Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

• Labour Party (UK) color Content:      
• Labour Party (UK) shortname Content: Labour

Numer of Seats

Labour currently have 286 seats not 256 as said in the article. 306(Con)+286(Lab)+57(LibDem)+1(Green)=650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.88.83 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The 30 other seats are a combination of Plaid, SNP and Northern Irish MPs.89.242.188.247 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the Labour Party are Left-Wing not Center-Left.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both two Labour leaders who are on the Right of the Labour Party, they both led the party to adopt a far more Liberal stance.

Ed Miliband clearly wants to turn the Labour Party back to the Left. (E.P. Davies (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

What Ed Miliband wants and believes is not necessarily what the Labour Party are. I certainly hope the leader of such a big and powerful party doesn't have that much of a dicatorship. veganfishcake (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that since the majority of reforms the last Labour government performed were centre-right that Labour are centre-right, not even centre-left. The party has been making centre-right reforms in local government too. veganfishcake (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Then find some references, you can't argue a position here in that way, we reflect the balance of what the sources say ----Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms 'right' and 'left' are both relative (For example, British politics is entirely different from Politics of the United States) and not particularly good gages of ideology if they're used on their own without labels such as 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Now there are plenty of sources from independent observers/commentators who think that the Labour Party's actions and policies make it social democratic. The party itself claims to be democratic socialist, and we've made it clear in the article that this has been questioned by a few. Calling the party 'centre-right' is pure bias and I can't see many sources that would agree with you. (Personally, for the reasons I said, I'd drop 'centre-left' from the lead and just have "The Labour Party is a social democratic and democratic socialist party".) --Peter (Talk page) 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

