Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Trade Union Section

The current trade union section seems to be strongly slanted towards a view that is anti-union link and anti-Labour. This does not fully reflect the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party and takes a very negative view of the matter. I think it needs to be re-written to be more balnaced.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too short, and needs to go deeper into the history and nature of the trade union link to the labour party, however I don't agree that it is either pro or anti link or takes either a negative or positive view. It simply reports recent authoritative published sources on the issue of the link. It could perhaps be expanded and improved by adding some of the recent reports on the GMB motion on 'Progress': http://www.gmb.org.uk/pdf/Motion%20154.pdf this motion and the party's response to it provide a pretty good picture of the current relationship between the party and it's affiliated unions. Riversider (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it goes from being pro-union in the first sentence (working on the tidy presumption that unions do in fact "represent the interests of working class people" which is clearly disputable) and then proceeds to paint a very gloomy picture of party-union relations. Each example is obviously true but I'd say it was like trying to paint a portrait with only pink paint. It needs to be expanded and balanced. TomB123 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ILP 21st Anniversary Certificate

The picture of the ILP 21st Anniversary Certificate has been removed, as far as I can see because of WP technicalities over copyright. I strongly doubt whether anyone would ever have asserted intellectual property rights over this item. I do think it's a great shame, as the picture showed some of the richness and excitement of Labour's early history, as well as it's early internationalism and belief in socialism. If it's certain that we can't use this image any more, I think it would be great if someone could find a similarly colourful and interesting picture, as it really enhanced the article. Riversider (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph on the Zinoviev letter

This is how the Zinoviev letter affair is dealt with in this Wikipedia entry -

The ensuing general election saw the publication, four days before polling day, of the Zinoviev letter, in which Moscow talked about a Communist revolution in Britain. The letter had little impact on the Labour vote--which held up.

This is inadequate for two reasons - 'in which Moscow talked about...' strongly suggests that the letter was authentic. The evidence and well supported denials by Zinoviev himself make this an irresponsible attitude. The entry on the letter itself deals with this, but I am certain that an uninformed reader would take from this article that it was a genuine letter.

Secondly, losing 40 seats is an impact, particularly during this period in British politics. 'had little impact on the Labour vote' is therefore, at the very least, a highly subjective comment, for which there is no need in an encyclopaedia entry.

DFernyhough (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC) DFernyhough

Agree however the wording in the Labour Party page merely mirrors the wording in the main Zinoviev Letter article RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Social democracy

I think that the Labor Party is social-democratic/social-liberal. Miliband says that his party is "pro-buisness". --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

But the issue is whether we are to have a list in the infobox. Social democracy is already stated in the ideology section (in fact it says that the party has "been so deeply transformed in recent years by prevailing economic and social neoliberalism that it is no longer possible to describe them ideologically as 'social democratic'). Since the party has declared itself to be a "democratic socialist party" it becomes difficult to label it as either a social democratic party or a "formerly democratic socialist" party - any labels need an explanation which can not be done justice in the infobox, but which can be explained in the text. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 13:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The current solution is not ideal at all, and does need fixing. The issue is that some people have an agenda when it comes to the idealogy of the Labour Party. Personally I don't see a problem with mentioning the main idealogies of (Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy and Third Way), but that is just me. I also wonder why this seems to only be a problem with the Labour Party, the Tories and the Lib Dems (who have even deeper idealogical divisions) don't have the same issues. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Welshsocialist, we should put somethin' in the infobox. I propose to put the social democracy and the Third Way (or the social liberalism) in the infobox. --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The British tradition is democratic socialism not social democracy, although there are aspects of the latter and references. Third Way is linked to the Blair period and belongs in the history. The current compromise recognises that this is not an issue that can be resolved by simple labels. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well there's clearly a big push to have some ideologies in the infobox. How about we list "social democracy" and "democratic socialism", with appropriate references. But I think we also need to include "(See below)" at the end. I don't think "Third Way" is appropriate any longer; as Snowded says, it is associated with Blair and perhaps Brown. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My idea:

Labour Party (UK)/Archive 8
Ideology	Social democracy, social liberalism for more information see below

PS : Labor party is no longer democratic socialist. --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And this is why the ideologies were removed. We can't remove democratic socialism, because the party still calls itself a "democratic socialist party". I really think the only two 'labels' we can have in the infobox are the two I listed above. Anything more just invites people to add whatever they feel is appropriate, and we'll end up again with "ethical socialism", "pro-Europe/anti-Euroscepticism", "responsible capitalism" etc. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We list "British nationalism" on the British National Party article and the source is the BNP website/organisers handbook. With this article, as with the BNP, we must include the party's own self-description, along with analysts' and journalists' characterisations (which would be social democracy). -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me}

Well, we shouldn't. And I have removed it, until someone provides an independent source which verifies this claim. Moreover, WP:Other stuff exists is not a strong argument. This is a wiki, and other articles aren't necessarily perfect, either. --RJFF (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we can to add the democratic socialism as the official ideology. --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC) New version:

