Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Ideology update

The U.K. Labour Party is now a neoliberal party & has removed all reference on its website of Social Democrats & Democratic Socialists 62.147.43.133 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it also say "Vote Conservative!" ? Boscaswell talk 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesnt need to it is shown by their manifesto Takis S1 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When was the last time Labour's platform used the term socialist? Clause IV still refers to the party as democratic socialist. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That the party calls itself something doesnt mean it is for example china calls itself a republic Takis S1 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support your opinion?

The accusation that Socialists are class traitors and not real socialists goes back to disputes between Marx and Lassalle. Despite the semantic argument, the description has continued in reliable sources, while their left-wing rivals are more likely to be called communists. TFD (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

China is, of course, a republic. It is not democratic however, as the country claims in its name (unless we're talking about the Republic of China, which claims to be a republic and is democratic). Regardless, reliable sources are needed to support this assertion that Labour is neoliberal. I would support adding centrism as its political stance alongside being centre-left as there are reliable sources to confirm this, but that's already been discussed elsewhere above.

I've also seen several people make the bizarre claim that Labour is centre-right or right-wing. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to adding this to the article provided it can be sourced, except at the moment reliable sources outright debunk this claim and reiterate that Labour is a centre-left (as stated in the article) to centrist party. Don't forget, a centrist or centre-left party can have some right wing elements to its policy, such as with New Labour's education policy (academies, partial selection, specialist schools, etc), but this does not make it centre-right or right-wing just because a few of its policies are somewhat in alignment with these stances, and vice versa. We don't call the Conservatives a left-wing or centre-left party because of levelling up and the pupil premium for example, and neither do reliable sources. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's split off History section to existing article on History of Labour Party

The article is much too long because it has so much history to cover before it gets to the 21st century. I think the best solution is to spin off much of the History section to the already existing article History of the Labour Party (UK) . Most readers I think are interested in current events and will have more space to deal with that. Some people (like me) are interested in the history and they will not be inconvenienced. Any comments? Rjensen (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, no brainer, keep recent/relevant history in this article, spin off the wordier older sections into the extant article. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there should still be a paragraph or two on the pre-war history, but so long as the it’s page linked it shouldn’t be an issue for the reader Kowal2701 (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I made a start on ssection 1.1 just now. Rjensen (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Cooperative Party

Hi, should the Cooperative Party be mentioned in the lede? It is mentioned in the body and personally I think it's due, candidates stand under Labour and Co-operative Party. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: The party was founded in 1900, having grown out of the trade union movement and socialist parties of the 19th century, and absorbed the Cooperative Party in 1927.

absorbed could be replaced by "entered into an electoral pact with" but that might mislead the reader and be verbose Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the lede, but I don't think the phrasing of it 'absorbing' the coöp party is particularly accurate. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t know how to summarise it because whilst it was willingly entered, it’s clearly not a relationship of equals, they operate as more of a faction within the party Kowal2701 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

incorporated/allied with instead of absorbed? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the second paragraph "and then Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010." needs to be corrected with "and then Gordon Brown from 2007 to 2010." CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a typo - Blair came to power in 1997 and the sentence refers to the whole Blair-Brown era. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviving the Demsoc Infobox discussion

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.

---

The sources for Democratic socialism are over 20 years old at this point. Removing the label is common sense at this point. Personally, I favour replacing its label with either Neoliberalism or Third way, due to Starmer's leadership, but that's a secondary goal of mine behind removing the demsoc label. Please begin responses with Support or Oppose, followed by your reasons for or against to establish consensus clearly. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao @Alexanderkowal @A Socialist Trans Girl @Autospark @Checco @Czello @Icantthinkofausernames @Kowal2701 @Takis S1 @Helper201 @Vif12vf @Michaeldble @ZlatanSweden10 @Paul Vaurie (others, don't be afraid to chime in). Sorry to mention you all, but as consensus seems to be in favour of removing the label but split on adding Neoliberalism/Third Way, I'd like to withdraw my previous two alternative suggestions and replace them both with Social liberalism, I believe this label indicates a slightly more politically moderate shift of the overall position (which is undeniably accurate for the party) but also responds to the complaints about neoliberalism being seldom used in Infoboxes, and to the complaints of both Third Way and Neoliberalism either not fitting well to the party or not being clear-cut ideologies. So I just wanted to try to get everybody's opinions on it to try to reach a consensus. If no consensus can be reached on "social liberalism", however, then I think a vast majority of us can agree on removing the demsoc ideology either way. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown No need to apologise for tagging me, I'm okay with it and actually prefer being tagged. I think having social liberalism instead of democratic socialism or social democracy makes sense, and reflects the rightward shift of the party. I support it. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, maybe putting both Third Way and Social Liberalism while stating social democracy as a faction is the best solution considering this would represent both the majority and the minority. Also no need to apologise i hate needing to look for replies Takis S1 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Takis S1 Yeah, though I'd say that putting "Minority: Social Democracy" would be better. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree Takis S1 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - I believe Third Way would be better rather than neoliberalism. As I've only ever seen neoliberalism used for centre-right and right-wing parties. The only one I can think of (off the top of my head) is the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) party who are part of the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) and International Democracy Union. Social liberalism I'm also not against, but that would be clash with the Liberal Democrats of course, so that I'm neutral on that addition. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean I believe that the liberal democrats may be pushing the proggresive mantle considering their manifesto was more left-wing than labour Takis S1 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. Thats why I have no opinion on adding social liberalism and/or third way into Labour's infobox. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Takis S1 Perhaps we could label the Liberal Democrats as Social Democratic/Social Liberal. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good im going to discuss it in the talk page Takis S1 (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This would line up with the history of the liberal democrats being a merger between the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party. But it is a discussion that should be had on the Liberal Democrats talk page instead of on the Labour parties. Apokra (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Social Liberalism may be a bit far to the left. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion - I'm not sure if these are dumb proposals but here are my two regardless:

Perhaps have this infobox like what the Social Liberal Party (Brazil) has?

