Talk:Co-operative Party

message: :The party's capacity to support more than the previously agreed number is debatable as the prospects of non-sponsored members are not always unfavourable.
If I can make sense of this at all, I'd suggest either that it is a relatively trivial internal party debate, unsuitable to Wikipedia OR that the debate deserves to be fleshed out in more detail (and with more clarity!) so as to be more informative to those outside the UK coop movement. Eteb3 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Candidates'''

message: How does funding work in relation to the Labour party? I'm curious because of the issues of funding sources that arise in your country from time to time.
:Funding comes from membership fees and the associated co-operative societies, including the The Co-operative Group.--Free Socialist 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify the two parties are separate in operation, membership, resources, funding and party structures. Legally they are separate parties. The Cooperative businesses (there are very many), but The Co-operative Group is the worlds biggest, provide cash to the Coop party in a comparable manner to Trade Unions provide cash to the Labour Party. While separate it is clear that is not possible for them to overlap in that they exist inside the same movement, with similar working class roots and often have a great deal of overlap in policy views and indeed members with the Labour Party. Since the 1920s the two parties have agreed to work together in elections in a particular number of seats.  Typically the Cooperative Party fund twelve Labour-Coop candidates each general election, but it is clear that only the Labour Party Candidates, who are also Cooperative Party Members for over 6 months ?2 years?, and selected by the local Constituency Cooperative Party can be supported in this way. Local cooperators who stand as Labour or joint candidates received £100 each (if at all) towards campaign costs in the 2010 general election period; although I understand even this not very lavish sum was not widely advertised within the organisation.--AP3 10 21:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Funding'''

message: I hope I maintained NPOV, especially over the Party's origins  garryq 15:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004

message: Gordon Brown. The Co-op party's website doesn't list Gordon Brown as one of their MPs and his wikipedia list of co-op politicians doesn't include him and his own entry doesn't mention the party. I'm going to erase his name from the list here. If anyone can find evidence that he ever was a co-op politician can they put his name back and add a mention of it at hgose articles too. ThanksA Geek Tragedy 17:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gordon is not a Labour Co-operative Member of Parliament, but he has been a key supporter and an individual member, and launched the Party's manifesto at the House of Commons in 2005. I am sure a reference to that can be found at mutuo or the party's websites. However, I think we're right to raise this - what makes a Co-op Party politician, i.e. one that figures on this list or at :Category:UK Co-operative Party politicians? I think it should be those that have stood as official Lab Co-op candidates at any election, or peers accepted into the Parliamentary Group. Simply being a member of the Co-op Party should not qualify as it could apply to a majority of the PLP. But we should make exceptions for people of exceptional involvement, such as Ian Mikardo and Gordon Brown. Remember, Gareth Thomas was not a Lab Co-op MP when he first became chair of the Co-operative Party, so would have been in a similar position. Mtiedemann 21:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noted co-op politicians

message: Well, this bit: "the largest socialist party operating in the United Kingdom, after the Labour Party" - can we really call Labour socialist? I know it used to be. Chewyman
Chewyman, I agree, I am an American, but to me Labour is not communist, while there are some within it who appear to be communist. In my opinion Labour is a moderate left wing party (the equivilent to the Democrats in the USA), as opposed to Conservative/Tory being moderate right wing (equivilent to the Republicans in the USA). My question would be, is the Co-operative party communist? I would consider the Green Party to be communists (we have the green party here in the usa as well). I am, of course, opposed to communism and socialism in all their forms, being a moderate liberal like JFK (not a left wing extremist communist like Cindy Shehan (spelling)). --Brian
71.116.106.31 04:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more specific to call it Social democratic, so I am changing the text and link.  It seems that some outside Europe get confused (with Marxism) when you describe social democracy as a movement within socialism.   --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Outside Europe" has nothing to do with the United States.  Please read the articles on Socialism and Social democracy.  Although socialism is not just Communism, most Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyites are socialists, and call themselves such.  So are social democrats such as Gordon Brown and the Co-op Party, so it is helpful to be more specific.  Also, please at least type the letters rv (short for revert) in your edit summary, or better see talk.  Best --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialist

message: Do "Co-Op Labor" members take the Labor whip as regularly as "Labor" members? Does each party have clearly differentiated policies, and if so, how does the coalition work? 58.178.107.39 04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules of the Co-operative Party allow members to be members of no political party in addition to those who are members of the Labour Party. There are a significant number of senior activists who are not members of the Labour Party, particularly those who have come through from the retail societies, but there are no elected representatives who are not Labour Co-operative. Martín (saying/doing) 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - you can be 'just' a Co-operator, a Co-operator and a Labour party member, but under no circumstances can you be a  Co-operator whilst being a member of a party that competes with Labour. Additionally I understand it, the rules were changed at the last conference that members can now run as solely Co-operative Party candidates in local (council/municipal) elections were there are no Labour candidates running. However, I personally can't see why anyone would want to campaign on that ticket, as unfortunately the Co-op Party is almost completely unheard of in the UK - even in Labour circles - whilst the Labour 'brand' has widespread recognition and committed voters.--Free Socialist 21:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with Labor

message: Chair was changed to Chairman today.  As far as I am aware, Chair is the title currently used for the president of the party.  Does your information disagree with that?  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chair 

message: Please can we have a specific list, it says there are 29 but who are they? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Co-operative MPs

message: i have heard that the current labour government havent done much to help coops. it talks about sponsoring bills, can you provide evedence of this? --Allie cabab (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Labour been favourable to co-operatives?