Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Policies.

Just been looking at the page and noticed there is no actual 'Policies' section (such as there is with the Conservative Party (UK) article). Was wondering if there was a distinct reason for this seeming lack of consistency? If not then should we not commence the creation of some sort of section solely about the party's policies, as there are with many other political party articles? --Matt Downey (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Civil Libertarianism?=

Given that the Liberal Democrats want to oppress the right to strike, is it NPOV to claim that they are both centre-lert and believe in Civil Libertarianism?--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussed before. Discussion about where liberals fit on the left-right spectrum is valid, but has no place in this article. The Lib Dems are a liberal party. Whether that places them on the left, the right or the center depends on where one places liberalism in general in the spectrum. The Lib Dems btw have never made their opposition to organized labor secret. TFD (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They are civil libertarian and radical centre-centre left. I also don't see any real evidence that the party is opposed to organized labor.--Matt Downey (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apart from wanting to effectivly ban the right to strike. Also, by joining the coalition with the Tories, and implimenting right wing policies, they moves the Lib Dems to the centre-right. wanting to impliment anti-union laws is against civili rights and civil liberties. It is also undemocratic.--Welshsocialist (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"the case for changing strike law is not compelling. However, should the position change, and should strikes impose serious damage to our economic and social fabric, the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid" Is hardly the same as banning the right to strike. And there can be much debate about the implementation of right-wing policies vs their own manifesto commitments, but this is not the place for it.--Matt Downey (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Social Liberal Forum

Is it worth having this lot in the article? They seem to be more than a bunch of people whingeing in the pub, but are they big enough for the article to mention? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah probably worth a mention I suppose. They do have a considerable impact on policy decisions within the party. --Matt Downey (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Might actually be worthy of its own page come to think of it, like the Tory Reform Group.--Matt Downey (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to their website. There does not seem to be sufficient coverage to support an article, but that may change rapidly as they are now holding their first conference. TFD (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Best leave it out then until there's more coverage. Totnesmartin (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Their conferences

Where would it be possible to see a little review of the Liberal Democrat conferences? I have just looked at the history of the article and it has not been edited for a few days, but as of September 20-21 2011, their 2011 conference is still in progress. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead

Matt Downey, who appears to be a member of the Lib Dems from his user page, wants to insert into the lead a long sentence referencing a University College London study that around three quarters of the policies in the party's manifesto were included in the Programme (note British English spelling btw) for Government they agreed with the Conservatives last year.

I've reverted this on several grounds - which I'll outline below - and inserted a shorter version of it in the section on their involvement in the coalition government in the body.

For a start, it's undue. WP:LEAD makes it clear that the lead should be a broad overview of the subject, in this case the Lib Dems since 1988 (I would also argue that it is recentist). How then does one line from a rather obscure academic study come to take up nearly a quarter off the lead?

I think Matt is trying here to respond to what he perceives as a - in the article unvoiced - criticism that the Lib Dems "sold their souls to the Devil" when they joined the Tories in government last year. It's fine to push that point of view on a blog or wherever but not in an encyclopedia where it falls foul of WP:NPOV. Haldraper (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to restore the referenced report of the study in a lower paragraph. Dbfirs 08:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My political affiliation couldn't be any less of your business.

For a start, it is not undue as it is not a "view point" it is a a fact. An academic study by a HIGHLY reputable source. It is as much a fact as stating when the party was formed and therefore cannot be undue. WP:LEAD says "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies", the study DOES establish context, DOES to some extent show why the subject is interesting or notable and DOES summarize one of the most important points. WP:NPOV states that "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." My edits do not go against this, they do not take sides, they simply explain the findings of an academic report from a highly reliable source.

It would not be suitable to put it in a lower paragraph, because of what it says on WP:LEAD as I have demonstrated above.--Matt Downey (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dbfirs, that's exactly what I've done.
Matt, your membership of the Lib Dems is relevant if you are pushing a particular POV.
Whether or not it's a fact and the source of the ref have no relevance as to whether it's undue: it's whether it's given undue prominence, especially in the lead whose job is to provide a broad overview which is then expanded on in more detail in the body of the article.
I'm sorry but I really don't see why this line from an academic study is essential to the lead being able to "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points - including any prominent controversies". How many of the Lib Dems manifesto commitments were included in the Programme for Government agreed with the Conservatives is not a prominent controversy, unlike say the Lib Dems voting to increase student tuition fees. It probably only appears so to you because of your closeness to the subject of the article. Haldraper (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"relevant if you are pushing a particular POV" Good job I'm being totally NPOV then isn't it.

I have quoted from the "WP:Lead" page what the Lead is for and have demonstrated that the study should be shown in the lead as it provides context to the article. I have no closeness to the subject of the article. It provides context by showing why Liberal Democrats may believe that going into government is justified. The grounds for a party being in government is always shown in the lead, usually this this is in the form of noting the general election, the seats gained, the votes won. However there is no majority in the HoC to any one party, so the general election and seats gained (or lost in the case of the Liberal Democrats), and votes won does not provide adequate context.

