The WSM and the future identity of the SPGB and SPC

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

BTW, Vin, welcome back into the party…

 Thanks, I guess it went through 

[SocialistPunk]

Hi GnomeIt's good to hear your ideas.Thanks.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Quote:

Actually we are known well outside the hard left. Amongst the soft left too and beyond them to people who are interested in politics generally and of course labour historians. And there are many other writers, essayists and bloggers like the one Vin has drawn attention to on another thread some of whom will be ex-members. I agree that this is still only a small percentage of the population in general but it's the same minority which would be interested at first in some new (ly named) party. So why throw away the progress we have already made in getting known amongst such people?It would be bonkers to change our name and throw all this away. I mentioned before what I think is the way forward. It's to keep our official name (with its history) but emphasise more that we are part of a World Socialist Movement, a name we have also registered with the Electoral Commission and used on the ballot paper for the recent Euroelections.

(emphasis added)

 I can accept that up to a point, but what will be the perceptions of the millions of workers who have yet to come across ' The Socialist Party of Great Britain' ? Having said that, I think using SPGB consistently would be preferable to what we are doing now.   

[SocialistPunk]

A couple of questions Gnome.

gnome wrote:

As a member of a branch who, by dint of its regular literature stalls, has arguably had more contact with workers than any other branch over the past couple of years, I have personally lost track of the number of occasions when workers, predominately young workers, have thought we were something to do with the outfit otherwise known as the ex-Millies.

Do you get the impression that the young people you have spoken to would have differentiated the SPgb from the ex-Militant group by the words, Great Britain used at the end of the Party name?

gnome wrote:

It will come as no surprise that I favour using the full name of the party on most occasions and certainly where confusion with a similarly named organisation is not only likely but virtually unavoidable.

You say you are in favour of the full Party title on "most occasions". Surely to avoid any ambiguity it would be better to pick one and stick to it on all occasions?

[steve colborn]

It's not a case of favouring using this or that name! A Party Poll stated members were encouraged to use the abbreviated name, unless confusion could arise. Unlike gnome, I do not see as much confusion arisng, perhaps because we have a 36 year history of propogandising in Seaham and the North East and are fairly well known.The Party Poll did not state, "just do what you please"! In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to not be more proscriptive. It would certainly appear that some, rather than adhering to the intent of the Poll, have decided merely to ignore it.

[jondwhite]

Incidentally if you scroll to the bottom of any page on this website you can see at the bottom right (and small at the very bottom) the F. C. Watts logo from the Edwardian era still looking great. I'm not even a fan of the redesign of this from 2014, which makes the text look too pointy especially the slogan 'the world for the workers'.

[steve colborn]

The Party Poll often refered to, about the use of the abridged Party name, expressly forbids both the Edwardian version and more importantly, the designs that have been drawn up recently. If the Party goes ahead with "ANY" of these designs, we are condoning unconstitutional behaviour. The Party Poll, on this issue, regardless of individual Party members claims, that a conference vote nowadays, is on a Par with a Party Poll (which isn't backed up by the rule book) is still in force.As others have said, the Party Poll result, has been slowly whittled away. The result of this, is not only unconstitutional but undemocratic.

[SocialistPunk]

SocialistPunk wrote:

A couple of questions Gnome.

gnome wrote:

As a member of a branch who, by dint of its regular literature stalls, has arguably had more contact with workers than any other branch over the past couple of years, I have personally lost track of the number of occasions when workers, predominately young workers, have thought we were something to do with the outfit otherwise known as the ex-Millies.

Do you get the impression that the young people you have spoken to would have differentiated the SPgb from the ex-Militant group by the words, Great Britain used at the end of the Party name?

gnome wrote:

It will come as no surprise that I favour using the full name of the party on most occasions and certainly where confusion with a similarly named organisation is not only likely but virtually unavoidable.

You say you are in favour of the full Party title on "most occasions". Surely to avoid any ambiguity it would be better to pick one and stick to it on all occasions?

Well, I asked a couple of reasonable questions and got nothing in reply.As such it suggests that Gnome is unaware as to whether or not adding Great Britain on the end of The Socialist Party is likely to make any difference to peoples perception of confusion with ex-Militant, Socialist Party.As to my second question, seems Gnome is still in favour of using both Party names.Clear as mud.

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

As such it suggests that Gnome is unaware as to whether or not adding Great Britain on the end of The Socialist Party is likely to make any difference to peoples perception of confusion with ex-Militant, Socialist Party.As to my second question, seems Gnome is still in favour of using both Party names.Clear as mud.

1) It suggests nothing of the sort.  My position is well known and briefly outlined in post #149.2) No I'm not.  But I have to recognise the precedent of using the shortened name form in certain instances ever since the Party's inception.  Again refer to post #149.End of story.

[steve colborn]

"Of course, Vin, you're absolutely correct.  My area of disagreement with you is about what we call ouselves.It will come as no surprise that I favour using the full name of the party on most occasions and certainly where confusion with a similarly named organisation is not only likely but virtually unavoidable.  Of course, Vin, you're absolutely correct.  My area of disagreement with you is about what we call ouselves."All well and good gnome, however, you are forgetting something! There is still in force, the outcome of a "Party Poll", which has never been overturned, expressly forbidding the use of the full Party name, unless to use the abbreviated version, were to cause confusion with a similsarly named organisation.Ergo, the use of the full Party name on the top of this site, is unconstutional. The use of the full Party name on the Head Office frontage, is unconstitutional. Using the full Party name on the proposed Logo is unconstitutional. Using the full Party name, indeed, on the Standard, is unconstitutional.No one can say that "any", of the above could be confused with any other similarly named organisation, so not even that excuse is relevant.Others need to address why this has been allowed to happen, over time and put it right!!!

[Young Master Smeet]

I really don't want to go into this again, but nothing unconstitutional has happened.  The Party Poll called for strict adherence to a conference resolution, that resolution has since been superseded.  There has been no Party Poll setting out the form of name, and subsequent conference decisions were made because things like the Internet didn't exist when the original style guide was endorsed.

[DJP]

steve colborn wrote:

Ergo, the use of the full Party name on the top of this site, is unconstutional. The use of the full Party name on the Head Office frontage, is unconstitutional. Using the full Party name on the proposed Logo is unconstitutional. Using the full Party name, indeed, on the Standard, is unconstitutional.

Er, well no…Here's the 2008 resolution (as voted on by a one member, one vote poll)

Quote:

This Conference resolves that the Party's full name, 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain', be used in the following cases: A. legal documents; B. Party forms; C. Party membership cards; D. All Party bank accounts.E publication credits, including the masthead of the Socialist Standard; F. listings of World Socialist Movement parties and publications; and G. the title of the Party's website. It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely. This resolution supersedes the 1986 and 1988 Conference resolutions respecting the use of the Party's names.".

[steve colborn]

Forgive me, but the Party Poll itself, has not been superceded, nor can it be without another Party Poll. The use of the full name of the Party, contravenes the wishes and instructions of the Party,

[steve colborn]

You are talking about a Conference resolution DJP. As has been pointed out to you before, a Conference resolution "Does Not" nor can, overide a Party Poll.

[DJP]

steve colborn wrote:

The use of the full name of the Party, contravenes the wishes and instructions of the Party,

Despite the above recently being voted for by a majority, curious (or perhaps, spurious). Couldn't find what the figures for the vote where, don't know if anyone knows of hand..

[Author]

Posts