Talk:British left

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

"British Left"[edit]

I'd like to replace this with a page boasting a better name (List of Left-Wing Parties in the United Kingdom or something of the like). Does anyone agree with me that this is required? The Last Melon 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list of left-wing parties in the Political Parties of the UK page. I created this page so there could be a more descriptive entry of parties on the left in the UK. The list is lacking in information about them such as popularity and ideology.--Darrelljon 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article comparing them (by votes, members, newspapers, roots, age) may be appropriate.--Darrelljon 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gramatically, though, "British left" leaves something to be desired. Even "British Left" would be slightly better. The Last Melon 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labour? Left? What??? Your definition of left needs revising and your understanding of the Labour Party needs updating Asha28 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, beg pardon. You put in a '(formerly)'. Still, I think the article should reflect current positions. Asha28 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNP are not left wing Hachimanchu (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are 'New Labour' to be honest. They have fallen FAR from the Socialist tree of late and I'd put them more slightly right of centre. (Run by millionaires, expenses scandals, cash for questions, corporate control, TUC corruption, etc.) 81.110.230.38 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When Labour added the "New" Labour they moved quite far to the right. While you can certainly show that the Corbyn era was a big jump left, it is back to the right with rather Conservative Sir Keir Starmer. By no definition are Labour currently a left wing party. 77.100.225.159 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SNP should be on this page. Since devolution they have always been a left-leaning party, even under Alex Salmond. Now that Nicola Sturgeon is in charge they have firmly aligned themselves to the left being a much more social democratic party. In the 2015 election they were definitely more left than Labour as they had an anti-austerity platform. Individual 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.21.4 (talk)

Confusingly worded content removed[edit]

I've reverted these additions because the grammar is confusing, and due to the lack of cited sources, I can't figure out what the contributor meant. If someone understands what was meant, feel free to reintroduce the text with a different wording (citing sources would be helpful as well). -kotra (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques section[edit]

Considering the number of polemical articles written, this section may be something of a mistake. I propose simply removing it. --Nixin06 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge[edit]

Delete or merge. Not sure this will ever be able to be kept substantially up-to-date without overlap with History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

does socialism = left? perhaps in the old days but not since the New Left of the 1960s Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merger of the two pages, if that's at all possible. Otherwise, just delete British left. I don't think the page really serves much purpose when we already have History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom. -- Zcbeaton (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this page exclusively focuses on Socialism anyway, I see no harm in merging the two. It should also help with the obvious quality issue here too. EdwardRussell (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, however, I think it should be merged under the title "Biritish Left", considering that title is more encompassing of other leftist movements in the United Kingdom, such as, Anarchism, Communism, and Republicanism. Charles Essie (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of the discussion: stale, with no discussion in almost 3 years. In 2013, there were two statemnts for merge or delete, one questioning the equivalence (presumably therefore no merge) and two for merge. However, both pages, particularly British Left have been extensively modified over the last 3 years, meaning the arguments made for a merge or deletion no longer seem valid. With about 19 article links to "British Left" and its common use, an AfD discussion would almost certainly be a speedy keep. A merge doesn't seem to work because of the breadth of meaning of British Left, which itself is part of the topic of the articles. Therefore, closing on the grounds of a stale proposal with no consensus. Klbrain (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This way to appropriate mockery[edit]

During a discussion about article scope at Talk:American Left#(After-the-fact sarcasm alert): This article's POV must be strengthened, the scope of this British Left article was mentioned as an example to follow which, of course, it isn't. I think I may have just channeled John Oliver. Oh well. Worse things could happen. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party[edit]

Aside from Labour, the biggest left-wing party is considered to be the Green Party. Presumably this refers to the Green Party of England and Wales (as opposed to the Scottish or Northern Ireland Greens) ? Do the Greens still reject conventional left/right labeling ? 94.1.28.200 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labour timeline[edit]

The History of split and splinters from the British Labour party is hardly as simple as the timeline suggests. There was the SDP in the 1980's an "Independent Labour Party" in the 1930's and many others. 94.1.28.200 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Left. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

