Talk:Labour Party (UK)

New Labour Goverment 1997-2010

Sources "Nigel has written a key list" (PDF). Paultruswell.org.uk. Retrieved 23 July 2015 [38] is WP:SELFSOURCE.

Labour's Political Position

The Labour Party, while not completely left wing, does have a left wing leadership. So personally I think leaving "left wing" out of the Wikipedia page would be unfair. I also think, considering the large presence of the centre in the party, to leave out centre in the page. So I have a proposition: instead of completely changing it to left wing - we could change it to include the centre of the party and the left, (i.e. Centre to left wing). This would cover most of labours ideological positions - centre, centre left and left wing. Most, if not all, MP's and people within the Labour Party fall under these political wings, so personally I think this would be the best option.  Preceding unsigned comment added by masterpha (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (GMT)

The Labour Party is more of a left-wing party under Jeremy Corbyn rather than a centre-left party. The party has gone from being centre-left to left wing in the past 2 or 3 years. This is very clear from the Labour manifesto for the 2017 general election. The nationalization of industries as well as very high tax and spend policies indicate that Labour is certainly more left wing than centre-left. Although, I would like to hear some rebuttle, as I am not 100% sure that I am correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DhroovP (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If we judge from the manifesto they are far-left not left wing  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC) 

How do reliable sources describe the Labour Party's political position? That's the only relevant thing. Ralbegen (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We should omit the field per neutrality. There can never be any agreement on any party's position on the political spectrum because there is no agreement where the center lies or how or how far from the center any party is. Experts classify parties into ideological families based on history, policies, international affiliatons, etc. Labour continues its ties with socialist parties in Europe and internationally, and rather than "Left" parties such as PODEMOS and Syriza. I have seen no reliable sources that Labour has transformed into a Left party and none of its positions are particularly left-wing. High tax and spend policies were supported by the Democrats in the U.S., and they were not left-wing in any sense. TFD (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to put forward that the current position (centre-left) should definitely stay. As to TFD's argument of removing the position entirely, this just doesn't hold weight. There certainly is a general political consensus of where the centre is. If your point was the case, the political position of all parties would have to be removed. This would require discussion on a page covering politics on Wikipedia as a whole and consensus there and I don't see that going anywhere. There has been general political consensus by political scientists for years of Labour being on the centre-left and unless you can provide at least a couple of scientific political sources that say otherwise, I think it should stay as it is. Also the claim by Jack1234567891011121314151617 of Labour being far-left is ridiculous. As per the initial argument, the 2017 manifesto was more left than the party has put out in a long time, however the position of a party leader and / or a party's manifesto doesn't encompass all a party is. Many other aspects should be taken into account, such as ideology, positions, positions and leanings of MP's, history etc. Helper201 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Name a political party where there is consensus it is centrist and not center-left or center-right. TFD (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are three just off the top of my head: En Marche!, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and Democrats 66. Helper201 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Macron has also been described as center-right[1] and center-left.[2] While the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland is normally described as centrist, that is relative to the left-wing and right-wing parties that dominate the province. Its Great Britain counterpart is often described as center-left. Labour and the Conservatives would also be centrist in the Northern Irish perspective, just as Christian Democrats, liberals and Social Democrats were described as centrist in the Weimar Republic (they occupied the center between Nazis and other right-wing extremists and the Communist Party.) Google books returns lots of sources describing "Democrats 66" as center-left.