Talk:New Communist Party of Britain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misc comments[edit]

I have tried to correct the inaccurracies as to the political stance of the NCPB in this edit, but there is clearly much more that needs to be here. I'll get back to it when I get a chance.


General comments about the origins of the NCP deleted as they are oversimplified and obviously written by someone with no first hand knowledge of the events. The term "tankie" was used by the Euro wing of the CPGB largely for the group around Nicholson, which was far more prominent in London that the supporters of the Surrey District. More importantly it did not come into common parlance until the arguments over the British Road to Socialism became heated in the run-up to the 1977 Congress. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hungarian events of 1956 and only very obliquely with the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968. While it's true that French, Nicholson and some others did take a common stance vis-a-vis the CPGB's leadership support for Dubcek post-1968 the defining issue as far as Sid French was concerned was the BRS ( though it's true this was not understood fully by some of his supporters).


Stalin Society'[edit]

While I've left the edit as I can't give a reliable source, I would be intrigued to see an official NCP repudiation of Stalin from the last 5-10 or so years. I know for a fact of a couple of members who are in the Stalin Society but won't name them here without their consent.

My opinion, which for obvious reasons I won't edit into the article, is that the anti-1977 British Road to Socialism origins of the NCP was rather a front for what was, even then, a predominantly anti-revisionist group. While some of their members were 'tankies' in the out and out pro-Moscow sense I'd argue many more had far more in common with Hoxhaists of the Bill Bland anti-Mao variety.

Lastly, the NCP's continuing joint work with the RCPB(M-L), who I can only assume no-one will deny are active within the Stalin Society, gives another indication. Again, supporting without a source I can give, but that was a forum where much of the idea of collaboration began.

Samchallis 14:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You may have missed my point. While what you say is broadly correct the question is simply the participation of the NCP with the Stalin Society. When the Society was set up the NCP did advertise its meetings but broke with them when a veteran member was insulted by the then Chair of the Stalin Society, Prof Majid. Majid was subsequently banned from all NCP meetings. Though the NCP, including many of its leaders, maintained good personal relations with Bill Bland and to a very limited extent to Harpal Brar, the NCP has not had anything to do with the Stalin Society since Prof Majid's day. Once again I would not quibble with the general analysis you've made and perhaps this can be introduced into the text under the heading of "background" or "origins".


Fair enough. And indeed an incident I was previously unaware of. Thanks. Sam

Recent Amendments on splits etc: The NCP has dealt with more factions than those mentioned. All were very small with the exception of a right-wing split in 1980 and the North-West anti-party faction mentioned that had opposed the NCP's support for Ken Livingstone's candidature for the London Mayoral post. The Elizabeth Farrell entry was deleted because she first of all was not International Secretary but was London organiser and briefly a member of the Central Committee. Likewise Jim Hillier was only "editor" for one issue of the paper (the issue that led to his departure) though he was on the Central Committee. This para needs more work and maybe I'll try to find a form of words that takes this in as well as the deleted references. Pedant

There are rumours that Farrell really worked either the south Korean secret service,Mi6 or the CIA and worked to disrupt the NCP from within.Apparently she vanished,some believe that she is in Seoul!

Main Communist parties[edit]

It is factually accurate that the NCPB is one of the two main Communist parties. Warofdreams states of his reversion: "(revert POV "two main communist parties" - CPB(M-L), CPGB(PCC), and various Trotskyist groups would disagree)". This I disagree with. Firstly, Trotskyist groups do not refer to themselves as Communist parties (at least not in public). Secondly, both the CPB(M-L) and CPGB(PCC) are far smaller, and do not have relations with other parties generally recognised as Communist, or participate in the International Communist Movement as do both the NCPB and the CPB. It is true that the CPB(M-L) is an older organisation, but that does not make it one of the main ones. The CPGB(PCC) has only about 20 members.

I do not want to get into reverting and unreverting, but the point should be made that both the original text, and edit are factually accurate, and not just POV.

If you can find some reliable reference, I'd be happy to describe the NCPB as the second largest Communist party in Britain; you're probably right that the Trotskyist groups could be disregarded here. But use of the term "main" is bound to be controversial - no doubt other groups would claim that they are a main communist party, because of their history, their influence, their principled positions or whatever. Your original text also implies that there is a commonality between the CPB and the NCPB which is not shared by other communist parties in Britain. If this is this case, it needs to be stated explicity, not just alluded to. Warofdreams talk 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think you are correct that the word "main" could be argued in terms of size, history, influence, position. Size is a difficult one as the NCPB do not publish membership figures, and the CPB exagerate theirs. Both are very small, but the CPB is marginally larger. The NCPB follows an anti-revisionist position, whilst the CPB would be generally regarded as being revisionist, or "crLeative" (depending on your POV). Both organisations, however, have relations with the ruling Communist Parties of Cuba, Vietnam, DPRK, etc. as well as the major Communist Parties of Greece, Cyprus, India, etc. I think that is a strong aguement for them being called the main Communist organisations in Britain, because both represent different parts of the mainstream international Communist movement.

