Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Progressivism, Social Democracy and Social Liberalism.

The references do not work however there is proof in this site and in others backing what I am saying. As to progressivism this website, a Lib Dem think thank, has called Labour progressive: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/10/social-liberal-forum-statement-on-lab-lib-talks Also, as to social democracy, Labour's rose means social democracy and according to the list of social democratic parties, Labour is one of them. AS to social liberalism, if you look at social liberalism's page on Wikipedia, you'll find the Labour Party regarded as social liberal with references tagged onto it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.108.69 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Brewer's Politics quotes Hugh Brogan on the word "progressive" - "a curiously empty word". The non-Labour group on the London County Council in the early 20th C. called themselves "progressives" and David Cameron has also described the Con-Lib coalition as such. We discussed the relevance of "social democracy" here and concluded that we wouldn't use it in the infobox.--Pondle (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Canada's "Progressive Conservative" parties, affectionately called "Tories", the Progressive Unionist Party in Northern Ireland or countless other "progressive" parties across the political spectrum. There is standard usage of categorization of political parties, as explained in left-right politics. If there is another system used in the literature, then it would be helpful if it could be provided. TFD (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the word 'progressive' means social and economic change something the Labour Party has been part of. In America, the Democrats have called themselves progressives and it is allowed in their infobox. There is a strong Democrat/Labour relationship! Social democracy relevant to Labour- I think it is risible to call Labour democratic socialist without saying they are social democratic. Even this very website has said Labour is a social democratic and social liberal party. As regards to PUP, they are leftwing and they are allowed 'progressive' in their infobox! Thanks for reading.--92.30.108.69 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, you need citation support to sustain it. Please stop editing the page directly without talk page agreement --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Snowded but I have given websites, I have used Wikipedia as well to prove it. I have used SocialLiberal Forum a Lib Dem think thank! I have used Labour's website! I think Wikipedia should be consistant and as a reader who uses this website it is inconsistent. That is why you should put progressive, social liberal, social democratic and I am reaching out for an agreement not based on political belief but on references.--92.30.108.69 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't given reliable sources, or in some cases any reference. As far as I can see "progressive" is from a self declared left of centre multiple authored blog and its not an ideology anyway. You say that there is a list of social democratic organisations but you don't provide it. You can't use wikipedia as a source and the article only references that some labour party policy after WWII was designed by liberals. In other words nothing of substance. --Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

92.30, you've provided liberalconspiracy.org, interpretation of Labour's logo, and Wikipedia pages. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources to help understand why you're getting such resistance to your proposed change.

In the meantime, I've protected the article for two weeks. This constant edit-warring over ideologies and currents has been going on for far too long, from far too many IPs and registered editors. TFOWR 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If editors stuck to sources, then we would describe Labour's ideology as 'neoliberal', as the many sources I listed on this talk page several months ago prove this conclusively. There is definitely a real reluctance from party members who are also editors here to face up to the fundamental ideological shift that has happened in the leadership of the party away from democratic socialism, and even social democracy to the acceptance of neoliberal values and precepts. Some of the current leadership candidates have made implied criticisms of the previous leadership's shift away from Labour's founding values, but there's little evidence of any genuine policy changes that would return Labour to those values in their election statements. The one thing most of us agree on is that the current description of Labour's ideology as democratic socialist is so factually wrong as to be risible in any academic environment. We need something better than this. The old uncomfortable compromise listing 3 competing ideologies was closer to the truth. Riversider (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are comfortable with the sources that demonstrate that Labour, especially under Blair adopted a neo-liberal economic policy but that is not the same thing as an ideology. Neither is Third Way really appropriate and the social democratic label is a continental tradition. --Snowded ^TALK 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Political scientists classify political parties by ideological families. Here is one of many reliable sources that provide an explanation. Parties are classified according to history, ethos, and membership, which remain constant over time. Policy on the other hand changes with circumstances, and the social liberal paradigm has been replaced by neoliberalism. That does not mean that we re-label most parties as neoliberal. And hereditary peers still support the Tories and the unions still support Labour. TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Policies and ideologies are tightly tied together - it's utterly contradictory say a party has neoliberal policies and a socialist ideology. Labour's membership has changed drastically in the post war period, both in terms of numbers and of class composition http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2475301/Labour-membership-falls-to-historic-low.html . According to a couple of Labour leadership candidates in their recent TV debate, the 4m voters that abandoned Labour during it's last period in office were overwhelmingly from it's traditional working class base. Fundamental