Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Fact-checking needed and Thatcher image

I noticed that the inflation figures for May 1979 were wildly... inflated. I corrected them, but they've stood here unchanged since this edit in Jan 2010. That edit also introduced a lot of material, much probably useful, but all of which should probably be checked and edited and deletions also examined.

A question for Wikicommons maybe - is there no more contemporaneous image available of Mrs Thatcher as party leader? She looked much younger than the photo shown. --Cedderstk 11:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Observation

Both this and the article Postwar Britain say too little about the period when Harold Macmillan was premier. There is always an inclination to overestimate dramatic events, and underestimate quieter constructive periods. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede sentence copyedit

I was disappointed to see this copy-edit reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_(UK)&curid=32113&diff=645727030&oldid=645579595

Of course the text was correct (the reason given in the revert edit summary.) Yet, to me, it is repetitive and redundant, and slows down the flow of the opening. Other than correctness, is there a reason why 'conservative' and 'british unionism' require a subsidiary phrase in the opening sentence, when they are covered by 'centre-right', and by the mentions in the infobox and later in the article, respectively? Similarly for the distinction between legal purposes and everyday name.

For clarity, this is the opening I dislike:

The Conservative Party is a centre-right political party in the United Kingdom that espouses the philosophies of conservatism and British unionism. The party's official name is the Conservative and Unionist Party, which is now used only for legal purposes, with the party using Conservatives as their everyday name.

This is the copy edit that I support as a huge improvement:

The Conservative Party is a centre-right political party in the United Kingdom. The party's official name is the Conservative and Unionist Party.

How would you like to proceed?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I waited three days for discussion, then I restored the copyedit made by Haldraper (talk · contribs) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2015

78.144.211.31 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

Please change details of Conservative Party membership as they are out-of-date: "Membership (2014)" to "Membership (2015)" and figures from 224,000 to 149,800. Source of the updated figures is the which can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN05125/membership-of-uk-political-parties - "Latest membership estimates from the parties suggest that the Conservative Party has 149,800 members" SheinarPolitico (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Good suggestion, especially as the body of the article at Conservative_Party_(UK)#Membership contradicts the infobox. I rejected your request for now as the 224,000 figure was posted here 5 weeks ago with no dispute, so some discussion is in order before reverting that change at your request. The BBC article used as a source is based on the same figures as the House of Commons Library source you mention. In full it says The Conservatives say they now have 224,000 paying members - up 30% in a year - although it includes their £1-a-year "supporters". Last September the influential Conservativehome website put Conservative Party membership at 149,800. Under 23s can join for £5 a year, with standard membership costing £25 a year. I think the body of the article or a footnote can clarify this more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Religion?

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

@Mr. Guye: Religion doesn't play a minor role in British (GB) politics. Whilst occasionally the Church of England gets involved in making statements about gay marriage or helping the poor and needy, it doesn't happen too often. Indeed, the current administration has a atheist deputy prime minister in their coalition partners. This is also information about a party, not an ideology.
If you want a party in the UK that is based on religion, look to Northern Ireland. It is broadly split between Protestant Unionists and Catholic Republicans. Banak (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Logo should be changed

As can be seen here, I can no longer find the "green tree" on the website, and thus the Union Jack tree should be used. Spa-Franks (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And now, four years later, the Union Jack tree should also be abandoned for the single color light-blue tree that is used on their Twitter profile. Saint-George (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

The first paragraph states that 'As of 2014 it is the largest single party in the House of Commons with 303 MPs' yet it was the largest party after the 2010 General Election and has lost seats in By-Elections since then. Though perhaps I have misunderstood the assertion. 78.146.244.78 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

strictly speaking the party has zero MPs at the moment :) Paulbrock (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015

The Conservative Party is not a Centrist Right Political Party.

The Conservative Party IS NOW A EXTREMIST FAR RIGHT POLITICAL PARTY WHICH SUPPORTS NAZI'S IN THE UKRAINE. IT ATTACKS AND CAUSES THE DEATHS OF DISABLED BRITISH CITIZENS HERE IN THE UK' IT ORGANISES THE COVER UP OF THE PAEDOPHILE ACTIVITIES OF POLITICIANS AND ITS THUGS IN THE POLICE. ARRESTS OPPOSITION MP's IN ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE THEM. AND LASTLY BUT BY NO MEANS LEAST - WORKS CLOSELY WITH AND ENABLES BANKERS AND CORPORATION TO LAUNDER MONEY FROM DRUG CARTELS AND FUND TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS AL-QAEDA.

