Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"centre-left" proposal to change to "centre-left to left-wing"

There have been people saying that it should be reffered to as "hard left". I disagree with that as certain members don't represent the whole party. But knowing the current state of the party and its leader, it is clear that it is left-wing at the very least. I think the most neutral and suitable solution is to call it "centre-left to left-wing", just like UK Independence Party says "right-wing to far-right". The current wording of "centre-left" is not fully accurate (and outdated actually), but it also shouldn't be fully turned to "left-wing". We need what I wrote above which is neutral, accurate and suitable for everyone, since there is no bias. If there is support for this it should be implemented in the first paragraph line and the infobox. --DeLeeuw83 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I find it funny that in the first line it says centre-left and thereafter it says "alliance of social democracts, democratic socialists and trade unions". It's clear just from this even that "centre-left" is not fully accurate and hence needs changing to "centre-left to left-wing". --DeLeeuw83 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DeLeeuw83 on this one. It might even be worth shifting to "centrist to leftist" to take into account the history of the party and its shifting ideological directions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

As ever when this is brought up: what do reliable sources say, particularly books? If the weight of reliable source coverage veers towards a balance between the two descriptions (left-wing and centre-left), then it's something to be considered. But that sort of thing should inform the prose material in the article first, such as in the ideology section. The infobox should summarise the article, and right now it does. Ralbegen (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think historical affiliations should be included in the first line of the page, I would rather see that talk about the present day and anything historical mentioned below or in its History section. --DeLeeuw83 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Lede summarises the article and all material needs reliable sources in support. Your statements so far in this section represent your view of things which is now how wikipedia works-----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be described as "democratic socialist" which is how the party describes itself in Clause IV of its constitution and should not be controversial. The current description as "centre left" is unsourced and should be removed.Eggybacon (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical sources? Have you ever looked at other pages on political parties? Current sources are always shown preference. Especially when it's the first line of the article. Can't have it both ways. If historical RS > Current RS, then change the articles on literally every political party and politician and get back to me. Honestly I haven't seen a single legitimate argument as to why this shouldn't be changed, yet we're over half a year in since the original request. Hm.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Descriptions of political parties and politicians in the media to some extent follow fashion and political prejudice, as well as the prevailing political spectrum. In the Wikipedia articles, left-wing politics is an umbrella term for centre-left and far-left. The centre-left article describes the Labour Party policies well. Social democracy might also apply, but not democratic socialist. Those wishing a change should make a case for it, based on comparing Party policies and manifestos with the Wikipedia definitions. Jontel (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thing is, that's not right is it. Look at right wing parties throughout wiki. Almost all sources are left wing media outlets such as CNN (It's same for left, but it's more obvious with right since it's not just MSM, but some politically opposed MSM too). You are right they shouldn't be called socialists though, I couldn't find very many mentions that weren't opposition calling them that. As for political prejudice, considering every source of info has it, wiki included to a disturbing degree, and considering every talk page I've seen has admins pointing out RS's can be biased too... eh, don't see it as issue. Not to mention, as the others pointed out, it's not just one or two publications. Virtually ALL MSM outlets, left and right, call them left wing, far left, etc. Not one I could find called em center-left. Ugh, this is why I stopped trusting wiki pages about any political figure or party. Even what amounts to a minor editorial correction is like pulling teeth, and it rarely gets fixed. As for massive, blatant political manipulation? It's only a problem for one side, and you know which. Seriously, look at the text walls over this. This is a minor, and easy, fix and it's a freaking 6 month long debate.

Apologies, as an IP editor I always kept it simple and polite, but meh. I'm done. After this I'll be deleting this account if possible, and blacklisting wikipedia entirely. (Just so I don't forget how completely unreliable wiki has become). The standards and admin integrity on here have eroded to such a disgusting degree, it's not even an issue of different standards with left vs right... it has fallen so far, you'll change standards for each page if it means a better image for the left (even admins.. hell.. especially them). Oh, this party is historically racist? Nope only modern MSM counts as a good source. This one is shifting further left n kind of mucking up it's image? Nah, MSM isn't a reliable source, only historical and academic sources count. To be clear, I was reading a talk page before this one where an admin literally said MSM is the preferred source. I point out using leftist MSM on one page is bad because of bias "eh bias is everywhere" .. here, they ask for minor correction, and point out basically ALL of MSM as a source "REEEE but MSM is biased so no" Ugh I'm so done. It's a sad state of affairs when the world's most trusted source of factual information is a damned political propaganda machine. Peace :) Oh, and this isn't a debate, and I know my text here will be quickly deleted... but if you read this, please research what I'm talking about. Just pull a few random political pages across the spectrum then decide for yourself. Eh, assuming you're a neutral in this. The ones refusing to accept it likely will just pass me off as wrong without ever checking. One last bit. If you constantly change your standards to better serve your own political bias on here, you are a major part of why the entire political discourse has completely devolved into a garbage fire. GOOD JOB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

Going to change the membership figures according to the most recent Commons Library briefing of August 2019 VelvetCommuter (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you—I'd be pleased if the Commons Library briefings were the only time that the numbers were updated. Ralbegen (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Left-Wing... Far-Left

