Talk:The New Party (UK, 2003)

Untitled

The New Party is the same organisation as the "Scottish People's Alliance" that bombed in the 2003 Scottish elections.

Sources? Anything at all? Charles Matthews 19:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.newparty.co.uk/ plus [1] [2] suggest that it is not a total invention, though it does not look like something serious. It may have something to do with the Scottish Peoples Alliance which failed in the Scottish parliamentary election, 2003. --Henrygb 22:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The New Party - Press

If you look at the 'in the media' section of the Party site 2 further articles are available -- a piece from ePolitix on the Party's recent flat-tax proposal and another from The Scotsman discussing the New Party's recent campaign launch.

History and Origins of the New Party

I have added a section on party history to put some of this into context. I will add references (mainly newspaper/BBC News reports) in due course. I've also deleted the sentence alleging that detractors have accused the party of cryptofascism because of its immigration policy, and because of sharing a name with Oswald Mosley's party, basically because no citation is given of any concrete accusation, and I don't know of any. However, the New Party chairman Robert Durward was once accused of being a fascist because of comments he made about the army running public services (comments which were taken rather out of context) which may be worth recording somewhere in this article, and I'll add such a reference in when I get round to it, unless someone else gets there first.

I have deleted the following contribution to this article:

"The party follows typical liberterianism and general centre-right wing politics in the United Kingdom. It is clearly comparable to UKIP with the exception of populist policies - especially those on immigration. The party's lack of policy has led, perhaps, to its compelte lack of support."

I've deleted it as it adds nothing new except (a) spelling mistakes; and (b) the anonymous author's opinion. Dennett p 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note on the name **Peoples Alliance**. There is no apostrophe in the name. As a matter of style the party took a decision not to use an apostrophe, with cheerful disregard to the norms of English grammar. Apparently the London store Harrods did the same thing (i.e. ditched the apostrophe). Dennett p

Tidying Up

Lots of people have been by adding bits and pieces about Global Warming. I have collected these together under the new GW section - removed some duplication and corrected other bits of grammar and one dodgy reference suggesting that the New Party supports The Great Global Warming Swindle - I can't find the original reference anyway and the context makes it pretty clear where the NP stands in any case. Dennett p 05:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More tidying up

I've moved the content of the Global Warming section into the History section as it deals with a court case rather than policy as such. The policy section needs updating and expanding anyway. Some of the biographical detail about Robert Durward I have moved to his own entry. Dennett p 06:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Party -The- 1.gif

Image:New Party -The- 1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Info box

I've removed the designation "Anti-Environmentalist" with respect to ideology for the following reasons: 1. While Robert Durward's record on environmentalism is documented, this is not reflected in New Party output generally (e.g. not mentioned much on the website, not prominent in its manifesto, not an issue in the by-election campaign at Haltemprice and Howden - whereas the Green Party in that election would have made it an issue because the Green Party is indeed an environmentalist party). 2. The "Inconvenient Truth" court case undoubtedly indicates an anti-environmentalist stance, but the Conservative Party's opposition to ID cards indicates a liberal stance, which doesn't in itself justify labelling the Conservative Party ideology as "liberal". Dennett p (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt you, then a lot of the emphasis in the article (on anti-environmentalism) needs to be removed. Setwisohi (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Which I have now done. Setwisohi (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also changed Classical Liberalism for Neo-Liberalism. As that would appear to be a more accurate view of the policies of this party. Classical Liberalism contains a strong social Liberal thread, which appears lacking from The New Party. Setwisohi (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that Classical Liberalism has a strong social liberal thread (this only really emerged in the late 19th century), but I don't particularly dispute changing the label to "Neo-Liberalism". As for the environmental stuff, a lot of people seemed to think it important to include it here when the Inconvenient Truth court case was going on. It always was a bit of a distortion and it's high time it was toned down. Dennett p (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The New Party (UK, 2003). 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/20071016140937/http://newparty.co.uk/articles/openeurope.html to http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/openeurope.html

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) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Policy section - tense

Given that this party is no longer active (and the most recent policy document mentioned is now 15 years old), I wonder if the policy section needs to be rewritten in past tense? For example, instead of "The New Party describes its philosophy as follows" would it not be more appropriate to say that "The New Party described its philosophy as follows". This would make it clearer that it is not an active participant in current Scottish or UK politics. Dunarc (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)