Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
also i recently came across this chart detailing the different companies run by the SWP and their directors/management... telling...
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The author was probably just checking to see if anyone got that far. You can put whatever you like at the end of a page long article about paper sales.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I think you are right on the first point. As for the second, I managed 2 paragraphs, honest.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
No wonder I couldn't get a straight answer about who the employer was! Das Uberdog re #13196
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Looks a bit out of date.also i recently came across this chart detailing the different companies run by the SWP and their directors/management... telling...
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
I wonder if Delta gave up his directorships along with his party card
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
there would have been something to read six moths ago. This is just boring tho, a couple of pieces that will vaguely address some issues of the last year (the liverpool piece is quite funny). But they will come more in the next issue, especially as the rump stalwarts remaining will have fairly clearly won already, so any 'battles' are just going through the motions.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
yeah Julie Waterson is still on it - and all the counterfire split lot too. still, gives a glimpse...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Not much wrong with those companies is there? One of them is actually sharing premises with the accountant running the Assange Defence Fund.
also i recently came across this chart detailing the different companies run by the SWP and their directors/management... telling...
interesting stuff, which if any of them, make any money
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
I wonder if the counter fire lot have actually been moved on, or what mechanism exists to oust them, can a director be sacked?
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
A quick internet trawl shows that smith, Martin was terminated as a director of Sherborne publications ltd on the 24th May and Kimber, Charles was appointed director 28th may.
Isn't the internet great!
Isn't the internet great!
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
they can, and are. If the counterfire lot had ever had a majority of directors, they could have 'nicked' the whole company (whichever one it was. most of them wouldn't be worth the effort)
i see little potential for an end to the problems within the SWP. Once the 'opposition' are wiped out at conference, and the mindless swivel eyed optimists have re-secured the eternal perspective that 'workers struggles are about to explode onto the agenda' (following the next general election..), they are likely use their prominence to ram a purgefest through. The inevitable dearth of trust and fraternity amongst comrades who have been warring since Delta will have created fertile ground for future turmoil.
It is hard to imagine how such a situation might be overcome. Maybe it cannot.
It is hard to imagine how such a situation might be overcome. Maybe it cannot.
love detective
there's no love too small
Nah, as these are all straightforward limited companies, it doesn't matter how many directors any faction had, it's the shareholders that have ultimate power over the company. The shareholders could override and remove directors as they saw fit.
It's different for charities or trusts though (that are not also limited companies with share capital) - then it's the directors who are in overall control
(for example in relation to the Searchlight/HnH split, this is why the HnH faction were able to take control of Searchlight Information Services and Searchlight Educational Trust which were trusts/charities, but not Searchlight Magazine Limited which was a limited company with Gable as the majority shareholder)
Who are the shareholders? i don't care for shareholders (or accountants or bankers). Names and addresses please. i had no idea (when i was involved) i was part of a Socialist Shareholders Party.
Christ on a bike.
i glanced through some of the props to conference in the bullitin thingy , phew. Someone appears to believe that a 'new members welcome pack' should be issued to recruits (!). i'm speculating whether it might include the tangled shareholding flowchart above 
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
aah yes, good point. Tho it appears to be even less straightforward than that. East End Offset (net worth -£717), for example, has 3 shareholders (& 3 members), which is simple enough. But the Hallas Foundation (net worth £132,350) has just two members (seemingly A Callinicos & J Choonara) and no share capital. I wouldnt be surprised if a few more weren't trading by guarantee, rather than share capital.
Well put.
Yes but a shareholder could be someone with £100 pounds worth of a company worth £100 (or indeed £717).
love detective
there's no love too small
Yep true. Although even with companies that are limited by guarantee there is still a legal difference between the directors of the company (who run it) and the members (who control it) - most of the time though directors tend to be members and vice versa but they need to be registered separately as both director and member, one doesn't follow from the other
tony.c
Well-Known Member
I thought he was going to be a student.
Ah, a common route for the newly retired revolutionary. Perhaps a career in academia or Milibands new left Labour Party beckons?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The "flow chart" looks scarier than it actually is (or was given that it's long out of date). The SWP have or had a commercial printshop, a book shop, a newspaper, a publishing house and probably a few other ancillary operations and functions that might require a company of some kind. It's hardly surprising or shocking that the directors of these companies are or were SWP leaders.
By giving each individual SWP leader their own bubble, the whole thing is made to look much more intricate and complex than it actually is. But really, connecting individuals like that is only useful when you are illustrating webs of influence joining various otherwise seemingly isolated actors. We already know what all of the people on the chart have in common and what connected them. Presenting it like that actually mystifies and confuses the issue.
The only really interesting questions are (a) which of the list of companies still trades in any significant way and (b) which of them have significant assets, if any. Even the Hallas trust one doesn't seem to involve particularly eye raising money for an organisation of the SWP's size.
By giving each individual SWP leader their own bubble, the whole thing is made to look much more intricate and complex than it actually is. But really, connecting individuals like that is only useful when you are illustrating webs of influence joining various otherwise seemingly isolated actors. We already know what all of the people on the chart have in common and what connected them. Presenting it like that actually mystifies and confuses the issue.
The only really interesting questions are (a) which of the list of companies still trades in any significant way and (b) which of them have significant assets, if any. Even the Hallas trust one doesn't seem to involve particularly eye raising money for an organisation of the SWP's size.
Similar threads
