Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Table size

Could the table size in lead be made smaller? It seems pretty wide. Flower23d (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Financial links to Kremlin-linked individuals

The Conservative Party are notable for their 20-year history of financial ties to Russian oligarchs. This has come under increasing controversy since the invasion, but was already controversial as early as 2006 after Litvinenko was poisoned. Below is a section I've written about these issues, to be put in the "Controversy" section. I reject that this is a fringe issue. Multiple reliable sources describe this as being scandalous or dangerous, including...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/23/oligarchs-funding-tories This article claims that "what has undoubtedly happened is that a series of people with dual UK-Russian nationality, or with significant business links with Russia, have donated heavily to the Conservatives in recent years"

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19946067.uk-conservative-partys-links-russian-money-donors/ "The Tories have long been criticised for their own economic links to Russian money and have faced a barrage of calls to stop accepting such donations. In 2020, a report condemned successive UK Governments for failing to protect Britain from Russian influence. It said that Russian influence at the highest levels of society was “the new normal”."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/world/europe/russian-money-uk-tories.html " One of the biggest donors to Britain’s Conservative Party is suspected of secretly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the party from a Russian account, according to a bank alert filed to Britain’s national law enforcement agency... It is no secret that wealthy Russian industrialists have given heavily to the Conservative Party over the years. Mr. Johnson once played a game of tennis with the wife of a Russian former minister in exchange for a $270,000 donation."

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/conservative-party-russia-donors-ukraine-invasion/ The Conservative Party has accepted tens of thousands of pounds from donors linked to Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, new filings have shown. It includes £50,000 from Lubov Chernukhin, who is married to Vladimir Putin’s former deputy finance minister. Labour MP Chris Bryant, who chairs the standards and privileges committees, said the Conservatives “should be ashamed”. He added British politicians were giving the world the impression that they were “craven, greedy, and impotent”.

https://goodlawproject.org/revealed-the-tories-are-still-receiving-funds-from-russia-linked-donors/ A year on since Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, we can reveal that the Conservative Party is still receiving large donations from individuals and companies with links to Russia.

How is this a "fringe opinion"? It's so blatantly obvious that this is percieved to be a major conflict of interest between the Conservative Party and the country at large, which has tense relations with the Russian Federation. Why shouldn't a version of the following section be featured on this page?

"Financial ties to Russia" (Proposed subsection)

It is well-understood that the Conservative Party has extensive financial ties to Russian oligarchs, stretching back to the early 2000s. Scrutiny became more prominent after alleged interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum by the Kremlin to support the Vote Leave campaign, and increased after the Intelligence and Security Committee Russia report into Russian interference in British politics was published in July 2020. Concerns over Conservative Party funds have become increasingly controversial due to Vladimir Putin's human rights abuses and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

One of the first was Lubov Chernukhin, wife of former deputy finance minister and investment company VEB.RF founder Vladmir Chernukhin, who had donated north of £2.2 million as of the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All those who have donated to the Conservative Party have dual UK-Russian citizenship, as donations to British political parties is only legal for citizens. However, an investigation conducted by the The New York Times shortly after the invasion of Ukraine, determined that a £399,810 donation made by British-Israeli businessman Ehud Sheleg in 2018 was in fact given directly to him by his father-in-law, Russian oligarch Sergei Kopytov. Kopytov, a former minister in Russian-occupied Crimea, has strong ties to Vladimir Putin's government. Barclays Bank reported that in January 2021, they "[traced] a clear line back from this donation to its ultimate source”, and reported it accordingly to the National Crime Agency.

An investigation by the Good Law Project found that in spite of Johnson's claims that donations from those with links to the Kremlin was to stop, since the start of the war, the Conservatives have accepted at least £243,000 from Russia and Kremlin-associated donors. This includes Lubov Chernukhin, who donated £10,000 to Brandon Lewis, former Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, as well as a further £34,000 via what the Good Law Project described as "auction prizes". This was after Chernukhin's husband company VEB.RF was sanctioned by the British government. Aquind, a British-based cabling company controlled by Russian born oil tycoon Viktor Fedotov, has donated £42,000 to the Conservative Party since February 2022, including a £10,000 donation in cash to Liam Fox MP reported in January 2023. This is related to the controversy surrounding the AQUIND Interconnector, a proposed Franco-British HVDC submarine power cable, which is controversial due to the links between the Russian-owned company and the Conservatve Party.  Fedotov is allegedly close to the Kremlin; the Good Law Project alleges he made at least £72m from money funnelled offshore from Russian companies. During the same timeframe, Ukrainian-British businessman Alexander Temerko (who is also a director on the Aquind company board), has donated a further £10,000 to the Conservatives. Temerko has donated over £700,000 in total.

In 2022, the Labour Party used Electoral Commission information to calculate that that donors who had made money from Russia or Russians had given £1.93m to either the Conservative party or constituency associations since Boris Johnson's premiership began. Aubernas (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added the section back to the article. It's well-sourced and none of the users who keep reverting this addition has bothered to voice their criticism here beyond stating that they don't like the addition. Cortador (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was so frustrated. Aubernas (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Right wing Populism?

I believe this should be part of the article. HoopaRoopa (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned already under the party factions. — Czello ^(music) 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong link

I am not able to edit the article but the 'faction' link in the lede sends the readers to the talk page. I believe it is a mistake?

