The WSM and the future identity of the SPGB and SPC

[steve colborn]

I'll say it again, show me in the rule book, where it says a vote on a Conference resolution carries as much weight as a Party Poll! Or where it says a Conference vote supercedes a Party Poll?

[Young Master Smeet]

Party Poll wrote:

"(A) Shall branches and members be required to abide strictly to the terms of the 1988 Conference resolution (V51/2.18)? or  ( Shall members and branches revert to the previous practice of using the full or shortened version of the Party's name at their own discretion? A: 131. B: 116."

So, the party poll only required observance of a conference resolution, it did not establish a form of name, nor did it state that future conference resolutions could not be passed on the subject .  No new party poll is needed.  The party poll has not been superseded, nor need it be, it no longer has force.

[ALB]

Steve, since we had no website in 1988 that resolution and party poll was not concerned with it. But there was in 2008 so it's that new resolution which governs it. So even if the Constitutional Court overturns the 2008 resolution that part will stand. It's the fascia and the front cover of the Socialist Standard that are problematic and open to possible challenge as attempting to over-rule a Party Poll result. The trouble is nobody challenged it at the time, probably because the voters would be the same and so presumably the result.There is, however, an anomaly since we changed the voting procedure at Conference. Under the old system the vote was announced at Conference. Which meant that delegates could decide there and then to call a Party Poll if the issue was highly contentious and the result close. Now the result of the vote on Conference Resolutions is only announced 6 or weeks later, when Conference is no longer in session.So what has happened is that Party Polls are now only called on very special occasions. The last two in fact have been called to rescind previous decisions, one by the EC, the other by Conference. Both rescindments were carried. So democracy in the Party still works.

[steve colborn]

ALB I'm not claiming democracy is not, or does not work within the Party per se. I'm saying that, in respect of the use of the Party name, the laxity with which the Party Poll has/has not been observed, is to our detriment. Members have, in many cases, merely ignored it! Remember, 2 Branches were expelled over the issue which, if nothing else, shows its seriousness!

[SocialistPunk]

gnome wrote:

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.

Gnome, I asked if you got the impression the people you have spoken to thought the inclusion of Great Britain in the Party name would remove the confusion with ex-Militant (now SocialistParty). I wasn't having a go, just asking a genuine question.

gnome wrote:

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.

The above quote from post #149 indicates there is currently confusion, pretty obvious, but makes no mention of any idea that said confusion is likely to be eliminated by the inclusion of Great Britain in the Party name.I'll put it another way.Did any of the people who expressed confusion with ex-Militant and (I assume) the abbreviated use of the Party name, tell you that the full name would not have caused them such confusion?Sorry for suggesting you are in favour of using the two Party names.

[SocialistPunk]

I've just noticed two posts by Steve have been flagged, #165 and #169. Don't know about anyone else but I can't see any abuse, trolling, cross posting or off topic going on.Heres what the forum posting rules say.11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.

[moderator1]

Reminder:  Rule 11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

Steve, since we had no website in 1988 that resolution and party poll was not concerned with it. But there was in 2008 so it's that new resolution which governs it. So even if the Constitutional Court overturns the 2008 resolution that part will stand. It's the fascia and the front cover of the Socialist Standard that are problematic and open to possible challenge as attempting to over-rule a Party Poll result. The trouble is nobody challenged it at the time, probably because the voters would be the same and so presumably the result.

The above highlighted quote from ALB is the area of contention regarding the Party poll of 1991, as it ratified the 1988 Conference decisions regarding the Party name used on the cover of the Socialist Standard and head office signage.To be fully constitutional the 1991 Party poll would need to be overturned by, you all guessed it, another Party poll. Unfortunately until then it does mean that the change of use in those two instances is out of order.I remember when I joined the Party in the late 1990's and being bored stiff having to sit through the formalities of Party rules regarding branch minutes being accepted etc. I was told it was important to have a democratic structure and follow it, despite the boredom factor.Rules, you can't live with them and you can't live without them..

[ALB]

I thought some here might be interesting in the debate that took place in Militant in 1996 when they decided to try to usurp our name:http://www.marxist.net/namechange/mainframe.htmIt's heavy going, even heavier than this thread.

[SocialistPunk]

Just noticed that post #171, where I point out the possibility that the flagging function has been misused, has been….wait for it…. flagged.Pure comedy gold.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Just noticed that post #171, where I point out the possibility that the flagging function has been misused, has been….wait for it…. flagged.Pure comedy gold.

Rule 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[SocialistPunk]

I am aware of the rules of the forum DJP.I wasn't asking the moderator to intervene, nor was I chastising anyone for any perceived rule breach. I was asking other users if they could see any problems, as I couldn't. 

SocialistPunk wrote:

 I've just noticed two posts by Steve have been flagged, #165 and #169. Don't know about anyone else but I can't see any abuse, trolling, cross posting or off topic going on.Heres what the forum posting rules say.11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention

The worst that could be said of my posts, as well as yours in answering me, is we are off topic.I happen to think that a post asking other users about flagged posts, that then gets flagged is quite amusing. To make it even funnier our posts need to be flagged. 

[ALB]

Can't remember if this was the thread where people were arguing whether or not the SPGB was known, but here's an anecdote on the subject.On Thursday four of us went to Oxford in the context of our election campaign there. Having a couple of hours to spend before a political meeting we were going to attend started we were looking for a confortable place fo spend the time. As we passed one pub there was someone outside who I recognised from the Burford Levellers Day event where we've had a stall over the years. It turned out that he had voted for us in the euroelections instead of for the Greens as he normally does. As we beat the BNP in Oxford by one vote he claimed the credit for this. He was drinking with someone else who knew the party from the activities of comrades in Cumbria. As we were drinking and talking with them someone came in with a hammer-and-sickle on his bobble hat. None of us knew him. He turned out to have met Harry Young. Who says no one has heard of us?I think we sometimes beat ourselves up too much. In other words, the answer to the question in the article in this month's Socialist Standard "Are Socialists Sadists?" is "No, we are Masochists" or at least some here are.

[ALB]

See next post.

[alanjjohnstone]

Proves nothing…you bumped into an already confirmed politico who you met at the Levellers event, who surprise surprise had a mate who was a politico…and another confirmed politico happened by, easily recognisable by his hat…And i bet you all had Socialist Standards stuffed in your pockets and were talking politics loudly that every customer was aware of your presenceThe most this proves is the confirmation of six degrees of separation…stayed long enough in the pub and i am sure other coincidences would have occurred…Just how many others in the pub if you did a poll that night would have a scooby about the SPGB?I recall a work colleague who remembers a beardy speaker in the 1970s pointing him out and saying there are dummies in shop windows better dressed so who is the real dummy. This was in 2000-and-something but he still remembered the speakers wit and, when looking back, also the accuracy of the put down but he could only say a socialist speaker…he didn't recollect it was the Socialist Party of Great Britain until i jogged his memory….Anyways i hope you got both on board to help us out more in our Oxford campaign…i'm pleased we are making an early start…i hope it continues  

[Author]

Posts