SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
A chart including dead companies and former directors is even less useful. There's very little interesting or revealing information included, and what there is is lost in a big obfuscatory web of irrelevance.
The SWP, which has a publishing house, a newspaper, a magazine, a semi-academic journal and a bookshop, and which used to run a commercial printers, therefore has some companies. The directors of those companies are senior SWP members. Who exactly is supposed to be scandalised or perturbed by this?
The mention you made above of the Hallas trust having 130k is about the only potentially interesting part of this bit of the thread, but well, without knowing what that money is actually for it doesn't really get us much further. And, it has to be said, that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the SWP leadership are feathering their nests, less than 9k per CC member isn't going to get them very far. There are easier ways for someone like, for instance, Callinicos to make a few quid than running the SWP as some kind of incredibly elaborate scam. He could just keep his salary to start with.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
ivy villas ltd is a strange one... though hasn't had even 2k running through it throughout the noughties
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
my original thoughts r.e. the relevance of the chart centred mainly around the position of Delta in the directorship of several of the Party's companies... could well have contributed to their unwillingness to oust him
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
ftr he appears to still be the Director of Sherbourne Publications, LMHR (which must be a massive money-spinner) and 'BWTUC Trading Ltd'... if the chart is current
edit: not to mention that Sherbourne Publications is the primary publishing company, that also runs Bookmarks and produces the magazine and journal...
edit: not to mention that Sherbourne Publications is the primary publishing company, that also runs Bookmarks and produces the magazine and journal...
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It seems very unlikely that he (a) has effective control of any of those companies which (b) cannot be relatively easiy revoked or circumvented and (c) involves control over significant amounts of money. And it seems even more unlikely that he (d) could use such a position to effectively blackmail his leadership allies in a way that (e) worked even as the SWP lost large numbers of members and their money and (f) never came out, even though CC members went over to the opposition.
It sounds somehow satisfying to ascribe much of the SWP cataclysm to a grubby squabble over money but it just doesn't pass the small test.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
its certainly an odd way of doing it. what is - eventually - noticeable is how few of the people still listed i've heard of. Rebecca Reese? Simon Curlett? Alex Patterson?
Smith has gone from at Sherborne Pubs at least (as of March 31), still seems to be at LMHR and BWTUC. Altho as BWTUC is Workers Beer Co, isnt it, I dont think it should really be on there.
Sherborne is listed as having a net worth os -£264k, which more than wipes out any supposed surplus in Hallas. It would seem they're technically bankrupt. As well as...
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Well, that's part of the point of having so many separate companies. Corporate veil and all that. One can go under and it will have fuck all effect on the assets of another.
And yes, some of the remaining names are a bit odd. Particularly as nothing comes up if you search for their names and SWP and/or Socialist Worker.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
actually scratch that in the case of Rebecca Reese. There's definitey a Swappie called "Beccy Reese". The diminutive threw me.
BWTUC is Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council's trading arm which controls Worker's Beer, the Bread n Roses pub in Clapham, and Ethical Threads (clothing company) and also used to own an employment agency called 'Work Ethic'.
It is much bigger than the SWP and to be honest it's news to me that any Swappies were involved in it, most of the people running it are far from sympathetic to the Swaps.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The key things here are a) how concentrated the real swp is - who is trusted and who isn't and b) that a lot of non-members or people the membership don't know are part of that real swp
If i'm honest, i suppose i've become a fairly cynical geezer. But even given that, i readily accept that SWP comrades are not in it for personal gain, or the possibility of accumulating or syphoning loads o money. They are not some scummy capitalist organisation like the Labour Party after all.
What was preventing them from financially operating on the basis of co-operative though? Of course, issues of finance are always going to be problematic for serious socialist organisations, but my guess is that if the membership were ever allowed or encouraged to discuss/debate such matters, then a groundswell would develop in favour of open transparency and a co-operative economic model.
But thats one of the major issues isn't it, a 'leave it to the leadership' absence of proper debate and accountability in all areas?
What was preventing them from financially operating on the basis of co-operative though? Of course, issues of finance are always going to be problematic for serious socialist organisations, but my guess is that if the membership were ever allowed or encouraged to discuss/debate such matters, then a groundswell would develop in favour of open transparency and a co-operative economic model.
But thats one of the major issues isn't it, a 'leave it to the leadership' absence of proper debate and accountability in all areas?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
To be a coop, they'd have to actually be a coop. Not just pretend to be one. There are irritating extra requirements for coops, and they'd never be able to prove them.
There are distinct advantages to being a straightforward company. Especially when you avoid virtually all serious examination if you're small enough.
love detective
there's no love too small
OK, that makes some sense, and on that basis it would be an easy debate to win for the leadership, especially when coupled with the requirement for avoiding state interference/investigation.
