Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Should Labour still be considered Democratic Socialist?

Under Kier Starmer the party has undoubtedly shifted to the right, and over the past few days the Labour leadership has become openly hostile toward Democratic Socialist politicians, should the party still be listed as Democratic Socialist?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64640069

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/87405d4e-acaf-11ed-9cb3-80326348937b bree Breeboi 13:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is original research. Ultimately we call them whatever sources do. Additionally, we tend not to alter a party's political positioning based on their current leader (for example, we didn't shift them further to the hard left while Corbyn was in power). Instead the infobox should represent the party, broadly top-to-bottom, over a long period of time. — Czello 13:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't original research, both The Times and the BBC are considered generally reliable. bree Breeboi 13:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You're making an interpretation based on recent news events - that's textbook original research. — Czello 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

"But Sir Keir said the party had changed under his leadership and "we are not going back", adding that if others did not back him they could leave." - BBC

"“There are those who don’t like that change, who still refuse to see the reality of what had gone on under the previous leadership,” he says. “To them I say in all candour: we are never going back. If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to stay.”" - The Times

Both sources clearly indicate that the party's politics has shifted, citing the words of Kier Starmer himself. bree Breeboi 13:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

They're not clearly saying the party is no longer democratic socialist - that's, again, an interpretation. If the article doesn't explicitly use these words, nor even spell out their political position, then it comes down to trying to read into someone's words.

It's also not how we source things - what Starmer says is kind of irrelevant, as he'd be a primary source. Instead, we represent what independent sources are saying.

Finally, as I said before, we don't change a party's position based on a single leader. We didn't list Labour as a hard-left party when Corbyn was leader. — Czello 14:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd imagine that's because Corbyn didn't tell the liberal politicians to leave, or to expel them from the party. When a leader's politics affects the entire party, then the party has obviously shifted politically. Calling Corbyn "hard-left" wouldn't even be true at all, the man isn't even a communist, Democratic Socialism is very much mainstream in the 21st century, and hard-left describes an ideology outside of the "mainstream center-left". bree Breeboi 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

He was pretty widely referred to as hard-left, but regardless - the point is we use whatever labels independent sources do, and we describe the party as broadly as we can, rather than just the leader's views. — Czello 14:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

He was referred to as hard-left because in the scale of internal Labour Party politics he is, however on a national scale hard left has almost always been used to describe communist, usually Trotskyite groups. bree Breeboi 14:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

as of recent events the labour party is being transformed into a conservative party, this was admitted by keir starmer himself, aswell as being anti-trade-union

the new ideology should be

Liberal Conservatism

British Nationalism

only factions of Social Democracy (Socialist Campaign Group)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-stamer-conservative-new-labour-b2337901.html

https://inews.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-dont-care-labours-priorities-conservative-2338849

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23519506.labours-keir-starmer-dont-care-sound-conservative/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23520947.senior-labour-figure-defends-keir-starmers-conservative-comments/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23510723.coronation-keir-starmer-no-plans-repeal-new-protest-laws/

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/05/10/keir-starmer-wouldnt-repeal-morally-unacceptable-illegal-migration-bill/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23520947.senior-labour-figure-defends-keir-starmers-conservative-comments/

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-slams-just-stop-oil-protesters-as-arrogant-and-wrong_uk_63564943e4b04cf8f3856001 Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more informative, then, to also describe the leadership's ideology? What's the point of telling someone a party is socialist in its 20 year old manifesto if the leaders are conservatives? That doesn't seem very useful to me. Rather misleading. Sblana (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel it's worth putting Third Way in the infobox given the article also mentions it in other sections, and it's probably been the dominant ideology in the party under Blair, Brown, and Starmer. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

From True to New Labour. Not only is the Starmers Party now free of any dangerous socialist ideas, it is not even a party for labour, the working class or trade unions. For, without working class MPs and brave left-wingers - are not the middle-class now totally in control the party and its' HQ?

Labour Files Controversy

Given the serious allegations made by Aljazeera regarding the conduct of right-leaning party officials, I believe this topic is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. This is a proposal to add a "Labour Files" section, possibly as part of a larger section dedicated to the coverage of other scandals throughout the party's history. 46.114.93.128 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is notable, relevant, and on-topic information for the article, and it is all reliably sourced, then I support your proposal. Don't forget to take account of due weight, neutrality, and BLP too, of course. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There should be no place on Wikipedia for reporting conspiracy theories as fact. Absolutely none. If this particular conspiracy theory however counts under WP:NOTABILITY, it should be reported as what it is, as with articles on similar fabrications e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.-- Autospark (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the case of the Forde Report, the "Labour Files", lawsuits dealt with by the parties and declining revenue are all significant part of the Labour party's history the last three year that are not covered at all. Calling it conspiracy shows a lack of neutrality. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling Investigative journalism a conspiracy theory is not an impartial stance, Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I shall point you in the direction of WP:FRINGE.— Autospark (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

it isn't fringe, two reports came with the same results independently from eachother..... the forde report and the labour files, please be impartial. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Perennial sources, al Jazeera is a reliable source. If you disagree with the consensus of Wikipedia editors, get the consensus changed. In the meantime, don't post your unique perspective on article talk pages. It's disruptive in that it is likely to generate useless discussion about al Jazeera.

