Talk:Racism in the British Conservative Party

Link & initial comments

• @EddieHugh: I noticed in your edit summary that it said you couldn't access the Dalrymple source in The Times. It's freely available on the Internet Archive here, if that is any help to you. Thanks for your edits to the article, btw! --Bangalamania (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The article condemns Gove for being ill-informed: "an ill-informed pundit tailoring information to fit pre-existing prejudices"; it doesn't say that these prejudices are racist per se. So I'll cut that paragraph. Please comment if you see it differently.

On the article in general, the wording often, shall we say, leads the reader in a particular direction. As such, it has a POV problem. A lot of the content is just accusations and reporting them baldly is a bit naive: politicians and journalists accuse other politicians of all sorts of things, usually for their own benefit. Whether people will object to the article's existence and/or title... we'll see. But there's the article Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, so why not this one too.... EddieHugh (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and thank you for being civil about this - I genuinely appreciate it. I do understand that other people may see it as a bit POV-pushing, and so I do appreciate the time and effort you've put in to make this a more neutral article. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Muslim Council of Britain

In several places, the Muslim Council of Britain is abbreviated to MCM, rather than MCB. Is this a mistake, or have I missed something? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Not missing anything, just a stupid mistake on my part. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible renaming of article

See also: Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Many of the examples given in this article relate to Islamophobia and it has been suggested that Islamophobia is not racism - presumably it is religionism. Should we change to a more inclusive title? Discrimination in the UK Conservative Party sounds too weak but Hate crimes in the UK Conservative Party sounds too strong because it can't really be called a crime unless it goes to court. Are there any other suggestions? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm stuck on that one too. Perhaps a spinoff article Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party, like you were originally suggesting, might be the best way? There's certainly enough information there to make a separate article, and it would refine the focuses of both articles if there was a spinoff. Any sort of "discrimination" or "prejudice" titles are too vague IMO, and like you say, the "hate crime" title would be inappropriate. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to do some standardization here. I suggest moving Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party to Discrimination in the UK Labour Party and Racism in the UK Conservative Party to Discrimination in the UK Conservative Party and putting both in Category:Discrimination in the United Kingdom. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Racism and Islamophobia are two different things and they shouldn't be conflated. I've removed it from the page you can find if for reference if an article about Islamophobia is created by User:Mock wurzel soup.[1] RevertBob (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's certainly enough information in RSes to make it its own article. The only reason I was reluctant to do so in the first place was because I thought it might become too recentist. However, since a lot of people are objecting to Islamophobia being included in this article, a spinoff would probably be the most appropriate. There seems to be consensus against any page moves at the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party page, as well. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have just created the page Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party, using the information deleted from this page. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thatcher apartheid

Is incredibly wrong, Refs 82.31.120.65 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes is not a reliable source. However I have added some of Mandela's comments, as well as the notes by Botha's foreign minister. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Context"

@Random Redshirt: re these edits, how is this related to the article topic (Racism in the UK Conservative Party). I understand that you were concerned that Thatcher's comments were not adequately contextualised, but I feel that this is a discussion for the Margaret Thatcher page, not here.

I fail to see how comments by the ANC ambassador to Algeria (Jonnie Makatini) are relevant here, especially considering that Thatcher's own page doesn't include them. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how her comments belong on the article, condemning terrorism is not racist. The statements by members of the ANC who stated quite clearly they would target British companies are there for context, threats of terrorism were made, Thatcher was asked for a response, she rightly condemned these for what they were. Random Redshirt (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The specific comments by Thatcher have been mentioned in a number books (which I believe are RS), which relate to the issue of racial politics in the UK (e.g. Race Relations Survey (1985), The Politics of Race in Britain and South Africa (2015), as well as other news articles and books already in the bibliography), and the issue of apartheid sanctions has been linked to racism by a number of RSes as well. They also provide context to Desmond Tutu's condemnation of Thatcher and the Conservatives (whether you agree with it or not). I agree that the interviewer's question should be included but I disagree with the lengthy quotation from Makatini (which I have removed). --Bangalamania (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Pages 57-58 of The Politics of Race in Britain and South Africa says, "To anti apartheid activists this sounded as if she was trying to excuse the white minority government in Pretoria" it does not say the comment was racist. Random Redshirt (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole book is on the issue of race in the UK and South Africa. The book also states that apartheid South Africa was an example of state-sanctioned racism, as do most RS. And the phrasing of the quote ("the white minority government in Pretoria") is pretty unambiguously linking Thatcher's comment to support of a racist regime. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No it clearly states "To anti apartheid activists this sounded like", "sounded like" is not the same as unambiguously linking Thatcher's comment to support of a racist regime whatsoever. Random Redshirt (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I was referring to the anti-apartheid activists. I have added some balance re: Thatcher's condemnation of apartheid, as per The Politics of Race in Britain and South Africa. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusations against Theresa May

