The WSM and the future identity of the SPGB and SPC

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

If a forum member finds a thread too challenging, boredom often sets in, so the best bit of advice I can offer is, just don't read it.Try this instead.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb3kR6XXvWE

Now that's more up my street.  As for you, SP, you clearly have too much time on your hands.  You're beginning to rival LBird for tediousness.  You both need to find yourselves a hobby.  Oh wait, I forgot; you already have.  On second thoughts, though, they're more like hobby-horses. 

[SocialistPunk]

Unfortunately Gnome, I do have a lot of time on my hands these days, I am also unfortunately unable to engage in my previous hobbies. But seeing as there is little of the social aspect of socialism on this site, I expect you don't give a damn.What is a bit weird is you are accusing me of having too much time on my hands, yet you keep digging up stupid pictures that have nothing to do with this thread.As for tediousness, you do nothing but post irrelevant pictures, when you have little to actually add to a debate.   I ask again, will you engage in this thread using reasoned argument or continue trying to derail this thread with pointless pictures and sarcastic comments?

[steve colborn]

Hobby horses are way better than "straw men", wouldn't you say?

[SocialistPunk]

Now the pointless needling is finished with, I can get on with the discussion.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,What the party poll said was, in effect, that conference is to be obeyed,  Conference has since changed its instructions.  Nothing untoward there.  If the party poll had said "the form of name  shall be the Fishcakes Party" then we'd need a party poll to change the name (or form of name), as it is it said "please abide by a conference decision".  A little lawyerly, I know. Some people may care, many do not.

Hi YMSYour post reads a little muddled YMS. I think you are confusing the various Conference decisions and the one Party poll.Let's try this. As I understand things, a 1988 Conference decided to emphasise the use of The Socialist Party over the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The two names having been in use simultaneously since 1904.A 1991 Party poll ratified or "enforced" the 1988 Conference decision on the use of The Socialist Party as the preferred title. It also rejected a move to allow members to use the Great Britain version if they felt like it.So the scene is set in 1991 for the Party to at last have one specific public identity.Obviously a democratic organisation like the SPgb can over time change its mind over various issues. No problem with that. So seventeen years later a 2008 Conference decided to officially endorse the use of the title, The Socialist Party of Great Britain in some areas.You have pointed out the wording of the 2008 Conference does not mean all restrictions on using Great Britain have been lifted. So what we have as a result of the 2008 Conference decision is a return to the multiple identity confusion the 1988 Conference and 1991 Party poll sought to get to grips with once and for all.Then there is the constitutional aspect of the Party poll still trumping other decisions. Technically it means that the 2008 Conference decision is invalid. That could have been avoided if a Party poll had been called to overturn the poll of 1991. Logic dictates that any wish for a return to the multiple name usage, the 1991 poll tried to remedy, would require removing the technical barrier of the 1991 Party poll. A constitutional requirement, surely? The reason why I bring this up, is this thread is about the future identity of the SPgb. I advocate the SPgb adopting the World Socialist Party identity. An identity that once and for all frees the Party from the squabbling and confusion of multiple identities. I'm aware that some get very uncomfortable when these issues are brought up in public, more especially when it's by a non Party member. But if I had been allowed to get on with what I was trying to ascertain, then it may have been apparent sooner that my intentions are in fact noble. Though I suspect some will still think otherwise. 

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Technically it means that the 2008 Conference decision is invalid. That could have been avoided if a Party poll had been called to overturn the poll of 1991. Logic dictates that any wish for a return to the multiple name usage, the 1991 poll tried to remedy, would require removing the technical barrier of the 1991 Party poll. A constitutional requirement, surely? 