Labour Party (UK)/Archive 8
Ideology	Social democracy, democratic socialism (official), for more information see below

No. We don't do that with other parties either. UKIP identifies as libertarian (which independent sources do not verify) and it is not in the infobox. Wikipedia is written from a neutral POV, not from the respective party's POV. Labour is classified a social democratic party by reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. So, Labour is a social democratic party, for Wikipedia. We should not make an exemption from this approach. --RJFF (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I agree with RJFF. For example, the north korean Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland describe itself as a democratic party, but... --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All parties have one or more ideology labels in their infobox into which they are classified by independent sources, except the British Labour Party. These labels are always simplistic. And the readers who want to inform themselves in detail, should always read the ideology section of the article's body. Still, we give a short and simple summary in the infobox, except in this case. Why is Labour special from all other parties in the world? --RJFF (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You could argue that none of the European social democratic parties satisfy their original ideology as much as you could argue that the Labour Party is no longer democratic socialist. The simple fact is that the two traditions have differences although they may be merging. Having Democratic Socialist and Social Democratic might be acceptable, choosing the latter over the former is not. And while I am at it, the source given is not reliable, its a private web site, created in central Europe so I am not surprised as the SD label. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Social democracy and democratic socialism r not the same things. Look at the new version. --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that. And you do not have a consensus to change this yet. There was an extensive discussion some time ago which reached the current consensus. Your source for social democracy is poor, it contradicts the official policy and there is no clear consensus in the literature. So please don;t claim a consensus when you don;t have one and stop edit warring until this is resolved.----Snowded ^TALK 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Vlade you persist in edit warring. You have now added another source, with the same author as the web site. Its a book about European social democracy so its bound to mention the Labour Party. In that context it establishes the use of the term which is not disputed. However its not a definitive position. When this was last discussed, by many editors it was agreed that nothing really worked in the information box without providing context. Hence the reference. That has stood for some time so please restore it until there is agreement to change----Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm waitin' for ur purpose. --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean and to who is it addressed? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It is addressed to u. :). U don't agree with me. But how do u want to improve the infobox? --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We start with you reverting to the stable position to comply with WP:BRD. That came from a previous discussion as the only way to resolve the problems over ideology, factions and the historical differences between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Then it can be discussed. I am happy to agree that in a European context (and your one valid reference is an example) it tends to be classified as with Social Democratic parties with which is is now linked. Historically however it has been a democratic socialist party with very different routes - it included communist party members for some time for example. The easiest approach I think is to use the official description with a footnote to say that its equivalent in Europe is SD. Open to discussion, after you respect WP:BRD and self revert. Oh and you might like to read up on WP:INDENT as well and please, this is not a text message exchange. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to reaffirm what I said above - I am in favour of including a short list in the infobox, providing that it is well sourced. I was corrected by RJFF; apparently a party source will not do. I support reverting back to the stable version (the one I proposed) for the time being. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Social democrats outside Britain have a bad taste of Blair and Brown's Third Way legacy as being a complete abandonment of socialism and social democracy by caving in to the neoliberal economical environment. Blair and Brown are objects of disgust in Canada's NDP due to their support of the Iraq War amongst other reasons, NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair whom the media considered to be the most Blairite, refuse to give an answer as to whether he supported Blair or not - because such an answer would be poisonous to a large part of the party who want the NDP to have nothing to do with the Blair-Brown legacy. Third Way New Labour talked in neoliberal language of always stressing "balanced budgets", "limits on the state", etc. - so much so that social liberal economist James Galbraith is more left and social democratic than Third Way New Labour because he has challenged the neoliberal notions of annually balanced budgets being economically useful or necessary - and has said that balancing budgets in a business cycle is relevent. Third Way New Labour is very conservative in comparison to even social liberal American economists like James Galbraith and Robert Reich. Social democrats have condemned Blair and Brown, long-time Labour MPs have resigned over the party's big-business-friendly actions. In reality, Labour under Third Way leadership is a centrist liberal-led movement, with a lot of disenchanted centre-left social democratic people within it who feel they have nowhere to go.--R-41 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Internal factions?

Anyone for having an internal factions section under 'Social democracy' in the ideology part of the infobox? Maybe add things like 'Third Way' or 'democratic socialism' there.--86.173.56.191 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Opposed, there is no way we can determine which is which and democratic socialism is not a faction anyway as a sub division of social democracy - please ----Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Humourously, the Labour Party since New Labour came around, could have an ideology called "Animal Farmism". Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Anthony Giddens, while always saying that they are "social-ists" as meaning they recognize social issues and the need for social welfare, have otherwise had the party abandon everything it ever stood for. They used to be the party that condemned big bankers and the leaders of the international economic system, now they court big bankers for votes and Brown has been a major figure of the very neoliberal International Monetary Fund. There were those who were worried that Clause IV meant that state socialism was the party's aim, and Blair won support by people who wanted to distance the party from an image of supporting Soviet-style state socialism. But instead of creating a new commitment to a new form of socialization, as other democratic socialists have done by supporting cooperatives for instance, Clause IV is now merely a statement of feel-good sentiments of the need for community, etc., with zero substance on any remotely socialist economic agenda other than their "social-ist" agenda of claiming to support social welfare, social justice, etc. The pro-Blair/Brown faction of the party is centrist liberal in all but name.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012

