Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Contents

1 Preamble

2 Rightwards

3 Case for a new British labour movement article

10 Much more early history please

Preamble

This is material that wasn't divided into sections, as is the current convention

I'm tempted to pad out this article with, for example a mention of Neil Kinnock. But on the other hand, it's good that it gives a succint history of the party -- not much happened under Kinnock apart from losing several elections. Maybe a list of leaders & years in power after the main article would be better. Tarquin

There's no consistency with UK party names in Wikipedia. British Labour Party; British Liberal party; Conservative Party (UK) British Liberal Democrats arrgghh.... Mintguy

The Conservative Party is definitley wrong, as "Conservative" is Britain only. In the UK they are the "Consevative and Unionist" party.

It's also Consevative and Unionist in Scotland.Mintguy

Let's fix it then! What format do you suggest? -- Tarquin 15:27 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

I dunno, what do you think? Mintguy in particular should Liberal Democrats stay where it is?; do they use the word party in their literature? Is 'Party' inherent in the name Labour Party such that it should be capitalised? Mintguy

we could just email their press offices & ask them what their official name is -- Tarquin 16:04 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

The names registered by the major parties on the register of political parties at http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/ are:

Labour Party [The]
Conservative And Unionist Party [The]
Liberal Democrats

--rbrwr

Hi. Good work on that!. What page is that on though... Mintguy

http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm --rbrwr

Cheers! Mintguy

BTW this has reminded me, the page on The Liberal Party says it is a defunct party, but I believe it still exists, a few party members refused to merge with the SDP. Mintguy

Look at the history of UK Liberal party... an anon IP changed that bit a couple of days ago. I put a fuller explanation in further down. I think the old Liberal Party (which is what the article is really about) is indeed defunct, and the new one is a new and seperate thing. I'm open to debate on that one, though. Maybe we should have that debate on Talk:UK Liberal party, though. --rbrwr

I think you should restore it as you had it, as you said it still exists as a rump.

Hmm... How about we use the official names, disambiguating with a (UK) if needed, eg The Labour Party (UK). Put redirects for the common names & give them at the start of the article too. -- Tarquin 18:35 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess... I'd like to know what the Canadians and New Zealanders etc.. would do as well really, it would be nice to be consistent. Mintguy

Actually Tarquin I think your way is probably the best way. As the definite article is part of the name for both the Tories and Labour, it makes sense. Mintguy

Wandering off onto the topic of the Conservatives, although their official (registered) name is "The Conservative And Unionist Party", they barely ever se that form, even on official documents. so by the "most familiar name" rule I think we should use "Conservative" rather than "Conservative and Unionist". --rbrwr

A Scotsman or Ulsterman might disagree with you, but then in Scotland the Labour Party is the Scottish Labour Party. However on the whole I think it's true.

Yes, http://www.scottishtories.org.uk/ does use "and Unionist" in a way that http://www.conservatives.com doesn't. They also use "Tories" more. It's certainly worth a first-paragraph mention, but for the title of an article about the UK-wide party, I'd skip it. --rbrwr

So do we all kind of think that it should be as follows then?

The Conservative Party (UK)

The Labour Party (UK)

Liberal Democrats (UK)

Mintguy

I'd be happy with that. --rbrwr

Ok I'll start moving stuff in min. While I'm here though... I think there's a constituancy in Wales (there might be more, or it might actually be Scotland) where the Tories have got some other weird name for historical reasons but I can't remember what it is. Mintguy

Wasn't it the 1983 manifesto which was "the longest suicide note in political history", not the 1992 one? Labour were a hell of a lot more electable in 92 than 83! Arwel

Yes, of course it was. And it was (probably) Gerald Kaufman who said it, not Hattersley; see Talk:Gerald Kaufman for what I was able to find out about the history of the phrase. --rbrwr

Removed:

(nicknamed later the 'longest suicide note in history' by then Deputy Leader Roy Hattersley)

for the time being --rbrwr

The official name of the party is "The Labour Party", so I'm moving it back.

