Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Labour Party (UK). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

On the sources and neoliberalism

Some of the sources presented above are fairly good and make, at the very least, a quasi-acceptable case that part of Labour's economic policies shifted towards neoliberalism. Most of the sources, however, are rather horrible and completely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Blogs from the ASI and opinion pieces from the Guardian do not constitute reliable sources, and I have absolutely no idea how they were received with such little scrutiny. Others may have different approaches here, but when comparing the weight of the evidence and the reputation of the sources, it certainly seems like social liberalism has much higher standing than neoliberalism in this particular dispute. I encourage a little more conversation on this subject, but I eventually plan to remove neoliberalism in the end. Either include both or don't include them at all.UBER ^(talk) 21:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through the material in a similar way and agree that much of it is not a RS, however a lot of it is. Critically it says that the Labour Party adopted a neo-liberal policy. The evidence so far presented for social liberalism does not make that point, it just shows influence but not adoption. We probably need to look at 2/3 of those references which are the strongest in each case and reach agreement. Removing one, and removing both are options as well as retaining the current position and removing all bar the "official" position. I doubt given the history here that any editor could plan with any confidence to achieve a particular result. --Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I've already offered to remove them both. Are you saying you're fine with that? I'm not quite sure I understand your statement.UBER ^(talk) 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I said that was one option along with removing all of them and others. My personal preference throughout this debate has been to fall back to a single position per the Party's official position and say that is is democratic socialism. I would move all the stuff under ideological currents into the main body of the article. That includes things like the Third Way which is an interpretation of democratic socialism. However that was not agree during the last debate and the creation of the ideological currents section was a compromise. What I think we need to do is to get this resolved so that it can be posted as a note. That means looking at the major (not long lists) sources for each ideology and determine how best to deal with them. My gut feel is that there are editors with strong enough views on labeling and enough sources to force through some variation of the existing approach. The best way forward on this is to properly review and debate each one, unless the position of established editors has changed. I'm clearing the morning's crop of email at the moment but will have a look later and try outline the options in list format with any evidence I can track down over the page. --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We're having a debate now. We don't have to be slaves to what happened in the past. Like I said, consensus can change in Wikipedia (it's in the policy itself; see WP:CONSENSUS). You keep bringing up what happened then and I keep telling you it doesn't matter. I'm fine with your approach leaving only democratic socialism in the ideology section and integrating the rest into the article (well, it's already there!). I'm going to do this unless there are no objections over the next 24 hours.UBER ^(talk) 06:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can change, but issuing short deadlines doesn't help prevent future conflict. Best to advise the editors most involved last time and allow a few days, especially when we are in a holiday period. --Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm averse to canvassing, even when it might seem appropriate. You're more than welcome to contact them yourself, however. If they really care about this article, they'll drop by regularly.UBER ^(talk) 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the Easter weekend you know .... --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually did not know that, but now I'm glad I do. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't run on any religious schedule and it won't affect my decision, but I'm glad it's Easter. Happy Easter!UBER ^(talk) 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well let me make something clear, if you edit the article without allowing time for editors to engage I will revert even if I agree with the solution. Process is important to Wikipedia and aggressive editing in areas of known controversy is not being bold, it is being cavalier. Give it to Monday for other editors to engage --Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Monday at 23:59 UTC it is.UBER ^(talk) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

deal, now back to dealing with the BNP and other articles! --Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The history of the debate on the inclusion of the term 'neoliberalism' as one description of Labour's ideology goes something like this.

First people opposed it's inclusion, saying it was not supported by published sources.

We provided large numbers of published sources. Then people argued that these sources were not authoritative.

We provided more sources, a huge variety, but which include Labour MPs like Cruddas, journals like the Cambridge Journal of Economics, numerous respected academics (including the founder of DEMOS), numerous political commentators, and a wide variety of national newspapers, from every part of the political spectrum.

Most people now accept that the sources exist, and that many of them are authoritative, but they still do not want to include the term 'Neoliberalism' BECAUSE THEY PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT.

Failing to include the term 'neoliberalism', given the weight of published sources that we now know exists would be pure POV vandalism and would directly contravene every founding principle of Wikipedia. We're not here to establish 'truth' or 'accuracy', which are matters for debate and further research elsewhere (not on WP as we have a rule on WP:NOR). Many people do believe that Labour is a thoroughly neoliberal party and that the pro-market anti-public sector policies they have adopted are evidence of this, others still believe that Labour's self description as a 'democratic socialist' party is accurate. Because both versions of reality are reflected in published material (with the term 'neo-liberal' used in the published material at least 4 times more often than 'democratic socialist' as a description of New Labour according to this google battle and this alternative google battle, We have therefore reached a consensus to reflect BOTH points of view rather than judging them here. (giving undue precedence to 'democratic socialist' in my opinion, but I'm prepared to live with it), Read the guidelines please everyone: we're here to reflect what authoritative published sources say about a particular topic, nothing more, nothing less. Riversider (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

John Cruddas talks about the neoliberal right in both the Conservative and Labour parties as well as communities blighted by neoliberal economics (here). Saying or implying that the whole party is neoliberal, or that all its policies are neoliberal, seems to go beyond the sources. AJRG (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cruddas is just one source among many, but the citation you use is clearly enough to verify that, in his view, 'Neoliberalism' is one of the ideologies of the Labour Party, which is exactly what the infobox says (and all that it says). Riversider (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So the challenge is to give proper weight to each of the different strands. Historically, different ideologies have been influential at different times. AJRG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources, indeed a lot of them that Riversider quoted were slightly questionable. The Socialist Party one for example cannot be taken to be a reiable source, because it is an opposition political party and therefore wants to smear Labour to try and gain votes. That would be like using a Labour Party source to quote an idealogy for the Conservatives, or a BNP source to call Labour Communist. Other sources included are opinion pieces from far-left wingers, such as Martin Jacques, and therefore must be taken with a pinch of salt. There are also some more seemingly reiable sources quoted too, and they have to be taken into consideration, just as the ones calling Labour Social Liberal also have to be taken into consideration.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

reset

As far as I can see we can establish the following

The official ideology of the party is democratic socialism
There is clear support for the Third Way although it can be argued that this is a manifestation of democratic socialism rather than something distinct
Citation support is clear to say that the Labour Party has taken a neoliberal economic stance
It is also clear that the thinking of people within the Labour Party has been influenced by social liberalism (which is not to say the party ideology is that)
The same could be said of communism, marxism, christian socialism, charitism, classic lliberalism and so on. The Labour Party is a broad church with many intellectual origins.

We then have the question: What should be included in the information box and what should be in the main body of the article At the moment we have two options

Information Box to reference democratic socialism as the ideology, all other material into the body of the article
The existing compromise where we have two sections for ideology. In this case we have to determine what is in there and what is not.

My preference is for the first, but I accept the second. In the event of the second we need to have clear citation (and weight) that establishes the ideology has been officially or de facto adopted by the Party, not that it belongs somewhere in the development of ideas. Whatever we should not confuse the two options --Snowded ^TALK 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As with all centre-left parties in Europe, Social Democracy is also a strong idealogy within Labour, and indeed could be seen as being stronger than Democratic Socialism. The same can be said of Plaid Cymru, the SNP and centre-left political parties on the continent, but again that could be used interchangable with the Third Way. I think if we go for the first one than Social Democracy should be included along side Democratic Socialism, as that does describe the party idealogy better.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point. Social democracy has a more specific meaning within Europe and Labour does not really fit into that tradition. Given that the party constitution states democratic socialism I think that should be the choice between the two. --Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded - social democracy would exclude Marxists. AJRG (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that its relevant, but it wouldn't --Snowded ^TALK 06:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who rejects the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, irreconcilable class conflicts and hostility to liberalism still be called a Marxist? AJRG (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is a broader church than that if you look at its evolution over the last century. --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say Marxian rather than Marxist, but no matter. Democratic socialist is undoubtedly a better term to use for the Labour Party. AJRG (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Riversider, what exactly are you thinking when you accuse others of pushing "POV vandalism" because they disagree with you? That's a hell of a charge, especially coming from someone in the CV unit. Speaking as someone in the CV unit myself, if this is the approach you are taking to this debate, I shudder to think what you are counting as vandalism in your other CV efforts.

