Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)/Archive 3

Proposal
Haldraper, I strongly resent the notion that I'm trying to ignore your sources because I was the one who offered a compromise proposal that would include both centrist and center-left. I wrote the following last week:

''Haldraper, stop pretending like I'm out to get your sources. I've said before that I'm open to a compromise version that includes all of our reputable sources and calls the party both centrist and center-left. On the other hand, you have made no such attempt at reconciliation. If anything, you're the one who has attacked and disparaged my sources, even though they're perfectly legitimate by Wikipedia standards.''

Those words ring as true now as they were last week when I first made them. Where is your effort at bipartisanship? Where is your recognition that the weight of the academic literature calls the party center-left? As far as I can tell, you keep harping on and on about how I'm trying to ignore centrist from the lead, but you have yet to offer a concrete proposal that includes center-left. In other words, you expect every concession from me while wanting to make none yourself. I reiterate my support for the compromise version I first established above, something along the lines of:

The Liberal Democrats, also known as the Lib Dems, are a centrist to center-left social liberal party [etc].

We get to include your sources and your point of view, which I acknowledge is significant. We get to include my sources and my point of view, which I think is more significant! But the kind of effort at compromise that I'm making here has been completely absent on your side. I'm sure you're going to back at me insisting that we drop center-left and social liberal, despite the large number of reputable sources identifying the party by those labels. This is often why compromise is difficult: there's always one side making a genuine attempt to reach a reasonable decision, and there's always another side trying to sabotage the process because they want to win everything. The opening sentence above is perfectly reasonable under these circumstances, and I sincerely advise you to consider it carefully.UberCryxic (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are as many sources that call them a right-wing party. They are after all anti-union and pro-capitalism and have been described as reactionary.  Tony Benn said they were just a creation of the City.  So the best compromise is just to call them centrist - neither center-left nor right-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt you could find any reliable resource to label them "right-wing." They may not be anti-capitalist but you don't have to be anti-capitalist to be on the left. Also I have seen no one, left, right or centre, refer to them as reactionary (reactionary to what exactly?). In any case, your assertions are original research and not applicable. As every source on this page and the article itself has shown, the party has two factions: a centrist wing and a centre-left wing. I fully support UberCryxic's compromise proposal and suggest we adopt it. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Henrietta Van Laer says: "It is cleaqr that User Sparrowhawk does not know the meaning of the word reactionary. I had a student like that once, and she got tearful and hysterical when asked to look up the word in a dictionary. While the terms left and right are woolly, they are not so woolly that you can deny it is necessary to be anti-capitalist to be on the left. The fact is that the Lib Dem party is deeply incoherent.*****
 * If we do, can you at least spell 'centre' correctly! Haldraper (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you can go ahead and make the corrections yourself Haldraper, guaranteeing correct British spelling!


 * I'm glad we are agreed here, but before we depart, I must say something to the last statement by Deuces. Deuces, oh dear Deuces, if I were to call some of your comments mind-boggling, I would actually be paying you a compliment. Since you are known for being an editor with a deep sense of context, which you brilliantly display by making flagrantly false statements and accusing your opponents of sockpuppetry virtually every chance you get, please do tell us which reputable sources call the Liberal Democrats a "right-wing party." But don't stop there! Because by your own very contextual standards, "there are as many" of those sources as there are reputable sources that call them center-left. Right now we're up to 18 on the latter count. Tell you what; I'll make your job easier. Just give me five or six reputable sources that explicitly call the Liberal Democrats "right-wing."UberCryxic (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Michael Howard launched a ferocious assault on the Liberal Democrats yesterday before an attempt by Charles Kennedy to appeal to Right-wing voters at his party conference this week.

The Liberal Democrat leadership contest has ignited today, with one contender accusing his opponent of being too Right-wing, and a former party leader giving a damning assessment of his party's recent performance.

Instead, the Lib Dems are now exploring eye-catching policies - including right-wing American imports such as the flat tax - that are calculated to appeal to the centre-right.

So which side is Mr Kennedy on? His name could be found on the foreword to Mr Cable’s recent right-leaning pamphlet, The Orange Book. But now, he seems to distance himself from it.

The Liberal Democrats, while moving sharply to the right, have been attempting to position themselves as the main beneficiary of voters disaffected with Labour.

