Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

Change "The Labour Party is a centre-left political party" to "The Labour Party is a far left political party" Danecc111 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of perception but I disagree, at least under Starmer the description centre-left party is accurate. It's also well referenced in the article itself. Extua (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the Labour Party is a Centre-Left to Left-Wing political party as it contains members from both the factions. Even though recently the party's leadership was given Starmer who doesn't really have a positive attitude towards the left wing faction of the party, many members and supporters of the party belong to that faction.

Snehashis Majumder (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

given to* Snehashis Majumder (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, the party adopted many policies which are generally Left wing in nature. Snehashis Majumder (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposition; also a possible solution to a previous problem

Hello everyone! I am simply proposing an addition to the infobox, adding "Left-wing" to a "Historical:" section of the parties position area within the infobox. I have pulled sources from the Labour party wikipage labeling it in any era, as "left-wing".

1) Worley, Matthew (2009). The Foundations of the British Labour Party. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-7546-6731-5.

2) ‘The formation of the Labour Party – Lessons for today’ Archived 22 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine Jim Mortimer, 2000; Jim Mortimer was a General Secretary of the Labour Party in the 1980s.

3) "Left-wing anger over expulsions from Labour Party". BBC News. 22 July 2021. Archived from the original on 22 July 2021. Retrieved 23 July 2021.

4) Momentum: Corbyn-backing organisation now has 40,000 paying members, overtaking Green Party Archived 5 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine. The Independent. Author – Ashley Cowburn. Published 4 April 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2018.

I propose the change, for one, to expand the infobox of the party for those skimming through the article to find bare facts without digging deep, and two, to expand the infobox with useful information showing the Labour parties past and/or present position(s). It can also be a partial solution to the disagreement over labeling the party as "Left-wing" or "Centre-left to left-wing". I would love to get some thoughts on the idea! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The field is pointless since these terms only make sense in context. Different observers will place different groups in different sections of the left-right spectrum. Furthermore, changes of policy, such as toward nationalization, are often better explained by a shift in the economic environment than in ideology. The right-wing of the Labour Party supported nationalization after the war in order to re-build the economy. They abandoned this in the 1980s because it was no longer necessary. TFD (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The current infobox isn't contentious and is pretty neutral. If we add an older, different position then it creates a narrative about the party moving its position. I can see this to being an unnecessary gateway for edit warring and other drama. Personally, I don't see the advantage to having any historical positions in there at all (including the recent addition of Christian socialism, and I propose removing it) as I don't believe there's a demonstration this is due enough for inclusion. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 18:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Also strong oppose. 'Historical' ideologies and factions should not be listed in article Infoboxes. Certainly not those based around contentious evidence and sources.--Autospark (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Czello's comment. I don't have anything to comment on besides stating that the ideologies in the infobox should represent the contemporary views of the party. Historical ideologies and factions can be instead added in a subsection that serves the purpose of explaining the contemporary and historical views of a party. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Czello and Vacant0. Historic ideologies displayed in other political parties are only worth it when they have shown a significant shift in political ideology (e.g from the left to the right). Left-wing as a historical component isn't wrong per se, but it exposes the page to edit waring of what was a stable infobox and neglects the presence of left-wing discourse within the party presently. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Christian socialism needs to be mentioned in the infobox of the "Labour Party (UK)" article. In fact, not a few European social democratic political parties showed Christian socialist tendencies in the past.--Storm598 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" to describe Maxine Peake's comments

During the description of Rebecca Long-Bailey's exit from the Shadow Cabinet in the "Opposition and Internal Conflict" section, reference is made to her having shared an interview with Maxine Peake. Peake claims that Israeli Police train with American Police, which is true. She correctly claims that they share techniques but also makes the claim that American Police learned a particular technique from Israeli Police, that of kneeling on a person's neck to restrain them, which is not true.

Describing this factual error as "repeating an antisemitic conspiricy theory" is far from a fair and neutral characterisation of the events which occurred. It is in fact the particular political view of one faction within the Labour party. It is an emotive and partisan flourish on a point where there is considerable legitimate political disagreement, and arguably a misleading description of the facts.

I would suggest that replacing "repeating the antisemitic conspiricy theory that..." with something like "making the incorrect claim that..." would be more appropriate for a section which is meant to give an objective account of the history of Labour's post-2010 factional disputes.

86.1.50.116 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The sources don't say that she repeated an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory but that Starmer characterized it that way. TFD (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Antisemitism

The media articles cited, as well as others, often discuss the Labour Party's anti-Semitism issue page by page, but without citing a single solid fact. Instead, people are quoted who are later portrayed by others as not neutral, there are weeks of elaborate arguments about definitions without clarifying who is arguing and for what reason. Then factions are excluded with the fundamental verdict: incompatible with the party's basic stance, without a word about what factual issues were involved. Basically, you read that and then you're just as informed as you were before. This WP article is only one example among many in this question.

--2A02:908:899:2920:C9A2:A2EE:5D0D:F186 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this sentiment. Aside from the EHRC report, which should be seen as the only official and independent investigation into the problem, the rest becomes more difficult. I put some of this together, based on what was there before and updating a little, but the problem is avoiding a stronger editorial stance. My view is that you can understand Corbynite antisemitism through both the lenses of antisemitism on the left (going back the post-1967 Soviet antisemitism, or as far back as the Protocols hoax) and in terms of conspiracy theories that unite fringes that developed around the Stop the War Coalition and the anti-Western propaganda and misinformation that proliferated around this time on social media. I do not think it prudent to push this position, however, although it could coherently frame a lot of the instances described, because the facts should be the primary purpose for this article. If someone can produce an explanation that keeps it both neutral and comprehensive, I would like to read it. VelvetCommuter (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Still support the SDLP?

I'm not sure if Labour supports the SDLP any more. It's not in the Rule Book. As Labour now allows candidates to be stood in Northern Ireland, I think that their recognition of the SDLP's domain has ended. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rulebook-2020.pdf Epa101 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

--Do you have a source that Labour now endorses candidates in Northern Ireland? Quote here from the Labour NEC 2019 stating that the party does not stand in NI because the SDLP is its sister party there. --Kwekubo (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I support the right term? Labour doesn not run candidates in NI and encourages its supporters to vote SDLP. They are also fellow members of transnational political groups. But I think the relationship ends there. Their relationship with the SDLP is no different from their relationships with the SDP in Germany or the Labour Party in New Zealand. TFD (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. This is a bit hard to work out, which is why I didn't make any changes. A few developments seem relevant.

