Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 1

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

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


 * The Conservative Party is definitley wrong, as "Conservative" is Britain only. In the UK they are the "Consevative and Unionist" party.
 * It's also Consevative and Unionist in Scotland.Mintguy

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

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


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


 * The names registered by the major parties on the register of political parties at http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/ are:
 * Labour Party [The]
 * Conservative And Unionist Party [The]
 * Liberal Democrats
 * --rbrwr


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


 * http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm --rbrwr
 * Cheers! Mintguy


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Very old discussion, but there still no redirect in place and redirects are cheap. I created one. --kingboyk 19:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


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


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

So do we all kind of think that it should be as follows then?
 * The Conservative Party (UK)
 * The Labour Party (UK)
 * Liberal Democrats (UK)
 * Mintguy


 * I'd be happy with that. --rbrwr

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

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


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

Removed:

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

for the time being --rbrwr

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slizor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exile 20:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * The two occasions when Labour had majority governments (before the current one) did see at least some things approaching that commitment. It&#8217;s like the Liberals and free trade: the ideal was never implemented, but it was an ideal and the party did makes piecemeal reforms towards that ideal when it could. Personally, I think one can make a case for New Labour being socialist, though not without difficulty, on the grounds of its theoretical commitment to equality (and perhaps even in the hopes it&#8217;s laying the groundwork for socialism by challenging, piecemeal, the institutions and vested interests that made greater reform impossible in the past). But it surely must be noted that the text that was excised was the definition of socialism, not just some words conjured out the air back in the mists of party history. And whilst it's perfectly fair to note what Labour currently declares itself to be, the notion that simply calling a party socialist is enough is fantasy - and the basis for tiresome, erroneous, "Hitler was a leftie" revert wars on Nazism and fascism. The assertion or implication that the Labour Party remains socialist is highly POV.


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

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


 * Isn't it self-evident why they changed?!

Labour under Michael Foot simply weren't electable. The manifesto for the 1983 general election was very hard-left and contributed to Thatcher's landslide that year. Kinnock realised this and gradually changed the party's policies. The 1992 manifesto was far more centrist than the 1983 one. It's only under Blair that the New Labour ethos and revision of Clause IV comes into play. Lapafrax 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Case for a new British labour movement article
Why might it be a good idea? The page Christopher Hitchens contains the text:
 * is younger brother, Peter Hitchens, who is also a journalist, author and critic, was initially also a leftist but later came to hold radically different, conservative, political opinions after several years spent reporting on the British Labour movement and British politics, followed by many assignments in Communist Eastern Europe and a period as a resident correspondent in Moscow at the end of the Soviet era.

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, IMO it should only cover factual events or things. An article concerning future Labour party leaders would simply be speculation and not anything based on fact. Lapafrax 22:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

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


 * I have just edited the first two paragraphs and the template-box to reflect the dispute over Labour's political stance; previously there was no suggestion there that it could be anything other than left-wing or centrist which, given the number of those who consider it right-wing (as in fact was already suggested much later in the article), was not neutral. Just felt I ought to explain. Ou tis 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with you for one moment, but the introduction to any article is not really the place to debate such a point. It must be covered properly in a section within the article, otherwise, on a day to day basis - as is happening at the moment - the introduction is changed; first by someone who thinks X and then by someone who thinks Y.  (Which is not really what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia!)  Soooo the intro now makes it plain that the Labour party were historically Left wing, are 'officially' democratic socialist but that there is currently a debate in some sections as to where they stand.  So now anyone who wants to can write the appropriate section concerning the debate instead of changing the intro.  Hope that helps! Marcus22 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just edited the page again. The article in its current form once again gives strong preference to the notion that Labour is left-wing, which, given the number of people who think the opposite, is in direct violation of WP:NPOV and therefore totally unacceptable. I have: removed the "moderate" preceding "conservatism", since quite radical conservatism has also been suggested; changed the "ideology" in the infobox to simply Officially Democratic socialism ", which states the bare fact and leaves open the possibility that the party's official line is misleading without actually weighing in to the dispute (this is the most concisely neutral position I can think of); changed the "position" field to "Disputed", which is simply neutral and factually accurate. I am not starting an edit war: I agree, on reflection, with the removal of my addition to the "has historically been..." sentence (whose earlier part, I am pleased to say, was left intact) to the effect that its present state is disputed. But the things I have just corrected, particularly the unqualified claim in the infobox that Labour is on the centre-left, simply would not do under WP:NPOV. Ou tis 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Direct violation", "totally unacceptable", "simply would not do"? Oh dear, oh dear, well thats certainly told me.  (Especially as you put some of it in bold face).  Were you by any chance a headmaster at a public school in a past life?  Seriously though, lighten up a little son.  Marcus22 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I also agree. To call what is now New Labour centre left is quite frankly insulting to the left wing. Thay are no longer a party with the needs of working people on thier minds, but have fallen for big business. (3 Feb 2006)