I suggest you people go do some research before putting up spurious data as this page... the Political Party herein represented does not reflect the current reality and should have all of the PROVEN ABOVE incorporated into the pages. 81.130.16.89 (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Done ... Dtellett (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
See the neutral point of view policy, articles do not support a particular viewpoint; rather, they neutrally report all significant viewpoints. Esquivalience t 13:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015

The amount of seats stated in the House of Commons is 330 on your page, the Conservatives actually won 331. 109.150.81.125 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Esquivalience t 18:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the BBC's election results, it is 331 [1] Planita13 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results

Liberal Conservatism

I have noticed in the Wikipedia article about Liberal Conservatism, it lists this party as following that ideology. Is this correct? If so does it need to be added in the infobox? Planita13 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is correct, but not sufficiently noteworthy for the infobox. Perhaps find somewhere in the text of the article for it, if you find a good source. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

330 seats or 331?

There seems to be an inconsistency on how many seats they've won. The infobox says 330 and the first paragraph says 331. Can this be clarified? — Richard BB 19:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the BBC's election results, it is 331 Planita13 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

They officially have 330. — Richard BB 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably the whole is the speaker a conservative or not issue. Banak (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No Protests Against Tory Cutbacks?

Why we must all march against lie of austerity - that ordinary people must pay for economic crash

..."The #EndAusterityNow demonstration [June 20 2015, at Bank of England at midday] is for people on zero hours, in precarious work and on low wages.

It’s for the mothers who are missing meals so their kids can eat, and the people who have disconnected their gas.

It’s for the homeless families who stand no chance of leaving emergency accommodation, now the friends of landlords and developers are back in power...

...It’s for the so-called ATOS Miracles – the disabled people who have been told they are now miraculously fit for work.

It’s for unemployed people sanctioned over some Kafka-esque nightmare of bureaucracy – a system that is now coming after people in work.

It’s for all those millions of people whose lives right now, today, are being made smaller, more painful, more difficult, less ambitious because of Austerity policies that will next month be turbo-charged in the new budget..." Ros Wynne-Jones, Daily Mirror, 9 June 2015

The Wikipedia article does appear to have a section concerning protests against Tory policy. If it was agreed - and someone was willing write it - would not such a section add some useful background/interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.102.202 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Because this is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedic article on a party that is 200 years old. Whatever happened on that day – and reported by a tabloid source – was nothing. It wasn't the protests over Iraq in 2003. It wasn't the Poll Tax protests. Both of those events caused major consequences. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Deputy leaders

Strictly speaking, there is no title of 'Deputy Leader' unlike in the Labour party. For example, Hague's official title was 'Shadow Foreign Secretary and Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet.' But even allowing for that, this is an extraordinarily poor list. To take only the most egregious examples, Macmillan was not Eden's deputy, Butler was (and was acting Prime Minister when Eden was taken ill late in 1956). Portillo was also never deputy leader. Nor was Heath - Home's acknowledged second in charge after Butler's retirement was Maudling. The suggestion that Kenneth Clarke was ever considered deputy leader de facto or de jure ahead of Heseltine (who was in fact acknowledged to be Major's second in the House of Commons) is equally ludicrous. There is no source provided for this information, and I guess it was put together on the whimsy of a party activist based on who seemed 'most senior' to them at the time. I would strongly recommend its removal in toto. If necessary, a modified list could be retained of 'senior/prominent members of the party (other than leaders)' or a similar list.86.148.179.86 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

Change Euroscepticism to Soft Euroscepticism as David Cameron (leader) is supporting membership of the EU but wants reform 2.219.174.181 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done (yet). Discuss controversial changes on this talk page first. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

72.172.29.199 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) The conservatives have a 331 majority not 330

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 06:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at Talk:UKIP

There is a discussion started at Talk:UK Independence Party#UKIP's comparative positioning within the left–right political spectrum which is framed to draw comparison from the conservative party article. GregKaye 17:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edits by FivePillarPurist

So I reverted some edits by FivePillarPurist - the first was changing from the share of the vote (which is usually quoted) to share of registered voters, which is misleading as it includes many people who did not vote.