shifts have happened in Labour, in its make up and its ideology. This has been recognised by multiple published sources, but not yet recognised by WP, because of the recalcitrance of editors that are also Labour Party members, and do not wish to admit the truth to themselves. Riversider (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Riversider2008, knock off the unfounded speculation about the party loyalties of good-faith editors. If you're interested in my "party affiliations" you can check my userpage, but I'm sick and tired of being labelled a Labour Party apologist just because you disagree with me. TFOWR 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw that point, but would ask you to consider the evidence of membership numbers, composition, policy, and the vast amount of published material that shows that Labour's ideology is anything but 'democratic socialist'. WP editors should not overrule the weight of published sources, and plenty of authoritative published sources exist that state that Labour's ideology is neoliberal. This is at least a 'large minority view', and should be reflected in the article in proportion to the authority and weight of these sources. Riversider (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Should this be mentioned in the article? Quite possibly. Views from reliable sources are useful - indeed, they're necessary. Should it be mentioned in the infobox? No, I don't believe so. The party itself describes itself as "democratic socialist", and that ideological description is broadly accepted in the United Kingdom. Debates about whether the party's view of itself is accurate belong in the article, not in the infobox. TFOWR 13:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source that shows that political scientists now classify it as a liberal party. The fact that the source provided says that most of their contributions come from labor unions and that it cannot attract wealthy contributors do not make that look promising. Here is a chart from Ware's 1996 Political parties and party systems, which classified them under "Socialist and Social Democratic parties". If later scholarship has re-classified them, then please provide sources. We cannot however conduct our own original research and decide among ourselves where they belong. The information on falling membership, etc,, is howver relevant to the article. TFD (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've provided multiple sources from various authoritative academic and political commentators higher in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)/Archive_3#Even_More_Published_Sources , so it certainly isn't original research. For example Fullbrook says in Economics and Neo-Liberalism http://www.paecon.net/Fullbrook/EconomicsandNeoliberalism.pdf "Neoliberalism is the ideology of our time. And of New Labour and Tony Blair." and even Labour MPs have used the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)/Archive_4#Labour_MP_on_Neoliberalism A huge number of sources listed here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)/Archive_4#Supporting_material I'd like to refer you to the WP infobox of the UK Conservative party. here the infobox lists two ideologies, and multiple internal factions, going well beyond what the party 'officially' says about itself. Sticking purely to what parties say about themselves would lead to all kinds of problems, particularly when dealing with parties like the BNP, it is not an encyclopaedic way of achieving a definition. Earlier this year, the infobox listed 3 'ideological currents' to define Labour's ideology: democratic socialism, social democracy and neoliberalism. This was an uncomfortable editorial compromise, yet it reflected the published sources far better than the current infobox. Riversider (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While newspaper articles are good sources for facts, e.g., membership totals, you should use peer-reviewed articles or books published in the academic press for explanation of a party's ideology. Of course, blogs and columns are not even reliable sources for facts. And we cannot interpret information such as privatization to form our own conclusions about the party's ideology. Remember too that one good source is all that is needed, and is worth more than many poor sources. And while how other articles are written may provide an example, they are not guidelines that we must follow. TFD (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you take the time to check the links I've provided, you'll find multiple academic articles from peer reviewed journals in several academic disciplines, as well as articles from leading political journalists, Labour insiders and Labour critics. Incidentally on the 'social liberalism' debate, articles that apply the term 'neoliberalism' to labour outnumber those that apply the term 'social liberalism' to it by a huge factor. I think the WP article on the UK conservative party serves as a good example, and you've not explained why we should simply take a political party's word for what their ideology is, rather than listening to all the other commentators.Riversider (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And the arguments against that assertion have been made several times. Summary repetition: adopting a neo-liberal economic policy does not mean a neo-liberal ideology per se; post the banking collapse everything changed anyway; you have to look at the whole history of a party. Unless there is something new this should be closed off, especially given the accusations against other editors --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been 'accusations' levelled at me too during this debate, which I have taken in good spirit. You can see that I have withdrawn any comments about party affiliations affecting editors capacity to look at Labour objectively, that is clearly a matter for them to consider for themselves. The way to achieve objectivity is to stick to published sources. Many sources go beyond saying Labour had neoliberal policies, and do assert that Labour had a neoliberal ideology. You're correct that there has been a banking crisis, and a major economic downturn which has certainly set neoliberalism back - but how this will affect Labour's ideology is not yet clear. We'll need to await the outcome of the leadership election before we can see this clearly, so I think removing the tag was unneccessary recentism. Riversider (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When I look at the first source I find a link to an article by a freelance writer and college tutor in the Telegraph about privatizing the post office.