Not really because voting for conference now takes the form of one member one vote, whereas previously voting was done by delegates. I'm not sure when the change came in. But now a conference vote is in effect the same thing as a party poll.Read the rulebook…

[SocialistPunk]

Hi DJPI found this and it seems to confirm what I previously thought. I've highlighted the relevant part and unless this is out of date (and if it is why) then….PARTY POLLS26. A poll of the Party shall be taken at any time by the Executive Committee; it shall also be taken at the request of a Delegate Meeting, or Conference, or by four or more Branches sending in a requisition stating the matter upon which the poll is desired. The Executive Committee shall call a specially summoned Party Meeting before the issue of Ballot Papers. At such meetings only motions concerned with procedures shall be tabled. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss each Party Poll. The returning date of voting papers to be twenty-eight days from the date of issue. A Party Poll shall be interpreted to mean that every Party member shall receive a separate ballot paper and vote individually, i.e., as in the method adopted for the election of Party Officers. The result of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e., EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions). (N.B. For Party Poll on Executive Committee and Party Officers' vacancies, see Rule 12.) Addendum: Branch polls may be called by the EC or any Branch, suggesting a wording for a resolution. If an absolute majority of Branches pass the resolution, the EC shall consider it as if it were a floor resolution

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi DJPI found this and it seems to confirm what I previously thought. I've highlighted the relevant part and unless this is out of date (and if it is why) then….PARTY POLLS26. A poll of the Party shall be taken at any time by the Executive Committee; it shall also be taken at the request of a Delegate Meeting, or Conference, or by four or more Branches sending in a requisition stating the matter upon which the poll is desired. The Executive Committee shall call a specially summoned Party Meeting before the issue of Ballot Papers. At such meetings only motions concerned with procedures shall be tabled. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss each Party Poll. The returning date of voting papers to be twenty-eight days from the date of issue. A Party Poll shall be interpreted to mean that every Party member shall receive a separate ballot paper and vote individually, i.e., as in the method adopted for the election of Party Officers. The result of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e., EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions). (N.B. For Party Poll on Executive Committee and Party Officers' vacancies, see Rule 12.) Addendum: Branch polls may be called by the EC or any Branch, suggesting a wording for a resolution. If an absolute majority of Branches pass the resolution, the EC shall consider it as if it were a floor resolution

But notice the preceding sentence "A Party Poll shall be interpreted to mean that every Party member shall receive a separate ballot paper and vote individually, i.e., as in the method adopted for the election of Party Officers. " That's how voting for conference is carried out now. Conference votes ARE party polls even if they are not called that.

[Young Master Smeet]

Nothing muddled.  Herein the complete wording of the offending party poll:"(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."That does not establish a full precedent, since it calls for observance of a specific conference resolution, conference has subsequently made different resolutions.  It's very simple.If a party poll were called that said "On all occasions the form of the name for the party shall be "The Arse Face Witchy Poo Party" then it would require a party poll to overturn that.And don't call me surely.

[steve colborn]

DJP would you point out the "exact" passage in the rulebook which states that a conference vote is the same thing as a party poll?Cheers.

[DJP]

steve colborn wrote:

DJP would you point out the "exact" passage in the rulebook which states that a conference vote is the same thing as a party poll?Cheers.

Just did

[SocialistPunk]

Steve has a point.If it says in the rules Conference is a Party poll, then thats fair enough. Party polls are obselete and the rules need updating.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Steve has a point.If it says in the rules Conference is a Party poll, then thats fair enough. Party polls are obselete and the rules need updating.

I think you're right. There's a few things like that in them. Not sure if the latest version is better…

[SocialistPunk]

If you want to get "lawerly" YMS, there is cross over with some of the details between the 1988 Conference and those of 2008 and 2014. That suggests a Party poll is needed to clear the decks, so to speak.

[Young Master Smeet]

Not really, another conference resolution could do the trick.  Always go to the lowest level body that can do the job.  In fact a branch poll or floor resolution could clarify the interpretation between the various resolutions.

[ALB]

The last thing we want is another big, divisive debate over the name. We've reached a more or less acceptable compromise. So let's not stir things up but let sleeping dogs lie.

[Author]

Posts