Please change |seats1 =

255 / 650

to |seats1 =

257 / 650

as this is the accurate number of Labour MPs. Rotheram is now Labour, rather than independent, and Labour won Corby from the Tories, meaning that we can add 2 more MPs

144.32.55.36 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect, 255 is the current number. According to the UK parliament website. The last by-election was on the 29th of November, the update UK Parliament page is correct as of the 30th of November. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Add

Labour leaders in the European Parliament

Sir Michael Stewart (1975-76) John Prescott (1976-79) Barbara Castle (1979-85) Alf Lomas (1985-87) David Martin (1987-88) Barry Seal (1988-89) Glyn Ford (1989-93) Pauline Green (1993-94) Wayne David (1994-98) Alan Donnelly (1998-99) Simon Murphy(1999-2002) Gary Titley (2002-2009) Glenis Willmott (2009-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.202.5 (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair has publicly declared support for a "new capitalism"

Any remaining question over the stance on socialism by Labour's principal Third Way founder are now over. Looking at Tony Blair's personal website, in a 2009 speech he endorsed "new capitalism" at a conference bearing the same name, the "New world, new capitalism" conference. At the conference Blair said:

The new capitalism is therefore not about a return to the past. The change we seek should not be about replacing the free enterprise system or the market but about sustaining them in a way that is stable and enduring.

— Tony Blair, 2009.

This is the source: http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/speeches/entry/speech-by-tony-blair-at-the-new-world-new-capitalism-conference/

--R-41 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Keir Hardie and Methodism

I believe that the mention of "(Keir) Hardie's roots as a Methodist lay preacher" is inaccurate. Although there is a Methodist church in London named after him, his roots as a preacher were with the Evangelical Union (later incorporated into the Congregational Union of Scotland). Mutt Lunker (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Party infobox

According to this source, the United Kingdom has no official language, but english is predominant throughout the entire kingdom. Perhaps, the Welsh language version of the party's name should be deleted. However, if a source is provided that the party itself officially uses English & Welsh language (or even other languages) versions of its name (like Canadian political parties use English/French versions), then the Welsh version should remain & if sourced, other language versions could be added. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Welsh is an official language within the UK and Wales one of he main centres of Labour Party support ----Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As my source has proven, the UK doesn't have English/Welsh as its official languages. It has English (only) as its prominant language. Furthermore, this article is about a British political party (unlike Welsh Labour or Scottish Labour Party etc). We must be careful, not to create an inaccuracy. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I said welsh is an official language within the UK which is as you well know well sourced also a very small amount of research on your part would show the Labour Party has a bilingual policy in Wales which is also within the UK----Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no disputing that English and Welsh are official languages in Wales. However, this isn't the case across the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The UK Labour Party's official website shows its name in English only. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

And this article covers the UK as a whole so it includes use in Wales----Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for making this observation, but you're confusing in Wales with across the United Kingdom. We've had this discussion (years ago) concerning the United Kingdom's infobox heading & the result was use English only. The same principle applies here. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

read what I say GoodDay ----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I have, believe me. I fear you're misunderstanding the topic, however. PS: I've requested input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, as this won't be resolved between '2' editors. GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful. We disagree but I have for example never made a "across the UK claim so words like "confuse" and "misunderstanding" are not appropriate. Separating my role as your mentor on UK articles here in respect of your editing .----Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, I'm struggling to actually find uses of "Plaid Llafur" by the party. "llafur cymru" to describe the Welsh organisation, yes, "Llafur" also occasionally to describe the national party. Establishing use by Labour of the term is important, I think: a name is Welsh, not merely a translation used by other people. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Welsh Labour tends to be used in Wales as "Plaid" has associations with Plaid Cymru and there is a lot of history there. I think there is a case to change to LLafur cymru rather than a strict translation as that is the common use in a part of the UK. In fact it is rare of Labour Party to appear without that as well in Wales. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "LLafur cymru" would be confusing because it is tied to Welsh Labour - which is a separate, if closely tied, organisation, or so I understand. I'm almost certain it used to be. Either way, it describes the Welsh part of the party, not the national party. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with Grandiose, LLafur cymru would be accurate for Welsh Labour, but not so, here. If we observe other major UK political parties (Conservative Party (UK) & Liberal Democrats), they don't have a Welsh version of their name, in their infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we just vote on this? There's no consensus for this change apart from Snowded's opinion which we all disagree with. Hedgefall —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, however. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you using the talk page Hedgefall. Leave it a day or so, if no one else comes into support I'll concede. My impression at the moment is that Grandiose is open if some examples of use can be found and a lot of the regular editors here have not commented ----Snowded ^TALK 15:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I put a link on the Welsh Labour article. Interestingly a little on line research (and some welsh political journals I have at home) says the most common Welsh name is plain Llafur which appears in newspaper articles and the like ----Snowded ^TALK 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good for Welsh Labour, but it doesn't apply here, however. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really, for one part of the UK the Labour Party is frequently called Llafur in what is an official language within the UK. Are you saying that the Labour Party article excludes the party in Wales? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We've had that discussion before, remember? Welsh isn't an official language of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