It is not undue weight, if you feel it is, please also feel free to add that the Liberal Democrats have suffered from criticism for joining the government.--Matt Downey (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If the page was about the Lib Dems in government 2010-, you might have a point but it isn't, it's about their history since 1988 (and before that now you've expanded the para on their predecessors).
That's why a discussion of their role in the coalition belongs in the section dealing with the Lib Dems in the coalition rather than speculation as to their reasons for doing so, criticisms of that decision, electoral fallout etc. being kicked about in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The disputed paragraph in the lead reads terribly. It's clearly not NPOV (the use of the word 'prevented' is a dead giveaway), it's also clearly undue weight; selected lines from one academic article on the outcomes following from one election result cannot possibly be justified in the lead to an article on the entire history of the party. Is there any chance of a consensus/near consensus on editing this to make it read more sensibly? One can imagine a reasonably detailed paragraph further down that notes the 2010 election result, gives some detail of the creation and work of the coalition, and includes reference to this study - but the lead? Really? Mpjmcevoy (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

This page is really ridiculous and would be very confusing to most people. The ideology section on the left hand side is far too large. Changes should not be made out of personal opinion but in order to reflect the FACTS. I intend to slim down the ideology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.176.13 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I do think the idealogy section in the info box seems to be slightly long, and needs to be simplified. --Welshsocialist (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've shortened and simplified the two paragraphs that were rambling on about 'Orange bookers' vs social liberals and hopefully used the term 'Orange booker' in a more accurate context. I think the previous version implied an extreme divide within the party without giving any supporting sources. Longdehua (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but could someone explain how the Liberal Democrats are 'Classically liberal'? (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, my simplification of the ideology section has been reverted by the author who has also subsequently created a new page "Orange book liberalism" and appears to have had several warnings for getting into edit wars. I'm not going to get drawn into an edit war myself so if someone else could make an independent judgement, that would be great. Longdehua (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a classical liberal "faction" within the Lib Dems. Google "Liberal Vision" for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.182.207 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not pussyfoot here

Full disclosure: I'm an active Lib Dem member. But I think we're not treating the party neutrally at all. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be a he-said-she-said argument; they should read retrospectively and neutrally. In five years time, when this coalition is dissected by the academics, I can see three major perspectives, which roughly coincide with the parties:

  • The Lib Dems as an influential liberal voice pushing liberal policies (e.g. same-sex marriage, information tracking, digital economy act)
  • A sense of disappointment and betrayal from left-wing voters for getting into coalition (e.g. tuition fees, welfare bill, NHS bill)
  • A sense of anger from right-wing voters for having too much say in government policy (e.g. death penalty, EU, abortion)

We cover too much of #1 but not enough of the other two, despite the viewpoints being somewhat equal in how they're held. For example, we skim over tuition fees even though it's a pretty big deal: it ended up losing us the AV referendum, especially when the No2AV freepost had a picture of Clegg with the pledge. We should rewrite the article from this retrospective perspective, saying, for example, on tuition fees, that independent reviews mostly say the policy is good in the details, but the top-line of £9,000 ended up creating an image of the party as untrustworthy. Sceptre (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Article

An Article in The Daily Telegraph recently says (which I have proved in an Excel file) that under the current polls, the Lib Dems would only have 2 high-profile MPs in the commons. Should this be included? Spa-Franks (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The information sounds rather too ephemeral to be worth including. Next week it might be different. Dbfirs 16:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

There appears to be an edit-war going on here between two users. I have locked the article for some discussion to take place as neither party appears to have raised the subject on the last week on this talk page. Both of you need to discuss the matter and come to a sensible conclusion as to what state the article should be in. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've logged on to find the edit warring tag on my profile. Obviously this disappoints me as I've tried to conduct myself politely and logically. I think further investigation of this issue and it's history will exonerate me.
The sentence I (and at least one other editor here) has a problem with currently stands like this "An academic study has shown that the party has been able to secure a greater degree of control over government policy than their relative proportion of seats, with the party taking 75% of their manifesto pledges into the programme for government. Though some say this has had an adverse effect on the party's distinctiveness in the eyes of the voters". This is placed in the lead paragraph of the article which should be a concise summary of what the article is about and an introduction to the topic. It's pretty obvious to me that this is not an encyclopedic claim. It's impossible to gauge how much 'influence' one party or another has in a coalition government, it's impossible to argue whether this influence is proportionate or disproportionate to the number of seats a particular party holds, and it's certainly impossible to take a document as vaguely worded as an election manifesto and state baldly that exactly 75% of it has been delivered. The idea is simply laughable. To take such ambiguous concepts as influence and political promises and give them such exact quantities is not encyclopedic. I don't think it can be argued that the outcome of this dispute has a political consequence either way for the LibDem or any other party. Some LibDems, including the multiple IP I've come into dispute with may feel that it gives their party more Kudos to claim that their influence in the coalition is disproportionately strong. Others might argue equally well that claiming influence in a deeply unpopular government is exactly not what they wish to do. I don't particularly care either way about the political consequences of the debate, I do care about WP being accurate and making statements that have some grounding in facts that can be verified. Riversider (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I posted this two days ago, and noone has yet argued against any of these points. I'm beginning to think that there's therefore a case for removing that sentence as it's unencyclopedic and should not be in the lead paragraph. I'm aware that it cites an 'academic article'. There may be a case for inserting information from this (and probably other articles) in the section on the party's role in the current coalition to reflect the debate that exists around how influential within the coalition the party actually is. Any objections? Riversider (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you Riversider, the two sentences aren't encyclopaedic - they're just advocacy. Haldraper (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


