[Brian]

This is the present workload done at HO:Responding to requests for literature, publications and photocopying (HOO); Ballot Committee (vacant); archives; Premises Committee(vacant); Central Branch admin (vacant); membership admin; procurement of office equipment and stationery drop off (HOO); petty cash (HOO, Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer); general mail-outs [EC minutes, Conference and ADM documentation] and responding to enquiries (HOO); correspondence (HOO, Treasurer and GS); literature distribution and drop-off (HOO); phone messages (HOO); library; public meetings (Campaigns); SS drop-off, distribution and adjustments to the SS mailing list; S. London Branch meeting; EC meetings, Conference and ADM venue; responding to advertising and contacts; contacts list; TV display on frontage.

[Brian]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/11/15/economists-used-to-think-that-it-doesnt-matter-whom-you-tax-but-it-does/?platform=hootsuiteThe paper appears to agree with us that the burden of taxation doesn't really fall on the workers, but it does suggest some interesting ideological effects: that people feel they are paying tax if they are told they are, and thus support less government spending when they feel they will be taxed less:

Quote:

In our experiment, we organise a labour market with employers and employees. Employees supply labour to do a task for which the employer pays them. Employers make money based on the tasks successfully finished by the employees. We tax both sides, but vary the split of taxes between employer and employee, while keeping both total labour costs and net income constant. This experimental control is ideal to study the differential reactions to the taxes and to investigate the psychological mechanisms that might cause these reactions.

Their experience of people not appreciating the difference between gross and net wages is interesting, though aggregation over a bigger economy would see more people responding to the net (if only in marginal ways).The authors can't find a policy decisions to apply these findings: but we can.  taxes are ideological, they are a tool of control, not of funding the government.

So governments are not funded through taxation?  So where in fact does their funding come from?

[Brian]

Brian Gardner wrote:

 If the default position was that the work of the party should genuinely be able to be done remotely with little more than a comrade at a laptop and hosted somewhere without having to still relate to a physical version at HO (eg like extracting the email addresses you mentioned from archives)  then workload could genuinely be spread out amongst the membership.  The work I'm at has a number of people working rmeotely.  It uses Sharepoint for secure access to documents, edit/review facility etc,.  There are many other similar products that make this sort of thing laughably easy – I'm sure most comrades have better experience than me at what these things can do.  And once you get used to it Skype meeitngs and videoconferencing become second nature.My disappointment with the questionnaire is that I think we all know what the questionnaire responses are going to say. I'm not saying anything novel – I think we all pretty much know how we'd like a new gee-whizz internet-savvy SPGB to look and function.  Doing nothing really doesnt look like a viable option for much longer. So to mix metaphors, I'm less for (the old response we always get) "you cant run before you can walk" and more for a Kevin Costner "build it and they will come". We know what's wrong with the current set-up and we have a pretty good idea of how we'd like things to look, so we should be looking at how we implement this, by making the shift to online party admin and democracy the default driver over the next 1-2 years. 

See my #76 in response to HO being a burden and the need for the party to use more digital technology.In response to your novel Kevin Coster suggestion "build it and they will come".  Yes I agree that will be the probable outcome, but nevertheless it depends on what we actually build and throw out there that will determine the volume of response. Sharepoint may have it uses for a few party posts but not all.  On the other hand meetings by Skype can be done so long it only involves a small group of people.  And video conferencing technology is still in its relatively early stages of becoming user friendly and has a long way to go before it reaches our democratic standard.However, streaming of Conference/ADM  and uploading the recording to Cloud or something similar would be possible but currently it would be nothing more than a passive medium with the user being a spectator and not an active contributor to the live discussion.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

BrianJ, as someone who talks about positive responses you lapses into negativism in response to the other Brian's post.BrianG's contribution did not explicitly offer specific changes bit some are implicit in the consequences.   "how do you propose to support all of these suggestions.  Members are currently unwilling to step forward and fill the posts of HOO, Gen Sec and Treasurer." you askedIsn't shedding ourselves of the burden of a HO releasing human resources? We keep appealing for and returning to the issue of HO Organisers and keeping the premises open. Isn't transforming into more a web-based party structure, decentralising the Party in the process, lessening the work-load of a few members and spreading and dispersing the load. It may be unpalatable for other members but BrianG did present a way forward.