[1] Among all the numerous sources could you please point to one that supports the changes you wish to make. TFD (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I included the Telegraph source because earlier in the debate I'd been accused of only finding sources that reflected the views of those on the left. It was easy to find people on the right using similar language to criticise Labour's ideology. I've a sneaking suspicion that you want me to put up a single source, which you will then find an reason to show is not authoritative, and we will end up in a game where I continue to post up source after source, and you post up objection after objection. However I'm going to assume good faith and post up this: Colin Hay's book 'The Political Economy of New Labour' where he makes statements like "My aim in this chapter is to establish that by the completion of the policy review, Labour had ceased effectively to be a social democratic party, committed as it had by then become to a neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and to a basic acceptance of the legacy of the Thatcher years." He also states in this book, to those who would separate economics from ideology, that "the political, economic and the cultural are not independent arenas...it is important that we resist the narrow privileging of the economic and the political"

Colin Hay is a professor of political analysis at the University of Sheffield Riversider (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that. Hay's thesis was picked up in a more recent book, The death of social democracy (2008).[2] However, as acknowledged by the writers, this is a minority view and in fact was argued in the 1950s, as socialists embraced social liberalism, in the interwar period, when socialists accepted parliamentary democracy, and during the Great War, when socialists supported their national governments. As Alain observed in 1931, "[P]eople ask me if the division between parties of the right and parties of the left, men of the right and men of the left, still makes sense...." TFD (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou too, you seem to have provided yet another excellent reference that supports the case for the 'neoliberalism' tag being restored: http://books.google.com/books?id=e-V-2PYJWVkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false You're clearly quite familiar with this literature yourself. WP is required to give representation to 'significant minority viewpoints', and those that argue that Labour's ideology is neoliberal ar not flat-earthers, but are arguing a cogent case based on strong evidence. If you accept that this is a significant minority viewpoint, backed up by a considerable amount of literature (including some you have provided yourself), then it should receive representation in the article. I have never argued for replacing the words 'democratic socialism' with 'neoliberalism', just that neoliberalism should appear alongside this description, as one of the ideological currents that undeniably exists in the Labour Party. Riversider (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be acceptable for the article but the infobox is supposed to show a maintream understanding. It may be that Blair wanted to turn Labour into a liberal party, like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party run by an elite with corporate support, little union influence and no left wing. But that would only have worked had the Left broken away to form its own party as they did in Germany. TFD (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The key problem TFD is that it is not the 'mainstream understanding' that Labour is now a 'democratic socialist' party, either in political or academic circles. People would laugh if anyone argued seriously that Labour's recent policies or ideology bore any relationship to socialism. 'Democratic socialism' is Labour's official designation, but everyone knows it is little more than a historic label, and bears little relation to present reality, the controversy starts when discussing what to replace it with. By having the three descriptions in the infobox, it made it clear to the reader that Labour's ideology was very much in flux, and that there were different trends in the party, very much as the UK Consertive Party's article does. Riversider (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source that says this is the mainstream understanding. From reading the sources it appears that they do not claim that it is anything beyond a minority opinion, let alone a consensus view, hence phrasing like, "My aim in this chapter is to establish that...." Here is a link to a 2002 book that says, "social democracy, even when it is 'neoliberalized', is not neoliberal" (p. 173). But it may be that you believe Labour was once something that it never was. TFD (talk)

At the moment you seem to be doing my work for me TFD, that's a cracking reference. The chapter on 'The New Social Democracy' starting on p228 repeats, almost word for word what I've been arguing here, and recounts the depth of the transformation that has occurred in the UK Labour Party. This source argues that the transformation toward neoliberalism actually began much earlier than Blair, back in the 1980's under Kinnock. I've no reason to dispute this. What is clear is that as well as there being highly authoritative sources, there is also a huge weight of sources. I disagree with you slightly on the authority of newspaper articles and blogs, the authority of these nowadays depends on who has written them and which institutions they are attached to. It's difficult to determine which view is the majority, but while I have been repeatedly asked (and repeatedly succeeded) to provide published sources to show that people are asserting that Labour's ideology is neoliberal, those who argue that Labour's ideology should be described as democratic socialist have come up with not one single published source that could not be described as a self-published source, I.e. a Labour Party publication. Let's have that side produce some citations to back their case for a change... Riversider (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party's website describes the party as "democratic, socialist". Organisations are regarded as reliable sources for their own views. TFOWR 13:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...but an external cite wouldn't hurt: The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science, Neal