Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Political position

I don't think it's inconsistent to label the party 'centre-right' while it undergoes a period of ideological debate. Also, my edit summary was incomplete when I hit submit. Pstuart84 Talk 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfectly moderate and reasonable position. I think most people would agree with that. But there are one or two editors who will not. Marcus22 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Neoliberalism?

I'm not a Briton, but I'm wondering: if they oppose the EU how can they support globalization?? The Person Who Is Strange 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because they argue the EU is inward-looking and not truly internationalist. Conservatives would prefer NATO and the WTO over the EU every time. They also usually believe in globalization more for global trade than global government. 144.32.196.4 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation which was needed

Hi all. I noticed a sentence that was tagged as needing a citation. After extensive news searches I was unable to find substantiation for the statement that Cameron announced his intention to reform and realign the Conservative Party in a manner similar to that achieved by the Labour Party in opposition under Tony Blair. This may well have been his intention, but I can't find a record of him actually saying that. I've replaced it with a citation from his victory speech about how the party needed to change. I stand to be corrected if anyone can find a quote.

PS I've added citations to all the tagged statements now. If anyone thinks we should tag some more, I'd be happy to find some more citations later. --Neil W 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Would anyone object to the introduction of footnotes and citation templates on this article? (WP:CITE#HOW) — mholland (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I have done the above. — mholland (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Factions

I've made some alterations here. Cornerstone are an organisation equivalent to Tory Reform Group, No Turning Back etc so that grouping needs a heading of its own. I'm not sure Traditionalist is best but maybe someone can come up with something better -nationalist maybe? Also I've rejected "factions" whilst for much of the 90s and the naughties that is perhaps an apt description -the traditions (perhaps a better word that groupings even) are not always factions and there is as the article starts to hint at later much more overlapping than factions would imply. It is better to say that the Conservative Party includes a number of traditions and any conservative politician will have a different emphasis on them. Not sure if I am correct in indentifying Bow Group as One Nation. (Be Dave 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

Colours

Why have the Conservative Party colours been made into a lighter blue? The old royal blue is more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.221.100 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree, Royal Blue is far more appropriate and more in line with current Conservative practice. Yes I am aware that the darker colour has been assigned to the pre-1840's Tory party. I think rather that the reverse should be the case with the lighter colour for the Tory party and the darker, Royal Blue for the modern Conservative party. Galloglass 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the lighter blue is more official. — mholland (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, most of the party history has been associated, undisputedly, with royal blue. Could we have a vote to see which to use?

Political Ideology

I'm not satisfied with the ideology of the party being listed as "Conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Liberalism, Liberarianism". The Conservative Party does not have any libertarian credentials. In regards to 'liberalism' I would argue, in the wake of Thatcherism any claim that the party is liberal should receive the qualification 'classical liberalism' or 'neoliberalism' - but I still don't think they're sufficient.

Liberal conservatism is acceptable I think, given David Cameron's self-dubbed liberal conservative status, see: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=135823

Interested to hear thoughts? --Jason Hughes 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Two words: Margeret Thatcher. -- D-Katana 12:01, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is simple, as David Cameron is leader the party does not have any ideologies.

High-profile supporters of the Conservative Party.

I’m frankly appalled by the lack of credibility in this section. Moreover there are no sources to back up the claims made is this section. For example Alan Sugar is a noted supporter of the Labour party! There is sourced evidence that he donated £200,000 to Labour in 2001. It is my belief that all apparent high-profile supports be deleted until sources ratifying the claims are found. I feel that this would ensure the credibility of wikipedia.

Given Ray Davies' general left wing views, I doubt whether he has ever been a committed Tory. His Tory vote in 1974 probably had to do with his oft expressed dislike for Harold Wilson. Davies voted for Michael Foot in 1983 over Thatcher, so I highly doubt he's a big supporter of the Party.

