Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Centrism and the Third Way

So that I don't have to wade through previous messages, I will make my case here and it is really quite simple: as demonstrated by the sources I have provided, and those provided in the "Ideology" section, the Labour Party has, since 1994, developed and entrenched a visible tendency to the Third Way and political centrism. Unless adequet citation is provided or a responce is made I will revert any edits make in that regard, and report any changes to a second administrator. The reluctance to respond to what is an evidently simple proposition suggests to me that this is in some way at least politically motivated. Hayek79 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been taken from the ideology section, it is very well referenced and supports my case entirely. If the body of text in the article is inconsistent with the content of the infobox I do not understand why I should have to some here to ask for permission to make the necessary changes.

From the late-1980s onwards, the party has adopted free market policies, leading many observers to describe the Labour Party as social democratic or the Third Way, rather than democratic socialist. Other commentators go further and argue that traditional social democratic parties across Europe, including the British Labour Party, have been so deeply transformed in recent years that it is no longer possible to describe them ideologically as 'social democratic', and claim that this ideological shift has put new strains on the party's traditional relationship with the trade unions.

You owe it to other editors to read the previous arguments. Third Way was clearly applicable to the Blair period and your references cover that period, see earlier arguments. In British terms (as has been argued before) the Labour Party is Centre-Left. If you insert your changes again without consensus then you are edit warring and wikipedia handles that sort of behaviour by blocks. You are also meant to address content issues not make accusations as to the motivations of people who disagree with you. Assuming you are a new editor then I suggest you read up on policy, in particular the references in the 3rr notice on your talk page. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies I haven't made myself clear, I did read the other messages, the above proposition hasn't changed in the light of those. I thought we'd start afresh. In response to your argument about the Labour Party being on the "political left", that may be the case, but I will refer you to the Democratic Party (United States) page where the political position in the infobox was removed because the label "Centre-left" would have been inappropriate in reference to other left-of-centre parties. Therefore although the Labour Party is to the left of British politics, as compared with their left-of-centre contemporaries in Europe and elsewhere they are very much to the right, which consequently should not preclude reference to centrist elements of modern Labour ideology. Further, since Blair there has been a strong centrist tendency in Labour Party politics embodied by his Third Way, a component part of which is the Blue Labour trend; I therefore feel it is necessary to credit this in the infobox without removing reference to it's centre-left tendencies, hence "Centre to Centre-left". Hayek79 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You also removed the citation that I provided for the claim that the party is a proponent of Social Democracy. Hayek79 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need to start afresh unless new arguments have been raised and they haven't been. (1) Most parties have moved to the centre in some ways, it does not alter the fact that the Labour Party in British terms is centre left, more so now than under Blair, (2) remember his faction did not win the leadership election. (3) Blue labour is around but its not clear if it in anyway defines the labour party and those types of views have been around for years. So, as other editors have said I see no justification for saying centre to centre left. (4) The political parties in the US are generally to the right of those in Europe so I don't see that argument. (5) As to the citation, there is more than enough to establish that already isn't there? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) That's an assertion, I have provided adequate evidence of the opposite being the case. (2) Yet it is still comprises a significant proportion of the parliamentary party, several shadow cabinet members have described themselves as Blairite. (3) Figures ranging from Chuka Umunna to David Lammy are supporters of the trend, and Ed Miliband wrote a favourable foreword to their associated book "The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox". (4) Don't see that argument? The Democratic Party is not described as Centre-left despite being to the left of US politics, so there is a precedent there for not labelling a party as being exclusively one thing and I did not remove "Centre-left" in my edit. Surely we should credit what is a significant centrist trend in the party with reference in the infobox? And are parties in Britain not very much to the right of their European counterparts? Are the French Socialists not very much more radical than the Labour Party, further, is the UUP not very much to the left of the Conservative Party? (5) I don't believe there is any citation to support the claim, as I have already said, the citation which is there supports my case. And why is additional citation a bad thing? Hayek79 (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And whereas in previous discussions you have explained that the party ideology is too complex to pin down you now insist on an un-cited reference to "democratic socialism" which is entirely misleading. Do you realise the constitutional change from "social and democratic" to "democratic socialist" happened under Blair? Hayek79 (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, while the official line of the French Socialist Party is more left that the British Labour Party, I wouldn't say that is particularly the case with most of the centre-left parties in Europe (i.e. Socialist Workers Party in Spain, Labour Party in the Netherlands), which are similar to the the British Labour Party. The British Labour is also more left than the Australian and New Zealand Labor/Labour Parties and somewhat more left than the US Democrats. Also, the UMP in France is not particularly more left than the British Conservatives.

Also, remember that while the top of the party is dominated by the right wing, much of the party is made up of strong left-wing socialists, which include many of the local parties. In many areas, the local parties have not changed significantly since before the Blair years. Also, from a purely objective stance, the party leadership currently supports free, universal health-care; a wealfare state; a higher/living minimum wage; freeze in energy bills; increasing the top income tax to 50%; and part renationalisation of the railways. These things would be considered at least centre-left on any objective left-right political scale, and this is from the most right-wing part of the party. So I think placing the Labour Party as centre left would be justified even on an objective scale, not just within the British context. And again, this is not including the much more left wing elements which are still in the party. I think people have to remember that the political spectrum in the post-war era was more to the left than normal, and now it is more to the right (and this is in all countries these days). HtAlso, the current Parliamentary Labour Party is more left wing the when under Ramsey MacDonald IMO. Gc12847 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thing, as I have said above, most of the policies the Labour Party support are objectively centre-left. Therefore, the Labour Party CAN be objectively labelled centre-left. The US Democrats have some of these elements, but still far from what the right of Labour Party espouse (let alone the left). Also, much of the US Democratic Party are made up of people who would be more at home in the Conservative Party here, therefore the Democrats cannot really be objectively called centre-left, even if they are left within the US context. The Labour Party can. Also, Blue Labour may have some so-called "conservative" stances on immigration and crime (although I would say being harsher on immigration and crime are not necessarily right-wing; some left-wing parties were and are anti-immigration and harsh on crime, and some socialist parties, including the some in the Labour Party, historically supported imperialism as a way of spreading socialism, at least until after the war), it is against neoliberalism and supports guild socialism.

