Talk:Conservatism in the United Kingdom

Separate article
Perhaps rather than being a redirect, the content from the Conservatism article can be split, and this be created as a standalone sub article? The main article doesn't yet reach the 100K of WP:LENGTH that demands a split, but having its own article may lead to expansion and allow for further detail of the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Conservatism in the U.K. is a major topic in conservatism and rightfully has a large section. I don't think a separate article would help because most of it would overlap with the article about the Conservative Party.  TFD (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is already a tag saying the section is too detailed. Sort that out and there will be no need for a split. Op47 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Article has scope for expansion and should be split, a la the US one. Tiller54 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This article should definitely be split, it has the potential to be larger than the US one Donald Trefusis (talk) 2:55, 1 July 2012 BST
 * Is anyone going to carry out the split then? Op47 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is a 3 to 2 support sufficient to be considered consensus, given WP:DEFINECONSENSUS?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support There is enough content to warrant a new article to be created for Conservatism in the United Kingdom. veganfishcake (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Alan. Op47 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Title of article
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to label this article History of conservatism in the United Kingdom? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Conservatism as the liberals would like it to be seen
There are just so many errors in this article. citing a source does not make it correct and it could be very biased. Norton's article, much quoted here, is very misleading and often totally wrong. For instance, Peel was massively unpopular in the Party for his quasi-liberalism and was eventually ousted for it. Norton also says the party "adopted laissez-faire economic policies from 1918 onwards". This is very much the position today's liberals who have taken over the party would like it to be seen. Re-writing history. But it is untrue. Until World War II the party was decidedly protectionist. Has no-one ever heard of Joseph Chamberlain? The Party were publishing protectionist posters throughout the inter-war years. 86.165.191.74 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Modern Conservatism
It is difficult to read the "Modern Conservatism" section as following WP:NPOV. It seems to accept a subset of statements that the party makes about itself at face value. For example, the statement about an "emphasis on human rights, in particular the 'European Convention on Human Rights'" should be balanced with an understanding that, only two months before the 2016 leadership contest, the current (early 2018) Prime Minister, Theresa May, set herself clearly against the ECHR. While she backed away from this as too divisive once she was actually competing for the job, and then also decided to avoid promising to leave the ECHR in the 2017 election manifesto, the Party's attitude has hardly swung round to a ringing endorsement of the Convention. I appreciate the difficulty of developing robust balance in a crowdsourced article on a necessarily highly partisan topic, but the effort would be worth it. I don't doubt that in other ways Prime Minister May would like to continue to modernize the Party, but singling out the ECHR in this regard is at best a distortion.