add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
labour massage surrey | labour massage class surrey | labour massage... rowanperkin.co.uk | Intelligence debates at the Labour Party... drfosterintelligence.co.u... |
[edit] Election box metadataThis article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables. These links provide easy access to this meta data:
[edit] Party LogoSince Gordon brown took over, the Labour Party has been using a new logo. I'm pretty sure it's been fully adopted because I've seen it on a ballot paper for County Council election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.94.127 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know more about the old pen-spade-torch logo. When was it adopted? Who designed it? why was it dropped? Drutt (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) The need for an offical party 'brand' is relatively recent phenomena. Until at least the 1960s in parts of the country the Party used green rather than red as its colour! My understanding is that the Party never had an offical logo as such until at least the 1980s. When the head office adopted a stylised THE LABOUR PARTY in capitals mimicking the red flag, this was used on party publications and at conference during Micheal Foot's leadership. I'm not sure to what extent this was ever an offical logo however. The initial version of the Rose logo under during Kinnock leadership was the first offical logo as far as I can tell. Despite this the rule book still makes no reference to a logo, however the requirements under the 2004 Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act to register parties and logos has made the logo more official. The Party still uses amended versions of the logo in Wales and Scotland and a different logo for Labour Co-operative joint candidates.--79.70.14.93 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Centre-left?It's suggested here that Labour are formerly left-wing, whereas now they are centre left. I would argue that they are now centrist. Indeed, on the highly respected Political Compass claims that they are centre-right http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright Something worth considering? 62.136.132.95 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I thouht that Wikifacts were meant to be NPOV, so being neutral is surley the sort of basis we should be operating from, not relative (or to put it another way POV). [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)]]
I've changed it to take into account political compass, which says Social:authoritarian and economic:Neo-liberal. This is put on and referenced to political compass. Hope this aids NPOV and increases understanding of the Labour parties position. Havo2 Havo2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havo2 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Prior to the 1980s Labour was unquestionably left-wing, however in the 80s it underwent a transition, it went to what could almost be described as far-left under Michael Foot's leadership which is infamous for the 'longest suicide note in history' however under Kinnock (possibly the wrong spelling) it went closer to the centre then it had ever done before and under Blair it swung to the centre and adopted a policy of Blairism (Thatcherism gone wrong) which brought along the present crisis. The Labour party now however is undergoing an identity crisis as the left-wing is disatisfied with the Blair/Brown Govt and the Labour Party's plummeting support and popularity. 92.251.164.156 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I have tried to add a "Citation needed" tag to the "centre-left" comment in the article, and to include the "centre-right" designation based on this credible source: http://euobserver.com/9/28218 but Welshsocialist keeps reverting it based on some undisclosed personal research. Could someone confirm that this source is valid and that the designation "centre-left" in the article still needs a reference. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.123.100 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Labour is seen by the vast majority of people as a centre-left political party in Britain, and is such. The source you providedis not valid as it is not from a reiable source, same as the afore mentioned political compass. The debate over this has happend from a few people time and time again, and it always been conclused that Labour is centre-left. --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If the link saids its centre-left and centrist, then centre-left/centrist is more accurate, then just centrist, or even ingoring position and just saying a political party. I believe that the majority of party members view themselves as centre-left aswell as the party itself.--Welshsocialist (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals for improving articleI've been thinking about ways to improve the rather sprawling messy layout of this article. The idea I've come up with is to split the long history section off into two articles History of the British Labour Party for most of the history section, whilst most of the information regarding the present Labour government from 1997 could be split into a new article called something like Current Labour government. The history section on the main page could be replaced with a shortened summary. I've raised this before but no-one seemed interested in commenting. Does anyone have any ideas suggestions etc? G-Man ? 22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've done this. The Current Labour government (UK) article could do with some work, especially with NPOV and referencing. I'm going to be away for a while but I think further improvements to this article would be: The inclusion of:
G-Man ? 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I've included a brief paragraph on the Osborne Judgment, the 1911 provision of MP wages and the 1913 Trade Disputes Act, to illustrate changes to funding. Also because the Osborne judgment requires some links to it from other articles, this kills two birds with one stone. EuroSoviets [edit] European and international affiliationI dont know if any other editors have noticed, it might just be me, but How come the Labour party's European and international affiliations have just dissapered from the infobox?. I have tried everything and can not get them to return. Does anybody know what has happened to them and can anyone fix this problem? Gr8opinionater, user talk:Gr8opinionater [edit] dead linkJust randomly browsing I noticed the first reference is dead or not working. I don't have knowledge of the subject matter so will leave it for others to repair. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1911 summer strikes & children strikeNo info here, nor anywhere else (except a quick mention at 1911) about the large strikes of June-August 1911, which the government responded to by calling forth the army. It appears that large strikes began in ports, and affected London (see this nice photo from FlickR). This other photo, taken during the 1911 seaman's strike, portraits the logo of the National Amalgamated Sailor's and Fireman's Union of Great Britain and Ireland. What about the March 1911 strike at Singer{s Kilbowie factory at Clydebank ? "The Kilbowie Singer strike of 1911 ranks as one of the most important episodes in the history of the labor or socialist movement. It was one of the first to take on a major international corporation. It was conducted along industrial union lines, as distinct from the craft union lines typified in this country by the AFL-CIO and its affiliates. Indeed, it was conducted by the Industrial Workers of Great Britain (IWGB) and the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party of Great Britain. As the Glasgow Labour History Workshop summed it up in its 1987 booklet, The Singer Strike: Clydebank, 1911: "The confrontation itself, we believe, was characterized by remarkable solidarity between the workforce -- divisions based on occupation, skill, gender, religion and locality being submerged during the strike. The philosophy of the industrial unionists played a part here." [2]. Could anyone who has any info on that contact me? Someone who had access to this from this issue of the History Workshop Journal ([3] by the docker Dave Marson on Hull under-age students' strike in 1911) could write a nice article... 