Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pipelinks

I can see a case for removing a few (like official opposition) but the dates and names are all important. Also removing the name of the leader from the lede is wrong. Whatever WP:BRD applies so can we have a discussion please --Snowded ^TALK 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the current version has too many hyperlinks and does not adequately summarise the page's content. One example is the top section of the opening paragraph, which merely states 'The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom'. I edited it to list several more vital pieces of information on the topic and is more in line with the format used in the opening sections of Conservative Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats.MWhite 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. I assume by "previous version" you mean your proposed edits. I had two problems with them which are summarised above. As far as I can see you lots a lot of information from the first paragraph and removed two important pipelinks in the second. You also removed information from the third paragraph. So I can't see how your statement above is correct --Snowded ^TALK 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see logic in what issues you have with my proposed edits. Having almost every year linked to the respective general election makes the section quite messy. Information such as the party leader and Labour being the Official Opposition is placed into the opening paragraph and has no need to be referenced twice. I think views from other users may help to resolve this. User:Mwhite148MWhite 18:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you see it as a matter of logic, especially given your first argument was that your edit listed more vital pieces of information but in fact reduced the amount. I think we should pipeline where it eases readers ability to find supporting material. The dates link to articles about the government of that period so add value. You say that the party leader is referenced twice, but is is only in one place namely the second paragraph and you removed that, so I think you may just be mistaken there.--Snowded ^TALK 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as far as I can see I removed no information from the opening section, I merely re-arranged it. Could you specify exactly what information was removed and perhaps I could correct this. With regards to the party leader, I thought you were implying it should be mentioned twice, which was obviously a misunderstanding. I still think other users should voice their opinions to clear this up.User:Mwhite148 MWhite 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Labour Party (UK) → Labour Party (GB) — The current title is factually correct, but would be more accurately listed at GB. There has been a discussion above on the topic, and no encyclopedic reason has been given to maintain it in it's current place, however it has been requested someone outside the discussion make the final move Fasach Nua (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I moved this article to it's proper location "Labour Party (GB)", this was reverted as it is controversial. I don't understand the controversy, this party only organises in GB, it only fields candidates in GB, surely GB is the most appropriate geographic disambiguation term. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The are entitled to organize in NI but choose not to. TFD (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They are entitled to organise in Denmark, but choose not to, I fail to see the point! Fasach Nua (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party is registered with the Electoral Commission to contest national elections for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I don't think that any of the major parties contested seats in NI in the last election, although they have in the past and may in the future. TFD (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Labour party is not registered to contest seats throughout the UK, it is only registered in GB. The Tory party is registered throughout the UK and put up candidates in every seat in the UK (save the speakers seat) in the last Westminster election. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge British Labour has never stood a candidate in Ireland, North or South, can a third party source stating they fielded candidates outside of GB in the past be provided? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I had not been aware that there are separate registers for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[1] However none to the three major parties are registered in Northern Ireland,[2] although the Conservatives have a branch there (see: Conservatives in Northern Ireland). However since these parties contest elections for the UK parliament, it seems logical to classify them as UK. TFD (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tory party is registered in NI, we have other regional parties seeking election to the UK parliament differentiated by their region on wikipedia, see Unionist Party (Scotland) for example. The Labour party seeks seats in many legislatures including the London Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assemble and the European Parliament, and numerous metropolitan and county councils, we don't have this article as Labour(EU) to reflect their ambition there, so I don't get why we mislead readers with Labour(UK). Fasach Nua (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Labour stopped running candidates in Ireland in 1913, while the Tories only began running candidates again (jointly with the UUP) in 2010. (On a technical point, are they officially the same party?) The Liberals or Liberal Democrats at one time tried to organize there. Let's see what other editors think about the proposed move. TFD (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no restriction on membership and a defacto SDLP link. Its a UK Party not GB --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If we base the disambiguation on those who can join, surely this should be Earth. The UK was the last state on this planet to which the Labour Party gave full membership rights to it's citizens Fasach Nua (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked the Electoral Commission website and it is clear that the Labour Party is only registered as a political party in Great Britain, whereas the Conservative Party is registered both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I must admit, this tends to support the point that Fasach Nua is making. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Most people know Britain as the UK, changing it to Great Britain would just confuse matters. The article states that Labour doesn't stand in Northern Ireland, and there is no confusing from that, even from people outside the UK. I just think this is editting for the sake of editting, rather than a constructive edit.--Welshsocialist (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So summing this up, the Labour party only organises in Great Britain and is only registered to engage in the electoral process in Great Britain, however they did field candidates in the rest of the UK just under a century ago. It has been argued that as the SDLP is a constituent party of the POES that this makes Labour active in NI, however none of the SDLP politicians take the Labour whip in the any legislature in which they sit together, so I think that is a nonsense argument. The issue of where it draws it's membership is also raised, and anyone in the world can join the GB Labour party, not just those from Britain, although it does limit trade union membership to GB unions rather than UK unions. The issue of confusion has also risen it's head, but in an encyclopedia the reader should expect to come across new knowledge, and articles should not mislead, especially within the opening three words of the title. I have yet to see any encyclopedic reason why this article should not be properly located at Labour Party (GB). Fasach Nua (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the world their are parties that compete in elections for national legislatures but do not run in some provinces or states because they have an agreement with another party there. The best known examples are the CDU in Germany and the Liberal Party in Australia. But no one claims they are not German or Australian parties. The Labour Party long ago entered into an agreement with socialists in Ireland not to compete with them and this agreement continues with the SDLP, even though they do not otherwise cooperate. TFD (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Using Labour(GB) instead of Labour(UK) is not saying it isn't a UK party, just as Labour(UK) isn't stating it isn't a EU party, it is simply an accurate description of the geographical area of it's activity. The Australian and German examples are apt to a point, however we do not have a handy geographic term for Germany less Bavaria, but we do have a handy term to describe the UK less NI, which we use for Socialist Workers Party (Britain) as it only organises in GB and not throughout the UK. I have moved the page to reflect the parties geographical activity. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Before moving this article you should set up a move request, per WP:MOVE, get outside input and ask an administrator to close the discussion if consensus is achieved. So far I see no consensus and could you please stop moving this article until one is obtained. TFD (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, re the SDLP an agreement not to compete is stronger than taking the whip. The historical links to Irish socialism go back to Larkin and it just confuses things to make it GB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 November 2010

Fasach Nua is entirely correct, technically, factually and on the basis of published evidence. Labour does not organise in Northern Ireland, leaving the people there prey to parties based on religious bigotry rather than class solidarity. It is a shameful abnegation of responsibility. Riversider (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well now, the NILP did attempt that and the first congress of the Labour Party was in Belfast in 1907. Currently the Party organises in Northern Ireland and there is a petition to stand in elections going the rounds. Its not that simple an issue, and the ideal that religious bigotry can be solved by class solidarity is one of those naive positions that one would really like to be true, but which isn't --Snowded ^TALK 11:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That link is quite useful, is there a primary source reference? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the key issue is that the Labour Party is only registered as a political party in GB whereas the Conservative party is registered in Northern ireland as well. The Conservatives can therefore claim to be a UK party and the Labour party can claim to be a GB party. I don't see why this is so controversial. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Labour Party contests elections for the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its leaders for the last century have been either prime minister or leader of the opposition for the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose it doesn't matter that Labour isn't in NI, "UK" is a standard disambiguator, as long as there isn't a different Labour inside UK somewhere, UK is fine. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Labour Party is the second largest party in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom; it hadn't even been formed when the House of Commons of Great Britain was replaced in 1801. The party's website, if you google "Labour Party", is described as "The official site of the UK Labour Party", and it's official Twitter account is located at UKLabour. The Celestial City (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Move to Labour Party (Britain). 'GB' is not as well-known abbreviation as 'UK', and (GB) would just be confusing. 'Britain' is more direct. However, the nominator is correct. The Labour Party is, by its own choice, not an all-UK party. --Soman (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• As proposer I would be content with a Move to Labour Party (Britain), this would also be consistent with other regional parties such as Socialist Workers Party (Britain) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The party doesn't organize in NI, but they seek to rule the UK and describe themselves as a UK party. Also UK is a sufficient and standard disambiguator, of which "Britain" (though not GB) is a synonym. Kanguole 11:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given that the topic is a political party, it makes sense to base the disambiguation on the administrative unit in which the political party operates. That means the nation, rather than the slightly more restricted geographical area in which the party stands candidates. Incidentally the Labour Party does now accept membership applications from people who live in Northern Ireland, albeit only after a law case forced the change. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• It does accept members from NI, however those members resident in NI have no voting rights in the party, all members are equal, but some are more equal than others? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Labour is a party that seeks to govern the United Kingdom and has often formed that government; it makes sense that UK is used at the disambiguator. Furthermore it now has members and some degree of organisation in Northern Ireland. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Labour party does not seek to govern the UK, they do not seek in any way input into Health, Education, Environment, or any other major areas of government policy outside of their core area of Great Britain. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit Protection