The second was a online poll that was by its own admission not representative of the general public and the third was about a scandal that is not really relevant to the Conservative party in general. Note that other minor scandals have not been included. Obviously it would be different if it led to a major shift in policy or brought down the government, but until this happens it is not relevant Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is "misleading" to whom? Most people are not idiots and already understand those caveats. And Piggate is hardly irrelevant to the tory party or a "minor scandal"; it is a claim by a loyal tory donor and grandee and published in a pro-tory newspaper, which went around the world - the nature of the claim, who is making it, and the coverage are totally extraordinary. FivePillarPurist (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone who was reading through would most likely see a 24% figure and assume this was the percentage of votes received as that is what is normally given - it is very rare for to describe vote share in terms of percentage of those registered - see almost every single election page on Wikipedia. The above is true, but my point is that it is not relevant to the party, it is a personal scandal affecting Cameron not the general party. If there was a large poll drop after the scandal or Cameron resigned then that would be different but so far it has not affected the wider Conservative party. I sense that we will disagree on this so an opinion from someone else would be helpful as I do not want to engage in an edit war with you. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Just so it's here on the talk page, Dtellett agreed with me when reverting the edit by FivePillarPurist, saying "inserting tabloid-sourced allegations about a particular individual into article on his party is borderline vandalism..."Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is UKIP, right-wing according to wikipedia and the conservatives are centre right?

Why is UKIP, right-wing according to wikipedia and the conservatives are centre right? If you look on the political speculum you can see they are both far from the centre but some Tory editing makes out that it is moderate but a more left wing party is hard right. This is ridiculous. Here's my source, http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

Firstly Political Compass is not a reliable source. Secondly, where exactly the "centre", "centre-right" and "right-wing" parties lie is very uncertain, and also changes over time and from country to country. Wikipedia has simply gone with what most reliable sources say, which is that the Tories are centre-right and UKIP are right-wing. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above. That said if there was widespread support for a move it wouldn't be a bad idea to include "right wing" as well as "centre right" for the Conservatives and "left wing" as well as "centre left" for Labour to reflect the broad spectrum of opinion within the parties (compared with e.g. the narrowly centre-left Lib Dems). This shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources for, and indeed is to some extent already discussed in the article. Dtellett (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
That Political Compass graph is ridiculous. As for the Conservative's position - as a large party it's quite a "broad church" (and has to be, to compete well in a First Past The Post environment), spanning the centre to the right, anchored more-or-less at centre-right... Labour are (..were?) similarly broad, spanning the centre to the left, anchored at centre-left. Sumorsǣte (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the post above and don't see anything wrong with saying it's a right wing party. It's always been known to be such and 'right wing' both encompasses and is more accurate than 'centre right', which only describes a section of the party. If you're going to say it's centre right you could just as well say it's far right, as it certainly contains members with some far right views.Costesseyboy (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So at the last election, according to you, two 'right-wing' parties got 50% of the vote? How does that work then? The centre is 20% and the left wing is 30%?
Gravuritas (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. I see them as an extremist right wing Imperialist party and writing to contrary may well be aiding them in their propaganda. Fostering their elitists hope of heroism while depriving the poor and calling it capitalism is hardly 'a peoples party'. John Major was/is the only Conservative in the whole party that I am aware of. The Scottish Conservatives are center-right, mixing mild conservative fiscal policies with libertarianism and (center) social care. I have no interest to edit this article personally, but when seeing 'center-right' I felt compelled by my own heart to say *something*. peace. Dava4444 (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Section on Welfare and repeated cuts

Barely a month goes by without headline articles about Conservatives cutting welfare. I fail to see how my edit doesn't adhere to NPOV, it's literally just facts with no subjective content. Explain please? --87.114.165.223 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You placed this in the "Welfare" subsection of "Foreign policy" rather than the "Economic policy" section, where the welfare cuts are already mentioned, and links to the main article United Kingdom government austerity programme. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Leader

Theresa May has not been named leader by the party yet. It's going to happen, but it hasn't happened, so don't change things until it does. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 11:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham Brady has confirmed that she is leader of the conservative party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.43.231 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Conservative and Unionist Party

As the new PM stated just a few minutes ago, the full name of the Party is »Conservative and Unionist Party« - strongly highlighting the »Unionist« part of the Party name, which she wants to use - while expressing the will to act accordingly as a Unionist. Wouldn't it be time to acknowledge that and always use the full name instead of short "Conservative Party" or "Tories" ?? --Metrancya (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we use the common name of the party (WP:COMMONNAME) in the title and introduce a topic using the name in the title. The 'Unionist' tag is a hangover from the days of various Unionist parties which took the Conservative whip. Alec Douglas-Home was a Unionist, for example. It is an historical curiosity and an interesting observation but we shouldn't start using the full, formal name every time we reference the party. There's no need to cite May's speech; the word properly refers to British Unionism not the One Nation Conservatism that she also distorted the term to refer to. -- Hazhk (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 'Nasty Party' into this article