May I be the first to welcome back The Labour Party to its rightful place and name. (And as Basil Fawlty would say, 'don't mention the war' <G.> JTD 22:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

What's with using the in the title? Isn't that against the naming conventions? Just because "the" is part of the official name doesn't mean we add it. We don't see United Kingdom at The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or People's Republic of China at The People's Republic of China. Looking at http://www.conservatives.com, it seems that the parties themselves break the "official title". The 't' in "the" is only capitalized if it is the first word in a sentence. Note the titles of these pages: [1] (http://www.conservative-party.org.uk/people/search.cfm) [2] (http://www.conservatives.com/people/mps.cfm?list=name) "Conservative Party - Constituency Map Search" and "Conservative Party - MPs" not "The Conservative Party - Constituency Map Search" and "The Conservative Party - MPs". --Jiang 07:56 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The use of the word "The" in this context is similar to the word "official" or "real" in the contexts of The "Official Monster Raving Loony Party" or the The Real Ghostbusters. Both parties (and the Liberals for that matter) have had numerous splits and mergers, variations on the theme, and pretenders to the names Labour, Conservative and Liberal. The use of the word is an indicator that they are the true inheritor of the name, like The Football Association and The Times Mintguy 08:42 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article (and the BBC) capitalize the 't' in "the" mid-sentence as would be required? --Jiang

Because everyone knows what we are talking about. News organizations seldom capitalize "The" in The Football Association. During elections in Britain, ballot papers carry the name of the party next to the candidate and always use "The", because anyone (without a criminal record) can stand for parliament as long as they can stump up a deposit. They can claim to represent the "Labourite Party" or "The Lubber Party" if they want, but no-one but a member of the Labour Party can use "The Labour Party".Mintguy 08:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removed this paragraph:

Although the Labour party currently has an overwhelming majority in Parliament, there are tentative signs that the Conservative Party leadership is beginning to regroup by moving leftwards towards the centre. Having suffered the humiliation of failing to win any new seats in the 2001 general election, questions have been raised as to its long-term prospects. Its problems have been added to by the perceived ineffectiveness of its current leader, Iain Duncan Smith. Some have suggested that the crisis in the Conservative Party today, with battles between moderates and right-wingers, coupled with an ineffective leader, mirror those of the Labour Party in the 1980s under Michael Foot. While the Liberal Democrats did win a dramatic increase in seat numbers in the 1997 and 2001 elections, they have yet to show clear evidence of their ability to overtake a demoralised and divided Conservative Party, in the same way Labour overtook the Liberals in 1922.

which seems to be more about the Conservative Party than the Labour Party. -- Daran 01:43, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why does this article go on and on about the U.K's "unfair" electoral system contributing to Labour's landslides as if it's unusual? FACT: No Party has won over 50% of the vote since 1935. Which includes the Atlee, Wilson and Thatcher landslides.

Just wanted to say that this is an excellent article--well-written, interesting and detailed. Thumbs up to everyone involved. Chopchopwhitey 10:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've got a problem with the first paragraph. Labour is no longer a "social democratic" party (Anthony Crosland's "The Future of Socialism" is like the founding document in regards to "Social Democracy".) Kinnock, Smith and Blair have repositioned the Party to a "third way" or "Neorevisionist" view, which accepts Thatcherite ideas and tries to build some (small) measure of equality.

Also, Labour originally began as a Socialist, anti-Capitalist party and thus, if we want to give a definition, we would either have to talk about the broad movement right, or just give the current definition.

Slizor

I broadly agree with the first part of your paragraph, but the last is simply wrong, or at least misleading. Labour never adopted an explicitly Socialist leaning until after WW1, (And then largely by happenstance.) and was originally founded as, rather obviously, a Labourist party. Socialism doesn't enter into it; Trades Unionism does. Vincent-D

That is merely your opinion Slisor, about Labour "not being a social democratic party". I would say they have many things in common with social democracy they are are they not increasing spending on public services etc which could easily be described as 'social democratic' policies G-Man 21:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It would depend on what definition you were using. Under Crosland's definition, the current leadership would probably not be considered Social-Democratic, although obviously it's all arguable. Also, a distinction has to be made here between the party, (Which almost certainly is Social-Democractic) and the current leadership. Vincent-D

G-Man, it is not just my opinion - it is also the opinion of Mandelson, Blair and all the rest of the "third-way thinkers" (an oxymoron, I may add.) They believe they have a whole new political ideology which takes the best bits of Thatcherism and Social Democracy....a third way between them. Slizor 18:17, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Blair actually talks about being non-ideological - that is, pragmatism. I don't think Labour has an "ideology" other than a general committment to greater equality and social justice. And of course - it never has had. The main change wrought by Kinnock, Smith and Blair is the loosening of the connection with the Trade Unions.