In 2015, the Labour Party in Northern Ireland voted to contest elections. (I'm having to use the Internet Archive here, which makes me wonder why it's not on the website any more.) https://web.archive.org/web/20160114113356/http://www.labourpartyni.org/lpni_prepare_to_fight_elections It doesn't seem as if they have contested any elections since this vote.

The SDLP was always part of the Socialist International. However, it is in an alliance with Fianna Fail and considering a merger with them. Fianna Fail are in the Liberal International. I'm not sure where that leaves the SDLP, in terms of being anyone's sister party.

Looking on the Labour Party's website, I cannot find anywhere referring to SDLP as their sister party or calling for those in Northern Ireland to vote for them. Doing a Google search on the site, the SDLP are mentioned a few times, without any mention of their being a sister party. I know that newspaper article are valid references on Wikipedia as well, but I'd have liked a direct statement.

The reason why I linked to the 2020 Rule Book is that, on page 16, the rules in Chapter 2.1.4 seem to stop any member of the Labour Party in Northern Ireland from helping the SDLP. I would have expected at least a clarification that the SDLP is a special case, but there's no such mention of them. Do they get around this by saying that Labour are not contesting certain NI elections, full stop?

Let's put it this way. If I were a member of Labour in Northern Ireland who is helping the SDLP, the Rule Book would not fill me with confidence! :) Epa101 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah! I've found this statement from the Labour Party in Northern Ireland:

https://www.labourpartyni.org/2020/07/04/labour-party-northern-ireland-model-statement-on-right-to-stand/

It sounds as if the central Labour Party overruled their decision to stand candidates. They are not very happy about this. The website states that the SDLP is still considered the sister party, but many are not very happy about the alliance with Fianna Fail.

Therefore, I accept that Labour does still consider the SDLP its sister party. I think that it would be acceptable to add a few sentences to say that the Labour Party in Northern Ireland wants to stand candidates and is not very impressed with the SDLP, perhaps to the section entitled "Membership and registered supporters"? Epa101 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your source does not establish weight, which is required for inclusion. You would need to show how significant the opinion of the majority of the 1,700 NI members is. TFD (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Not if I'm just talking about the model statement on the Labour Party's position in Northern Ireland. That is not subject to any sort of democratic vote amongst the party's mass membership in Northern Ireland, so that is not relevant for the weight criterion. Epa101 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with weight? TFD (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you tell me. I am saying that weight is irrelevant here. You say that I need to talk about the opinions of the 1,700 NI members, but I'm saying that it is not relevant to the model statement on contesting elections against that SDLP. Remember here that I'm addressing the topic of the Labour Party's relationship with the SDLP and the issue of Northern Ireland's party is just mentioned as part of that. It would be missing a very important part of information to omit how the SDLP's alliance (potential merger) with a non-socialist party has caused concern over the long-standing alliance. Epa101 (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WEIGHT says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially concerning recent events that may be in the news."

In this case, the issue has received little or no coverage in the media, at least in articles about the Labour Party, and therefore is insignificant to the topic.

Labour and the SDLP were never close. Gerry Fitt abstained on the 1979 no confidence vote. The connection was that both were members of the Socialist International and the Party of European Socialists, which meant they could not compete with each other. The Fianna Fáil partnership anyway appears to be forgotten. It's just important to the Labour Party compared with for example the conflict between Blairites and Corbynites, Brexit, the Irish border, covid and Ukraine.

TFD (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. I understand your point better now, although your application of this principle would seem to render most mention of Northern Ireland irrelevant on articles of British politics, given that Northern Ireland seldom gets attention in the British media. Wikipedia is supposed to be committed to showing significant-minority viewpoints, and that principle needs to be balanced against this "weight" principle. Our principles conflict sometimes. I would say that the people of Northern Ireland constitute a significant minority, myself, and they have been part of UK politics for longer than some of the other things that you mention.

Anyway, I changed the section on Northern Ireland a few days back. I'll let you review it, to see if you are happy with it.

Your last paragraph seems to suggest that all mention of the SDLP be removed from the article. I am not entirely against that. As I said above, the Labour Party's website doesn't mention a sister agreement with the SDLP anywhere. I started off by questioning whether the article should still say that it supports the SDLP in Northern Ireland, as it currently does in the introduction and the Northern Ireland section. After the initial responses, I changed tack and just mentioned how the Northern Irish Labour Party has demanded the right to stand and raised concerns over the alliance with Fianna Fail. (You say that this seems to be forgotten, but I cannot find a source saying that it's been called off)

Therefore, I'd say either that all mention of the SDLP be deleted, if Northern Irish politics is considered not important enough, or the part on the Northern Irish Labour Party's model statement be kept in, to show how the alliance with the SDLP has been questioned in recent times. I would find it hard to justify including one but not the other, under our rules.

Thanks for all. Epa101 (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would remove Northern Irish affiliation from the info-box and say that the Labour Party does not run candidates in Northern Ireland. They did ask supporters in Northern Ireland to vote SDLP, but I don't know that is worth mentioning, considering they have no formal agreement and probably no communication. Even if the SDLP is longer socialist, it's a lot closer to Labour than the Unionists or Sinn Fein. Labour probably has an agreement with the SI not to compete with the SDLP in NI, may also be pragmatic reasons why they don't run there. But that comes back to weight. Another issue to consider is how significant the NI Labour membership is. TFD (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fine. I'm happy with that action. Thanks. Epa101 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I would remove "Northern Irish affiliation" from all British political parties where that is listed in the Infobox; it's misleading, and gives the false impression to the lay reader that such parties have CDU/CSU type arrangements, when that isn't the case with political parties in the United Kingdom.--Autospark (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

New Labour Goverment 1997-2010

Sources "Nigel has written a key list" (PDF). Paultruswell.org.uk. Retrieved 23 July 2015 [38] is WP:SELFSOURCE.

Should we add that Christian Socialism was the historic ideology that Labour was founded on?