Social democracy

Since 2024: (what is agreed upon)

Third Way

Social liberalism

Or

Social democracy (or perhaps under the postion would be better? - like what Freedom Party of Austria)

^ A: Since 2024 (or "Since under Keir Starmer's leadership), the party has shifted towards the centre, with the party being described as neoliberal and Third Way
ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My initial idea would be simply

Social democracy
Social liberalism

Perhaps there's a way to combine the two?

Social democracy
Social liberalism

^ A: Since 2024 (or "Since under Keir Starmer's leadership), the party has shifted towards the centre, with the party being described as having neoliberal and Third Way tendencies.
– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we have sufficient sources for social liberalism? Given the trans row in the party I wonder if that's a rather disputed label. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

Seems to be two academic sources that use that label I could find so far. Although I will admit, they may both be using the term as a synonym for "progressivism", I haven't read through them all the way. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Starmer has been described as neoliberal or third way. The first in particular would simply be false insofar as he's anti-globalisation, skeptical of free market solutions, and frankly pretty corporatist. KronosAlight (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

more of industrialist but the third way label still matters Takis S1 (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I think you are correct with your analysis. Hidolo (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, I highly doubt whether they are even social democrats the move away from the left and towards the third way is very visible and corbyn was an exeption to this rule considering currently the left labour faction has been oppresed silenced and shattered by starmers neoliberal beliefs and values. I propose To include neoliberalism, third way and social democracy instead of democratic socialism or to include democratic socialism as a faction. Takis S1 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The description in the info-box should be based on reliable sources, not our personal views. Socialist ideology has evolved over time and Labour does not pursue the same policies it did under Kier Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald or Clem Atlee. But it would be hard to argue that Starmer's Labour is different from Tony Blair's, who became leader more than twenty years ago.

Note also that Labour continues its associations with other socialist parties, such as the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democrats.

Liberal, conservative and Christian Democratic parties have also evolved in ideology. Liberals no longer build workhouses, Conservatives allow middle class people to vote, and Christian Democrats don't make citizens pay taxes to the church.

TFD (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to note that both of your examples of "other socialist parties" lack the Democratic socialism label in their infoboxes as well. Meanwhile, Blair's mention doesn't feel like an argument for keeping demsoc to me, especially as even in one of the 20 year old sources, it's mentioned that Blair removed (or at least intended to remove) the party's commitment to socialism from the Labour constitution: Ideology and politics in Britain today, not entirely sure why that was used as a source for democratic socialism, but I digress. In case it was unclear, I have no desire to remove Social democracy from the Infobox, only Democratic socialism, as I feel that after Starmer took over from Corbyn, the party has become too moderate for an ideology as far to the left as democratic socialism to be presented as a main ideology for Labour (perhaps listed as a faction, like the New Democratic Party (Canada)?). GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but i think Democratic Socialism is more comparable to parties like Die Linke, Syriza, Akel etc Takis S1 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

oh sorry wrong reply Takis S1 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, Starmer has expunged all democratic socialist elements from the poorly named Labour Party. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just attempting to achieve consensus here, what's your stance on having Social liberalism as a secondary ideology in place of Democratic socialism, Sup. or Opp.? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's simply untrue. He's kicked out a couple of the hard-left, but there's still plenty of leftists there. — Czello ^(music) 11:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the sources are woefully outdated and contradict the most recent literature

Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. We don't have recent reliable sources calling the party this. Sources that are over twenty years old are certainly not acceptable for describing the party in the present day. Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear on removing Democratic socialism from the infobox, but what is your stance on replacing it with Social liberalism? (reasoning behind it is to indicate a shift towards the centre). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How does social liberalism indicidate a shift toward the centre, exactly? Surely if anything it's the opposite. — Czello ^(music) 11:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article describes social liberalism as generally speaking closer to the political centre than social democracy as a whole. It's placed on the left of liberalism as an umbrella term, and most parties that use it are defined as "centre to centre-left". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you're using these terms correctly? Previously we were talking about economics (soc dem / dem soc) but social liberalism is about social issues – it's unrelated to the inclusion of democratic socialist. Social liberalism is usually seen more on the left, too.

Ultimately if you want to include social liberalism you're going to have present some sources which show it's definining for the party in the way it would be for, say, the Lib Dems. So far it seems to have been disputed because of the trans row. — Czello ^(music) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism isn't an ideology unrelated to economics, it's a subset of liberalism. The lede of the article even says:

Social liberalism (German: Sozialliberalismus, Spanish: socioliberalismo, Dutch: Sociaalliberalisme) is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical liberalism which supports unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with very few government services.

and

Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centre to centre-left, although there are deviations from these positions to both the political left or right. Addressing economic and social issues, such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care and education using government intervention, while emphasising individual rights and autonomy, are expectations under a social liberal government. In modern political discourse, social liberalism is associated with progressivism, a left-liberalism contrasted to the right-leaning neoliberalism, and combines support for a mixed economy with cultural liberalism.