I support Snowded's approach: democratic socialism (or social democracy, either one) goes in the infobox and the rest is explained in the article. As far as I can tell here, Riverside is the only person pushing the neoliberalism label for the infobox and still has the (unbelievable) nerve to accuse others of vandalism after presenting to us mostly bogus sources that largely had an axe to grind with Labour.UBER ^(talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a wide variety of citations referring to Labour's ideology as Neo-Liberal. One or two can be blithely dismissed, but certainly not all of them (or even the majority of them) Some come from the far left, which is not a reason to dismiss them out of hand, others come from other sections of the Labour Party, such as Cruddas, some come from the realms of academe, and are highly authoritative sources in their respective fields, some come from the main British daily broadsheets. Several other editors have admitted on this page that at least some of the sources I have posted are authoritative (and some have used the same sources to back their own arguments). Deleting information that is based on authoritative sources because you personally disagree with it is precisely the definition of POV vandalism. Riversider (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have clearly established a neoliberal economic policy and that should clearly be within the body of the article. The question at the moment is what should go in the information box --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Americans make a useful distinction between the social and fiscal ideology of a party. The notion that the social ideology of the party of the Trade Unions could be described as every man for himself is just bizarre. AJRG (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Liberal is not a core, or central idealogy to the party. Labour might currently, to some degree, have a neo-liberal economic policy, but if it remians after a leadership election remains to be seen, especailly since the wider party is not neo-liberal, and the Thatcherite consensus that has been build up over the 30 years has been debunked by the credit crunch. I do not believe that neo-liberalism exists beyond the current leadership cliche, and that the party iself, the membership outside that oppose neo-liberalism. It should be inclided in the text somewhere, probably under the New Labour sections. I however am skepitcal that it is a dominant enough idealogy within the party itself.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, River has "established" that neoliberal policy is an important influence within the Labour Party, but not that neoliberalism is an ideology of the party. And it certainly is not important enough to be included in the infobox, which, as Snowded mentioned, is the real subject of controversy. No one disputes mentioning neoliberalism somewhere in the article. Should it be in the infobox? That's the question, and so far the answer from everyone except River appears to be a convincing "no."UBER ^(talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me to 'establish' anything. It's up to us as editors to reflect what the authoritative published sources say. It's misleading to say that the sources cited all refer merely to Labour's economic policy, but not to it's ideology. Many of the sources refer directly to the word 'ideology' and we cannot ignore these. Economic policy and ideology are directly linked, you can't have one, without the other. The infobox does not say that neoliberalism is Labour's only ideology, but one among several. If we were to faithfully reflect the published sources, we'd have to admit that neoliberalis IS the dominant ideology of the current Labour leadership, but the compromise we've reached already falls short of this. Now UBER is aiming for a new consensus where we ignore the weight of published material and just pretend it does not exist. Riversider (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem for me is that you're proposing a contradiction. If the dominant ideology of the Labour Party was neo-liberalism, as you assert, the Trade Unions would have walked away already. So you need to re-evaluate what you're proposing... AJRG (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that follows automatically AJRG. The Trade Unions were tied to the Liberal Party in the 19th Century for decades, and it took great work by the socialists of the time, along with the experience of much economic upheaval and bitter strikes and upheavals to break that political alignment in favour of a social democratic one. That said, there is increasing dissatisfaction in the Trade Union movement with their financial contribution to Labour - some of which is already reflected in the article.

There are plenty of books which I've not yet cited to add to the long list above. For example, Colin Hay's book 'The Political Economy of New Labour' where he makes statements like "My aim in this chapter is to establish that by the completion of the policy review, Labour had ceased effectively to be a social democratic party, committed as it had by then become to a neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and to a basic acceptance of the legacy of the Thatcher years." He also states in this book, to those who would separate economics from ideology, that "the political, economic and the cultural are not independent arenas...it is important that we resist the narrow privileging of the economic and the political"

