Alan writes: "Aside from Nick Origlass and co, wasn't Ian Jamieson on a council in Tasmania for a while? When he was in the DSP?"
Well, I should rephrase that to formally standing as a socialist "party" candidate as I had forgotten these others because of my narrow mindset. Rather than get into a tag team match splitting hairs over this and that will that rephrasing satisfy you? Now you could argue that Jamo was a party candidate because he was indeed a member of the DSP -- but the DSP had no structures in NW Tasmania since the late eighties(?) and his election was not run as a party election campaign. It's like, say, you winning a ward in Toowoomba as a local person not as a socialist party member. This isn't about promoting Bernie Sanders type campaigns -- in the way that Origlass elections in Leichardt were.. And as it followed, that the electoral success In North West Tasmania did not lead to re-establishing a party branch of the DSP. Whereas in the case of the SA win in Fremantle, where the SA has a branch: (1) The success is for a party that is denounced for being in idle mode and with supposedly no electoral prospects worth getting excited about. For example, as the GLW report says,"Of the six new councillors elected there is one ALP member, two Greens, two independents and one Socialist Alliance. However under WA electoral law local government candidates can not formally run for political parties and Wainwright was the only candidate to declare his political affiliations in his campaign material. " (2) The success is for a party in an area which has strong progressive traditions -- like Origlass' Leichhardt. (3) The success is for a party to the left of the Labor Party (like Stephen Jolly's 2004 result) which has won despite the electoral weight normally carried by the Greens.. This shows in the fact that, as I understand it, the Greens weren't running against Sam directly. However, in an instance of the Melbourne results we began to out poll the Greens . Another feature of the SA's work generally in Perth is the attempt to broaden its campaigns out by developing a strong partnership approach with the left of the Greens and with the considered support of a couple of far left groups who aren't in the SA. But if you relate this win to the Melbourne results then we can say that in some areas of local government , at least-- where people are more experimental in their voting patterns --, there is a trend to the socialist left's advantage so long as it is tied to local grass roots presence. (As is the case with Sam Wainwright). This is the problem that the Socialist Party faces with Jolly , I think: that you have to tick a number of 'local presence' boxes across the urban neighbourhoods before you will be elected to represent them. After that, as in the case of the Greens in some capitals, brand identification kicks in. In the case of Jolly in 2004 -- you also gotta be blessed with a good preference flow -- not just your primary vote. And I guess any party has to have a lucky break -- in the Greens case, NDP break through aside, the more liberal Hare Clark system of voting in Tasmania was their electoral break through just as no upper parliament house in Queensland is still their burden But with the 7th Socialist Alliance national conference coming up in January next which coincides with, what is surely to be, the merging of the DSP into the Alliance, then a I think this win is a great opener to the lead up. We also ran a very good campaign in Freo from which we can learn because we are getting better at doing this. dave riley ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