It's distinctly a centrist social and economic ideology with milder left-leaning tendencies than social democracy. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is a fair point and I am in error.

I would then instead that we'd need more sources to use this label. If Dem Soc is removed, I don't believe it necessarily needs to be replaced with anything. — Czello ^(music) 07:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Yep, sources are ancient and any democratic socialist traces in Labour are extremely nominal at this point, not nearly enough to warrant being named on the ideology list. Starmer's Labour has far more in common with with a typical European centrist/centre-right liberal-conservative party than anything even vaugely socialist. I would also replace dem soc with neoliberalism or maybe economic liberalism. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Partially out of curiosity, partially to help establish a consensus, what's your position on an infobox replacing demsoc with Third way? The reason I bring it up is because there generally seems to be more outright support for a Third Way label over a neoliberal one, and you're the only person who's outright expressed a desire to use neoliberalism or economic liberalism (this was before I edited the original proposal to include both labels as possibilities). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is rarely used in UK party ideology sections so if you can find enough sources for it, I would support adding Third Way, probably preferable to neoliberalism actually. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears as if Neoliberalism and Third Way have both been rejected by the consensus, but what's your opinion on Social liberalism? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not the person you’re responding to, but I think it’s not in line with sister parties like the Australian Labor Party and also more contestable, especially given the existence of a more socially conservative social democratic tradition within the UK Labour Party like Blue Labour and the Old Right.

Labour are not neoliberal because they fundamentally reject the mindset of marketisation, economic globalisation, and unrestricted competition in providing necessary services. They’re borderline Corporatist in their emphasis on public-private collaboration and class collaboration.

Let’s just keep it simple and inline with similar parties with similar policies, leaders and ideologies like The Australian Labor Party:

• Ideology: Social democracy
• Political position: Centre-left

KronosAlight (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, shall I close the discussion then and make that change or leave it open for another week or so to see if there's any dissenting viewpoints? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with social liberalism. However off a quick look struggled to find sources for it, although the term fits the current Labour Party. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Social democracy is an adequate and accurate description, personally.

I don’t think neoliberalism or third way is helpful, because in many ways especially under Starmer there’s been a very strong rejection of marketisation, economic globalisation, etc. You can’t reject those and still be neoliberal. KronosAlight (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I since retracted TW and Neo, and replaced them with social liberalism, thoughts on that? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think Social democracy is fine by itself. Sister parties like the Australian Labor Party simply have Social democracy and centre-left in their infoboxes and I think that’s fine for our purposes here too. KronosAlight (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, it seems clear to me that the removal will easily go through, but no consensus can be reached for a second label (which I am alright with). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@KronosAlight No, the ALP is very VERY different in policy to the labor party and has notn done a purge of the left like Labour has. Their economic, and especially social policy (especially with regard to trans rights) is FAR to the left of Labour. Describing ALP as a sister party to the Labor party is inaccurate, its more like a 1st cousin. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true. KronosAlight (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support for simply listing Social democracy and centre-left. KronosAlight (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have to say it would be very odd for us to add "neoliberalism" to the infobox, as three of the comments above have now suggested, given that it isn't in the infobox for the Tories, the Lib Dems, or the other UK parties that maintain the status quo. I understand that some people might be disconcerted that Labour's economics are not traditionally left-wing, but it would be WP:UNDUE to us to mention it here when it is the default for British politics in general. — Czello ^(music) 23:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, and like I said, including neoliberalism isn't top priority for me, I'd be willing to change it to Third way if that helps consensus go through. I still have a minor preference to neoliberalism however. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

True, calling them neoliberal would be more odd than incorrect like im not suggesting its incorrect but i still believe and agree that Third Way is better Takis S1 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be incorrect. The core tenet of neoliberalism is the belief in unregulated free markets, and the abstract logic of market competition applied in all aspects of public life. Labour have been profoundly skeptical of this idea under Starmer, similar to Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz. Third Way also isn’t an ideology. Labour should simply be labelled a centre-left social Democratic Party like all its other sister parties, from the Australian Labor Party to the German Social Democrats. KronosAlight (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Massive support, I myself have attempted this change before, though, by replacing it with faction of demsoc. I support the removal from the infobox, as the sources are massively outdated. Especially since they kicked Corbyn out of the party, and have not been selecting socialists as nominees for this election. Regardless of my personal views towards the party, describing it as socialist requires reliable, up to date sources, which are not present. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is your support solely for the removal of demsoc or also for the addition of neoliberal (or Third Way), please don't be afraid to oppose the Neoliberal/Third Way label (as I've said, it's not top-priority for me), I'd just like to clarify what Massively support means in this instance. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown I support removal of demsoc & socdem, and also support the addition of neoliberal and or third way, as well as social liberalism. Massively support is basically meaning I very strongly support the removal of demsoc. Hope that clears things up! A Socialist Trans Girl 02:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support As far as I am concerned, the party practically abandoned any form of socialism or left-wing politics several decades ago, with Corbyn being the only exception (outside of certain other members). I dont like the idea of replacing it with neoliberalism though, which is a term I see thrown around a bit too "liberally", often because some people think that a social democratic party adopting more economically liberal or pro-austerity policies is neoliberalism. Third way however, would probably be a more fitting term for the kind of pro-austerity and pro-market policies currently mixed in with some social democratic policies in the current Labour Party discourse. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll edit my initial comment to suggest Neoliberalism OR Third way, since both of those options seem pretty solid to me, and it seems like more people are in favour of the latter. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