I propose that the short item Nasty Party, focused on a comment by Theresa May referring to the Conservative Party, be merged into this article. Onanoff (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it warrants its own article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This topic is ancient history now. I agree it does not deserve its own section. But if it is merged into the Party article, it should be shorter, perhaps a single paragraph, in my view. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I think a single line reference to it under the Iain Duncan Smith section of this artice (and in the Theresa May article which already discusses it) would be sufficient. Frankly I wouldn't see any issue with just putting the old article up for deletionDtellett (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The above comment by talk makes sense to me. I support that method. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I doubt anyone would be searching for "the Nasty Party" as a term, but it is still something that haunts the Tories so is relevant to include in the article.Gymnophoria (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose any merger of the articles. If the term is notable enough to include in this article, then include it with the appropriate weight, which will be- not very much. I think if May were not PM, the appropriate weight would be none. I don't think it has sufficient profile to merit its own article.
Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The term "Nasty Party" has also been used against the Labour Party. In any case the term is not notable enough, even for its own article. David J Johnson (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Spacing

@Helper201: Regarding your recent revert, I'm wondering on what basis you argue that putting a space before a footnote is a "generally accepted practice". Can you point me to the discussion where such a consensus was reached? I don't know of that being a standard practice, and if it were, I would hope that MOS:REFSPACE would have been amended accordingly, but I do stand to be corrected. Graham (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On the basis that spacing in this regard is used on many Wikipedia pages, many of which are regularly updated; of which this is generally an accepted rule, as it is rarely reverted. The space makes sense when numbers are taken into account. It can be easy for people to become confused or mistaken and this aids clarity and helps avoid confusion. No, I cannot point to a 'discussion where a consensus was reached'. Can you point to a discussion where a whole consensus was reached on the basis and reasoning behind the current "rules" of MOS:REFSPACE and why they are necessary? It is important to remember that without everyday editors Wikipedia would not survive and that citing Wikipedia "ruling" is not necessary to attempt to force a revert on a reasoned and reasonable trend that is widely implemented by editors. If you have any reasoned arguments regarding the negative impact in spacing a reference after a number I'd be happy to hear them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper201 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On the basis that spacing in this regard is used on many Wikipedia pages, many of which are regularly updated; of which this is generally an accepted rule, as it is rarely reverted.

This is certainly not something that I've run into. While I occasionally see spaces that have been incorrectly inserted before footnotes, I have not found it to be more or less common when the footnote immediately follows a numeral. No evidence of the prevalence of this practice has been offered, but even if it were the case, the argument is of limited merit as – to use the cliché – other stuff exists, meaning that many people doing something that is incorrect doesn't make it correct.

It can be easy for people to become confused or mistaken and this aids clarity and helps avoid confusion.

I would be curious to know who could possibly be confused given that the footnote is superscripted…

No, I cannot point to a 'discussion where a consensus was reached'. Can you point to a discussion where a whole consensus was reached on the basis and reasoning behind the current "rules" of MOS:REFSPACE and why they are necessary?

Every substantive change to the MOS is made only following a consensus having been built at WT:MOS. As to the exact discussion in which consensus for MOS:REFSPACE was determined, it is immaterial as the MOS is itself a reflection of Wikipedia-wide consensus. More than likely it has been amended multiple times since it was originally introduced. If you're curious about the nitty-gritty of these discussions, you're welcome to use the search function at WT:MOS to search through the page's archives.
Regarding the rationale for MOS:REFSPACE, I can only assume that it was for the sake of consistency – having some footnotes preceded by a space and others not does look rather odd.

It is important to remember that without everyday editors Wikipedia would not survive and that citing Wikipedia "ruling" is not necessary to attempt to force a revert on a reasoned and reasonable trend that is widely implemented by editors.

I do hope that you are not suggesting that I am not an "everyday editor". And this is not a "Wikipedia 'ruling'"; it is the result of a consensus reached by "everyday editors". While it is in no way expected that every editor have the MOS memorised, it is expected that, outside of exceptional circumstances, it be followed to the best of our knowledge and ability (especially when it has been pointed out to you). Cheers, Graham (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well to address your first point I could name several pages where what I have said is the case, however as you give that no merit I won't bother.

It can be mistaken by plenty of people for plenty of reasons. One primary example is people with reading difficulties such a dyslexia. It can also be be mistaken by people with site difficulties or just as a common error, many people that view Wikipedia articles are not aware of the referencing system.

I was not suggesting you aren't an everyday editor, it was more that the pages I refer to implement this and it is a case of, if its not broken, why fix it? As I said, many pages that do this, even if regularly updated do not change this. I have given a good reason why this change should be made and I see no good reason why it shouldn't. Nor has any good reason been given why the way you propose is in any way better.

