Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Proposed edit: Range of politics to be found in Labour.

I have proposed an edit to this article, with the first paragraph changing from: "Today the party encompasses a diversity of ideological trends, from strongly socialist to more moderately social democratic." to "Today the party encompasses a diversity of ideological trends, from strongly socialist through more moderately social democratic to more right-wing neoliberal." I further provided this link as a reference, it is to an academic paper. https://www.academia.edu/683213/From_Thatcherism_to_Blairism._Britains_Long_March_to_the_Market

This has now been reverted several times but I fail to see how this obvious and entirely reasonable change can be challenged. The current formulation is entirely biased, the term 'moderate' in meaningless and entirely subjective, it is used by those who seek to portray their own ideological viewpoint as the 'norm' and others as extreme. Furthermore, the current phrase is unsupported by any references so it seems odd that this should be an issue, I suspect that those who keep reverting the article have a political agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugg1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It might help if you could show in which journal the article has been published. It's not clear to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: This link suggests that the journal which the article comes from is the Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie (Austrian Journal of Sociology). I am not aware of the reliability of the source (it seems reliable to me), and I also agree that this should be added, in order to showcase the full rage of views within the current Labour Party. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got one academic paper written in 2004, so over a decade old and during the Blair years. Per WP:WEIGHT you need a lot more than that to make a case for a statement about the current party. Further the article does not support the proposed edit. It mainly talked about Labour's response to neoliberal orthodoxy and it's main ideological point refers to John Rawls' political liberalism and the difference between social fairness and social justice. Rlugg, please be aware that it is not acceptable to speculate on the motivation of other editors. You broke WP:BRD and your reference is really not up to the task. To support this type of change you would need a third party reference which is targeted at describing the ideology of party and which has been written or at least published in the last couple of years. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all of the neoliberal members of the Labour Party have left since 2004 then? This is obviously ridiculous, I am describing the range of politics within the party, not the official policy of the party right now. How about this: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ben-whitham/labour-leadership-election-neoliberalism or this: http://labourlist.org/2015/01/democratic-socialism-not-neoliberalism-hain-calls-on-labour-to-adopt-a-different-economic-approach/ or this: http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/07/labour-neoliberalism-and-the-future/ or this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/labouring-under-an-illusion-neoliberalism-and-britain-s-labour-party/26874 I could go on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugg1 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Two blogs and a trotskyite web site do not constitute a reliable source ----Snowded ^TALK 12:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Snowded. Also, all of the main social-democratic parties in Europe have adopted elements of the economic orthodoxy known as 'neoliberalism' in their policy programmes over the previous decades. The British Labour Party is not unique or an exception in that regard, contrary to popular misconception.--Autospark (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in what sense is Opendemocracy, a well known politics site with an editorial policy, any less reliable than the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper owned by a rich conservative?! And Autospark, that's the point I am making, what I have inserted here is uncontroversial, it is widely acknowledged that many social democractic parties have neoliberal currents within them. I fail to understand the resistance here. Furthermore, dismissing a 'trotskyite' website because of it's politics rather than pointing out a flaw in what it is saying is obvious political bias Snowded. Here are some more sources then for good measure: http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/students/student-journal/ug-winter-11/aimee-oakley.pdf or this: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/72077/ or this: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/13593/ or this: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/labour-john-mcdonnell-unveils-radical-departure-neoliberal-economics-full-speech-1521527 which shows that Labour's economic policy has only just stopped being neoliberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugg1 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You really need to read up on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. It is easy to find references to the adoption, or rather attempt to adopt and ameliorate the excesses of, neoliberalism by both social democratic and democratic socialist parties. That does not constitute evidence of an ideological position. Picking blogs and polemical web sites as sources I am afraid is contrary to wikipedia policy not an issue of bias. It looks like you are just searching on key words and throwing what you find in here as 'evidence'. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ideology - British Unionism

Just added to the info box. A previous attempt to add this was reverted as 'not relevant ideology'. I've therefore used the more precise wording - I trust this is now 'relevant. In any case, 'British Unionism' is recorded as an ideology of the Conservative Party so difficult to see why such a description would not be relevant to the Labour Party also, Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "Unionist" in the Conservative Party article is a reference to 19th century opposition to Irish Home Rule. TFD (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing being pro the Union with Unionism ----Snowded ^TALK 23:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an irrelevant ideology (and honestly shouldn't be in the Infobox of the article about the Conservative Party either) because by default all British parties are 'unionist', barring obvious exceptions such as the Scottish National Party. It doesn't tell the reader anything useful, and is misleading, because the raison d'être of the Labour Party is social democracy, not a sense of British unionism as espoused by the Tory political tradition. Also, an opinion piece by a partisan media source such as the Daily Telegraph is not a relevant source for ideologically categorising a political party.--Autospark (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism

In British politics, Labour appears to be pro-European. There are a few sources, after a bit of looking, that substantiate this view at a level that I'm confident with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. What do you think? Can I add 'Pro-Europeanism' to the infobox, with some of these sources? · | (talk - contributions) 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it to the Infobox because it's a political position, not a political ideology.--Autospark (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that Labour has not always been seen as the party of the European Union (i.e. Tony Benn and the like opposing the European Common Market). – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Autospark: pro-Europeanism is not really an ideology and I would not have it in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Noted · | (talk - contributions) 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since a large piece of text referring to Labour's EU policy has been removed, surely some mention of the party's views on the EU should be included (i.e. The party is broadly pro-European Union in recent years, although there have been a number of dissenting Eurosceptics in the party from the 1975 Common Market referendum to the present day. (See Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom#Other political parties)., therefore redirecting the reader if they want more information)? It seems very odd indeed to have absolutely no mention of Labour's EU policy in the article, although I understand that the prior coverage may have been considered excessive. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is valid, then it belongs in policy not ideology. It also needs a third party reference not a loose collection of primary sources. You also need to WAIT for responses on the talk page - under two hours does not give you authority to say there have been no objections. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not an ideology, it is a position and positions are dictated by ideology and circumstances and can change. And calling Labour opposition to the EU is misleading. It was based on the belief that the EU was undemocratic and would hinder the implimentation of Labour policies, not a nativist mistrust of foreigners. TFD (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in my edit implied any xenophobic sentiments of any sort, and I'm fully aware of the reasons as to why Labour's left wing was opposed to the EEC in the 70s and 80s. I still think that at the very least, Labour's current policy on the EU ought to be mentioned. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 22:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It has to be mentioned, but "pro-Europeanism" is not an ideology and should not go to the infobox. As we are at it, I have to say that I don't understand TFD's remarks, which are a out of scope or, at least, a little bit confused (and confusing): there is no "good anti-Europeanism" and "bad anti-Europeanism" and, by the way, Labour is not pro-Europeanist nor anti-Europeanist. --Checco (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with Checco, pro-Europeanism should not be in the Infobox.--Autospark (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that it shouldn't be included in the infobox. I do think it should be mentioned in the article itself, though. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

'Internal Factions' could be added to solve the ideology dispute

I saw this for the page of the Peoples' Democratic Party in Turkey, where since there are differing views on certain issues, there is a drop-down box of factions within the party. For Labour, you could add things to this such as "Nuclear Disarmament", "Trade Unionism", "Blairism", "Feminism", "Pro-Europeanism"

I also think that "Social Liberalism" should be added on top of "Social Democracy" and "Democratic Socialism" since most, if not all of the Parliamentary Labour Party are supportive of things such as LGBT rights (eg. same-sex marriage), and they promote diversity and respect and whatnot.

I think this would be the best way to convey the party's ideology, especially considering that even their new leader (Corbyn) has described them as "a broad church of views", and by adding the internal factions box we can show the groupings that exist within the party if that makes sense?

--ThatJosh (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You would really need a third party source that listed ideologies and factions and which was uptodate. I don't think there is a current dispute, it flares up from time to time but the current solution has been stable for a long time ----Snowded ^TALK 15:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK there are no official factions, although there has always been a division between left and right. There is for example no feminist faction competing with a pro-European faction, nor is there an anti-feminist faction. Nuclear disarmament and trade unionism are not ideologies, they are policy positions. The party is generally described in the literature as "socialist," which groups it with the SDP the Socialist Party of France, the Australian Labor Party, etc. Since the same policy disputes exist in all these parties, it is unneccessary to list them here in the info-box. TFD (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm strongly against listing any internal factions in the Infobox. Firstly there are no strong internal trends, other than social democrats from different positions (Third Way versus more traditional social democrats), which honestly is unremarkable as it is the same for nearly all other European social-democratic parties. Secondly, the Infobox for political parties, should be about the party as a whole, and should as few ideologies and positions as possible.--Autospark (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what readers want to know when they look at the info-box is what type of party it is. While we take it for granted, there is a small number of types of parties that most parties in developed nations, including the major parties of the UK, fall into. Usually, it is apparent from the names chosen: Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat in the UK. Sometimes it is not: the New Democratic Party (Canada), the Social Democratic Party (Portugal), the Liberal Democratic Party (Russia). The info-box should inform UK readers looking at those articles that they are respectively rough equivalents of Labour, the Conservatives and the BNP by using general descriptions applicable to most parties. If they want to know about internal divisions over local issues, such as Europe, they can read the article. TFD (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pautz Citation

A case in point on the citations. The Pautz book which is one of these sources now has the page number 161. I've found page 161 and it does indeed have two metions of the centre-left but neither are direct claims that Labour is centre-left. The first is a reference to the "world of centre-left advocacy think tanks" and the other is about the "future centre-left think tank landscape". Just because there are lots of citations doesn't mean they back the assertion. JASpencer (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Centre-left?

I'm reluctant to raise this after looking through the archive, but is centre-left really applicable as am accurate description of the whole party in the opening sentence? There is certainly a number of prominent members and a large chunk of the wider membership who could be comfortably described as centre-left, and it has been led for large chunks of its life from the centre-left. However the whole party has always included sections far to the left of the political centre, some of whom are now in charge.

I think left wing is a far fairer description. It's true that this is influenced by the current leadership, but the sentence is written in the present tense after all.

JASpencer (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You need sources ----Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I propose "democratic socialist" be used instead, as per Clause IV of the party's constitution (1995–): "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone...". Seems more precise, and the social democratic and more left wing socialist views are already mentioned further down the paragraph. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly what it says on the site description when looking for "Labour" on Google, although I don't see it on the site. Whether most on the progress side, or indeed many parts of the soft left, are in any meaningful way socialist is debatable, but it's a self description. I personally feel "left wing" is better but "democratic left" is less misleading than "centre-left". JASpencer (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

strongly object - political parties aren't categorised by what they claim to be (that is a first-party source) but by how objective third-party sources describe that party or organisation. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, therefore it uses third-party sources to define and categorise political parties.--Autospark (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be a bit off base. WP:ABOUTSELF says that self-published sources "may be used as sources of information about themselves" unless they are (1) not an exceptional claim; (2) not about third parties; (3) not about events not directly related to the source; (4) is authentically from the source; and (5) the article is not based primarily on the source.