Tony went on to quote uncritically an article from Jackie Ashley, an in-house Labour Guardian columnist known for her derision of the Liberal Democrats, as evidence for his thesis that the party was being forcibly pushed in a right wing direction.

Etc. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only are none of those sources books or academic articles written by political scientists, none of them explicitly call the party "right-wing." None of those sources say something like the "right-wing Liberal Democrats held a conference today" or the "right-wing Liberal Democrats debated what party to support in a coalition." They all talk about certain people in the party doing things that might appeal to right-wing or center-right voters, but none identify the party itself as right-wing. Try again Deuces.UberCryxic (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another factor in Healey's favour was the votes of the treacherous "Gang of Four", Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, David Owen and Bill Rodgers, who voted in the Deputy Leadership election, and then split away from the party soon after to form the SDP. The Gang attracted the support of twenty-five Labour MPs and one Tory to their breakaway. However, as in 1931, the bulk of right-wingers remained behind in the Labour Party.

"I would have fitted into the SDP, and they would have liked to enrol me", wrote right-winger Betty Boothroyd in her autobiography. "None of my friends who left the party discussed it with me, but I never thought of them as traitors and there was no bitterness between us." For these right-wingers, it was simply a division of labour in keeping the Labour Party committed to the capitalist track. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can look for those sources. The point is that the Liberal Democrats are not leftist or center-left but are basically another pro-business party.  You seem to have a romantic petty bourgeois notion of them but they are just another political party vying for power.  The Four Deuces (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The source you just presented above has the same problems as the ones that came before. You have a dozen and a half reputable sources that explicitly identify the party as either "left-leaning," "left-liberal," or "center-left." There are so far zero sources that explicitly identify the party as "right-wing." I have no intention of getting into original research games with you. Either find those sources, and present them in the numbers you claim exist, or stop wasting our time.UberCryxic (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The main sources identify the party as centrist/liberal. A couple of the sources you provided showed that they tried to position themselves as "center-left".  The sources I found showed that they were essentially a right-wing party.  I could look for academic sources supporting this view but the point is that there is no support for them as "center-left" - they are a liberal party (which although it is OR is obvious from their name).  The Four Deuces (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources you found showed absolutely nothing beyond the internal contradictions guiding your thinking. Please do not attempt to whitewash my sources: I know perfectly well what they said. They said that the Liberal Democrats were a center-left party. It's as pure and as simple as that. Sorry, but opinion pieces in the Guardian do not override academic works by political scientists, and any pretension to being "main sources" must go to the latter. And again, your historical misinformation aside, social liberal parties can be and often are center-left parties.UberCryxic (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, the quote you posted about the Gang of Four was describing them as 'right-wing' in the context of the Labour Party, and it is written from a Marxist perspective. When people talk about someone 'on the right of the party', that doesn't mean that person is actually 'right wing'. Rather than cherry-picking quotes out of context, try this chapter on whether they are left, centre or right. What isn't in doubt is that I could list a mountain of sources in which commentators and Lib Dems describe them as 'centre-left', so that descriptor absolutely must be in the lead. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article shows how the Lib Dems positioned themselves and were perceived in their early days. The reality is that parties pursue different policies at different times.  Conservatives supported the welfare state and New Zealand's Labour Party brought in Rogernomics.  Of course critics who consider them right-wing will be on the Left, just as critics who call them left-wing will come from the Right.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But there are plenty of reputable sources with no obvious political orientation that call the party "center-left," so what you said doesn't stack up to the facts (again). I found political scientists and news articles from respected agencies. You found Marxists and editorials in the Guardian, and even they didn't say the party was right-wing.UberCryxic (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this has been discussed already. The sources you provided relate to Lib Dem policies mainly in their early days.  And you are unable to explain what "center-left" means yet for some reason think that we should mention the Lib Dems are center-left".  And you accept that they are centrist, which is a conflicting description.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus version calls them "centrist to center-left" to avoid the conflicting description you cited, among other reasons. The sources I've provided, once again, explicitly call the party center-left, and sometimes use other designations involving the word "left." Additionally, the vast majority of the sources are from the last decade and refer to Lib Dem ideology at that same time period, so your assertion that they refer to the early days of the party is incorrect. And again (you're right, all of this stuff has been discussed already!), it is not our job to determine what center-left means, but only to find reputable sources that identify the party as such.UberCryxic (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Although you're ignoring my comments above: I did say what I thought center-left meant (go review if you've forgotten), and right away I told you that it didn't matter.UberCryxic (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there is a lot to read through. What is the definition of "center-left"?  The Four Deuces (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad if there is a lot to read through. I will not play this game again with you. The last time we started this same conversation, we ended up totally off course. All editors here except you are in agreement about the lead. There is nothing else left to do.UberCryxic (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said before the term is ambiguous, you cannot provide a precise definition, none of your sources define the term, but you think it is important to call them "center-left". The Four Deuces (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, you're in a minority of one, and this debate is going nowhere. Drop it, please. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually several other editors have supported my position or rather I joined the conversation supporting their's. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We're just repeating ourselves at this point. You're asking me, and I think deliberately to provoke, the same thing you asked me a few days ago, and I would just give you the same response anyway. I feel bad that our differences are irreconcilable, but I have better things to do on Wikipedia than waste my time on this talk page. Take care.UberCryxic (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After all the discussion on this page and all the sources referenced and the proposals bandied about, I believe the current version of the lead is fine as it is.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a reference for that?
In the lead section of the article there is this statement "In spite of their environmental rhetoric, their local councilors have often defeated plans to build wind farms...". I think that something this strongly worded needs a reference, especially in the lead. As there are obviously many established editors already working on the article who have a much better understanding of the subject I ask one (or more) of you to help. If there are no reliable refs available I feel this line should be struck, or at the very least reworded, to remove the unsourced information. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again, as several people have done before. I want to work on more references in general, but my internet connection has gone so slow at the moment :( Peter 17:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting here the different claims made by 86.178.61.105 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) in italics, along with my comments, to allow 86.* to discuss them as repeatedly attempted:

-- Peter 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, LibDems appear not to accept other Wikipedia editors' liberty to add factually correct but politically embarrassing comments to this page. - This is clearly not appropriate for the article. We'd [Clarify: 'we' referring to Wikipedia editors as a group, not LibDems. - Peter 10:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)] allow factually correct information to be added, whether or not it was politically embarrassing, if there were verifiable sources for them, and they were presented in a neutral way.
 * Despite the party's environmentalist rhetoric, their local councillors have often opposed or defeated plans to build wind farms - wording needs improving, claim needs reference.
 * and have supported domestic waste incineration and the expansion of Manchester Airport, in line with their acceptance of increased growth in air traffic. - references needed.
 * The party also supported the extension of the M74 motorway in Scotland, and proposes to cut the price of petrol, by reducing fuel tax. - references needed.


 * I am also a little bemused as to why this needs to go in the lead of the article, and not in a more appropriate section on their policies generally... but barring the "ideology" subheading, there doesn't actually seem to be one. Hmm. Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well as far as the claim "...LibDems appear not to accept other Wikipedia editors' liberty to add factually correct but politically embarrassing comments to this page."; I can assure you I am not a "LibDem" as I am not even British. I am, in fact, a "Yank" who, happens to live in Japan and has very little real knowledge of the political situation in the UK. I do however have a bit of understanding of Wikipedia policy and I whole heartily agree with Peter's assessment of the issues above. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now supplied a reference to a webpage with a fairly exhaustive selection links to LibDem party websites and UK local newspapers objectively supporting the (reinstated and somewhat tempered) statements that I have added about the party's mixed, inconsistent record on environment matters. These exemplify the inconsistency between ideological policy statements and actual actions of the party.