It seems the assumption being made here is based on the false premise that HO is a burden on our activity and further reached the equally false conclusion that due to advances in digital technology most of the administrative tasks now being carried out at HO can now be done at a touch of a button, albeit remotely?  Not so, and even if it was the case its a negative fallacy to think it logically follows it would lessen the workload. For instance, since the introduction of emails the workload of the General Secretary has actually increased with members and the public demanding and getting a faster means of communication.  Which means the volume of hardcopy has decreased but the volume of digital has increased.If HO is in actual fact a burden its a necessary burden seeing that despite the advances in digital communication and technology society is still heavily dependent on the use of communicating hardcopy to those who are uninclined to go digital.

[Brian]

Brian Gardner wrote:

Apologies for long post – but not been here for years so allow me : )The world’s working class appears – indisputably despite our efforts – to have in recent years undergone something of a significant and positive shift in terms of its understanding of the workings of capitalism and rejection of its ideologies. Support for religion, nationalism, racism, and political leadership in general is – albeit slowly – in inexorable decline. This may in part be the result of ten years of falling living standards, but equally and independently, the ideological defences of capitalism are much weaker in the aftermath of Iraq and austerity; it is increasingly seen as an inherently unfair and broken system. The only defence we now hear is that “there is nothing better”I think, then that we should view the reorganisation of the Party as a positive step to match this political development, rather than make a grudging necessity out of what should be seen as a virtue. A wholesale review of our structure is very welcome, but for me this questionnaire lacks ambition, and doesn’t appear to allow for the option real, substantial change. Talk of holding EC meetings outside London strikes me as very conservative. But hopefully, this is just the start as Brian J says.There is nothing new in what I have to say but I do think that party administration, party democracy and socialist activity are all inter-related. Party democracy should be put online (no more having to post things out from Head Office), and be driven by individual members rather than geographical branches. Resolutions with supporting statements should be posted (text, audio, video) with a minimum number of supporting votes for it to progress to formal discussion over a stipulated timescale, before electronic voting occurs.  A well-designed – and moderated – discussion platform would of course be essential to this.  Inability/unwillingness of members to access the internet is not acceptable and should not be seen – in 2017 – as a valid reason to reject this opportunity.EC meetings could be 1-2 hours per week, with EC members attending remotely, and streamed to the membership. Off the shelf web conferencing will allow members’ faces to be seen and heard readily, while allowing documents, minutes etc to be posted and read in advance, enhancing participation. There will be confidentiality & security issues, but these are surmountable.  Party committees would also meet online and could be streamed, for thems as want to watch, introducing a transparency and voluntary discipline. Party democracy could be participative and immediate, compared to the somewhat remote and sclerotic current situation.Local branches should indeed evolve into activity groups to suit local members’ needs, focussed on discussing and carrying out practical activity, and enhancing the important social function.  All such groups should receive funding to enable meetings to be streamed (good quality video & audio equipment).  All streamed meetings would be advertised on the website and social media and open to viewers to text/post questions live to the chair/moderator. Rather than speaking to the converted in the back room of a pub, knowing that you might be fielding questions from viewers around the world might make some speakers put in a bit more preparation!We currently maintain an under-used and hugely expensive office. Missed rental income from this must be in the range of £2-3K per week, for which we are able to maintain a presence for at best 3 days per week. Perhaps our mode of organisation is now becoming a fetter on production (our propaganda function). Far smaller, and more suited professional office accommodation could be rented for a fraction of this income off the main street.  This would secure the long-term viability of the Party as well as release funds to fully deliver the Party as a democratic digital organisation. Efforts are being made in this regard but we struggle to fill party admin positions because we are locked into a Clapham-centric view requiring some degree of physical attendance, and placing unfair burden on London membersIf we were just starting out with a blank sheet, having our inaugural meeting to decide how we should organise ourselves, would we look to buy four floor accommodation on a busy main street in expensive London, that we couldn’t maintain?! With half our spending going on Head Office (last time I checked), the SPGB is arguably a landlord with a sideline as a political party.But with a digital Party structure consolidated in place, we would be in position to finally break with both the past and with the artificial borders capitalism constrains us within. In consultation with our moribund companion parties we could open up membership to the world.  This need not just be symbolic. As well as aiding our isolated overseas comrades by bringing their views into a thorough-going democratic organisation, we may find that in forming the first genuinely revolutionary and international political party it galvanises our own membership. Landless peasants are now using the internet to realise their commonalities across continents and form highly-effective international movements. Surely we can aspire to this too: we are, after all, the only “socialist” political movement that can actually make a coherent and consistent argument to the workers of the world. 