Sorry, only just saw this. The reason you have been blocked the same as me is because you edit warred the same as me. It isn't a question of being polite or being high and mighty as you are, it's about that we broke the rules and you shouldn't recognise this as I do. You were making a politically motivated change to this article, in an area where there had previously been consensus except for other politically motivated editors, so you should have raised it on the talk page before changing.

I don't see how you can argue that this sentence makes the article un-concise, as it is less long than the Conservative Party UK lead, the Green Party of England and Wales lead, the UK Independence Party lead and about the same length as the Labour party (UK) lead. So your problem is clearly not actually how concise the lead is.

You then say about your view that it is not possible to gauge how much 'influence' a coalition party has, or how 'laughable' it is to base it on the election manifesto of a political party. For starters, the sentence doesn't gauge influence, it measures exactly a simple factor: how many manifesto policies were taken in to the coalition agreement. Secondly and more importantly, it doesn't matter whether you think it is laughable or not, nor does it matter what I think. An encyclopaedia has to be based on sources, now you can hardly call UCL's Constitution Unit some unimportant and not noteworthy body. An extremely academic source, made a measurement which is off huge significance to this article in providing context to the rest. "To take such ambiguous concepts as influence and political promises and give them such exact quantities is not encyclopedic", well, take this up with UCL. By the by, it's very easy, the Lib Dem manifesto and the coalition agreement essentially show policies in bullet point form.

I don't care either way about the fate of a political party, but this encyclopaedia is meant to be based on well sourced academic facts; that is what this sentence is. It needs to be in the lead because it is significant to the article as a whole, not just the coalition government. To argue that we should not include anything which has happened since the formation of the coalition in the lead just doesn't add up. If we did that we wouldn't include the number of MPs, the proportion of the vote, or in fact, basically about half the lead. The UKIP article shows how many councillors they won in 2011 in the lead.

The lead does need to show recent events. It's just that some editors would prefer it if they could simply slur the party. I only want facts and well sourced ones in the appropriate places.

--Purple1342 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Matt that you're only here to push the line of your political party - that it was worth your MP's joining the coalition government despite the political backlash. That's advocacy (your claim that you "don't care either way about the fate of a political party" is particularly disingenuous). I don't want to make any claims in the lead, just cut the last two sentences. Haldraper (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Matt/Purple, I've just been posting on your talkpage - didn't realise you'd been here. I've actually proposed a compromise that I think would work and enhance the article - I really don't think your sentence belongs in the lead paragraph, it's too narrow and technical a matter for a paragraph that's meant to sum up the whole history of a party from it's birth to the present day, it's an issue that is very interesting for people who are politically passionate about the LibDems (whether their passion is pro or anti), but it's something that the everyday person consulting the encyclopedia would not be quite as excited about. I'm proposing that I delete the sentence from the lead, but that you re-integrate it into the main body of the text in the section that deals with the party's role in the present coalition government. The article is directly relevant to that discussion and would be well placed there, and people who are passionately interested will be interested enough to reach that part of the article. I know you have ambitions to be a political leader yourself, so here's where you can start learning some leadership skills. Good leaders don't always have to win every argument, instead they build consensus and a reputation for listening, as well as acting. The many blocks and warnings you've received on your own talk page are WP's less than subtle way of trying to point this out to you. Now's your chance to demonstrate that you're learning from your interaction with this global community and it's work. WP is a strange kind of living coalition too. Riversider (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not Enough Yet

Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use Encyclopedia Britannica etcetera. More on links with the Alliance Party, maybe. I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 

62.249.253.7 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

There's more information out there. 

62.249.253.7 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

How much descended from Whig Party?

62.249.253.37 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

Polling

Have added a sub section with a graph on polling. This is not only newsworthy but noteworthy as well. It has been going on for a long sustained period (since April 2012), it is very closely covered by what we regard as reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian, The Telegraph etc, so on and so forth). This definitely has a pace in both this article and UKIP's article, it is already in UKIP's article and the text has already been scrutinized by those who openly admit that they are Liberal Democrats. However I understand that with this being a Liberal Democrat article that it is indeed reasonable to add to the text and perhaps give a bit of background as to why the Lib Dem's have lost support (i.e. taking most of the blame for the coalition, tuition fees, mid term blues etc).

