Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)

Template:Election box metadata

Let's not pussyfoot here

Full disclosure: I'm an active Lib Dem member. But I think we're not treating the party neutrally at all. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be a he-said-she-said argument; they should read retrospectively and neutrally. In five years time, when this coalition is dissected by the academics, I can see three major perspectives, which roughly coincide with the parties:

• The Lib Dems as an influential liberal voice pushing liberal policies (e.g. same-sex marriage, information tracking, digital economy act)
• A sense of disappointment and betrayal from left-wing voters for getting into coalition (e.g. tuition fees, welfare bill, NHS bill)
• A sense of anger from right-wing voters for having too much say in government policy (e.g. death penalty, EU, abortion)

We cover too much of #1 but not enough of the other two, despite the viewpoints being somewhat equal in how they're held. For example, we skim over tuition fees even though it's a pretty big deal: it ended up losing us the AV referendum, especially when the No2AV freepost had a picture of Clegg with the pledge. We should rewrite the article from this retrospective perspective, saying, for example, on tuition fees, that independent reviews mostly say the policy is good in the details, but the top-line of £9,000 ended up creating an image of the party as untrustworthy. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

There appears to be an edit-war going on here between two users. I have locked the article for some discussion to take place as neither party appears to have raised the subject on the last week on this talk page. Both of you need to discuss the matter and come to a sensible conclusion as to what state the article should be in. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've logged on to find the edit warring tag on my profile. Obviously this disappoints me as I've tried to conduct myself politely and logically. I think further investigation of this issue and it's history will exonerate me.

The sentence I (and at least one other editor here) has a problem with currently stands like this "An academic study has shown that the party has been able to secure a greater degree of control over government policy than their relative proportion of seats, with the party taking 75% of their manifesto pledges into the programme for government. Though some say this has had an adverse effect on the party's distinctiveness in the eyes of the voters". This is placed in the lead paragraph of the article which should be a concise summary of what the article is about and an introduction to the topic. It's pretty obvious to me that this is not an encyclopedic claim. It's impossible to gauge how much 'influence' one party or another has in a coalition government, it's impossible to argue whether this influence is proportionate or disproportionate to the number of seats a particular party holds, and it's certainly impossible to take a document as vaguely worded as an election manifesto and state baldly that exactly 75% of it has been delivered. The idea is simply laughable. To take such ambiguous concepts as influence and political promises and give them such exact quantities is not encyclopedic. I don't think it can be argued that the outcome of this dispute has a political consequence either way for the LibDem or any other party. Some LibDems, including the multiple IP I've come into dispute with may feel that it gives their party more Kudos to claim that their influence in the coalition is disproportionately strong. Others might argue equally well that claiming influence in a deeply unpopular government is exactly not what they wish to do. I don't particularly care either way about the political consequences of the debate, I do care about WP being accurate and making statements that have some grounding in facts that can be verified. Riversider (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I posted this two days ago, and noone has yet argued against any of these points. I'm beginning to think that there's therefore a case for removing that sentence as it's unencyclopedic and should not be in the lead paragraph. I'm aware that it cites an 'academic article'. There may be a case for inserting information from this (and probably other articles) in the section on the party's role in the current coalition to reflect the debate that exists around how influential within the coalition the party actually is. Any objections? Riversider (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Riversider, the two sentences aren't encyclopaedic - they're just advocacy. Haldraper (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, only just saw this. The reason you have been blocked the same as me is because you edit warred the same as me. It isn't a question of being polite or being high and mighty as you are, it's about that we broke the rules and you shouldn't recognise this as I do. You were making a politically motivated change to this article, in an area where there had previously been consensus except for other politically motivated editors, so you should have raised it on the talk page before changing.

I don't see how you can argue that this sentence makes the article un-concise, as it is less long than the Conservative Party UK lead, the Green Party of England and Wales lead, the UK Independence Party lead and about the same length as the Labour party (UK) lead. So your problem is clearly not actually how concise the lead is.

You then say about your view that it is not possible to gauge how much 'influence' a coalition party has, or how 'laughable' it is to base it on the election manifesto of a political party. For starters, the sentence doesn't gauge influence, it measures exactly a simple factor: how many manifesto policies were taken in to the coalition agreement. Secondly and more importantly, it doesn't matter whether you think it is laughable or not, nor does it matter what I think. An encyclopaedia has to be based on sources, now you can hardly call UCL's Constitution Unit some unimportant and not noteworthy body. An extremely academic source, made a measurement which is off huge significance to this article in providing context to the rest. "To take such ambiguous concepts as influence and political promises and give them such exact quantities is not encyclopedic", well, take this up with UCL. By the by, it's very easy, the Lib Dem manifesto and the coalition agreement essentially show policies in bullet point form.