Colin Hay is a professor of political analysis at the University of Sheffield, anyone want to dispute that he is an 'authoritative source'?Riversider (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The published material here is inconclusive, largely because we have reputable sources saying nearly everything from A to Z has influenced Labour or is part of its overall ideology. The real problem seems to be how much weight we should assign to neoliberalism as one component of Labour policy. This could be a great discussion to have for the body of the article, but it should go without saying that neoliberalism does not belong in the infobox. Please stop with your non-sense about "authoritative sources." There are authoritative sources flatly saying Labour is a modern liberal party (see N. Scott Arnold above). Reputable sources often disagree, and this is yet another example. Our job now is to decide how much weight we want to give neoliberalism in this article. Judging the weight of the evidence, it doesn't deserve much.UBER ^(talk) 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reputable sources do disagree, and the current compromise consensus reflects that disagreement - that is how WP works where there is disagreement, giving appropriate weight to all sides of an argument. A blithe dismissal of the huge weight of published sources associating the word 'neoliberalism' with New Labour's ideology is not enough to justify removing the term from the infobox. It now seems clear to me now that no matter how many respected academic sources I cite here, some editors will assert their own POV precedence over them. Riversider (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point we are just repeating ourselves, and I see that your intransigence will not relent. There are four editors who seem to be in agreement that neoliberalism should not be mentioned in the infobox. You are the only one objecting. I think we have about as much consensus as we're going to get here. I will wait until tomorrow like I promised, just in case someone else chimes in, but if nothing new happens until then, I plan to remove every ideological term from the infobox except democratic socialism.UBER ^(talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As that would breach several WP guidelines, I'm asking you not to do that. "Four editors" cannot agree to over-rule numerous published sources.River sider (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I strongly question your understanding of basic Wikipedia policies, I'm going to ignore you.UBER ^(talk) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the variety of ideologies represented in the infobox would not be an improvement in the article. It would turn an infobox that currently informs people about the complexity of the ideological debate in the Labour Party and beyond, into a bland repetition of the party leadership's 'official' position. This does not serve to inform anyone, nor does it reflect what is being said and written by experts on political ideology, Labour MPs, Labour members, Trade Unionists and other authoritative commentators about the Labour Party. The edit you're proposing will change the balance of the infobox from one which is currently NPOV, to one that is decidedly one-sided in the POV it represents. UBER questions my knowledge of WP policies, but it is clear from his edit history that it is his edits that have generated a considerable amount of controversy and recrimination, I hope he will not attempt to make history repeat itself.River sider (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit heated, so let's step back a moment. The objective here should be to propel the article in the direction of Featured Article status. So, does anyone have a reliable source that asserts that the Labour Party has a neo-liberal social ideology? AJRG (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How on earth do you distinguish between a 'social' ideology and an 'economic' ideology? The economic measures a party implements inevitably have social consequences - in the case of neoliberalism one such social consequence is a widening gap between rich and poor, exactly what has occurred under New Labour. Yet another citation that perfectly meets your request however is [ http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/jessop-from-thatcherism-to-new-labour.pdf Jessop B From Thatcherism to New Labour: Neo-Liberalism, Workfarism, and Labour Market Regulation] This states: "Blair's self-described 'New Labour' government is openly committed to a radical and modernizing reform of the British state apparatus and its economic and social policies. It is also actively promoting its version of neo-liberalism in Europe and the wider world. Often presented as the 'Third Way', New Labour strategy could also be described as the 'American Way'; and, indeed, the consolidation of a Blairite neo-liberalism in Britain could become a Trojan Horse through which a transatlantic neo-liberal project penetrates further into the European Union." and "This is also reflected in British pressure for a minimalist social chapter, resistance to French and German proposals on job creation, and pleas for recognition of its "New Deal" for the unemployed as a model policy for Europe (Gray 1998: 6). Similar objectives at home and abroad were shared by the Thatcher and Major governments for at least ten years before New Labour's landslide election victory in 1997." and "The primacy of neo-liberalism in this changing policy mix can be discerned in many aspects of New Labour strategy. Thus it continued to move consistently towards neo-liberalism in its economic policies from its disastrous 1984 general election defeat to its landslide 1997 general election victory (see especially, on a wide range of policies, Hay 1999). We can also note the subsequent trend for the neo-liberal and the disciplinary bias of many of its economic and social policies to increase from their initial policy formulation through local experimentation to full-scale implementation (e.g., in the field of labour market policy, see Dolowitz 1997; Haughton et al., 2000). This impression of neo-liberal primacy is reinforced when one contrasts the constancy and conviction that marks the pursuit of neo-liberalism both rhetorically and practically with the oscillation and hesitation in those aspects of New Labour discourse and actions that seem to run counter to neo-liberalism." and "whilst Blair is on record as admiring many of the achievements of Thatcherism, he has also enthusiastically contributed to an emerging Transatlantic dialogue with the Clinton Administration to advocate the 'Third Way'. In line with this emerging bipartisan Anglo-American neo-liberalism, New Labour has intensified the strategy it inherited of promoting workfare and putting systematic downward pressure on public spending on universal welfare benefits – most notably in pensions, housing provision, long-term disability insurance, long-term health care, and higher education – as well as making welfare benefits more selective (or ‘targeted’ in the jargon of neo-liberalism)." I think that is a pretty conclusive answer to your question AJRG - a whole raft of social policies affected by New Labour's neoliberal ideology in the view of this authoritative academic source. There are plenty more authoritative sources where that came from... Riversider (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't separate an economic policy from a social policy they both interact with each other and it rather misses the point anyway. The issue at the moment is not if the Labour Party adopted a neoliberal approach or not, they did, its what goes into the information box. With an election coming up we could do with resolving this and getting ready to defend this and other political party articles from multiple attempts at politically motivated editing. The problem with the current compromise is that it stabilised the immediate conflict but then we had a constant stream of adding in anything to the list. Given the number of things that have influenced the Labour Party of the years the list could easily get out of hand. The failure to appreciate the different between adopted by and influenced by would only make this worse. I think the pragmatic arguments for listing a single ideology are strengthened. ALso these days democratic socialism appears to have adopted market control mechanism more or less universally. What is needed are a set of amendments to the main article to include the rich vein of material identified by Riverside. For the moment however can we please focus the argument on what is appropriate or not for the information box. Also several editors who monitor this article have not responded on this debate yet, it would be good to have wider involvement, --Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the literature, there are two main threads, one large thread maintains that, in recent years, Labour has adopted a neoliberal ideology. The other thread is Labour's official party line that it remains a social democratic party with a social democratic ideology, though there are few independent sources from outside the Labour Party that support this line - the literature that asserts this could even be treated as a 'self published source'. There are small minority points of view, such as the one that Labour is 'social liberal' in it's ideology, but these are dwarfed by the two main bodies of literature. The infobox could blandly assert the 'official' line, but this would give a very partial POV version of what the published material says. As it currently stands is about as close to NPOV as we can get. Making deadlines and then carrying out disruptive edits is not the way to win consensus, as UBER must know by now. Let's be brave enough to maintain NPOV by keeping the infobox as it is. Riversider (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy and ideology are not the same thing, even if they are usually connected. Martin Jacques, who in your New Statesman citation above announces "The end of the neoliberal era" also has this to say: Labour has never been very good at thinking. When it comes to ideas, the party has always been a better borrower than a creator: Keynes, one might recall, was a Liberal, not a member of the Labour Party. New Labour itself came largely from Thatcherism, and the critique of Old Labour and understanding of Thatcherism from my old magazine, Marxism Today. AJRG (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Too true AJRG, I think that's why we've used the term 'ideological currents' in the infobox, rather than implying that in the case of the Labour Party, they are hard and fast well thought through ideologies with well organised groups of 'followers'. Riversider (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism, at least until the recent crash has in varying degrees dominated the thinking of parties of both the right and the left, or at least those in government or with a chance of government in Europe as a whole. That needs to be reflected in the body of the article although we need to be careful of the controversies. The issue is the function of the information box. To my mind its purpose is to give a quick insight into the overall position of a party. Listing lots of different and contradictory ideologies that have in different times had varying degrees of influence does not help that. In the British context a single clear statement is going to be more beneficial to the readers in all cases. The BNP is a far right part, the Conservatives are right wing/unionist, the Liberasl are well liberal and the best modern description of the Labour Party is democratic socialism. OK its not socialism in the sense of the period up to the 70s but its how politics has developed. --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, What you're saying doesn't hang together logically. You rightly say 'democratic socialism' and 'neoliberalism' are contradictory. You then agree (rightly) that Labour, like the other main parites has had it's thinking (another word for it's ideology) dominated by neoliberalism. This is an argument for leaving 'democratic socialism' out, not 'neoliberalism'. You then come up with an outdated method of categorising the parties, that might have been true in the 1970's, but is not true today, and attempt to shoehorn Labour back into it. This is not a method for writing WP. THe method for writing WP is to find out what authoritative published sources say, then to reflect what they say. This change would not reflect what the published sources say.River sider (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well one man's contradiction is another man's paradox. The Labour Party did adopt a neoliberal economic policy, but maintained that it was the best way to achieve a democratic socialist agenda. Many a commentator went along with that, others challenged it. At the current moment in time its not clear if the neoliberal agenda is still in place, or if in place the degree to which it has been modified. Put simply its a mess and the published sources reflect that mess. You may think that taking a spectrum based approach to understanding the political parties is outdated and fine, feel free to hold that opinion, I don't think its backed up in theory or practice but your views are your own, neither do you have a monopoly on wanting to use published sources ideas so cool it please. I will repeat again, the issue here is not what ideologies have variously influenced and being adopted by the Labour Party in recent times, but what label to use in the information box. This is a minor issue that you are elevating to a nonsensical level by suggesting that anyone wanting to remove neoliberal from the information box is denying that the Labour Party adopted a neoliberal policy. As everyone has pointed out to you that is not the case, it belongs in the main body of the article. Keeping the information box clean and simple is I think a worthy objective. --Snowded ^TALK 12:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole point - "it's a mess" "the published sources reflect that mess", in such a situation a 'clean and simple' infobox would not accurately reflect what the published sources say, it would inevitably be a partial POV. The current version is messy, but it reflects what the published sources say. Readers will overwhelmingly understand that the ideology of Labour is not static, and we're doing our best to reflect the various understandings of it's ideological position by giving them a more nuanced and complex summary Riversider (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem (venturing a view here not a proposal) is that in general British Political parties have historically been more fluid than in the post war period. The great realignments of the late 19th and early 20th Century made things less of a mess and we are well overdue one. Returning to the subject, both democratic socialism and social democracy have become far more problematic in the last few decades in their adoption of market capitalism and associated mechanisms of control. In the case of the British Labour party we also see neo-stalinist measurement systems (opinion again not proposal). I don't think that complexity can properly represented through some labels in the information box, it needs better material in the main body. Since the compromise has been put in place we have had multiple attempts to add new labels and its a meaningless battleground. Given that any modern manifestation of democratic socialism includes elements of neoliberalism its good enough to my point of view. As I said some time ago, if that is not a consensus position then I can live with the previous compromise if we hold it to ideologies adopted buy the Party, not just a near random list of any influence that people can find a google reference for. --Snowded ^TALK 12:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I admire your belief in simplicity - simplicity is useful and makes things easy to explain. There comes a point however where simplifying beyond a certain point becomes misleading and inaccurate, partial and POV. I am not arguing for the inclusion of every single trend influence and direction in the infobox, or even in the article. We should include the main trends that have multiple published sources in the infobox - which in my view are neoliberalism, social democracy and possibly 'third way'. Small minority views like 'social liberalism' could be mentioned in the main body of the text if there are adequate sources to back them up 'fringe' theories do not need to be included at all. Merely having 'democratic socialism' in the infobox would be a gross oversimplification of what we all now agree is a complex situation in the party. The infobox as it stands at present adequately reflects the complexity that exists in the published sources. I also agree that 'neoliberalism' in the labour party needs much more coverage in the main body of the text, and would suggest that removing the 'neoliberal' tag from the infobox before this extra main body coverage is included would be the worst of all worlds. Riversider (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a case for the very suitably named WP:REDFLAG regarding claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. What do people think? AJRG (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding, and I might be totally wrong, but it seems to be that it is not the suggestion that Labour might have some neo-liberal policies, because since the 1980s, most centre-left social democratic, democratic socialist parties have to some degree. However it is more the case of it is is being given undue weight being put into the info box. I think that it has been. The core of Labour, the membership, the constitution are not neo-liberal, but democratic socialist or social democratic. I am not sure that Labour is "neo-liberal enough" to be included as a major ideology in the info box. Although it is, and should be mentioned in the article.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, neoliberalism is under represented in the main body of the article. The problem with adding that into the information box is that then everything else gets added in and it becomes a battle ground of labels. Keeping it simple is not POV. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeping it simple is not POV, keeping it TOO simple is POV. If I call a zebra 'grey' I am oversimplifying, and misrepresenting the fact that some of it is black, and some of it is white. The prevailing view within the relevant community (political scientists, commentators, academics, journalists) is that Labour has a neoliberal ideology, as the huge number of published sources demonstrate. Labour Party members themselves disagree with each other on this issue, with many backbenchers, including Cruddas using the word 'neoliberal' to describe the leadership's ideology. Where Labour holds office, in national government and local councils, their policies are neoliberal ones of privatisation and cuts in public services. They have promised worse cuts in public services than Thatcher's if they are elected again. Keep the infobox simple with two or three labels, which are enough to demonstrate the internal debates and dynamics in the Labour Party, but censoring the word neoliberalism in defiance of all that published material can only be POV. Riversider (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Zebra metaphor is cute but it elevates neoliberalism too much. Its also the case (and you have not responded to this) that most democratic socialist and social democratic parties in Europe have adopted neoliberal economic policies to varying degrees. Cuts in public services are inevitable in the current economic climate, its nothing to do with neoliberal ideology. --Snowded ^TALK 08:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the Labour Party is not alone in adopting a neoliberal ideology, and that other formerly social democratic parties in Europe and across the world have undergone the same process, (perhaps to varying degrees). The fact that you accept this is happening actually strengthens the case for including the word 'neoliberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology. Cuts are only "inevitable" if you accept the precepts of neoclassical economics and the logic of neoliberal capitalism that states that though bankers and billionaires have created the economic crisis, it is ordinary people that must bear the burden of paying for it. 'Democratic socialists' would not accept this, they would generally suggest that the rich should pay for their own crisis and would use measures like nationalisation to rescue failing sectors. The zebra analogy neither elevates or diminishes the 'neoliberal' element of New Labour, it points out that oversimplifying what you agree is a complex situation can lead to misrepresentation. The idea that Labour is now neoliberal is not some 'small minority view' about the Labour Party but a strong thread of argument across multiple academic environments, and which from your writing above, you more than half accept yourself. Riversider (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC):::

