Talk:Socialist Party (England and Wales)

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)

Sometimes (officially) referred to as "Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales)" though. HoboBen (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the article to remove "SPEW". If it's used by detractors, but not by the party itself, it shouldn't be there. 108.171.128.180 (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The party's name is the Socialist Party of England and Wales. That spells SPEW. This is to distinguish them from the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

:: 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)

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)

Some anonymous speaker for the Socialist Party told me on Facebook today that the party has 2000 members but that's an obvious lie. The Facebook Group for Socialist Party doesn't even have 400 members as of today's date.. How many members of the party are not on Facebook? And also people could be members of the Facebook group without being members of the party. So probably around 500 active members now. Only the Socialist Party membership secretary could give the precise figure but won't despite claiming that the Socialist Party is open and democratic. SmokeyTheCat 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the facebook group for the Socialist Party has over 1600 members - see [2]. I assume you mean the fan page which has only recently been created.Votemoose (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Smokey, any branch can propose an alternative slate, or amendments to a slate. Branches can also demand an emergency congress at any point if 1/3rd of branches agree. 81.103.57.200 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Criticisms

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

Add any criticisms you like as long as you have a source. SmokeyTheCat 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Militant Labour into Socialist Party (England and Wales)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Socialist Party (England and Wales). No opposition after 6 weeks Mpjd500 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Below 500 Members in England and Wales now?

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)

Domestic abuse allegations - this section, added by unsigned, is removed due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations, pending discussion

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)

References

"Internal Crisis"

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)

Far-left?

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)

Vandalism after 2019 split

I have had to revert several untrue edits following a split of about 5% the organisation:

1. removal of CWI affiliation: this is not true as both sides still claim to represent the CWI
2. 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)

See also talk:Committee for a Workers' International Golightlys (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative

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)

SPEW has shown no intention of standing as Socialist Alternative since a new group was launched under that name.

However even if we follow the logic that the name should be there as it's a registered name, SPEW also has 7 other names registered with the Electoral Commission, for example "Socialist Alternative (Nellist)" - should they all be added to the info box? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The Socialist Party are standing under their electoral name Socialist Alternative in the Coventry Upper Stoke ward by-election 19 March 2020. Although yes it remains to be seen what name will be used at a general election.

Golightlys (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of violence against women

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)

See talk in next section Andysoh (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual assault have been removed

This is astonishing. Andysoh has removed allegations made by a former Socialist Party member, Sara Mayo, that she was sexually assaulted and that this was covered up by leading SP members. I can only assume Andysoh is a Socialist Party member as they make innumberable edits to this page, and quote Peter Taaffe on their talk page. If this is not the case they are of course welcome to say so. If, however, they are an SP member then they should not be making such significant edits to this page, which show a clear bias. It is also absolutely outrageous that they questioned whether Sara's accusations are "notable". I am reinstating this section. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss your edits before posting them.

Please refer to previous talk sections before posting.

You removed an entire section without discussing it. This was a section which outlined the Socialist Part's position on Women's Oppression. This is not good editing. It could easily be seen as constituting an attack on the Socialist Party from a POV rather than an impartial edit. The accusations of bias carried in your comments above are thereby shown to apply to yourself.

Sara Mayo allegations are self published. They do not constitute a valid wikipedia source. More could be said on this topic if it returns for further discussion.

For these reasons I am returning the section dealing with the Socialist Party's views on Women'a oppression.

In addition, please note the points made about the Steve Hedley section made in 2014, in the talk section under the title "Domestic abuse allegations - this section, added by unsigned, is removed due to inaccuracies and misrepresentations, pending discussion". This entire reference is not a valid entry for the Socialist Party.Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

" You removed an entire section without discussing it. This was a section which outlined the Socialist Part's position on Women's Oppression. This is not good editing." @Andysoh you did just this yourself, please refrain from removing sections without discussion when you, as a member of this organisation, have a conflict of interest 86.25.13.191 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"You removed an entire section without discussing it. This was a section which outlined the Socialist Part's position on Women's Oppression. This is not good editing. It could easily be seen as constituting an attack on the Socialist Party from a POV rather than an impartial edit." I did not remove that section, 86.25.13.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did. I know that lying is second nature to your organisation, but I suggest you refrain from doing it so blatantly. Furthermore the idea that removing a section is an attack on SPEW is bizarre, and frankly indicative of a cult mentality. Has it possibly occurred to you that the section was removed because it was an irrelevant waste of space? You should be familiar with them Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you a member of the Socialist Party? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sara Mayo's allegations were also published in the Weekly Worker and on another blog,both of which I added as a source. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I will review both sources and return to you. However my initial view would be that these are intercene far left disputes of little value in wikipedia terms. Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

re Sara Mayo. What appears to be undisputed by either side is that a member of the Socialist Party put his hand on Sara's knee in a pub after a meeting. Both sides seem to have accepted that. Neither side dispute that there was an investigation and that the assailant, a former employee of Remploy, apologised. However, note that there is no accusation that Sara's accusations were "disabilist" in character. If Wikipedia allowed self-published attacks on political parties on Wikipedia articles, it would substantially lower the standard of Wikipedia articles. I don't think it is notable for these reasons, however I will review her blog post. The Weekly Worker page appears to have been removed. Andysoh (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Astonished to see Mayo actually naming her alleged attacker and making allegations against him which are unfounded, opening herself up to prosecution. I think the named individual would have a good case before the law. I think this is clearly a source that cannot be used by Wikiepdia.Andysoh (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you a member of the Socialist Party? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the points made above before making further edits, particualrly adding material of a potentially libelous nature. Andysoh (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, please refrain from making personal accusations. Andysoh, please refrain from restating that bit of political propaganda which is even more poorly sourced than the material you are removing. All of y'all, stop edit warring--if you continue, I will lock the article and block every single offender. You too, 86.25.13.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Drmies (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the idea of being a member of SPEW is pretty horrible, but I'm not sure it quite constitutes a "personal accusation"? Another regular editor of this page, Golightlys is a SPEW member, but they admit this conflict of interest on their page and avoid making controversial edits as a result. Why is it unreasonable to ask Andysoh if he is a SPEW member? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