If Labour says its Democratic Socialist and every academic says it's clearly Trotskyite or Libertarian, or something, then that would be one thing. However here we're arguing whether we should isolate one (strong) strain in Labour thought and represent it as its whole, or try to find a way of describing Labour that includes all substantial parts, including its current leadership.

JASpencer (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources which label the party as 'centre-left' - left of centre. Can you provide any sources which state otherwise? You might want to review previous archived discussions. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add that using phrases like 'democratic left' could be very misleading...for example, readers may confuse with Democratic Left Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, "democratic left" is confusing. But I don't think "democratic socialist" is, provided it's wikilinked. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 23:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't have third party sources to make that change.. Democratic socialist is in the ideology section per prior agreements but that is not the convention here were we use variations of or combinations of right, left, far and centre. You are arguing a position rather than referencing sources. That is not permitted on wikipedia ----Snowded ^TALK 23:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The Labour Party is broadly centre-left and social-democratic. The current opening paragraph (The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom. Growing out of the trade union movement and socialist parties of the nineteenth century, the Labour Party has been described as a "broad church", encompassing a diversity of ideological trends from strongly socialist to moderate social democratic.) is near-to-perfect, in my view. What is sure is that, Jeremy Corbyn's ideology notwithstanding, the party is not democratic-socialist as a whole—and we should definitely not subscribe to what parties write/say of themselves. --Checco (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, before anyone suggests using The Sun or the Daily Mail they are not reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Labour Party is broadly centre-left and social-democratic". It's leader isn't either, and he was elected by almost 60% of the selectorate as a definitive break with that admitedly strong centrist tradition. Large parts of the party have always regarded themselves as either on the soft left or further to the left than that. It is true that a large number of (perhaps most) Labour MPs can only sensibly be described as centre-left and the run of Labour administrations between 1997 and 2010 were governed firmly from the centre, but to say that this defines the whole party is misleading regarding its current control, its range of membership and its history. JASpencer (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid this discussion is now becoming pointless as it is based on your opinions rather than on reliable sources. You may believe that the Labour party is beyond the centre left while others may believe something different - all irrelevant. What counts is what reliable sources say, and if a range of positions is reported in reliable sources, it comes down to not giving undue weight to minority sources. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But the sources are not that good for saying that "most people say that Labour is centre-left rather than left wing":

Comparison - This may be interpreted to say that or the underlying subscription based article beneath it may say this explicitely, but the source does not say this.

Giddens article - Essentially a discussion of the Blair-Brown era (from a partisan of Blair), although it does way "centre-left" more than "leftwing". The question is not whether Blair or Brown was centre left.

Hartwig Pautz book - can't make a comment as there is no quote and I don't have the book

Reuters article - An opinion piece that does state that Labour is like the French Socialists a centre-left party, it should have some weight but in the same way that an opinion piece in the Mail should

You Gov article - actually argues that Miliband is perceived as left wing

Joseph Colomer book - again I can't make a comment as there is no quote and I don't have the book

Saying that Labour is centre-left is (now) strongly counter-intuitive and not really backed by the sources. This will keep coming back as long as it is so fundamentally flawaed. It made sense when Brown was in charge, but that was five years ago.

JASpencer (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary - you believe that "Saying that Labour is centre-left is (now) strongly counter-intuitive and not really backed by the sources". You also believe "it is so fundamentally flawaed". And you also believe "It made sense when Brown was in charge". Problem - you will only succeed in persuading editors to change the 'centre-left' description if you can show that a different description in supported by the sources. You can come back to this as often as you like but, until you have sources, pure opinions are irrelevant. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And it's fair enough on the sources, but the sources that are cited are not actually saying what they claim. JASpencer (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep suggesting "centre-left" means "centrist" or "centre" - no, it means left of centre. AusLondonder (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually that's what "left-wing" means, the wing that is to the "left" of the political centre. As the Centre-left article defines it "Centre-left politics, or moderate left politics, is an adherence to views leaning to the left but closer to the centre on the left-right political spectrum than other left-wing variants." Isn't the very essence of the succesful Corbyn campaign a refutation of that? JASpencer (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

An 116-year-old party doesn't change ideology or political position only by electing a new leader. I fully agree that Corbyn and Corbynism are quite a departure from the party's recent history (more than recent actually: Corbyn is probably to the left of each and every Labour leader after WWII), but that is not enough. We should wait for a new consensus to be formed in the academic community. As of today, the Labour Party is still centre-left and social-democratic. --Checco (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn is a departure, but not all Labour governments or post war leaders were centre-left unless you stretch that definition so far that it's almost meaningless. Miliband, Wilson, Foot, Kinnock and Attlee all at least had substantial periods of leading from the left rather than centre. As Tony Blair said Miliband was leading "a traditional left-wing party". There's no consensus that Labour as a party is centre-left (talk to a Corbyn supporter to see that) although there is a consensus that Labour is to the left of the Tories and to the left of the centre ground. As I've said it is fair to say that the pre-2010 leadership was solidly centre-left, but that was never true of the party and it's now an anachronism even when you talk of the leadership. JASpencer (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what we think as editors we go with wha the sources say. You are arguing a position rather than using sources and you are also arguing from very recent events. The article makes the various wings of the party clear and overall it is assessed as left of centre. We could argue it was right wing with Blair, left wing with Corby and so on until the cows come home. But that is editor opinion not sourced material ----Snowded ^TALK 11:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

