Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welsh Liberal Democrats

Labour and Tories both have pages for the Welsh and Scottish wings, but the Liberal Democrats only have a Scottish one, does anyone think they can include a Welsh Lib Dem page, with enough knowledge of the party?

[[User:]] 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do, but as you can see, I'm an unregistered user. I came here specifically to find stuff on the Welsh Lib Dems and have come up empty handed as this is a mainly anglocentric article.--81.149.154.254 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be an article for the Welsh LDs, but I do not know anything about them, or how they differ from the federal party, so wouldn't be able to put anything in such an article. Ross^English 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Evans as a major Liberal Democrats Donor

Marcus Evans, the reclusive billionaire businessman, donated £1 million for the Lib Dems to fund a call centre during the next general elecion campaign. Can anyone add any further information on his relationship with the party? Ivankinsman (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

"However, many prominent social liberals (including Paddy Ashdown) were former Liberal MPs, whereas some prominent market liberals (such as Vincent Cable) came to the Liberal Democrats from the SDP."

So what? The SDP was (generally speaking) a much more right-wing vehicle than the Liberals were by that stage. This is to be completely expected. Some parts of the SDP, like Bill Rodgers, may have made noises about it being "centre-left", but policy was always fairly clearly in the hands of Owen, who was probably more right-wing than most One-Nation Conservatives. 213.106.232.34 12:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is considered "centrist" in other countries is stereotypically considered "left-wing" in the USA.

Let's write "commie" instead then, so readers would know in what context to read it...

Anyway, this wikipedia does not exist for the exclusive benefit of an American audience. And the LibDems do occupy (traditionally at least) the centrist niche in the British political spectrum (with Labour to their left, and the Conservatives to their right).

--Herman (who thinks 'left-wing', 'centrist' and 'right-wing' are rather meaningless indicators anyway)

Shouldn't this title just be changed to just Liberal Democrats? Lets remove the "British" part altogther as the party isn't reffered to as that. Greg Godwin

For the record, it was changed from British Liberal Democrats to Liberal Democrats (UK) after discussion in what is now Talk:The Labour Party (UK). Liberal Democrats is a redirect to here at the moment. --rbrwr

Why the (UK)? The disambig isn't needed as there aren't any other parties that go by the name "Liberal Democrats", and that's the official name of the party. Sprang

Russia? Japan? --7 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

And other Liberal Democratic Parties, commonly refered as "Liberal Democrats". Now it seems that somebody has again (without discussing it here) changed it back to the form "Liberal Democrats" (without UK).--213.243.157.97 01:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Seen elsewhere on WP: He's a Liberal Democrat. WP doesn't explain their ideology, but assuming from the name, it's not a racist, homophobic crap-party? (No idea) -- I think this means we should give a rough summary of their policies over the years to give an idea. One to mention might be the "1p extra on income tax to p[ay for education" from a general election past. -- Tarquin 09:31 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

I've made a start. --rbrwr

This document will probably be useful for this (I'm mainly putting this here for my own refence when I get around to it, not trying to push anyone into using it)...

James F. 22:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the policy section to reflect the latest party policies. If there are any other Liberal Democrat party members on Wikipedia do they have any other suggestions as to what our most important policies are?

I have not mentioned opposition to the war in Iraq because it seems too much like "current events".

At some point I might write a more detailed account of post-merger history and put it up as a separate article. Jonathan Monroe

I don't think we should refer to the lib dem spokespeople as a "shadow cabinet". Shadow cabinet only refers to the official opposition, as far as I know. Secretlondon 00:44, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

See [1], which I take as oh, reasonably authoritative ;) They've only recently started calling it that, though. Morwen 00:46, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

I will be doing some work on the LibDem page, as well as creating some new relevant pages. I will attempt to explain libdem ideology a bit. - a liberal

Does it strike anybody that this article is totally POV in a way that Labour Party (UK) and Conservative Party (UK) are not? --23:58, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Better now (I think) --02:27, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Welsh Liberal Democrats is redirected to here, yet there is very little information on them.

Does Liberal stuff belong here

An awful lot of stuff on this page is about the Liberal Party and duplicates the Liberal Party article. The Liberal Party was a seperate party so I'm not sure if this stuff belongs here.

Whoever wrote this seems to assume that the Lib Dems are basically the Liberal Party with a different name, ignoring the Social Democratic imput to the party caused by the merger with the SDP. G-Man 17:34, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

the Lib Dems see themselves as part of the Liberal tradition and the SDP's philosophical contribution has kind-of submerged. I am slightly concerned about the duplication tho (this page is better on some material and Liberal Party is better on others). Arguably the history should go on the Liberal Party page. The counter-argument is that Lib Dems are keen to emphasise the continuation of the Liberal tradition in spite of the name change. The Land 09:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think all the detailed history should definitely be merged into the Liberal Party article, where it clearly belongs, with a summary here (perhaps a couple of decent-sized paragraphs) and a clear link saying something like "for full information, see The Liberal Party (UK)". It could also mention something of the social democratic heritage that comes ultimately from the Labour Party. This page should concentrate on the post-1988 party. I don't promise that I'll have time to do it, though. --rbrwr ˆ

fine by me and will help though no promises to do it all either. Hopefully we weil lend up with clearer presentation of what the Lib Dems are about. Anyone else's views? The Land 11:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Lib Dems and NI

I am rewriting this edit:

The Liberal Democrats, in common with the other major UK Politics parties, do not organise directly in Northern Ireland, however they do work closely with the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland.

This isn't true. The Lib Dems do organise in NI, but do not contest elecions. According to Nicholas Whyte (a former APNI candidate (to the Northern Ireland Forum and former APNI elecions official):

They [The Ulster Liberal Party] remain active as the NI branch of the Liberal Democrats but have a policy of not contesting elections as long as Alliance remains a more credible liberal force. [2]

I have rewritten it this way:

The Liberal Democrats, like the Conservatives, organise in Northern Ireland. However, unlike the Tories, the Lib Dems have chosen not to contest elections in the province. Instead, they have opted to work closely with the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland.

iHoshie 03:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from on this, but I feel it now over-plays the position. The word organise suggests that LDs pro-actively seek or support membership in that part of the UK. They don't. If you check with [3] you will see that there is no State Party for NI, nor is there are NI element to the Federal party. The LDs support the Alliance, indeed David Ford occasionally visits the Cowley Street head office of the LibDems, but any members of the LDs in NI tend to be 'ex-pats' from the rest of the UK sfaiaa. --VampWillow 07:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ford is actually a member of the Liberal Democrats --Po8crg 7 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

- - Please note that I read recently that the Labour Party are now also organising independently in NI.