WP:NOTABILITY "does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Why are you providing a link to it? No one is suggesting that we create a separate article about the findings by al Jazeera. Or did you not read the policy before including a link?

Incidentally, did you watch the al Jazeera documentary or did you form your conclusion without having to do so?

TFD (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have, and it seems a fringe conspiracy theory to me. I suggest any editor who wishes to write about it best use the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article rather than the article about the Labour Party itself.— Autospark (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

then you are biased, you need to undergo bias training because two reports came with the same conclusion

Martin Forde QC

Independent Advisor to the Windrush Compensation Scheme about racial inequality in the UK, in immigration history and at the Bar. and investigative journalists, begone starmerite Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential Recentism in the History Section

To me, the history section from 2010 onwards on this article seems to suffer slightly from WP:Recentism. Considering this is a time in opposition, I would argue that a lot of this information could be moved to either History of the Labour Party (UK) or the Labour Party leadership of ... articles to avoid the article becoming too bloated. For example, I'm not too sure we need to include by-election/local election results, internal spats in the party or shadow cabinet appointments unless they were very notable. What are people's thoughts? Michaeldble (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Labour Files request

Whatever Happened to The Labour Files section?

"Given the serious allegations made by Aljazeera regarding the conduct of right-leaning party officials, I believe this topic is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. This is a proposal to add a "Labour Files" section, possibly as part of a larger section dedicated to the coverage of other scandals throughout the party's history".

Taking account of the shameful actions of staff members at Labour HQ to undermine the election chances of Jeremy Corbyn, should not a clear decision be made concerning the request for a section on The Labour Files? For, how ever nasty, are not such such events all part of the history of the Labour party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.26 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Significance is determined by the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not by what editors consider important. So far mainstream media have chosen to ignore it, but I expect it will receive broader coverage in academic sources, when they become available. We'll have to wait. TFD (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Mass amount of non-notable information

At 240,000 bytes, this article has become far too difficult to navigate imo - especially the history section. As we already have History of the Labour Party (UK) for more intricate detail and Labour Party leadership of/Premiership of... for even more detailed info, I would suggest that this history section (especially the opposition years) should be trimmed down drastically to give a overview, then directing readers to these other articles for more info. Considering the WP:20YEARTEST suggestions, I can't see how by-election results (especially holds), local election results and shadow cabinet appointments could be remotely helpful/interesting for readers. Michaeldble (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Democratic socialism in the infobox

Should democratic socialism still be placed in the ideology section of the infobox or not? Helper201 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove from the infobox. The sources used for the claim of democratic socialism are over 20-years-old (one is from 2000, the other from 1998). I'd argue the party as a whole no longer identifies as - nor ideologically peruses - democratic socialism. I'd say this is limited to a faction of the party. Therefore, I would possibly be open to placing it under a factions heading within the infobox, however, the democratic socialist faction within the party are now a small minority and with little, if any, real power so I think it would be better to exclude the ideology from the infobox entirely. Helper201 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep As explained in Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared, classification of political parties by ideology remains widely used. Socialist, democratic socialist, social democratic, workers or labour is one on the major categories used and is helpful in comparative politics. In fact Labour does self-identify as "democratic socialist" in Clause IV of its constitution. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether they meet their personal definitions, just what reliable sources say.

If they are to be reclassified, then we should reclassify all the parties in their family, including the Socialist Parties of France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, and various other social democratic parties.

TFD (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment:We go by what reliable sources state. In which case we could really do with ones much more up to date than the ones currently given if we are to retain this ideology in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The source I provided was from 2016. A more recent source from 2021, (Party Leaders and their Selection Rules in Western Europe, Figure 3.3), continues to group Labour in the same party, although this author uses the term social democratic.

The first source I provided explains the evolution of socialist parties from their origins in the 19th century. As the world has changed so have they and incidentally so also have liberals and conservatives.

Is your position that Labour no longer belongs to this family or do you think the family itself should be renamed. If so, what do you recommend we call them?

TFD (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove. It’s misleading. Labour is a social-democratic party, e.g. based around support for a mixed economy, not a state planned economy.-- Autospark (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that is the distinction between the two terms? And were Marx and Engels therefore not socialists because they didn't advocate a state planned economy? TFD (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep. The Labour Party still ideologically defines itself as democratic socialist in Clause IV of its constitution as of 2023: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist Party." Funnily enough, the party first adopted democratic socialism as its official ideology during the centrist New Labour period in 1995, and several senior New Labour figures, for example David Blunkett, Tony Blair and John Prescott, apparently identified with democratic socialism despite New Labour's adherence to Third Way centrism. Just because the party has shifted back to the centre-ground under Starmer's leadership doesn't necessarily mean that the party is no longer democratic socialist; it's still in the constitution. It's possible that Labour will have another leader in the future who shifts it back to a centre-left or a firmly left-wing position, and they too will likely keep democratic socialism in the party's constitution.