WGee 00:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was shocked to see that the Labour Party is classified as social democratic. According to its election platform, economic policies, and the article on Centrism, the Labour Party is a centrist politcal party.  In fact, the Labour Party is almost politcally identical to the Liberal Party of Canada, and that party is identified as centrist.  So, I was shocked to find out that I could not edit the fallicies in this article due to the administrator's heavy hand.  This "open-information" concept is being exploited by administrators who insist including their personal opinions in Wikipedia articles.  Saying Labour policies are social democratic is simply incorrect.  This article has been skewed by partisan interests and unjust censorship.
 * Also, in response to 217.44.206.138, simply raising minimum wage does not make a political party "democratic socialist". That would be similar to saying that the Tories are fascist for advocating a more centralized state.  And, when classifying a politcal party, the policies of the party take precendence over the "genuine ideals" of some party members.  Moreover, the Bush administration has raised public spending as a % of GDP: that doesn't make it social democratic.  Also, what's to say that a centrist party cannot strike deals with workers?  The Liberal Party of Canada is by all means centrist, and it was endorsed by trade unionists because of promises to subsidize car manufacturing plants.  Thus, if you want to classify a politcal party as anything, you must take into account the large majority of its policies, not just few pieces of legislation or the members' inner beliefs.

" However many left-wing members have now left the party, and at the beginning of the 21st century its political philosophy is more centre-right, pursuing a right-wing policing and privitisation agenda. "

I think this should be changed to the following because it is not a fact it is just a matter of opinion:

" However many left-wing members have now left the party, and at the beginning of the 21st century it could be agued that its political philosophy is more centre-right, pursuing a right-wing policing and privitisation agenda. "

RW

Good lord, how sad is this - The 'New' Labour project is a right wing party under the disguise of a socialist party, in order to continue to get the traditional labour voting population's vote.. But also having 'Big Brother' looking out for its Wiki-site, it denies being a 'former' left wing party and tells us all that its Centre Left... no wonder the current new labour project is going to sink the 'Labour Party'... completely a farce! – I only hope that ‘real’ labour party members and activists are able to fight back!! (before its too late!)

Hayday 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is true that the membership averages out at 'centre-left', but the leadership can be classed at being 'centrist' to 'centre-right'. Certainly Blair is not 'centrist' in the slightest. Althought the official party position in 'democratic socialism', nobody in their right mind believes this to be true of New Labour. Seeing as New Labour rules the party at the moment, maybe the article should note that the ruling New Labour faction is 'centrist' to 'centre-right', but the actual party membership is 'centre-left'. --Otware 12:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The media like the terms left, centre or right although they don't really have any meaning - more than anything they are an excuse for the media to waffle on about what left, centre and right mean without really saying anything and this ends up with discussions in which people sit around saying such and such a party or person is left, centre or right - rather saying that they were frequently described as being a left or centre left party as these terms do get used even though their links to how they were used in the French National Assembly are somewhat tenuos. By no means though is Labour laissez faire or neoliberal and even the Thatcher administration was not - in the 1980's new regulation of the labour market slowed but drives to cut regulation notably under Michael Hestletines bonfire of regulations frequently ended up introducing more regulations, the Conservatives in the 1980's setup regulators and Labour has continued this process, public spending remained high although fluctuating, the Thatcher, Major and Blair governments all increased Health & Education spending - Labour has started reversing deregulation in bus and train services and came up with a scheme that transferred railway infrastructure to a not for profit company, the Labour government also acquired the Northern Line and has been increasing Health and Education spending to record proportions of GDP with massive public projects, Tax Credits, raising many benefit rates and easing much of the eligibility criteria (very much contrary to laissez-faire or neoliberalism)- they use more market orientated approaches but all 3 main parties still advocate extensive action by the state to provide a safety net and public services.--Lord of the Isles 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of the above arguments are politically motivated. The Labour Party stands on a centre-left ticket and should be regarded as such, regardless of which policies you see as right or left wing - or even your definition of right and left wing.

