Talk:Socialist Party (England and Wales)

message: are they called SPEW?   Adam 14:03, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Does anyone know the membership figures, compared with Socialist Workers Party, RESPECT, Socialist Labour Party, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.228.126 (talk • contribs) 
*One of their members told me a year ago that their membership was around 1,300.  This is likely to include everyone who has any claim to membership; their active membership is certainly less.  The SWP has a higher membership than the SP, although it's difficult to determine exactly what it is.  RESPECT includes pretty well all SWP members, plus a fair few other people.  I've got no idea what the SLP membership figure is, but their active membership is very small indeed.  The best place to get estimates of membership figures for UK left organisations is the Weekly Worker, although of course these are often disputed. Warofdreams talk 10:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The SWP claim that 4,100 attended their Marxism 2006 event(see . How many attended the Socialist parties event?--JK the unwise 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :: Hi - Afaik Marxism, and possibly Socialism, have people from all over the left attending them and not just party members, so I'm not sure if attendence figures would shed any light on membership numbers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.137.134 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: For something contentious such as membership figures, we could really do with references.  Perhaps the membership figure they claim, and one given by another source (perhaps the Weekly Worker) might suffice. Warofdreams talk 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please forgive me if I am being dim Votemoose but where on that page is the 1600+ figure? I have looked and looked at the page and I can't see it. Or do you have click the 'Request to join' button to see the figure? I won't click this as I don't wish to join. Thanks. SmokeyTheCat 12:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I have joined the facebook group - the figure it gives in the members box on the page is 1615 at the moment (21:40 BST, Sunday 1st August). Can't remember if it was visible before I did. Votemoose (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership figures 

message: Is it important to point out that the Socialist Party advocate Marxist socialism, i.e. communism, rather than democratic socialism as many other parties of the same name operate the latter?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.72.238 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006.
Good point. It's important to understand that not only are they advocates of Marxism but of Trotskyism in particular, i.e. permanent socialist revolution. As such, the implementation of these demands is totally irrelevant to Socialist Party's idea of a future socialist party. SP is a revolutionary organization, and the list of proposals, though in total more radical than any programme previously implemented by any Labour government would not in itself amount to the kind of revoluion SP wants. 
"In non-revolutionary periods demands for the arming of the working class and the dismantling of the State will not be sufficient. These presuppose that the workers are arriving at or have reached revolutionary conclusions. Soviets can only be demanded or established when objective conditions are ripe". 'Bulletin of Marxist Studies' (Militant int. doc.), Spring 1985, p. 8
 
N.B. Militant or Militant tendency is the Socialist Party's former name. The internal documents which contained the above were leaked and revealed by the now BBC Newsnight Political Editor Michael Crick in his 1986 book 'The March of Militant'.
Thus, their policies must be seen as a transitional programme (drawn up by Trotsky for the Founding Conference of the Fourth International in 1939). In short, their policies serve only to appeal to the working class. As Trotsky says:
"It is necessary to help the masses in the process of the daily struggle to find the bridge between present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat."
94.11.160.24 (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist socialism and Democratic socialism 

message: The SP practice this. In fact it just means centralism. One vote of substance is taken at conference, whether the to confirm or reject the slate the Executive Central Committee (5 or 6 people) presents for the National Executive Committee. In practice this could never be rejected or the whole organisation would cease to function. No individual votes are taken for any position nor is there any alternative slate. The NEC -chosen by the ECC- goes on to rubber stamp the ECC. So the 5 or 6 people on the Executive Central Committee are unelected in any shape form. This is in no sense democratic.SmokeyTheCat 10:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to add things to the article in a NPOV fashion rather then editorialising. Also you need to provide references especially for contentious material.--JK the unwise 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The phrases " In practice Congress could never reject this slate as then the whole party would instantly cease to function. The SP call this 'Democratic Centralism'. In practice it is simply centralism" are totally POV, as you are conjecturing about something ("would cease to function") and stating that conjecture as fact. BobFromBrockley 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well doubtless Taaffe does argue in favour of the way the Socialist Party does things because it guarantees him the job of leader for as long as he feels like doing it. He can compare himself to Lenin and Trotsky as much as he likes. Democratic Centralism is discredited for a good reason : it gave rise to Stalin. Until the Socialist Party becomes genuinely democratic it will never grow and remain the marginal sect that is now. SmokeyTheCat 09:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What does any of that have to do the Socialist Party now? Taaffe elects himself and then quotes Trotsky to justify this. You seem to be quite happy with this 'democracy' Andysoh.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article blandly states:- "Congress elects a National Committee, which in turn elects an Executive Committee of around a dozen or so members which runs the party on a day-to-day basis."
However at Congress there is simply an accept or reject vote for the slate for the National Committee. This slate is chosen by the Executive Committee. So it all goes round in a circle. I've never heard of an alternative slate being proposed. I've never heard of an Emergency Congress being called either. In 6 years in the Party I never saw or even heard of a Constitution or a Rule Book. It all worked on trust. But maybe I am out of date. I don't care anyway. SmokeyTheCat 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Centralism 

message: While I know the two can be used alongside each other, shouldn't either Marxism be added to the infobox, or change the intro text to "...is a Marxist-Trotskyist political party..." or both? - Lasse Havelund (p) (t) 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trotskyism is Marxism, as practised by socialists who supported Trotsky against Stalin, so Marxist-Trotskyist is really tautological.  Marxist-Leninist is a different matter. Warofdreams talk 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's all fine and good, but couldn't you write "Marxism, Trotskyism" in the infobox, instead of using two different terms in two different places, to clarify? I dunno, might just be me. — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist or Trotskyist 