I added the section some months back because there was already such a section on the Labour Party page and I figured if the Labour page has one, so should the page on the Tories (not that I am a Tory, far from it, I just did it in the interests of fairness and consistency). However I pointed out over on the Labour talk page that the lists look silly on the main pages of the parties, it's trivial information and clearly dosen't belong and the suggestion made - which other users who discussed the matter agreed with - was that the information should be shifted to it's own page. However nobody did this, and the Labour list has since been deleted without discussion by another user who chose to completely ignore the talk page. Bearing that in mind, feel free to delete or move it to its own page, in fact just delete if you like, if someone wants to create the page at a later date the information is archived in the page history. While the infomation is trivial, I myself and others I know have gone looking for comprehensive lists of famous figures who have funded/supported the two major parties and none can be found, so there is a case for pages with this information on Wiki but it's hardly a priority. However I agree that it obviously needs to be sourced - I intended to add sources for the names I originally put up there but never got around to it and no-one else has bothered. Since then, numerous other names have been added unsourced, such as Freddie Mercury and Mick Jagger, these people may have voted Tory but I've never heard of it. I was astonished to see Harold Pinter added, but having checked this out it is actually true, he did vote Tory in '79, he has admitted this in interviews. Alan Sugar has indeed donated to Labour but he did support and donate to the Tory Party in the 80's and this can easily be sourced, he shifted his support to Labour when Blair took over. As for Ray Davies, I added his name and the source is a book called 'Rebel Rock' by John Street. He states that in 1974 the Musicians Union sent out requests to all it's famous rock and pop star members asking for them to help campaign for a Labour victory, and they recieved only two responses, one from Alan Price offering to help, and the other from Ray Davies explaining that he would not be assisting as he was voting Tory. I agree that Davies is almost certainly not a Conservative and was only voting Tory that year over some specific issue or unhappiness with Labour which is why I added the qualification that there is no evidence that he is a committed Tory, which I strongly doubt. In any case, as I say feel free to delete it, if the info stays, it should be moved to it's own page and properly sourced for each name on the list. MarkB79 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete them both (and any others). There are some celebrities who are party members and can be found at fundraising events and, more occassionally, fronting Party Political Broadcasts, as well as a few who go into politics (Seb Coe, Gyles Brandreth and Esther McVey are the main ones who spring to mind in recent years) but I suspect most of the celebrity backers are just people who've said in interviews that they support the party, which can often mean little more than voting for it. And some of the people listed seem to have voted for it only once or twice. Timrollpickering 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these high profile party supporter sections should be deleted. They serve no real purpose, other than the fact it's a POV raising subject, and could also inadvertantly cause any neutrals reading to deter from a party because of a celebrity they dislike on the list. It's ridiculous!

Current policy review

I am surprised that there has been no mention on here of the current policy reviews within the party, especially the recent reports by Iain Duncan Smith and John Gummer. I will add more detail on this when I have time, unless there are any objections.

I will also continue to remove links to BNP and Nazi websites which various wags put into the article on a semi-regular basis. I cannot see the relevance. SupernautRemix 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

David Cameron Entry

I'm not comfortable with the sentence "More recently however Gordon Brown has re-asserted his lead over the Conservatives".

The sentence says it about Gordon Brown, not about the Labour Party. This implies that Gordon Brown as leader had a lead that he then lost, and has since regained. This is not the case.

Would it not be more accurate to say something like: "More recently, since Gordon Brown was selected as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party on XXX date, the Labour Party has pulled ahead of the Conservative Party in the opinion polls."

Would it then be a POV to make a comment about new leader bounces? Any thoughts? Wikifellow 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree if you did not know any better you would be forgiven for thinking Gordon Brown was at one stage the Leader of the Conservative Party. SJHQC (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2005 election slogan

"The campaign - based around the slogan,"It's not racist to impose limits on immigration. Are you thinking what we're thinking?" - was designed by controversial Australian pollster Lynton Crosby"

This is not true. The official election slogans were "Are you thinking what we're thinking" and "Take a stand on the issues that matter". "It's not racist to impose limits on immigrantion" was the slogan of a poster, not the central message of the campaign as the article seems to suggest. I will ammend this. 213.121.151.174 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservative and Unionist Party

Is this really the Party's official name? I know that it is in Scotland, but as far as I am aware it was dropped in England many years ago.193.195.75.20 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's formally registered as "Conservative and Unionist" - see the party's entry on the register of parties. Unionist is ocassionally still used on the odd document or advert (and some members will come out with "we are the Conservative and Unionist party" in opposition to anything they see as an anti-Union policy), and some local associations do make use of it in their title. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was Conservative and Unionist but (Wikipedia exclusive) they changed it to Conservative Party on Monday 20 April 2009. Conservative and Unionist remains as a description - see the Electoral Commission website for details: http://registers.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=25&frmType=partydetail - MorpH

Libertarian?

The Tories just ain't Libertarian! I know it's very modern right now to call oneself Libertarian, but the Conservative Party isn't (ok there may be one or two Libertarians in the party)--84.164.240.26 18:31, February 23, 2008

The Conservatives are quite libertarian - small government, etc. David (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Conservatives as a party are not libertarian, they have one libertarian MP that I know of (Alan Duncan) but just because the party is economically liberal it doesn't make them libertarian as a whole. Their policies on immigration, for example, are not what you would typically label libertarian but conservative.--Johnbull (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