left leaning
Left-leaning social policies? (introduction)

I feel that the left-right spectrum is meaningless in this context. "Social" is too vague and easily contested a term... IMO Labour are only left leaning in +rhetoric+ when it comes to social policies, and only then on the specific issue of the provision of social services at the end-user point of consumption. Their general social policiy is authoritarian and their provision of services, neoliberal. They are still slightly to the left of Thatcher in the 80s on social policies, but in terms of British politics as a whole, they are IMO very much centre right!

Democratic Socialist or Social Democratic?
The ideology label in the table keeps on changing. Are Labour (especially New Labour under Blair) a democratic socialist or social democratic party?

Personally I think the latter is more appropriate. Democratic socialists would be in favour of nationalisation and greater economic intervention than than a social democrat (so Attlee's government would have been democratic socialist in that mould). New Labour may have, in effect, re-nationalised the railways but only did so in a pragmatic (and not ideological) sense. Lapafrax 19:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

_____

Labour's constitution still says they are "a democratic socialist party". We all know this isn't true, but if that's what they say perhaps it should be written as such. Kristallstadt 14:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone else has rerun this hare, and has also introduced the canard of Third Way. It clearly says on the current membership card that 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party'. It may fall short of this ideal and others may wish to imply it now aspires to some other ideology, but the place for that is not in the infobox at the top of the article please. Dem. Soc. is its publically-avowed position, and I wager at least a third of its membership (I for one) are in it on that basis. Linuxlad 17:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted to previous positioning (Social democratic) because, firstly, Labour's counterparts in the continent such as SPD are exclusively labelled 'soc dem' (which they all really are), compared to more left leaning groups (such as German Die Linke, a coalition of ex-communists and left soc dems. What is more, Australian and New Zealand Labour are labelled 'soc dem' as well.


 * As far as I know, the label 'democratic socialist' is nowadays mostly used by left socialist or ex-communist parties. So the label looks more suitable for certain leftist groupings such as Socialist Labour Party and is consequently not very suitable for one of the most liberal parties among the well-known members of the Socialist International.


 * Of course, you as a party member know what is the 'official positioning' according to the main charter, but it looks more precise to position parties according to their real policies, which -- as suggested above by many contributors -- in the case of Labour has been 'Third way' (a term promoted by mr Blair) for already 8 years.


 * May-be it would be wise to label as follows: Democratic Socialist (official), Third Way. In my opinion, the real positioning should be mentioned as well (as most of the members adhere to it), an example of which would be here 1. Constanz 18:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Facts first, opinion later :-) Linuxlad 22:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The real fact is the policies of the 8 years of Tony Blair and New Labour in power. Regardless of some sentences in the charter composed may-be hundred years ago, the actual policies have been a mixture of Thatcherism and some aspects of Social democracy. 'Democratic Socialist' policies would be something similar to those carried out by mr Salvador Allende from 1970 to 1973. I suggested a compromise as the Wiki people have been really divided on the issue (see beginning with the top of this page). Constanz 11:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The 'hundred years ago' is in fact in 1995 when Clause IV was rewritten (before that we had the beautiful 'to secure for all workers by hand or by brain, the best fruits of their labours, etc') The form of the new clause was a deliberate attempt to keep the active left on board - it is a clear statement, NOT conjecture, and so should be left in the 'infobox'. If you want to malign it, fine, but do so in the main text, where we can toss it about as best we can. (The present party is demonstrably the heir of the ILP which might be my preferred flavour :-)) Linuxlad