"It encompasses various ideological factions" ShamsiSideUp (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

✅ Done, ignore ShamsiSideUp (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Factions

I'm not sure if this is perhaps a resonable request. But as the party is so large and has several factions akin to the 2 parties in US. Wouldn't it be reasonable to add factions within the info-box similar to what the Republican and Democratic party? I'm not saying all the factions have to be present, but at least the main ones within this party (and perhaps Labour too). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

'Controversies' section

As per WP:CRITS, should this 'Controversies' section even exist? Surely it should either be incorporated into other sections or removed entirely? Michaeldble (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It should not exist: the content needs to be incorporated into the relevant History or Organisation section(s). As well as the essay to which you point, the policy at WP:STRUCTURE indicates that maintaining a NPOV means we ought to avoid segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content and we ought to be folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The sexual abuse section feels like POV to me. 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:D45D:AEF4:E222:51BC (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the section do you believe is no neutral? Cortador (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I'm inclined to say the section should be incorporated into the relevant "Premiership of..." articles. — Czello ^(music) 18:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that maybe a few sentences of the Russian part could be incorporated into the funding section but apart from that I can't see anything else that should remain on this article personally. The rest should be condensed and placed on different articles imo. Thoughts? @Cortador

Michaeldble (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As that article you linked to itself states: "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." There's absolute swathes of reliable reporting on Tory Islamophobia (with has its own article), the Russian donors, and the sex pest problem the party has, which doesn't just include allegations, but also convictions. Cortador (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this preferable to incorporating it into more relevant sections and articles? — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In what section would you incorporate this information? All these events cover at least three, sometimes four or five governments and/or involve the party as a whole i.e. are not appropriate to be moved to premiership articles. Cortador (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well the sexual abuse section is predicated on the Cameron and Johnson governments, so that's easy. It also appears to be WP:UNDUE given the length. I agree with the above that the Russian money would, quite obviously, be better served under the funding section - under its own subheading if need be. The Islamophopbia section is the one that stands out as it has its own article, but given that all the accusations have been post-2010, it could easily be divided between the section on Cameron's government (where almost all of what's written takes place) and a small bit more under the Johnson government to cover the report. — Czello ^(music) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Tbh I don't see how any of this could reasonably be incorporated into the history section. The history section is only a brief overview of the key issues from each period. None of these issues are remotely close to being the most important issues in each Premiership. I think they should be moved onto the 'Premiership of' articles personally Michaeldble (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; they are there, after all, for more detailed information on exactly this kind of information. — Czello ^(music) 11:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. Sexual abuse has been an issue with the Tories for at least the last seven years now i.e. during four different premierships. It's na issue with the party and their MPs, which is also reflected by the sources, and should be presented as such, not as an issue regarding individual premierships. Cortador (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

These are about the party, not about a specific premisership. They carry over multiple premierships and over a much wider timespan. They're discussed widely in reliable sources and are entirely appropriate to this article. They ought to be incorporated into the main sections rather than in a separate "controversies" section. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Which sections specifically do you feel they're best incorporated into? The history section is still divided up by leader. — Czello ^(music) 12:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree about funding....belonging in funding lol. We can put other parts in a separate section of the 2010-present L2 heading. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I considered that after Conservative Party (UK)#2010–present:_Return_to_government and before Conservative Party (UK)#2010–2016: David Cameron we could have a summary of the following 13 years, which could be a broad overview of the time in government and the other two sections being merged into there? — Czello ^(music) 12:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is also my view. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Rebel Tories Are Revolting

Could this article have a section on the hard-right Tory MPs? With the likes of Suella Braverman willing to attack her leader and undermine the Tory Party, is it not clear that the 'mad, swivel-eyed, loons' remain an ever-present danger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for this article; if anything of substance comes from a revolt it can go into the Premiership of Rishi Sunak article. — Czello ^(music) 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

'Economic liberalism', 'British unionism'

Is there really a particular need to include them in the box's ideology field? Both fall under the umbrella of 'British conservatism'. Setting aside my dislike of the ugliness of the political position's 'to', I would propose the following, as seen to the right, also getting rid of the slogan, given their transience and irrelevance in British politics. And why do the references for British unionism concern the Home Rule movement? They're irrelevant to the party's current position.

Extended content

Conservative and Unionist Party Leader Rishi Sunak Lords Leader The Lord True Chief Whips Simon Hart (Commons) The Baroness Williams of Trafford (Lords) Chairman Richard Holden Chief Executive Stephen Massey Founded 1834 (1834) (original form) 1912 (1912) (current form) Merger of Conservative Party Liberal Unionist Party Preceded by Tories Headquarters Conservative Campaign Headquarters 4 Matthew Parker Street, London SW1H 9HQ Youth wing Young Conservatives Women's wing Conservative Women's Organisation Overseas wing Conservatives Abroad LGBT wing LGBT+ Conservatives Membership (2022) 172,437 Ideology Conservatism Political position Centre-right to right-wing European affiliation None International affiliation International Democracy Union Irish affiliation Ulster Unionist Party (1922–1972) Irish Unionist Alliance (1891–1922) Irish Conservative Party (1834–1891) Colours   Sky blue Governing body Conservative Party Board Devolved or semi-autonomous branches London Conservatives Scottish Conservatives Welsh Conservatives Northern Ireland Conservatives Parliamentary party 1922 Committee House of Commons 350 / 650 House of Lords 276 / 784 Scottish Parliament 31 / 129 Senedd 16 / 60 Regional mayors[nb] 2 / 10 London Assembly 9 / 25 PCCs and PFCCs 30 / 39 Directly elected mayors 2 / 16 Councillors[nb] 5,596 / 18,641 Politics of the United Kingdom Political parties Elections ^ Mayor of London and nine combined authority mayors. ^ Councillors of local authorities in England (including 25 aldermen of the City of London) and Scotland, principal councils in Wales and local councils in Northern Ireland.

92.26.38.106 (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism doesn't always include economic liberalism; it's probably better to make this clear. — Czello ^(music) 10:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

References