By no means is the CPB marginally larger. It claims around 1,000 members while the NCP is most certainly under the 100 mark. That's quite a margin in my book. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L-R-C Affiliation[edit]

There is no evidence of current LRC affilation

Grmdy 19:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


LRC Affiliation The NCP was an "associate affiliate" until November 2007 and became an "affiliate" following the rule changes made at the November 2007 annual meeting in London. The NCP is listed as an affiliate in the LRC's web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.122.86 (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

I have made some additions to the page regarding NCP membership, problems related to expulsions in the party, content of the "New Worker" and its discontinued publications. Someone obviously is a bit touchy about too many current facts about the NCP being on this page. Anyone who complains about this material not being sourced is talking out of the back of their head. When do communist parties publish membership figures in the public domain - the NCP certainly never has (we used to be told it was less than 10,000), so don't use that as an excuse to chop this newly added material again. If it is, I will just keep putting it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.195.135 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CPB is the only communist party in Britain that publishes its membership. The NCP like the others does not and any estimate of membership can only be speculation which is not the role of wikipedia, nor is it the place for original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.140.147 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly repetition doesn't make things true. Without sourcing it is merely hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.110.81 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and sources[edit]

I'm coming in to point out that Wikipedia guidelines and policies require articles to be well sourced, and this one is badly sourced, one of the reasons so far as I can see for the current edit wars. I also notice that a lot of edit summaries are blank, and this really should stop. Also, a couple of editors are lucky they haven't been blocked for WP:3RR violations and can expect to be blocked if this continues. Doug Weller (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that a large chunk of this article reads like an individuals biography rather than an article about a political party. Can I suggest that some of the editors here take a look at other wikipedia articles about Political parties and add more about election results? ϢereSpielChequers 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected the article for 72 hours as a result of the edit war. Can the involved users come here to talk about it now? lifebaka++ 14:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This entry is indeed badly sourced and the few references that are given need to be relaid for easy reference. The major dispute with Troublemaker73 is over the unsourced statistics for membership which he claims is "common knowledge" amongst British communists and which amounts to nothing more than gossip. The only British communist party to publish its membership figures is the CPB, apart from the RCPB-ML which for electoral register purposes claims a membership of one. The CPB claims it is the biggest communist party in Britain and this is not challenged by any of the others which claim to be communist, including the NCPB. The NCPB refers to itself as "small" in its own documents and makes no other claims. This is the only neutral conclusion that can be drawn.

The question of the "purged" activists is clearly a point of view unless it can be sourced.

On the question of past publications and the content of the New Worker I have argued that if this is relevant then the content about the New Worker should go in the New Worker wiki entry. I cannot see the point of listing past publications thoug it is clear that Troublemaker73 knows very little about the NCPB because any one who cares to plough through the NCPB websites will see that there were at least two other bulletins or magazines that the NCPB published in the past (Irish Bulletin and an Economic Bulletin) and there may be more.

Borewatch (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding references as and when I have time. Hopefully this is helpful to improve the article. Sorry ... not an expert. Maybe WarofDreams or another Wiki person could help tidy up what I am doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.202.133 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have refrained from doing anything other than adding references, and maintaining the article as it stands. Troublemaker1973 must discuss his repeated adding of unverifiable material here or I shall continue to delete it if no consensus can be found. Grauniad100 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove the Original Research box at the top of the article if there is consensus on that. I think the items falling into that category have been removed - if not please discuss them here. Grauniad100 (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past publications[edit]

Dear "Borewatch", please tell us where these references to the NCP's past publications, such as the Irish Bulletin and Economic Bulletin, can be found. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste job[edit]

In fact, most of the material on the New Communist Party page is gleaned from old NCP publications and material on their websites -- a bit of an "inside job" if you ask me. The page should most certainly be nuked and replaced with something not so shoddy.Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamplets and books[edit]

I think it would be legitimate to put back the section of pamphlets that explain the ideology of the NCPB. I note that the Wiki CPB entry, quite rightly, lists its pamphlets, and so should the Wiki NCPB entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.40.129 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected[edit]