[3] "Labour's Politics of Anti-Neoliberalism from Corbyn to Starmer" contradicts neoliberalism Kowal2701 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support I'd agree that the sources seem out of date so I think it warrants deletion. However, I definitely don't support adding Third Way or neoliberalism into the infobox - this seems more like Wikipedia editors giving their opinion rather than reflecting what academic sources are saying Michaeldble (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree to add Third Way/Neoliberalism (whatever applies) if recent academic sources were provided that said so? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is a widespread classification in academic sources I would have no issue Michaeldble (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - but perhaps move democratic socialism into the body. Like what I mentioned in my other comment under here: #Democratic Socalism ideology ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal of democratic socialism from the Infobox (long overdue, IMO); very strong oppose to neoliberalism being in the Infobox (neoliberalism is an economic doctrine, not a political ideology) and strong oppose to the inclusion of Third Way (it is a political philosophy or trend, depending on your perspective, not a broad political ideology – if anything, it could loosely be considered a subtype of social democracy, which is already listed).--Autospark (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then what would you propose? Takis S1 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Takis S1 solely social democracy. Labour is clearly a party in the social-democratic tradition, and the Infobox is meant to be a summary using the broadest possible terms, not an exhaustive essay. One or two recognised ideologies is more than enough for summarising most political parties, and in this particular case, one is more than enough.-- Autospark (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah but isnt Third Way a more descriptive way to describe the labour party still using only one word? Takis S1 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Takis S1 I think Third Way would be more appropriate for New Labour, not Starmer's. Social democracy is sufficient Michaeldble (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Takis S1 No, because Third Way isn't a political ideology (and if it is, it's a subset of social democracy, or a political philosophy that aimed to reform social democracy). Also, we are describing a party with a history of more than a century, not the current leadership.-- Autospark (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Even if third Way is a subset of social democracy it is still useful to be more exact and specific, also ever since Tony Blair the party has been adopting a more and more centrist position and as third way is described as having roots in social democracy but being mostly centrist i think labour perfectly fits this definition. Takis S1 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Describing "Third Way" as a fully-fledged political ideology on level with social democracy is at best WP:OR. The party's relationship with that particular academic philosophy should be described (with references) in the article body, not the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this.

  Social democracy as ideology

  Centre-left as political position.

  This is in line with all available evidence. KronosAlight (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Autospark. I would have only social democracy. --Checco (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

And I also oppose "third way" (non an ideology and, at best, a trend within social democracy) or, for that matter, "progressivism". We do not need generic terms, when there are clear distinctive ideologies. By the way, it is perfectly possible to be at the same time a social democrat and a centrist, like Blair was/is. --Checco (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for removal of democratic socialism from the infobox. Either the position needs be written as "centre-left to left-wing" or demsoc needs to be removed. Seems to be consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Just clarifying, does your support extend to replacing it with another label (suggested so far are "Third Way" and "Neoliberalism") or just removing it, as consensus so far is in favour of removing it, but consensus seems to be split on a new secondary label. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any thoughts about other labels. Just that democratic socialism is inaccurate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a secondary label. Social democracy is accurate and adequate. KronosAlight (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @KronosAlight's comments. I think democratic socialism should be removed. Social democracy and centre-left is sufficient. Any further additions of third way, neoliberalism or social liberalism seems unnecessary and like original research once again Michaeldble (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with your further comments Michael. No other centre-left party I’m aware of would have ‘neoliberalism’ or ‘third way’ in their primary inbox. Not in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, etc. Let’s keep personal politics out of this and just be clear, neutral and fair – they’re a centre-left social democratic party and should be labelled as their sister parties are as well. KronosAlight (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support removing democratic socialism as indicated above (I recognise my vote still only counts as one on this and I'm not trying to duplicate it), however I strongly oppose adding social liberalism. No reliable sources have been presented explicitly calling the party itself socially liberal. We'd also need at least a couple of reliable sources explicitly stating this (WP:SYNTH) so as to avoid undue weight. (@ GlowstoneUnknown) Helper201 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Rounding off this discussion

I think it might be time to end this discussion and formalise a conclusion. It might be worth requesting an official close at WP:CR given how many variables were introduced (do we just remove demsoc? Do we remove socdem, also? Do we add neoliberal, third way, or social liberal?), but it might be unnecessary if we can agree what the consensus is. Would others agree the consensus is as follows:

• Remove democratic socialism from the infobox
• Retain social democracy in the infobox
• No consensus to include any additional ideologies.

Note that I am not discussing any changes to the political position as that's a separate discussion below. — Czello ^(music) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It might not be my favourite option, but it does seem like that's what consensus shows right now. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we not survey the labels used in academic sources and establish how the party should be described based on those? There is a lot of material in books and academic papers that we can summarise in this article: a consensus is not a strawpoll of editors' gut instincts. Ralbegen (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm basing my summary above on the discussions that have taken place on those sources. However, I would welcome the opinions of other users who feel I may have misjudged the conclusions of said discussions. — Czello ^(music) 16:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you’re right. I know we’re meant to assume good faith, but I think it’s quite obvious that one reason for the sheer number of subheadings on this Talk Page about Labour’s ideology/position is aggrieved people on the left who feel that Labour has betrayed their values or don’t share their beliefs and therefore must be labelled as centre-right or centrist (as many have done on this page). That’s not based on a clear-eyed or unbiased assessment of their reformist social democratic platform, it’s more about settling scores, in my view. I don’t make that claim about any particular users, just in the general.