I agree that the statement 'LibDems appear not to accept other Wikipedia editors' liberty ...' was ill-tempered and out of line for an encyclopedia article, and if it caused any offence I apologise, pleading only frustration at the suppression of facts. 86.176.236.186 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this site. It is a linkfarm with links to other sites, with no attribution, no stated selection policy, and no particular reason why it should be regarded as anything other than polemical. We tend to lean against such "aggregator" sites here because of those very weaknesses. For example, for every example it cites, there may well be a counter-example somewhere out there, but this website ignores that possibility. In short, it is patently biased, with no indication why. Now, it may be possible to construct arguments to impugn the Lib Dems' environmental credentials, but sites like this do not achieve that aim. Neither are we able to take differing sources and construct this ourselves. I think that unless and until an accepted reliable source does this for us, we cannot do it ourselves. Rodhull  andemu  22:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Introbox
The ideology section now says "Liberalism, Social liberalism, Market liberalism, and progressivism. This makes no sense and therefore I am removing all descriptions except "liberalism".  If someone wants to say that from an American view they are liberal or conservative or whatever that is fine but does not belong in the Introbox.  TFD (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fine with this change. Saying liberalism includes both the party's dominant social liberal factions and the minority market liberal wings. The lead takes care of the specifics anyway. UBER  ( talk ) 03:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the other way around? Clegg and Cable are both market liberals, IIRC; they're contributors to the Orange Book. Sceptre (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Progessism?
isnt progessisim, which they got from the SDP, one of the LDs ideologies in addision to overall liberalism?--75.94.196.171 (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The SDP was social democratic, not progressivist, and in any case their views were not incorporated into the new LDP. TFD (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

11th May 2010 I don't think there is any such thing as progressism! What is progress anyway? The Libdems have a rag-bag of inconsistent beliefs and principles borrowed from the right and left, none of which make any sense together. Their party is full of miscellaneous odd-bods. They claim to be interested in civil liberties, but ignore the major threat to these presented by EU legislation, such as the Stockholm Programme. Their leader, Nick Clegg, is an out-and-out crook. He ranks with Berlusconi for the shady ways he sneaked into power. I attempted to re-edit this article and make it less adulatory but (as people warned me always happens on Wikipedia) the Wiki-police immediately expunged every new fact I added. Clegg accepted £3.5 million in illegal donations to his party to fight this election. When confronted with the facts even on prime-time television, he did not dare to deny them, but brazenly went on insisting that other parties were more guilty! Britain's electoral commission may yet require his party to pay the money back. We'll see. THOSE FACTS SHOULD BE IN ANY OBJECTIVE NEUTRAL ARTICLE ABOUT HIM. He did also change his stance on many policies, even whether to have a nuclear weapon. During the leadership election he said he would keep it. After about eighteen months he changed his mind. Then he decided to say he would keep it for the time being! - a policy designed to attract voters from all sides. I call that vacillation. The Financial Times published a critique of Clegg's manifesto saying that it had a black hole in its financial calculations. He was making offers he cannot finance. Finally, how can this article say the Lib Dems have a deep commitment to constitutional reform when they have sold out on it at the first opportunity? When they were a small party, they used to advocate proportional representation. When they got bigger, they started to advocate PR only for parties with a minimum of 5%, or 10% or 15% of the votes. It got bigger all the time! Now at the first chance of making a deal with the Conservative party, they have ditched the whole idea of PR and have accepted merely a referendum on the AV system of voting. AV is not PR. I don't call that a deep commitment, I call it unprincipled behaviour, motivated by sheer opportunism at every point. HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriettaVanLaer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Progressivism is a part of modern American terminology and refers to the left-wing of the Democratic Party, e.g., the Progressive Democrats of America. Calling the LDP "progressive" is merely an attempt to understand them in American terms.  Ironically the Tories now call themselves "progressive conservatives".  So the term should not be applied.  However, remember that WP can only reflect what is reported in reputable sources.  Until mainstream media adopt your views of the LDP, they cannot be reflected here.  TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)                                                                                               ********************Henrietta Van Laer replies:- I am surprised you are unaware that these  facts have all been reported already in the UK "mainstream media". For example:- "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7616526/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-the-Lib-Dem-donors-and-payments-into-his-private-bank-account.html

Nick Clegg received a series of payments from party donors directly into his private bank account, totalling £20,000. The Liberal Democrat leader was paid regular monthly sums by three senior businessmen during 2006. The same account was used to pay his mortgage, shopping and other personal expenditure, documents seen by this newspaper show. •	Clegg admits £20,000 was paid into his account The businessmen bankrolling Mr Clegg were Ian Wright, a senior executive at the drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at the accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold mining executive. All are registered as Liberal Democrat donors. Records of Mr Clegg’s personal bank account show the three men each paid up to £250 a month into the account. The Liberal Democrat leader is likely to face questions over the arrangement. MPs have historically sought to distance party donors from their personal finances to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Last night Mr Clegg denied the money had been used for his own personal spending and said that it had subsidised his parliamentary work. Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee of standards in public life, described the arrangement as “irregular”. “Given that he’s been very holier than thou about these things, it would seem he has some explaining to do to his party and the electorate,” Sir Alistair said. “One would expect donations to be paid to a party account – that would be the most straightforward arrangement. It would now make sense for someone independent to check these accounts.” Martin Bell, the broadcaster and former independent anti-sleaze MP, said the payments raised issues about Liberal Democrat funding. “There are clearly questions to answer here,” Mr Bell said. “Nick Clegg needs to show us that this arrangement was all above board and legitimate.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/19/liberaldemocrats-donors-corruption

