Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:i think you make a good case for regional offices to kick-start local activity. I knew Glasgow had branch premises at one time (and two branches). But neither Glasgow or Manchester or Midlands have contested elections in recent years. If local members cannot organise an election campaign, it casts a cloud over their capacity to do even more.
North East and Lancaster have contested elections in recent times, perhaps with a relatively local premises more branches would feel inclined to become more active. What's the worst that could happen, we waste a bit of cash and it doesn't work out, we give it back after a year.Despite the cyber revolution, I still think the party needs real places not just cyber spaces, places to meet fellow socialists, to discuss, to socialise and to refresh. I look forward to Annual Conference being held in the North West and all of the delegates from London and the South East being delighted to find they can supp proper beer at half the price. I was thinking we could call the new premises "Moses Barritz House"
jondwhite wrote:Define transactionOne way of defining transaction:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
robbo203 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:What is the purpose of having premises?To hold our records. To store our archives. To mail out the Standard. To host the occasional public meeting. To accommodate our two national conferences. To act as an election office and leafleting base every several years.Now, what is the cost to us?And what could be future costs be of the above functions without using HO?I think you miss out on much of what a regional office (and in my opinion head office) should/could be used for.A physical premises can become the focal point for activity. For example Manchester Branch currently hold meetings in the corner of a pub, not ideal for business or for inviting visitors along. An office in that area would offer the opportunity to hold those meetings in a far more productive setting. As well as this a physical setting can also act as focal point for activity across a whole region. I am often in Manchester, it would be easy for myself and other comrades in the North east to visit on a semi regular visit to access party material, pick up leaflets, etc. etc. I think it is important to stress the positive impact of regular face to face contact with other socialists on individual morale and activity.If a Northern Office was set up and the equipment and systems were made available I see no reason why a member from the North could not take up a party role such as General Secretary, much more easily than is now the case. Effectively by creating a physical space in the North the opportunities for organisational involvement, (membership of committees, party officer posts, etc.) would be widened to a much greater number of party member, at a time when we are having difficulty filling these posts. I think this would have a great impact on Party morale in these regions.I have suggested Manchester as a base, there are other options, but just to point out that on paper at least, such an office would be in reasonably easy travelling distance to five exisiting branches (Manchester, Lancaster, North East, West Midlands and Yorkshire)If we took it a stage further and decideid to hold ADM or Conference at our Northern premises, that might attract sympathisers and local members to attend. It might even attract a bit of interest from the local press.The downside, well it might all fall flat on its arse. We might have spent a year's rent and on costs to achieve nothing, we might have wasted some money. If you reckon costs as a maximum of £1k a month then that's £12k and some members time and effort. Set against the possible benefits to the movement, I don't think that's much of a gamble!
Tim, if you were going to take the plunge and acquire a second premiss albeit on a rental basis might it not be a good idea to first undertake a detailed survey of branches to get some idea of what sort of commitment you could expect from members and sympathisers to getting the project off the ground and maintaining it as something viable and ongoing?
Hi Robbo, just to put your mind at ease, I haven't signed the lease paperwork yet!All I'm doing at this stage is suggesting that it might be a viable option and actually, in my opinion, simpler and more benficial than most members seem to think.I'm of the opinion that, following Lancaster Branch's Item for Discussion at ADM either a motion should be put to the next conference or a motion put to the EC to ask for a couple of volunteers to come up with a feasibility study on the idea (I'd be happy to vounteer).At this point in time all I'm pointing out is what I think are the positive possibilities of such a project. in order to encourage further discussion, perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought that was the purpose of a discussion forum.
alanjjohnstone wrote:What is the purpose of having premises?To hold our records. To store our archives. To mail out the Standard. To host the occasional public meeting. To accommodate our two national conferences. To act as an election office and leafleting base every several years.Now, what is the cost to us?And what could be future costs be of the above functions without using HO?I think you miss out on much of what a regional office (and in my opinion head office) should/could be used for.A physical premises can become the focal point for activity. For example Manchester Branch currently hold meetings in the corner of a pub, not ideal for business or for inviting visitors along. An office in that area would offer the opportunity to hold those meetings in a far more productive setting. As well as this a physical setting can also act as focal point for activity across a whole region. I am often in Manchester, it would be easy for myself and other comrades in the North east to visit on a semi regular visit to access party material, pick up leaflets, etc. etc. I think it is important to stress the positive impact of regular face to face contact with other socialists on individual morale and activity.If a Northern Office was set up and the equipment and systems were made available I see no reason why a member from the North could not take up a party role such as General Secretary, much more easily than is now the case. Effectively by creating a physical space in the North the opportunities for organisational involvement, (membership of committees, party officer posts, etc.) would be widened to a much greater number of party member, at a time when we are having difficulty filling these posts. I think this would have a great impact on Party morale in these regions.I have suggested Manchester as a base, there are other options, but just to point out that on paper at least, such an office would be in reasonably easy travelling distance to five exisiting branches (Manchester, Lancaster, North East, West Midlands and Yorkshire)If we took it a stage further and decideid to hold ADM or Conference at our Northern premises, that might attract sympathisers and local members to attend. It might even attract a bit of interest from the local press.The downside, well it might all fall flat on its arse. We might have spent a year's rent and on costs to achieve nothing, we might have wasted some money. If you reckon costs as a maximum of £1k a month then that's £12k and some members time and effort. Set against the possible benefits to the movement, I don't think that's much of a gamble!
