Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 3

Party Logo

Since Gordon brown took over, the Labour Party has been using a new logo. I'm pretty sure it's been fully adopted because I've seen it on a ballot paper for County Council election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.94.127 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know more about the old pen-spade-torch logo. When was it adopted? Who designed it? why was it dropped? Drutt (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The need for an offical party 'brand' is relatively recent phenomena. Until at least the 1960s in parts of the country the Party used green rather than red as its colour!

My understanding is that the Party never had an offical logo as such until at least the 1980s. When the head office adopted a stylised THE LABOUR PARTY in capitals mimicking the red flag, this was used on party publications and at conference during Micheal Foot's leadership. I'm not sure to what extent this was ever an offical logo however. The initial version of the Rose logo under during Kinnock leadership was the first offical logo as far as I can tell. Despite this the rule book still makes no reference to a logo, however the requirements under the 2004 Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act to register parties and logos has made the logo more official. The Party still uses amended versions of the logo in Wales and Scotland and a different logo for Labour Co-operative joint candidates.--79.70.14.93 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Centre-left?

It's suggested here that Labour are formerly left-wing, whereas now they are centre left. I would argue that they are now centrist. Indeed, on the highly respected Political Compass claims that they are centre-right http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright Something worth considering? 62.136.132.95 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Political Compass is place- and time-neutral; the British political spectrum (indeed, most political spectra) as a whole has shifted to the right since the collapse of the Soviet Union, on economic matters at least. So relative to Britain, they're centre-left; relative to the Compass, though, they're slightly to the right. In most countries, most parties with a viable shot at winning elections are, actually. Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

but most people in the uk would say that labour is no longer left wing. and i see donkey isn't even from the uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.203.212 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I thouht that Wikifacts were meant to be NPOV, so being neutral is surley the sort of basis we should be operating from, not relative (or to put it another way POV). [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)]]

IMO the Labour Party is different to the Labour Government. The Party is centrist with pockets of centre-left, leftwing and centre-right while the Government is centrist with pockets of centre-right and rightwing. But my opinion doesn't count, we need reliable sources. --RS Ren (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any political party is a coalition of interests. For many years, the governance of the Labour party was left leaning. For at least the past ten years, the political compass has swung in t'other direction. Conference and the constituencies have been left relatively toothless; the NEC has left-leaning members, but in general governance of the party has shifted to the centre-right. It will be interesting to see what happens when the hat has to be passed around the unions to get it out of financial difficulties. The way to get around the NPOV problem is to find cast iron sources - preferably a European, or US national newspaper that has something to say on the party, rather than the government (I think you're right to make the distinction) - and if the sources conflict, then mention 'on the one hand Blah Daily says ... on the other the Blah Herald claims it is ...'. As ever let the reader make their own mind up, but lead them to the sources. Kbthompson (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's controversial to describe the post 1980s Labour party as 'centre-left'. They've adopted monetarist economics, no longer represent the interests of the working class and are authoritarian on crime immigration and civil liberties. At the very least such a statement needs justifying Domminico (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to take into account political compass, which says Social:authoritarian and economic:Neo-liberal. This is put on and referenced to political compass. Hope this aids NPOV and increases understanding of the Labour parties position. Havo2

Havo2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havo2 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the 1980s Labour was unquestionably left-wing, however in the 80s it underwent a transition, it went to what could almost be described as far-left under Michael Foot's leadership which is infamous for the 'longest suicide note in history' however under Kinnock (possibly the wrong spelling) it went closer to the centre then it had ever done before and under Blair it swung to the centre and adopted a policy of Blairism (Thatcherism gone wrong) which brought along the present crisis. The Labour party now however is undergoing an identity crisis as the left-wing is disatisfied with the Blair/Brown Govt and the Labour Party's plummeting support and popularity. 92.251.164.156 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to add a "Citation needed" tag to the "centre-left" comment in the article, and to include the "centre-right" designation based on this credible source: http://euobserver.com/9/28218 but Welshsocialist keeps reverting it based on some undisclosed personal research. Could someone confirm that this source is valid and that the designation "centre-left" in the article still needs a reference. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.123.100 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Labour is seen by the vast majority of people as a centre-left political party in Britain, and is such. The source you providedis not valid as it is not from a reiable source, same as the afore mentioned political compass. The debate over this has happend from a few people time and time again, and it always been conclused that Labour is centre-left. --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your views on this. Unfortunately your "logic" seems to be based on Argumentum ad populum ("by the vast majority of people") and Proof by assertion ("The source you [provided is] not valid as it is not from a [reliable] source"). Wikipedia articles are not based on one contributor's belief about the popular consensus, but based on references. If you have evidence that "EU Observer" is not a reliable source then please share it with us so we can remove any references to it from all the other Wikipedia articles. Alternatively please find a reference which backs up the "centre-left" claim. Thank you.

Oh, you found a reference. That's great. I added the missing "space". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.123.100 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of the terminology of 'left', 'right' and 'centre' is problematic, as it relates to subjective opinion and a relativism to other political positions used as a contrast. Hence the Russian Communist Party was described as to the 'right' of the economic libertarians following the fall of the Soviet Union. Some of this debate seems to be about value judgements about what should constitute the 'left' or 'centre'. They are hence problematic, as this is to try to assert a meaning to the words that has not been agreed. Given that the description is subjective, I have updated the description based on opinion polls of British voters, as this should be a methodologically sounder basis for ascribing a subjective description than arguing the relative merits based on a narrow selection of opinions. In particular, some of the previous references were to articles that evidenced plenty of signs of bias. In short, in the articles, references to the Labour Party being 'left' or 'centre' were often used in a pejorative way, by an authority that might have an interest in influencing the direction of Labour Party policy. Using polling data from voters has the merit that it represents the fact that most opinions polled place Labour more or less to the left of the political centre. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The polling report source[1] has refered to the Labour party as being centrist as well as center left, hence why I think the article should refer to the party's position as "center-left / centerist". The polling report website does not definitively state that the Labour party is center-left which is why I think both sides of the scale should be expressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sansonic (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If the link saids its centre-left and centrist, then centre-left/centrist is more accurate, then just centrist, or even ingoring position and just saying a political party. I believe that the majority of party members view themselves as centre-left aswell as the party itself.--Welshsocialist (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some very peculiar interpretations of the data here. The article referred to never describes the Labour Party as 'centrist'. It uses various phrases to describe how far left of centre the Labour Party is, and the terms used are consistent with poll ratings that say voters believe Labour is mildly left of centre. The phrase 'centre-left' clearly suggests the party is near the centre but to its left, which is consistent with the polling results. I cannot follow this odd logic that there are 'two sides' of the scale, like this is a matter of debate and not just question of reading opinion poll ratings, and that we need to place the Labour Party between the centre and the centre-left, ending with the spurious terminology invention of centre-centre-left much like you might talk about north-north-west as a compass direction. Perhaps it is relevant that the polls also indicated that typical Labour party supporters perceived the party to be further to the right, and closer to the centre, than the overall average amongst all voters. This might be the motivation that lies behind the edits to insist the Labour Party is centrist - it is reasonable to speculate if the edits to this page reflect a skewed sample of the population. However, as the article also says, the descriptions 'left' or 'centre' are largely useless, so really do not serve a useful purpose in an encyclopedia entry. Diogenes the Cynic (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the edit wars roll on and tediously on. I have substituted an alternative, objectively verifiable statement about the party's political stance, in place of the subjective (and obviously contentious) statements that tried to define it according to where it is on a left-right spectrum. The statement is drawn from clause 4 of the party's constitution. The description of Labour as democratic socialist is presumably accepted by all, as is repeated in the article's detail. Given that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article, hopefully everybody will stand back from the edit war and accept a non-controversial alternative to the 'how left?' conundrum. Readers can decide for themselves if where they would place a democratic socialist party on a left-right scale. Of course, if anyone does not believe that Labour is a democratic socialist party, then they are straying out of the territory of verifiable facts (what the party's constitution says), and into the territory of opinion (what people think about the party). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogenes the Cynic (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for improving article

I've been thinking about ways to improve the rather sprawling messy layout of this article. The idea I've come up with is to split the long history section off into two articles History of the British Labour Party for most of the history section, whilst most of the information regarding the present Labour government from 1997 could be split into a new article called something like Current Labour government. The history section on the main page could be replaced with a shortened summary.

I've raised this before but no-one seemed interested in commenting. Does anyone have any ideas suggestions etc? G-Man ^? 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well no-one has seen fit to object to my proposals so I'll soon do them then. G-Man ^? 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same thing since seeing this article. I like the idea of a separate history article. I think what should be in this main article is a short summary of the party's founding and a sentence or so for each key event after this. The main detail should be in the separate history article. Then there should be more coverage of New Labour (including examples of key policies), but with most detail in a 'current labour government' article. Ross^English 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done this. The Current Labour government (UK) article could do with some work, especially with NPOV and referencing.

I'm going to be away for a while but I think further improvements to this article would be:

The inclusion of:

• A section about the party's policies.
• A section about the party's factions
• An electoral performance section.

G-Man ^? 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've included a brief paragraph on the Osborne Judgment, the 1911 provision of MP wages and the 1913 Trade Disputes Act, to illustrate changes to funding. Also because the Osborne judgment requires some links to it from other articles, this kills two birds with one stone. EuroSoviets

European and international affiliation

I dont know if any other editors have noticed, it might just be me, but How come the Labour party's European and international affiliations have just dissapered from the infobox?. I have tried everything and can not get them to return. Does anybody know what has happened to them and can anyone fix this problem? Gr8opinionater, user talk:Gr8opinionater
12:58 pm, 29th April 2008 (GMT)

dead link

Just randomly browsing I noticed the first reference is dead or not working. I don't have knowledge of the subject matter so will leave it for others to repair. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now repaired the reference. Thanks for pointing it out. Road Wizard (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1911 summer strikes & children strike

No info here, nor anywhere else (except a quick mention at 1911) about the large strikes of June-August 1911, which the government responded to by calling forth the army. It appears that large strikes began in ports, and affected London (see this nice photo from FlickR). This other photo, taken during the 1911 seaman's strike, portraits the logo of the National Amalgamated Sailor's and Fireman's Union of Great Britain and Ireland.

What about the March 1911 strike at Singer{s Kilbowie factory at Clydebank ? "The Kilbowie Singer strike of 1911 ranks as one of the most important episodes in the history of the labor or socialist movement. It was one of the first to take on a major international corporation. It was conducted along industrial union lines, as distinct from the craft union lines typified in this country by the AFL-CIO and its affiliates.

Indeed, it was conducted by the Industrial Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) and the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party of Great Britain. As the Glasgow Labour History Workshop summed it up in its 1987 booklet, The Singer Strike: Clydebank, 1911: "The confrontation itself, we believe, was characterized by remarkable solidarity between the workforce -- divisions based on occupation, skill, gender, religion and locality being submerged during the strike. The philosophy of the industrial unionists played a part here." [2].