they do have 'libertarian conservative' instincts these days, such as the opposition to ID cards, I don't think immigration is a defining issue for libertarians, as it is for social liberals. Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.10.232 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Libertarian" currently only occurs once in the article, contrasting Michael Portillo with other supporters of Thatcher. Frankly anything about any party's philosophical position beyond what it states itself to be should be based on analysis by recognised political scientists, not on individual Wikipedians' understanding of both the party and philosophy - that approach is the classic definition of original research. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the British Conservative Party, and in Britain "libertarian" refers to civil libertarians rather than US-style economic libertarians, so the word is not appropriate. A libertarian in Britain would be someone who supported the legalisation of drugs, gay marriage, freer immigration, the devolution of power, etc. More often than not these people are on the left of the political spectrum (traditionally, they have been socialists), although there are some New Conservatives who show libertarian inclinations (Portillo, Alan Duncan). The only notable libertarian policy the Conservative Party has is opposition to ID cards. Contrasting with this is the strongly authoritarian policies that characterised the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and which still underpin their policies (all that stuff about telling people what sort of families they should have, for instance). 92.12.213.254 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Go on Google Books, search Conservative Party and Libertarian and you will find MANY books which identify key aspects of libertarianism as one of the major ideologies defining the party throughout its history. The Wikipedia article on Libertarianism is sufficiently detailed as to show which section the party does identify with if noone can be bothered putting it into this article. Harlsbottom (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between British and American libertarians is inaccurate. American libertarians oppose government action and regulation in all but the most limited situations. An American libertarian would support decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs and would be more likely to support eliminating legal marriage than providing for gay marriage. That some people assume the mantle of libertarianism based on economic views without regard to social issues are misusing the term. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can properly reference 'Libertarian', using reliable sources, then fine (WP:VERIFY). But it seems pretty obvious to me that that is just pants. Yes, some members are Libertarians, but the party itself? No way. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And you reference for that would be...? Harlsbottom (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand: it is the people who wish to add 'Libertarian' to the article who must properly reference it, per WP:WIKIFY. No WP:RS = no 'Libertarian' in the Infobox. Simple as that. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And since no-one else has bothered, I may as well add a section on it. However, your view "that is just pants" hardly seems to be informed. Harlsbottom (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with calling the Conservative party 'libertarian' in the infobox, I would only think it was justified a mention somewhere else in the article, IFF there was a reliable mainstream reference stating that it is one of their doctrines (i.e. not just a passing mention or that one policy is libertarian). Even if it can be proven that the party in general has some libertarian policies, it wouldn't deserve a place in the infobox as it isn't the main (or one of two main) wings of Tory ideology. 217.44.234.78 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The term seems to be used by some followers of parties such as UKIP aimed at David Cameron, but its used as more of an insult or critism more than anything else. I think its unfair to slur the party as "libertarian" until the full and complete policy is revealed nearer to the time of the next general election. But would it still be recentism to include it? Obviously "Conservatism" has been accurate throughout all of the "Conservative Party" existence. From what we have to work with; Cameron's Manifesto prepared for William Hague was well in line with Conservatism. If they ran with that manifesto they'd probably defeat Brown today too. We shouldn't confuse green politics with the "libertarianism", lets not forget Lady Thatcher herself "went green" too. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I would suggest that the site [Conservative Way Forward] should elucidate this, as this is the Thatcherite wing of the party and the 9 principles that Cameron declared to be his own a couple of years back; you can see his signature on the linked web-page.

• For responsible individuals, guaranteed by the rule of law administered by and independent judiciary and minimal state activity.
  • i.e. for the reduction of state activity in favour of personal decisions/responsibility. Soft libertarian, although we should remember that the hardest libertarians are almost anarchists. Also of note is that this is the 1st in the list.
• Each nation must be free to determine its policies to the benefit of its citizens.
  • Not so clear-cut, although many attacks against the EU centre upon accountability and lack of democratic role in the legislature.
• Defined by geography, tradition, inheritance and sense of identity.
  • Not libertarian really, more nationalistic although inclusive of those who share a "sense of identity" so not racist/originalist/nativist.
• The first duty of the state is to provide external and internal defence of the citizenry.
  • Strongly of a certain brand of libertarianism, whose view is that it is the only role of the state.
• Enterprise... Fostered by a low tax, low inflation economy - with currency exchange rates determined by the free market.
  • Right-wing in terms of economy, certainly.
• Choice... For individuals must be maximised - even if the state accepts responsibility for provision of a safety net.
  • Very libertarian.
• Democracy... The exercise of political power, with the consent of the people - through regular elections on the basis of universal suffrage and a secret ballot.
  • No major political party in the UK would say anything different so it means little.
• Capitalism... The most effective system of wealth creation. Free markets are blind to gener (sic), race, class or religion.
  • Right-wing economics par excellence, but since the 1980s few major parties contest this overtly; this, however, embraces it.
• Deregulation... Domestic and global - to maximise freedom of choice and individual responsibility in an improved society.
  • Mildly liberal, but from an economic view-point.

On the basis of this, the ideals are heavily economically liberal, not so socially liberal and with nationalist (in the non-pejorative sense) overtones. I would argue that this is the most libertarian major party in the UK today, but as the party includes quite a few (mainly older, in my experience) social conservatives, the label "libertarian" cannot be applied yet. Declared bias - I am a member of the Tory party and a self-proclaimed libertarian. Wee Jimmy (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

David Cameron explicitly said in his 2008 Conference keynote speech that he was not a Libertarian (he thinks it's irresponsible?). Therefore it is surely safe to conclude if the leader isn't Libertarian, neither is the party. Small government, low tax etc doesn't mean the party is libertarian, merely conservative.Nissarana (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Socially Conservative?

Recently David Cameron has repeatedly said that hed like To fix Britain's "broken" society and would like to do to society what Margaret thatcher did for the economy in the 80's and that if he ever gets to become our prime minister fixing society would be his main Focus. In light of this i am proposing to add Social conservatism to the info box as i believe reforming society, making it more responsible and making society adhere to socially conservative values of morality is the platform the conservatives will fight the next general election on. What would other Wikipedians think of this proposal?.