Riemer and Douglas Simon. Note that these two refs took me all of thirty seconds on Google, and this second ref was the first one that came up on Google Books. I'd imagine that there are many more. TFOWR 13:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but might be useful for context. I'm not a Labour Party member or supporter. On the rare occasions I vote, I vote tactically - at my last general election I voted for Labour (NZ) and Greens (Aotearoa) as a tactical vote to hinder the National Party (who won). But I don't regard Labour (UK) as either democratic or socialist. But my views are irrelevant: our role here is to write a neutral article, reflecting widespread understanding of the topic. The Labour Party in the UK is considered a democratic socialist party. That's maybe because the party's dominant role in UK politics shapes UK understanding of the term "democratic socialist". That's maybe due to other factors. But it doesn't matter. We still need to reflect the mainstream view. TFOWR 13:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My turn to question the authority of sources now. Firstly the Labour Party's website is a 'self published source'. I could write a website and say that I was a philanthropist and a world champion weight lifter. Secondary sources are important. The second citation TFOWR gives was published in 1997 while Labour was still in opposition, and is a 4th edition, so it's likely the chapter cited could have been written years earlier, it certainly reads as incredibly out of date, and as if it were written for American schoolchildren. In any case it predates the experience of the most recent Labour government. The argument that Labour is democratic socialist because it says it is, and that democratic socialism is what Labour says it is, is dangerously circular, yet seems the only one that justifies the current infobox. Riversider (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You missed the part where I said "Organisations are regarded as reliable sources for their own views". The article can say that the Labour Party describes itself as "democratic socialist". If the Labour Party said that "heritary peerages are evil" we couldn't cite them for that claim, only for their belief. Using your example, we could cite you to show that you believe you are a philanthropist, but we could not cite you to claim that you are a philanthropist. WP:PRIMARY sources are fine for "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". TFOWR 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case the current infobox should be qualified by using the word 'official' or 'self-proclaimed' before the word 'ideology', those arguing for keeping the infobox as it is need to come up with much more up to date and authoritative sources to show that there is a commonly held view among academics and political commentators that Labour's current ideology is democratic socialist. Riversider (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, the burden of evidence rests on the side proposing a change. The party has described itself as "democratic socialist" since 1994: if academia disagrees with that it should be easy to demonstrate. If academia believes the UK Labour Party is something else ("neoliberal", perhaps) than, again, that should be easy to demonstrate. But, again, the onus is on the proposers of the change to make their case. To date I've seen evidence that the neoliberalism thesis exists, and that's maybe worth mentioning in the article as a minority viewpoint. But I don't see any case to change the infobox. TFOWR 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox was changed from a previous version which included the term 'neoliberalism' as one (among several) descriptions of Labour's ideology to it's current one pretty recently. This is how it looked back in May this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=364034611 I don't think that there has ever been any evidence produced to justify that change. That's what I'm asking for. There's plenty of evidence that shows that many in academia do use the word 'neoliberalism' to describe Labour ideology, as the long list of citations I've produced, and TFD's kind additions clearly demonstrate. The previous version reflected the balance of published sources more accurately, changing it was unjustified by published sources, and flew in the face of a long list of authoritative sources (that is now even longer). Expecting academia to have one single consensus view about Labour's ideology is to misunderstand how academia works, especially on inherently contraversial topics like political parties. An infobox that reflects the various strands of academic debate is more accurate than one which posits a non-existent consensus. Riversider (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "Neoliberalism" was removed in the edit you provided. I checked back through the article's history to see how long "neoliberalism" had been in the article prior to that. It was added here, by an editor called... Riversider2008. Right now I'm thinking that we're all probably too involved (though my involvement here really only stems from, I think, a request at WP:RFPP). I'm thinking that raising this at WP:NPOVN may be the answer. That'll draw in outside eyes, and I think this subject definitely needs examining closely. TFOWR 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This source which is about political parties in the 1980s shows that Labour was grouped as a socialist party. The book is unavailable on Google but can be read on Questia. There is no evidence that this grouping has changed. Is "neoliberal" a new party type and if so should any of the other U.K. parties be grouped within it? TFD (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raised at WP:NPOVN. TFOWR 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it TFOWR. One mistake editors are making here is assuming that the change I am arguing for is one that states that Labour has become a neoliberal party, while several of the sources I cited state this, this is not what the infobox itself actually states. Instead the infobox lists 'neoliberalism' as one of several ideological trends influencing the party. This is softer, more subtle and more complex, and as such is also a better representation of reality than a gross oversimplification in any one particular direction. Oversimplification of a complex situation leads to POV distortion, and a bald oversimplified unqualified statement that Labour's ideology is 'democratic socialist' in no way reflects reality