From a historical perspective, all the Labour leaders JASpencer cited were centre-left social democrats, none was a left-wing democratic socialist. Labour has been a centre-left and social-democratic party for most of its history, similarly to the German SPD and differently from the French SFIO/PS, the Spanish PSOE and the Italian PSI. What is "left-wing" in the UK context or in Blair's words might not be "left-wing" from an European continental point of view. That's the challenge with comparing and classifying parties: national contexts, decades and, yes, the sources themselves tend to be quite confusing. Corbyn's election as party leader and the high vote he secured are definitely a rupture, whose consequences are far from certain. But, as of today, Labour is still centre-left and social-democratic. Moreover, it would be very inconsistent to classify Labour as left-wing, differently from alike, PES-member parties. Eventually, Corbyn and Corbynism might lead Labour to become the UK counterpart of Podemos or Syriza and/or cause a split of the party's centrist wing and/or Corbyn's defenestration. This is one of the most intriguing things political to follow these days, but, of course, we don't have a crystal ball. --Checco (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Foot and early Kinnock would need a very elastic definition of centre-left. Not all non-Marxist socialists (something Foot would have difficulty claiming) are centre-left, which seems to be the basis here. JASpencer (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Michael Foot would be classified more as a democratic socialist, I would think. Also, Labour is a member of the Party of European Socialists. AusLondonder (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And the Party of European Socialists is also described as 'centre-left. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, irrespective of how socialist Labour are or are not, socialism is a centre-left ideology. AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Taken seriously that would make "centre-left" utterly useless as a definition beyond "not conservative". Or alternatively Stalin and Trotsky were somehow not socialists as they were insufficiently centre-left, just left.JASpencer (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the PES (of which Labour is a founding member) isn't universally named "socialist" in all languages; e.g. is named Sozialdemokratische Partei Europas (Social Democratic Party of Europe) in German. Anyway, political parties should not be categorised by taking their names literally, and like Labour the PES is centre-left and social-democratic, not socialist. Also please take into account that the colloquial use of the term "socialist" isn't the same as the technical definition, the latter of which being the only one we are interested in as encyclopaedists.--Autospark (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Socialist

So in the ideology section we should not allow the statement that Labour defines itself in Clause 4 as a Democratic Socialist party? It seems perfectly legitimate. JASpencer (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If we follow that reasoning then we will be categorizing parties that are essentially the same with different descriptions: socialist, democratic socialist, social democratic, labor. Some may even pick vaguer descriptions. Some parties describe themselves in terms that are wholly inaccurate, such as the Social Democratic Party (Portugal). A further confusion is that all these descriptions are used by left and communist parties as well. TFD (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

To JASpencer – political parties are not categorised based upon what they self-describe their ideology as. Third party academic sources must be used. As for "democratic socialism" – that is not the ideology of Labour, it is social democracy, which is different. It is not unknown for social-democratic parties to describe themselves as democratic socialist; as an example, the Social Democratic Party of Germany describes its ideology as "demokratische Sozialismus" (democratic socialism) in its constitution and Hamburg programme, but that does not mean that the party is actually democratic socialist rather than social-democratic.--Autospark (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's how you have chosen to use the terminology, but it is not universally accepted. See for example, Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. pp. 8-9.[1] or "Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism."[2] In the Labour Party, the left call themselves "democratic socialists" and the right "social democrats." 21:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Labour Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100621194852/http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/84-political-representation-of-members/ to http://www.congressvoices.org/2009/84-political-representation-of-members/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Labour Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090919150144/http://www.snpyouth.org:80/ysi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=24 to http://www.snpyouth.org/ysi/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110808155642/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/tackling-poverty.pdf to http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/tackling-poverty.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207073550/http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/08/28/sochi_ed3_.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/08/28/sochi_ed3_.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140122125049/http://www.labour.org.uk:80/tulo/ to http://www.labour.org.uk/tulo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131208113936/http://www.labour.org.uk:80/labour-in-europe to http://www.labour.org.uk/labour-in-europe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Labour Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130121122534/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-05125.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-05125.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131106012018/http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?action=printpage;topic=4767.0 to http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?action=printpage;topic=4767.0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120306155445/http://www.savethelabourparty.org/labourpartyrulebook2008.pdf to http://www.savethelabourparty.org/labourpartyrulebook2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Labour Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120306155445/http://www.savethelabourparty.org/labourpartyrulebook2008.pdf to http://www.savethelabourparty.org/labourpartyrulebook2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Shouldn't the article reference Labour's emerging problem with anti-semitism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Creagh (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Should the article of the Conservative Party reference their problem with anti-Muslim sentiment during the London mayoral election, 2016? See WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM in the meantime. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be something you could discuss on the talk page of the article on the Conservative Party. But Labour's problem with anti-semitism in the ranks has been becoming increasingly apparent over the past several months, coming into sharp focus today. We are beyond recentism here. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is recentism as it gets. Two political figures in the party, one well known, one obscure, are accused in a span of less than a week. Note that many Labour MPs support and called for both individuals to be suspended from the party, and both were suspended. Labour is a mainstream European social-democratic party, not a far-right party, so any antisemitism (whether actual or accused or perceived) is not in any way an integral part of the party's ideology. The party has and has had Jewish MPs and representatives, its previous leader is ethnically Jewish, the party has groups such as Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement affiliated to it, and so on.--Autospark (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

So why is Jeremy Corbyn reportedly [3] under pressure "to stamp out Labour Party anti-semitism?" Miles Creagh (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

And why are leading figures in British Jewry expressing concern [4] about Labour's "growing problem with anti-semitism"?Miles Creagh (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This undoubtedly has become a bit of a media circus. But this is a 116 year old party, and we're talking about recent comments by one current MP and a couple of councillors. Why on earth would that belong in this article? AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the articles I linked, we're talking about a growing problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. It does seem the suspensions of the past couple of days are are just the most recent manifestation of a longer-term issue. Miles Creagh (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