COIs can come from detractors/rivals too. If there aren't the reliable third party sources for an organisationally neutral editor to write this section then it's probably a good sign it's not suitable for Wikipedia - as an advertisement or as a critisism. Without those sources its going to be the individial POV of individual editors going backwards and forwards. Golightlys (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like transphobes, so I don't like SPEW. I'm not sure that counts as a conflict of interest? Anyway the accusations were reported in the Weekly Worker. And you remember them, obviously - you were one of Sara's supporters back then, weren't you? Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"What I remember" isn't a source Wikipedia can use. Leaving it there because I'm not going to be involved with editing this section Golightlys (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Golightlys. I do not believe there are any good sources for this material, which is simply not notable. The Weekly Worker article is not a good or usable source. If other editors are unsure of this, I will present arguments for this over the weekend if I have time or as soon as possible after. I hope this is acceptable.

incidentally, the Socialist Party article, Women's rights, trans rights and the Labour movement referenced by Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (who is clearly a detractor/rival of the SP, as can be seen from the comments on this talk section above, e.g. using the term "cult" and SPEW) which I will read in full tomorrow, does not on first viewing appear to indicate any transphobia at all. I have only read the reply from WPUK, expecting it to accuse the SP of transphobia on the basis of Yevgeni's assertion, but the opening paragraph reads "Sarah Sachs-Eldridge's article, 'Labour Party and trans rights: united working-class fight needed for rights and resources for all' in the Socialist (issue 1077, 19 February) is to be welcomed, because it clearly rejects the demand for expulsions of Labour members who are active in, or support the views of, Woman's Place UK (WPUK) and LGB Alliance." And carries on in that fashion, but with some differences of opinion on certain things. Perhaps Yevgeni will enlighten me.Andysoh (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. You're not very bright, are you Andysoh? " I have only read the reply from WPUK, expecting it to accuse the SP of transphobia" - WPUK are a transphobic group. Why would they accuse anyone else of transphobia? Typical SPEW member... Anyway, yes I am a detractor of SPEW as I have made clear. I'm being open about that. I notice that you have still refused to admit that you are a SPEW member. Don't worry, I'd be embarrassed too. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you continually violate WP:CIV and I must ask you to stop. Secondly, your assertion about WPUK appears false at first glance, and rather contrary to fact. However, if you want to back up your statement I would be interested to understand your viewpoint.

I've looked up the background to your assertions. Found this Guardian article - a reputable source - [Labour leadership: row over support for trans rights charter] and this second source which is useful also, [Woman’s Place UK is not a ‘trans-exclusionist hate group’].

So your assertion that the SP is transphobic is in fact based on the following: That some on the left have asserted that certain rights are required for trans people, which others on the left find problematic in some respects. The former, the "Labour Campaign for Trans Rights" then accuse the latter (WPUK) of being transphobic because they raise these objections. Note that the supporters of WPUK strongly object to this and state that this is a defamatory claim. Nevertheless you proceed to state that WPUK are transphobic as fact, and then argue that because the SP is prepared to discuss precisely these contentious trans issues with the WPUK, the SP itself is transphobic, regardless of its own political view point, which has never been transphobic. I think I was therefore right to state that this is a false claim, despite your assertion that I am not very bright. In my view, there are a whole number of problems with your approach to understanding the world, and it possibly gives insight into your desire to publish the defamatory material in Sara Mayo's blog, via the Weekly Worker, despite the numerous problems with it. Andysoh (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The material

For the two sections, on Leneghan and Mayo, there is only one reliable, secondary source, this short article. Whatever that verifies is probably valid article content, though really one needs more sourcing to provide a fuller picture. The rest of the sourcing for both sections is below par and unacceptable, given the requirements in WP:BLP. We cannot use blogs or material written by the involved people; it's as simple as that. So, go find the proper sources and hammer something out here. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP is clear that we can't use Mayo's, Leneghan's or H*dley's blogs - can we use the Weekly Worker's report? https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/958/workers-movement-bureaucratic-justice-and-dealing-/ Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In view of the above discussion, can I first remind Yevgeni Preobrazhensky of wikipedia's policy on civility between editors.

Here is the summary: "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." WP:CIV

I would be grateful for an apology for the insults thrown at me in this section, and an end to personal attacks.

Secondly, it is clear to me that the Weekly Worker is not a reliable source, but a bitter political enemy of the SP using the derogatory term "SPEW" as does Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, who should also review this practice. It represents a tiny group of individuals with an agenda, rather than a valid news source and its main source and line of attack is the blog of Sara Mayo, which is potentially libellous and which the SP disputes.Andysoh (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not apologise to you or the disgusting group to which you belong. Yevgeni Preobrazhensky (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

there is no need for such aggression, get a grip this is wikipedia 92.237.155.25 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)