further demonstrate this point, the two richest areas by far in
                        the inner city, Elizabeth Bay and Rushcutters Bay were overwhelmingly
                        Clover Moore booths. In Elizabeth Bay, which is an overwhelmingly
                        Liberal booth in federal and state elections, Moore got 1336, the
                        Liberals got 289, Labor got 306 and the Greens got 251.

                        In Rushcutters Bay, Labor got 167, the Greens got 94, the Liberals
                        got 188 and Moore got 570. Most voters in Rushcutters Bay and
                        Elizabeth Bay don't fall anywhere within Peter Boyle's convoluted,
                        artificial construct of a labour aristocracy. Those voters are
                        located somewhere in the very high stratosphere, way above any
                        notions of labour aristocracies.

                        There's little question that class, status and income affected the
                        results in the Sydney City elections in a spectacular way.

                        The Green vote is by and large drawn from youth and the left-leaning
                        section of the new social layers, which incidentally are the section
                        of these layers most likely to be in white-collar or professional
                        trade unions.

                        The Green and Labor vote together fall on one side of a clear class
                        divide, and the majority of the Clover Moore vote falls on the other
                        side of that class divide. These are the statistical facts about the
                        elections in the City of Sydney, and facts are very stubborn things.

                        In the last few days, Peter Boyle has suddenly become very
                        preoccupied with the issue of developers. That's a very real issue to
                        anybody on the left in the inner city. It must be pointed out that
                        the number-two on Moore's ticket is a bloke called McInerney, who has
                        earned his living for a number of years as a professional consultant
                        to developers.

                        Now that Moore has achieved the political coup, through energy and
                        ingenuity, of being elected mayor of Sydney, with a team of
                        supporters behind her, she's now talking about working with
                        everybody, and it will be interesting to see how the interplay of
                        forces works out. All socialists should be pushing for sensible
                        restraints on development, but it's still to be tested what role
                        Clover Moore and her associates will play in a lot of those questions.

                        The other critical issue will be contracting out council services,
                        and Moore quite firmly refused to give me a direct answer on that
                        question at the Town Hall meeting. Her political constituency
                        contains a lot of people who favour contracting out. That's another
                        issue that will have to be fought out in the near future.

                        In my view, all politics has an element of class, and the Greens and
                        the bulk of the rank and file and middle group of Labor supporters,
                        activists and voters fall on one side, and the social forces Clover
                        Moore has mobilised in Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutters Bay and the 10
                        booths where she got her majority generally fall on the other side of
                        that class divide.

                        I challenge Peter Boyle, and anyone else who supports his point of
                        view, to:

                        a) address in detail the demographics reflected in the voting in
                        Sydney City.

                        b) debate me in the flesh, if he's game, in any arena he chooses.

                        GREENS AND LABOR IN MARRICKVILLE AND LEICHHARDT

                        There's no question that the Green electoral victory in Marrickville
                        and Leichhardt reflected a shift to the left in the population. The
                        Greens campaigned hard, and their victory was a result of energetic
                        and intelligent campaigning.

                        The defeat of the left Labor machine in those two municipalities
                        stemmed directly from Labor's political mistakes, particularly their
                        rush of blood to the head that caused them to make the anti-
                        democratic decision to change from wards of four to wards of three.

                        The Labor people of the left in those two areas should reverse their
                        course and try, even at this late stage, to make a bloc with the
                        Greens, rather than a completely unprincipled bloc with the Liberals.
                        For socialists there should be no enemies on the left, particularly
                        no permanent enemies.

                        Nevertheless, the electoral result in Marrickville was rather
                        instructive map of ethnicity and class. The Greens did exceptionally
                        well in the northern part of Marrickville, among people I've
                        previously described as bottom-end new social layers: nurses,
                        teachers, public servants, university workers and youth.

                        The Labor stronghold was the southern part of the municipality,
                        inhabited by blue-collar workers and recent NESB migrants. Both the
                        Labor voters and the Green voters in Marrickville fall on the
                        progressive side of any class divide, from which stems the need for a
                        realistic united front between Labor and the Greens in Leichhardt and
                        Marrickville. Once again: no enemies on the left.

                        I'm quite happy to leave to Peter Boyle his un-Marxist and
                        unprincipled notion of a class struggle led mainly from Elizabeth Bay
                        and Rushcutters Bay. No offence meant to the minority of Green or
                        Labor voters or the more progressive Clover Moore voters who live in
                        those suburbs. I'm sure they'll understand what I'm getting at,
                        because they live there.
                      • br3068
                        While this analysis of spatial patterns of voting is interesting (as far as it goes), I m not sure what all the point of it is though. Yes Moore got a large
                        Message 11 of 28 , Mar 30, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          While this analysis of spatial patterns of voting is interesting (as
                          far as it goes), I'm not sure what all the point of it is though.

                          Yes Moore got a large vote in wealthier areas, but so what? The
                          class character of the various political forces is determined by
                          their actions. No one disputes that Moore represents middle layers
                          and has a bourgeois political program. But so does the ALP and the
                          Greens! Yes the former retains a base amongst blue collar and
                          migrant workers, but the ALP was and is definitely to the right of
                          Moore in terms of its political program, is associated with
                          developer's greed and Carr's arrogance etc . That is the real and
                          main basis that the left should decide preferences.

                          (BTW let's not also make the mistake of completely equating votes in
                          localities with the social class of the individual voter: it may
                          well be a preponderance of small business people voting Labor in
                          Marrickville and some workers for the ALP).

                          2. What the data Gould does give suggests is that while Moore's
                          support was stronger in the wealthier areas (in part no doubt as the
                          Liberals seemed not to run a serious campaign), the vote in less
                          wealthy areas was actually split between Moore, the Greens and
                          Labor. So Bob is probably right: the layer that is fastest breaking
                          with the major parties is tertiary educated and wealthier.

                          But so what? On the one hand, it shouldn't faze the left that this
                          part of the "aristocracy of labour" is moving more quickly to the
                          left than other sections of the class. The reasons for this are
                          complicated (quietness of the unions), but it shouldn't worry
                          anyone - but the most determined workerist - that the main
                          constituency of the left may remain for some time outside of the
                          blue collar layers that are depoliticised, divided and absorbed by
                          the ALP patronage machine. Tactically, it is far more advantageous
                          for the left to relate to any strata of the working class or
                          ointermediate layers that is becoming politicised.

                          On the other hand, that being said, the vote is actually split
                          amongst blue collar workers between Moore, greens and Labor. So a
                          layer of blue collar workers (a minority) – which is probably the
                          more consciously political, more likely to open to the non-ALP left
                          clearly does exist. Again, it is this layer that the left much more
                          likely to make gains in.

                          If this is "crossing class lines" it is not just the Alliance that
                          is doing it, so are the Greens. So are the lefts within the Greens
                          (as Ed happily admits). In fact so is just about every activist I
                          have talked to/ heard from…

                          Except Bob.

                          Why? For all his baleful insinuations about how nasty and
                          authoritarian the DSP and the ISO are and how all the members are
                          zombies etc etc, it is Bob who is the one meekly still follows his
                          party's leadership (and the class interests it serves?).

                          The machinations of power in the ALP - for all the formal "freedoms"
                          its members have - are 100 time worse than the worst excesses of any
                          Leninist party. The worst form of how this power operates is how
                          activists within inevitably internalise its values.

