Talk:Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party

This party as of the past months, is for now has unofficially (and unintentionally) following some right-wing ideologies...

Judging from their new members (being happened on the Right-wing spectrum) and their first ever defected MS, being the former leader of the de facto UKIP Welsh branch. It very obliviously, they've unofficially and very clearly for now, of being planned of rebranding for political party, ideologically building up their Welsh Unionist and some Localist factions, for sometime. Chad The Goatman (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Abolish be referred to in the past tense?

Considering Abolish were "voluntarily de-registered" with the Electoral Commission on 4/11/20 (also in this BBC article) they cease to exist as an official political party. Should they be referred to in the past tense and considered dissolved as a result of this until they successfully re-register? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdee42 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No, because the party clearly still exists and has not dissolved. From the BBC article you link to: "a spokesman said it was already re-registering." It's enough for now to note that they have de-registered. Valenciano (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If they cease to exist, yes. But they've only been removed from the Register, which is not the same thing. Look at ProLife Alliance, which went from political party to pressure group. doktorb _words^deeds 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Registration situation

The party registration process is often not well understood even by the media and this causes a lot of confusion when it becomes a contentious matter. Here is an attempt to explain the detail.

Firstly registration is really only about being able to use the party name of ballot papers and have the party spending monitored. There have been many parties not on the register for some or all of their existence whether because of the time taken for the process or because of their attitude to electoral politics. (Some parties, mainly on the far left, drift back and forth from electoral politics and at other times seek influence through bigger parties or pressure groups.) But not being on the register doesn't stop an organisation existing.

Secondly many parties lapse off the register because the annual returns are not submitted. In some cases this is because the party has ceased to exist (many are little more than a branding mechanism for a single individual who got a family member or friend to sign a form to meet the minimum two separate office holders requirement; then they lose interest) but in others it's due to internal affairs whether disorganisation or a dispute between the registered officers that means they don't all agree to sign off a return. (You can also get complications with the change of officers forms especially if the change is related to a dispute.) When a party is degregistered the name goes into suspense until the end of the following financial year. During this time the original party or a legitimate continuing reorganisation can seek to reregister under the name. The Electoral Commission has to rule if the applicant meets this criteria. In some cases more than one group will apply and the Electoral Commission will have to determine which if any is the legal continuation/successor to the original party. The name doesn't go up for general grabs until the end of the following financial year.

In general it is the existing registered officers who are key and from past disputes it seems the Commission generally does not act on claims from outside such people or embarking upon its own investigations about how parties have been run when people contact it claiming to be the new leader. (A recent case is Ukip where a leader was deposed after only a few months and the party had never updated its registration with his name so he couldn't easily get the name off his rivals. Back in the 2000s the Commission declined to get involved in a dispute within Respect because none of the existing registered officers were complaining.) It would take a court order in such circumstances. What seems to cause most of the problems are that it is difficult to remove an officer from the registration without their consent.

This can lead to a mess as parties voluntarily deregister and then reregister as way to clear out registered officers who are in dispute. But this can get messy if both sides in the dispute try to reregister. A few years ago the National Front had a split and ultimately gave the Electoral Commission the task of determining which side got the name.

With Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party the problem seems to be that Richard Suchorzewski became Leader in June taking over from Jonathon Harrington (the registered Leader and Deputy Nominating Officer) but a dispute with David Bevan (the registered Nominating Officer) meant that a change of officers' details form could not be submitted and Bevan was refusing to sign off the general annual return. As a result the party has gone into deregistration and the current application list shows two separate applications for "Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party" along with the note:

*Please note we have received two applications to register 'Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party'. We will assess both applications in line with the legal requirements.

So far the name has not returned to the list of currently registered parties and these are applications not registrations. Someone in the Electoral Commission will have to judge which applicant is the original party. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Should Bennett and Reckless be called Abolish Members or Independent MSs?

I think we need to have a discussion on how we deal with the situation that Abolish is not an official party under the Electoral Commission, and does this mean that Bennett and Reckless are technically independent MSs. In my opinion on Wikipedia they should be put down as Abolish members as that's what they call themselves and can form a group in the Senedd under any name (not political party group), this is what Independent Alliance for Reform group have done. In addition this is what the media portray, them as Abolish MSs. Cwmcafit (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MrGentlemens

@MrGentlemens: please do not edit war against me and two pending changes reviewers. Your revision is not only non-neutral but is inaccurate, as more than one poll has shown they are likely to win 4-5 seats, and you also deleted the YouGov poll for no reason which is inappropriate. Inset Days (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The changes are neutral as they are directly from mainstream media sources (WalesOnline, BBC for example.)

The ICM BBC poll can be found on the official Wikipedia for Opinion Polling and should be included as it highlights that not ALL polls from late 2020 to 2021 show that Abolish will obtain 4 - 5 seats. Excluding this IS being biased. I included both the 9% AND the 4% one as evidence to this.

The YouGov poll was also confusing as it was not a proper reference, just the document. I merely added a reference to an article that can be cited, however if you can fill the reference with more information that would be acceptable. MrG (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia:Neutral point of view works. It doesn't matter whether the sources are mainstream media, it matters whether you are adding a whole load of negative things about the party from those sources. That is what you are doing and so it is not neutral, especially as you deleted the perfectly adequate YouGov poll which showed they may win 5 seats. You also may not cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source. Please read the neutral point of view policy carefully. You are also Wikipedia:Edit warring as you are repeatedly deleting content without consensus and without attempt to discuss on the talk page, despite the content being approved by 3 editors against your 1 objection. Inset Days (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@MrGentlemens: if you revert again I will have to report you to the edit warring arbitration page, where you will receive a block. Up to you. Inset Days (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like to me you don't want anything balanced at all going up on the page. Even though all points were balanced (4% of vote poll outcome, mixed with the 9% a result higher then your "YouGov" poll as well I may add.)

My edit still contained the 4 - 5 seats which was a claim from the Welsh Barometer (reference was added to direct source as there's an article highlighting this.)

The failure to raise £1000 for their ELECTION CAMPAIGNING seems legitimate to add. But maybe we shouldn't discuss that on a Wikipedia for knowledge hmm?

Ultimately, it's no skin off my nose, as this just reinforces the warning at the top of the page that major contributors are in with the source material. Thanks for proving the automatic warning true and good luck with the election Abolish man! MrG (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Abolish Wales

Do we have any source for the party being known as "Abolish Wales"? I can only find this reference from a political opponent, which says We should start calling them what they really are, the ‘Abolish Wales’ party’ said GWLAD leader, Gwyn Wigley Evans – hardly a neutral point of view. Certes (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a neutral description to differentiate this party from a similar "Abolish" party that exists in Scotland.Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Abolish (Wales) might make an alternative title for this article, though it's better as it is per WP:NATURAL. Even then, the boldface name in the lead would omit the parenthetical qualifier. The text or simply Abolish Wales is misleading, as there is no evidence that the party plans to abolish Wales rather than reverting to its pre-1999 system of government. I've asked for a third opinion at WikiProject Politics. Certes (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Should rename to Abolish (Wales) Newystats (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a move (and would weakly oppose if someone else did). My point is about removing the misleading implication that the party is commonly known as, or seeks to, "Abolish Wales" from the lead. Would WP:Third opinion be a good way forward? Certes (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In Wales, it is sometimes (but not commonly) referred to as "Abolish". It is not known as "Abolish Wales". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Abolish The Welsh Assembly Party Circle Logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)