Far left returns to the electoral commission
Posted on Wednesday 25 July, 2007
Filed Under The left
Hours of sectarian fun are to be had at Electoral Commission website, examining the financial accounts produced by all parties that stand in UK elections.
I haven’t had time to digest all the goodies yet. But even from a cursory glance, I can assure readers that this is a goldmine for leftist trainspotters.
Thus I can tell you that SPGB copped a legacy donation of £85,317 last year, and that membership of the CPB rose from 821 in 2004 to 923 in 2006.
Workers’ Liberty is nominally a profitable operation, while Respect have registered an outfit called Respect – the Unity Coalition (NI) to operate in Northern Ireland.
Oh, and Respect’s membership subscriptions last year fell from £126,660 to £48,708, confirming earlier reports that recruitment isn’t exactly going great guns.
I suspect that Arthur Scargill might be fibbing when he gives membership of the SLP as 3,000 affiliated and 2,958 individual, though. That’s because membership dues total just £9,075, and I’m sure the dwindling ranks of the party’s supporters are being asked to cough up rather more than three quid a head.
Scargill’s vanity project is £16,571 in deficit.
<<Go back
Comments
40 Responses to “Far left returns to the electoral commission”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
At the far left loony bin which is Urban 75 there has been a fair old ding dong about the cuddly old SPGB recently, specifically their reliance on dying members’ legacies to keep going.
re: the SPGB, a party which is more reliance on the death of its supporters, than their activity doesn’t have much future, does it?
Jeff,
as someone who has actually contributed to that thread on Urban 75, I’d like to point out to other readers that your tittle-tattle is wide of the mark.
The original poster raised it incidentally – and he was incorrect – but his main concern was to make political capital out of a messy personal dispute within the SPGB.
“far left loony bin which is Urban 75″
Shouldn’t you be writing guest posts over at Harry’s Place?
Well I hate Harry’s place, but I have to agree that Urban75 is mostly an unreadable sectarian madhouse. Unless U75 has changed drastically in the 12 months or so since I last bothered to even look at it
What did I write that was wide of the mark?
And I’ve never heard of Harry’s Place.
Personally I was interested in the membership of the RCPB(ML) and whether they’d grown at all. Apparently not, they still have their three members
Class.
Full members – 3
They name two: Chris Coleman and Roger Nettleship. Who is the mysterious third member?
“. . . specifically their reliance on dying members’ legacies to keep going.”
that was wide of the mark.
Why, apart from an imperialist reflex typcial of the British Labour Movement, would Respect want to organise in the north of Ireland or hold open the option of so doing? Not even the Labour Party does that, preferring to keep a proper colonial relationship with the place.
“. . . specifically their reliance on dying members’ legacies to keep going.”
that was wide of the mark.
There was a ding dong about it though, wasn’t there? I didn’t say who was right, as I have no idea.
Liam wrote:
Why, apart from an imperialist reflex typcial of the British Labour Movement, would Respect want to organise in the north of Ireland or hold open the option of so doing?
you mean the whole 32 counties? will Galloway give his permission?
that’s a bit of a radical proposition, surely you are not suggesting that the valiant internationalists in Respect are beset by a subconscious “British Empire” mindset?
say it ain’t so, Snowball!
Which reminds me that I am late in submitting the SU accounts for 2006/2007.
On the question of legacies, I have heard from two seperate sources that a dispute over a financial legacy was the underlying cause of tension between the ISO(USA) and SWP(GB).
One of the sources was – how shall we say this – in a position to know.
I look forward to Snowball’s finely honed rapid rebutal skills coming into play.
Andy,
let me say that comparing the various returns that yours (Socialist Unity) was the most succinct, you have a gift there
Like an idiot I checked the ‘Solidarity’ accounts wondering if this bunch had somehow managed to survive. (They hadn’t.) So I know that Tommy’s project is £5k in the red. No current SSP accounts, yet.
I’m impressed by the Space Navies party. Well, I’m impressed by their frugality, if nothing else.
I wouldn’t place too much stock in the membership figures given. The CPB for instance can no doubt get 800 or 900 people to give them a couple of quid over a year. They would be lucky to get over 100 in terms of regular activists however.
The finances are more interesting. Respect’s going through the floor for instance is not a good sign. To be fair to them though, I have little doubt that the NI registration was just about making sure that nobody else used the name. There is no sign at all that they have any intention of organising there. The Irish SWP have a parallel front called the “People Before Profit Alliance”, which is essentially Respect minus the Muslim contingent and any other allies. They have only recently extended that to the North and pushed aside the Derry Socialist Environmental Alliance, the name they had been using there around Eamon McCann.
It’s never easy correlating income with membership. The CPGB could fit snuggly in our(terraced house) living room but they’ve got vast wads of cash – membership will set you back £1000 and then there’s the entrance exam (I kid you not).
Which CPGB is this? The tiny one that produces Weekly Worker?
doug wrote:
…..there’s the entrance exam (I kid you not).
what type of exam and questions? multiple choice?