British/Irish tradition is democratic socialism, its not the same history as social democracy. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There are far many more sources showing that Ed Miliband supports 'Responsible Capitalism' than 'democratic socialism'. I suggest that the words 'democratic socialism' are replaced with 'responsible capitalism' to reflect this undeniable reality. Riversider (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That as you well know is original research. All socialist parties across Europe have taken a mixed economy approach for decades, its a part of democratic socialism and social democracy now for well or for good. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not Original Research, it's simply citing reliable sources. Sources such as Labour's own website and Labour's own leader. If you go through Miliband's speeches, and count how many times he has used the words 'democratic socialism', and how many times he's used the words 'responsible capitalism', it makes the point as clearly as a bell. To delete the words 'Responsible Capitalism' from the ideology section makes the WP article a comfortable work of fiction rather than an accurate description of the party. Riversider (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But what exactly is "responsible capitalism" other than a simple description or a nice buzz term? It's not an ideology because there's nothing behind it, it's just empty words like Cameron's "big society". If Miliband had used terms like "reasonable socialism" or "nice, kind and happy socialism" in a few speeches, obviously we wouldn't count those as ideologies. Comparatively, "socialism with a human face" was a term used by socialist Czech authorities: but that's a description, not an ideology. If you can find an independent, third party reference that actually describes what "responsible capitalism" is, then it should go under the internal ideological trends (this is only reasonable, but I think it should stay out entirely, because it seems alien to Labour's ideology).
I would like to say also that "responsible capitalism" could easily describe social democracy which takes a capitalistic market economy and makes it 'responsible' and friendly. -- Peter (Talk page) 11:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And it is original research. You are going to original material and drawing a conclusion from it. As on previous occasions you are also forgetting about WP:BRD, this is just a variation of previous debates with you on neo-liberalism and blue labour. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm making bold edits, you're reverting them, and now we're discussing them, so we're following the WP:BRD model precisely. There's plenty of published material out there showing the influence of Neoliberalism on Labour, the influence of the Blue Labour trend within Labour, and from it's leader himself on the importance of 'Responsible Capitalism' to Labour. However I feel there is a consensus here that would rather accept the comfortable illusion that Labour is the same party it was in the 1970's, than to accurately reflect the RS's out there that describe Labour as it is today, which is why my edits are reverted even though they are referenced to highly reliable sources. My edits are simply intended to give a fully rounded picture that reflects how Labour and it's ideology have evolved since it's 'Social Democratic' days, and how this is described in the available literature. Riversider (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsible capitalism is a buzz word; all political leaders are talking about it. However, it is not a meaningful ideology; all leaders are using it to justify their own ideologies. Blue Labour has lost a lot of its influence after Maurice Glasman's comments. Labour still describes itself as a democratic socialist party, and it is also described as being social democratic by reliable sources. Third Way already covers the "evolution" of Labour's ideology. Neo-Liberal is just a very provocative term, and doesn't accurately reflect the true ideology of the Labour Party, as a whole. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsible capitalism certainly does fall in the category 'buzz words', but so does 'third way' which is still currently included in the ideology section even though nobody has used that term since Blair's departure. This does not mean the term 'Responsible Capitalism' cannot denote Labour's current ideology, as it is an ideological approach to the kind of capitalism they envisage, and it is the term they use to counterpose to the neoliberalism of the other parties and (at least by implication) Blair. An ideology can distinguish one party from another party, but it can also show where parties share common ground, and you're right to point out that all 3 parties at least rhetorically advocate 'responsible capitalism' though perhaps not with the same zeal as Miliband. Blue Labour is officially 'disbanded', but it's ideas remain very influential, despite the antics of Glasman, who was Blue Labour's ideological figurehead, but not it's only significant figure. The way Miliband wrapped himself in the flag today and called for 'pride and patriotism' and a revival of the 'Made In Britain' marque clearly shows the influence of Blue Labour's 'flag faith and family' approach. The point however of WP is that we must reflect the RS's. There are plenty of RS's asserting that Blair's episode in office was characterised by a neoliberal ideology, and sources as significant as the party leader and the party website asserting that Labour's key ideological motivation is 'Responsible Capitalism'. It's a matter of debate whether 'Responsible Capitalism' and 'Social Democracy' are logically and practically reconcilable, and that is not a debate we should have here - we can leave that to the sources and the party itself, our job is just to report what the RS's say. Can we start doing that, instead of censoring those sources that make Labour Party members feel uncomfortable?Riversider (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair hasn't been leader of the Labour Party for 5 years, I really don't think any alledged shifts to neo-liberalism under his leadership deserves to be in the idealogy section of the infobox. Maybe in the analysis of his term of office, but not in the info box. Indeed, I believe it already is mentioned. "Blue Labour" isn't an idealogy itself, it was such a section of Labour MPs and supporters with a believe in guild socialism, and a rejection of neo-liberal ideas. Again this is work mentioning in the text about the current leadership, and it is. However it not really suited in the idealogy infobox. Like "Orange Book" would not be suited for the Liberal Democrat infobox idealogy, despite it's leadership and cabinet members being in favour of the Orange Book. The third way has been used to descitbe Bill Clinton's Democrats, as well as the centre-left parties in Canada, Austrillia, Germany, Portugal, etc. It seems to be a rather common centre-left idealogy, used across the world. Responsible Capitalism, is only just merging, and every party is talking about it. The Tories nor the Lib Dems claim to be "Third Way". Although I am fairly easy about removing that from the infobox, since it was under Blair, and moight not be up to date under the direction Ed Miliband is taking Labour in, whatever that direction is.--Welshsocialist (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsible capitalism is just the latest spin on a mixed market, something that has been DS and SD policy for years. Its not an ideology, it may or may not be noteworthy enough to include in the main body. However we should not be reflecting each marketing spin that comes from the Party. Please stop the silly accusations of censorship ----Snowded ^TALK 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've never advocated describing Labour's ideology as 'Blue Labour'. That was an entirely different debate about how to reflect the influence of that particular trend in the main body. The amendment we're debating now is whether to insert the words 'Responsible Capitalism' in the ideology section of the infobox. Just as 'Third Way' was Blair's catchphrase, and has lodged itself in there, even though nobody ever really knew exactly what it meant, so Miliband is making 'Responsible Capitalism' his catchphrase. I have a lot of respect for the argument "It's not an ideology, it's just the latest marketing spin", but in recent years marketing spin has been the only ideology left to guide the Labour Party, and if you like I can find you several RS's to back up that point. What's clear to most respected academics is that Labour no longer behaves like a traditional 'Social Democratic' or 'Democratic Socialist' party, and no longer meets those definitions, they're an old outdated label. At least 'Responsible Capitalism' gives a more accurate picture of what's going on in the minds of the leadership when they're thinking up their policies, which is what an ideology is for. Riversider (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While I can agree with you politically, the fact remains that what you are suggesting there is original research. Reliable sources that say the Party has become marketing driven have a place in the main body subject to ensuring balance. But there are no grounds to insert this in the ideology section of the information box ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out, the Democratic Socialism sources are from this year or the past two years. They are not "out of date", but very much recent.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you guys are hilarious