Christian Socialism maybe should be added to the list of ideology? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/labour-revives-faith-in-christian-socialism-1437750.html Fantastik2323 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the info-box is to provide broad information rather than details. While the party classification is clear from the name of the party, that is not always the case. Readers want to quickly know if they are socialist, communist, conservative, liberal, fascist etc. and can find out the details in the article itself. TFD (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Labour isn't Centre-Left anymore, the centre-left has been reduced to factions

Another thing is that Labour is opposed to pacifism vehemently, the leadership calling people traitors for not supporting wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources largely still consider the party to be centre-left. — Czello 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would remove the field "political position" as inherently circular and uninformative. Essentially in this context it means parties like the Labour Party. TFD (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this kind of ontology is very helpful to readers—ideology and political position fields are especially useful to an international audience, and for the Labour Party there's a huge archive of high quality academic sources we can draw on to make sure that the article reflects reliable source consensus. Ralbegen (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove it. Maybe place sub catgeories showing that it falls under a left wing and centre left faction or the sort as other poltiical parties have had? JamesJ (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me what additional information it provides if after saying the ideology is "democratic socialism/democratic socialism," we say that they are center-left? Aren't we just saying that according to Wikipedia editors, these ideologies are center-left? Also, other sources that say Labour is left-wing because that is how those writers classify their ideology. TFD (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Keir Starmer has been claiming Labour is the party of the centre ground for some time now. He repeated this at the recent conference. "Labour is now firmly in the centre ground of British politics" - [1]. "Labour offering ‘common sense’ political centre ground" [2]. Labour have proscribed many Left leading groups; the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), the Labour Left Alliance (LLA) and the Socialist Labour Network most recently whilst attracting Conservative candidates to cross the floor.

Whether it could be called democratic has also been called into question. The shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves says that Labour is the party of business, and that "reducing membership is a good thing". She has previously said that Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits. Starmer has managed to force his preferred candidates to run for Labour for many MP, Councillor and Mayoral positions, usually by finding ways of removing popular local candidates on spurious grounds. Of course, Islington members overwhelmingly prefer Jeremy Corbyn as their preferred Labour candidate, but Starmer won't accept this.

Slogan "Stronger Together"

After reviewing the Labour Party webpage, it appears the term "Stronger Together" is not a slogan, but simply a motto for a roadmap of policies for the party and also a page header for its respective page on the website. This is not an official logo like "Build Back Better" has been for the Conservatives. I am proposing the "Slogan" section in the infobox be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.16.54 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Google defines a slogan as "a motto associated with a political party or movement or other group."[3] TFD (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mayors and seats diagrams

Hi all. I've made a suggestion regarding mayors and seat diagrams on the Conservative party talk page here, which may also be of interest to editors of this article too. Let me know what you think (preferably on the other talk page). Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Labour Party (UK)/Archive 13
House of Commons	199 / 650
House of Lords	168 / 764
Scottish Parliament	22 / 129
Senedd	30 / 60
Regional mayors[nb]	8 / 10
London Assembly	11 / 25
PCCs and PFCCs	8 / 39
LA mayors	11 / 15
Councillors[nb]	5,717 / 19,943
^ The Mayor of London and nine combined authority 'metro' mayors. ^ Councillors of local authorities in England and Scotland, principal councils in Wales and local councils in Northern Ireland.

I've mocked up what the appropriate diagram would look like for the Labour party on the right. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done (with amendments). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

Please change the link Deputy leader of the Labour Party (UK) to Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) as it is capitalised. 86.191.232.137 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done The only link I can see is already linked as "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK)" Terasail^[✉️] 01:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Labour no-longer Identifies as Centre-Left

Keir Starmer has outright stated this https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-keynote-speech-labour-party-conference-liz-truss-tory-kwasi-kwarteng-b1028265.html https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/politics/108227/sir-keir-starmer-lays-out-centrist-vision-for-labour-in-12000-word-essay https://jacobin.com/2021/06/labour-party-centrism-blairism-progressive-britain-keir-starmer https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/29/world/europe/britain-labour-keir-starmer.html https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/26/labour-conference-starmer-party-financial-responsibility https://www.leaderscouncil.co.uk/news/labour-is-back-at-the-centre-of-political-spectrum-sir-keir-starmer-to-tell-party-conference

I suggest the party is changed to "Centre to Centre-Left" and have it only as factions for "Social Democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" aswell. there is no reference to socialism, social democracy, nor democratic socialism on the website 82.14.227.184 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, although I think any mention of 'Left' is misleading. --Andromedean (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What Labour identifies as doesn't matter - we go with what the sources say. — Czello 18:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in saying that Labour is centrist, center-left or left-wing. It all depends on the context of the speaker. That's why using these terms in the info-box makes no sense. TFD (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Deputy leader should be Deputy Leader, please change the grammar 86.191.232.221 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) 86.191.232.221 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's style guide for job titles is to use sentence case. Ralbegen (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

OK but it is a needless redirect. 86.191.232.221 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Democratic Socialism within the info-box

I'm curious on why Democratic Socialism is within the info-box? The first source doesn't ever mention Labour as a Democratic Socialist party (can't even view the 2nd page of 145), and I can't seem to find the 2nd source anywhere online. Additionally, they both seem to be quite old (1998 and 2000 respectively). And lastly, Democratic Socialism by definition is a left-wing ideology (its mentioned in the first sentence of the page), and there seems to be a consensus that Labour is not a left-wing party. Thus I feel that the left-wing ideology of Democratic Socialism should be removed from a party which isn't left-wing (or at least have it be tagged with a better source).

Though after reading the talk section above, maybe adding a footnote within the political position could be found as new solution as well. With mention of the Labour leader saying that Labour is "back at the centre", or mention of Labour being a "left-wing party" (if sources can be found). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Info-boxes are supposed to provide broad rather than detailed information. Ideally, only one ideology should be mentioned. Labour clearly falls within the same category as similar parties such as the SDP (Germany) or Socialist Party (France). If readers want to know about the details, they can always read the article. TFD (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think like you said, one ideology should be mentioned. With the more detailed information being provided within the article. I also do agree that Labour does clearly fall within similar parties like SDP (Germany) and Socialist Party (France). Both of which strictly have one ideology in their info-box (being Social Democracy). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Please make Deputy leader of the Labour Party (UK) be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) as it is capitalised in the link. 86.191.233.62 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Lemonaka (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Political Position sources out of date

The most recent source attached to the description of Labour as "Centre-left" is now 8 years old, and in the interim the party has been through multiple leaders and major shifts in policy.