 * A certain charter should not be taken as a source of ultimate truth. The mentioning of socialism is anachronistic nowadays, but it was retained even after the triumph of Blair's pragmatic and modern tendency, probably in order to avoid possible splits by remaining die-hard socialist among the ranks of New Labour.
 * Party ideology is not determined by a charter of certain historical value but first and foremost by its actual politics and its programme (or electoral manifesto, in case of Britain). If you claim that Labour is a socialist party, could you please confirm me by naming some points from the recent electoral manifestos that are to be regarded genuinely socialist (i.e nationalisation, redistribution of wealth, high taxes for the affluent citizens...) ? Constanz 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Debateable? (Social democracy or democratic socialism)
The Political Ideology tag in the Infobox is now 'Democratic Socialism (debatable)'. While I concede it is in fact debateable, this should not really be noted in the infobox surely - Democratic Socialism is the party's official ideology. - Wezzo 08:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Liberal democracy' is the official ideology of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia lead by mr Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Does it conclude that his party is liberal democratic in its character and should be marked liberal here if an infobox is created?
 * Labour Party has not been a 'democratic socialist' party (see what this ideology means and who are its proponents 1) since at least post-World War 2 era, when they became just another usual social democratic party common to the Western world. In the 1980s, social democracy, especially in Thatcherist Britain, showed signs of becoming out of date. So in 1990s even many principles of 'social democracy' were abandoned and replaced with centrist 'Third way' ideology so as to gain the votes of the middle class.
 * Compared to other social democratic parties, British New Labour is remarkably liberal; democratic socialism has strong roots in Germany, where it is represented by the alliance of former East German communists and the leftist breakaway group from SPD. As far as I know, British Labour Party and Gregor Gysi (and Oskar Lafontaine!) are not comrades in arms. Constanz 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's nice. Wikipedia is not in the business of decreeing what true 'democratic socialism' is, it is also not a soapbox, and there is indeed a good case Mr Zhirinovsky's party should be given its self-identification too.  Morwen - Talk 16:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not starting a revert war, but our personal opinions should not be reflected in the infobox. I believe they should be listed as what they say they are, i.e. democratic socialist. - Wezzo 17:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my personal opinions. Firstly, beginning with 1992, Labour electoral manifestos have not a single notion of socialism, democratic or not, and secondly, infobox is not a place to include some misguiding historical labels (I've explained how misguiding 'dem soc' is). Officially, British Conservatives are a 'unionist' party, but we don't label Conservatives a 'Unionist' party in the infobox, do we? Constanz 08:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll leave it as is. But I would also argue that Unionist should be mentioned in the Conservative infobox seeing as it's part of their official party name. I'll await more responses here to see what the general consensus of people here is seeing as only me, you and Morwen have spoken so far. - Wezzo 09:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Linuxlad has taken part in the discussion as well (on the 'dem soc' side). What he argues before was that infobox should contain only strictly necessary information. I agree with that and I claim, that the 'unionist' ideology in Conservative party infobox would be completely irrelevant and misguiding (with regards to Ulster unionism), and the same goes for Labour Party and 'democratic socialism'. Let's wait and see what others might think, and I suggest looking at other political party inxoboxes, in order to comprehend the over-all trend and principles. Constanz 16:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * well, my point of view should be clear from what I've written earlier. To repeat:- the only _fact_ is what it claims on my membership card (the revised Clause IV from 1995) which says 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.' If you can't live with this (and it looks like some can't) then you'll just have to put a reference out into the main text, and set out an agreed but succinct position there. Bob aka Linuxlad 16:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This really can't be the ultimate, definitive 'fact' as otherwise we really ought to label Liberal Democratic Party of Russia as 'liberal' (the name indicates it!), to describe The Conservative and Unionist Party as 'unionist' in the corresponding infobox, Social Democratic Party (Portugal) as 'social democratic' etc.
 * BTW, Labour's policies and electoral manifestos (which do not contain any notions of 'socialism' any more) are facts as well. Constanz 16:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's high time that we omitted 'dem soc' and declare the debate finished. No one has added anything on the subject since my last edit here. So, let's have the final vote or just omit 'dem soc' as inaccurate and misleading. Constanz - Talk 12:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (tugs on Praelector's gown and mutters) 'non placet' Bob aka Linuxlad