62 cities (including Dundee, Southhampton, Liverpool and Dublin) affected during 15 days by this movement, which included 10 years-old asking for a free day, end of the use of stick punitions, vacations in order to be able to look for potatoes, etc. See this translated article for more info Tazmaniacs (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] IdeologyNot a big issue really, but shouldn't Social Democracy and Third Way be mentioned before Democratic Socialism in the infobox, to more clear reflect the importance of each in the modern party? If I was someone who knew nothing about the British Labour Party and glanced at the infobox in passing, I would assume they were a socialist party. Jh39 (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Voter DemographicIs it worth adding a section on the demographic of Labour voters? Being that the majority of labour voters are from a certain demographic, and tend to be from the less educated end of the spectrum? This would also lend more perspective to the fact that Labour policies tend to lead more towards punishing tax payers, the successful and highly educated for the benefit of people who are unemployed? MattUK (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Labour party politicians categoryThere is a discussion on a talk page about re-organising some of the Labour politicians category to include a more generic "Labour Party people" category. Comments/suggestions invited. TreveXtalk 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Far left" - vandalism?Somebody changed the political position in the infobox to "far-left". I've changed it back to centre-left, as this appears to me to be a case of vandalism (most likely by somebody on the hard right). 213.121.151.174 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
talk anonmous) 11:110 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.130.65 (talk)
[edit] Centre-LeftWill people stop vandalising the political idealogy it is very pathetic and immature. The fact is Labour is a Centre-Left political party, in the modern and contempary political climate. --92.18.64.200 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Been more vandalism on this page again, I've reverted it back. Some idiot changed the infobox to read Centre-right and Neo-liberal, while changed the opening introduction to claim that Labour is a principle part of the left and moved to the centre-left under New Labour. I've changed it back to how it was now.--92.0.102.249 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Changed the sfounded as principal party of the centre- left to left as they were not centre left to start wiyh, only tony blair took them from far to centre left! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Clause IVThis is not mentioned in this article, both in its formation and Blairs reform of it. (Hypnosadist) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] VandalismWill someone with a wikipedia account please do get the admins to lock this topic, too many idiots are vandalising this article, it's turning wikipedia into the farce that the right wingers are.92.10.170.89 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Can someone PLEASE get this locked, VSRugbyfan vandalised/blanked this page. --92.22.30.178 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Agreed. There appears to be vandalism from both right and left. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms NPOV dispute:This is written in 3rd party views and has the evidence to back it up in Gereorge W.Bush, tony blair and republican articles. I would als o like to say I have accepted the elimination of a disputed section. Thanks hope you find this helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havo2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
May I cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments%27_positions_pre-2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Christian_opposition_to_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Iraq_War (especially the kofi annun speech!) as evidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk) 12:25, 21 Thanks Havo 2 November 2008 (UTC) "On the other hand, some analysts credit Tony Blair with persuading President Bush to pursue his case for intervention in Iraq initially by seeking to secure resolutions through the United Nations." however this is uncited and has no support!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Now got non-wiki sources!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.44.79 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Now with all non-wiki sources, also might be good not to delete the criticism bit as it conforms with NPOV!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Havo2 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Changed into main body, thanks for reaching an compromise! Havo2 If you said that to start with I could have done it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.249.247 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Formation in late 19th century or early 20th century?Opinions on when Labour was formed … The Labour Representation Committee [or LRC] was established in February 1900, at a conference of the Independent Labour Party [or ILP] (which had formed in 1893)[1]. The ILP conference of 1900 comprised of 129 delegates, most of whom were trade unionists, who agreed to the establishment of a new body to represent working class opinion in the House of Commons - they pledged themselves to having a “distinct Labour Group in Parliament, who shall have their own Whips, and agree upon their policy, which must embrace a readiness to co-operate with any party which for the time being may be engaged in promoting legislation in the direct interest of labour, and be equally ready to associate themselves with any party in opposing measures having an opposite tendency”[2]. This new body - or ‘distinct Labour Group’ - was not envisaged as a somehow separate to the ILP. Indeed, some of the leadership of the LRC was that of the ILP, and the two organisations operated for the most part in unison, as elements of a greater whole[3]. The ILP was a national political movement of organised labour, while the LRC was this national movement’s parliamentary body. At the general election of 1906, the LRC won 29 parliamentary seats - and became commonly known as the Labour Party in Parliament[4]. The ‘Labour Party’ henceforth developed. What is today known as ‘the Labour Party’ directly emanates from the 1906 electoral success of the LRC, and many historical commentators (including contributors to this article) view the Labour Party as having been formed in 1906. Yet in 1906 the term ‘Labour Party’ referred - in this context - only to the parliamentary wing of the LRC. Further still, this Committee - formed in 1900 - was conceived as nothing more than a means for the national political movement of organised labour - that is, the ILP - to gain parliamentary representation. This Independent Labour Party - then commonly referred to as ‘Labour’ or ‘the Labour Party’ - was formally established in early 1893 (the Wikipedia’s article on this offers a good commentary). Yes, certain names became obsolete with time - as ‘the (parliamentary) Labour Party’ developed, so the LRC and the ILP became redundant terms of reference. Nonetheless, it is inaccurate to suppose that the Labour Party was ‘founded at the start of the 20th century’ - as this article does. This parliamentary party became known simply as “the Labour Party” from 1906 onwards - but this political party (as a national party) has its point of origin in the late 19th century, formed as “the Independent Labour Party”, then commonly known as the ‘Labour Party’. Maybe this should be taken into account. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with you - many historians do take 1900 as Labour's "starting point". The year 1900 saw the formation of the Labour Representative Committee [LRC]; yet, as far as I'm aware, it did not officially refer to itself as "the Labour Party". As you say, 1906 is important too - since this was when the Parliamentary Labour Party was formed. Since then, this political party has simply been known as "the Labour Party". Yet, many people made reference to "the Labour Party" pre-1906, and pre-1900. This was reference to the Independent Labour Party [ILP], that formed in 1893. The LRC, which from 1906 became known as the Labour Party, was in many important ways a part of (and developed from) the ILP. Since references can be found - regarding Labour Party documents and genuine academic materials - that support the position that the Labour Party (or, rather, what became known as the Labour Party) existed prior to 1900, I believe this should be included in the article. The Labour Party went through a process of formation between 1893-1906, existing in differing forms during this period. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It is true that, by 1906 (following the general election of that year), what is today thought of as ‘the Labour Party’ was in in existence. Yes, several ‘Labour’ MP’s existed before then, but the parliamentary Labour Party formed at that time. This article refers to the Labour Party as having been established in 1900 - and it is the exactness of this proclamation that I find a little dubious. It was the Labour Representative Committee [LRC], not the Labour Party as such, that formed in 1900. Yes, the LRC was a predecessor of what is today considered the Labour Party. If one aims to trace the history of Labour, one must acknowledge the significance of the LRC. Yet, notwithstanding the importance of the LRC, the Independent Labour Party [ILP] was also an immediate predecessor of modern Labour. As you rightly say, many groups went to form Labour (associated with the labour movement generally, and trade-unionism in particular). For example, the Social Democratic Federation (founded in 1883) played a role. Yet the decisive forerunner of the Labour Party was the ILP (see Nairn, ‘The Nature of the Labour Party’ in “Towards Socialism”, eds. Anderson & Blackburn, 1965, p.162 - indeed, Nairn precisely refers to the ILP in this way, as the group that directly led to modern Labour). As time went on, the influence of the ILP waned - by the beginning of the 20th century, the ILP had formed the ‘left-wing’ of Labour (while Fabianism formed the ‘right-wing’). My point is only that the attempt to precisely and categorically state that the Labour Party was established in 1900 is something that can be contested. The matter is rather more problematic, and as such the article might useful stress this contestation. The Labour Party formed circa 1900. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
My reading on the history of the Labour Party (which, of course, is incomplete) leads me to the position that: (a) many associations, groupings, etc, of the broad labour movement were involved - especially from the 1880's - in the development of the establishment of the Labour Party; (b) a most significant 'player' in this development was the Independent Labour Party [ILP], especially during the 1890's; (c) the ILP, together with others (including Fabians and non-ILP trade unions), established the Labour Representative Committee [LRC] in 1900; (d) the LRC was essentially an expression of the 'joint interests' of the ILP and others, existing simultaneously both as ‘part of’ yet ’separate from’ these groups (such are the complexities and paradoxes of life); (e) the LRC was primarily aimed at gaining parliamentary representation for Labour; (f) the two fundamental traditions shaping Labour were the ILP (its ethical and emotional socialist perspectives) and the Fabian Society (its intellect and pragmatism); (g) the LRC won a number of seats in the 1906 general election, and subsequently referred to itself (and was referred to by others) as 'the Parliamentary Labour Party' [PLP]; (h) the PLP is not - as Timrollpickering says - the Labour Party, but only part of it. The Labour Party pre-dates 1906, and in this context historians tend to focus on the LRC; (i) this 'looking back' to only 1900 is somewhat too narrow - as it fails to recognise the importance of the ILP (which, incidentally, was referred to by many as the Labour Party pre-1900). What this does is suggest that the issue is somewhat contestable. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this article I accept that the year 1900 may be given as that in which the Labour Party was established - so long as verifiable evidence (hopefully something from Labour itself) can be cited. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It would seem clear-cut then. But, in aiming to understand itself, Labour acknowledges that “The conference of February 1900 had not even created a proper 'party.' Instead the new body was called the Labour Representation Committee and it had no members, only organisations affiliated to it.” (see the above reference). So, although Labour recognises its emergence in 1900, it was not in fact a ‘proper’ political party - it was “a parliamentary pressure group”, with no actual membership. It would seem reasonable, then, to: (a) question whether the Labour Representative Committee [LRC] really constituted the emergence of the Labour Party as such; and (b) look towards the organisations affiliated to LRC as comprising the foundation of the Labour Party. These two suggestions are paradoxical - the former highlights the possibility that the Labour Party was not established until some time after 1900, i.e. when it constituted a ‘proper’ political party (named as such, and with a membership). While the latter seeks to look before 1900, to the then existing affiliated organisations that together comprised the LRC. If we look post-1900, on the basis on the (simple) criteria outlined, then 1906 is a reasonable suggestion for the year of formation of the Labour Party (given that, in 1906, it started to call itself a party and had a membership). If we look pre-1900, again on the basis of the criteria presented, then we can locate the emergence of Labour in the 1880’s and 1890’s (with growing trade unionism, the founding of the Social Democratic Federation in 1883, the establishment of the Fabian Society in 1884, and the founding of the Independent Labour Party in 1893 - as well as others), i.e. the development of the organised labour movement that ‘evolved’ into the Labour Party. This article is not the place to ‘debate’ such matters - but, given that verifiable sources can be provided that highlight the contested ‘point of formation’ of the Labour Party, I think it only reasonable that this contestation is mentioned in the article. Nonetheless, insomuch as the Labour Party declares itself as having ‘emerged’ in 1900, so it is only right - for the purposes of this article - that this year be cited. Since the article already states 1900 as the year in question, this aspect of the article should remain unaltered. The usefulness of this discussion, then, has been twofold - (1) it has allowed space so as to highlight the fact that, while 1900 is a citable year for Labour’s establishment, such an attempt at precision is (at least in part) questionable, even when looking at Labour’s own self-history; and (2) the year 1900 can be verifiably referred to, as a source has been found. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Some technical inaccuracies ...I just thought I’d offer a comment for wider discussion concerning some of the description (of supposed facts) in this article. Any opinions on this matter are welcome … The opening section describes “the current national Labour government” as having “won a landslide 179 seat majority in the 1997 general election”. This is not quite accurate. The Labour Party has been in office since 1997, and won that year’s general election with a 179 seat Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons. However, at each subsequent election a new Labour government has - formally and legally - been formed. Thus, different Labour governments took office in 1997, 2001, and 2005. The Labour Party was re-elected at each of the general elections following 1997 - but two points need clarification: (1) technically, the British government is not elected - it is appointed (by the monarch) - although the political party with the largest elected representation in the House of Commons is appointed; (2) whilst the Labour Party was elected in 1997, and re-elected in both 2001 and 2005, as a result of each of these general elections the residing monarch appointed a new Labour government on each occasion. Thus, bearing on the second point, the current Labour government was appointed in 2005 after having won that year’s general election. We should, accordingly, speak of the current Labour government as having taken office following the general election of 2005 - not 1997. I can understand why the year 1997 is given, but it is technically inaccurate. Other articles on this matter repeat this mistake. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