It’s clear that Labour has no intention of abolishing private property or a market economy or a liberal democratic representative democracy at any point in the future no matter how long they might go on. They also don’t believe in either vast state-owned industrial sectors or a centrally-planned economy. So they can’t be democratic socialists. But the social democratic ideology does perfectly fit comparable parties in, for example, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.

I think this is a bit of a fuss over nothing, really. Labour are a centre-left social democratic party with no intention of revolutionising our economic system even via reform. So let’s just call a spade a spade: they’re a centre-left social Democratic Party. KronosAlight (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Social democracy and centre-left is accurate, unbiased, and in line with dozens of other sister parties (many of which draw even their own party names from the UK Labour Party) who have very similar policies and ideologies to the current UK Labour Party like the Australian Labor Party. KronosAlight (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with stated consensus above. Let's close this discussion and remove democratic socialism from the infobox. Virtually no need to ask for "confirmation" of the consensus since this is clearly the consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, regardless of whether people want to add further ideologies/alter the position, there seems to be consensus to remove democratic socialism I'd say Michaeldble (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion is over, I'll just WP:BEBOLD and close it – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS was to:

• Remove democratic socialism from the infobox
• Retain social democracy in the infobox
• No consensus to include any additional ideologies. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:03, 5 July 2024 (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.

Keir Starmer as authoritarian

I reverted an edit (@Helper201) that describes Starmer as authoritarian that has now been un-reverted. I thought it would probably be best to discuss here than start an edit war. Here's the edit for reference:

He has been accused of being authoritarian during his leadership of the Labour Party, such as via not committing to overturn the Conservative Party’s anti-protest bill and via intolerance for dissent within the Labour Party; the latter of which has also been described as "anti-democratic and above all illiberal".

References

I reverted this on the basis that:

• This section counts as a WP:BLP, even if the article in entirety isn't: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia".
• That the description of 'authoritarian' is especially contentious and must be well justified as a WP:BLP.
• The sources used have an anti-Starmer slant and are all opinion sources.
• That undue weight has been given to the claims by relying only on such sources, and has not demonstrated that they have received enough media attention for them to deserve such weight.
• No balance has been given to these claims, though I myself have struggled to find any record of Starmer responding to claims of authoritarianism (maybe because they have not received significant attention...).

I would like to open up whether this sentence should remain, for discussion. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@SoThisIsPeter of course he's authoritarian, all the major parties in England are. 109.170.181.75 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

considering the purges he's made as Leader of the Labour Party and discrediting or removing 'left wing' members in the party, I think Starmer can be characterized as authoritarian 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:B1D5:B441:2AA4:5BF5 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Having four reliable sources for something is enough for inclusion.
• Only 2 of the 4 are in any way classified as opinion pieces and that doesn't mean they can't be used, so long as they aren't making factual statements. The Wiki text added clearly states this is an accusation, therefore complying with WP:RSOPINION.
• 4 sources is plenty of weight. All the sources are reliable and each of the 4 sources have their own Wikipedia page, which requires notability to exist
• If you want to add some balance in then please expand upon this rather than removing it. Take this away and the only thing that even boarders on anything like resembling criticism is the sentence prior to this one about purges. Literally the whole of the rest of the section is unbalanced in a pro or at least uncritical direction of the Starmer era.

Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I accept that the articles are reliable, however they must be regarded as biased sources of opinion given they related solely to claims. They do not demonstrate that these claims are widespread enough to warrant the weight given. Evidence of more widespread coverage of these claims in mainstream outlets would demonstrate this. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Only 2 of the 4 are classed anywhere on them as being in an opinion section or anything similar. It is fine to include statements of opinion as long as they aren't classed as fact, see: WP:RSOPINION. That's why the wording was very specifically and deliberately "has been accused of". I'd certainly say 4 sources saying the same thing is widespread enough for the inclusion of one sentence mid-article. It’s not like a whole paragraph is being made of this or that is placed in the prominence of the article's opening. Helper201 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament

Why does it say the Labour Party is the largest party in the Scottish parliament? From the most recent Scottish Parliament election, it’s the third largest party behind the conservatives and the SNP. Jisagay (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re right it’s not the biggest party in Holyrood, but it won most Scottish seats in Westminster Kowal2701 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be “centre to centre-left”

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.

---

Kier Starmer has rolled back on many left-wing policies so in my opinion describing the Labour Party as “centre-left” should be changed to “centre to centre-left” Mnbvr92 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources that make that distinction. We shouldn't make changes based on random personal observations. --Onorem (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the Political positions topic. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A response to the whole issue after reading the related discussions

While I agree on the issues of the Third Way and neoliberalism as reflected by the likes of A Socialist Trans Girl, I do not think they should make it to the infobox for all the reasons cited by TFD. To summarise the collapsed text, just like Corbyn's extremism (on economic issues, he took the Labour Party under a classic left-wing social democracy and Keynesian (e.g. Old Labour vis-a-vis New Labour), not Marxist, platform; I would argue his main issues on the leadership were Brexit, foreign policy, and antisemitism, it was not his economic platform to be extremist, especially in 2017) as Labour Leader was overstated, so is Starmer's rightward turn. In fact, Starmer was elected on a left-wing platform, essentially promising to be a popular and competent (e.g. keep its left-wing and anti-austerity economic policies, while taking centre-left views on foreign policy). While he made U-turns on that, I think that what will matter is what his government will actually do rather than words that were perhaps part of an electoral strategy. I think it makes more sense to consider (classical, e.g. anti-Third Way) social democracy to be socialist and the Third Way to be centrist rather than narrowing it too much and either consider all reformist socialists to be not "true socialists" (as some of more radical socialists do) just because they did not abolish capitalism or consider even governments that admittedly were centrist (New Labour) to be socialists (e.g. the Right considering any economic interventionism or any policy taken a by a self-professed socialist government to be automatically socialist).