 * Linuxlad you've got it spot on. Although the Labour party call themselves a Dem Soc party there are some on here who clearly know better.  At times like this, its better to leave them to their own devices.  Theres more to Wikipedia than one tag in one intro box on one page.  Thank god!  Marcus22 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

New opening
I've rejiged the opening section to draw together the discussion about Labour's alleged ideological shift to the centre or centre right (including the party's own continuing self definition as dem soc) and have separated this from the section about its current status as part of govt and recent electoral performances.

I hope people agree this makes a bit more sense now, and reflects the full spectrum of opinion on where Labour has taken itself in the last few years.

OK with me. I'd say the below would be better in the infobox though:

Social Democratic (party charter: Democratic Socialist)

-Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This compromise looks good; in addition, this is not long and descriptive. --Constanz - Talk 16:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be clearer simply to say both ideologies. The party and its leaders clearly say it is both, and listing both is more correct and neutral than choosing between them or listing one in preference to the other. FrstFrs 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Reverted POV edits
I reverted back to 65.27.68.173's last edit, because 140.198.153.104 added a bunch of POV changes. Just because you don't like Labour or Blair doesn't mean you can or have to pseudo-vandalize a wiki article. --Kross 00:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor vandalize the discussion pages of the same. Alan Davidson 18:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Where's all this tosh about the country being divided between the Tories and the non-conformism of the Welsh Methodists come from? Not even true in the South West, and certainly not true in the industrial areas of the Midlands and North. There's a tradition of linking non-conformism and religious dissent perhaps, but not at all limited to welsh methodist, I reckon. I need a couter-reference or I shall edit out.Bob Linuxlad

More current history, please
Blair has pursued war in Iraq; this is unpopular in the UK. However, there is nothing in this article about this. Dogru144 7:57 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Left critiques of Blair/ New Labour
Blair, et al have been in charge since the 1990s. Yet, there is only a fleeting mention of Kinnock as a left opponent of Blair's move to the right. However, neither in this article, nor in the Kinnock article is there anything on whether Blair has challenged the right direction of New Labour and Blair. Where is the discussion of current left opposition within the Labour Party against Blair? Where is the discussion of the left opposition to Blair's war policy? Where is the discussion about left frustration over collaboration with Bush or question of negotiations re Lebanon war? Dogru144 7:57 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedic entry about the Labour Party: not a running record of the whines and complaints from the perpetual oppositionists, masquerading as commentary. Alan Davidson 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Logos
I'm sure i remember putting up the two old Labour logos on the page yesterday. Perhaps i didn't and only pressed preview because i couldn't find it in 'my contributions' as having updated the page. Or perhaps they got they got deleted, i don't know.

I'm going to put them on (again?), just in case i did actually forget to save the page, but if they were deleted, i'll understand if they get removed again, no worries :)

Kristallstadt 14:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Timeline of Labour History
Hello, I already have a Labour history website which I would like to move somewhere on a more permanent basis. Currently it sits at http://labhist.tripod.com I'd like to move the site onto Wikipedia if possible, but do others agree that it would be a useful appendix to the brief, but excellent history already here? Regards

No! its too much detail and dross! Hayday 07:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Name
Why on earth is this article called 'Labour Party (UK)'? My complaint is that the Labour Party is not a United Kingdom party, but rather a British party, which has always kept itself out of Ireland. I would advocate a move to Labour Party (Great Britain). mgekelly 11:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst I personally agree that Labour is not a party for the entire country (and the URL labour.org.uk is misleading), ultimately Labour is a party that seeks (and sometimes obtains) power to govern the United Kingdom in its own right. Several other parties across the world similarly do not organise across the entire country, but relabelling them would get more confusing.