Furthermore, you need to look at other centre-left parties. Many (such as the Socialist Workers Party in Spain and the Labour Party in the Netherlands) are as right-wing as, or sometimes more-so in certain areas, than the British Labour Party. While adopting free market policies in the British Labour Party was more seen as an inevitable thing which had to be done now that the Conservative had already done it; the Dutch, New Zealand and Australian Labour (Labor in Australia) Parties were the parties which liberalised their respective countries economies, and the Spanish PSOE also strongly supported economic liberalisation. Therefore, I'd say the Labour Party in the UK is not particularly more right wing than other centre-left or labour parties. Also remember that the British Labour Party was one of the last centre-left parties to get rid of the commitment to common ownership. Most of them had already moved to the right, and accepted free market principles by the early 80s, while in the British Labour Party was very left wing at the time, and took over another decade to get rid of its constitutional commitment to common ownership (afaik many of the other parties never had official, constitutional commitments to common ownership). So the Labour Party was quite behind in the rightward shift (although our economy has become more liberalised than many other European countries due to the more right winged nature of Thatcher's Conservatives compared to other centre-right parties in Europe). Gc12847 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

One last thing, you are right that there are centrist tendencies in the party, but there are also left and far left tendencies too (Militant Tendency is still present within the party in the form of Socialist Appeal). Therefore centre to far-left would encompass all of the elements within the Labour Party. However, that may be very unhelpful to readers and impractical. Centre-left is a good title as it conveys the party's rightward shift, as well as showing that it still is, broadly speaking, a left wing party. I also think the ideology section needs updating as it needs to talk about the, albeit modest, shift to the left under Ed Miliband, as well as the various views (centrist, third way, social democratic, democratic socialist, Trotskyist) present within the party. Gc12847 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Gc12847. Hayek79, forgive me but having to constantly rehash the same arguments periodically is a waste of time. If you have new evidence (and so far you haven't produced any) fine, otherwise please see previous responses. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a good argument not to use the "political position" field. We have above it an ideology box, which provides adequate information. We then get into endless arguments across hundreds of party articles about where in the political spectrum each ideology lies. TFD (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that ----Snowded ^TALK 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly the accusation that I have provided no “new evidence” is untrue; I cited several journals and articles when I made the first alteration last month. Also, I don’t think it fair that so far I have been the only person to have been required to provide evidence.

User:Gc12847: The UMP is much further to the left of the British Conservative Party, the party has retained a strong Gaullist tendency which has often been the preferred ideology of French conservative presidents, notably Georges Pompidou. Further, the party favours economic liberalism less than its British counterparts in preference to dirigisme.

I did not remove the label “centre-left”, I only included the label “centre”. Most Labour MPs are left-of-centre, but a significant proportion of the front bench isn’t.

Broadly speaking, I agree that the Labour Party is to the left of the Democratic Party, but certainly to the right of most European parties (the Italian, Spanish, French and Czech left are far more radical, for instance) and certainly right of anything found in Latin America.

All of your evidence is more than adequate in presenting the case that the Labour Party is left-of-centre, one I am not objecting to, but it doesn’t account for Blairite and Blue Labour syncretism.

I strongly dispute your claim regarding Ramsay MacDonald, a supporter of the October Revolution, if it refers to the budget of Philip Snowden.

I’d be interested to see any evidence of the left-party economic liberalism that you have mentioned.

I agree broadly with your final point, which is why I introduced a scale, “Centre to Centre-left” which as I above established is more reflection of the actual composition of the parliamentary party. Hayek79 (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Centre to Centre-Left" is a poor phrase to use in any case, because it sounds too much like a range of views, i.e. that the views of each member of the party range only from centre to centre-left, which is clearly not true. I believe that your point is that the average position of the total membership is somewhere between centre and centre-left, so in any case I suggest you come up with an alternative phrase. I think you're wrong anyway: to reach an average in the position you describe, you'd need a lot of people on the right to counteract the number of those who are clearly on the left, or you'd need an overwhelming majority in the centre. Neither of these is the case.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Like in every other political party's article, the "ideology" section of the infobox should show the party family into which the party is categorised, respectively the ideology which is commonly attributed to the party by third-party reliable sources, not the ideology that the party professes in its constitution. I have seen several sources that explicitly deny the present-day Labour Party being democratic socialist, I have not seen a single reliable third-party source describing it as democratic socialist in the affirmative (only reporting that, according to its constitution, it claims to be). UKIP describes itself in its constitution as "libertarian", but the WP article labels it as right-wing populist, because reliable sources do. BNP identifies as a freedom-loving party, but the WP article labels it as fascist, because reliable sources do. The same should apply to every party, including Labour. --RJFF (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Per previous discussions recorded on the talk page check out a google scholar search. The Labour Party came from the democratic socialist tradition, many people think it has betrayed that so you will find sources that say it isn't. That misses the point about how we reflect things here on wikipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How do we reflect things on Wikipedia? It is common practice in articles on active political parties that the ideology field of the infobox shows the current ideology/party family according to third-party reliable sources; this is not necessarily the ideology that the party itself professes (see e.g. UKIP, BNP; all right-wing populist parties that deny being right-wing populist) and it does not usually include ideologies that the party embraced in the past (the German SPD was Marxist in its early years, this is not reflected in the infobox). WP:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. We need at least one current, reliable, third-party source that would affirmatively describe Labour as a democratic socialist party. Making an exception just for Labour and allowing in this article what we deny in the ones of other parties would mean applying double standards. --RJFF (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Try reading what I said above and the multiple previous discussions on this. We are not making an exception. You've been a part of these discussions and its getting really tedious to have the same thing brought up time and time again. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than making vague references to "previous discussions", you should comment on the actual issue or not comment at all. This is exactly what the Talk page is for; talking about the content of the article. --4idaho (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a responsibility on any editor to take account of previous discussions. Suggesting you do that is more than legitimate and what the talk page is for ----Snowded ^TALK 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1). You keep making references to previous discussions, but haven't linked to any specific ones. Just because something has been discussed before doesn't mean it can't be brought up again later on. If you have something specific you want people to read, link it; why keep making vague references to the fact it's been discussed before? I'm sure it has, but what relevance does that have to this discussion?

2). Wikipedia is a volunteer project, no one is forcing you to discuss this article, so why complain that it's "really tedious" to keep discussing this? Obviously, many people feel this is a point of the article that deserves further discussion. If you don't want to take part, don't! It's not a job. Take a break if you find it tedious. --4idaho (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF. There are far more sources for third way than democratic socialism. There is a large number of third party sources that identify Labour as a social-democratic third-way party, and not a democratic socialist party. Snowded seems to oppose their inclusion for reasons I can't quite identify… because Labour itself retains references to socialism in their party documents? Because it has a socialist "tradition"? "Democratic socialism" is a specific term with a specific meaning, and that's not what democratic socialist means. The overwhelming consensus of modern, third-party sources is that Labour is not a democratic socialist party.

The fact that Labour had socialist roots is not relevant. Many social democratic parties had socialist roots. It is not mutually exclusive for Labour to come from a socialist "tradition", and still be a "third way" party. I find it to be pure WP:OR, and WP:SYN, to say that because there are sources that say Labour comes from a socialist tradition it can't also be third way. No source says that.

I'm also not quite sure what Snowded means by "how we reflect things on wikipedia." As RJFF noted, this article is a singular exception from the vast majority of articles about political parties, and I know of no specific wikipedia policy that supports this, so I don't know what Snowded meant by that. --4idaho (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

References to the Third Way relate to the Blair period if you check. If you checked up on the previous discussions it would not be necessary to point this out to you. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, while many may have written during the Blair government -- considering that was a very long and recent period of British politics -- it is pure original research for us to decide that somehow that period has ended and Labour has a different ideology than they did four years ago. Considering the Blair years spanned 1997-2007 it is natural that many modern sources written about the Labour party would be written during that period, but that does not somehow disqualify them.