Should this page be temporarily semi-protected to stem the flow of the addition of Social Democratic ideology ? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think so, or the pre-authorisation review thingy --Snowded ^TALK 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Labour is a social democratic party. Look at there website and treat both Tories and Labour equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.235.66 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

See prior discussion, If you disagree then read that first, raise any issues here and STOP edit warring--Snowded ^TALK 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right that the GB Labour party is a Social Democratic party, however neither my nor your opinion matters, in order to add material to Wikipedia, you must be able to WP:PROVEIT using third party reliable WP:SOURCES. If you can provide such sources please feel free to add the information to the article. Fasach Nua (talk)

Semi-Protection

I've semi'd this for two weeks so that the IP editors can at least make edit requests here to change the "ideology" section, supported by reliable sources, and subject to consensus. This to-ing and fro-ing has been going on for far too long, IMO. Rodhullandemu 16:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Fasach it's not enough to WP:PROVEIT using third party reliable WP:SOURCES. No matter how many reliable and diverse sources I came up with descibing the ideology of the Labour leadership as 'neoliberalism', this description of a key 'ideological current' in the party was ultimately deleted and the demonstrably false description 'democratic socialist' attached, regardless of the weight of published sources, it will probably take the election of a new Labour government, and a new raft of neoliberal legislation before the description here changes to approximate the reality. Riversider (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation 11

Citation 11, which links to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, does not work. Since this page is protected, can an administrator please insert the "http://" part between "/*/" and "www" in that link.

Thanks

(You can delete this post from the discussion page once the problem's fixed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.88.168 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More citations on Neoliberalism in the Labour Party

This very recent article from the New Statesman quotes a compass document: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/labour-members-party-compass

Here is the key paragraph from the text that has gone to Compass members in support of the change:

The crux of the issue is this: why do we let in neoliberals who backed low taxes, privatisation of the Post Office and PFI because they happen to be in the Labour Party but keep out a social liberal or green socialist who campaigned against all this and more, because they are in another? Party affiliation is only one (albeit important) aspect of today's politics. The Facebook generation has shown that it is perfectly possible to have multiple affiliations to different left political causes; this is the future of political identity.

Pretty strong evidence that neoliberalism was, and still is an ideological current in the Labour Party. Riversider (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A blog reporting on an internal grouping within the Labour Party? Not the best of sources, and even if there are neoliberals in the Labour Party that does not make it an ideology--Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A paragraph taken from a letter in support of opneing up Compass to non-Labour members. Not 100% sure that can be counted as being 100% accurate given the agenda behind it. --Welshsocialist (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability of The 'Morning Star'.

A recent edit I made, (in line with previous consensus that the shift to neoliberal ideology among the party's leadership should be covered in the body of the article, rather than the infobox) was deleted on the grounds that the 'Morning Star' a national daily left-wing newspaper was not a 'notable' source with regards to the Labour Party. I'd like to refer editors to this early day motion proposed by Ian Lavery and signed by no fewer than 48 Labour MPs:

That this House notes the Morning Star is a national daily newspaper available in shops across the UK; further notes that it is the only socialist daily newspaper in the English language worldwide; further notes that the Morning Star and its management have strong links with the trade union movement; welcomes the different light it shines on news and current affairs from that of other daily newspapers; expresses concern that the Morning Star is rarely ever shown on or reported by the BBC on television and radio; and calls on the Director General of the BBC to ensure that the Morning Star is featured regularly and as a matter of course in broadcast newspaper reviews in the interests of fair and balanced reporting. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=42353

If 48 Labour Party MPs are prepared to go to this extent to assert that the Morning Star is notable, then can a handful of WP editors say it is not?

PS The EDM was also signed by 5 LibDems, 1 Green Party, 3Plaid Cymru, 1 SNP and 1 SDLP MP, so belief in it's notability extends beyond the confines of the Labour PartyRiversider (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't think anyone can argue with that arguement RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Morning Star is within limits a reliable source. However it can not be used to support a statement about "the left" which was the point. It can support a statement about the views of the British Communist party, but how notable that is these days is open to question. --Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the term 'the left' is an ill defined concept. Some people even believe it includes the Liberal Democrat Party. However a total of 59 MPs (48 of them Labour) were willing to put their name to a motion calling for the Morning Star to have a higher profile in the BBC, indicating some level of sympathy with it's positions. Morning Star is also supported by a number of Trade Unionists, and both people with significant Trade Union positions, and Labour Party members write for it, some occasionally, some very regularly. Morning Star could therefore be understood to represent the views of a sizeable section of the Labour Left, and of some to the left of Labour. This is undeniable. If you're quibbling about the term 'the left' then it would be better editing practice to find a formulation that you consider to be more precise, rather than just deleting well sourced material. Riversider (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would happily sign that motion, even though I would not consider the Morning Star representative of my views. You are drawing an implication from that motion which is original research. That it represents some of the left is almost certainly true, whether that is significant or notable is another matter. I challenged both (i) its not a source that can support a statement about the left and (ii) qualified its not especially notable. If my objections had only been the first I would have amended the entry, but the second means I removed it --Snowded ^TALK 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems bizarre that we can't use a Labour movement publication as a source for an article on the Labour Party. Do any other editors have an opinion on this? Riversider (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideology

This has been discussed several times before and changes should be discussed here first. If there are references I am happy to consider a change, but I want to see the text of those references. Anyone can cite a few books, we need to understand the context and see the quotation to judge. I also note that the dates of the references relate to some years BEFORE the last election and all relate to the Blair period. In previous discussions we agreed that while third way was correct then, it was no longer appropriate --Snowded ^TALK 01:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you have problems with academic references that refer Labour being a social-democratic party. Quotes can be provided. Aside, it is not "controversial" to class Labour as social democrats, particularly as it is a member of the major social-demcoratic international organisations such as the PES and SI.--Autospark (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you are failing to abide by WP:BRD or respect previous agreements. Social democracy is a continental term with a distinct history, in the British Isles the tradition and history is of democratic socialism. There is a natural affinity which is why they are all members of PES and SI, but they are still distinct traditions. We specifically discussed third way and agreed it was correct some years ago but not now and none of your citations are current. If the quotes for social democracy can be supplied then please do so for discussion. While that goes on you should reverse your changes. --Snowded ^TALK 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotes here, or in article? Incidentally, that is a rather revisionist and unorthodox interpretation of demsoc versus socdem. Now, quotes: Quote 1 (McAnulla, 2006) “However, a number of different sets of ideas, notably those of the ‘third way’, have been influential on new Labour, inspiring parts of its agenda to break from strict neo-liberalism and contain identifiably social-democratic elements” (p.127). Quote 2 (McAnulla, 2006) "new Labour can still be interpreted as a centre-left, social-democratic party" (p. 188). More to come.--Autospark (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotes here are fine it sets the context and its been decades since I was last called a revisionist so thanks for that and also for respecting WP:BRD by reversing your edit to allow discussion. There seem to be three things here. Firstly the declared ideology of the party per its web site and constitution and history is democratic socialism (the citation for this was previously removed as unnecessary as that was self evident). Secondly, Third Way was less of an ideology than a PR position adopted by Blair, its not clear that it is an ideology per se. The quote above talks about it as an influential idea which mitigated strict neo-liberalism and lots of ideas influence. It, together with neo-liberalism were there but they were removed by agreement as being restricted to a specific time period and post Blair, and certainly post the General Election no longer applicable. Thirdly, the social democracy question is more problematic as anyone trying to explain British Politics to an international audience is going to link it to that wider movement within Europe. The McAnulla quote clearly supports that "can still be interpreted" being the key words. Also the fact that it is said to "contain identifiable social democratic elements" is also highly qualified, its policy contains elements from other movements, its not enough to say that it is social democratic with all the historical context that would imply.