or published sources. One more good article in Labour's house journal, the New Statesman, which is today calling for the next Labour leader to break with "New Labour's Neoliberal economic model" http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/labour-leader-miliband-deficit Riversider (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"One mistake editors are making here..." Riversider2008, please don't make sweeping comments about other editors, or at least be prepared to back them up with diffs. I know what my concerns are, and they certainly aren't that you'd be quite that blunt. Back to the issue at hand, "New Labour" is not the Labour Party. Certain figures around Blair may have subscribed to neoliberalism, but that doesn't automatically make it appropriate to use "neoliberalism" as an ideology for the party as a whole. The party is more than just the previous leadership: it's the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the rank-and-file membership, and the affiliated socialist societies' members as well. (I'm also unconvinced that it's correct to describe the New Statesmen as the party's house journal - but that's another issue). TFOWR 23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies TFOWR, part of the problem is my writing style,where I do make my points quite emphatically, which I suspect makes people believe that the wording I am arguing for is equally sweeping and emphatic. The sentence you pick out is one example of my emphatic style, which was not meant as a criticism of all editors. The New Statesman is a pretty authoritative source on the Labour Party, and the article I cite is an editorial leader, which I believe gives it extra authority. You're right that the party is not a simple institution, it's a large coalition of disparate forces, and this makes it more unsatisfactory to use a single bald label for it's ideology to describe what is a far more complex situation. The Infobox as it stood up to May did not state that neoliberalism was an ideology for the party as a whole, but listed neoliberalism as one of several 'ideological currents' influencing the party. If you accept that Blair and several people round him 'subscribed to neoliberalism', then this formulation would reflect that fact accurately, while also representing the fact that other sections of the party held to social democratic or democratic socialist values. Riversider (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've subscribed to the New Statesman for the whole of my adult life, and I'd count it as an authoritative source on most subjects, but it does represent a wing of the Labour Party and comments in the Leader columns are political positions not neutral comments. I really do think you are mixing up the requirements for content in the main article with the proper purpose and function of the information box

It's certainly evidence that a significant section of the Labour Party itself believes that the previous Labour leadership had a neoliberal economic model. The purpose of the infobox is not to give a falsely simplified version of a far more complex situation. This is the infobox I am arguing for: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=364034611 This shows that there is more than one ideological current in the Labour Party. If we look at the WP infobox for the UK conservative party, that lists 5 or 6 ideologies that are influencing that party. I understand the attraction of simplification, but oversimplification leads to POV distortion, and does not help the reader. Riversider (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See previous discussions/arguments on all those points --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Show me any published source anywhere that says the Labour Party has only one ideology. Riversider (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

People of all political persuasions belong to all major political parties and often hold important positions. That does not mean that we add every ideology to every party. TFD (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that either, that's a 'straw man' argument, I'm merely suggesting that we list the significant ideologies that have an impact on the party's direction. People above have accepted that Blair and others around him 'subscribed to neoliberalism' (and theres plenty of published material that verifies this view). The ideology subscribed to by someone that led the party for a decade must surely be considered significant. Riversider (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the most common explanation is that Labour inherited neoliberalism and attempted to modify its extreme nature. Instead of going back to redistributionism, they sought a "Third Way". Some writers believe that the Third Way was merely "spin-doctoring".[3] But as Tony Blair said, socialism was never about nationalization. And the post WW2 policies of Labour were not socialism, but social liberalism, policies adopted by all parties everywhere, anf no more socialist than classical liberalism or neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are suggesting, however, that we add an ideology that a group of people who held important positions for a limited period be added. I disagree. This was a decade in the history of a party that spans a century. Add "neoliberalism" to Blair's article, mention it in the article-proper here, but I'm just not seeing this as anything other than WP:UNDUE in the infobox. Neoliberalism is really not what most people think of when they think of the Labour Party. "Social democracy" - quite likely. "Third way" - maybe. "Neoliberalism" - no. This is a small period, involving a small (though admittedly important) group. It just smacks of WP:UNDUE. I've hinted above that I'm surprised that you were the editor who initially added "neoliberalism" (and then failed to mention that in this discussion). I was less surprised to see that your editing focus centres around "neoliberalism" - either arguing for it on this talk page, or editing at Talk:Neoliberalism and Neoliberalism. That, coupled with the IP pushing here, and that this current discussion only started when I protected the article, has me very concerned. Several editors have disagreed with your proposed inclusion. I'd suggest it's time to drop it, and let WP:NPOVN weigh in with neutral views. TFOWR 11:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you seem to be arguing 'everyone knows labour isn't socialist' as an argument for keeping 'democratic socialism' as the description of Labour's ideology.