Liberalism and APNI is a rather complex topic, which definitely doesn't belong in the main entry. But, this is the talk page and I thought I'd try and explain a bit about the NI Lib Dems and APNI.

APNI has been divided almost ever since its formation between those who see it as essentially a non-sectarian party, and don't really expect or want any policies beyond the conflict and those who see it as being a Liberal party, which is inevitably also the political home for non-sectarians of all political colours. Alderdice was definitely on the Liberal wing of APNI, and Ford is more so. At the time of all the changes of leader after Alderdice became speaker at Stormont, the two wings of Alliance got rather further apart, and the NI Lib Dems were being used by the Liberal faction of APNI as a kind of formal vehicle for the faction. There was serious talk of the APNI Liberals turning themselves into the Lib Dems (NI) and contesting elections as such if the non-sectarians got control of the (APNI) party (the non-sectarians want to withdraw from things like ELDR and LI). Ford's election rather quieted all of that down.

The Liberal Democrats are organised as a Local Party in Northern Ireland, which has the specific constitutional entitlement to turn itself into a State Party if it wishes to do so, without requiring consent from the Federal Conference (any other new State Party would require a 2/3 majority at Federal Conference). That move would be indicative of an intention to contest elections.

Membership in Northern Ireland can usually be counted in the middle double figures. For senior figures in APNI, membership of the Lib Dems indicates which faction they are on, so the members are just GB ex-pats, but also about half the senior people in APNI. By controlling the Lib Dems NI, the APNI Liberal faction gets to ensure that no maverick gets to be an official Lib Dem candidate, and to decide if they want to launch the Lib Dems into NI elections, or indeed merge the two parties.

APNI get technical help in election-fighting from the Lib Dems, but no financial support. They do have very limited access to assistance from GB, mostly in the form of some individuals telephone canvassing and an occasional personal cheque will cross the Irish Sea, but they can't get anything like G8 money (central money used to fund local election campaigns) or Campaigns Dept staff on paid assignment (which is the norm in GB campaigns)

Is it worth noting the position of the LDs in terms of NI sovreignty? I would have said that LDs support Belfast Agreement3thought 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I've recently created a Template:Infobox British Political Party based on the swedish model (see Folkpartiet. The Liberals for an in-use example). I've yet to implement it on any page though (I'm unsure of the correct procedure for implementation of infoboxs). Here is the libdem infobox. -- Joolz 16:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) {{Infobox UK Political Parties| name=Liberal Democrats| fullname=Liberal Democrats| leader=Charles Kennedy| established=1988| type=Symbol| symbol=Bird| ideology=Social Democratic/Liberal| intparty=Liberal International| europarty=ELDR| ep_election=2004| ep_percent=14.9| ep_seats=12| ep_group=ALDE| election=2001| percent=18.3| seats=55| sp_election=2003| sp_percent=15.3| sp_ams_percent=11.8| sp_seats=17| wa_election=2003| wa_percent=14.1| wa_ams_percent=12.5| wa_seats=6| ni_election=2003| ni_percent=N/A| ni_seats=N/A| other=In Government| data=-| image=Libdemslogo.png| bgcolor=gold| }}

The information that should be included in that, and all other, infoboxes is the Party Name, Logo, Leader, Founding, Colours, Headquarters, International Alignment and EU Alignment. I wouldn't call them social democratic, but rather just liberal.

They almost certainly are social democratic, though there's also a social liberal wing. JDancer 19:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Why is the article at Liberal Democrats (UK)? It seems that disambiguation is not neccessary considering that Liberal Democrats redirects here. Would there be any objections to me moving it? -- Joolz 28 June 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats has an interesting history - it started off as a redirect here, then became a redirect to Liberal Democratic Party, then a redirect to Liberal Party#Democratic when Liberal Democratic Party was merged into Liberal Party, but when Liberal Democratic Party was unmerged again it (after a couple of weeks) became a redirect here. If "Liberal Democrats" is commonly used as a short form of "Liberal Democratic Party" in non-UK contexts, it should point there. Otherwise Liberal Democrats (UK) should move to the simpler title. Of course "Liberal Democrats" isn't actually used by any of those parties, as they're in non-English-speaking countries. --rbrwr ^± 28 June 2005 12:01 (UTC)

The last remark is not relevant, since if there would be a party with this name in another non-English-speaking country, that would be a reason for disambig. But according to the Index of political parties there are no other parties anywhere with thus name, so we do not have to add (UK) to the name. Electionworld 28 June 2005 12:19 (UTC)

But Liberal Democrats is used for other political parties such Japan. Liberal Democrats (UK) is much better with Liberal Democrats as the dab. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

eep! This change makes no sense. We now appear to have a redirect pointing to an article with a totally different title, rather than the disambiguated title. Yes, there is probably no need for Liberal Democrats to have the "(UK)" in place, though it makes for consistency with Labout and Tory parties. Realistically, anyone going to the page "Liberal Democrats" (plural) is looking for the UK party, and all that is needed is a link from that target to the disambig list of other Liberal Democrats Parties around the world. In the *singular* though a different argument applies. Further, looking at the 'what links here' for the disambig page, it is a whole mess and the person making this move clearly didn't tidy up after making it. --Vamp:Willow 28 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Looking further at this, *ALL* links into the Liberal Democrats page are UK-related. I have just disintermediated the other redirects, will do these now. I shall also rv the target of the redirect given that it is solely used for the UK party. --Vamp:Willow 28 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

I would move the page but I'm not looking forward to relinking all those pages! -- Joolz 7 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Leadership Election

I have made various edits to the page ref. Charles Kennedy's resignation. The latest is to include a picture of Ming Campbell, acting leader, as many people will not realise who he is. If anyone can think of a better place to put this picture please let me know. Mikeroberts 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting edit 12 months ago [4] which removed the statement "Charles Kennedy has been described as being too laid-back for an active campaigning party, and rumours have been circulated that he drinks more than would be expected of a Party Leader." saying that this was "very POV". It was certainly true that the rumours were circulated, and there now seems to be some evidence for them. --Henrygb 23:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the system from STV version of proportional representation. It uses AV (which is a subset of STV), but it can't be considered PR - you can only elect a group of people by PR, not 1. not signed

I've changed it back as the vote is not by AV but is, in fact, using STV. For comparison, when AV is used you get just the two selections (in the London mayor case, for example, two columns with an 'X' to bve placed to show your first choice and second choice) whereas with STV - as here - you get a single column and mark '1', '2', '3'. --Vamp:Willow 22:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, actually. London's two-X system is technically called the supplementary vote, not AV. AV, by definition, is STV with a single winner and a 50% quota. Incidentally, there's no mechanical difference between London-style SV and AV in a three-candidate race. The Tom 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Leaders

A few questions:

1). Prior to Ming Campbell, was Alan Beith the only other Deputy Leader in the party's history?