Having slept on it, it occurs to be that there is a compromise possible on the third issue as it does come up from time to time. We put Democratic Socialism but then create a footnote to say that given the Party is also described as being social democratic when seen from an international perspective given its links via Socialist International etc. There might also be an argument for listing it as Democratic Socialism (Social Democracy) with a footnote against the bracked item. I'm less sure about that, but if it resolves the issue I am open to it. --Snowded ^TALK 07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't matter what a political party self-defines itself as; what academics classify the organisations as it the important issue (aside: where are the counterinf academic citations that the 21st century Labour party is demsoc rather than socdem?). Secondly, it is a matter of record that Labour is a socdem party in the reasonably typical European mould, the fact that the party is in an Anglophone nation does not change that fact (certainly it can be argued that Labour has more in common with reconstructed European socdem parties like the Dutch PvdA and German SPD than any other type of political organisation). Thirdly, why should socdem be buried away as a footnote when it is a perfectly academically-valid way of describe the Labour party's ideological position? Many other wiki articles about majort political parties mention at least two or more ideologies in the infoboxes.--Autospark (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I totaly agree with Autospark: Labour Party is definitely a social-democratic party and I especially agree on the fact that "it doesn't matter what a political party self-defines itself as". --Checco (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Autospark, its not clear if you are conceding the third way point or not. Otherwise you have not addressed my points on what your citations actually say. It is historically the case that democratic socialist parties share much in common with social democracy and that they form alliances per SI, but the Labour Party was founded as a democratic socialist party and has always maintained that despite the flirtations with neo-liberal economics under Blair. You state it is a matter of record, but neither of your two quotations support that. See my comments above. We need something firmer than that. --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so much conceding the Third Way point other than prioritising the acceptance of socdem. (Third Way, after all, is arguably just a reconstructed/revisionist variant of socdem for the global neoliberal consensus.) Frankly there are potentially dozens of academic references that would support Labour being a socdem party found on the politics shelves of any university library - I chose the sources freely available on Google Books purely because I would not accused of fabricating such sources. I am quite willing to find more sources for academic quotes, but not if the goalposts are being shifted at every turn.--Autospark (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any goal posts shifting. You need a citation which says their ideology is social democrat, and the weight of evidence needs to support that. The examples you gave show the associations, but you would expect that. The historical differences remain great - just look at the radically different approaches to Marxism in the British Labour Party and German Social Democrats to take just one example. Overlaps, influence all agreed. --Snowded ^TALK 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the problem here is that because the Labour Party is so large and has existed for so long, it is seen and described in many different ways by RS's, yet the WP article has endeavoured to describe it in one single way. The argument over whether the party can be described as having a 'social democratic' ideology is very similar to the argument about whether it can be described as having a 'neoliberal' ideology. Both positions are argued by many respected and authoritative RS's. Rather than representing these views adequately, the editorial thrust has been to try (and fail) to crush all the various views of the party into one overarching definition 'democratic socialism', which actually satisfies nobody, as it is so palpably false, and is based almost solely on self-published sources. In order to assert this single monolithic view of the party, we have denied the authority of a whole raft of well informed publications because they are branded 'POV' (as if any article on a political party could not be POV in one way or another, political articles are POV by definition, it is part of the skill of a group of editors to approach NPOV by adequately and proportionately representing the various POVs). We need to find a solution to this - an article that gives more prominence to significant minority viewpoints and better explanations of the various factions and ideological trends within the party. Riversider (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is pretty safe to call Labour both democratic socialist and social democratic. It is when it comes to Neo-Liberal there are serious issues around it. For starters, Labour's core idealogy is democratic socialism (Clause IV of the Labour Party consitution states it as being so), secondly the majority of Labour Party members oppose neo-liberalism, as does the general Labour movement. Also a lot of the sources cited for neo-liberal are from the hard-left, be it hard-left groups or accademics of a hard-left leaning. There are also historical elements to be considered and the wider views of the political party. Both of which are firmly in the democratic socialist/social democratic direction.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it does matter what a party defines itself as, because that it's identity, and is an important part of the make up of the party. Even if it could be argued that the party doesn't follow what the consitution of the party states it's idealogy to be, the party still states itself to be so, and therefor it is valid. IMHO.--Welshsocialist (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, a reference (in the article text preferably, not Infobox) to the party's historic constitutional commitment to democratic socialism is required for, not blanket assumption that Labour's ideology is democratic socialism in the textbook definition of the term, a fact which only a small minority, if any, academic sources would agree. (From my experience, any academic sources that diverge from the opinion that Labour is a social-democratic party do so because the academic writer(s) in question consider Labour to be on the right of social democracy!).--Autospark (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the logic of that position is that Labour is democratic socialist because it says it is, and democratic socialism is defined by whatever Labour decide democratic socialism is, which in turn is defined by whatever Labour does - even if it involves cuts and privatisations. A huge circular logic-trap. Wikipedia should not fall into such traps.Riversider (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And the other danger is to use ideology as a way of making a political commentary on the labour party. The neo-liberalism thing we have done to the death in the past and I don't see any new arguments to justify opening that can of worms again. On social democratic I proposed some time ago that we add note to the effect (possibly with social democracy in brackets) to say that the Labour Party was founded as a democratic socialist party and is now linked with social democratic parties in Europe without whom it shares much in common. All of that is easily supported. --Snowded ^TALK 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why Labour can't be described as a social democratic party. There is nothing "continental" about it. The description of social democracy is very common in UK politics. Ed Miliband descriptions his own position as social democratic here, and the desriptionj is already used on Wikipedia for other UK parties, including Plaid Cymru, The Liberal Democrats and the SNP. Yet again, why should Labour be the expection to the rule? The description is accurate for Labour, it not put forward by anyone with an axe to grind.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. I don't see what the difference is meant to be between Labour and "social democratic parties in Europe". Labour is after all a social-democratic party according to a great deal of academic sources, and is situated in Europe.--Autospark (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested a compromise and there is little question that the two traditions are different although they are converging. For the academic sources so far given see my questions above. --Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding the compromise would be, having Democratic Socialsit in the infobox, with (Social Democratic) in brackets next to it?, if so then I suppose that would be a reasonble thing to do, for the time being.--Welshsocialist (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have followed Jean Luc Picard's advice and "made it so". I think however we still need to go further, Autospark is right, the majority of academic commentators dispute the terms 'democratic socialist' and 'social democracy' when applied to the present day Labour Party (even where they accept that these were true historically), arguing that present day Labour is well to the right of such ideologies. I'm not saying these descriptions need to be removed as, as WelshSocialist correctly argues, they are part of the party's self-definition, but they do need to be qualified to reflect the balance of outside commentary by reliable sources, and also the balance of internal and factional material emanating from the party and the wider Labour movement, which for our purposes must be considered relevant, even if it requires careful handling due to varying levels of notability. The article also does not address recent ideological developments like 'blue labour', which has been getting a large press recently, and which conflicts directly with the internationalist and progressive elements of democratic socialism as it is traditionally understood. Riversider (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Its far to early to include things like "Blue Labour" no matter who is elevated to the House of Lords. Recentism is an issue. The place for discussion of ideological changes (beyond labels) is for the main body. For the moment I still don't see Autospark (for example) responding to specific questions on sources, I do see broad brush statements which are not supported as such when I read the texts. Also ideologies evolve, you can't make democratic socialism a static definition based on the 1940s or earlier. Social democracy also has its own evolutionary routes. Both traditions now have a lot in common, it does not mean one can substitute for the other --Snowded ^TALK 12:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting including Blue Labour in the infobox, but the article itself needs to cover it if it's becoming a notable ideological faction or trend within the party, however distasteful some editors might find it, the number of RS's that have written about 'Blue Labour' is increasing almost daily. Riversider (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue Labour is a new and, as it stands, fringe element within Labour. It it yet to be see if it dies out in a fizzle or goes on to change party policy. I think that it probably should be mentioned, briefly, as it isn't yet that significant in the party.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Glasman is a member of the House of Lords, Stears is a close friend of Miliband, the Labour leader, Purnell is a former minister, Cruddas is a highly influential backbencher, Johnathan Rutherford a key member of 'Compass'. All these names have been linked to 'Blue Labour': hardly a 'fringe' grouping, and the RS's which deal with it have not branded it as such, but treat it as a serious trend in the party with big potential to win significant positions and policy changes. Riversider (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