TFOWR: We seem to have shifted on the criteria for inclusion into the article from accurately reflecting the balance of published sources to "what most people think of when they think about this topic" (if this was the criteria for inclusion on all articles, nobody would ever learn anything by coming here). I have never made any secret of the fact that I posted neoliberalism as a tag originally and believed it to be common knowledge among the editors who usually edit this page. In fact several editors have posted 'neoliberalism' before me, but without making reference to the many published sources that exist, mine was the first such edit that 'stuck', and lasted between October and May, in fact it became the basis for an agreed consensus among editors during those months, as the edit record and the talk page discussion will confirm. If you are implying that I am connected with IP pushing, I can reassure you that I always edit using my username, and have not engaged in canvassing or other editorial malpractice. Although Blair is no longer leader, a number of those who were part of his coterie remain in leading positions, and a couple are leadership candidates, so it is recentism to suggest that Labour's 'neoliberal' period has now ended, we'll only know this when we see how things settle after the leadership election. I can say that in the time I have spent adding to WP, I believe I have behaved well as an editor, using published sources as the basis for my edits, seeking consensus where others disagree with my edits and conducting debate on the talk page in a constructive, friendly and good faith way, with the aim of helping this article be as accurate as it can be in reflecting the published sources. I thanked you for referring this to NPOVN, and welcome neutral viewpoints on this matter (if it is philosophically possible to have a genuinely neutral viewpoint on a topic that relates to a political party). I think, given the weight of published sources that even if I personally were to 'DROP IT', this issue will return as a perennial one on this topic, as diligent editors whose concern is to represent accurately what the growing number of published sources say will end up re-including it, sooner or later. I'm happy to 'COOL IT' and wait for NPOVN. Riversider (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"We" seem to have done nothing of the sort. This isn't about inclusion in the article (I've said it's maybe worth a mention in this article), it's about inclusion in the infobox. The infobox should provide a balanced overview of the subject, an "at a glance" summary. This is a subject that spans a considerable history - you're wanting to summarise that history with a comparatively recent, minor ideology, an ideology that may well not even be relevant any more. I don't, to be honest, see much difference between that and trying to suggest that the party's ideologies include Marxism, Co-operation or Trotskyism. Indeed, these latter two arguably have far greater validity - the Co-operative Party remains a strong force within the Labour Party (and has been since the 30s), and the Militant Tendency was incredibly relevant between 1964 and 1987. These are worth discussing in the article but none of them, in my view, not even Co-operation, belong in the infobox. TFOWR 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying the everyone knows that Labour is not socialist but that it that has always governed following broadly liberal policies, as have the "Conservatives". TFD (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be fair to say that the Labour Party is now a Social Democratic and Progressive party much like the German Social Democratic Party and Swedish Social Democratic Party. Because to me that is the way Ed Miliband is taking Labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerseusMCMXCII (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It might well be, and if reliable sources start describing the party in that way then this article should too. Until then it's just our own original research. TFOWR 17:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read of political parties, typology rarely changes despite policy changes. (See Left-right politics). TFD (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate article on New Labour

Should there not be a separate article for New Labour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.240.223 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so; it's pretty much a phase in the party's history as the so-called "loony-left" years of the 1980s, so I can't see a reason to do this. Rodhullandemu 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New Labour is still the Labour Party, and part of the history of the party. It was more or less an martketing phase to signal to the electorate that Labour had moved on from the era of Michae Foot, Tony Benn and Militant Tendencies. That it was a centrist party, rather than a left wing one, and that the party had reformed. However it was still the Labour Party, with the same history and core values. So no.--Welshsocialist (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're all talking as though New Labour is now consigned to the past. While Blair and Mandelson seem to have stepped away from the fray, plenty of other key New Labour people are still in powerful positions. More importantly, the fundamental constitutional changes that New Laobur pushed through remain in place - the power of the NEC, and the ability of conference to make decisions that are binding on the leadership for example are now negligible compared to 20 years ago. There's also no evidence of any real policy shift. The 'marketing' element of New Labour may have been dropped, in that the term itself, and some of the language that went with it has become discredited, but the ideology, policy and political practices brought in by New Labour remain firmly in place. Will Ed Milliband change this? Clearly many hoped he would when they voted for him, but whether this is reflected in his actions as leader is still far too early to say. I'd oppose a separate article on New Labour, but the article as it stands still does not detail the fundamental changes that NL made to the party. Riversider (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any evolutionary trait persists to some extend and an entity of ecology moves on; that is as true for New Labour as it was for other periods such as the "loony left" one. This needs to be identified in the main body of the article. Our various opinions on that matter little, we need to use third party sources to document those changes. A separate article on New Labour seems to be to add little value. --Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Lord Kinnock views New Labour as an ultimately unsuccessful Entryist attempt in his 2010 Conference Speech, stating "We've got our party back." In this context, New Labour should be handled on the same level as Militant. Martinb9999 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Iraq

The article states that the war was unpopular, even though the 2005 UK election (at which the Iraq war was a major issue) saw the two pro-war parties come 1st and 2nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much the same as any election since at least 1924! I doubt you can read much into that; people vote on many issues and it just isn't possible to discover how much of an influence Iraq was. Rodhullandemu 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to election