I want to remove the bit about being to the right of the Tories - I don't think anyone actually thinks that. To the right of the Lib Dems, perhaps.

Exile 20:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds silly. john k 21:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have selectively reverted some amendments made in the name of NPOV. Firstly, it is not correct to say that nationalisation, or even the Clause IV proposal of "common ownership", is a defining characteristic of socialism. To say so would be to implicitly assert that the Labour Party post 1995 was not socialist and that is a highly POV statement.

The reference to NHS "structural changes" is a bit too much jargon, and in any case the principal changes are not to structure but to financing. I've proposed a compromise wording, which stresses that it's the government's view that what is being done is a reform.

Then I restored the quote from Alastair Campbell because it's quite expressive of the Government's determination to change and opposition to the traditional left view on education. I did make a minor change to the wording after that to point out that teachers' unions were upset at this quote. If people have serious problems with this, perhaps best to discuss it here before a revert war starts.Dbiv 17:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a simple statement of fact that common ownership is a defining characteristic of socialism - indeed, according to the OED and every relevant text I've read, it's the defining characteristic. I think your moving of the new Clause IV up to that section gives balance, as it shows that the party still describes itself as socialist, and the basis on which it does. I strongly feel the line should be in there, and if isn't then the quote from the new Clause IV shouldn't be either. As it stands in your revision, the implicit assertion is that, post-1995, the party is socialist - at least as POV as the implicit assertion that it is not.

The new wording on the contingent reforms for NHS funding is great - "reform of management" didn't really cover it but I couldn't come up with anything better than "structural changes" (though "organisational changes" occurs to me now). On the Campbell quote, it's not clear what these professionals are criticising - the lazy epithet Campbell used, the assertion that comprehensives are "bog-standard" or need to be ended, or the notion that the government's policies would change the nature of those comps. It's introverted - it doesn't really tell you anything unless you know the meaning and history of the term "bog-standard comprehensive", and the traditional party attitudes - and I find it a little dodgy that the only thing explicating this key policy change is a flippant quote from a spin doctor. It's tells us something about Alistair Campbell, but nothing new about this policy - only those who are already familiar with the debate will get the point of the quote.

I certainly don't want to cause a revert war and I'm sorry if it seemed that way - though you did make sweeping changes without any discussion or explanation here. I won't revert your last edit - but I do hope you'll restore the simple statement of fact about socialism, and reconsider whether the lines on Alistair Campbell really belong there. -- Gregg 18:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem with citing dictionaries in support of the claim that socialism is defined by nationalisation is that the dictionaries took their definition from Clause IV part 4 as written by Sidney Webb in 1918. The fact is that no Labour government ever did anything approaching enactment of Clause IV part 4, and so by that definition the Labour Party was never socialist in practice. The Labour Party remains socialist post 1995: it has declared itself to be and it remains the affiliate of the Socialist International. That is NPOV.

If it had been up to me I would have left Alastair Campbell's quote out of it, because it was in effect a gaffe, but that wouldn't be being fair. I put it there to point out the connection to "no extra money without reform" as applied to the NHS, which also applies to state schools: they are encouraged to have a specialism and to select by aptitude, and that isn't what the Labour Party of old would favour. The Campbell quote sums that attitude up perfectly, which is why it's there. Dbiv 23:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Socialism was coined to describe the system of social organisation proposed by Robert Owen, a system based on the principle of common ownership (and the abolition of class). The point of adopting Clause IV - and while the wording was Webb's, the move was Henderson's - was to commit the Labour Party to socialism (in so doing, they hoped to widen the party's appeal from its base in organised manual labour). The wording was chosen because that was the pre-existing definition of socialism. For instance (and just because it's to hand), Brewer's Phrase and Fable defined socialism as common ownership in 1894 - a full 24 years before Clause IV. Webb added (invented?) caveats to enshrine peaceful and democratic means and libertarian modes, to distinguish Labour's socialism from revolutionary and authoritarian forms (particularly Bolshevism), but the point was to commit Labour to the central plank of socialism: common ownership.