At the moment its emergent at best, it looks like it might be serious but we really don't know. --Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see why we should classify Labour primarily as demsoc, going against orthodox standard of academic research, with social democracy in brackets. This is not the case with wikipedia articles about other European social-democratic parties, several of which are basically ideologically the same as the British Labour party. And again, the very idea that social democracy is some kind of strange "continental" ideology not found in Anglophone countries is utterly bizarre.--Autospark (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The two movements have converged but they have different origins. Neither do I see any evidence that your position is an "orthodox standard of academic research". I think you are ignoring history in favour of a simplistic need for classification. Political movements do have historical and geographical contexts and we need to take that into account. --Snowded ^TALK 20:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Article on New Labour

Since articles exist for the premiership of Tony Blair and that of Gordon Brown, it seems to me that Blair-Brown government should be moved to New Labour and rewritten, documenting both the New Labour slogan and the full history of the political tendency from 1994 until 2010. Are there any views on this? --Kwekubo (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continued here. --Kwekubo (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Information overload

Have you seen the size of this page? It is rather massive. All of it factual I'm sure, which is why I haven't just reverted things myself. I simply feel there is far too much information here. This isn't meant to be an ultimate history of the Labour party. Would it be possible to cut some unnecessary fluff? --Matt Downey (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A major issue here is the crossover with History of the British Labour Party. Sometimes this article actually has more detail on history than the history article. One solution might be to cut down the history section here to much more of a summary and create a better narrative there (which itself should be a series of summaries of other articles).--SabreBD (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Numer of Seats

Labour currently have 286 seats not 256 as said in the article. 306(Con)+286(Lab)+57(LibDem)+1(Green)=650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.88.83 (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Labour MP

The list of current Labour MPs is incorrect after the death of Alan Keen of Feltham and Heston. Should we wait after the by-election to replace him has occured or should he be removed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.11.69 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The By-election saw Seema Malhotra elected for Labour. The article should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.202.234.4 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP ISSUES

There are a number of possible BLP issues here, all of which are related to the British Labour Party`s links to lfoi.or.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.46.46 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you guys are hilarious

Not only have you added Labour's ridiculous claims to democratic socialism to the lead, you have added Marxism to the ideology box! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.98.60 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that a few times, only for it to be readded by a user who appears to be using multiple accounts.--John Allen (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my edits

I hope that people have found my contributions (such as the section on Local Labour reforms in the inter-war period) both interesting and useful, perhaps for research purposes. I take great pleasure in adding all of this information from books that I’ve found, both online and in print form. (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions! I hadn't checked this article for a few months and I see it's been significantly expanded, with high quality information. It's very useful information. Also, thanks for contributions on related articles. Peter (Talk page) 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Numer of Seats

Labour currently have 286 seats not 256 as said in the article. 306(Con)+286(Lab)+57(LibDem)+1(Green)=650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.88.83 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The 30 other seats are a combination of Plaid, SNP and Northern Irish MPs.89.242.188.247 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the Labour Party are Left-Wing not Center-Left.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both two Labour leaders who are on the Right of the Labour Party, they both led the party to adopt a far more Liberal stance.

Ed Miliband clearly wants to turn the Labour Party back to the Left. (E.P. Davies (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

What Ed Miliband wants and believes is not necessarily what the Labour Party are. I certainly hope the leader of such a big and powerful party doesn't have that much of a dicatorship. veganfishcake (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that since the majority of reforms the last Labour government performed were centre-right that Labour are centre-right, not even centre-left. The party has been making centre-right reforms in local government too. veganfishcake (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Then find some references, you can't argue a position here in that way, we reflect the balance of what the sources say ----Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms 'right' and 'left' are both relative (For example, British politics is entirely different from Politics of the United States) and not particularly good gages of ideology if they're used on their own without labels such as 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Now there are plenty of sources from independent observers/commentators who think that the Labour Party's actions and policies make it social democratic. The party itself claims to be democratic socialist, and we've made it clear in the article that this has been questioned by a few. Calling the party 'centre-right' is pure bias and I can't see many sources that would agree with you. (Personally, for the reasons I said, I'd drop 'centre-left' from the lead and just have "The Labour Party is a social democratic and democratic socialist party".) --Peter (Talk page) 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