You can't simply say that all sources from 1997-2007 are out of date, without producing any evidence to that effect. Saying that Blair was PM then and isn't now is simply an arbitrary fact, that in no way directly proves Labour's ideology has changed.

Wikipedia can absolutely use high-quality third-party sources from a few years back. There is no body of third-party writing to support the idea that there has been a significant change in Labour's ideology since then. If you want to claim that it has, the burden is on you to produce more recent third-party sources to back up your claim. Otherwise, that claim is simply original research.

(P.S. Also, references to Labour's socialist "traditions" refer to a period much longer ago than the Blair years. How do you not find that inconsistent?) --4idaho (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears it has, as this is coming from a front bencher. I do acknowledge that there are a large amount of Blairites within the party, but Miliband is not one himself and has used his One Nation Socialism ideology for Labour since 2011/2012.

We also have an issue where we represent the PLP as the Labour Party whole -- if we count Blairites as the Progress think tank, there are 2,199 Blairites in a party that has 189,000 members. Of course there will be more, but just take that into account -- maybe we can solve this issue by declaring an official ideology and an unofficial one. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for 'out of date'? 2014-2007 = 7 years.

Here's the result of a 10-second search: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10325076/Ed-Miliband-Im-bringing-socialism-back-to-Britain.html. From the horse's er mouth himself. Unless you've been in a nunnery or, Idaho for 7 years, you will have noticed a considerable change amongst the Labour party MPs and leadership during that time, at least as far as their public pronouncements go, and that change has been widely reported, for both the Brown and the Miliband eras. You're asking Snowded to show the bleeding obvious- why not look for it yourself?

Gravuritas (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ignore the ad hominem there, and point out that is not a third-party source. Same for the statement from Balls. Those are first party sources. WP:THIRDPARTY is a core principal of wikipedia, so if you're really not familiar with it you should read it.

The vast, vast, vast majority of third party sources, published between 1997-2007, or after, do not call the party democratic socialist. Democratic socialist is a specific term with a specific meaning and third party sources do not identify the Labour Party as such.

I will say one thing about the Miliband quote, however, which is that I think it actually perfectly underscores why wikipedia doesn't use first-party sources. Many European social-democratic parties use socialist rhetoric, imagery, ect. for cultural, historical, or political purposes. This is why I was drawing a distinction between the party's socialist "traditions" referenced by Snowded, and the party's modern ideology.

Even if you are looking specifically at high-quality third-party sources published after 2007, which I disagree with, but I digress, that still doesn't support the idea that Labour is "democratic socialist." What third-party sources are there that identify the party's current, modern ideology as "democratic socialist?" If there are any at all, they are dwarfed by the number that identify the party as a third-way social-democratic party. --4idaho (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I will add that I really don't think 7 years old is too old. When it comes to high-quality third party sources, i.e., books -- either mass market or academic literature -- about the subject, ect., it can take years to research and publish. That also doesn't account for the time it would take for trends in the post-Blair era to make themselves apparent in the first place. So I strenuously object to the idea that 7 years is too old for this type of thing. --4idaho (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Seven years is a very long time in politics. We've done this to death too many times and you are advancing no new arguments. Basing your view on google searches without paying attention to context or dates is poor quality research ----Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, if you're not interested in discussing this, then feel free not to. I'd strongly encourage you to stop making these posts complaining about how tired you are of discussing this though. It's rather silly, since no one is forcing you to, so I don't know why you feel so put upon that other people are discussing about this. --4idaho (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as you propose to open up issues which have been discussed and resolved before, but for which you introduce no new evidence you must expect this. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So is Labour really a UK party?

It may sound as a stupid question, but since Labour is not active in Northern Ireland, wouldn't that make Labour a purely British party (in a geographic sense; Great Britain). Any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it can be described as a UK party, because it (reluctantly) accepts members from Northern Ireland, is a registered party in the province, and has a party branch in Northern Ireland.[1] There are plenty of fringe parties in the UK that don't field candidates at all but are still recognised, registered parties. Anyway, the article does not state that the party is fully active in all parts of the United Kingdom; the statement "..is a political party in the United Kingdom" is not technically incorrect and would not be even if the party was not present in NI at all. -- Hazhk^Talk 11:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hazhk ----Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also agree with Hazhk, according the sources provided. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hazhk. TFD (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Center-left vs Left

I don't think the description of centre-left (in the international definition) is accurate, even going by the information presented in the same section. Note: "the party contains a diversity of ideological trends from strongly socialist, to more moderately social democratic." "...sitting in the Socialists and Democrats group. The Labour Party is a full member of the Party of European Socialists and Progressive Alliance, and continues to hold observer status in the Socialist International."

All of this indicates a solid left-wing position everywhere else on the Wikipedia project. I propose a change from centre-left to left-wing. Pretendus (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please review the extensive discussions above, in which there were proposals to delete 'democratic socialism', leaving only 'social democratic', so there are some opinions at 180 degrees to your view. Whilst I personally have some sympathy for your proposal, my guess is that most editors involved in this page would prefer to avoid another knock-down drag-out fight on ideological labels.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

While I believe there is still a strong left in the Labour Party (at least in terms of members and local politicians), the Parliamentary party is dominated by the centre/centre-left. Maybe we should put centre-left to left-wing? Or maybe even centrist to far-left, which would really describe the range of views in the party and therefore be more accurate. Either way, I think someone should do a section on factions within the Labour Party. I would do it but really haven't got the time. Gc12847 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

Is that why Labour is against a referendum on EU membership? Zenostar (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Democratic socialism"

What sources identify the contemporary Labour Party as "democratic socialist?" If it's just one primary source (a passing reference in the party constitution), I suggest removing it (asked because I can't find any sources in the article.)

Note that this is separate from the ongoing above discussion about whether the Labour Party is 'third way.' If no one objects, I would simply change the ideology to just 'social democracy' for now.--4idaho (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

See the Infobox party ideology section above. --Hazhk^Talk 16:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That seemed to end with what seemed to be a general agreement to revert to the old compromise (Snowded, RJFF both said they were fine with that.) But I thought it would be better to get fresh opinions, rather than edit based on an inconclusive 5 month old discussion (since this has been something of a contentious subject.)