Semi-protected for a week. I suspect the IP editor that I just reverted is a blocked editor (which is why the reversion). If other Admins feel it should be unprotected, and of course if they provide a rationale, that's fine by me. Doug Weller (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug. I, and others, have requested Troublemeker1973 to discuss and provide sources for his persistant edits. He continues to ignore the requests. I am aware that more work needs to be done on this page, and hope this may be possible by consensus in the future. Grauniad100 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Communist Review[edit]

Why did the New Communist Review cease publication when its editor died? Was there no one else in the NCP capable of editing a theoretical journal? Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Parties in Europe[edit]

(editsemiprotected) I would like the Communist Parties in Europe box to be added at the bottom of the page - as appears on the bottom of the CPB page. Grauniad100 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership or faction?[edit]

It's wrong to say a coup d'etat by "the leadership" if nine members of that the party's actual "leadership" (the central committee) were expelled for opposing the expulsions and closure of the North West District. The "leadership" was split down the middle on the issue (viz the one-vote majority), so it's more accurate to say that, in the view of those expelled, it was a move taken by a faction around general secretary Andy Brooks. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Don't be so silly as to take out one thing you think is "POV" when it's slap bang next to something that could be regarded the same way. Grauniad100, you don't happen to be Andy Brooks do you? I can't imagine many other people would bother so much about you being named like this. Your "leadership" of the NCP has been an unmitigated disaster. Did you plan to make such a pig's breakfast of it when you took over or is all this just a result of blind incompetence? The NCP used to be a party worth being a member of, now it's just a joke. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong age, sex, size etc. In answer to your question ... No I am not Andy Brooks. I have been trying to maintain the status quo on this article until consensus can be acheived through rational discussion, and edit warring stops. I have added references, and stopped additional POV edits. I quite agree that your last edit removed a sentence that did not belong in a Wiki article. Maybe you could declare your interest in this article as it is obviously more personal than a general interest in the NCP? I am a regular reader of the New Worker (not a writer or employee), and have been for many years, and I am keen that the article should be accurate, sourced, and as unbiased as it is possible to be. I am quite happy to be guided by suggestions from neutral people about how the article should be improved within Wiki rules and standards. Your agressivness does make it difficult to have a reasoned discussion about changes needed to improve the article. Grauniad100 (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Pembroke08 is Troublemaker1973 using a different account to pursue his personal vendetta and has no interest in improving the site - on the one hand he demands proof for things threatening deletion, and on the other adds assertions with no source of the assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.206.181 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "Pembroke08" and "Troublemaker1973" both have in common is that they know so little about the NCPB and they rarely trouble to even check references before making their spurious comments. I've referenced the last query concerning the NCPB's internal debate of revisionism by citing a document that can be easily accessed on the Web through Google. I've deleted the reference to Andy Brooks because his union activity in CPSA, TSSA, or in the CPGB before the NCPB was formed is irrelevant to this article. There may be a case for a seperate entry for Brooks but there's a greater one for Sid French whose role in the British communist movement spans a much greater period that the last two years of his life as leader of the NCPB. This would also help streamline and focus the main NCPB entry. If some of the regular contributors to British communist wiki entries like Warofdreams and Soman think this would be useful I could have a first stab at it. But I would like to read their comments first. Borewatch (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am not Pembroke08 Troublemaker1973 (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article would be improved if there was a separate piece on Sid French, I think he merits his own Wikipedia entry. Troublemaker1973 (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think it quite correct that there should be a separate entry for Sid French, his history is very relevent to the formation of the NCP and it's positions today. The most relevent elements should be kept within this article.

I would also agree with the idea for separate entries for people like Andy Brooks, and also Eric Trevett, and their backgrounds should only be part of this article insofar as it is relevent to the history and development of the NCP. For example ET's personal friendship with Kim Il Sung would be relevent to the history of the NCP (if it can be referenced), whilst AB's involvement with the satirical magazine, PFLCPSA, is not and should be in the new article instead. Grauniad100 (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct headings[edit]

The reference to the New Worker and publications should not be under the Ideology heading as that is more appropriate for policies. Grauniad100 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact most of that section belongs above and a new Ideology section should be written. I am happy to colaborate if anyone volunteers. Grauniad100 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resignations from CC over Livingstone vote[edit]

Did the resignations from the CC include Maisie Carter from Merton? When did Chas Fraser (one-time New Worker industrial editor) and Sue Fraser (former NCP chairperson) leave the party and what was the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.123.5.206 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Communist Party of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Communist Party of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Communist Party of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Communist_Party_of_Britain&oldid=1207176187"