British/Irish tradition is democratic socialism, its not the same history as social democracy. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There are far many more sources showing that Ed Miliband supports 'Responsible Capitalism' than 'democratic socialism'. I suggest that the words 'democratic socialism' are replaced with 'responsible capitalism' to reflect this undeniable reality. Riversider (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That as you well know is original research. All socialist parties across Europe have taken a mixed economy approach for decades, its a part of democratic socialism and social democracy now for well or for good. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not Original Research, it's simply citing reliable sources. Sources such as Labour's own website and Labour's own leader. If you go through Miliband's speeches, and count how many times he has used the words 'democratic socialism', and how many times he's used the words 'responsible capitalism', it makes the point as clearly as a bell. To delete the words 'Responsible Capitalism' from the ideology section makes the WP article a comfortable work of fiction rather than an accurate description of the party. Riversider (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But what exactly is "responsible capitalism" other than a simple description or a nice buzz term? It's not an ideology because there's nothing behind it, it's just empty words like Cameron's "big society". If Miliband had used terms like "reasonable socialism" or "nice, kind and happy socialism" in a few speeches, obviously we wouldn't count those as ideologies. Comparatively, "socialism with a human face" was a term used by socialist Czech authorities: but that's a description, not an ideology. If you can find an independent, third party reference that actually describes what "responsible capitalism" is, then it should go under the internal ideological trends (this is only reasonable, but I think it should stay out entirely, because it seems alien to Labour's ideology).
I would like to say also that "responsible capitalism" could easily describe social democracy which takes a capitalistic market economy and makes it 'responsible' and friendly. -- Peter (Talk page) 11:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And it is original research. You are going to original material and drawing a conclusion from it. As on previous occasions you are also forgetting about WP:BRD, this is just a variation of previous debates with you on neo-liberalism and blue labour. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm making bold edits, you're reverting them, and now we're discussing them, so we're following the WP:BRD model precisely. There's plenty of published material out there showing the influence of Neoliberalism on Labour, the influence of the Blue Labour trend within Labour, and from it's leader himself on the importance of 'Responsible Capitalism' to Labour. However I feel there is a consensus here that would rather accept the comfortable illusion that Labour is the same party it was in the 1970's, than to accurately reflect the RS's out there that describe Labour as it is today, which is why my edits are reverted even though they are referenced to highly reliable sources. My edits are simply intended to give a fully rounded picture that reflects how Labour and it's ideology have evolved since it's 'Social Democratic' days, and how this is described in the available literature. Riversider (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsible capitalism is a buzz word; all political leaders are talking about it. However, it is not a meaningful ideology; all leaders are using it to justify their own ideologies. Blue Labour has lost a lot of its influence after Maurice Glasman's comments. Labour still describes itself as a democratic socialist party, and it is also described as being social democratic by reliable sources. Third Way already covers the "evolution" of Labour's ideology. Neo-Liberal is just a very provocative term, and doesn't accurately reflect the true ideology of the Labour Party, as a whole. --Welshsocialist (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsible capitalism certainly does fall in the category 'buzz words', but so does 'third way' which is still currently included in the ideology section even though nobody has used that term since Blair's departure. This does not mean the term 'Responsible Capitalism' cannot denote Labour's current ideology, as it is an ideological approach to the kind of capitalism they envisage, and it is the term they use to counterpose to the neoliberalism of the other parties and (at least by implication) Blair. An ideology can distinguish one party from another party, but it can also show where parties share common ground, and you're right to point out that all 3 parties at least rhetorically advocate 'responsible capitalism' though perhaps not with the same zeal as Miliband. Blue Labour is officially 'disbanded', but it's ideas remain very influential, despite the antics of Glasman, who was Blue Labour's ideological figurehead, but not it's only significant figure. The way Miliband wrapped himself in the flag today and called for 'pride and patriotism' and a revival of the 'Made In Britain' marque clearly shows the influence of Blue Labour's 'flag faith and family' approach. The point however of WP is that we must reflect the RS's. There are plenty of RS's asserting that Blair's episode in office was characterised by a neoliberal ideology, and sources as significant as the party leader and the party website asserting that Labour's key ideological motivation is 'Responsible Capitalism'. It's a matter of debate whether 'Responsible Capitalism' and 'Social Democracy' are logically and practically reconcilable, and that is not a debate we should have here - we can leave that to the sources and the party itself, our job is just to report what the RS's say. Can we start doing that, instead of censoring those sources that make Labour Party members feel uncomfortable?Riversider (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair hasn't been leader of the Labour Party for 5 years, I really don't think any alledged shifts to neo-liberalism under his leadership deserves to be in the idealogy section of the infobox. Maybe in the analysis of his term of office, but not in the info box. Indeed, I believe it already is mentioned. "Blue Labour" isn't an idealogy itself, it was such a section of Labour MPs and supporters with a believe in guild socialism, and a rejection of neo-liberal ideas. Again this is work mentioning in the text about the current leadership, and it is. However it not really suited in the idealogy infobox. Like "Orange Book" would not be suited for the Liberal Democrat infobox idealogy, despite it's leadership and cabinet members being in favour of the Orange Book. The third way has been used to descitbe Bill Clinton's Democrats, as well as the centre-left parties in Canada, Austrillia, Germany, Portugal, etc. It seems to be a rather common centre-left idealogy, used across the world. Responsible Capitalism, is only just merging, and every party is talking about it. The Tories nor the Lib Dems claim to be "Third Way". Although I am fairly easy about removing that from the infobox, since it was under Blair, and moight not be up to date under the direction Ed Miliband is taking Labour in, whatever that direction is.--Welshsocialist (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsible capitalism is just the latest spin on a mixed market, something that has been DS and SD policy for years. Its not an ideology, it may or may not be noteworthy enough to include in the main body. However we should not be reflecting each marketing spin that comes from the Party. Please stop the silly accusations of censorship ----Snowded ^TALK 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've never advocated describing Labour's ideology as 'Blue Labour'. That was an entirely different debate about how to reflect the influence of that particular trend in the main body. The amendment we're debating now is whether to insert the words 'Responsible Capitalism' in the ideology section of the infobox. Just as 'Third Way' was Blair's catchphrase, and has lodged itself in there, even though nobody ever really knew exactly what it meant, so Miliband is making 'Responsible Capitalism' his catchphrase. I have a lot of respect for the argument "It's not an ideology, it's just the latest marketing spin", but in recent years marketing spin has been the only ideology left to guide the Labour Party, and if you like I can find you several RS's to back up that point. What's clear to most respected academics is that Labour no longer behaves like a traditional 'Social Democratic' or 'Democratic Socialist' party, and no longer meets those definitions, they're an old outdated label. At least 'Responsible Capitalism' gives a more accurate picture of what's going on in the minds of the leadership when they're thinking up their policies, which is what an ideology is for. Riversider (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While I can agree with you politically, the fact remains that what you are suggesting there is original research. Reliable sources that say the Party has become marketing driven have a place in the main body subject to ensuring balance. But there are no grounds to insert this in the ideology section of the information box ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out, the Democratic Socialism sources are from this year or the past two years. They are not "out of date", but very much recent.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Centre-left claims need citation

Left-wing and centre-left mean having progressive and egalitarian principles. It is not clear that Labour have these principles and evidence under their last government indicates that they had none. Amongst the left in Britain as well others who understand fully what left-wing and centre-left truly mean there is a consensus that the Labour Party are not centre-left. I therefore feel that there needs to be citation for such claims. veganfishcake (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, most reasonble people view people as a centre-left party. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it a fact that Labour is not centre-left. In the UK political sense, Labour is a centre-left political party, and most Labour Party members are on the centre-left of politics.--Welshsocialist (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Welshsocialist. The Labour Party has been defined as social democratic and democratic socialist, and we have references to back these 'claims' up. Socialist ideologies are clearly on the left of politics (The Labour Party is at least on the left of the British political spectrum), so we don't need another reference to claim that the party is centre-left. You can't let your own feelings about the Labour Party affect the neutrality of the article. -- Peter (Talk page) 11:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How do you answer this then? Political Compass. Also I genuinely believe Labour do a lot to hide the fact they are centre-right. Pretty much everyone on the true left believe Labour to be right-wing these days. Why don't you put the issue to bed and just find some citations? Is that because you can't because the party is centre-right? veganfishcake (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I got plenty of references, other than the unreiable political compass, indeed they are from a various sources. From the New Stateman[1][[2]][3], to the Independnet[1][2], the Mirror[1][2], the Telegraph[1] and Progess[1]. I feel that you have very strongly political bias, as your language shows. However you cannot use Wikipeida to make POV edits. The facts are that Labour is a centre-left political party. Regardless of if you agree with it or not.--Welshsocialist (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: Move some of the history section to the History article

I've noticed that a lot of (useful) information has been added to the History section over the past few months and it's gotten to the point that the section has become longer and more detailed than the History of the British Labour Party article - which is meant to be the main article. This Labour Party article and the section are uncomfortably long and it makes no sense to have so much information on here when it could be better suited on other relevant articles. All of the information seems useful, but it's just not relevant to the entire scope of this article.

Now I don't know where to start moving and which paragraphs to move - I have moved a little bit, but I'm unsure what to keep - but it's clear that some of the more detailed, longer paragraphs are better suited to the other article. I hope that a few editors here could read through the History section and decide which information to move other. It could be a fairly simple job.. but I really don't think it can be left how it is currently.

What do other editors think and are there any suggestions as to what should stay and how much the section should be cut down? -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely agreed. How about restoring the history section to how it was at the time of this edit before it was expanded and when it was nice and concise, and moving stuff added since to the main article. Also the main history article also needs updating. Gem (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

To the person who removed ethical socialism from the infobox: it has been an official policy of the Labour Party

Here are the two sources that state that ethical socialism is a component of the Labour Party:

• Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. Pp. 284.
• Mark Bevir. New Labour: a critique. London, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2005. Pp. 72.

If you look at the article on ethical socialism it provides sources that state that ethical socialism has been a phenomenon in the Labour Party since the 1920s when it was developed by R. H. Tawney and since supported by Labour Party leaders and Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Atlee, and Tony Blair.--R-41 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not an ideology ----Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Ethical socialism" is rarely used to describe the ideology of the Labour Party. Of course, if you search for "Labour Party+ethical socialism", you will get some hits. I guess that if you type "Labour Party+fascism" you will get some hits too (I haven't tried though). If you enter "Labour Party+neoliberalism" you will probably get lots of hits. That doesn't mean that it is the usual mainstream description of Labour's ideology.