As you seem intent on complying with MOS:REFSPACE says, I have proposed this as a change on its talk page.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Conservative Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing 'British unionism' from the infobox

All three major parties could be described as equally unionist, yet only the Conservative Party article has 'British unionism' in the infobox. I think that, unless expressed otherwise, it is a given that a party is unionist and therefore that it is an unnecessary addition to the infobox. · | (talk - contributions) 20:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, "Unionist" is part of the official name of the Party. Likewise, I cannot believe the other major parties are committed to the Union in the way the Conservative party is. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Sumorsǣte (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Euroscepticism ideology

I think the ideology of Euroscepticism in the info box on the right hand side should either be moved the the factions section, or be replaced with Soft Euroscepticism. The party has not in recent years, nor in the EU referendum, took this position as a party. The party overall has largely been neutral, with overall minor criticism. However the ideology has support from a citation, so I just wanted to gain some sort of consensus here that this citation is either inaccurate or misrepresentative in this context. Helper201 (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I second Helper201's comments. If any ideology on Europe should be under the majority heading, 'Soft Euroscepticism' should be it. Otherwise, I think it is better left to the 'factions' heading. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Having Pro-Europeanism and Euroscepticism both in the box is stupid. The few remaining Remainers are so small that they are not even a faction. And Euroscepticism is now irrelevant. I would say the party is still pro Europe, but not pro EU. I would just remove both of those concepts from the box. Euroscepticism has "happened" in the past tense, and nobody will be advocating rejoining, so how is the party pro-European any more? The absolutely dominant ideology on Europe is and will increasingly be 'Independence and benign co-operative separateness from the EU'. --Elmeter (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Soft euroscepticism is a position where one criticizes the EU for having too much powers but where one nevertheless does not advocate for leaving the EU. While the Conservative Party did hold such a position in the past, that is not the policy of the May government: Brexit is the definition of hard euroscepticism (wanting to leave the EU), and the Conservative MPs voted to trigger article 50. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In March 2017 the party was fined £70,000—the largest fine of this sort in British political history—after an Electoral Commission investigation found "significant failures" by the party to report its 2015 General Election campaign spending.[23]

This seems misplaced. Would serve better either in a new controversies sections, electoral performance or perhaps on United Kingdom general election, 2015? If not, can the same be applied to the Labour Party (UK) page and Liberal Democrats with their fine? CorrectiveMeasures (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Euroscepticism