We did not change to "Left-wing" when Corbyn (who economically took the part under a left-wing social democracy, not communism), I do not think we should do the same just because of Starmer's leadership; that would require academic, not news media, sources in support and no WP:OR/WP:SYNTH: if the source is saying "Starmer moved the party rightward", we should not interpret that to automatically mean support to change "Centre-left" to "Centre" in the infobox. Indeed, I recall there were reliable sources, including a BBC article that discussed the Labour Party and Blair and how many voters saw it as centre-right: that does not mean the Labour Party under Blair was centre-right (I think the majority view according to reliable sources is that it was centrist and/or neoliberal, with a significant minority arguing that it was centre-left but more rightward than the pre-Thatcher era), and I do not think we should state that as fact, just that some observers and voters saw it that way, exactly like the source (not our own views) said. Just like reliable sources discussing New Labour and Blair as neoliberal should be used in their proper context (e.g. the Labour Party under Blair) and not make generalisation to the party as a whole and its whole history. I would not have had an issue with keeping "Democratic socialism" because that is also a big part of the party history (notwithstanding the terminology issues) but it is not a big deal and I am fine with just "Social democracy". Davide King (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether Starmer eventually goes back to his policy platform in the 2020 Labour leadership contest does not affect how this article should look like today. Otherwise it is speculation, which is not really what Wikipedia is for. And again, Corbyn didn't purge elements of the party that were to his right; in fact, he collaborated with them and conceded policies to them on multiple occasions (e.g. Britain's nuclear arsenal). Maurnxiao (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2024 (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.

There's another discussion going on, use that one.

Labour is a centre-left party

Labour is a centre-left party. It is not a center-right party. If anything, it's a center-left to left-wing party, to reflect on the broad groups within the party itself. Some are more left-wing, others are more center-left.

Ideologies of the center-left include social democracy, social liberalism and green politics. Ideas commonly supported by the center-left include welfare capitalism, social justice, liberal internationalism, and multiculturalism. Economically, the center-left supports a mixed economy in a democratic capitalist system, often including economic interventionism, progressive taxation, and the right to unionize. Center-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution.

This pretty much sums up Labour's current manifesto perfectly. Have a read here.

We need to watch out of people who simply want to make out the party is center-right or even far-right (how, I really don't know) because they aren't happy that the party has reverted to a more center-left grounding, rather than a more left-wing grounding under the former leadership. Anyone who suggests a party that wants more state intervention, to bring the railways under public control, to bring bus networks under public control, to create a public green energy company, tax private schools to improve state education, and who wants to increase workers' rights (including banning zero-hour contracts and fire and rehire), probably think that just because they want to lower migration or now are on an economic stability standing, that they're a radical far-right party. It's protecting false information. It's worse than those who claim anything they disagree with is far-right.

In Europe, Labour are very much on the center-left grounding. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:24E5:C88D:EFF9:B87 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, considering their selection for their candidates this election, and the fact that they self-sabotaged Corbyn (source) and kicked him out of the party (source), it cannot be said that they are centre-left to left-wing at all, barely even centre left at that point.

Social liberalism is centre to centre-left. Green politics are not left-wing, centre-left, centre, nor right wing; it's a specific position on a specific policy. Welfare capitalism is often supported by centre and centre-right, social justice is supported by people from far-left to centre-right, liberal internationalism is just part of liberalism which is centre-left to centre-right, and multiculturalism is far-left to centre-right.

What a party says itself in its manifesto is often not reliable, and often they do not reflect the ideology of the party itself. You need third party reliable sources saying it is centre-left. Please provide reliable third party sources saying the Labour party is centre-left, from after the expulsion of Corbyn, which are about it being centre-left (not just saying it within it briefly through circular sourcing). I have three. 1 2 3. (Note for sources 2 and 3 are opinion, though are still of value while adjusting for that).

Additionally, the party itself says it is pro-business (source), which is mutually exclusive with being pro-worker; centre-left politics is pro-worker first and foremost, within a welfarist democratic capitalist system.

How are they still centre-left at all when they have shifted right on the economy (Blair notoriously gave up to the right mostly on economics), on immigration, on the EU, on trans rights, etc?

It's gone from left-wing (corbyn) to centre to centre-right. It doesn't have to go to centre-left first.

They're centre to centre-right. Nobody is seriously claiming they are far right. Don't make strawmen.

State intervention is not neccesarily left-wing. And nationalization of public utilities is not a centre-left or left wing idea, before Thatcher, it was far-right (Through her privatisation efforts, Thatcher changed attitudes so that private ownership of public utilities moved from the far right to the centre of politics. source). With regards to the improving of workers rights, please provide reliable sources showing their non-manifesto support to improving workers rights to a considerable degree.