Moreover the second source (Bevir) reads "Sometimes they imply that the social values that thrived through to the 1950s have been eroded by the emergence of a rights-based culture during the 1960s and 1970s. 'The left got into trouble', according to Blair, 'when its basic values became divorced from ... ethical socialism'" First, it is a quote by Blair, not the independent scholar's statement. Second, it refers to the 1950s, and that "ethical socialism" was abandoned afterwards. So, how can you claim that "ethical socialism" is the actual ideology of the current Labour Party? Later, the source continues: "Whether New Labour promotes a return to elder ethical socialism or new values, its proposed ethic draws extensively on communitarianism." So, the author does not decide whether Labour has actually returned to "ethical socialism". He does not write that the ideology of the Labour Party is "ethical socialism". --RJFF (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw, "pp." is the abbreviation for "pages". If you cite only one page, why do you write "pp."? --RJFF (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense, they are reliable sources. Associating the reliable sources I provided, with fringe arguments claiming that Labour is "fascist" is absurd. The Labour Party has promoted the ideology of ethical socialism for years, reliable sources back this up.--R-41 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Democratic socialism

So, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not applicable to this article? This article does not have to be written from a neutral point of view? This article's statements don't need to be supported by neutral, independent, third-party sources? I think they are applicable to every single article and cannot just be suspended by some user's agreement on this article's talk page. If you want to abandon them, propose it at the respective policies' talk pages. We describe parties' ideologies as they are described in neutral, third-party, if possible scholarly, sources, not as the parties themselves state them. If Labour is democratic socialist, because they claim to be, then UKIP is libertarian, because they claim to be, and BNP is an anti-fascist pro-freedom party, because they claim to be. Please find independent sources to verify democratic socialism as the Labour Party's ideology, like we have at every other party's articles, instead of referring to Labour's constitution, manifesto or website. --RJFF (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed there were various ones milling around and the B&I tradition has always been democratic socialism not social democracy which has a different history. But you can always tag it and give people time to hunt some down if its an issue for you. I have to leave for a long day of meetings but will hunt over the weekend if no one else has come up with one. Oh a quick look at Democratic Socialism shows several possibilities ----Snowded ^TALK 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this article has very similar problems to the article on the Liberal Democrat party. There too, people who are members of that party consistently revert attempts to describe the division in that party between 'social liberals' and 'orange book neoliberals', and insist on describing it in their ideology box as 'centre left' despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's an unfortunate consequence of crowdsourcing that a large enough group of people with a particular (and possibly unconscious) bias can continue to avoid reflecting RS's and prefering to continue to posit a rose-tinted and outdated view of their party. Riversider (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Riversider, if you have issues with the Liberal Democrats wikipage, bring the issues up for discussion on the talk page for the Liberal Democrats. That would be the best place to describe the issues you feel are a problem for page, as well as this. However, you shoudln't accuse people that revert your changes of being supporters of either the Labour Party or the Liberal Democratic party, they would have many reasons for reverting, some of which may have nothing to do with political bias. Indeed, I could point out that the Liberal Democrats also have an isue with the "third party sources", and wonder why this is the only page that gets targetted...yet that would not be assuming good faith.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible to have good faith and unconscious bias at one and the same time, in fact it's almost impossible not to. Those who are consciously aware of their biases can take account of them. Those who refuse to acknowledge that they could possibly be biased make themselves incapable of avoiding bias. Riversider (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Unionism as ideology

In Scotland and Wales, the Labour Party's political ideology is widely seen by party members, representatives and the electorate as not just centre-left or social democrat but also unionist, in the sense of favouring the continuation of the United Kingdom. I think this should be reflected in the ideology box. As a third-party citation, this Telegraph article refers to Labour as one of several "Unionist parties". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9035139/Unionist-parties-launch-coordinated-independence-referendum-campaigns.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.223 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This should have been placed at the bottom of the page. Moreoever, there is already a page for the Scottish Labour Party where this is mentioned in the ldealogy box. Unionism is more a Scottish issue, than a UK wide issue, or even a Welsh issue. I think that is the best place for it. --Welshsocialist (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you consider unionism to be simply a 'Scottish' issue WelshSocialist, I don't think the RS's will agree with that view. The conservative party in the UK actually calls itself the 'conservative and unionist party'. Independence for Scotland would affect everyone in the UK, even the Welsh. The right of nations to self determination is a key aspect of socialist ideology, but this sometimes balances problematically with the socialist aim of working class unity, however neither national self-determination nor working class unity are words you're likely to hear from a Labour leader these days. Riversider (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the formal name of the Conservative Party dates back to its merger with the Unionist Party back in 1965. The Unionist Party was the predecessor of the Conservatives in Scotland.
Secondly, the issue about including Unionism as in ideology in the infobox (I assume that's what's being requested here?) is that it isn't a significant enough and it certainly isn't a core, single-issue like, say, withdrawal from the EU is for UKIP. Labour is also pro-Europe, but that doesn't warrant an inclusion in the infobox either. I'm afraid you've arrived a month too late, since these discussions about what needs to go in the infobox have passed - descriptions that have been dismissed include ethical socialism, Democratic Socialism, Third Way and even "responsible capitalism". 'Social democracy' is roughly descriptive of the entire Labour Party and its core ideology. Unionism just isn't notable enough, especially since all three major parties and most Britons agree that the UK should stay united. --- --Peter ^{Talk page} 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I think I said pretty much the same thing at the bottom of the page. I'm going to move this section to the bottom of the talk page . -- Peter ^{Talk page} 14:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC) --Peter ^{Talk page} 14:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how WP works if you say things like "I'm afraid you've arrived a month too late, since these discussions about what needs to go in the infobox have passed" there are no timetables around editing decisions on WP and discussions around important aspects of an article can be re-opened at any time. The 'three major parties' in Scotland are very different from the 'three major parties' in England, (FYI the SNP have 67 seats in the Scottish Parliament, Labour 37 and Conservative 15) and your assertion that 'most Britons agree that the UK should stay united' does not mean that unionism is not an ideology, or that this could not become a very crucial issue for the Labour Party as Scotland ballots on increased powers for it's parliament. The infobox entry 'social democracy' is far too simplistic and inadequate to describe the complex and changing story of Labour's ideology, as I've pointed out elsewhere in this talkpage, it's so inaccurate it borders on being an outright misrepresentation of reality and the RS's. Because it is such a complex picture, with so many trends and nuances reflected in the RS's, and so many passionate editors with their own hobby horses and vested interests, it's going to be very difficult to come up with a consensus that works over the long term. The only consensual point I can make about the infobox is that the current version is very unsatisfactory to almost everybodyRiversider (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't seriously implying that the issue couldn't be brought up again, I was just saying that these discussions keep coming and going and perhaps it's time to just let it go. And your point about people with different hobby horses is what I'm getting at - too many people with too many different ideologies. We clearly can't put everything in the infobox, so why not keep social democracy? Or, better yet, remove the ideology parameter all together and/or add a link to the Ideology section of the article and expand that.
And we have to look at the party from a UK-wide POV. Yes, unionism and nationalism are big issues in Wales and Scotland, but not across the UK as a whole, so 'Unionism' isn't relevant enough to be included in the infobox. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking ideology out of the infobox altogether, and having a proper explanation of all the differing ideological currents that have affected Labour over its history in the main body of the text is an 'out of the box' solution to a perennial problem. This would solve the 'unionism' issue too, I suspect the Unionism/Independence issue is likely to spring up and bite Labour pretty soon and become an issue for England and Wales even if it isn't today. Great suggestion. Riversider (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree with axing the idealogy bit in the infobox altogether, that seems a little extreme and a bit of a cop out. Social Demcoracy is well referenced, and is widely agreed as the main idealogy of Labour. Unionism, as Peter said, is not a major issue UK wide. That is what I meant above. It is included in the Scottish Labour article, as an idealogy. Getting rid of the idealogy section altogether, just seems to be using a slegehammer to crack a nut.--Welshsocialist (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who started this section, and I really don't have any particular "hobby horse" - actually I have no strong opinions either way on Scottish or Welsh independence. The reason I think that unionism should be included is illustrated by the comparison to Europe policy above. It is totally acceptable for Labour MPs and activists to have Eurosceptic views, and many do. But it would not be acceptable to the party, and it would seem strange to the electorate, for a Labour MP - even an English one - to say that they thought Scottish or Welsh independence was a good idea. Unionism is one of the core propositions of the party in a way which things like support for Europe are not. And in fact, I note that the Conservative Party entry has "soft euroscepticism" listed as a "general ideology" even though this does not apply to even some of their most senior figures. Since there's so much disagreement, why not adopt the same format as the Tory article and give "general" ideologies (social democracy, british unionism) and "internal factions" (democratic socialism, Third Way, europhilic)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.223 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think comparisons between different articles can be useful, but I think a comparison between the Conservative Party, which is more pragmatic right-wing, and the Labour Party which has a disputed ideology, isn't helpful and Wikipedia articles can't always conform to each other's practises, especially since the Conservative Party article isn't a better quality than this one. I think the ideologies listed in the Conservative P. article are excessive actually.
Instead of throwing around various descriptions - because this has been going on for months - why not work unionism into the appropriate section of the article? Of course, it can't have undue weight, so maybe a sentence or a passing mention will do. I've seen more and more how inboxes encourage laziness by throwing easy and simple descriptons at readers so they don't have to read anything longer than a sentence ... It's not that simple.-- Peter ^{Talk page} 08:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Social Democracy is indeed well referenced, but there are also plenty plenty of RS's that dispute this description, saying that Labour has departed from the definition of a traditional social democratic party, or pose other ideological descriptions (many mentioned in above discussions, some with just as many RS's behind them), or suggest that the party no longer has ANY ideology, or that it has MANY competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies, and that it's ideological positions have changed radically over time, particularly in recent years. Taking ideology out of the infobox is not a cop out, it's a recognition that we can't accurately reflect RS's with a single word in the infobox, to keep it as it is oversimplifies to the point of outright misrepresentation, and gives undue weight to one particular set of RS's, it's like the HitchHiker's Guide To the Galaxy description of the planet earth as 'Harmless' (later made more accurate by being amended to 'mostly harmless') By keeping and developing the section on ideology in the main text, we can represent the complexity that an infobox simply can't.