Additionally, not that many people participated in that discussion. So I thought it would be better to get fresh opinions. Do you have any thoughts on this? --4idaho (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I hold to my opinion (already expressed in the above thread) that the "ideology" field of the infobox should state the ideology which the party represents in the present, according to third-party sources, as in every other political party's article. There is no reason to make an exception. As far as I have seen, most relevant sources describe present-day Labour as a social-democratic party, I have yet to see a single reliable source that would describe it as a democratic socialist one. Therefore the infobox should state "Social democracy", without "Democratic socialism". This discussion is coming up again and again, because Snowded refuses to accept in this article what is accepted in all other articles about political parties in the UK and around the world. --RJFF (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past I mostly agreed with Snowded. I was the user who proposed replacing the labels with a link to th 'Ideology' section. That solution was in place for many months and then replaced with the current solution. However I do now think that we should have only 'social democracy' in the infobox. It's the only label that can most accurately and concisely describe the modern Labour Party's ideology - according to nearly all third party sources. Social democracy is often described as a variant of socialism and we describe most nominally "socialist" parties in Europe as social democratic, e.g. Socialist Party (France), Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, because third-party sources say so. --Hazhk^Talk 21:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I also think just "social democracy" is the best solution. --4idaho (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The democratic socialist tradition is very different from the social democratic one and the Labour Party was one of the founders of the former. It also remains a broad church with a complex history and with a Trade Union section which if anything is getting closer to that tradition post-Blair. When people are writing about Europe then they tend to lump those traditions together because its easier and they are all part of the same European Parliamentary Grouping. In European terms large parts of it would be described as socialist and the distinction between social democratic and socialist parties that is common in Europe is not present in the UK or Ireland which is where the democratic socialist label originated. The Labour Party describes itself as democratic socialist (and it is a main stream party not a fringe one which makes a difference) and any search on google scholar (as we have been through before) provides support for that along with a whole bunch of other labels and come and go over time, such as third way. The reference to the ideology section to my mind was and remains the best solution. I accepted the current wording as another editor was passionate about it. RJFF please try not to make this discussion personal ----Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A party's "traditions" and its ideology are different. Where are third-party sources that describe the party's contemporary ideology as democratic socialist? At the very least, there are none in the current article and none have been produced. If all there is is your opinion, your original research, that's not enough.

Please produce modern third-party sources describing the Labour party's contemporary ideology as "democratic socialist." That's what's missing from the article. --4idaho (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool the aggression please, I'm an experienced editor and I know the rules as well as you. A quick search on google scholar (as has been pointed out oh so many times before) will show the two terms in use and as I say its a very important part of the context. By using a social democratic label only you create confusion with a very different tradition. I realise from a US perspective they may all appear the same but the US runs of a narrower range than Europe. It That tradition is reflected in the fact that the Party itself continues to use the label, and as I pointed out we are talking about a main stream party not a fringe one. As a side point this is a growing problem on wikipedia with people editing multiple articles seeking to gain commonality and loosing the subtlety of difference that someone with knowledge of the area brings. We had a perfectly acceptable solution that linked to the ideology section rather than just applying a label and I am more than happy to go back. The more recent compromise used both and I fail to see the objection ----Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating that social democracy and democratic socialism were different traditions. However, I come from continental Europe and not the US, and have never heard of this. Perhaps this is a phenomenon restricted to the UK. You could convince me a lot more if you presented a reliable source supporting this claim. In my country, the Social Democratic Party also claims to continue a democratic socialist tradition, but no one would say that it is a democratic socialist party or would describe the party's ideology as democratic socialist. This is a term more usually used to describe formerly communist parties that have given up communism and now place themselves to the left of Social Democrats. If I read "democratic socialism" in the ideology field of a political party's infobox, I would assume that it is one of these left-wing parties, which Labour is obviously not. --RJFF (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you already argued in April that a google scholar search would prove Labour's affiliation with democratic socialism. I did it and all that came up where outdated sources or ones that described Labour's "retreat from democratic socialism". You could really help by pointing to at least one source that does describe the contemporary Labour Party's ideology as democratic socialist. --RJFF (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the former solution that only linked to the ideology section would be even worse. No other party's article does this. And every party's ideology is more complex than one or two keywords can describe. This ideology field of the infobox is always a simplification, and not an exhaustive description of the party's ideology. LibDem's, UKIP's, the Greens ideologies are more complex than a few catchwords can describe as well. I would argue that it is even more difficult to describe Fianna Fail's, Fine Gael's, Forza Italia's and other parties' ideologies with the traditional categories, but still there are some keywords in the infobox (that of course do not perfectly and exhaustively describe the respective party's ideology, they are just a rough orientation) Again: Why should Labour be the only exception from all other political party articles? --RJFF (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that I have to keep repeating something that is 101 Political Science within the UK is part of the problem. The British communist party for a long time (to the Hungarian revolution) had common membership with the Labour Party in some cases and in the 70s and 80s there was a very strong Trotskyite group. We then have the Third Way period, the de facto expulsion of Militant and then the Blairite loss to the current leader supported by the democratic socialist wing of the party and the increasingly socialist Trade Unions. The Communist Parties in continental Europe had far more strength than in the UK and Ireland post Hungary with the Labour Party occupying those spots. The fact that references during the Blair years talk about abandoning democratic socialist further supports this. Having social democracy there as well as democratic socialist makes it easier for someone with knowledge of the British Labour movement to place the Labour Party in a wider European context so I can see the sense of that addition. Having four words is hardly a problem. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:4idaho and User:RJFF (and I would not include "third way" either). This said, I offer a compromise: why can't we insert both the present ideology (definitely "social democracy", according to sources) and the previous ones, as in Italian Socialist Party's info box? --Checco (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You really need to address the fact that (i) it is the officially stated ideology of the Party (which is a major one not a minor one) and (ii) that is supported by the use of the term in conjunction with the party on Google Scholar. Its not just a claim by the Party without third party support. For example in this book revised in 2005. To my mind there are two illegitimate reasons for removal (i) because editors believe the party is no longer socialist or (ii) because they want to choose one term and take the European norm. So any current ideology should be listed ----Snowded ^TALK 08:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this highlights the fundamental problem with this discussion so far. I have no opinion about the ideology of the Labour Party. The sole reason that I or anyone else wants to remove "democratic socialism" is because it is not supported by third party sources. It's not a personal opinion.

So I suggest you calm down, stop disrespecting fellow editors, and then go find a body of third party evidence to support what you're saying.

It's not an argument. Wikipedia is collaborative. We're all working together. No one is saying they disagree with your opinion. It's just that wikipedia is based on reliable third party sources, and the overwhelming majority of third party sources say that the contemporary Labour Party is social democratic and make no mention of democratic socialism (and no, one book from 2005 is not enough, and as a long time editor you should know that.)

Also, I'd like to apologize if I came off as aggressive earlier. Tone is hard to communicate online, but I assure you I didn't mean to come off that way.--4idaho (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything that would indicate I am anything but calm and there is absolutely nothing there that 'disrespects' fellow editors. I'll freely admit to a level of frustration at just how many time we do through this, especially when one protagonist says they were not even aware of the history. Happy to accept your apology for that as well if you want. I've advanced arguments that you are not dealing with, you are simply asserting that you don't like a reference that supports the Labour Party's official statement of its ideology. No one is objecting to the inclusion of social democracy that should clearly be there. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Telling RJFF that he didn't understand "political science 101" was quite disrespectful. Please be more polite to your fellow editors. Rather than theatrically insulting people who disagree with you, try calming down and presenting evidence to support your claims.