1. what is your view of Stalin?
a) the natural heir to Lenin?
b) the greatest ever leader?
c) a fine handsome chap?
2. was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
a) a cunning and sophisticated plan?
b) a mistake that helped the Nazis build up their war machine and take over Europe?
Hmm, makes you think?
The decline in Respect’s funding is in fact a very good sign. With luck they will collapse into ignominity after Galloway become a full-time presenter for, say Murdoch, Yvonne Ridley joins a jihadist group and Callico knickers retires and becomes honorary Vice-Chancellor of the Totting Popular Front Academy.
Though to be fair, some Respect councillors have signed the Hands off the Iranian People campaign. Good on them !(and it rather proves some of my more robust judgements wrong).
I thought, re the CPGB, that all cadre left groups had some kind of ‘exam’. We certainly did in the IMG, a compulsory course in Marxism, basic agitaionl techniques (leaflet writing, meeting organisation) and the perspectives of the (Mandelite) Fourth International, on the ‘new vanguard’.
I’d forgotten you were a MIG, Andy. We got Marxist education and training in various aspects of our activity in the SWP but not in the form of an exam.
All this sectarianism (including my own!) on various blogs brings to mind our Leamington days. I seem to remember sectarian piss-taking a-plenty in the pub but because of the seriousness/threat we faced re the NF, we couldn’t afford it in our actual political practice. A lesson there, perhaps. And I’m not just talking about the usual Far Left Trot groups – there were Labour Lefts and anarchists too.
Apparently they register in Northern Ireland to prevent anyone else using the name “Respect”.
Consider that the Socialist Party can’t stand under their own name because SPGB has the rights
Actually, we (the CPGB) don’t have an ‘exam’ – we have a period of candidate membership. Just so we get to know the potential recruit and they get a clearer idea of what they’re joining, what’s going to be asked of them, how it’s going to impact on their lives, etc. To us, it seems the sensible and *democratic* way to organise things at present.
When times change, of course, we’ll just say ‘bugger it’ and throw the gates open. Perhaps we’re wrong, but it doesn’t feel like that’s the recruitment method appropriate for what surrounds us today.
Oh, and on money. Not sure where Doug got that thousand notes figure from, but yes we do ask for decent levels of dues from people. It does sting a little, but we’re trying to run a serious project here and – if people properly understand that (see the candidate member stuff above) – we find it generally works.
We are not loonies though (I obviously wouldn’t want to push that idea to a vote on this list …) and we always take a comrade’s individual circumstances into consideration.
I was quite intrigued by the report of “The Space Navies” party. Tragically, they only appear to have a membership of two people though.
Mark Fischer,
thanks for the clarification.
but could you answer those questions concerning Stalin and his policies?
it’s just a bit of fun and shouldn’t cause you any difficulties:
1. what is your view of Stalin?
a) the natural heir to Lenin?
b) the greatest ever leader?
c) a fine handsome chap?
2. was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
a) a cunning and sophisticated plan?
b) a mistake that helped the Nazis build up their war machine and take over Europe?
Spiritof1976: The Space Navies” party. Tragically, they only appear to have a membership of two people though.
Only two members on this plantet but elsewhere … …
I suspect that “modernityblog” has no idea about the CPGB/Weekly Worker’s politics whatsoever, ‘fun’ questions aside.
Anyway, being quite sad, I took a look at the WRP’s accounts. So little income, so little activity (including a jumble sale being held), and no mention of their daily full-colour publication, neither as an activity, nor as a position in their accounts. How does that add up? The laughable thing about these documents is that the parties/organisations can obviously interpret the legal requirements regarding what they submit as they wish. Respect sends a long document, others send a few lines on a sheet of A4. What’s the point of it all? I doubt if anyone checks that any of it is true (except for very possibly in the cases of the bigger parties represented in the Commons / the regional parliaments/assemblies).
Andrew Coates says: I thought, re the CPGB, that all cadre left groups had some kind of ‘exam’. We certainly did in the IMG, a compulsory course in Marxism, basic agitaionl techniques (leaflet writing, meeting organisation) and the perspectives of the (Mandelite) Fourth International, on the ‘new vanguard’.
I don’t remember any exam! About my own candidate membership around about 1977 I recall some ‘educationals’ in Marxism, nothing at all about leaflets and meetings, and at the end of it all a friendly and informal meeting which ended with Brian Grogan chucking us each a bundle of old IIDBs (International Internal Discussion Bulletins). I made the mistake of reading them and got thoroughly confused.
But before that happened I was very proud to be told that I was now a member of the Fourth International, and I was proud of it for good reasons, even looking back on it thirty years later.
KMS wrote:
I suspect that “modernityblog” has no idea about the CPGB/Weekly Worker’s politics whatsoever, ‘fun’ questions aside.
it is true that I can not keep up for the various Stalinist grouplets, but I was genuinely curious as to their view on Stalin and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact,
having said that, I appreciate that Stalinists and other grouplets take their wierd politics very seriously which probably explains why they appear so humourless and have so few working-class members, but still
in my experience, the lower-middle-class tripe that comprise the leadership of these grouplets don’t really like answering difficult questions, I think it goes back to some educational indoctrination/character flaws, presumably they see any questioning as an impertinence to their exalted position as would-be “leaders” of the ‘masses’?
who knows? perhaps Mark Fischer will enlighten us?