[3] TFD (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to clarify that the definition of consensus is 'a general agreement', not absolute agreement. The Liberal Democrats to which you refer to as being connected to the Alliance Party has no official connection. Also as someone that lives in Britain, the Liberal Democrats are almost always described (and self-described) as being in the centre. Labour and Conservatives would not be regarded as centrist by a Northern Ireland perspective. The closest ideologically to Labour in Northern Ireland is the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is also regarded as centre-left and the closest to the Conservatives is the Ulster Unionist Party (also conservative and regarded as centre-right). Helper201 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that the center can be placed differently according to the country. Also, there is no general agreement that a party is centrist if reliable sources routinely describe them as center-left. There is certainly not the same consensus that the LibDems are a liberal party. The controversy is whether where in the spectrum liberalism rests. TFD (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I am saying the exact opposite. For most parties there is general agreement on where they stand. Not all sources are equal either. For example, analysis by a political scientist generally holds more weight than a non-qualified journalist. Actually there is a large consensus on the Liberal Democrats being a liberal party. Judging by this and your next sentence, you seem to be confusing ideology and political position. Helper201 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. The relationship is that ideologies can be placed on the political spectrum, that's what the political spectrum is, a relative placement of ideologies from left to right. But while we all agree on relative position, there is general disagreement on absolute position. So we see for example references to D '66 as "center-left" in Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in Five European Democracies. It is part of a "comparative politics series" published by Routledge. Also The Logics of Party Formation: Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany (Cornell University Press, 1989), Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices (University of Michigan Press 2012). Political Handbook of the World 2014 (CQ Press, a division of SAGE Publications 2014) and many other reliable sources. No doubt you can find rs that call them center. I don't see though that we can determine these sources are wrong. TFD (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really. There are ideologies that don't fit on the left-right scale and while most ideologies usually align to a certain position (liberalism is usually in the centre), a certain ideology does not predicate a certain position and vise-versa. A lot of what your talking about is swinging off topic. This is not about D66, its about Labour, and as said, unless you can find a couple of recent sources of politically scientific evidence that suggest Laboour has a new or changed position, it should stay as it is. As for matters about political position in general, this is not the place to discuss that. You should probably try here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Helper201 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Labour is a left-wing party because it historically is a socialist party. It is center-left because it is not revolutionary. It is centrist because it lies between the extremes of free market capitalism and a planned economy. All these descriptions are accurate depending on context. And center-left has different definitions: between the left and center, the left part of the center or the least extreme section of the Left. Hence the term is also used to describe liberals, particularly social liberals. Ambiguous descriptions are more likely to confuse than enlighten. TFD (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Labour is definitely not a pure "left wing" party, especially not with all the other mainstream UK parties being categorised with a "centre" category of some sort. The Labour manifesto for 2017 was not a step change from their 2015 manifesto (some commentators even argued that in some policy areas like income tax and immigration Labour could be argued to have moved right), and the composition of its representatives and voter base certainly hasn't changed much. Whilst there's arguably a case for categorising Labour's broad church as "centre-left to left-wing" on the basis that there is a spectrum of opinion, it'd be unbalanced if we didn't at the same time make the Conservative Party "centre-right to right-wing" which could be justified on similar grounds. TFD's argument that we shouldn't categorise parties on a left-right spectrum at all because the labels are vague and the choice of them non-neutral is not without merit, but it's an argument that needs to be made at a higher level, as placing parties on a left-right scale is part of standard template used for all political parties across Wikipedia Dtellett (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Luke March says in "Defining the »Far Left«," "»Far left« parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy, which they see as insufficiently left-wing or even as not left-wing at all."[4] But generally they are refered to as left-wing in reliable sources. See for example Bobbio's "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction." News media routinely refer to the Labour Party as left-wing as in this CNBC story.[5] Labour is considered part of the Left in all kinds of sources.[6][7][8]

