Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 11

Labour's Political Position
The Labour Party, while not completely left wing, does have a left wing leadership. So personally I think leaving "left wing" out of the Wikipedia page would be unfair. I also think, considering the large presence of the centre in the party, to leave out centre in the page. So I have a proposition: instead of completely changing it to left wing - we could change it to include the centre of the party and the left, (i.e. Centre to left wing). This would cover most of labours ideological positions - centre, centre left and left wing. Most, if not all, MP's and people within the Labour Party fall under these political wings, so personally I think this would be the best option. Preceding unsigned comment added by masterpha (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (GMT)

The Labour Party is more of a left-wing party under Jeremy Corbyn rather than a centre-left party. The party has gone from being centre-left to left wing in the past 2 or 3 years. This is very clear from the Labour manifesto for the 2017 general election. The nationalization of industries as well as very high tax and spend policies indicate that Labour is certainly more left wing than centre-left. Although, I would like to hear some rebuttle, as I am not 100% sure that I am correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DhroovP (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC) If we judge from the manifesto they are far-left not left wing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How do reliable sources describe the Labour Party's political position? That's the only relevant thing. Ralbegen (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * We should omit the field per neutrality. There can never be any agreement on any party's position on the political spectrum because there is no agreement where the center lies or how or how far from the center any party is.  Experts classify parties into ideological families based on history, policies, international affiliatons, etc.  Labour continues its ties with socialist parties in Europe and internationally, and rather than "Left" parties such as PODEMOS and Syriza.  I have seen no reliable sources that Labour has transformed into a Left party and none of its positions are particularly left-wing.  High tax and spend policies were supported by the Democrats in the U.S., and they were not left-wing in any sense.  TFD (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put forward that the current position (centre-left) should definitely stay. As to TFD's argument of removing the position entirely, this just doesn't hold weight. There certainly is a general political consensus of where the centre is. If your point was the case, the political position of all parties would have to be removed. This would require discussion on a page covering politics on Wikipedia as a whole and consensus there and I don't see that going anywhere. There has been general political consensus by political scientists for years of Labour being on the centre-left and unless you can provide at least a couple of scientific political sources that say otherwise, I think it should stay as it is. Also the claim by Jack1234567891011121314151617 of Labour being far-left is ridiculous. As per the initial argument, the 2017 manifesto was more left than the party has put out in a long time, however the position of a party leader and / or a party's manifesto doesn't encompass all a party is. Many other aspects should be taken into account, such as ideology, positions, positions and leanings of MP's, history etc. Helper201 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Name a political party where there is consensus it is centrist and not center-left or center-right. TFD (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are three just off the top of my head: En Marche!, Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and Democrats 66. Helper201 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Macron has also been described as center-right and center-left. While the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland is normally described as centrist, that is relative to the left-wing and right-wing parties that dominate the province. Its Great Britain counterpart is often described as center-left. Labour and the Conservatives would also be centrist in the Northern Irish perspective, just as Christian Democrats, liberals and Social Democrats were described as centrist in the Weimar Republic (they occupied the center between Nazis and other right-wing extremists and the Communist Party.) Google books returns lots of sources describing "Democrats 66" as center-left.  TFD (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to clarify that the definition of consensus is 'a general agreement', not absolute agreement. The Liberal Democrats to which you refer to as being connected to the Alliance Party has no official connection. Also as someone that lives in Britain, the Liberal Democrats are almost always described (and self-described) as being in the centre. Labour and Conservatives would not be regarded as centrist by a Northern Ireland perspective. The closest ideologically to Labour in Northern Ireland is the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is also regarded as centre-left and the closest to the Conservatives is the Ulster Unionist Party (also conservative and regarded as centre-right). Helper201 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that the center can be placed differently according to the country. Also, there is no general agreement that a party is centrist if reliable sources routinely describe them as center-left.  There is certainly not the same consensus that the LibDems are a liberal party.  The controversy is whether where in the spectrum liberalism rests.  TFD (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I am saying the exact opposite. For most parties there is general agreement on where they stand. Not all sources are equal either. For example, analysis by a political scientist generally holds more weight than a non-qualified journalist. Actually there is a large consensus on the Liberal Democrats being a liberal party. Judging by this and your next sentence, you seem to be confusing ideology and political position. Helper201 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. The relationship is that ideologies can be placed on the political spectrum, that's what the political spectrum is, a relative placement of ideologies from left to right. But while we all agree on relative position, there is general disagreement on absolute position. So we see for example references to D '66 as "center-left" in Blaming the Government: Citizens and the Economy in Five European Democracies. It is part of a "comparative politics series" published by Routledge. Also The Logics of Party Formation: Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany (Cornell University Press, 1989), Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices (University of Michigan Press 2012). Political Handbook of the World 2014 (CQ Press, a division of SAGE Publications 2014) and many other reliable sources. No doubt you can find rs that call them center. I don't see though that we can determine these sources are wrong. TFD (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really. There are ideologies that don't fit on the left-right scale and while most ideologies usually align to a certain position (liberalism is usually in the centre), a certain ideology does not predicate a certain position and vise-versa. A lot of what your talking about is swinging off topic. This is not about D66, its about Labour, and as said, unless you can find a couple of recent sources of politically scientific evidence that suggest Laboour has a new or changed position, it should stay as it is. As for matters about political position in general, this is not the place to discuss that. You should probably try here - WikiProject Politics. Helper201 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Labour is a left-wing party because it historically is a socialist party. It is center-left because it is not revolutionary.  It is centrist because it lies between the extremes of free market capitalism and a planned economy.  All these descriptions are accurate depending on context.  And center-left has different definitions:  between the left and center, the left part of the center or the least extreme section of the Left.  Hence the term is also used to describe liberals, particularly social liberals.  Ambiguous descriptions are more likely to confuse than enlighten.  TFD (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Labour is definitely not a pure "left wing" party, especially not with all the other mainstream UK parties being categorised with a "centre" category of some sort. The Labour manifesto for 2017 was not a step change from their 2015 manifesto (some commentators even argued that in some policy areas like income tax and immigration Labour could be argued to have moved right), and the composition of its representatives and voter base certainly hasn't changed much. Whilst there's arguably a case for categorising Labour's broad church as "centre-left to left-wing" on the basis that there is a spectrum of opinion, it'd be unbalanced if we didn't at the same time make the Conservative Party "centre-right to right-wing" which could be justified on similar grounds. TFD's argument that we shouldn't categorise parties on a left-right spectrum at all because the labels are vague and the choice of them non-neutral is not without merit, but it's an argument that needs to be made at a higher level, as placing parties on a left-right scale is part of standard template used for all political parties across Wikipedia Dtellett (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Luke March says in "Defining the »Far Left«," "»Far left« parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy, which they see as insufficiently left-wing or even as not left-wing at all." But generally they are refered to as left-wing in reliable sources.  See for example Bobbio's "Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction."  News media routinely refer to the Labour Party as left-wing as in this CNBC story.  Labour is considered part of the Left in all kinds of sources.
 * Whether or not the Conservatives as called right-wing is irrelevant. There is a lack of symmetry between the two terms:  few public figures, other than fascists, refer to themselves as right-wing, while mainstream socialists such as Bobbio call themselves left-wing.
 * TFD (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there's more symmetry between the two terms than you're suggesting. ConservativeHome proudly makes lists of "influential figures on the right", and news media (not a great source for political science definitions as opposed to events) routinely describes the Conservative party or factions within it as "right wing". More to the point, there's an obvious asymmetry if Labour is represented as a "broad church" and the Conservative party as more narrowly centre-focused, despite having two influential factions classified by most political scientists as "right wing" (the New Right and the traditionalist social conservatives); ultimately the aim of including the left-right spectrum classifier is to position the major parties in British politics on relative to each other in as neutral a manner as possible, so how one major party is represented is relevant to how the other is presented. Dtellett (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Conservatives do not call themselves right wing. The international group they belong to (the International Democrat Union describes its member parties as "centre and centre-right."  Some conservatives declare the terms left and right are meaningless or outdated.  Labour however calls itself left-wing.  TFD (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Labour Party generally does not describe itself as left wing but many of its members do and are quite proud of it (whilst others insist that they're the moderates and are outraged by media outlets labelling a leader who represents its leftmost faction as "left wing" in news reports); the same is true of the Conservatives and the right. I reiterate my original point which is that conclusion that one of the major parties in a nation state is much further from the political centre than the other is a POV which needs substantial justification to be articulated in Wikipedia's voice. An ideal source for this would be a number of academics categorising all the political parties within the UK political sphere (preferably in a none time-bound way). None has been provided. Arguments for Wikipedia taking the point of view that the Conservative party is much more inclined towards the political centre than the Labour party which can be disregarded altogether include Conservatives' willingness to join a group that describes itself as "centre right", the willingness of random Italian social scientists who are not members of the UK Labour party to self-identify as left wing, and the apparent personal belief of some editors that right wing is used exclusively pejoratively to refer to fascists. Dtellett (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See Socialism by then leader Tony Blair. He clearly refers to Labour as the main party of the Left.  Labour distinguishes itself from parties to their left by referring to them as "far left" or similar terms, while those parties frequently deny that Labour is left-wing.  (See for example, March's"Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe", quoted above.)  The lack of symmetry of the terms left and right in the UK is probably due to the fact that when they were adapted in the UK from the continent in the 1930s.  Labour had a greater affinity with the Social Democrats in Germany than the Conservative Party had with Fascists.  But the fact that different people can place Labour and Conservatives in different positions in the political spectrum is the basis of my view that we cannot state as a fact where it lies, we can only describe it relative to other parties.  TFD (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that symmetry or lack thereof of the left-right positions of parties is probably better illustrated by long term datasets intended to measure public perceptions of the left-right spectrum or comparative political science texts, than quotes from politicians not making such comparisons whose opponents also gave famous speeches about being the "party of the right" Dtellett (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words, you prefer to use public perception in the UK rather than informed opinion. I hate to think how that approach would affect Wikipedia articles on global warming and evolution.  By the way, Hague did not call the Conservatives right-wing, he says they are the party of the Right while Labour is the party of the Left.  In relative terms that is true as Labour is to the right of the Conservatives.  TFD (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that 'left-wing and centre-left' is appropriate for the UK Labour Party. Despite what the Political Compass shows, the Liberal Democrats are centre-left-centerist and most of Labour is to the right of them. Monument is definitely left-wing. They are more left-wing than GPEW who are classified as left wing on Wikipedia. The Blairites are centre-left in my opion. The 'we are centerist' part was only to pick up unsatisfeid Conservative voters. Torinfeldmann (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The opinion and believes of wikipedia editor have no relevance. What matters is reliable third party sources Snowded  TALK 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