But it is an official language in the United Kingdom and is used. Therefore someone coming to this article has a right to be informed of that use. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it is. Welsh isn't an official language (along with English) in Scotland, England & Northern Ireland. Inclusion of the party's name in Welsh, should only be acceptable, if its name is also rendered in Gaelic, Ulster etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have the other UK political parties to consider. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Are those languages official and do they have common use in those countries for the Labour Party? Are there equivalents for the other political parties which are again, in common use in those countries? ----Snowded ^TALK 18:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the UK have 2 (and only 2) official languages? English and Welsh? I fear we've reached a log jam. More input from others will be required. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been over 48hrs now for this discussion & nobody new has joined in or produced anything to show that Welsh in an official language of the UK or that the Labour party treats it as such. I suppos you can delete now, Hedgefall. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's comment "Leave it a day or so, if nobody comes in to support I'll concede" at 15:02 on 31 March 2013. I shall delete the Welsh version from the infobox, per consensus. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Given GoodDay's reinstated topic ban, I assume that this threat no longer exists. Can we close this whole discussion? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what topic ban you mean, Ghmyrtle, but I agree with GoodDay that the usefulness of including the Welsh version is difficult to discern.

Labour does seem to use "Llafur" but seems like an ad hoc translation that is used only occasionally by the party (it seems to be used by Welsh Labour only, where it could be related to Llafur cymru. I can't find it used by the national party, although its use by the Welsh party is to describe the national party.Welsh as a national language of the UK would be an alternative argument for inclusion, but that isn't the case. So overall I am ambivalent on "llafur" - which generally leans towards non-inclusion in infoboxes - and opposed to anything else. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not so much the Labour party as it is the press. Llanfur is used in any welsh language newspaper or article to reference the labour party. Welsh is an official language in a part of the UK so it is surely informative to readers to show them the words that will be used in Wales? ----Snowded ^TALK 22:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see it this way. The French, German, etc, press will have names for the Labour Party in their respective languages. These are not official names, they are ad hoc translations of limited value to the reader of this encyclopedia. I'm yet to be convinced that Welsh is any different, i.e. sufficient to "boost" the Welsh name. You have suggested that being an official language of part of the UK is sufficient, but I disagree. It would be enough to support the inclusion of a Welsh name for Welsh parties, but this is the national party and it's not a name the National Party seems to use more than trivially. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The last I heard France and Germany were not a part of the UK but Wales is. The name for the national party in Wales is thus relevant ----Snowded ^TALK 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of irrelevancies in this discussion. The question of "official language" is a red herring, because we go by common usage rather than official status.

Since the Welsh-language title of the party is widely used in Wales, it should be included here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

but not nation-wide? -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be. My proposed compromise was Llanfur. Incidentally Grandiose your "trivially" comment is a nonsense, when it is used it is used seriously. There isn't a consensus here for GoodDay's removal (and he is now topic banned anyway) how so people feel about the compromise?----Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Trivial" in the sense of "insignificant" not "unserious". If you poke around on the national party's website you will struggle to find a use of the word anywhere. BrownHairedGirl, "commonality" is insufficient to separate the Welsh name from the Polish name, for instance, a language which has as many speakers in the UK as Welsh. Assuming you mean "Llafur" I would accept that because it does have some use by the national party and this combined with asking ourselves on a basic level what would be most useful to readers can separate Welsh from other languages. I hope it can be made clear that the Welsh Labour Party exists which may also be of use to the reader. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK so we are OK with Llafur and a footnote to reference the Welsh Labour Party? ----Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2013

In 1979 you couldn't bury your dead, in 1997 they turned off the telly! 86.191.107.21 (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: - no edit requested - see WP:NOTAFORUM. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 01:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Membership

The Liberal Democrats' WP page has a section showing party membership by year since 2001, using the figures in the party's Statement of Accounts as published by the Electoral Commission. Under the PPERA legislation every UK political party has to provide annual accounts including membership to the Commission, which then publishes them.

It would be useful to have a similar table for the other Party articles, including the Labour Party. For Labour, this data would expand the existing Membership section, which currently only shows membership for 2010. Adding Income and Expenditure for each year (from the same source) would also be of interest. 91.125.228.78 (talk) dww —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

The figure for the Labour share of the poll in the 1945 election is incorrect. It should be 47.7 (not 49.7) percent. Dennis Leech

Suggested change:

|- | align=center|1945 | align=center|11,967,746 | align=center|47.7% | align=center|393 | align=left|Labour victory |-

Ecrac (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

. — Richard BB 10:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As Richard BB says, please provide a reliable source for your proposed change. Dana boomer (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Three major?