I propose either changing it to "Centre" or "Centre to Centre-left". Reasons for this include Starmer's declaration that Labour is "the party of the centre-ground"[4], and repudiation of the policies cited by those out-of-date sources as being centre-left.[5]

At a bare minimum, the current sources are in desperate need of replacement with ones that at least refer to some point in Starmer's tenure rather than that of Ed Miliband. TheGlaswegian (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See the conversation above; we don't determine the party's position based on current leaders, we do it on overarching and broad descriptions of the party overall. Furthermore, we don't make our own interpretations of descriptions, and instead we report what independent sources say. — Czello 18:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I did read that, yes, but the most pressing issue is that no "overarching and broad descriptions of the party overall" are cited from any time in the past 8 years. A plethora of contemporary discussions exist from a variety of reliable sources discussing the differences between the Labour party of 2020-present and the Labour party of 2015-2019, as well as between New Labour and Labour during Corbyn's time as leader. Furthermore, a source describing Labour in 1989 being used to describe Labour in 1997 would not be valid, and so it is with the shifts in Labour policy in a period spanning Miliband, Corbyn, Starmer, Momentum, Brexit, Covid, and 5 separate Prime Ministers.

Whether or not updated sources would warrant changing the description as "Centre-Left" is ultimately a secondary issue that depends on the sources themselves, as you say. However, I do not wish to begin removing the outdated sources and seeking valid replacements without establishing some sort of consensus here, for obvious reasons.

With regards to the matter of leadership, while the particular leaders of the party make it easy to separate these periods it does not mean the only change is in the leader themselves. Similarly, just because the party is not solely defined by its leader that does not make anything its leader says irrelevant. TheGlaswegian (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential Recentism in the History Section

To me, the history section from 2010 onwards on this article seems to suffer slightly from WP:Recentism. Considering this is a time in opposition, I would argue that a lot of this information could be moved to either History of the Labour Party (UK) or the Labour Party leadership of ... articles to avoid the article becoming too bloated. For example, I'm not too sure we need to include by-election/local election results, internal spats in the party or shadow cabinet appointments unless they were very notable. What are people's thoughts? Michaeldble (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Labour Files Controversy

Given the serious allegations made by Aljazeera regarding the conduct of right-leaning party officials, I believe this topic is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. This is a proposal to add a "Labour Files" section, possibly as part of a larger section dedicated to the coverage of other scandals throughout the party's history. 46.114.93.128 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is notable, relevant, and on-topic information for the article, and it is all reliably sourced, then I support your proposal. Don't forget to take account of due weight, neutrality, and BLP too, of course. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There should be no place on Wikipedia for reporting conspiracy theories as fact. Absolutely none. If this particular conspiracy theory however counts under WP:NOTABILITY, it should be reported as what it is, as with articles on similar fabrications e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.-- Autospark (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the case of the Forde Report, the "Labour Files", lawsuits dealt with by the parties and declining revenue are all significant part of the Labour party's history the last three year that are not covered at all. Calling it conspiracy shows a lack of neutrality. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling Investigative journalism a conspiracy theory is not an impartial stance, Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I shall point you in the direction of WP:FRINGE.— Autospark (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

it isn't fringe, two reports came with the same results independently from eachother..... the forde report and the labour files, please be impartial. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Perennial sources, al Jazeera is a reliable source. If you disagree with the consensus of Wikipedia editors, get the consensus changed. In the meantime, don't post your unique perspective on article talk pages. It's disruptive in that it is likely to generate useless discussion about al Jazeera.

WP:NOTABILITY "does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Why are you providing a link to it? No one is suggesting that we create a separate article about the findings by al Jazeera. Or did you not read the policy before including a link?

Incidentally, did you watch the al Jazeera documentary or did you form your conclusion without having to do so?

TFD (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have, and it seems a fringe conspiracy theory to me. I suggest any editor who wishes to write about it best use the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article rather than the article about the Labour Party itself.— Autospark (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

then you are biased, you need to undergo bias training because two reports came with the same conclusion

Martin Forde QC

Independent Advisor to the Windrush Compensation Scheme about racial inequality in the UK, in immigration history and at the Bar. and investigative journalists, begone starmerite Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Mass amount of non-notable information

At 240,000 bytes, this article has become far too difficult to navigate imo - especially the history section. As we already have History of the Labour Party (UK) for more intricate detail and Labour Party leadership of/Premiership of... for even more detailed info, I would suggest that this history section (especially the opposition years) should be trimmed down drastically to give a overview, then directing readers to these other articles for more info. Considering the WP:20YEARTEST suggestions, I can't see how by-election results (especially holds), local election results and shadow cabinet appointments could be remotely helpful/interesting for readers. Michaeldble (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Should Labour still be considered Democratic Socialist?

Under Kier Starmer the party has undoubtedly shifted to the right, and over the past few days the Labour leadership has become openly hostile toward Democratic Socialist politicians, should the party still be listed as Democratic Socialist?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64640069

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/87405d4e-acaf-11ed-9cb3-80326348937b bree Breeboi 13:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is original research. Ultimately we call them whatever sources do. Additionally, we tend not to alter a party's political positioning based on their current leader (for example, we didn't shift them further to the hard left while Corbyn was in power). Instead the infobox should represent the party, broadly top-to-bottom, over a long period of time. — Czello 13:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't original research, both The Times and the BBC are considered generally reliable. bree Breeboi 13:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You're making an interpretation based on recent news events - that's textbook original research. — Czello 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"But Sir Keir said the party had changed under his leadership and "we are not going back", adding that if others did not back him they could leave." - BBC

"“There are those who don’t like that change, who still refuse to see the reality of what had gone on under the previous leadership,” he says. “To them I say in all candour: we are never going back. If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to stay.”" - The Times

Both sources clearly indicate that the party's politics has shifted, citing the words of Kier Starmer himself. bree Breeboi 13:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

They're not clearly saying the party is no longer democratic socialist - that's, again, an interpretation. If the article doesn't explicitly use these words, nor even spell out their political position, then it comes down to trying to read into someone's words.

It's also not how we source things - what Starmer says is kind of irrelevant, as he'd be a primary source. Instead, we represent what independent sources are saying.

