Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Blair's role in the Iraq War

The Chilcot inquiry is uncovering all kinds of damning evidence about how Blair witheld information on the illegality of the Iraq war from the Cabinet, and even suggestions of 'bullying' of the country's foremost legal officers. Any suggestions about how, and whether, this should be covered in the Labour Party (UK) article? Riversider (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It be better in the Tony Blair article, surely. You don't have massive information about every single Labour leader and Prime Minister in this article. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

London Assembly in the Infobox

I'm struggling to see the justification for including the number of seats held in the London Assembly in the infobox graphic for each party, when a) it's not a UK-wide institution, and b) if we were including sub-UK institutions then the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly would have a stronger case for being there than the London Assembly, both being far more powerful bodies. Sofia9 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that either all of the regional assemblies, including Northern Ireland, be included or none of them should be. Furious Andrew

Secret Ballot

Should we have an article on Labour Party (UK) secret ballot, 2010 or something similar (see here). 03md 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It really depends how notable you feel this letter is. Minor MPs are writing letters all the time, and this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If Hoon were to succeed in his machinations, and it were to actually lead to a secret ballot that led to the replacement of Brown, or of more open faction fighting in the Labour Party, it might be a little more notable. It's certainly nowhere near as notable as the Zinoviev letter was, as that media forgery had an extremely high impact on the election, just 4 days later Riversider (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really worth it. The whole thing came to nothing, and was over in a day. --Welshsocialist (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy, Third Way and Neo-Liberal

I've noticed User:Snowdedhas removed Social Democracy, Third Way and Neo-Liberalism from the idealogy on the information box, since they do not have auhtouritive sources. While this has been argued many times for the neo-liberalism one, I was wondering if the same arguements can be made for Social Demcoracy and the Third Way ones? I re-added the social democracy one, but maybe I shouldn't have. Anyway, I was wondering the logic behind it and if we can try and sort out the idealogies disputes and the sources they are based on? I think citing the Labour Party Clause IV is fair enough to call it Democratic Socialist, since that is the party's offical idealogy. But what about the others? --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its crazy to have multiple ideologies. The party has always self identified as democratic socialism. Social democracy is a common term elsewhere in Europe and its understandable that a german self maintained web site should use it, matching to something familiar. Its not authoritative. --Snowded ^TALK 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We must reflect published sources, not our own opinions. Published sources attach a variety of ideologies to Labour. Self-published sources assert it is 'democratic socialist' and 'Third Way', multiple articles by academics, authoritative political commentators and even Labour Party members themselves assert the party is 'neo-liberal'. There are more than 20 references from all kinds of sources listed higher on this talk page that back up this label, if you wish I will list them all again. The purpose and method of Wikipedia is to reflect the balance of published sources on any particular topic. This was also the consensus achieved during the 'Request For Comment' exercise that was carried out very recently (higher up this very page). This is achieved in the case of the Labour Party article by listing all the various ideologies attached to Labour, rather than just the version that the Labour Party itself would prefer. Anything else is censorship of knowledge. Riversider (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the whole of the talk page I don't see any consensus by the way. I see strong assertions of your position. There is a confusion here between the information box and the main article. You have provided abundant material to support the position that various political commentators have criticised the Labour Party for being neo-liberal. I agree with that as it happens and it should be covered in the body of the article. Third Way was a marketing label by Blair and again deserves treatment in the main body of the article. It is however not a matter for the information box. Calling it neo-liberaal there is to take a POV position, to report the criticism is not--Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good material for a section in the article making that criticism, just as there would have been when it was accused of being a communist front etc. --Snowded ^TALK 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you find an equally long list of authoritative published articles by respected academics and political correspondents asserting that Labour's current policies are Socialist or Social Democratic? Anyone apart from the labour leadership who attempted to assert this would suffer the well-deserved derision of their colleagues. Riversider (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just collapse that stuff so we can all read the talk page. Personally I agree with most of it, the Labour Party has become neo-liberal. That is a criticism of the Labour Party and should be reported, but its a POV. For the information section the Party's long standing position is the valid one. The RFC was split as far as I can see so you cannot claim a consensus. This material belongs in the body of the article as criticism, putting it inthe infor box is POV pushing --Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's useful to have it in one place as a list, as many reverts have been carried out without reference to the talk page.

I'd say that it would be a terrible POV position NOT to include it in the infobox. The published sources are authoritative under any definition of the term, they are not the work of flat earthers or intelligent design fanatics. If anything the equivalent of the 'intelligent design' lobby are the people who still insist, as a matter of blind faith, in the face of all the evidence, that Labour can still be described as 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist'. However, as a concession to these people, I am not arguing that these labels should be removed from the infobox, just that the current position should be reflected as well as the historic one. I've no objection to the 'dubious' tag as it will encourage people to read the talk page, though other editors might.Riversider (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The request was for you to collapse the references under a heading so other editors do not have to scroll through it. It isn't relevant anyway as the validity of the criticism of the Labour Party as neo-liberal is not disputed. For the moment I have put a sub heading in place. You obviously have strong opinions on this subject, but you need to think a bit more objectively. My point is that this should be a criticism section. I also made the point that you are not correct in saying there is a consensus for the change. The RFC was 50-50 so with me also arguing that it should not be in the information box the position if anything is reversed. I suggest you have a think about those two points. --Snowded ^TALK 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your own position is very strange and is the one that needs thinking about. You agree that Labour is 'really' neo-liberal and that the case for arguing that Labour is neo-liberal has been proved, yet you do not wish to include this in the infobox. Is this special information that only the initiated can know, or is there another reason why we are reluctant to share it with everybody? BTW, I don't know how to collapse the reference, feel free to do this for me.Riversider (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I put it in a hidden archive and indented your comment for you. I agree with the criticism that Labour is neo-liberal, but I also realise that it is a criticism, a POV. The information box needs to reflect the stated position of the party, the main article can include the criticism. You have not answered the point about your claim for consensus either. I'll do some more digging on the article history when I have time, but think the long term stable position is as per my earlier edit, and that your changes have not achieved consensus (if the talk page evidence is anything to go by). --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with formatting. The assertion that Labour's ideology is neo-liberal is not merely a criticism, it is a statement of fact based on supporting evidence and held by a wide range of authoritative commentators. If you check the RFC, you will find that the wikipedia editors of highest standing and authority are the ones who came down on the side of including 'neo-liberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology in the infobox. The guidelines we work to affirm, over and over again, the importance of reflecting the balance of published material. Currently the infobox gives undue prominence to the 'democratic socialist' tag, as the published material (apart from self-published material) contradicts this assertion over and over again. However I'm prepared to put up with the inclusion of this tag for the sake of consensus. Riversider (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would dispute the accuracy of that description of the RFC, and a Wikipedia editor's "standing" has little to do with it. If so I would insist that an editor who had written a published reference book on the history of British political parties, and served on the Arbitration Committee, would probably take precedence as having the highest standing and authority, and I was against it for reasons stated above. I'm quite aghast at the suggestion that 'democratic socialist' as a description ought to be minimised or even removed since it is the first sentence of the Labour Party's own description of its political philosophy, as endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the party. When looking at sources, one needs to keep a very careful eye on their agendas and the political background of the authors: for instance citing 'The Socialist', the newspaper of the Socialist Party, as some sort of authoritative source, is an obvious blind alley. I agree with Snowded that 'Third Way' is merely a slogan used for a very brief period. Social democracy seems a reasonable term to include. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam, I've listed 25 published sources below, of which the Socialist Party is just one. They are internationally respected academics, commentators on economic and political affairs, and include some people who are Labour Party members themselves. If you type 'New Labour' and 'Neo-Liberalism' into google's academic search facility, you will find many multiples more of scholarly books and articles, all describing Labour as Neo-Liberal. The only sources describing Labour's current policies as 'Democratic Socialist' are self-published ones, which also have an 'agenda'. If you wish to debunk the long list of sources that describe Labour as Neo-Liberal, feel free, but you must debunk all of them, and not pick and choose. 'Third Way' was a piece of cynical political camouflage, and I'm not surprised that Labour Party members now feel uncomfortable with it. The purpose of wikipedia however is not to allow political parties to write their own versions of history, but to reflect the weight of published sources, however uncomfortable that is for the parties concerned. Riversider (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What is pretty clear is that you have provided misleading edit summaries. From when you inserted this in October, at no stage have yo had a consensus for the change. If you had followed WP:BRD then the tag would not be there. You opinion that you can determine who is or is not an authoritative editor is disturbing. Its pretty clear from the way you challenged the Party's own description of itself that you have a strong POV that is being brought into play here. We need to get this discussion properly structured, but we also need editors to follow wikipedia process. --Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Riverside, but Labour idealogy is Democratic Socialism, as it is in the partys consitution (Clause IV), removing it, or lowering it down the list would be odd, since it is an important part of the Labour Party and what Labour is as a party. Third Way might be seen as a marketing tool, and a new term of "social democracy" or whatever. I am not sure why the dubious tag is on Democratic Socialism myself. As for Neo-Liberal, I have put forward arguements against including it as one of the main idealogies of the party previously. It definitly needs to be looked at. --Welshsocialist (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, because I thought we were debating rationally on the basis of the published material, rather than on matters of blind faith. There has been one key difference between the various positions being argued here. Those arguing for the inclusion of 'neo-liberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology have backed up all their arguments with multiple published sources. Those arguing against have used arguments based on 'this is what I personally know', or referring to the Labour Party constitution as if it were the Bible. Instead of looking properly at the published sources that have been provided, failed attempts to debunk them have been made (though no attempt has been made to produce published sources that argue the contrary - because they simply don't exist). It seems according to some here, Jacques, the co-founder of Demos, the very think tank that has been so influential on Labour policies for the last decade is not an authoritative source, people who campaign for Trade Union rights cannot be seen as authoritative sources, it seems anyone who is campaigning for any kind of change in the Labour party is not an authoritative source (and everyone who writes about the Labour Party is campaigning for it to change in one way or another, that's the whole point of political writing). We produce articles from each of the UK's main newspapers, right and left, yet this is ignored. Finally I was challenged to come up with a quote from a New Labour supporter, who argues that Labour's new liberalism is a 'good thing': I would wish to refer you to Freeden's article 'The ideology of New Labour' in 'The New Labour Reader' (2003) edited by Chadwick and Heffernan (if this is not an authoritative source for this topic, I despair of EVER finding one).

In this he argues that New Labour borrows from a variety of ideological traditions, but is closest to, and borrows most significantly from Liberalism. He concludes

"The ideological map of New Labour now looks something like this. It is located between the three great Western ideological traditions - liberalism, conservatism and socialism - though it is not equidistant from them all. Liberalism has always concentrated on the pursuit of liberty, the development of individuality, on human rationality, on open ended progress, on limiting state power, but also on some notion of the common good. From that ideology, Labour has extracted ideas concerning private choice, the enhancement of human capacities, the furtherance of legitimate individual interests, a respect for individual rights and a concern with human well-being pursued in part by a welfare state but in the main through the exercise of personal responsibility underpinned by what Blair identifies as "talent and ambition... aspiration and achievement".

What you believe is fine - and I am happy to remove the 'dubious' tag from 'Democratic Socialism' as a description of Labour's ideology. It is an accurate description of Labour's ideology up to the 1980s and published sources can be found to back this up. During the 1980s however, a significant change occurred in Labour's ruling ideology, with a conscious attempt to bring in values taken from 19th Century liberalism (which Labour had originally been set up to combat). The published sources overwhelmingly back up this picture. Please think about the crucial importance to Wikipedia of reflecting the balance of published sources, rather than simply reflecting what you personally believe to be the case. Riversider (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue of inaccurate edit summaries Riverside and the false claims for consensus for your changes. You also have a take on what is or is not democratic socialism which others may or may not share--Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have made any inaccurate edit summaries, and this is the first time anyone has suggested this to me. I believed that the balance of the RFC was in favour of keeping 'neo-liberalism' as a description of Labours ideology in order to accurately reflect the balance of published sources, this is complicated by the fact that some of the RFC feedback came in other parts of the talk page, so it is not immediately apparent at first glance. You disagree on this saying that the RFC feedback was 50/50, which if it is the case, is not a consensus for either keeping or removing 'neo-liberalism', we therefore need to explore the matter further by investigating the published sources, which I am endeavouring to do. I also need to apologise to Sam Blacketer and Snowded as it appears that by stating that people of high standing within Wikipedia had fallen on the side of keeping 'neo-liberalism' as a description, I was implying that you were not of high standing within Wikipedia, and you rightly pointed out that you are indeed of such high standing. It was never my intention to make any such implication, I am quite happy to accept that people of high standing within wikipedia have fallen on both sides of the question. My main point remains, and this is a crucial point for wikipedians, We must follow WP:V, we must reflect the balance of published sources accurately. It remains my case that the only way we can do this honestly and effectively is by having 'neo-liberalism' as one of the descriptions of Labour's ideology in the infobox, as this is the way Labour's current ideology is described by the majority of authoritative commentators, and a large amount of evidence has been amassed that demonstrates this. Finally I'd like to show you the results of this 'google battle' - not scientific by any means, but pretty overwhelming in it's demonstration that there are a large number of published sources attaching the label 'neo-liberalism' to labour's ideology - we cannot blithely pretend these sources do not exist: [1] Riversider (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention says that if there is not a clear consensus then the original text should stand which was my point. The misleading edit summary comment related to the RFC, when I looked at that it did not support that statement. However in the spirit of your comments above lets try and move forward. The issue here is a complex one and relates to the way that other political parties are handled. For any political party there will be sources that challenge their perception of themselves, those will be supported by valid sources. It follows that such material should be reflected in the article, it does not necessarily follow that it should be in the information box. At the moment we have had four (my commentary attached)

• Democratic socialist which is how the Party describes itself and we need to remember that it was always a compromise name, the Party has never been socialist pure and simple. Terms evolve over time
• Social Democrat, this is a continental term with specific meaning which has not been applied in the UK other than Gang of Four Days. It has only one supporting citation from a privately maintained German web site. Its not there at the moment which is good news, hopefully no one will put it in place
• Third Way was a Blairite marketing position, I am not sure it is really an ideology per se, but the Blairites were happy to use it to redefine democratic socialism (one of the reasons I left but that has nothing to do with the article). Its a sect or faction of democratic socialism in current meaning and it was not universal to the party
• Neo-Liberalism per the various citations but this has a economic aspect to it, its a part label if anything

If we look at the Conservative Party, then its ideology maps to conservatism and unionism, but we then have a second list of factions which is more interesting One way forward on here is to copy across the form of the Conservative Party with a second section that lists neo-liberalis, third way, Tribune (if that still exists). --Snowded ^TALK 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, that looks like a possible solution. I think the term 'internal factions' used on the conservative page would not accurately describe what is happening in the Labour Party however. 'Ideological Trends' or 'Ideological Currents' or some other less 'hard' formulation might be a more accurate heading, as 'factions' implies a high degree of organisation - the Blairites certainly had a small but well organised ideological group that made a large impact on the party, but currently organisation and loyalties tend to be around individuals rather than around any questioning of the ideological and political basis of the party's approach over the last few years, despite the experience of the Iraq war and the Credit Crunch. Riversider (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right on the factions issue, bland conformity has been the price of survival over the last couple of decades! I like "Ideological Currents", can we agree on that? I also think there is a need for the neo-liberal material to be better represented in the main body of the article by the way - either a section on economic ideology or an extension of the second paragraph. --Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added socialism to the infobox. There are still socialist factions of the Labour Party. See LRC, CLPD etc. Many Labour members refer to themselves as 'socialist'. This includes election candidates. Otware (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you back that rather bold statement up with published material (such as an election leaflet where the labour candidate uses the word 'socialism'?)Riversider (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest shifts in power within Labour, Social Democracy Vs Neo Liberalism

Seamus Milne of the Guardian, a paper with a long historical connection with the Labour Party, has contributed an interesting analysis of the shifting balance of power within Labour between the 'Social Democratic' and 'Neo-Liberal' ideological currents following the 'failed' Hoon coup attempt: Brown coup Blairites in Charge

Here's some of what he has to say:

Brown and his closest allies have been brought to heel, Blairite and Treasury orthodoxy has been re-established, and the government's recent crab-like shift towards a more recognisably social democratic stance has come to a ­juddering halt. That was encapsulated at Monday's meeting of Labour MPs when Lord Mandelson, whose powers now extend well beyond those of a mere deputy premier, smilingly accepted Brown's pledge that he was merely "one of a team" who would not now be interfering in other people's jobs – such as running the party's election campaign....