After "greater state intervention" there should be more information
After "greater state intervention", there should be more information (in the lead). For example, the article could say "in the economy" or "in the economy and personal and family welfare". Good Wall of the Pyrenees (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's from a speech by Ed Milliband in 2010. The summary said he advocated "a more active role for government in making the market economy work."  The current wording is phrased in partisan jargon should be re-phrased.  It makes it sound as if Labour thinks intervention is a good thing in itself.  TFD (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

NEC Report Not Reliable For Membership Verification
It only documented what the Labour Party claimed was 575,000+ members.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In which case, shouldn't we go with the most recent reliable stat on this? I think it was reported as 552,000 in June? VelvetCommuter (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NEC reports don't break WP:ABOUTSELF - a 4% increase in membership isn't 'unduly self-serving' nor an 'exceptional claim'; it's not a claim about a third party; it doesn't make claims about events not related to the party; there is no doubt about its authenticity; and the article isn't primarily based on such sources. There's no need to include the word 'claimed' or to revert to an older membership figure. Ralbegen (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Use of "to claim" is discouraged, per "Synonyms for said" since it casts doubt on the assertion and the person making it. Unless some reliable source has challenged it, we should accept it.  Non-controversial self-reported information by organizations with a reasonable history of accuracy is generally accepted.  There is certainty that they are reporting in the correct order of magnitude.  TFD (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * My view is that a NEC member counts as a "Self-published expert source" regarding membership numbers. After all, MSM reports are generally simple reproduction of what a Labour insider leaks to them, so no better in reality. WP:SELFPUBLISH says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". If it is Alice Perry, she gets mentioned in the MSM form time-to-time so seems to pass this policy.  That said, I'd prefer the Infobox membership number to always be the Dec 31 number, which is published (eventually) in the Labour Accounts, so infobox consistently shows the rise/fall for a calendar year rather than some random of cherry-picked period. Rwendland (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The section you are quoting is about self-published sources about third parties. The relevant section is the one that follows, "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves."  The Labour Party is in a position to know its own membership, it is probably illegal to falsely report it, the figures are reasonable, they have been widely reported and they have not been challenged.  I suggest we mention in the citation that they are self-reported, but there is no reason to include it inline in the info-box, especially wording it to cast doubt on the figures.  TFD (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Specifically WP:ALLEGED is relevant here. Ralbegen (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that there's WP:CONSENSUS to remove the expression of doubt, so I'm going to remove the word 'claims'. Ralbegen (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The NEC report was not an independent verification and was what the Labour Party reported.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out Alice Perry is also a Labour Party politician too.