And here's[5] an article in which Labour MP Wes Streeting, vice-chair of a parliamentary committee on anti-Semitism, discusses Labour's "cascading" problem of anti-Semitism, which he likens to "lifting up a stone and having insects crawl out".Miles Creagh (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a current debate and a controversial one. We don't use wikipedia's voice to promote a particular perspective we wait until there are reliable third party sources. The Times of Israel is not one in that respect ----Snowded ^TALK 02:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have something against The Times of Israel, there are articles from The Financial Times and Newsweek linked above. And here's one[6] from The Guardian which describes anti-semitism as "a creeping cancer spreading throughout the party". Miles Creagh (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

And here's one[7] from The Chicago Tribune which quotes Wes Streeting MP as saying "I don't know how many more times we can point out to the Labour leadership that there is a significant problem with anti-Semitism within our ranks. This problem predates the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, but he has got to accept that he's the leader. We can work together to tackle the problem, and we have to if we're going to avoid long-term reputational damage." So we have a Labour MP and vice-chair of a parliamentary committee on anti-semitism quoted in a reliable source saying that there is a significant problem of anti-semitism in the Labour Party, that predates the Corbyn leadership. So much for recentism. Miles Creagh (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The antisemitism scandal should at least be mentioned. It is a real problem that has emerged - with reports of over 50 members being suspended for derogatory statements - and pulling a "what about the Tory scum" doesn't answer any questions, or nullify what's happened to Labour. For accuracy this needs to be reported. Not reporting this just reeks of a cover-up. Raphael 15:26, 17 May 2016 (GMT)

The "centre-left" description

Hey Wikipedians, I just feel that for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted somewhere that the Labour Party have in recent months, adopted Marxist and Communist ideologies as well as many others... I honestly don't think it should be described as "centre-left" any more - because it just isn't. Those looking this party up have the right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5008:6D00:E883:F379:60DC:B9F1 (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times. See this discussion from January. --Hazhk (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2016

Membership has now increased to 440,000. As per this tweet by the political editor of The Guardian: https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/748609288311087104

81.132.137.74 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016

|ideology = Social democracy
Democratic socialism

the other ideology that needs to be added in the list is illiberal democracy. The labour party of UK has stated that they will ban the criticism of Islam and recognize the illegal Palestinian state. They also plan on carrying a crackdown on UK's election process and changing the constitution. The Labour Party of UK is illiberal at its finest and has many such members who claim to champion for liberal values, but don't do anything.

Source: http://muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/

Allansnackbar (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Illiberal democracy is not an ideology, it is a type of governance. TFD (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2016 (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. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ogmore MP

Huw Irranca Davies is no longer the MP for Ogmore. He is now the Assembly member for Ogmore, having been elected in 2016. Chris Elmore was elected in May to replace him as the MP for Ogmore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.88.196 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016

Please change Political Ideology 'Centre Left' to 'Left Wing' due to the shift in Labour Party policies which are characteristic of a left wing movement.

Og2016 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 10:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Probable error in the percentage of the vote for 1945

Shown as 49.7%, higher than 1950 or 1951 despite a lower vote. It also contradicts the 47.7% shown for Labour at United Kingdom general election, 1945. --GwydionM (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Membership

The current number of 640,000 members in the sidebar cites a Guardian article that refers to 640,000 people eligible to vote in the leadership election - I think the actual membership number is slightly less, because the leadership election also includes affiliated supporters and registered members of affiliated trade unions. This should probably be replaced with a source direct from the Labour Party referring specifically to membership numbers. (I think it's currently above 500,000 and rising since the leadership coup, but I can't find a good source right now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.117.171 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A Guardian article stated individual membership as being 550,000, I will add this with citation. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/27/jeremy-corbyns-team-targets-labour-membership-one-million FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Labour is not "center - Left" anymore

Since Corbyn is the elected leader the party has moved to the Left to Far Laft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.180.152 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a good case now for this debate to be taken forward. McDonnell's words at the conference seemed pretty clear: Labour is socialist. Given that they have more overtly left-wing policies (such as re-nationalization of multiple industries), I think it's time to consider changing "centre-left" to "left wing". — Richard BB 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I would remove the field. It is not clear whether socialist parties (which Labour has always been) are center-left or left-wing since the distinction is relative. Labour are and always have been situated on the spectrum between the Liberals on their right and minor left-wing parties on their left. TFD (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Labour is a social-democratic party, not a socialist party.----Autospark (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See Clause IV: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." It is routinely described as a socialist party, is a member of the Socialist International, and sees itself as a sister party of other socialist parties, such as the Socialist Party (France), The distinction between social democrat and socialist is arbitrary. Marx and Lenin were "Social Democrats." Social democrat btw is a poorly defined term. Usually it is used by left-wing socialists as an epithet for party members who they think lack commitment. TFD (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

By that argument the Social Democratic Party of Germany and Swedish Social Democratic Party are 'socialist' or "democratic socialist" parties too - they aren't. They are social-democratic parties.--Autospark (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"Social Democrat" was the name chosen by socialist parties in Germany, Russia and Sweden. Can you name any socialist parties that are not either social democratic or communist?

What in your opinion is the difference between a socialist party and a democratic one and can you provide an example of the former.