                          Ben Reid



                          --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozleft" <ozleft@y...>
                          wrote:
                          > Peter Boyle's new class line: proletarian revolution centred on
                          > Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutter's Bay, Moore Park, Glebe Point and
                          Pyrmont
                          > Point
                          >
                          > By Bob Gould
                          >
                          > One of my closest friends has just been out scrutineering for the
                          > Labor Party at Villawood, and brought me back an hour ago the
                          updated
                          > figures progress count for all booths for the councillors'
                          positions
                          > in the City of Sydney, at the close of counting on Sunday night.
                          >
                          > These figures give some insight into the class forces in play in
                          the
                          > inner city in the council elections.
                          >
                          > There were 53,026 votes recorded of which 4097 were informal. The
                          > total formal votes were 48,929. There were six ungrouped
                          candidates,
                          > who were off the radar, so to speak: Dayley (4), McDermott (12),
                          > Spanos (37) and Sue Price of the Socialist Alliance (93, or 0.17
                          of
                          >
                        • Peter Boyle
                          ... That certainly isn t how the Greens or their supporters see it. The Greens gave their second preference to Clover Moore. The Greens are campaigning against
                          Message 12 of 28 , Mar 30, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bob Gould wrote:

                            > The Green and Labor vote together fall on one side of a clear class
                            > divide, and the majority of the Clover Moore vote falls on the other
                            > side of that class divide.

                            That certainly isn't how the Greens or their supporters see it. The
                            Greens gave their second preference to Clover Moore. The Greens are
                            campaigning against the NSW ALP for being in the pockets of developers
                            (see <www.lee.greens.org.au/campaigns/*donations*/NSWALP.html>).

                            I think it would have been preferable if the Clover team had to rely on
                            an alliance with the Greens in a Sydney Council administration as this
                            would have balanced the more conservative elements of her team. However,
                            the Greens' gains in Leichhardt and Marrickville, along with the
                            expectations of its thousands of supporters, might serve to help keep
                            the Clover administration to its promises.

                            This is the real political development here, not Gould's worship of the
                            "class-in-itself".

                            Peter Boyle
                          • ozleft
                            DSP leadership drops Marxist analysis in preferencing Clover Moore By Bob Gould Ben Reid adopts a slightly calmer tone than usual towards my recent
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              DSP leadership drops Marxist analysis in preferencing Clover Moore

                              By Bob Gould

                              Ben Reid adopts a slightly calmer tone than usual towards my recent
                              contributions on the local government elections in NSW, but he can't
                              resist the abusive assertion at the end of his piece:

                              "For all his baleful insinuations about how nasty and authoritarian
                              the DSP and the ISO are and how all the members are zombies etc etc,
                              it is Bob who is the one meekly still follows his party's leadership
                              (and the class interests it serves?) (sic).

                              "The machinations of power in the ALP - for all the formal "freedoms"
                              its members have - are 100 times worse than the worst excesses of any
                              Leninist party. The worst form of how this power operates is how
                              activists within inevitably internalise its values."

                              Dr Reid has a real talent for insulting slander. He spelt my name
                              right, but everything else in these rather revealing paragraphs is
                              wrong.

                              I hold a Labor Party ticket and I work for the ALP in elections,
                              which is part of the political arrangement if you hold a Labor Party
                              ticket. I've spent a large part of my political life fighting against
                              right-wing policies of assorted Labor leaderships, right and left
                              (while supporting progressive actions of these leaderships), as Dr
                              Reid well knows.

                              My assorted agitations on socialist issues within and without the
                              Labor Party are on the public record for the past 50 years. In
                              working for the election of Labor governments I'm like many other
                              socialists who choose to conduct their struggles, at the political
                              level, partly within the ALP; people such as Martin Kingham, Michelle
                              O'Neil, Harry Quick, Carmen Lawrence and many others.

                              I'm small potatoes in that company, but I've been doing what I do for
                              a very long time, and it doesn't include internalising adaptation to
                              Labor leaderships. It's fair to say this also applies to most of the
                              6000-7000 people who voted for Carmen Lawrence in last year's ALP
                              federal leadership ballot.

                              The decision of the DSP and ISO leaderships to pressure the members
                              of the Sydney branch of the Socialist Alliance to reverse their
                              original decision, and preference Clover Moore over Labor, has a very
                              right-wing aspect because more than half the Labor candidates in
                              winnable positions on the Labor ticket were left-wingers, and the two
                              women have been vocal on the left in the ALP on the two major
                              questions of significance in recent times: the Iraq war and refugee
                              policy.

                              It has just been announced today that the final wash-up in the Sydney
                              Council is four Clover Moore candidates, three Labor, one Greens and
                              one Liberal. Two of the three Labor councilors, Verity Firth and Tony
                              Pooley, are on the left of the ALP. The last elected Clover Moore
                              candidate and Tony Pooley beat the second Green for the last two
                              positions, and it's not unreasonable to point out that a too-
                              uncritical attitude to Clover Moore may have contributed to the
                              fourth Moore candidate beating the second Green, which is unfortunate.

                              Even on the point that Dr Reid chooses to make primary: his
                              proposition that the program of the Clover Moore Community
                              Independents was to the left of the Labor program, he's wrong.

                              The local Laborites, mainly from the old South Sydney council area,
                              are considerably more left wing, on municipal, state and federal
                              issues, than Clover Moore's team. In addition to that, internally in
                              the ALP, even while it's considerably reduced on the past, there is
                              considerable argument and debate on policy.

                              The combination of a generally leftist ALP membership in the inner-
                              city, and the institutional influence of the trade unions,
                              contributes to making the stance of the ALP in the inner city
                              considerably more left wing than that of the Clover Moore group.

                              The conservative, populist electoral machine that surrounds Clover
                              Moore is in no sense a membership organisation, in which anybody
                              outside people hand-picked by the charismatic leaders has any input.

                              The idea that socialists or left-wingers can have much input into
                              Clover Moore's machine is delusional.

                              Pressure from the residents, and electoral considerations, will
                              possibly keep the Clover Moore councillors honest on matters of
                              overdevelopment, but that's about as far as it goes. The problem of
                              outsourcing council services is ongoing because of the conservative
                              social base of the Moore group, which has no inbuilt input from
                              unions, for instance, to exert pressure Clover Moore on the
                              outsourcing issue.

                              Dr Reid is talking sociological rubbish when he says the Community
                              Independents are part of the "labour aristocracy": both the vote, as
                              I've demonstrated despite Reid's so-whats, and the team of activists
                              around Clover Moore are located, sociologically, well up in the
                              stratosphere, above any considerations of "labour aristocracies".

                              This fact, and the fact that Dr Reid can repeatedly assert "so what"
                              about my careful sociological analysis of elections underlines the
                              voodoo, metaphysical, theological function of the Reid-Boyle
                              confusionism about "labour aristocracies". Their "labour aristocracy"
                              rhetoric only has a convoluted theological objective. They try to
                              prove, with little evidence, that the ALP political movement was a
                              direct product of their artificial, retrospectively constructed,
                              allegedly hegemonic "labour aristocracy" in the 19th century, and
                              that this alleged origin is still the major determining factor about
                              the ALP.

                              This crudification and falsification of Lenin is, for them, a kind of
                              voodoo. They're like Christians who've discovered a kind of original
                              sin of Laborism. When, however, they are confronted with any serious
                              sociological investigation and analysis of current politics, they
                              drop this aspect, muttering out of the side of their mouths that, of
                              course, the "labour aristocracy" theory only applies to the origins
                              of Laborism, and the current sociology of social movements is
                              unimportant. All that matters is the "trajectory of movement".

                              Dr Reid asserts this in the crudest way possible. For him, in this
                              post, who blue collar workers support is unimportant. The motor force
                              of social change is the Clover Moore forces down there in Elizabeth
                              Bay. He actually says this, indirectly. That approach is a very
                              considerable distance from any class-based Marxism.