...by exploiting the coup attempt to demand a change of direction, and making the prime minister's closest ally, Ed Balls, their fall guy, the cabinet's anti-Brown majority has unmistakably called time on the Keynesian-inspired and progressive tax measures that have won public support but caused such alarm in the City, Treasury and media...

....Both Brown and Balls were of course architects of New Labour and its fatal embrace of neoliberal economics, privatisation and "light-touch" regulation in the 1990s....

...in the wake of last week's internal coup, Labour has ditched the chance to go into the ­election as the anti-cuts party, is fighting on Tory territory, and appears ­determined to run a Dutch auction with the other main parties on who can slash the deficit fastest. It's the ghost of Labour governments past.

Now they're back in charge of the government, the Blairites are setting out their stall to take control of the party after its expected defeat.

In summary, Milne's analysis of the recent coup attempt is that it resulted in a defeat for any return to Social Democracy, and a victory for the Neo-Liberals, who intend to hold sway, both before and after the election.

Milne's analysis in this authoritative published source matches almost exactly what I've been arguing here for the last months. Everyone can see it, apart from the Labour Party members themselves. Riversider (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There have always been debates within the labour party about what it is, and what is meant by democratic socialism. One important thing to note in the above quote is that the reference is to neo-Liberal ECONOMICS, and that is its normal context which is a bit different from democratic socialism. My own views are similar to yours, but I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. There is not debate about the existence of citations that reference a neo-liberal economic policy; You seemed happy with the suggested compromise above? Would you confirm? --Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes beyond debates about what constitutes 'democratic socialism'. The Mandelsons of this world spend too much time on billionaire's yachts to care very much what their pro-corporate ideology gets called, as long as it holds sway. I've already said that I think what you call a 'compromise' could well be a way forward, and I'm happy to give it a chance. Obviously it's not only down to me, there are other editors here who may also have an opinion. Riversider (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - any other comments guys?--Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want a consensus here. Almost weekly I've come on here I've seen something disappeare in the idealogy info box, be it Democratic Socialism, Neo-Liberalism or everything inbetween. Of course most of the time, I think, it is done by people who have not read the discussions about such issues that has been had numberous times. Maybe once it is sorted, we can add something in the info box directing people to the discussion page on the idealogy issue?

I do think that New "Labours" alleged neo-liberalism does need to be referenced somewhere, as it is a criticism put forward of New "Labour" from many Labour Party members aswell as those outside the party, and there are policies, at Westminister, that can also back up the alligation of neo-liberalism (aswell as policies that enforce the idea that the party is democratic socialist, and social democratic). I think the issue is more the importance it is given, and the validility of the sources used to back up the claim of neo-liberalism.--Welshsocialist (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick add on to my above. Maybe it would also be an idea to point out that neo-liberalism in Labour is an English thing. The Welsh party has "clear red water" and, to my understanding, so does the Scottish party.--Welshsocialist (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you happy with the compromise? Ideology is democratic socialist then we have a new title Ideological Currents to which add Third Way and Neo-Liberal economics. --Snowded ^TALK 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree with this false dichotomy between a neo-liberal ideology and neo-liberal economic policies. The economic policies do not happen by themselves or by accident, but naturally emerge from thinking based on neo-liberal concepts: i.e. a neo-liberal ideology, it would be equally impossible for a party with a neo-liberal or neo-conservative ideology to implement socialist economic policies. Making this artificial dichotomy between ideology and policies, between how the party leadership thinks and what the party leadership does, is a bit like saying "I'm really a christian, but I regularly attend a black mass and sacrifice goats to Lucifer".

I don't think there can now be any doubt about the number or validity of sources that attach the label 'neo-liberal' to Labour's ideology and policies. An attempt to discredit these sources was made, but soon abandoned as it quickly became apparent how empty the objections to the sources that have been provided below actually are. For every source that has been listed below, there are hundreds more, this cannot be said for sources showing leading labour figures, or authoritative political commentators explaining how their policies are democratic socialist. These are much harder to find...Riversider (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, well neoliberal is a pejorative label for economical liberalism if we look at lede of that article, and Keynesian approaches are evident in current policy so its not as black and white an issue as your goat sacrifice suggestion would imply. It is also defined as an economic theory. I'm happy to simply pipelink Neoliberal in the Ideological currents section however. Other cited material can then be added there as appropriate. --Snowded ^TALK 09:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Tim Worstall quote from the Adam Smith Institute listed below, you will see that in some mouths the word 'neo-liberalism' is not perjorative at all, he is full of praise for the achievements of Labour's neo-liberals and is wishing all power to their ideological elbows. Riversider (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To satanists goat sacrifice is not a pejorative act. I think you need to pay attention to WP:SOAP, you appear to be on a crusade here. It is all very well to report a cited opinion about the Labour Party but you are clearly arguing for a position that you support passionately. that can be a problem--Snowded ^TALK 10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Political paties do inspire passionate opinions, even Labour. I've tried to avoid the mistake of people who use WP as a soapbox by constantly referring to a wide variety of authoritative published sources, which some in this debate doggedly refuse to do in return. I was challenged to produce "Sources from people who support the Labour Party, accepting that the Labour Party was neoliberal and arguing that it was a good thing" and "Sources from right-wing academics arguing that the Labour Party is neoliberal". Below I have listed quotes from the New Labour Reader and from the Adam Smith Institute (along with several others) doing both these things. The fundamental foundation of every WP article must be the published sources, and must reflect the balance of published sources, whatever the opinions of the editors.

The Adam Smith Institute is a highly respected think tank, the right wing equivalent of Demos. They use the term 'neo-liberalism' quite comfortably and see it as a positive force. The charge was that the term was only used by the left, and was entirely perjorative. This is not the case, the term is widely used by academics, has a clearly defined meaning, and is only perjorative to people that disagree with it, or to people who wish to pretend they are one thing while doing another.

What has made me passionate is the idea that some editors can delete the word 'neoliberal' so blithely, in the face of such a huge weight of published material, based entirely on their own opinion, if anything, that is WP:SOAP . Riversider (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

With any political party there will be multiple sources to support both good and bad perspectives on that party. I really don't think you paid attention to the comments Sam made here. I'll also be interested to see if you tackle the Neoliberal article which does not correspond to your views. --Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As I say I've found authoritative sources that criticise Labour's neo-liberalism, and authoritative sources that praise Labour's neo-liberalism, authoritative sources that criticise or praise Labour for being socialist are however much thinner on the ground (and nobody on that side of this debate has yet come up with any). I think I have addressed Sam's comments directly and in plenty of detail, and backed these points up with published sources, perhaps you would explain which of his comments are not addressed in one way or another in my later responses, so that I can address those too. Riversider (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "authoritative sources" is becoming something of a mantra you know and its blinding you to the fact that no one is questioning the fact that they exist. There is a criticism of the labour party that it adopted thatcherite policies and its also praised for that from right wing think tanks. Those actually represent two aspects of a POV criticism they don't balance each other as you imply. Neoliberalism is, in the context of the labour party a pejorative term but its also a very ambiguous one. In some versions it means pure Laissez-faire capitalism, in others a move to privatization etc. Many of the authors you cite use it in different ways. The point which Sam made is that to use it without explanation and context is wrong. So two points really (i) left wing criticism & right wing praise are the same thing and therefore a POV (ii) the term needs explanation and context. Then we can add the third, namely that you do appear to be on a campaign here with some COI issues. I cam to this one late, but my overall impression (that you can take or leave) is that you have not sought to engage with other editors, you have just asserted your opinion. --Snowded ^TALK 11:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The existence of these sources has only just begun to become acknowledged after attempts to debunk them failed. Because Labour is a political party, and the party in power in the UK at present, virtually every article written about them will come from one POV or another. In this debate the goalposts keep shifting, first I am asked for articles written from the right wing POV praising neo-liberalism (as it was alleged the right did not use this term), then I am told that these articles are POV. The fact that I have come up with such published sources when challenged to by other editors is clear evidence that I have indeed 'engaged' with them. The problem has been that when I have issued similar challenges to come up with published material that disproves the case I have been making, these have not been 'engaged' with.

The key problem for editors here is this: When dealing with a political party, because of the multiplicity of POVs it is not correct or possible to attempt to come up with one single 'objective' description of the party. It is only possible for us to represent the various points of view expressed in the published material. I believe that your suggested 'compromise' (as well as the current version) achieves this. Your compromise was a genuine attempt to deal properly with the issue, and as such I welcome it.

I have made reflecting the published material a mantra, as this is the foundation on which WP is based. All published material on any topic is imperfect in one sense or another, but it is the only firm foundation we have, my method has been to find multiple sources from diverse sources and POVs that balance each others imperfections and thus create an irrefutable case. If the whole of WP was built with similar rigor, we would have something amazing.

(BTW There is no contradiction whatsoever between laissez faire capitalism and privatisation, they are entirely congruent with each other, so I don't understand the point you were making there).Riversider (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The point was not a contradiction but that they are not congruent. laissez faire would involve privatization, but it does not follow that a partial approach to privatization means laissez faire. My point is that neoliberal is too capable of misinterpretation to stand unqualified. --Snowded ^TALK 11:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we will have to disagree on a lot of that, but as you say we have compromise. I just have to find a way to implement it without wreaking the template--Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that Snowded. If I have been engaged in a 'campaign', it has been a campaign for the continued inclusion of one single word in the infobox. Your compromise proposal, with it's list of ideological currents, and the idea of more text in the article itself around the question of the neoliberalism in Labour's policies goes well beyond this, and will hopefully represent a considerable improvement in the article. Riversider (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy with the term "self-defined" as a heading. How about changing it to "consitutional" or "Clause 4" something along those lines. As it is in the Labour Party's consitution that it is Democratic socialist? As it stands, with the current wording. It still could cause problems, I feel. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the leadership of the party tend to use "third way", "social democratic" or "progressive" and don't call themselves, usually, "democratic socialist". It is more accurate to say it is the consitutional position of the party, rather then self-defined, which implies, to my mind, something else.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The term Snowded used was "self-identified", not "self-defined". I can't see how it can be contraversial. An ideology lives in people's heads and hearts, and not in a piece of paper, so 'Constitutional' doesn't make sense, it's a bureaucratic way of looking at things. Alternatives might be 'self-styled' or 'professed'. Riversider (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, 'constitutional' is not that bad, and certainly not worth fighting over, I think most people should be able to live with it, even if it's not ideal. Riversider (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporting material