 * Oh and Labour hasn't always kept out of Ireland - one of the earliest conferences in the 1900s was held in Belfast. Timrollpickering 22:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And given that there is no Labour Party of North Ireland, this isn't a issue... The primary reason for the UK tag is to signify it is the Labour Party that is based in UK (which it is). It might not be based in the whole of UK but since there is only ONE Labour Party which is based in the UK, the issue of confusion does not arise. Of course, if a North Irish Labour Party does arise, then we might have to reconsider but for the moment there is no problem Nil Einne 10:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm the register of parties does actually include a Labour Party of Northern Ireland (although that page is more focused on the 1980s one) though it hasn't made itself prominent yet... Timrollpickering 14:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that Labour campaigns for a parliament that controls, among other things, Northern Ireland, the title is appropriate. A similar example exists as the page Christian Democratic Union (Germany). The CDU does not exist in Bavaria, where it is replaced by the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, but the page is rightfully titled to refer to the entire country as the CDu campaigns for national control. — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 02:03 UTC 

Current problems
There doesn't seem to be much info on their current potential problems viz-a-viz their secret loans which have to be repaid and according to some media reports could potentially bankcrupt the party Nil Einne 10:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit - so feel free to add whatever you want!! One or two people have added comments on recent events but have done so in very POV ways and have made little or no attempt to write in the style of the article. However I'm sure that if recent events were written up properly there both could and should be a section on them..... Marcus22 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Minimum wage
(From New Labour, In Government) "Consequently one of the most popular policies introduced was Britain's first National Minimum Wage Act, a policy negotiated by Labour's affiliated trade unions in return for accepting the change to Clause IV of the party constitution." Is this right? I thought the old unions used to be opposed to a statutory minimum wage (since it involves government legislation doing the unions' job of wage bargaining, further weakening the trade union movement) - this is why the "Old" Labour governments never introduced a NMW. Does anyone have a citation that shows the NMW to be a union-led policy rather than a Labour-led one? - Modernway 15:54, 17 August 2006


 * As a policy the National Minimum Wage was in the 1992 Labour manifesto (The TUC adopted it as policy in the 1980's but Labour was unsure and it was only right at the end of the 1980's that it was adopted as a party policy - it was then set at half male manual earnings - this was then altered under Tony Blair to a promise to introduce it at a rate that would be fair but not so high as to damage economic growth and it was pledged that the rate would only be introduced after consultation and the way it would be introduced would be decided only after such consultation, the Minimum Wage that would have been introduced under Labour proposals in 1992 if they had won would have been £3.40 an hour .--Lord of the Isles 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Election victory
"its first election victory in 18 years since 1979"

As the Labour Party did not win the 1979 general election this is a bit misleading, 1997 was actually their first victory since 1974. Although 1979 was the last time they were in power I think this quote should be removed or amended to say something like "returned it to office for the first time since 1979/after 18 years" or "its first election victory in 18 years since it's defeat in 1979" for example. Benson85 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Laws Introduced in the 1960s
"Labour in the 1960s did introduce several new laws reflecting the changing times"

Given that the Bill to legalise abortion was a private member's bill (by the Lib Dem Lord Steel if I recall correctly), and not therefore a Government policy, I don't think it should be stated as if it is an accomplishment of the Labour government at the time. Is the same perhaps true as the legalisation of homosexuality?

Proposed merger from First Labour Government
I suggest that First Labour Government be merged into Labour Party (UK) as it's title doesn't state which country it is referring to and is probably better not to have a seperate article, particularly as Labour Party (UK) already has a section on it. --BigChicken 10:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support a rename, and a considerable cleanup and expansion of the other article, but certainly not a merge. This article is already quite large, perhaps at 48K overly so, and the other topic is plenty significant to merit a separate article.  Alai 03:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. I have removed the merge tags. There is a page at Labour Government 1924. We could put the information there, or we could move First Labour Government to "First Labour Government (UK)" and put a link to it at Labour Government 1924. The latter may be better, as Labour Government 1924 is currently a list of the government's members, although Labour Government 1929-1931 does have an attached summary. --BigChicken 10:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now done this. --BigChicken 10:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The sub-section on the first Labour government has a different timeframe to the article. Maybe we should create a subsection with a title like "The lead up to the first labour government" and then include a link to the article and a summary under "The first Labour government (1923)"? --BigChicken 10:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now done this, too. --BigChicken 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New Labour
Wouldn't it be a good idea if 'New Labour' had its own wikipedia article in recognition of Blair's ideological revolution, and renunciation of old style socialism in favour of a modified form of Thatcherism? Blair's break with Labour's past is as historically significant as Thatcher's break with the past ideological position of the Conservative party and I think deserves its own article. What do people think? Colin4C 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Note Thatcherism has its own wikipedia article, so why not the equivalent New Labour ideological project? Colin4C 21:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't Blair's "New Labour" ideology be classed as an evolution from or extension of Thatcherism? In which case, shouldn't it possibly go under the Thatcherism article?
 * -- (A.szczep) 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply lol. I agree they are very similar, and I think you could write a comment in the Thatcherism article about the similarities; Including them under the same heading seems a little misleading. I think minimum wage introduction makes a significant difference between the approaches, atleast in the early years.