Whether or not the Conservatives as called right-wing is irrelevant. There is a lack of symmetry between the two terms: few public figures, other than fascists, refer to themselves as right-wing, while mainstream socialists such as Bobbio call themselves left-wing.

TFD (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there's more symmetry between the two terms than you're suggesting. ConservativeHome proudly makes lists of "influential figures on the right", and news media (not a great source for political science definitions as opposed to events) routinely describes the Conservative party or factions within it as "right wing". More to the point, there's an obvious asymmetry if Labour is represented as a "broad church" and the Conservative party as more narrowly centre-focused, despite having two influential factions classified by most political scientists as "right wing" (the New Right and the traditionalist social conservatives); ultimately the aim of including the left-right spectrum classifier is to position the major parties in British politics on relative to each other in as neutral a manner as possible, so how one major party is represented is relevant to how the other is presented. Dtellett (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Conservatives do not call themselves right wing. The international group they belong to (the International Democrat Union describes its member parties as "centre and centre-right." Some conservatives declare the terms left and right are meaningless or outdated. Labour however calls itself left-wing. TFD (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Labour Party generally does not describe itself as left wing but many of its members do and are quite proud of it (whilst others insist that they're the moderates and are outraged by media outlets labelling a leader who represents its leftmost faction as "left wing" in news reports); the same is true of the Conservatives and the right. I reiterate my original point which is that conclusion that one of the major parties in a nation state is much further from the political centre than the other is a POV which needs substantial justification to be articulated in Wikipedia's voice. An ideal source for this would be a number of academics categorising all the political parties within the UK political sphere (preferably in a none time-bound way). None has been provided. Arguments for Wikipedia taking the point of view that the Conservative party is much more inclined towards the political centre than the Labour party which can be disregarded altogether include Conservatives' willingness to join a group that describes itself as "centre right", the willingness of random Italian social scientists who are not members of the UK Labour party to self-identify as left wing, and the apparent personal belief of some editors that right wing is used exclusively pejoratively to refer to fascists. Dtellett (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See Socialism by then leader Tony Blair. He clearly refers to Labour as the main party of the Left. Labour distinguishes itself from parties to their left by referring to them as "far left" or similar terms, while those parties frequently deny that Labour is left-wing. (See for example, March's"Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe", quoted above.) The lack of symmetry of the terms left and right in the UK is probably due to the fact that when they were adapted in the UK from the continent in the 1930s. Labour had a greater affinity with the Social Democrats in Germany than the Conservative Party had with Fascists. But the fact that different people can place Labour and Conservatives in different positions in the political spectrum is the basis of my view that we cannot state as a fact where it lies, we can only describe it relative to other parties. TFD (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that symmetry or lack thereof of the left-right positions of parties is probably better illustrated by long term datasets [9] intended to measure public perceptions of the left-right spectrum or comparative political science texts, than quotes from politicians not making such comparisons whose opponents also gave famous speeches about being the "party of the right"[10] Dtellett (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, you prefer to use public perception in the UK rather than informed opinion. I hate to think how that approach would affect Wikipedia articles on global warming and evolution. By the way, Hague did not call the Conservatives right-wing, he says they are the party of the Right while Labour is the party of the Left. In relative terms that is true as Labour is to the right of the Conservatives. TFD (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that 'left-wing and centre-left' is appropriate for the UK Labour Party. Despite what the Political Compass shows, the Liberal Democrats are centre-left-centerist and most of Labour is to the right of them. Monument is definitely left-wing. They are more left-wing than GPEW who are classified as left wing on Wikipedia. The Blairites are centre-left in my opion. The 'we are centerist' part was only to pick up unsatisfeid Conservative voters. Torinfeldmann (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The opinion and believes of wikipedia editor have no relevance. What matters is reliable third party sources----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

After "greater state intervention" there should be more information

After "greater state intervention", there should be more information (in the lead). For example, the article could say "in the economy" or "in the economy and personal and family welfare". Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's from a speech by Ed Milliband in 2010. The summary said he advocated "a more active role for government in making the market economy work." The current wording is phrased in partisan jargon should be re-phrased. It makes it sound as if Labour thinks intervention is a good thing in itself. TFD (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

NEC Report Not Reliable For Membership Verification

It only documented what the Labour Party claimed was 575,000+ members.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

In which case, shouldn't we go with the most recent reliable stat on this? I think it was reported as 552,000 in June? VelvetCommuter (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

NEC reports don't break WP:ABOUTSELF - a 4% increase in membership isn't 'unduly self-serving' nor an 'exceptional claim'; it's not a claim about a third party; it doesn't make claims about events not related to the party; there is no doubt about its authenticity; and the article isn't primarily based on such sources. There's no need to include the word 'claimed' or to revert to an older membership figure. Ralbegen (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of "to claim" is discouraged, per "Synonyms for said" since it casts doubt on the assertion and the person making it. Unless some reliable source has challenged it, we should accept it. Non-controversial self-reported information by organizations with a reasonable history of accuracy is generally accepted. There is certainty that they are reporting in the correct order of magnitude. TFD (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My view is that a NEC member counts as a "Self-published expert source" regarding membership numbers. After all, MSM reports are generally simple reproduction of what a Labour insider leaks to them, so no better in reality. WP:SELFPUBLISH says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If it is Alice Perry, she gets mentioned in the MSM form time-to-time so seems to pass this policy. That said, I'd prefer the Infobox membership number to always be the Dec 31 number, which is published (eventually) in the Labour Accounts, so infobox consistently shows the rise/fall for a calendar year rather than some random of cherry-picked period. Rwendland (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The section you are quoting is about self-published sources about third parties. The relevant section is the one that follows, "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." The Labour Party is in a position to know its own membership, it is probably illegal to falsely report it, the figures are reasonable, they have been widely reported and they have not been challenged. I suggest we mention in the citation that they are self-reported, but there is no reason to include it inline in the info-box, especially wording it to cast doubt on the figures. TFD (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically WP:ALLEGED is relevant here. Ralbegen (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that there's WP:CONSENSUS to remove the expression of doubt, so I'm going to remove the word 'claims'. Ralbegen (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The NEC report was not an independent verification and was what the Labour Party reported.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out Alice Perry is also a Labour Party politician too.

Well, yes, Perry is a member of the NEC. She's seen the figures and made them public. I don't understand anybody's point here. Political parties are the only source of membership figures, no-one counts them independently - that's why the Conservative membership figures are unknown, the party hasn't released them for several years. The source for Labour's membership number is ALWAYS going to be a Labour source. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ian Lavery Not a Reliable Source Either

He is a senior Labour Party member and therefore not at all a third party independent source.