Gr8opinionater (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2008 (GMT)

"i believe" is original research. Are there any published sources for this? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes here are 2 published sources one from the conservative partys own website by David Cameron personally talking about Britain's broken society and how he intends to fix it and the other source from the bbc news website stating that the the conservatives most important issue is society.

[1], [2]

Gr8opinionater (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2008 (GMT)

I have also noticed that the article talks about the association of the party with Social conservatism (Look under Social policy) not adding Social conservatism to the ideologies section of the info box would be contradicting what the article is saying about the party and missing out a key component of what the conservative party stands for so therefore considering the facts the article is saying about the party and the information from the two sources i provided i have decided to add social conservatism to the ideologies section of the infobox.

Gr8opinionater (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2008 (GMT)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing that this page be moved from Conservative Party (UK) to Conservative and Unionist Party. It seems odd and potentially confusing to have a dab at the end, making the page title different from the organisation itself, when the proper (albeit slightly formal) name could be used with no other problems.

Any views or objections would be appreciated. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Suggest a read of Wikipedia:naming conventions. Do you really think that people commonly use its official name? Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fairly commonly used, yes, particularly by branches and the party in Scotland. To me, it seems that a somewhat less used title is better than one that's not used at all, ie Conservative Party (UK). Equally, if we were to simply go for their most common name, I imagine we'd simply end up with Conservatives (UK).--Breadandcheese (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the title Conservative Party is more commonly recognised than Conservative and Unionist Party. The disambiguator (UK) is of course not commonly used, it's a Wikipedia navigation device. Both Conservatives and the disambiguated form Conservatives (UK) would fail on the grounds of ambiguity, otherwise yes, they'd need to be considered - IMO they'd probably be less common anyway, but there's no need to decide this either way as they're already disqualified as good article names. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The vast majority of the English language media uses the shorter form, so I would be reluctant to move it to merely on the grounds of officialness. With redirects in place and explanation in the text there should not be too much difference in the "user experience" either way, but common usage is a strongly ingrained practice here. I'd certainly have to see firm evidence that the full form has widespread usage in texts of various types before I could support. Knepflerle (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We should all be reluctant to move it to merely on the grounds of officialness as this would be a gross violation of official Wikipedia policy. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• *ahem* not quite... From WP:Official names "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."

It would be a gross violation of a fairly sound idea which should not be described as policy. ;) As policy is initially usually just a codification of an already established practice, my point about this already being ingrained remains. Knepflerle (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow the link I provided and you'll get to Wikipedia:naming conventions, which is of course Wikipedia official policy. You're quite correct that Wikipedia:official names is a proposal, not a policy. And I didn't just link to it for exactly that reason. I also linked to the policy. Andrewa (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. G-Man ^? 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Every child that's born alive/is a little Liberal or else a little Conservative. It may once have been customary to speak of Conservative Unionists; but who now remembers 1922? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Conservative Party" is the common name for the party. --RFBailey (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Whilst I call it the Conservative and Unionist Party, I'm somewhat in the minority!! Keep the article's title as it is. David (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: "and Unionist" simply isn't commonly used for the party these days. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME -- Jheald (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Conservative Party and Unionist Party" is mentioned in the first paragraph anyway. No need to split hairs. Pádraig Coogan (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Incorrect Statement!!

The statement "The Conservative Party is [...] the oldest political party in the world." is flatly false. It is based upon the heritage of the political party, not the actual length of time it has existed as a political party. It is clearly a reference to the founding of the "Tory faction" in 1678, however, considering that the Tory Party split in 1846, and the creation of the Conservative Party based upon Robert Peel's manifesto. However, just because someone was once a member of a party and then followers of his created a new political party, this does not mean that it is the same party, it is the definition of a NEW party. So, if the Coservatives were founded in 1832 , they are not the world's oldest political party. This honourable distinction belongs to the Democratic Party of the United States of America, which was arguably founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson, and officially in 1828 by Andrew Jackson . As a result, I will be removing this section from the Conservative Party (UK) article. Uoregonduckman (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been argued endlessly over at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) - see Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 7#Introduction: Oldest Political Party for the last round and some of the actual commentary by professional historians on the matter. Whilst I agree making an unambiguous statement here is dubious, it also dubious at that page as well. Remember the Democrats are also the product of splits - to claim unambiguously they are the party of Jefferson is false as that party split in the 1820s and the Democrats were only one of the emergent factions. The party of Peel can claim similar continuity to the party of Pitt, founded in the 1780s and there historians who argue that Pitt's party absorbed the remnants of the Tory Party that can be traced all the way back to Danby. Historians of the Conservative Party have traditionally not written that much on this point as their focus has been the 19th and 20th centuries (the curse of excessive division in historical studies). Timrollpickering (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they split in the 1820's, but the Democratic Party can trace themselves CLEARLY to 1828 with the same name, and that should be the biggest factor. Uoregonduckman (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

'Stupid Party'

Origin of this insult? It appears to be of 19th C. vintage. I notice it has lately also begun to be used to describe the US Republican Party. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of usage from 1925. Drutt (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was once told this was from the time in the 1840's after the Peelite's split off and the remainder was assumed stupid without him, not sure but maybe someone can find a reference? 87.113.76.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well!....