"Arguments" aren't important. Your original research isn't permissible. You need to find third party sources to support the idea that the contemporary Labour Party is "democratic socialist." That is what everyone here agrees is missing from the article. It's not wikipedia's job to editorialize; it's our job to try to represent the current consensus on a subject as faithfully as possible.

And, yes, since there are hundreds of books, news articles, and academic papers calling the Labour Party a social democratic party -- and making no mention of "democratic socialism" -- that itself reflects a consensus about the Labour Party's ideology. One book from 2005 can't be treated as equivalent to the hundreds of sources which call the Labour Party social democratic (and make no mention of "democratic socialism.") To do that would be cherry picking, and would be unfaithful to the consensus of third party sources.

You need to present a body of third party sources supporting the idea the contemporary Labour Party "democratic socialist." Otherwise, it should -- and probably will -- be removed. --4idaho (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read far more carefully; I said the distinction was political science 101 in the UK, the qualification is important as RJFF said he was not aware of it and said he was from continental Europe where the distinction is not a familiar one as that geography follows a social democratic tradition. All round you need to be less aggressive and less assertive about your own perspective and try and address points made by other editors rather than just telling them that in your opinion something is the case.

You seem not to be willing to address the argument but just making an assertion of original research, which is odd given that references have been given now and in the past. You are also making the assumption that only one ideology should be listed which is not the case, if it was an either/or there would be no dispute about choosing social democracy so there is really no point in you arguing for it being used, that is accepted. The very very simply fact which you are not addressing is that a main stream European Political Party describes its ideology as democratic socialism and that description has support in the sources (I gave you one link from several that a google scholar search to illustrate that so please don't misrepresent that as my only giving a single source). We don't do majority votes in wikipedia and neither do we do counts of the number of sources, the issue is if it is sourced or not. The issue if WP:WEIGHT is covered by the Labour Party's own constitution and other material. So at the moment Democratic socialism is listed and it is second placed to Social Democracy. That reflects sourcing, weight etc. etc. That argument you have simply ignored, please address it ----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with making a difference between "mainstream" parties (e.g. Labour), where self-description in the party's constitution is sufficient and will be allowed in the infobox, and "non-mainstream" parties (e.g. UKIP or Sweden Democrats), where self-description is not acceptable and allowed in the infobox unless it is affirmed by reliable third-party sources. This would be arbitrary (who decides which parties are "mainstream"?) and applying double standards. The requirement of third party sources is valid for every article, Wikipedia does not prefer "mainstream" parties.

The book that you refered to is about the history and development of Labour Party and its economic policy since its early years. (By the way, this work repeatedly mentions "liberal socialism" as a descriptor or Labour's ideology, why is this term not in the infobox, or anywhere in this article? It also describes Labour's development towards the Third Way...) I think no one denies that Labour comes from a democratic socialist tradition. All major social-democratic parties come from a democratic socialist tradition (the ones on the continent as well), but they are not described as democratic socialist parties anymore, but exclusively as social-democratic ones. Neither being a political scientist (it is just a hobby, therefore I do not take offence at the "PolSci 101" remark) nor a Brit, I just fail to see the difference between Labour and the social-democratic (and traditionally democratic socialist) parties on the continent. I have never read of this difference (perhaps because this is not my field of expertise) and you have still not produced a source where I—as an interested user—could verify this difference that you assert (which is the idea of Wikipedia:Verifiability: the user who makes a claim has to make it verifiable for others, else it may be considered original research). --RJFF (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you got some support for the assertion that all major social- democractic parties came a democratic socialist background? I have always understood the traditions to be different. That aside I think this is very simple, you are proposing to remove from the ideology section the official ideology of a mainstream party despite the fact that the ideology is confirmed by a reference which establishes the use of that term. Given that we have given priority to the more commonly referenced term this insistence seems petty at best ----Snowded ^TALK 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how the party identifies itself. That's a primary source. What is missing are third-party sources. That's what everyone whose been commenting here has been saying. And, actually, up-or-down votes are used on wikipedia, for all sorts of things. --4idaho (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

But we do not vote on content. --RJFF (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "ideology" field of the infobox include "democratic socialism" in addition to "social democracy"? You will find arguments in favour and against in the above discussion thread. --RJFF (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There are significant chunks of the Labour party to which the social democracy description does not apply. Democratic socialist is an appropriate description for them.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If neither phrase encompasses the party's ideology, shouldn't it go back to linking to the ideology section? The infobox field shouldn't be a list of internal factions, or even if it is, it should be labeled as such. --4idaho (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Because both phrases together DO encompass the party's ideology. The party has social democrats and democratic socialists in it. Gc12847 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per reasons above. The Party (which is a mainstream one not a sect) clearly describes itself as democratic socialist and while that would be enough of itself, there are third party sources to support the identification. To reflect the balance of sources Social Democracy is currently listed first and that is followed by Democratic Socialism. That or variants have been a long standing consensus and its difficult to understand the obsession with removing it. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Again: Your argumentation means to apply double standards. Are UKIP, Sweden Democrats and all the other right-wing populist parties that deny being right-wing or populist, but prefer to think of themselves as libertarian, social conservative, centrist, non-ideological or whatever, sects? --RJFF (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, again if reliable third party sources backed those statements it would be OK. You seem to be on a campaign here ----Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Please stop making insinuations against people who disagree with you. Why is RJFF "on a campaign?" Because he disagrees with you? Because he's been involved in the discussion? By that metric, so are you. --4idaho (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        • You keep trying to make this personal and you have completely misread comments once already. I genuinely can't see why anyone would reject a mainstream Party's official ideology when it is supported by references, hence the comment (given the history of this debate its a pertinent one) ----Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Also, I find your argument very weird. Because there aren't sources explicitly saying the Labour Party isn't democratic socialist, that somehow qualifies as proof that it is? Why not just go with what the third party sources do say, which is that the party is social democratic? I still don't clearly understand why you think the party should be labeled democratic socialist. Because it's a phrase that appears in a party document written decades ago? --4idaho (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Look at the policies and ideology of many of the groups within the party, such as the Socialist Campaign Group, the Labour Representation Committee, Labour Left Briefing, Independent Labour Publications, the Compass Think Tank, Tribune and the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance. These are all left wing, socialist organisations. And not forgetting the far-left, Trotskyist Socialist Appeal. While there are also centrist groups (such as Progress), there are many more left-wing ones which are backed by a significant number of members. Another thing, the difference between the Labour Party ans European social democratic ones, is that as many of them have moved towards the centre, large scale left movements have sprung up, leading to centre-left social democratic parties and left-wing democratic socialist parties (e.g. SDP and Die Linke in Germany). Britain has no real equivalents, as while there are many very samll left parties, the majority of left democratic socialists still associate with the Labour Party, meaning that is therefore encompasses centrist to far-left - a wider range than most European social democratic parties. Gc12847 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Remove both - for the sake of stopping all these useless arguments. It seems that there have been once too many times where people have lost focus on what should be improved in this article. These two terms don't make an improvement -- they're just tags, and how are tags good? To apply a tag to a person is noxious, but to apply it to a movement is fallacious. This party is, for the most part, a social democratic party, but it also has segments in it that are still socialist -- they might be quiet movements, but they are a considerable amount (the same goes for the Blairite Progress think tank). This shows that we have also lost our focus on who and what; the Labour Party is not the shadow cabinet and vice versa, but to go back on the point I just made before this -- if we think that 15+ members represent the views of 150,000 members, then we have an issue. It is why we should stop making quick and unfounded judgements -- to start, remove the damn box. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I think the info box is important for people so they know what the party is made up of and what it stands for. In the case of the Labour Party, while the leadership is social democratic (or actually I'd say there more centrist/liberal than social democrat really), a large amount of the party members, organisations and voters are still very socialist. Think of groups within the party, such as the Socialist Campaign Group, the Labour Representation Committee, Labour Left Briefing, Independent Labour Publications, the Compass Think Tank, Tribune and the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance. These are all left wing, socialist organisations. And not forgetting the far-left, Trotskyist Socialist Appeal. And also the many left-wing union affiliates. None of these can be described as social democratic, as they are all strongly socialist. Therefore, to ignore these people is to ignore a large part of the party. In actual fact, while the leadership is more centrist, I'd say the majority of members are more to the left - there are more left-wing groups in the party that right-wing ones, and mostly left-wing candidates were voted onto the NEC this year, a clear sign (along with the general support by members of the party for socialist policies) the majority of the party is actually more left. Again, to ignore large swathes of the party who are very socialist paints the wrong picture. The leadership does not reflect the party itself.