And how do you propose to support all of these suggestions.  Members are currently unwilling to step forward and fill the posts of HOO, Gen Sec and Treasurer.

[Brian]

The distribution figures are 220 by email and 133 by post.  Please note that due to some anomalies this total figure of 353 is the approximate figure for membership. To arrive at a definitive figure will require further work by someone other than the adhoc committee. Once the returns for the survey/questionnaire are all in I'll post them here.Please fill in the survey/questionnaire a.s.a.p.

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

There is also a vacancy for Central Branch Secretary which can (and was) done from home. This involves keeping the branch membership list up-to-date, reminding them to pay voluntary contributions, and welcoming new members,

Except that under the terms of the revised Rule 2 members are not required to pay contributions, voluntary or otherwise.Relevant extract from Rule 2 – Members contribute to the achievement of the Party object in accordance with their abilities and means which may include the propagation of ideas, active participation, financial contributions and encouraging others to become Socialist.  (emphasis added)

Nonetheless, has we move forward, this post is going to be very important in regards to "keeping the branch membership list up-to-date" and putting out the welcome mat.  Indeed, I strongly suspect – once the cross referencing is completed on the survey/questionnaire with other lists – we'll find that many Central Branch members (and others) will be lapsed through lack/loss of contact.  Especially when it comes to the older members!

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

The security warning is due to an expired SSL certificate.  The Internet Committee is aware of the problem and is working on a solution.

The SSL certificate had not expired.  For some reason it was not automatically renewed.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think we all understand our problem of too much work on too few shoulders. It is not just a national organisational issue but i am sure every branch locally suffers similarly and may well explain their lack of activity.One solution would be bringing those "far-flung" members within the Party and WSM closer.The blog knows only too well that such a suggestion is easier said than accomplished (as we have made our own overtures to coax more involvement from around the world) which is a bit of a quandary because computers should have ended political isolation. I think this is a concern that has to be addressed and as now been explained, this review was not set up wide enough to include looking at things from a WSM level – a weakness of the original conference motion.And it must be something the SPGB and the Companion Parties return to – how to make the WSM a more unified and identifiable entity – the base of world socialism.There is no need for rancour or animousity in this debate but the risk of offending comrades feelings shouldn't discourage criticism. 

In my opinion, at this present moment in time, we need to stay firmly focused on the issue and problems at hand by returning the survey/questionnaire sooner rather than later.

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It doesnt surely take that much for the committee to enlarge its brief to carry out a second survey using the data on the computer system and perhaps a third survey with regard to the companion parties.

I am afraid it is not as simple as that. The data on the computer system was out of date and incomplete and had to be completed by trawling through emails from members to Head Office, application forms, and asking branch secretaries. There has been no email list for communicating with members individually.Nor can the committee change its brief just like that. It was set up in response to specific resolutions voted by Conference this year. The survey is only the first part of its brief. There have been surveys in the past but nothing concrete has emerged from them. This is why this committee's terms of reference include making specific proposals to amend the Rulebook.For the record, here's what its terms of reference are:

Quote:

A. To consult the membership on the current and future organisational structure of the Party, in particular on how Party members and sympathisers can participate, including electronically, in setting priorities.B. To look at the implications, in terms of amendments to the rulebook, decision-making procedures and workload at Head Office, should the Party become a national membership organisation.C. To submit a report to the EC in time for it to be presented to 2018 Annual Conference.