                              Peter Boyle is right on one thing: this kind of question is going to
                              come up again, and possibly in other states. The DSP leadership,
                              Peter Boyle and Dr Reid have an explicit perspective of permanent
                              exposure of Laborism, which is in their cosmology the second party of
                              capitalism.

                              To that end, they will support almost anyone who isn't a Laborite or
                              a Liberal if they can possibly rustle up some half-baked argument for
                              doing so.

                              Reid and I obviously move in totally different worlds. He says he
                              knows no activists who don't loathe the Laborites. Well, I meet a
                              wide range of people on the left side of Australian society -- all
                              kinds of people. At the moment, possibly a majority of these people
                              generally support the Greens as a first preference, although a lot
                              support Labor.

                              Nevertheless, even the most cursory conversation with anyone on the
                              left side of society reveals their main preoccupation at the moment
                              is getting rid of the Howard Government. Almost everyone on the left,
                              other than the obsessed DSP leadership, takes the view that getting
                              rid of Howard involves the exchange of electoral preferences between
                              Labor and the Greens, and hopes for an outcome that involves the
                              election of a Latham Labor government combined with dramatically
                              increased representation for the Greens in the Senate.

                              From this very concrete circumstance flows the need for a strategic
                              united front around the slogan: "throw out Howard". As well as being
                              wrong in principle, preferencing the conservative populist Clover
                              Moore cuts sharply across this strategic necessity of ousting Howard.

                              Everyone on the left I know, other than the DSP leadership
                              obsessives, including a large number of Greens, are enthusiastic and
                              encouraged by the vigorous way Latham and the other Laborites have
                              stood up to the Howard and media barrage, and asserted that Labor
                              would stand by its policy of withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq.
                              The only exception to that on the left, that I'm aware of, is the
                              extraordinary Peter Boyle, who yapped along at Howard's heels on
                              Monday, enthusiastically quoting the Lateline bloke who thought he'd
                              discovered a chink in Latham's armour when questioning Labor's
                              foreign affairs spokesman, Rudd.

                              The main political drama this week has been Latham confronting Howard
                              on Iraq and all Boyle can do is join the conservative attacking
                              Latham on this question. Some Marxist!

                              The DSP leadership is so obsessed with its false construct about
                              the "two capitalist parties" that it can't see the wood for the trees
                              in labour movement and working-class mass politics.

                              The dismal result for the Socialist Alliance candidates in the NSW
                              local government elections underlines the total bankruptcy of the DSP
                              leadership's false political perspective, which was expressed so
                              clearly in the perspectives document adopted by the last DSP
                              conference. The DSP leadership has a perspective of building, in the
                              medium term, an alternative electoral organisation to labour and the
                              Greens.

                              Despite the crisis of leadership in the labour movement -- the ALP-
                              trade-union continuum -- and in the major leftist electoral formation
                              in Australian society, the Green electoral party, building an
                              alternative electoral formation in the way the DSP leadership, Boyle
                              and Reid sketch out is obviously impossible in the short or medium
                              term.

                              Despite all the spin Boyle and Reid try to put on political events,
                              the crisis of leadership for the foreseeable future will proceed
                              through political differentiation within Laborism and within the
                              Greens. Marxists with any kind of realism are forced by the weight of
                              these objective circumstances to have an orientation to these two
                              mass formations.

                              It's from this set of objective circumstances that the united front
                              slogan necessarily flows. Even small groups of Marxists who choose to
                              orient themselves to these two mass currents, without adapting to the
                              weaknesses of their leaderships, have the prospect of getting a mass
                              audience.

                              Sectarian Marxists who spend all their time abusing these mass
                              formations can't see the wood for the trees, and condemn themselves
                              to isolation.

                              Reid also makes the obviously false proposition that the DSP is
                              infinitely more democratic than the creaking mass Social Democracy.
                              If you believe that, you believe in fairies.

                              The Zinovievist structure of the DSP has produced the situation that
                              several DSP leaders say privately they disagree with preferencing
                              Moore but they don't open their mouths publicly on the question,
                              either on the GLW discussion list or in the Socialist Alliance
                              discussion.

                              People rarely get booted out of the ALP for standing up doggedly
                              against leaders on political questions (although they sometimes do
                              get thrown out) but it's clearly the case that those in the DSP who
                              disagree with preferencing Clover Moore prefer to shut up rather than
                              test the discipline of the DSP about any sort of public disagreement.

                              I repeat my challenge to Boyle, Dr Reid, or anyone else from the DSP:
                              why not have a public debate on this question of preferencing Moore
                              and the associated question of strategy for socialists in the coming
                              federal elections? I'm willing to debate Peter Boyle and Dr Reid on
                              these matters in any forum that they choose.

                              PS. I'm waiting with bated breath for a serious analysis from Dr
                              Reid, who one presumes knows something about sociology, and Peter
                              Boyle, of what actually happened in the NSW local government
                              elections. What social forces voted for which parties, and
                              particularly an analysis of the vote of the Socialist Alliance.
                            • br3068
                              Bob, 1. There has been public debate on this list. 2. There has been reasonable level of sociological discussion about the social bases of Moore and the ALP.
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bob,

                                1. There has been public debate on this list.
                                2. There has been reasonable level of "sociological" discussion
                                about the social bases of Moore and the ALP.
                                4. Your argument equating Marxism with the position that because
                                a "large portion of blue collar workers still support labor so
                                should we" is absurd. No one is disputing your numbers: we just
                                disagree with where the tactical emphasis of socialist should be.
                                3. Your laughable defence of the ALP as super democratic in
                                comprarison to the DSP clearly contradicts your earlier assertion
                                that you are just a small player fighting the bureacracy in a big
                                soup: such assertion are hyper-internalisations of the fake
                                democracy of the ALP.
                                They speak volumes about the basis of so much of your ramblings
                                about "Leninism" that stem from the pre 1914 model of social
                                democracy. Honestly just look at the way ALP decisions get rammed
                                down the throat of rank and file members!

                                Give us a break Bob

                                Ben Reid

                                (BTW I wonder what Dr Karl Marx would have made of your idiotic
                                baiting of me?)


                                --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozleft" <ozleft@y...>
                                wrote:
                                > DSP leadership drops Marxist analysis in preferencing Clover Moore
                                >
                                > By Bob Gould
                                >
                                > Ben Reid adopts a slightly calmer tone than usual towards my
                                recent
                                > contributions on the local government elections in NSW, but he
                                can't
                                > resist the abusive assertion at the end of his piece:
                                >
                                > "For all his baleful insinuations about how nasty and
                                authoritarian
                                > the DSP and the ISO are and how all the members are zombies etc
                                etc,
                                > it is Bob who is the one meekly still follows his party's
                                leadership
                                > (and the class interests it serves?) (sic).
                                >
                                > "The machinations of power in the ALP - for all the
                                formal "freedoms"
                                > its members have - are 100 times worse than the worst excesses of
                                any
                                > Leninist party. The worst form of how this power operates is how
                                > activists within inevitably internalise its values."
                                >
                                >
                              • nobbytob
                                ... wrote: [..] ... bob, the builder, or fabricator of lies... you totally get it upside down: we always had almost anonymously decided to put clover moore s
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozleft" <ozleft@y...>
                                  wrote:
                                  [..]
                                  > The decision of the DSP and ISO leaderships to pressure the members
                                  > of the Sydney branch of the Socialist Alliance to reverse their
                                  > original decision, and preference Clover Moore over Labor [..]