Gordon Brown put the failing banks into public ownership. Apart from the spin, is that any different from nationalisation? AJRG (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While the banks were effectively nationalised, this was done in a neoliberal way to bail out the wealthy bankers, and did not result in democratic control over the the banks, as the bonuses the bankers continued to pay themselves illustrates. However we're veering over into a political discussion here rather than one about the article itself. Riversider (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

nationalised ... in a neoliberal way That sums up everything you've said here. AJRG (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your response above more or less makes my point. Democratic socialism is not what it was forty years ago, its moved on (for good or ill) and now encompasses aspects of neoliberalism to varying degrees. I would also argue (off topic here by the way) that economic models based on complex adaptive systems thinking are starting to provide alternatives to the extremes of traditional socialism, neo-classical economics and monetarism et al. The landscape is changing and political language is changing as well. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism and neoliberalism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies. (which does not mean they cannot exist at the same time in people's heads - people are quite capable of holding two or more incompatible beliefs). You're right that the landscape is changing and the language is changing, which is why it is correct to include the term 'neoliberalism' as a description of Labour's current ideology, rather than shying away from a word because it is uncomfortable for a few Labour Party members who like to claim to be 'democratic socialists'. You're also right that this may shift again in the future, and perhaps an ideology based on 'complex adaptive systems' may emerge, but WP is not a crystal ball, so we're here to reflect what the published sources say about the present situation, if doing this means we have to reflect the contradictions and complexity of the situation in the infobox, then that is what we have to do, however much we crave simplicity. Riversider (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably they are not incompatible ideologies any more. It looks from the above entry that given a single label choice you would choose neoliberal and that would be POV. To be honest the more you argue this the more I think you are making a political point in respect of this label. (My CAS point was an aside by the way and clearly flagged as such so please respect that). --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right again that, if I were forced into making such a choice, I would choose neoliberal rather than democratic socialist as I think it is more representative of the current truth and the published sources - but perhaps this would be my way of calling the zebra grey. Being able to have two words gives the debate life, and it is not WP's job to always come up with simple definitive answers, especially in complex situations, simply to point the reader to places where they can find out more for themselves. This means it would be wrong to choose just one word to sum up such a complex situation, and really there is no need to - no WP guideline forces us to use just one word to sum up a party's orientation. I think I understand the point you're making now. You're suggesting that because formerly social democratic parties have shifted to neo-liberal ideologies, the very meaning of the words 'democratic socialism' has also shifted to mean 'neoliberalism', and that by using the term 'democratic socialism' you are also encompassing neoliberalism. I would suggest that such a redefinition of the terms is a gross violation of the English language, and that for most readers 'democratic socialism' means something quite different from 'neoliberalism', so using the term 'democratic socialism' without qualification would be deeply misleading, and would fail to represent published sources. 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Riversider (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(enjoying the discussion by the way) In effect you have had parties with a democratic socialist orientation adopting neoliberal methods and to a degree ideology. You see a lot of idealistic instrumentalism in the Labour Party as well during the Blair years with neoliberal economic ideas being used as control mechanisms. So I don't think its a whole hearted adoption, its more of a coevolutionary process. Giving the Labour Party the neoliberal label would in effect be to ignore that coevolution and ignore increased funding for health and education (just to take two examples). Its why I think we need a more elaborate section in the main body of the article. Our difference is that I don't agree that for most readers democratic socialism would be misleading given the current meaning of that term. Its always problematic with an American readership anyway where words like liberal and socialist carry loaded meanings that would not be seen in a European context. --Snowded ^TALK 09:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the discussion too. You agree that formerly social democratic parties have adopted, at least to some degree, the neoliberal ideology. The infobox as it stands represents this position, so I don't see how changing it can be an improvement. You mention more funding for education and health. This has now stopped and cuts are already happening in education and health in the UK. Even while funding was increasing, this was coupled (and tied to) the use of Private Finance Initiative which has poured public money directly into the private sector - a very neoliberal way of doing things. I'm suggesting we use the terms as they are understood by political science, the main body of the text can clarify their meanings. I'd reassert that both in political science, and in general usage 'democratic socialist' and 'neoliberal' have two quite distinct meanings (otherwise Labour Party members would not object to the use of the term neoliberal at all). To describe the situation you agree exists in the Labour Party, simply using 'democratic socialist' is an oversimplification which will lead just as much to POV as simply using 'neoliberal'. I agree with using one word wherever possible instead of two. This situation however requires us to use at least two to properly represent the complexity that exists. Riversider (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily agree that the Labour Party's policy has been the antithesis of what I would regard as a democratic approach to socialism - its one of the reasons I resigned after several decades of active membership. The other being an increasingly belief that nation states are simply too large to run any meaningful social welfare provision. However in the UK the Labour Party really define what democratic socialism is, and they are close to their social democrat European counterparts. It remains true that neoliberal while its present does not fully define the party. I suppose there is an argument for something much simpler namely "left of centre" and then cover all the others in the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Labor Party do not 'define' what democratic socialism means, that's down to all users of the English language. I've listed below a few current definitions of 'democratic socialism' and 'neoliberalism', without filtering, in order to demonstrate that the two terms do have distinct and incompatible meanings. Whatever neoliberalism is, it cannot be described as a 'left of centre' ideology, it's about the unfettered rule of the markets. Your instincts are correct Snowded. Do not cede control over the English language to politicians, that's Orwell territory. Riversider (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "unfettered" is a bit strong to describe the Labour Party and markets - its one reason I am uncomfortable with "neoliberal" unqualified. Practice however does change the meaning of language over time, Orwellian would be if it was imposed, this has more or less happened. --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the terms as they are generally used have not changed in meaning, except for a small group of people close to the Labour Party's orbit. Politicians have an interest in changing and blurring the meaning of words - but Labour is not Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, it cannot say 'my words mean whatever I want them to mean'. WP uses the English language as it is used by the general intelligent reader. Neoliberalism is not unqualified in the infobox, the presence of both neoliberalism and democratic socialism means that they both qualify each other. Riversider (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. From WIkipedia (yes I know we can't quote it). Otherwise a more considered response later. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've studied the wikipedia article on democratic socialism, and while it covers some very varied trends, I'd suggest that not one of those trends, which all at least share common values of collectivism, greater social equality ('social justice'), and more democratic control over industry and the markets, would be at all compatible with the values of neoliberalism which would counterpose individual rights and responsibilities to collectivism, would tend to oppose what it would call 'social engineering', and would favour more influence by the markets on political and social policy, rather than the other way round.River sider (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Ian Adams, 'democratic socialism' is a term associated with the Bevanite Labour left. But perhaps we are missing the point, made in the same book, that British socialism has tended to be very non-theoretical. According to Brewer's Politics, Russell Prowse (an Australian academic?) said that "the term 'democratic socialism' makes as much sense as pregnant virginity".--Pondle (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Trade Unions and NeoLiberalism in the Labour Party