Could anyone who has any info on that contact me? Someone who had access to this from this issue of the History Workshop Journal ([3] by the docker Dave Marson on Hull under-age students' strike in 1911) could write a nice article... 62 cities (including Dundee, Southhampton, Liverpool and Dublin) affected during 15 days by this movement, which included 10 years-old asking for a free day, end of the use of stick punitions, vacations in order to be able to look for potatoes, etc. See this translated article for more info Tazmaniacs (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

Not a big issue really, but shouldn't Social Democracy and Third Way be mentioned before Democratic Socialism in the infobox, to more clear reflect the importance of each in the modern party? If I was someone who knew nothing about the British Labour Party and glanced at the infobox in passing, I would assume they were a socialist party. Jh39 (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion as to whether or not they are socialist - many contemporary senior Labour figures, such as Andy Burnham and Peter Hain, have been happy to describe themselves as socialists in the press. It's also worth bearing in mind that the revised, post-1994 Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution still describes the Labour Party as a "democratic socialist" party - whether or not you think the Labour Party's own description of itself is accurate is a matter of POV. I'd question whether Third Way is in itself a political ideology, rather than a philosophy which can be applied to ideological standpoints as a means of making them more practical. I think the party's constitution (which is fairly contemporary as it was revised in 1994) is the best way to judge the party's political position, as actual government practice is a complicated and expansive field. I don't think the actual order in which the ideologies appear in the list really matters, so long as they're listed. However I might suggest that "socialism" be replaced with "democratic socialism", as they are subtly different ideologies. I won't do it now as there are so many unilateral edits of this page its best to leave it well alone until some kind of consensus is reached. The most important thing here is that there isn't any more blatant vandalism by people on both left and right, whether they be people on the hard left who want to label the party as "right wing" "conservative" or "Thatcherite" as they have done in the past, or people on the right labelling the party as "far left" as I've mentioned below; as this kind of behaviour doesn't prove anything, it just damages Wikipedia's reputation. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Voter Demographic

Is it worth adding a section on the demographic of Labour voters? Being that the majority of labour voters are from a certain demographic, and tend to be from the less educated end of the spectrum? This would also lend more perspective to the fact that Labour policies tend to lead more towards punishing tax payers, the successful and highly educated for the benefit of people who are unemployed? MattUK (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome these changes, provided they comply so far as possible with WP:NPOV and are correctly sourced. The substance of what you write could be said in the appropriate way. Beganlocal (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Labour party politicians category

There is a discussion on a talk page about re-organising some of the Labour politicians category to include a more generic "Labour Party people" category. Comments/suggestions invited. TreveX^talk 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw a similar discussion on the Plaid Cymru page. Surely anybody who campaigns for a political party is a politician, as they're campaigning for a group in order to gain influence over public affairs. I don't see how being elected is a prerequisite for being described as a "politician" 213.121.151.174 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Far left" - vandalism?

Somebody changed the political position in the infobox to "far-left". I've changed it back to centre-left, as this appears to me to be a case of vandalism (most likely by somebody on the hard right). 213.121.151.174 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone did it again, I have tried to change it back, prehaps this needs be locked for vandalism for a bit?

talk anonmous) 11:110 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.130.65 (talk)

I'd support that, this article is constantly being vandalised by people with an axe to grind 213.121.151.174 (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Centre-Left

Will people stop vandalising the political idealogy it is very pathetic and immature. The fact is Labour is a Centre-Left political party, in the modern and contempary political climate. --92.18.64.200 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you go about setting an article up for protection? 213.121.151.174 (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't protect a Wikipedia article over a content dispute. The choice of referring to the Labour Party as either "Left Wing", "Centre-Left", "Centrist" or "Centre-Right" is a matter of perspective. To settle on one choice or another you will first need to reach a consensus with the other editors.

Trouble is, the editors perusing this vandalism don't want consensus. They arbitrarily edit heavily referenced and concerete positions as laid out in the party constitution, without any discussion on here.

You can request page protection if you want to but it will almost certainly be refused. Road Wizard (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just been vandalised again! Democratic Socialism has been removed from the ideology box despite that being it being heavily referenced, and it being the ideology as stated in the Labour Party's constitution, and somebody's changed "centre-left" to "centre-right". 213.121.151.174 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "democratic socialism" with a reference to Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution (the contemporary clause IV) which clearly states that "the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party". If anybody else has an axe to grind, please discuss it here first. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Labour member, I'd put ideology as Third Way and Social democracy (in that order), with the Democratic socialism element mentioned within the article text, referenced in regard to how the party describes itself in membership material. (Although, it could be argued that they are using democratic socialism as a synonym for social democracy - the latter being a term that Labour a use due to the continuing disregard towards the old SDP). I'll admit that Labour is pretty difficult to describe in terms of ideology, as the membership base and local parties (CLPs) are well to the left of most of the parliamentary party in Westminster (PLP), particularly the dominant 'New Labour' faction. --Autospark (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Been more vandalism on this page again, I've reverted it back. Some idiot changed the infobox to read Centre-right and Neo-liberal, while changed the opening introduction to claim that Labour is a principle part of the left and moved to the centre-left under New Labour. I've changed it back to how it was now.--92.0.102.249 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed the sfounded as principal party of the centre- left to left as they were not centre left to start wiyh, only tony blair took them from far to centre left! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Clause IV

This is not mentioned in this article, both in its formation and Blairs reform of it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly under "Party constitution and structure". Road Wizard (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Will someone with a wikipedia account please do get the admins to lock this topic, too many idiots are vandalising this article, it's turning wikipedia into the farce that the right wingers are.92.10.170.89 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE get this locked, VSRugbyfan vandalised/blanked this page. --92.22.30.178 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There appears to be vandalism from both right and left. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to "lock" this page at this time as the level of vandalism on this page is comparatively low for an article with such a high profile. Normal reversion methods seem to be coping with the vandalism quite adequately.

Also, semi-protection wouldn't affect a registered user like User:VSrugbyfan, but it would lock you out of reverting any vandalism. I don't think that is what you are wanting. Full protection is completely out of the question, as that is only an option of truly last resort. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms NPOV dispute:

This is written in 3rd party views and has the evidence to back it up in Gereorge W.Bush, tony blair and republican articles. I would als o like to say I have accepted the elimination of a disputed section. Thanks hope you find this helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havo2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is prefectly valid, it is in totally the wrong section, for starters. It has no citetion to back it up, and it is totally opinion based. It has no place on a Wikipedia article and should be deleted. --CelticCymru (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

May I cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments%27_positions_pre-2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Christian_opposition_to_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Iraq_War (especially the kofi annun speech!) as evidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk) 12:25, 21 Thanks Havo 2 November 2008 (UTC) "On the other hand, some analysts credit Tony Blair with persuading President Bush to pursue his case for intervention in Iraq initially by seeking to secure resolutions through the United Nations." however this is uncited and has no support!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section as Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for its own articles. Facts must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. Road Wizard (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that an anon IP editor is continuing to restore this section despite it relying entirely on unacceptable sources. Unfortunately if this continues, the only option I will have will be to start issuing vandal warnings. Please take this opportunity to find alternate sources and engage with other editors on the issue of the section not conforming to the neutral point of view policy. Road Wizard (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Now got non-wiki sources!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now with all non-wiki sources, also might be good not to delete the criticism bit as it conforms with NPOV!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Havo2 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you are wanting a specific section labelled "criticism"? As the content of the section is already provided in the main body of the text, the section seems rather redundant. Also, specifically titled "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections are not a good thing to have in the majority of articles as they tend to attract more than their fair share of negatively phrased statements and they do not lend themselves well to including the other sides of an issue. As such it is often difficult for a Criticism section to comply with the neutral point of view policy. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed into main body, thanks for reaching an compromise! Havo2

If you said that to start with I could have done it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.249.247 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Formation in late 19th century or early 20th century?

Opinions on when Labour was formed …

The Labour Representation Committee [or LRC] was established in February 1900, at a conference of the Independent Labour Party [or ILP] (which had formed in 1893). The ILP conference of 1900 comprised of 129 delegates, most of whom were trade unionists, who agreed to the establishment of a new body to represent working class opinion in the House of Commons - they pledged themselves to having a “distinct Labour Group in Parliament, who shall have their own Whips, and agree upon their policy, which must embrace a readiness to co-operate with any party which for the time being may be engaged in promoting legislation in the direct interest of labour, and be equally ready to associate themselves with any party in opposing measures having an opposite tendency”.

This new body - or ‘distinct Labour Group’ - was not envisaged as a somehow separate to the ILP. Indeed, some of the leadership of the LRC was that of the ILP, and the two organisations operated for the most part in unison, as elements of a greater whole. The ILP was a national political movement of organised labour, while the LRC was this national movement’s parliamentary body. At the general election of 1906, the LRC won 29 parliamentary seats - and became commonly known as the Labour Party in Parliament. The ‘Labour Party’ henceforth developed.

What is today known as ‘the Labour Party’ directly emanates from the 1906 electoral success of the LRC, and many historical commentators (including contributors to this article) view the Labour Party as having been formed in 1906. Yet in 1906 the term ‘Labour Party’ referred - in this context - only to the parliamentary wing of the LRC. Further still, this Committee - formed in 1900 - was conceived as nothing more than a means for the national political movement of organised labour - that is, the ILP - to gain parliamentary representation. This Independent Labour Party - then commonly referred to as ‘Labour’ or ‘the Labour Party’ - was formally established in early 1893 (the Wikipedia’s article on this offers a good commentary).

Yes, certain names became obsolete with time - as ‘the (parliamentary) Labour Party’ developed, so the LRC and the ILP became redundant terms of reference. Nonetheless, it is inaccurate to suppose that the Labour Party was ‘founded at the start of the 20th century’ - as this article does. This parliamentary party became known simply as “the Labour Party” from 1906 onwards - but this political party (as a national party) has its point of origin in the late 19th century, formed as “the Independent Labour Party”, then commonly known as the ‘Labour Party’.

Maybe this should be taken into account. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Practically every history of the Labour Party takes 1900 as the starting point, although 1906 is not without significance (and a couple of years ago was as good a reason as any for Labour parties). The conference was not just the ILP (Miliband appears to be mistaken) but also trade unions and socialist societies coming together for a joint purpose of getting favourable working class representation. Whilst the ILP played a key role in the formation, the conference was called by the TUC on the suggestion of a railway union. Seeing the LRC and PLP as just the ILP with knobs on is not how the numerous histories handle it. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you - many historians do take 1900 as Labour's "starting point". The year 1900 saw the formation of the Labour Representative Committee [LRC]; yet, as far as I'm aware, it did not officially refer to itself as "the Labour Party". As you say, 1906 is important too - since this was when the Parliamentary Labour Party was formed. Since then, this political party has simply been known as "the Labour Party". Yet, many people made reference to "the Labour Party" pre-1906, and pre-1900. This was reference to the Independent Labour Party [ILP], that formed in 1893. The LRC, which from 1906 became known as the Labour Party, was in many important ways a part of (and developed from) the ILP. Since references can be found - regarding Labour Party documents and genuine academic materials - that support the position that the Labour Party (or, rather, what became known as the Labour Party) existed prior to 1900, I believe this should be included in the article. The Labour Party went through a process of formation between 1893-1906, existing in differing forms during this period. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There were several Labour MPs before 1906 because of by-elections (although I'm not sure if they got as far as organising a formal parliamentary party with recognition, whips etc...), but 1906 is seen as the key electoral breakthrough and the name change was really a cosmetic change (and claiming to be the party for Labour, whatever the Lib-Labs might claim) rather than any great move. The Labour Party was formed by groups creating an organisation and affiliating to it, and that organisation did not exist before the 1900 conference even if individual affiliates did. Labour has always been the most rule book orientated of the three main parties and has the least disputed origin of the three (as opposed to people arguing the significance of an 1859 meeting vis a vis the usage of "Liberal" for years before then; or the whole Tory/Conservative issue). You're overreading the ILP's role, when it was only one part of the coalition that formed the LRC and did not have union backing. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true that, by 1906 (following the general election of that year), what is today thought of as ‘the Labour Party’ was in in existence. Yes, several ‘Labour’ MP’s existed before then, but the parliamentary Labour Party formed at that time. This article refers to the Labour Party as having been established in 1900 - and it is the exactness of this proclamation that I find a little dubious. It was the Labour Representative Committee [LRC], not the Labour Party as such, that formed in 1900.