Of the sources that were just given which can be checked none say that there are three major parties they just talk about the LibDems having impact. On the evidence of recent elections UKIP could argue it is stronger and we get into a mess. Its not properly sourced so I have reverted to the stable state. Please discuss here. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple recent reliable sources refer to the "three main parties" in UK, and you can click here to read what they actually say--. 1) Helen Jones; Susanne MacGregor (1998). Social Issues and Party Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 185.; 2) Andrew Russell and Edward Fieldhouse (2005). Neither Left Nor Right: The Liberal Democrats and the Electorate. Manchester U.P. p. 129.; 3) Stephen Driver (2011). Understanding British Party Politics. Polity. p. 20.; 4) Committee on Standards in Public Life (2011). Political party finance: ending the big donor culture , thirteenth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Stationery Office. p. 40.; 5) Geoffrey Evans and Pippa Norris (1999). Critical Elections: British Parties and Voters in Long-term Perspective. SAGE Publications. p. 143.; 6) Colin Copus (2004). Party Politics and Local Government. Manchester U.P. p. 9.; 7) Nasreen Ali; et al. (2006). A Postcolonial People: South Asians in Britain. Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 304. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are stretching things a bit and you are drawing implications that are not there. 1) is a discussion of manifestos at a point in time. 2) has a throw away phrase about 'the other major parties" 3) gets closer talking about three major parties and that might do it (but see later) 4) talks about spend in one election 5) is just a general discussion about strength 6) again maybe but it is not really evaluating it is just a explanation of a focus of the book 7) Just talks about 'leading parties' It all smacks of a hasty google search without much evaluation.

My concern here is that you are opening the flood gates to edit warring around UKIP with the european elections coming up and the fact remains that one of two parties has formed the government for a hundred years now and the coalition has a clear minority partner.

A better way forward might be to simply say that the Labour Party is one of the major political parties and has formed the government for x of the most recent y years or something like that. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

yes the solution is to say the the Labour Party has been a major party since the 1920s. However the cites prove conclusively that the RS routinely speak of three major parties. Snowded's comments show that he is not interested in the LibDems at all but rather in hurting the UKIP. That, I suggest, is a bad angle from which to delete fully referenced noncontroversial material.Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The cites do not prove that conclusively, see arguments above that you have not bothered to answer. You should also be careful not to attribute opinions to other editors. My point was that UKIP could make a stronger claim that the LibDems and we would open up a can of worms. Your phrase "not interested in the LibDems at all but rather in hurting the UKIP" is false, not supported by anything I said and a personal attack. Now calm down and address the arguments.----Snowded ^TALK 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

'Economic liberalism'?

I find it odd that 'economic liberalism' has been introduced as an internal faction in the infobox on the basis of one article from two years ago. One could easily link to this as evidence of the opposite. Other views? AlwaysBrazil (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One policy hardly warrants describing them as central planners. Besides, the Tories are hardly economic liberals: they love their corporatism and monopolies, not markets. To pick one of innumerable examples: how many companies can I choose from if I want to go by train from Mottingham to London Bridge? Some market. Misread. I think corporatism is the best description for the filth that is Labour. Other views? LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Peeling away the spin, a test of a government being "economically liberal" is the level of government spending as a % of the economy. One can look either at the % itself, or one can look at the direction that government spending moved in. Either way, it is not tenable to view the Labour record in government as being one of economic liberalism. Its record in Opposition is slightly more difficult to judge simply because there is no one number that can be used as the acid test. However, not many people in the Labour party would consider Blair to be on the left of the party, so if Blair's govt record is to the left of economic liberalism, the party in Opposition must be further to the left. Or to put it another way, you'd need a damn powerful microscope to find a part of the Labour party which is economically liberal.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, % of gov spending GDP-wise is one crude measure, you're right. But that does not mean a genuine love of markets by people like the bunch of corrupt finance-sector rent-boys we have running the place at the moment, even if they are dragging gov spending down nominally and as % of GDP.

As far as I'm concerned, put any of the Big Three parties in government and they will act as a feeding trough for business piggies. You can call Labour as you please, so feel free to delete this talk of economic liberalism. Judging by actions rather than empty words, all the major parties are corporatists; I have no desire to defend any of them, even if Labour are, in the balance, (very) marginally less evil than the Tories. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see the liberal economic policies of the Tories in action! How about leave the market alone, and building some phucking houses? LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the polemic here it illustrates the issues with describing ideology in this article. We have descriptions of policies (such as economic liberalism) , campaign slogans (such as third way) just for starters. Then the confusion between the democratic socialist tradition in Britain and Ireland and the social democratic tradition on the continent, the latter term being used as a legitimate simplification in the wider literature. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One more case of "left-right" being a quite amorphous construct. The sources cited might support "Blair was seen by (cite source) as becoming a 'centrist'" but is not sufficient from any reasonable reading of the sources provided that Labour as a party is "centrist." Collect (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Centre to centre-left?