One of the Liberal Democrats' most generous donors has been accused of accepting tens of millions of pounds in kickbacks from an arms deal between an Israeli company and the Indian government. Sudhir Choudhrie, who has personally donated £95,000 to the party and whose relatives' companies have donated a further £475,000, was named as a key arms broker in foreign reports. The allegations have been rejected by Choudhrie, an Indian citizen based in Chelsea, west London. A source close to the family denies that he has ever profited from the arms industry. This is the second time that Choudhrie, 59, has been accused of being paid an illegal commission from a major arms deal in India. The allegations are said to be politically motivated, and to coincide with the country's general election. The timing of the allegations is embarrassing for Nick Clegg, the party leader, who called for a curb of the arms trade and a boycott of sales of arms to Israel earlier this year. The claims that one of their donors is an arms broker will concern senior Liberal Democrats, who are still smarting from the exposure of their biggest ever donor, Michael Brown, as a convicted serial fraudster in 2006. The party may yet be forced by the Electoral Commission to pay back £2.4m it received from Brown's non-trading company, 5th Avenue Partners, and is awaiting the outcome of an inquiry. The Mumbai-based newspaper DNA has alleged that Choudhrie was paid a share of £80.5m in illegal business charges from the sale of medium-range surface-to-air missiles by an Israeli company to the Indian government. Payments were supposedly part of a £1.3bn deal struck in January between the Indian defence ministry and the arms company Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), DNA claimed. The use of middle men to facilitate an arms deal is banned under Indian law. Choudhrie was also named as a key broker between the Israel defence industry and India by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz Indian police are investigating the deal, according to media reports. The businessman was previously implicated in a police inquiry into kickbacks from another Indian arms deal with the same Israeli company, in 2006, but Choudhrie was not charged with any offence. An Indian Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry revealed that Choudhrie and his companies "received a number of suspected remittances to the tune of millions of dollars from IAI Israel during the year 1998 to 2001". It suggested that IAI had a close relationship with two of Choudhrie's companies - Magnum International Trading Co and Eureka Sales Corporation. Sources close to the family believe that Choudhrie is the victim of a campaign to discredit him. "These allegations, as well as the ones from earlier, are completely and utterly unfounded. He has never been involved in arms deals of any sort," said a source. "He did have a role in Magnum but the company was involved in the export of tea and car parts, while Eureka was involved in building ships in Singapore. The confusion may have arisen because an Israeli company that Magnum once had business links with later became an arms company," he added. Choudhrie is believed to have moved to Britain in 2002 with his wife and lives in a £4m apartment in Chelsea. He first donated £50,000 to the Lib Dems in August 2006 and has followed this up with payments of £25,000 and £20,000. Two companies controlled by Choudhrie's son Bhanu and his nephew Dhruv - Alpha Healthcare and C&C Business Solutions - have donated a total of £475,000 to the Lib Dems. Choudhrie and his son are known to be non domiciled for tax purposes and base many of their business interests in tax havens, where businesses do not have to declare their accounts publicly. A Lib Dem spokesman declined to comment."HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more fun
It's little more than a curiosity at this point since we've established the Lib Dems are a party of the left, but just to further drive home the point, here is Nick Clegg back in September 2009:

We are totally different to the Conservatives

We stand for the progressive hopes that have been betrayed in the past 10 years, and I believe we can replace Labour over time.

Very centrist indeed.UberCryxic (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "we've established the Lib Dems are a party of the left"


 * Really? I thought it was centre-left? There is a difference.


 * We are totally different to the Conservatives


 * This could mean anything, that they're more libertarian, pro-European - indeed it's probably meant to be vague and catch-all.