2). How exactly is the Deputy Leader appointed/elected and for how long at a time?

[answer: the leader apoints his/her deputy as they do the rest of their shadow cabinet for an unlimited time until they are demoted or leave of their own accord - just a little like the deputy PM -(!)]

Not true. The Deputy Leader is elected by the parliamentary party, and is currently Vincent Cable. KrJDub05 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

3). Technically is Ming Campbell a) still the Deputy Leader of the party acting as leader whilst the position of Leader is officially vacant; or b) automatically Leader of the party until the leadership election?

4). If Ming doesn't win the leadership will he constitutionally retain the post of Deputy Leader or would there be a new election/appointment (even if it's just to reaffirm him)? Timrollpickering 03:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As the only person standing in the leadership contest, I believe he'll win by default and therefore become 'elected' party leader.

OldManSin 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be quite an appetite in some quarters to at least have a contest, even if it just against some maverick MP. Could we see possibly see Kennedy do a Ieun Wyn Jones and stand for the job he's resigned from? Timrollpickering 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The desire to have a contest is unsuprising. If Ming is the only stander then he becomes a non-elected leader which stands against the Liberalist ideals that the party currently stands for. It is the MPs (or a small group of MPs) that are currently deciding the leader of the party, not the party members as it should be. Charles Kennedy tried to force a leadership contest by refusing to stand down. However, the MPs involved made it clear in no uncertain terms that they would not allow him to do so. It's widely believed that the party members wanted Kennedy to continue in his role, so it would have been politically damaging for Ming to stand forward, only to lose against him. Due to current circumstances, Kennedy can not stand for leadership and maintain a functioning party, therefore he's not going to change his mind.

The main alternative to Ming is Simon Hughes. Hughes stands a very good chance of being elected by the party membership. However, the same rules apply to him as they do to Kennedy. The MPs behind Kennedy's assasination could well be unwilling to work with him. There will therefore be a split within the party which is suicide for the party's chances of an election.

If Hughes were to stand forward it would allow the democratic process to happen which is in tune with the party's ideals. However, as Tony Blair has shown, sticking to a party's ideals is not necesserily the easiest route to becoming elected. If Hughes wants the party to become elected, he should stand by and let Ming take over. Maybe further down the road, there will be opportunity for Hughes to take over, and the same could well apply to Kennedy. Now is not the time though.

OldManSin 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Early results for a YouGov poll commissioned by the Daily Telegraph suggests that only 27% of Lib Dem party members wanted Kennedy to stay, suggesting that his calculation for this may have misfired.

I suspect we will see a contest, even if there is just a paper candidate. But it won't solve the underlying problems in the party. Timrollpickering 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Move

Yesterday this page was moved from Liberal Democrats for no good reason that I can see. Liberal Democrats now redirects to Liberal Democrat which is a pointless disambig page when we already have Liberal democrat redirecting to Liberal democracy and another page entirely listing Liberal Democratic Party (athough as far as I can tell only one party, Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, is actually called that. No other party is called Liberal Democrats. Supposedly a wing of the American Democratic party used the tag but surely this can't carry equal weight to a fully established and independent political organization. can an Admin please move this page back as unfortunately the person who moved it has now made it impossible to do so without cutting and pasting or an Admins help. Jooler 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not sure we need that disambig page, but I can't see it actually hurting anyone.

Just to clarify the basis for this move - as far as I can tell, existing consensus is to use "Liberal Democrats" as the title. Unless there's discussion pointing elsewhere, I'll keep it here; if it gets shifted without discussion again page-move protection may be needed. Moral of the story: discuss big moves! Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And the page seems to have moved and back again! Can we please stop the movings - locking the page at a time when the news is helping to expand it would be highly undesirable. Timrollpickering 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this discussion here. My talk page had been silent, and I assumed I had this article watchlisted, but I suppose not.

The page was quite happily living at the (UK) suffix for months until it was moved unilaterally to the un-suffixed version a bit before Christmas, throwing a bunch of metalinked boxes haywire and creating at least 2000 redirects. Because (UK) follows the names of the other major British parties, most editors first instinct while editing is likely to the suffixed variant rather than the unsuffixed. "Liberal Democrats" is also quite frequently used across the pond to refer to Ted Kennedy and co., and you'll never see the phrase "Liberal Democrats" without a "British" or "of the UK" modifier in the Wikipedia article-space aside from contexts where its Britishness is assumed. Obviously the same isn't true of Plaid Cymru, for instance. The Tom 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Menzies Campbell

I've taken the photo of Ming and removed the horrible red shift: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Menzies_Campbell.jpg (original) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Menzies_Campbell2.jpg (colour adjusted)

The photo is a publicity still provided by the LibDems (I copied it from wikipedia) so there shouldn't be any copyright issues. I gave my version a new file name, not sure if that's correct procedure. I'm a wikidpedia editting newbie, so tell me if I haven't done this right. The photo appears both on this page and at the top of Menzies Campbell.

Cinephile 20:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources/References

Would it be possible to find a source to substantiate the claim that "some party activists were anticipating more than 100 MPs" at the 2005 General Election? JDH Owens 23 January 2006, 21:13 (UTC)

Dunfermline and Fife by-election

I removed the bit about the Lib Dems re-using the anti-gay slogan. I looked for the BBC News story on the site quoted ([5]), but could not find it. However, on the Lib Dem candidate's website [6], it says that there is "a straight choice between Tony Blair's representative and Willie Rennie". This is not a homophobic slur. Also, Catherine Stihler is married, and I don't know of any rumours about her sexuality. --Dave ~ (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave, You got the wrong interpretation. As was stated, the Libdems made clear that the leaflet was intended only to point out it was a straight race between their man and Labour, nothing else. I think they may have been also trying to imply that they were not being homophobic in Bermondsey all those years ago.