223 has put forward an alternative that did exist for a while in a previous iteration fof the article: this listed 3 or for 4 general ideologies, and a number of internal ideological trends, and was more accurate. I preferred this to what is basically a lie of just having a single word that pretends the party is a monolithic organisation with just one set of ideas that have stayed constant throughout its history. I'd support an infobox that listed multiple ideologies supported by RS's, or an infobox with no section on ideology so that the reader is made to read the section in the main text. The only accurate status to put for 'ideology' in the current UK Labour party would be to take the words from facebook: "It's complicated"... Riversider (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ideology again.

I note that the longrunning edit war over what to put in the ideology section has continued without my assistance. Much of what I wrote earlier on this topic is still relevant, including the many RS's I listed, which have now been ignored. The key problem is that editors have been seeking a single word or concept to sum up the entire Labour Party's ideology for the full 110 years of it's existence. It's evidence that editors here haven't really got their heads round postmodernism, which would explain to them that Labour has many different (and sometimes mutually contradictory) ideologies at the same time, and the fact that the independent RS's reflect this. If you go back over the debate you'll find that I argued that finding one word to sum up such a complex situation can lead to a deeply oversimplified and innaccurate description - like describing a zebra as 'grey'. The way Labour used to describe itself was as a 'broad church' or a 'big tent' with lots of differing trends and ideas within it. In the 1930's there was a strong marxist trend, and Labour printed it's own edition of the Communist Manifesto to distribute among young members. Since then we've seen many other ideological trends, including social democracy (which was originally the same as marxism, but has gradually come to mean something entirely different), 'democratic socialism', trade unionism, communitarianism, the 'left nationalism' of Blue Labour, and the neoliberalism of Tony Blair and the still strong trend of those who support his approach within the party. The way to reflect this diversity is to stop pretending that Labour is a monolithic party with only one idea in it's head, and to list the full range of ideologies that influence the party's thinking. I've pointed out the problem of people who belong to the party editing the page - read WP's 'Who Better?' discussion on the idea that members of the KKK might be the best people to edit that particular topic. Because Labour is a large party with a number of people who wish to portray it here in the rosiest light possible, edits that have been well supported by RS's have ended up disappearing, particularly on the question of ideology, leading to the current misleading description (which is only slightly less misleading than the alternative being advocated by the LP members). River:sider (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point and I can understand why descriptions like "Third Way" and "ethical socialism" (even, as one user tried to push a few months ago, the wishy-washy "responsible capitalism") have been left out, as they only appropriately describe the ideology of the party leadership at a particular point in hisotry. I think we should hedge our bets with social democracy, because it appears to be the most common description used to describe the contemporary party and its actions by independent observers ... regardless of how much lip service the leadership pay to socialism. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say, I edited the lead so that it now simply describes the Labour Party as "centre-left". The infobox still says social democracy. Whilst centre-left is a little vague, which given the disputes may not be such a bad thing. We have an entire section in the article focusing on ideology, so I think any future information about ideology should be added there. The lead is only a brief(ish) summary. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter made a great suggestion in the section below on 'Unionism as an ideology' that we get rid of the ideology section from the infobox altogether, to solve the perennial problems that afflict this part of the article. I think this edit really works - it's certainly far too complex an area to sum up with a single word in an infobox, and many RS's suggest that LP and other parties have left 'the age of ideologies' and become pragmatic parties. Riversider (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter's most recent edit - referring people from the infobox directly to the paragraph on ideology in the body of the text is just excellent. It solves problems that have afflicted this article for years, and allows readers to discover the full story of Labour's shifting ideological sands, rather than palming them off with a single word that many would dispute and in no way reflects the diversity of the RS's. The task now is to make that paragraph on ideology as representative of the RS's as possible. Well done Peter. Riversider (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't list idealogies (the main ones being, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism and Third Way) in the info box. The current set up does look a bit like vandalism, and is not really the solution in my opinion. All parties are coalitions of simular idealogies, be them Labour, the Tories, Liberal Democrats or even Welsh and Scottlish natonalists. --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Conservatives have always been more pragmatic rather than ideological, and their ideology isn't as disputed. Some of their stances may cause disagreement (i.e. Europe), but their ideology is broadly pro-business, socially conservative. This isn't the Lib Dem or Conservative article - the Labour Party is different, as evidenced by the disputes over ideology that occur on this talk page regularly. Personally, I did support including social democracy and democratic socialism, but the lack of third-party sources for the latter ideology means it can't be included (not when this is so controversial). Rather than a long list of various ideologies which encourages laziness in both editing and reading, because various labels can be added without justification or any context (can we honestly say that New Labour still applies?), whereas a link to a section of the article allows the inclusion of various ideologies, each with justification and some explanation.
I think that an overview of the 'main' ideologies that you listed, as well as internal factions, may be useful, but this could be better done using prose -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think that the complete absence of any ideology parameter in the infobox looks more like vandalism than a neat link. It works either way though. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It only looks like vandalism because we know what isn't there. The general reader coming to the article for the first time can't see what's not there, and would find it perfectly natural to look for the section on ideology in the main article. It was a Gordian knot and had to be cut. However, Peter's link direct from the word ideology in the infobox to that section of the article is an even better solution that meets everyone's concerns Riversider (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The removal of all the sourced material on the Labour Party's ideology is unacceptable. The section it redirects to does not mention hardly any of the stances previously shown in the infobox. Ethical socialism has been an important ideology within the Labour Party since the 1920s - promoted by one of its key manifesto writers, R. H. Tawney - Labour Prime Ministers Ramsay Macdonald, Clement Attlee and Tony Blair were all adherents of restore socialism. One user noticed that not all members believe in each idea - that is because most major political parties have internal factions - look at the example of the Democratic Party (United States) article, it shows the internal factions. Please restore the infobox section.--R-41 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with R-41. The problem with the infobox was not the idealogy section, it is certain users who have fixed views about idealogy, especially in terms of mentioning "third way", "social demcoracy" or "ethical socialism". I am going to restore the infobox idealogy section along the lines suggested above.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But the situation you just created is a huge leap backwards. We've already had one dispute over democratic socialism in the past, with the argument being that it has no third-party references.
I do think ethical socialism and the like should be worked into the article, and I originally supported the inclusion in the infobox. However, as we have been arguing, you just can't sum up any ideology using five labels with no explanation. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution to the removal of sourced material from the infobox is simply to re-insert it in the ideology paragraph. Even if we left the infobox as it is, it should not contain anything that's not in the article already as it's meant to be a very concise summary of key points from the article. Our big problem is that as soon as we insert ONE ideology backed by RS's into the infobox, we have to justify why we do not include all the other LP ideologies that are equally well sourced. Accusing other editors of having tunnel vision about one particular ideology is not constructive, particularly if you yourself are insisting that the infobox should only contain one ideological label. It is the inadequacy of the infobox to summarise what is a highly complex and evolving story that means peter's edit directing the reader from the infobox to the relevant paragraph is the best one, particularly if we ensure that paragraph is as representative as possible of ALL the RSs. Riversider (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some Wikipedia users are completely deranged and non-objective, and cannot stomach their beloved Labour party being associated with those horrible supposedly 'continental' terms like social democracy, even though that and Third Way are bang-on-the-nose exactly the textbook term to describe Labour and it's ideology. The removal of the 'ideology' heading of the infobox is basically because some users CAN'T HANDLE being proven WRONG by academic sources! --Autospark (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sparkie, I don't think it's a case of 'proving' anybody wrong, and that's not a way of building consensus here. What I think is more accurate is that each of the ideologies that has been put forward here is 'right', as each are backed by RS's, so each editor has had a strong case, but singling out one to represent all was always going to be a gross over-simplification of a highly complex story. Referring the reader to infobox where we can elaborate some of this complexity, including how the party has changed over the century of it's existence, and cover all the terms, including social democracy, democratic socialism, ethical socialism, third way, neoliberalism, 'responsible capitalism', in a way that reflects the weight of reliable literature behind each of them seems the only satisfactory way of doing justice to the topic, this also enables each editor to improve the article by finding the best references for the particular part of the elephant that they can see, hopefully giving the reader a composite picture of the whole elephant.