It is important to avoid speculation on this though and I'd be weary of opinion pieces when commenting on both UKIP and The Liberal Democrats. I have not added to the agreed text because it is so difficult to write something and then back it up without the source being blatantly biased one way or the other! We must be careful of this, it would be quite wrong to say that "The Lib Dem's are facing extinction because they are criticized of constantly giving in to the Tories" because that isn't completely true and also they are the junior member of a coalition and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect them to get their own way most of the time. Equally it would be wrong to say that "UKIP have surged in support because they have capitalized on the disaffected Tory right", Yes that have gained votes from the Tory right but at the same time they have also gained large numbers from Labour (look at Rotherham) and the Lib Dem protest vote. I am giving a slight bit of analysis here which I know I shouldn't, I'm just trying to emphasize what would be an unreasonable thing to say. I hope you would know that but I have seen some far from neutrally written things on wikipedia, particularly on UKIP's page.

However, I am sure that as reasonable adults, we can agree a text, that is written neutrally, avoiding putting anyone's political point across! That is indeed if we need to expand this text! Just to note it was not me that wrote the current text, it has been altered a number of times by various editors, most of whom admit to having an interest in the Liberal Democrats but most regular editors of the UK Politics section do.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I aprove of this, there is no need for further expansion or analysis of any kind, that is not our job, we have not done this on related pages. Leave it as it is, it needs to be covered but not overhyped, the bigger the section you make it, the more overhyped it will be. That said it must be covered and the chart and inks to the polling page allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Let's not attempt to lead (or mislead as the case may be) down a certain path!Nick Nick Dancer 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:Sheffno1gunner and User:Nick Dancer have been identified as one and the same person and blocked for socking. --RJFF (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:Recentism. The LibDems have existed for 25 years. There has always been some up and down in opinion poll ratings. Their recent poll ratings are utterly irrelevant in a historical perspective (which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia should try to maintain). If their yields in elections drop, this has to be noted, but temporary "struggles" in opinion polls are not relevant for an encyclopedia. --RJFF (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of agree with RJFF, the competition for 3rd place is worth mentioning...but that whole section is way too "recentism." By my resolution, the 2010 onwards section of 'history' is going at about 1 screen per year. Though much of that is the list of ministers & whips....certainly important, but shouldn't be under 'history'. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for mistakenly removing info, forgot to take into account UKIPs loss of MEPS since election. Section still reads a bit off though, cites halfway through sentence etc. And just noticed text refers to a table which only exists on the article it was copied from. Also, suggest moving list of their current ministers (which is presumably being kept up to date and so patently not history) to....possibly a new subsection under 'Structure'? 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a weird little section. That the Liberal Democrats have "struggled in the opinion polls" since joining the coalition seems important and uncontroversial; it ought to be discussed in the article. That said, I don't see what UKIP has to do with it. One might include a sentence to note that the Lib Dems have declined so far that UKIP is ahead of them in some opinion polls, but I don't see why there should be an extensive discussion of whether or not UKIP has surpassed them as Britain's third party (they would need to actually do better than the Lib Dems in a general election to make such a claim, I should think). This is especially true in the article's bizarre current form, where this dubious claim that nobody is really making is introduced and then immediately refuted. john k (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Sheffno1gunner can complain about a Lib Dem bias all he wants, but ultimately he has created myriad sockpuppets in order to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I think I agree with everything John K said — let's mention it, sure, but to give it the section it has now, with the chart that compares them to UKIP so directly, is WP:UNDUE weight. We should address who the "third party" truly is in 2015, after the next election. — Richard BB 07:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to add to this that the graph that Sheffno1gunner added, along with accompanying text, has long since been removed from the UKIP article, which has now been semi-protected in order to stop his IP disruption (seeing as all of his main accounts have been indeffed). — Richard BB 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of polls.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.37 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Membership source is dubious

Lib Dem Voice is hardly an appropriate source. If it is inappropriate for us to use official party sources, or party affiliated outlets (e.g.Conservative Home, Labourlist, UKIP Daily or whatever else)for sourcing membership (which has been very robustly stated and upheld on other pages), then it is also not right for us to use the LibDemVoice source. I shall therefore remove the source and replace it with the most recent figure I can find. This is in accordance with Wiki policy and recent precedents set by regular editors. Owl In The House (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Euro Conservatives