Again, I'm not seeing anybody here claim that it's far-right.

Additionaly, the party under Starmer is, on almost all if not all issues, to the right of Joe Biden, who is a centre to centre-left social liberal. And, in the UK, the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour on all issues, especially social and foreign policy.

[Insert conclusion] A Socialist Trans Girl 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Labour retains the rhetoric of centre left governance in terms of the policy outcomes it prioritises even if it has a fiscally cautious and unambitious manifesto. It is described in the media as a centre left party. It is also affiliate to trade unions and part of groups such as Party of European Socialists. It is always treated as equivalent to other parties labelled as centre left in the media and its voter base is similar to them. It also has some openness to some moderate state led economic planning slightly more open, saying 'Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy'- this is language that a centre or centre right parties in a western political system would never use but Labour does because it sees itself as and is the representative of the centre left in the UK. Ncnub (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct! 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:38BC:FAE2:BF2:3654 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ncnub The nazis co-opted left wing rhetoric to appeal to the working class. Does that mean they were left wing? No, of course not. Rhetoric does not mean anything on this matter.

Saying that "the media" describes it as centre-left is not accurate; rather, just that CNN describes them as centre-left.

Not sure what you mean by the "treated as equivalent to other parties" or how the source relates to that, nor am I sure what you mean by "its voter base similar to them".

And uh.. did you read my thing fully? I already addressed the state run businesses argument, that's a non-argument I've already addressed,

"Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy" is just a meaningless statement and pledge, and again, rhetoric doesn't matter. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology (Infobox)

I would like to add Anti-Status Quo, Because from what I've seen, Starmer is pretty much against Tories -- RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that isn’t an ideology, the convention has gotten much stricter around what we put in the parameter Kowal2701 (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Now Starmer is the status quo. TFD (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

True now. RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

He's pretty pro-status quo in my view. Do you have any reliable sources for that? A Socialist Trans Girl 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Socalism ideology

It seems bizare that Democratic Socalism is listed as an ideolgy of the Labour Party (as a whole and not just a faction) while parties that seem clearly more left wing than the present iteration of Labour like PSOE and Workers' Party (Brazil) are only categorised as Social Democrats. 2A00:23C7:D1A5:1501:859F:1739:E013:5A3B (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There's already a discussion going on about this - see above. Also the Workers' Party of Brazil does have democratic socialism listed as one of its ideologies. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Socialist, democratic socialist and social democratic are synonyms, although some writers use the terms to distinguish the degree of commitment to socialism. There's also a difference in national usage: Labour calls itself democratic socialist, the Socialist Party of France calls itself socialist, while the Social Democratic Party of Germany calls itself social democratic. But the three parties share the same ideology. TFD (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, if we look at the page for the Peruvian party APRA(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Popular_Revolutionary_Alliance), it is considered a centre right party despite nominally calling itself a social democratic one because of its shift to neoliberalism under Alan Garcia's second presidency. Labour under Starmer has followed a similar path, so its not just the ideology I'd say needs changing, the political position does too. Tomwikiman (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I know what we can do! Maybe instead of removing it, why not this why?

Social democracy

Factions:

Democratic socialism

We have a win-win situation now. Anyone that agrees with this reply "I" or "Support". 174.135.36.220 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism depends on whether we are talking about the UK and France or German, Russia or Sweden. Democratic socialism, as defined by Tony Blair, is the official ideology of the Labour Party.

There is no faction of the Labour Party called Democratic Socialism. If I am wrong, can you tell me who its leaders or spokespersons are? TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Socialist Campaign Group is the democratic socialist faction of Labour Party. also, I was talking about Labour Party of the United Kingdom. We can also do this:

Centre-left

Factions:

Left-wing 174.135.36.220 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

They and reliable sources do not call them "democratic socialist," but socialist. Presumably they do not want to be identified with the Blairites' "democratic socialism." TFD (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Painting all types of socialist ideologies as the same does not make any sense. Anarchists, Leninists, Marxists, state libertarians, and syndicalists are all generally considered socialists (ignoring how fascism developed out of the trade union movement in countries like Spain, Italy, and Portugal), but besides their end goal they don't often share much together in terms of practice.

Social Democracy being considered socialist or capitalist is still an ongoing debate in real life, journals, books, as well as Wikipedia, so it's description as a democratic socialist party - especially during and after Keir Starmer's leadership and those leadership decisions - could be misleading to readers who just want a basic overview on the subject.

If I knew nothing about Labour and was told they are a democratic socialist party I would assume they are Marxists who disagree with the USSR. If you told me they were social democrats I would assume they are centre-left to right and believe in an extensive welfare system as well as nationalising large parts or a majority of industry (like Britain post-war) EnbyEditor (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• While Keir Starmer has certainly moved Labour substantially to the right, Labour still defines itself as "a democratic socialist party" AusLondonder (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

AusLondonder in words, yes, in actions, no. Helper201 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a simple fix which other pages have done and I'm curious as to why it hasn't been done here as well (+ for the Swedish Social Democratic Party too).

New Zealand Labour Party:

"The party's platform programme describes its founding principle as democratic socialism, while observers describe Labour as social-democratic."

Labour Party (Malta):

"Ideologically, the party was orientated towards democratic socialism and other left-wing stances until the early 1990s, when it followed the lead of like-minded Western social-democratic parties like Britain's New Labour. The party still claims to be democratic-socialist in their party programme. Under the rule of Joseph Muscat, the party shifted to a more centrist position, adopting Third Way policies."