Is it now worth adding Labour's Political Position as being Left-wing to Far-Left. It is now openly being normalised in public/media discourse. Special:Contributions/RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not without reliable third party sources and the status remains a controversial -----Snowded ^TALK 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any recent (post Corbyn becoming leader) sources that describe Labour as centre-left rather than left-wing? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Centre-left to left-wing might be somewhat accurate to describe the party as a whole. As for far-left...literally millions of communists and radical socialists around the world would disagree strongly with that! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It certainly isn't far left, but it should say left wing, due to recent events with more centre leaning candidates leaving. Alex of Canada (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You need sources guys and its not about proving a negative on wikipedia ... -----Snowded ^TALK 03:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The BBC are actively referring to every day Labour activists as "left wing" [1], CNN openly refer to Labour as "Hard Left" [2], along with the Telegraph [3], FT [4], The Times refers to the "hard left" tightening it's grip on the party [5], Independent [6] and yesterday they welcomed back a "hard left" militant who has been banned from the party for the last 30 years. [7] Special:Contributions/RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem intent on making a political point, here as elsewhere. The CNN piece is an opinion article by a former member of Blair's government. The other references are generally to a faction in a current political situation. You've been around wikipedia long enough to know that doesn't constitute authority for the label you propose. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I haven't given my opinion, I have only repeated what is being said in media and political discourse at present. The people running the Labour Party at present are Hard Left. That is just a fact. I haven't made any personal comments directed at your political ideology or suggested that you have an ulterior motive. So would appreciate it if you didn't do that to me. You haven't actually responded to the links I have provided and content. You have just attempted to dismiss it. Meanwhile links of a similar nature are more than adequate to warrant such changes at other political parties Wikipedia pages. Special:Contributions/RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"That is just a fact" is not a substitute for reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It is true that the 'Hard-Left' have control of the leadership of the Labour Party (Finally!) however the term 'Hard Left' is basically a term used to smear those who are further left than centre left. The current leadership is not Marxist-Leninist (so not far-left) but Social Democratic (Left-Wing) as opposed to the previous Labour PM Tony Blair who has a Social Liberal (Centre-Left). I have changed the page to reflect this, by adding centre-left to left-wing, as although much of the party may be left wing, the parliamentary party is not, and so i felt that it was appropriate to have both positions included. Also, I wouldn't listen to American Media or the Torygraph for an unbiased perspective on a radical Labour Party.Thatjakelad (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be changed to "centre-left to left-wing" and I will open a case for support. --DeLeeuw83 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The description of the Labour Party in the article has still not been changed --Greensky83 (talk) 01:16, 07 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.255.4 (talk)

Agreed 100%, wiki has no problem using MSM as the most commonly used RS, so this should have been changed while ago. Fact it hasn't isn't a shock, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealKysier (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

'Centre Left' no longer appropriate

This article describes the Labour Party (UK) as 'centre-left'

'The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists.[8] The party's platform emphasises greater state intervention, social justice and strengthening workers' rights.'

Further to the Party Conference 2019 when policies were announced supporting the seizure of private property as well as banning fee paying or private schools, as well as removing all restrictions on migration, it is not possible in good faith to describe the Labour Party as 'centre left' any longer. It is now at best a 'hard left' political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensky83 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Greensky83: Wikipedia works by citing multiple verifiable third-party reliable sources. If you can find sufficient reliable sources (in this sense) that support your characterization of the Labour Party as "hard left", you can add it to the article. However, the onus is on you to find these sources, if you can. -- The Anome (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Anome: The Telegraph use the term "hard left" see [8] in relation to policies passed at Conference. But the term is not even restricted to mainstream right of centre newspapers. Tom Watson, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party uses this term [9]. So too does Chuka Umunna [10] -- Greensky83 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You've quoted from a bunch of politicians and newspapers who are hostile to the current leadership of the party, it's hardly surprising that they are going to use a pejorative term to describe it. That doesn't add up to an argument for using it as a description on Wikipedia. G-13114 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Anome: Why do you say: "If you can find sufficient reliable sources that support your characterization of the Labour Party as "hard left", you can add it to the article..." when you know very well that the article is locked and cannot be edited? Everyone knows that Wikipedia is no longer democratic. It is run by an elite few professors entirely out of touch with objective reality. I have already provided reliable sources - above - that describe the Labour Party as hard left. Greensky83 (talk) 01:12, 07 October 2019 (UTC)

Policies passed at conference do not necessarily become party policy. Better to look at the party's election manifesto in the forthcoming general election and take a view then. Moreover, "hard left" is typically used pejoratively. "Left wing" would be the one to go for, if it was changed. Jontel (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jontel: True - not necessarily. But they certainly indicate the direction of travel. "Far right" is also a perjorative term, but there are no concerns about its use or indeed the accuracy with which it is applied. Given the multiple references to Labour's policies being referred to in the mainstream press as "hard left" which I have linked to above - I think it is more than reasonable to use the term in relation to the UK Labour Party now. (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

By seizure of private property, I assume you are referring to the compulsory purchase of vacant properties, which happens to be allowed under current law.[11] The Conservatives had a similar policy under Margaret Thatcher, where aristocratic landlords were forced to sell properties to their tenants. It's all pretty far from the October Revolution. The U.S. government actually seized private property without compensation following the American Revolution. TFD (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: no - compulsory purchase orders used exceptionally by the state typically when large infrastracture projects are required are very different from forcing all landlords to sell to tenants at an undervalue - at a below market rate arbitrarily set by politicians. [12] (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the Thatcher government required landlords, such as the Grosvenor Estate, to sell freeholds to their tenants at below market rates. The European Court of Human Rights agreed: "Legitimate objectives of 'public interest,' such as pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value." (James v. United Kingdom, 98 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 36 (1986)). And of course Thatcher also forced local councils to sell off council flats at a fraction of their values. TFD (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit War

Now that it's finished can I add back my edits JamesVilla44 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course. But, as I explained on your talk page, part of your editing was a stylistic change to the disputed (for now removed) content so got removed with it. Sorry about the edit-conflicts and my apologies again for any confusion/inconvenience. Thank you. -- Begoon 22:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

HoC seat count

Should this be updated to 0/625? Per UK constitutional law, there are not currently any MPs, only candidates. Perhaps an explanatory note would also be useful. Posting this here as the talk page is pretty active, and would in like to hear some thoughts on this. Domeditrix (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What have we done with the other parties? Burrobert (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Leave the number as it is but you could add an efn note stating that no MPs are currently standing right now as they are campaigning for the next general election and state this was the number they had prior to the end of the parliamentary session.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

How many seats are there in the British House of Commons?

