Agenda for Autumn Delegate Meeting 2016
- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Agenda for Autumn Delegate Meeting 2016
The Socialist Party of Great Britain
Saturday 15thOctober 10.30 – 5.30
Sunday 16th October 10:30am to
At HO, 52 Clapham High St
LondonSW4 7UN
Items and Order of Business
A Election of Chair, Deputy Chair and tellers by the delegates
B Fraternal Greetings from members, branches, companion parties
C Arrangement by delegates of the order for taking the items of business
D The 2016 EC and Party Officer’s Report to Autumn Delegate Meeting
E Items for discussion
F Any Other business
The suggested order for taking the items of business is:
1. Report of the General Secretary
2. Assistant Secretary’s Report – post vacant in the time period
3. Item for Discussion West London Branch
“Is an excess of bureaucracy and arduous procedure deterring participation in Party work and placing greater burdens on willing members?”
4. Item for Discussion West LondonBranch
“Should Conference revert to being the Party’s decision-making forum?”
5. Report of Archives Committee
6. Report of Library Committee
7. Report of Ballot Committee (no report but see call for nominations)
8. Report of Blog Committee
9. Item for Discussion Manchester Branch
“In order to avoid confusion with the Trotskyists, should we stop referring to ourselves as the Socialist Party, but only use ‘Socialist Party of Great Britain’ or ‘SPGB’?”
Page 1
10. Central Branch Secretary’s Report – post vacant
11. Central Organiser’s Report
12. Education- post vacant
Conference adjourns for Lunch 1pm to 2.30pm
13. Report of the Election Committee
14. Item for Discussion West London Branch
“Should there be a Party position on referendums in general?”
15. Report of Enquiries Committee
16. Report of the Advertising Committee
17. Report of the Treasurer
18. Report of the Assistant Treasurer
19. Item for Discussion West London Branch
“Removing an ambiguity in Rule 2”
20. Report of the Audio-Visual Committee No report
21. Item for Discussion Kent and Sussex Regional Branch “Is Rule 17: a) relevant to the 21st century? and b) being applied correctly?”
22. Item for Discussion Kent and Sussex Regional Branch “Audio-Visual Productions –In addition to recordings of talks and debates, which will be of interest to many but not all, is there a need to provide more audio-visual content to get our message across to workers? If so, where should the balance lie between utilising whatever in-house capacity we have, albeit the quality may be less than perfect, as opposed to commissioning external producers (as with the 2014 election video)? What should be the measure of quality and how much money if necessary should the Party be willing to invest in such productions?”
Conference adjourns until Sunday: Conference resumes at 10.30am
23. Report of Internet Committee
24. Item for Discussion Manchester Branch
“Should the party commercially commission a whiteboard-style animation for publishing on our website?”
Page 2
25. Item for Discussion Manchester Branch
“Should there be an internet radio broadcast of our existing audio recordings online either scheduled at particular times or on a looped playlist from our website?”
26. Report of Socialist Standard Production Committee
27. Item for Discussion Lancaster Branch
“Design of the Standard in 2017”
28. Item for Discussion West London Branch
“The SSPC has been experimenting with Socialist Standard content, perhaps in part because of a shortage of acceptable material. Is the balance of articles likely to appeal to the first-time reader and does it consistently convey to newcomers the essentials of our case?”
Conference adjourns for Lunch 1pm to 2.30pm
29. Report of Media Committee
30. Report of Campaigns Committee No report posts vacant
31. Report of Membership Applications Committee
32. Report of Premises Committee
33. Report of Publications Committee
34. Summer School Report
35.Universityand Colleges
36. Report of Standard Orders Committee
We call for nominations for Chair and deputy Chair.
Standing Orders Committee
9th September 2016
Page 3
Supporting Statements from branches on items for discussion3. West London Branch
“Is an excess of bureaucracy and arduous procedure deterring participation in Party work and placing greater burdens on willing members?”