Here's a list of published sources asserting that Labour is Neo-Liberal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
They come from such a broad range of authors and academics, many leading figures in their respective fields. It is impossible for Wikipedia NOT to use the term 'Neo-Liberalism' in relation to Labour's ideology given the sheer weight of these published sources - the question should actually be "can we any longer justify calling Labour socialist or social democratic?": "New Labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers' rights" Paul Smith (2009) Industrial Relations Journal volume 40 issue 4 pp337 - 355 Paul Smith was formerly Senior Lecturer at the School of Economic and Management Studies, Keele University. Here's the abstract: "The assumptions and values of neoliberalism came to dominate the Conservative governments, 1979–97, inspiring a range of policies that included industrial relations and employment law. Inasmuch as New Labour has adopted many of these policies then it can be presumed to have accepted their neoliberal underpinnings. Moreover, New Labour's policies owe much to neoliberalism. Wedderburn's exposition of the relationship between the writings of Hayek and the policy of Conservative governments, 1979–88, is utilised and extended to display the continuity and distinctiveness of New Labour's policy on industrial relations and employment law in relation to its Conservative predecessors. New Labour's neoliberal assumptions and values are evaluated. The conclusion argues for a fundamental rebuttal of New Labour's values as an integral component of a campaign to re-establish trade union rights and liberties, and effective employment protection." Other possible citations from quite a broad range of academic journals and books, most of which are of reasonable authority and reliability(found by following the references cited in the above article) might include: Crouch, C. (2007), 'From Labour Legislation and Public Policy towards a Flexible Labour Market: The Ambiguous Privatization of a Policy Area', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 23/24, 233–250. Davies, P. and M. Freedland (2007), Towards a Flexible Labour Market: Labour Legislation and Regulation since the 1990s (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Denham, A. and M. Garnett (2001), 'From "Guru" to "Godfather": Keith Joseph, "New" Labour and the British Conservative Tradition', Political Quarterly, 72, 1, 97−106. Links Edmonds, J. (2006), 'Positioning Labour Closer to Employers: The Importance of the Labour Party's Business 1997 Manifesto', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 22, 85–107 Gamble, A. (2006), 'Two Faces of Neo-liberalism', in R. Robinson (ed.), The Neo-liberal Revolution: Forging the Market State (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan) Shaw, E. (2007), Losing Labour's Soul: New Labour and the Blair Government 1997–2007 (London, Routledge). Smith, P. and G. Morton (2006), 'Nine Years of New Labour: Neoliberalism and Workers' Rights', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 3, 401–420. Wilkinson, F. (2007), 'Neo-liberalism and New Labour Policy: Economic Performance, Historical Comparisons and Future Prospects', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 6, 817–843. Clift, Ben and Tomlinson, Jim (2007) Complexity constraint and New Labour's putative neo-liberalism: a reply to Colin Hay. British Journal of Political Science, Vol.37 (No.2). pp. 378-381. 'Britain's Neo-Liberal State': http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/britain-s-neo-liberal-state New Labour’s leaders, as Simon Jenkins has documented in Thatcher and Sons, continued the core twin principles of Thatcher’s regime: the intensification of centralised executive authority and the cultivation of an elite order at ease with a politics focused on winners, wealth and corporate logic - a neo-liberal regime. Daniels G; McIlroy J (eds) (2009) Trade Unions in a Neoliberal World; British Trade Unions under New Labour. Routledge, UK New Statesman (Martin Jacques): The Hunger for Renewal http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/04/labour-party-neoliberalism "The Labour Party that capitulated so completely to neoliberalism is exhausted." Fullbrook: 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." David Hill, who argues that 'Third Way' is a gloss which is intended to disguise Labour's Neo-Liberalism: http://www.ieps.org.uk/PDFs/newlaboursneoliberal.pdf However, in its other major policies, too, neo-liberal policies of marketisation, privatisation, hierarchicalisation of social and welfare benefits and increasing levels of economic and racialised social class differentiation are evident, suppressing, distorting and dominating the social democratic elements of its policy. Such neo-liberal policies include: • privatisation (such as of Air Traffic Control); • PFI (Private Finance Initiative) which gives eventual private ownership of health, education and other public and publicly funded services to private capital (discussed by Richard Hatcher at this Conference and in Hatcher 2001); steadfast opposition to overwhelming public demand for the re-nationalisation of the Railways and track in the UK; • fiscal/taxation and low minimum wage/ high `fat cat' salary policy; • attempts to reduce compliance with the workers' rights in the European Social Chapter; • overall government policies resulting in increasing racialised social class inequalities in income and living conditions (see Hill, 1999b; Hill and Cole, 2001; Hill, Sanders and Hankin, 2001; Rahman et al,2001). However, while recognising that disarticulations do occur, the conclusion from the evidence of this paper is that New Labour education policy is congruent with, and an important constituent part of, the overall neo-liberal ideological thrust of state policy under New Labour. Daily Telegraph writer: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidlindsey/100012972/the-postal-workers-are-fighting-for-britain/ "Well, with the connivance of New Labour and the Cameroons in general, and of Peter Mandelson in particular, the essentially or entirely foreign forces of global capitalism and the EU are marching in with a view to destroying the Royal Mail. .... Meanwhile, the “free” marketeers seriously propose privatising something that has never been in the private sector, having been in what would now be called public ownership ever since it was created by Charles II in 1660, and representing the most significant direct link between the monarchy and every household, business, organisation and institution in the land. Nothing could better indicate how utterly unconservative the “free” market ideology really is. Neoliberal economics, a total disregard for our heritage and institutions, and European federalism: all of a piece, of course. The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/23/new-labour-gordon-brown-election 3m votes melted away at the 2001 election, when Blair began his crusade to privatise public services. The largest group were working-class voters losing out to the corporate-tailored, cheap-labour policies that became New Labour's hallmark. Of course Brown shares responsibility for all that as co-architect of a now discredited neoliberal project – and New Labour's failure to deliver for many of its supporters is the crucial missing element in the minister's account of the party's unpopularity. But it's also what Blairites disastrously want to return to. The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6857714.ece Mr Brown would probably derive most enjoyment from the fury a Blair presidency would induce in the Conservative leadership. Ironically, the only politicians more horrified at the prospect are old-style European socialists, who dread a “neo-liberal” axis, of the newly reappointed President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and Mr Blair. The Socialist: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8169 The merger of government departments, with the all powerful Lord Mandelson now being responsible for universities and business, highlights New Labour's intention to intensify the marketisation process in universities. Kamran Mofid: http://www.selvesandothers.org/article16487.html Where I differ with Peter Mandelson is that trade and financial globalisation also has a very dark side which he seems to ignore by not highlighting them in his piece. The ’one size fits all” Anglo-Saxon economic strategy — obsessed with economic reform, an ever-expanding free-market liberalism, structural adjustment policies, privatisation, and deregulation — has been a global tragedy. It would be an affront to our humanity and decency to ignore this. It would be great if Peter Mandelsom can, in the interest of the common good, bring himself to admit that, market fundamentalism has failed, as it has broken all the fabric of our society and communities everywhere in the world Tom Macfarlane: http://tommacfarlane.co.uk/neoliberalism_and_governments_management_of_its_discontents.html New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/luton-town-labour-local-home “[The speech] disguised New Labour's absolute commitment to neoliberal capitalism. Brown, Blair and Mandelson were all about promoting neoliberalism, dissolving the state, unpicking the postwar settlement and letting the market rule. the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/labour-conference-gordon-brown-speech We gloried in a neoliberal economic policy when it gave us the boom," says one Brown aide. "We celebrated the freedom of people in the City to make grotesque sums of money when we believed it would pay for what we wanted to do. or this from October's edition of Labour periodical the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2009/10/council-housing-social-glynn neoliberal housing policy has been extremely socially divisive, driving a wedge between homeowners and social tenants. Sarah Glynn's timely book, Where the Other Half Lives, focuses on the impact of these policies on lower income housing, and explores the crucial question of what happened to those who were left behind by long-term inflationary rises in property prices. As the valorisation of owner-occupation as the normal tenure for all became a point of cross-party consensus, council housing was relegated to the status of a "residual" tenure, a sponge which was there to soak up the poorest and most socially disadvantaged members of society. Under Thatcher and Blair, council housing lost the utopian impetus which it had under Attlee and Bevan, when it was seen as a public service available to citizens of all classes, and not simply as emergency housing for the dispossessed. In 2009 - after twelve years of Labour rule - the boundary of the council estate is the frontier of the deepest social division in Britian, a dividing line which separates the property-owning majority from a lumpen underclass afflicted by drug addiction, crime and unemployment. Here's a very academic article by some of the country's leading geographers which while it is pretty opaque in it's style, still unequivocally places labour ideology in the class of 'neoliberalism: http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/GSSW/schram/antipode.pdf in it May, from the University of London, Cloke from the University of Bristol and Johnsen from the University of York say: in this article we continue the task of fleshing out understandings of the neoliberalisation of Western welfare state regimes with an examination of changes to British welfare policy since the election of the New Labour government in May 1997. Put simply, we suggest that there has been a significant change in the nature and form of welfare policies and practices in Britain since the election of New Labour. Such a change sits within the broad chronology proposed by Peck and Tickell 2002), but suggests the need to complement broad brush analyses of the changing face of neoliberalism with a closer reading of the different ways in which the neoliberal state has sought to intervene in the social field within a period of roll-out neoliberalism. Gerry Hassan, who is "a writer, commentator and policy analyst and author and editor of over a dozen books on Scottish and UK politics, the latest of which is ‘The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power' published by Edinburgh University Press", someone who is described in the Scottish Herald as "Scotland's main public intellectual" here writing for 'Open Democracy': For the last thirty years our political classes and received wisdom in business and media through Thatcherism and then Blairism/Brownism has told us that a new age is upon us. This required us to accept ‘change' as a new mantra and the fact that ‘the status quo wasn't an option'. Their idea of change turned out to be a very narrow and doctrinaire one, of letting markets be freer, keeping business regulation and taxes to a minimum, and emphasising that people had to look after themselves more and more....The sacred cows which brought us to economic near-meltdown are still revered. The economic neo-liberalism which informed so much of the recent past is still the only philosophy around, and unrepentantly extending its grip over social and cultural life. None of the main UK parties are prepared to make the link between the economic and political crisis, and see them as part of the same crisis http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/2009/10/11/why-it-is-a-real-time-for-change here's an Irish point of view: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/270 Paul Michael Garrett is the author of Remaking Social Work with Children and Families (2003) and Social Work and Irish People in Britain (2004). He works at the National University of Ireland in Galway. He says in this article "How to be Modern: New Labour’s Neoliberal Modernity and the Change for Children programme" published in the British Journal of Social Work: In England the New Labour administration is seeking to embed a ‘transformational reform agenda’ within children’s service. Social workers, among others appear, however, to be wary of the agenda which is now rhetorically rooted in the Every Child Matters: Change for Children programme (CfC). The main social work practice elements of this programme are associated with the introduction of a Children’s Index, a multidisciplinary Common Assessment Framework and the role of Lead Professional. In terms of the promotion of this programme, the government has maintained that the focal aim is to create a ‘modern’ children’s workforce. However, the entire ‘transformational agenda’ can be interpreted as reflecting New Labour’s neoliberal modernity http://www.francisboutle.co.uk/pages.php?cID=6&pID=36 according to this review recently published in the Western Mail of 'Clear Red Water: Welsh Devolution and Socialist Politics' by Nick Davies & Darren Williams Davies and Williams argue that Welsh Labour is facing a choice - it can either revert to being little more than a branch office of New Labour in London, supporting neo-liberal economic policies, or it can further its drive to forge a more radical path. But to do that, it needs to work with allies on the political left. Riversider (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

What we are looking for here is to find a source or sources, which is reliable, verifiable and so on, which objectively makes a case that the Labour Party as a whole is accurately described as "neoliberal". One of the fundamental problems is that the term "neoliberal" is used to describe something so vague and nebulous that it is very difficult to be precise about what is and is not included. An observer must also distinguish between issues on which there was a genuine choice of policy, and issues on which the realities of the world deny a choice to any Government no matter what it would prefer to do given a free hand.

A second fundamental problem is (as I point out above) the frequent use of 'neoliberal' as a pejorative: typically by those on the far left who wish to pin an undesired label on those of the more moderate left, as part of an agenda to detach supporters from any more moderate group so that they will in future adhere to a more extreme politics. See Questionable sources. It is no place to say whether this is a legitimate argument, but it is not appropriate to use such sources to substantiate applying this label as a neutral description - especially in an infobox where there is no room for context to be applied.

We can dismiss Paul Smith almost immediately: the end of the abstract shows that he is writing from a position not primarily of analysis but of starting a campaign, a position which removes him from a truly objective analysis. The list of references from his article are worthless in this debate: you have not read them and you tell us nothing.

We then come to Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett's article for OpenDemocracy, which is fairly characterised as a polemic with academic citations. Both the authors are a well known critics of the Labour Party. A single quote from Martin Jacques, a former editor of the Communist Party of Great Britain's Marxism Today is hardly a firm source to rely on. Edward Fullbrook is explicitly trying to lay out a strategy to change the Labour Party; his website makes it clear he specifically disagrees with neoclassical economics. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(not completed)

Comment on Rebuttal

Interesting that you dismiss Paul Smith on the grounds that he argues for "a campaign to re-establish trade union rights and liberties, and effective employment protection". Are people who believe in Trade Union rights now universally classed as non-authoritative in their analysis of the Labour Party?

You rule out Hassan because he is "a critic of the Labour Party" - so presumably only people who agree entirely with whatever the Labour Party is currently saying are qualified to comment on Labour's ideology?

You rule out Jaques because he wrote for 'Marxism Today', (a periodical that in the 1980s could in fact claim to be one of the originators of the theoretical framework that underpinned the New Labour 'project'.) Jacques was co-founder of the think tank 'Demos', which is highly influential in New Labour policies, making him a strongly authoritative source.

You rule out Fulbrook because he disagrees with neo-classical economics. Since neo-classical economics got us into the credit crunch, perhaps he has a point. Who else are you going to rule out on spurious grounds?

Riversider (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very annoying. I wrote a response an hour ago and it was submitted and accepted but ::has now disappeared in the software. Your comments on Paul Smith and Edward Fullbrook bring me to question whether you are really debating how to improve the article about the Labour Party, or engaging in a wider political debate. I suspect that many of those who are arguing for the inclusion of 'neoliberal' as an ideology of the Labour Party are not primarily motivated by the fact that they think it an accurate and informative description (although they do), but by a wish to see such a damaging label firmly affixed for reasons of their own politics.

The reason for holding critics of the Labour Party as poor sources (which is a position thoroughly grounded in Wikipedia policy: see above) is that it is a one-sided debate. You can produce lots of sources of people to the left of the Labour Party arguing that it is neoliberal and that this is a bad thing. If 'neoliberalism' was an accurate and neutral description of the Labour Party, then you would be able to produce in addition:

• Sources from people who support the Labour Party, accepting that the Labour Party was neoliberal and arguing that it was a good thing.
• Sources from right-wing academics arguing that the Labour Party is neoliberal.

I see none of these in evidence. What we have here is a highly partial presentation and that will not do for an infobox where one cannot explain the context. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that Labour is a political party. By definition it will have a layer of activists who agree with it entirely. Anyone else who disagrees in whole or part with it's programme becomes classed as a 'critic', and therefore under your definition becomes an unsafe source. Of course the activists themselves are also highly partial, and just as 'unsafe' as sources. You suggest that my comments on Fulbrook disqualify me from being able to edit - You wish to rule him out because he disagrees with neo-classical economics. Agreement with the tenets of neo-classical economics is one of the defining characteristics of neo-liberalism, so you seem to be arguing that only neo-liberals can comment on Labour's ideology!

In the list of references are included commentators from the New Statesman (a totally pro-labour publication), the Guardian (which has been very influential in Labour's history), the Times and the Telegraph (representing the right wing POV you assert is absent from the list). The weight of published sources relating to Labour is overwhelmingly that it is neo-liberal rather than democratic socialist (if we exclude publications issued by the Labour Party itself, and even here, the word 'socialism' is one that is hidden in the attic like a mad aunt and only wheeled out on very rare occasions.)

The only fair way to represent the various schools of understanding of Labour's ideology, is to represent them all - excluding 'neo-liberalism' because Labour activists do not like it, despite the weight of published sources would go against all the guidelines of Wikipedia. Riversider (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked from a quote from a Labour supporter, who argues that Labour neo liberalism is a 'good thing' I would wish to refer you to Freeden's article 'The ideology of New Labour' in 'The New Labour Reader' (2003) edited by Chadwick and Heffernan (if this is not an authoritative source for this topic, I despair of EVER finding one).

In this he argues that New Labour borrows from a variety of ideological traditions, but is closest to, and borrows most significantly from Liberalism. He concludes

"The ideological map of New Labour now looks something like this. It is located between the three great Western ideological traditions - liberalism, conservatism and socialism - though it is not equidistant from them all. Liberalism has always concentrated on the pursuit of liberty, the development of individuality, on human rationality, on open ended progress, on limiting state power, but also on some notion of the common good. From that ideology, Labour has extracted ideas concerning private choice, the enhancement of human capacities, the furtherance of legitimate individual interests, a respect for individual rights and a concern with human well-being pursued in part by a welfare state but in the main through the exercise of personal responsibility underpinned by what Blair identifies as "talent and ambition... aspiration and achievement".

QED.Riversider (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And here's another view from the right, Tim Worstall, blogging on the Adam Smith Institute website and calling for neo-liberalism to carry on strong: [2]

- We're told that the disastrous collapse of all we hold most dear over the past couple of years has put the final nail in the coffin of neo-liberalism. You know, this free markets, light regulation, lots of trade and economic liberty that we here at the ASI uphold. We've even been told that the experiment, started when Maggie Thatcher came to power, has failed, that having been tried it has been found wanting, and now it's time for the clever people to tell us all what to do. - - Hmm. - - Oxford Economics says that gross domestic product per person has fallen to £22,700 on average in 2009, down from £23,000 in 2005 after adjusting for inflation – a fall of 1.3%. In Labour's first two terms GDP per head grew 12.6% and 8.3% respectively. - - Sorry, what's that? The worst economic crisis since whenever has simply shaved off the last few years of economic expansion? We're all living in the gross and absolute poverty that we were immiserated by those four short years ago? - - So, err, what was GDP per capita in 1979 then? From here, it was £11,500 and in 2005 it was £19,842*. So that's a 73% rise in general living standards (no, GDP isn't perfect for this but it will do) over the time period of our experiment in neo-liberalism.

-

-

While this is a blog, it is hosted by the Adam Smith Institute, a highly authoritative organisation on matters related to neo-liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty clearly worded abstract: Wilkinson F. Neo-Liberalism and New Labour Policy: Economic Performance, Historical Comparisons and Future Prospects, Cambridge Journal of Economics (2007): [3]

The paper analyses 19760/70s inflation, the replacement of Keynesian with neo-liberal economic policy, and the post-1979 decline in inflation. It is shown that the fall in inflation is explained by trends in import prices rather than by switches in economic policy. However, New Labour's conversion to neo-liberalism means that no alternative to it is on political offer, despite returns to pre-Keynesian policy-making, the success of which will depend on price policies based on an understanding of the institutional roots of inflation.

Will you now argue that the Cambridge Journal of Economics is not an authoritative source? Riversider (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy and Sparrowhawks references

Sparrowhawk has added no less than 4 references to the main article which he believes back up the assertion that Labour is a social democratic party. In fact at least two of these sources argue the precise opposite - that Labour is not social democratic enough. One by David Coates (who as far as I know is no relation to Ken Coates) is a review of three sources and concludes:

What drives Labour Party politics, and gives it its inner logic, is the dynamic between these internal struggles and a set of powerful external constraints. The Labour Party has always been internally divided between positions now characterized as ‘old’ and ‘new’. It has ‘always been a broad coalition of two main groupings, two projects, two political universes: a coalition of social reformists keen to subordinate the power of private capital to progressive social ends, and bourgeois radicals keen to modernize the local manufacturing base’ (Coates, 1996, 68); and it has always united those conflicting groups around a common faith in the capacity of the parliamentary state to be used for either set of purposes. But in power the Party’s leaders have regularly experienced the limited capacity of the parliamentary state to effect progressive social change. In particular, they have regularly found that ‘no matter how many cocktail offensives’ they launched, they could never ‘pull UK private capital round just by the force of arguments alone’ (Coates, 1996, 70). Instead, in office they have regularly faced both material and ideological forms of resistance to any radicalism in their programme, resistance to which they have regularly succumbed, not least because their politics have always lacked any mechanism for building a strong counter-hegemonic culture from which effectively to resist and overcome conservative forces

Another by David Bailey argues that social democrats have abandoned their faith in social democracy, and asks 'why not' reject neo-liberalism and return to social democratic values:

whilst ‘traditional’ social democracy may have experienced certain economic, political and ideological obstacles in recent decades, the decision by social democratic practitioners to abandon their faith in these obstacles only confirms a lack of continued commitment to ‘traditional’ social democracy. This decision cannot in itself be explained in terms of the factors that prompted it to be made. Put differently, in order for ‘traditional’ social democratic actors to decide that the most appropriate response to these contextual changes was to revise ‘traditional’ social democratic principles, there must have been at some point in this process an abandonment of the view that ‘traditional’ social democracy itself was able to provide a suitable response. Put differently still, why not adopt a ‘traditional’ social democratic strategy of macroeconomic demand management as a means to adapt to the internationalization of the political economy? Why not propose ‘traditional’ social democratic policies as a means of building working class identity? Why not seek to reverse the ascendance of neoliberalism with a re-emboldened statement of the necessity of ‘traditional’ social democracy?