No doubt that at an earlier stage of IS development such matters were considered by the vanguard of the vanguard. Nonetheless, as an ordinary grunt member i remember feeling slight unease about the cloak and dagger approach to finances within the party.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
So. Back to the IB 
Interesting thing is how the political differences (beyond the 'apolitical' why can't we have more free speech please) are finally coming out of the closet now that the dc issue is reaching some sort of denouement.
Interesting thing is how the political differences (beyond the 'apolitical' why can't we have more free speech please) are finally coming out of the closet now that the dc issue is reaching some sort of denouement.
In fact most coops find it easier to register as limited companies rather than industrial and provident societies.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
There are a couple of less well know names on their that I recognise. Also there are SWP full times who you don't tend to come across much. I once got a call from the SWP finance office, and it was not one of the normal office staff. It stands to reason for there will be a few people who's work is mostly bureaucratic and not especially political. Maybe some of the other names are from that side of things.
I'm not aware of anything you have to prove - just incorporate under the model Articles of Association (etc) and you're a co-op.
That said, the idea of the SWP registering as a co-op is absurd. They oppose co-ops (or have in the past). The standard Articles of Association make "democratic centralism" fiddlier to impose on the members.
There is that. Though extracting co-op accounts from the Registrar is a deterrent, whereas the standard accounts (non-informative for companies with turnover under £6M) are available with a few mouse clicks for £3.
The SWP also opposes capitalism but this hasn't prevented it from utilising the stocks and bond shareholder model (presumably to allow them maximum flexibility?). Somewhere along the line decisions were made about such matters - and one must assume that other decisions were a possibility. This might have included the possibility of a co-operative model?
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
his revokation would depend entirely upon the constitutional framework set down in the business charter - as would his powers over the company - and if we're going to presume that accounting games are being played with these companies (which i don't think would be unfair) then LMHR in particular has the potential to be funneling an awful lot of cash.
i don't particularly find it 'satisfying' to attribute the refusal of the CC to remove Delta to money (and i'd add to that 'connections') but it's at least a comprehensible reason why they'd pursue such a self-destructive course.
It was clear at an early stage that the interests of party unity demanded that Martin Smith fall on his sword. Some on the CC must have recognised this, and my bet is that those individuals were desperate for Smith to go quickly. However tempting, its not plausible that lucre could have influenced the thinking of intelligent and committed men and women who have invested their political lives on expanding the influence of the SWP. Its much more likely that dedication to maintaining their stalinized modus operandi was fundamental.
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
In the past the swp has been very insistent that 'the revolutionary party cannot be a model for the future socialist society'; I think we all thought this referred to their espousal of a particular form of centralism, however it seems that in fact the model was more Hayek than Hallas
i do wonder how Duncan H would have reacted to this situation. Remembering his capitulation to Cliff around the Higgins/Protz episode suggests that he would probably thrown his weight behind the prof. The trouble is, i like to think that he was better than that.
Just speculating idly.
Just speculating idly.
love detective
there's no love too small
I'd agree with this - the idea that money (or more correctly, in most cases, the lack of it) had anything to do with this is ridiculous
As is the idea that the various companies and trusts connected to the SWP were setup for corporate veil type shenanigans
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
i have no idea why you think those two possibilities are so ludicrous, particularly considering the CCs unwillingness to remove Delta (despite massive pressure).
having multiple companies as a corporate veil is an eminently sensible way to operate when you're dealing with large sums of money, and multiple arms of different campaigns all dealing with separate groupings and organisations.
it's obviously not an open-shut case but the desire to strike off the possibility offhand is bemusing
having multiple companies as a corporate veil is an eminently sensible way to operate when you're dealing with large sums of money, and multiple arms of different campaigns all dealing with separate groupings and organisations.
it's obviously not an open-shut case but the desire to strike off the possibility offhand is bemusing
If your'e objective is the accumulation of significant wealth, its seem very unlikely that you would
establish or engage in the activities of a left political party with the stated aim of smashing the capitalist state, inevitably attracting the attention of the establishments infiltration and security wing.
The sensible option would surely be to secure a position in any one of a variety of appropriate industries - banking, orthodox politics, media, insurance, etc etc.
Individuals like the prof presumably have a number of advantageous class and social connections that might enable more than a break even chance of success in such an endeavour.
The SWP's high command have seriously and unforgiveably fucked up. They have defended the indefensible, and they have insulted and betrayed the women who were abused by Delta. They have done huge reputational damage to their organisation, and to many hundreds of decent current and former socialists. But my judgement remains that their twisted behaviour was most probably motivated by what they regarded as good faith and the pursuit of rational politics, not mammon or greed.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Wasn't he going to do an SWP-funded MA?
BK Double Stack
Reconstructed Marcyite
Bolshie--do you support the "statement for our revolutionary party" crowd?
Similar threads