We are using the word 'bureaucratic' in the sense of unnecessary paperwork rather than its other meaning of rule by officials. Obviously the rulebook has to be applied but what we have in mind are two things: (i) unnecessarily long and complicated EC agendas and Minutes, and (ii) endless discussions about committees' Terms of Reference and Forms for them to complete.
In our view (i) will be a factor in members being reluctant to go on the EC and of some who have dropped out before the end of the year. It must certainly be a factor in no one coming forward to be General Secretary. The agenda should be as simple as possible and not contain cross-references to previous matters that have been discussed without resulting in a decision (as that only encourages yet another round of discussion on a dormant issue). The Minutes should be just that – a record of decisions, with a brief explanatory introduction where necessary. No need to record what EC Members said and certainly not blow-by-blow accounts of leaks in the roof or painting the walls of Head Office.
With regard to (ii), discussion of Terms of Reference has, thankfully, died down for the moment and the reporting forms for Conference and
4. West London Branch
“Should Conference revert to being the Party’s decision-making forum?”
The resolution replacing the decision-making function of Conference with postal voting following the issue of truncated versions of delegate discussion (the argument being that this is more democratic) has proved to be misguided. Quite apart from the efficacy of the change, the lack of a General Secretary and the increased burden on others expected to compensate has meant that communication to members has suffered — for example, no report of last year’s
9. Manchester Branch
“In order to avoid confusion with the Trotskyists, should we stop referring to ourselves as the Socialist Party, but only use ‘Socialist Party of Great Britain’ or ‘SPGB’?”
Self-explanatory, no supporting statement needed – Manchester Branch.
14. West London Branch
“Should there be a Party position on referendums in general?”
In 1910-11 the Party adopted a position of the far from pressing subject of what should be the attitude of a minority of Socialist MPs to measures proposed for a vote in
Page 4
Parliament by the government or other parties. The position adopted was that, while they should not propose any such measures themselves, they could vote for or against any such measure depending on how the Party judged whether or not they would be of material benefit to the working class or help the work of the Socialist movement. This position was of symbolic importance as it showed that we are not opposed to all reform measures on principle (some members, who were, left the Party over the issue).
Referendums are comparatively new in British politics (though not in some other countries). The first was in 1979 over Scottish devolution. Since then there have been others on Welsh devolution, London government, the voting system, Scottish independence, and the EU, as well as local ones about whether to have an elected mayor.
There is some parallel with the minority of Socialist MPs’ question in that the decision whether or not to support any proposal is being put not to the MPs, but directly to the working class. But how far does the parallel go? Does it go as far as the Party considering the proposal on its merits? If so, this would involve the Party taking a position on each referendum proposal (for, against, abstain). In practice, in all but one of the referendums, the Party has adopted the position of writing ‘Socialism’ across the ballot paper, i.e., in effect abstention (the one exception was the one on the Alternative Vote where we didn't take a position either way, i.e. a free hand). But even this doesn't seem to be a three-line whip as a number of members publicly said they were going to vote ‘Remain’ in the recent EU referendum.
A rigid abstain in all referendums position (the equivalent of a minority of Socialist MPs abstaining on all proposed measures) is not sustainable as it is possible to imagine referendums where we would vote ‘No’ and others where we might vote ‘Yes’. In fact, we don't have to imagine this, as in Australia there have been referendums on introducing conscription and banning the Communist Party where we would vote ‘No’, while in Ireland there have been ones on permitting divorce, abortion, same sex marriage, etc where we might vote ‘Yes’ (and where our members there did do this).
In any event, there is a need for a discussion on this whole question with a view to hammering out a policy on referendums, on which it is more urgent to have one than on how a minority of Socialist MPs should vote.