Meanwhile, perhaps most tellingly of all Roger Liddle's piece argues that, just as social democracy no longer means greater public ownership, it should also no longer mean greater public expenditure. (Liddle was a key architect of New Labour, and this looks very much like an ideological cover for policies of huge cuts in public expenditure, a key objective of the neo-liberal agenda).

because nationalisation was the right thing in the 1940s, many members of the Labour Party came to equate their socialism with the extension of public ownership. This belief had disastrous consequences for the Party’s unity and electability in the decades that followed. Similarly, we must not two generations later make the same mistake over public expenditure.

and

we need to think of ways we can advance a modern equality agenda without spending public money at all.

The references Sparrowhawk has provided us however do give further strength to Snowded's suggested compromise proposal, for a list of 'ideological currents' within labour which includes labels like 'third way' 'social democratic' and 'neo-liberal' Riversider (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a logical thing to do. We've done something similar with the Democratic Party page, albeit less formal.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nu-Labour?

I have been trying, without success, to determine the etymology of the perjorative "Nu-Labour" or "NuLabour." Obviously it refers to New Labour. But why "Nu?" 79.74.254.179 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists will tell you that 'nu' is the 13th letter of the Greek alphabet, and that 13 is a highly significant number to hidden groups like the illuminati. I think the real reason is more likely to be that writing 'Nu' instead of 'New' is a way of implying something artifial, ersatz, catchphrasey. Trouble is, I can't find any authoritative sources for either of these explanations, so neither meet Wikipedia requirements. Riversider (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolved from prominent blogs such as Guido Fawkes - shorthand/play on words for 'Zanu-Labour', referring to the policies, tactics and results of the Labour party, in particular relating to civil liberties. 217.158.248.66 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Labour MP on Neoliberalism

Here's what Colin Burgon (a Labour MP) says about Neo-liberalism in Labour:

Labour's coalition of voters has been eroded by neoliberal policies that have seen a race to the bottom with flexible labour markets and a failure to give proper protection for agency workers, by the promotion of personal debt to mitigate against the transfer of wealth from labour to capital, by the extension of the market into wider spheres of society and, of course, by the foreign policy misadventure in Iraq.

I'm now waiting for someone to tell me Labour MPs are not 'authoritative sources' on the ideology of the Labour Party. Perhaps they will listen to Tribune, a longstanding publication of a particular wing of the Labour Party which says

Effective leadership challenges have to be ideologically driven. The feeble attempts against Brown come from technocratic politicians who have no ideology, apart from the desire to continue with the embrace of neo-liberal capitalism.

Riversider (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was over? --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish it was! if you check the article history you'll see IPs are still trying to delete the 'neoliberal' tag, without checking the talk page - I suppose though that you're right to suggest that adding even more evidence to the talk page isn't going to make much difference to this behaviour. BTW, on the subject of the Welsh Labour Party being a bastion of working class social democracy, did you attend this £1000 a plate fundraiser for the WLP?Riversider (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A fundraise by a private indivisual is neither here nor there. The party needs money to fight elections. It don't have the millionaire backers of the Tories, and if it was one set up by the actual Welsh Labour Party, the tickets would have been much cheaper. And back to the matter at hand, if the IPers are reverting without looking at the talk page, then it don't make sense posting here. Maybe a bit in the info box telling them that it is sorted and to read the talk page for more info would be better? --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you WS that those attending this £1000 a head fundraiser are not millionaires, but single parents and low paid workers from the Cardiff council estates. Seriously though, I'm hoping that we've gathered together enough evidence to stop anyone who actually reads talk pages from rving this edit, and there's little else we can do to stop those that never bother to check the talk page or consider the evidence. Incidentally, I've uncovered a few positive uses of the term 'neo-liberalism' now, including a particularly strong one explaining how Fairtrade uses neo-liberal capitalist market mechanisms to help the third world poor, and this has led to the introductory paragraph of neoliberalism being rewritten to remove the false assertion that the term is only used by left-wing critics of neoliberalism. Riversider (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

SNP win in Scottish election and Blair's resignation - slightly misleading??

Under the heading "In government (1997-present)" are the sentences "Significantly, the party lost power in Scotland to a minority Scottish National Party government in 2007. Shortly after this, Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister and was replaced by his Chancellor, Gordon Brown."

This could easily be misinterpreted as suggesting that Blair resigned because of the SNP's win, which I don't believe was the case - should this be rephrased to avoid confusion? 129.67.63.75 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A fair point - he had previously announced in September 2006 that he would quit within a year. I'll attempt to reword. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Time for Protection?

I've noticed an increase in POV edits by IPs that ignore the cited articles and the discussions here on the talk page. I suspect as the General Election draws nearer, the volume of such unhelpful edits will increase. Is it time for the page to be given some kind of protection, at least until the election is over? Riversider (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it will have to eventually happen sooner or later, with all the main parties pages. Some people seem to mistakingly believe that vandalising wikipedia pages will somehow affect the outcome of an election, or at least like to take some misguided anger out on Wikipedia pages. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and Centrist

Never thought I would post this, but can you really say that Labour is purely socialist? I would argue that democratic socialism and socialism are different things with different approaches, and if socialism is to be an "idealogical current" then, prehaps it should be changed to democratic socialism (which is already mentioned in anycase). Also should centrist be in the idealogy box, when it is a position and is already covered in that, and by the idealogical term "third way". --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Centre-left", as the article currently stands, is a joke. It is a self-described socialist party. The Lib/Dems are Centre-Left. For God's sake there are open Trotskyites that are not only members but part of the leadership. Troskyites, for the uninitiated, means communists. 72.209.63.226 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can call Labour trotskite, or communist and you would struggle to find any reiable evidence to back that up.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that trotskyists exist within the party doesn't mean that the party itself (as an organisation) doesn't take a centre-left stance on policy issues, etc. If anything labour are more centrist than centre-left, not more left than centre-left... rogue_lettuce (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Social Liberalism

A number of reliable sources associate Social Liberalism with the Labour Party, for example Remaking the Labour Party: From Gaitskell to Blair (T Jones, 1996), The three educational ideologies of the British Labour Party, 1997-2001 (L Paterson - Oxford Review of Education, 2003) and Can fair be efficient? New Labour, Social Liberalism and British economic policy (S Buckler, DP Dolowitz - New Political Economy, 2004). Is this a minority view, or does it have wider currency? AJRG (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you provide some quotations from those references so that a judgement can be made? Social Liberalism is normally aligned with the social democrats. --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Remaking the Labour Party: From Gaitskell to Blair (T Jones, 1996) (pp117-8)

   For the democratic state which Kinnock favoured was one that involved, as he told the 1985 Party Conference, "...the collective contribution of the community for the purpose of individual liberty throughout the community". This was a significant emphasis because, in spite of his repudiation of social democracy and its revisionist precursors, those interrelated ideas - positive freedom and an enabling state - which could themselves both be traced back to the social liberalism of both T .H. Green and the Edwardian New Liberals, formed the intellectual basis of the movement away from traditional socialist positions that Kinnock was to complete after 1987.

2. The three educational ideologies of the British Labour Party, 1997-2001 (L Paterson - Oxford Review of Education, 2003) (abstract)

   There are three strands of Labour practice in education: a renovated version of social liberalism, a form of weak developmentalism, and a type of new social democracy that is in the mainstream of European thinking on the left.

3. Can fair be efficient? New Labour, Social Liberalism and British economic policy (S Buckler, DP Dolowitz - New Political Economy, 2004)

   The title makes the connection. AJRG (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think these sources sound reiable, academic and reasonable enoguh. If sources are enough to get neo-liberalism included hich is far more questionable to be included. Labour has brought forward a lot of social liberal policies (although that could be more due to the party being social democtatic/democratic socialist than socially liberal)--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a wide body of material for neo-liberalism and its a specific economic policy. Here the first quote says that some of the ideas that Kinnock favored can be traced back to social Liberalism. That is not enough to say that the Labout Party has a social liberal ideology, many people have been quoting as influencing individual labour politicians. Ideas can be traced back to marxism, but the party does not have a maxist ideology. The second quote relates to education policy and is again weak, it qualifies the phrase with "renovated" and sees it as only one strand. The third is the weakest, a title could just as well be describing a contrast between the two. This is original research I'm afraid, inputing an ideology from indirect sources. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Labour has a social liberal ideology is made explicitly in New Labour's Ideology: A Reply to Michael Freeden by Buckler and Dolowitz (see below). Perhaps you've forgotten the Militant Tendency? If Labour didn't have a Marxist ideology it could describe itself in its constitution as social democratic instead of democratic socialist. Since the Infobox already contains an entry for ideological currents, it seems strange to complain that social liberalism is only one strand. In a broad church, such as the Labour Party, of course it is. AJRG (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Theorizing the third way: New Labour and social justice (S Buckler, DP Dolowitz - Journal of Political Ideologies, Volume 5, Issue 3 October 2000 , pages 301 - 320 )

A reading of John Rawls's liberal theory of justice is used as a means of characterizing New Labour's general ideological approach; the implications are then traced through to the policy level and a correspondence between Rawlsian liberalism and New Labour's agenda is established. On this basis, it is argued that New Labour has adopted a 'social liberal' position, emphasizing procedural fairness over distributive patterns, which can be viewed as a departure both from traditional 'social democracy' and from the 'neo-liberalism' of the recent right.

New Labour and Public Opinion: The Third Way as Centrism (P Norris, New Labour: Progressive Future, 2001)

Understood as an ideological project the intellectual origins of the so-called third way are open to different interpretations: as the adoption of 'soft' Thatcherism; as a return to the early roots of social liberalism; or as a genuinely new reworking of social democratic values

The Party of European Socialists (PES) and European Employment Policies: From "Eurokeynesianism" to "Third Way policies"? (A Aust - workshop “Third Ways in Europe” European Consortium for Political Research - Joint Sessions, Grenoble, 6-11 April 2001)

The Schröder-Blair paper reduces the "two-pillar strategy" of the Larsson report to a one-pillar strategy consisting of investments in human capital, increased competition and structural adaptation. This represents a strategic variant which I have called "adaptation". It is essentially some kind of social liberalism. AJRG (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the first of those is a little better (the reference to Rawls) the others are very poor. One references "roots" which again requires some form of OR to draw the conclusion. The second references a paper by two EUropean politicians in a European context so is not relevant. Its no good just to do a google search and find examples of terms being used in the same context you know. So at the moment we have one journal reference that argues that New Labour has adopted a social liberal position; not enough to say that the Labour Party has a social liberal ideology. --Snowded ^TALK 20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any doubt that the Labour Party has early roots in social liberalism. That is, after all, its history - not least in Wales. AJRG (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to make clear that social liberalism is not the most prominent ideology of the party, or even one of the most prominent. However, reputable sources do agree that it is one component among many, and I think it deserves to be included in the infobox.UBER ^(talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well so far I can only see one citation which even gets close to supporting that position. We were far more vigorous in respect of neo-liberalism --Snowded ^TALK 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see several that make that point. The quotation from the Norris book makes the point almost painfully explicit.UBER ^(talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you really need to go through them rather than just assert a position (see my comment above). The Norris quote has material that should be included in the body of the article related to third way but it does not make the point explicit, it says that the Third Way MAY ("open to different..." be a return to the ROOTS of social liberalism. --Snowded ^TALK 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A third way in social security reform or fractured social citizenship? (R Lister - Risk and citizenship: key issues in welfare, 2001)

Blair's emphasis on responsibilities reflects an ideological eclecticism which draws on a number of influences, including popular communitarianism, Christian Socialism and social liberalism (Deacon 1997; Beer 1998; Freeden 1999).

New Labour (S Driver, L Martell - 2006, p 12, ISBN 0-7456-3330-7)

Blair and Brown believed - and this is what really united them - that Labour could reform its politics and its policies without compromising its fundamental principles. The party could draw on its stock of political traditions - ethical socialism, Christian socialism, social liberalism, revisionist social democracy - and values - equality, social justice - and rework them to suit the contemporary world. AJRG (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So we add in Christian socialism and revisionist social democracy as well do we? This really makes the point, the fact that various people are influenced by things does not make it an ideology within the party. The quotes here all seem examples of googlesearchitus, rather than scholarly consideration--Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The ideology of the Labour Party has swung back and forth throughout its history. The social liberalism of Beveridge was the ideology enacted by Nye Bevan as the Welfare State and the social liberalism of Keynes has been the ideology of Gordon Brown's response to the recent credit crisis. AJRG (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Social democracy, British-style (R Ladrech - Contemporary Politics, Volume 8, Issue 2 January 2002, pages 145 - 150)

... the transformation of Labour into New Labour went beyond social democracy, as understood by Pierson and many others, and instead has arrived at the doorstep of social liberalism. The analyses of Panitch and Leys, and Heath, Jowell and Curtice would seem to suggest that there might be something in this characterization. AJRG (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See point about googlesearchitis, have you read any of these books you are referencing? --Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. AJRG (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of 'googlesearchitis' I carried out a google battle between "New Labour" "Neo-Liberalism" and "New Labour" "Social Liberalism". As you can see, neo-liberalism was used on at least one scale of magnitude more than 'social liberalism' as a term to describe New Labour: Google BattleI know this is not definitive for WP purposes, but I find it useful as a means of measuring the relative use of terminology in general discussion. Riversider (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No accusation from me! I think the statement above shows the usefulness and the limits of a google search --Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I note that you (AJRG) have not answered my question as to whether you have read this material or not. You can show that many ideologies have given rise to the current Labour Party. Those include Marxism, Christian Socialism, Chartism and many others. If you check the discussion on neo-liberalism the citations clearly established that neo-liberalism had been adopted as an economic policy by the labour party, hence its inclusion. It was also very clear that the editor citing the material had read it. This is not the case above, you are establishing intellectual origins and traces, but not adoption. That is the trouble with just searching on key words, you find associations in odd excerpts. --Snowded ^TALK 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read any of it? AJRG (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Democratic Socialism" beats "Social Liberalism" too, but by nowhere near as much as Neo-Liberalism Google Battle 2Riversider (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Political ideology today (Ian Adams - 2001 - Political Science ISBN 0719060206 p105)

The most enduring has been the "Third Way", signifying a middle path between Thatcherism and old Labour. This is still rather vague, but a distinctive outlook can be discerned. In a fact it is less a way between Thatcherism and old Labour so much as a synthesis of elements of Thatcherism with elements of social liberalism, especially in the modern form of communitarianism. AJRG (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that there's a long history of disagreement between AJRG and Snowded. I'm going to assume that both editors are here because of a mutual desire to improve the article and that they will behave accordingly. Riversider (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a fairly long history on this article, including coming up with the compromise that has sustained itself re neo-liberalism. AJRG has been playing the hound over a range of articles if you check back. He's good on google searches, weak on OR (which is where he originally got upset on an issue on NLP related pages). --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am (as you can see from the material I'm collecting). AJRG (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why Gordon Brown will lose Glasgow East (James MacMillan, Personal View, The Telegraph, 08 Jul 2008)

Brown would like his working-class Scottish base to imagine that he is ill at ease with New Labour's social liberalism.