message: Can we add some IMT criticisms on the Socialist Party?76.71.171.251 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: I propose that the article Militant Labour be merged into Socialist Party (England and Wales). Both articles refer to one and the same party, with Militant Labour changing its name to the Socialist Party in 1997. I feel this is different from the Militant tendency which I agree should be covered in a seperate article, since it was a grouping with a notable history in the Labour Party and did not in its entirety become the Socialist Party. I think that the content in the Militant Labour article can be covered within the Socialist Party article without causing any problems of undue weighting. Mpjd500 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: Militant Labour into Socialist Party (England and Wales) 

message: The SP are not exactly open about their membership figures but I would estimate that they are easily below 500 in England and Wales now. Way below 100 members in the capital now. 500 in England and Wales would seem like an over-estimate. There was a time in 1990 when they could have reckoned on 8,000 supporters. 
::No, I don't think so. The SP is quite easily able to mobilise roughly 1000 people to its main events, and its delegate conferences, which might have one delegate per five or ten members (that sort of range) seems to have 300 delegates or so, suggesting somewhere between 1500 and 3000 members. Andysoh (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Below 500 Members in England and Wales now? 

message: The section Domestic abuse allegations, copied below, was recently added by an unsigned person. I have removed it since it carries very serious implications and has a number of misrepresentations, pending editors discussion. I have detailed for reasons below. The socialist party's statement can be found here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Trade_union_figures/Steve_Hedley/16427/02-04-2013/rmt-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer
There are POV issues and a question of whether it is appropriate, noteworthy, and if so, whether it deserves it's own section.
There is a possibility of serious misrepresentation. This is why it was removed.
1. The accusations against Steve Hedley refer to a time before Hedley joined the Socialist Party, and he immediately (not 'later') resigned from the Socialist Party when his former partner made the accusations precisely in order that the Party was not implicated. The Independent article correctly does not cite the Socialist Party. The section, as it stands, by such omissions, results in misrepresentation. No Socialist Party source is cited.
2. His former partner was not a member of the socialist party. In fact she was a member of an organization, the AWL, which has carried a number of articles which attack the socialist party. This is problematic when the leading source in the section is the AWL. 
3. The AWL is one of the two sources which mention or implicate the Socialist Party. The other is the Weekly Worker, which has carried many attacks on the Socialist Party. What is certainly required for a section, I think, is a source which links the Socialist Party to the accusations. I don't see how it could, given the facts.
4. These two sources themselves also have some POV issues, and are not really of the standard of wiki sources.
5. The section says that the socialist party found there was no case to answer. This is incorrect. Here is part of the Socialist Party's statement:
"Following an in-depth investigation the RMT has concluded that there is "no case to answer" against Steve and decided that the union "will not be taking any further action on this matter".
"The police had previously investigated and concluded they would be taking no action.
"All allegations of violence against women should be taken extremely seriously and investigated thoroughly, in a way that is sympathetic towards the woman making the accusation.
"Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."
Here is the removed section:
Domestic abuse allegations in 2013
In March 2013, allegations of domestic abuse surfaced in The Independent against one of the Socialist Party's leading trade unionists, RMT Assistant General Secretary Steve Hedley, who later resigned from the party. The Socialist Party claims there is "no case to answer" and has been accused of covering up for Hedley by other groups on the far-left.
Andysoh (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic abuse allegations - this section, added by unsigned, is removed due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations, pending discussion 

message: This section is factually inaccurate. The "Marxist World Faction" is not a faction because they are no longer members of the CWI.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmox (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Internal Crisis" 

message: This party has some quite communist ideals in there, wouldn't it be far-left and not left-wing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatJosh (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far-left? 

message: I have had to revert several untrue edits following a split of about 5% the organisation:
# removal of CWI affiliation: this is not true as both sides still claim to represent the CWI
# removal of "socialist alternative": this name is still registered to the party with the electoral commission. Even if the split is currently using the name organisationally there is no evidence the party will not continue to use that name in elections as is its right under electoral law.
Please restrict edits to what is factually true and citeable and leave factional motives aside.
Golightlys (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism after 2019 split 

message: The Socialist Party sometimes use the name Socialist Alternative to contest elections, as currently registered with the Electoral Commission.
A new group has every right to use that name for themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that the Socialist Party still has the name registered to them for electoral purposes.
Therefore I oppose recent edits removing Socialist Alternative from the info box but due to contention and COI have opened this for discussion.
Golightlys (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist Alternative 

message: In March 2013 Socialist Party member and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Assistant General Secretary Steve Hedley was accused of domestic violence by a former partner, Caroline Leneghan[69] Hedley resigned from the Socialist Party during the investigation[70]. Hedley subsequently claimed that he had been cleared of abusing Leneghan by the police and by an RMT investigation[71] - the Socialist Party did not carry out an investigation. Leneghan and her RMT rep Andy Littlechild published a statement arguing that Hedley had not been cleared, as charges were not pressed due to the time lapsed between the alleged incident and when it was reported[72]. The Socialist Party's role was strongly criticised by other socialist groups[73].
A former Socialist Party member, Sara Mayo, has also alleged that the Socialist Party's Executive Committee covered up a sexual assault against her by a fellow member[74][75].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See talk in next section Andysoh (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of violence against women