                                  bob, the builder, or fabricator of lies... you totally get it upside
                                  down: we always had almost anonymously decided to put clover moore's
                                  independents ahead of the forced-almagamations-and-other-forced-
                                  agendas-NSW-ALP. noone pressured us to reverse... yeah what? quite
                                  the opposite, i got dragged into discussions about rethinking our
                                  crystal-clear decision to de-preference the NSW ALP machine, which by
                                  the way, preferenced all conservatives except the liberal (who
                                  preferenced the ALP, ha!). the leichhardt ALP directly preferenced
                                  the liberals. doesn't that speak VOLUMES, Bob??? they rightly got
                                  punished, ie their former voters must have preferred clover moore,
                                  too, don't you think so, bob?

                                  your whole "argumentation" is based on these 100% wrong "facts".
                                  it's really useless to get further bothered by this... rubbish!

                                  in socialism, Nobby (SA Sydney Central branch committee).
                                • ozleft
                                  By Bob Gould Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a fabricator of lies . Wow. I don t much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters behind a pseudonym
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    By Bob Gould

                                    Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow. I don't
                                    much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters behind a
                                    pseudonym but then half identifies himself as a member of the Sydney
                                    branch executive committee of the Socialist Alliance.

                                    As a matter of broad political policy, I don't lie about political
                                    events and matters of fact, or anything else for that matter. I
                                    sometimes get things wrong, but I don't lie. Nobby Tobby's weird,
                                    unpleasant and convoluted post confirms me in my view that I didn't
                                    get anything wrong about the sequence of events in the Sydney
                                    Socialist Alliance branch.

                                    In his very strange post, Nobby Tobby says a decision had been
                                    made "anonymously" to preference Clover Moore over the Laborites. It
                                    must have been very "anonymous", because my informants told me there
                                    was a meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance at which, in
                                    particular, two members of the ISO spoke strongly in favour of
                                    preferencing Labor over Clover Moore and that the understanding at
                                    the end of that meeting was that preferencing Labor was the position
                                    of the Sydney branch of the Alliance.

                                    My further understanding is that there was then a caucus of the ISO,
                                    at which the ISO leaders persuaded a majority to support preferencing
                                    Clover Moore. After that, one of the ISO people who originally
                                    support preferencing Labor, but not both, changed their position.

                                    Another meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance was then held,
                                    which decided to preference Clover Moore, with the ISO member who
                                    still favoured preferencing Labor, dissenting.

                                    The story gets even more complicated and obscure in this way: at the
                                    relatively successful antiwar rally two weeks ago, several leading
                                    members of the DSP said to me in private conversation that they
                                    opposed the decision to preference Moore.

                                    Even Peter Boyle, in discussion, said he had initially favoured
                                    preferencing Labor but the trajectory of movement now persuaded him
                                    the correct decision was to preference Moore.

                                    Nobby Tobby now says it was all unanimous (or "anonymous") all
                                    through, and he accuses me, in this spirit, of being a "fabricator of
                                    lies".

                                    Brother Nobby Tobby seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work,
                                    throwing around accusations of fabrication and lying far too easily.
                                    If he believes I got it wrong, the obvious way to make his case is to
                                    give a frank and honest account of the sequence of events and the
                                    alternative lines of argument in the Alliance, the DSP and the ISO.

                                    Obviously, Zinovievist organisational arrangements don't allow him to
                                    engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
                                    crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying. If I've
                                    got it so wrong, tell us the actual sequence of events that supports
                                    your argument, Nobby Tobby.
                                  • Ambrose Andrews
                                    ... So how is sheltering behind a pseudonym relevant? If you re not planning to sue your accusor, or engage in a duel at dawn, then it doesn t matter who it
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ozleft wrote:

                                      >By Bob Gould
                                      >
                                      >Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow. I don't
                                      >much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters behind a
                                      >pseudonym but then half identifies himself as a member of the Sydney
                                      >branch executive committee of the Socialist Alliance.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      So how is 'sheltering behind a pseudonym' relevant? If you're not
                                      planning to sue your accusor, or engage in a duel at dawn, then it
                                      doesn't matter who it is, as long as its a consistent identity, which it
                                      is.

                                      You clearly do not enjoy being called a 'fabricator of lies'. Would it
                                      be more correct to say that you are not averse to making something up,
                                      if you don't know the real story?

                                      >Obviously, Zinovievist organisational arrangements don't allow him to
                                      >engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
                                      >crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying. If I've
                                      >got it so wrong, tell us the actual sequence of events that supports
                                      >your argument, Nobby Tobby.
                                      >
                                      >

                                      'If i've got it wrong'.... also known as 'if I've just *made something
                                      up*, for purposes of provocation, then the onus is on you to correct
                                      me,' (but calling me a liar is out of line).

                                      I can make whatever outlandish statements I like on the basis of nothing
                                      but my own deeply held prejudices, and its not a lie, its an 'educated'
                                      guess... And its their fault anyway for not giving me all the details
                                      of their internal discussions (can't imagine why...).

                                      -AA.


                                      --
                                      Ambrose Andrews
                                      LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
                                      http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
                                      +61-415544621
                                      CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
                                    • ozleft
                                      By Ed Lewis ... nothing but my own deeply held prejudices, and its not a lie, its an educated guess... And its their fault anyway for not giving me all the
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        By Ed Lewis

                                        Ambrose Andrews wrote:

                                        >>I can make whatever outlandish statements I like on the basis of
                                        nothing but my own deeply held prejudices, and its not a lie, its
                                        an 'educated' guess... And its their fault anyway for not giving me
                                        all the details of their internal discussions (can't imagine
                                        why...).>>

                                        The problem, for you Ambrose, is that Bob Gould's statements don't
                                        appear to be outlandish at all. In fact, his intelligence sources
                                        seem to be pretty good, including leading members of the DSP.

                                        There's no need for Mr Tobby, Peter Boyle or others to give "all the
                                        details", since they're pretty much out in the open in an
                                        organisation like the Socialist Alliance, despite Zinovievist
                                        attempts to keep it all under wraps.

                                        A question for Mr Tobby: how can a contested decision be "anonymous"
                                        (presumably you mean unanimous)?
                                      • Kim B
                                        Bob, Perhaps it time you got of your high horse and stop obsessing about the DSP and Socialist Alliance. Firstly, Nobby is his actual name - it is diminutive
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          Bob,

                                          Perhaps it time you got of your high horse and stop obsessing about the DSP and Socialist Alliance.

                                          Firstly, Nobby is his actual name - it is diminutive of his actual name and yes it the name everyone knows him by in both the DSP and Socialist Alliance but even if it wasn't so what? (I understand Ed Lewis is a non de plume for Stever Painter - if I am wrong then apologies to Steve and Ed,  but if it so what, who cares really, just as so what if someone wants to use a psuedonym when challenge Bob's version of the world). 

                                          Secondly, English is not Nobby's first language (and like many people who come from a NESB back ground, no matter how good their english is, they still sometimes get words mixed up). I am guessing he meant to say unanimously rather then anonymously.

                                          Thirdly, perhaps you should remember the old adage that "people in glass houses should not throw stones". You seem to delight in casting around names, half truths, unsubstantiated allegations and suppositions (in my previous life as an academic, if any of my students did this in an essay, I would have failed them outright!!!) but should anyone challenge you then suddenly you�re the wounded one. 

                                          If anyone is obsessed about an organisation, Bob it is you. You are obsessed about the DSP (and now by default the Socialist Alliance) and your obsessiveness is leading to you to come up with bizarre conspiracy theories to fit your agenda. According to a previous post, supposedly DSP and ISO leaderships pressured the comrades in the SA central branch into preferencing Clover Moore over Labor.