@Gold Wiz113: Since the party is now campaigning on a platform of withdrawal from the European Union, I'm not sure that your comments hold. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, if British unionism is an ideology, then euroscepticism certainly is one as well (referring to his comment). --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Firstly I think this topic should be merged into the one above to engage the people previously involved in this discussion, as this is already a topic on the talk page. Secondly just because the party is withdrawing the UK from the European Union does not make it a Eurosceptic party. The reason the party is taking the UK out of the EU is due to the result of the EU referendum. There was no majority support against the EU or for the UK's withdrawal from the EU in the party before the referendum. Case in point, I like to add this source to this discussion to remind people just how dived the party is on the European Union. More Conservative MPs supported the UK's membership of the EU than wanted to leave during the campaign on the EU referendum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/map-eu-europe-tory-party-conservatives-split-divided-two-a6892611.html Helper201 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced. There should be no debate about its inclusion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Just because something has a source doesn't in of itself make any claim correct or definitive. Helper201 (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Lol you must be joking. Find a source thatcontradicts the sourced claim that the tories are not eurosceptic. And dont give me some link about how the tories are divded on the EU because that does not mean they are not eurosceptic. They are a member of a eurosceptic group in the European parliament, the ECR.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
So by your logic any source that Wikipedia claims as being reliable is always definitively correct and should be regarded without question? Sources, no matter where they are from can always be inaccurate, questionable, debatable etc. You don't want me to bring up the fact that the party is divided (with more pro-EU MPs than anti) because it questions your claim. I'm not trying to give a definitive position of the party, just that your claim is highly questionable and debatable, and as such should not be included in the info box as an ideology of the party overall. As for your claim about being involved with a Eurosceptic group in the EU parliament, that doesn't prove the party to be Eurosceptic. The grouping is conservative, which is where the majority of the association lies. Take for example, if I were to associate with a political group regularly, say they are called the "Marxist League" or a group of Nazis, would doing so make me a Marxist or a Nazi? Of course not. People may infer as such but it certainly wouldn't prove anything. Helper201 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I take it that there are no sources that contradict tehe claim that the party is eurosceptic then. Otherwise you would have provided one.16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The 'independent' link above Illustrates the remain and leave split. If you accept the remain/leave divide as the criterion for euroscepticism then the party is clearly divided roughly equally, and can't be described as eurosceptic. Of course, there is a tenable view that some of the 'remain' MPs could also be described as eurosceptic, in which case the divide becomes less than equal and the eurosceptic label becomes more apt. A further difficulty in deciding this issue is that the leadership in general has been less eurosceptic than the backbench MPs.
I think on the basis of the present election campaigning then I would just about agree with the 'eurosceptic' tag for the party. However, the certainty & simplicity with which AtL presents his case, when the reality is much more nuanced, makes me deeply uneasy.
Gravuritas (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Gravuritas. Thank you for getting involved in the conservation. As you noted there is no certainty on whether the party overall could be defined as Eurosceptic or not. Although I could see why some people would interpret it as such. But I think to label the party on the whole as having a Eurosceptic ideology in the info box is too simplistic and all encompassing. I think it would be much better suited to have a descriptive account of the party's position on the EU within the main text of the article for clarity and less misinterpretation and leave out mention of the EU from the info box. This way alternate angles can be covered and the reader can come to their own conclusion based on descriptive evidence. We haven't even got into whether or not soft Eurosceptisiscm maybe more accurate, which yet again would likely be contentious amongst some. Helper201 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Euroscepticism is being critical of the EU. The majority of conservatives are clearly that. And again do you have a source that claims the tories are not eurosceptic if not then the matter is clearly settled. Also I am not edit warring you are the only one objecting to its inclusion. Also you cant talk to me about edit warring considering your recent history on Northern Ireland Conservatives.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, however it is often incorrectly used on Wikipedia as a de facto way of claiming an anti-EU position. That aside, of what evidence do you claim that most conservatives are Eurosceptic? I mean the vast majority of politicians are Eurosceptic to a certain degree, whether in terms of advocating reform or leaving the EU. You are clearly edit warring. You aren't even letting this discussion conclude, or even go on for more than a few days without trying to barge your own way forward, as per usual. Also Gravuritas was critical of your simplistic attitude. Yet you do not seek to find a way forward and discuss without trying to enforce your own way. I don't see what problem you have in a more descriptive based approach. You have displayed virtually no effort to engage in conversation. As for your mention of the page on NI Conservatives, you were ignoring clear Wikipedia rules by trying to enforce claims, at the time without backing them up with a citation, in which case unsourced claims have every right to be removed. Helper201 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I have going to ignore most of your hypocritical rant except for the last part. No, I have displayed effort in trying to engage in the conversation. I repeatedly asked you do you have any sources that say the tories are not eurosceptic and you repeatedly refused to present a source.Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
May I offer the following as a way of approaching this? The Lenin article on WP has some mention of his being 'anti-imperialist' on the basis of one or more speeches that he made. As he also led a government which employed an army that rampaged around building an empire wherever they could get away with it, I think the current article is more than misleading- it's plain wrong. Actions are far more important than words. We should consider the Conservative party in the same way. Short of declaring war on France, you can't get a much more eurosceptic action than leaving the EU. And while many Tory MPs may be doing so reluctantly, and the majority of them voted Remain (which might be non-eurosceptic or it might be more mildly eurosceptic), they are taking an action which is strongly eurosceptic. I suggest the nuances can be discussed in the body of the article. It is, of course, unfortunate that euroscepticism actually means EU-scepticism, which is misleading in itself.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree on actions being more important than words. However the only reason the party is enacting the UK leaving the EU is due to a respect for the EU referendum result, not due to party policy. The party overall took no position on the EU referendum and had no intention of withdrawing the UK from the EU previously and showed no intention it would do as such if the referendum had not been called, or if the result had gone the other way. Even the main opposition party (which campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU) voted for the UK to leave the EU, purely in order to respect the referendum result. Therefore I don't think this should have any bearing. Helper201 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Apollo, firstly the fact you label it a 'rant' is a pathetic excuse to not engage in a conversation. And no, your repeating one statement is in no means engaging in conversation. As I tried to explain, not all things on Wikipedia are so black and white as to, one source makes a one word claim, such as "Eurosceptic" and therefore this claim is absolutely factual and does not need any further in depth discussion, nor explanation and cannot in any way be misleading. Helper201 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a clear con and this hasnt been active for 3 days. Stop dragging your heels and being disruptiveApollo The Logician (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
There have only been three people actively involved in this discussion. 2-1 is hardly a 'clear' consensus, especially on a page this significant, with many active editors. I have given good reason as to why this is a complex and debatable issue that would better be explained in the main text and left out of the info box. I have also reasoned against the points made, yet now you cut me off, without refuting my points. Helper201 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
How active an editor is is irrelevant. It is 4 to 1. If there is no new replies by tommorrow I am readding the material.Apollo The Logician (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I said actively engaged, as in has actively discussed the topic at hand, not just given one post. Reason through discussion should determine the outcome, not just blind opinion. Helper201 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONApollo The Logician (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY so 4 to 1 is a redundant argument that holds no sway unless the 1 is simply being obtrusive or the like which in this case they are not having providing valid arguments. If needs be a RfC should be opened for more input if no headway can be made. As it is the Conservative party itself is not inherently a Eurosceptic party. It's leader Theresa May publicly (albiet not too passionately) voiced her support for remain. Just because she is enacting the public's wishes to leave the EU does not mean she is now a Eurosceptic or everyone in her party. Clarke? Hasseltine? And many others would also disagree. Also Corbyn is inherently more anti-EU than the lot of them but campaigned out of duty for remain, so should Labour be classified as both or eurosceptic or whatever? The same for Sinn Fein who have always been anti-EU until the referendum. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to add: They are a member of a eurosceptic group in the European parliament, the ECR is basically a WP:SYNTHESIS argument as the editor is suggesting that because they belong to this then they must be Eurosceptic. The only way it should be included is if reliable sources state it being such. Mabuska (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mabuska:http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/unitedkingdom.html Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And what are the credentials of this site? What gives it the weight to be accepted as a reliable source for this issue? Is there something more substantive than this? Mabuska (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