I have been replacing content that was added quite some time ago that various editors (mainly IP editors) have recently been deleting for whatever reason. It is well documented that the Pro-Euro Conservative Party merged into the Liberal Democrats, here are just a few sources: 1 2 Some are trying to say that this isn't a merger because the old party was disolved and that not every single member didn't join the Lib Dems. I'm sorry but by that token then the [Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]] didn't merge into the party because not only did every member not join the Lib Dems but a new smaller Liberal Party was formed. To those who say "this was just the party dissolving and all its most senior members joining the Lib Dems, I hate to break it to you but that is the procedure for a merger. For a party to merge into another it has to dissolve and de-register with the electoral commission, that is exactly what they did. It simply is a fact that the current Liberal Democrat Party is as a result of 3 parties merging (all be it at different times): the bulk of the old Liberal Party, the SDP (a breakaway part of Labour) and the the Pro-Euro Conservatives (a breakaway part of the Tories). This is well sourced material and simply shouldn't be persistently deleted by IPs. Owl In The House (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The two sources you've provided don't help your case; it was a statement that the PECP was disbanded in favour of the leadership joining the Lib Dems; contrast with the formal merger process between the SDP and the Liberals in 1988. Even today, the party has the distinct divided wings from the merger, although perspectives of what each wing stands for has changed over time (From my own perception, what was primarily a left/right split [with the SDP on the right] as of late has become more of a centrist/radical split). Sceptre (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not a merger, it is a party dissolving and its members going elsewhere. A merger occurs when two parties decide to join together, even though legally both parties disband and urge their members to join a new party, as happened with the SDP-Liberal merger. TFD (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian article is very clear that it was disbanding of the party and its members joining. So the party did not join the Lib Dems - it was not a merger. The Independent article is somewhat amibiguous -- the article title says that party members were joining the Lib Dems, while the article could be interpreted either way: "We have therefore decided to join the Liberal Democrats." By "we", does Stevens means the party? Or its members? THe Telegraph article here says "the tiny Pro-Euro Conservative Party, founded by breakaway Tory MEPs, disbanded itself and its entire membership of 17 also joined the Liberal Democrats." The balance of evidence, therefore is clear that it was not a merger of two parties, but a dissolution of the PECP, and this article should say that. Ground Zero | t 03:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You are not using the sources in the correct way, you seem to be ignoring journalistic or creative license, Wikipedia is not news, we use what are considered to be reliable sources to get to the facts. This is often difficult with reporting on such a political event because different papers will put their own narrative on these things. In the UK it is quite clear that the process for a party to merge into another party is for a party to de-register it's self with the electoral commission and for its membership to be incorporated into the other party, this is what happened. Indeed if two parties want to merge under a different name from either of their two previous names, those two parties have to dissolve, deregister from the electoral commission and found and register a new party. That is the process for mergers, parties get disolved and its membership join the new party, that is process, what you and indeed the Guardian described is process. In effect your argument actually suggests that dissolving and de-registering the SDP and the liberal parties and their memberships joining a new party was not a merger; but of course this is a ridiculous claim to make. If you attempt to balance sources in the way you just have (based on journalistic narrative) then you don't get to the facts. The sources tell us (and you have quoted) that the party has been disolved and that the party's leadership have said "We have therefore decided to join the Liberal Democrats." Ergo it is a merger as it follows the process of a merger, especially if it's "entire membership of 17 also joined the Liberal Democrats.". Now, lets just say for a minute that the entire membership didn't join the Liberal Democrats, would that stop it from being a merger? No, it is what the leadership have decided to do and the fact they have followed the merger process. This can be highlighted by the example of not all of the members of the old Liberal Party joining the Lib Dems when the party was de-registered, indeed many of them who were unhappy with the merger relaunched the party, they did this by registering a new party with the electoral commission with the same (old) name, see Liberal Party (UK, 1989). Now if you are trying to argue that the Pro-Euro Conservatives haven't merged into the Lib Dems, then surely you have to argue that the Liberal Party didn't merge into the Lib Dems. Your argument relies on journalistic narratives and treating them as facts (despite them contradicting each other), it is very easy to get to the bottom of this if you keep it fact based and ignore the journalistic narratives. Owl In The House (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The PEC membership may have merged into the Lib Dems but nowhere in the sources does it state that there was any formal merger process whatsoever. If there was, you'd be able to find conference motions, statements by people such as Ashdown, and so forth. All this was an incredibly small party disbanding itself, and then as normal members of the public, joining the Lib Dems. Sceptre (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You have basically just rehashed process of what a merger is; the disbanding of one party and it's leadership formally declaring that it's membership are joining another party....that is what has happened, you've said so yourself. Your point about "statements by people such as Ashdown" is far from an encyclopedic one, Ashdown wasn't even an MP at the time, never mind Leader. However I can go one better, here are some reliable source where the then party leader Charles Kennedy welcomes the Pro Euro-Conservatives into the party BBC,EUobserver. Your line of "Normal members of the public" is a good way of spinning it to suit your argument, you should be a politician/spin doctor if you aren't one already but those sports of naratives are things an encyclopedia should ignore outright when digging for the facts. Secondtime I've hadto make this point in this thread. Reliable sources often contradict each other, which is why it is vital we don't base our coverage on article narratives. I see you have ignored my comparison between the merger of the Liberal Party and the merge of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. Owl In The House (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Owl, I understand that you are frustrated with this thread, but you must understand that Wikipedia has a policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comments like "you should be a politician/spin doctor if you aren't one already" are personal attacks, rather than constructive arguments. I suggest that you withdraw the remark. Also, "it's" means "it is", which is not what you mean in your first sentence (twice). Ground Zero | t 00:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not a rehashing of what a merger is. When the Social and Liberal Democrats were formed it was through the formal merger of the Social Democrats and the Liberals; the organisations merged. It wasn't, as in the case of the Pro-Euro Conservatives, two organisations disbanding and the majority of members joining an already existing political party. I would be interested to find a source which actually describes this as a "merger". HazhkTalk 20:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding my view, I agree with the four others here who have stated that the sources you have provided are not claiming that this was a Party merger. (Also, if I'm honest, I'm shocked there is actually even a debate about this). As has been said, all that has been asserted in the articles are that 1) the Pro-Euro Conservatives have determined that they had been unsuccessful in their goal to get heavyweight Europhile Tories to join their party, which means they stand little chance of becoming the political force they hoped to become, 2) As a consequence the Party is being disbanded and 3) with that in mind, the former leaders of the party have decided to join the Lib Dems, and are endorsing the party to any of their former supporters. None of the articles describe this as a merger, and I don't think a majority of people reading these articles would conclude that what the articles are describing is a formal party merger.