Nick Assinder's January Political Diary was archived to a new url

Commons Confidential: January 2006

POLITICAL DIARY, By Nick Assinder

Political Correspondent, BBC News website

Despatches from the House of Commons

http://www7.thny.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4669322.stm

1230 GMT, MONDAY 30 JANUARY

They claim it is an innocent coincidence - but an official leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate in the forthcoming Dunfermline by-election, Willie Rennie has raised a few eyebrows.

It claims the party can beat Labour's Catherine Stihler and declares "it's a straight choice", with the word straight underlined.

A similar leaflet was distributed when Lib Dem Simon Hughes beat gay activist Peter Tatchell in Bermondsey in 1983, amid claims of homophobia.

A spokesman for the Lib Dem campaign said the current leaflet was intended only to point out it was a clear race between their man and Labour, nothing else.

Trusting this further clarifies matters. Thanks

Yassi 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Proportional Representation

I felt that PR has been such a big part of Liberal/Lib Dem ideology, it needed it own segment. Ihave made a start, but it needs fleshing out, Feel Free :) --Polecat06 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Norman Baker

The new sentence in the article is mysterious. Why did he step down? As a result of what? Tamino 11:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lib Dems not a social democratic party

I disagree with the contention that the Lib Dems are social democratic. They state their beliefs as follows (on their website):

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

This sounds to me more like social liberalism, so if people think that "liberal" is not a good enough label then I think "social liberal" is the only alternative. The Swedish Wikipedia article on the Lib Dems calls them social liberal. I personally think that "liberal" is good enough on its own, considering that the policies of the party and the disagreements within it are gone through thoroughly further down in the article. Tamino 09:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I will remove "social democratic" unless there are any strong objections. Tamino 10:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See "Social Democracy?" above for further arguments against classifying the Lib Dems as social democratic. Tamino 11:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we so sure Social Liberal and Social Democratic are mutally exclusive? I'm sure a lot members of the Lib Dems see themselves as Social Democrats

Leadership election

I have listed the article Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 for peer review. Please feel free to contribute to this review. Thanks. —Wh o uk (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberal vs liberal

Instead the party has historically combined a strong commitment to social justice, social provision and the welfare state with a strong belief in economic freedom and competitive markets wherever possible, particularly when interference is seen as an example of the "nanny state", which many liberal MPs speak of with disgust.

In this context we're jsut talking about any MP with a liberal persuasion, they need not be a member of the Liberal Democrats, Also "a Liberal" and "a Liberal Democrat" refer to two different UK political parties. Ian3055 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Internal factions

I've reworded the section on free-market liberals within the party. The original edit included a line about donors, the media and "non-urban" (rural?) elected officials backing this wing, which I left in. Justice III has asked for a source - does one exist, or was this line just put in by someone wanting to make this element of the party seem more powerful? I suppose the media part makes some sense (the Economist must love these guys, as the combination of political, moral and economic liberalism is pretty much what the Economist is all about - I guess you could even call them "Economist liberals" to the other side's "Independent/Guardian liberals"). Also the stuff about non-urban officials sounds kind of right, but only because experience tells me that people in rural areas tend be a little bit to the right of the rest of us - I've never heard anyone actually say that this is where market liberals draw their support from though. Help would be appreciated. -- moderway 13:47, 9 August 2006

"Shadow Cabinet"?

Section 9 of this article talks about the Liberal Democrat "shadow cabinet". As the Lib Dems are not the main opposition they are not the shadow cabinet, this needs changing. If you are not sure on this check out the UK parliament website.Thebaronoflondon 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're technically right but the Liberals self-style their Front Bench as a Shadow Cabinet. Technically wrong but the LDs simply choose to call it so3thought 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/libdems.cfm The UK Parliament website DOES call the Lib Dem front bench team the "Shadow Cabinet" because this is what they have chosen to call themselves and there is no rule or reason why they can't. Esquimo (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"low tax"?

This article describes the Liberal Democrats as a low tax party. I'm not sure this is right.194.154.22.51 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While they intend to cut income tax, they are making up these cuts by increasing other taxes, and as is with economics, the companies will then have the consumers foot the bill, meaning the general tax situation won't change at all. They will simply be shifting the perception of who is paying the tax.

I think it should be explained in the article, possibly under Policies, that while they favour cutting income tax, they favour increasing other taxes.

-- (A.szczep) 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whigs

The history section of this article claims that the term Whig is still occasionally used as a nickname for the Liberal Democrats. I don't deny that the party can trace its roots back to 18th century Whigs but with over 30 years active membership of the Liberal Democrats and Liberals I have never once heard modern Lib Dems called Whigs, though that does not prove that nobody has ever used the term. I suppose it may boil down to interpretation of the word "occasionally" - how occasional does something have to be before it so rare it becomes misleading to include it in the article?

Similar comments appear in other articles such as the Whig party article. Unless anyone can cite any evidence to the contrary this claimed nickname should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Hawkins (talk • contribs).

Well when i asked my dad who the whigs where ( we were talking about palmerston and the arrow incident (who is a legend by the way)) he said they were the liberals but thats about the only time i've ever heard somone say that.

Broken Links

Link 4 is broken. Link number 2 is to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Lib Dems, not too comfortable with that. Any better news sources about political leanings? Recurring dreams 06:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Federalism

I have removed federalism from the ideology section of the infobox, because it is an unclear term that means different things to different people (a federalist in the USA wants more power for the central government, but a federalist in many other countries would want less power for the central goverment). In any case the Lib Dems' commitment to decentralisation and their federal party structure is described in the article. Tamino 10:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tax

The article states that Lib Dems have adopted a policy of "cutting the basic rate of income tax by 'two pence in the pound' while proposing raising tax rates on annual earnings above £100,000". It describes this as a move "away from increasing tax revenue for purposes of redistribution". Surely cutting the basic rate whilst increasing the top rate is a move towards increasing tax revenue for the purposes of redistribution. 84.70.118.146 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy

Have removed the claim that Lib Dems believe "prison doesn't work" as misleading. Can anyone explain this so-called 'dog tax'? I've no idea what this is referring too. Will delete in a week or so if no-one can elaborate. Mrf-rouk 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LibDem Campaign Colours

I am almost certain that whilst their official colour is gold, the LibDems use a more orange-hued colour (amber?) in Scotland, to avoid confusion with Scottish National Party, who also uses gold as their main campaign colour...

comment from redirect page

Found this comment on the redirect page Liberal Democrats (UK), but I'm not able to verify it:

"Correction - James De Silva is NOT a member of the Liberal Democrats - he is a member of the LIBERAL PARTY."

