Organisation update
- This topic has 243 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Mea Culpa on which branch uses HO…changes nothing though, does it, except reveals that my memory sometimes fails me.Thanks for that additional information, Gnome. I forgot about the evening set aside to sticking labels and stamps to the Standard subscription, I should have mentioned the clerical aspects of HO being an office. The treasurer sits at the desk with receipts and accounts, the general secretary (when we have one) sits at a desk and replies to the mail. But this does not negate the proposition that other methods of administration and operation of a political party does not necessarily require a premise, or a building the size of No.52 to perform all those functions. Certainly at the level of a few hundred SPGB members. In the future, we will be presented with the stark choice, to trim our costs and dispense with luxuries. I think HO will always be at the top of the table, each time we face bills for its upkeep. And I have already made it plain, much against the popular will, i grant you, that i consider the print copy of the Standard superfluous…which removes yet another need of HO.
This is the present workload done at HO:Responding to requests for literature, publications and photocopying (HOO); Ballot Committee (vacant); archives; Premises Committee(vacant); Central Branch admin (vacant); membership admin; procurement of office equipment and stationery drop off (HOO); petty cash (HOO, Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer); general mail-outs [EC minutes, Conference and ADM documentation] and responding to enquiries (HOO); correspondence (HOO, Treasurer and GS); literature distribution and drop-off (HOO); phone messages (HOO); library; public meetings (Campaigns); SS drop-off, distribution and adjustments to the SS mailing list; S. London Branch meeting; EC meetings, Conference and ADM venue; responding to advertising and contacts; contacts list; TV display on frontage.
My Doctor's surgery has thousands of records, information, repeat prescriptions etc etc.. ALL accessible to patients on their phones, tablets and laptops. Patients make their own appointments and prescription requests and can view their medical records on line. At one time all this was on paper, doctors physically wrote down your 'visit' on a single hard copy that existed in a filing cabinet, but now they type it directly to digital and they produce potentially a million copies.Things have moved on with 'reorganisation' and Information Technology
Not so different from my own appraisal, Brian, and i won't nit-pick over your list.Now eliminate those functions that can be carried out equally as well by alternative methods that does not require a substantial premises on a high-cost thoroughfare. I shall repeat my earlier position, i support us possessing HO when and only when it is used to its full potential and contributes to its own upkeep.I was a bit sceptical about Cde Allen's suggestion of re-locating our activities to other floors and renting out the more commercial parts of the building but i am increasingly attracted to the idea, particularly since one major criticism that it meant the Party adopting a role of land-lord has been off-set by its decision to become investors – the matter of principle has been breached.Vin., i'm not so sure of where or when i learned of it, but our possession of members records on paper has to do with privacy laws and computers. I'm sure someone else can clarify.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Not so different from my own appraisal, Brian, and i won't nit-pick over your list.Now eliminate those functions that can be carried out equally as well by alternative methods that does not require a substantial premises on a high-cost thoroughfare.There are none which can be eliminated for they are all necessary to the effective administration of the party.
I said i will not nit-pick but i have to disagree, Brian, with your last post simply because you neglected to note my caveat – "Now eliminate those functions that can be carried out equally as well by alternative methods that does not require a substantial premises on a high-cost thoroughfare."I can equally assert, accepting your logic, that no party branch can function without its own premises – and you know that isn't true. Glasgow is AFAIK the only branch that did have its own premises. Perhaps there were others. You mix desirability up with necessity.Premises are not essential for a political party such as ourselves. We can re-organise without the need for a HO. We existed for a long time before we owned premises. And has the expected benefits of acquiring one matched the reality?
Quote:And I have already made it plain, much against the popular will, i grant you, that i consider the print copy of the Standard superfluous…which removes yet another need of HO.I would be one of those who respectfully,disagrees with that. We should spend considerably more in promoting the hard copy of The Standard with thumbnail image and text. There should be no interruption to the production of the Standard. Bombs did not stop it, nor should we.(This promotion, is a costly long term project and we could have an appeal fund for it , although we need to heed the rule regarding ring fencing funds.)All of the other points made by Brian G. and others are worthy of consideraton. (Let us shy away from hard line polemics here.)Although I have never been to H.O. in my life and have hassle getting into the city next door to me, I do think having a visible presence in an H.O. in the country's capital city, as opposed to a P.O. box number is of critical importance too. I would like to see something like a live video stream from H.O. via webcam and being able to message via the equivalent of 'S.P.G.B. Hangouts' so I could see who I was speaking to, even if I had to resort to using text when I could not hear them properly.That does not rule out consideration of more web savvy 'hands on' admin and member input via peer to peer video messaging. But this is not a magic bullet either, as morale and motivation generally, has to be addressed and it can not be done by hectoring, as opposed to encouragement. This is a puzzle and a part of it has to be for members to consider 'why' they do not participate, or delay in accessing information. I hope some answers to this puzzle can be deduced, in part at least, from the questionaire sent out, but even this is can only be a small part of an ongoing enquiry.