Also, I think there should be a section talking about factions (there is one on the Conservative Page so why not Labour?) which describes the range from centrist Blairites to far-left Troskyists which are present in the party. Also, as an intersting side-note, the New Communist Party of Britain backs the Labour Party in general elections and local elections (including backing Ken Livingstone in London mayoral elections), and is affiliated with the Labour Representation Committee. Gc12847 (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• support- There are source that seem to support the inclusion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Info-boxes should be precise and not cluttered. Labour, like most members of the Socialist International, is classified as a socialist party and that should be sufficient. Certainly different writers sometimes use the terms "democratic socialist" and "social democrat" to imply nuances of differences within socialism, but the terms are used inconsistently. TFD (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with Gravuritas and Snowded, et al. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Social democracy is reasonably descriptive. "Liberal Capitalist" is closer to the mark than "Democratic Socialist" would be. See: Blair, Tony. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

'Liberal capitalist' to describe the Labour party is perfectly ludicrous in British terms- I assume this is some sort of a mistranslation from US terminology. Totally inappropriate.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Representation in the Scottish Parliament

Why is this not included in the right-hand box? 62.172.139.39 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are there two infoboxes for devolved seats? Seats in London Assembly and Welsh Assembly are displayed both in the main infobox at the head of the article and in a separate "Devolved Seats" infobox under the Electoral performance section. --RJFF (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Scots parliament added to main infobox! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

The reference link to the founding year in the info box is dead.

This one is official (and working) http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/history-of-the-labour-party

Mathiasj94 (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for contributing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

MPs 256

Labour now only has 256 MPs not 257 as Jack Staw has had the whip removed this is confirmed by the house of commons Wikipedia page which states labour on 256 MPs

Technically none of the parties have MPs now. --2.97.66.1 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how this works. We do have a prime minister and other ministers who act as the executive even though parliament is dissolved? FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

When the parliament is dissolved the government usually is not. That's why we still have ministers and the prime minister, neither of whom is a MP, for this short period of time nobody is. So at the moment there is no parliament, but there is government. 95.172.74.53 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Effects of Labour party in government

Should we have a section on the effect of the Labour Party when it has been in power?

For example it has been claimed that unemployment has increased under every Labour Government. If this is true it would be an interesting fact. Particular achievements that are due to Labour Governments could also be given in this section. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the ultimate in synthesis to me ----Snowded ^TALK 15:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Gaitskell died from an autoimmune disease not a heart attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campbell2644 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Candidate selection process

In skimming this article I didn't find a description of how the Labour Party normally selects its candidates. From the separate article on the Falkirk dispute, I formed this impression of the normal procedure: In each constituency, individuals can become members of the party by paying dues, and it is these dues-paying members, rather than the party's supporters in general, who choose the candidate. (That procedure was not followed in Falkirk under the special circumstances there present.) Is that impression accurate?

In some countries, such as the United States, a party's candidate is chosen in a primary election. Rules for eligibility vary from state to state but there is never any dues payment required. For the benefit of us Yanks, would someone knowledgeable please edit this article to address candidate selection? I'm curious to know what the rules are and how widespread the participation is in a typical case.

This section of the article on primaries addresses the choice of a party leader, but I'm talking about selection of candidates for seats in Parliament, the European Parliament, and any other office. JamesMLane t c 02:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Neo-Con attack on the Trade Union link

While the post-election dust has yet to settle, the New Labour scumbags waste little time in sticking the knife in. Given this, might not the article contain information about the kind of neo-con scumbags that have damaged the historic trade union link?

The Labour Party - is not the clue in the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.232.251 (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to delete section Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform

I notice this debate which led to the creation of the top section 'Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform'. But it strikes me as odd to include such a little-known group in such a prominent place on this article. There are a high number of "Labour campaigns for..." that I don't believe this one can be included while the others aren't - not to mention it simply isn't notable in the wide scope of this article.

I can't edit the page yet so suggest removing the section, and would like some consensus. SocialDem (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted - it adds nothing ----Snowded ^TALK 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I plan to do general cleanup of the page soon enough. SocialDem (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Factual error

The opening statement "the Labour Party is a centre-left political party" is factually contestable. This would be better changed to "was", recognizing the fact that its parliamentary members are now instructed to vote for Conservative (right-wing) policies or changed to "claims to be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.230.140 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism?

Hello,

I'm interested in why the 'ideology' table (on the right of the page) features 'Democratic Socialism' as an ideology of the Labour party, along with the obvious Social Democracy ideology?