 * We stand for the progressive hopes that have been betrayed in the past 10 years, and I believe we can replace Labour over time.


 * 'Progressive'? Isn't everyone? Who runs for office on the promise to be reactionary? Replace Labour as the main opposition party to the Tories, that's been their strategy since at least the 1970's. It doesn't mean Clegg, Cable etc want the Lib Dems to become, like Labour, a party of the left.


 * 'Very centrist indeed.'


 * Yes, very centrist indeed! Haldraper (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See, your statements above are a brilliant example of propaganda combined marvelously with original research....and some bullshit on the side, like the (spin)doctor ordered. The quasi-rational person would interpret "replace Labour over time" as meaning that the Lib Dems intend to become the main party of the center-left, replicating the strategy that Labour used to defeat the Liberals back in the early 20th century. The quasi-rational person would interpret "different to the Conservatives" as meaning that the Lib Dems cherish values and beliefs antithetical to the Tory cause. "One" would normally think that's the kind of message Clegg was trying to get across to left-wing voters: Labour has failed you, and it's time to join our side now. That's pretty much how the pundit class is interpreting the Lib Dem campaign strategy.


 * Last I checked, no...not everyone is progressive. But I'm sure if you repeat it long enough, like all your other lies, it'll become true. It worked for Bush with Iraq! Why give up now, right?UberCryxic (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There go those goalposts again! My point was that none of the quotes from that article prove what you say they do, that "the Lib Dems are a party of the left". Can you point me to one that does?


 * I admit some of my comments are based on personal experience of the Lib Dems, something you and Sparrowhawk both lack.


 * I live in a constituency represented by a Lib Dem MP which is a marginal seat near the top of the Tories target list. The local council is also run by the Lib Dems with the Tories as the opposition.


 * Neither the council or the MP could remotely be described as being "of the left": in their policies, election materials and speeeches, they go out of their way to stress their centrism/'neither left nor right', progressive but responsible, how fiscally conservative the council is under their leadership. Hardly surprising given they depend on ex-Tory voters to keep in office. If you turned up claiming they were "a party of the left", they'd soon arrange to have you driven home!


 * I find it ironic that a North American editor with very little feel for how the Lib Dems operate politically on the ground can accuse someone who regularly corresponds with his local Lib Dem MP, chats to him when he comes round canvassing, reads the election leaflets he put outs and his speeches in Parliament of "bullshit". Haldraper (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would avoid the term "center-left" which is ambiguous. It can mean the left section of centrism, the right section of the Left, a position between the two or a coalition of the Center and the Left (e.g., a Liberal-Labour coaltion).  The fact that the Lib Dems are members of the Liberal International and see Keynes and Beveridge as part of their heritage clearly establishes them as a liberal rather than left-wing party.  The fact that they still retain a sizeable old style liberal section (the section to which Margaret Thatcher's father belonged) does not help.  The fact that liberal parties appeal to left and right does not mean that they are left or right.  They offer Tory efficiency and Labour compassion.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree Four Deuces: I found academic sources from 2005 and 2008 that describe them as "a centrist party" and "centrist and radical" which were both deleted by editors who have pushed through centre-left - one of whom has now started saying they are "a party of the left". They are both Americans, I don't think they can get their heads around the fact that a party that believes in publicly-funded healthcare and higher education isn't automatically on the left of the political spectrum in Britain as it would be in the US.


 * You make a good point about the right wing, free market liberals whose numbers include Clegg, Cable and Laws (something else one of our American friends deleted all reference to in the lead as 'not worth mentioning'). This page is going to look pretty silly if in a couple of months if the Lib Dems end up in a coalition with the Tories slashing public spending and welfare benefits. Haldraper (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Their constitution reflects liberal values as well: "the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary".  Their membership form clearly positions themselves between the part of big business and party of labor:  "we can't count on big business or trade union funds like the other parties".  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, classically centrist, 'neither left nor right' stuff. As I say, I've even got up to date, reliable academic sources that say exactly this but the North American POV-pushers won't hear of it. I think we just reopened the discussion though! Haldraper (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Deuces, why do you see a fundamental contradiction between 'liberal' and 'center-left'? Liberal parties can be both liberal (obviously) and center-left (prominent examples are Libs in Canada, Libs in Philippines, Libs in Colombia, Radical Libs in Paraguay, and scores of liberal parties throughout Europe), or sometimes they can be center-right (like Libs in Australia or Lib Dems in Japan)! I'd hate to just blatantly call you out on original research, but that's exactly what you're doing.