--Heron 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found it on the Liberal Party website. James De Silva is their candidate in Fletton Ward in Peterborough City Council.[7] Tamino 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Libdemsposter.jpg

File:Libdemsposter.jpg

Why was this poster presented as "by" Charles Kennedy or the Lib Dems as a party, when it was paid for and circulated by Tories? Someone should change the file's name, too. It's misleading. 69.149.249.41 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Structure

I have deleated the followng from the end of the second paragraph of "Structure", as it is contentious and a matter of opinion (TP).

With the great expansion of the Parliamentary Parties and the increase in the finance available to those organisations, such as Short money in recent years, the Parliamentary parties have become a challenge to the power of the official party institutions. The power battle between federal officers and Parliamentary officers is ongoing.

Robert Maclennan

I have changed his dates, which were originally the same as David Steel's. Bob Maclennan was not leader from 1977!

Unions

Being that they merged with the SDP a party that formed out of Labour does that make them Union friendly, and weren't the SDP moderate socialists?

From recollection the SDP were rather sceptical about the unions (one of the issues that led to the Gang of Four breaking away from Labour was the union block vote in the Labour leadership electoral college). David Owen at least seems to have envisaged the SDP as being attractive to business interests precisely because it lacked union links (like its German namesake) and in one Alliance party political broadcast in 1987 John Cleese emphasised the lack of union links as one of the parties' selling points. All political parties will contain people who aren't 100% happy about every traditional policy and organisational link but will put up with them at the time, though not reproduce them if they leave for another party over somthing different.

As for the SDP ideology, this can sometimes be confused because a) the terms social democracy and democratic socialism are in some quarters used almost interchangably; b) "socialist" is a term that brings out different reactions in people and this can temper how parties market themselves; and c) in particular parts of the left in Britain, anyone who describes themselves as a "social democrat" is treated with suspicion precisly because of the SDP. My reading of Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy suggests that the Blair government at least would be best described as "social democratic" but when Blair was asked in the Commons "if he still considers himself a socialist" he responsed with the start of the current Clause IV: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." (At other times he has used the term "social democrat" - particularly with both Labour's election victories and the passage of time, the bitterness about the SDP is fading with an earlier generation.) Timrollpickering 23:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So whats the ALDTU all about then?

Article Structure

I think that the layout and order of this article could be improved. One example is that the See also section is halfway through the article. The Ideology section I think should be above Electoral results, and Internal factions may be more appropriate in the Structure section. I'm interested to see what others think, as I feel that this article is due for improvement. Rossenglish (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have rearranged the article on my sandbox. How do people feel about the layout? Is there anything that is in the wrong place, or can it be used in the article? Rossenglish (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This structure is what I currently propose:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Founding
         o 1.2 Post-1988 history
               + 1.2.1 Ashdown (1988-99)
               + 1.2.2 Kennedy (1999-2006)
               + 1.2.3 Campbell (2006-2007)
               + 1.2.4 Clegg (2007-present)
   * 2 Ideology
         o 2.1 Left wing or right wing?
         o 2.2 Left of Labour?
         o 2.3 Policies
         o 2.4 Proportional representation
   * 3 Electoral results
   * 4 Structure
         o 4.1 Internal factions
   * 5 Leaders of the Liberal Democrats
         o 5.1 Deputy Leaders of the Parliamentary Party of the Liberal Democrats
         o 5.2 Leaders of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party in the European Parliament
         o 5.3 Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team
   * 6 See also
   * 7 References
   * 8 External links
         o 8.1 State Parties
         o 8.2 Party sub-organisations
         o 8.3 Historical information
         o 8.4 Category listings
         o 8.5 Miscellaneous

In summary, Ideology and Electoral results are swapped, Structure contains Internal factions, the lists of leaders etc are in one section: Leaders of the Liberal Democrats, and See also is after that. Does anyone agree or disagree? Rossenglish (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree with Election Results and Ideology being swapped, i think that actualy Ideology could go before History as it shows exactly what the party represents. I think we could also consider merging election results with History? PiTalk - Contribs 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about ideology - more people who want info on the party would want to know what it stands for than what happened to it over the years. I'll also have a play on my sandbox to see how a combined History/electoral results section would look and work. Rossenglish (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised - the 'History of the Liberal Democrats' section should just be called 'History' - no self-references as per the WP:MOS. I'll change it now. This is also tru of the Leaders subsections - they are just nominal groups which are pointlessly long. Rossenglish (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that electoral results looks well placed at the end of history, as you suggested; neither the Labour or the Conservatives articles have a separate electoral results section, so I think the merge is justified. Here is the new layout:

   * 1 Ideology
         o 1.1 Left wing or right wing?
         o 1.2 Left of Labour?
         o 1.3 Policies
         o 1.4 Proportional representation
   * 2 History
         o 2.1 Founding
         o 2.2 Post-1988 history
               + 2.2.1 Ashdown (1988-99)
               + 2.2.2 Kennedy (1999-2006)
               + 2.2.3 Campbell (2006-2007)
               + 2.2.4 Clegg (2007-present)
         o 2.3 Electoral results
   * 3 Structure
         o 3.1 Internal factions
   * 4 Leaders of the Liberal Democrats
         o 4.1 Deputy Leaders of the Liberal Democrats
         o 4.2 Leaders of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament
         o 4.3 Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 External links
         o 7.1 State Parties
         o 7.2 Party sub-organisations
         o 7.3 Historical information
         o 7.4 Category listings
         o 7.5 Miscellaneous

I think that this layout divides the key points more satisfactorily than before. Do you reckon that the article could be changed now or do you have any other thoughts? =) Rossenglish (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Rossenglish (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

After agreement, I have been bold and updated the page from my sandbox. Rossenglish (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Past party position

It's my recollection that during the early Ashdown years the party took a deliberate position of strict equidistance between Conservatives and Labour (humorously summed up by Spitting Image as "neither one thing nor the other but somewhere in between"; more serious commentators may have used the term "dead centre" but I can't be sure) but then at some point between 1994 & 1996 they dropped this (not least because with New Labour repositioning itself a strict equidistance policy would push the Lib Dems further to the right than many were comfortable with) to instead try and settle in a consistent position and (possibly deliberately) be closer to New Labour at a time when the country was swinging heavily against the Conservatives. Instead New Labour jumped over them!