                                          Now if the ISO had a caucus of their own comrades to decide what position they wanted to take into the meeting, well then that is entirely their right. However, this does not mean that they somehow pressured non-aligned comrades into voting for Clover Moore, all it means is that they simply put their position up for discussion in the branch meeting, where it would have been discussed and then democratically voted on.

                                          I also find it the height of pure arrogance that you feel that some how you can place demands on both the DSP and the SA about our internal discussion and somehow we should all jump to attention and do what you demand.   I have no problem with us discussing you theory about zinovisim and other such stuff but to demand that a SA branch lay out its inner workings regarding a discussion which took place democratically in a branch meeting and which was democratically voted on its beyond the pale.

                                          You demand that a public debate take place about a democratic discussion and vote in a particular branch, but Bob, I am yet to see or hear you make the same demands about your own party, the ALP. I am yet to see you demand that the ALP and its membership have a public debate on their rotten sectarian and opportunist position to preference the Liberals in Leichhardt

                                          Now, perhaps when you jump up and down about numerous betrayals of class by your supposed working class party, the ALP, in the same manner you jump and down about anything the SA or DSP does that does not fit with you little schemas, then perhaps members of the DSP and SA might feel compelled to answer your every demand, but until that happens, why the hell should we?

                                          The long and short of it, however, Bob, is I do not ever recall voting in a DSP meeting or a SA meeting on a motion that says we have to either run everything we do past you or that we are ulitmately answerable to you. Until we do, I feel absolutely under no obligation to answer to you, as I am sure is the case with many of our other members of the DSP or the SA.

                                          Secondly, the reason, why most comrades can not be bothered having a debate with you has nothing to do with supposed authoritarianism, its because they are either to busy and judge that they have better things to do with their time and/or just can�t plain be bothered answering windbaggery every two minutes. 

                                          I could say more, but I have already wasted 20 minutes of my time which I will never get back but Bob, humility is a great thing and perhaps you should actually learn some occassionally and accept that you are not god, you are not always right and that we all do not have to answer to you.

                                          Kim


                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
                                        • kieran latty
                                          To start with, i am a bit pissed off at the nature of this exchange. As Bob often does, he has taken a few anecdotes and extrapolated way too far. And as
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            To start with, i am a bit pissed off at the nature of
                                            this exchange.

                                            As Bob often does, he has taken a few anecdotes and
                                            extrapolated way too far.

                                            And as usual, certain people reply to what I see as
                                            Bob's timeless application of somewhat sound theory (i
                                            obviosly disagree with much, but not all, of what he
                                            say;s) with equally timeless and sectarian
                                            denunciations of labor.

                                            Am I wrong in thinking no one is really engaging with
                                            the theoretical questions at hand ?

                                            First to clear up a few facts.

                                            I was initially against the preferencing of Moore over
                                            Lees.

                                            The reasons for this initial position was based on our
                                            future audience. People who vote Labor or who are in
                                            the party are more likely to end up in the Socialist
                                            Alliance than those in Moore's camp.

                                            This still, in my mind, was a very good reason for
                                            considering the preference in Lees.

                                            On the other hand, it could be argued that the key
                                            campaigns we were involved in had better chance of
                                            getting a reception under a Moore mayoralship.

                                            It could also be argued that the ALP needed to be
                                            punished for its recent shenanigans.

                                            Furthermore, whilst Moore was set to get a better vote
                                            in richer areas, there was a degree of anecdotal
                                            evidence that she would pick up significant votes in
                                            depressed areas on a left wing basis.

                                            For example, while leafleting in redfern a group of
                                            older pensioners in the large public housing estates
                                            all said that they were voting for Moore because she
                                            listened to them and because she would defend public
                                            housing from the developers.

                                            Now, the ALP did do better than Moore in these areas,
                                            but even in south redfern and Waterloo Moore got alot
                                            of votes- near or over 35% of the primary vote (more
                                            than the 25% that Bob thought she would get).

                                            Clearly, the decision was not an easy one to make.
                                            Those who seem to fall too easily on one side seem to
                                            me to be not engaging with the issues.

                                            Anyway, back to the facts.

                                            The first meeting of the Alliance to decide on the
                                            topic voted overwhelmingly to preference Moore.

                                            I argued against this proposal, arguing for an SA,
                                            Greens, then ALP preference run.

                                            The meeting did, however, empower the branch executive
                                            to be able to revisit the question on the grounds of
                                            new evidence- for example, if we found out that Moore
                                            had some anti-union plan up her sleeve.

                                            After the meeting, i discussed the issue with a number
                                            of people, including in the DSP.

                                            At this stage, I was still very hard in favour of the
                                            ALP ocer Moore.

                                            By the time of the next executive meeting, some people
                                            had swung closer to my position.

                                            We discussed the issues, amd decided to get more
                                            evidence about Moore. To this end Susan Price
                                            contacted Moore and the ASU to discuss the issues.

                                            As the issue was now quite a contentious one, and as a
                                            member of the ISO, I raised this issue with other
                                            members of the Newtown branch of the ISO, to try and
                                            get a better feel for the issue. I have also talked to
                                            people in the ALP and even Jack Mundey about the issue
                                            (who is hard in favour of Moore.)

                                            At that meeting of the ISO, there was a strong view in
                                            favour of preferencing Moore over the ALP.

                                            I am a comitted member of the ISO, and respect other
                                            members ideas and views. By the end of that meeting, i
                                            still thought we needed better discussion, and was not
                                            clear either way- however, i was not going to advocate
                                            a position which was contrary to the ISO caucus.

                                            At the next Alliance meeting, we discussed the issue,
                                            where most people advocated preferencing Moore.

                                            This was on the basis of evidence that Moore had
                                            supported unions against Carr's attack on workers
                                            compensation, was against contracting out services and
                                            supported the last teachers pay claim.

                                            One ISO member, who was not at the previouse ISO
                                            meeting, strongly opposed the majority decision.

                                            I abstained, as i felt the ISO needed to have a better
                                            discussion of the issue before we made a formal
                                            decision.

                                            I stand by the Alliance's decision. Some time down the
                                            track we may think it was the wrong thing to do,
                                            maybey not- but we were operating on a limited time
                                            frame and had to make a decision.

                                            I do think we need to discuss this issue further, but
                                            to be honest, the current debate has been
                                            characterised by too much misinformation, too many
                                            attempts to create scandals and too much defenciveness
                                            and fire.

                                            So Bob, argue your case, but give up on trying to look
                                            for "Zinoviest conspiracies"

                                            And everyone else, give up the timeless "denounce the
                                            ALP" and engage with the issues.

                                            Lastly, to put my case on class- I think it is still
                                            right to see the ALP as a capitalist workers party-

                                            By this, I mean that it attempts to make workers lives
                                            a little better under capitalism, and to this end
                                            supports capitalism.

                                            But it is also a party of the class, in that most
                                            workers still vote ALP.

                                            If we want to build a party of socialist workers, the
                                            socialists (i.e. us) need to be in some way with those
                                            workers in order to relate to them.

                                            Not tailing them, but also not a million miles away
                                            from them either.

                                            So when the workers cheer Latham's victory, we cheer
                                            to, but we also need to criticise the ALP and point to
                                            a better alternative.

                                            Now, with this theory, we should be looking at how
                                            workers, particularily the most advanced sections,
                                            view Moore's victory.

                                            If they think it is a step backwards, then maybe we
                                            did do the wrong thing.

