Talk:Women's Equality Party

Local groups

The section on the party's membership and local organisation includes a list of local WEP groups, apparently sourced to the party's Facebook page. I suggest that we remove this list. WP:NOYT states that "Facebook is generally not acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone may create a page and add comments, and there is no stringent checking of a user's real name and age. On occasion, Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources". There is therefore a case that we can use Facebook here, but there are a number of issues. When visiting the party's Facebook page, I can't find an obvious list of these groups to verify the list in the article. There are also more groups listed in the article (68) than secondary sources currently state there are (63). Finally, Wikipedia is not a directory and as the party grows, so will this list. We don't include lists of constituency branches for major parties, so I don't see the need to here either. Thoughts on this would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the list. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Membership

It seems difficult to believe this party has the same number of members as UKIP but almost instantaneously. The Guardian says it has 47,000 members but makes no mention to the source of these figures. The membership figures are also not stated in any EC return for the party like with other parties making it again hard to believe.

I don't think this figure is at all accurate - I believe we need a credible source. I've removed it until someone can provide a citation with a source to the membership figures from a regulator or some such. Drowz0r (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if the figure is wrong, I don't think that we should be saying that the party's membership numbers are unknown. Someone will know, even if we don't. However, the Guardian is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking, so I don't really see what the problem is. There are plenty of other sources that report the 47,000 figure - some of which comment on the comparison with UKIP. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

How do we know the figures for UKIP are accurate? I cleaned up this ref for UKIP. It is actually a quote of the party's leader Nigel (neutral?) Farage. The House of Commons, which is the citation for the Conservative Party numbers, bases its figures for party membership on "latest party press releases and media estimates" (link). The Lib Dem numbers come from, the Lib Dems or, to be precise, a dead link which redirects to their home page. The Labour Party figures come from this article from err... The Guardian. Are we going to turn all of them into "unknown" or just WEP's? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the membership figure, added an extra source for it and attributed it to the party itself, which is where the sources cited have got it from. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just out of interest - in the London Assembly election (5 May 2016), the number of votes cast for WEP was 91,772 or 3.5% of all the votes cast, and that was just the Greater London constituencies. If 3.5% of voters had been able to vote for a WEP candidate in the last general election then it would represent over a million votes. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

We should be using figures such as those on their accounts submitted to the EC for a start. Based on the membership cost (£4 a month) the party should be making OVER a quarter of a million pounds a month if these figures were accurate. If the EC accounts don't show this kind of income generated purely from membership, we can conclude the figures are wrong and membership number can be stated as "unknown". If they have £260,000 a month from accounts, that's about £3,120,000 a year of income PURELY from membership and not any donations. This is a figure that dwarfs parties like the Greens income. If they bring in this amount of money why don't they have a candidate in every by election? Why have they absolutely zero won seats, including in even local councils? If they bring in this much money and are having absolutely zero success, then they are either incompetent and the figures are right (possible) or the figures are wrong... Drowz0r (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The party's announced that membership had risen from 47,000 (diff) to 65,000 (diff) in July 2016.

The only figures that the EC have are from May to 31 December 2015, when the membership figure was below 47,000, (membership was opened 3 July 2015). Money raised through membership was just over half a million pounds £512,219 for that period. Donations raised £79,712, fundraising activities raised £38,528 and miscellaneous income totalled £10,377. Producing a total of £640,836 for the party's first 7 months of existence.

Monthly membership costs are £4 (standard), £3 (affiliate, for those who are members of other political parties), and £2 (reduced, for full-time students, carers, those on low-incomes and the unwaged). So a calculation of: membership number multiplied by £4 a month "so the total membership money should be £XXX,XXX" is not an accurate way to calculate it.

It also wouldn't work backwards, dividing £512,219 by 12 months, then dividing by £4 to try to try to calcuate the membership numbers.

Then there are outgoings...

The business start-up costs, the office, the wage bill for the office staff, various campaigns, advertising, leaflets, postage, the cost of the conference. It all mounts up.

In terms of running "a candidate in every by election", you need a member that lives in the constituency where the by-election is taking place AND is willing to be a candidate - a much greater level of commitment than just being a member. That candidate would also need to be a member of a strong local branch with enough members to ensure the candidate has sufficient canvassers. Running a candidate is not just about the money.

Where a party does not have a registered office the party's electoral expense is CAPPED at £1,500. So when Sophie Walker ran in Shipley for the General Election June 2017 the party could not hire a campaign manager, unlike the Conservative Party. That also affects decisions about how and where to run candidates. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove 'nonpartisan' from the info box

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to remove "nonpartisan" from the infobox as confusing and not applicable in the context of a political party Kostas20142 (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)(non-admin closure)

---

Nonpartisanism is a lack of affiliation with a political party. Political parties are very rarely affiliated to each other, so I don't think this should be here. I think its being used as a substitute to state that the party does not place itself on the left-right political spectrum, of which I would agree, I just don't think this is relevant and should be removed. Relisted. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Helper201 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes in general are intended "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Your last sentence is key here that you say that you "just don't think this relevant", however your edits removing the parameter did not directly mention relevancy. However, I have requested comment from WikiProject Infoboxes and RfC politics, government, and law to see what they think.

