Talk:Socialist Party (England and Wales)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Name

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

Usually by detractors, yes. Warofdreams 15:29, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In fact the organisation is not called the Socialist Party in England and Wales or the Socialist Party (England and Wales). Its name is simply "Socialist Party".

  • But we can't have the article at "Socialist Party" as this is a disambiguation page, so "(England and Wales)" to distinguish it from other parties of the same name. Warofdreams 11:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Membership figures

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)

Socialist Party member Martin Powell-Davies gained 6,482 first-preference votes when he stood for General Secretary of the Teachers Union in the UK, Roger Bannister 41,406 in the local government union UNISON. This suggests that membership figures are not an accurate measure of influence. Derekmcmillan 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The membership of the Socialist Party is predominantly active and you are not considered a member unless you regularly pay subs. This is in contrast to the SWP, many of whose members are not active and do not pay subs, but are still considered members by the SWP. jimbobalina2005 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On last count the SP's membership is around 1,800, but are aiming for 2000 by mid next year. I would say they rival the SWP's membership, especially active members. Saying this however, the SWP do appear to have more members in London. (RedJim 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

jimbobalina's comment is both partisan and suspect: I've been a member of both organizations and the SWP used to have an annual re-registration process in which all members must be renewed or removed from membership. That meant that peripheral members were paying subs and saw themselves as members. The SP (which I was in for much longer) had no such process and often had nominal members on the books who we'd lost contact with or might not have identified themselves as members. The result was that the SWP's idea of its membership was probably more accurate. This was before the reversal in both groups fortunes; since that time the SWP markedly declined and the SP experienced a period of steady growth (or so it would appear if attendances at their showcase events - Socialism and Marxism - are to be compared).

The SWP claim that 4,100 attended their Marxism 2006 event(see [1]. How many attended the Socialist parties event?--JK the unwise 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is generally the case that in times of great activity, for example in the run-up to elections, national conferences or demonstrations, and during major local campaigns on public services, Socialist Party membership that may be sometimes inactive participate far more. It is rare in most cases for members of the Socialist Party to be inactive throughout the year. Subs are paid by all members and paper subscriptions are taken out by the vast majority. It is also possible that figures of membership on paper may in fact be higher than those cited here, so that the distinction between active and inactive membership is made, though I can't verify that. Ellen 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

At SWP National Conference, the delegates were informed that the SWP's membership stands at around 8,000 active members (either active members or sub-payers) and around 2,000 ambiguous members. Or so I think I remember...


A couple of years ago SP claimed 5000 members, I think this is rather a number due to wishfull thinking than actual membership. If we look at their big campaign on building a new workers party they have only gotten 2500 signatures and considering a large part of those arent' SP members I think the membership is far lower. A pessimistic estimate would be 500 a positive one would be around 1000. Nevertheless the influence seems to have diminished when they stood in elections, this should maybe be written in the article? 80.167.85.23 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Marxist socialism and Democratic socialism

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.

[edit] Democratic Centralism

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)

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)

There is a theoretical basis for democratic centralism and so it needs to be understood from a Leninist perspective. To talk in terms of a liberal democratic electoral process misunderstands what democratic centralism is about. The danger, of course, is that you land up with the centralism without the democracy. But that's the difference between theory and practice!! - Dave Smith 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am an ex-member of the SP and attended conference. I know what I say. The current article merely blandly restates the SP official version of itself. Wiki readers have a right to know the truth. As such I am reverting. SmokeyTheCat 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

It was an omission not to state categorically that the SP pratices democratic centralism, and Smokey has correctly pointed that out. Replaced conjecture with references from three sources. The journalist Crick sometimes lapses into the worst habits of his trade but at other times he is a reliable source, especially where he steers clear of gossip and heresay and gives sources. The entry certainly required more explanation. Andysoh 13:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think many supporters of the Trotskyist ideology, including those in the Socialist Party, would argue that the failure of the revolutions which broke out in the West after the Russia revolution, which left the Russian revolution isolated, and the unfavourable conditions in Russia itself, where the working class were no more than a small minority, gave rise to the bureaucracy. The usual analogy is that when there are shortages, there arises a policeman (the state forces) to police the queues, and then the policeman ensures he is fed first, (and becomes a priviledged layer) or as marx put it, all the s**t comes to the surface. Andysoh 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why does Taaffe elect himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanD 016 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] Marxist or Trotskyist

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)

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)
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)