                                            The proof will really be in the pudding though.

                                            After a full term of Moore's mayoralship, lets see
                                            what she has done and how those same workers view her.

                                            Comradely, Kieran Latty.






































































                                            ___________________________________________________________
                                            WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
                                          • kieran latty
                                            Have a read of this on how to relate to the mainstream left. Comment Don t duck the politics Alex Callinicos draws lessons from the far left s performance in
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Have a read of this on how to relate to the mainstream
                                              left.

                                              Comment

                                              Don't duck the politics

                                              Alex Callinicos draws lessons from the far left's
                                              performance in France's regional elections

                                              THE HEADLINE news in France's regional elections was
                                              that there was a big swing away from the ruling right
                                              to the parties of the "plural left"-the Socialists,
                                              Communists, and Greens. But, for the revolutionary
                                              left, the story was a different one.

                                              The coalition of Lutte Ouvriere (LO) and the Ligue
                                              Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR) won 4.95 percent of
                                              the vote in the first round of the elections the
                                              weekend before last. This was too low a vote for the
                                              slate to go into the second round last Sunday. It's
                                              important to get this in proportion. As a share of the
                                              national vote, 5 percent isn't bad for open
                                              revolutionaries.

                                              But two years ago, in the first round of the last
                                              presidential elections, the far left candidates won 10
                                              percent. Arlette Laguiller of LO and Olivier
                                              Besancenot of the LCR each won a higher share of the
                                              vote than the candidate of the Communist Party (PCF).

                                              This was a historic result given how the PCF has
                                              dominated the organised working class in France since
                                              the 1930s. This time, however, the PCF won 7.6 percent
                                              of the vote. Yet France last May and June was swept by
                                              a massive strike wave against the government's attack
                                              on pensions. LCR and LO militants played a leading
                                              role in the strikes.

                                              The reformist left seems to be benefiting from popular
                                              bitterness against the right. Of course, parliamentary
                                              elections aren't revolutionaries' natural terrain.
                                              Activists can lead mass movements but find themselves
                                              cut down to size on polling day.

                                              Moreover, in April 2002 the official left were in
                                              government, implementing neo-liberal policies. The far
                                              left-and the Nazi National Front-were able to give a
                                              voice to the resulting disillusionment. But, once out
                                              of office, the Socialist Party and the PCF have been
                                              able to rebuild a degree of credibility. There is an
                                              important lesson here.

                                              LO and, to a lesser extent, the LCR tend to portray
                                              the official left as no different from the right. They
                                              did not call on their voters to switch to the
                                              Socialists and Communists in the second round of the
                                              elections. This stance reflects a failure to recognise
                                              the enduring hold of reformism on the workers'
                                              movement.

                                              Even a party as corrupt and discredited as the French
                                              Socialists can, by tacking left rhetorically, act as a
                                              vehicle for working class discontent. By putting the
                                              parties of the plural left in the same bag as the
                                              ruling right, LO and the LCR may have isolated
                                              themselves from voters traditionally loyal to the
                                              Communists or Socialists. Moreover, the far left
                                              campaign focused almost exclusively on economic issues
                                              and more particularly the high level of unemployment.
                                              Of course, unemployment is hugely important, but
                                              revolutionary candidates have to address political
                                              questions as well.

                                              Opposition to corporate globalisation, imperialism,
                                              and war brought huge numbers of young people to the
                                              anti-capitalist festival at Larzac last August and the
                                              European Social Forum in Paris in November. There are
                                              also less positive issues.

                                              President Jacques Chirac and his prime minister,
                                              Jean-Pierre Raffarin, drove through, with the support
                                              of the plural left, the notorious law banning Muslim
                                              young women from wearing headscarves in state schools.
                                              Seethes Scandalously, LO has supported expelling
                                              Muslim school students for wearing headscarves. The
                                              LCR is split.

                                              Chirac has used the issue to divide the far left and
                                              push them onto the defensive. As a result, they have
                                              cut themselves off from the largest Muslim population
                                              in Europe, which seethes with anger over official
                                              racism and the "war on terrorism".

                                              I don't make these criticisms with any enthusiasm, for
                                              two reasons. First, some of them are also being made
                                              by a right wing minority within the LCR. They oppose
                                              building a revolutionary alternative to the official
                                              left. Instead of a slate with LO, this minority wanted
                                              to cosy up with fragments of the reformist parties.

                                              Even before the first round had taken place, they
                                              started a media campaign calling on the LCR to support
                                              the plural left in the second round. There is a real
                                              danger that the Ligue will now implode into
                                              faction-fighting. Secondly, I can't avoid a feeling of
                                              "There but for the grace of god go us." In June
                                              Respect will face its own great test in the European
                                              and Greater London elections.

                                              But to succeed we need to learn from others'
                                              successes-and failures. The main morals I draw from
                                              the French regional elections are not to underestimate
                                              reformism and not to duck the great political
                                              questions of the day.

                                              * Alex Callinicos is the author of The New Mandarins
                                              of American Power (£13.99) and The Revolutionary Ideas
                                              of Karl Marx





































                                              ___________________________________________________________
                                              WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the
                                              Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
                                              www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes


                                              Visit http://www.greenleft.org.au


                                              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                                              To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/

                                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              GreenLeft_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                              Terms of Service.






                                              ___________________________________________________________
                                              WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards www.yahoo.co.uk/internetcafes
                                            • ozleft
                                              By Ed Lewis Kim Bullimore may be correct -- or not -- about my name. She is correct that Ed Lewis is a pseudonym. I use a pseudonym because I have a job in the
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                By Ed Lewis

                                                Kim Bullimore may be correct -- or not -- about my name. She is
                                                correct that Ed Lewis is a pseudonym.

                                                I use a pseudonym because I have a job in the private sector. I'd
                                                prefer that my real name not be picked up by my employer, or possible
                                                future employers, in a Google search. This may not be such a problem
                                                for people working in universities or the public service, but I don't
                                                work there.

                                                Who I am is no mystery to many members of this list, nor is it
                                                intended to be.

                                                This is not the first time I've been outed on this list. As far as I
                                                can remember, no members of the DSP have been treated in this way.
                                                Could that be because non-DSP participants in this list are a bit
                                                more principled, sensible and respectful about their methods of
                                                argument?

                                                I'd appreciate it if you and others would respect my right to use a
                                                pseudonym, Kim.
                                              • Gould's Book Arcade
                                                Thanks Kieran, for clearing the air a bit, by attempting to give a more or less comprehensive account of the sequence of events in the Sydney Branch of the
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Thanks Kieran, for clearing the air a bit, by attempting to give a more or
                                                  less comprehensive account of the sequence of events in the Sydney Branch of
                                                  the Socialist Alliance. I accept your account of events, and will correct
                                                  any future comment I make on this issue accordingly, using your account of
                                                  the events as the definitive one in the absence of anyone else's account of
                                                  the events being as complete and comprehensive as your own. Quite obviously
                                                  Nobby's account is completely incorrect, by way of omission.

                                                  I'd still make the following couple of points. Jack Mundey is a courageous
                                                  fighter on pretty well all class questions and also on many environmental
                                                  matters. His opinions, however, on such matters as preferencing Moore,
                                                  however, shouldn't be taken as the last word. Over a very long period of
                                                  time, Jack has had a very soft spot for Clover Moore, based on common
                                                  environmental interests, and he doesn't give as much weight as I would, to
                                                  the very concrete fact that she kept the Greiner Government in power for a
                                                  number of years with her vote. On the question of outsourcing, Moore has
                                                  refused to make any direct statement against outsourcing. You say that
                                                  someone consulted the ASU, but you didn't tell us what response they got
                                                  from the ASU (MEU). All officials I have spoken to from the ASU (MEU) were
                                                  strongly in favor of preferencing Lee over Moore, because of Moore's refusal
                                                  to be explicit about the outsourcing issue.