Does anyone have any good suggestions for sources on this? The Lib Dems' position on the spectrum is traditionally difficult to sum up for all manner of reasons, some historical, and a stronger description of the basic history of the position would help explain things clearer than various one-off individual statements by successive leaders. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

policies section

the policy section just says that you can find their policies on their website. Someone should actually write them down here.

The introduction as well doesn't have any citations and i changed a couple things. The page could do with brushing up and checking etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.54.106 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Porbably best removed, its pointess and seems to be more to do with advertising the Liberal Democrats then anything else. --92.17.42.147 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Liberal Democrats help

I am planning on creating an article for the Welsh Liberal Democrats, as both Welsh Labour and the Welsh Conservatives both have articles. However this will be my first article and I am also not a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, so I will be doing it first on my userpage. So any advice or help would be most welcome. Thanks --CelticCymru (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Evans and the Liberal Democrats

In 2007, Marcus Evans donated £1 million to the Liberal Democrats to fund a call centre for the next general election campaign.http://www.clubfanzine.com/ipswich_town/v2.showNews.php?id=5157 Can anyone add any further information on this British billionaire businessman's relationship with the party? Ivankinsman (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Left, right and centre

What do left, right and centre mean?

I don't know anything more about British politics than what is published in the Canadian media or on the internet. This article is full of lots of great information about the Liberal Democrats (who I knew nothing about). I also don't know anything about left, right and centre.

Well, I do because those terms are used frequently here in Canada. The words probably have different meaning on opposite sides of the Atlantic, but that's not my problem.

The range of differences between political ideologies is wide and complex. Political ideologies have dogmas on property, economy, social relations, the way we get around, get off and get dressed.

What is left and what is right? On some issues if you go far enough in either direction you get to the same place. Government interference, for example is hated by hardcore "right wingers" and by anarchists alike.

The point I'm trying to make is that the differences between ideologies are too complex to be described by a one dimensional plane. And that's what the left/right/centre labels really are, political diversity confined to a single plane.

Jeremy McNaughton; London, Canada June 6th 2004 3:40am

PS. first time contributing to wikipedia after reading it for years, sorry if there's any etiquette that i'm ignoring.

Couldn't agree more. Why, within your very article you place anarchists as left, opposed to right wingers. And not all are. Take anarchist Libertarians (please). Anarchangel (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC) PS. And the etiquette you would be ignoring would be using four Tildes, top left of the keyboard, instead of laboriously if courteously typing your name etc out. The time you would be saving is yours to do with as you will. Anarchangel (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Left wing and right wing are very vague concepts and seem to depend much for their meaning on who is using the terms. I heard Charles Kennedy's speech today on the radio (he was speaking at their annual conference) and he said that the Lib Dems were neither left or right wing. Liberal Democrats (as the names suggests) support freedom from government interference which seems to be considered right wing but the Lib Dems are considered more left wing than labour. I'm sure that it wouldn't be difficult to even see issues that are considered right wing in one country and left wing in another. In Britain the terms have probably become interlinked with the policies of Conservative (RW) and Labour (LW) regardless of whether they are actually right wing or not, although this is not always the case, people accuse Labour of being right wing. --Cap 13:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lib Dems have long eschewed the terms "left" and "right", claiming they are meaningless. By the way, it is too simplistic to say that Lib Dems are to the left of Labour. Perhaps this is so in terms of official national policies (even so, Labour claims that Lib Dems opposed the recent minimum wage increase - is this true?). There are some councils where Lib Dems are to the right of Labour. Even in Parliament, Labour has an (admittedly small) hard-left faction which is to the left of the Lib Dems. And the Lib Dems consistently deny being to the left of Labour, whether people regard them as such or not. Also, leading rightwingers in the party have recently called for a shift to (what non-Lib Dems call) the right. Plus Labour is still seen as more union-friendly. To Jeremy: in the UK, government interference is not purely a leftwing thing. Traditionally the conservatives have supported government interference in some respects (e.g. tough law and order policies, Section 28 and other government-instigated discrimination against homosexuals). Examples of what is considered left and right. Left: higher taxes on the rich, higher spending on health and education, more generous welfare payments, laws more favourable towards the trade unions, and (arguably) laws protecting sexual and racial equality and giving greater equality to gays. Right: increased role for the market or private sector in health and education, further privatization measures, restrictions on unions, reduced welfare payments, reduced taxation (particularly when it benefits the rich disproportionately). 5 Oct 2004 18:37

A point here. Government interference is not a purely left-wing thing anyway. Richard Nixon expanded the public sector more than any US President in history, but we do not generally consider him 'left-wing'. The Liberal Democrats have always called themselves 'neither left nor right but straight ahead', as the Liberal Party before them did. Indeed, the continuity Liberal Party criticises the Lib Dems for being 'dead centre' rather than a radical party that does not belong on the L-R scale.Matthew Platts 22:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put in the context of both European national politics and English-speaking Parliamentary politics the Lib Dems are a centre-left party, generally in favoiur of higher government spending and taxation and a greater role for the state in the provision of services and reduction of income inequalities. JDancer 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to have weblinks to every local Lib Dem association? Wikipedia is not a links repository and the local party sites are accessible via the federal party site and several other links. Dbiv 22:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On top of that, some of the links are to MPs/prospective candidates rather than local associations. E.g. Simon Hughes's home page should be linked from Simon Hughes, not here. --Henrygb 23:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right, that's it, they're gone. If anyone wants to find a local party they can go to the Huntingdonshire site which links to them all, but they're not going on this page. Dbiv 22:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that are partially center-left but would argue that they are also centrist. The ideologies of their founding parties are listed as center-left and center as well. Also, I had around 6 sources that either explicitly stated or implied that they were a largely center-left party but it kept getting removed. If you'd like to check the references for yourself then go to the history section since I've been told we're not to post links on a talk page. As a consensus building strategy I suggest they be labeled as both center and center-left; we've done the same thing about the Democratic Party (US) and it seems to have stuck. As with that party there seem to be two main factions which are referenced in the article and would seem to represent the center and center-left. So it seems perfectly logical that its ideology reflect that. Having both there would seem to satisfy both claims.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Scotland and Europe

I have some problems with two points in this article.