Political position has just been changed- suggest this needs justification, not just a change by one editor Gravuritas (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Blair leadership, the Labour Party adopted the Third Way ideology. Also, the Third Way is a centrist ideology. --Allytoon (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion, now find some references that support your conclusion or stop wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Snowded comments above. If anything the Labour Party have moved further left under Milliband's leadership. David J Johnson (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Labour is still the major centre-left party of the country, although it's economically quite right-wing compared with the Labour of the 1970s, nevertheless, they're still to the left of the Conservatives. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

According to my sources:

Hollowell, Jonathan, Britain since 1945.

McKibbin, Ross, Treading Water? New Left Review 4, 2000.

Marquand, David, Revisiting the Blair Paradox. NLR 3, 2000.

Marqusee, Mike, New Labour and its Discontents. NLR, 1997.

Ali, Tariq, Decay and Ruin in Mrs. Thatcher’s England. Found [1]

The New Labour of the 2000s continues in a largely Thatcherite tradition to economic policy the case in point being the tight fiscal policy folowing the 2008 economic crisis. It is regularly described as a centrist party or ay least many elements within the Labour party hold a centrist ideology. Despite this, there are certainly other sections of the Labour party that hold a center-left approach to social justice and state welfare. How about displaying both positions together in the political position heading? Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So, apart from Hollowell who I don't know, you are asserting that several writers in the New left Review, + Tariq Ali, have described Labour or parts of it as 'centrist'. I think your point might have more force if your sources were not all viewing Labour from the left.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement: in February 2013, the Labour Party NES decided to downgrade participation to observer membership status, "in view of ethical concerns, and to develop international co-operation through new networks" is unclear as to whether the Socialist International has ethical concerns about the Labour Party, or the Labour Party has ethical concerns about the Socialist International. If there is a source it should be clarified as to which. If no clarification is possible then the ambiguity should be pointed out, otherwise a wrong assumption is likely to be made by the reader. 71.3.96.176 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) NormanB

Source 39 is attached to the statement you just asked about. KingHiggins (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling the Labout Party centralist is a political position of its critics on the left and in particular of the Blair period. Remember also that we are talking about current days not the 1930s, in that context in Britain the party is centre-left ----Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Snowded comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So your opinion is that because a statement is used as a criticism that statement cannot be used in a wikipedia article? How about rather than using your opinion you find a comprehensive academic analysis of policy during the Brown/Blair period that evaluates the ideology of the party? Surely that would be a more pragmatic way of doing things than simply your world view. KingHiggins (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to take a partisan perspective ----Snowded ^TALK 17:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I am suggesting, nor do I think 'what wikipedia is' statements are helpful in any way. In an effort to move forward my proposition this is what I am asking:

• In the info box insert 'centrism' into the political position field. This is supported by the sources I inserted earlier as well as the following:
• New Labour and Public Opinion: The Third Way as Centrism?[2]
• Journal of Politics & International Studies, Vol. 9, Summer 2013 ISSN 2047-7651 250 Are British political Parties converging at the “Centre Ground”? [3]
• Hill, Dave, The Third Way in Britain: New Labour’s neo-liberal education politics.[4]

In addition to these, sources 13-23 in the article clarify New Labour's Third Way ideology. So, can I find any consensus to add 'Centrism' to the political position field in the info box? This would be a good starting point. @Gravuritas - I don't see the problem with sources on the left being cited in an article on the centre-left - diversity is good. KingHiggins (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem a little stuck in the Blair period and reactions to it not the present day. Even then, in the British context Labour is centre-left. Seems like you are trying to make (or support) a partisan position here ----Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So far the only contributions you have offered have been your personal opinions, as opposed to offering sources that make a strong case for the arguments you make. Who does that make more partisan, you or me? May I bring your attention to the Wikipedia pages of other political parties; Conservative Party (UK), Liberal Democrats. For the latter, the 'political position' field is populated with Radical centre to Centre-left. How about this page having Centre-left to Centrist in the similar style with eferenes on each? KingHiggins (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I and others have commented on your sources and made reference to your linkage back to the Blair period. You have not adequately responded to those points if at all. Sorry I can't see any reason or justification for change ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I will make an effort to respond to both of these points now if you misunderstood my responses earlier.

* Gravuritas had a query that the original sources I put forward were WP:POV - I responded by trying to find others sources that could be percieved as less so.

* Yourself and David J Johnson expressed concern that the alteration I proposed was POV because it represented arguments that were made on the Left at that time. You also commented that the ideology of Blair/Brown years was not the current ideology of the labour party. I respond by saying that the selection of sources that I offered, eight of which are already present in the article represent a wide range of viewpoints. For example British Politics: A Critical Introduction is not 'on the left'. Do you require more evidence here?

* In response to the latter point that Miliband(presumably, you were ambiguous) represents a shift to the left is simply not grounded in reality. See [5], [6] - specific policy proposals include a reformation of union power in the labour party and a strong conviction of pen-Europeanism, both of which Blair has praised.