I have reasons to believe that given the Labour clauses it shouldn't really be there. But, can someone (preferably a political scientist) perhaps explain why democratic socialism has recently been added? And obviously if sources can be provided that will be great. I'm just genuinely curious. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.145.6 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Check previous discussions here, debated at great length ----Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but where can I find a link to these debates? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.145.6 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive pages links at the top. Please indent your comments (I've done it for you here) and sign them. You might want to create an ID makes life easier for everyone ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The main 'argument' there was that Labour is literally a democratic socialist party because the party's constitution and membership card blurb make reference to democratic socialism, ignoring the fact that similar social-democratic parties such as the Swedish Social Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party of Germany, and so on also have references in their constitutions (as did the New Democratic Party of Canada until recently) while still being social-demcoratic parties, and also hand-waving away the fact that political parties aren't categorised on an encyclopaedia by how they present themselves, but by how objective third-party (preferably scholarly) sources conclude them to be. Also, there was these bizarre claims that social democracy was this horrible, foreign, "continental" ideology that has nothing to do with British politics other than belonging to the Liberal Democrats(!), and being totally ignorant of the fact that democratic socialism is a more radical ideology than social democracy, belonging to (mostly post-communist) parties such as Germany's Left Party, Greece's Syriza, the former Italian party Democratic Party of the Left, and so on. So basically the claim of democratic socialism as an ideology for the Labour Party comes from a mix of British exceptionalism, editors taking a party constitutional literally, and amateur editors being ignorant of political science terminology and categorisation. The Labour Party is a social-democratic party, it looks and acts like one, is a member of the international networks of social-democratic parties, there are a wealth of scholarly sources (even on Google Books) referring to it as such.--Autospark (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The British and Irish tradition is Democratic Socialism not Social Democracy. Any text book looking at Europe as a whole will tend to use Social Democracy. I don't remember any claims that social democracy was "this horrible, foreign, "continental" ideology that has nothing to do with British politics" and I was involved in most of the discussions,. Maybe you could provide a diff? ----Snowded ^TALK 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have this discussion again. Autospark, do you any specific objection(s) to the reasoning in the previous discussions? As an aside, it should be noted that "democratic socialism" is a very broad concept and, while the term is commonly used to describe left-wing parties in continental Europe which would ordinarly be positioned further to the left than "social-democratic" parties, one definition of social democracy is the 'implementation of democratic socialist through gradualism means' - this is entirely consistent with Clause IV. The British Labour party has its own particular influences, notably the Fabian Society. Now I'm not going to expand further because I would be repeating past discussions. --Hazhk (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• As a side note, if you google 'Labour Party', their official site http://www.labour.org.uk/ has the self-description "Britain's democratic socialist party. Includes policies, announcements and membership information." --Pudeo' 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant – many major social-democratic parties make reference to 'democratic socialism' in their constitutions. Also, what matters in academic discourse when categorising political parties is how third-party scholarly sources categorise and describe the party, not self-descriptions or first-party sources.--Autospark (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

"Tom Watson (politician)". Add this to Tom Watson. Currently redirects to an disambiguation page. 86.2.90.175 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Already done Of the 4 mentions of "Tom Watson" I see on this page, all 4 link to the politician already Cannolis (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Duplicated

The entire article is duplicated on my side, figure someone might want to check that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Websterandy42 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Labour Party is a SOCIALIST political party...

Labour is recidivist---it has lurched toward the extreme left through the election of an avowed socialist as its leader and primary shaper of party policy, objectives, and plans. In fact, Corbyn has led the singing of "The Red Flag" in public, Syriza and other anti-capitalist parties have welcomed Labour back into the fold, and "centre-left" politicians of Labour are distancing theirselves from Corbyn already. Labour's main distinction now from, say, a Marxist or Leninist party, is that Labour does not espouse immediate socialist revolution. Yet note that this distinction is mainly one of means to ends, not about the ends themselves.

Labour is no longer Tony Blair's nanny state party. Instead, Labour is a party of the internationalist red flag, i.e. worker populism; class warfare; central planning; merger of government with the management of businesses (even if it will be carried out surreptitiously as did the Fascists of Italy); nationalized transport and utilities; hostility to private property; hostility to justice; hostility to freedom; hostility to privacy; hostility to independence of social relations from government; friendliness to world socialist government; and so on. So, the present Wikipedia introduction, "The Labour Party is a centre-left political party", is silly, to put it charitably.

12.193.17.242 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tony Blair was an avowed Socialist, and "The Red Flag" has always been the party's unofficial anthem. Is there anything you wish to change in this article? It already says it is socialist and I'm sure as currently written no one would confuse it with the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the article, as written, has long been misleading with its vague claim that Labour is "centre-left".

Now, let's review one of TB's confessions. In his Wikipedia entry it reads, "In his maiden speech in the House of Commons on 6 July 1983, Blair stated, 'I am a socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition'." What followed immediately after those remarks was the usual happy, touching b.s. one should expect from every left-wing populist. So, what has your "Socialist" been during the past 32 years? As far as I can tell, his socialism was like that of the Democrats (US) during the 1980s and 1990s: Welfare statist, piecemeal, advancing in fits in starts, but sometimes retreating. The Labour agenda now, however, is aggressive, though we might note that Corbyn will need to perpetuate Labour's long-standing accomodation of the forms of private property, market economy, private contracts, etc. (It's btw that this policy keeps Labour, like the Democrats, in good company with Italian Fascism.) Yet now they will work openly toward the substance of socialist despotism. Labour's goal is the socialist goal of "a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control".

Just admit that "centre-left" is mealy mouthed, at best, like the remark that "Labour Party has been described as a 'broad church'". (But by whom and with what relevance to the introductory paragraph at Wikipedia?) The wording, like most political rhetoric, is meant to inveigle the reader into discounting the leftist extremism at the heart of Labour. Still, we can compromise:

The Labour Party is a centre-left socialist political party...

207.168.107.82 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yea.... until Corbyn starts advocating for an economic system that isn't based on a capitalist mode of production he will continue to be a Social Democrat. If he intends to move the means of production into the hands of the workers he would need to do a lot more than Nationalize basic utilities. Even that he is doing only because of the benefit on the consumer side, not to reduce exploitation of workers. The Internationale and The Red Flag are two different songs and the latter has always been the unofficial anthem of labour. And finally, the leader of a party does not define the entire party. That's not how parties work. As even you have pointed out, much of labour is still center. WearyTunes (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Corbyn has already advocated for state monopoly capitalism. It is ever thus with socialism, so what remains to be determined is the exact appearances of Labour capitalism and the pace at which Labour will be able to accomplish its goals.

You should remember that leftist political parties are like cults in that the leadership is the ministry, the shepherd, the puppeteer. We could also classify membership in terms of knaves and dupes. At any rate, it is the leaders who decide what is to be done and how it will be done. Labour's leadership is now openly and unashamedly socialist, and a sufficient number of sheep, puppets, and dupes agreed so as to elevate that leadership in power. Even now Corbyn is working to diminish the foot draggers and to empower loyal sycophants. This is "how parties work".

Labour leadership---esp. the leaders who count most now---fully intend "to move the means of production into the hands of the workers". They have rejected further dithering, and the transformation is to be carried out under the common rubric of "democracy", even if, as I've noted above, Labour follows the Fascists' model of subterfuge, i.e. maintaining the superficial appearances of private property, etc. Labour leadership, which determines party policy and action, espouses heavy handed regulation of businesses, which EVERY "centre-left" socialist supports. Labour leadership espouses confiscatory taxation and redistribution on the pretext of reducing inequality; here the socialist is stimulating and manipulating of greed, envy, and hatred. It worked the same way in the nationalist socialism of the NSDAP, too.