While I fully understand that this use of language is rather common, the fact is Thatcher had three terms in office. Blair served two full terms in office - and a partial third term. As the leader of the political party that ‘won’ a general election (i.e. gained a majority of parliamentary seats), so Thatcher / Blair took, and later re-took, office. By way of example, one may accurately speak of Blair as being in office from 2 May 1997 to 27 June 2007; but, as a result of each election victory, he was appointed (or re-appointed) to office - as such, this constitutes three terms of office. In so doing, on each occasion the parliamentary Labour Party formed a new government. To offer a quote, from the BBC, which illustrates the fact Blair had three terms in office (not just one, as you claim): “Tony Blair has won a historic third term in government for Labour but with a drastically reduced majority … Mr Blair and his wife Cherie left Downing Street at 1100 BST for a 30 minute audience with the Queen at Buckingham Palace - the private meeting where she asks him to form a new government.” (Friday, 6 May, 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519863.stm). Not only does this refer to Blair having 3 terms in office, but it also states that - following a general election - he formed a new government. The fact is, the residing monarch always formally asks a new government to be formed following a general election - even if the sitting PM / governing political party is “re-elected”. I realise that this BBC report does not constitute ‘hard evidence’ - but it was quick to find, and many, many more such reports exist which declare the same thing. A serving Prime Minister sets the date for a general election by seeking permission from the monarch to dissolve parliament. At that point, the current parliament comes to an end, and MP’s cease to hold their position (and must seek re-election if they wish to remain an MP). You are again correct when you say “a general election is for a parliament” - but the facts are: (1) briefly, in the period between the calling of a general election and the actual holding of that election, there are no MP’s and there is no parliament; (2) the government that forms after an election does so only on the basis of the new parliament, i.e. the newly elected or re-elected MP’s, and thus it constitutes a new government. Of course, so that the nation is not left without a government during the interim (between the calling of an election and the results of the election being known), the existing government remains in office. Further, so long as a serving PM retains office - i.e. the party they lead wins the election - they do not return their seals of office as PM to the monarch - that is, they do not resign. But once an election result is known, and in the case of a party retaining a parliamentary majority, so a new government is formed from this new parliament. Such a new government is commonly spoken of in terms of the ‘old’ government being ‘re-elected’, but technically this is incorrect. The monarch appoints a new government (even if it headed by the same PM). The problem here is that common, informal uses of language have come to dominate our understanding of these matters. We speak of Blair’s government and refer to 1997-2007 - when in actual fact we should speak of the Blair governments, 1997-2001, 2001-2005, and 2005-7. As such, the article is formally and factually incorrect when it says “The current national Labour government won a landslide 179 seat majority in the 1997 general election under the leadership of Tony Blair”. In reality, the current national Labour government won the 2005 general election. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Timrollpickering is wrong when he says “when the same party retains a majority there is no reappointment - the government stays in power.” The preceding government ceases to exist, and the monarch grants permission for the formation of a new government. If a political party retains a majority, it serves another term in office (separate and distinct from its previous term, and from any future term). This position is not “a pile of assumptions” as Timrollpickering suggests, rather it is informed description. I have already replied to such remarks (above), entering into a little more detail. I could, if required, delve into this matter in great depth. I am a social scientist, lecturing at a British university, and have been involved in understanding the political system for many years. However, I think this could be resolved quickly - and hence, below, I offer a few references (to on-line material) that further support my discussion. If this will not suffice, I’ll get out the more weightier references … The BBC stated, on June 20th 2001, that “The Queen is about to unveil a raft of new legislation to herald the start of Labour's second term of government.” See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1397733.stm. On June 21st 2002 the Guardian stated, with regard to the results of the 2001 general election, “Tony Blair yesterday unveiled the programme for Labour's historic second term, promising to deliver on his mandate to bring about ‘the most fundamental reform of public services for many years’.” See http://politics.guardian.co.uk/stateopening2001/ Even though Blair had been in office 1997-2001, the fact that he won the election of 2001 meant that he had to again visit the Queen (as he had done in 1997) to be granted permission to form a new government (see the official site of the PM’s office - http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page1592). These references point to the fact that: (a) a political party that ‘wins’ consecutive general elections serves more than one term in office (thus, for example, the Conservatives had four terms in the period 1979-97); (b) upon a political party being ‘re-elected’ in this way, the monarch formally grants permission for a new government to be formed (thus, to illustrate, Blair formed three governments as a consequence of the general elections of 1997, 2001, and 2005). Wikipedia should not make the mistake of portraying such matters in an incorrect manner simply because in common language many people refer erroneously to the such terms as ‘government’, ‘office’, ‘term’, etc.. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary (which aim to be defended simply by saying I offer nothing more than assumptions), the article should be changed. I’ve cited evidence, and discuss the matter objectively (without use of original research). The current Labour government came into existence in 2005; for this article to say that “The current national Labour government won a landslide 179 seat majority in the 1997 general election” is inaccurate. The article needs to be changed. I’ve put forward reasons (based on evidence) for this change. Maybe others should partake in this debate. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
These are not ‘casual’ news reports - they are not ad hoc, but specific to the subject - detailing particular instances and occurrences relating to constitutional arrangements concerning the relationship between the monarch and the prime minister, regarding the dissolution and formation of governments, and exemplify the results of recent elections. The BBC reports are used, since they explicitly refer to the re-election of Labour in 2001 and 2005 as, respectively, as Labour’s ‘second’ and ‘third’ terms in office. The Guardian report similarly refers to Labour’s 2001 election victory as a ‘second term’ in office. The third reference, to an official government web-site, affirms that a ‘sitting’ PM - if they are re-elected as such - seeks formal permission from the residing monarch to form a new government. Many other such references can be readily found. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to Blair’s 2001 re-election as resulting in a ‘second term’ (see, e.g., http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68756/Tony-Blair/277073/Second-term). While the 2005 election resulted in a ‘third term’ (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68756/Tony-Blair/277074/Third-term). The Independent does the same (see, e.g., http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-adopts-radical-approach-to-a-second-term-695598.html). The process of government formation is, put simply, like this: parliament is elected, whereupon the party with a majority of seats (typically) forms government, and its party leader becomes prime minister (with the monarch granting formal permission for this). This government then serves a term in office. When the PM calls the subsequent election, parliament is dissolved (and sitting MP’s no longer hold office). Note, I nowhere said the PM resigns, or that government is dissolved (as Timrollpickering implies). If the ‘sitting’ PM is re-elected (i.e. the political party he / she leads once again gains a majority), so they once again visit the monarch and are again granted permission to form a new government (one that reflects the newly elected parliamentary composition), and they embark upon a new (e.g. second or third) term of office. For more ‘academic’ references, as compared to those already offered, I’ve (very quickly) just picked up a random selection of books from my shelf and found that this use of terminology (no pun intended) is used. Being brief, here is what can be found: Professor Miliband, speaking of Labour’s re-election in 1950, says that Labour now “entered its second term” (‘Parliamentary Socialism’, 1972, p.310); Professor Hughes refers to “the Conservative governments of 1951-64” (‘Picking over the Remains’ in ‘Unsettling Welfare’, eds. Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p.5); while Professor Lewis speaks of “the Thatcher governments” (‘Coming Apart at the Seams’ in ‘Unsettling Welfare’, eds. Hughes & Lewis, 1998, p49); Professor Clarke discusses “the Conservative governments of the 1990’s” (‘Consumerism’ in ‘Imagining Welfare Futures’, ed. Hughes, 1998, p.43); and, elsewhere, Clarke - with Professor Newman - examines, speaking prior to Labour’s 1997 election, the “succession of New Right influenced governments which have dominated British politics from the end of the 1970’s” (‘The Managerial Revolution’, 1997, p. x). It is clearly wrong - and based on assumption / original research - to suppose, as Timrollpickering does, that “Thatcher had only one term from 1979 to 1990, Blair only one from 1997 to 2007.” In reality, Thatcher had 3 terms (while the Conservatives, during the 1979-1997 period, served 4 terms), and Blair had 3 terms (although he only served a partial 3rd term). Contrary to the claim made by Timrollpickering, being in office 1979-97, the Conservatives formed a succession of governments (plural). This is always the case when a PM (or, rather, a political party) is re-elected - so, for example, Labour formed a 1945-50 government, and formed another government 1950-51. One should not, if trying to be accurate, refer to the 1945-51 Labour government. Rather, one should speak of the 1945-50 government and the 1950-51 government, or the 1945-51 governments (again, plural). In this way, Professor Nairn refers to the “Labour Government of 1945-50” as distinct from that of 1950-51 (‘The Nature of the Labour Party’ in ‘Towards Socialism’, eds. Anderson & Blackburn, 1965, p.p. 190, 195, 205). If a general election results in a PM being re-elected, they enter a new term of office. Timrollpickering is in this sense inaccurate to suppose that PM’s cannot serve “multiple terms in a single period”. Or, rather, it is more appropriate to consider each term as a single period. I’ve now presented a range of references, all of which support what I’m saying. I acknowledge that many people speak in a manner that differs from the one presented here - but their poor use of lexicon and terminology, or their lack of knowledge on the subject, should not result in an erroneous article. The article should not speak of the “current national Labour government” as having “won” in 1997. Rather, the Labour Party took office in 1997, and has subsequently been returned to office in 2001 and 2005, and is presently serving its 3rd consecutive term as government. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
“By 1950 the Labour government had achieved most of its pledges in Let Us Face the Future. Indeed the party appeared to have run out of steam. The election of that year saw Labour’s majority cut to only five, and the new government could not remain in office for long.” (emphasis added). “Wilson's 1964-70 governments achieved much of what they set out to do.” (emphasis added). “On 7 June 2001 Tony Blair led Labour to a second successive victory in a General Election, winning by another landslide. Labour won a majority of 167. Four years later, on 5 May 2005, Labour achieved a first in its history: a third consecutive term in government. Labour had run a positive campaign on investment in public services including the slogan "If you value it, vote for it" in the run up to polling day. The Tories, in contrast, led by Michael Howard had run a negative campaign, largely on immigration and crime. Labour's majority was 67. On the steps of Downing Street the next day, Tony Blair said: "It's a tremendous honour and privilege to be elected for a third term and I'm acutely conscious of that honour and that privilege.” (emphasis added). Given that this article is on the Labour Party, these statements are important. Again, it’s further evidence - that is both on and from the Labour Party, and includes a description of events by a Prime Minister - all of which supports a change in the article. Remember, all I'm saying is that the article should not refer to the current Labour government as having won the 1997 election. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) [edit] Credit Crunch, Recession and Minor shift to the LEFTSince the pre budget report, labour's policies have included raising the top rate of tax from 40% to 45%, ending personal allowances for top rate earners, a keyenesian fiscal stimulus boost which involves expanding the public sector significantly to create jobs building infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc. several banks have been fully nationalized in 2008 (northern rock and bradford and bingley) and the 8 major banks have been bailed out where the government now owns about a 50% stake in them. There are also plans to bailout jaguar car makers. Gordon Brown says neo-liberalism is dead. Society has changed, and the New Labour government, along with governments accross the world, have essentially shifted to the "Left" for pragmatic reasons and adopted a more statist and interventionist approach to the economy. It might be worth highlighting some of this in the article. (also, the glenroathes by-election victory needs to be mentioned.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.195.176 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] VANDALISM Ideology: Free Market liberalism, neo-liberalismSomeone has put free market liberalism and neo-liberalism in the ideology section of the labour party page. No labour MP has ever described themselves as a free marketeer or a neo liberal. Im going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.195.176 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC) [edit] Ideology in infoboxIs Labour really trade unionist nowadays, since new labour there has been a economics shift towards the conservatives. It's hard to imagine the Labour party standing up for unions nowadays.wiesel (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Recent additions seem to add excessive detail to the infobox, making it the opposite of a quick digest of facts for readers. I propose removing the following: <br> Third way,<br> Trade Unionism,<br> Communitarianism,<ref>[http://exeter.openrepos/ http://exeter.openrepos]itory.com/exeter/bitstream/10036/22233/2/jswflart.pdf]</ref><br> Libertarian Socialism,<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/199903120018 http://www.newstatesman.com/199903120018]]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.guard]ian.co.uk/politics/2002/oct/27/policy.tonyblair]</ref><br> Localism<ref>[[http://www./ http://www.]independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-considers-new-localism-as-the-bigbanner-policy-for-a-third-term-540455.html]</ref> Although I don't dispute that these are associated with the party as a collective, or with Brown, Blair or Peter Hain, such detail should be in the ideology section of the article, not the infobox. I think the infobox should say merely: Ideology: Democratic socialism, social democracy Position: Centre-left --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I think keeping trade unionism and third way is sensible, but the others should go. If you were to list all the idealogies of any major political party, the list would be very loong, Labour is no expection. We should just keep the core idealogies of Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, Third Way and Trade Unionism. --92.20.122.56 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Many of the New Labour gang have mentioned communitairanism, localism and even libertarian socialism, so it needs a brief mentioning in the ideology section. Perhaps mentioning Foundation Hospitals and Devolution in relation to communitarianism and localism is neccessary. Almost every other centre left party in the world mentions the third way in the info box, 3 ideologies is not too many, Labour is clearly no longer democratic socialist, and lacks many social democratic traits