@mordernityblog
Why not just look on their website or skim through the online-PDF of their weekly paper? It won’t take a moment, and I’ll think you’ll be surprised. On humour, why not listen to Mark Fischer being interviewed on Radio 4 on ‘Marxism-Leninism’ – killing two birds with one stone (the link is also on the CPGB website)?
KMS (who is not currently nor has ever been a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain/Weekly Worker)
KMS: “The laughable thing about these documents is that the parties/organisations can obviously interpret the legal requirements regarding what they submit as they wish. Respect sends a long document, others send a few lines on a sheet of A4. What’s the point of it all? I doubt if anyone checks that any of it is true (except for very possibly in the cases of the bigger parties represented in the Commons / the regional parliaments/assemblies).”
The reaon the returns vary so much is that the requiremt is onlyt to submit your accounts to the Electrial commission. the varied degree of information will therefore depend upon the content of the acounts, which will vary depending upon the internal requirements of the parties.
The point of the acciunts is that they demonstrate conformity to the quarterly returns of financial contributions and loans among other things.
The Electoral Commission is a very serious and quite bureacratic body that does indeed take the tak serioulsy, and does chase up all the returns, and check whether they comply with the law.
KMS wrote:
Why not just look on their website or skim through the online-PDF of their weekly paper?
because I prefer to ask political questions of people (or the Internet personas)
that’s the beauty of the Internet, cheeky working-class ex-lumpens, like me, can ask direct questions to the university educated elites that run many of these political sects
granted, they don’t answer much but that’s to be expected, their ‘class’ will out
Erm, you do know that the CPGB (WW) is a Trotskyist group, don’t you? I think I can pretty easily guess their views on Stalin etc.
Jeff,
you’re probably right there
but why guess or assume if you can ask the people concerned a direct question and clarify the point there and then ?
Sure.
You might also like to ask some Jews what they think of Hitler. Or some miners what they think of Thatcher.
Ken, I was a candidate member in London in 1974. There certainly was a scheme of lectures etc, and we each (about six) had to prepare something on such topics as Lenin’s Imperialism. These were held in the IMG HQ near Kings Cross. The ‘exam’ was a discussion with an existing IMG member. Perhaps it was different according to who you were: we were all very young – I was eighteen.
Correction: 1973, I was nineteen.
On a Spotty Note, I have still a few copies of the COBI journal, Proletarian. On the back page it talks of members all having to have 1) At least one O Level in a Natural Science, 2) Having to Speak at least one language (O level at minimum) other than English.
The CPGB takes a Leninist line in actual fact, which is quite different from Stalinism and Trotskyism to anyone faintly familiar with far-left politics.
And why assume that their membership must be ‘middle-class’ or a ‘university educated elite’ just because you possibly don’t like their politics?
Igor Belanov wrote:
And why assume that their membership must be ‘middle-class’ or a ‘university educated elite’ just because you possibly don’t like their politics?
I took a fairly broad brush there, I wrote “university educated elites that run many of these political sects” that includes but is not limited to the CPGB, etc and “the lower-middle-class tripe that comprise the leadership of these grouplets”, keywords: the leadership
in my experience, that is the socio-economic make up of the Left’s grouplet leaderships nowadays, the vast majority are middle class,
if you know different please tell us
now being middle class isn’t anyone’s faults, but I do find a degree of irony in it
and the spectacle of the middle classes lecturing down to people is a common enough phenomena, in this instance the middle-class leftie leadership telling the working-class what it should be thinking and how it should be thinking, but that everso dominant middle-class trait may be linked to the Left’s lack of the success at building significant roots in the working-class
personally I think the class composition of the Left and its lack of success are tied together, I wish the latter were not the case but it is
I am sure sociologists could examine the internal workings of the grouplets and find some commonality with recognisable lower-middle-class character traits or the behaviour of wacky religious cults (also, whose leadership is predominantly middle-class)
I think the sooner that the parts of Left drops these pointless, tedious and offputting characteristics the better, as soon as the Left becomes relevant to the working classes’ existences it will grow, whilst it contemplates its naval (the transitional programme, analysis of the USSR, 4th-8th international) it will remain small and irrelevant
Andrew,
so there was no chance of joining if you came from any kind of ‘proletarian’ area with comprehensive education where only CSEs were offered, or went to a secondary modern? Hang on, most of these groups (sad, but true) wouldn’t have had, even then, much contact with the industrial working class they hero worship – or if they did, and they wanted to join, they would get lumbered with ‘sympathiser’ status. Reminds me more than a bit of LO.
Andrew, they clearly had higher standards in your day, which may explain how I got in at all.
For all nostalgics and lefty trainspotters out there, John Sullivan’s hilarious and deadly accurate piss-takes are now on the web.