Yes, the LRC was a predecessor of what is today considered the Labour Party. If one aims to trace the history of Labour, one must acknowledge the significance of the LRC. Yet, notwithstanding the importance of the LRC, the Independent Labour Party [ILP] was also an immediate predecessor of modern Labour. As you rightly say, many groups went to form Labour (associated with the labour movement generally, and trade-unionism in particular). For example, the Social Democratic Federation (founded in 1883) played a role. Yet the decisive forerunner of the Labour Party was the ILP (see Nairn, ‘The Nature of the Labour Party’ in “Towards Socialism”, eds. Anderson & Blackburn, 1965, p.162 - indeed, Nairn precisely refers to the ILP in this way, as the group that directly led to modern Labour). As time went on, the influence of the ILP waned - by the beginning of the 20th century, the ILP had formed the ‘left-wing’ of Labour (while Fabianism formed the ‘right-wing’).

My point is only that the attempt to precisely and categorically state that the Labour Party was established in 1900 is something that can be contested. The matter is rather more problematic, and as such the article might useful stress this contestation. The Labour Party formed circa 1900. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the Labour Party is not just the Parliamentary Labour Party. Labour was a party formally founded outside Parliament not inside it. It is the full organisation and that was very clearly formally founded in 1900, only renamed in 1906 and reorganised in 1918. Ramsay MacDonald was the Secretary of the organisation from 1900 to 1912, Arthur Henderson the Treasurer 1904 to 1912 (and then they swapped) - these were the same posts in the same body throughout despite the name change. There is a big difference between forerunner bodies, including those who played a part in founding the organisation, and the formal organisation itself. Precision is clear in this case because by this time it was possible to definitively create an organisation through a founding meeting, adoption of a constitution, creation and election of officers and so forth. That produced definitive dates that says for certain when the LRC came into being and that is the Labour Party in existence to this day. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to accept - if documentation produced by the Labour Party itself, clearly stating that it 'came into existence' in 1900 (formally or informally), e.g. a founding declaration at a conference, can be cited as verifiable evidence - that this article should reflect such evidence. In which case, the article in this regard is sound, and what it presently declares should stand. However, the article does not - so far as I can tell - cite such evidence.

My reading on the history of the Labour Party (which, of course, is incomplete) leads me to the position that: (a) many associations, groupings, etc, of the broad labour movement were involved - especially from the 1880's - in the development of the establishment of the Labour Party; (b) a most significant 'player' in this development was the Independent Labour Party [ILP], especially during the 1890's; (c) the ILP, together with others (including Fabians and non-ILP trade unions), established the Labour Representative Committee [LRC] in 1900; (d) the LRC was essentially an expression of the 'joint interests' of the ILP and others, existing simultaneously both as ‘part of’ yet ’separate from’ these groups (such are the complexities and paradoxes of life); (e) the LRC was primarily aimed at gaining parliamentary representation for Labour; (f) the two fundamental traditions shaping Labour were the ILP (its ethical and emotional socialist perspectives) and the Fabian Society (its intellect and pragmatism); (g) the LRC won a number of seats in the 1906 general election, and subsequently referred to itself (and was referred to by others) as 'the Parliamentary Labour Party' [PLP]; (h) the PLP is not - as Timrollpickering says - the Labour Party, but only part of it. The Labour Party pre-dates 1906, and in this context historians tend to focus on the LRC; (i) this 'looking back' to only 1900 is somewhat too narrow - as it fails to recognise the importance of the ILP (which, incidentally, was referred to by many as the Labour Party pre-1900). What this does is suggest that the issue is somewhat contestable.

Nonetheless, for the purposes of this article I accept that the year 1900 may be given as that in which the Labour Party was established - so long as verifiable evidence (hopefully something from Labour itself) can be cited. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Having examined some of the Labour Party’s own material, I believe an informed resolution may be arrived at. Regarding its own history, the Labour Party refers to “its emergence in 1900 as a parliamentary pressure group”. In this regard, it says of itself that “The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of hard effort by working people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of changing the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody. Ignored by the Tories and disillusioned with the Liberals, a coalition of different interests came together to push for change at a Conference on Labour Representation in London's Memorial Hall in February 1900.” (see http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party).

It would seem clear-cut then. But, in aiming to understand itself, Labour acknowledges that “The conference of February 1900 had not even created a proper 'party.' Instead the new body was called the Labour Representation Committee and it had no members, only organisations affiliated to it.” (see the above reference).

So, although Labour recognises its emergence in 1900, it was not in fact a ‘proper’ political party - it was “a parliamentary pressure group”, with no actual membership. It would seem reasonable, then, to: (a) question whether the Labour Representative Committee [LRC] really constituted the emergence of the Labour Party as such; and (b) look towards the organisations affiliated to LRC as comprising the foundation of the Labour Party.

These two suggestions are paradoxical - the former highlights the possibility that the Labour Party was not established until some time after 1900, i.e. when it constituted a ‘proper’ political party (named as such, and with a membership). While the latter seeks to look before 1900, to the then existing affiliated organisations that together comprised the LRC.

If we look post-1900, on the basis on the (simple) criteria outlined, then 1906 is a reasonable suggestion for the year of formation of the Labour Party (given that, in 1906, it started to call itself a party and had a membership). If we look pre-1900, again on the basis of the criteria presented, then we can locate the emergence of Labour in the 1880’s and 1890’s (with growing trade unionism, the founding of the Social Democratic Federation in 1883, the establishment of the Fabian Society in 1884, and the founding of the Independent Labour Party in 1893 - as well as others), i.e. the development of the organised labour movement that ‘evolved’ into the Labour Party.

This article is not the place to ‘debate’ such matters - but, given that verifiable sources can be provided that highlight the contested ‘point of formation’ of the Labour Party, I think it only reasonable that this contestation is mentioned in the article. Nonetheless, insomuch as the Labour Party declares itself as having ‘emerged’ in 1900, so it is only right - for the purposes of this article - that this year be cited. Since the article already states 1900 as the year in question, this aspect of the article should remain unaltered. The usefulness of this discussion, then, has been twofold - (1) it has allowed space so as to highlight the fact that, while 1900 is a citable year for Labour’s establishment, such an attempt at precision is (at least in part) questionable, even when looking at Labour’s own self-history; and (2) the year 1900 can be verifiably referred to, as a source has been found. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Some technical inaccuracies ...

I just thought I’d offer a comment for wider discussion concerning some of the description (of supposed facts) in this article. Any opinions on this matter are welcome …

The opening section describes “the current national Labour government” as having “won a landslide 179 seat majority in the 1997 general election”. This is not quite accurate. The Labour Party has been in office since 1997, and won that year’s general election with a 179 seat Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons. However, at each subsequent election a new Labour government has - formally and legally - been formed. Thus, different Labour governments took office in 1997, 2001, and 2005. The Labour Party was re-elected at each of the general elections following 1997 - but two points need clarification: (1) technically, the British government is not elected - it is appointed (by the monarch) - although the political party with the largest elected representation in the House of Commons is appointed; (2) whilst the Labour Party was elected in 1997, and re-elected in both 2001 and 2005, as a result of each of these general elections the residing monarch appointed a new Labour government on each occasion. Thus, bearing on the second point, the current Labour government was appointed in 2005 after having won that year’s general election.

We should, accordingly, speak of the current Labour government as having taken office following the general election of 2005 - not 1997. I can understand why the year 1997 is given, but it is technically inaccurate. Other articles on this matter repeat this mistake. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a pile of assumptions and wrong. Technically a general election is for a parliament and when the same party retains a majority there is no reappointment - the government stays in power. Thus Thatcher had only one term from 1979 to 1990, Blair only one from 1997 to 2007. Technically a new government was formed in 2007 when Blair resigned and Brown was appointed, as the PM's resignation is that of his government as a whole. However for all practical, non-technical, political purposes changing the PM does not mean a new government. Thus people talk about the National Government of 1931-1940 as one entity not three, the 1951-1964 Conservative government as one not four, the 1979-1997 government as one and so forth... Timrollpickering (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. You are right when you say that people talk about a government as continuing so long as the same political party wins consecutive elections and thus holds office (e.g. the Conservatives, from 1979 to 1997). However, you are factually incorrect when you claim that: “Thatcher had only one term from 1979 to 1990, Blair only one from 1997 to 2007.”

While I fully understand that this use of language is rather common, the fact is Thatcher had three terms in office. Blair served two full terms in office - and a partial third term. As the leader of the political party that ‘won’ a general election (i.e. gained a majority of parliamentary seats), so Thatcher / Blair took, and later re-took, office. By way of example, one may accurately speak of Blair as being in office from 2 May 1997 to 27 June 2007; but, as a result of each election victory, he was appointed (or re-appointed) to office - as such, this constitutes three terms of office. In so doing, on each occasion the parliamentary Labour Party formed a new government. To offer a quote, from the BBC, which illustrates the fact Blair had three terms in office (not just one, as you claim):

“Tony Blair has won a historic third term in government for Labour but with a drastically reduced majority … Mr Blair and his wife Cherie left Downing Street at 1100 BST for a 30 minute audience with the Queen at Buckingham Palace - the private meeting where she asks him to form a new government.” (Friday, 6 May, 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519863.stm).

Not only does this refer to Blair having 3 terms in office, but it also states that - following a general election - he formed a new government. The fact is, the residing monarch always formally asks a new government to be formed following a general election - even if the sitting PM / governing political party is “re-elected”. I realise that this BBC report does not constitute ‘hard evidence’ - but it was quick to find, and many, many more such reports exist which declare the same thing.

A serving Prime Minister sets the date for a general election by seeking permission from the monarch to dissolve parliament. At that point, the current parliament comes to an end, and MP’s cease to hold their position (and must seek re-election if they wish to remain an MP). You are again correct when you say “a general election is for a parliament” - but the facts are: (1) briefly, in the period between the calling of a general election and the actual holding of that election, there are no MP’s and there is no parliament; (2) the government that forms after an election does so only on the basis of the new parliament, i.e. the newly elected or re-elected MP’s, and thus it constitutes a new government.

