Talk:Libertarianism in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Italic text

Conservatives for Liberty[edit]

With thanks to whoever added the reference to my organisation, Conservatives for Liberty, in this piece - I have an edit to request. The description is incorrect:

"while Conservatives for Liberty is a campaign group promoting the libertarian-leaning Thatcherite wing of the party within Conservative Future."

We are not Thatcherite and do not claim to be. The link used as a reference (About - does not mention us being Thatcherite. Instead, we are libertarian and classical liberal. There are a bunch of descriptors on that page you can choose from: libertarian, socially liberal, free market, capitalism, individualism etc.

The reference to Conservative Future is also incorrect. We are part of the broader Conservative movement, and though we campaign to move the Conservative Party in a more libertarian direction, we are NOT affiliated. We are independent. Conservative Future is the youth wing of the party, and we do not confine ourselves to that.

I would suggest:

"while Conservatives for Liberty is a campaign group which seeks to move the Conservative Party in a libertarian direction."

It's worth noting that further up the page under 'Relationship with the Conservative Party' an editor has again confused libertarianism and Thatcherism, describing Conservative Way Forward as libertarian when they are actually Thatcherite. (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done Hi, this portion of the article seems to have been removed during the year. There is currently a severe backlog of edit requests and I apologise for the delay in getting back to you. st170etalk 14:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The pre-discussion at Talk:Libertarian Party (United Kingdom) was uniformly positive, and since then there have been no objections, so can we go ahead? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a danger that this page will turn into an advert for the Libertarian Party (UK). I dont think the party "infobox" is really appropriate here. Fig (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Bastin 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Idle Toad get an article but not the Libertarian Party? I sense POV here. Robot Dolphin (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Thistle"[edit] and are clearly trying to promote whoever "Thistle" is. A Google search for <"Thomas Thistlethwaite" cambridge> produces just 5 hits, all about a 19th century figure. This student candidate is clearly not "prominent" in any way. Fig (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was my take too, but if he can produce evidence I would be happy to see it! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May not be a real candidate: searching Google for Thistlethwaite or Thistle doesn't finding anything in either or; might just be one student being unpleasant to another, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some very strange student at Caius (yes, the aforementioned Thistle) is currently having something of an ego-trip. Rest assured that he has been in trouble with the computer office before and will be dealt with in a stricter fashion this time. (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

Libertarianism#United_Kingdom is longer and better than this article. This article should have the best content, and Libertarianism#United_Kingdom be a fair and interesting summary of this main article. unsigned/undated

UKIP and libertarianism[edit]

I'm reposting a comment here because it was deleted by the user from his own page:

Bastin, I was surprised to see an innocuous edit with a ref reverted on the Libertarianism in the United Kingdom page. However, looking at the edit history I can see that you have frequently reverted any edits that call into question whether or not UKIP is a libertarian party. I suggest that you try a bit harder to avoid POV editing.

Fig (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't delete it. I moved it to the bottom of the page, where new additions should be made. Please be courteous and respect that. Since you have chosen not to, I will post my reply here:
Perhaps you'd like to spend less time in the edit history and more time reading the supposed reference. Does the reference say that their libertarianism is being questioned as a result? No. Or, you could spend time reading my edit summary, which states that I agree entirely with the argument that UKIP is becoming less libertarian, and that one such less libertarian policy is the burkha ban. I suggest that you read less selectively before attacking other people.
Bastin 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The BBC link was to ref the factual policy declaration - clearly the item most needing of a reference. I didnt add a ref regarding the debate - There are dozens of such pages from reputable sites and leading blogs (as are already used in refs in this page). E.g.: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . If you really cared about the integrity of the article, your first move would have been to add one of these obvious links rather than reverting the edit. So, be a good chap and add one now with the original text, would you. Fig (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the statement was about UKIP's supposed libertarianism, it needed a reference supporting the statement that people have questioned UKIP's credentials, not that they did something that YOU would criticise their credentials for doing. You're note that WP:SYNTH prohibits exactly what you were attempting to do. Those are not reliable sources. See WP:SPS for the policy on using blogs as references. The Spectator blog post also does not mention any clash between the policy and libertarianism. Learn Wikipedia policy before telling other people what to do. Bastin 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Party[edit]