 * You also claim we should avoid 'center-left' because it's ambiguous, but the reputable sources on which we're supposed to base this article clearly disagree with you. They use the term like an old, dirty rag. It pops up all over the literature on the party. How can you say with a straight face we should ignore it? Whitewashing much? What the term "means" is not up for us to decide, but to the sources, and just because we cannot reach a clear understanding of the term doesn't make it any less valid for inclusion in this article.


 * Also let's be certain about one thing here: Haldraper is challenging over a dozen reputable sources (around 15) with one or two of his own. The deck is stacked against you mon ami. The weight of the evidence leans in favor of identifying the party as center-left.UberCryxic (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haldraper, an outside voice who is not intimately involved with the organization is sometimes exactly what's needed to provide clarity and impartiality on Wikipedia. I've never lived in Britain and I've never directly interacted with the Lib Dems, but the fact that you have done those things does not give you the intrinsic advantages you think it should. At the very least, it would be an anecdotal fallacy to extricate the ideological orientation of the party from one political district. The scholars and pundits who wrote those books and articles did so for the entire party, not for Haldraper's neighborhood.UberCryxic (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also Deuces, if we cherry pick the Lib Dem constitution like you did, yes you can make them out to seem like anything. The same is true for every other party in the world that you analyze with that kind of restricted lens. But if you look at the totality of the party (its commitment to environmental protection and reduction of harmful emissions, its commitment to social justice and civil rights for women and minorities, its basic commitment to a strong welfare state, its approach to a multilateral foreign policy) you see very clearly that they are a social liberal party.UberCryxic (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologise UberCryxic, living in America and reading books about them clearly qualifies you as an expert on the Lib Dems unlike me who only has day-to-day experience of them as local politicians.


 * Cherry-picking? You'd never suppress sources that didn't fit your POV or selectively quote from a single phrase like 'centrist/centre-left' now would you? I guess the rest of us will just have to struggle on with our 'restricted lenses' while you as an 'outside voice' magisterially pronounce on the 'totality of the party' from across several thousand miles of ocean. Haldraper (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you done with the condescension now? Are you happy that you got all of that out of your system? If you'll be serious for one moment, you'll notice no one is claiming to be an expert on this subject. That's one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia: we need to cite the experts, but we don't need to be the experts. I picked selectively from one source, but the others were unambiguous. If I was using only that source to claim the party is center-left, obviously we'd have a problem. But I'm not. I'm using over a dozen others on top of that one.UberCryxic (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * UberCryxic, if you believe that "centre-left" has a clear meaning could you please provide a source. A quick search of Google scholar shows that it refers to left-wing parties moving toward the center or a coalition of of liberals with the Left.  The most relevant hit is The Progressive Century: The Future of the Centre-Left in Britain (2001) which is about how Labour tries to "unite the strands of social democracy and liberalism"(i.e., Left and Center).  I do not find any of the sources provided helpful.  As for the examples from other countries, it is better to keep the discussion focused on the UK.  However the Liberal Party of Canada describes bitself as centrist and the Colombian Liberal Party is a member of the Socialist International.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You completely misunderstood my argument, or you just didn't read what I actually wrote. It doesn't matter what the meaning of center-left is. That's not up for you or I to decide. What matters is that reputable sources are overwhelmingly (latest example below) classifying the Liberal Democrats as a center-left party. Now, if this were a political philosophy club, I could give you a meaning for center-left, and back it up with some sources, but I don't think that's relevant for this article.UberCryxic (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And as you said, I don't want to start talking about other parties here, but secondary sources, which take priority in Wikipedia, overwhelmingly describe the Liberals in Canada as center-left as well. Mentioning the Colombian Liberals just proves my point: they're a center-left liberal party going back to the old Latin American tradition of liberalism mixing with left-wing politics.UberCryxic (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And as long as I'm giving political lectures, let me also say that liberalism worldwide, although showing both leftist and rightist currents, is predominantly on the center-left at this moment in time. In Britain, liberalism as an ideology is understood as being on the center-left of the political spectrum ever since the rise of the New Liberals in the early 20th century.UberCryxic (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see any purpose in saying that the Lib Dems are center-left if the source does not explain what center-left means, especially considering that the term may have different meanings. BTW the latest source you provided refers to paper by Jones in 1996.  Do you any further information on the paper?  I think the main problem is that the US does not have a major left-wing party so they tend call reform-minded liberals "the Left".  We could say that the Lib Dems are left-wing from an American perspective, but then we would probably have to call the Tories left-wing as well.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do believe you're joking. As the Tories do not even embrace modern liberal economic theory (they're going on with right-wing tripe about reducing deficits in economically difficult times), I struggle to understand how you can call them left-wing. They're more moderate than the Republicans in the US, sure, but under few circumstances, if any, should they be placed on the left. After all, the right here in the US is crazy to the point of being fascist, so who isn't more moderate than the Republicans? And again, your fundamental assumptions are flawed. In Britain, liberalism is an ideology of the center-left. I don't know how much more plainly one can say it.