Very well, so the Labour party isn't gonna run any candidates in Northern Ireland. That doesn't change the fact that there's 650 seats in the British House of Commons, though. PS - I suggest the 650 be added to all party infoboxes that have MPs, regardless of whether they run a full slate of candidates or not. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes but this is in line with other parties which do not contest seats in certain areas like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and Green Party of England and Wales. The 244/632 demonstrates all the possible seats they could win if they won all the seats they contest. i.e it would be impossible for Labour to have 650/650 MPs since they do not contest all 650 seats.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

How it's done at SNP, PC & GP, appears misleading upon first glance. Creates the impression that the parties have a greater presence in the House of Commons, then they actually do. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Marxist roots of the Labour Party, and goal of achieving socialism

historically (perhaps not currently) the Labour Party was lead by Marxists (e.g. Keir Hardie) and had the goal of building socialism in Britain. This should be mentioned somewhere, possibly in in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatjakelad (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't led by Marxists and Keir Hardie was not a Marxist. TFD (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Change lead sentence from "centre-left" to "centre-left to left-wing"

It generally appears that the Labour Party has shifted further to the left in the Left–right political spectrum under Miliband (as seen here [13] [14] [15]) and especially under Corbyn leadership (as seen here [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). Thus, I propose we change the lead sentence from "The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom..." to "The Labour Party is a centre-left to left-wing political party in the United Kingdom..."  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's not consistent to call the UK Labour Party centre left anymore because that puts them on par with other parties on Wikipedia that are called centre-left but are significantly more moderate than UK Labour. I think it should be changed to 'The Labour Party is a Left Wing to Centre-Left political party in the United Kingdom...' Considering the 2017 and now the 2019 election manifestos have called for nationalisation of electricity, rails, internet companies, water resources, increased taxes for more social spending and getting rid of the private sector in the NHS, decentralisation of economic decision making to local councils and unions etc, this is a lot more Left-Wing than other parties that are considered centre-left. Massivebrain420 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

At the moment the tag Centre-Left is just plain simply wrong. It's a Left wing party under momentum leadership. I don't see how the tag can stay. Please update Alexandre8 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be better to remove the reference altogether since the terms only make sense in context.However the party itself has changed policies and leadership over the years but has remained in the same position relative to other UK parties. And in Europe it continues to be a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats rather than the European United Left–Nordic Green Left.

What is the definition of center-left anyway? Does it mean support of U.S. foreign policy, privatization, cutting government services, higher user fees, lower taxes for the wealthy, increased incarceration rates and bank bailouts? Or was that just the policies that the party adopted during the Blair years?

TFD (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Auto spark seems to think that Left Wing is a slur. I think he'd do well to remember that this is an encyclopedia. LEft wingers are proud to call themselves left wingers. Why don't you put your own political blinkers aside auto spark and actually update the encyclopedia with encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:8113:6A50:C00C:6F87:3761:D18E (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, personally I am of the hard left and it's painful to have a very obviously left wing party get put on the same level as most other centre-left parties which are way more centrist than UK Labour at this time. Should be updated, what's the issue here? Massivebrain420 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There is disagreement about what description to use. I suggest using an RfC to decide the issue. Burrobert (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The creation of a section "controversies" to discuss, well, controversies?

I was wondering whether it would be acceptable to create a section discussing controversies relating to the Labour party? For example the premiership of Tony Blair was attacked for alienating lower class voters by using more neoliberal centrist views. Worthfulrebel (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversy sections are inherently not neutral and should be avoided. Controversies should handled in relevant sections. So the extent to which centrist policies were accepted or opposed belongs in the New Labour sections. TFD (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Working-class disillusionment with New Labour was oft asserted in opinion pieces but rarely demonstrated in reality. Virtually all the seats that Labour lost between the 1997 landslide and 2010 were marginals that had voted for Thatcher/Major. The traditional urban and northern strongholds remained solidly red through the Blair years. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the electoral history of Rother Valley (UK Parliament constituency), which is the longest held seat that Labour lost in the 2019 election, there was a steady decline in support for Labour from 68% when Blair first won to 44% under Miliband. when Labour support dropped below the combined total for UKIP and the Tories. Even Blair's 68% was below the historical level of support. So New Labour consistently lost working class support, but their margins in these constituencies were high enough to hold them, and it was able to win elections by improving its support among urban middle class voters. Of course that is just anecdotal, but we could look for studies that examine it. TFD (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New Leadership elections and membership rise

Hi, I found this source [25]that says Labour has gained 20k members in the last four days. Just putting this there as the leadership elections develop Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

The party is known for its anti-semitism, and it isn't mentioned in the opening section. Also, not any mentioning of tens of members who admitted of being anti-semitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:C099:8F6C:CD71:29E4 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Considering there is a dedicated article on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party there is little coverage on antisemitism. There is only one paragraph covering it should be expanded to get a wide picture of this area. Once this is done it could be mentioned in the lead.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've rewritten and added to the paragraph on antisemitism to give the issue a slightly wider scope, but while staying concise, more could be added. The summary of the party from 2015 onwards seems very thin. VelvetCommuter (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think an issue affecting less than 0.1% of the party membership really warrants more than a paragraph tbh. It's only notable due to the hysterical media coverage. G-13114 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with, G-13114. Helper201 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The Party is being investigated by the independent, national watchdog... it's an institutional problem, so the number of members is not in question. National figures (from Gordon Brown to the Chief Rabbi) have condemned the party's handling of anti-Jewish racism. Half of Britain's Jews are considering leaving the country. Honestly, get educated before deciding that the media and the Jews are just getting 'hysterical' VelvetCommuter (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Why develop this further beyond the dedicated Wikipedia page? There is obviously a lot to say. The handling of the scandal and members of the party displaying anti-semitism are two separate aspects. The controversy apparently stems from anti-semitic material displayed in Brighton and the big question is about whether some officials promote anti-semitism or turn a blind eye to it. Objectively speaking, a mention could be included that this has carried on through the general elections. Haaretz has done an article on the subject and labour member has declared that the controversy has served as a political weapon. This is not an easy subject to research and write as neutrally as possible as it lacks clarity and is obviously very emotional seeing how extremism in Europe is making the Jewish community uncomfortable. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Should the template to use british english be added to the main article?

Would the addition of the template "Use British English" be beneficial to the article as its about the United Kingdom?

LiamMcBride — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamMcBride (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Left Wing

There has been much discussion about the labeling of the party. I believe it should be classed as democratic-socialist, but I can see how classifications (especially considering the leadership election and potential political changes) are controversial; why not simply put 'on the left', thus encompassing all factions of the party and the party as a whole. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Democratic socialist?

Is there actually a reliable source that establishes the Labour Party as democratic socialist?