Ethical socialism (Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford Soundings issue 44, Spring 2010. p18)

Only by developing our traditions of socialism and social liberalism, in conversation with newer traditions, particularly green politics and a politics that recognises cultural difference, will we be able to build a new hegemonic politics. AJRG (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you should cite an article by Cruddas and Rutherford. Here's one I came across recently Cruddas and Rutherford on why now is the time for a new socialism

"The recession has dealt a serious blow to the neoliberal orthodoxy. It was the sale of council housing that helped to secure its popular support. In the name of a property owning democracy, the modest economic interests of individuals were aligned with the profit-seeking of financialised capitalism. It was a new kind of popular compact between the market and the individual. A similar compact between the business elite and shareholder value created a tiny super rich elite - and became the unquestioned business model of the era. Its values of self-reliance and entrepreneurialism legitimised market- based welfare and pension reform, the drive to a flexible labour market and the transfer of risk from the state and business to the individual. New Labour entered government in 1997 having accommodated itself to the neo-liberal orthodoxy and with plans to deepen and extend its compact."

"The political fault lines of a new era are starting to take shape. They divide those who believe that privileging the market and individual self-interest is the best way to govern society and those who believe that democracy and society must come before markets. These fault lines cut across party lines and divide them from within: Thatcherite politics versus compassionate Conservatives; market Liberal Democrats versus social Liberal Democrats; neo-liberal New Labour versus social democratic Labour. The pro-market factions of all three main parties have lost credibility and there is now a crisis of political representation."

Seems to me based on this, that Cruddas and Rutherford see the key division in the Labour Party as one between 'neo-liberal' and 'social democratic', which is well reflected in the way that the infobox stands now (though the additional material on Labour neoliberalism has not yet been included in the body of the article). Riversider (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Keir Hardie Memorial Lecture (Jon Cruddas, September 2009)

We celebrate Hardie as the founder of the Labour Party. Yet he also operated within and between variants of liberalism itself- between its radical, individualistic strands and a more collective, social liberalism. Precisely the emerging debate in the Labour Party today.

...

Hobhouse's social liberalism finds modern day counterparts in the ethical socialism of Paul Ricouer and Charles Taylor. AJRG (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AJRG, seems to me from the article's you've cited (and the ones I've produced) that Cruddas is not saying that Labour's ideology is 'social liberalism', but instead he is saying that it should be social liberalism. He is pointing out that the current ideology of Labour is neo-liberal, and is pointing to the credit crunch, to Keir Hardie and to Ricouer and Taylor as reasons for Labour to adopt social liberalism instead. The infobox is there to show what Labour officially claims it's ideology to be (democratic socialism), and how others maybe more accurately describe their ideology (neo-liberalism), but not to describe what labour's ideology should be in the eyes of people who wish to change it back to a social democratic party, like Cruddas. That said, 'social liberalism' could be seen as being used by Cruddas as a synonym for 'social democracy', which is in the infobox. (In the Telegraph article you cite, the term 'social liberalism' is used as a synonym for 'neo-liberalism', adding to the confusion...) Riversider (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to your "synonym" argument - social democracy, social liberalism and neo-liberalism are different things. Driver and Martell list social liberalism as one of the four political traditions of the labour party. Cruddas and Rutherford call for the development of the traditions of socialism and social liberalism. Not something new, but a re-emphasis of two of the historical traditions. Wasn't it social liberalism that created the NHS and the Welfare State? AJRG (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cruddas and Rutherford DO call for the re-emphasis of labour's social democratic traditions, which implies that they believe that these have been de-emphasised in favour of neo-liberalism. If they are not synonyms, then could you explain what the key ideological differences are between 'social democracy' and 'social liberalism'? Riversider (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Very briefly: social democracy is a form of socialism that rejects Marxism; social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice; and neo-liberalism is a reaction against social liberalism. In practice, social democracy and social liberalism may approach a similar position from different starting points. AJRG (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So far the only evidence for social liberalism is that is part of the context which gave rise to the Third Way or otherwise features in the history of thought. There is nothing so far which establishes it as an ideology. If we took the evidence as it stands then we would end up listing more or less all middle to left political movements of the last 100 years. --Snowded ^TALK 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You might, but some political movements have been more influential than others. Social liberalism is part of the history of the Labour Party, one of its political traditions, and the basis of the Welfare State. AJRG (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lies, spin and deceit (John Lloyd, Prospect Magazine, 21st October 2006, Issue 127)

Wilson’s reputation for slipperiness arose, in part, from his need to keep together a party that contained powerful currents from Marxism to social liberalism, and depended on support from unions that were increasingly left-led.

...

Blair’s excision, in 1995, of the party’s clause IV (on common ownership) and its replacement with a clause that endorsed the market (unique among left-of-centre parties) marked a move from social democracy towards social liberalism. AJRG (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Third way, phase two (Tony Blair, Prospect Magazine, 20th March 2001, Issue 61)

I want to lay to rest some of the myths around the third way. It is not a third way between conservative and social democratic philosophy. It is social democracy renewed. It is firmly anchored in the tradition of progressive politics and the values which have motivated the democratic left for more than a century. It is a third way for Britain because it represents a third phase of post-war history-following the settlements of 1945 and 1979. It is a third way for the left too. In the last century, the tradition of social liberalism emphasised individual freedom in a market economy. Social democracy used the power of government to advance social justice. The third way works to combine their commitments in a relevant way for the 21st century. AJRG (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

New Labour's Ideology: A Reply to Michael Freeden (Steve Buckler and David P. Dolowitz, The Political Quarterly, January 2000, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp102-109)

We shall look first at New Labour's most general statements of principle and seek to show that they reflect a social liberal theoretical position. We shall then draw out some implications of this position for a general, principled, agenda, arguing that New Labour's agenda is consistent with these implications. This argument will be further supported by reference to some of the more particular policy initiatives taken by the New Labour government to date. AJRG (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Roots of New Labour: Liberalism rediscovered (Samuel H. Beer, The Economist, Feb 7th 1998)

Tony Blair's New Labour offers the nation a choice. His social liberalism, exemplified in British history and honoured in the classics of political thought, distinguishes his views sharply enough from other brands of liberalism to sustain a lively and significant democratic dialogue. His emphasis upon the responsibilities entailed by the opportunities to be opened up by New Labour promises to give a defining purpose to the remodelled welfare state. AJRG (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

History of the Labour Party - The Harold Wilson era (Labour Party website)

Labour was returned to office on a platform of modernisation and reform. The party's manifesto, The New Britain, focused on the need for economic and social transformation. In many ways, this is what Wilson's administration achieved. The period was one of openness and social liberalism, with the legalisation of many taboo practices such as divorce, homosexuality and abortion, and the ending of capital punishment. AJRG (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Primarily, neoliberalism is a term that should be reserved for right-wing liberal and conservative parties in Latin America, so it's very difficult to justify its inclusion for the Labour Party in Britain. Social liberalism, on the other hand, is very similar to the official social democratic ideology of the party, and in this case it's easier to justify its inclusion. However, I would actually support removing both of these terms if they are going to give us so much heartache. Just leave it at Third Way and social democracy.UBER ^(talk) 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. However if you check back on the talk page you will see a long discussion on neo-liberalism and a compromise agreement being made. --Snowded ^TALK 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes in Wikipedia...and often too. I categorically oppose the inclusion of the term "neoliberalism" for the Labour Party. It seems to me such a breathlessly stupid term to apply for this party that I can't imagine how it even got in there in the first place. The best approach seems to be to get rid of all references to liberal ideology, of whatever variation.UBER ^(talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it can and often should, just pointing you to the prior discussion which we should take account of. My personal preference would be to get rid of Third Way as well as that is less of an ideology more of a PR stunt. However it is referenced, and so is neo-liberalism --Snowded ^TALK 16:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well so is social liberalism, but we can't seem to agree on that either. I'd be fine removing all three, including Third Way.UBER ^(talk) 16:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to reflect the balance of published sources UBER. The term Neoliberalism has spread from Latin America, and is now widely used as a description of Labour's ideology by academics and political commentators in the UK, and even by some Labour MPs as the references above show. 'Social Liberalism' is a bit of a red herring, it turns up in far fewer published sources as a term, and not as a term to describe the current ideology of the party (though some argue for it's adoption as AJRG's references show). Neoliberalism meets the requirements of WP:V, Social liberalism is far more dubious. The existing compromise is uncomfortable for all concerned, anyone arguing that Labour's current ideology is 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist' would be greeted with derision in most politically aware circles, especially now that Darling has boasted that his cuts in the public sector will be deeper and tougher than Thatchers... Riversider (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree sontrong that anyone stating the fact that Labour is a democratic socialist party would be met with "derision" in most politically aware circles. Maybe only in far left circles, but that is another arguement. I am all for getting rid of Neo-liberalism (as it is doesn't accurately describe Labour's policy or position), aswell as social liberal and prehaps Third Way. Although I am sure many would argue that Third Way is a real idealogy and does encompass the shift towards the centre that Labour undertook during the 1990s. I think that either Social Liberal is included along side neo-liberalism, or that they are both removed. As they are both equally as dubious. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to assign some sort of liberal label to their ideology seems a little bit odd to me, and even if we were to do it, social liberalism would be more apt. But I agree with Welshsocialist that it's best if we remove both terms.UBER ^(talk) 00:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I still support removing all references to liberalism, but for now I've replaced neoliberalism with market liberalism, which I think is the more accurate term for what we're trying to say (ie. that Labour has gotten a little too cozy with business groups for a social democratic party). Thoughts on this change? Seems like a good compromise, given that the earlier one produced some confusion.UBER ^(talk) 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This book by N. Scott Arnold says something related to our squabbling on page 3:

Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States, the Labor Party in the United Kingdom etc.

Here we have a fairly reputable source classifying Labour as modern liberal. This one goes a lot further than the others.UBER ^(talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Its worth having a look at the debates on the various articles on liberalism to see just how confusing the situation is. This is compounded by the way in which "liberal" is a generic label in the US with a different history. Uber, you need to stop editing the article while discussion continues. --Snowded ^TALK 08:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy do you believe yourself to be espousing? AJRG (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That changes should not be made on controversial discussions while debate continues. --Snowded ^TALK 09:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Which policy are you quoting? AJRG (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already responded to you on this point in an over extended discussion above. This is basic 101 wikipedia stuff. --Snowded ^TALK 09:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Which policy? AJRG (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If it quacks then its a duck--Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy supports your position then... How about a Wikipedia guideline? AJRG (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should concentrate on trying to resolve this dispute over social liberalism and neo-liberalism in the Labour Party rather then start to argue over what is within the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Neo-Liberal was also going to be a controversal inclusion in an idealogy box for a centre-left political party, but it was discussed and a resolution was found, even if it wasn't ideal and has an usual info box. Personally, I do wonder if the social liberalism is not already covered by the social democracy idealogy, since a lot of the believes seem to be the same. --Welshsocialist (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources I've quoted above make an explicit distinction between social liberalism and social democracy. AJRG (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There are vast similarities between the two, but they're not quite the same. We seem to have a lot of users in agreement here that neoliberalism does not belong in the infobox. Why, dare I ask, is the article being held hostage by some apparent consensus established a long time ago? I will reiterate again: I reject categorically the inclusion of neoliberalism in the infobox, although I wouldn't be opposed to dropping some line in the body of the article about how some have accused the party of being neoliberal. Failing that, I will start a RFC over this article. Failing that, we'll go to mediation. Simply put, neoliberalism is unacceptable. I urge those supporting this viewpoint to compromise to something reasonable: remove all references to liberalism.UBER ^(talk) 16:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is puzzled as to why liberalism has a place in the ideology of the Labour Party, the historical answer is here. The first MPs sponsored by the Trade Unions stood as Liberal-Labour. AJRG (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand and acknowledge these facts, but the current infobox makes no distinction between current and historical positions, as does the infobox of, say, the Democratic Party in the US. That could actually be one solution for including both market liberalism and social liberalism. We divide the party's ideological tendencies into Contemporary and Historical, placing social liberalism under the latter camp. How's that sound? I'm just trying to come up with a reasonable compromise here. Seeing neoliberalism in that infobox makes my bloody blood boil, and I'm not even British.UBER ^(talk) 17:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A distinction between social and fiscal political position might prove useful too. AJRG (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that. I'll wait a few days to see what people think about these proposals. Hopefully we can come to some sort of reasonable understanding here. I have to stress for the umpteenth time, in a message directed particularly at Snowded, that the current version of the infobox is absolutely unacceptable and will be vigorously changed until it conforms to Wikipedia policies (like this one, for starters).UBER ^(talk) 18:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered the point that I and others have raised - namely the prior talk page discussion and citation record on neoliberalism. At the moment you are just making an assertion. For the record I originally opposed its inclusions, but when I went through the references the citation support was pretty over-wealming. My blood boils that it is the case, but that is a personal opinion about what has happened to the Labour Party and is not relevant, what counts here is citations. A second point here relates to the confusion being made between the political origins of the ideology and/or its leaders and if that ideology is current (the information box). Some material is relevant for the main body in looking at origins, but to be in the info box there needs to be a clear citation to show that it is current that satisfies WP:RS and [[W{:WEIGHT]] --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide these citations here? Or give us a direct link to where they can be found? On your last point: you're violating your own standards by ignoring social liberalism, which is clearly supported by numerous reputable sources.UBER ^(talk) 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I've followed my own standards. If you look I have given a response to each of the social liberal citations rather than just making a general point. They establish that social liberalism (like many other isms) are part of the evolution of ideas within the Labour Party as our many others which are not mentioned. THey do not establish that the Labour Party has a social liberal stance. It is, as I have said before, the danger of using a google search to associate two terms and it can lead to bad scholarship. --Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See New Labour's Ideology: A Reply to Michael Freeden (Steve Buckler and David P. Dolowitz, The Political Quarterly, January 2000, Volume 71, Issue 1, pp102-109), quoted above. AJRG (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats about the only one that comes close. However it is published in 2000 (not 2002) and is a response; its an article which is part of a controversy that is a decade old so its not a definitive statement. --Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to the date (amended above). See also Samuel Beer's article in the Economist. If you have a rebuttal for Buckler and Dolowitz, please add it (with quote) to the sources above. AJRG (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have responded already--Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources please. AJRG (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing inclusion of the material, I am doing you the courtesy of responding to the sources your various google searches pop up. --Snowded ^TALK 11:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Without sources, how is that any more than a personal opinion? AJRG (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not clear if that response is part of your general game or if you genuinely don't understand the point; the pattern of your edits over a range of articles would indicate the former not the latter but I will assume good faith for the moment and explain it again. If material is proposed for inclusion it needs reliable sources to support it. You are proposing inclusion of material and have used google to find multiple references that link contain "social liberalism" and "labour party". I have been through those sources and responded on each one to challenge its relevance (google can be a dangerous thing without knowledge of the field). There is no requirement to produce a source to prove a negative. --Snowded ^TALK 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What authority are you claiming for this assessment? Your assessment of the sources on neoliberalism has been challenged. AJRG (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Where an assessment is challenged, then its discussed. 101 stuff this really. I suggest you read the various comments of different editors around the neo-liberal issue they are all on this talk page and you won't need a google search to find them --Snowded ^TALK 13:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

So your assessment of the sources above for social liberalism is no more than your personal opinion? AJRG (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a commentary on your sources to which I note you have not responded. --Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was busy finding sources. I've responded now. AJRG (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well you've been busy finding quotes containing key words, its not the same thing. I can see a couple of responses by you, none to the substantial points. I doubt that Nye Bevan would agree that he was a social liberal, would be interested if you can find anything in In Place of Fear to back that one up! The fact that there is a coincidence of policy between social liberal views on health care and those of a socialist Labour Party doesn't work. Ditto Keynes, on that basis any western government taking a keynsian view can be so labeled which would be absurd. This is rather like our prior disagreement on an NLP related page (the one which gave rise to your extended range of interests). Its OR to make linkages of that nature. Some of your quotes have more weight but those responses don't work. --Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Try and quote me properly - I didn't say that Bevan was a social liberal (though some of the Bevanites might have been). I said that the social liberalism of Beveridge was the ideology enacted by Nye Bevan as the Welfare State. The Labour Party is a broad church, as you mention below. AJRG (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I was fair; you continue to make this error of confusing intellectual origins and/or coincidences or common policies as some form of evidence for adoption of social liberalism. The socialism of Bevan game may have used material and ideas that you can find in social liberalism, but that doesn't make him or the post war Labour Government socially liberal. --Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The comment by Norris (above) is pertinent here. The ability to interpret the same policies as expressions of different ideologies has kept the Labour Party (mostly) together over the years. AJRG (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comment. The history of the Labour Party is fraught by ideological battles and varying forms of entryism. IN the 1930s there was significant common membership with the communist party, CND conflicts, Millitant (I could go on). All good stuff, but the issue is what is the ideology now. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The first Trade Union sponsored MPs stood as Liberal-Labour. Samuel Beer, in The Economist (reference above) notes a speech by Tony Blair in which he expressed regret that the decision to form a separate Labour Party had too often resulted in Conservative governments. Pretending that a broad church like the Labour Party has a single ideology is flawed - democratic socialism is an umbrella term. AJRG (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any editor arguing that it has through its history had a single ideology. In the current day and age democratic socialism is a good umbrella term, especially as the current party has less diversity than of old in large part due to centralised control. --Snowded ^TALK 12:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget it I see them above. I'm going through them now.UBER ^(talk) 21:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