19. West London Branch
“Removing an ambiguity in Rule 2”
The first sentence of the Rule states: ‘Each member shall pay a voluntary amount annually to Party funds’. This seems to be being interpreted by some as meaning that the payment of anything to the Party is voluntary, even though the intention is that it is the size of the amount that ‘shall’ be paid that is voluntary. This intention can be made even clearer by amending the Rule to read: ‘Each member shall pay an amount of their choosing annually to Party funds’. This amount may be a penny (if that's all a member thinks furthering the cause of socialism is worth) but it can't be nothing.
21.Kent and Sussex Regional Branch “Is Rule 17: a) relevant to the 21st century? and b) being applied correctly?”
“Rule 17. The Executive Committee shall publish and control the Party literature. Election Statements and Election Manifestos must be approved by the Executive Committee before printing excepting handbills and leaflets. They shall establish a literature agency, from which all Branches shall be supplied, establish and maintain communications with Socialist Parties abroad and otherwise generally administer the work of the Party in accordance with Party polls, Party rules and Conference decisions,
and, to this end may appoint sub-committees. Names shall be called for, subject to the
Page 5
Executive Committee being authorised to appoint members directly to these sub-Committees if no nominations are received.”
Rule 17 recently came into prominence following the appearance on YouTube of a proposed introductory party video produced and narrated by a member of over 30 years standing. A notice of motion was put down for consideration by the July 2016 Executive Committee (and subsequently carried at its August 2016 meeting). viz: “That all members be reminded that in accordance with Rule 17, any publications except leaflets and hand bills are to be authorised by the EC prior to publication (including on public websites such as YouTube) and be requested not to publish in advance of such authorisation any items which may be reasonably construed as published by SPGB.”
While the EC may have acted in good faith there is a view within the branch that the EC has 'over-interpreted' Rule 17 and that, rather than requiring the EC to approve everything, the meaning of the current wording of Rule 17 may mean that only election statements and manifestos have to be approved by the EC.
It is pertinent to ask why Rule 17 has not been applied on the many previous occasions that ‘unofficial’ party videos have been uploaded to YouTube and to the party’s own website over a period well in excess of ten years.
The long list includes videos of talks given at Summer School for at least the past five years, various interviews conducted on TV; ‘Capitalism and other Kids’ Stuff’; debates with Ben Dyson (Positive Money), Michael Albert (Parecon), John Meadowcroft (Institute of Economic Affairs), Eamonn Butler (Adam Smith Institute), Federico Pistono (Zeitgeist Movement), Elizabeth Jones (UKIP), Trotskyist Hillel Ticktin, Anarchist Ian Bone, and many, many more. There were even videos of talks given by non-members and published by the party on YouTube (Andrew Kliman, Brian Morris).
To the best of our knowledge not one of these videos was submitted to the EC for vetting and approval prior to their publication on one or both of these sites. Rule 17 was perfectly reasonable for an early 20th century situation, but as ‘publishing’ is now such a different concept it’s essential that the party modifies its approach accordingly. It is the branch’s contention that Rule 17 has not been fit for purpose for some considerable time and has been unfairly applied by the EC on this occasion for reasons best known to itself. It needs urgent revision whereby the Rule reflects the status quo with the Audio/Visual Committee being entrusted with the overall production and publication of video material in much the same way as the Socialist Standard Production Committee produces the Socialist Standard without the direct intervention of the Executive Committee.
22. Kent and Sussex Regional Branch
“Audio-Visual Productions -In addition to recordings of talks and debates, which will be of interest to many but not all, is there a need to provide more audio-visual content to get our message across to workers? If so, where should the balance lie between utilising whatever in-house capacity we have, albeit the quality may be less than perfect, as opposed to commissioning external producers (as with the 2014 election video)? What should be the measure of quality and how much money if necessary should the Party be willing to invest in such productions?”
Hopefully the text of the item is self-explanatory, and our delegation at
care, planning and preparation, the option to successfully commission additional content externally is there if the Party considers the cost worthwhile.
Page 6
24. Manchester Branch
“Should the party commercially commission a whiteboard-style animation for publishing on our website?”