 * More importantly (for me), any chance of throwing up a list of current policies like the Lib Dem/Green/BNP sites? I realise a disillusionment exists within the party about policies being followed by the leadership, but that has happened for pretty much any party in power after a time. mrhappyhour Sept 28th 2006

The Labour Party is neoliberal
The Labour Party has not been "Social Democratic" or "Democratic Socialist" since 1992!- That says, that it isn't centre-left, because their ideology is Neoliberalism

This page should be changed, because democratic socialism can't be reached by Neoliberalism.If the Labour's ideology is democratic socialism or social democratic, then those words are new synonyms for Neoliberalism. Moreover I'd say the Labour is at least centre or centre-right, because of their pro-americanism.And social democrats are against war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.201.91 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they are still cntre-left on British political scale (amongst the main parties).--Constanz - Talk 12:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there's a centre-left main party in Great Britain any more, all parties are becoming americanized.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.201.91 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, can we just get this right? Clause IV of the Labour Party's rules state: "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.  It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." Now, can you please stop with your POV? AJD 13:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that Labour is a democratic socialist party. Because (democratic) socialism is the opposite of neoliberalism.Neoliberalism says, that the government gives companies to people and socialism takes companies from people!!!!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.201.91 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Neo-liberalism is a doctrine favouring minimalisation of state involvement in the economy including almost no public spending other than on Police, Defence and National Security and no labour market regulation - some neoliberals go far further not even supporting maintenance of a standing army, none of the main political parties in the UK is neoliberal - about the only government ministers in decades who could be described as a neoliberal were Keith Joseph and John Nott, other members of the Conservative governments in the 1950's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's had neoliberal and libertarian tendencies but couldn't be described as neoliberal, in the USA none of the main parties are actually neoliberal although the Republican Party and Reform Party have large neoliberal elements - the Labour Party currently takes a Social Democratic or Democratic Socialist position.


 * Ok as for genuine neo-liberalism, but regarding alleged socialism of the New Labour: which of the policies by Blair would you characterise as socialist?Constanz - Talk 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The leadership of a party does not constitute a party. I would certainly describe myself as a Democratic Socialist, and I'm a Labour party member. Admittedly the parliamentary party is, for the most part, social democratic, or even liberal, but they are not necessarily representative.  The official ideology is still democratic socialism, and that's all we can say of the party as a whole. BovineBeast 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for positions in war neoliberals mostly are not interested in wars, the current White House is orientated towards Neo-Conservatism, the Labour Party is not Conservative or Neo-Conservative either although both main parties in the twentieth century adopted a lot of what had been a Liberal agenda.--Lord of the Isles 16:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything.YOu don't want to believe that all your parties in Britain are shit.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.201.91 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of being abusive all of the time, why don't you state your argument? And, please, avoid using simplistic definitions, or is that counter to the Austrian way? AJD 18:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1.)That was a hard prejudice!!!

2.) Austria has not that old political system like in Britain this constitutional monarchy.

3.) We don't have a neoliberal party, that pretends to be social democratic or democratic socialist.And we are not americanisized.

4.)The social democratic party of austria is real social democratic party not a lier party like tht Labour Party.Our social democratic party rejects the neoliberalism.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.201.91 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't substantiated your argument. Further, I'd ask you, please, to see this message on your talk page. AJD 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)