We currently have three articles for the same subject matter. I think only one (or maybe two) should suffice. Charles Essie (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They overlap, but they're not the same:
  • This one is about the current, active British Left, broadly interpreted (it includes the Greens and SNP for example). It has very little about history and very little detail on more radical groups
  • History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom is about the history of more formally socialist groups in Britain, albeit with very little about the more radical groups then or now
  • Far-left politics in the United Kingdom is directly focused on more radical communist and anarchist etc microgroups, from their historical origins to now
There is a more detailed debate already underway about possibly merging or redirecting the latter, on its talk page. Arguably this could all be reorganised and content merged, but this is a perfectly reasonble distinction of topic, and as noted, there is currently limited overlap of actual content, and very limited content at all about far left groups, outside the latter page. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Far Left one actually wrongly categorises a lot of the left under than label - it is not narrowly focused Combining this one with it makes sense and keeping the history one separate which would mean eliminating overlap? ----Snowded TALK 18:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a case for a rationalisation that would see more detail about current/recent radical leftist groups go into this page and about past ones going into the general socialist history page (and hence losing the discrete far left one), but there's equally a case for maintaining a page with a special focus on the more marginal, radical groups and groupuscules, ie broadly the status quo. As noted at that page, I don't see a problem with the "far left" categorisation there, in principle or in practice. Also, losing it, and subsuming its content under the term "socialism", might leave a bit of a problem with radical anarchist groups. N-HH talk/edits 19:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better as a section surely? Deal with the British Left (here) and add a section on the Far Left. That would avoid the reputation and rather dubious categorisation of any marxist group post the russian revolution as 'far' left ----Snowded TALK 19:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, considering that we're essentially resuming the original discussion over here, I'm going to withdraw my proposal so we can return to the original discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Why is that timeline a screenshot of a table? Why not just use an actual table that you can click on? It's pretty bizarre. 94.173.197.120 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious bias[edit]

LOL, who wrote this. The "lowest share of seats since 1935" whilst technically true is a well known Centrist attack cliche. In 1987 the Conservatives won a 102 seat majority (compared with 80 seat majority in 2019). Labour's percentage share of the vote was also very slightly higher than in 2005. Author is also keen to spin 2017 as a loss for the left, without mentioning that over 30 seats were gained confounding expectations of massive losses in the Labour establishment (20% behind in some opinion polls going into the election etc). Most importantly it's not mentioned that nearly all of the seats lost in 2019 were in leave voting seats, with big swings to conservative in strong leave seats. Trust me, the "get brexit done" effect was huge in some of these seats, and whilst the confetti-like delivery of manifesto policies may not have been great, it wasn't really mentioned on the doorstep a whole lot. The assertion that GE2019 was lost because of the "Get Brexit Done" effect is surely a key side of the debate in any analysis of GE2019, I'm sure you can find people of that opinion to cite. 2A02:88FD:26:C:0:0:C0CA:C01A (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing changes[edit]

Okay, I've tried multiple times to engage with User:31.125.85.48 on their talk page regarding their changes to this page and Neo-marxism. Other editors (@Saintstephen000 and @Matt Deres) have as well and we have receieved little response. I want to caution everyone involved about the three-revert rule but I do want to indicate that multiple editors have indicated they have issues with the IP editor's changes and have tried to communicate that to the editor. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it continues to happen, I'm considering seeking a different venue to discuss these changes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What issues do you have with additions I have made? 31.125.85.48 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reframing the article[edit]

it appears to me that an article name 'British Left' should not simply be a history of centre-left to left-wing electoral parties, but broadly encompass all aspects of the 'British Left'. Whilst the Labour Party plays a part of this, the left has history in and outside the party. This includes cultural output, like films, music, comedians, festivals and theoretical outputs, and broader left wing movements. When people talk about the 'British Left' they are not talking about one party, but a broader collection of activists, organisations and writers with a progressive outlook. This seems fairly obvious to me, and it's a mystery as to why this hasn't been included in the article already. I think this combats both of the issues previously brought up on this page. 31.125.85.48 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

include citations for your changes, discuss on the talk page. thank you. Saintstephen000 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, all changes will be cited. However, as most of the page is uncited, I did not assume this was the case. A summary of changes I wish to make are as follows:
fill out the new sections i have added. There are many many more organisation, journals, authors, cultural critics, film makers etc. who are considered to make up the British left.
I also wish to change the order of the article, so headings are sorted alphabetically. this would mean that the first paragaph would not be about electoral organisations (hence moving the text earlier). 31.125.85.48 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks for helping keep wiki accurate. you're doing a substantial rewrite, and we would all appreciate you sourcing your additions, and not violating wiki policy as regards Original Research. Saintstephen000 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]