AJRG makes this extremely perceptive remark above "If the dominant ideology of the Labour Party was neo-liberalism, as you assert, the Trade Unions would have walked away already" This very question has been the subject of academic investigation, by Jo Grady, a researcher into Pension reform at the University of Leicester, who interviewed leading Trade Unionists and Backbench Labour MPs. The abstract of her paper is available here: Trade Unions and New Labour; Collaborators in Neoliberalism together?

It's an abstract of a research seminar held a week ago! If her paper is published later this year, as claimed here, you'll be able to cite it. Until then, patience... AJRG (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Even an abstract counts as a published source AJRG, but there's plenty more references around on the relationship between neoliberalism, new labour and the Trade Unions for those who are prepared to seek them out :)Riversider (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Humour me by quoting the Wikipedia policy or guideline you're relying on... AJRG (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply saying it fits the definition of WP:Published, it's not a crucial matter as there's plenty of other material available on the same topic. There's nothing in WP:RS which rules out the use of abstracts, and the author of this paper comes from a reputable academic environment where her work is scrutinised by her peers.River sider (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're not happy with that particular source, Martin Upchurch of the Global Labour University might satisfy you (Upchurch is a professor of International Employment Relations at Middlesex University).

The joint publication of the Third Way/Neue Mitte in 1998 by Britain’s Tony Blair and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder had signalled a shift in policy direction towards supply side economic management and worker flexibility. The ‘old’ social democracy was abandoned, to be replaced in Britain by continuing privatisation and a distancing between the Labour Party and the unions

In Britain there has long been ‘formal affiliation’ between the Labour Party and the unions, with unions donating yearly up to 60% of the party’s funds. However, the Labour Party leadership has sought to downgrade formal power of the unions within the party, and has sought funding from business sources. Unions have moved from power-brokers to internal lobbyists. In the public sector tensions between party and unions have been most acute, the continuing adaptation to neoliberalism as a means of capital accumulation by social democratic parties in power will mean a continuation of the crisis, and a parallel ‘opening up’ of workers’ organised political dissent within wider civil society.

Riversider (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, here's an interesting article in the Guardian, by Gregor Gall, another professor of Industrial Relations (University of Hertfordshire) which states:

Fifteen unions are affiliated to Labour, representing 4.45 million workers (or 64% of all members). Of these, Unite, Unison and the GMB are by far the biggest.
These unions call for a vote for Labour to stop the Tories, with little in the way of positive enthusiasm for Labour. Of these, Unite is the most stridently and unambiguously pro-Labour while Unison is more guarded.
But rather than take the attitude of "better the devil you know", or supporting the party whose cuts will be least, the unions together could have influenced the entire political agenda by moving its centre of gravity far away from neoliberalism, the proverbial elephant in the room of this election.
Together, they could have said: "We reject 'the market knows best' where profits come before people", mobilised their members around this, and done so before now. If they had done this, the idea that markets can be regulated to protect the common good would already be part of the popular common sense. And, all the parties would have had to accommodate this. Only the PCS union with its "Make your vote count" campaign and the RMT through its support for No2EU and the Trade Unionists and Socialist Coalition have made any attempt to do this.
Instead most – one way or another – end up endorsing Labour as the least worst option. They think it has the better plans for growth (even though this is essentially from trickledown economics. Their bottom line is pretty much jobs at any price and forget about the type of jobs they are. This is the inevitable result when you give up trying to regulate the market – instead, you become beholden to it.
The tragedy is that Labour is still intent upon further privatisation and marketisation, behind all the guff about "a future fair for all". It is still far more business than worker-friendly. And that is truly self-defeating for the unions.

Riversider (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of NeoLiberalism and Democratic Socialism

Perhaps we should have defined the terms of our debate a long time ago.

Here's a link to some current definitions of 'democratic socialism'

I'll quote how it stands today

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
A radical left-wing political philosophy that aims to achieve by democratic means a fully socialist society i.e. where private ownership has been ... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratic_socialism
A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society ... www.socialpolicy.ca/d.htm

Here's a link to some current definitions of neoliberalism

Quite a lot of definitions here:

a political orientation originating in the 1960s; blends liberal political views with an emphasis on economic growth [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
Neoliberalism is a label for classical liberalism. The term is applied only by critics of the doctrine, to the point where one commentator remarked "the concept itself has become an imprecise exhortation in much of the literature, often describing any tendency deemed to be undesirable". ... [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism]
In the study of international relations, neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. ... [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_(international_relations)]
A political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neoliberalism]
neoliberal - a liberal who subscribes to neoliberalism neoliberal - having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
A view of the world that favors social justice while also emphasizing economic growth, efficiency, and the benefits of free markets. [www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/n.html]
"The policies of privatization, austerity, and trade liberalization dictated to dependent countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as a condition for approval of investment, loans, and debt relief." (6) [www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html]
A view of the world based on the belief that the optimal economic system is achieved by giving free reign to market participants, privatization ... [www.afsc.org/TradeMatters/ht/d/sp/i/13425/pid/13425]
a movement that modifies classical liberalism in light of 20th-century conditions. [electionalize.com/info-glossary.asp]

The key difference between the two ideologies according to their commonly used definitions is that one emphasises public ownership, equality, democracy, while the other emphasises giving free reign to market forces. This means they are two incompatible ideologies as the terms are understood by political scientists and by the general public. Riversider (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Will have to do a bit of research and thinking around those - but need to get some work done first --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another good reference on the balance between social democracy and neoliberalism in the Labour Party, Mark Evans of the University of York writes:

it was not until Labour leader John Smith’s untimely death in May 1994 and the election of Tony Blair to the Labour leadership in July of that year that Labour revisionism took on an almost evangelical zeal. New Labour’s electoral project refocused its attention on supplanting the Conservatives as the natural party of government and represented a historic compromise between social democracy and the market orientation of neoliberalism.

p71

After the 1997 general election, the government refocused its programme on reinforcing and extending the neoliberal marketizing trends of the Thatcher period.