TFD (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Corbyn is normal: the rest are out of line: "As a Scandinavian who has spent more than a decade living in Britain, nothing has made me feel more foreign than observing the current Labour leadership election. From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. His policy-platform places him squarely in the Norwegian Labour Party from which the last leader is such a widely respected establishment figure that upon resignation he became the current Secretary-General of NATO." (https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/jonas-fossli-gjers/jeremy-corbyn-mainstream-scandinavian-social-democrat) --GwydionM (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a difficult one because the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party are still on the center-left and it is just the current controlling faction that has come from the far-left (Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot, etc). I think the best course of action would be to mention the position of the factions themselves, since the party is currently deeply fractured along factional lines to the extent that the Leader (Corbyn) and the Deputy Leader (Watson) are on polar opposite ends. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a reference work, not fit for partisan views. --GwydionM (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You certainly need to avoid personal attacks in the edit summary and assume good faith. I am not "partisan" in favour of any of these factions or for that matter English parties in general. There are plenty of references describing the Corbyn/Momentum faction as hard or far-left, including the ones which you removed from the article. Tom Watson, who is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party has described this faction of his party as hard left. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Partisan - taking the viewpoint of one party. The Labour Right is still there and powerful. But it refuses to accept that the majority have the right to overrule them on some matters.

Note that Labour still supports the renewal of Trident, which the Left dislikes, but it was the official decision. --GwydionM (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Continuing division: "Last month, Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as Labour leader. It was his second victory by an overwhelming majority in a year, and it should have given Corbyn uncontested authority.

"Yet he is still regarded with mutinous contempt by a significant proportion of his own side. They flatly refuse to accept Corbyn’s leadership.

"This became clear on Wednesday night, when more than 100 Labour MPs failed to support a three-line whip on British policy towards the Yemen. It was disloyalty on an epic scale." [8]— Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs)

I also note that your quote was written by Peter Oborne a person that stated position is as holding significantly different political views to Corben . Govindaharihari (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Policies remain centre-left. Owen Smith claimed exactly the same views. But members were sick of Labour MPs failing to fight the Tories on anything substantial.

I am one of many who will keep on throwing out attempts to corrupt this reference work. --GwydionM (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The list of every current Labour MP...

Would be useful for a small party like Plaid or the Greens, but I see it more useful as a separate list rather than included on the main article Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Change political position from "centre-left" to "centre-left to Left-wing".

The centre-left description no longer fits the mould of the Labour party and doesn't take into account the changed direction of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and his allies in the shadow cabinet . It also doesn't take into account the 600,000 members, who have very distinct left-wing leanings and have now voted for a left-winger twice as the leader of the Labour party. The Momentum organisation, which now has a strong presence within Labour, is definitely reminiscent of a left-wing organisation and mirrors Jeremy Corbyn's views. Given the undeniable current within Labour which is Left-wing. I don't think it's unreasonable to request a change of political position or a add of factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Greenstein (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

We should remove the field altogether. While we can all agree on the party's relative position in the UK political spectrum, there is no general agreement on absolute position. TFD (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Labour is stil centre-left. Corbyn is also centre-left, refusing to accept the shifts that New Labour made. --GwydionM (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to any authoritative definition of centre-left? TFD (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Left leaning would be appropriate with a double meaning ... But seriously it is problematic as while the right is defined the left is in a state of flux. Left of Centre might be a compromise? ----Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – Labour is a centre-left party as it has always been. Corbyn's programme is 90% the same as Miliband's and he has not (yet) altered the structure of the party significantly. The party has the same elected parliamentarians as it did before Corbyn was elected leader. (Also note that while Corbyn is from the left wing minority of the parliamentary party, he has been an elected representative of the Labour Party since 1983, and is certainly not a newcomer to Labour.)----Autospark (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I WP:BOLDly removed refs to Labour being centre left. Some of the refs (one from 2008 in particular) may be considered outdated anyhow. HelgaStick (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

British Politics For Dummies' newest edition does a good summary imo (Julian Knight; Michael Pattison (20 January 2015), British Politics For Dummies, Wiley, p. 131, ISBN 978-1-118-97152-9):

Labour is usually referred to as being on the left or centre-left of British politics, because most of the party's supporters believe in the following:

• A more extensive and generous welfare system
• Limits on the excesses of the free market
• Quality public services funded by taxes

Note that this was written even before Jeremy Corbyn became leader. HelgaStick (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support language along the lines of "centre-left to left-wing party". Would appear to be most accurate (especially when one takes into account the PLP). HelgaStick (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Change to "centre-left to left-wing" or similar: This is consistent with the earlier mentions in the article about Labour being a "broad church" party ranging from socialist to social-democratic ideologies. Additionally, these edits by Autospark should be reverted: they are not "deliberately misleading", and are supported by the citations given. Liborbital (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Any definition which uses pejorative phraseology such as "hard left" should be avoided if possible, but I think there can be no doubt about it – the description should be changed to read "left-wing to centre-left" in the infobox, while using the more general "left wing" in the lead sentence. GringisMan (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• The members are socialists the Parliamentary Labour Party are still predominately centrist Blairites, as are the majority of the voters in elections that support the party. I agree with and support the position mentioned in the article about Labour being a "broad church" party ranging from socialist to social-democratic ideologies. To label the party as left wing is wrong and does not cover its polital stance either, I don't support change at this time, not unless the party as a whole and not just its current leader clearly move to the left.Govindaharihari (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Govindaharihari – the party has not changed ideology or direction, merely gotten a leader from a different party faction. All other comparable European social-democratic parties (e.g. Spanish Socialist Workers Party, Social Democratic Party of Germany, Democratic Party (Italy)) have left-wing factions and currents while still being centre-left parties. The Labour Party is mostly wholly unremarkable as major European social-democratic parties go, the big tent element is typical.--Autospark (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Support using "centre-left to left-wing". It's the PLP that has not changed ideology or direction. The party, on the other hand, has. The left-wing leadership was elected and reelected as a result of a transformation in the membership and the party's socialist orientation. The left has a long history of working within the Labour Party, whereas ideologically similar forces have acted outside their countries' labor/social democratic parties, because they've built parties like Die Linke, the French Communist Party and Melenchon, Izquierda Unida and Podemos, GroenLinks and the Socialist Party, etc. Iker121 (talk) 03:25, 09 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – I've not seem much/any policy announcements along the nationalisation or central planning line. Even the rail proposal isn't really nationalisation, but taking over operation contracts when they expire. Not much on industrial democracy either. Economic policy seems more QE and capital spending, and a different tax policy to tackle inequality. So I'd say it is still broadly in line with Ed Milliband's policies, and the MPs are still the same ones by and large. Rwendland (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

