Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)

'Is' vs 'Are'
The Liberal Democrats are a federal party, thus, shouldn't it be: "The Liberal Democrats are...", rather than "The Liberal Democrats is..."? Touslesmemes49 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Liberal Democrats" is a proper singular noun. therefore "The Liberal Democrats is..." would be a proper way to start a sentence. 129.79.234.209 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In British English we tend to use notional agreement, so "are" is correct. DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

2019 Election Results
In the overview the text reads "and a poor performance in the 2019 general election saw Swinson lose her seat." But the link to the election page shows that the party saw a 4% swing, comparing that with the -7% of Labour or the ~1% of the Tories/SNP suggests a relatively good performance that was adversely affected by FPTP.

I'd like to change it to read" and the 2019 general election saw Swinson lose her seat." A factual statement without any judgement of the performance. Would that be OK with others? Efan78 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree, this is a more neutral statement. Go for it. — Czello (music) 07:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agreeSpinney Hill (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Lib Dem ideology may clash with labour's
In a discussion in the labour talk page it ha sbeen proposed for labour's ideology to be changed to social liberalism but due to the liberal deocrat page also has this ideology it was proposed that the liberal democrats also add social democracy as an ideology not only to avoid confusion but also due to some sources suggesting they may be taking up a more centre-left position.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/10/lib-dems-progressive-mantle-robust-opposition-labour Takis S1 (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Aside from being an opinion piece, that article doesn't call them socdems. Also I don't think it's logical to alter this article based on what another does – we just say what the sources say. — Czello (music) 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, same as on the Labour page, we should avoid WP:RECENTISM. A socdem trend in the Lib Dems isn't new, but the two wings of the party are already detailed in the body of the article. The infobox should remain broad. — Czello (music) 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Progressivism may be better than Social liberalism considering it is a bit broader Takis S1 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe Progressivism is a better label to add. Implies a shift to the explicit left while also not tying itself to a specific economic system. – GlowstoneUnknown   (Talk)  10:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes propably or maybe just removing social liberalism Takis S1 (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would we remove social liberalism? There's no question that they're a socially liberal party. — Czello (music) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, there is no reason to remove social liberalism. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to removing social liberalism from the Infobox – in fact, my personal view is that if we were going to list a single ideology, it would be social liberalism, given it is the party's raison d'etre. I similarly oppose "progressivism", as it is essentially a meaningless term, particularly as we have actual political ideologies backed up with reliable references.-- Autospark (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also have only "social liberalism" in the infobox, while I surely oppose "social democracy" (only a minority of the party adheres to that ideology), "progressivisim" (too generic) and "pro-Europeanism" (policy, not an ideology). Possibly, I would also remove "liberalism", but I am also fine with "liberalism" and "social liberalism". Two ideologies are enough. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed about liberalism and social liberalism – those are two specific ideologies, backed up with sources, and are relevant. Social democracy is at best an exaggeration.— Autospark (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)