Report of the proceedings of 2016 ADM
- This topic has 22 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No doubt the November EC will be considering the ADM floor resolution re the 'indefinite' suspension of a party member. It seems the Internet Committee has took no heed of the wishes of Branch delegates expressed at the Party's 2016 Annual Delegate Meeting.It is not the EC nor the Party that has the member suspended but the three forum moderators: and they will continue 'until ordered to do otherwise by a higher authority' Members and visitors to the forum may come to their own conclusions, but it is clear the Internet Committee has no intention of burying the hatchet and moving on and ending this animosity.
According to a report in today's Times, the pro-Corbyn Momentum group has been discussing the same issue as we did under items 4 and 11:
Quote:The split at the top of the organiation is over whether it should move towards using a delegate system or a "one member one vote" system. The former would see the organisation rely on selected individuals to convene and make key decisions, while the latter could allow all its actovists to take part in decision-making via online ballots. Jon Lansmann, the founder of the group and a veteran Bennite, is understood to have promoted the second option, arguing that it offers direct democracy. but some members claim online voting has only the veneer of democracy and leaves people 'atomised'.We have a hybrid system where delegates discuss but where decisions are made by a vote of all individual members after reading the discussion.This hybrid reflects that we may be in a transition from one system (decisions used to be made by a vote by delegates at conference0 to the other.I don't agree that the second has "only the veneer of democracy" but there is some truth in the claim that it leaves individuals "atomised" which can lead to them voting on the basis of their own personal prejudgements without the benefit of hearing or bothering to read about the discussion. In any event, that seems to be the situation we are evolving towards.
At the moment our claim to be the most democratic organisation is being made a mockery of.A member has had his online posting rights suspended for 8 months. The fact that one moderator refers to a 'higher authority' is an indication of where we are in the SPGB as far as democracy is concerned.
ALB wrote:I don't agree that the second has "only the veneer of democracy" but there is some truth in the claim that it leaves individuals "atomised" which can lead to them voting on the basis of their own personal prejudgements without the benefit of hearing or bothering to read about the discussion. In any event, that seems to be the situation we are evolving towards.I suppose the other option is to have voting at regional conferences (or branches) and not have the central conference.A suitable replacement for the branch could be the activity group: so members could join the AV group, the Elections Group, the Socialist Standard Group, etc. and pick their activity. The main suggestion I'd have, though, is scrapping departments, and handing reponsibility to branches or such groups (e.g. Birmingham Branch is Summer School Branch at the moment)…
This still leaves out Central Branch which may soon comprise something approaching 50% of the membership as they did before and which led to Conference voting that only members overseas could join Central Branch but which has since been relaxed.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I suppose the other option is to have voting at regional conferences (or branches) and not have the central conference.A suitable replacement for the branch could be the activity group: so members could join the AV group, the Elections Group, the Socialist Standard Group, etc. and pick their activity. The main suggestion I'd have, though, is scrapping departments, and handing reponsibility to branches or such groups (e.g. Birmingham Branch is Summer School Branch at the moment)…Some good ideas. Food for thought
ALB wrote:This still leaves out Central Branch which may soon comprise something approaching 50% of the membership as they did before and which led to Conference voting that only members overseas could join Central Branch but which has since been relaxed.I can see a time fast approaching, unless current trends are miraculously reversed, when the branch, as the present unit of organisation, will be replaced by a single memberhip list, call it Central Branch or whatever. This change will need to be accompanied by a correspondingly appropriate and totally different democratic structure.
When me and the current Assistant sec did a review of party democracy, we looked at delegable proxy voting, which I beleive is actually used now by Pirate Parties.In that case, instead of branches, you'd have people attending a conference who have secured proxy mandates from other members (possibly at a meeting, or online, via a mailshot or whatever).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.