Of course, so that the nation is not left without a government during the interim (between the calling of an election and the results of the election being known), the existing government remains in office. Further, so long as a serving PM retains office - i.e. the party they lead wins the election - they do not return their seals of office as PM to the monarch - that is, they do not resign. But once an election result is known, and in the case of a party retaining a parliamentary majority, so a new government is formed from this new parliament. Such a new government is commonly spoken of in terms of the ‘old’ government being ‘re-elected’, but technically this is incorrect. The monarch appoints a new government (even if it headed by the same PM).

The problem here is that common, informal uses of language have come to dominate our understanding of these matters. We speak of Blair’s government and refer to 1997-2007 - when in actual fact we should speak of the Blair governments, 1997-2001, 2001-2005, and 2005-7.

As such, the article is formally and factually incorrect when it says “The current national Labour government won a landslide 179 seat majority in the 1997 general election under the leadership of Tony Blair”. In reality, the current national Labour government won the 2005 general election. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself admit BBC News stories are not hard and fast evidence. It's true there's a convention of a re-elected winner still visiting the Queen, in part to remind them who is boss but also it's the nearest thing there is to a formal declaration of victory. Yes it gets reported as the Queen asking Blair to form a government but where's the evidence that the PM tenders the resignation of the existing government (and that for a few moments there is no government, but more crucially existing ministers lose office when the government's resignation is tendered and would have to be reappointed) and accepts a new commission? Practically everyone else contributing to the pages, including several other political scientists, have not noticed this and instead have been routinely reverting attempts to claim various PMs had multiple terms in a single period. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Timrollpickering is wrong when he says “when the same party retains a majority there is no reappointment - the government stays in power.” The preceding government ceases to exist, and the monarch grants permission for the formation of a new government. If a political party retains a majority, it serves another term in office (separate and distinct from its previous term, and from any future term). This position is not “a pile of assumptions” as Timrollpickering suggests, rather it is informed description. I have already replied to such remarks (above), entering into a little more detail. I could, if required, delve into this matter in great depth. I am a social scientist, lecturing at a British university, and have been involved in understanding the political system for many years. However, I think this could be resolved quickly - and hence, below, I offer a few references (to on-line material) that further support my discussion. If this will not suffice, I’ll get out the more weightier references …

The BBC stated, on June 20th 2001, that “The Queen is about to unveil a raft of new legislation to herald the start of Labour's second term of government.” See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1397733.stm.

On June 21st 2002 the Guardian stated, with regard to the results of the 2001 general election, “Tony Blair yesterday unveiled the programme for Labour's historic second term, promising to deliver on his mandate to bring about ‘the most fundamental reform of public services for many years’.” See http://politics.guardian.co.uk/stateopening2001/

Even though Blair had been in office 1997-2001, the fact that he won the election of 2001 meant that he had to again visit the Queen (as he had done in 1997) to be granted permission to form a new government (see the official site of the PM’s office - http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page1592).

These references point to the fact that: (a) a political party that ‘wins’ consecutive general elections serves more than one term in office (thus, for example, the Conservatives had four terms in the period 1979-97); (b) upon a political party being ‘re-elected’ in this way, the monarch formally grants permission for a new government to be formed (thus, to illustrate, Blair formed three governments as a consequence of the general elections of 1997, 2001, and 2005).

Wikipedia should not make the mistake of portraying such matters in an incorrect manner simply because in common language many people refer erroneously to the such terms as ‘government’, ‘office’, ‘term’, etc.. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary (which aim to be defended simply by saying I offer nothing more than assumptions), the article should be changed. I’ve cited evidence, and discuss the matter objectively (without use of original research). The current Labour government came into existence in 2005; for this article to say that “The current national Labour government won a landslide 179 seat majority in the 1997 general election” is inaccurate. The article needs to be changed. I’ve put forward reasons (based on evidence) for this change. Maybe others should partake in this debate. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For someone speaking against using the terms casually you're relying on an awful lot of casual news reports. There's nothing in Blair's 2001 speech explicitly stating that he has tendered the resignation of his 1997-2001 government (or been dismissed by the Queen and formed a new one (which, as I understand it, does however happen in some other countries such as Australia). The "second term" in the Guardian report is casual usage like everything else. A decent source on this would be a political science textbook (or reputable website) delving into the specifics, not the BBC and Guardian coverage. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply ...

These are not ‘casual’ news reports - they are not ad hoc, but specific to the subject - detailing particular instances and occurrences relating to constitutional arrangements concerning the relationship between the monarch and the prime minister, regarding the dissolution and formation of governments, and exemplify the results of recent elections. The BBC reports are used, since they explicitly refer to the re-election of Labour in 2001 and 2005 as, respectively, as Labour’s ‘second’ and ‘third’ terms in office. The Guardian report similarly refers to Labour’s 2001 election victory as a ‘second term’ in office. The third reference, to an official government web-site, affirms that a ‘sitting’ PM - if they are re-elected as such - seeks formal permission from the residing monarch to form a new government.

Many other such references can be readily found. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to Blair’s 2001 re-election as resulting in a ‘second term’ (see, e.g., http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68756/Tony-Blair/277073/Second-term). While the 2005 election resulted in a ‘third term’ (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68756/Tony-Blair/277074/Third-term). The Independent does the same (see, e.g., http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-adopts-radical-approach-to-a-second-term-695598.html).

The process of government formation is, put simply, like this: parliament is elected, whereupon the party with a majority of seats (typically) forms government, and its party leader becomes prime minister (with the monarch granting formal permission for this). This government then serves a term in office. When the PM calls the subsequent election, parliament is dissolved (and sitting MP’s no longer hold office). Note, I nowhere said the PM resigns, or that government is dissolved (as Timrollpickering implies). If the ‘sitting’ PM is re-elected (i.e. the political party he / she leads once again gains a majority), so they once again visit the monarch and are again granted permission to form a new government (one that reflects the newly elected parliamentary composition), and they embark upon a new (e.g. second or third) term of office. For more ‘academic’ references, as compared to those already offered, I’ve (very quickly) just picked up a random selection of books from my shelf and found that this use of terminology (no pun intended) is used. Being brief, here is what can be found: Professor Miliband, speaking of Labour’s re-election in 1950, says that Labour now “entered its second term” (‘Parliamentary Socialism’, 1972, p.310); Professor Hughes refers to “the Conservative governments of 1951-64” (‘Picking over the Remains’ in ‘Unsettling Welfare’, eds. Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p.5); while Professor Lewis speaks of “the Thatcher governments” (‘Coming Apart at the Seams’ in ‘Unsettling Welfare’, eds. Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p49); Professor Clarke discusses “the Conservative governments of the 1990’s” (‘Consumerism’ in ‘Imagining Welfare Futures’, ed. Hughes, 1998, p.43); and, elsewhere, Clarke - with Professor Newman - examines, speaking prior to Labour’s 1997 election, the “succession of New Right influenced governments which have dominated British politics from the end of the 1970’s” (‘The Managerial Revolution’, 1997, p. x).

It is clearly wrong - and based on assumption / original research - to suppose, as Timrollpickering does, that “Thatcher had only one term from 1979 to 1990, Blair only one from 1997 to 2007.” In reality, Thatcher had 3 terms (while the Conservatives, during the 1979-1997 period, served 4 terms), and Blair had 3 terms (although he only served a partial 3rd term). Contrary to the claim made by Timrollpickering, being in office 1979-97, the Conservatives formed a succession of governments (plural). This is always the case when a PM (or, rather, a political party) is re-elected - so, for example, Labour formed a 1945-50 government, and formed another government 1950-51. One should not, if trying to be accurate, refer to the 1945-51 Labour government. Rather, one should speak of the 1945-50 government and the 1950-51 government, or the 1945-51 governments (again, plural). In this way, Professor Nairn refers to the “Labour Government of 1945-50” as distinct from that of 1950-51 (‘The Nature of the Labour Party’ in ‘Towards Socialism’, eds. Anderson & Blackburn, 1965, p.p. 190, 195, 205).

If a general election results in a PM being re-elected, they enter a new term of office. Timrollpickering is in this sense inaccurate to suppose that PM’s cannot serve “multiple terms in a single period”. Or, rather, it is more appropriate to consider each term as a single period. I’ve now presented a range of references, all of which support what I’m saying. I acknowledge that many people speak in a manner that differs from the one presented here - but their poor use of lexicon and terminology, or their lack of knowledge on the subject, should not result in an erroneous article. The article should not speak of the “current national Labour government” as having “won” in 1997. Rather, the Labour Party took office in 1997, and has subsequently been returned to office in 2001 and 2005, and is presently serving its 3rd consecutive term as government. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still just citing people describing the government post re-election as a "second term". This usage is common, particularly because of the influence of the much clearer American system encourages people to think of a re-election as a new term (and from a historical point of view both the political capital of the election victory and the size of the majority often mean that each parliament does have distinct terms), but usage (even in narrative text) does not show the actual situation of the outgoing government being dismissed. The most obvious case is February/March 1974 - the Heath government left office four days after the election and only when attempts to govern with Liberal and/or Ulster Unionist support failed. On your assertion of the outgoing government ceasing to exist (and the expectation of many Labour activists) the government should have instantly lost power on the Friday. There is nothing in Heath's memoirs about being recommissioned by the Queen for three days (and if there had been it would have been a major constitutional crisis; his memoirs in other places tackle controversies head on). David Butler's analysis "Governing without a majority" from 1982 looks in detail at situations relating precisely to this point and notes quite clearly that in a post-election hung parliament there would not a level playing field in the game of trying to form a stable government as the pre-election Prime Minister would have the advantage as the incumbent to retain power until either they felt like resigning or the other parties in Parliament combined to vote the government out. You say "Note, I nowhere said the PM resigns, or that government is dissolved", but a new government can't come into existence whilst the old one still exists! When exactly was the appointment of the Prime Minister and government ever formally coupled to the general election?

See also the past discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#What is the term of the British prime minister? and Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#"term" of office where many others have addressed this point as well and no-one has produced any sources that actually support your assertion. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And note also Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#Characteristics of Prime Ministers and their ministries which says:

There is no term of office for a prime minister; the prime minister holds office "at Her Majesty's pleasure"... By tradition, before a new Prime Minister can enter 10 Downing Street for the first time as its occupant, they are required to announce to the country and the world that they have kissed hands with the reigning monarch, and thus has become Prime Minister. This is usually done by saying words to the effect of:

"Her Majesty the Queen [His Majesty the King] has asked me to form a government and I have accepted."

Although it wasn't required, Tony Blair also said these words after he was re-elected in 2001 and 2005.

The period in office of a Prime Minister is not linked to the term of Members of the House of Commons. A prime minister once appointed continues in office until either they resign, are dismissed (in reality something not likely to happen except in exceptional circumstances) or die... Where a prime minister loses a general election modern constitution conventions dictate that that prime minister immediately submit their resignation.

(Emphasis mine.) Really that article, rather than this one, is the place to raise this objection as it encompasses far more than this article. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Useful stuff - but none of it contradicts my point. In accordance with Wikipedia, I've cited verifiable evidence (now, 14 references - including multiple academic materials). I think that now, having said quite a bit on this topic, others besides myself and Timrollpickering should contribute - offering informed discussion on the matter. I’ll simply add the following statements (and a quote from Blair) that explicitly show that, as far as the Labour Party is concerned, whenever it is re-elected (as it was, for example, in 1950, 1966, 2001 and 2005) it both enters a new term in office and constitutes a new government. These are taken from Labour’s own web-site - pages http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party2 and http://www.labour.org.uk/historyofthelabourparty3).