The two occasions when Labour had majority governments (before the current one) did see at least some things approaching that commitment. It’s like the Liberals and free trade: the ideal was never implemented, but it was an ideal and the party did makes piecemeal reforms towards that ideal when it could. Personally, I think one can make a case for New Labour being socialist, though not without difficulty, on the grounds of its theoretical commitment to equality (and perhaps even in the hopes it’s laying the groundwork for socialism by challenging, piecemeal, the institutions and vested interests that made greater reform impossible in the past). But it surely must be noted that the text that was excised was the definition of socialism, not just some words conjured out the air back in the mists of party history. And whilst it's perfectly fair to note what Labour currently declares itself to be, the notion that simply calling a party socialist is enough is fantasy - and the basis for tiresome, erroneous, "Hitler was a leftie" revert wars on Nazism and fascism. The assertion or implication that the Labour Party remains socialist is highly POV.

I'm still at a loss to see how the Campbell quote explicates anything. Unless one is familiar with the Labour Party's traditional policy, and the concept of "bog standard comps", it's meaningless - and it's still not clear from the wording what education professionals are criticising. Why not simply state that this is a radical shift of policy, and education professionals are, to say the least, sceptical of its merits? -- Gregg 20:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rightwards

I think that there needs to be an explanation of the rightwards shift the Labour party has taken...ie, originally a party for the working class, now a party for business. It has cut links with Trade Unions, it has embraced the free-market, it has scrapped Clause IV (public ownership), and its privatisation and racist immigration policies are just simply not the policies of a "left-of-centre" party.

Case for a new British labour movement article

Why might it be a good idea? The page Christopher Hitchens contains the text:

is younger brother, Peter Hitchens, who is also a journalist, author and critic, was initially also a leftist but later came to hold radically different, conservative, political opinions after several years spent reporting on the British Labour movement and British politics, followed by many assignments in Communist Eastern Europe and a period as a resident correspondent in Moscow at the end of the Soviet era.

It would cleraly be preferable to have a link to the British labour movement, rather than a phrase with a not entirely appropriate link to the Labour party embedded in it.

Proposal: we create a new page that is mostly history, and which up to The split under MacDonald substantially duplicates the content of this page, with some material drawn from the Fabian Society and Independent Labour Party articles. ---- Charles Stewart 09:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we already have a History of British socialism article G-Man 19:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you think?

I've been working all day fixing these articles Jack Cox 03:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To me (a Spaniard who has written the article for center parties in Spanish), the article meets the high standards Wikipedia has. It is really good and I am sure only minor changes are needed.

Future leaders...

Futurue leaders of the Labour Party (sic) is a recent new article that has been sitting around untouched for about three weeks now. It is short and utterly speculative (and thus implicitly POV) but nevertheless it is speculation that is bound to take place given Blair's stated intention not to continue as leader beyond the 2005 parliament. We can either VfD it or move it to a better-spelled title and merge-and-redirect, though I'm not sure what in it is worth merging. Is (speculation about) the future of the Labour leadership something Wikipedia should cover, if a suitably NPOV way to do so can be found? --rbrwr ^± 22:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 14 edits

User:Michaelm made some changes to this article that may or nmay not have been appropriate. I encourage UK Wikipedians to consider whether they should be reverted or not. This user has a long history of trying to re-label parties as "social democratic" and deleting references to "democratic socialism". You may refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michaelm for more information. He has been encouraged countless times to explain and provide evidence for his edits, but he rarely does. I don't know enough about Labour to be able to evaluate this chaneg myself. Ground Zero 13:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen in this article Labour official describes itself, in Clause IV of its constitution, as a "democratic socialist party". Democratic socialism and social democracy are both quite vague terms (I wouldn't rely on the two relevant Wikipedia's articles). As I understand it 'social democrats' are a subset of 'democratic socialists' (which can also include quite radical parties), and in my opinion both terms can be accurately applied to the British Labour Party.

