SPGB – A National Membership Organisation
- This topic has 13 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Conference Motion just carried:
Quote:
This Conference instructs the EC to set up a committee to look into the implications of the Party becoming a national membership organisation, and to report to 2018 Conference.” For 75 Against 25 Carried.
Paddy Ashdown said:
Here is Ashdown’s second rule for the internet age: “If you see a business model that takes no account of the new technologies, you see a business model which is failing”.
This applies to most newspapers, some old fashioned businesses and nearly all political parties.
Conventional political parties remain immovably stuck in the 1870s.
They are vertical hierarchies, when the paradigm structure of our time is the network.
They are high overhead, narrow membership, high cost of entry, limited participation organisations, while successful social and commercial structures are based on a low overhead, mass membership, low (or no) cost of entry and instant participation model.
They are festooned with lumbering committees and a tangle of elections which pretend to provide accountability and transparency, but actually obscure both, when direct instant democratic participation is the rule for the most successful modern civil society movements and political structures (think Cinque Stella, Momentum, More United and En Marche).
In order to play a full part, today’s conventional political party requires its members to be obsessives prepared to spend evenings in damp village halls and bright September days when they could be on the beach, in stuffy conclaves at faded seaside resorts, passing obscure amendments to policies no-one will ever hear of again. But most ordinary people nowadays conduct their internet lives, not through consuming singular obsessions, but through multiple daily transactions which mix what they believe in, with earning a living and having fun.
Political Parties, as institutions are dying (except those who have in some form or another adopted the internet in their internal structures, like Momentum and Labour). This is one of the reasons why our politics seems so bewildering and senseless to ordinary people and voters.
Our Party is in an extremely hazardous condition. Unless we do something radical and different soon, our old members will become disheartened and our new members will fade away.
Here is my proposition. The Party Board should commission a study which would report in short order (but before the end of July) to investigate whether and if so how and in what time frame, the Lib Dems could be converted into a modern, internet based political organisation (LibDems.org), structured around a low overhead, low cost of entry, mass movement model in which a one person one vote internet enabled democracy, was the normal way of taking all our key decisions.
I don't know what was discussed at Conference (as it was only discussed by "obsessives prepared to spend evenings in damp village halls on bright September days when they could be on the beach, in stuffy conclaves at faded seaside resorts, passing obscure amendments to policies no-one will ever hear of again. "
But are we talking the same thing here? If so then surely there is no better place to begin the discussion than openly ONLINE
My aspiration would be to make the SPGB an international membership organisation i.e. a component of an integrated World Socialist Movement
I think conducting business meetings face to face may be a bit antiquated, but talks are still better face to face. I'm not convinced branches are redundant either. Making the World Socialist Movement a bit more formally organised would be good though.
I can't understand why members are reluctant to discuss this issue ONLINE.With our present democratic organisation, how long does it take to move from the idea to the acceptance and implementation of that idea? I estimate about three years. Starting with your branch in three months time – if you have a branch, that is. Do members accept what Paddy Ashdown is saying? Or has he got it wrong about the internet? If we were ever at the forefront of democratic organisation we certainly aren't any more.
Vin, can't we wait for the committee, that is still to be set up, to start its remit and in due course request the views of branches and opinions of individual members.Slow but more systematic is a better approach than a haphazard exchange on this forum so that its report will be gathered in a coherent manner and it submits its report in a cogent way.Patience…patience…
AlanIt need not be haphazard. There are more members on line than ever meet at physical meetings. Online members could organise now. Meet, discuss and recommend, learning as we go. The 'committe' will meet where? At a physical meeting? Online is the best place to learn about on line.Start with a list of members who are online and invite them to meet and discuss the Conference Instruction and 'report in short order' but before the end of August.The idea is to speed up the democratic process.Change the rules. Allowing members to form groups regardless of geography would be a good start. Think revolutionI know I am preaching to the converted
Vin, my view is that we have to be very careful on this change. It could be one of the biggest changes the party has undertaken and we need to get it right. I know that a lot of members are comfortable on line, however there is a significant minority who are not. We need to be very careful not to disenfranchise them.Personally I woulld favour a nationally based party in terms of some aspects of the party membership, with a branch structure which covers other areas of party activity.In my opinion branches are very useful iin terms of organising propaganda meetings, running stalls, membership applications, etc. I think it would be useful to go back to a situaton where branches could be financially independent to some extent, retaining and controlling more money, in order to aid flexible decision making, for instance in situations where propaganda opportunities come up at short notice. Also having experience of both on line meetings and face to face meetings, I am strongly of the opinion that where possible face to face meetings are far, far superior.There are however areas where a national organisation would be more beneficial, for instance resolutions for conference, ADM, etc. If for example a resolution, change to rule, etc. could be submitted by a set number of members, for argument's sake say 8, from anywhere iin the party, I think it would have the advantage of encouraging more debate within the party and would probably result in better resolutions.How it would work out in practice needs careful thought and planning, we can't afford to screw this up. I can invisage a situation where this goes wrong and it acts as a mortal blow to the party.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I know that a lot of members are comfortable on line, however there is a significant minority who are not. We need to be very careful not to disenfranchise them.The existing organisation already disenfranchises many members. So yes we need to strike a balance but while party activity cannot be held back because members are unable to attend their branch, the same applies to online organisation.
Rulebook wrote:7. The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six members making written application on the prescribed form to the Executive Committee and receiving their sanction.No mention of geography, any 6 members can form a branch already, as long as they can fill in a form C once a year, they're a branch. If they want to pass binding resolutions, they need to follow standing orders for remote operations of branches (they do need to be reformed).Once 6 members have subscribed to abranch, only 3 members need to be able to meet.
Members already attending a branch will be reluctant to leave that branch to join an online 'branch'. Of course existing branches could be transformed into 'activity groups'. Yes I can see there is a lot to be considered but I am not convinced it should be left to a committee: a partywide discussion is needed.
"I am not convinced it should be left to a committee: a partywide discussion is needed." And it will be at the appropriate time. We shouldn't pre-empt any recommendations that the still-to-be-appointed committee comes to and what they conclude will be widely discussed…so patience …patience
I must agree, i prefer to meet up face to face and shake hands with old comrades. Even if it is only say every 3 month it would be nice for a chat and a cup of tea or maybe something stronger.
Major McPharter wrote:I must agree, i prefer to meet up face to face and shake hands with old comrades. Even if it is only say every 3 month it would be nice for a chat and a cup of tea or maybe something stronger.I'm with you Harley, bollocks to tea!
See who falls off is seet fust, nee doubt
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.