“By 1950 the Labour government had achieved most of its pledges in Let Us Face the Future. Indeed the party appeared to have run out of steam. The election of that year saw Labour’s majority cut to only five, and the new government could not remain in office for long.” (emphasis added).

“Wilson's 1964-70 governments achieved much of what they set out to do.” (emphasis added).

“On 7 June 2001 Tony Blair led Labour to a second successive victory in a General Election, winning by another landslide. Labour won a majority of 167. Four years later, on 5 May 2005, Labour achieved a first in its history: a third consecutive term in government. Labour had run a positive campaign on investment in public services including the slogan "If you value it, vote for it" in the run up to polling day. The Tories, in contrast, led by Michael Howard had run a negative campaign, largely on immigration and crime. Labour's majority was 67. On the steps of Downing Street the next day, Tony Blair said: "It's a tremendous honour and privilege to be elected for a third term and I'm acutely conscious of that honour and that privilege.” (emphasis added).

Given that this article is on the Labour Party, these statements are important. Again, it’s further evidence - that is both on and from the Labour Party, and includes a description of events by a Prime Minister - all of which supports a change in the article. Remember, all I'm saying is that the article should not refer to the current Labour government as having won the 1997 election. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Credit Crunch, Recession and Minor shift to the LEFT

Since the pre budget report, labour's policies have included raising the top rate of tax from 40% to 45%, ending personal allowances for top rate earners, a keyenesian fiscal stimulus boost which involves expanding the public sector significantly to create jobs building infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc.

several banks have been fully nationalized in 2008 (northern rock and bradford and bingley) and the 8 major banks have been bailed out where the government now owns about a 50% stake in them.

There are also plans to bailout jaguar car makers. Gordon Brown says neo-liberalism is dead.

Society has changed, and the New Labour government, along with governments accross the world, have essentially shifted to the "Left" for pragmatic reasons and adopted a more statist and interventionist approach to the economy.

It might be worth highlighting some of this in the article.

(also, the glenroathes by-election victory needs to be mentioned.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.195.176 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM Ideology: Free Market liberalism, neo-liberalism

Someone has put free market liberalism and neo-liberalism in the ideology section of the labour party page. No labour MP has ever described themselves as a free marketeer or a neo liberal.

Im going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.195.176 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideology in infobox

Is Labour really trade unionist nowadays, since new labour there has been a economics shift towards the conservatives. It's hard to imagine the Labour party standing up for unions nowadays.wiesel (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority of Labour Party members, and virtually all Labour MPs, are trade union members. The party's internal electoral electoral system gives the same collegiate weighting to votes cast by trade union members as it does to Labour Party members and Labour MPs, all on the basis of one member, one vote - a system brought in by New Labour, as a matter of fact. It is also the only political party in Britain to which trade unions are affiliated, thus granting a vote within that party to each member of those affiliated unions, without the need for them to be a member of that party. Similar rules apply to delegation and representation within the various structural institutions of the Labour Party. Therefore it's fair to say that the Labour Party is very much a trade unionist party nowadays, if not more so than it was before. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions seem to add excessive detail to the infobox, making it the opposite of a quick digest of facts for readers.

I propose removing the following: <br> Third way,<br> Trade Unionism,<br> Communitarianism,<ref>[http://exeter.openrepos/ http://exeter.openrepos]itory.com/exeter/bitstream/10036/22233/2/jswflart.pdf]</ref><br> Libertarian Socialism,<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/199903120018 http://www.newstatesman.com/199903120018]]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.guard]ian.co.uk/politics/2002/oct/27/policy.tonyblair]</ref><br> Localism<ref>[[http://www./ http://www.]independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-considers-new-localism-as-the-bigbanner-policy-for-a-third-term-540455.html]</ref>

Although I don't dispute that these are associated with the party as a collective, or with Brown, Blair or Peter Hain, such detail should be in the ideology section of the article, not the infobox. I think the infobox should say merely:

Ideology: Democratic socialism, social democracy
Position: Centre-left

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think keeping trade unionism and third way is sensible, but the others should go. If you were to list all the idealogies of any major political party, the list would be very loong, Labour is no expection. We should just keep the core idealogies of Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, Third Way and Trade Unionism. --92.20.122.56 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Info Box must retain the Third Way because Tony Blair organized international meetings to promote the Third Way with other Centre Left Party leaders, and members of the Labour Party (The New labour variety) frequently use the term the Third Way, Anthony Giddens who helped create the Third Way has influenced New Labour strongly and is well aquainted to members of the Labour party.

Many of the New Labour gang have mentioned communitairanism, localism and even libertarian socialism, so it needs a brief mentioning in the ideology section. Perhaps mentioning Foundation Hospitals and Devolution in relation to communitarianism and localism is neccessary. Almost every other centre left party in the world mentions the third way in the info box, 3 ideologies is not too many, Labour is clearly no longer democratic socialist, and lacks many social democratic traits too, the Third Way best describes Labour's current dominant ideology.

A touch optimistic?

are on aim to take the lead again towards a 4th term in office

Would that it were so, but I don't think the party's quite there yet. Is there polling data to support this? BTLizard (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation 4 (A & B)

The citations 4a & 4b only lead to the current Labour policy website, which states nothing about pre-Neil Kinnock party policy (specifically about how origins as a party, were to represent low wage workers, etc.).

I don't think the information is wrong, but the citation should be corrected.

March 23, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.41.103 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it possible to lock this page for a while, as a anononmous person is consently vandalising the page. --92.1.144.199 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are refering to edits such as this - that is not vandalism, see WP:Vandalism for what consitutes "Vandalism". Adding un-sourced or biased information to an article isn't vandalism either - though in this case references are provided. And the edits are, to an extent, reasonable, as I'd say Labour is closer to neo-libertarianism than it is to democratic socialism, but thats a matter of debate, I beleive they define themselves as "Democratic Socialists", so I guess that is what wikipedia should list them as. However, the point remains that these edits are not vandalism, par se, and even if they were they are not repeated enough to warrant a page protection, in my opinion.--Tangent747 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Manifesto

My site has a copy of the full Labour Party Manifesto and their 'At A Glance' section. We're driving towards having all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format (which is why I thought it may be useful for Wikipedia). I noticed in the 'Other' External links it has an archive of Labour Manifestos up to 2001, the link below contains the entire 2005 Manifesto and 'Summary' policies from their site - all the content, except the 'At A Glance' sections are contained in PDF files on the Labour website. As more and more manifestos are added over time, in my opinion, it could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. Labour Party Manifesto Contents Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. Jdfjurn (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Factions needed & Neo-liberal vandalism

Are factions actually needed in the idealogy box? I think it makes it look very messy, and the Lib Dems, nationalist parties, and other British parties do not have them (and the Tories only have "Internal Factions" father than split up into rigid faction types by idealogy. I think it is much simplier and neater just not to have them. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Labour is not "Neo-Liberal" its alraady has been discussed above, and on several occasions. I personally consider it vandalism to put it in the information box. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC) What you think Labour is or isn't is irrelevant, neither is the truth of what they are. If there are reliable sources that say Labour is neo-liberal then that suffices for WP's purposes. Also, deleting sourced information purely because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a no-no and amounts to vandalism, the WP definition of vandalism not your strange definition of it. --WebHamster 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my defination, and the defination of other wiki users who have also editted calling Labour neo-liberal in the past. I am pretty sure that I can dig up " reiable sources" claiming that the Tories are racists, or whatever, but just because they are there, don't meant that they are right. Wikipedia should be accurate, its meant to be an enclopedia. The, it is accurate to say that Labour is not "neo-liberal" and indeed, it is contridicting the other idealogies. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. Accuracy, truth and editor's opinions are all irrelevant based on WP's guidelines. Information in WP is what can be verified not what any one editor thinks is true (personally I think the Labour Party is "Tory Lite" but you don't see me adding it to the article do you?). And if you can find a reliable source that states that the Tories are racist then by all means add it to the Tory article, no-one's stopping you. Meanwhile I recommend you do some reading up on WP's rules with regard to WP:RS and WP:OR before you continue making edits to this, or any other article. --WebHamster 17:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you are being somewhat offencive in your manner, maybe even flamebaiting, but leaving that to one side, I have found the following counter arguements to Labour being "neo-liberal", apart from Clause IV of the Labour Party, and the other contridictory idealogies in the ldealogy box and various policies, I believe the following links along democratate that it is very dodgy, even with "sources" to claim Labour is neo-liberal:

[4] [5]

If I had time I could find more. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If I wished to be offensive I would be...in spades. The fact of the matter is that you are being 'offended' by merely being told something you disagree with and ultimately don't like. I really don't care what pseudo-political ideology label you wish to come up with, they are all bull to me and are all just variations on a theme, i.e. something made up one day by a political science academic with time on his hands. The fact still remains that the pointers I have given you as to the workings of WP still trump what you you believe to be true. Personally I disbelieve most of the output of both the Grauniad and the Newstatesman, but what I believe is irrelevant. The infobox is not the place for generating a 'they are' versus 'they're not' debate. Neither is Wikipedia. If you wish to use the sources you have unearthed to place an alternate viewpoint then I suggest that you do so in the main body of the article rather than the infobox. Before you do so though I suggest you take a look at WP:SYNTHESIS first. In the meantime as you find my "manner somewhat offencive" (sic) I suggest you poke your head into WP:WQA and report it. Fair warning though, you may find that the responses you get may not be the ones you wanted. It's up to you. I'm just pointing out the relevant guidelines. Whether or not you heed them is up to you. --WebHamster 23:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideology...again

I hate to bring this up again but the ideology section of the infobox is far to cluttered. Information on the precise politics of internal factions is what the main body of the text is for. I'd say that all you need in the infobox is "Social Democracy, Third Way, Democratic Socialism" Jh39 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree completely. It looks really out of place having "factions" in it and then posting the alledged idealogy for that "faction", the Conservatives only have "internal factions" and then a list of three of those "factions" rather then listing the idealogy of the side "faction" It makes little sense to have "General", "Leadership", "Centre-left faction" and "Left wing faction", it just looks messy. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The way it looks just now is ridiculous. Firstly, there is no centre-left 'faction' in the sense of an organised group; simply members of the party who neither associate with the centrist leadership nor the hard left. Also, trade unionism is a basic foundation of the party, so to suggest that only the centre left 'faction' adheres to unionism is ridiculous.

Neo-liberalism shouldn't be in the infobox. Currently, Labour (particularly the leadership) have a policy of combining neo-liberalism, the thatcherite consensus, with strong welfare provision ala social democracy. This defines the Third Way philosophy. So the neo-liberal aspect of New Labour's philosophy is simply a component of it's adherence to Third Way:

"The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepreneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about. So in the words of... Anthony Giddens of the LSE the Third Way rejects top down socialism as it rejects traditional neo liberalism."

[6]

So it makes sense that only Third Way be mentioned in the infobox.