As for the comment above, I was also interested in the exact definition of a political party merger, but a Google search doesn't really return anything specific. I've found a few journal articles on the study of party mergers (motivations, support from party members, successes etc.), but have only found two which provide a definition.
* Bélanger and Godbout define a party merger as "the fusion of two (or more) political parties into a single new party organisation" ("Why Do Parties Merge? The Case of the Conservative Party of Canada" in Parliamentary Affairs issue 63(1), 2010).
* Lowey et al. "We treat mergers as births of new organizations and the disbanding of their independent predecessors as party deaths." ("Policy agendas and births and deaths of political parties" in Party Politics issue 19(3), 2011).

Both these definitions would suggest that both of the former parties need to cease to exist and a brand new party needs to be created from the two (or more) old parties, which can't really be said to apply to what's being discussed as, whilst the PEC did disband, the Lib Dems continued on as before and there is no evidence of any change to the structure or constitution of the party.

As for the assertion that if you don't think this was a merger then the SDP didn't technically merge with the Liberals, I'd say there are two massive differences. Firstly, it wasn't defined as a merger because every member of one party joined the other, it's because both parties put forward the proposals to their members and each membership mutually agreed to the proposed merger (see 1988 here, http://www.markpack.org.uk/1274/sdp-liberal-alliance-chronology/ ), and both parties disbanded and formed a brand new party (consistent with the definitions above), contrary to the PEC and Lib Dems as there was no formal vote or motion by the Lib Dem party, and a decision to merge can't be formal if it isn't formally agreed by both parties. And secondly, describing the SDP and Liberals as a merger is well and clearly sourced (see, http://www.libdems.org.uk/history , http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=4&item=history , http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/who-are-the-liberal-democrats , http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/14/liberal-party-history ). Notice how in each one of those sources, the word 'merge' or 'merger' is used to describe what happened, unlike any of the souces which have been provided about the PEC and Lib Dems, which there is no one who describes it as a merger. Because it wasn't.

One last point: "Reliable sources often contradict each other, which is why it is vital we don't base our coverage on article narratives"........ Erm, what? I'd say when showing verifiability, if sources contradict each other, than they can hardly claim to be reliable sources. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The SDP/Liberal merger took the best part of five to ten years to do. The Pro-Euro Conservatives didn't even get to that age. Sceptre (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Religion?

This article, along with other articles I'm reading about British political parties, contain no information about religion. This is a major part of a political ideology and I don't know what's up with these articles that there is nothing about religion. . .--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The major British political parties generally don't have a religious standpoint, although individual politicians sometimes discuss their personal beliefs. (During his time as British Prime Minster Tony Blair was interrupted by his own Director of Communications, Alastair Campbell, to prevent him from answering a question about his Christianity, with Campbell explaining, "We don't do God".) Of course, in the USA, state and religion are strictly separated - so there are no religious state holidays, unlike in the UK where have just had national bank holidays for Good Friday and Easter Monday - though it's hard to imagine an atheist being elected President anytime soon. JezGrove (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

Please change Liberal Democrat members from 44,000 to recently reached 50,000. Judepainter (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Policies

Given that the current Policies section of this article refers to a coalition that no longer exists, would it be appropriate to move the current information to the "in coalition government" section of History and replace it with a neutral form of their 2015 election manifesto which can be updated as and when a new one is written.Hg76b (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

Please update the membership count which as of today has surpassed 54,240 Source: http://www.libdems.org.uk/liberal-democrat-membership-surge BigWig69 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now done this. In the interim, direct reporting from the Lib Dem website is probably the best source we can get, although I'd be happier to see the source replaced by another form of journalism like the Independent link that preceded it. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV? Radical centre vs centre? Centre to centre-left?