However such labels are highly subjective and in the interests of NPOV we might want to go with the term the party uses to describe itself instead of imposing our own. It also looks a little odd to see it called a social democratic party in the first sentence of the article given that that term is rarely heard in the United Kingdom (unless one is talking about Jenkins and the SDP). Iota 17:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts I think "centre-left or social democratic political party" (the formulation before Michaelm's edit) is vague enough to be about right. Iota 17:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage "social democratic" to be included in the description, as well as "democratic socialist" (as you can see from the social democratic article history, I'm trying to bang this article into shape). The basis I would posit for the inclusion is a "democratic socialist" party proper generally has a socialist economy as a specific goal, and since the Clause IV rewording that's no longer true. The Australian Labor Party is described as social democratic (democratic socialist in the party's constitution only), and it's been "New Labour" since the 1980's. Slac speak up! 04:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Election box metadata

Centre-left?

I know Labour calls itself a democratic socialist party, and that would imply it is centre-left, but that isn't really the case - tuition fees, no high rate of tax for the rich, authoritarian law and order policies etc. I think this part of the article should be changed-it is a centralist party, not centre-left. And despite the party's constitution it is not in reality democratic socialist, it is at the most a social democratic party. Deus Ex 18:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, authoritarian law and order policies would generally be considered either left or right, generally left, though. Also, new labour has completely abandoned the left, it's policies are still very "Thatcher-ite", it is neither centre nor cntre-left, it is clearly right winged. It holds many characteristics of the Right-wing populist movement found in North America in the 1990's and Tony Blair's allegiance to the "Third Way" of he and Bill Clinton was clearly an advocate of free market neoliberalism. There should be no mistaking of confusing the Labour party as currently left of centre, for none of it's policies are.--68.73.201.80 03:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Blair has 'modernized' his party in a way which no other old Social Democratic parties (even Shroeder's SPD) have. It's clearly a centre party at most and certainly not 'social democratic'. I think it would be fair to call it centrist. --CJWilly 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm - well, the fact is, Labour's economic policies are not really all that more rightwing than many other European social democratic parties. And it's been a great deal more effective than the SPD in keeping unemployment down. It has introduced the UK's first ever minimum wage and it has raised it against Tory and Lib Dem opposition (Lib Dems calling the rises "dangerous" in 2002). Labour MEPs have just voted to scrap the British opt-out from the Working Time Directive, whereas Lib Dems and Tories (along with the Blair govt) want to keep the opt-out. By the way, a political party is bigger than one man and its ideals go deeper than the pragmatism or (if you prefer) the betrayals of a particular administration. Many genuine democratic socialists belong to the Labour Party. The LP has institutional links to the trade unions and struck a deal with them, promising further rights for workers in its new term. And it is sometimes forgotten that the Labour govt has raised public spending as a proportion of GDP. In short, the Labour Party retains a valid claim to social democratic and democratic socialist ideologies. 217.44.206.138 22:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed spelling

Curse your odd spelling of words! I had to teach my spell checker that those were okay. :P --Kross 01:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... The OED prefers -ize spellings, but in general -ise is preferred in the UK and should be followed in articles on UK topics. --rbrwr ^± 01:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted POV edits

I reverted back to 65.27.68.173's last edit, because 140.198.153.104 added a bunch of POV changes. Just because you don't like Labour or Blair doesn't mean you can or have to pseudo-vandalize a wiki article. --Kross 00:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Much more early history please

Seems to be nothing in the article on the party's first decade or so. In particular, what were the circumstances of Labour's formation?

Good idea - however, the first six years of the party's existence are covered (perhaps not in great enough detail as yet) by Labour Representation Committee - should the material from that article be merged into this one, I wonder, or just crossreferenced? The Labour Party was founded as the LRC in 1900 and took its present name in 1906. We also need to add to the article the party's stance (and divisions) during WWI, the position towards Communism, the writing of the party constitution in 1918, the Zinoviev Letter affair, and the General Strike.RichardQ 21:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Labour_Party_%28UK%29"