Do you have any further concerns? Also I would invite other editors to make a comment. KingHiggins (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple concerns as I think you are simply assembling partisan quotes, or historical references which ignore the wider context and there is a degree of synthesis in your various conclusions. If you have the text from "British Politics: A Critical Introduction" that you want to rely on happy to take a look at it, but it is a 2005 publication when 'third way' and the like was active. Blair praising a single policy does not make all policy Blairite by the way, or the opposite (which has also happened),. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply assembling partisan quotes - in the article itself the statement leading many observers to describe the Labour Party as... Third Way, rather than democratic socialist is supported with the following references:

McAnulla, Stuart (2006). British Politics: a critical introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 118, 127, 133, 141. ISBN 0-8264-6156-5.

Hay, Colin (2002). British Politics Today. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 114, 115. ISBN 0-7456-2319-0.

Merkel, Wolfgang; Alexander Petring, Christian Henkes, Christoph Egle (2008). Social Democracy in Power: the capacity to reform. London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 4, 25, 26, 40, 66. ISBN 0-415-43820-9.

From Thatcherism to New Labour: Neo-Liberalism, Workfarism and Labour Market Regulation, Professor Bob Jessop, Lancaster University.

New Labour, Economic Reform and the European Social Model, Jonathon Hopkin and Daniel Wincott, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2006

The article is already populated with references that support my conclusion, making the claim that those conclusions are synthesized questionable at the least.

Again, you admit in your previous statements that the Blair government was centrist, so the only argument you have left is that the Labour party has a different ideology than during the Blair period. Where have your taken these inferences from? The only valid source would be internal actions within the labour party and the most recent election manifest which dates to 2010. These are the only reliable means you have of gauging the ideology of an opposition party so please present your evidence rather than fabricating conclusions. KingHiggins (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions, I pointed out that your references related to the Blair period and were not current. You seem to be confusing the rightward swing of the labour party since its foundation with its position in contemporary british politics. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

'Don't jump to conclusions, I pointed out that your references related to the Blair period and were not current.' - your previous statements: Even then, in the British context Labour is centre-left. - a rejection that Blair was centrist. it is a 2005 publication when 'third way' and the like was active. - agreement that Blair was centrist. All three of these statements are contradictory and also your opinion. The latter point: rightward swing of the labour party since its foundation with its position in contemporary british politics. This can be replied to with exactly the same words you used earlier on the original proposition : Your opinion, now find some references that support your conclusion or stop wasting people's time. KingHiggins (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you need to read more carefully. Blair was clearly more right wing than Millibrand but that does not make him a centrist per se. You also need to be a little less aggressive in your comments. At the moment you do not have consensus to make a change, so lets see what other editors say ----Snowded ^TALK 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

My intention is not to offend you if that is what you percieve. I agree that the imput of other editors could be useful. Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of time wasting are generally offensive. Yes more editors but beware of canvassing ----Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion, now find some references that support your conclusion or stop wasting people's time ----Snowded TALK I was simply repeating what you said to User:Gravuritas because I believe it applied to your statement and was not meant to be offensive. KingHiggins (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - In order to try to attract more imput on this I will condense my proposal into a new section. KingHiggins (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Why, you have made your point, the page has a lot of watchers, you are not gaining support ----Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox party ideology

I would like to know why the "ideology" section of the infobox is not in use. It would make it a lot easier for people just quickly skimming for key facts. I know there has been a lot of debate on ideology of the Labour Party, but it is no harder to define than any other party. I suggest putting 'Democratic socialism', 'Social democracy', 'Third Way' and 'Trade unionism'. These reflect the general trends of and within the party. Btw, sorry if this has been discussed haven't got time to read through all of the archives/talk pages as there has been a lot on ideology. Either way, I think I can be put in the infobox. I'm not wanting to debate ideology, just use of the summary table at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gc12847 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It was extensively discussed before and it was not possible to agree a simple summary, hence the reference to a wider discussion. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But from what I read, most of the discussion seemed to agree a long the lines of what I put. In the paragraph about ideology, 'democratic socialism', 'social democracy' and 'third way' are all named and said to be Labour ideologies. So why not put them in the infobox? A couple of people may have wanted to put other things (like neoliberalism and liberalism) but most people didn't agree. However, I think most people agree on those three.

From experience, it's really useful when reading about parties and political systems from other countries to have that ideology summary in the infobox so I don't have to read the body of the text. All the other parties have it. When you're quickly trying to compare and contrast parties, especially from a country whose political system you are not familiar with, it is so useful to have this quick summary, just to get a rough idea. If you want to know more, then you can read the text.

At the end of the day, as I have said, whatever the debates and discussions on here, you have put those three ideologies in the ideology description anyway, so why not put them in the infobox?

They call themselves democratic socialist, so that should be there. They have been numerous times describes as social democratic and/or third way, so they can both be there. And they were founded on the trade union movement, so that should definitely be there.

