Talk:Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

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

Organisations[edit]

Does anyone have a source for Brighton Kemptown's candidature/affiliation? I'm confused about how SR can be standing a candidate on the TUSC slate when it hasn't joined the TUSC. -- Kaze no Kae 149.170.192.129 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the CPGB (PCC) have applied to take part in the TUSC, although as far as I know that hasn't been confirmed yet. Will try to remember to update the page if it is, but people here should monitor that situation. -- Kaze no Kae 149.170.192.129 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CPGB has been quite public about their application to join, and the application process: www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002561 -- Killing Vector (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated/Supportive Trade Unions[edit]

In the 2012 local elections a number of TUSC candidates will be prominent Trade Unionists. The article has a section about organisations who are part of TUSC. Surely it would be just as, if not far more important to list those Trade Unions that have either affiliated or contributed to TUSC, and which respected Trade Unionists are standing? Riversider (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

issues with presentation?[edit]

I've removed the advert tag, awaiting some examples of where the article looks like an advert so that they can be improved. But a lot of the page is simply stating facts which are commonly available (electoral results, etc) and don't especially need referencing. So I think the advert tag at the top is a little too strong.

Clearly further references would be useful where information on TUSC has made it into the press, TV etc, and some record of the TV and press appearances would be notable (relative to the subject matter). These newspaper and TV references are recorded on the Press page of the TUSC website, and the best should be added here by an editor to show the current degree of public interest (or more precisely, media interest). But I don't really see anything controversial or not in the public domain here. Andysoh (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now identified the section with issues (Foundation) and taken some initial steps to render the explanation of the foundation of TUSC into neutral language. Andysoh (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page is little more than an advert detailing the inanities of how the group was formed along with a pointless series of list of how poorly they've done in every election they've contested. You could cut the article further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.222.25 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up a lot but it really needs a "Policies" section from the manifesto now. 81.102.83.190 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've edit the obscure "platform" section into "policies". 81.102.83.190 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Independent references from the media are collected at www.reddit.com/r/tusc/

These should be useful for anyone wanting to cite information on the TUSC wiki page.

81.102.83.190 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that no one from the TUSC or any of its affiliated groups under their own Banner have made or contribute to any Wikipedia articles, so there will be to many errors in information, to get the correct information best to acquire it from TUSC main branch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.148.79 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC's Colour[edit]

The current template colour is the brown shown in the middle of TUSC's three circles logo, but most of their campaign material like http://tusc2015.com/ or the leaflets and banners they've been using uses the left circle magenta or a colour incredibly similar to it. Is there a case to change the template colour to the left circle magenta? JackWilfred (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact they're using the magenta colour so often is all the justification needed. Kikariska (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no fix colours to the Logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.148.79 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. 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 15:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Councillor count[edit]

I once removed reference to TUSCs councillors and was pointed out that Southampton houses their three councillors. Upon looking into it, the party TUSC claims to have councillors within, mention no-where they are a part of or affiliated with TUSC. Also all the citations in this wiki article relating to any councillors still holding seats made absolutely no mention of TUSC or the councillors TUSC were pointing to themselves, so I have re-removed the references to TUSC having any councillors.

Please discuss here if you think I have missed anything or have new citations. Drowz0r (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far-left[edit]

I have added a 'citation needed' against the ideology label. As far as I can see, there is nothing about the policies of the TUSC that was ever far-left, since they were/are essentially an anti-austerity movement. I believe describing them as merely left-wing would be more appropriate.

Update: a link has been added to a Sky News article which references "far left fringe parties", however, this also includes discussion of the Communist Party of Great Britain and, in any event, the description of a Sky News journalist hardly counts as an authoritative source on ideology. The article mentions the following of the TUSC:

"Chair Dave Nellist - a former Labour MP thrown out in 1991 as a member of Militant, said they embraced policies such as renationalising the railways and reversing spending cuts. "He's a socialist and we want him in Number 10," he said."

Given that these policies are completely mainstream in the British Labour Party, the TUSC cannot be described as "far left" on this basis. Neither can the party's manifesto policies as described in this article.

I have reversed the edit, as I do not believe this constitutes an adequate source for the reasons stated. Apologies, but I was unable to get the "citation needed" tag to edit properly. I'm not sure what I was doing incorrectly with the formatting, but trying to restore the "citation needed" flag resulted in breaking the formatting of the article making it a mess. I have removed the "far left" description for now, pending a better source if one is brought forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.224.45 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this edit has been reversed, again with the same source from Sky. As mentioned before, Sky News is not an authoritative source on political ideology, and the journalist simply uses the label willy-nilly without any sort of justification. The TUSC has not supported any truly far-left policies. They do not support nationalisation of industry without compensation, they are not revolutionaries, they are not Trotskyists or Stalinists. They simply oppose cuts, privatisation and austerity. I am reversing the reversal and request that this source is not re-instated and the "far left" label is not used without an adequate, academic source to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.208.199 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Co-founders[edit]

The intro says TUSC's co-founder was... Quite interesting, but an encyclopaedic sentence would begin TUSC's co-founders were... Can someone see to this, please? Bjenks (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue[edit]

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition § Alleged TUSC infiltration of the Labour Party in 2015 is mostly taken up by the speculations of Steve Reed regarding the motivations of those joining the Labour Party in 2015. Is an unsubstantiated accusation by a rival politician worth a whole section? Supporters of a minor party switching (back) to another, larger party when they see a candidate they like is hardly an "infiltration". It's particularly strange framing when many members of TUSC were disaffected members or supporters of Labour in the past. As for the news articles cited, both mention that more Green Party supporters applied than did TUSC supporters, yet the article for the Green Party doesn't devote a section to alleged infiltration or attempts to undermine the 2015 Labour Party leadership election. This strikes me as giving undue weight to biased and unencyclopedic media coverage. – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RMT no longer affiliated[edit]

The RMT's annual general meeting (AGM) apparently voted to disaffiliate from TUSC (partisan news coverage: [1], [2]) in July 2022. The lead, "Trade union interaction", and "Organisation" sections may need to be updated to reflect that. – Scyrme (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trade_Unionist_and_Socialist_Coalition&oldid=1207963089"