“In the Scottish Parliament it forms a coalition Scottish Executive with Labour, where it supplies Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace.”

Jim Wallace resigned on 23 June 2005. Nicol Stephen was elected to replace him.

Be WP:BOLD and correct it! -Splash 00:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- Kanaye

“and are considered the most pro-European party in British politics.”

I’m not sure about that. They are probably the most pro-European party out of the main three (Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats). But out of every British political party? I would find that to be unlikely. -- Kanaye

This is probably a valid point. I think the replacement you suggest sounds good. -Splash 00:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Certainly they're probably the most pro-European (in general terms) of the three main parties, but offhand I can't think of a "significant minor" party which is obviously more Europhile. Anyone? It's not something I normally note for the small parties... Shimgray 00:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any British political party with more Pro-European views. I suppose the Scottish National Party is an option, but that's not "British" in the sense of nationwide, and I doubt that they're *considered* the most pro-European over the lib dems. -- Joolz 01:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would of suggested the Scottish National Party as being a possible example. But as you pointed out it can’t really be considered as a nationwide British party. I’ll leave it for now. -- Kanaye

How about the Green Party? They're very Europhiliac, and even have an MEP. In any case, in absence of some verifiable source for the claim it ought to be reworded at the very least.-01:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

UKIP have lots of MEPs, that doesn't make them pro-european! Infact, the Green party are Eurosceptic, if anything. -- Joolz 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

<carriage return...> Ok, they manage to give me the wrong vibes then. I haven't read their policies in much detail. Still, we're wandering rather away from the point here: the claim that was originally pointed out is not substantiated in its original form, so should be rephrased. A rephrasal with ref to the 3 main parties is readily substantiated from manifestos (as is the broader claim, but with faaaar to many manifestos). My fingers are itching to be WP:BOLD about this... -Splash 02:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say the Green party are pro-Europe, but anti the constitution. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

(this is way off discussing the relative merits/de-merits of the article now!) From the Green Party's manifesto, "The present EU structures are fundamentally flawed", "...not impose the "harmonisation" of the current EU. ", importantly "we oppose proposals which seek to tighten the grip of "ever closer union", "All European institutions should consistently promote economic self reliance rather than free trade", "The Green Party is opposed to EMU and the single currency"... I could go on ;) (all from their website). So anyway, I'm not opposed to the sentance being rephrased :P -- Joolz 13:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, who said that Labour couldn't be more pro-EU? Claiming the LDs to be the most pro-EU is a bit silly: what chance have they had to prove it? I think it's a rather rash statement and without any references I'd move for it to be removed. 86.16.135.174 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox: Ideology

There seems to be some disagreement over what to put in the ideology section of the info box. Options are Liberalism, Social Liberalism and Social Democracy. The party is at least officially a merger between a Liberal party and a Social Democratic party. The Wikipedia entry on Social Democracy mainly concentrates on the traditional meaning of SD as a non-revolutionary socialism rather than a cover for centrism. Social Liberalism is not what results from crossing Liberalism and Social Democracy but a strand of liberalism even though there is some overlap in policies between SLs and SDs (although the SDP were dead against some of the traditional SL views of nuclear weapons, internal party democratic structures etc). In a European context, the Lib Dems sit easier with parties like the Dutch D66 rather than the VVD or the German FDP which would probably mark them as social liberals rather than economic liberals, at least for now. Paulleake 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They're mostly social democratic, with a good chnunk of social liberal and a very small dash of economic liberal. I'd tend to leave the latter out as it's not where they position themselves in the UK. JDancer 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with this is Lib Dems seem to alter their political position depending on their "target audience" in a given area. In Liverpool, where they largely occupy the ground left by the now-redundant Conservative Party, they occupy a more right-wing position in contrast to the local Labour Party's centre-left position. In nearby Wirral however, where both the Conservatives and the Labour Party are significant opponents, they occupy a more traditional "liberal" position. On a national scale, the Lib Dems have moved from a traditional liberal position under Paddy Ashdown, to a more social-libertarian stance under Charles Kennedy, and now to a more free-marketist, "liberal conservative" position under Nick Clegg. I have absolutely no idea what kind of ideology you could pin to the Liberal Democrats, though "centrist" seems like a fair assessment of their general position on the political spectrum (at the moment, anyway, to the left of the Tories and to the right of Labour). They do to tend to opt for a more liberal stance (which can be a left or a right wing stance in varying contexts) than the other two parties, but there are so many things to contradict liberalism as being a finite Lib Dem ideology. I could suggest "populist" but that might be seen as a pejorative term... 213.121.151.174 (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they're clearly centre-left in their essential politics and beliefs. The current message, after all, involves taking well over £15bn from the wealthy in order to cut tax for lower earners and targeting new money at schoolchildren with the most difficulties - see their website. Their consistent message on tax has been progressive - despite the arguments about 'liberal conservatism', which I really don't think wash, it's got more progressive in terms of making the wealthiest pay more and not less - including under Clegg. So I really don't think 'centrist' covers it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.151.105 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Democracy?

Social democracy is not social liberalism, still less liberalism, but is a perfectly valid strain of thought within the Liberal Democrats. 129.67.55.152 10:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I associate myself with Paulleake's clarifications. I would remind you the fact that the Labour Party has represented British 'social democracy' (we use this word according to European/international context, see Social democracy). Historical SDP was a right-wing (liberal) splinter group from Labour, the British 'soc dem' party. So, I would describe SDP's ideology as 'social liberalism' as the party used to position itself to the right of Labour. So, it is precisely this 'social liberalism' that reminds us today of the SDP part of Alliance. Constanz 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite being a merger of the old Lib and SDP i do not think the parties ideology is social democratic. The party has a clear liberal ideology, which some would label as social liberal. They tend not to use the word social liberal themselves. I would certainly limit it to (social) liberal. The beliefs of the party published on its website are : The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives. Electionworld 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Constanz 10:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think that social democracy is a part of the Lib Dem tradition. The concern with redistribution - currently going further than Labour by quite a long way - and equality, though of course it has liberal antecedents too, definitely reflects that strand of thinking. While of course the SDP had a range of different points of view within its ranks, someone like Shirley Williams - whose autobiography is pretty clear in this regard, using the phrases 'social democrat' and, indeed, 'democratic socialist' to describe herself - would be rather surprised, I feel, to hear that social democracy has no role in the Lib Dems at all. Incidentally, the point about equality in the LD Constitution reflects that history - the Liberal Party's old preamble didn't talk about equality directly to my knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.151.105 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Centrist