Can we remove "Radical center" (sic) from the Infobox, please? Firstly, it is merely a marketing term used by liberal political parties used to self-describe themselves, it is not a widely recognised academic political science term. Secondly, centre as a political position is preferable, more generic, and more easily verifiable. Thirdly, "Radical center" (sic) is cited with quotes from the LibDems' party leader and party officials - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, NOT a partisan blog, therefore we need to use neutral third-party sources to categorise a political party.--Autospark (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though I would say that radical centrism could be included as a political ideology as opposed to a spectrum position identified academically. JJARichardson (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such ideology. Any descriptive information that could be communicated with "Radical center" (sic) would be far more accurately conveyed using commonly recognised terms such as Liberalism or Centrism, obviously with citations.--Autospark (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a citation from the latest Political Studies Association Symposium (2014) that clearly presented and discussed the radical centre ideology (which exists), identified the Lib Dems as such, and proceeded to analyse their record in government against this marker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.107.228 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the question of centre vs radical centre, I want to point out that many reliable sources describe the party as being centre-left. Clearly, "centre [or "radical centre"] to centre-left" would be the correct description. I know that Lib Dem PR has increasingly been trying to portray the party as being firmly in the centre. But, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Renren8123 (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this whole debate. The only issue was with "radical centre" and that was removed and put down as a self-identifier *even though you can actually find some academic sources calling them that. Both Liberals and SDP were centrist (plenty of politics books calling them that), the Lib Dems since 1988 are always identified as centrist and social liberal from both journalists and academics. If anything they've become more centre-right than centre-left since the Orange Book. I think Centre covers it. If you find strong RECENT sources for centre left then let us know here. I don't think it's helpful to tag a whole article with NPOV for a simple extra "-left". If anything, it reads slightly negatively about the party. A lot of Guardian sources/quotes explicitly mocking for losing seats in all elections since coalition for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.105.83 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The LibDems aren't a centre-left party; they have centre-left currents, and are much more influenced by social liberalism than the typical European liberal party, but also have centre-right currents as well and have moved rightwards since 2003. The history of the SDP/Lib Alliance was of a centre force placing themselves between the Labour and Conservative parties, and that is essentially what the modern LibDems still are. As for Radical centre, I consider it a contentious term, but as long as there is adequate academic referencing behind it (rather than just quoting a party figure), I'd accept it. I'd still prefer more 'generic' and internationally applicable terms such as liberalism, social liberalism and even centrism, however.--Autospark (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Autospark I don't think the whole article is positive spin. But the very obvious emphasis on centrism does come across as being like PR. There's plenty of recent sources from academics, journalists, Lib Dems' enemies and their supporters for labelling the party as centre-left. Some examples http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/09/liberal-democrat-conference http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/11/liberal-democrats-tim-farron-labour http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/15/uk-britain-election-liberal-democrats-idUKKBN0N60FJ20150415 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Realignment-Left-History-Relationship-Democrat/dp/0333682963 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11144771/Graphic-How-the-Liberal-Democrats-differ-from-Labour.html I should add that this Wiki article does itself (correctly, in my view) label social liberalism as being the ideology of the Liberal Democrats, not a mere strain or current. As for what the other guy said, the SDP was not centrist! The SDP was an explicitly centre-left response to the perceived left-wing drift of the then Labour Party. Renren8123 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You've got to tell me how Centre is positive spin when everyone is yearning for a progressive leftish party LOL. I had added (elements of centre-right and centre-left) with sources but that was deemed overkill. So we went back to simple Centre, nothing to do with head office although I'll let them know. The Orange Book has both economic/classical (CR) and social (CL) liberalism. I think just leaving it as Centre is fine to encompass everything, otherwise we run the risk of writing an essay in the infobox. Feel free to add those sources in the text though as it needs some work. Although be warned somebody else is just as likely to do the same for centre-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.104.116 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Also I have to say the SDP not being centrist is your point of view sadly. Have a browse through these:
Jeffrey Kopstein; Mark Lichbach (5 September 2005). Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order. Cambridge University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-521-84316-4. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
Mark Kesselman; Joel Krieger; Christopher S. Allen; Stephen Hellman (12 February 2008). European Politics in Transition. Cengage Learning. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-618-87078-3. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
John R. Cook; Peter Wright (6 January 2006). British Science Fiction Television: A Hitchhiker's Guide. I.B.Tauris. pp. 211–. ISBN 978-1-84511-048-2. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
Kerstin Hamann; John Kelly (2011). Parties, Elections, and Policy Reforms in Western Europe: Voting for Social Pacts. Taylor & Francis. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-415-58195-0. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
Peter Barberis; John McHugh; Mike Tyldesley (2000). Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations: Parties, Groups and Movements of the 20th Century. Continuum. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-8264-5814-8. Retrieved 20 July 2013.
Overwhelming sources for Centrist.
The info-box should only contain non-controversial information that enlightens rather than confuses readers. That the LD are liberals for example meets that. Where they lie on the political spectrum depends on where one thinks the center of the spectrum lies. Liberals present a special element of confusion, because they are generally seen as in the center but can make appeals to both left and right. TFD (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

To the IP address guy, if you pay attention to the election news, you will see that Nick Clegg is repeating over and over the view that the Lib Dems are in the centre, hence my comment about PR. 'The Orange Book' indeed. And what does the Wiki article on Social Liberalism say: "Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left." You can find works placing UKIP on the far-right, Labour on the right, Labour in the centre, etc, etc, etc. The question is, what is the consensus? The SDP was the Social Democratic Party. The Wiki article on Social Democracy reads: "Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods." What is that if not on the left?