conservative and unionist

I know T May said it, but a citation is required. A link to the speech is sufficient. --Sb2001 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, though instead of the speech I linked a BBC article that detailed the history of the party. — Richard BB 07:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced. There should be no debate.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

British Nationalism

Is it really neccessary to have both British Unionism and British nationalism as they are essentally the same thing. I see some are adding things without a consensus.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Both are basically the position of being pro-union. How can you be a unionist without being a nationalist?Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Both are quoted, you can't link then together without reliable souces saying they are the same Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Again I didnt mean they are identical. I said both are pro-union positions. It is excessive to have both.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
According to you. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it is a fact they are both pro-union ideologies. Whether or not it is excessive to include both is not something that can be determined by RSs.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Nationalism goes further than Unionism: with the latter being (in its most basic form) the simple belief in preserving the UK as a single state and the former implying a particularly strong belief in the distinctiveness and unity of British culture and/or the importance of decisions being made on a national level out of a perceived national interest. It's obvious the Conservative party is Unionist (it's even in their name) but needs a case making for nationalism (I'm sure there are quite a few reliable sources that suggest the Conservative party has adopted a nationalist stance at many stages of its history, but suspect they more often talk about it being a position of a faction within it). The "British nationalism" article is a needs a lot of work. Dtellett (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue that they don't currently represent Unionism, but Nationalism and Euroscepticism, yes. TAG 21:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit rich talking about consensus when you don't know what the term means, Apollo. As it is neither British unionism or nationalism are "essentially the same thing". And in regards to Euroscepticism it depends on the party member as not all are clearly Eurosceptics, try telling Ken Clarke he's one. Mabuska (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I will admit I was wrong about them essentially being the same thing.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Death penalty

I posted a a 2018 Poll showed 54% of Conservatives members were in favour of the death penalty.[1] d somebody deleted it.

they need to put it back. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You haven’t given any reason why this is significant. The edit you made did not make it clear that it was party members. The study showed various results. Why is this one important? Finally, what a piss-poor study. Given their results on the views on the death penalty, the obvious and interesting comment that the study should have made (but didn’t) is as follows:
‘’’The views of Conservative members regarding the re-introduction of the death penalty are approximately the same as the views of the electorate. Members of the other parties in this study showed very different views than the electorate.’’’
However, that can’t be put in as it counts as OR. Therefore it’s better to ignore such a half-assed study.
Gravuritas (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/most-conservatives-support-death-penalty-poll-reveals-11194549

Election 2017

Shouldn't something be added about the 2017 general election?