If it was democratic socialist in the past, is this still fact today? --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Labour Party has Democratic Socialists including its leader Jeremy Corbyn.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the party has democratic socialists in it, but that does not necessarily mean it is a democratic socialist party overall. People with this view make up a minority of MPs in the party. Helper201 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The party is democratic-socialist - see Clause IV of the party rule-book . Also consider where the party is on the political compass. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The party describes themselves as a democratic socialist party JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this countless times on Wikipedia, but a political party is never categorised based on how it self-describes itself; political parties are categorised based on how third-party sources describe them. Labour is a social-democratic party, not a democratic socialist party, given its history and international affiliations. (The German SPD, Swedish Social Democrats also have references to "democratic socialism@ in their constitutions, but are also recognised as parties in the European social-democratic traditional.)--Autospark (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The Labour Party in its current form supports common ownership, renationalisation, less interventionism, incorporating private schools into state schools etc. These are also policies many of the leadership contenders have agreed to, and these are 'socialist' policies; not policies of the centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glissando1234567890 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is what democratic socialism says:

While having socialism as a long-term goal, modern social democrats are more concerned to curb capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day. In contrast, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere under a different guise. Democratic socialists believe the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic in nature and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist mode of production with that of socialism, i.e. by replacing private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on lede sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposer posted a number of sources in support of the proposed change to the lead, from "centre-left" to "centre-left to left-wing". Opposers pointed out that those sources do not explicitly state that Labour is a "centre-left to left-wing" or "left-wing" party (as opposed to stating that Labour's leaders are "left-wing", or that the direction of the party was "left-wing", etc.). The WP:SYN section of our no original research policy states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (emphasis added). The support side did not show that the consensus of reliable sources explicitly stated that Labour was a "centre-left to left-wing" or "left-wing" party. However, the opposers pointed to countervailing sources that explicitly stated that the party is "centre-left" (and not "left-wing", a label those same sources applied to other groups, but not to Labour).

I discounted the SPA's !vote, and the arguments that the leadership may change (we should follow the sources; if they change, then we change with them), and "based on what sources?" (sources were put forward). The final oppose argument, citing to the party's rulebook and politicalcompass.org, did not appear to persuade any participants in the discussion, possibly because the rulebook doesn't say "centre-left to left-wing" and politicalcompass.org is a questionable source per prior discussion at RSN.

In conclusion:

• There is consensus that Labour should continue to be described as "a centre-left political party" in the lead, for the reasons stated above.
• There is no consensus as to how (or whether) to incorporate the "left-wing" viewpoint into the article. While there is consensus that the sources put forward do not support a change to "centre-left to left-wing" in wiki-voice in the lead, there was little discussion, and thus no consensus, about how (or whether) to incorporate the sources that the proposer put forward into the article. "Left-wing" may be a significant minority viewpoint. It may be that parts of the party, or the party's leadership, is or was "left-wing". It may be something else, or it may be that no change to the article is merited at all. This issue can be pursued in the normal way through article editing and talk page discussion (albeit not by making the proposed change to the lead).
• This is a perennial proposal. While consensus can change, I understand the frustration of having the same discussion over and over again. I do not have the authority to impose a moratorium on another RFC about "centre-left"/"left-wing", but I have some suggestions:
  1. It is highly unlikely that any future RFC to change "centre-left" to "centre-left to left-wing", "left-wing", or any other label, will be successful, unless it can be shown that the consensus of reliable sources explicitly use the new proposed label. "Consensus of reliable sources" doesn't mean unanimity, but it doesn't mean a minority viewpoint, either. If only some sources use the new proposed label, that may support an attributed statement in the body, but not necessarily a statement in wiki-voice in the lead. If no sources use the new proposed label, then we certainly cannot use the new proposed label in wiki-voice. Guidance can be found at WP:DUE.
  2. If the same editor were repeatedly making this proposal, that might be considered disruptive and tendentious; however, that does not appear to be the case here. Instead, it is different editors bringing up the issue. That is often a sign of an article that does not adequately address some issue. Thus, editors and readers who come upon the article and find it lacking in some way, propose changes, ignorant of the many prior discussions about the same issue. One possible solution to this is to create a {{FAQ}} on the talk page that summarizes and links to the prior discussions. This will help bring newcomers "up to speed" about the issue, avoiding re-litigation.

Apologies for the length of this closing statement, but hopefully it will provide some stability and utility going forward. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

I propose we change the lead sentence from "The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom..." to "The Labour Party is a centre-left to left-wing political party in the United Kingdom..."  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This is becuase it appears that the Labour Party has shifted further to the left in the Left–right political spectrum according to reliable sources recently.
• It has shifted under Miliband as seen here: [26] [27] [28]
• It also shifted to the left under Corbyn leadership as seen here: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38], [39].
• The leader is due to change in the future which may bring it back to the centre-left however we cannot speculate. We need to address the current state of Labour Party otherwise we would be violating WP:CRYSTAL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging all particpants in a recent discussion @Massivebrain420, Alexandre8, The Four Deuces, 2A00:1370:8113:6A50:C00C:6F87:3761:D18E, and Burrobert: as I have opened an RfC on the matter.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it's a bit synthy to say that as the party has been described as centre-left, and as sources have described the party of moving leftward, that therefore the party is something other than centre-left. In the 2018 academic book Why the left loses: The Decline of the Centre-Left in Comparative Perspective, the UK Labour Party is included with other centre-left parties, and several parts of the book distinguish left-wing parties from centre-left parties. There are other academic texts that describe the UK Labour Party as centre left over a long period of time, many of which distinguish centre-left from left-wing, like this, this, this, this, this and this.

Some recent academic sources describe the party as left-wing but not often in a way that distinguishes that from centre-left (like this, or in a way that makes in clear that they aren't distinguishing from centre-left (like this or this, which compare it to the Conservative Party described as right-wing). There are also some sources that use right, centre, centre-left and left-wing to describe different political traditions inside the party, such as The Struggle for Labour's Soul, but I don't think this is a reason to change the description of the party as a whole.

