The WSM/SPGB strategy in 2014

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, basic logic suggests the Ass. Sec. is wrong.  there is a restriction: "It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely." That is the restriction, and the "encouragment" of conference is quite a strong one, so the default is Socialist Party, and in exceptional circumstances, Socialist Party of Great Britain.  The inclusion of our object and address on most publications is enough to render teh confusion exemption moot.

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks for posting the new head office sign Gnome, I like it.It is striking with good use of contrast and it places emphasis on the Socialist Party, while still cleverly keeping the SPGB abbreviation. Good stuff.I still have the view the party lost an opportunity many moons ago, long before the 1980's to have cornered the Socialist Party identity. Now we are into the 21st century and every left wing group calls itself some variation of Socialist Party.Vin is spot on with the view a lack of any consistent branding has worked against the party. Sadly today it is too late to attempt to capture a lost opportunity for the reason I give regarding the other Socialist groups out there. Imagine if the party had entered the post war end of empire years with a single strong identity, The Socialist Party, I doubt we would have seen every other group fighting over the leftovers.Hesitancy and fear of losing a few will donations has cost dearly in more important ways.

[Anonymous]

There remains no doubt in my mind that the the lack of a single recognisable logo and  the use of a multitude of names are to blame for the invisible and obscure nature of the party.The few who do find the party behind  all the confusion are immediately put off by the use of GREAT BRITAIN in its title. Edit: I think members should make there own observations and interpretations of conference decisions rather than accept as gospel the  opinion of a single party officer. 

[Anonymous]

Re strategy for 2014.Does anyone believe that the 'public meeting',  as a means of propaganda,  is a thing of the past   and as dead as a Monty Python parrot? 

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Thanks for posting the new head office sign Gnome, I like it.It is striking with good use of contrast and it places emphasis on the Socialist Party, while still cleverly keeping the SPGB abbreviation. Good stuff.

I agree and perhaps the way forward would be to odopt it as the party logo and use it on all websites, socialist standard , pamphlets etc etc. Wherever the party is.It should be placed at the head of this site? On yahoo groups. Facebook pages.Consistency Corporate branding. 

[Anonymous]

steve colborn wrote:

 That the discussion over the Party name and it's usage, led to certain branches being expelled, is a matter of historical tecord. 

 it seems strange in retrospect when you consider what is happening today. Branches, websites and publications use a varirty of names and logos.

[steve colborn]

With what is evidentially occuring today, the expulsion of the said branches is now, a pointless exercise. With todays mindset, of using a variety of names, it would not have happened. At the time, the expulsions were more about the decision, not to accede to the will of the "majority" than anything else. It was and is, a sad period of the party history.

[Anonymous]

Certainly was, comrade 

[Anonymous]

I am encouraged  that Kent and Sussex Branch has addressed the problem of image, logo  and the need to be rcognisable at its last meeting.  Is it surprising that the SPGB is the least known and least  recognised party in the country? There is no commonality of design or logo on any of the SPGB publications.  One logo and design should be used on all publications, immediately identifying the party  The following are all different. All should have a party stamp at the head. To the casual on-looker these appear to be separate organisationsSpintcomSpopenbranch yahoo sitesSpgb website and forumShop frontBadge type logos – how many designs are there?blogssocialist standardmultitude of pamphlets and leaflets

[SocialistPunk]

ALB wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

An end to the multiple logos and party names.

Good idea. We did get there in 1988 when Conference passed the following resolution to regulate the use of the various names under the party is known.

Quote:

Tnis Conference resolves that the Party's full name, 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain', be used in the following cases:(a) Legal documents, Forms A. to G, membership cards.(b) The World Socialist Movement listing box, The World Socialist Movement publications box, the 'Address of: the Party' box on the inside page of. the Socialist Standard giving details of EC Meetings, etc.'The Socialist Party' to be used in the following cases:(1) On the covers of the Socialist Standard, pamphlets and leaflets.(2) Generally in the texts of articles and pamphlets.(3) On all occasions where the address of Head Office is given, e.g. headed notepaper, adverts for socialist material, etc., except in (b) above.(4) All advertising and publicity material, posters, media adverts, etc.(5) In the titles of meetings and debates, and as the organiser of them.(6) Generally by speakers at indoor and outdoor meetings.(7) Manifestoes, election addresses, etc.( On the Head Office shop front fascia

It caused a bit fuss (to put it mildly) but was confirmed in a subsequent party poll.The trouble is that, in the last decade or so, opponents of it have been trying to gradually whittle it away, their latest success being the recent decision not only to restore "of Great Britain" to the fascia but, worse, to add SPGB as well.I'm afraid, Vin, the tide has been moving in the opposdite direction, even if (2) to (7) and parts of (1) still stand. But maybe, hopefully, a majority can still be found to stop it it being whittled away any further.

Hi AdamI was wondering, if as you point out in your post, the party has accepted the use of the party names as outlined above, then how come it isn't being implemented in the case of (. You mention the whittling away of the party decision, but how can that have happened when a democratic decision was made by the party? 

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

ALB wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

An end to the multiple logos and party names.

Good idea. We did get there in 1988 when Conference passed the following resolution to regulate the use of the various names under the party is known.