Finally, as I said before, we don't change a party's position based on a single leader. We didn't list Labour as a hard-left party when Corbyn was leader. — Czello 14:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd imagine that's because Corbyn didn't tell the liberal politicians to leave, or to expel them from the party. When a leader's politics affects the entire party, then the party has obviously shifted politically. Calling Corbyn "hard-left" wouldn't even be true at all, the man isn't even a communist, Democratic Socialism is very much mainstream in the 21st century, and hard-left describes an ideology outside of the "mainstream center-left". bree Breeboi 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

He was pretty widely referred to as hard-left, but regardless - the point is we use whatever labels independent sources do, and we describe the party as broadly as we can, rather than just the leader's views. — Czello 14:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

He was referred to as hard-left because in the scale of internal Labour Party politics he is, however on a national scale hard left has almost always been used to describe communist, usually Trotskyite groups. bree Breeboi 14:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

as of recent events the labour party is being transformed into a conservative party, this was admitted by keir starmer himself, aswell as being anti-trade-union

the new ideology should be

Liberal Conservatism

British Nationalism

only factions of Social Democracy (Socialist Campaign Group)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-stamer-conservative-new-labour-b2337901.html

https://inews.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-dont-care-labours-priorities-conservative-2338849

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23519506.labours-keir-starmer-dont-care-sound-conservative/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23520947.senior-labour-figure-defends-keir-starmers-conservative-comments/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23510723.coronation-keir-starmer-no-plans-repeal-new-protest-laws/

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/05/10/keir-starmer-wouldnt-repeal-morally-unacceptable-illegal-migration-bill/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23520947.senior-labour-figure-defends-keir-starmers-conservative-comments/

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-slams-just-stop-oil-protesters-as-arrogant-and-wrong_uk_63564943e4b04cf8f3856001 Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more informative, then, to also describe the leadership's ideology? What's the point of telling someone a party is socialist in its 20 year old manifesto if the leaders are conservatives? That doesn't seem very useful to me. Rather misleading. Sblana (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel it's worth putting Third Way in the infobox given the article also mentions it in other sections, and it's probably been the dominant ideology in the party under Blair, Brown, and Starmer. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Labour Files request

Whatever Happened to The Labour Files section?

"Given the serious allegations made by Aljazeera regarding the conduct of right-leaning party officials, I believe this topic is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. This is a proposal to add a "Labour Files" section, possibly as part of a larger section dedicated to the coverage of other scandals throughout the party's history".

Taking account of the shameful actions of staff members at Labour HQ to undermine the election chances of Jeremy Corbyn, should not a clear decision be made concerning the request for a section on The Labour Files? For, how ever nasty, are not such such events all part of the history of the Labour party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.26 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Significance is determined by the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not by what editors consider important. So far mainstream media have chosen to ignore it, but I expect it will receive broader coverage in academic sources, when they become available. We'll have to wait. TFD (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

With Starmer refusing to address the issues highlighted by the 'leaked' Labour Report and The Labour Files, are we not going to have to wait a long time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.218 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

From True Back to 'New' Labour

Why call Labour a "centre-left" party, when it is managed by the middle-class, the left-wing are weak/have no power and few Labour MPs have manual jobs? For, with the breaking of the links to the trade union and working class, is it no longer any kind of People's party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.214 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Democratic socialism in the infobox

Should democratic socialism still be placed in the ideology section of the infobox or not? Helper201 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove from the infobox. The sources used for the claim of democratic socialism are over 20-years-old (one is from 2000, the other from 1998). I'd argue the party as a whole no longer identifies as - nor ideologically peruses - democratic socialism. I'd say this is limited to a faction of the party. Therefore, I would possibly be open to placing it under a factions heading within the infobox, however, the democratic socialist faction within the party are now a small minority and with little, if any, real power so I think it would be better to exclude the ideology from the infobox entirely. Helper201 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep As explained in Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared, classification of political parties by ideology remains widely used. Socialist, democratic socialist, social democratic, workers or labour is one on the major categories used and is helpful in comparative politics. In fact Labour does self-identify as "democratic socialist" in Clause IV of its constitution. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether they meet their personal definitions, just what reliable sources say.

If they are to be reclassified, then we should reclassify all the parties in their family, including the Socialist Parties of France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, and various other social democratic parties.

TFD (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment:We go by what reliable sources state. In which case we could really do with ones much more up to date than the ones currently given if we are to retain this ideology in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The source I provided was from 2016. A more recent source from 2021, (Party Leaders and their Selection Rules in Western Europe, Figure 3.3), continues to group Labour in the same party, although this author uses the term social democratic.

The first source I provided explains the evolution of socialist parties from their origins in the 19th century. As the world has changed so have they and incidentally so also have liberals and conservatives.

Is your position that Labour no longer belongs to this family or do you think the family itself should be renamed. If so, what do you recommend we call them?

TFD (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove. It’s misleading. Labour is a social-democratic party, e.g. based around support for a mixed economy, not a state planned economy.-- Autospark (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that is the distinction between the two terms? And were Marx and Engels therefore not socialists because they didn't advocate a state planned economy? TFD (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The Labour Party still ideologically defines itself as democratic socialist in Clause IV of its constitution as of 2023: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist Party." Funnily enough, the party first adopted democratic socialism as its official ideology during the centrist New Labour period in 1995, and several senior New Labour figures, for example David Blunkett, Tony Blair and John Prescott, apparently identified with democratic socialism despite New Labour's adherence to Third Way centrism. Just because the party has shifted back to the centre-ground under Starmer's leadership doesn't necessarily mean that the party is no longer democratic socialist; it's still in the constitution. It's possible that Labour will have another leader in the future who shifts it back to a centre-left or a firmly left-wing position, and they too will likely keep democratic socialism in the party's constitution.

Also, while we do have reliable sources which note Labour's move back to the centre-ground, we also need reliable sources which mention how it is no longer democratic socialist. Until we find these reliable sources, I don't think we should remove democratic socialism from the infobox. It also shouldn't be removed from the infobox since the party still ideologically defines itself as democratic socialist, as stated in my above paragraph. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It is incredibly poor academic standards to describe any political party literally based on their own self-descriptions and ‘official’ ideology. That’s not far off from, for example, describing the Portuguese Partido Social Democrata as literally being a social-democratic party due to its name. (And no, the UK Labour Party doesn’t use the term “social democracy” because it’s still associated with the old SDP, which itself wasn’t social-democratic).— Autospark (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The difference being that the PSD originated as a social democratic party but then became a centre-right party and is thus classified by academics in the family of like-minded parties, so I don't think that applies; if the Labour Party takes the PSD route, and is thus removed by academics from the socialist political party family, then I'd have to agree with removing it, otherwhise it just reeks of recentism, as noted by Czello. As also noted by TFD, the ideology of parties evolve and a socialist party governing is going to manage capitalism, so it isn't going to adopt full socialist economic policies; that doesn't make it any less socialist, as socialism isn't just an economic system, and that is why academics still use that category within the political party families.