Also, while we do have reliable sources which note Labour's move back to the centre-ground, we also need reliable sources which mention how it is no longer democratic socialist. Until we find these reliable sources, I don't think we should remove democratic socialism from the infobox. It also shouldn't be removed from the infobox since the party still ideologically defines itself as democratic socialist, as stated in my above paragraph. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It is incredibly poor academic standards to describe any political party literally based on their own self-descriptions and ‘official’ ideology. That’s not far off from, for example, describing the Portuguese Partido Social Democrata as literally being a social-democratic party due to its name. (And no, the UK Labour Party doesn’t use the term “social democracy” because it’s still associated with the old SDP, which itself wasn’t social-democratic).— Autospark (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The difference being that the PSD originated as a social democratic party but then became a centre-right party and is thus classified by academics in the family of like-minded parties, so I don't think that applies; if the Labour Party takes the PSD route, and is thus removed by academics from the socialist political party family, then I'd have to agree with removing it, otherwhise it just reeks of recentism, as noted by Czello. As also noted by TFD, the ideology of parties evolve and a socialist party governing is going to manage capitalism, so it isn't going to adopt full socialist economic policies; that doesn't make it any less socialist, as socialism isn't just an economic system, and that is why academics still use that category within the political party families.

As I said many times, this whole democratic socialism/social democracy diatribe is overblown, and are not mutually exclusive as Americans may make it like to be (e.g. democratic socialism reduced to a democratic form of Soviet Communism and social democracy reduced to capitalism—not understanding the aforementioned point that a socialist government in liberal democracy, unless it gets a strong majority after campaigning for the democratic, parliamentary overthrow of capitalism and doing, to simplify, what Napoleon did by decree in the case of feudalism, is always going to manage capitalism, reform it, and make it more amendable, basically moderating itself but not overthrow it—and the Third Way version of social democracy.

Finally, while I can agree that, indeed, it "is incredibly poor academic standards to describe any political party literally based on their own self-descriptions and 'official' ideology", that's what reliable sources say and Wikipedia is supposed to be based on them; personally, I don't think they base that only on their own self-description (again, the PSD is not included in the socialist party family and, as far as I'm aware — TFD is free to correct me if wrong — the Brazilian Social Democratic Party is not included by academics within the socialist political party family, so that would confirm that academics don't base party families merely on official ideology), precisely because it would be "incredibly poor academic standards" and I don't think they do that.

Davide King (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep per ThatRandomGuy1 and TFD. In addition to what they've said, it's not normally common practice for us to alter a party's ideological position based on an individual leader. We didn't push Labour further to the left under Corbyn, just as we haven't significantly altered the Tories throughout their multiple changes in leadership. I think if we can demonstrate it's a permanent change that pervades throughout multiple leaders we could return to this discussion. — Czello ^(music) 15:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove "democratic socialism", consistently with other similar parties. It is quite misleading, indeed. I would remove it altogether, as "factions" sections within the "ideology" paramenter of the "infobox" are very rarely a good idea. The Labour Party is a big-tent centre-left party, but "social democracy" encompasses it almost entirely. --Checco (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep with heading (e.g., factions or minority or officially). The party as a whole is not de facto democratic socialist. However, it is worth including as the party's de jure ideology. And the party includes socialists. (I also tried to think of some relevant comparisons. There are many parties with "socialist" in their name in the Party of European Socialists but which do not include (democratic) socialism in their infobox. Not that this supports my !vote.) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep per ThatRandomGuy1, TFD, and Czello, as no policy guideline or reasoning justifys the removal. It also reeks of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOOR. Democratic socialism is not merely based on the fact that it's the de jure party ideology but because that's the political party family academics associate them with, notwhistanting whatever we may personally feel about it. In fact, democratic socialism and social democracy would be a good fit for most like-minded parties. Personally, if we must list only one ideology, I'd leave social democracy for the centre-left party and democratic socialism for the socialist party to its left, such as the SPD and The Left in Germany, but also adding democratic socialism wouldn't be wrong; in fact, I'd argue social democracy would also be a fit for many of Left parties because their economic policies represent more a return to the post-war consensus and the social-liberal paradigm that lasted until the 1970s, but that's beside the point. I'd wait further developments, such as a Starmer government and whether the Labour left is permanently purged and the rightward turn is definitive, and even that may not be enough if it isn't supported by reliable sources, preferably academic ones over news sources that may be biased towards recentism and that may give democratic socialism a different meaning than academics. Davide King (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [Edited to add] It looks to be the Third Way and traingulation way of doings politics. This may well change with another leadership, even from one that is from the soft left, still too soon and still no reasonable policy violation to justify removal for a century-old party. Davide King (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Parties such as the Left in Germany, Syriza and Podemos are now generally classified as "left parties," which is how they describe themselves. They do not have stated ideologies but bring together supporters from a range of left-wing parties. TFD (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References