 * Well, yes, Perry is a member of the NEC. She's seen the figures and made them public. I don't understand anybody's point here. Political parties are the only source of membership figures, no-one counts them independently - that's why the Conservative membership figures are unknown, the party hasn't released them for several years. The source for Labour's membership number is ALWAYS going to be a Labour source. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ian Lavery Not a Reliable Source Either
He is a senior Labour Party member and therefore not at all a third party independent source.
 * Please understand that decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS. If you disagree with the policy points made in the discussion above, then dispute them there, and don't keep editing the same detail back and forth. As is laid out there, primary sources are acceptable as sources on themselves for uncontroversial claims, and unnecessary expressions of doubt are bad style. Ralbegen (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also aware of the Identifying and using independent sources policy too.
 * Hi JoetheMoe25. To quote WP:IS:
 * In determining the type of source, there are three separate, basic characteristics to identify:
 * Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Identifying and using self-published sources.)
 * And then from Identifying and using self-published sources:
 * A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves)
 * Which is what we're talking about above. The essay you're citing doesn't forbid use of primary sources, instead it links to the supplement that explains why primary sources are fine for this. Ralbegen (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

We also need to follow the Neutral point of view policy. The person who made this claim was a Labour Party official and therefore was not a reliable independent source.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which principle of WP:NPOV do you think is relevant in particular? Stating opinion as fact; stating seriously contested assertions as fact; stating fact as opinion; nonjudgmental opinion or the relative prominence of opposing views? Moreover, WP:NPOV doesn't discuss what makes a source reliable at all. That's in WP:V, which includes WP:ABOUTSELF which lists the requirements for a source to be used about themselves. The sourcing of the membership figure passes these. That's what the discussion above was about. Ralbegen (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It might not be the most to date sources but the House of Commons Library (Which is independent and trusted)has Labour on 552,000 members as for June 2017.hhttp://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125 --88.110.0.42 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but adding the word "claimed" is fact and not opinion, as it was a person's claim. It also does not erase the article containing Labour Party chair Ian Lavery's claim.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLEGED tells us to avoid unnecessarily using expressions of doubt. I'm not claiming you're breaking WP:NPOV: I'm claiming that your argument on its back doesn't make any sense. Which it doesn't. You've referred to an essay and a policy both of which permit the use of self-published sources as sources on themselves, and WP:ALLEGED tells us to remove the word 'claimed'. This is the case that people have been making to you whilst you keep reverting the page. Please cease. Ralbegen (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid your attempt to say my edit "doesn't make any sense" doesn't make any sense at all. The reliable source policy also tells us to keep the edit as well, as Ian Lavery is not a reliable, independent source.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:V, which explains what a reliable source is, includes WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll quote it in full:


 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources. Ralbegen (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it was claimed by a Labour party official suggests political maneuvering and is thus not reliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As party chairman, Lavery is the most reliable source for Labour's membership. See for example, "Membership of UK political parties."  He's in charge of maintaining that type of information.  TFD (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The only organisation that reports the Labour Party's membership numbers is, well, the Labour Party. Ergo, in this instance, there is only one type of source available. The Chair of the party is a reliable source for the membership numbers. That's obvious. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

From what you typed, I feel it only further justifies why it needs to documented that the Party Chair claimed it. I did not erase my source and hence, there is no need to erase my edit. We must indeed abide by the reliable source policy.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I quoted the relevant part of WP:V, which is the policy that tells us whether a source is reliable. Are you suggesting that a four percent increase in membership is an 'unduly self-serving' or 'exceptional' claim? You’re the only user who has been arguing for use of the word 'claimed', and none of your arguments are supported by the policies and essays you refer to. I feel like there is a wp:consensus on the talk page to remove the word, and has been for a while. If you think a broader discussion is needed, I'd recommend setting up a RfC. Ralbegen (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We document that the Party Chair is the source by putting that in the footnotes. We don't cast doubt on the figures by using terms such as "claimed." TFD (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017
Add a sub-section after the subsection on Labour Leaders in the House of Lords:

Leaders in the European Parliament

Sir Michael Stewart (1975-76) John Prescott (1976-79) Barbara Castle (1979-85) Alf Lomas (1985-87) David Martin (1987-88) Barry Seal (1988-89) Glyn Ford (1989-93) Pauline Green (1993-94) Wayne David (1994-98) Alan Donnelly (1998-99) Simon Murphy (1999-2002) Gary Titley (2002-2009) Glenis Willmott(2009-17) Richard Corbett (2017- ) 92.237.155.82 (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please have a look at WP:RS for how to fully fill out one of these edit requests.  City O f  Silver  20:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New article
Editors here might want to take a look at this controversial new article that just popped up: Antisemitism in the Labour Party. G-13114 (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Labour 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622225821/http://www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/MORTIMER.HTM to http://www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/MORTIMER.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524060329/http://www.labour.org.uk/ed-miliband-speech-on-social-mobility-to-the-sutton-trust,2012-05-21 to http://www.labour.org.uk/ed-miliband-speech-on-social-mobility-to-the-sutton-trust,2012-05-21
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606111421/http://www.labour.org.uk/how_we_work to http://www.labour.org.uk/how_we_work
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160114113356/http://www.labourpartyni.org/lpni_prepare_to_fight_elections to http://www.labourpartyni.org/lpni_prepare_to_fight_elections
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210082459/http://www.labourhistory.org.uk/ to http://www.labourhistory.org.uk/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Political Position
The political position of the Labour Party is listed as "centre-left" yet this doesn't align with it's stated policies. Reading the Wikipedia page on the centre-left one can see that centre-left politics includes advocating for social justice but not outright socialism. The Labour Party describes itself as being a "democratic socialist party" which at the very least makes it "left" not "centre-left". The leader of the Labour Party has talked about reinstating the original wording of Clause IV of the Labour Party's constitution, the test of which is provided below:

"'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.'"

