It promises, as always, to be an interesting AGM. Not sure I fully follow the argument going on however about two motions that were submitted by a sub group that the progressive left in Lambeth call a stamp collecting collective? I think that's what they are saying?
Anyway I commented last week about the two motions submitted by an individual on the BC and I warned that the reaction to the content from our glorious leader, Jon of the Rogers, was disproportional. I still fail to see why anyone cares as to whether a motion that is seen by some as incompetent should concern them? It has never stopped anyone before why worry about it now? A rule change motion needs a two thirds majority but as we saw with a number of motions that were passed at the 2010 AGM which attracted the required two thirds these were ignored and never acted on? So why is the glorious leader of men and women in the branch making an issue of the new one? And why are those on the progressive left bothered?
The on line argument which is continuing between those on the progressive left and the other sub group should stop and the decision left to the members who after realising how confusing it all is will vote for or against. The decision is with them. The two motions, one calls for restricting the number of years an officer can stay in office and the other talks about dividing facility time is only there to attract attention. Both are impractical and will never be implemented so why make such a big deal about it??
In conclusion and as a Lambeth Activists I think those involved with the debate should calm down and leave the decision to the members who will vote on this later on.
Nick Venedi
Lambeth Unison Activist
nick venedi
No comments:
Post a Comment