There's a lot of academic material that describes the party's ideology and political position, so I don't think this is a case where we need to resort to news sources. There's a huge amount of prospective material, and I would welcome a fuller review of the literature than I've been able to manage glossing over Google Scholar and Google Books. But I think I've sought out sources fairly for both descriptions, and my conclusion is that the UK Labour Party is overwhelmingly described as centre-left, including in sources published whilst Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn have led the party. So that's how we should describe it too. Ralbegen (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd also just like to note that this specific topic—whether the Labour Party is better described as left-wing, centre-left, or anything else has come up in usually very long WP:FORUM discussions in at least 2005, 2006 (twice), 2007 (twice), 2008 (twice, 2010 (twice), 2011, 2012, 2014 (four times now), 2015, 2016 (three times), 2017 (twice), 2018 and earlier this year. It all amounts to a pretty questionable use of time deciding not to change half a dozen words; time that could instead be spent improving this article, which remains B-class. I'm grateful for this RfC which will hopefully stymie the temptation of future editors to make these proposals in the future, and I'd like to request a one-year moratorium on the subject following the conclusion of this RfC. Ralbegen (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I just would like to say that I agree with everything Ralbegen has written and I personally think that's correct too. Just to had on what has been said already, moving leftward doesn't necessarely mean the party is now left-wing; if anything, it could actually just as easily mean that the party has simply moved from the centre with New Labour (and the Lib Dems at the time on the centre-left) back to the centre-left.--Davide King (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Its OR/opinion and while one faction is dominant it doesn't define the whole -----Snowded ^TALK 17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded:, How is this OR when I have provided a plethora of reliable sources that demonstrates the Labour Party has moved further to the left in the left-right spectrum?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well it may be synthesis - you are taking and interpreting current news stories and this would need a proper reliable source. It is also foolish when the current leadership election could change it anyway -----Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have provided a plethora of reliable sources above demonstrating it including: The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, Fox News, Huffington Post, The New York Times, Vox, The Evening Standard, You Gov, etc. Furthermore, saying the Labour Party may change in the future so we should not change it would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I don't understand why there is opposition to this change, to say the Labour Party is Centre-left to left wing is entirely accurate, currently the left faction of the party has leadership, even if the left faction loses to a more centre left candidate in the upcoming leadership election, it will still have a strong left wing faction in the party with people like Corbyn, Mcdonnel, Long Bailey, Burgon, Lavery etc etc. It should be changed to Centre-left to left-wing because that accurately describes the Labour party since both its members and voters stretch all along the left wing of politics from the hard left to the centre left. The Labour Party has changed in its leadership's political position commonly through its existence but it has always had a hard left faction just as it has always had a centre left faction, the same with its voter base and members. The Party itself as a political collective IS centre-left to left-wing. Massivebrain420 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Editors please note, Massivebrain has only made the above edit - nothing else so created for this purpose -----Snowded ^TALK 11:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on what sources? They're clearly a mainstream centre-left party, like many Western Labour party's and that is supported by numerous sources. I don't think anyone but the lunatic fringe sees them as anything else. Bacondrum (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I have provided a plethora of reliable sources above demonstrating it (above) including: The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, Fox News, Huffington Post, The New York Times, Vox, The Evening Standard, You Gov, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments and reasons already provided by Bacondrum, Ralbegen and Snowded. It also isn't a good or optimal time to propose this, considering the 2020 Labour Party leadership election. All parties have factions that lean more to the left or to the right, but that doesn't mean we should write for all parties Centre-left to left-wing or Centre-right to right-wing. There're parties that are and can be described by reliable sources simply as Centre-left or Centre-right and the British Labour Party fits this case. I also agree that it's synthesis because while Spy-cicle may argue that a plethora of reliable sources that demonstrates the Labour Party has moved further to the left in the left-right spectrum, they don't actually say the party is left-wing, just that it moved to the left, which could mean anything or nothing much. As stated here, the same sources could be used to argue that the party is back to the Centre-left after the move to the Centre with New Labour; that in the 1990s and 2000s, the Lib Dems were on the centre-left, but that now the reverse is true, with the Lib Dems back to the centre and Labour back to the centre-left since at least the 2010s.--Davide King (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the party is left-wing; the party rulebook states that it is a socialist party , and is percieved by some political analysts to be more left than the Green party, whom Wikipedia say are left. Glissando1234567890 (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Move

The Page has been moved several times to The Labour Party (United Kingdom) despite being undiscussed JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I am guessing it was an April Fools "Prank". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism

Can we add pro-europeanism to the list of ideologies? I know that Jeremy Corbyn was officially neutral on the issue, Sir Keir Starmer has always been a vocal opponent.Dylan109 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism is not an ideology, it's a policy position. Of course it's possible to have a single issue party, as UKIP was before Farage or the Scottish National Party at least historically or the Marijuana Party. But there is no evidence that Labour is now a single issue party. TFD (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces, hence why I proposed to add a separate Policy (or something like that) for that, along with Factions (since this was discussed above). Ideology should be only for the actual ideology, so only one or two wikilinks. Pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, anti-immigration, cannabis legalisation et al should go there, not in Ideology.--Davide King (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Suing Labour, McNicol and Evans

A Labour Party member has sued the party, McNicol and Evans for breach of contract. Should this be mentioned? Burrobert (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There are news stories every day about the Labour Party. Wikipedia is not a newspaper: for a subject like the Labour Party, which has existed for more than a hundred years and been in government several times, I don't see that due weight has been established for this material. It's better to wait and see if any of this develops into something that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Ralbegen (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Suspension of Emilie Oldknow, Patrick Heneghan and 5 other members

The Labour Party has suspended former party director Emilie Oldknow, Patrick Heneghan and 5 other members while it investigates the leaked anti-semitism report. Oldknow appeared prominently in the leaked documents. Should this be mentioned? Burrobert (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

As linked above, please refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Ralbegen (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Last sentence in the first paragraph

“There have been six Labour Prime Ministers and eight ministries.” In this context, what is a “ministry”? I’m not from the UK, so I want to check with someone before removing this myself, since I have no idea what it’s talking about. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A ministry is the period a PM serves. If he or she is replaced and later comes back, it counts as a second ministry. TFD (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn’t aware of that usage. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox

I know that issue of the party's ideology and place on the political spectrum has been discussed (almost to death) but I don't think I was able to get my point across that the infobox should include the ideologies of the different factions in the party just like with the Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States). Charles Essie (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

US Parties are different as they don’t have a clear ideology unlike UK Parties JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is true but that doesn't make the multi-tendency nature of the Labour Party irrelevant. Charles Essie (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that is too much information. Political science textbooks classify Labour as socialist (also called social democratic or democratic socialist), which puts it in the same category as the Socialist Party of France or the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Socialist parties typically have members with a wide range of views from pro-business and socially conservative to anti-capitalist and socially liberal. While the name is a give away for most parties, including Labour, it isn't for many parties which is why the field exists. Hence the New Democratic Party of Canada is a socialist party like Labour, the U.S. New Democrats are pro-corporate liberals and New Democracy (Greece) is conservative. That's what the reader wants to know when they look at the infobox, not the complexity of the different groups that belong to each. TFD (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the UK Labour Party is a special case, though. Considering how important the different factions have been to the party's history. Charles Essie (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yhe division between revolutionary and revisionist socialists in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in the Russian Social Democratic Party and the three way split of the Socialist Party of America (into pro.Nixon, moderate and revolutionary factions) were more significant. And the New Democratic Party I mentioned had The Waffle. Every party has a division between its career politicians and its grassroots. Tories have 3 corner, one nation and no turning back factions, while liberals have yellow book and orange book. If readers want to know what these various factions are they can read the article.TFD (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point but I don't agree in this case. Especially since there is a list of factions in the infobox for the Social Democratic Party of Germany. I also think the UK Conservative Party and Canada's New Democratic Party should include a list of factions in their respective infoboxes as well. Charles Essie (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you name a single major Western political party that does not have a left-wing and a right-wing? TFD (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The party's multi-tendency nature is critical to the its history and identity. More so than most other parties. Charles Essie (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The same could be said for the other two parties. Even their names (Conservative and Unionist, Liberal Democrats) acknowledge that they arose as mergers between different parties. TFD (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo Labour Party Rose.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing?

I believe we should turn the position section into "Centre-left to Left-wing" after the Corbyn era and now the new Starmer era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. M. L. Peters (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

it’s too late now that Corbyn has left. Starmer is a Blairite who has just sacked the most senior left wing member of his shadow cabinet. Haven’t seen any mention of Labour being left wing since Starmer arrived on the scene. Burrobert (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to delete the field. Obviously as a mainstream socialist party, its membership will hold a variety of positions. TFD (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, I think we should keep it as centre-left. Labour haven't stopped being on the left-of-centre because Starmer is leader; even with a variety of views I think it's fairly agreeable to everyone that they're on the left of the spectrum. — Czello 07:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There was such a long discussion about this Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 12#Request for comment on lede sentence and more throughout the archives. Any argument to change this can't be based on what editors reckon or their views on politicians. It has to be based on reliable sources, and the balance of reliable source coverage. As there was no consensus to make any change a handful of months ago, it's probably not a productive use of editors' time to relitigate this yet another time. Ralbegen (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree — Czello 10:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to describe the party as left-of-centre or centre-left to left-wing rather than exclusively centre-left since it's a broadly left wing party? Also considering that the membership of the party under Jeremy Corbyn surged, that doesn't mean that everybody who joined it as a more left-wing party has suddenly converted to Blairism. Also Starmer might not be the most left-wing, but he certainly isn't a Blairite, but he does make compromise in the party. Less of a Blairite or a Labour centrist, more of a pragmatist in involving all areas of the party. He also describes himself as a socialist and in his leadership so far, I see no reason to believe that under his leadership the party is a mostly centre-left party. The party may be more open about its centre-left elements, but it certainly has not departed from the majority left-wing policy and sentiments. This is why I feel it would be better to describe the party as "centre-left to left-wing" or "left-of-centre" --Elvo22 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the terms left and centre-left are ambiguous. Under some definitions, Blairites are left-wing, while under other definitions Corbynites are centre-left. The Left is generally used to refer to parties that developed out of socialism and the Labour movement, which of course defines the Labour Party. Or it may refer to groups that are to the left of established social democratic parties, in which case Corbynites would be centre-left. Or centre-left could refer to business friendly politicians, including liberals, who are the main opponents to parties that are even more business friendly, which in turn are described as right-wing, center-right or centrist depending on how those terms are used. Or Blairites could be described as centrist because they provided a mid-way point between Thatcherism and Old Labour. Or all three major parties could be described as centrist (as in the "Vital Center") because they reject the authoritarianism of extreme left or right. TFD (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We should absolutely not write "centre-left to left-wing" in the Infobox. It's redundant and misleading. "Centre-left" alone will suffice – it is after all a party which spans centrists through to leftists in its views and (loosely speaking) factions. Use as few terms as possible to describe political parties.--Autospark (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep it as is. The definitional problem is more theoretical than real. No one is ever going to read the infobox and be misled by 'centre-left'. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Autospark, under what definition is the Labour Party centre-left but not left-wing? TFD (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again: there has been a recent RFC on this topic which found consensus to keep centre-left and no consensus to add left-wing. Any challenge to that status needs to be supported by reliable sources. Users talking about definitions or Corbynites or Blairites are engaging in WP:FORUM discussion rather than encyclopedia-building. The article should reflect reliable sources: if reliable sources have changed how they describe the party, we should have a discussion about the description of the party in this article. If you want to have a discussion about what you personally believe the Labour Party's political position to be, there are a lot of other places you can do that that aren't a Wikipedia talk page. Ralbegen (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not argue what I personally believe the Labour Party's political position to be. My point was that different people in reliable sources will use different definitions for left and centre left which are clear from the context in which they are used. It's not that they disagree on where Labour lies in the political spectrum so much as disagree what that position should be called. I can't find a recent RfC in the archives. TFD (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is the RfC Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 12#Request for comment on lede sentence. Consensus did not emerge depsite the plethora of reliable sources I provided.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity - your proposal was opposed by a clear majority of editors so no change was made -----Snowded ^TALK 18:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that "Consensus is not unanimity". You may want to famliarse youself with WP:NOTAVOTE.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. My suggestions was to omit it. The first sentence says, Labour "is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom that has been described as an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists." No one disagrees about the composition of the party, merely what position to assign it in the political spectrum. It is clear from the context that by centre left, we mean social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists. TFD (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideology on Unionism