Why is this section in the article? There is nothing racist in it. As such I shall remove it. Random Redshirt (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A leader of one of the main opposition parties (I think we can still call the Lib Dems that?) likening the Prime Minister's speech to Mein Kampf isn't something that happens every day, and would seem notable. You also removed some content against Ann Widdecombe; Jewish leaders' criticism of Ann's "something of the night" as antisemitic are mentioned on both the Ann Widdecombe and Michael Howard pages. --Bangalamania (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As stated, there is nothing racist in the section, one person saying it sounds like something from Mein Kampf is hardly notable. Just because there are accusations on other articles does not mean those are correct. Random Redshirt (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether the accusations are correct or not is irrelevant; if they have received mainstream coverage and have longstanding existence on other articles, then surely that shows that they are notable? Jonathan Freedland, for example, has gained a lot of coverage for his comments on antisemitism (most recently re Corbyn and the Labour Party), and would appear to be a notable individual commenting on the subject. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Scope

The UK Conservative Party has existed since 1834, but the article only covers the 1960s onwards. Additionally, it doesn't summarise the sub-topics Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party or Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party, both of which are types of racism in the UK Conservative Party. If the scope of the article is "Racism in the UK Conservative Party" then the article needs summaries of those two articles and a lot of information covering the years 1834–1959, whilst the Rivers of Blood and Thatcher sections would need to be made shorter and the Dorries incident removed as undue recentism. If the scope isn't that, then there needs to be a strong justification for why the cut-off point is the 1960s and the article needs to be renamed and its scope clarified in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Sorry for the late reply. I agree that this article needs more information before the 1960s, similar to the antisemitism article. I personally wouldn't be against integrating the antisemitism and Islamophobia articles into this page, but there is not consensus among other editors that both of these are always racist in nature. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps an RfC or concrete discussion of what the scope of this page should be might be necessary. I would say that both are clearly instances of racism, but the pages would be too long to merge; instead, those two should be summarised with due weight on this one and also remain as separate articles. I'd say that this article shouldn't be GA nominated while there's such a scope concern—particularly as it currently omits the period 1834–1959 without good reason. — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do that then. And I agree that this should be withdrawn from being a GA nominee. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Conservative Glossary has better examples

http://www.edlis.org/conservativeglossary

Anyone who knows how to edit might like to use some of the entries in the Conservative Glossary, each is well referenced.

https://www.facebook.com/mememeansmeme/photos/a.1716471371927268/1716490808591991/

2A00:23C5:B381:B401:11C6:C6C1:F57F:5918 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bias

I am just writing to say that much of this content appears to be biased. Some of the content slants towards one particular view and highlights a range of things which are connected. It mixes in Windrush with Enoch Powell and mixes that in with Nadine Dorries. The stuff on Boris Johnson appears to me to be untrue and took what he said out of context.--5.80.181.251 (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot of it is clearly written by people who have it in for the Conservative Party. Wiki is not the correct place for them to vent their frustrations. The inclusion of much of the content on here is questionable. E.g. the hostile environment concerned immigrants in general (many of whom are white) – whilst you could claim xenophobia there, racism is a far cry. The Nadine Dorries allegations seem trivial, unsubstantiated and remote – not worthy of inclusion. And then I could go on... The page needs a serious revision. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As the main contributor to this page (Who Wrote That? says 86.9% of the edits are mine, so most of the issues you mention are likely ones I brought into the article), I have no issues with trimming the article down or undergoing serious revision.

The racial aspect of the hostile environment, and how it relates to the Windrush generation (i.e. mostly African-Caribbean immigrants), is mentioned in the sources and I think the article reflects that. I agree that it could be clearer in making the difference between the hostile environment (which as you say, affected many white immigrants – although it is worth noting that the 'Go Home' vans often went through racially-mixed areas and were criticised as racist: [2]) and the Windrush scandal (which generally affected black people, but was linked to the former). If a source only mentions xenophobia or anti-immigrant prejudice and not racism, then I totally agree that it ought to be removed from here.

I can see how Nadine Dorries' comments appear trivial, but they were widely called out as being racist, as the sources suggest; the claims of racism are not unsubstantiated. I think they belong here as a brief, one-sentence mention in the "Other incidents" section, but giving her comments their own section is definitely undue. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thatcherism and the Irish

So there's nothing at all in the article about how racist and volatile Thatcher was towards the Irish? The Optimistic One (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a difficult one, as I totally understand where you're coming from, but I'm struggling to find sources that mention overt racism on her part when it comes to anti-Irish sentiment. If you can find some good sources on this (I'm sure they're out there), please add this to the article! —AFreshStart (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Policy on Rhodesia UDI

The Tory Party's position and in particular splits

on Rhodesian UDI may be a relevant thefor this article.me 91.84.189.190 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)