Just to counter the iea that i am some sort of pessimist and do not see a future for the Party i recall reading in Thompson's history of the IWW that by the late 1950s its membership had dropped to under a hundred. It revived somewhat, although not to the numbers or resources of the early 20th C.Of course, for a union which is less restrictive in its membership admittance, recovery is easier. It also benefited from a rise in political activity of the 1960s which brought younger blood from the student groups into the IWW.Who is our audience? Do we use a scatter-gun type of campaign aimed at netting everybody or should we be more target-specific and selective in our campaigns. We have the experience of election leaflets which is the example of the first target…tens of thousands of leaflets to the general public.Those involved can say how effective that was.An example of the second is choosing journals we believe have a readership that may include some who are sympathetic to our ideas for leafleting. It appears to be much more successful…250 follow-ups according to Gnomes latest figures.So does it follow we become even more focused on our "ideal" congregation to appeal to? If so, what is it? When the mail-out ends, we should know exactly which magazines is the most responsive and concentrate on repeat leaflet inserts. I am sure that is the strategy which is being pursued.Tim in a past post did voice hope that we would increase physical public meetings. I joined in the 1970s due to 7 Days for Socialism, a series of public meetings so there was ample opportunity to cover much of the Party case and not just bits of it. In my absence, there was University Challenge which from all accounts was also a successful venture.Can we mount similar and use press advertising to promote them? I'm not so confident. We now have a limited number of proficient public speakers and they cannot cover the whole UK, especially in regions without an existing strong Party presenceI note that branches can bill HO for adverts in local press, but i don't think coordinated and systematic press publicity is being done by any branch.We can turn around the decline but it does mean deciding how it can be done and that is where our attention should be centred
Quote:we could have an appeal fund for itOr simply spend the money we already have and presently keep in special investment accounts, Matt.Certainly, the 3-issue special promotion is something that could be built upon and i think it is with the mail-out inserts in various popular journals. ( I even once took advantage of it during my absence to check on the progress of the Party)As you know our own branch was instrumental in suggesting bigger print-runs for May which were low-cost so that it could request larger of orders for the Standard so that it could be distributed free at May-day rallies. Although it definitely drew attention to our presence at those, i don't believe it increased the circulation of the Standard and had little success in recruitment.But i am at a loss to come up with any scheme that could counter its declining sales and outlets.The excellent design and lay-out and quality paper certainly escape blame. It has consistently been a quality magazine.Is it the subject matter of the Standard's content? Compared with other monthly journals i think it compares quite fairly in the range and depth of the articles.There was suggestions, and i recall it might have been from BrianG but i could be wrong that we have a discussion section and i am sure PaddyS also wanted a debating segment for views and opinions that were not part and parcel of the Socialist Party's case. Space and the limitations rather than a principle objection to the idea of offering a platform to non-members i think put that indefinitely on the back-burner. I think i have also raise the idea of guests getting more exposure, arising from the popularity of Paul Mattick interview and Andrew Kliman meeting and Michael Alberts comments we published.My criticism (and i say this as a regular contributor) is that often articles may not always be up-to-date since the cut-off is halfway through the previous month and by the new month events have moved on or changed or new events over-shadowed earlier ones. It is a problem to respond to "current affairs". The editors do their best to tweak articles so that the time-lag is not too evident.Of course, the Party's founders imagined the monthly journal would become a weekly and then a daily…but alas…However, in these days of alternatives to print….well, you all know where i am going with that… You would being doing this topic a favour by directing exchanges towards practical ways of promoting the Standard. Just how do we promote the Party, especially when we lack the means to street-sell as we once did, and have no desire to conscript and compel members to do so like the SWP because we are voluntarist organisation.
Oh, i should add, i think it was Stair, an experienced bookseller, a few years ago, investigated and then tried using the book/magazine distribution service to widen our outlets. We added a bar-code to the Standard for the convenience of the retailers. But it came to nought. The usual conventional newsagents may like Private Eye, but they didn't like us. The Morning Star even has better success but they do have the NUJ behind them and credentials as a genuine newspaper, even if we do dispute that claim.