                                                  When I spoke to DSP members and leaders at the antiwar demonstration two
                                                  weeks ago, they were very anxious to point the bone at the ISO as the source
                                                  of preferencing Clover Moore, and several significant DSPers said to me and
                                                  others privately that they were opposed to preferencing Moore over Lee,
                                                  which is why I raise the question of what I call Zinovievism. There is
                                                  obviously, from your account of events, argument in both the DSP and the ISO
                                                  on the question. But both groups are obviously bound, in reality, in the
                                                  Socialist Alliance by the decision made by the leadership of the groups.
                                                  This gives the decision to preference Clover Moore unstoppable weight inside
                                                  the Socialist Alliance once the leadership of each group has pronounced in
                                                  favor. This situation seems to me an almost classic example of Zinovievist
                                                  arrangements in small socialist groups.


                                                  Gould's Book Arcade
                                                  32 King St, Newtown, NSW
                                                  Ph: 9519-8947
                                                  Fax: 9550-5924
                                                  Email: bob@...
                                                  Web: www.gouldsbooks.com.au
                                                • Ambrose Andrews
                                                  ... Thats quite reasonable. Under most circumstances, I am not in favour of outing list members. (including current circumstances). It is an issue of
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 4, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ozleft [Ed Lewis] wrote:

                                                    >I use a pseudonym because I have a job in the private sector. I'd
                                                    >prefer that my real name not be picked up by my employer, or possible
                                                    >future employers, in a Google search. This may not be such a problem
                                                    >for people working in universities or the public service, but I don't
                                                    >work there.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    Thats quite reasonable. Under most circumstances, I am not in favour of
                                                    'outing' list members. (including current circumstances). It is an
                                                    issue of democratic rights, as Ed has pointed out. It's also an issue
                                                    of a mode of discussion. If someone on the list exhibits lunacy in their
                                                    arguments, then that will become obvious to list members over a period
                                                    of time, whether or not the person in question has a prior history of
                                                    lunacy in another context.

                                                    It also tends to distract from the actual debate. Bob (why am i always
                                                    going on about Bob?) can hardly resist putting a little potted bio, or
                                                    speculative comment about a list contributor before addressing their
                                                    comments, such as his odd characterisation of Carl Kenner as a 'DSP
                                                    supporter' on an occasion when it suited him. I mean it's not a big
                                                    deal, and its a matter of style, but it can be used to muddy the waters.

                                                    >This is not the first time I've been outed on this list. As far as I
                                                    >can remember, no members of the DSP have been treated in this way.
                                                    >Could that be because non-DSP participants in this list are a bit
                                                    >more principled, sensible and respectful about their methods of
                                                    >argument?
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    I think this is a strange argument.

                                                    Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as being Peter
                                                    Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn't technically
                                                    'outing' because it wasn't correct... it wasn't true. It was one of
                                                    Bob's ahhh... educated stabs in the dark.

                                                    In my view this 'principled, sensible and respectful' behaviour from a
                                                    non-DSP member doesn't accord with your musings.

                                                    Blanket characterisations of DSP members and non-DSP members as the two
                                                    fundamental categories of matter are unlikely to hold up against reality.

                                                    But yes, I agree with Ed apart from this little twist at the end.

                                                    -AA.

                                                    --
                                                    Ambrose Andrews
                                                    LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
                                                    http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
                                                    +61-415544621
                                                    CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
                                                  • ozleft
                                                    By Bob Gould ... Peter Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn t technically outing because it wasn t correct... it wasn t true. It was one of
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      By Bob Gould

                                                      Ambrose Andrews wrote:

                                                      >>Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as being
                                                      Peter Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn't
                                                      technically 'outing' because it wasn't correct... it wasn't true. It
                                                      was one of Bob's ahhh... educated stabs in the dark.>>

                                                      Ambrose Andrews alleges that I outed Chris Kerr on this list. As
                                                      comrade Ambrose ought to know, that's just not true. I've never outed
                                                      anyone on any list.

                                                      I did ask some pointed questions about whether Dennis Berrell and
                                                      Michael Berrell were the same person, but I gathered that one of
                                                      those identities was the man's real name. Dennis Michael Berrell
                                                      clarified that to my satisfaction. It's hardly outing anyone to try
                                                      to keep track of their real name or dual personalities.

                                                      I didn't out Chris Kerr either. I genuinely thought, on the basis of
                                                      stylistic similarities in the rather lame satire used by Kerrvert and
                                                      Peter Boyle that Kerrvert was a pseudonym for Peter Boyle.

                                                      As a result of this confusion on my part, one of Chris Kerr's fellow
                                                      DSP members outed him, and I can hardly be blamed for that.

                                                      I've never outed anyone, I've just commented wryly a few times on the
                                                      barbed way people hiding behind pseudonyms have put the boot into me,
                                                      which is a reasonable response.

                                                      I hope Ambrose Andrews will withdraw the claim that I outed Chris
                                                      Kerr.
                                                    • nobbytob
                                                      ... my apologies, bob, i didn t know that you have that bad sources of information, resp. that lack of ability to put your pieces together. so liar was a
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "ozleft" <ozleft@y...>
                                                        wrote:

                                                        > Nobby Tobby accuses me of being a "fabricator of lies". Wow.
                                                        > I don't much like being accused of lying by someone who shelters
                                                        > behind a pseudonym but then half identifies himself as a member
                                                        > of the Sydney branch executive committee of the Socialist Alliance.

                                                        my apologies, bob, i didn't know that you have that bad sources
                                                        of information, resp. that lack of ability to put your pieces
                                                        together. so "liar" was a tiny little bit too much accusation.
                                                        as for the allged "pseudonym" - no it isn't, but for reasons
                                                        similar though different to ed lewis' i prefer to be just Nobby.


                                                        > Nobby Tobby's weird, unpleasant and convoluted post confirms
                                                        > me in my view that I didn't get anything wrong about the
                                                        > sequence of events in the Sydney Socialist Alliance branch.

                                                        and in a later post you wrote

                                                        > Quite obviously Nobby's account is completely incorrect,
                                                        > by way of omission.

                                                        sigh... well, now that kieran "outed" himself - that's why it
                                                        was only ALMOST unanimous (and not anymous - although i made
                                                        jokes about others making this error, these two words are
                                                        phetically much too similar to not type in the wrong one, and
                                                        typing is something that you do without much concentration...).
                                                        (why do others conclude straight away, that i meant unanimous,
                                                        but not you, bob? i though you have an army of "informants" on
                                                        the ground ;-)
                                                        [note: they are just informants for you, not comrades?]


                                                        > there was a meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance at
                                                        > which, in particular, two members of the ISO spoke strongly
                                                        > in favour of preferencing Labor over Clover Moore

                                                        no. just one.


                                                        > and that the understanding at the end of that meeting was that
                                                        > preferencing Labor was the position of the Sydney branch of the
                                                        > Alliance.

                                                        so does your ALP branch discussions end with "understandings"?
                                                        we take votes - or at least straw polls. but then, democracy is
                                                        not one of your strengths...

                                                        AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ON THIS ONE. i told you so, a vote was
                                                        taken, and it was almost unanimously against the ALP machine,
                                                        reflecting the discussion.


                                                        > My further understanding is that there was then a caucus of the
                                                        > ISO, at which the ISO leaders persuaded a majority to support
                                                        > preferencing Clover Moore.