I see you edited the infobox to remove the clutter, but it's been reverted. I'd hope the reverter will explain his/her reasons for doing so here. Jh39 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The three core idealogies of Labour (democratic socialism, social democracy and third way) are all that really needed in the idealogy box. If WebHamster is so obessed with neo-liberalism, he should add it somehwere in the "New Labour" section of the page, rather then cluttering up the idealogy box. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

'Third Way' is used by partisan sources. 'Neo-Liberalism' is used more frequently by non-partisan academic sources as a description of Labour's ideology. I understand Labour members feel uncomfortable with this description of their ideas, and prefer to use 'Third Way' as a kind of fudge description that means all things to everyone. In an encyclopedia however, we do not decide who is right or wrong, or what the subject of the article would prefer, but do try to reflect accurately what published sources are saying about the subject. Not to include 'Neo-Liberalism' in the list of descriptions of Labour ideologies would be to disregard a huge portion of the available published sources. (a few of which are cited below) Riversider (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Trade Union Link

The current state of Labour's relationship with certain Trade Unions should be reflected in this article, it has worsened considerably, even since 2004. I've tried to add more recent developments such as the highly critical CWU resolution to TUC conference, which represents a significant ratcheting up of the strain in the link, as does the recent London CWU consultative vote, where 98% voted to withdraw funding from Labour. It's suggested that I've given this latter development 'undue weight', actually it's pretty unprecedented. The references are there, I can't see any good editorial reason to downplay these strains, or the importance of the Trade Unions to Labour, throughout it's history.

Neo-Liberalism

I've been watching the edit war going on round the inclusion or not of the word 'Neo-Liberalism' to describe Labour's ideology. There are loads of citations out there that would back up the use of the term, for example most recently: "New Labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers' rights" Paul Smith (2009) Industrial Relations Journal volume 40 issue 4 pp337 - 355

Paul Smith was formerly Senior Lecturer at the School of Economic and Management Studies, Keele University.

Here's the abstract:

"The assumptions and values of neoliberalism came to dominate the Conservative governments, 1979–97, inspiring a range of policies that included industrial relations and employment law. Inasmuch as New Labour has adopted many of these policies then it can be presumed to have accepted their neoliberal underpinnings. Moreover, New Labour's policies owe much to neoliberalism. Wedderburn's exposition of the relationship between the writings of Hayek and the policy of Conservative governments, 1979–88, is utilised and extended to display the continuity and distinctiveness of New Labour's policy on industrial relations and employment law in relation to its Conservative predecessors. New Labour's neoliberal assumptions and values are evaluated. The conclusion argues for a fundamental rebuttal of New Labour's values as an integral component of a campaign to re-establish trade union rights and liberties, and effective employment protection."

Other possible citations from quite a broad range of academic journals and books, most of which are of reasonable authority and reliability(found by following the references cited in the above article) might include:

Crouch, C. (2007), 'From Labour Legislation and Public Policy towards a Flexible Labour Market: The Ambiguous Privatization of a Policy Area', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 23/24, 233–250.

Davies, P. and M. Freedland (2007), Towards a Flexible Labour Market: Labour Legislation and Regulation since the 1990s (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

Denham, A. and M. Garnett (2001), 'From "Guru" to "Godfather": Keith Joseph, "New" Labour and the British Conservative Tradition', Political Quarterly, 72, 1, 97−106. Links

Edmonds, J. (2006), 'Positioning Labour Closer to Employers: The Importance of the Labour Party's Business 1997 Manifesto', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 22, 85–107

Gamble, A. (2006), 'Two Faces of Neo-liberalism', in R. Robinson (ed.), The Neo-liberal Revolution: Forging the Market State (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan)

Shaw, E. (2007), Losing Labour's Soul: New Labour and the Blair Government 1997–2007 (London, Routledge).

Smith, P. and G. Morton (2006), 'Nine Years of New Labour: Neoliberalism and Workers' Rights', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 3, 401–420.

Wilkinson, F. (2007), 'Neo-liberalism and New Labour Policy: Economic Performance, Historical Comparisons and Future Prospects', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 6, 817–843.

A couple of other useful references, found with a very quick google search include:

Clift, Ben and Tomlinson, Jim (2007) Complexity constraint and New Labour's putative neo-liberalism: a reply to Colin Hay. British Journal of Political Science, Vol.37 (No.2). pp. 378-381.

'Britain's Neo-Liberal State': http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/britain-s-neo-liberal-state

New Labour’s leaders, as Simon Jenkins has documented in Thatcher and Sons, continued the core twin principles of Thatcher’s regime: the intensification of centralised executive authority and the cultivation of an elite order at ease with a politics focused on winners, wealth and corporate logic - a neo-liberal regime.

Daniels G; McIlroy J (eds) (2009) Trade Unions in a Neoliberal World; British Trade Unions under New Labour. Routledge, UK

New Statesman (Martin Jacques): The Hunger for Renewal http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/04/labour-party-neoliberalism

"The Labour Party that capitulated so completely to neoliberalism is exhausted."

Fullbrook: Economics and Neo-Liberalism http://www.paecon.net/Fullbrook/EconomicsandNeoliberalism.pdf

"Neoliberalism is the ideology of our time. And of New Labour and Tony Blair."

I hope this information demonstrates that there is a large body of well-sourced respectable information that describes today's Labour Party's ideology as 'Neo Liberal', and that it will therefore prove helpful to the discussion. Riversider (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd Revert

Where exactly are these published sources that show that 'Third Way' adequately covers Labours alleged neo-liberalism? People seem to keep reverting the words 'neo-liberalism' without explaining why on this talk page, and without reference to published sources.

I've put up a whole tranche of published sources that demonstrate that a sizeable, significant and authoritative number of sources describe Labour's ideology as 'neo-liberalism', Labour Party members may not like this, but Wikipedia must reflect the balance of published sources, however uncomfortable that is for those with partisan views.

For those not satisfied with the 14 sources listed above, here's another from David Hill, who argues that 'Third Way' is a gloss which is intended to disguise Labour's Neo-Liberalism: http://www.ieps.org.uk/PDFs/newlaboursneoliberal.pdf

However, in its other major policies, too, neo-liberal policies of marketisation, privatisation, hierarchicalisation of social and welfare benefits and increasing levels of economic and racialised social class differentiation are evident, suppressing, distorting and dominating the social democratic elements of its policy. Such neo-liberal policies include: • privatisation (such as of Air Traffic Control); • PFI (Private Finance Initiative) which gives eventual private ownership of health, education and other public and publicly funded services to private capital (discussed by Richard Hatcher at this Conference and in Hatcher 2001); steadfast opposition to overwhelming public demand for the re-nationalisation of the Railways and track in the UK; • fiscal/taxation and low minimum wage/ high `fat cat' salary policy; • attempts to reduce compliance with the workers' rights in the European Social Chapter; • overall government policies resulting in increasing racialised social class inequalities in income and living conditions (see Hill, 1999b; Hill and Cole, 2001; Hill, Sanders and Hankin, 2001; Rahman et al,2001). However, while recognising that disarticulations do occur, the conclusion from the evidence of this paper is that New Labour education policy is congruent with, and an important constituent part of, the overall neo-liberal ideological thrust of state policy under New Labour.

Perhaps it would be useful for someone who is not a Labour Party member, perhaps someone from the USA without an axe to grind to review the published sources listed here, and then suggest a way of resolving this dispute. Riversider (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

David Hill is part of the of the "Radical Left Educators", so it is questionable for his views on Labour are at all acturate at all, given some clear political bias to the radical left. Martin Jacques who wrote the piece in the New Statesman editted Marxism Today. It is also mentioned in the actual page that New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal. However it is dubious to call the Labour Party "neo-liberal" most Labour Party members are social democrats or socialists, and Labour have recently nationalised the banks in response to the economic crisis, something which neo-liberals would oppose. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Labour's 'nationalisation' of the banks was a huge bailout to wealthy bankers rather than a socialist measure, however much spin is put on it - but that is of course a side issue to what we are debating here, it's not up to us to prove whether or not Labour is Neo-Liberal or Socialist, that is not the job of an encyclopedia, our job is to reflect what the authoritative published sources say on the subject.

'Third Way' is a term only used by Labour supporters, and has little precision or meaning, which is why politicians like it, as it does not tie them to anything. 'Neo-Liberalism' is a precisely defined ideology, which is used by academics of many different political views, and has been applied to New Labour consistently over multiple published sources. We do not decide here whether these published sources are correct or incorrect in their designation of New Labour as Neo-Liberal, we just reflect the fact that they do. I am not proposing the deletion of 'Third Way', or 'Democratic Socialist', simply that the large body of texts describing Labour as neo-liberal must get at least equal exposure to those (very few of which in reality exist outside Labour Party members imaginations) that describe Labour's current policies as 'Democratic Socialist'. Riversider (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a dubious tag on neoliberalism in the ideology section of the infobox unless someone can show that the refs aren't from reliable academic sources. I also think some editors need to get away from the idea that Neoliberalism is necessarily an insult rather a term that sums up a set of political ideas that correspond closely to New Labour policies. Riversider is right about the banking bail-out: following Welshsocialist's logic would make most American politicians socialists as well!Haldraper (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WelshSocialist admits himself that "New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal" (sic). All we are doing by including 'neo-liberalism' in the ideology infobox is reflecting this fact. We cannot ignore the weight of the published sources.

And please! no more unexplained reverts, it's coming very close to breaching the spirit, if not the letter of Wikipedia:3RR, please use the talk page to seek a way forward. Riversider (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability of 'NeoLiberalism'

People wishing to delete the 'Neoliberalism' description of Labour's ideology should read WP:V This states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." We have listed above many (now around 16) reliable sources that describe Labour's ideology as Neoliberalism, it will be pretty easy to find many more. The sources that describe Labour's ideology as 'Third Way' or 'Democratic Socialist' are actually largely self-published by the Labour Party. We are, however, not challenging these self-satisfied descriptions of Labour ideology, however much they seem to be challenged by the facts, simply seeking the inclusion of the word 'neoliberalism' with equal validity, to reflect the published sources.

WP policy suggests we should be "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view" It's hard to say whether neo-liberalism is how the majority of commentators would describe Labour ideology, but we certainly have enough references to show that it is at least a significant minority viewpoint, and should therefore be represented in the article. Given the weight of references provided, and the (growing) length of the explanations on the talk page, it is becoming reasonable to describe further unexplained deletions of the term from the infobox as POV vandalism. Riversider (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideology socialist - policies Neo-liberal?