I think this is not balanced at the moment - OK the TU response is quoted, but we also have the Newsnight attempt to avoid the RedEd label. THere is a danger of cherry picking here. I suggest we need a more balanced summary to the response. Opened for discussion here rather than just reverting --Snowded ^TALK 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kind of related question: was it trade unionists' votes that swung it, or trade union block votes? I don't know how Labour handle trade union votes these days, but back in the day it wouldn't have been individual trade unionists per se. Has that changed with OMOV? TFOWR 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And that statement has been challenged, the votes are close throughout, at the moment the wording looks like the Telegraph not a NPOV. --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indivisual Trade Union members that vote. The block vote is long dead in Labour. The "Red Ed" title is more of a slur by the right wing press and the Tories than a genuine tag that states the centrist Ed Miliband's political position. Maybe the tag can be mentioned as a slur used against him, but not as a definite title.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't cherry picking, simply quoting published sources. I actually disagree with Woodley and think that trade unionists are being very naive if they believe Ed will mean the end of New Labour, however Woodley is an authoritative spokesman for his union, and the wider union movement, so I have to stick with what published sources say. The Huhne quote is put in to balance the Woodley quote, so that there are responses from both left and right. It's hard to say whether there was a little bit of mischief in his suggestion that there might be a future Lib/Lab pact, especially from a cabinet minister, but in a way this makes the comment even more notable, as it gives a flavour of some of the politicking that is to come. WS is right, TU members voted individually. The middle class party membership and MPs voted Dave, the working class trade unionists voted Ed.Riversider (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you were cherry picking from published sources. We need to show balance here and proportionality a lot of this is too current to be creating expanded entries. Do we put in Kinnocks email to all Party members supporting his election, the commentary on his first full address? His brother's response on Iraq? There is a lot of material that can be linked to published sources. --Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The narrowness of Ed's victory and it's repercussions, the disloyalty of some of DM's New Labour backers, the relationship with Trade Unions, all will be key themes in this period of Labour's story. If the articles I chose don't reflect this adequately, find better ones. Riversider (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we could use articles to reflect many many responses, its too soon and too recent to provide a balanced summary of reaction. Best to leave it that he won the election. --Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objection to this wording. It has nothing to do with the Telegraph, the sources are the Financial Times and the Daily Mirror. At present "In opposition 2010-present" is a basically empty section, which looks daft. The notable event so far has been the election of Ed Miliband and the light it shines on the 'New Labour' period. the continuing importance of the Trade Union movement in the Labour Party and the future direction of the party - to the left, or into coalition with the Lib Dems? I feel that the wording I've used reflects this complexity in a short space. What I'd really prefer, is rather than merely deleting it, editors tried to improve it. Riversider (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Pipelinks

I can see a case for removing a few (like official opposition) but the dates and names are all important. Also removing the name of the leader from the lede is wrong. Whatever WP:BRD applies so can we have a discussion please --Snowded ^TALK 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the current version has too many hyperlinks and does not adequately summarise the page's content. One example is the top section of the opening paragraph, which merely states 'The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom'. I edited it to list several more vital pieces of information on the topic and is more in line with the format used in the opening sections of Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats.MWhite 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. I assume by "previous version" you mean your proposed edits. I had two problems with them which are summarised above. As far as I can see you lots a lot of information from the first paragraph and removed two important pipelinks in the second. You also removed information from the third paragraph. So I can't see how your statement above is correct --Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see logic in what issues you have with my proposed edits. Having almost every year linked to the respective general election makes the section quite messy. Information such as the party leader and Labour being the Official Opposition is placed into the opening paragraph and has no need to be referenced twice. I think views from other users may help to resolve this. User:Mwhite148MWhite 18:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you see it as a matter of logic, especially given your first argument was that your edit listed more vital pieces of information but in fact reduced the amount. I think we should pipeline where it eases readers ability to find supporting material. The dates link to articles about the government of that period so add value. You say that the party leader is referenced twice, but is is only in one place namely the second paragraph and you removed that, so I think you may just be mistaken there.--Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as far as I can see I removed no information from the opening section, I merely re-arranged it. Could you specify exactly what information was removed and perhaps I could correct this. With regards to the party leader, I thought you were implying it should be mentioned twice, which was obviously a misunderstanding. I still think other users should voice their opinions to clear this up.User:Mwhite148 MWhite 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Edit

Labour Party (UK) → Labour Party (GB) — The current title is factually correct, but would be more accurately listed at GB. There has been a discussion above on the topic, and no encyclopedic reason has been given to maintain it in it's current place, however it has been requested someone outside the discussion make the final move Fasach Nua (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I moved this article to it's proper location "Labour Party (GB)", this was reverted as it is controversial. I don't understand the controversy, this party only organises in GB, it only fields candidates in GB, surely GB is the most appropriate geographic disambiguation term. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The are entitled to organize in NI but choose not to. TFD (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They are entitled to organise in Denmark, but choose not to, I fail to see the point! Fasach Nua (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party is registered with the Electoral Commission to contest national elections for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I don't think that any of the major parties contested seats in NI in the last election, although they have in the past and may in the future. TFD (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Labour party is not registered to contest seats throughout the UK, it is only registered in GB. The Tory party is registered throughout the UK and put up candidates in every seat in the UK (save the speakers seat) in the last Westminster election. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge British Labour has never stood a candidate in Ireland, North or South, can a third party source stating they fielded candidates outside of GB in the past be provided? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I had not been aware that there are separate registers for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[4] However none to the three major parties are registered in Northern Ireland,[5] although the Conservatives have a branch there (see: Conservatives in Northern Ireland). However since these parties contest elections for the UK parliament, it seems logical to classify them as UK. TFD (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tory party is registered in NI, we have other regional parties seeking election to the UK parliament differentiated by their region on wikipedia, see Unionist Party (Scotland) for example. The Labour party seeks seats in many legislatures including the London Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assemble and the European Parliament, and numerous metropolitan and county councils, we don't have this article as Labour(EU) to reflect their ambition there, so I don't get why we mislead readers with Labour(UK). Fasach Nua (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Labour stopped running candidates in Ireland in 1913, while the Tories only began running candidates again (jointly with the UUP) in 2010. (On a technical point, are they officially the same party?) The Liberals or Liberal Democrats at one time tried to organize there. Let's see what other editors think about the proposed move. TFD (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no restriction on membership and a defacto SDLP link. Its a UK Party not GB --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If we base the disambiguation on those who can join, surely this should be Earth. The UK was the last state on this planet to which the Labour Party gave full membership rights to it's citizens Fasach Nua (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked the Electoral Commission website and it is clear that the Labour Party is only registered as a political party in Great Britain, whereas the Conservative Party is registered both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I must admit, this tends to support the point that Fasach Nua is making. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Most people know Britain as the UK, changing it to Great Britain would just confuse matters. The article states that Labour doesn't stand in Northern Ireland, and there is no confusing from that, even from people outside the UK. I just think this is editting for the sake of editting, rather than a constructive edit.--Welshsocialist (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So summing this up, the Labour party only organises in Great Britain and is only registered to engage in the electoral process in Great Britain, however they did field candidates in the rest of the UK just under a century ago. It has been argued that as the SDLP is a constituent party of the POES that this makes Labour active in NI, however none of the SDLP politicians take the Labour whip in the any legislature in which they sit together, so I think that is a nonsense argument. The issue of where it draws it's membership is also raised, and anyone in the world can join the GB Labour party, not just those from Britain, although it does limit trade union membership to GB unions rather than UK unions. The issue of confusion has also risen it's head, but in an encyclopedia the reader should expect to come across new knowledge, and articles should not mislead, especially within the opening three words of the title. I have yet to see any encyclopedic reason why this article should not be properly located at Labour Party (GB). Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the world their are parties that compete in elections for national legislatures but do not run in some provinces or states because they have an agreement with another party there. The best known examples are the CDU in Germany and the Liberal Party in Australia. But no one claims they are not German or Australian parties. The Labour Party long ago entered into an agreement with socialists in Ireland not to compete with them and this agreement continues with the SDLP, even though they do not otherwise cooperate. TFD (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Using Labour(GB) instead of Labour(UK) is not saying it isn't a UK party, just as Labour(UK) isn't stating it isn't a EU party, it is simply an accurate description of the geographical area of it's activity. The Australian and German examples are apt to a point, however we do not have a handy geographic term for Germany less Bavaria, but we do have a handy term to describe the UK less NI, which we use for Socialist Workers Party (Britain) as it only organises in GB and not throughout the UK. I have moved the page to reflect the parties geographical activity. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Before moving this article you should set up a move request, per WP:MOVE, get outside input and ask an administrator to close the discussion if consensus is achieved. So far I see no consensus and could you please stop moving this article until one is obtained. TFD (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, re the SDLP an agreement not to compete is stronger than taking the whip. The historical links to Irish socialism go back to Larkin and it just confuses things to make it GB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 November 2010

Fasach Nua is entirely correct, technically, factually and on the basis of published evidence. Labour does not organise in Northern Ireland, leaving the people there prey to parties based on religious bigotry rather than class solidarity. It is a shameful abnegation of responsibility. Riversider (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well now, the NILP did attempt that and the first congress of the Labour Party was in Belfast in 1907. Currently the Party organises in Northern Ireland and there is a petition to stand in elections going the rounds. Its not that simple an issue, and the ideal that religious bigotry can be solved by class solidarity is one of those naive positions that one would really like to be true, but which isn't --Snowded ^TALK 11:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That link is quite useful, is there a primary source reference? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the key issue is that the Labour Party is only registered as a political party in GB whereas the Conservative party is registered in Northern ireland as well. The Conservatives can therefore claim to be a UK party and the Labour party can claim to be a GB party. I don't see why this is so controversial. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Labour Party contests elections for the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its leaders for the last century have been either prime minister or leader of the opposition for the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)