62.249.253.61 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

Full Manifesto

Just letting you know my site has a copy of the full Conservative Party Manifesto and their 'Policy Overview' section. We're driving towards having all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format. All the content, except the Policy Overview sections are contained in PDF files on the Conservatives website. As more and more manifestos are added over time, in my opinion, it could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. Conservative Policies Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. Jdfjurn (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

organization

No mention of the Board of the Conservative Party [3] --Espoo (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Conservative redirect

As a newish user, I am not sure how to do this, however at the moment Welsh Conservative redirects to this page, rather than to the Welsh Conservative Party page. Is it at all possible for someone with more wiki experience than me to fix this, or at least tell me how to fix this please. Thanks. --Welshsocialist (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Change made. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

dates of donation statistics

"For the months between October and December 2008, the Conservative Party received £5.1 million in donations, compared to £2.6 million for the Labour Party, as declared by The Electoral Commission on 25 February 2008. The Conservatives are also £12.0 million in debt, compared to Labour's £15.8 million and the Liberal Democrats' £1.13 million." - this paragraph suggests the Electoral Commission announced these statistics half a year before they happened. Wrong date somewhere? Tom walker (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

UCL Conservative Society

I removed: "UCL Conservative Society" from list of associated groups, because they don't seem to be on a similar scale to the other national/international organisations on this list. This is best mentioned on the page linked here: List of organisations associated with the British Conservative Party--Thudso (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What Does the Party Stand For and Uphold

This important aspect is missing. Does the party uphold a ruling class? - public schools Oxbridge paramount in the corridors of power. Which it clearly does. The party opposed the abolition of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, indicating its leanings. Does the party support & uphold a class system? It clearly does.

Does the party uphold the landed classes? 70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population. The party supports large land owners.

These points are important, and form the party's base, and are not in this article. The article is skewed giving the wrong impression of the party.

Please find reliable sources that back up this claim, and then add it to the article. Such statements are controversial, and require good, third-party independent sources. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

These have not formed the basis of the Conservative membership, yet alone the vote, since the Tamworth Manifesto that founded the Conservative Party. That is, not only do the Conservatives not stand for that, but they have never stood for that.

The Conservative Party did not support the retention of hereditary peers. Indeed, the party recommended its own Mackay Commission, which proposed two options: a fully elected chamber and a mixed chamber of elected and appointed members. They opposed hamfisted reform, not reform itself. So far, the effect of Labour's half-arsed reform has been to prevent any elected members and to retain 92 hereditary peers! How absurd to claim it is the Conservatives that are attempting to do that.

The Conservative Party is opposed to the Common Agricultural Policy, which is the main mechanism by which landowners are subsidised by the government, so the statement that they 'support' large land owners is ridiculous.

Mr Anonymous, you should stick to editing the Faith No More article. Bastin 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Tory party has never had at any time proposed to do anything about the vast majority of the land being in the hands of a few people, who are the richest people in the UK, primarily by taking rent, not doing anything productive. The great anti-commie George Orwell described British Landowners as "tapeworms". Conservatives have not proposed to eliminate the Stalinist (uses central quotas) planning system either. Thatcher reinforced it (Policy Exchange)

The Tory Party has not proposed to bring agriculture into the real world by eliminating all subsidy. Eliminating subsidy, releases land for building. The free market can do the building.

I repeat...Does the party uphold a ruling class? - public schools Oxbridge paramount in the corridors of power. Which it clearly does. The party opposed the abolition of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, indicating its leanings. Does the party support & uphold a class system? It clearly does.

All too vague with the Tories. It needs to be up front and transparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.9.45 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A demand for transparency from an anonymous user? Interesting. The Conservative Party runs on a manifesto, to which it sticks - unlike the Labour government that has broken its promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty of Lisbon, broke its promise not to introduce university top-up fees, and so on. Even its most unpopular policy ever - the Community Charge - was stated in black and white in the 1987 manifesto, which won a 102-seat majority! The Conservative Party is considerably more transparent than the alternative.

Copying and pasting your garbage will not overcome Wikipedia's rules on inclusion, nor will it win over any sensible individual. Trying to tar the Conservatives as upper class twits of the year failed to impress the people of Crewe and Nantwich, so why do you think it impresses anyone else? Bastin 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear you are a 100% brainwashed supporter, adopting a current, we did they never stance. The manifesto is not what the party stands for and upholds. That is what anyone reading this wiki would want to know up front at the top.

The current shadow cabinet is people predominantly from one school - a public school. Yes in this day and age with 99 universities. Jeremy Paxman's book, Who Runs Britain clearly states the leader in 1963 was chosen because he went to a certain public school; it was that school's turn.

The Tory party supports a ruling elite of wealthy people. That is clear, its record speaks for itself. It is not mentioned in this wiki and by not doing so distorts the overall view of the party when reading. The party has never advocated any constitutional change to upturn the Medieval system of the UK, only reacting with an alternative to the government's abolition of hereditary peers and House of Lords reform.

Funding of the party is not clear in this wiki either. The wiki should inform the reader what the party stands for and upholds. If some aspects are not written, the record of the party is more than good enough proof, and should be incorporated in this wiki. From wiki Conservatism, "For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living". So, the record of the party in many aspects is what matters - what it is does and has done.