                                                        so what does an ISO meeting have to do with the SA branch?
                                                        is this ISO meeting, of which you seem to have quite much
                                                        information about, your only proof of leadership pressure
                                                        to change <whose?> opinions in favour of clover moore, which
                                                        is where the opinions have been anyway?


                                                        > Another meeting of the Sydney branch of the Alliance was then held,
                                                        > which decided to preference Clover Moore, with the ISO member who
                                                        > still favoured preferencing Labor, dissenting.

                                                        not "still" - it was (from the accounts of this list) obviously
                                                        her first meeting and discussion on this question. you are wrong
                                                        in almost every sentence of your account, bob, i hope you realise
                                                        that. did you say earlier on "completely incorrect" to my account?
                                                        well, i tell you: i was dead right, as i do check my facts before
                                                        posting them, and also, i was right in the heart of that decision-
                                                        making process, unlike you!


                                                        > Nobby Tobby now says it was all unanimous (or "anonymous") all
                                                        > through, and he accuses me, in this spirit, of being a "fabricator
                                                        > of lies".

                                                        well, despite my apologies above, i have to flip back: you ARE
                                                        quite obviously a B.liar: "unanimous (or "anonymous") all through"?
                                                        well, (1) so you did realise that i meant unanimous - now, i even
                                                        call you dishonest! and (2) i clearly said ALMOST unanimous, so
                                                        how comes you conclude "all through"? BOB, this is the way your
                                                        argumentations work: always deviate a little bit from the truth
                                                        to serve you own political interest and die-hard positions - and
                                                        that for decades...


                                                        > Brother Nobby Tobby seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work,

                                                        thanks for that - doesn't bother me, if it comes from you.
                                                        i'm not your brother, i am a rank & file socialist, and you are
                                                        just a piece in the ALP machine, self-assigend to keep the left
                                                        flank (the real socialists) busy with your rantings...
                                                        not with me bob, my aim with this is, to once (and for all, when
                                                        it comes to me) reveal your methods, and i WILL leave you alone
                                                        with that. there's work to be done out there, in the real world.
                                                        as others have mentioned before: people prefer to not waste their
                                                        time with your crude pieces of mail.


                                                        > throwing around accusations of fabrication and lying far too
                                                        > easily.

                                                        alright, this time i spent more time - read: made it harder for
                                                        me - before reconfirming my analysis.


                                                        > If he believes I got it wrong, the obvious way to make his case is
                                                        to
                                                        > give a frank and honest account of the sequence of events and the
                                                        > alternative lines of argument in the Alliance, the DSP and the ISO.

                                                        can't be bothered. (1) you got the accounts, and (2) i am not
                                                        answerable to someone who is hostile to hard-working socialists.
                                                        ha! are you seriously demanding all the lines of argument in all
                                                        those 3 organisations? i am not even a member of ALL of them...
                                                        well, you will even get another one, and you can read it even
                                                        online later on - let's see if you know, where you can find the
                                                        appropriate source. a hint: it's part of SA's open democracy.


                                                        > Obviously, Zinovievist organisational arrangements don't allow him
                                                        > to engage in a frank discussion of the events, so he falls back on
                                                        > crude, offensive and inaccurate accusations that I'm lying.

                                                        dead wrong again here, though not with the latter 3 words.


                                                        > But both groups are obviously bound, in reality, in the Socialist
                                                        > Alliance by the decision made by the leadership of the groups.

                                                        ??? WE are the Sydney Central branch of SA, and WE are the ones,
                                                        who analyse and discuss our local politics. this again is a classic
                                                        example of - you guessed it - DEMOCRACY!
                                                        and hard to comprehend for you, i know...

                                                        Nobby.
                                                      • Ambrose Andrews
                                                        ... Very good. I absolve you. ... Indeed. This genuine belief turned out to have been a mistaken genuine belief. ... I don t think saying Chris Kerr is a
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          ozleft wrote:

                                                          > By Bob Gould
                                                          >
                                                          > Ambrose Andrews wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >>> Bob Gould in his inimitable fashion, 'outed' Chris Kerr as being
                                                          >>
                                                          > Peter Boyle. The twist in that instance is that it wasn't technically
                                                          > 'outing' because it wasn't correct... it wasn't true. It was one of
                                                          > Bob's ahhh... educated stabs in the dark.>>
                                                          >
                                                          > Ambrose Andrews alleges that I outed Chris Kerr on this list. As
                                                          > comrade Ambrose ought to know, that's just not true. I've never outed
                                                          > anyone on any list.
                                                          >
                                                          > I did ask some pointed questions about whether Dennis Berrell and
                                                          > Michael Berrell were the same person, but I gathered that one of those
                                                          > identities was the man's real name. Dennis Michael Berrell clarified
                                                          > that to my satisfaction. It's hardly outing anyone to try to keep
                                                          > track of their real name or dual personalities.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          Very good. I absolve you.

                                                          > I didn't out Chris Kerr either. I genuinely thought, on the basis of
                                                          > stylistic similarities in the rather lame satire used by Kerrvert and
                                                          > Peter Boyle that Kerrvert was a pseudonym for Peter Boyle.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          Indeed. This genuine belief turned out to have been a mistaken genuine
                                                          belief.

                                                          > As a result of this confusion on my part, one of Chris Kerr's fellow
                                                          > DSP members outed him, and I can hardly be blamed for that.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          I don't think saying 'Chris Kerr is a real person' qualifies as outing.
                                                          Possibly inning.

                                                          > I've never outed anyone, I've just commented wryly a few times on the
                                                          > barbed way people hiding behind pseudonyms have put the boot into me,
                                                          > which is a reasonable response.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          Nobby is not a pseudonym.

                                                          > I hope Ambrose Andrews will withdraw the claim that I outed Chris Kerr.
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          I hereby assert that you failed to 'out' Chris Kerr solely by virtue of
                                                          the fact that your genuine belief that he was a pseudonym for Peter
                                                          Boyle turned out to be a mistaken belief. Had your belief been
                                                          well-founded and correct, you would logically have outed him.

                                                          Owing to the fact that he was immune / un-outable / 'in', I can happily
                                                          assert that you are not guilty of outing Chris Kerr.

                                                          Release the prisoner!

                                                          -AA.


                                                          --
                                                          Ambrose Andrews
                                                          LPO Box 8274 ANU Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
                                                          http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
                                                          +61-415544621
                                                          CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54 E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
                                                        • kieran latty
                                                          The claim of Zinovievism is unfounded, particularily in this case. There is no formal ISO position on the Moore issue. Whilst we did discuss the issue, of
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                                                          • 0 Attachment

                                                            The claim of Zinovievism is unfounded, particularily in this case.

                                                            There is no formal ISO position on the Moore issue.

                                                            Whilst we did discuss the issue, of those ISO members present, 2 voted for Moore,  I Abstained.

                                                            Individual members were free, and did, express their views on this issue at the meeting of the Alliance.

                                                            They are also free to discuss these issues openly, as I have.

                                                            However, I do agree with the concept of democratic centralism- if we did have a full discussion and came to a formal decision I would expect other members of the ISO to abide by that decision.

                                                            They should still, of course, be allowed to raise disagreements with the aim of changing that position.

                                                            Now, i think there are exceptions to this rule.

                                                            If the ISO took a completely mad decision, I would have to consider arguing and voting against it openly.

                                                            I do not in any way think the Moore decision falls into that catagorie.

                                                             

                                                             


                                                            WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Yahoo! Mail Internet Cafe Awards
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.