Please understand that decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS. If you disagree with the policy points made in the discussion above, then dispute them there, and don't keep editing the same detail back and forth. As is laid out there, primary sources are acceptable as sources on themselves for uncontroversial claims, and unnecessary expressions of doubt are bad style. Ralbegen (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also aware of the Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources policy too.

Hi JoetheMoe25. To quote WP:IS:

In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify:

• Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.)

And then from Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources:

A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves)

Which is what we're talking about above. The essay you're citing doesn't forbid use of primary sources, instead it links to the supplement that explains why primary sources are fine for this. Ralbegen (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We also need to follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. The person who made this claim was a Labour Party official and therefore was not a reliable independent source.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which principle of WP:NPOV do you think is relevant in particular? Stating opinion as fact; stating seriously contested assertions as fact; stating fact as opinion; nonjudgmental opinion or the relative prominence of opposing views? Moreover, WP:NPOV doesn't discuss what makes a source reliable at all. That's in WP:V, which includes WP:ABOUTSELF which lists the requirements for a source to be used about themselves. The sourcing of the membership figure passes these. That's what the discussion above was about. Ralbegen (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It might not be the most to date sources but the House of Commons Library (Which is independent and trusted)has Labour on 552,000 members as for June 2017.hhttp://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125 --88.110.0.42 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but adding the word "claimed" is fact and not opinion, as it was a person's claim. It also does not erase the article containing Labour Party chair Ian Lavery's claim.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED tells us to avoid unnecessarily using expressions of doubt. I'm not claiming you're breaking WP:NPOV: I'm claiming that your argument on its back doesn't make any sense. Which it doesn't. You've referred to an essay and a policy both of which permit the use of self-published sources as sources on themselves, and WP:ALLEGED tells us to remove the word 'claimed'. This is the case that people have been making to you whilst you keep reverting the page. Please cease. Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid your attempt to say my edit "doesn't make any sense" doesn't make any sense at all. The reliable source policy also tells us to keep the edit as well, as Ian Lavery is not a reliable, independent source.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:V, which explains what a reliable source is, includes WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll quote it in full:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources. Ralbegen (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it was claimed by a Labour party official suggests political maneuvering and is thus not reliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As party chairman, Lavery is the most reliable source for Labour's membership. See for example, "Membership of UK political parties." He's in charge of maintaining that type of information. TFD (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The only organisation that reports the Labour Party's membership numbers is, well, the Labour Party. Ergo, in this instance, there is only one type of source available. The Chair of the party is a reliable source for the membership numbers. That's obvious. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

From what you typed, I feel it only further justifies why it needs to documented that the Party Chair claimed it. I did not erase my source and hence, there is no need to erase my edit. We must indeed abide by the reliable source policy.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant part of WP:V, which is the policy that tells us whether a source is reliable. Are you suggesting that a four percent increase in membership is an 'unduly self-serving' or 'exceptional' claim? You’re the only user who has been arguing for use of the word 'claimed', and none of your arguments are supported by the policies and essays you refer to. I feel like there is a wp:consensus on the talk page to remove the word, and has been for a while. If you think a broader discussion is needed, I'd recommend setting up a RfC. Ralbegen (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We document that the Party Chair is the source by putting that in the footnotes. We don't cast doubt on the figures by using terms such as "claimed." TFD (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017

Add a sub-section after the subsection on Labour Leaders in the House of Lords:

Leaders in the European Parliament Sir Michael Stewart (1975-76) John Prescott (1976-79) Barbara Castle (1979-85) Alf Lomas (1985-87) David Martin (1987-88) Barry Seal (1988-89) Glyn Ford (1989-93) Pauline Green (1993-94) Wayne David (1994-98) Alan Donnelly (1998-99) Simon Murphy (1999-2002) Gary Titley (2002-2009) Glenis Willmott(2009-17) Richard Corbett (2017- ) 92.237.155.82 (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017

Add a sub-section after the subsection on Labour Leaders in the House of Lords:

Leaders in the European Parliament

Sir Michael Stewart (1975-76) John Prescott (1976-79) Barbara Castle (1979-85) Alf Lomas (1985-87) David Martin (1987-88) Barry Seal (1988-89) Glyn Ford (1989-93) Pauline Green (1993-94) Wayne David (1994-98) Alan Donnelly (1998-99) Simon Murphy (1999-2002) Gary Titley (2002-2009) Glenis Willmott(2009-17) Richard Corbett (2017- ) 92.237.155.82 (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)