One of the recent reverts suggested in it's edit notes (though the editor did not come here to the talk page), that "The Labour party is not an ideologically neoliberal party, though its policies may be considered to be neoliberal, there is a difference between their ideological beliefs and their policies" This sounds at first like a good argument - but no published material has been used to back it up. Wikipedia relies on published sources, which is why I keep harping on about the published sources I have cited. Going down a bit further however, the argument is logically identical to saying "Jim is not a murderer, he just kills people", or "Bob is not a philanthropist, he just gives lots of money to charity". The key point I keep making is that MULTIPLE published sources refer to Labour ideology as neo-liberal, and whether these sources reflect the truth or not, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia must cover what the published sources say about a subject. Many of the reverts I believe have been carried out by Labour Party members, who need to learn Wikipedia rules on NPOV and Verifiability in order to edit in an objective and dispassionate way. So many reverts have now been done, without explanation and without reference to published sources or the talk page that (with regret) I have had to report one editor for edit warring. Riversider (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting a dubious tag, might just might, make people look at the talk page before reverts so we can actually discuss this issue. From what I can see there are no other method of doing that straight off. I am skepical that people look at the history first. Instead of whining and complaining about reverts maybe actually encouraging discussion might just resovle this dispute? You also seem to assert that anyone who disagrees with your position is a Labour Party member. What political party do you support since you seem to believe it to be importat? Of course it is not important at all. I believe you should assume good faith? I don't believe you are doing that. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Great to see you on the talk page at last WS, I agree entirely that we must have some discussion, and that here is the place to do it, in fact virtually every edit I've made has come with a request that we take the issue here, and sort it properly, rather than continuing to revert without explanation. I've put up a pretty momentous list of citations where people describe the Labour Party as Neo-Liberal, so I think a 'dubious' tag is no longer viable, the sheer weight of references makes it unjustified. Mandelson saying 'we are all Thatcherites now' is also a bit of a killer quote, as you and your 'comrades' gave this arch-privatiser a standing ovation at the last Labour Party conference.

I do assume good faith, I can also appreciate that people who care about the Labour Party feel angry about it's many neoliberal policies and do not want it to be tagged as neo-liberal. There is a clear conflict of interest here, and Labour Party members would do well to read WP:COI before defensive editing.

Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area.

Have a good read also of WP:V on verifiability, and then we can talk about how WP must include large minority viewpoints, as well as the 'official' designation that Labour leaders claim for themselves in their self-published literature.

I'm aware that this discussion is only among a small number of editors, I've been advised that creating a 'request for comment' will help other members of the community, who are less emotionally involved in the debate than either of us, have their say on this issue.Riversider (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again you talk about peoples political believes and party political support, I therefore feel it is only fair to ask you which party, or at least, which way idealogically do you swing, since you seem to feel it is important enough to mention anyone who disagrees that Labour is neo-liberal must be a Labour support? --Welshsocialist (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Even More Published Sources

Here are a few more published sources to add to the 16 or so that are cited either in the article or higher up on the talk page that identify Labour's ideology as neo-liberal:

Here's a Daily Telegraph writer: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidlindsey/100012972/the-postal-workers-are-fighting-for-britain/

"Well, with the connivance of New Labour and the Cameroons in general, and of Peter Mandelson in particular, the essentially or entirely foreign forces of global capitalism and the EU are marching in with a view to destroying the Royal Mail. .... Meanwhile, the “free” marketeers seriously propose privatising something that has never been in the private sector, having been in what would now be called public ownership ever since it was created by Charles II in 1660, and representing the most significant direct link between the monarchy and every household, business, organisation and institution in the land.

Nothing could better indicate how utterly unconservative the “free” market ideology really is. Neoliberal economics, a total disregard for our heritage and institutions, and European federalism: all of a piece, of course. "

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/23/new-labour-gordon-brown-election

3m votes melted away at the 2001 election, when Blair began his crusade to privatise public services. The largest group were working-class voters losing out to the corporate-tailored, cheap-labour policies that became New Labour's hallmark.

Of course Brown shares responsibility for all that as co-architect of a now discredited neoliberal project – and New Labour's failure to deliver for many of its supporters is the crucial missing element in the minister's account of the party's unpopularity. But it's also what Blairites disastrously want to return to.

The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6857714.ece

Mr Brown would probably derive most enjoyment from the fury a Blair presidency would induce in the Conservative leadership. Ironically, the only politicians more horrified at the prospect are old-style European socialists, who dread a “neo-liberal” axis, of the newly reappointed President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and Mr Blair.

The Socialist: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8169

The merger of government departments, with the all powerful Lord Mandelson now being responsible for universities and business, highlights New Labour's intention to intensify the marketisation process in universities.

Kamran Mofid: http://www.selvesandothers.org/article16487.html

Where I differ with Peter Mandelson is that trade and financial globalisation also has a very dark side which he seems to ignore by not highlighting them in his piece. The ’one size fits all” Anglo-Saxon economic strategy — obsessed with economic reform, an ever-expanding free-market liberalism, structural adjustment policies, privatisation, and deregulation — has been a global tragedy. It would be an affront to our humanity and decency to ignore this. It would be great if Peter Mandelsom can, in the interest of the common good, bring himself to admit that, market fundamentalism has failed, as it has broken all the fabric of our society and communities everywhere in the world

Tom Macfarlane: http://tommacfarlane.co.uk/neoliberalism_and_governments_management_of_its_discontents.html

New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/luton-town-labour-local-home

“[The speech] disguised New Labour's absolute commitment to neoliberal capitalism. Brown, Blair and Mandelson were all about promoting neoliberalism, dissolving the state, unpicking the postwar settlement and letting the market rule.

WP:V is over-fulfilled. There are masses of citable published evidence that many authoritative commentators regard Labour's ideology as Neo-liberal. Riversider (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Is there enough authoritative published evidence to justify adding the label 'neoliberalism' as a description of labour's ideology in the infobox?

Is there enough authoritative published evidence to justify adding the label 'neoliberalism' as a description of labour's ideology in the infobox?

Please read the discussion above, follow the various citations in the article and those listed in the talk page, then give us your advice on this issue. Your comments will be very valuable. Riversider (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is more than enough published evidence, from both academics and journalists, of the term being used in an objective way to describe New Labour's ideology.Haldraper (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would remove both neo-liberalism and Third Way from the list of ideologies. In stating a party's ideology one should principally be guided by the ideology which the party's leading members espouse. A previous leader of the Labour Party used the term Third Way in a tiny number of public speeches about a decade ago. The term Neoliberalism has never, to judge from the sources produced above, been used by anyone of senior rank in the Labour Party to define its ideology. More serious than that, the article on neoliberalism states that its principle use is as a pejorative term by its opponents. Due to its heritage, the Labour Party has always been committed to free trade as an economic principle, which is the hallmark of classical or 19th century liberalism and also part of neoliberalism, but that is little help in justifying its use here. Moreover I would think that the concept of neoliberalism is too nebulous and overbroad to be of use; it seems to be defined primarily in terms of the policies it rejects rather than those it endorses. The article on the History of the British Labour Party could benefit from a fuller and rounder discussion of the Labour Party's economic thought since 1994 than it at present holds. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we have to - or indeed should - restrict ourselves to organisations' own self-descriptions. I dispute Sam's assertion that Neoliberalism is primarily a pejorative term, that is certainly not the sense in which it is used it the academic and journalistic sources cited. It simply means the revival of nineteenth century liberalism in the late 70's/early 80's as a break from the post-war regulatory/welfarist consensus. Both the Thatcher and Reagan administrations pursued neoliberal policies that included removing state control of banking, free trade, low corporate and personal taxation and privatisation of public services that New Labour has clearly continued. This really is a non-argument that seems wholly driven by the refusal of some editors to admit to themselves what the Labour Party has evolved into.Haldraper (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is vert difficult claim that Labour itself is neo-liberal are a party, or has such an idealogy. Indeed most Labour members are a total opposed to neo-liberalism. Although there is an arguement to be made that the Blair-Brown New Labour project has high-jacked the party and pushed a more neo-liberal agenda onto it, that said there has been such a shift in partys of the centre-left world wide, for better for worst. It is high contriversal to call Labour a "neo-liberal" party, since it is not an idealogy that fits into the centre-left, democratic socialist/social democrat nature of the Labour Party. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not very difficult at all. Their is a clear definition of Neoliberalism on its own page, supported by academic and other sources. Go through that list and see how closely New Labour's policies fit with its ideology. That clearly challenges the idea that New Labour is still ideologically socialist but is not a conclusion we can avoid to spare the feelings of editors who cling to that illusion given the amount of verifiable sources to back it up. I'm sure you're right Welshsocialist that many party members still oppose New Labour's neoliberalism, the question is what effect that has on policies? None as far as I can see. It's a bit like objecting to the statement that the Catholic Church opposes contraception on the grounds that most ordinary members ignore it: we have to describe what organisations are rather than what their members would like them to be.Haldraper (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is blindingly obvious that not everyone considers the Labour Party to be "neoliberal". Absolutely no justification to include it in the infobox. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For inclusion in Wikipedia, we don't actually need to show that a position is held by 'everyone' (otherwise nothing would ever be included in WP!), just that it is held by a significant minority of sources that can be considered authoritative. The question is asking whether the sources cited are numerous enough and authoritative enough to justify the inclusion. More sources are published every week, how about this from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/labour-conference-gordon-brown-speech

We gloried in a neoliberal economic policy when it gave us the boom," says one Brown aide. "We celebrated the freedom of people in the City to make grotesque sums of money when we believed it would pay for what we wanted to do.

or this from October's edition of Labour periodical the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2009/10/council-housing-social-glynn

neoliberal housing policy has been extremely socially divisive, driving a wedge between homeowners and social tenants. Sarah Glynn's timely book, Where the Other Half Lives, focuses on the impact of these policies on lower income housing, and explores the crucial question of what happened to those who were left behind by long-term inflationary rises in property prices. As the valorisation of owner-occupation as the normal tenure for all became a point of cross-party consensus, council housing was relegated to the status of a "residual" tenure, a sponge which was there to soak up the poorest and most socially disadvantaged members of society. Under Thatcher and Blair, council housing lost the utopian impetus which it had under Attlee and Bevan, when it was seen as a public service available to citizens of all classes, and not simply as emergency housing for the dispossessed. In 2009 - after twelve years of Labour rule - the boundary of the council estate is the frontier of the deepest social division in Britian, a dividing line which separates the property-owning majority from a lumpen underclass afflicted by drug addiction, crime and unemployment.

I think it is fair to describe the Guardian and the New Statesman as authoritative sources on matters concerning the Labour PartyRiversider (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Producing one or two opinion blogs which may have used the term 'neoliberalism' in conjunction with the Labour Party does not provide safe foundations on which to build a claim that the whole party definitely adheres to that ideology. There are plenty of hostile opinion pieces which have described certain Labour Party policies as fascist, or communist, or any one of a whole list of ideologies. Winston Churchill even said that a Labour government would have to fall back on some kind of Gestapo. Especially in an infobox, where there is no room for discussion, there must be no doubt that the label is correct and that is most certainly not established here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer makes a very strong point. A lot of your sources, as I have pointed out, are not exactly sound. The Socialist is a newspaper of a rival political party, the "radical left journalists" also have an agenda. The term is idealogically loaded, usually branded about by the hard left. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't look at this page and suggest that my position is based on 'one or two opinion blogs'. It is based on a whole raft of references from a wide variety of sources, including many respected academic economists that are listed on this page, if you would take the trouble to look. You can use the tactic of 'shooting the messenger' with one or two of the sources, but certainly not with all them - and when even 'Gordon Brown aides' are using the term 'neo-liberalism' to describe their party's ideology, we have got to sit up and take notice. The term 'neoliberalism' is 'ideologically loaded' because it is a description of an ideology, it is 'bandied about' by the hard left as Welsh Socialist correctly points out (which does not in itself invalidate it), and also by many other political and economic schools of thought, as a description of Labour's ideology, as the many sources cited demonstrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riversider2008 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is more than enough evidence to decisively conclude that neoliberalism is a, if not the, dominant trend in the Labour party. The infobox also lists the party as democratic socialist and social-democratic, with 'Neoliberalism' and 'Third Way' being listed last and second-to-last, respectively. That's very fair to those who believe the party is still fundamentally socialist or social-democratic. --MQDuck (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Faction?