The Labour Party includes an ideology we know as British Unionism, why isn’t it included. (Airline7375 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC))

It's not really one of their central ideologies in the way that it is with the Conservatives (unless you have any citations that say different). — Czello 18:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Local Government

I note that with the exception of the London assembly and the elected Mayor of London no mention is made of the work of the party in local government. Ideally perhaps there ought to be a list of the local authorities the party has controlled with dates and perhaps some account of the first steps in putting forward and the election of Labour local councillors. This is a job for an enthusiast obviously (which I am not.) On a separate point I am not sure that the details about the London Assembly are appropriate in an article about the party nationally unless similar details are included for other large cities (Birmingham,Manchester and Glasgow perhaps.) Spinney Hill (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Labour Party UK logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What has happened to the logo?

why has someone removed the rose? Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It was deleted, see here — Czello 11:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Somebody changed the fair use non-free Wikipedia-hosted logo to an inappropriately Commons-hosted one. Because the fair use one was no longer being used, that one has been deleted (here). Because the Commons one wasn't appropriately licensed, that one was deleted too. Somebody needs to upload a fair-use NFC logo to Wikipedia, or request undeletion for the previous Wikipedia-hosted logo. Ralbegen (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

Can Socialism be added for a minority (factions) ideology in the Labour Party, in the infobox? Jeremy Corbyn himself is a self-proclaimed Socialist and as is a strong wing in the Labour Party, although it has declined since 2019. Azaan Habib 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is already there -----Snowded ^TALK 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Leader's Name

I have noticed that the name of the Leader of the Labour Party on the information bar has recently been edited to include their title - namely Sir Keir Starmer MP. Adding the title is unnecessary in this context, as it would also be unnecessary to include that he is a KCB and a QC. In the context of his leadership of a party the only thing that would be appropriate is the 'MP' after his name. This is also out of sync with the rest of the article which merely lists his name. Therefore, for grammatical purposes, it would make sense for this to be removed.

Note: Ed Davey's title is not included on the information bar for the article on the Liberal Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPELLcheckOKUK (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ideology

A source from 1998 is hardly enough to say that Labour is a democratic socialist party. The party's own declaration that it is a democratic socialist party is followed by one that it will work for something that sounds an awful lot more like social democracy: "a dynamic economy serving the public interest in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a thriving private sector and high quality public services where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them."

"Democratic socialism" should be removed from the ideology field of the infobox.

--79.70.173.20 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, (Greenwood Publishing Group (2000), is probably better because it is a secondary source. Democratic socialism/social democracy/socialism are usually used interchangeably, although some sources draw distinctions between them. Party ideologies are generally static, although policies change over time. The Tories for example have changed their policies since the days of the English Civil War more than Labour has over its 120 year history, yet are still considered conservatives. TFD (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, policy-wise the two can look identical; a mixed economy that promotes social justice could be one step on the road to greater redistribution and democratic control of institutions, or it could be the end goal itself; it's a question of interpretation that underpins how the party functions as a broad church. We should keep it to show this internal diversity of tendencies if not of a strict policy division. VelvetCommuter (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The British Labour party is anything but "democratic socialist." "Democratic Socialism" is, in theory, where workers own the means of production, and each gets an equal share of what is produced, but also with free speech and fair elections and all that malarkey. In practice, it means the government owns all businesses, and everybody gets the same amount of money (within a democracy). If you consider that "center-left," then even Jeremy Corbyn might as well go and join UKIP. Jeremy Corbyn was a socialist as Bernie Saunders is a socialist, they're actually just social democrats that use the word "socialist" in order to get more votes (and it obviously doesn't work). Dylan109 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason why there is not a policy section?

The Conservative Party page has a relatively detailed, although certainly worthy of expansion, policy section with subheadings and all. Just wondered if there is any reason why this page does not have one, other than nobody has taken the time to commit to it? Crunchynotsmooth (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sections like that tend to be recentist and improperly-sourced. They're not typically great encyclopedia material, a well-written "ideology" section is uaully more suitable. Some coverage of election promises in the history section is suitable too. Ralbegen (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding left-wing to political position row

We should add "left-wing" to the position section, as since Corbyn's time as leader had moved left in certain areas. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose unless you can provide reliable sources that describe the party as left-wing. Remember that the 'political position' section should show the party's position as an institution, not the political positions of certain people or groups within that party, nor the political leaning of their policies. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per Pinkpanda272. Indeed, the Corbyn years appear to be a blip more than anything: I think it would be highly WP:UNDUE to include left wing as a position since the last election. — Czello 12:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose We shouldn't have the field. Different people will see the political spectrum differently. Labour is left because by definition it is the more left-wing of the two parties, it is center-left because it is not as extreme as Communist parties, it is centrist because it respects the rule of law, it is right-wing because it has adopted neo-liberalism and it's far left in the minds of the Murdoch press. It provides more confusion that elucidation. TFD (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

Add a factions section on the ideology column, with "Third Way" to represent the Blairite wing and "Left-Wing Populism" to represent the Corbynite wing AWorldThatNeverExisted (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the actual prose you'd like added, as well as sourcing for the labeling you're using. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

If you could please change X: After the Equalities and Human Rights Commission found the Labour Party guilty of three breaches of the Equality Act,[151] Corbyn condemned antisemitism but claimed the problem had been 'dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents ... [and] much of the media'.[172] Corbyn was suspended from the party before being reinstated by a subcommittee of the NEC.[173] Starmer has chosen to withhold the Labour whip from Corbyn for three months, pending an investigation.

To Y: By the following, very similar, but more updated, text: After the Equalities and Human Rights Commission found the Labour Party guilty of three breaches of the Equality Act, "political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment, including the use of anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears".[151] Corbyn condemned antisemitism but claimed the problem had been 'dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents ... [and] much of the media'.[172] Corbyn was suspended from the party before being reinstated by a subcommittee of the NEC.[173] Starmer has chosen to withhold the Labour whip from Corbyn for three months, pending an investigation. Juelise (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: that detail is already discussed above that paragraph, it's just referencing that material not introducing it for the first time: In 2020, the EHRC would find the Labour Party to have broken the law by "political interference in anti-Semitism complaints", "failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints" and "harassment, including the use of anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears" Volteer1 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The Labour Party is not a far-left party.