too, the Third Way best describes Labour's current dominant ideology. [edit] A touch optimistic?are on aim to take the lead again towards a 4th term in office Would that it were so, but I don't think the party's quite there yet. Is there polling data to support this? BTLizard (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC) [edit] Citation 4 (A & B)The citations 4a & 4b only lead to the current Labour policy website, which states nothing about pre-Neil Kinnock party policy (specifically about how origins as a party, were to represent low wage workers, etc.). I don't think the information is wrong, but the citation should be corrected. March 23, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.41.103 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [edit] VandalismIs it possible to lock this page for a while, as a anononmous person is consently vandalising the page. --92.1.144.199 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Full ManifestoMy site has a copy of the full Labour Party Manifesto and their 'At A Glance' section. We're driving towards having all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format (which is why I thought it may be useful for Wikipedia). I noticed in the 'Other' External links it has an archive of Labour Manifestos up to 2001, the link below contains the entire 2005 Manifesto and 'Summary' policies from their site - all the content, except the 'At A Glance' sections are contained in PDF files on the Labour website. As more and more manifestos are added over time, in my opinion, it could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. Labour Party Manifesto Contents Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. Jdfjurn (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [edit] Factions needed & Neo-liberal vandalismAre factions actually needed in the idealogy box? I think it makes it look very messy, and the Lib Dems, nationalist parties, and other British parties do not have them (and the Tories only have "Internal Factions" father than split up into rigid faction types by idealogy. I think it is much simplier and neater just not to have them. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Also, Labour is not "Neo-Liberal" its alraady has been discussed above, and on several occasions. I personally consider it vandalism to put it in the information box. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC) What you think Labour is or isn't is irrelevant, neither is the truth of what they are. If there are reliable sources that say Labour is neo-liberal then that suffices for WP's purposes. Also, deleting sourced information purely because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a no-no and amounts to vandalism, the WP definition of vandalism not your strange definition of it. --WebHamster 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Well, my defination, and the defination of other wiki users who have also editted calling Labour neo-liberal in the past. I am pretty sure that I can dig up " reiable sources" claiming that the Tories are racists, or whatever, but just because they are there, don't meant that they are right. Wikipedia should be accurate, its meant to be an enclopedia. The, it is accurate to say that Labour is not "neo-liberal" and indeed, it is contridicting the other idealogies. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, you are being somewhat offencive in your manner, maybe even flamebaiting, but leaving that to one side, I have found the following counter arguements to Labour being "neo-liberal", apart from Clause IV of the Labour Party, and the other contridictory idealogies in the ldealogy box and various policies, I believe the following links along democratate that it is very dodgy, even with "sources" to claim Labour is neo-liberal: If I had time I could find more. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Ideology...againI hate to bring this up again but the ideology section of the infobox is far to cluttered. Information on the precise politics of internal factions is what the main body of the text is for. I'd say that all you need in the infobox is "Social Democracy, Third Way, Democratic Socialism" Jh39 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I do agree completely. It looks really out of place having "factions" in it and then posting the alledged idealogy for that "faction", the Conservatives only have "internal factions" and then a list of three of those "factions" rather then listing the idealogy of the side "faction" It makes little sense to have "General", "Leadership", "Centre-left faction" and "Left wing faction", it just looks messy. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. The way it looks just now is ridiculous. Firstly, there is no centre-left 'faction' in the sense of an organised group; simply members of the party who neither associate with the centrist leadership nor the hard left. Also, trade unionism is a basic foundation of the party, so to suggest that only the centre left 'faction' adheres to unionism is ridiculous. Neo-liberalism shouldn't be in the infobox. Currently, Labour (particularly the leadership) have a policy of combining neo-liberalism, the thatcherite consensus, with strong welfare provision ala social democracy. This defines the Third Way philosophy. So the neo-liberal aspect of New Labour's philosophy is simply a component of it's adherence to Third Way:
So it makes sense that only Third Way be mentioned in the infobox. I see you edited the infobox to remove the clutter, but it's been reverted. I'd hope the reverter will explain his/her reasons for doing so here. Jh39 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) The three core idealogies of Labour (democratic socialism, social democracy and third way) are all that really needed in the idealogy box. If WebHamster is so obessed with neo-liberalism, he should add it somehwere in the "New Labour" section of the page, rather then cluttering up the idealogy box. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 'Third Way' is used by partisan sources. 'Neo-Liberalism' is used more frequently by non-partisan academic sources as a description of Labour's ideology. I understand Labour members feel uncomfortable with this description of their ideas, and prefer to use 'Third Way' as a kind of fudge description that means all things to everyone. In an encyclopedia however, we do not decide who is right or wrong, or what the subject of the article would prefer, but do try to reflect accurately what published sources are saying about the subject. Not to include 'Neo-Liberalism' in the list of descriptions of Labour ideologies would be to disregard a huge portion of the available published sources. (a few of which are cited below) Riversider (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Trade Union LinkThe current state of Labour's relationship with certain Trade Unions should be reflected in this article, it has worsened considerably, even since 2004. I've tried to add more recent developments such as the highly critical CWU resolution to TUC conference, which represents a significant ratcheting up of the strain in the link, as does the recent London CWU consultative vote, where 98% voted to withdraw funding from Labour. It's suggested that I've given this latter development 'undue weight', actually it's pretty unprecedented. The references are there, I can't see any good editorial reason to downplay these strains, or the importance of the Trade Unions to Labour, throughout it's history. [edit] Neo-LiberalismI've been watching the edit war going on round the inclusion or not of the word 'Neo-Liberalism' to describe Labour's ideology. There are loads of citations out there that would back up the use of the term, for example most recently: "New Labour and the commonsense of neoliberalism: trade unionism, collective bargaining and workers' rights" Paul Smith (2009) Industrial Relations Journal volume 40 issue 4 pp337 - 355
Here's the abstract:
Other possible citations from quite a broad range of academic journals and books, most of which are of reasonable authority and reliability(found by following the references cited in the above article) might include: Crouch, C. (2007), 'From Labour Legislation and Public Policy towards a Flexible Labour Market: The Ambiguous Privatization of a Policy Area', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 23/24, 233–250. Davies, P. and M. Freedland (2007), Towards a Flexible Labour Market: Labour Legislation and Regulation since the 1990s (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Denham, A. and M. Garnett (2001), 'From "Guru" to "Godfather": Keith Joseph, "New" Labour and the British Conservative Tradition', Political Quarterly, 72, 1, 97−106. Links Edmonds, J. (2006), 'Positioning Labour Closer to Employers: The Importance of the Labour Party's Business 1997 Manifesto', Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 22, 85–107 Gamble, A. (2006), 'Two Faces of Neo-liberalism', in R. Robinson (ed.), The Neo-liberal Revolution: Forging the Market State (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan) Shaw, E. (2007), Losing Labour's Soul: New Labour and the Blair Government 1997–2007 (London, Routledge). Smith, P. and G. Morton (2006), 'Nine Years of New Labour: Neoliberalism and Workers' Rights', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 3, 401–420. Wilkinson, F. (2007), 'Neo-liberalism and New Labour Policy: Economic Performance, Historical Comparisons and Future Prospects', Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 6, 817–843. A couple of other useful references, found with a very quick google search include: Clift, Ben and Tomlinson, Jim (2007) Complexity constraint and New Labour's putative neo-liberalism: a reply to Colin Hay. British Journal of Political Science, Vol.37 (No.2). pp. 378-381. 'Britain's Neo-Liberal State': http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/britain-s-neo-liberal-state
Daniels G; McIlroy J (eds) (2009) Trade Unions in a Neoliberal World; British Trade Unions under New Labour. Routledge, UK New Statesman (Martin Jacques): The Hunger for Renewal http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/04/labour-party-neoliberalism
Fullbrook: Economics and Neo-Liberalism http://www.paecon.net/Fullbrook/EconomicsandNeoliberalism.pdf
I hope this information demonstrates that there is a large body of well-sourced respectable information that describes today's Labour Party's ideology as 'Neo Liberal', and that it will therefore prove helpful to the discussion. Riversider (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] 3rd RevertWhere exactly are these published sources that show that 'Third Way' adequately covers Labours alleged neo-liberalism? People seem to keep reverting the words 'neo-liberalism' without explaining why on this talk page, and without reference to published sources. I've put up a whole tranche of published sources that demonstrate that a sizeable, significant and authoritative number of sources describe Labour's ideology as 'neo-liberalism', Labour Party members may not like this, but Wikipedia must reflect the balance of published sources, however uncomfortable that is for those with partisan views. For those not satisfied with the 14 sources listed above, here's another from David Hill, who argues that 'Third Way' is a gloss which is intended to disguise Labour's Neo-Liberalism: http://www.ieps.org.uk/PDFs/newlaboursneoliberal.pdf
Perhaps it would be useful for someone who is not a Labour Party member, perhaps someone from the USA without an axe to grind to review the published sources listed here, and then suggest a way of resolving this dispute. Riversider (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC) David Hill is part of the of the "Radical Left Educators", so it is questionable for his views on Labour are at all acturate at all, given some clear political bias to the radical left. Martin Jacques who wrote the piece in the New Statesman editted Marxism Today. It is also mentioned in the actual page that New Labour is seen by some of being neo-liberal. However it is dubious to call the Labour Party "neo-liberal" most Labour Party members are social democrats or socialists, and Labour have recently nationalised the banks in response to the economic crisis, something which neo-liberals would oppose. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Verifiability of 'NeoLiberalism'People wishing to delete the 'Neoliberalism' description of Labour's ideology should read WP:V This states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." We have listed above many (now around 16) reliable sources that describe Labour's ideology as Neoliberalism, it will be pretty easy to find many more. The sources that describe Labour's ideology as 'Third Way' or 'Democratic Socialist' are actually largely self-published by the Labour Party. We are, however, not challenging these self-satisfied descriptions of Labour ideology, however much they seem to be challenged by the facts, simply seeking the inclusion of the word 'neoliberalism' with equal validity, to reflect the published sources. WP policy suggests we should be "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view" It's hard to say whether neo-liberalism is how the majority of commentators would describe Labour ideology, but we certainly have enough references to show that it is at least a significant minority viewpoint, and should therefore be represented in the article. Given the weight of references provided, and the (growing) length of the explanations on the talk page, it is becoming reasonable to describe further unexplained deletions of the term from the infobox as POV vandalism. Riversider (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Ideology socialist - policies Neo-liberal?One of the recent reverts suggested in it's edit notes (though the editor did not come here to the talk page), that "The Labour party is not an ideologically neoliberal party, though its policies may be considered to be neoliberal, there is a difference between their ideological beliefs and their policies" This sounds at first like a good argument - but no published material has been used to back it up. Wikipedia relies on published sources, which is why I keep harping on about the published sources I have cited. Going down a bit further however, the argument is logically identical to saying "Jim is not a murderer, he just kills people", or "Bob is not a philanthropist, he just gives lots of money to charity". The key point I keep making is that MULTIPLE published sources refer to Labour ideology as neo-liberal, and whether these sources reflect the truth or not, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia must cover what the published sources say about a subject. Many of the reverts I believe have been carried out by Labour Party members, who need to learn Wikipedia rules on NPOV and Verifiability in order to edit in an objective and dispassionate way. So many reverts have now been done, without explanation and without reference to published sources or the talk page that (with regret) I have had to report one editor for edit warring. Riversider (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Putting a dubious tag, might just might, make people look at the talk page before reverts so we can actually discuss this issue. From what I can see there are no other method of doing that straight off. I am skepical that people look at the history first. Instead of whining and complaining about reverts maybe actually encouraging discussion might just resovle this dispute? You also seem to assert that anyone who disagrees with your position is a Labour Party member. What political party do you support since you seem to believe it to be importat? Of course it is not important at all. I believe you should assume good faith? I don't believe you are doing that. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Again you talk about peoples political believes and party political support, I therefore feel it is only fair to ask you which party, or at least, which way idealogically do you swing, since you seem to feel it is important enough to mention anyone who disagrees that Labour is neo-liberal must be a Labour support? --Welshsocialist (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Even More Published SourcesHere are a few more published sources to add to the 16 or so that are cited either in the article or higher up on the talk page that identify Labour's ideology as neo-liberal: Here's a Daily Telegraph writer: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidlindsey/100012972/the-postal-workers-are-fighting-for-britain/
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/23/new-labour-gordon-brown-election
The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6857714.ece
The Socialist: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8169
Kamran Mofid: http://www.selvesandothers.org/article16487.html
Tom Macfarlane: http://tommacfarlane.co.uk/neoliberalism_and_governments_management_of_its_discontents.html New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/08/luton-town-labour-local-home