The problem is how I see it, is the differences between where people liw within the Labour Party itself, and the fact that it has become a very board church (of anti-Tory porgressives, rather then of socialist and social democrats), I feel this is best sorted, and is made more clearer by dividing up the different idealogical points of view into the factions, as simuarly done with the Conservative page. Last time it was tried on the Labour page, it got split up into way too many "factions" mnaking the whole thing messy, if you just keep it as Blairite/Brownite faction, or maybe even just "New Labour" might be better, it may help clearly resovle the issues surrounding calling Labour neo-liberal. The only issue is if it under the flag of "New Labour" then not all New Labour supports are neo-liberal either. Blairism and Brownism on the other hand. --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That way lies terrible confusion. There is still a Trotskyist faction in the party for example, organised around Socialist Appeal. Do we therefore need to add Trotskyism to the ideology section of the infobox because that is one of the viewpoints that exists in the party? The point of the ideology section is to give an overview of the ideologies that have influenced the party's policies over the course of its history, with appropriate academic and other references, starting with democratic socialism in the early 20th century, moving towards social democracy in the mid-20th century and adopting neoliberalism by the end of it.Haldraper (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Welshsocialist, in your edit summary you suggested that we model the ideology infobox on that of the Conservative Party. Having just looked at it, I don't see how that could work. It has two sections, 'general' consisting of 'conservatism' and 'British unionism' and 'internal factions' from 'liberal conservatism' to 'Euroscepticism'. For the Labour Party the latter would be straightforward, from 'Trotskyism' to 'neoliberalism', but for the former what label could we come up?

I find this idea of the 'Blairite/Brownite' faction quite intriguing. Firstly it's hard to describe it as a faction, because Brown was made leader with enormous backing from the whole of the labour party, and no alternative leadership contender exists, so it is a 'faction' that has the overwhelming loyalty of 90% of the parliamentary party and all those at the conference that gave Mandelson 'we are all Thatcherites now' a standing ovation. Secondly it is interesting for your admission that this grouping (which includes two rival strands of party loyalties that could both be described as factions themselves) are described by many as 'neoliberal' in their policies.

This is where I find Sam Blacketer's suggestion pretty problematic - he is saying that because Brown describes himself as democratic socialist, we should be bound by that description whatever other people call him. The references I have listed come from a whole variety of political and economic schools, for example Kamran Mofid comes from an academic background that wants to bring spirituality and religious perspectives into approaches to economics - hardly a 'hard left' position, yet they all describe Labour as neo-liberal. If I plant a tree, am I able to insist that it be called a lime tree, even if it's fruits are acorns? Blacketer's argument is the same logic as that used by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrolls 'through the looking glass':

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."

Can we turn white roses into red roses with a lick of paint? Riversider (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was only the moderate and reasonable one: that if you want to know what someone thinks, you should listen to what they say. I did not suggest the most extreme version of that statement which you cite above and I think you should not have conducted this discussion in such a 'straw man' fashion. In all of this it is important not to lose sight of the goal: a neutral statement of the ideology of the Labour Party which accurately informs readers unfamiliar with the subject. The term 'neoliberal' is far too nebulous and overbroad to be really helpful to readers, and it is unsupported by any policy statements originating from the Labour Party. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While I do think that Blair and Brown have persued some policies that could be seen to be neo-liberal in nature, I do not think it is suitable to describe it as an idealogy of the Labour Party itself. The neo-liberal accusition is already discussed within the text of the article, as it is only an accusition, usually made by left wingers. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sam and Welshsocialist both miss the point: it doesn't matter how the LP self-describes, what Wikipedia relies on is verifiable, secondary sources (academic, journalistic etc) of which there are more than enough to support the claim that New Labour's ideology is neoliberal. I also reject Sam's point that Neoliberalism as a term is "far too nebulous and overbroad to be really helpful", if you look at its own page it is clearly defined in terms of policies. It is no more broad as a term - I would argue far less - than either democratic socialism or social democracy.Haldraper (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a very academic article by some of the country's leading geographers which while it is pretty opaque in it's style, still unequivocally places labour ideology in the class of 'neoliberalism: http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/GSSW/schram/antipode.pdf in it May, from the University of London, Cloke from the University of Bristol and Johnsen from the University of York say:

in this article we continue the task of fleshing out understandings of the neoliberalisation of Western welfare state regimes with an examination of changes to British welfare policy since the election of the New Labour government in May 1997. Put simply, we suggest that there has been a significant change in the nature and form of welfare policies and practices in Britain since the election of New Labour. Such a change sits within the broad chronology proposed by Peck and Tickell 2002), but suggests the need to complement broad brush analyses of the changing face of neoliberalism with a closer reading of the different ways in which the neoliberal state has sought to intervene in the social field within a period of roll-out neoliberalism.

Pray show me how this is not an authoritative source for WP purposes... Riversider (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment from RFC: Yes, there's enough sourcing to include "neoliberalism" as one of four ideologies in the infobox. Labour is a big tent, and this is currently the biggest pole in it! Rd232 ^talk 18:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish view of Labour neoliberalism

I haven't included the Scottish perspective yet in my ever-lenghthening list of citations. Here's one from respected political commentator, Gerry Hassan, who is "a writer, commentator and policy analyst and author and editor of over a dozen books on Scottish and UK politics, the latest of which is ‘The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power' published by Edinburgh University Press", someone who is described in the Scottish Herald as "Scotland's main public intellectual" here writing for 'Open Democracy':

For the last thirty years our political classes and received wisdom in business and media through Thatcherism and then Blairism/Brownism has told us that a new age is upon us. This required us to accept ‘change' as a new mantra and the fact that ‘the status quo wasn't an option'. Their idea of change turned out to be a very narrow and doctrinaire one, of letting markets be freer, keeping business regulation and taxes to a minimum, and emphasising that people had to look after themselves more and more....The sacred cows which brought us to economic near-meltdown are still revered. The economic neo-liberalism which informed so much of the recent past is still the only philosophy around, and unrepentantly extending its grip over social and cultural life. None of the main UK parties are prepared to make the link between the economic and political crisis, and see them as part of the same crisis

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/2009/10/11/why-it-is-a-real-time-for-change Riversider (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And here's an Irish point of view: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/270

Paul Michael Garrett is the author of Remaking Social Work with Children and Families (2003) and Social Work and Irish People in Britain (2004). He works at the National University of Ireland in Galway. He says in this article "How to be Modern: New Labour’s Neoliberal Modernity and the Change for Children programme" published in the British Journal of Social Work:

In England the New Labour administration is seeking to embed a ‘transformational reform agenda’ within children’s service. Social workers, among others appear, however, to be wary of the agenda which is now rhetorically rooted in the Every Child Matters: Change for Children programme (CfC). The main social work practice elements of this programme are associated with the introduction of a Children’s Index, a multidisciplinary Common Assessment Framework and the role of Lead Professional. In terms of the promotion of this programme, the government has maintained that the focal aim is to create a ‘modern’ children’s workforce. However, the entire ‘transformational agenda’ can be interpreted as reflecting New Labour’s neoliberal modernity

. I've got such a large variety of sources coming out of my ears here... Riversider (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that my experience of Labour is coloured by living in Wales, devolution and the "Clear Red Water" aproach taken. Although I still challenge the idea that Labour is idealogically a neo-liberal party.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your view about Welsh Labour being different from the national Labour Party ideology is backed up by at least one published source WelshSocialist (though that published source also supports my contention that the ideology of the UK Labour Party is described by many authoritative commentators as 'neo-liberal', which is all I have to prove to justify the inclusion of the term in the infobox: Here's the citation: http://www.francisboutle.co.uk/pages.php?cID=6&pID=36

according to this review recently published in the Western Mail of 'Clear Red Water: Welsh Devolution and Socialist Politics' by Nick Davies & Darren Williams

Davies and Williams argue that Welsh Labour is facing a choice - it can either revert to being little more than a branch office of New Labour in London, supporting neo-liberal economic policies, or it can further its drive to forge a more radical path. But to do that, it needs to work with allies on the political left.

So now we have citable examples from every nation in the UK, every major newspaper in the UK, and many of the worlds foremost academics, all labeling Labour's ideology as 'neo-liberal'. We do not ask you to agree with them, just to acknowledge that the sheer weight of published material makes it neccessary to include this term in the infobox. Riversider (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Locking Over the top?

Isn't locking this page slightly overkill? --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't take kindly to unexplained reverts by IPs, especially when such a weight of published sources is now focussed on the point that keeps getting reverted. They rightly treat it as POV vandalism. Riversider (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't think it will sort it, cos it is extremely contreversial and, I still think, dubious to call Labour neo-liberal. I am still skepticl about the "accademical" evidence validity and the motivation behind the evidence and it's authours, aswell as your POV about Labour. --Welshsocialist (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You have every right to be WelshSocialist. The point however is, that whatever the motivation of the authors, I have uncovered large numbers of published peer-reviewed academic articles, large numbers of newspaper articles, quotes from 'Brown Aides' and Peter Mandelson. Wikipedia's job is not to publish the truth (a task that would be philosophically impossible), but to reflect the balance of what published sources say on a topic, which may or may not approximate to the truth. As Labour is now privatising the Tote, student loans and a variety of other public assets, as well as allowing the Royal Mail to recruit an army of strikebreakers in order to break the CWU and decimate and privatise that service too, I think it is pretty reasonable to label Labour as Neo Liberal. (I can find published sources for all those points too!) Riversider (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Labour implicated in immigration scandal, accused by media of "plotting"

In the media it has been revealed that Labour intentionally encouraged mass movement from the third world, as a political attempt to try and undermine the Tories. According to Andrew Neather, who was an advisor to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, the party set about the "deliberate policy", from late 2000 "rub the Right’s nose in diversity", to render the Tories policy "outdated". The media says there are now calls for an inquiry—Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said "The shambolic control of our borders over the last 10 years has left a legacy which creates social tensions." MPs Frank Field (of Labour himself) and Nicholas Soames said about the scandal, "It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain" and "I am speechless at the idea that people thought they could socially engineer a nation on this basis." How can we word this in the article? Should it be under "party ideology" section? IMO it needs a whole article for itself. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly the story is denied in several of the citations and the conservative spokesperson is careful to say "if true". I'd wait a bit, its too much fresh news at the moment. Also many governments (including conservative ones) have encouraged immigration to handle labour shortages and other issues. Most of the evidence I have seen is that (other than EU which is out of the government's hands) immigration has been restricted. Proceed with care with current news makes sense on Wikipedia, especially in the build up to a general election, coupled with the BNP current news items. --Snowded ^TALK 22:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)