Talk:Third Way (UK organisation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Apr 20 to Apr 26 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Page was created by user:dissidentcongress who, based on other things (c.f. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and MediaWiki:VfD-Populist Party UK) appears to be a vandal who is updating pages for either vanity or publicity reasons. Party appears largely irrelevent - Google searches on Third Way UK, Third Way National Front UK, and Third Way Party UK all came up empty handed in terms of this party. Snowspinner 22:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Third Way is a very real party created in 1990 from one of the factions within the National Front. It is significant in that Nick Griffin, current Leader of the British National Party, was a member in the early 1990s. Although not so active now as it was a few years ago, it does continue in existence. See [1] for its website. Dbiv 23:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Is it actually substantive any more? Or is it of comparable size to the Populist Party? I mean, if the leader of another party was briefly a member, then it seems most worth mentioning in the National Front article. Snowspinner 00:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Hi Snowspinner! Is a "vandal" someone who disagrees with your views? I bet that you are the sort of person who would re-write history, if ever given half the chance. The Third Way are Left-of -Centre on almost everything. Dbiv seemed to find the party on the net with no problems. Shows how much you know... Dissidentcongress. —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 21 April 2004 (UTC)
  • No, a vandal is someone who responds to a page being listed on VfD by making an identical page with a punctuation mark missing. And who marks all of their edits as minor in the hopes that no one notices. And who is excessively abusive in past VfD discussions on their pages. These things combine to make me somewhat suspicious of the veracity of any of your edits. Snowspinner 21:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if not "currently significant" it's historically significant for anyone trying to follow the history of the British far right. Also, precisely because the term "Third Way" has come to be associated with Blairism, it's useful to have this so that someone might successfully decipher this very different use of the term. Much like sorting out the various groups that have been called Revolutionary Communist Party. -- Jmabel 08:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of the Third Way, and it is certainly a very real party that has been around for some time. I get the impression that some people are persuing a vendetta against User:Dissidentcongress. 80.255 00:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cribcage 05:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Neo-fascist" and "far right"

I've deleted the terms "neo-Fascist" and "far right" from the entry, since these are factually incorrect (as I pointed out this party has a left-of-centre manifesto). People can make their own assumptions, based upon the National Front roots of the party, as to whether the policy is real or cosmetic. Terms like neo-Fascist are unhelpful in political science, unless the party policy is based around a corporate state and imperialism. User:dissidentcongress. —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 27 April 2004 (UTC)

On a similar note, I removed the "Neo-Nazi Parties" category. Despite Third Way's roots in the National Front, they claim to have disavowed racism and fascism entirely, and I'll take their word for it unless there's compelling evidence to prove otherwise. Kaibabsquirrel 21:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Kerr is involved in the Ulster Nation / Ulster Independence movement and having been on their discussion list for quite some time can state that they disavow anything racist, bigotted or sectarian. They advocate an independent Ulster or Northern Ireland based on equality. I believe they stood for election in Belfast under the Third Way banner recently.

link Ulster Nation --Aughavey 11:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Former far left members

It wouldn't suprise me at all if it were true that formers members of hard left groups had joined this organisation but is there a reference backing the claim up?A Geek Tragedy 12:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I'll mark the claim as needing a source, if one's not supplied let's delete. Dogville 13:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No source so I deleted A Geek Tragedy 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Electoral support

Third Way has contested elections at various levels. A more complete picture is given by including GLA and local results. I don't have all of the figures to hand but have added the ones I know about. I don't think that listing general election results in isolation gives a true picture. Third Way tends to do better at a local level where it can communicate directly with the public. It doesn't have huge financial resources like the establishment parties and can't rely on the mass media to represent it fairly (if at all). I for one hope that it does better at General Elections in the future and continues to communicate a positive, principled and radical ideological message.

From: Art of War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate criticism should not be deleted

There are only a few critical comments in this article, it is not appropriate to keep deleting them.--Cberlet 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is to decide when criticism is 'legitimate'? If you look at the discussion on whether to link Third Way under 'far-right' you will see that the only argument to do this is that 'Searchlight' and other opponents say it is. 'Searchlight' never allow a right of reply. Direct democracy, opposition to Capitalism and imperialist adventures overseas doesn't strike us in Third Way as 'far-right'. Legitimate criticism or unsubstantiated abuse? Still, Third Way supporters have not edited this out because on balance we decided it was represented our opponents view of us rather than a factual statement. We are happy to discuss any specific edits with those who hold a different view. We passionately believe that our policies, if implemented, would improve our World but we also believe in listening to criticism and weighing it up.

- Art of War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.66 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and policies

Which critics claim that Third Way are 'neofascist'? Any criticism I have seen, such as Searchlight magazine calls them 'far right' - eg in its lists of election candidates. Wouldn't a link to 'far right' in this section be more appropriate? Whiteabbey 00:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable Dogville 07:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One week on and there have been no further comments other than Dogville in agreement. I'll amend the link. Whiteabbey 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that even 'far right' is appropriate. New Labour is further to the 'Right' than Third Way! Third Way favours neutrality and opposes overseas military adventures. It favours worker empowerment through co-operative ownership and nationalisation. There seems to be little justification on policy grounds to describe it in these terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublethink64 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

2001 general election

The article mentions a candidate in Belfast West but wasn't that candidate in 'Ulster Third Way' (UTW) - a party wanting an independant Ulster from both Britain and Ireland, instead of the actual Third Way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.217.184 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Allied groups

The inclusion of the English Democrats and the Freedom Party under the heading of Allied Groups seems to imply that they share common aims to Third Way. Looking at the individual parties in Wikipedia, however, shows little common ground other than the recognition of St George's Day and the creation of an English Parliament. Should this not be re-written to read more like it does on the Freedom Party page? Also, does anyone have any info on the English Lobby? All I could find were a couple of mentions on the English Democrats site?--Swahilli 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "The English Democrats are also supporters of the group. The Freedom Party were involved in setting up the Lobby but have since withdrawn." and added a request for citation, as I can't find anything on the Third Way site about the English Lobby. --Swahilli 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)