Lack of affiliation is not just about political parties, WEP were, and continue to be, non-partisan over the issue of Brexit - that is a significant fact about the party.

Having said that, the WEP's nonpartisanship was initially listed under "political position" diff and I take your point made in this edit that nonpartisanism is a lack of affiliation with a political party, not a lack of political position. Which is why I changed it to the alternative parameter of "affiliation" here. I am slightly confused as to why you removed it with the same inital comment of, nonpartisanism is a lack of affiliation with a political party, not a lack of political position.

The point is a technical one - you say that, "I think its being used as a substitute [my emphasis] to state that the party does not place itself on the left-right political spectrum", I don't think it is being used as a substitute but rather as a description that the party does not place itself on the left-right political spectrum. The affiliation parameter is therefore being used for the purpose for which it was intended - to describe the party's affiliate position / lack of affiliate position.

On a separate note - I am not sure I agree with the statement that "political parties are very rarely affiiated to each other", there are MPs who are members of both the Co-operative Party and Labour Party - the current list can be found here. Also the UK Government from 2010 to 2015 was a coalition government between Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and until 2010 the unions had block votes in the Labour leadership election. Which are further reasons for why I regard the party's nonpartisanship as a key fact about the party.--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Who claims a nonpartisan position? If it is just the party it is actually not enough. Even if the major focus of the party is on achieving s.th. they view as equality regarding genders due to circumstances they view as Inequality somehow a positioning on the left right spectrum could be done. In this case a left-leaning appears to be likely. Citations are needed for that. However a deletion of this point in the infobox or Keeping it the current way without sources would be not appropriate.--Joobo (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The party's website. The party's affiliate membership scheme. There are no other political parties that it excludes.

Comments from journalists contained in references in the article:

• New Statesman, 22 September 2015

– Members of other parties are welcome, and indeed encouraged to join - but this can backfire, as it did for WE members who were not allowed to vote in Labour's leadership contest

The party is accused just as much of being too right-wing as too left-wing.

• The Independent, 27 November 2016

– During the conference – which attracted few non-white attendees – Ms Walker responded to criticism that the WE is a party run by and for middle-class white women, insisting it as “a movement for all”.

Again, the party being accused of being too right-wing.

• The Guardian, 21 October 2015

– David Cameron proudly announced that the gender pay gap would be eliminated “within a generation”, ignoring the fact that it was supposed already to have been eliminated and that in the meantime, yet another generation of women would spend their retirement in poverty.

The Conservatives are vocal supporters of ending the gender pay gap, Cameron does not try to argue that ending the gender pay gap is left-wing politics, and Theresa May has been photographed wearing a t-shirt, with "This is what a feminist looks like." slogan on it.

• The Observer, 21 October 2015

– The WEP is resolutely neither leftwing nor rightwing but non-partisan. Its one and only aim is, as it says on the tin, a better deal for women in politics, education, business, jobs, pensions, childcare and the media.

Speaks for itself. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The given sources and examples look sufficient to me. I d keep it the way it is at the moment with "nonpartisan" in the box. --Joobo (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - that is, I believe "nonpartisan" should be removed. "Nonpartisan" is a specific term that does not just mean "ideologically flexible" - it means "not connected to any political party", and it doesn't make sense to use it when talking about a political party. Perhaps the easiest solution is to just change that word to "None" in the infobox. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why have you put "ideologically flexible" in inverted commas? Are you quoting it from somewhere, "nonpartisan" is not being used in the ideology parameter?

The wikilink is to the description of the term nonpartisanism which is described as [my bold]:

Nonpartisanism is a lack of bias and lack of affiliation with a political party.

Some organizations claiming to be nonpartisan are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan (for reasons of law or public perception) but closely follow the policies of a political party.

While the dictionary definition of partisan includes adherents of a party, cause, person, etc., in many cases, nonpartisan refers specifically to political party connections' rather than being the strict antonym of "partisan", and an organization described as nonpartisan can have many decidedly controversial policies.

Therefore it means slightly more than "not connected to any political party" and the term "none" could be taken to mean "currently there happens to be none". "Nonpartisan" means that the party has taken an active decision not to be affiliated to any other party. Which is why I used the affiliation parameter to place it against.