Not only have you added Labour's ridiculous claims to democratic socialism to the lead, you have added Marxism to the ideology box! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.98.60 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that a few times, only for it to be readded by a user who appears to be using multiple accounts.--John Allen (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my edits

I hope that people have found my contributions (such as the section on Local Labour reforms in the inter-war period) both interesting and useful, perhaps for research purposes. I take great pleasure in adding all of this information from books that I’ve found, both online and in print form. (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions! I hadn't checked this article for a few months and I see it's been significantly expanded, with high quality information. It's very useful information. Also, thanks for contributions on related articles. Peter (Talk page) 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Centre-left claims need citation

Left-wing and centre-left mean having progressive and egalitarian principles. It is not clear that Labour have these principles and evidence under their last government indicates that they had none. Amongst the left in Britain as well others who understand fully what left-wing and centre-left truly mean there is a consensus that the Labour Party are not centre-left. I therefore feel that there needs to be citation for such claims. veganfishcake (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, most reasonble people view people as a centre-left party. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it a fact that Labour is not centre-left. In the UK political sense, Labour is a centre-left political party, and most Labour Party members are on the centre-left of politics.--Welshsocialist (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Welshsocialist. The Labour Party has been defined as social democratic and democratic socialist, and we have references to back these 'claims' up. Socialist ideologies are clearly on the left of politics (The Labour Party is at least on the left of the British political spectrum), so we don't need another reference to claim that the party is centre-left. You can't let your own feelings about the Labour Party affect the neutrality of the article. -- Peter (Talk page) 11:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you answer this then? Political Compass. Also I genuinely believe Labour do a lot to hide the fact they are centre-right. Pretty much everyone on the true left believe Labour to be right-wing these days. Why don't you put the issue to bed and just find some citations? Is that because you can't because the party is centre-right? veganfishcake (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I got plenty of references, other than the unreiable political compass, indeed they are from a various sources. From the New Stateman[1][[2]][3], to the Independnet[1][2], the Mirror[1][2], the Telegraph[1] and Progess[1]. I feel that you have very strongly political bias, as your language shows. However you cannot use Wikipeida to make POV edits. The facts are that Labour is a centre-left political party. Regardless of if you agree with it or not.--Welshsocialist (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: Move some of the history section to the History article

I've noticed that a lot of (useful) information has been added to the History section over the past few months and it's gotten to the point that the section has become longer and more detailed than the History of the British Labour Party article - which is meant to be the main article. This Labour Party article and the section are uncomfortably long and it makes no sense to have so much information on here when it could be better suited on other relevant articles. All of the information seems useful, but it's just not relevant to the entire scope of this article.

Now I don't know where to start moving and which paragraphs to move - I have moved a little bit, but I'm unsure what to keep - but it's clear that some of the more detailed, longer paragraphs are better suited to the other article. I hope that a few editors here could read through the History section and decide which information to move other. It could be a fairly simple job.. but I really don't think it can be left how it is currently.

What do other editors think and are there any suggestions as to what should stay and how much the section should be cut down? -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely agreed. How about restoring the history section to how it was at the time of this edit before it was expanded and when it was nice and concise, and moving stuff added since to the main article. Also the main history article also needs updating. Gem (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

To the person who removed ethical socialism from the infobox: it has been an official policy of the Labour Party

Here are the two sources that state that ethical socialism is a component of the Labour Party:

• Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. Pp. 284.
• Mark Bevir. New Labour: a critique. London, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2005. Pp. 72.

If you look at the article on ethical socialism it provides sources that state that ethical socialism has been a phenomenon in the Labour Party since the 1920s when it was developed by R. H. Tawney and since supported by Labour Party leaders and Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Atlee, and Tony Blair.--R-41 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)