The thing is, the infobox is meant to be a quick reference point, not a detailed history. This is true for all parties. I agree with autospark, this is being cooked up by two users who have very...fixed views on what the Labour Party is, and were deeply unhappy by the infobox stating social democracy as the main idealogy (which is again what the infobox is for). The infobox idealogy section really should be retored.--Welshsocialist (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored rather. By the way, the bit abouve my previous post, talking about elephants, is nothing to do with my post. It is an unsigned post by another user. --Welshsocialist (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be restored ASAP, yes. Anything else is destroying the whole notion of Wikipedia being an objective academically-sourced encyclopaedia. If other major European political parties such as the German SPD and French PS, with their party histories as least as deep and rich as Labour, can be described as social-democratic in their infobox why not Labour? Britain is not 'special' in regards to its counterparts in the rest of Europe and neither is the British Labour Party.--Autospark (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to say that nobody here, me included, has a problem with listing social democracy as one of the major ideological trends in the Labour Party. You're practically accusing users of bad faith by claiming we're trying to remove the ideology section of the infobox for our own person interests. This isn't true. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The bit about elephants was me. I'm referring to the story about the 9 blind men who all thought an elephant was something different, depending on which part they touched. It's nonsensical today to give a single word description of Labour's ideology, and any attempt to do so virtually condemns the topic to perpetual edit wars. An elephant is not a leg like a tree trunk, it's not a trunk like a snake, it's not an ear like a fan, it's not a tail like a whip, it's something that combines all those things and more in a very complex arrangement. Hence our alternative, represent the full diversity of the RS's, tell the full complicated story, rather than a convenient lie. I've nothing against expanding the part in the main article that refers to social democracy, as I think this is currently badly worded anyway, Labour was at least partly a social democratic party right back at it's inception (just as the Russian Bolshevik party were around the same time!). The problem we have is that there's a pile of RS's for every stage of Labour's history that also point to other strong ideological trends within the party, along with a strong 'pragmatic' trend that rejects ideology altogether. Let's be brave enough not to oversimplify or to describe the zebra as 'grey'.Riversider (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As Autospark said though, why just Labour? other European centre-left parties have just as varied historys. You can even look at other UK parties to show how they have shifted to various in the years. The so-called 'elephant' problem is not just Labour's and historical positions should be refered to in a historical context, as was the case and is done in other parties historys. The infobox does not have to list just one idealogy, other parties also cope with have multiple idealogies listed in the infobox. I cannot see why this cannot be the case with this page. As long as they are referenced properly.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Welshsocialist, that's the alternative, an infobox that contains multiple ideologies. We already had this though, and some editors hated having more than one ideology listed. If we're going to list multiple ideologies then we need to decide a 'threshold criteria' for inclusion - as from the experience on this page, the list of ideologies and internal ideological currents just gets longer, with some included because of a particularly active editor rather than because this reflects the strength of the ideology within the party or in the RS's, and others excluded despite being well-founded on respectable academic sources. We would also need to decide whether the ideologies that informed Labour's founding and were present throughout most of it's history - like marxism, should be included, or present day phenomena like Blairite neoliberalism, and these are exactly the discussions that have led to edit war after edit war as an infobox simply can't reflect the complexity of the ideological battles, shifts and transformations that have characterised the Labour experience throughout its history. You're also right that other European 'social democratic' parties have had a very similar experience to Labour, to different degrees, PASOK in Greece for example has utterly collapsed as a social democratic party in recent months to be eclipsed by SYRIZA, while the PS in France seems to be going in entirely a different direction. If I had more time and expertise on those parties, I might make edits that reflect this myself, but I've never found a rule that insists WP has to be internally consistent, the aim of WP is to reflect the whole of human knowledge, and human knowledge by it's very nature is contradictory and lacks any kind of internal consistency, so the result is that WP is forced to reflect this, much to the chagrin of individual editors Riversider (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Welshsocialist on the point that major factional ideologies in the party should be acknowledged, it is ridiculous to pigeonhole everything into one ideology without acknowledging the factions within it. The Conservative Party article acknowledges the major ideological factions within it, as do other articles on political parties. Let's restore the ideology section in the infobox to include its official ideology position in combination with the major known ideological factions within the party.--R-41 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was what I originally argued for, but editors felt it was untidy and displeasing to include any more than one ideology in the infobox, even where plenty of sources could be found to justify the inclusion of several. If we're going to make that edit, we need to decide how many ideologies should be included? How many would be too many? How will we decide what the threshold criterion to include an ideological trend in the infobox should be? The section on ideology mentions the following ideologies as having been influential in the party at some stage in it's history: social democracy, democratic socialism, ethical socialism, marxism, third way and neoliberalism. Several trends (like Christian socialism and pragmatism) are not yet mentioned, but could end up being included. Riversider (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we should be going all the way back in it's history, that is slightly extreme. I think only the major idealogies should be mentioned, Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy and Third Way are the only three I would include. Possibly Ethical Socialism. Neo-liberalism is always problematic, and debatable if it is not part of the third way idealogy anyway. Marxism is very historical and while it should be included in the text, I don't believe it would make much sense to include something from that far back in the info box. I would suggestion something like this. Idealogies: (Consitutional) Democratic Socialism. Current Trends: Social Democracy, Third Way, Ethical Socialism.--Welshsocialist (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why strong trends from Labour's past should not be included. Maybe they could be included with the word (historic) written afterward. There are more RS's that use the term neoliberal in relation to Labour's recent ideology than 'Third Way', which was also more of a brand name for Blair's particular version of neoliberalism than a separate ideology - it's also used more commonly in published sources to describe Labour's recent ideology than 'democratic socialism', though what is debateable is how many of those sources can be called RS's under the WP definition. The sources that use 'democratic socialism' tend to be self-descriptions, while those that use 'neoliberalism' tend to be from a variety of trade union, left and left academic sources. This is the knotty problem of Gordian proportions - as soon as we make arbitrary restrictions on what ideologies can go into the infobox, fierce edit wars break out. The Alexander the Great solution was to cut through the knot by referring the reader from the infobox to the particular section. The alternative is to accept that the sheer complication of the current situation almost guarantees perpetual edit warring if we go back to an oversimplified and almost by definition POV infobox Riversider (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong trends from the past are part of the main body, they are not a part of the information box which is a quick view of the current position Its not there for editors to make political points by adding lists of labels. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Snowded is crorrect, the infobox is a quick reference point for its current position or positions, it is not for historical reference. We dont reference every leader of the Labour Party. Nor do any other party have an issue with referencing the current idealogical trends of the party. The current set up not only misses the point of the infobox, but also is overly complicated, and can be confusing for people.--Welshsocialist (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with restricting it to current and major ideological trends, if that's going to be a clear rule. Even with these restrictions there will be problems with reflecting the current position, as this is a matter of debate within the party as well as externally. Recent calls by major unions to disbar the neoliberal 'Progress' tendency from the party are a symptom of this debate. We can't tell whether editors are adding labels to make a political point, and should assume good faith. If the labels they add are current and there are enough RS's to show they are major trends within the party, then these edits should stick, if they aren't backed by RS's then they shouldn't. Riversider (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)