The party's record on social change and social matters is absent. This wiki is not giving a full picture of the party. This wiki is not a subtle party political pamphlet. If I get some referenceable info I will incorporate it. It is best to discuss it here first so that it does not come as a shock and is taken off as anti-Tory, party political. Thanks for the positive suggestion Jarry1250.

(outdent)Your outlook is exceptionally simplistic as well as untenable. This sentence of yours shows your train of thought which is quite unsuitable for an encyclopædia: "Jeremy Paxman's book, Who Runs Britain clearly states the leader in 1963 was chosen because he went to a certain public school; it was that school's turn." Just because Paxman writes it doesn't mean that it is necessarily true and such a controversial statement would need more than one source. It's also absurd, since the retiring Prime Minister (Macmillan) was an Old Etonian, as were the two possible successors Hogg and Douglas-Home. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My train of thought is totally suitable for an encyclopedia - factual. This wiki eliminates vital facts giving a distorted view of the Conservative Party. the point is that the Conservative party has favoured public school kids, from a few schools, even today. It also favours people from predominantly two universities: Oxford and Cambridge, which have an intake of approx 50% public schools which are only about 4% of the pupil population. The reader need to be informed of this. Amazing in this day and age that these occur, and usually only seen in third world countries, but it does. It is a clear fact. This wiki does not state that and it should. The reader needs to be told what the party upholds and where are its leaders are predominantly from? No need to state why, although it would be useful to state why. Why just a few schools and unis are favoured over the other 97 unis. Why this anomaly? Very odd and totally worthy of mention in this wiki. The reader needs to know this and just the facts of what type of people run the party. Why are people here trying to deny it does not exist when it does?

Retaining vital information gives a distorted view for the reader. This wiki reads like it is the Labour or LibDEms, the party is not on many important base points and these are just plain absent.

Contributions/79.66.77.88 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but how you can call anyone brainwashed or biased when you yourself are so clearly partisan and one-sided is totally hypocritical. As for your remarks, the day after the 2010 election, David Cameron stated that he was in favour of keeping a nuclear deterrent, a pupil premium in schools and, wait for it..., an partially or wholly elected House of Lords. As for supporting landowners and the ruling class over the poor, the Conservatives opposed Labour's doubling of the tax on the poorest by scrapping the 10p tax band, they have already increased the tax allowance for the poorest in Britain by £1000 and, in the emergency budget in 2010, protected many benefits for the poorest in society while removing it for the richest. With regards to your assertion on a ruling class mentality in the party, the Conservatives' main election theme was the "Big Society", which seeks to empower people by taking power from central government and giving it to people through ideas such as recall elections, the ability for the public to trigger a referendum, the community buying of pubs and post offices, transferring power from government to doctors in hospitals and the ability for parents to set up and run their own schools. If you would like, I'd be happy to find some articles to back this up. Can you do so with your claims? -86.146.76.249 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Party's Record on Social Change & Reform

This is missing. The party has opposed most social reform.

Conservatives, The Conservatives, The Conservative Party, The Conservative and Unionist Party, anything but...

Proposal did not find enough consensus - perhaps relist again at WP:VPM if required. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...Conservative Party (UK).

From a grammatical and stylistic perspective, and from the point of view of its basis in fact, Conservative Party (UK) is the worst possible name for this article. Could people please indicate below which of the various alternatives listed above would be more correct:

Conservatives (UK)

(The name as it appears on the logo.)

• Support As a consensus position, I would support Conservatives (UK). As I said initially, anything other than the present arrangement. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Conservatives (UK)

(A more grammatical rendering of the Party's name, perhaps.)

The Conservative Party (UK)

(Ditto. Also this is the title on the Party's website: www.conservatives.com)

The Conservative and Unionist Party

(The Party's official name according to its constitution.)

1. Support: This is the Party's official name. However out of fashion it may be in popular usage, this should be the official title for the article. Orthorhombic (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) [My parting shot:] One final benefit of: The Conservative and Unionist Party is the lack of ambiguity. I trust there are not other Conservative and Unionist Partys worldwide. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy, which should be strictly adhered to, states directly that the common name for articles should be used. That's why Cat Stevens is at that page, and not at Yusuf Islam, which is his official name. It is very rare to ever call it its official name, nor does it help identify the subject. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

retain current: Conservative Party (UK)