On the sources and neoliberalism

Some of the sources presented above are fairly good and make, at the very least, a quasi-acceptable case that part of Labour's economic policies shifted towards neoliberalism. Most of the sources, however, are rather horrible and completely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Blogs from the ASI and opinion pieces from the Guardian do not constitute reliable sources, and I have absolutely no idea how they were received with such little scrutiny. Others may have different approaches here, but when comparing the weight of the evidence and the reputation of the sources, it certainly seems like social liberalism has much higher standing than neoliberalism in this particular dispute. I encourage a little more conversation on this subject, but I eventually plan to remove neoliberalism in the end. Either include both or don't include them at all.UBER ^(talk) 21:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through the material in a similar way and agree that much of it is not a RS, however a lot of it is. Critically it says that the Labour Party adopted a neo-liberal policy. The evidence so far presented for social liberalism does not make that point, it just shows influence but not adoption. We probably need to look at 2/3 of those references which are the strongest in each case and reach agreement. Removing one, and removing both are options as well as retaining the current position and removing all bar the "official" position. I doubt given the history here that any editor could plan with any confidence to achieve a particular result. --Snowded ^TALK 05:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I've already offered to remove them both. Are you saying you're fine with that? I'm not quite sure I understand your statement.UBER ^(talk) 05:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I said that was one option along with removing all of them and others. My personal preference throughout this debate has been to fall back to a single position per the Party's official position and say that is is democratic socialism. I would move all the stuff under ideological currents into the main body of the article. That includes things like the Third Way which is an interpretation of democratic socialism. However that was not agree during the last debate and the creation of the ideological currents section was a compromise. What I think we need to do is to get this resolved so that it can be posted as a note. That means looking at the major (not long lists) sources for each ideology and determine how best to deal with them. My gut feel is that there are editors with strong enough views on labeling and enough sources to force through some variation of the existing approach. The best way forward on this is to properly review and debate each one, unless the position of established editors has changed. I'm clearing the morning's crop of email at the moment but will have a look later and try outline the options in list format with any evidence I can track down over the page. --Snowded ^TALK 05:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We're having a debate now. We don't have to be slaves to what happened in the past. Like I said, consensus can change in Wikipedia (it's in the policy itself; see WP:CONSENSUS). You keep bringing up what happened then and I keep telling you it doesn't matter. I'm fine with your approach leaving only democratic socialism in the ideology section and integrating the rest into the article (well, it's already there!). I'm going to do this unless there are no objections over the next 24 hours.UBER ^(talk) 06:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can change, but issuing short deadlines doesn't help prevent future conflict. Best to advise the editors most involved last time and allow a few days, especially when we are in a holiday period. --Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm averse to canvassing, even when it might seem appropriate. You're more than welcome to contact them yourself, however. If they really care about this article, they'll drop by regularly.UBER ^(talk) 06:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the Easter weekend you know .... --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually did not know that, but now I'm glad I do. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't run on any religious schedule and it won't affect my decision, but I'm glad it's Easter. Happy Easter!UBER ^(talk) 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well let me make something clear, if you edit the article without allowing time for editors to engage I will revert even if I agree with the solution. Process is important to Wikipedia and aggressive editing in areas of known controversy is not being bold, it is being cavalier. Give it to Monday for other editors to engage --Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Monday at 23:59 UTC it is.UBER ^(talk) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

deal, now back to dealing with the BNP and other articles! --Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The history of the debate on the inclusion of the term 'neoliberalism' as one description of Labour's ideology goes something like this.

First people opposed it's inclusion, saying it was not supported by published sources.

We provided large numbers of published sources. Then people argued that these sources were not authoritative.

We provided more sources, a huge variety, but which include Labour MPs like Cruddas, journals like the Cambridge Journal of Economics, numerous respected academics (including the founder of DEMOS), numerous political commentators, and a wide variety of national newspapers, from every part of the political spectrum.

Most people now accept that the sources exist, and that many of them are authoritative, but they still do not want to include the term 'Neoliberalism' BECAUSE THEY PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH IT.

Failing to include the term 'neoliberalism', given the weight of published sources that we now know exists would be pure POV vandalism and would directly contravene every founding principle of Wikipedia. We're not here to establish 'truth' or 'accuracy', which are matters for debate and further research elsewhere (not on WP as we have a rule on WP:NOR). Many people do believe that Labour is a thoroughly neoliberal party and that the pro-market anti-public sector policies they have adopted are evidence of this, others still believe that Labour's self description as a 'democratic socialist' party is accurate. Because both versions of reality are reflected in published material (with the term 'neo-liberal' used in the published material at least 4 times more often than 'democratic socialist' as a description of New Labour according to this google battle and this alternative google battle, We have therefore reached a consensus to reflect BOTH points of view rather than judging them here. (giving undue precedence to 'democratic socialist' in my opinion, but I'm prepared to live with it), Read the guidelines please everyone: we're here to reflect what authoritative published sources say about a particular topic, nothing more, nothing less. Riversider (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

John Cruddas talks about the neoliberal right in both the Conservative and Labour parties as well as communities blighted by neoliberal economics (here). Saying or implying that the whole party is neoliberal, or that all its policies are neoliberal, seems to go beyond the sources. AJRG (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cruddas is just one source among many, but the citation you use is clearly enough to verify that, in his view, 'Neoliberalism' is one of the ideologies of the Labour Party, which is exactly what the infobox says (and all that it says). Riversider (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So the challenge is to give proper weight to each of the different strands. Historically, different ideologies have been influential at different times. AJRG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources, indeed a lot of them that Riversider quoted were slightly questionable. The Socialist Party one for example cannot be taken to be a reiable source, because it is an opposition political party and therefore wants to smear Labour to try and gain votes. That would be like using a Labour Party source to quote an idealogy for the Conservatives, or a BNP source to call Labour Communist. Other sources included are opinion pieces from far-left wingers, such as Martin Jacques, and therefore must be taken with a pinch of salt. There are also some more seemingly reiable sources quoted too, and they have to be taken into consideration, just as the ones calling Labour Social Liberal also have to be taken into consideration.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

reset

As far as I can see we can establish the following

• The official ideology of the party is democratic socialism
• There is clear support for the Third Way although it can be argued that this is a manifestation of democratic socialism rather than something distinct
• Citation support is clear to say that the Labour Party has taken a neoliberal economic stance
• It is also clear that the thinking of people within the Labour Party has been influenced by social liberalism (which is not to say the party ideology is that)
• The same could be said of communism, marxism, christian socialism, charitism, classic lliberalism and so on. The Labour Party is a broad church with many intellectual origins.

We then have the question: What should be included in the information box and what should be in the main body of the article At the moment we have two options

1. Information Box to reference democratic socialism as the ideology, all other material into the body of the article
2. The existing compromise where we have two sections for ideology. In this case we have to determine what is in there and what is not.

My preference is for the first, but I accept the second. In the event of the second we need to have clear citation (and weight) that establishes the ideology has been officially or de facto adopted by the Party, not that it belongs somewhere in the development of ideas. Whatever we should not confuse the two options --Snowded ^TALK 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As with all centre-left parties in Europe, Social Democracy is also a strong idealogy within Labour, and indeed could be seen as being stronger than Democratic Socialism. The same can be said of Plaid Cymru, the SNP and centre-left political parties on the continent, but again that could be used interchangable with the Third Way. I think if we go for the first one than Social Democracy should be included along side Democratic Socialism, as that does describe the party idealogy better.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point. Social democracy has a more specific meaning within Europe and Labour does not really fit into that tradition. Given that the party constitution states democratic socialism I think that should be the choice between the two. --Snowded ^TALK 16:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded - social democracy would exclude Marxists. AJRG (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that its relevant, but it wouldn't --Snowded ^TALK 06:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone who rejects the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, irreconcilable class conflicts and hostility to liberalism still be called a Marxist? AJRG (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is a broader church than that if you look at its evolution over the last century. --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say Marxian rather than Marxist, but no matter. Democratic socialist is undoubtedly a better term to use for the Labour Party. AJRG (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Riversider, what exactly are you thinking when you accuse others of pushing "POV vandalism" because they disagree with you? That's a hell of a charge, especially coming from someone in the CV unit. Speaking as someone in the CV unit myself, if this is the approach you are taking to this debate, I shudder to think what you are counting as vandalism in your other CV efforts.

I support Snowded's approach: democratic socialism (or social democracy, either one) goes in the infobox and the rest is explained in the article. As far as I can tell here, Riverside is the only person pushing the neoliberalism label for the infobox and still has the (unbelievable) nerve to accuse others of vandalism after presenting to us mostly bogus sources that largely had an axe to grind with Labour.UBER ^(talk) 16:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a wide variety of citations referring to Labour's ideology as Neo-Liberal. One or two can be blithely dismissed, but certainly not all of them (or even the majority of them) Some come from the far left, which is not a reason to dismiss them out of hand, others come from other sections of the Labour Party, such as Cruddas, some come from the realms of academe, and are highly authoritative sources in their respective fields, some come from the main British daily broadsheets. Several other editors have admitted on this page that at least some of the sources I have posted are authoritative (and some have used the same sources to back their own arguments). Deleting information that is based on authoritative sources because you personally disagree with it is precisely the definition of POV vandalism. Riversider (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you have clearly established a neoliberal economic policy and that should clearly be within the body of the article. The question at the moment is what should go in the information box --Snowded ^TALK 12:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Americans make a useful distinction between the social and fiscal ideology of a party. The notion that the social ideology of the party of the Trade Unions could be described as every man for himself is just bizarre. AJRG (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Liberal is not a core, or central idealogy to the party. Labour might currently, to some degree, have a neo-liberal economic policy, but if it remians after a leadership election remains to be seen, especailly since the wider party is not neo-liberal, and the Thatcherite consensus that has been build up over the 30 years has been debunked by the credit crunch. I do not believe that neo-liberalism exists beyond the current leadership cliche, and that the party iself, the membership outside that oppose neo-liberalism. It should be inclided in the text somewhere, probably under the New Labour sections. I however am skepitcal that it is a dominant enough idealogy within the party itself.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, River has "established" that neoliberal policy is an important influence within the Labour Party, but not that neoliberalism is an ideology of the party. And it certainly is not important enough to be included in the infobox, which, as Snowded mentioned, is the real subject of controversy. No one disputes mentioning neoliberalism somewhere in the article. Should it be in the infobox? That's the question, and so far the answer from everyone except River appears to be a convincing "no."UBER ^(talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me to 'establish' anything. It's up to us as editors to reflect what the authoritative published sources say. It's misleading to say that the sources cited all refer merely to Labour's economic policy, but not to it's ideology. Many of the sources refer directly to the word 'ideology' and we cannot ignore these. Economic policy and ideology are directly linked, you can't have one, without the other. The infobox does not say that neoliberalism is Labour's only ideology, but one among several. If we were to faithfully reflect the published sources, we'd have to admit that neoliberalis IS the dominant ideology of the current Labour leadership, but the compromise we've reached already falls short of this. Now UBER is aiming for a new consensus where we ignore the weight of published material and just pretend it does not exist. Riversider (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem for me is that you're proposing a contradiction. If the dominant ideology of the Labour Party was neo-liberalism, as you assert, the Trade Unions would have walked away already. So you need to re-evaluate what you're proposing... AJRG (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that follows automatically AJRG. The Trade Unions were tied to the Liberal Party in the 19th Century for decades, and it took great work by the socialists of the time, along with the experience of much economic upheaval and bitter strikes and upheavals to break that political alignment in favour of a social democratic one. That said, there is increasing dissatisfaction in the Trade Union movement with their financial contribution to Labour - some of which is already reflected in the article.