I don't care either way about the fate of a political party, but this encyclopaedia is meant to be based on well sourced academic facts; that is what this sentence is. It needs to be in the lead because it is significant to the article as a whole, not just the coalition government. To argue that we should not include anything which has happened since the formation of the coalition in the lead just doesn't add up. If we did that we wouldn't include the number of MPs, the proportion of the vote, or in fact, basically about half the lead. The UKIP article shows how many councillors they won in 2011 in the lead.

The lead does need to show recent events. It's just that some editors would prefer it if they could simply slur the party. I only want facts and well sourced ones in the appropriate places.

--Purple1342 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Matt that you're only here to push the line of your political party - that it was worth your MP's joining the coalition government despite the political backlash. That's advocacy (your claim that you "don't care either way about the fate of a political party" is particularly disingenuous). I don't want to make any claims in the lead, just cut the last two sentences. Haldraper (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matt/Purple, I've just been posting on your talkpage - didn't realise you'd been here. I've actually proposed a compromise that I think would work and enhance the article - I really don't think your sentence belongs in the lead paragraph, it's too narrow and technical a matter for a paragraph that's meant to sum up the whole history of a party from it's birth to the present day, it's an issue that is very interesting for people who are politically passionate about the LibDems (whether their passion is pro or anti), but it's something that the everyday person consulting the encyclopedia would not be quite as excited about. I'm proposing that I delete the sentence from the lead, but that you re-integrate it into the main body of the text in the section that deals with the party's role in the present coalition government. The article is directly relevant to that discussion and would be well placed there, and people who are passionately interested will be interested enough to reach that part of the article. I know you have ambitions to be a political leader yourself, so here's where you can start learning some leadership skills. Good leaders don't always have to win every argument, instead they build consensus and a reputation for listening, as well as acting. The many blocks and warnings you've received on your own talk page are WP's less than subtle way of trying to point this out to you. Now's your chance to demonstrate that you're learning from your interaction with this global community and it's work. WP is a strange kind of living coalition too. Riversider (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Article

An Article in The Daily Telegraph recently says (which I have proved in an Excel file) that under the current polls, the Lib Dems would only have 2 high-profile MPs in the commons. Should this be included? Spa-Franks (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The information sounds rather too ephemeral to be worth including. Next week it might be different. Dbfirs 16:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Polling

Have added a sub section with a graph on polling. This is not only newsworthy but noteworthy as well. It has been going on for a long sustained period (since April 2012), it is very closely covered by what we regard as reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian, The Telegraph etc, so on and so forth). This definitely has a pace in both this article and UKIP's article, it is already in UKIP's article and the text has already been scrutinized by those who openly admit that they are Liberal Democrats. However I understand that with this being a Liberal Democrat article that it is indeed reasonable to add to the text and perhaps give a bit of background as to why the Lib Dem's have lost support (i.e. taking most of the blame for the coalition, tuition fees, mid term blues etc).

It is important to avoid speculation on this though and I'd be weary of opinion pieces when commenting on both UKIP and The Liberal Democrats. I have not added to the agreed text because it is so difficult to write something and then back it up without the source being blatantly biased one way or the other! We must be careful of this, it would be quite wrong to say that "The Lib Dem's are facing extinction because they are criticized of constantly giving in to the Tories" because that isn't completely true and also they are the junior member of a coalition and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect them to get their own way most of the time. Equally it would be wrong to say that "UKIP have surged in support because they have capitalized on the disaffected Tory right", Yes that have gained votes from the Tory right but at the same time they have also gained large numbers from Labour (look at Rotherham) and the Lib Dem protest vote. I am giving a slight bit of analysis here which I know I shouldn't, I'm just trying to emphasize what would be an unreasonable thing to say. I hope you would know that but I have seen some far from neutrally written things on wikipedia, particularly on UKIP's page.

However, I am sure that as reasonable adults, we can agree a text, that is written neutrally, avoiding putting anyone's political point across! That is indeed if we need to expand this text! Just to note it was not me that wrote the current text, it has been altered a number of times by various editors, most of whom admit to having an interest in the Liberal Democrats but most regular editors of the UK Politics section do.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I aprove of this, there is no need for further expansion or analysis of any kind, that is not our job, we have not done this on related pages. Leave it as it is, it needs to be covered but not overhyped, the bigger the section you make it, the more overhyped it will be. That said it must be covered and the chart and inks to the polling page allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Let's not attempt to lead (or mislead as the case may be) down a certain path!Nick 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:Sheffno1gunner and User:Nick Dancer have been identified as one and the same person and blocked for socking. --RJFF (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:Recentism. The LibDems have existed for 25 years. There has always been some up and down in opinion poll ratings. Their recent poll ratings are utterly irrelevant in a historical perspective (which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia should try to maintain). If their yields in elections drop, this has to be noted, but temporary "struggles" in opinion polls are not relevant for an encyclopedia. --RJFF (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of agree with RJFF, the competition for 3rd place is worth mentioning...but that whole section is way too "recentism." By my resolution, the 2010 onwards section of 'history' is going at about 1 screen per year. Though much of that is the list of ministers & whips....certainly important, but shouldn't be under 'history'. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)