Blair and Mandelson took it as a given that globalization imposes limits on all social and economic policies, and thus the only ones worth promoting are those that are acceptable to ‘the market’.

(p72) Here's what he has to say on the Third Way:

The debate over a credible Third Way in British politics, between the traditional positions of the Old Right (anti-state and pro-market), and, the Old Left (pro-public ownership and state intervention and anti-market),emerged within the context of trying to establish a more coherent future for social democratic politics. There is, of course, nothing new about the use of the term in Labour Party history, although it has been given different meanings. For example, in 1912, Labour Party leader Ramsay Macdonald’s claim that Labourism was ‘a Third Way between State Socialism and Syndicalism’, was greeted with equal derision

(p73) and

Social democratic and other centre-left parties begin to search for policies, which, while adapting to the new constraints, are intended to promote a diluted form of neoliberalism, or what has been termed the ‘Third Way’. In Britain this represents the outcome of the war of ideas between the forces of social democracy and neoliberalism.

Like so many other sources that I've already cited, everything Mark Evans says reinforces the rightness of the way the infobox is now - reflecting a dynamic balance/conflict between 'social democracy' and 'neoliberalism'. Riversider (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are sources that enforce inclusion of "Third Way" ratehr than "Neo-liberalism" because they are saying that Third Way is between Social Democracy and Neo-Liberalism, and not quiet either of them. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's a source that reinforces the use of all 3 labels, as it's explaing 3rd way is an uncomfortable dynamic conflict/compromise between two incompatible ideologies. All 3 labels are currently included. Riversider (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Labour, Neoliberalism and the Law

Here's a telling quote from Keith Ewing, professor in Public Law at Kings College London, he is discussing how Labour's attitude to Trade Union Law breaches it's international obligations:

Labour, of course, is paralysed by its neoliberal love of the free market, which it places above its weak commitment to the rule of law.

I'm including this because I've already provided references to authoritative sources on how Labour's neoliberal ideology has influenced economic and social policy, but the area of law itself was not represented in the collection of citations. Riversider (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The trade union law is neoliberal because it was passed by the previous government. You can argue (and people do) that its repeal should have been a much higher priority, but this government seems to prefer to wait for the courts to sort themselves out. In litigious times, perhaps they have point? AJRG (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a political debate, rather than one about the content of the article AJRG. Keith Ewing, as a professor of public law, is what we call a highly authoritative source for WP purposes, so what he says about Labour's attitude to Trade Union Law could be very important for the article.River sider (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A professor who describes the European Court of Justice as neo-liberal is hardly mainstream, however respected he is... AJRG (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So you determine whether professors and other academics are authoritative sources based on whether or not you agree with their arguments? If we follow this circular logic, we can only end up with POV. The full quote you cite is this:

The socially progressive European Court of Human Rights (recently criticized by Lord Hoffmann) has thus set itself on a collision course with the neo-liberal European Court of Justice, as well as (sotto voce in the presence of Tories) the nasty and brutish labour laws which were bequeathed to us by Thatcher, and in which New Labour has been happy to wallow

Good research by the way AJRG, an interesting article[[ User:Riversider2008|River]]sider (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Try typing "neo-liberal European Court of Justice" into Google Scholar, Google Books or Google Web... AJRG (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New Labour

How about we actually define what New Labour is, because right now that section says a whole lot of nothing. It's this kind of "offend no one" approach that makes so much of this website so pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.169.30 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think I can tell which box your cross will be going into; but in what way is the existing section deficient? Rodhull andemu 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The current section on New "Labour" is fine, I don't see a problem with it myself. How is it "offend no one" and "pathetic"? --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary change suggestion

I think it would sound more formal, and more appropriate, to replace the word "spells" with the word "periods" in the following sentence:

"Since then, the party has experienced several spells in government, at first in minority governments under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 and again from 1929 until 1931."

Ibycusreggio (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arryharrington, 4 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a typo in the third paragraph of the section entitled Wilderness Years. Currently it read... "Michael Foot resigned as leader and was replaced by the Neil Kinnock who was elected leader on 2 October 1983"

The 'the' should be removed before Niel Kinnock.

Arryharrington (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Rodhull andemu 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

progessism???

wouldn't one of Labour's idealogois also be progessism? or is that for the Liberal Democracts?--75.94.196.171 (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism is also one of Labour's idealogies, but it is already covered by Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism really. There are also so many strands within Labour that it would be quiet hard to name them all. The current three are the core three of the Labour Party.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"progressism" or "progressivism" must be one of the most meaningless labels in existence. Show me one politician who would say "I'm against progress". We can't include people's pet theories in here, only those trends that have large bodies of published literature to back up their inclusion.River sider (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. "Progressivism" is just a completely meaningless term from American politics and has no place in the article.--Autospark (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism, is mostly a blanket term for the centre-left now, used for socialism, social democracy, left liberalism and enviromentalism, indeed New "Labour" tended to use Progressivism to replace the term socialism, or social democracy, rather then as a new idealogy.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, progressivism is not just a empty word, especially when applied to conservatives with somewhat left views, like the Red Tories and moderates in Canada, see progressive conservative party or progressive Canadian party. Nothing wrong with socialism or social democracy. --98.252.232.142 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Leadership

The Labour Party Rule Book 2010, Chapter 4, section B 2 E (iv), states:

“

When the party is in opposition and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the deputy leader shall automatically become party leader on a pro-tem basis. The NEC shall decide whether to hold an immediate ballot as provided under E above or to elect a new leader at the next annual session of party conference.

”

Although some may use the term 'acting Leader', it is clear that Harriet Harman is formally Leader of the Labour Party albeit only temporarily. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what "acting" means. The main thing to be understood is that the deputy leader exercises the office, but it still needs to be filled by an election. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown refered to her as an acting leader, as do the press. And that rule only enforces her as an acting leader. Since she is only leader until such time as a new one is found to replace her. I see no problem with the term acting being used, since it is accurate. --Welshsocialist (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But it is not 'Acting Leader'. That implies that her formal title is Acting Leader and it is not. Harriet Harman is Leader of the Labour Party, not Acting Leader; to say Acting Leader is inaccurate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The term the BBC are using is 'interim leader'. Don't know if that helps. Riversider (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy, Third Way and Neo-Liberal