It is also not uncommon to see members of the Labour Party, including the leader of the Labour Party, attend events at which hammers and sickles and portraits of Joseph Stalin are prominently displayed. This further undermines the notion that the party is "centre-left" and, I think, establishes a basis up[on which to describe the party as "left to far-left". As such I think the "political position" of the party in the article should be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSaxon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's call May Day, the equivalent of Labor Day in the United States, which is open to the public and attracts people of a wide range of views, including Stalinists. And Labor has governed the UK with "democratic socialism" and Clause IV in its constitution, and never set up gulags, cancelled elections or abolished the monarchy.  In any case you would need a reliable source that supports your reasoning.  TFD (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources > Opinion. Has the party as a whole shifted to the left? Was its 2017 election manifesto a hard left document? --Hazhk (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The party has never been "centre-left" Why did I think people here would be interested in what is plainly true? Obviously this article, and undoubtedly many others, are maintained by those affiliated with the Labour Party. This article is deceptive. Intentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSaxon (talk • contribs) 10:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If you look through the Archives, you can see that this has been brought up lots of times. In August 2017, June 2017 (twice), December 2016, September 2016, May 2016, January 2016, September 2015, October 2014, January 2014, March 2012, November 2011, and May 2010. People have made edits and never come to the Talk page lots more times. If you want to change the description, there'll need to be consensus based on reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * May I just say, that getting 'reliable sources' to describe this is difficult since they are so numerous, and has been said, it is up to opinion as to what the 'centre' actually is, but I can post numerous articles.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/labour-partys-tensions-between-left-and-right-in-focus-in-brighton https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21737509-jeremy-corbyns-position-stronger-ever-fight-goes-control-councils https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/03/meaning-corbynism

I believe, as the Labour Party has constantly been described as a 'broad church' and it being home to many traditions on the British left, from third way to Marxism, I believe an accurate description of the party's current position should be centre-left to left-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctofire (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (Quick conflict of interest declaration: I am a Labour Party member, but am also no less a Wikipedian.) I think it is, to some degree, a difficult distinction to draw (hence its recurrence), as opinion is to some degree defined relative to one's own position. Nonetheless, I don't think "far-left" is a term that can be accurately applied, especially if you take March's definition:

"»Far left« parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy, which they see as insufficiently left-wing or even as not left-wing at all."

- March, Luke (November 2008) "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe From Marxism to the Mainstream?", International Policy Analysis http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/05818.pdf


 * This places "far-left" beyond the Labour Party, which is social democratic. There may be a case for "centre-left to left-wing" (the "broad church" phrase is a common self-description in the party to the point that it is almost cliché, so I feel it is uncontroversial), but I feel we need to establish that there are a sufficient quantity of reliable sources to back up the use of "centre-left to left-wing". — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, far left is not accurate. I do think however, that the Labour Party has an incredibly rich history deeply intertwined with the British socialist movement, and has had many tendencies in the past that could be considered to be far left, such as the Independent Labour Party, which was the party by which the radical socialist wing of the Labour Party was born, and also Militant Tendency.

−I've already given you lots of sources which can justify the change of the political position to 'Centre-left to Left-wing.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctofire (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the three articles you linked to, only the Economist article is one I'd personally use as a source to justify including 'left-wing'. However, if some sources describe the Labour Party as being left-wing but overwhelmingly it's described as centre-left, then centre-left should remain the description. Ralbegen (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why not just make it 'Centre-Left to Left Wing.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctofire (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea tbh, people are ridiculous with this page. Let's just get it done.  (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be changed to Centre-left to Left-wing.Paul Lincoln (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I also support the change to "centre-left to left-wing", and I'll do it myself within a few days if nobody objects. I'll include the recommended reference and maybe a sentence in the article about the shift to the left in recent years. Speed74 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The sources don't support it. Per Ralbegen it should stay as it is.   -Snowded TALK 12:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As above, I support leaving that aspect of the article as it is.—Autospark (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I support change to "centre-left to left wing" as well. The 2017 manifesto was noticeably to the left of the 2015, when Labour was already described as centre-left. The majority of the membership is left wing. The NEC is now controlled by the left. The leadership is left. It's really only the MPs that aren't majority left. I'd also add that many other language additions of Wikipedia already have it like this. It think that makes it 5 or 6 people on this specific thread supporting the change? I believe that is so far the majority, no? Gc12847 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Change should be supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a democracy — users stating that they think the article should change is a lot less important than argument based on policy and the presentation of reliable sources to reach consensus. Ralbegen (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No mention of racism in the Labour Party...
I find it a bit odd that there is no mention in this article about Labour charging different entry fees to a rally, purely on the basis of skin color. Surely, party-endorsed racism such as this (as opposed to racism from an individual party member) is noteworthy and should be mentioned within the article. Any thoughts? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One source mentioning a one off event of one day for a party over 100 years old is probably WP:Undue. Either bring more sources please or consider other edits. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there are quite a few sources for this but, interestingly, it seems the main 'reliable' sources have not reported it at all (BBC etc). Don't know why that is as I don't think there is any question that Labour did this - the most reliable source I could find is The Times. The reason I raise it is because there seems to be inconsistencies in the way articles are written for political parties here on Wikipedia. Go to the UKIP article for example, and race is mentioned several times despite UKIP (again, as a party, not an individual party member) never having actually done anything 'racist' like Labour have here. I appreciate Labour has a long history, but surely things like this are noteworthy, especially considering Labour are a government-in-waiting. Or is Wikipedia a propaganda machine when it comes to politics? LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by racism. The article Antisemitism in the Labour Party already exists, but if you are talking about something broader then it will probably require more sources, it doesn't matter whether they are 'main' or not as long as they are reliable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because the recent one isn't racism... Melias C (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Further information: Antisemitism in the Labour Party
There's been some back-and-forth over the inclusion of a Further link to Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Pinging users who made edits to this line:

I don't think it should be included there, though it would absolutely be due weight to include material on antisemitism in the Labour Party in this article, as there has been a substantial amount of reliable source coverage. Template:Further "is typically used at the top of a section, when the topic of that section is covered in more detail by another page." It doesn't fill this role here — the topic of Corbyn's leadership isn't the same as Antisemitism in the Labour Party, though a lot of the latter relates to the former, and a part of the former relates to the latter. Template:Further isn't the same as Template:Main, but I think there's enough difference in the subjects to not include the link under Further. Elsewhere in the article the template is used to e.g. send you to New Labour or the leaders' premiership articles in the section about New Labour. Ralbegen (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added it to "see also" if anyone has any views on that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I strongly support its inclusion in "see also" until it's linked inline elsewhere in the article, at which point it could be removed. Ralbegen (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of leaving it where it is. Sticking it at the bottom of the page suggests that it is more of an afterthought, rather than the fact that it is becoming increasingly related to his leadership (after all that's what many of the accusations are about). I am not saying that the section doesn't need some amendments, but I believe that many people associate anti-semitism in the Labour party with Corbyn's leadership; and I'm willing to cite sources to support that claim. Brough87 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious to me that the "further information" tag is being used inappropriately, but I'll wait for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Speed74 (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You might have to listen to involved editors as well :-) We normally link to related articles to prevent bloat in the master one.  This is just normal, if anything there should be some more.-Snowded TALK 17:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you be content with the change to the "Main article" tag with a brief blurb about anti-semitism in Labour under his leadership? After all, many other articles; a prominent example being the Safavid dynasty, use similar tags in the main body to add more information regarding complex topics. Brough87 (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm Ok with that -Snowded TALK 09:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a couple of days for other users to make their comments on my recommendation, and then I'll go ahead with it (if that's alright). Brough87 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue would be with including material about antisemitism in the Labour Party with an inline link? Ralbegen (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have an issue with an inline link, I was just trying to offer a compromise that pleases the most people possible. Brough87 (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure anybody's actually against including inline material, and it’d certainly be more conventional than the alternatives. Ralbegen (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering how controversial the issue is, this should not be placed here. The article is not called 'Allegations of Antisemitism in the Labour Party'. Placing it here makes it look like a matter of fact. Good reason to be suspicious of whomsoever it was that placed it here.Garageland66 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you are not in a position to have 'suspicions' of anyone given your history and your repeated WP:NOT HERE edits. Alssa1 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well regardless of the history of an individual editor, overall the section should obviously include allegations, but to use a main article tag is to imply that is the only issue in modern history. Don't buy that -Snowded TALK 21:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Snowded it's clear that Alssa1 is an editor with a WP:NOT HERE agenda. There are many that have targeted Wikipedia as a propaganda battle ground. Garageland66 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You've actually been banned for a series of WP:NOT HERE edits. Alssa1 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In two minds, on the one had it is (at the moment) a major controversy. But it has in fact only be one over the last couple of years (it does not matter if modern talking heads have dug up historical examples, what matters is the degree of coverage at the time). No issue with See also. But any inline link must be very carefully worded, and I am not sure that is possible (given it is a very recent and ongoing controversy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I added some text with an inline link, giving the text from the article lead. It was reverted by Snowded, who said "We don't replicate material from the articles at best we summarise with a link". I'm not sure why this is always true, for example many other sections have both a link and a summary of the linked article. Perhaps I misunderstood, did you want the summary to be reworded from the lead? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is an article on the subject we just need a few sentences here with a link -Snowded <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 13:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is already a link. That's why the link was left on. There's no reason to replicate material from another article. Garageland66 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are now clear grounds for adding the ideological status of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism within the Labour Party. This has been confirmed by the required two elected Labour Party MP's, and the Labour Party's "institutional racism" has been confirmed by Chuka Umunna }} and recognised by various Jewish MP's including Margaret Hodge. The Labour Party continues to be defined as anti-Zionist by Jeremy Corbyn, including with racist and antisemitic rhetoric.  RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2018 (GMT)
 * This is not a place for your all too familar insertion of UKIP propoganda amd please learn to format your comments. I admit to curiosity as to your "the requred two elected Labour" statement - are you imlying that any comment endorsed by two such august individuals beceomes party policy?  Oh and please learn to sign your posts rather than adding a link.  There is a convenient box at the top of the editing page which doesthat for you -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 15:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018
The Labour party is still dominated by the centre-left, but given increased links with trade unions, explicit advocacy for socialism, alongside a powerful hard-left faction calling for policies such as a general strike, I think the party would better be classed as either 'centre-left to left-wing' or 'centre-left, with a left-wing minority'. Woodahooda (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Its been discussed before - and the description you give has also been true for a lot of the past. What we think doesn't matter however its what is sourced that counts -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Policies section
We need a Policies section on here, they exist for other non governing parties in the uk for example there is one on the liberal democrat page. Ideally there should be 2 new sections with the other being there policies on brexit(the most major current issue in British politics), but if not there should be a policies section which gives the labour parties official stance on all/most matters. Like I said the Liberal Democrat party has a policies section, we could use that as a guidline. But from reading/skimming this page I would not know the current labour parties stance on major issues. Quackcandle (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Labour Party and Brexit
Think there needs to be a new section with relation to brexit and labours official stance on it, if there is not a similar section on other parties pages, then it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackcandle (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Silly me forgot to sign it. I am new to this Quackcandle (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism
There is currently a discussion regarding whether a letter from a number of Orthodox Rabbis should be included in the “Allegations of antisemitism and responses” section of the Jeremy Corbyn page. Arguments for and against are in the “Letter from Orthodox Rabbis is Valid” section of the talk page. Please view and vote if this interests you. See Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

membership
So, where there's a downward arrow next to the membership number, I assume this means the number has gone down. But down since when? 3, y, 12, 24 months ago? The reader has no way of knowing, and even if you added this detail, it would still be meaningless/misleading, eg if membership was down a bit on six months ago but well up on one, two or three years ago. 213.205.193.114 (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the red arrow is not helpful. Removed. Speed74 (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the main Labour article
Should there be a section on antisemitism within Labour to match the content found at Conservative Party (UK) (in the Theresa May subsection)? Or should the Conservative party article not include that content? I'm open to going either way (leaning towards including antisemitism here) but think it should definitely be consistent between the articles. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, seeing as this set of incidents is one of the defining trends of Corbyn's leadership of Labour.--Autospark (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely think there should be some material on antisemitism in the Labour Party on this page, as a lot of coverage of the party has been related to it, so it's only due. I think the same argument applies to the Conservative Party, though to a slightly lesser extent. I think it's important not to make them have the same structure out of a false sense of balance, but because reliable source coverage so often touches on or covers in depth these issues in each respective party. What's in the Conservative Party's article seems a little excessive to me when the subject has its own article. A short paragraph in each would be appropriate, with inline links to each respective larger article. Ralbegen (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's actually a whole article on this topic. Charles Essie (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As this is a major issue surrounding Labour for a couple of years now - yes - a few paragraphs here detailing antisemitism and Labour would be DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Conservative Party (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018
Why are Labour still described here as a Centre Left Party; under Corbyn this should be far left? Corbyn and others are self proclaimed socialists and the party is much further to the left than in the New Labour days. With policies on Nationalisation; Increasing Taxation for wealth redistribution and the influx of people from far left (formerly restricted) groups joining or rejoining Labour there is I believe sufficient evidence to adjust the group which the modern UK Labour party should be within to far Left. 86.8.194.87 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Not done. Wikipedia isn't an outlet for your personal opinion.Dtellett (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