TFD I don't think it's at all controversial to label the Lib Dems as being on the centre to centre-left. And I've provided mainstream sources that say this. Frankly, to read someone label Social Liberalism and even Social Democracy as being centrist is just bizarre! This article was rather stable until the beginning of this election season, when coincidentally it began to mirror the PR being put out by Nick Clegg, hence my suspicions. Renren8123 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where reading other wiki articles to inform your point of view comes into this. Just because you're called the National Socialist Party doesn't mean you're even remotely left. Please read the actual sources I've provided about SDP rather than just reading the name. So does the Monster Raving Looney Party have Sulley and Mike Wazowski as candidates? Both SDP and Libs were centrist, so have the Lib Dems been for most of their history bar a short centre left stint before 2005 with Kennedy after Iraq. As I said, I'm more than happy for you to incorporate your sources into the text itself. But then somebody will also be entitled to add and discuss centre right sources. This is what happened in the infobox. One person adds left, another adds right and it reads Centre-left-Centre-Centre-right. Surely just Centre is fine, otherwise editors will spend all their time reverting one person who removes left and another who removes right. The infobox is not the whole article. I'm more than happy if you want to edit the article itself. I might even go and find sources about centre right to add even more depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.104.116 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that we shouldn't take political party names literally when categorising them; for example, the main centre-right force in Portugal is called the Social Democratic Party. The SDP was explicitly a centrist party. Also, Renren8123 offers citations for categorising the LibDems as centre-left, but those are almost all media opinion pieces, and we should not count media sources as reliable for categorising political parties. Academic/scholarly sources yes, media no. (FWIW, I agree that there are centre-left elements to the LibDems party.)--Autospark (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The SDP chose the name to distance themselves from the right-wing Salazar dictatorship its leaders had served. There was also the far right "Liberal Democratic Party" in Russia. There was nothing social democratic about David Owen's SDP UK. In any case parties do not get to determine how they will be described in Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This really needs to be re-visited after Tim Farron's election as Tim Farron leader - there are now numerous, strong sources for describing the Liberal Democrats as a centre / centre left movement - both commentators & members self-describing themselves as such [1][2] [3] 03:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The election is very recent and we wait for third party sources to reflect actual positions rather than limited statements of intent.----Snowded TALK 05:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
A "progressive conservative" leads the Tory Party. It makes no difference. TFD (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This party is clearly Centre Left

It is even how many of their own high ranking MPs describe the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.6.115 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you then include the appropriate sources/references for your comment and also sign your posts. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Liberal Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liberal Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate text

The statement "From their first UK General Election in 1987 until the election of 2015, the Liberal Democrats were the third party in the House of Commons winning between 46 and 62 MPs" is wrong. The Lib Dems did not exist in 1987 (it was still the SDP Liberal Alliance) so the first Westminster election the Lib Dems fought was 1992. However in 1992 they got only 20 seats, less than the Alliance had won in the 1980s - it was 1997 when they got 46, albeit on a lower vote share than in 1992. Clearly this needs to be changed, but I am not sure the best form of words. Possibly "In their first UK General election in 1992 they won twenty seats and became the third party in the House of Commons. From 1997 until 2015 they always held over 46 seats, winning a record total of 62 in 2005."?Dunarc (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism

Why has this ideology been removed? The events of the past few days provide plenty of potential sources for this claim, as the Lib Dems have been running on a fanatically pro-EU platform. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it should be reinstated. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia:Recentism, and because Pro-Europeanism is not an ideology.--Autospark (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
More than recentism, I agree with Autospark on the fact that Pro-Europeanism is not an ideology. (Why not calling it simply "Europeanism", by the way? I'm not convinced by the respective articles, Pro-Europeanism and Europeanism, but that's probably my fault.) For this simple reason, I oppose the inclusion of "Pro-Europeanism" in this party's infobox, as in the infoboxes of each and every European party. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
In what sense is it not an ideology? It may be semantically ambiguous, but it's designed to express support for European integration. It's not a reflection of a recent development - the Lib Dems have been pro EEC/EU since their inception. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4a70fc02-2ae4-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html
  2. ^ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/11/voters-place-themselves-left-centre-lib-dems/
  3. ^ http://www.socialliberal.net/the_lib_dems_are_a_centre_left_party
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_Democrats_(UK)/Archive_5&oldid=1142767430"