As you can see, the survey is only the first part of its work.  The second part is equally important. Changes to the way the Party makes decisions, e.g. converting branches into "activity groups" or allowing any 5 members to propose motions to a general meeting of members, electronic voting, or whatever, will require a change to the Rules, which can only be done by a vote of the membership.

Now that the distribution is mainly completed and the collating already started the committee is looking at breaking down B. into three separate categories: Rules; decision-making process; and workload.  None of which can be treated in isolation of each other due to their interconnections and interdependency on one another.  It probably means we'll be working flat out to get the report in front of the EC by the 19th January 2018.  Presently, I'm listing the lessons learned from the distribution exercise, which will more than likely have a major impact on the workload issues and problems at HO.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

.No questions asking what members perceive as our weakness and how they can be addressed.We have to pin-point what is missing/lacking from our Party  

I suggest you take another look at the survey questionnaire.  Although these concerns are not directly addressed, because they would be leading questions, we have split the 'concerns' into several questions.The whole point of the exercise is to capture the information and evidence on "what is missing/lacking".Nevertheless, its essential this information and evidence attains credence with the members responding being sufficient for validity.  If we are unable to get sufficient members responding then we most certainly have a big problem on our hands.I urge all comrades to get  the survey/questionnaire returned a.s.a.p. and not to wait until the last moment.If we have missed any member just make a post here and I'll follow it through.

[Brian]

Vin wrote:

Brian wrote:

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 One thing we can be assured of, as always with the SPGB…decisions will not be made in secret. 

Except the decisions of sub committees of the EC?

Can't resist sniping with false allegations and distractions, can you.  Which at this moment in time I can well do without.  So can you do me a favour and let me get on with the job in hand under the party procedures.

It is a  fact that sub committees make decisions that are not 'in the public domain'. You have said so yourself (see above). Don't  shoot the messengerExplain what is a 'false accusation' or withdraw your personal attack on my integrity.  You just can't leave personal grudges aside can you? You should give yourself a warning.

The false allegation is your accusation that sub-committees of the EC make "secret" decisions.  Now please let me get on with the job in hand.  And no I don't expect an apology.

[Brian]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 One thing we can be assured of, as always with the SPGB…decisions will not be made in secret. 

Except the decisions of sub committees of the EC?

Can't resist sniping with false allegations and distractions, can you.  Which at this moment in time I can well do without.  So can you do me a favour and let me get on with the job in hand under the party procedures.

[Brian]

Marcos wrote:

Is this only for the  members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain ? 

Yes.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Can this survey/questionaire be emailed to myself, if it has not been taken care of.Can the data you cite that has already been collated be placed online at an appropriate place or provided on request to assist in any replies to the committee.

Yes you and all the members for who we have an email address will get them tomorrow.  I was hoping to get them out today.  However, due to data protection all emails will be by BCC and has I've found out getting that to work properly is not so easy.  BCC automatically rejects the message if any of the addresses are inaccurate or no longer in use.  So I've been hitting glitches when amending the email addresses. The UK members will also be posted by Royal Mail tomorrow and the overseas members on Wednesday.I have not cited any data. I've only mentioned lessons learned – so far.- and with more to come these will be included in our report.  Being a committee of the EC we can't put anything in the public domain and until the EC has viewed it in February and then informed the Branches of our findings it will remain under wraps until then.However, I will say that the distibution has not been an easy task to complete.The general membership will have to wait until the Conference agenda is published to browse over the findings.  Nevertheless, once the members start digesting the contents I am expecting some comments on the survey/questionnaire to be posted either here or on SPINTCOM . The more feedback we have will mean better efficancy in the future.

[Author]

Posts