At Least add Left-wing, which is similar to Social Democratic Party of Switzerland.Paul Lincoln (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, wikipedia isn't only an outlet for personal opinion when it suits the left wing people who oversee it. They use articles made by left-wing authors to drive this. I guess if you find some right-wing articles you can do the same and call them out on hypocrisy when they inevitably remove it. KyleDinny (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ideology
I'm not gonna get involved with the left vs. centre-left argument but I was just wondering as to what other people thought of adding anti-capitalism to ideology in the infobox with respect to this? Melias C (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't ascribe anti-capitalism as an ideology of the Labour Party. Ralbegen (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. You have a senior shadow cabinet member here saying that he wants to destroy capitalism - it makes the Party anti-capitalist. Not to mention for the centre-left/left debate, calling the Labour Party centre-left is a farce and frankly false. The party has moved radically to the far-left, let alone left. This article needs to be edited to reflect the changing political climate of the Labour Party. Qaei     &#9742;  13:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the endorsements in the 2016 Labour leadership election, Jeremy Corby had 18 Labour politicians compared to Owen Smith's 107. One of Corbyn's supporters, John McDonnell, does not represent the view of the entire Labour Party even if he is the Shadow Chancellor. It is more accurate to say that the party is split between a pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn. It is also worth saying that anti-capitalism encompases the ideologies of Socialism, Anarchism and Marxism, anti-capitalism is not an ideology in and of itself.  --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's original research. You need a reliable secondary source that draws the same conclusions you do. Also, it is an etymological fallacy to equate opposition to capitalism with anti-capitalism. In comparison, Protestants oppose to Catholicism, but we don't call them anti-Catholics. TFD (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth adding centrism as a faction? Source. Melias C (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I think it's safe to say that the Labour Party is a multi-tendency socialist party containing of numerous ideologies and this should be reflected in the infobox. Charles Essie (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Centrist is not an ideology, it is a position in the political spectrum. Some conservatives, socialists, liberals and Christian Democrats have all been described as centrist. TFD (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note the Democratic Party factions in their infobox. Centre is the political position. Melias C (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and the same should be done with the Labour Party's infobox (and perhaps the Conservative Party as well). Charles Essie (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You should remove centrism because it isn't the same in the UK Labour Party. The British conception of the Third Way was still social democracy. We never had "centrism" in the New Labour era, it was still centre-left policies but utilised centrist PR. Centrism belongs in the Liberal Democrats - Nick Clegg's overall philosophy is significantly to the right of Tony Blair's for example. ScouseScholar (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Centrism arguably not an ideology but more importantly it's not how many people within the party would describe either their own ideology or that of the party. The party describes itself as democratic socialist (it's been on the membership card since the Blair era) and many people in different factions of the Labour party would also describe themselves as social democrat, so I'm not convinced the majority/minority distinction is particularly accurate or helpful here. I do think there's scope for a section in the article itself for more clearly defining the different factions of the current labour party, their links with past factions and their current influence. Dtellett (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What's an MP?
First use of acronym MP, under Labour Representation Committee, is not defined. "...association called the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), meant to co-ordinate attempts to support MPs..."GenacGenac (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * An MP is a Member of Parliament Melias C (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Institute for Statecraft and Integrity Initiative
I recently added the following text to the article:

In December 2018, the Sunday Mail revealed that The Integrity Initiative, a program run by the Scottish-based charity Institute for Statecraft, had used its official Twitter account to attack Corbyn, the Labour Party and Seumas Milne. The Integrity Initiative had received Foreign Office funding of £296,500 in the 2017-18 financial year and would receive a further £1,961,000 in 2018-19. The article stated that The Integrity Initiative was run by military intelligence specialists with an aim to counter Russian online propaganda by forming “clusters” of friendly journalists and “key influencers” throughout Europe who use social media to hit back against disinformation. The Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan ordered an investigation into the reports and stated “Not only must [anti-Labour attacks by Statecraft] stop, I want to know why on earth it happened in the first place.” The Institute for Statecraft: Integrity Initiative was the subject of a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on 12th December 2018.

The text has been removed. I had previously added similar text to the page for Jeremy Corbyn as he is mentioned most prominently in the sources. Similar text would also be relevant to Seumas Milne’s page and the Integrity Initiative page. The reason for removal at this page was that it had “low salience” and was “primarily sourced to tabloids”. Here are some points that I would like to mention to support its inclusion on the Labour Party page:

1. It has been covered by at least 3 reliable sources, Mail on Sunday (the Scottish paper not the other one), The Guardian and the BBC (in its interview with Alan Duncan).

2. The facts as provided by the sources do not appear to be in dispute (the interpretation of the facts is a separate issue).

3. The behaviour of the Integrity Initiative was the subject of a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on 12 December.

4. The organisation involved has received around ₤2M in public funds.

What do other editors think of this?