I find it a bit strange that the Libertarian Party page was merged with this page, when loads of smaller, more insignificant parties (Idle Toad) have a page. We haven't, for instance, merged the Conservative party with Conservatism#United_Kingdom, and as the merger was a while ago, a rethink is needed, and as such, if no one objects I shall re-create the LPUK page. (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is exact name of party are you referring to? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OPPOSE. Idle Toad has an elected member, LPUK does not. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the name. What is relevant to Wikipedia is what WP:RS say about a topic, including the party's own website In this case a quick search of archives showed thise article mentioning the UK's Libertarian Party 1. This article mentions a "libertarian minority" in the liberal democrats. And the UKIP has been called libertarian here. So all that is relevant to the broader topic and can be included and maybe I'll do it near future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Libertarian Party of the UK has an elected councillor somewhere, I'll dig out the reference in the morning, but is nevertheless an established and registered party, quite independent from any lobertarian wing of other parties, with a membership far greater than Idle Toad. Indeed, we surely cannot use the number of members elected to public office as a means to judge the notability of political parties - several with none have Wikipedia pages; it is peculiar and anomalous that the LPUK has no page. (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many moons ago, I tried drawing up a formal policy for political party articles (it's the "pp" link on my User Page). It died a death. I do agree that some less notable parties have articles here that maybe should not. If you can get the sources for LPUK candidates then it would help your cause. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's enough for a paragraph in this article, if not for an article of its own, which looks more doubtful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I recall correctly the LPUK councillor was a defector from the Lib Dems though... I think he has since been re-elected but as an independent. (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If I recall correctly Lembit Opik describes himself as a left libertarian and so should probably not be on this page unless a section is added for left-libertarianism in the UK. (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left Libertarianism[edit]

I'd argue that most self-identifying 'libertarians' in the UK are left-libertarians/anarchists/libertarian-socialists etc. as such I believe this article should be modified to reflect that it refers only to right-wing libertarianism. In the US libertarian is generally synonymous with free market capitalism, whereas in the UK and most of the world it is synonymous with historical left-anarchism as well as the newer semantics for free market capitalism and the associated social views. Mikejamesshaw (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. This page has predictably morphed into a page about right-wing economic libertarianism, with content from Thatcherite Conservatives. Almost none of the people discussed and quotes are social libertarians (except perhaps Alan Duncan), and in fact many of them are extreme social conservatives. Fig (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mikejamesshaw:, @Fig wright:: Apologies chaps for this necro ping but I personally find it rather troubling too how little this article reflects the left. Luckily the article for the Green Party of England and Wales contains a paragraph detailing its libertarian outlook and support, which I have added to this article. That should hopefully level the playing field a little. Also I found it a little odd how there was no criticism of UKIP's self-identification as a "libertarian" party, as has been widely covered in the press. Their own articles states such and I have added this in also to hopefully level the playing field further. Sadly not many of the left libertarian parties in the UK (Plaid Cymru, SNP, SDLP, Co-op, being the big ones) self-describe or even have much written about them in that light. Academic references are heavy in this respect fro the Greens and UKIP, which I hope is the same for these other parties. I have cleaned up the article a bit but it would be nice if someone could provide further content on the left and centre of libertarianism in the UK to make it far less unbalanced. UaMaol (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fig wright, Mikejamesshaw, Uamaol, agree with you all. I ping again because I too find this troubling. Either the main topic is actual libertarianism in the United Kingdom, which would need major additions from the left; or is about right-wing economic liberalism, with the article using libertarianism in the American meaning, referring to economic liberalism and neoliberalism, i.e. right-libertarianism, with no mention of the discussion of the much more prominent left-libertarianism, which is only not as prominent in right-leaning countries such as the United States. Davide King (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on student societies[edit]

this section is poorly referenced and most of it isn't sourced at all - i would advocate removing it. anecdotal evidence, but i study at the university of sheffield and i can say with full confidence that we don't have a libertarian society here and i'm not sure where that idea could have originally come from. i'm more making this topic to keep a tab on this page, since it is useful, it just needs some work here and there. Meikkon (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have provisionally removed the section until somebody can provide reliable secondary sources to support it. Grnrchst (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]