There are plenty of books which I've not yet cited to add to the long list above. For example, 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, anyone want to dispute that he is an 'authoritative source'?Riversider (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The published material here is inconclusive, largely because we have reputable sources saying nearly everything from A to Z has influenced Labour or is part of its overall ideology. The real problem seems to be how much weight we should assign to neoliberalism as one component of Labour policy. This could be a great discussion to have for the body of the article, but it should go without saying that neoliberalism does not belong in the infobox. Please stop with your non-sense about "authoritative sources." There are authoritative sources flatly saying Labour is a modern liberal party (see N. Scott Arnold above). Reputable sources often disagree, and this is yet another example. Our job now is to decide how much weight we want to give neoliberalism in this article. Judging the weight of the evidence, it doesn't deserve much.UBER ^(talk) 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reputable sources do disagree, and the current compromise consensus reflects that disagreement - that is how WP works where there is disagreement, giving appropriate weight to all sides of an argument. A blithe dismissal of the huge weight of published sources associating the word 'neoliberalism' with New Labour's ideology is not enough to justify removing the term from the infobox. It now seems clear to me now that no matter how many respected academic sources I cite here, some editors will assert their own POV precedence over them. Riversider (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point we are just repeating ourselves, and I see that your intransigence will not relent. There are four editors who seem to be in agreement that neoliberalism should not be mentioned in the infobox. You are the only one objecting. I think we have about as much consensus as we're going to get here. I will wait until tomorrow like I promised, just in case someone else chimes in, but if nothing new happens until then, I plan to remove every ideological term from the infobox except democratic socialism.UBER ^(talk) 19:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As that would breach several WP guidelines, I'm asking you not to do that. "Four editors" cannot agree to over-rule numerous published sources.Riversider (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I strongly question your understanding of basic Wikipedia policies, I'm going to ignore you.UBER ^(talk) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing the variety of ideologies represented in the infobox would not be an improvement in the article. It would turn an infobox that currently informs people about the complexity of the ideological debate in the Labour Party and beyond, into a bland repetition of the party leadership's 'official' position. This does not serve to inform anyone, nor does it reflect what is being said and written by experts on political ideology, Labour MPs, Labour members, Trade Unionists and other authoritative commentators about the Labour Party. The edit you're proposing will change the balance of the infobox from one which is currently NPOV, to one that is decidedly one-sided in the POV it represents. UBER questions my knowledge of WP policies, but it is clear from his edit history that it is his edits that have generated a considerable amount of controversy and recrimination, I hope he will not attempt to make history repeat itself.Riversider (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit heated, so let's step back a moment. The objective here should be to propel the article in the direction of Featured Article status. So, does anyone have a reliable source that asserts that the Labour Party has a neo-liberal social ideology? AJRG (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How on earth do you distinguish between a 'social' ideology and an 'economic' ideology? The economic measures a party implements inevitably have social consequences - in the case of neoliberalism one such social consequence is a widening gap between rich and poor, exactly what has occurred under New Labour. Yet another citation that perfectly meets your request however is [ http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/sociology/papers/jessop-from-thatcherism-to-new-labour.pdf Jessop B From Thatcherism to New Labour: Neo-Liberalism, Workfarism, and Labour Market Regulation] This states: "Blair's self-described 'New Labour' government is openly committed to a radical and modernizing reform of the British state apparatus and its economic and social policies. It is also actively promoting its version of neo-liberalism in Europe and the wider world. Often presented as the 'Third Way', New Labour strategy could also be described as the 'American Way'; and, indeed, the consolidation of a Blairite neo-liberalism in Britain could become a Trojan Horse through which a transatlantic neo-liberal project penetrates further into the European Union." and "This is also reflected in British pressure for a minimalist social chapter, resistance to French and German proposals on job creation, and pleas for recognition of its "New Deal" for the unemployed as a model policy for Europe (Gray 1998: 6). Similar objectives at home and abroad were shared by the Thatcher and Major governments for at least ten years before New Labour's landslide election victory in 1997." and "The primacy of neo-liberalism in this changing policy mix can be discerned in many aspects of New Labour strategy. Thus it continued to move consistently towards neo-liberalism in its economic policies from its disastrous 1984 general election defeat to its landslide 1997 general election victory (see especially, on a wide range of policies, Hay 1999). We can also note the subsequent trend for the neo-liberal and the disciplinary bias of many of its economic and social policies to increase from their initial policy formulation through local experimentation to full-scale implementation (e.g., in the field of labour market policy, see Dolowitz 1997; Haughton et al., 2000). This impression of neo-liberal primacy is reinforced when one contrasts the constancy and conviction that marks the pursuit of neo-liberalism both rhetorically and practically with the oscillation and hesitation in those aspects of New Labour discourse and actions that seem to run counter to neo-liberalism." and "whilst Blair is on record as admiring many of the achievements of Thatcherism, he has also enthusiastically contributed to an emerging Transatlantic dialogue with the Clinton Administration to advocate the 'Third Way'. In line with this emerging bipartisan Anglo-American neo-liberalism, New Labour has intensified the strategy it inherited of promoting workfare and putting systematic downward pressure on public spending on universal welfare benefits – most notably in pensions, housing provision, long-term disability insurance, long-term health care, and higher education – as well as making welfare benefits more selective (or ‘targeted’ in the jargon of neo-liberalism)." I think that is a pretty conclusive answer to your question AJRG - a whole raft of social policies affected by New Labour's neoliberal ideology in the view of this authoritative academic source. There are plenty more authoritative sources where that came from... Riversider (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't separate an economic policy from a social policy they both interact with each other and it rather misses the point anyway. The issue at the moment is not if the Labour Party adopted a neoliberal approach or not, they did, its what goes into the information box. With an election coming up we could do with resolving this and getting ready to defend this and other political party articles from multiple attempts at politically motivated editing. The problem with the current compromise is that it stabilised the immediate conflict but then we had a constant stream of adding in anything to the list. Given the number of things that have influenced the Labour Party of the years the list could easily get out of hand. The failure to appreciate the different between adopted by and influenced by would only make this worse. I think the pragmatic arguments for listing a single ideology are strengthened. ALso these days democratic socialism appears to have adopted market control mechanism more or less universally. What is needed are a set of amendments to the main article to include the rich vein of material identified by Riverside. For the moment however can we please focus the argument on what is appropriate or not for the information box. Also several editors who monitor this article have not responded on this debate yet, it would be good to have wider involvement, --Snowded ^TALK 05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the literature, there are two main threads, one large thread maintains that, in recent years, Labour has adopted a neoliberal ideology. The other thread is Labour's official party line that it remains a social democratic party with a social democratic ideology, though there are few independent sources from outside the Labour Party that support this line - the literature that asserts this could even be treated as a 'self published source'. There are small minority points of view, such as the one that Labour is 'social liberal' in it's ideology, but these are dwarfed by the two main bodies of literature. The infobox could blandly assert the 'official' line, but this would give a very partial POV version of what the published material says. As it currently stands is about as close to NPOV as we can get. Making deadlines and then carrying out disruptive edits is not the way to win consensus, as UBER must know by now. Let's be brave enough to maintain NPOV by keeping the infobox as it is. Riversider (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy and ideology are not the same thing, even if they are usually connected. Martin Jacques, who in your New Statesman citation above announces "The end of the neoliberal era" also has this to say: Labour has never been very good at thinking. When it comes to ideas, the party has always been a better borrower than a creator: Keynes, one might recall, was a Liberal, not a member of the Labour Party. New Labour itself came largely from Thatcherism, and the critique of Old Labour and understanding of Thatcherism from my old magazine, Marxism Today. AJRG (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Too true AJRG, I think that's why we've used the term 'ideological currents' in the infobox, rather than implying that in the case of the Labour Party, they are hard and fast well thought through ideologies with well organised groups of 'followers'. Riversider (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism, at least until the recent crash has in varying degrees dominated the thinking of parties of both the right and the left, or at least those in government or with a chance of government in Europe as a whole. That needs to be reflected in the body of the article although we need to be careful of the controversies. The issue is the function of the information box. To my mind its purpose is to give a quick insight into the overall position of a party. Listing lots of different and contradictory ideologies that have in different times had varying degrees of influence does not help that. In the British context a single clear statement is going to be more beneficial to the readers in all cases. The BNP is a far right part, the Conservatives are right wing/unionist, the Liberasl are well liberal and the best modern description of the Labour Party is democratic socialism. OK its not socialism in the sense of the period up to the 70s but its how politics has developed. --Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, What you're saying doesn't hang together logically. You rightly say 'democratic socialism' and 'neoliberalism' are contradictory. You then agree (rightly) that Labour, like the other main parites has had it's thinking (another word for it's ideology) dominated by neoliberalism. This is an argument for leaving 'democratic socialism' out, not 'neoliberalism'. You then come up with an outdated method of categorising the parties, that might have been true in the 1970's, but is not true today, and attempt to shoehorn Labour back into it. This is not a method for writing WP. THe method for writing WP is to find out what authoritative published sources say, then to reflect what they say. This change would not reflect what the published sources say.Riversider (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well one man's contradiction is another man's paradox. The Labour Party did adopt a neoliberal economic policy, but maintained that it was the best way to achieve a democratic socialist agenda. Many a commentator went along with that, others challenged it. At the current moment in time its not clear if the neoliberal agenda is still in place, or if in place the degree to which it has been modified. Put simply its a mess and the published sources reflect that mess. You may think that taking a spectrum based approach to understanding the political parties is outdated and fine, feel free to hold that opinion, I don't think its backed up in theory or practice but your views are your own, neither do you have a monopoly on wanting to use published sources ideas so cool it please. I will repeat again, the issue here is not what ideologies have variously influenced and being adopted by the Labour Party in recent times, but what label to use in the information box. This is a minor issue that you are elevating to a nonsensical level by suggesting that anyone wanting to remove neoliberal from the information box is denying that the Labour Party adopted a neoliberal policy. As everyone has pointed out to you that is not the case, it belongs in the main body of the article. Keeping the information box clean and simple is I think a worthy objective. --Snowded ^TALK 12:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the whole point - "it's a mess" "the published sources reflect that mess", in such a situation a 'clean and simple' infobox would not accurately reflect what the published sources say, it would inevitably be a partial POV. The current version is messy, but it reflects what the published sources say. Readers will overwhelmingly understand that the ideology of Labour is not static, and we're doing our best to reflect the various understandings of it's ideological position by giving them a more nuanced and complex summary Riversider (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem (venturing a view here not a proposal) is that in general British Political parties have historically been more fluid than in the post war period. The great realignments of the late 19th and early 20th Century made things less of a mess and we are well overdue one. Returning to the subject, both democratic socialism and social democracy have become far more problematic in the last few decades in their adoption of market capitalism and associated mechanisms of control. In the case of the British Labour party we also see neo-stalinist measurement systems (opinion again not proposal). I don't think that complexity can properly represented through some labels in the information box, it needs better material in the main body. Since the compromise has been put in place we have had multiple attempts to add new labels and its a meaningless battleground. Given that any modern manifestation of democratic socialism includes elements of neoliberalism its good enough to my point of view. As I said some time ago, if that is not a consensus position then I can live with the previous compromise if we hold it to ideologies adopted buy the Party, not just a near random list of any influence that people can find a google reference for. --Snowded ^TALK 12:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I admire your belief in simplicity - simplicity is useful and makes things easy to explain. There comes a point however where simplifying beyond a certain point becomes misleading and inaccurate, partial and POV. I am not arguing for the inclusion of every single trend influence and direction in the infobox, or even in the article. We should include the main trends that have multiple published sources in the infobox - which in my view are neoliberalism, social democracy and possibly 'third way'. Small minority views like 'social liberalism' could be mentioned in the main body of the text if there are adequate sources to back them up 'fringe' theories do not need to be included at all. Merely having 'democratic socialism' in the infobox would be a gross oversimplification of what we all now agree is a complex situation in the party. The infobox as it stands at present adequately reflects the complexity that exists in the published sources. I also agree that 'neoliberalism' in the labour party needs much more coverage in the main body of the text, and would suggest that removing the 'neoliberal' tag from the infobox before this extra main body coverage is included would be the worst of all worlds. Riversider (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a case for the very suitably named WP:REDFLAG regarding claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. What do people think? AJRG (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding, and I might be totally wrong, but it seems to be that it is not the suggestion that Labour might have some neo-liberal policies, because since the 1980s, most centre-left social democratic, democratic socialist parties have to some degree. However it is more the case of it is is being given undue weight being put into the info box. I think that it has been. The core of Labour, the membership, the constitution are not neo-liberal, but democratic socialist or social democratic. I am not sure that Labour is "neo-liberal enough" to be included as a major ideology in the info box. Although it is, and should be mentioned in the article.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, neoliberalism is under represented in the main body of the article. The problem with adding that into the information box is that then everything else gets added in and it becomes a battle ground of labels. Keeping it simple is not POV. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeping it simple is not POV, keeping it TOO simple is POV. If I call a zebra 'grey' I am oversimplifying, and misrepresenting the fact that some of it is black, and some of it is white. The prevailing view within the relevant community (political scientists, commentators, academics, journalists) is that Labour has a neoliberal ideology, as the huge number of published sources demonstrate. Labour Party members themselves disagree with each other on this issue, with many backbenchers, including Cruddas using the word 'neoliberal' to describe the leadership's ideology. Where Labour holds office, in national government and local councils, their policies are neoliberal ones of privatisation and cuts in public services. They have promised worse cuts in public services than Thatcher's if they are elected again. Keep the infobox simple with two or three labels, which are enough to demonstrate the internal debates and dynamics in the Labour Party, but censoring the word neoliberalism in defiance of all that published material can only be POV. Riversider (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Zebra metaphor is cute but it elevates neoliberalism too much. Its also the case (and you have not responded to this) that most democratic socialist and social democratic parties in Europe have adopted neoliberal economic policies to varying degrees. Cuts in public services are inevitable in the current economic climate, its nothing to do with neoliberal ideology. --Snowded ^TALK 08:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the Labour Party is not alone in adopting a neoliberal ideology, and that other formerly social democratic parties in Europe and across the world have undergone the same process, (perhaps to varying degrees). The fact that you accept this is happening actually strengthens the case for including the word 'neoliberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology. Cuts are only "inevitable" if you accept the precepts of neoclassical economics and the logic of neoliberal capitalism that states that though bankers and billionaires have created the economic crisis, it is ordinary people that must bear the burden of paying for it. 'Democratic socialists' would not accept this, they would generally suggest that the rich should pay for their own crisis and would use measures like nationalisation to rescue failing sectors. The zebra analogy neither elevates or diminishes the 'neoliberal' element of New Labour, it points out that oversimplifying what you agree is a complex situation can lead to misrepresentation. The idea that Labour is now neoliberal is not some 'small minority view' about the Labour Party but a strong thread of argument across multiple academic environments, and which from your writing above, you more than half accept yourself. Riversider (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC):::

Gordon Brown put the failing banks into public ownership. Apart from the spin, is that any different from nationalisation? AJRG (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While the banks were effectively nationalised, this was done in a neoliberal way to bail out the wealthy bankers, and did not result in democratic control over the the banks, as the bonuses the bankers continued to pay themselves illustrates. However we're veering over into a political discussion here rather than one about the article itself. Riversider (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

nationalised ... in a neoliberal way That sums up everything you've said here. AJRG (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your response above more or less makes my point. Democratic socialism is not what it was forty years ago, its moved on (for good or ill) and now encompasses aspects of neoliberalism to varying degrees. I would also argue (off topic here by the way) that economic models based on complex adaptive systems thinking are starting to provide alternatives to the extremes of traditional socialism, neo-classical economics and monetarism et al. The landscape is changing and political language is changing as well. --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism and neoliberalism are fundamentally incompatible ideologies. (which does not mean they cannot exist at the same time in people's heads - people are quite capable of holding two or more incompatible beliefs). You're right that the landscape is changing and the language is changing, which is why it is correct to include the term 'neoliberalism' as a description of Labour's current ideology, rather than shying away from a word because it is uncomfortable for a few Labour Party members who like to claim to be 'democratic socialists'. You're also right that this may shift again in the future, and perhaps an ideology based on 'complex adaptive systems' may emerge, but WP is not a crystal ball, so we're here to reflect what the published sources say about the present situation, if doing this means we have to reflect the contradictions and complexity of the situation in the infobox, then that is what we have to do, however much we crave simplicity. Riversider (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably they are not incompatible ideologies any more. It looks from the above entry that given a single label choice you would choose neoliberal and that would be POV. To be honest the more you argue this the more I think you are making a political point in respect of this label. (My CAS point was an aside by the way and clearly flagged as such so please respect that). --Snowded ^TALK 09:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right again that, if I were forced into making such a choice, I would choose neoliberal rather than democratic socialist as I think it is more representative of the current truth and the published sources - but perhaps this would be my way of calling the zebra grey. Being able to have two words gives the debate life, and it is not WP's job to always come up with simple definitive answers, especially in complex situations, simply to point the reader to places where they can find out more for themselves. This means it would be wrong to choose just one word to sum up such a complex situation, and really there is no need to - no WP guideline forces us to use just one word to sum up a party's orientation. I think I understand the point you're making now. You're suggesting that because formerly social democratic parties have shifted to neo-liberal ideologies, the very meaning of the words 'democratic socialism' has also shifted to mean 'neoliberalism', and that by using the term 'democratic socialism' you are also encompassing neoliberalism. I would suggest that such a redefinition of the terms is a gross violation of the English language, and that for most readers 'democratic socialism' means something quite different from 'neoliberalism', so using the term 'democratic socialism' without qualification would be deeply misleading, and would fail to represent published sources. 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Riversider (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(enjoying the discussion by the way) In effect you have had parties with a democratic socialist orientation adopting neoliberal methods and to a degree ideology. You see a lot of idealistic instrumentalism in the Labour Party as well during the Blair years with neoliberal economic ideas being used as control mechanisms. So I don't think its a whole hearted adoption, its more of a coevolutionary process. Giving the Labour Party the neoliberal label would in effect be to ignore that coevolution and ignore increased funding for health and education (just to take two examples). Its why I think we need a more elaborate section in the main body of the article. Our difference is that I don't agree that for most readers democratic socialism would be misleading given the current meaning of that term. Its always problematic with an American readership anyway where words like liberal and socialist carry loaded meanings that would not be seen in a European context. --Snowded ^TALK 09:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the discussion too. You agree that formerly social democratic parties have adopted, at least to some degree, the neoliberal ideology. The infobox as it stands represents this position, so I don't see how changing it can be an improvement. You mention more funding for education and health. This has now stopped and cuts are already happening in education and health in the UK. Even while funding was increasing, this was coupled (and tied to) the use of Private Finance Initiative which has poured public money directly into the private sector - a very neoliberal way of doing things. I'm suggesting we use the terms as they are understood by political science, the main body of the text can clarify their meanings. I'd reassert that both in political science, and in general usage 'democratic socialist' and 'neoliberal' have two quite distinct meanings (otherwise Labour Party members would not object to the use of the term neoliberal at all). To describe the situation you agree exists in the Labour Party, simply using 'democratic socialist' is an oversimplification which will lead just as much to POV as simply using 'neoliberal'. I agree with using one word wherever possible instead of two. This situation however requires us to use at least two to properly represent the complexity that exists. Riversider (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily agree that the Labour Party's policy has been the antithesis of what I would regard as a democratic approach to socialism - its one of the reasons I resigned after several decades of active membership. The other being an increasingly belief that nation states are simply too large to run any meaningful social welfare provision. However in the UK the Labour Party really define what democratic socialism is, and they are close to their social democrat European counterparts. It remains true that neoliberal while its present does not fully define the party. I suppose there is an argument for something much simpler namely "left of centre" and then cover all the others in the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Labor Party do not 'define' what democratic socialism means, that's down to all users of the English language. I've listed below a few current definitions of 'democratic socialism' and 'neoliberalism', without filtering, in order to demonstrate that the two terms do have distinct and incompatible meanings. Whatever neoliberalism is, it cannot be described as a 'left of centre' ideology, it's about the unfettered rule of the markets. Your instincts are correct Snowded. Do not cede control over the English language to politicians, that's Orwell territory. Riversider (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "unfettered" is a bit strong to describe the Labour Party and markets - its one reason I am uncomfortable with "neoliberal" unqualified. Practice however does change the meaning of language over time, Orwellian would be if it was imposed, this has more or less happened. --Snowded ^TALK 10:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the terms as they are generally used have not changed in meaning, except for a small group of people close to the Labour Party's orbit. Politicians have an interest in changing and blurring the meaning of words - but Labour is not Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, it cannot say 'my words mean whatever I want them to mean'. WP uses the English language as it is used by the general intelligent reader. Neoliberalism is not unqualified in the infobox, the presence of both neoliberalism and democratic socialism means that they both qualify each other. Riversider (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialism is difficult to define, and groups of scholars have radically different definitions for the term. From WIkipedia (yes I know we can't quote it). Otherwise a more considered response later. --Snowded ^TALK 11:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've studied the wikipedia article on democratic socialism, and while it covers some very varied trends, I'd suggest that not one of those trends, which all at least share common values of collectivism, greater social equality ('social justice'), and more democratic control over industry and the markets, would be at all compatible with the values of neoliberalism which would counterpose individual rights and responsibilities to collectivism, would tend to oppose what it would call 'social engineering', and would favour more influence by the markets on political and social policy, rather than the other way round.Riversider (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Ian Adams, 'democratic socialism' is a term associated with the Bevanite Labour left. But perhaps we are missing the point, made in the same book, that British socialism has tended to be very non-theoretical. According to Brewer's Politics, Russell Prowse (an Australian academic?) said that "the term 'democratic socialism' makes as much sense as pregnant virginity".--Pondle (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Trade Unions and NeoLiberalism in the Labour Party