As I said many times, this whole democratic socialism/social democracy diatribe is overblown, and are not mutually exclusive as Americans may make it like to be (e.g. democratic socialism reduced to a democratic form of Soviet Communism and social democracy reduced to capitalism—not understanding the aforementioned point that a socialist government in liberal democracy, unless it gets a strong majority after campaigning for the democratic, parliamentary overthrow of capitalism and doing, to simplify, what Napoleon did by decree in the case of feudalism, is always going to manage capitalism, reform it, and make it more amendable, basically moderating itself but not overthrow it—and the Third Way version of social democracy.

Finally, while I can agree that, indeed, it "is incredibly poor academic standards to describe any political party literally based on their own self-descriptions and 'official' ideology", that's what reliable sources say and Wikipedia is supposed to be based on them; personally, I don't think they base that only on their own self-description (again, the PSD is not included in the socialist party family and, as far as I'm aware — TFD is free to correct me if wrong — the Brazilian Social Democratic Party is not included by academics within the socialist political party family, so that would confirm that academics don't base party families merely on official ideology), precisely because it would be "incredibly poor academic standards" and I don't think they do that.

Davide King (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep per ThatRandomGuy1 and TFD. In addition to what they've said, it's not normally common practice for us to alter a party's ideological position based on an individual leader. We didn't push Labour further to the left under Corbyn, just as we haven't significantly altered the Tories throughout their multiple changes in leadership. I think if we can demonstrate it's a permanent change that pervades throughout multiple leaders we could return to this discussion. — Czello ^(music) 15:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove "democratic socialism", consistently with other similar parties. It is quite misleading, indeed. I would remove it altogether, as "factions" sections within the "ideology" paramenter of the "infobox" are very rarely a good idea. The Labour Party is a big-tent centre-left party, but "social democracy" encompasses it almost entirely. --Checco (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep with heading (e.g., factions or minority or officially). The party as a whole is not de facto democratic socialist. However, it is worth including as the party's de jure ideology. And the party includes socialists. (I also tried to think of some relevant comparisons. There are many parties with "socialist" in their name in the Party of European Socialists but which do not include (democratic) socialism in their infobox. Not that this supports my !vote.) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per ThatRandomGuy1, TFD, and Czello, as no policy guideline or reasoning justifys the removal. It also reeks of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOOR. Democratic socialism is not merely based on the fact that it's the de jure party ideology but because that's the political party family academics associate them with, notwhistanting whatever we may personally feel about it. In fact, democratic socialism and social democracy would be a good fit for most like-minded parties. Personally, if we must list only one ideology, I'd leave social democracy for the centre-left party and democratic socialism for the socialist party to its left, such as the SPD and The Left in Germany, but also adding democratic socialism wouldn't be wrong; in fact, I'd argue social democracy would also be a fit for many of Left parties because their economic policies represent more a return to the post-war consensus and the social-liberal paradigm that lasted until the 1970s, but that's beside the point. I'd wait further developments, such as a Starmer government and whether the Labour left is permanently purged and the rightward turn is definitive, and even that may not be enough if it isn't supported by reliable sources, preferably academic ones over news sources that may be biased towards recentism and that may give democratic socialism a different meaning than academics. Davide King (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [Edited to add] It looks to be the Third Way and traingulation way of doings politics. This may well change with another leadership, even from one that is from the soft left, still too soon and still no reasonable policy violation to justify removal for a century-old party. Davide King (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Parties such as the Left in Germany, Syriza and Podemos are now generally classified as "left parties," which is how they describe themselves. They do not have stated ideologies but bring together supporters from a range of left-wing parties. TFD (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Specify it is a faction of the party while Labour party does still have a democratic socialist faction (Labour left) it's not a majority of the party. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

References

New article?

Would anyone have any objections if I created a new article: 'Electoral history of the Labour Party (UK)'? Like the Electoral history of the Conservative Party (UK) article, it would contain all of the information from the 'Electoral performance' section on this article. With the length of this article already being very large, I would then remove all of the elections on this article (apart from general elections) but have a link to the new article at the top of the Electoral performance section. Thoughts? Michaeldble (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead. I see no problem with it existing.— Autospark (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Neolib to the ideology

Can we add neo-liberal to the ideology? There are several sources supporting it being neolib, specifically the dominant New Labour faction of the party. source 1 source 2 source 3. A Socialist Trans Girl 08:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism, like the economic-political paradigms that preceded it is the set of policies rather than the ideology. Your first source for example still refers to Labour as "social democrats." Liberalism of various forms has dominated government policy for the last 200 years. It doesn't mean that every major party has the same ideology. TFD (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well a political ideology is a collection of policies, no?

And I didn't say to remove Social democracy from the ideology, I said to add Neo-liberal to the ideology.

I don't really understand the point you're making; what are your concerns with adding Neo-liberal to the ideology? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

An ideology is definitely not a collection of policies. Policies are adopted according to conditions, consistent with the party's ideology. Only an extremist party would pursue the same policies regardless of changing circumstances. TFD (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In the strongest terms I oppose adding “neoliberalism” to the Ideology section of the Infobox, as I would with any other political party – TFD offers a decent description as to exactly why. (Also, Neoliberalism is an economic doctrine, not a political ideology.)— Autospark (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Labour policy on cuts to benefits

Could there be a section on Labourer's attitude towards Tory plans to cut benefits to fund tax cuts for rich? For it seems that Starmer is more interested in cozying up to the middle and upper classes than helping people least able to defend themselves. If this is so, then what reason is there for the Labour Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.179 (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think stuff like that should be mentioned on the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer article rather than here to avoid WP:RECENTISM. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Factions

they are a welcome addition, however there needs to be some clarification. Labour is made up of 4 distinct ideological factions. 1. the 'hard left' (democratic socialist, momentum, trotskyism, bennism), the 'soft left' (democratic socialist, open labour, compass, radical social democracy, Foot), the 'hard right' (conservative social democracy, labour first, Starmer) and New Labour (progressive britain, third way social democracy, left-neoliberalism, blairism). sourced from Jeremy Gilbert's podcast. Thatjakelad (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s WP:OR without strong, reliable sources to back it up, and highly misleading, as there is no formally organised factions as such in the party, and some of the organisations you mention (e.g. Compass) have no formal connection to the Labour Party. I support removing the factions from the Infobox, as the Infobox is meant to be a broad, brief overview of a party, and factions and ideological currents of a party should be elaborated upon in the article body.— Autospark (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Autospark, it is needs to been sourced properly so it's not original research. We also need to remove it from the infobox, it is beyond it's scope and too much information. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