No need for the ice bucket, 10 mins on the interweb produced the following options:html http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/property-45607750.htmlhttp://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/property-69292367.htmlhttp://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/property-69526943.htmlI'm not quite sure about this one though?http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-to-let/property-60741548.html There are literally hundreds of easy in easy out serviced office units all over the country. I personally think the North West/Manchester are would make most sense for a second premises.We could hold ADM or even conference there, attendences from areas outside of London might even increase!
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just enjoying the little bit of peace and quiet created by the absence of certain past contributors. The pleasure of not having to read or respond to the bollocks put forward by L Bird, Knob Andrex, Your man in San Franciso, etc. is a sheer joy!I must admit I was in favour of relaxed modertaion, however I have become a bit of a convert to the use of more proactive moderation.I'm sure that once we have gathered our wits and rested ourselves a little we will see a return to lively debate about issues that matter, hopefully without having to put up with all of the shite that has previously hindered debate.
I remember back in maybe 1985/86 Newcastle Branch putting forward a motion or an item for discussion about taking the idea of the WSM more seriously and really constituting a World Movement. I think this is an ideal opportunity to discuss how we could become a member based organsation on a national and international (world basis).Part of the problem, to me anyway, is that in reality there has been a history of members who really see us as the Socialist Party of London, and who viewed anyone from Watford as being a bit suspect. Although this view became extinct with the departure of the Ashbourne Court Group, it stil has organisational echoes.We need to change the mindset and move away from seeing Clapham High Street as some kind of Socialist St Peter's.The move to a member based organisational structure and the move to consider a second premises in another part of the UK, is one of the most positive things to happen in the part for may years.
Marcos wrote:Are we getting more spammers and trolls ? We just need a few religious fanaticsAmen to that
moderator1 wrote:Bob Andrews wrote:Anyone who wears open-toed sandals deserves all he gets. Did he flee hot-foot? I saw Coleman have a pint of beer poured over his head. Most amusing.Indefinite suspension: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Cheerio Bob
Young Master Smeet wrote:If Sunderland City council called an independence referendum, then it's likely that the councillors could be surcharged, and a court order staying the referendum would mean that the vote could not go ahead. This is utterly fantastic, as it assumes that Mackems could learn to read.Hmmm one of the earliest books in the English Language was written by the Venerable Bede, who was a Mackem. Don't like to stick up for my red and white neighbours, but facts is facts!
Bob Andrews wrote:Last month your EC dealt with 13 Forms F ( if you include those from Africa ) . Make way on that there spider's web!Good to see your still getting value for your money from them there special mushrooms Bob!!!
It doesn't, it just means that there is no reason why we should make any distinction between small capitalist ownership/production and large capitalist ownership/production. The D of P was written in 1904. Socialist production was possiible then, just as it is now.In terms of size, the capitalist enterprises at that time were small compared to the mutlinational corps of today.. What I'm saying is, is that it is the capitalist mode of production which acts as the precurser of Socialism, the size of the capitalist enterprises, beyond a certain point, is not especially relevent to the proess. The issue is not the lack of productive capacity, it's the lack of socialists!
Alan Kerr wrote:@Tim KilgallonAre you claiming as if producers in need will vote actually to hinder production?Why is that?For a start I didn't say "producers in need" in a Socialist society decisions will be made by all of society, not just the producers and need implies shortage, again not necessarily the situation in a Socialist society. So it is feasible that if, for instance, sliced bread production was so plentiful and some people were getting sick of that type of bread, a more labour intesive, but higher quality way of making bread could be initiated for those who want it.
This so-called Socialist preamble is your way of interpreting the D of P, it is perfectly possible to interpret it in other ways, for instance through the medium of dance.From a Socialist perspective it is in any case fatally flawed. It relates presumably to quantity of production. In a Socialist society, quality may be as relevant, sometimes more, than quantity. Small scale production may be democratically decided upon as of being preferable to large scale production