So what really is the controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gc12847 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is far from clear if 'Third Way" still applies post Blair and if you read the previous discussions then you will see the disagreements over social democrat with democratic socialism. Personally I think the best solution is to have the latter two and leave third way etc. for the text. However there was no agreement for that last time so unless other editors want to reopen this I think its closed. I put a welcome notice on your page - please read it and in particular remember to sign your comments ----Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I actually agree with you on the Third Way business, I just thought that seeing as it had been mentioned maybe it should be there. But I agree with you in putting the other two there at least. Maybe then if we both agree to put the other two then we should? It's just to make it easier for reader who want a to know roughly what the party stands for (or stands for in theory). Even the Australia Labour Party has social democracy down and they're more right than ours.

Sorry if I was a pain. Still learning how it all works round here, and have been very busy in the mean time.

Thanks a lot Gc12847 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

IF other editors agree then I am OK with it, but without more agreement lets leave the current text as it was a prior consensus. Another tip by the way is to intent your comments with colons, makes it easier for others. I've done it above by way of illustration ----Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have said this before: It is always difficult to describe a party's ideology with just one ore two catchwords. But it is not more difficult in Labour's case than in other parties'. There is absolutely no reason to make an exemption just for Labour. Actually there are other parties whose ideologies are much more difficult to describe with the conventional categories and still we do it. I support Gc12847's proposal. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RJFF. It is hard to use a few words to describe a party, but as you said, Labour isn't the worst in that respect. The Australian Labor Party is worse. It's good for convenience. I don't really understand all of the controversy around this, but oh well.

I know it has been discussed, but trade unionism could still go there, given that Labour still get the vast majority of funding from them. But it maybe isn't so necessary to do so. --Gc12847 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent constitutional changes would make that controversial and the statement on funding looks likely to change. If RJFF is OK with "democratic socialism, social democratic' then I am (as I always was) happy with that. However I would wait a day or so, this has been controversial ----Snowded ^TALK 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sure thing. I'll wait a couple of days to see if anyone writes anything else, then I'll change it. ---Gc12847 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Does "democratic socialism" only reference to the party's constitution or are there third-party sources that describe it as democratic socialist, too? --RJFF (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this before so if it is going to be controversial we should go back to the older compromise which has stood. It doesn't take that much to find material however google scholar for example----Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

They are all very dated, or about Labour's "retreat from democratic socialism". Wikipedia requires third-party references for every non-trivial statement, including categories of parties' ideologies. Labelling UKIP as libertarian, just because their consitution describes them as a libertarian party, was not accepted either. --RJFF (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

But its not just the constitution which is the point and reflects a different tradition. As I said this is old ground and we may have to go back to the previous compromise which gave more context. That is fine with me as well ----Snowded ^TALK 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

I want to edit the Labour Party wiki page. I have some reliable sources to add to the wiki page with regards to ideology. The last person who edit this was not providing any sources. Here are my sources: http://www.palgrave.com/pdfs/1403920656.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/458626.stm http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/New%20Labour%20and%20public%20opinion.pdf SocialDemocraticSocialist100 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

current political ideology

I don't understand the reluctance to change the ideology of the party on the page from centre-left. Labour are no longer a left-wing party!! they are no longer neo-liberal, and have a lot of right-leaning views - many of which are its economic policies. Yes, I understand Labour have been traditionally the UK's left wing party, but they have not been left wing since, at least, Blair took over and rebranded as 'New Labour'. There is even a section on the page titled 'Blue Labour', which discusses how Labour take a more right-wing approach to their politics nowadays. Nbdelboy (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Any citations to back up your opinions? — Richard BB 19:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

,, here's a few Nbdelboy (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Conservative home as a source, please .... ----Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Within the context of the British political spectrum it is still centre-left. Also, a party is not just it's parliamentary form. Most of the local parties are still strongly socialist and there are a lot of socialist elements still there. As for Blue Labour, it is only slightly more 'conservative' on immigration but I would dispute that immigration is a left-right issue as many people on the far left are anti-immigration and anti-EU. Also, Blue Labour is against neoliberalism and favour guild socialism. It's also not an official policy and has actually somewhat fallen out of favour recently.

Ultimately, Labour is still more to the left than Conservatives or Lib Dems. Actually, it's now closer to what it was like under Hugh Gaitskell than anything else (he tried to get rid of clause 4 too). If anything I'd like to see what their 2015 manifesto will be. Either way, leave it for now. Gc12847 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Political Compass the Labour Party have been center right since at least 1999 In your estimation how many more center right Labour manifestos have to be produced before the page is updated to reflect this?

Related to this, can someone at least add citations to back up the content in the ideology box and Political position box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.38.209.9 (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion along these lines in relation to the info-box. There is certainly a literature on this subject, of which a small portion is referenced in the linked discussion. I could not find a consensus then but maybe some more people have come out of the woodwork since. It is worth noting that since then Miliband has proposed allowing public-sector bidding on rail contracts; whether this will lead to more left-wing policies will, as Gc12847 noted, be seen in the 2015 manifesto and the results of the ongoing policy review. KingHiggins (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)