If we were a centralist top-down party with a leadership that could tell branches what to do, we could have contested dozens of seats across the country. But — fortunately — we are not and if the branches in the North, the Midlands and the West Country don’t want or don’t feel up to contesting elections so be it. Personally I think that’s a pity.
Admittedly SPEW is bigger than us but they have greater expectations from contesting elections at the moment than we do. For us it’s mainly a chance to get our views across. They want to build a “new workers party” and influence the policy of the capitalist state. By that standard they fail more than we do.
They’ve actually done something quite clever with TUSC: basically, it’s just a franchise/brand, and anyone can stand as a TUSC candidate, as long as they agree with the platform approved by the steering committee, so they don’t need a network of branches or a top down bureaucracy.
Of course, this is classic front work, so, while they ostensibly aren’t in complete control of the situation, in practice they control all the co-ordinating levers. But it does point to a slightly different way of doing politics (though, I suspect, this is more like how US political parties operate, individuals and groups campaign under the brand umbrella, as compared to the European mass membership party model).
Other political groups can have a large membership but their political principles are totally incorrect and they always call for the continuation of capitalism, therefore, they align themselves with the minority class