The opening line of this article claims the Labour Party is a far-left political party, then later, in the ideology box, claims it is centre-left. Of course, the latter interpretation is correct, and I suspect that there was some dishonest motivations behind altering the opening line to call the party far left. Nickmass38 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It was probably added by a troll since this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I removed it. TFD (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would think it'd be accurate to say the party has moved to just "centre" under Starmer. Hobtan (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Labour is not a democratic socialist party. I am requesting that democratic socialism be removed from the ideology field in the infobox.

Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey is a book by an American socialist activist without an actual page reference, while Ideology and Politics in Britain Today is just quoting Clause IV while saying that by the 1950s the majority of the party did not wish to abolish capitalism. It is frankly astounding that this blatant misinformation has survived for more than seven years.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Provide reliable sources which identify Labour as something else, then. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There is already a perfectly reliable source that identifies Labour as a social democratic party. The issue is with the sources that supposedly identify Labour as a democratic socialist party, one of which actually doesn't and the other doesn't have a page reference for it. The fact is that no reliable academic source will ever seriously, thinkingly describe Labour as a "democratic socialist" party.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source that actually says Labour is a democratic socialist party. I am asking for unreliable information to be removed.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

Forgive me if there is some other process I need to follow, as I have no experience whatsoever with the administrative workings of Wikipedia and the linked article did not suggest anything other than talk page discussions.

Democratic socialism is effectively dead within Labour. In the 1940s and 50s, "the left wing was not prepared to be satisfied with Keynesian modifications of capitalism." (Bevanism: A Philosophy for British Labour?), and that was the case even into the 1980s with the likes of Benn (though even then 'democratic socialism' would hardly have been prominent enough within the party for it to be listed as its ideology). Compare this to Corbyn's leadership, which was satisfied with Keynesian modifications of capitalism (as were his supporters).

Now you could argue that Corbyn, and the rest of the Bennite old left remnant, are personally/'philosophically' democratic socialists. As see: "Corbyn is a democratic socialist but his policies are social democratic, for political as much as ideological reasons, for egalitarian and socialist institutions within capitalism." from Corbyn, Populism and Power, an article by Luke Martell.

But even if you did, this remnant is not even enough for a "Factions: Democratic socialism" entry, let alone enough to describe democratic socialism as one of the party's ideologies equal to social democracy. Labour's left-right divide is about identifiers and perhaps foreign policy, not some conflict between those who want to abolish capitalism and those who don't. It is misleading to portray 'democratic socialism' as a view held by any significant group. There are no actual, reliable sources for it anyway. Labour is a social democratic party, and it has undeniably been one for many, many decades now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.13.254 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

‎Socialist, democratic socialist and social democratic are mostly interchangeable terms. Democratic socialist is the least common and is meant to distinguish them from Communists, whom they see as undemocratic socialists. Communists on the other hand did not see them as real socialists, so preferred the term social democratic. TFD (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There remains no argument against this.92.20.13.254 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution states that "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party..." PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 19:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

While I'm against removing the demsoc label, this isn't a good argument as it's a primary source. We need a secondary source, really -- what Labour label themselves is largely irrelevant. — Czello 19:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And it also states:

"To these ends we work for:

A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a thriving private sector and high-quality public services where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them

A JUST SOCIETY, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power"

This is social democracy, not democratic socialism. 92.20.13.254 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

As I said: "Labour is not a democratic socialist party. I am requesting that democratic socialism be removed from the ideology field in the infobox.

Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey is a book by an American socialist activist without an actual page reference, while Ideology and Politics in Britain Today is just quoting Clause IV while saying that by the 1950s the majority of the party did not wish to abolish capitalism. It is frankly astounding that this blatant misinformation has survived for more than seven years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.13.254 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism a Global Survey was published by an academic publisher and hence a reliable source. Busky had a PhD in political science and wrote a number of other academic books. He uses the term democratic socialist to describe similar parties around the world that were mostly members of the Socialist International. Other writers might have described them as socialist or social democratic parties. But there is no evidence that Labour belongs to a separate category from similar parties such as the Social Democratic Party of Germany of the Socialist Party of France. I admit though that the term was little used, although it has gained use in recent years with Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America, which was also a member of the Socialist International TFD (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Both the French Socialists and German Social Democrats aren't described as 'democratic socialist' on their articles (for good reason), so yeah there's definitely no evidence it belongs to a separate category from them. Labour is socialist by nature of the fact it is a social democratic party; what it is not is "democratic socialist". Not a single argument has been offered against my original justification. There's honestly no real way around it; Busky's book is bad, and his PhD and publisher are irrelevant to that. You can falsely argue it's a 'reliable source', but I think you know it isn't. The polemical nature of it is made obvious by the blatant introduction that you obviously read given that you quoted it almost verbatim on the 18th of May. 'Democratic socialism' has (incorrectly) been on the article long before anyone outside of Vermont had ever heard of Bernie Sanders, who is irrelevant to the British Labour Party and the matter of whether or not it is democratic socialist (it isn't), so I don't know why you're talking about him. 92.20.13.254 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a book in t0 volumes published by Routledge (1996) called Democratic Socialism in Britain, part of Classic Texts in Economic and Political Thought, 1825-1952. It defines democratic socialism as the counterpart to revolutionary socialism and includes the Labour Party. It's sort of like the way some people say boot, while others say trunk. Different people use different terms. Busky for example may have used the term democratic socialist, because in the U.S., the Democratic Socialists of America were the closest to UK Labour, the German SPD and the Socialists in France. He probably called a boot a trunk too.

I am not saying that Bernie Sanders influenced the use of the term in this article, just that it has become more popular since he first ran for president. Incidentally, Bernie Sanders was well know to people interested in socialism at least since 1990, when he was elected to Congress.

Incidentally, what do you think democratic socialism is, if not reformist socialism?

TFD (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)