• Support This is because (UK) is a disambiguation, there are many conservative parties worldwide, almost all better known in their respective countries than the UK party is known there. As above, the common name should be used, and every media source avoids mentioning the Unionist bit, the vast majority of the time. 'Party' is required to show this is political, rather than simply the conservative movement in the UK. Hence the current page form is correct. There's nothing about the current title that is ungrammatical, and on a stylistic basis, it is clear: it the the Conservative Party in the UK, and that is easily recognisable. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all there is the question of self-reference. The Conservatives have undergone a rebranding. At some point (partly conceding your point about 'The Conservative and Unionist Party') Wikipedia shall have to acknowledge this fact. But then, perhaps, only if the rebranding sticks (cf. 'New Labour'). My grandparents still refer to Rhodesia, not Zimbabwe, and my colleagues to Marconi not BAE Systems. Also, style and clarity are different things. If we were to call the Labour article, British Labour, you know the one that Tony Blair led during the Iraq War that goes back to Keir Hardie and does like socialism and stuff people would understand what was being referred to. I am not arguing that more people will immediately understand what the article is referring to in saying that we should care about the house style / article titles. What I am arguing is that, in point of fact, this is the incorrect title. As Tory Party would be. Or English Conservative Party. Or British Conservative Party. Or Conservative Party for the UK excluding the Scottish Conservatives. Of course, all of these have a degree of truth in what they represent. But it is not the name of the Party. (Here is how the Party's own website refers to the Party. I take the top 12 news articles mentioning one or other versions of the Party name without prejudice.)
    • The Conservative Chairman has joined people up and down in the country to fly the flag.
    • Conservatives form new grouping in the European Parliament
    • Welsh Conservatives have announced changes to prescriptions to help deal with Labour's debt crisis.
    • A Conservative government will scrap the ID Card scheme
    • The Assembly Government must engage with Welsh businesses, say Conservatives.
    • Conservatives welcome DUP u-turn
    • Conservatives hail victory in Northern Ireland
    • The Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary congratulates Jim Nicholson on his election as a Conservatives & Unionist MEP.
    • Conservatives are winning in Wales
    • Welsh Conservatives make history in the European elections.
    • Only the Conservatives can remove Labour from power
    • The latest results from the Local Elections, brought to you as they come in to Conservative HQ. Orthorhombic (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Except where it is being used as an adjective, Conservatives dominate. As to media usage, which rightly or wrongly appears to Wikipedia's reference point, here are the last 12 to come through on Newsnow. (This time I shall exclude adjectives:
    • Where do the Conservatives stand on IR35? Contract Eye 16:14
    • “Tories more interested in fox hunting than economy” claims AM Labour Matters 15:45
    • Cameron’s Conservatives move from Euro scepticism to Euro extremism Labour Matters 15:17
    • Conservatives form anti-federalist EU group stv.tv - UK 15:09
    • Tories announce 'Dairy Summit' to help struggling milk producers Farmers Weekly Interactive - Agriculture 15:06
    • UPDATE 1-UK Conservatives form anti-federalist EU group interactive investor 15:03
    • Tories put themselves at odds with business - McFadden The Labour Party 15:02
    • Conservatives Form New European Parliament Group Iain Dale's Diary (Weblog) 14:07
    • Conservatives announce membership of new Eurosceptic group New Statesman 13:18
    • Planning quango to be scapped in first year - Tories Local Government Chronicle - Local Government News 13:13
    • Tories to make up half of new EU group ITN - News 13:10
    • Tories form new EU group: So what? EURSOC 13:02

That is six to "Tories" (clearly a nickname) and six to "Conservatives" including one from the Labour Party. Check it out yourself on Newsnow any time of day or night http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Current+Affairs/Politics/Conservative+Party ! Surely you would admit that this amounts to clear evidence that 'Conservative Party (UK)' is not precise enough to be an encyclopedia article name.Orthorhombic (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. The point here is that Conservatives is ambiguous, or in the very least informal. If you would prefer Conservatives (UK) over Conservative Party (UK), then I suggest you concentrate on that argument. The (UK) is necessary: newsnow is a UK site; it is not international, and clearly the Conservative Party in respective countries are better known there than the British Party. Which of these arguments are you making, just to clarify: We should...

1. Drop the (UK),
2. Formalise with full title,
3. Change Conservatives (UK), removing the Party?- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c,rfa)} 11:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support As a consensus position, I would support Conservatives (UK). As I said initially, anything other than the present arrangement. Orthorhombic (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Which one? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per Jarry. And I'm not sure what your list is meant to prove. The way the party is referred to in the vernacular is one thing, the right name for an encyclopaedia article is another. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) is less than helpful. It is really more set up to answer the difficulties associated with naming pps without English names or with both. Twice though it mentions media usage as a determining criterion. Orthorhombic (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be left where it is. "Conservative Party" is the party's name, and is in common usage; "(UK)" is the necessary and standard disambiguation. All of the proposed titles are less satisfactory. — mholland (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives, The Conservatives, The Conservative Party are not acceptable options. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not a British one. There are conservatives and Conservative Parties in many countries around the world.

• "Conservatives" now redirects to the article on conservatism, so renaiming the page that would create hundreds or thousands of misdirects.
• "Conservative Party" is a disambiguation page listing Conservative Parties in all countries. Why would the article on the UK Conservative Party take precedence over the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative Party (South Africa), the Conservative Party of New York, etc.?
• "The Conservatives" is how Canadians often refer to the Conservative Party of Canada. In the United States and other English-speaking countries, it refers to conservative people. Why should that page describe only a British political party?