AJRG makes this extremely perceptive remark above "If the dominant ideology of the Labour Party was neo-liberalism, as you assert, the Trade Unions would have walked away already" This very question has been the subject of academic investigation, by Jo Grady, a researcher into Pension reform at the University of Leicester, who interviewed leading Trade Unionists and Backbench Labour MPs. The abstract of her paper is available here: Trade Unions and New Labour; Collaborators in Neoliberalism together?

It's an abstract of a research seminar held a week ago! If her paper is published later this year, as claimed here, you'll be able to cite it. Until then, patience... AJRG (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Even an abstract counts as a published source AJRG, but there's plenty more references around on the relationship between neoliberalism, new labour and the Trade Unions for those who are prepared to seek them out :)Riversider (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Humour me by quoting the Wikipedia policy or guideline you're relying on... AJRG (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply saying it fits the definition of WP:Published, it's not a crucial matter as there's plenty of other material available on the same topic. There's nothing in WP:RS which rules out the use of abstracts, and the author of this paper comes from a reputable academic environment where her work is scrutinised by her peers.Riversider (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're not happy with that particular source, Martin Upchurch of the Global Labour University might satisfy you (Upchurch is a professor of International Employment Relations at Middlesex University).

The joint publication of the Third Way/Neue Mitte in 1998 by Britain’s Tony Blair and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder had signalled a shift in policy direction towards supply side economic management and worker flexibility. The ‘old’ social democracy was abandoned, to be replaced in Britain by continuing privatisation and a distancing between the Labour Party and the unions

In Britain there has long been ‘formal affiliation’ between the Labour Party and the unions, with unions donating yearly up to 60% of the party’s funds. However, the Labour Party leadership has sought to downgrade formal power of the unions within the party, and has sought funding from business sources. Unions have moved from power-brokers to internal lobbyists. In the public sector tensions between party and unions have been most acute, the continuing adaptation to neoliberalism as a means of capital accumulation by social democratic parties in power will mean a continuation of the crisis, and a parallel ‘opening up’ of workers’ organised political dissent within wider civil society.

Riversider (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, here's an interesting article in the Guardian, by Gregor Gall, another professor of Industrial Relations (University of Hertfordshire) which states:

Fifteen unions are affiliated to Labour, representing 4.45 million workers (or 64% of all members). Of these, Unite, Unison and the GMB are by far the biggest.

These unions call for a vote for Labour to stop the Tories, with little in the way of positive enthusiasm for Labour. Of these, Unite is the most stridently and unambiguously pro-Labour while Unison is more guarded.

But rather than take the attitude of "better the devil you know", or supporting the party whose cuts will be least, the unions together could have influenced the entire political agenda by moving its centre of gravity far away from neoliberalism, the proverbial elephant in the room of this election.

Together, they could have said: "We reject 'the market knows best' where profits come before people", mobilised their members around this, and done so before now. If they had done this, the idea that markets can be regulated to protect the common good would already be part of the popular common sense. And, all the parties would have had to accommodate this. Only the PCS union with its "Make your vote count" campaign and the RMT through its support for No2EU and the Trade Unionists and Socialist Coalition have made any attempt to do this.

Instead most – one way or another – end up endorsing Labour as the least worst option. They think it has the better plans for growth (even though this is essentially from trickledown economics. Their bottom line is pretty much jobs at any price and forget about the type of jobs they are. This is the inevitable result when you give up trying to regulate the market – instead, you become beholden to it.

The tragedy is that Labour is still intent upon further privatisation and marketisation, behind all the guff about "a future fair for all". It is still far more business than worker-friendly. And that is truly self-defeating for the unions.

Riversider (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of NeoLiberalism and Democratic Socialism

Perhaps we should have defined the terms of our debate a long time ago.

Here's a link to some current definitions of 'democratic socialism'

I'll quote how it stands today

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

A radical left-wing political philosophy that aims to achieve by democratic means a fully socialist society i.e. where private ownership has been ... en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democratic_socialism

A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society ... www.socialpolicy.ca/d.htm

Here's a link to some current definitions of neoliberalism

Quite a lot of definitions here:

a political orientation originating in the 1960s; blends liberal political views with an emphasis on economic growth [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]

Neoliberalism is a label for classical liberalism. The term is applied only by critics of the doctrine, to the point where one commentator remarked "the concept itself has become an imprecise exhortation in much of the literature, often describing any tendency deemed to be undesirable". ... [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism]

In the study of international relations, neoliberalism refers to a school of thought which believes that nation-states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other nation-states. ... [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism_(international_relations)]

A political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neoliberalism]

neoliberal - a liberal who subscribes to neoliberalism neoliberal - having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]

A view of the world that favors social justice while also emphasizing economic growth, efficiency, and the benefits of free markets. [www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/n.html]

"The policies of privatization, austerity, and trade liberalization dictated to dependent countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as a condition for approval of investment, loans, and debt relief." (6) [www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html]

A view of the world based on the belief that the optimal economic system is achieved by giving free reign to market participants, privatization ... [www.afsc.org/TradeMatters/ht/d/sp/i/13425/pid/13425]

a movement that modifies classical liberalism in light of 20th-century conditions. [electionalize.com/info-glossary.asp]

The key difference between the two ideologies according to their commonly used definitions is that one emphasises public ownership, equality, democracy, while the other emphasises giving free reign to market forces. This means they are two incompatible ideologies as the terms are understood by political scientists and by the general public. Riversider (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Will have to do a bit of research and thinking around those - but need to get some work done first --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another good reference on the balance between social democracy and neoliberalism in the Labour Party, Mark Evans of the University of York writes:

it was not until Labour leader John Smith’s untimely death in May 1994 and the election of Tony Blair to the Labour leadership in July of that year that Labour revisionism took on an almost evangelical zeal. New Labour’s electoral project refocused its attention on supplanting the Conservatives as the natural party of government and represented a historic compromise between social democracy and the market orientation of neoliberalism.

p71

After the 1997 general election, the government refocused its programme on reinforcing and extending the neoliberal marketizing trends of the Thatcher period.

Blair and Mandelson took it as a given that globalization imposes limits on all social and economic policies, and thus the only ones worth promoting are those that are acceptable to ‘the market’.

(p72) Here's what he has to say on the Third Way:

The debate over a credible Third Way in British politics, between the traditional positions of the Old Right (anti-state and pro-market), and, the Old Left (pro-public ownership and state intervention and anti-market),emerged within the context of trying to establish a more coherent future for social democratic politics. There is, of course, nothing new about the use of the term in Labour Party history, although it has been given different meanings. For example, in 1912, Labour Party leader Ramsay Macdonald’s claim that Labourism was ‘a Third Way between State Socialism and Syndicalism’, was greeted with equal derision

(p73) and

Social democratic and other centre-left parties begin to search for policies, which, while adapting to the new constraints, are intended to promote a diluted form of neoliberalism, or what has been termed the ‘Third Way’. In Britain this represents the outcome of the war of ideas between the forces of social democracy and neoliberalism.

Like so many other sources that I've already cited, everything Mark Evans says reinforces the rightness of the way the infobox is now - reflecting a dynamic balance/conflict between 'social democracy' and 'neoliberalism'. Riversider (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are sources that enforce inclusion of "Third Way" ratehr than "Neo-liberalism" because they are saying that Third Way is between Social Democracy and Neo-Liberalism, and not quiet either of them. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's a source that reinforces the use of all 3 labels, as it's explaing 3rd way is an uncomfortable dynamic conflict/compromise between two incompatible ideologies. All 3 labels are currently included. Riversider (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Labour, Neoliberalism and the Law

Here's a telling quote from Keith Ewing, professor in Public Law at Kings College London, he is discussing how Labour's attitude to Trade Union Law breaches it's international obligations:

Labour, of course, is paralysed by its neoliberal love of the free market, which it places above its weak commitment to the rule of law.

I'm including this because I've already provided references to authoritative sources on how Labour's neoliberal ideology has influenced economic and social policy, but the area of law itself was not represented in the collection of citations. Riversider (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The trade union law is neoliberal because it was passed by the previous government. You can argue (and people do) that its repeal should have been a much higher priority, but this government seems to prefer to wait for the courts to sort themselves out. In litigious times, perhaps they have point? AJRG (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a political debate, rather than one about the content of the article AJRG. Keith Ewing, as a professor of public law, is what we call a highly authoritative source for WP purposes, so what he says about Labour's attitude to Trade Union Law could be very important for the article.Riversider (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A professor who describes the European Court of Justice as neo-liberal is hardly mainstream, however respected he is... AJRG (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So you determine whether professors and other academics are authoritative sources based on whether or not you agree with their arguments? If we follow this circular logic, we can only end up with POV. The full quote you cite is this:

The socially progressive European Court of Human Rights (recently criticized by Lord Hoffmann) has thus set itself on a collision course with the neo-liberal European Court of Justice, as well as (sotto voce in the presence of Tories) the nasty and brutish labour laws which were bequeathed to us by Thatcher, and in which New Labour has been happy to wallow

Good research by the way AJRG, an interesting article[[ User:Riversider2008|River]]sider (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Try typing "neo-liberal European Court of Justice" into Google Scholar, Google Books or Google Web... AJRG (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New Labour

How about we actually define what New Labour is, because right now that section says a whole lot of nothing. It's this kind of "offend no one" approach that makes so much of this website so pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.169.30 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think I can tell which box your cross will be going into; but in what way is the existing section deficient? Rodhullandemu 22:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The current section on New "Labour" is fine, I don't see a problem with it myself. How is it "offend no one" and "pathetic"? --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

'Neoliberalism has collapsed'

Gordon Brown's Fabian pamphlet "Why the Right is Wrong" has a first chapter entitled "The Battle of Ideas and the Collapse of Neo-Liberalism". It concludes on page 12 with "We are living in a progressive moment. Neo-liberalism has, quite simply, collapsed." This is a total repudiation by the Leader of the party and I have therefore removed the ideology from the infobox. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We saw yesterday that what Brown says in public, and does in private are two quite different things. Even if despite this we accept Brown as an authoritative source, his single assertion that Neoliberalism has collapsed is not enough to outweigh the hundreds of authoritative published sources that assert that Labour's ideology IS neoliberal - unless we accord to Brown the ideological equivalent of papal infallibility and treat his pronouncements as received truth. He also proclaimed 'the end of boom and bust', this did not prove to be accurate. Riversider (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, firstly I don't think your private/public point really applies to economics. However the massive adoption of keynsian approaches surely backs up his stated opinion? --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you find sources that suggest Labour has pursued 'massive adoption of Keynesian approaches'? Their election manifesto hints at precisely the opposite: £billions in cuts in public services over the next few years. Lobbygate is an example of how the private behaviour of MPs and ministers can have big implications for economic policies and of corporate regulation. Riversider (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you notice the size of the national debt? Read the newspapers to see the massive intervention policy that generated it? --Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not agreeing with a source doesn't mean it is inaccurate. Gordon Brown is, currently, the leader of the Labour Party, I don't think you can get much more "authoritative" then that really. As Snowded said, the "private/public" arguement doesn't hold much water, and seems to be dismissing the source out of hand. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if we accept Gordon Brown as an authoritative source, he remains one single source in a sea of sources (a fraction of which are cited on this talk page) that state that Labour has a neo-liberal ideology. The leader of a party is also clearly a POV 'self published' source, with an axe to grind. If we treat Brown as the ultimate authoritative source on the Labour Party, with the ability to 'trump' all other sources, then we should treat Sun Myung Moon as the ultimate authoritative source on the Moonies, and Griffin as the ultimate authoritative source on the BNP. Riversider (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any question that neoliberalism was an ideology within the party under Blair/Brown. It hadn't been in the past, it isn't now. OK it needs some more sources other than Brown to confirm with policy but the facts are pretty clear. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

you have had parties with a democratic socialist orientation adopting neoliberal methods and to a degree ideology. You see a lot of idealistic instrumentalism in the Labour Party as well during the Blair years with neoliberal economic ideas being used as control mechanisms

Quote from Snowded on 6 April of 2010. You are perfectly entitled to change your mind, but I think your opinion on 6th April 2010 more accurately reflects published sources than your opinion on 30th April 2010. There clearly is a strong body of opinion that Labour has had, and continues to have, a neoliberal ideology. This is disputed, by some leading Labour figures including Brown, so I am quite happy with the page as it stands, including the 'disputed' tag that WelshSocialist added. I think this reflects that there are two strong and diametrically opposed sets of views on this, and makes this clear to the reader. Riversider (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary change suggestion

I think it would sound more formal, and more appropriate, to replace the word "spells" with the word "periods" in the following sentence:

"Since then, the party has experienced several spells in government, at first in minority governments under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 and again from 1929 until 1931."

Ibycusreggio (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Centre-right

I don't feel this appellation is really suitable. While there are neoliberals in the party leadership (such as Mandy) and while Blair was a Third Way pioneer, all this means that, on average, they are centrist if not centre-left; the core party base, and quite a lot of the backbenchers, are definitely leftist. Definitely in the sphere of British politics, Labour are the centre-left party, Lib Dems the centrists (or not as centre-left as Labour), and Tories the centre-rights. If we used the Political Compass site as a reliable source, we'd be describing the US Democrats as centre-right, and the Tories, UKIP, and Republicans as far-right. The other source given doesn't seem to be reliable either; it'd be like using the Cato Institute as a source to prove that Barack Obama is a communist. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Political Compass make a perfectly valid argument- "Labour has moved markedly towards a more authoritarian position than the circumstances justify. Along with the indefinite retention of DNA profiles of people arrested but not convicted and the 42-day pre-charge detention, the party also continues to champion ID cards, an identity database and much else that has upset civil libertarians. While fiscally there are hints that the party is now reaching back to its core values, under Blair and Brown Labour has gone to extraordinary lengths to privatise the economy and nationalise the public."