... If you comapre the Ideology section of this article between 5 Oct 2015 (Corby just settled in) and now it is pretty much the same. Can I suggest those that want to change the headline description first update the Ideology section to explain the background for changing the lede label. Rwendland (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Corbyn is only supporting what has been agreed policy for ages. The difference is that he does not accept Austerity. This goes much wider than left, and is in fact the view of a majority of Britons.--GwydionM (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Brexit three-line whip

With 47 MPs having defied the party whip on Article 50, are they still counted as members of the Parliamentary Party? Culloty82 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask that Labour be Centre-Left wing on account on the many third wayers who still exists within the party Scottish socialist (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, has been described as hard left. The Political position must be changed, its no longer Centre Left. DrAlchemy (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

'Hard Left' has a definite meaning, groups outside of the Labour Party, mostly Marxist-Leninist. Corbyn is not that and never has been. What you have is the standard right-wing press tactic of smearing any moderately left policy as extremist. Wikipedia should not let itself be contaminated like that. --GwydionM (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Labour Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731030954/http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml to http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023031150/http://www.paultruswell.org.uk/files/300%20Gains.pdf to http://www.paultruswell.org.uk/files/300%20Gains.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713230703/http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml to http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821005801/http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/161892/whats-left-of-the-labour-left.thtml to http://www.totalpolitics.com/print/161892/whats-left-of-the-labour-left.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Democratic socialism

So I see the ideology of democratic socialism has be requested for citation support. This is quite a muddled matter when it comes to the Labour Party. Traditionally and historically it was certainly a democratic socialist party, but this has become more complex since the 1990s. Clause IV was changed in a special conference in Easter 1995 (see the 'Blair's fight' section of the linked page), which abandoned the principle of nationalisation. However the party still asserts that it is a democratic socialist party, although it seems to define democratic socialism as a vague concept of a united society, rather than how democratic socialism is usually and officially defined. Therefore whether or not the party can truly be classed as democratic socialist is hard to say. While it still officially defines itself as such, its definition is certainly not what most would define as democratic socialist.

In respect to the recent manifesto put across by Corbyn, with a greater emphasis of nationalisation, this could certainly be seen as more traditionally democratic socialist, but doesn't represent the party's overall position. In the same way the party's more left-wing than centre-left manifesto, or that Corbyn is more left-wing than centre-left, doesn't make Labour left-wing overall. Personally I don't have much of an opinion with what should be done with the ideology in terms of whether it should be in the info box or not, although I would air towards leaving it out and give a clear explanation of the matter in the main text of the article for the sake of clarity. Helper201 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd leave out democratic socialism from the Infobox and leave just social democracy – best general term, most accurate, no chance for misleading the reader. Other European social-democratic parties speak of "democratic socialism" in their constitutions and programmes and so on (Swedish Social Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party of Germany etc), but they are still considered social-democratic parties.--Autospark (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The democratic socialist/social democracy distinction is unclear. The usual name for this political category of parties is socialist. Policies of course change over time, but that's the same with all parties. Note too that a right-wing faction of Labour which split called itself the Social Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And the distinction reflects very different histories. We've been through this so many times and settled on a compromise. I don't see anything new to justify a change. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I find User:Helper201's thoughts quite interesting, and I broadly agree with User:Autospark and User:Snowded—for now. We do not know yet whether Corbyn's leadership will shift the party's platform permanently toward democratic socialism or whether the party's social democrats will split, leaving the party totally in the hands of democratic socialists. We would need a crystal ball for that. For now, let's leave only "social democracy". --Checco (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My point was that after lots of discussion we agreed to leave both there. So lets keep it like that ----Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So this has run for almost a week now and we seem to have reached a bit on an impasse, as there is still a conflict of thought. Any ideas what should be done? Helper201 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest the direction of travel for the Party for most of the last 20 years has been away from democratic socialism towards social democracy. Recently there are some signs it has been moving away from social democracy towards democratic socialism. Has it got there, sufficiently to ditch social democracy? No, not completely enough, and not for long enough. Leave both.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Membership surge

Hi. According to a BBC article, the 150,000 increase in number of members is not recognised by Jeremy Corbyn's office, having been in touch with them regarding the tweet by Richard Burgon MP used as a source in this article for the membership figure. It should probably be reverted back to its original figure of 517,000 until an accurate figure is disclosed. Nuviktor (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Centre-left

How is labour center left? it's clearly not change this. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakn12345 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source and the location of center is subject to dispute. In any case, it places the Labour platform 40% left on center where socialist parties have typically been and to the right of Communist parties. However, the ambiguity of where the center lies is sufficient reason to remove the field. TFD (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I don't believe political compass is a reliable source, I do think it should change to "centre-left to left-wing". I think this because:

1. SNP and Lib Dems are described as "centre-left" and "centre to centre-left" respectively here on Wikipedia. In the election we've just had, Labour clearly ran on a manifesto very much to the left of both of these parties. Plaid Cymru is described as "centre-left to left-wing", and again I'd argue Labours manifesto was economically to the left of Plaid.