I've noticed User:Snowdedhas removed Social Democracy, Third Way and Neo-Liberalism from the idealogy on the information box, since they do not have auhtouritive sources. While this has been argued many times for the neo-liberalism one, I was wondering if the same arguements can be made for Social Demcoracy and the Third Way ones? I re-added the social democracy one, but maybe I shouldn't have. Anyway, I was wondering the logic behind it and if we can try and sort out the idealogies disputes and the sources they are based on? I think citing the Labour Party Clause IV is fair enough to call it Democratic Socialist, since that is the party's offical idealogy. But what about the others? --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its crazy to have multiple ideologies. The party has always self identified as democratic socialism. Social democracy is a common term elsewhere in Europe and its understandable that a german self maintained web site should use it, matching to something familiar. Its not authoritative. --Snowded ^TALK 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We must reflect published sources, not our own opinions. Published sources attach a variety of ideologies to Labour. Self-published sources assert it is 'democratic socialist' and 'Third Way', multiple articles by academics, authoritative political commentators and even Labour Party members themselves assert the party is 'neo-liberal'. There are more than 20 references from all kinds of sources listed higher on this talk page that back up this label, if you wish I will list them all again. The purpose and method of Wikipedia is to reflect the balance of published sources on any particular topic. This was also the consensus achieved during the 'Request For Comment' exercise that was carried out very recently (higher up this very page). This is achieved in the case of the Labour Party article by listing all the various ideologies attached to Labour, rather than just the version that the Labour Party itself would prefer. Anything else is censorship of knowledge. Riversider (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the whole of the talk page I don't see any consensus by the way. I see strong assertions of your position. There is a confusion here between the information box and the main article. You have provided abundant material to support the position that various political commentators have criticised the Labour Party for being neo-liberal. I agree with that as it happens and it should be covered in the body of the article. Third Way was a marketing label by Blair and again deserves treatment in the main body of the article. It is however not a matter for the information box. Calling it neo-liberaal there is to take a POV position, to report the criticism is not--Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good material for a section in the article making that criticism, just as there would have been when it was accused of being a communist front etc. --Snowded ^TALK 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you find an equally long list of authoritative published articles by respected academics and political correspondents asserting that Labour's current policies are Socialist or Social Democratic? Anyone apart from the labour leadership who attempted to assert this would suffer the well-deserved derision of their colleagues. Riversider (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just collapse that stuff so we can all read the talk page. Personally I agree with most of it, the Labour Party has become neo-liberal. That is a criticism of the Labour Party and should be reported, but its a POV. For the information section the Party's long standing position is the valid one. The RFC was split as far as I can see so you cannot claim a consensus. This material belongs in the body of the article as criticism, putting it inthe infor box is POV pushing --Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's useful to have it in one place as a list, as many reverts have been carried out without reference to the talk page.

I'd say that it would be a terrible POV position NOT to include it in the infobox. The published sources are authoritative under any definition of the term, they are not the work of flat earthers or intelligent design fanatics. If anything the equivalent of the 'intelligent design' lobby are the people who still insist, as a matter of blind faith, in the face of all the evidence, that Labour can still be described as 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist'. However, as a concession to these people, I am not arguing that these labels should be removed from the infobox, just that the current position should be reflected as well as the historic one. I've no objection to the 'dubious' tag as it will encourage people to read the talk page, though other editors might.River sider (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The request was for you to collapse the references under a heading so other editors do not have to scroll through it. It isn't relevant anyway as the validity of the criticism of the Labour Party as neo-liberal is not disputed. For the moment I have put a sub heading in place. You obviously have strong opinions on this subject, but you need to think a bit more objectively. My point is that this should be a criticism section. I also made the point that you are not correct in saying there is a consensus for the change. The RFC was 50-50 so with me also arguing that it should not be in the information box the position if anything is reversed. I suggest you have a think about those two points. --Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your own position is very strange and is the one that needs thinking about. You agree that Labour is 'really' neo-liberal and that the case for arguing that Labour is neo-liberal has been proved, yet you do not wish to include this in the infobox. Is this special information that only the initiated can know, or is there another reason why we are reluctant to share it with everybody? BTW, I don't know how to collapse the reference, feel free to do this for me.River sider (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I put it in a hidden archive and indented your comment for you. I agree with the criticism that Labour is neo-liberal, but I also realise that it is a criticism, a POV. The information box needs to reflect the stated position of the party, the main article can include the criticism. You have not answered the point about your claim for consensus either. I'll do some more digging on the article history when I have time, but think the long term stable position is as per my earlier edit, and that your changes have not achieved consensus (if the talk page evidence is anything to go by). --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with formatting. The assertion that Labour's ideology is neo-liberal is not merely a criticism, it is a statement of fact based on supporting evidence and held by a wide range of authoritative commentators. If you check the RFC, you will find that the wikipedia editors of highest standing and authority are the ones who came down on the side of including 'neo-liberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology in the infobox. The guidelines we work to affirm, over and over again, the importance of reflecting the balance of published material. Currently the infobox gives undue prominence to the 'democratic socialist' tag, as the published material (apart from self-published material) contradicts this assertion over and over again. However I'm prepared to put up with the inclusion of this tag for the sake of consensus. Riversider (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute the accuracy of that description of the RFC, and a Wikipedia editor's "standing" has little to do with it. If so I would insist that an editor who had written a published reference book on the history of British political parties, and served on the Arbitration Committee, would probably take precedence as having the highest standing and authority, and I was against it for reasons stated above. I'm quite aghast at the suggestion that 'democratic socialist' as a description ought to be minimised or even removed since it is the first sentence of the Labour Party's own description of its political philosophy, as endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the party. When looking at sources, one needs to keep a very careful eye on their agendas and the political background of the authors: for instance citing 'The Socialist', the newspaper of the Socialist Party, as some sort of authoritative source, is an obvious blind alley. I agree with Snowded that 'Third Way' is merely a slogan used for a very brief period. Social democracy seems a reasonable term to include. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam, I've listed 25 published sources below, of which the Socialist Party is just one. They are internationally respected academics, commentators on economic and political affairs, and include some people who are Labour Party members themselves. If you type 'New Labour' and 'Neo-Liberalism' into google's academic search facility, you will find many multiples more of scholarly books and articles, all describing Labour as Neo-Liberal. The only sources describing Labour's current policies as 'Democratic Socialist' are self-published ones, which also have an 'agenda'. If you wish to debunk the long list of sources that describe Labour as Neo-Liberal, feel free, but you must debunk all of them, and not pick and choose. 'Third Way' was a piece of cynical political camouflage, and I'm not surprised that Labour Party members now feel uncomfortable with it. The purpose of wikipedia however is not to allow political parties to write their own versions of history, but to reflect the weight of published sources, however uncomfortable that is for the parties concerned. Riversider (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What is pretty clear is that you have provided misleading edit summaries. From when you inserted this in October, at no stage have yo had a consensus for the change. If you had followed WP:BRD then the tag would not be there. You opinion that you can determine who is or is not an authoritative editor is disturbing. Its pretty clear from the way you challenged the Party's own description of itself that you have a strong POV that is being brought into play here. We need to get this discussion properly structured, but we also need editors to follow wikipedia process. --Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Riverside, but Labour idealogy is Democratic Socialism, as it is in the partys consitution (Clause IV), removing it, or lowering it down the list would be odd, since it is an important part of the Labour Party and what Labour is as a party. Third Way might be seen as a marketing tool, and a new term of "social democracy" or whatever. I am not sure why the dubious tag is on Democratic Socialism myself. As for Neo-Liberal, I have put forward arguements against including it as one of the main idealogies of the party previously. It definitly needs to be looked at. --Welshsocialist (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, because I thought we were debating rationally on the basis of the published material, rather than on matters of blind faith. There has been one key difference between the various positions being argued here. Those arguing for the inclusion of 'neo-liberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology have backed up all their arguments with multiple published sources. Those arguing against have used arguments based on 'this is what I personally know', or referring to the Labour Party constitution as if it were the Bible. Instead of looking properly at the published sources that have been provided, failed attempts to debunk them have been made (though no attempt has been made to produce published sources that argue the contrary - because they simply don't exist). It seems according to some here, Jacques, the co-founder of Demos, the very think tank that has been so influential on Labour policies for the last decade is not an authoritative source, people who campaign for Trade Union rights cannot be seen as authoritative sources, it seems anyone who is campaigning for any kind of change in the Labour party is not an authoritative source (and everyone who writes about the Labour Party is campaigning for it to change in one way or another, that's the whole point of political writing). We produce articles from each of the UK's main newspapers, right and left, yet this is ignored. Finally I was challenged to come up with a quote from a New Labour supporter, who argues that Labour's new liberalism is a 'good thing': I would wish to refer you to Freeden's article 'The ideology of New Labour' in 'The New Labour Reader' (2003) edited by Chadwick and Heffernan (if this is not an authoritative source for this topic, I despair of EVER finding one).