 * I removed it on the grounds that the fact a little-known body which had received some public funding appears to have retweeted a couple of Times articles criticising a Labour Party leader's position on one issue has near-zero relevance to understanding a 118-year old major political party. I would suggest that the stub Integrity Initiative article is a much more appropriate place for such material. Dtellett (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019
I think changing Labour membership with a link to a Sunday Times article is a bit silly. This claim has been denied by the General Secretary. The official Labour membership is given in the parliamentary website https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125 Drwilllarge (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Labour membership down?
The sidebar on the page shows a downward facing red triangle indicating Labour's membership has fallen however the source of it's figure indicates that Labour's membership rose from 2016 to 2017. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/parliament/uk-political-party-membership-figures-august-2018/

Could someone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.251.13 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In line with the use of the Commons Library as a source for other party membership figures, it should also be applied in this instance until it is updated there. If this is not acceptible, I propose making it clear that membership figures are disputed, and including both estimates. Dave (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I will add to my post above - using the figures ftom the Sunday Times to infer the current membership levels constitutes original research. Even if a specific number leaves, that does not take into account the number of new joiners in a given period. Therefore, merely subtracting that from the Commons Library figure constitutes a homemade analysis. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2019
Far Left Splashthewhale020202029 (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019
Inverted red triangle for decrease needs to be switched into green triangle to show increase. Membership figure is referenced to figures showing and labelled as an increase. The triangle must be altered to match. 86.170.255.183 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ The figures referenced "show that in December 2017... the Labour Party had more than 564,400 members", as compared to unofficial figures from LabourList in April 2018 that suggest a membership of approximately 540,000. We are due annual accounts for December 2018, though, so it will be amended when they are available. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 15:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Centre-left to left wing
Ok I am genuinely baffled. What on earth is the problem here? Forget the party currently being the most left-wing it has been for a while under Corbyn - Labour isn't a strictly centre-left party and never has been! And I'm saying that as a centre-left social democrat. And that's not even mentioining the fact that DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM - which no one seems to have a problem with being on the infobox and article - is a LEFT-WING (not centre-left) IDEOLOGY. So, what is the fuss about??? Is this some petty ploy by centre-leaning Labour members/supporters to keep the party image "clean" or something? Like seriously. --Combinedauthorities (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's a number of things, but the top line is that there are two main features that still qualify it as "centre left":
 * The rewriting Clause IV (which previously advocated for common ownership of the means of production) under New Labour, when the party shifted more towards the centre (it remains the same to date);
 * The political alignment of the Parliamentary Labour Party, many of whom have aligments distributed from the left to the centre.
 * While a number of factors have shifted the party to the left in recent years (the election of Corbyn, his appointments to the front bench, and GE manifesto pledges), the fact that Corbyn and his general picks tend to be on the left of the party hasn't shifted the locus of the PLP, and it is they who ultimately determine the party's activity in the legislative branch. Generally, aside from significant power grabs and vociferous "breaks" from past alignments (including rejection of members of the "old" alignment), change of alignment of political parties tends to be a gradual process. There may have been some manifesto pledges to appeal to the left of the party, but the mass of the PLP is towards the centre left, and the constitution is still broadly as it has been since New Labour. Were there strong condemnation or rejection of New Labour from the PLP, or rewrite of the Constitution to include aims like that, then there would be sufficient grounds to say that the party has materially shifted. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 17:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The political makeup of the PLP isn't sufficient grounds to justify keeping the polticial position of the entire party as strictly centre-left. The party is far more than just the centre-left MPs. Trade unions (overwhelmingly backing Corbyn and left-wing politics), registered members (overwhelmingly backing Corbyn and left-wing politics) and party executives (NEC - controlled by Momentum, etc) are, by far, the bulk. Most Labour MPs being on the soft left (due to Blair's deselection purge) does not, in any form, constitute some official party stance. That is just a piece of statistics, absolutely nothing more. You can't pull out some assumption of the party stance from that. Plus, just look at the party's manifesto and current policies - undeniably left wing, not merely centre-left. Handing over 10% of company shares to workers is an absolutely, unquestionable socialist left-wing policy. You cannot paint that, and other policies like seizing second homes, as centre-left in any form. This article is simply misleading for readers. The (remaining) LibDem MPs are dominated by centre-left indviduals at the moment (though Cable is an orange-book centrist), and yet on their page the party position is listed as Centre to Centre-left. What is the problem with changing the political position field to the truth - Centre-left to left wing? And, I'm going to have to repeat my question over how democratic socialism (a left wing ideology) is accepted as a labour party ideology on this article/infobox, but 'Centre-left to left wing' isn't for the position? Regarding Clause IV - yes, the advocation of common ownership of the means of production is removed, but left-wing positions go further than just that economic policy. Plus, socialism isn't simply about seizing the means of production - it is about the gradual implementation of socialist policies onto a mixed market economy in a capitalist society, via a reformist agenda. The change in Clause IV doesn't rule out the party as left-wing at all. It doesn't ban them from advocating socialist policies. I don't understand what this fuss is about, I'm genuinely baffled - and I'm sure if regular Wikipedia readers who have even a basic knwoledge about UK politics found out about all these attempts to falsely paint Labour as strictly Centre-left, they would be equally as confused. With respect, this has to change if this article is to be accurate. And just to be clear - no, I am not a Corbynite at all. Neither am I a Blairite. I just want factually correct articles. --Combinedauthorities (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So is anyone who has read all my points going to answer me? Is anyone going to persist with opposing the clear fact that Labour is not strictly centre-left? ? Anyone? If not - isn't it now time to change it to the factually accurate "Centre-left to left wing"?--Combinedauthorities (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What matters is how reliable sources describe the party. The infobox is a summary of key points of the article's prose—is there more that we can add to the text of the article that talks about the ideology of the party and how it has changed? Especially academic sources and books would be good. That's what affects the article rather than the political views of individual editors. Ralbegen (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see your view (although I don't see any solid evidence for infoboxes on wikipedia strictly being article summaries), but I don't get why people are ignoring one key, glaring point which I have repeated multiple times - democratic socialism (accepted as a description of Labour) is a LEFT WING ideology. Thus, the sources for Labour also being "left wing" are quite simply already there. Why is this being ignored??? Also, I am not using my "political views" to justify this, but actual facts, which I have provided in depth in my length comment. I, a centre-left social democrat who wants the party's left-wing status to be accounted for, am being as neutral as possible. --Combinedauthorities (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would describe Labour (currently) as centre-left to left wing, so if you can find some sources calling them left-wing, then I would support changing the infobox. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-mandate-agenda, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45438855, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-eu-socialist-austerity-neoliberal-portugal-theresa-may-deal-vote-a8672606.html, https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/1838041/h-diplo-review-essay-154-practice-socialist-internationalism are some sources. I used some newspapers as sources because looking at the pages of other parties (e.g. the LibDems) that seems to be acceptable for sourcing their political position - but, as I know there could still be some dispute over their use, I also attached a Yale University review of an Oxford Uni Press political book (the last source). In addition, there are already sources in the article for the accepted ideaology of Labour being a party of democratic socialism (a left-wing ideology) - which should thus be applicable to "left wing" as well.--Combinedauthorities (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". There are exceptions but, for example, there's plenty of prose about the party's ideology in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, fair enough, though that shouldn't stop the party position from being changed to "Centre-left to left wing". But if it is required, I will happily add more to the article itself on Labour's left-wing side. Thanks! --Combinedauthorities (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion occurs over numerous different articles, I have raised the issue at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27 TFD (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this needs deciding a higher level (if not here then maybe Wikiproject Politics) I can see a case for changing both the UK's "broad church" parties to reflect their fringes, but changing just one of them looks suspiciously close to Wikipedia taking a POV on where the disputed centre ground in British politics lies. Dtellett (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The same should be done for the Conservative Party. I also think that, in addition to expanding the "position" sections to reflect the multi-tendency nature of both parties, the same should be done with the "ideology" sections. This is what we've done for the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do the same thing here. Charles Essie (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry, Israeli Meddling, Livingston resignation, and further Luciana Berger resignation, etc./ Chronology
Luciana Berger`s phenomenal resignation conference has come on the hooves of the FOREIGN MEDDLING investigations currently ongoing, particulary in light of the UK documentary which showed Israeli Meddling in U.S. politics, as well as bringing about the resignation of an Israeli operative out of the Israeli embassy in London for inciting the "taking down" of UK Labour politicians (https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/). The Chakrabarti Inquiry preceded the documentary, and the documentary preceded the resignation of Livingston; The fact that OFCOM cleared the documentary-makers of all allegations of wrongdoing (including anti-semitism) coupled with the impact of the Shai Masot scandal in UK newspapers and politics places the documentary "The Lobby" most suitably between the Inquiry and the Livingston resignation, to be followed by the Luciana Berger et. al. rebel resignees. As the article is locked, a priviledged contributor should go ahead, using the cited reference.126.243.85.139 (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you SHOUTING? Please don't use Wikipedia's Talk pages to make an irrelevant rant. And please use a spell-checker. Headhitter (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your rapid response. The content is already in the article, dunno why you would suggest it is irrelevent, but nevermind if you thinks so you would be privilidgd enough to remove the lot. Regarding spell-checking, most profuse apologies for the increased vigilance as the Facebook and key-stroke logger personal iformation integrity breaches have deemed spellchecks "risky". If you would like to re-consider your response, and make the appropriate contribution, that would be grand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.243.85.139 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox template parameters
The article’s infobox template is being flagged for issues because there seems to be two parameters (seats7 and seats8_title) which are being used twice each. Since the template has no way of knowing which parameter values are correct, it just picks the last ones to display. The fix for this is generally quite simple; just rename or remove the invalid parameters. If someone knows what the invalid parameters are, please post them here or fix the template itself. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Membership figure
Hi there - think the membership figures should be restored to c.512,000 as this is the most recent figure from the Guardian and the Mirror. I understand we should use the Commons library figures but they seem outdated now, and the current decline in membership is both noteworthy and apparently accurate.