Ground Zero | t 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entire convinced this is now the suggestion from the original suggester, who said 'I would support Conservatives (UK)'. This shows support for disambiguation. So the question is whether Conservatives (UK) is better than Conservative Party (UK). I don't think it is because the former lacks an obvious political edge. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

responding to your point about lacking a political edge, I can only guess as to the thought process behind the rebranding, but would proffer that this might have been part of the plan. As my media sweep shows, for the moment, it appears to have stuck. The omission of the word Party is not a serious issue, as the inclusion of (UK) clearly implies that it is referring to an organisation, and furthermore, there is no ambiguity as to whether the article might perhaps not be referring to some other organisation within that context. We must remember as well that - in the UK context - this is one of the most talked about organisations going. It has Top-importance Wikipedia political parties ranking. It is one of the central political concepts, together with say, Labour, Prime Minister, Monarch, Parliament, MP, Gordon Brown. People will see Conservatives and assume that it refers to The Conservative Party in a way that they wouldn't with The Liberal Party, an organisation that they might confuse with the Liberal Democrats or Liberal Party (UK). The potential for ambiguity is therefore nil. It is clear that it refers to the UK Conservatives. This is the party's choice of name. This is the media's choice of name. This is a choice of name common in popular speech. The difficulty in updating links should not outweigh Wikipedia's need to 'get it right'. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my previous post, I do now accept the need for (UK) to be included. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dead external links

Please note that refs 8 and 9, dealing with views of Churchill on Europe, are 404 not available. Hopefully alternative sources can be found.... Redheylin (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rem para

I have excised the paragraph below to be considered here by other editors for the following reasons;

1) It is tangential to the subject of the page 2) Much material is covered elsewhere (see links) 3) Accounts elsewhere in wiki (of Kaminski's case) do not tally with this one 4) This particular account is poorly referenced and apparently justificatory.

The Jedwabne pogrom occurred in July 1941 during Nazi occupation, in what had been the Soviet zone until a few weeks previously until the full scale invasion of Soviet Russia by Hitler's Germany (including Austria). The role of Polish citizens in the Jedwabne pogrom in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, was uncovered by Jan T. Gross in his book, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland in which he described how the Jedwabne pogrom was perpetrated by Poles and not by the German occupiers, as was previously assumed. The . has concluded that the crime was committed by a mob of Polish Gentiles, not by a Nazi German Einsatzgruppe or 'death squad' as was once thought. Nazi (German & Austrian) forces were present, but their involvement remains the subject of debate. According to some commentators, many people were shocked by the details of the pogrom, which contrasts with the rescue of Polish Jews by Polish Gentiles during the Holocaust. The point Michał Kamiński was making (however clumsily) was that while the Jedwabne pogrom was the act of Polish Gentile citizens during Nazi-occupation it was not a deliberate act of policy of the Polish state, which did not exist at the time. This point was also made in the Mr. Aleksander Kwasniewski on July 10, 2001, in Jedwabne, when he apologised on behalf of the Polish People (Gentiles) for this murder of their fellow Polish citizens on the 60th anniversary of the Jedwabne pogrom.

Please comment... Redheylin (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Compassionate conservatism

Is this a real thing or simply a advert? What citations are there to support that this actually exists? Comments please as it is in dispute n the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an advert just like the whole centre-right status. The Tories have Powellites and Tories and 'compassionate conservatives'. I think people (eg Bastin) need to stop being biased.

I'd be interested to see if you could find a single current MP called a 'Powellite'; the only one I can find is John Townend, who retired in 2001, and Nicholas Budgen, who lost in 1997. It's not a reflection of any current faction. You know as well as I do that the implication is that the Conservative Party shares Enoch Powell's views on immigration. Sadly for you, you can't find a reference for it. As a result, it can't go in. Toryism is, similarly, a redundant term, used to describe historic ideology; it is not simply whatever the Conservative Party thinks. The one strangler I can find described as a 'High Tory' is John Hayes, who's head of the Cornerstone Group, thus suggesting that it is an alternative name for the social and traditionalist conservatives. As it is not a separate faction, it doesn't go in.

A pretty neat division can be found here, in a report on a Total Politics survey. 'Liberal conservatism' is used as a proxy for Cameronism, per the Telegraph reference. I have merged libertarianism and Thatcherism because the reference on ideology in the 1990s said they were the same faction, but I can see how it needn't be any more. So, five factions: liberal conservatives, libertarians, One Nation conservatives, Thatcherites, traditional conservatives. Can that finally be agreed upon? Bastin 12:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Still that is a faction. People in thne Tories believe and I am sure that there are many tories who will agree with Enoch Powell. If they retired or lost they are still members of the Tories. According to George Galloway, the Tories did have a Powellite factions making him hate them more than he hated Bush.

I don't give a damn what George Galloway thinks. He's not a reliable source. Bastin 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

After all, there are all kinds of people amongst the members. Surely, there are people we could refer to as Paleoconservatives, there are likely members who we should define as Paleolibertarians. Regardless, we must refrain from clogging up the infobox with random labels that may or may not form a separate faction. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You dislike George Galloway because he's facsist but he is still a source. By thewat Miacek this British politics not American. There is a difference you know. Bastin you do not own this page.

I don't think you can become caring or compassionate simply by a re branding, it needs actions and only time will tell that. I woulsn't use galloway to support a claim as regards the conservative party, he is a bit opinionated as regards them isn't he? Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

They are simply a centre right political party, all the rest is branding..especially the compassionate twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)