Quote:

Tnis Conference resolves that the Party's full name, 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain', be used in the following cases:(a) Legal documents, Forms A. to G, membership cards.(b) The World Socialist Movement listing box, The World Socialist Movement publications box, the 'Address of: the Party' box on the inside page of. the Socialist Standard giving details of EC Meetings, etc.'The Socialist Party' to be used in the following cases:(1) On the covers of the Socialist Standard, pamphlets and leaflets.(2) Generally in the texts of articles and pamphlets.(3) On all occasions where the address of Head Office is given, e.g. headed notepaper, adverts for socialist material, etc., except in (b) above.(4) All advertising and publicity material, posters, media adverts, etc.(5) In the titles of meetings and debates, and as the organiser of them.(6) Generally by speakers at indoor and outdoor meetings.(7) Manifestoes, election addresses, etc.( On the Head Office shop front fascia

It caused a bit fuss (to put it mildly) but was confirmed in a subsequent party poll.The trouble is that, in the last decade or so, opponents of it have been trying to gradually whittle it away, their latest success being the recent decision not only to restore "of Great Britain" to the fascia but, worse, to add SPGB as well.I'm afraid, Vin, the tide has been moving in the opposdite direction, even if (2) to (7) and parts of (1) still stand. But maybe, hopefully, a majority can still be found to stop it it being whittled away any further.

Hi AdamI was wondering, if as you point out in your post, the party has accepted the use of the party names as outlined above, then how come it isn't being implemented in the case of (. You mention the whittling away of the party decision, but how can that have happened when a democratic decision was made by the party? 

Oh dear, here we go again for the umpteenth time.  The 1988 resolution was superseded by one in 2008.  See post #11 of this thread.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/wsmspgb-strategy-2014#comment-15318At the 2014 Conference a majority of party members who voted decided that the full name of the party be used on the new HO fascia sign. "In furtherance of the resolution of Conference 2008 this Conference resolves that the full name of the Party be included on the HO fascia"For 61 Against 38.  Carried

[SocialistPunk]

Thank you for your patience Gnome.Not wishing to waste more time, but post #11 makes no mention of the decision about the HO fascia.Also, if the 1988 conference decision regarding the use of party names was later confirmed or supported by a party poll, I have to ask why was the 2008 conference decision superceding the 1988 one, not taken to a party poll?Surely, for the sake of democratic consistency, a party poll should have been sort after to overturn a conference decision that was previously backed up by a party poll? Perhaps there was?But I'm out of touch with party rules and regulations, so I'm sure there will be an explanation. 

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Thank you for your patience Gnome.Not wishing to waste more time, but post #11 makes no mention of the decision about the HO fascia.

But I never said it did.  The decision to include the full name of the party on the new fascia was taken at this year's Conference although I would argue that the 2008 resolution allowed for that to happen anyway.

Quote:

Also, if the 1988 conference decision regarding the use of party names was later confirmed or supported by a party poll, I have to ask why was the 2008 conference decision superceding the 1988 one, not taken to a party poll?Surely, for the sake of democratic consistency, a party poll should have been sort after to overturn a conference decision that was previously backed up by a party poll?

Whatever should or shouldn't have been done back in 2008 is neither here nor there now. Members could have called for another party poll but presumably didn't.  I could easily argue a case against that suggestion but don't propose to "waste more time" on the issue.  The party has made clear its preferences. For anyone outside the party who thinks it has been slipshod in its decision-making process there is a simple remedy.  Apply for membership and help refine that process…

[SocialistPunk]

I am so sorry to have wasted any of your time at all, Gnome my dear chap.But if as you say you could easily argue a case for the lack of party polling on this issue then why not. I am not the only one following this issue with interest, so if a Socialist Party of Great Britain member can't be bothered to waste their time explaining the processes of how such a decision came about (ie arguments for and against) openly on the party website then fair enough.As for the idea the party has been slipshod in the decision making process, I wasn't implying anything of the sort, simply curious as to why a party poll was deemed necessary in 1988, but not subsequently regarding the same issue?For instance what is the democratic difference between a party poll (presumably of all members) and a conference decision?Not  unreasonable or difficult questions, surely?Like I said,I'm very rusty when it comes to party rules and regulations.If openness isn't forthcoming here and now, why should I or anyone waste time joining in order to find out how the party operates?

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi AdamI was wondering, if as you point out in your post, the party has accepted the use of the party names as outlined above, then how come it isn't being implemented in the case of (. You mention the whittling away of the party decision, but how can that have happened when a democratic decision was made by the party? 

Sorry, I missed this till now. It was whittled away by subsequent Conference decisions, one in 2008 and again this year.A fuss could have been kicked up of a Party Poll not being amended by another Party Poll as Rule 26 states "The results of a Party Poll shall overrule all other decisions (i.e. EC, Conference or previous Party Poll decisions" which implies that a Party Poll decision cannot be overruled except by another Party Poll.However, these days, since every member votes on Conference motions the vote on them is virtually a Party Poll so a formal Party Poll is likely to have the same result. Though not necessarily since a Party Poll motion is subject to a much wider discussion and reflection by Party members. Maybe those of us who want to keep  "of Great Britain" restricted to legal, historical and international occasions only should have been more insistent.Actually, a case can be made for saying that the last paragraph of the  2008 Conference was (and still is) out of order as contrary to Rule 26:

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. publication credits, including the masthead of the Socialist Standard; E. listings of World Socialist Movement parties and publications; and F. 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.

Constitutionally, it may have superseded the previous Conference resolutions but not the 1991 Party Poll that confirmed the 1988 resolution.

[Author]

Posts