2.96.84.14 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Conservative Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Conservatives are not centre right

It is inaccurate to describe the UK Conservatives as centre right, by comparison with other European centre right parties. While it would be perhaps a tad hyperbole to describe them as far-right, they are not centre right - it would be more accurate to describe them as an authoritarian populist right-wing political party. Christopherbrian (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you are stating your own personal opinion. The "centre right" designation has been properly sourced with three references. Suggest you read WP:OR and WP:POV. The Conservative Party like all political parties has a wide range of views within its membership.David J Johnson (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

They are socially liberal, left wing Globalists. There's nothinng 'conservative' about the leadership of the party. Theresa May is a leftist. Christopedia (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC) The leftists in control of the party don't support the death penalty though, and no so-called conservative party would have a 'LGBT wing'. No conservative party would have legalized same-sex marriage either. They are leftists. They may have centre-right and conservative factions, but leftists are firmly in control. They swing so far left on social issues it's crazy. There hasn't been a conservative prime minister since Thatcher, and even she wasn't completely conservative. A party that is centre-right economically and left-wing socially is not coservative. Something like the DUP is an example of a real conservative party. Christopedia (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming, because you assert these things, that you have reliable sources that state that "The Conservative Party is a left wing party", rather than just your own personal feelings about what conservative should mean? Because so far all you've done is tell us what you think. What is written in reliable sources about the left-right spectrum and this party? --Jayron32 13:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

Add European Research Group to European affiliations in infobox. Add to bottom using br tag. Reference not really required as self explanatory, but if you'd like one, [1] Fredrick Johnson 901 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The European affiliations field is for affiliated EU political parties, not for any lobby group/think tank associated with the party. The European Research Group might merit mention elsewhere in the article, but not in that field of the infobox. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/06/jacob-rees-mogg-and-the-shadowy-group-of-tories-shaping-brexit

Changing Membership of Conservative Party

82.11.101.245 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Change the Conservative Membership to 124,000 as it has been revised.

Here is the source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/17/conservative-party-nearly-twice-size-originally-thought-new/

 Already done: This edit. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Also edited the membership section to reflect this change Hairygrim (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Scandals

The conservatives are involved in at least 5 on-going scandals it seams odd they they are not mentioned here.

  • 2017 Westminster sexual scandals
  • Windrush
  • Lycamobile Protection
  • Senior links to Cambridge analytica
  • Jeremy Hunt Property Scandle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom#2010s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.100.71.242 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

These scandals are not explicitly linked to the Conservative Party, meaning they should not be included; the Islamophobia scandal is and is therefore mentioned in the article. Hairygrim (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

1922 Committee

"The 1922 Committee is effectively head of the Parliamentary Party its leader forms policy in consultation with his cabinet and administration."

Could someone explain what this means or amend it? How is the 22 committee "head" of the parliamentary party and who is "its leader"? And what is this about the cabinet and administration - is this actually a reference to the leader of the party (not the committee) and, if so, this seems to assume the leader is also PM (which the current one is, but it is not always the case? Also, the next sentence refers to the professional party, before going back to the 22 committee? Are these linked because from the wording it appears they are not? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.94.72 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

---

– I am creating this move request following this one without a consensus to move. There seems to be some support for these articles to be moved. That’s why I created this request. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The MOS deals with this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms as disambiguators. Ralbegen (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Opppose: You haven't put forward any argument for renaming the article. There does not "seem to be some support" and you have only cited an entirely separate discussion about naming US parties. Don't use a formal request to move an article to make a WP:POINT. --Hazhk (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per the cited discussion – moving to "United Kingdom" provides both better WP:CONSISTENCY with other international party articles that are disambiguated by country, and is also better than the abbreviation on WP:COMMONALITY grounds. Not also that WP:TITLEFORMAT says "Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation..." not that they "have to be", and what ever is gained on WP:CONCISE grounds by using the "UK" abbreviation is IMO dwarfed by the CONSISTENCY and COMMONALITY arguments. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose waste of time -----Snowded TALK 06:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Espatie (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC) for two reasons; Firstly the use of (UK) is acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms as disambiguators and does not cause any ambiguity, and secondly you haven't even identified all of the affected pages (for example the page Liberal Democrats (UK) should be included in this if it were to proceed)
  • Oppose per the above and WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close per above, when referring to US parties, the nominator has failed to point out 'United States' is in itself an abbreviation of said country's name. The United Kingdom is commonly referred to as the UK in international correspondence. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above, UK is commonly used. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the "UK" abbreviation is perfectly acceptable. Greenleader(2) (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. In fact, in practice we use the full version for pretty much everything except political parties. No reason to make an exception for them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing wrong with UK, it is a common abbreviation. David J Johnson (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too much space given to south Asian issue in Theresa May section

As a casual reader, it seems to me that the amount of space given in the section on the current Prime Minister Theresa May to "south Asian" immigrants, and attitudes towards them, is larger than it should be. There's no need for a whole paragraph of text debating whether or not the Conservative Party is "racist" to these people when the central topic of her premiership, Brexit, is not even discussed. Overall, it reads like somebody trying to put across a partisan point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.35.213 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Party_(UK)/Archive_4&oldid=1136636469"