2. Greens are described as left-wing - economically the both Labour and Green had the same platform in this election.

3. Labour's current policies, including commitment to nationalisation of many services, is certainly left-wing, at least in British politics.

4. Labour has clearly moved left, and this needs to be reflected - the left controls the leadership and makes up most of the membership and will likely not be going anywhere soon.

So I think it is common sense to change it to 'centre-left to left-wing' to represent the shift, and to reality that is the Labour Party, which really encompasses the whole left-wing spectrum. Obviously, these labels are all ultimately arbitrary as the centre gorund is different in each country, but the Labour Party has clearly placed itself on the left of British politics, and is definitely to the left of all of the other parties in Westminster, bar the Greens (which I would say they are on par with - although again the Labour Party actually encompasses everything form centrist liberals to far-left communists). Gc12847 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion about where the center lies and what distinguishes center-left from left to far left and any other comparative descriptions. Bear in mind that the purpose of info-boxes is to enlighten readers not to confuse them. How are they supposed to know what criteria you are using? TFD (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

well i think you can describe labour as even more then left wing for example the man that would have been in charge of labours economic policy and here is the man the myth the legend corbyn at a communist rally why is not the political compass a reliable source? you can clearly see labour is almost as far left as castro and well which is described as far-left so according to wikipedias standards labour should be far left at least left-wing. here is also the social democratic party which is described as centre-left which they are but labour is not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakn12345 (talk • contribs)

• There may well be members of the parlimentary party that are indeed far left but there are actually a majority of the pp that are right of centre and the Labour party is a democratic party and is in itself regarded as centre left, nothing has changed in its structure to change that. Here you will see all the groups in the far left category and none of them resemble the British Labour party. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• The picture is of a May Day rally, in which the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) participates but is not an organizer. It is organized by a "coalition of immigration, labor, racial justice, gender equality and LGBT groups," and note that May Day, which commemorates working people is an official holiday in the UK. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that a Labour government under Corbyn would nationalize all industry in the UK, establish a one party state and take control of the media, as Castro did. TFD (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

ok sure that's what wikipedia says are far left parties sure then labour should also be far-left according to wikipedias standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakn12345 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The political compass is not a reliable source because there are no secondary sources that say it is. Furthermore, it is a 2-dimensional model, so we need to mention not only left and right but up and down. Besides, the current model shows Labour as center-left, Lib-Dems as center-right and Conservatives as far right. TFD (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2017

Remove the following sentence:

After the election the membership of the Labour Party rose once again, reaching a total of 800,000 following the arrival of 150,000 new members. Saltvedt (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

See "False claim that Labour membership surged by 150,000" at http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40251890

Saltvedt, Can you please provide additional sources in addition to BBC? LPW22 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

LPW22 It is also independently verified by The Independent Saltvedt (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Already done by Garageland66. Stickee (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Center-left

Changes the political spectrum to center-left to left-wing, since labour under corbyn is undeniably Hard left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar2323 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong colours

In the electoral performance section, I'm pretty sure the colours are the wrong way round in the result row, it shows Labour blue and the Tories red. Does anyone know how to fix this? G-13114 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2017

81.96.177.62 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The ideology of the Labour Party should be changed from just Centre-Left to Centre-Left - Left Wing as after the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader the party has gone back to a more Socialist direction.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

Doesn't the ideology section need improving and updating? I've added Progress as the main centrist grouping. But isn't the description of the Campaign group a bit out of date? There's no mention of Momentum in the entire article. Also within the 'Ideology' section the media are mentioned with their use of terms hard left and loony left. This doesn't really belong in ideology does it? Shouldn't there be a separate section on Labour's difficult relationship with the media? Garageland66 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Even the new watered-down Clause 4 begins with the words "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party". So is it agreed that democratic socialist be first on the list for 'ideology'. Garageland66 (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The party constitution is a first-party statement. This is an encyclopaedia – third-party sources are what matters.--Autospark (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've provided a third party reference. A respected source. Garageland66 (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The policy on Wikipedia is always to use the terminology used in the relevant country. It's been argued that in continental Europe 'social democracy' is the preferred ideological term for the British Labour Party. However, within British politics the term 'democratic socialism' is used; indeed it's in the first line on every Labour Party membership card. So shouldn't 'democratic socialism' take priority over 'social democracy'? Garageland66 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"loony" left

I've restored long standing text removed by one editor in what is approaching edit warring. The phrases were used extensively for many years within the media and elsewhere to describe an ideological position, hence their placement. The phases may or may not have been fair or correct, but there were clearly used. The idea that a separate section be established on the media and ideology seems unnecessary to me ----Snowded ^TALK 13:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I've already raised this on the talk page. (See the section above on ideology). The terms "loony left" and "hard left" are not used by, and are not recognised in, academia. I'm sure User:Snowded you'd agree. These are pejoratives used by the print media. There's no problem with them being on the page. But wouldn't it be more appropriate to put them in a section on the media and the Labour Party rather than in the ideology section. I'm sure we'd all agree; there's no such ideology as the "loony left"? Garageland66 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There were extensively used during the period in multiple sources. We are simply describing what happened not commentating of it was right or not. It is clearing a statement on ideology ----Snowded ^TALK 18:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"multiple sources"? Yes mostly the media. But not in academia. That's why there should be a separate media section. Wouldn't you agree? Garageland66 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really, we don't just use academic sources and you will find the phrase used there anyway. We don't want to make too big a thing of this. The terms were in common place use in respect of one faction within there Party so it deserves a mention no more. Apologies for slow response but I'm at a think tank on top of a mountain in Utah with internet access banned so I can only check wikipedia every few days ----Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)