Talk:We Continue the Change (political party)

Merge proposed 1 August 2022

{{merge|We Continue the Change}}

Same structure which became a party. Panam2014 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Disabled misplaced merge template, added section heading Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Third Way is not mutually exclusive from liberalism

There are those that deny this party advocates for a Third Wayish ideology because the sources call it liberal, but this comes from the lack of understanding that liberalism is a big tent umbrella term of which Third Way falls under. Many Social Liberals identify as being Third Way themselves as shown on the Third Way wiki page so those 2 aren't mutually exclusive either. One is a continuation of the motivations of the other. Also the sources I Cite as evidence for PP advocating for Third Way specifically mentions it by name and just because it also mentions them being Liberal isn't contradictory as all Third Wayists are liberal. Also compounded ties to Macron, Blair, and Clinton styles of politics compared with PP. Rebel14 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The source you cite says PP leaders Petkov and Vasilev are "taking a third path" while saying it already has precedent in western democracies. The only "ties" it mentions are that the work of Anthony Giddens "underlie" Blair's, Clinton's and Marcon's politics. In the next paragraph the article begins with "This type of new social liberalism is often contrasted with neoliberalism, which refuses to take responsibility for the countries in which it operates.". In fact, we only get a explicit mention of "third way" in the last paragraph and it doesn't directly link it to PP's ideology. That's why I view it insufficient as a source, considering that others have cited it as liberal instead. Source 4 cited on the We Continue the Change page as justification for the party being third way only compares leaders Petkov and Vasilev to Blair and Brown, mentioning that the latter found a "third way" to "mobilize large swathes of the electorate to vote for them" and doesn't directly cite PP's ideology. I really don't understand your reasoning here. LordOfApples (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the Third Way ideology is a Liberal ideology. It isn't mutually exclusive. Also what's the point of comparing PP to Third Wayers in their electorate praxis if they aren't likening the party to being Third Way. The ideology is an offshoot of both Neoliberalism and Social Liberalism and borrows aspects from both. Some Social Liberal parties are Third Way as some Neoliberal parties also identify as Third Way. It isn't a hard line. And seeing how PP policy was compared to both labels or at least those associated with it, I don't see why we shouldn't include it in their platform. On top of that their party policy doesn't put as much emphasis on welfare as a Social Liberal would which would imply the formation of hard welfare state. PP has expressed motivations to get better robust elderly pensions which is a soft form of welfare reform. Rebel14 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that no main source explicitly in no uncertain terms says that PP is third way. Classifying them as Third Way despite that is in violation of guidelines regarding secondary soruces. Furthermore I don't see how bringing up PP's policy on pensions would classify them as third way instead of social liberal considering they're committed to expanding pensions, as well as their broader platform which includes increasing the minimum wage and expanding tax credits for families with children. LordOfApples (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That is no way contradictory to the Third Way position. Many that follow the ideology advocate for those things as well in the west. Social liberal policy for example would the abolition of the flat tax and the implementation of a wealth tax. Also massive public spending projects on infrastructure and housing as shown in Social Liberalism's genesis in FDR's New Deal. PP's policies aren't nearly the level a larger welfare state ideology would entail. In the end PP is still for subsidizing private companies instead of government management of essential industries. Even though no source outright directly says its Third Way, if it keeps being compared to Third Way politicians in numerous examples, and their policy follows a Third Way outline, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, will you still not call it a duck? Rebel14 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have been keeping tabs on this discussion after being told to go to the talk page. I have to inject that the conclusion that is being reached here, that PP is Third-Way because of its actions, seems to be in violation of WP:OR as per: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. This clearly is analysis of published material that implies a conclusion not stated by the source. As much as you have read the material as implying a third-way conclusion, if its not explicitly within the source material, it is not favourable for inclusion. Please locate a source which states that the party is in explicit terms, as the source used here currently and the discussion being presented is simply not ideal. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)