Whiteboard animation is a process where a creative story and storyboard with pictures is drawn on a whiteboard by artists who record themselves in the process of their artwork. It is used in TV and internet advertising to communicate messages in a unique way.
The RSA (Royal Society for Arts) have produced lots of whiteboard animations and the ten minute video to accompany part of David Harvey's talk 'Crises of Capitalism' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 or Slavoj Zizek's 'First as tragedy, then as farce' video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g) has been viewed nearly three million times. 'We Are Cognitive' who animated the RSA animate videos also produced excellent similar animations but in colour for
25. Manchester Branch
“Should there be an internet radio broadcast of our existing audio recordings online either scheduled at particular times or on a looped playlist from our website?”
The SPGB audio archive online already runs to hundreds of hours, and listened back-to-back would take days if not weeks. Although website visitors can access these recordings online, when each audio recording lasts two hours, choosing what to listen to and where to start can prove daunting and off-putting.
By broadcasting a looped playlist of our online audio recordings as an internet radio transmission, we can engage the casual visitor to the website in a completely novel way and make effective use of our large archive. No other political parties in Britain (or in the English language anywhere as far as we know) do this. Even for visitors who would listen to talk, it introduces website visitors to talks they might otherwise have not chosen to listen to.
It also gives the impression of a party active around the clock and can be achieved relatively simply.
27. Lancaster Branch
“Design of the Standard in 2017”As the current design and layout team (P. Shannon and N. Windle) for the Standard have announced their intention to not continue in the role after December 2016, now would seem a good time to discuss the immediate future of designing the Party’s journal. Members who wish the role to be kept in-house need to consider options if volunteers with sufficient skills are not found. In fact the word ‘sufficient’ hardly does justice to the spread of knowledge required to make the Standard look as it now does, and a new layout team or individual will hopefully want to make it look better.
One option is to pay a professional graphic designer to handle design. As the current design and layout team (P. Shannon and N. Windle) for the Standard have announced their intention to not continue in the role after December 2016, now would seem a good time to discuss the immediate future is might be only as a temporary measure until the role is taken back in-house. Whilst this might be expensive, it does at least ensure
Page 7
publication of a professional-looking journal every month. Another option is to seek volunteers from outside the Party from sympathisers or former members.
There has never been a ‘Plan B’ for design of the Standard. While in the past this may not have mattered so much, today it is not a simple matter to take over in an emergency. The present team attempted to recruit and train 6 apprentices to future-proof the Standard, but nobody stayed the course. Thus if some accident befalls the present or any future layout team, the Standard is in danger of not coming out at all. In view of this, it's time we discussed a Plan B.
28. West London Branch
“The SSPC has been experimenting with Socialist Standard content, perhaps in part because of a shortage of acceptable material. Is the balance of articles likely to appeal to the first-time reader and does it consistently convey to newcomers the essentials of our case?”
The appearance, over the last couple of years, of articles that could have printed in virtually any non-political publication has concerned and baffled many members. The SSPC has not received sack-loads of complaints and believes the material is acceptable to the majority; it defends the articles on the grounds that they ‘do not say anything that is contrary to the Party case’ and appears happy with wholly descriptive text, dismissing criticism as a misdirection of energies. Complainants are not, however, objecting to writers who approach a greater range of subjects in a more oblique way than has traditionally been the case, but that outcomes in many cases have manifestly been of less than no use in furthering our objective (unless they are deemed to be evidence that we are ‘normal’ individuals). A Standard with fewer articles presenting the essentials of our political position is defensible if the first-time reader gains this knowledge from regular reading of the journal; the contention of the disquieted member is that the distinctive elements of our case are not stated often enough, while material of a vacuous nature seems to be ever-expanding.
The SSPC acknowledges that it is having problems securing articles of sufficient quality, which is a more credible explanation for the new departure and may be but one element in a wider Party malaise. The average monthly sales of the Standard have declined steadily since full colour was launched in 2012, which obviously cannot be attributable wholly to content; but it certainly does not help if many members have misgivings about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.