Also someone might want to update the graph to reflect this.

VelvetCommuter (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Should it not be made clear that the newspaper reports are unconfirmed figures? Confirmed membership numbers have not been published since April 2018.

https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1104514927253995520

2A00:23C5:B383:B501:49DD:F424:1C3C:5DF6 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Labour switches to second referendum default
This is significant news: it effectively makes Labour the mass-membership Remain party, with the Conservatives and Brexit Party as the Brexit parties. -- The Anome (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I recently replied but my reply was reverted. I assumed you were suggesting that the page be edited to say that Labour now supports Remain. My reply was to point out that Labour does not support Remain in all circumstances. The Skwawkbox explains that Labour policy is that any deal should be taken to a public vote. Labour would only support Remain where the alternative is a No Deal or a botched Tory deal. If Labour were elected, it is committed to delivering Brexit. Burrobert (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Is the Labour Party a 'populist' party
We have many RS describing it as populist. Are we allowed to call it such in the info box, or is the word 'populist' only reserved for political parties who lean right? Reaper7 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Labour's embrace of left-wing populism is a comparatively recent phenomenon (i.e. under Corbyn) and it is unclear to what extent it permeates the party's underlying ideology. There are other political parties in Europe, such as Podemos or Syriza, that are unambiguously left-wing populist, so this certainly isn't a case of "populism" purely being applied to groups on the political right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Midnightblueowl. We tried to argue the same on the Brexit Party page - new party, no manifesto etc how can we know anything about it besides its innate Euroscepticism.. but we were out-muscled by a strong faction determined to label the party 'populist.' When I pointed out there were better RS describing The Labour Party as 'populist' - this fact was ignored out of hand. As for the Labour Party as it stands today, I think it is populist. However whether that should be added to its info-box as the term was on the Brexit Party, podemos and Syriza info-boxes for example, I am not sure. I think left-wing populism does fit for a description of the Labour Party as it is currently however. Reaper7 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interested to see which sources you feel we should depend on here and its far from clear to me that Corbyn attempting to be popular (which isn't working) is the same thing as being populist party -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 12:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The infobox should not be used for every possible description found in reliable sources but only those for which there is consensus. I think the general consensus is that Labour belongs to the socialist (sometimes described as democratic socialist or social democratic) family of parties which includes the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the Socialist Party of France, parties which are or were members of the Socialist International and belong to the Party of European Socialists. The term left-wing populist is generally used to refer to "Left" parties, which are members of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left, such as PODEMOS. There is an argument that Corbynites have more in common with Left parties than social democratic parties, but until and unless they purge the Blairites from the party and join the European United Left–Nordic Green Left, it would be incorrect to call them populist. Even for Left parties, the description as populist is problematic. TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In general I don't think it's a helpful for an encyclopedia that aims to take a neutral point of view, to try to classify politicians and political parties along a linear scale going from 'hard left' to 'centre' to 'hard right'. The difference between 'centre left', 'left' and 'hard left' is not well defined and these terms tend to be selected support whatever message an author wants to convey.  Even if a source was attempting to be neutral, it's unlikely that the author checked Wikipedia's definition of a term like 'centre left' before using it.  We should stick to using less ambiguous terms like 'democratic socialist'.Eggybacon (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)