In this he argues that New Labour borrows from a variety of ideological traditions, but is closest to, and borrows most significantly from Liberalism. He concludes

"The ideological map of New Labour now looks something like this. It is located between the three great Western ideological traditions - liberalism, conservatism and socialism - though it is not equidistant from them all. Liberalism has always concentrated on the pursuit of liberty, the development of individuality, on human rationality, on open ended progress, on limiting state power, but also on some notion of the common good. From that ideology, Labour has extracted ideas concerning private choice, the enhancement of human capacities, the furtherance of legitimate individual interests, a respect for individual rights and a concern with human well-being pursued in part by a welfare state but in the main through the exercise of personal responsibility underpinned by what Blair identifies as "talent and ambition... aspiration and achievement".

What you believe is fine - and I am happy to remove the 'dubious' tag from 'Democratic Socialism' as a description of Labour's ideology. It is an accurate description of Labour's ideology up to the 1980s and published sources can be found to back this up. During the 1980s however, a significant change occurred in Labour's ruling ideology, with a conscious attempt to bring in values taken from 19th Century liberalism (which Labour had originally been set up to combat). The published sources overwhelmingly back up this picture. Please think about the crucial importance to Wikipedia of reflecting the balance of published sources, rather than simply reflecting what you personally believe to be the case. Riversider (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue of inaccurate edit summaries Riverside and the false claims for consensus for your changes. You also have a take on what is or is not democratic socialism which others may or may not share--Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have made any inaccurate edit summaries, and this is the first time anyone has suggested this to me. I believed that the balance of the RFC was in favour of keeping 'neo-liberalism' as a description of Labours ideology in order to accurately reflect the balance of published sources, this is complicated by the fact that some of the RFC feedback came in other parts of the talk page, so it is not immediately apparent at first glance. You disagree on this saying that the RFC feedback was 50/50, which if it is the case, is not a consensus for either keeping or removing 'neo-liberalism', we therefore need to explore the matter further by investigating the published sources, which I am endeavouring to do. I also need to apologise to Sam Blacketer and Snowded as it appears that by stating that people of high standing within Wikipedia had fallen on the side of keeping 'neo-liberalism' as a description, I was implying that you were not of high standing within Wikipedia, and you rightly pointed out that you are indeed of such high standing. It was never my intention to make any such implication, I am quite happy to accept that people of high standing within wikipedia have fallen on both sides of the question. My main point remains, and this is a crucial point for wikipedians, We must follow WP:V, we must reflect the balance of published sources accurately. It remains my case that the only way we can do this honestly and effectively is by having 'neo-liberalism' as one of the descriptions of Labour's ideology in the infobox, as this is the way Labour's current ideology is described by the majority of authoritative commentators, and a large amount of evidence has been amassed that demonstrates this. Finally I'd like to show you the results of this 'google battle' - not scientific by any means, but pretty overwhelming in it's demonstration that there are a large number of published sources attaching the label 'neo-liberalism' to labour's ideology - we cannot blithely pretend these sources do not exist: [1] Riversider (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention says that if there is not a clear consensus then the original text should stand which was my point. The misleading edit summary comment related to the RFC, when I looked at that it did not support that statement. However in the spirit of your comments above lets try and move forward. The issue here is a complex one and relates to the way that other political parties are handled. For any political party there will be sources that challenge their perception of themselves, those will be supported by valid sources. It follows that such material should be reflected in the article, it does not necessarily follow that it should be in the information box. At the moment we have had four (my commentary attached)

Democratic socialist which is how the Party describes itself and we need to remember that it was always a compromise name, the Party has never been socialist pure and simple. Terms evolve over time
Social Democrat, this is a continental term with specific meaning which has not been applied in the UK other than Gang of Four Days. It has only one supporting citation from a privately maintained German web site. Its not there at the moment which is good news, hopefully no one will put it in place
Third Way was a Blairite marketing position, I am not sure it is really an ideology per se, but the Blairites were happy to use it to redefine democratic socialism (one of the reasons I left but that has nothing to do with the article). Its a sect or faction of democratic socialism in current meaning and it was not universal to the party
Neo-Liberalism per the various citations but this has a economic aspect to it, its a part label if anything

If we look at the Conservative Party, then its ideology maps to conservatism and unionism, but we then have a second list of factions which is more interesting One way forward on here is to copy across the form of the Conservative Party with a second section that lists neo-liberalis, third way, Tribune (if that still exists). --Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, that looks like a possible solution. I think the term 'internal factions' used on the conservative page would not accurately describe what is happening in the Labour Party however. 'Ideological Trends' or 'Ideological Currents' or some other less 'hard' formulation might be a more accurate heading, as 'factions' implies a high degree of organisation - the Blairites certainly had a small but well organised ideological group that made a large impact on the party, but currently organisation and loyalties tend to be around individuals rather than around any questioning of the ideological and political basis of the party's approach over the last few years, despite the experience of the Iraq war and the Credit Crunch. Riversider (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right on the factions issue, bland conformity has been the price of survival over the last couple of decades! I like "Ideological Currents", can we agree on that? I also think there is a need for the neo-liberal material to be better represented in the main body of the article by the way - either a section on economic ideology or an extension of the second paragraph. --Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added socialism to the infobox. There are still socialist factions of the Labour Party. See LRC, CLPD etc. Many Labour members refer to themselves as 'socialist'. This includes election candidates. Otware (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you back that rather bold statement up with published material (such as an election leaflet where the labour candidate uses the word 'socialism'?)Riversider (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party does not have a neoliberal ideological current. It has only ever pursued Third Way policies between social democracy and neo-liberal as agreed. However there has been a distinctive libertarian current. Best embodied by Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams before they left to form the SDP. Can we settle on this? Odyssey 500 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Odyssey 500

That is your opinion Odyssey. However a huge weight of published sources suggest that there is a ruling neoliberal current in the Labour party, and WP must reflect what published sources say, rather than individual opinions of editors. Libertarianism and Neoliberalism may sound similar, but they are quite different things, and one cannot be substituted for the other. Riversider (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism and Neoliberalism are indeed very different things. I have never found any reputable sources, apart from left-wing malcontents, that suggest that Labour has thrown its lot in with neo-liberalism. It has only ever sought compromise between public and private and its commitment to the state is strong. All sources agree that the size of the state has grown massively under Labour which runs contrary to neo-liberalism. Odyssey 500 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Odyssey 500. 13/5/2010

You may never have found any reputable sources, but all you need to do is look around this page for a long list such sources. Some of these are indeed from 'left wing malcontents' (and without left wing malcontents, the Labour Party would never have been conceived or built in the first place), many others are from respected academics from a wide variety of fields, journalists from every national newspaper, authoritative political commentators, Trade Unionists and even some Labour MPs, like Colin Burgon and John Cruddas. The sheer weight of these sources requires us to reflect them in the WP article. Riversider (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But your sources are all articles of opinion that would be disputed by others. THEY ARE NOT FACTS. At University I was taught that an opinion and a fact are different things. It is not a fact that the Labour Party has an undercurrent of neoliberalism. It is an opinion! Search for neoliberalism in the statements provided by the Labour leadership candidates on the Labour Party website. Bet you can't find any. Search through the speeches given by New Labour Prime Ministers on the Downing Street website. Bet you can't find a reference to straightforward neoliberalism! It's all third way.Odyssey 500 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Odyssey 500

Odyssey, one of the Labour leadership candidates is John McDonnell, and he has indeed used the word 'neoliberalism' to describe the ideology of the Labour Party leadership, as you can see for yourself further down this very page. QED. Riversider (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)