As of writing, the factions do seem to be sourced in the infobox. Only issue I see is that the factions aren't in the article body yet, which is usually required for stuff to be included in the infobox. I say give people a chance to add them into the body before removing. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

it is beyond it's scope and too much information. no it's not A Socialist Trans Girl 02:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thatjakelad @Autospark I think the current version with citations is what we should go for since it has citations. The US Republican party has no formal factions, but is still in the infobox. Including the ideologies of factions where the broad ideology of the whole party is not applicable or accurate of the entirety is a brief overview. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the factions are a good addition too. I've been trying on and off to draft some articles on the factions but keep getting carried away with other things. The Labour left article was one of those drafts funnily enough, submitted in a severely unfinished state by some other editor who's now been blocked for sockpuppetry and spam. I suppose this serves as a reminder to myself to get back to that article and actually finish it now that it's in the mainspace (begrudgingly, I must admit). I'll have to correct some info in the lead with reliable sources too, since some of the info I put on is very innaccurate/wrong and originally meant as a generalised placeholder. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The factions should be written about,

with adequate references to avoid WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but factions absolutely should not be placed in the Infobox. The Infobox is intended to give a brief, broad overview of a party/organisation, not a place for a potentially vast essay. (Also, two ideologies in any Infobox should be the absolute limit for any political party.)— Autospark (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark There are factions in the infobox in the Republican Party (United States), why not here? The view that 2 ideologies is the absolute limit is just absurd, and has no basis in Wikipedia policy. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl: I agree with you about American political parties. However, the infobox is a summary of the party, not a detailed insight into a party. I think it would be more appropriate to create a page about the various factions of the party, along with a page for the Tories too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the ideologies of the few factions within the party is a basic summary, and not at all a detailed insight into the factions. The factions in the infobox is the following:

Majority:

• Social democracy

Factions:

Democratic socialism (Labour left)

Third way, Neo-Liberalism (New Labour)

Social democracy (Soft left)

That is definitely a basic summary of the ideologies of the factions, and not a detailed overview.

I agree that the factions should have articles; the ones in the proposal already do. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 03:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF - what other articles do shouldn't necessarily impact all other political party articles. That article also abstains from listing the political position, but we include it here. Part of the reason is because it was a contentious label and so isn't appropriate for the infobox - such as factions in this article. — Czello ^(music) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Czello fyi, there's actually an ongoing discussion to add the position to the infobox, which has seen pretty large agreement that it SHOULD be added.

That's fair, the emphasis of the question is on the "why not here?", and as consensus is "marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns", unless legitimate concerns with the proposal are posed, then there is consensus for the proposal. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 03:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I know, I'm actually one of the first people to have voted to include it I suppose the legitimate concerns are that we'd need firm sources that these are the wings/factions of the party and that it's defining enough that it justifies inclusion in the infobox - rather than just in the body. — Czello ^(music) 07:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is already quite bloated in terms of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There isn't a lot of material on factions in the party in the body of the article, and having material in the infobox that isn't a brief summary of major topics in the article is not appropriate. The terms "soft left", "labour left", "Blairite", "Brownite", "old right", etc, do not appear in the article at all. That doesn't mean there's not space to discuss them in the article, but the main text needs to come first before conversations about the infobox! Ralbegen (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'd like to your opinion on this discussion. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ralbegen, the Infobox is already heavily bloated – it's meant to be a summary, not a paragraph. A "Factions" section to the article would be the place to list information, not the Infobox, where only social democracy should be listed. Additionally, claims that there are formally organised factions called "New Labour", "Blairite", "soft Left" and so on are at best WP:SYNTH and most likely fictitious, as the Labour Party is a party of varying ideological currents rather than organised factions with formal names and identifiable leaders.--Autospark (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Every party has a center, left and right and there can be strong debates among them. But they do not meet the definition of factions, unless they are organized with a name, a leadership and membership. The caucus before votes to get their agenda passed and their members elected. They are basically parties within parties and could split and form their own parties.

The U.S. Republican Party in fact has factions. The Liberty Caucus for example was associated with Ron Paul, while the Republican Leadership Council was associated with the declining liberal Republicans.

TFD (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of secondary sources, including academic sources, discuss factionalism in the Labour Party throughout its history. I don't think it's editors' role to decide what constitute or do not constitute factions; we should defer to high-quality secondary sources. Even if they don't look like courants in the PS! Ralbegen (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. They discuss shifting alliances within the party, as exist in every party, not actual factions. TFD (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there's consensus that the addition of the faction ideologies to the infobox first requires a section on the factions in the article itself. I have created a not at all completed draft of the factions section here. Thoughts/feedback/recommendations/proposals/concerns? A Socialist Trans Girl 14:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It only appears to use one citation, which is a source over sixty users old. It is unusable without further references and more factual detail. (Also, factions should not be in the Infobox even with a Factions section, see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.)— Autospark (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely needs improvement, most of it was excerpt from the articles of the factions themself, which did not have citations for it. I'll try and add more citations.

Also, this IS the proposal for the factions section, and discussion of it. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I already made a draft at Draft:Factions in the UK Labour Party some time ago, if you're interested to take a look. I've worked on it on and off a couple of times now. I've cut it down into an Overview section and intend to describe the factions in more specific details in the sections that will follow. Some of the sourcing might be a bit questionable since some of the sources were added for temporary use. I doubt i'll ever get around to finishing it but it might be a good start in case anyone wants to take a look. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly a fairly good effort and well-referenced, but I question the need for the "Disputed terminology" subsection, which is mostly non-encyclopaedic content and reads like a blog article. Also, I would absolutely not describe groups like Momentum, Open Labour, Progress (etc) as if they are organised factions within the party – they certainly aren't, they are external organisations and pressure groups with no formal link, and the party does not even consider them to be affiliated Socialist Societies.-- Autospark (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

oh nice. What would you say needs to happen/change/be added to it for it to be ready to be submitted for review, I might be able to help. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide lists of MPs that are members of the various "factions?" I can provide lists of MPs that are members of the No Turning Back, One Nation and Three Corners Tory factions. TFD (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Factions largely aren't formally organized (except for labour left's Socialist Campaign Group ig), it's moreso the descriptions of faction an MP is member by RS. 02:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC) A Socialist Trans Girl 02:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces there's also the Draft:Tribune Group, whose members are mostly soft left but also has some centrist MPs in it. That's where the names Tribunite and Tribunite left come from for the soft left and its members. As @A Socialist Trans Girl notes, the factions aren't really formally organised, although most of them were organised into caucuses historically (e.g. the Labour right in the Manifesto and Solidarity groups and the Labour left and soft left in the Tribune Group). ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear therefore that they are factions as normally understood, which is an "organized" group, i.e., that has a membership, leadership and agenda. Obviously in a first past the post system, there will be a wide range of views within the two major parties. But for various reasons, they do not organize into factions in the Labour Party.

