The BBC and the SPGB
- This topic has 54 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just had an email from a member which says:
Quote:There's also a shortened version of it on BBC TV, under the red button and the Politics section. It's quite prominent.What an irony, some of the best publicity we've had in years, but we always suspected one day it might be.Can someone check. I don't know what or where "the red button" is.
It is on red button. Shows the pic of Head Office from BBC website article. An irony the property boom/inflation gets SPGB on to BBC news,
ALB wrote:I don't know what or where "the red button" is.It's literally that. If you have freeview of digital TV it's the red button on your remote. I guess if you press it when viewing any BBC channel you'll get the options. I don't have a TV at the minute…
Also now on the Mirror website:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tiny-socialist-party-reveals-13m-6066572
imposs1904 wrote:Cheeky buggers. It's nothing more than a rehash of the BBC piece.Doesn't really matter; it's going to be seen by a substantially different audience…
No such thing as bad publicity, they say. It would be ironic if this sparked a real surge in interest.
Let us not forget that the SLPUS also had substantial property holdings in the past but with the disappearance of members, the impossibility of maintaining the financial upkeep led to their offices disappearing too.Too much money spent on premises and not enough on activity and campaigns has occasionally led to the discussion and debate that is referred to in the report and no doubt will arise again sometime in the future.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Let us not forget that the SLPUS also had substantial property holdings in the past but with the disappearance of members, the impossibility of maintaining the financial upkeep led to their offices disappearing too.Too much money spent on premises and not enough on activity and campaigns has occasionally led to the discussion and debate that is referred to in the report and no doubt will arise again sometime in the future.Hear hear
alanjjohnstone wrote:Too much money spent on premises and not enough on activity and campaigns has occasionally led to the discussion and debate that is referred to in the report and no doubt will arise again sometime in the future.That, Alan, is matter for conjecture. The premises, a decade or more ago, for the information of those who don't know, and for those who ought to, was little short of squalid. A small group of members, in particular the HOO at the time, had the foresight and temerity to request that measures be enacted to improve the condition and facilities of the building. It is now somewhere half decent that both members and visitors can use in comfort and with confidence.
Of course, this publicity would have been much worse if we'd accepted a freebie off a businessman, would have made it harder to rebutt with the line that it's all paid for with workers donations… Also shows if we do set up an investment vehicle we are going to have to be very careful with it…
Annual building rates, insurance premiums and utility bills are not conjecture and they are not one-offs but a continual expense. I recall Cde Thomas frequently warning us of our outlays against our regular income Each year we also have unexpected household expenses eg June EC "Cde Shodeke reported to the EC that that work was in hand to both resolve a leaking pipe causing water damage to the Ground Floor and obtain a quote for a trellis for garden/yard."Of course, we must repair and fix faults. We had the sad experience of the neighbours leak spoiling large numbers of books. But a trellis for the backyard to beautify our outdoor sitting area. Scarcely a necessity nor a luxury that will be enjoyed by the majority of our members. I well know the history of improving our HO. Stair when HO Organiser regularly complained of its shabbiness and succeeded in obtaining the funds to make improvements. As a visitor i could only welcome the installation of a shower as a much needed facility for us poor provincial members attending conference, obliged to sleep on the floor, which too benefitted from re-furbishment and re-newal Proposals about renting out the street -level floors and only using the upstairs have been discussed, as well as re-location, entirely. The way the membership is going there will soon be more in Brighton and environs (thanks to your own branches campaigning and activity) than in London itself if the trend coninues so perhaps a move may well be in order in the future to where our members are actually concentrated.i also wished to emphasise that our priority is bringing new members to the party and not waiting for existing ones to die off and leave us legacies.We cannot rest upon our laurels or what we are bequested and if our membership continues its overall decline then the cost of No. 52 has to be constantly returned to and debated. And i shall add, so will the print-run of the Socialist Standard require a re-appraisal if my doom and gloom has some substance to it. Nothing remains the same and we are in the business of change, so to speak. Who knows, a few years from now and we may have an increased membership that justifies larger premises but, of course, i pessimistically would not take too many bets on that prediction.
Coatseyhttps://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/socialist-party-of-great-britain-worth-13-million-and/
alanjjohnstone wrote:But a trellis for the backyard to beautify our outdoor sitting area. Scarcely a necessity nor a luxury that will be enjoyed by the majority of our members.You're jumping to the wrong conclusion, Alan. The trellis is not for the purpose you suppose, but even if it were I for one wouldn't have any particular qualms. Are socialists destined to be denied pleasant surroundings? After all, the comrades who regularly attend Head Office are the ones who do the graft.
Probably my fault Comrade – as part time minute keeper to the EC – for not providing as much detail about '"the trellis" as some Comrades may have liked. I will be a bit more descriptive with the next installment – but only a bit more; we don't want all our cash going to the PO's shareholders, do we?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.