Quote:Or simply spend the money we already have and presently keep in special investment accounts, Matt.Well no. Some of it certainly, but once it is gone it is gone. I did say "sustained and long term"
Quote:You would being doing this topic a favour by directing exchanges towardspractical ways of promoting the Standard. Just how do we promote the Party,especially when we lack the means to street-sell as we once did, and have nodesire to conscript and compel members to do so like the SWP because we arevoluntarist organisation.Double, treble quadruple present promotions and advertising to see if there is a corresponding resulting takeup of subs.The content has SSPC which is approachable. This is kind of off topic.
Quote:i should add, i think it was Stair, an experienced bookseller, a fewyears ago, investigated and then tried using the book/magazine distributionservice to widen our outlets. We added a bar-code to the Standard for theconvenience of the retailers. But it came to nought. The usual conventionalnewsagents may like Private Eye, but they didn't like us. The Morning Stareven has better success but they do have the NUJ behind them and credentialsas a genuine newspaper, even if we do dispute that claim.This is why we need to create a growing demand via advertising. Not just for commercial reasons but for recruitment purposes. Commercial resistance would be worn down eventually by the attraction of verifiable profit as increased and active membership ordered from their local John Smith or whoever their newspaper outlet was.I see no quick fix, magic bullet. you mentioned University Challenge. One of my favourite examples. Yet this eventually fizzled out.I did say "sustained and long term".
Keep it up Matt, if only to show that not everyone from north of the border is a private in the Scottish Borderers
Another aspect of the re-organisation of the Party and one where some members who may well believe that the continuance of the Standard is the priority would be the option of structuring ourselves around it.This historically been the choice for various left-wing groups, who unable to become themselves as a proper political party they became paper-sellers – Militant being an example of when the paper became their platform for their programmeIf the suggestion is that we become a national membership organisation and branches become activity groups, the obvious one is local Socialist Standard Reading Groups. To satisfy Marcos' suggestion for the Party to offer more education, each issue could carry a special section of socialist thought to discuss and debate at local SSRG meetings.I have been to a few different branches, where once Party business was done and dusted, a special talk took place and that created an interest in attending.Matt, profit for retailers will only come at a bigger cover price for the Standard to present retailers with a big mark-up…money in their till. I think this was also discussed previously to get a foot in the door and meant operating a dual price system…one for buyers from shops and another price in the street or at meetings. Possible. But i am not convinced I once was in Glasgow where Barretts sells the Standard. Instead of buying their copies from Vic, the Lit Sec, members were told to go to Barretts and buy it there to show a positive demand. Once we have or foot in the door , that tactic might work.But on the grand stage, expecting anti-socialist businesses to help dig their own graves by selling the Standard…hmmm…all very well that they sell some Marx…even Tsarist Russia's censors allowed that…they didn't expect ordinary folk to read it…but the Socialist Standard is not abstract. I do recall the glossy New Socialist did have some success in using the commercial channels for circulation…Living Marxism also trie. I'm sure JWD can provide chapter and verse on the figures and results of those twoAs i said, like yourself, i have no solution and to use an analogy, when a scientist says he understands quantum physics, you can be sure he doesn't. As ALB said , the SS readers survey makes interesting reading…We are ever more dependent subscriptions now for the hard-copy.The free access online though is the one development that has widened circulation. A pop-up web ad could be used to try to get more subscriptions. I see this often.I certainly oppose any form of pay-wall that a few members sought to have but registering for free access may be a compromise…in return, we get email addresses for special notifications of Party activities and news. But that has a down-side too. People dislike the hassle and also suspect privacy breachesSo still no quick fix or magic bullet from me.Again the questionnaire didn't quite explore this issue, did it?
Who keeps instigating and expanding this debate, ALB…i'm the one opening the door to others, not slamming it shut so it is not discussed
Quote:Another aspect of the re-organisation of the Party and one where some members who may well believe that the continuance of the Standard is the priority would be the option of structuring ourselves around it.Please, please, do not impute this meaning to members, who see the continuation of the Standard as A priority and not the priority. It is inextricably linked to saving the socialist message from reformists, leftists and conservatives, and the saving of the party as a bearer of the message in the absence of any other bearer 'thin red lines' visible or not..Our contribution is a special one and therefore important that we and our journal, survive.I don't think it should be a debate either, but an open ended discussion. This is another potentially discouraging aspect of becoming involved online, making small contributions to discussions, in that we can then become involved in lengthy digressions and polemics, which is not suited to everyone's personal psyches.The fact I have taken out small segments of a contributon, to comment upon, is not to be construed as an attack upon the individuals. Yet this often happens. Not in this instance I should think, as we know each other.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.