I changed their position from centre-left to centrism. This is because Menzies Campbell has shifted the party to the right (supporting Royal Mail privatisation, lowering taxes etc.). Presumably the centre-leftness was a reaction to their opposition to the Iraq War under Kennedy. --Otware 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced you're right. Check out this interview with Ming [[8]] Sir Menzies Campbell: "I am a creature of the centre left." I think being anti-war isn't really an issue of the left-wing or right-wing spectrum. Also, the current tax policy is to keep the overall burden of taxation the same, but to reassign some of it so that wealthier people pay more, and to replace a certain percentage of income tax with envoronmental tax instead. That isn't really a lurch to the right, it doesn't sound like a radically different position for the Lib Dems, just a more pragmatic one. KrJDub05 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody in their right mind would describe New Labour as being centre-left or even centrist, so just because the Lib Dems are positioned to the left of New Labour does not make them centre-left. Despite this, New Labour does like to pretend it is centre-left when it blatantly isn't - this shows a general rightwards shift in British politics similar to (but not as extreme as) American politics. The Lib Dems have always considered themselves 'liberals' despite the fact that they are actually the result of the social democrats and liberals merging. Liberals have never been regarded as centre-left. --Otware 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason all you want that the Liberal Democrats are centrist, but don't alter the article based on your personal impressions. Rather, derive your edits from reputable sources, which are the essence of Wikipedia. Speaking of which, the Telegraph reports that "Sir Menzies insisted that he was a ‘centre-Left politician'". [9]. Moreoever, the Encylopædia Britannica states that ". . .the Liberal Democrats occupy a centre-left, libertarian position." [10] Accordingly, I will change the party's political position back to "centre-left". -- WGee 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is sufficient evidence to state that one of the party's main, if not the main, ideology is social liberalism; since social liberalism is regarded as being center-left, shouldn't that be listed as its position also? The Democratic Party (US) has both listed under its position since it occupies center and center-left. It makes sense that the Lib Dems would have both as well. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideology

The Ideology section of the infobox is majorly cluttered. I'll remove the bit about historical ideologies, because unless I'm mistaken, they refer to the founding parties; Liberal Party and SDP, and really shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox. I'll change it for now, unless anyone has any other suggestions? Jh39 (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that they were about predecessor parties too, but I left them in, as I thought if in doubt - leave it. I don't know the relative strengths of the factions, so I'd prefer to remove the 'minority faction' bit, it is a bit WP:OR I think (?). I'm never really sure about ideologies - I think substance is more important than dogma - so do reply if you could enlighten me a bit :) Ross^English 11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it does says later in the article that the Social liberal faction makes up a majority of the party:

"Social liberals have dominated the party since its formation"

...and the policies of the party throughout it's history are evidence of this. So the Market faction would have to be a minority, no?

I wouldn't say adherence to an ideology was neccessarily dogmatic. IMO it's about principled politics, as long as one keeps at least half an eye on pragmatism =P Jh39 (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I see your point - the policies are enough evidence of a market liberal minority.

I'm still an empiricist myself though - give me evidence over ideology any day; though you're right it is very useful to frame and justify one's policies with common principles. Principles also stop you from making opportunist mistakes. Ross^English 12:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Liberal Democrats are not Democratic Socialists nor, really are they Social Democrats, the policies of the Lib Dems do not fit that of the idealogy of democratic socialism in any way shape or form, nor do they claim to be democratic socialist in their consitution.--92.17.154.230 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Who said they were Democratic socialists? There are however many members and supporters of the party who associate themselves with social democracy, so I think it deserves mention. One of the founding parties was a Social Democratic Party after all. Jh39 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Socialism

It has been suggested that the Liberal Democrats article should be included within the remit of WikiProject Socialism. I'm reverting that change and explaining here why. First, as anyone reasonably familiar with British politics will know, the Liberal Democrats are usually regarded as a centre party which is, if not mid-way, then somewhere between the Labour Party on the left and the Conservative Party on the right. They are not and never have been committed to socialism; the party has always been affiliated to the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party and the Liberal International, and never to anything terming itself a socialist body. The pre-eminent socialist political group in Britain since 1918 is the Labour Party; the Liberal Democrats stand in opposition to Labour.

Second, the Liberal Democrats explicitly repudiate any connection between their own political philosophy and socialism. There are several examples of which the best is the speech by the current leader Nick Clegg in December 2008 on "Why I am a Liberal", including a lengthy section in which Clegg outlines the difference between progressive Liberalism and progressive Socialism.

Third, in an effort to find out why the page had been added, I asked the editor who had done so and was told that it was connected with the inclusion of "social democracy" as a Liberal Democrat ideology in the infobox. This is to misunderstand history. The Liberal Democrats were created in 1988 as a merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. Some parties with this name have been definitely socialist but the social democracy represented by the SDP was a step out of the socialism of the Labour Party in the early 1980s. As the party's unofficial history outlines on page 53, the SDP was formed by Roy Jenkins after Jenkins came to the belief that 'socialism' as a word was empty of meaning. Page 102 reports an early news conference at which founder Bill Rodgers was asked whether the SDP was "a new kind of socialist party" and replied by defining it only as a "left-of-centre party". Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The same user is also insisting, with the same minimal explanation, on applying the templates to the articles on the SDP and the two continuity parties. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats because those parties (SDP) call themselves Social democrats.. Social democracy is an ideology within Socialism... Check your sources and revert your edits.. Okay? --TIAYN (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Check yours. As stated above the SDP in the UK were stepping away from socialism. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Social democracy, while not pure socialism, still falls under the umbrella term as a branch of socialism whether they were "stepping away" from it or not. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bit late in the game, but just my 10 cents. I concur with SB's assessment of the Lib Dems' idelogy; they are far removed from socialism, and the fact that a party with the words "Social Democrat" in their title merged into it means absolutely nothing. If you want further proof, TIAYN, go to England, and ask a Lib Dem if s/he is a socialist. You'll get a funny look, guaranteed. HonouraryMix (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I was perplexed when I saw this, this is not a socialist party Notjamesbond (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Logo

Can someone change the logo to one with the correct font? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.58.49.60 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

...and the new colours (yellow & aqua) Asha28 (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)