WP:V is over-fulfilled. There are masses of citable published evidence that many authoritative commentators regard Labour's ideology as Neo-liberal. Riversider (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Request For Comment: Is there enough authoritative published evidence to justify adding the label 'neoliberalism' as a description of labour's ideology in the infobox?Is there enough authoritative published evidence to justify adding the label 'neoliberalism' as a description of labour's ideology in the infobox? Please read the discussion above, follow the various citations in the article and those listed in the talk page, then give us your advice on this issue. Your comments will be very valuable. Riversider (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It is vert difficult claim that Labour itself is neo-liberal are a party, or has such an idealogy. Indeed most Labour members are a total opposed to neo-liberalism. Although there is an arguement to be made that the Blair-Brown New Labour project has high-jacked the party and pushed a more neo-liberal agenda onto it, that said there has been such a shift in partys of the centre-left world wide, for better for worst. It is high contriversal to call Labour a "neo-liberal" party, since it is not an idealogy that fits into the centre-left, democratic socialist/social democrat nature of the Labour Party. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is blindingly obvious that not everyone considers the Labour Party to be "neoliberal". Absolutely no justification to include it in the infobox. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer makes a very strong point. A lot of your sources, as I have pointed out, are not exactly sound. The Socialist is a newspaper of a rival political party, the "radical left journalists" also have an agenda. The term is idealogically loaded, usually branded about by the hard left. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There is more than enough evidence to decisively conclude that neoliberalism is a, if not the, dominant trend in the Labour party. The infobox also lists the party as democratic socialist and social-democratic, with 'Neoliberalism' and 'Third Way' being listed last and second-to-last, respectively. That's very fair to those who believe the party is still fundamentally socialist or social-democratic. --MQDuck (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Faction?The problem is how I see it, is the differences between where people liw within the Labour Party itself, and the fact that it has become a very board church (of anti-Tory porgressives, rather then of socialist and social democrats), I feel this is best sorted, and is made more clearer by dividing up the different idealogical points of view into the factions, as simuarly done with the Conservative page. Last time it was tried on the Labour page, it got split up into way too many "factions" mnaking the whole thing messy, if you just keep it as Blairite/Brownite faction, or maybe even just "New Labour" might be better, it may help clearly resovle the issues surrounding calling Labour neo-liberal. The only issue is if it under the flag of "New Labour" then not all New Labour supports are neo-liberal either. Blairism and Brownism on the other hand. --Welshsocialist (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
While I do think that Blair and Brown have persued some policies that could be seen to be neo-liberal in nature, I do not think it is suitable to describe it as an idealogy of the Labour Party itself. The neo-liberal accusition is already discussed within the text of the article, as it is only an accusition, usually made by left wingers. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The Scottish view of Labour neoliberalismI haven't included the Scottish perspective yet in my ever-lenghthening list of citations. Here's one from respected political commentator, Gerry Hassan, who is "a writer, commentator and policy analyst and author and editor of over a dozen books on Scottish and UK politics, the latest of which is ‘The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power' published by Edinburgh University Press", someone who is described in the Scottish Herald as "Scotland's main public intellectual" here writing for 'Open Democracy':
http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/2009/10/11/why-it-is-a-real-time-for-change Riversider (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) And here's an Irish point of view: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/270 Paul Michael Garrett is the author of Remaking Social Work with Children and Families (2003) and Social Work and Irish People in Britain (2004). He works at the National University of Ireland in Galway. He says in this article "How to be Modern: New Labour’s Neoliberal Modernity and the Change for Children programme" published in the British Journal of Social Work:
. I've got such a large variety of sources coming out of my ears here... Riversider (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I suppose that my experience of Labour is coloured by living in Wales, devolution and the "Clear Red Water" aproach taken. Although I still challenge the idea that Labour is idealogically a neo-liberal party.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
according to this review recently published in the Western Mail of 'Clear Red Water: Welsh Devolution and Socialist Politics' by Nick Davies & Darren Williams
[edit] Locking Over the top?Isn't locking this page slightly overkill? --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't think it will sort it, cos it is extremely contreversial and, I still think, dubious to call Labour neo-liberal. I am still skepticl about the "accademical" evidence validity and the motivation behind the evidence and it's authours, aswell as your POV about Labour. --Welshsocialist (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Labour implicated in immigration scandal, accused by media of "plotting"In the media it has been revealed that Labour intentionally encouraged mass movement from the third world, as a political attempt to try and undermine the Tories. According to Andrew Neather, who was an advisor to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, the party set about the "deliberate policy", from late 2000 "rub the Right’s nose in diversity", to render the Tories policy "outdated". The media says there are now calls for an inquiry—Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said "The shambolic control of our borders over the last 10 years has left a legacy which creates social tensions." MPs Frank Field (of Labour himself) and Nicholas Soames said about the scandal, "It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain" and "I am speechless at the idea that people thought they could socially engineer a nation on this basis." How can we word this in the article? Should it be under "party ideology" section? IMO it needs a whole article for itself. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Blair's role in the Iraq WarThe Chilcot inquiry[7] is uncovering all kinds of damning evidence about how Blair witheld information on the illegality of the Iraq war from the Cabinet, and even suggestions of 'bullying' of the country's foremost legal officers. Any suggestions about how, and whether, this should be covered in the Labour Party (UK) article? Riversider (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC) It be better in the Tony Blair article, surely. You don't have massive information about every single Labour leader and Prime Minister in this article. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] London Assembly in the InfoboxI'm struggling to see the justification for including the number of seats held in the London Assembly in the infobox graphic for each party, when a) it's not a UK-wide institution, and b) if we were including sub-UK institutions then the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly would have a stronger case for being there than the London Assembly, both being far more powerful bodies. Sofia9 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Categories: B-Class organized labour articles | High-importance organized labour articles | Organized Labour Portal AOTD | B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles | Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles | B-Class Political parties articles | Top-importance Political parties articles | WikiProject Political parties articles | B-Class Politics articles | Mid-importance Politics articles | B-Class Socialism articles | Mid-importance Socialism articles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