Israeli Labor Party:

"While originally a democratic socialist party, Labor has evolved into a programme that supports a mixed economy with strong social welfare programmes."

Labour Party (Ireland):

"...it describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" in its constitution."

Australian Labor Party:

"The Whitlam Labor government, marking a break with Labor's socialist tradition, pursued social-democratic policies rather than democratic socialist policies." and "Labor's constitution has long stated: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields" ... Labor governments have not attempted the "democratic socialisation" of any industry since the 1940s, when the Chifley government failed to nationalise the private banks, and in fact have privatised several industries such as aviation and banking."

Social Democratic Party of Germany:

"The party platform of the SPD espouses the goal of democratic socialism, which it envisions as a societal arrangement in which freedom and social justice are paramount. According to the party platform, political freedom, justice and social solidarity form the basis of social democracy."

All of these parties listed don't have democratic socialism in their infoboxes. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that explains the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy? AFAIK, social democracy is the description most favoured in Germany, Sweden and (historically) Russia. Hence, the communist party in Russia was originally called the "Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks)." TFD (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Absoulety!  Let me explain: The difference between democratic socialism and social democracy12is that social democracy seeks to reform capitalism and make it more democratic and egalitarian, while democratic socialism seeks to replace capitalism with a socialist planned economy12. Social democracy accepts some aspects of capitalism, while democratic socialism rejects it entirely [2].

Note that some Democratic socialist like Julia Salazar think reforming is the answer. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? The page you linked states: "Salazar characterizes democratic socialists as those who recognize capitalism to be an inherently oppressive and exploitative system and who actively work to dismantle it in favor of a socialist economic system." In fact, in the source in that article, she distinguishes herself from people who simply want to reform capitalism: "A progressive [as opposed to a democratic socialist] will stop short at proposing reforms that help people but don’t necessarily transform the system." RadioAlloy (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

“It Really Comes Down to Empowering the Working Class” (jacobin.com)

Maybe make democratic socialism on Labour's template as faction. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

By source for the distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism, I meant a reliable source, not another Wikipedia article or Stack Exchange answer.

There is a long tradition of socialists, from Ferdinand Lassalle, Eduard Bernstein, Friedrich Ebert and Willi Brandt to Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee and Tony Blair in the UK to Francois Mitterand in France to leave capitalism intact. Even Communist successor parties in Eastern Europe have made no efforts to replace capitalism once they took office. Even the chavistas, who call themselves democratic socialists have left capitalism in place. TFD (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, If you read through my whole comment you'd see that I did also refer to the source linked on that page, not just the page itself. RadioAlloy (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I'm not sure if you were actually replying to me. I find talk pages hard to read when there's lots of branches in parallel. RadioAlloy (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't need to discuss what democratic socialism and social democracy are. We just need to describe the party the way secondary reliable sources do. Both labels are used in academic and news sources. Any decision about how we balance those labels needs to be based on the balance of coverage in secondary reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah...Let just keep the Labour Party's ideologies box on how it is.  :/ 174.135.36.220 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What sources actually call Labour centre-left in 2024? That's the real issue I see. I think there is common concensus that Labour is absolutely centrist at least and that Starmer is centre-right, with the whole party trending very much centre-right too. Many sources are calling the Labour Party centre-right and the policies reflect this such as promising no income tax hike, possible austerity, low public spending etc (Reeves has said all this in the past few weeks). Feedtherooks (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The socialist campaign group is significantly smaller than what it was under Corbyn due to Starmer's purges. I think there is a right wing element within the party, but only to Corbyn's right, many of Starmer's allies supported Owen Smith for leadership. They're not "right wing" in the way a Republican politician is right wing, they're closer to Third way European 'social democrats' like Olaf Scholz, or Francois Hollande than any left-wing political figure like Jean Luc Melenachon, Die Linke or other left-populist parties such as Podemos/Sumar who I would argue are way more closer to Corbyn (or even Michael Foot) for that matter. There's also the fact his leadership has absorbed some elements of Blue Labour, as well as his incoming government containing a number of high profile Blairites -- there has clearly been a synthesis between the Blue Labour groups and Blairites -- Starmer's Labour may have more in common with Olaf Scholz and to a lesser extent Macron (this is merely speculation) but the direction of the Labour party has clearly steered towards neoliberal economic reform, and appeasement of the British right on social issues (Starmer visiting the Jesus House Church in Brent Cross) as well as his rhetoric on trans rights being questionable at best

https://www.ft.com/content/b574f37c-7ff8-4e16-a5e8-88d31fafd0d4

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-manifesto-2024-summary-keir-starmer/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/06/starmer-won-shifting-right-labour-left-wilderness-hope

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/starmer-welcomes-right-wing-tory-labour

https://unherd.com/newsroom/keir-starmer-finally-goes-blue-labour/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-keir-starmer-found-the-sweet-spot-in-british-politics/

It is not uncommon for socialist or social democratic parties to contain right wing figures or elements, see Robert Fico in Slovakia or Sahra Wagenknecht's Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht furthermore there is a tendency among centrist to appeal to right wing voters or concede to their electoral demands. Starmer's campaign has scrapped the Rwanda plan but will be all the more happy to engage with rhetorical and political attacks against immigrants, such as their proposed creation of a Border Force which sounds like a concession to the Reform/Tory voter demographic more than anything else. 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:E924:E768:E7BA:300F (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)