Bear in mind that we are discussing the info-box which is a good place for simple, unambiguous facts, such as who the leader is, how many seats the party has, etc. Anything that requires explanation does not belong there. TFD (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually the party does have organised groupings within it, the Socialist Campaign Group being one of them. This is also the democratic socialist grouping within the party. We don't have evidence that the party as a whole is currently following this ideology. Helper201 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Socialist Campaign Group meets the criteria. But I would like to see more info about other groups before adding them. TFD (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

1918 vs 1922 general election

When I was adding additional refs in the 'UK general election results', I noticed that throughout this article it says that Labour has been either the Opposition or the governing party since the 1922 general election. However, on the House of Commons Library source that I used, it said "After the 1918 election, a coalition between Conservatives and Liberals meant Labour became the largest opposition party despite having only 59 MPs." Which one is correct? Thanks in advance Michaeldble (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Michaeldble (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Minimum wage

I've tried to place this information - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=prev&diff=1187373222 - in the "Keir Starmer era (2020–present)" but have been reverted. What place would be suitable for this information if not here? It’s cited with a reliable source (the BBC) and this to me seems like the most relevant place for it. The section "Keir Starmer era (2020–present)" isn't particularly big and this doesn't add a large amount more to it, so is it obstructive, and it also happened during the Starmer era so it seems like it fits best here to me. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If there is sufficient reason to highlight this policy detail, it might be worthy of inclusion at the main article linked at the top of the section, Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer. It seems moot even for that article though. It certainly doesn't appear of significance in an overview of the party as a whole and its history. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to put it somewhere in Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer. It feels a bit like WP:RECENTISM to put it in this article as it's not too relevant to the Starmer era (this article doesn't show Neil Kinnock, Jeremy Corbyn or Ed Miliband's views on the minimum wage or right to buy for example since that's not too relevant to their leaderships in the bigger picture of things, that stuff's best saved for their respective leadership or personal articles.) ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it has more relevance here than Stamer's leadership page, as its main focus is the party conference, policy and the Unite union and its core subject, minimum wage. A policy proposed by a major union affiliated with the party and an issue like minimum wage (which was introduced by the Labour Party) has a significant attachment to the party, more so than Starmer or his leadership. Helper201 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not every event that relates to the Labour Party in reliable sources needs to be included on this article. The history section should only include the most significant events in a 123-year long history. I see it has been included on the Labour Party Conference page under the 2021 Brighton heading. This seems sufficient to me. Michaeldble (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right, not every event needs to be included here. But it’s something published by a major news outlet (arguably the most senior news outlet in the UK) and it’s an issue that's centrally linked to the party (and the working class of whom it claims to represent). What we should be asking is how does including it detract from the article? We have History of the Labour Party (UK) for an in-depth analysis of the party's history. This is adding a small amount to a small subsection. I don't see how obstructing the inclusion of this information improves the page or how adding it would subtract from the page. Helper201 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As you correctly say, we have distinct articles to cover matters like this in more depth. Including links to those articles serves the user better than duplicating the material across multiple articles. See WP:ARTICLESIZE. If every mention of the Labour party by the BBC were noted in this article it would be immense. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect I don't think you've addressed most of the points I made in my above comment. I'm not saying all BBC articles about the party should be included here, I listed this as one of multiple contributing factors. Any of the points I made above alone I could understand why the information would not be justifiable, but taken as a whole (most senior news outlet in the UK, issue centrally linked to the party and the working class it claims to represent, no argument presented as to how this specific piece of information detracts from the page, it’s a small amount of info so wouldn't affect WP:ARTICLESIZE etc). These points should be taken as a whole. To say allowing this means all BBC info about the party can be added is a strawman argument and not what I'm saying. Helper201 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you effectively are saying this. Amongst the multitude of facts of comparative, or indeed greater, significance in sub-articles, yours is to go in because a little bit more won't hurt? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not denying other people's content as is being done with me. It’s clear no one has been able to present how this information itself would harm the article, nor effectively demonstrate how it breaks any guidelines. My multiple points are again being ignored in favour of targeting and isolating single points. But to this point, its brevity does avoid the WP:ARTICLESIZE issue and its reliably sourced. The only other point being used against this being included is what other editors could or may argue by also adding sourced content from the BBC, which is frankly not an argument against what I'm doing due to this not being the sole reason as to why I added it. I'm not justifying everything that is reliably sourced be included, I'm saying this should due the multiple reasons I've indicated above (such as the party's strong connection and associated to the topic of minimum wage and it being proposed by one of the largest unions in the UK which is affiliated to the party; just two of the multiple reasons I gave). Helper201 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Ideology update?

I’ve noticed that all the sources in the ideology section in the infobox are over a decade old. It’s especially relevant, considering the party’s recent ideological shift under Kier Starmer, with labour now holding similar stances to the Conservatives on many issues and much of the party’s left-wing being expelled or otherwise sidelined. Considering that the party has undergone multiple changes in leadership with substantially different political positions over since those sources were written, maybe it would be prudent to consider updating that section? 86.161.0.39 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess we could do with some more up to date sources, but it still says on the back of party membership cards that Labour is a democratic socialist party (for now). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. We really need some WP:SYNTH complying sources calling the party democratic socialist as a whole from the last few years. In regards to the above comment, having democratic socialism still on membership cards isn't evidence that the party actually still follows this ideology. Its highly problematic to use this as evidence given its not from a third-party, plus it’s just an old statement, not actually evidence of anything current. As far as I can see democratic socialism no longer stretches beyond a faction or factions of the party and is not a current ideology of the party as a whole anymore. Helper201 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Britannica.com still describes it as a democratic socialist party. The difficulty here is that the precise definition of socialism - democratic or otherwise - varies according to who you're asking. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All successful political parties routinely update their policies to reflect changing times. Throughout most of its history, the party has not been particularly left-wing and has routinely purged more left-wing elements, such as the Militant tendency in the 1980s. TFD (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Headquarters link in infobox please

Hi, I'd like to link the article Labour Party headquarters in the infobox in the same way Leader and Deputy Leader are linked, but I'm not sure how to do so. If anybody could help with this that would be great. Thanks! JamJamSvn (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The current headquarters in the infobox is also out of date. SirCake (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)