I believe if "none" were used to supplant "nonpartisan" it would be a breach of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I maintain that describing a political party as "nonpartisan" is a contradiction in terms. As for using "None", the parties Plaid Cymru and English Democrats have that value in their infoboxes for the "International affiliation" field. (The single term "Affiliation" is not actually part of this infobox, and seems to be only used for this one party - so really maybe the best solution is just to remove this field.) Korny O'Near (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My first post in this thread has the diffs (1, 2, 3 and 4) which explain why the affiliation parameter was used. I've just been reading WP:Other stuff exists, particularly the statement "Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too" ".

Is there perhaps a particular policy you can point to rather than merely "Plaid Cymru and English Democrats have that value [none] in their infoboxes"? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Which of those diffs explain it? I don't see an explanation in any of them.

If you're asking about a policy that says that a value of "None" can be used for "Affiliation", I don't believe there is one. Is there a policy that says that it can't be used? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My first post explains it, (I just added the diffs for convienience). Nonpartisan was originally under the parameter "political parameter" (diff 1). Helper201 removed it saying it is not a "political position" diff 2, so I put it under "affiliation" diff 3 - explanations were contained in the edit summaries.

With regards to policy, as per WP:Other stuff exists's statement "Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too" ". and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE's statement, infoboxes are intended "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" - I was asking if you could point to a policy that says "none" has to be used in the affiliation parameter. If there isn't one then I am unclear as to why you feel that "nonpartisan" should be removed (apart from a subjective belief that it should). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Nonpartisan" should be removed because it literally means "not belonging to or affiliated with a political party" - a nonsensical description for a political party. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What is nonsensical about saying WEP is not affiliated to any other political party? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "other" does not appear in the definition. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So? I'm not sure what your point is. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - not to be blindingly obvious, but the Womens Equality Party is itself a political party in the List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom. In the template here I'm not seeing a further description of the affiliation1 field this seems to be so I'd suggest it can be like other parties in the list and not show that line. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WEP is indeed a political party, the affiliation parameter is to say whether or not it is affiliated to another political party. The party repeatedly states that it is actively not affiliated to any other party (which has been independently confirmed by the journalists listed above). "None" would only mean "currently it is not affiliated" and would be a breach of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE - "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" as it would be to supplant a key fact about the party. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

None of the other tiny parties seem to follow that conception of usage, nor does it seem proper. No, no, a political party cannot by definition be non-partisan because it at least is partisan in its own cause. Would you say that the American Democratic party is "Non-partisan" because it does not affiliate with the Green party ?

This just does not conform to the normal usage and they are by definition and evidence partisan so it is also incorrect. First, note that the norm among the List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom the closest it comes is "European affiliation: None" which refers to associations on the continent. Second, again blindingly obvious they are themselves a party, with specific agenda so the Merriam Webster definition of partisan "adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person" has been met. They are simply one of the tiny parties with a single-topic focus. They have particularly opposed the Conservative Party (UK), and lie on the left side of the spectrum. Markbassett (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Tiny? They have nearly 20,000 more members than UKIP. Do you have a source for the claim that they "lie on the left side of the spectrum." The party has run candidates where the incumbent is from the Labour Party as well as opposite the Conservative Party. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (summoned by bot, but the page is on my watchlist and I was going to comment anyway): I find the present inclusion of "Nonpartisan" in the infobox confusing - mostly because it isn't clear whether this is a comment on its links to other parties or its ideological position on the left-right scale (incidentally, clicking on Nonpartisan takes the reader to an article that states that it means "a lack of bias and lack of affiliation with a political party", which hardly helps). The articles on the three main parties in the UK as well as UKIP and the Green Party (the latter being perhaps the most similar to the WEP) do not use this field, and instead list the respective parties' European and international affiliations. If those are known for the WEP, then I would support inclusion of those fields in place of the current affiliation field; if not, then I would support the removal of the affiliation field. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Remove Although, I think it already has been removed. I agree with above editors that a political party can't be nonpartisan as a whole, they can be nonpartisan in respect to certain issues, but they mush have a political agenda to be a political party. So I'd have to agree with Cordless, it's a bit confusing to have "Nonpartisan" as a political position. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• This RfC expired some time ago. Is there agreement that the consensus is to remove "nonpartisan", or do we need to request formal closure? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• As others have said "non-partisan" does not make sense in the context of a political party. Nathan ^T 02:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - Political parties are by their very nature "partisan." That the organization is ecumenical and willing to conduct fusion campaigns with others from various organizations is commendable, but doesn't change the basic fact. Carrite (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2017 (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.

/* 2019 */

Hello. I tried to correct the 2019 Local Election information. The word 'Cheshire' was spelt incorrectly for a start ('Chesire') but in any case Kay Wesley was elected to Congleton Town Council, not Cheshire East Council. I also added the number of votes and the percentage of voters supporting the party in the ward (Congleton East) - all of which are factual corrections, but the edit was revoked and I tried to put it back but it has been removed again. I was only trying to correct facts. Can you advise of what I did wrong? Thanks! 82.69.127.242 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)