Whether Labour leadership succeeds or is stymied is a different matter not germane to the classification of Labour. So the introductory paragraph needs to be corrected, to accomodate reality as it is:

The Labour Party is a centre-left socialist political party... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.107.82 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how that can be a compromise. Sorry, but no. What is relevant is what credible and for the subject relevant sources say, not what you think and can draw in an argument about the party. Dnm (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

IP, that's a conspiracy theory view. Do you have any sources for your opinions and more importantly what does any of this have to do with whether we should call Labour left, right or whatever? TFD (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Centre-left or left or centre-right?

Hi, just wanted to add a discussion re Labour now perhaps being Left-wing over centre-left. While I agree Corbyn is left, he has invited the entire broad electorate of the party to be involved in policy making etc. Labour will remain a broad church, but with an anti-austerity message - anti-austerity is NOT a left wing idea. I personally think it should remain as centre-left until some solid Labour NOT Corbyn policies are made, and also until after the shadow cabinet has been announced. Thought it would be worth discussing this to avoid edit warring. Cheers -- Nbdelboy (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering the leader is definitely "Left-Wing" by UK standards, but a lot of the party isn't, perhaps the political position of Labour should be described as "Centre-Left to Left Wing" like some foreign parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.62.96 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We should just keep the political position as 'centre-left' (for the time being). Only a few months ago there was a discussion about labelling the party as 'centre', which just shows how precarious this labelling is. However, multiple sources from academia and popular media show that the party is left-of-centre. The extent to which Corbyn is staunchly left-wing can also be debated. Corbyn, while on the left of the Labour Party, is a social-democrat; that makes his politics centre-left! So, arguably, we have a party that is more clearly centre-left than it was under Miliband. The short answer is that until we can find 10+ citations describing the party (as a whole) as a left-wing organisation, we should not change the description. -- Hazhk (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Hazhk. We're talking about a political party here, not an individual politician. Labour is still Britain's main centre-left party, and remains social-democratic in orientation. There has been no change in the organisation as a whole. (Hazhk is also correct that Corbyn is a social democrat, albeit a classical social democrat rather than a Third Way social democrat.)--Autospark (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

We should remove the field. This discussion is repeated over dozens of articles. What is center-left or left or whatever has no agreement. TFD (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we should keep it. The main problem is that too many Wikipedia editors don't understand political science terminology and have very basic, tabloid-y understanding of politics (hence the insistence by some that Labour is a 'democratic socialist' party).--Autospark (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Address content please Autospark that is a failure to follow WP:Civil, saying that a well established position in political science evidences a tabloid understanding smacks of, shall we say, tabloid journalism ----Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's harder to categorise the British Labour Party than it is to catagorise other centre-left/social-democratic parties on the continent. In countries like France and Germany, due to the PR electoral systems, they have relatively strong parties to the left of the major centre-left ones. Therefore, it's easy to see the Germany Social Democratic Party as centre-left social democratic and Die Linke and left-wing democratic socialist. UK, with its FPTP electoral system, has never had a larger left wing alternative to Labour, so the party spans from the centre to the far-left and captures votes from across the left political spectrum. Most of its members are left of the PLP, many very much so. Therefore I've always argues that a broader description should be given, i.e. Centre-left to left-wing. I think now we have a leader who is left wing, that would be an appropriate description. Also, what is your definition of social democrat? Originally, social democrats were socialist of the Second International who rejected orthodox Marxism and believed that socialism could be brought about via democratic reforming of the system, and was therefore often considered synonymous with the term democratic socialist. Nye Bevan was a social democrat in the sense that he did not believe in orthodox Marxism or revolutionary socialism, but was still on the hard left and considered a democratic socialist.

Anyway, I think centre-left to left-wing would be appropriate. Gc12847 (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Centre-left to left-wing" is inaccurate and partially tautological. Also, that is not true that UK Labour is the only social-democratic party in Europe (or elsewhere) with no significant or mainstream party to the left of it - there's many examples, the PSOE (Spain), NDP (Canada), the Belgian PS and Sp.a, SPÖ (Austria), many if not most of the social-democratic parties in Eastern Europe. Labour is not special by European standards, or elsewhere.---Autospark (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would actually be more representative of party members as well as leadership to describe the party as left wing. As 60% of members and supporters voted Corbyn this shows a huge swelling of support amongst those who actually make up the party for left wing ideas. So in conclusion I think it is more representative of the party as a whole to describe it as left rather than centre-left.---Intellectualgoldfish (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What has changed? Nothing. Labour still has the same membership base, elected representation, party rules and organisational structure, European and international affiliations, etc, etc, that it had before the weekend, or before the most recent general election.--Autospark (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there is disagreement over the distinction between center-left and left, which is why these terms are best avoided in the info-box. Do either of you have any sources that explain it? TFD (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to reflect the reality of the party. Jeremy Corbyn is left-wing, and nearly 60% of the party and party affiliates voted for him. He also now has John McDonnell as his shadow chancellor, as well as several left-wingers in the shadow cabinet. This to me shows the party to be left wing, as well as the general perception that this has marked a rather dramatic shift to the left by the party. I would also say this makes Labour somewhat more left that the SNP, who are labelled centre-left. I think we need to differentiate Labour from this. I suggested centre-left to left-wing because shows that Labour has clearly moved to a more left wing position, but still maintains member social democratic/centre-left member and ties. It reflect that the ideology spans from moderate social democracy to democratic socialism. I think the label left-wing would be appropriate too. Gc12847 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a third-party academic source for that, or is that personal opinion? Also, there has been no ideological shift in the Labour Party, officially or otherwise: This isn't a situation comparable to when the Romanian Democratic Party abandoned social democracy and the Socialist International for conservatism and the European People's Party, or when the Italian Communist Party abandoned communism and became the Democratic Party of the Left. All that has happened is that Britain's main centre-left party has elected a new leader from a different faction in the party to those of previous leaders.--Autospark (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What has changed? They now have a shadow chancellor that lists "generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism" as one of his hobbies...--141.92.129.45 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Labour Party, not the current shadow cabinet or John McDonnell.--Autospark (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that previous discussion is now outdated. A party lead by a Marxist probably cannot be called centre or centre-left.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion perhaps. Corbyn has not called himself a Marxist and I'm not aware of any credible sources which call him one either. Regardless, Corbyn may be more left-wing than past party leaders, this says nothing about the party as a whole. To reiterate: the leader is not the sum of the party and if change how we describe the Labour Party just because Corbyn is leading it then we would be tending towards sensationalism. -- Hazhk (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reuters et al (including NBC, all the major UK newspapers, The Atlantic, HufPo etc.) have said Corbyn "professes an admiration for Karl Marx" which is pretty much the limit as to what Wikipedia can say as a result. [2]. Collect (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Parliamentary Labour Party is actually probably centre-right. The fact a moderate left-wing MP (Corbyn) is leader makes little difference. Certainly Corbyn is no 'Marxist' in the sense of the social democratic policies he advocates.