 * Since you brought it up, some of the sources actually do explain what center-left means. For example, one above was talking about the union of liberalism with social democracy to argue that the Lib Dems had center-left socioeconomic policies. Defining what center-left means, however, is an objective of that article, not this one! Based on the sources presented here and my general knowledge on the subject, the center-left essentially refers to either modern liberalism or social democracy in a global context.UberCryxic (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And no I don't have the Jones paper/book, but we don't really need it. We have a perfectly reputable source explaining what Jones said. I'd like to have it, don't get me wrong, but it's just not needed. And either way the book refers to the Lib Dems as center-left in a passage that doesn't involve Jones, so that's not a problem at all.UberCryxic (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The union of social democracy with liberalism is a union between the class-conscious anti-capitalist Left with the middle class reformist Centre. It is often difficult for Americans to see that conservatism, liberalism and socialism are three distinct ideologies and try to view them as two ideologies with the dividing line going somewhere through the middle of liberalism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well first thing's first: I'm not American. I'm an Albanian who lives in the US. Second thing's second: what are you talking about? I have no problem viewing the aforementioned ideologies as separate and distinct. I don't know if that was a shot at me or you were explaining something in general. Now you asked me what the center-left was and I answered you. If you really want to get into this hardcore, I have no problem. These are some quick and basic definitions everyone should have in mind....

Left: Sociopolitical movement that aims to change or transform the basic structures of human civilization.

Right: Sociopolitical movement that aims to preserve the traditional structures of human civilization.

Ideology: A worldview about human affairs that emphasizes social transformation for reasons other than forced circumstances.

Radicalism: Ideology that emphasizes fundamental and generational social transformation.

Liberalism: Ideology that emphasizes belief in individual liberty.

Conservatism: Negation of ideology (per Chateaubriand, Kirk, etc), almost exclusively right-wing.

Social Democracy: Moderate form of socialism that supports liberal democracy, almost exclusively left-wing.

Social Liberalism: Ideology that specifically emphasizes positive liberty, almost exclusively left-wing.

Center-left: Multiple definitions could apply. Could refer to either social liberalism or social democracy, or simply the non-radical elements of the left (that is, those elements that want to change society gradually, not necessarily through sweeping or revolutionary methods).

Center-right: Like the right, just less (allegedly) crazy.

Center: Absolutely vague and meaningless term that essentially means and implies nothing, frequently used by politicians to avoid giving a good answer. That's what my cynical yet deadly-accurate self would say. My more academic self would answer "who the hell knows?"

These are the assumptions that I'm working under, although ultimately, like I've said before, none of this matters. The sources, which are what matters, are treating the combination of liberalism and social democracy as a center-left phenomenon with the Lib Dems in Britain.UberCryxic (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather incoveniently for you UberCryxic, New Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are all advocating what you call "right-wing tripe about reducing deficits in economically difficult times", not that I think for one moment this fact will lead you to reconsider your relentless POV-pushing. Haldraper (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ....as a long-term strategy once the economy is out of the ditch. Brown hammers Cameron in every PMQ session about how the Conservatives want to start reducing the deficit too soon. The point is that Keynesian (ie. modern liberal) economics suggests that the current gap in output needs to be covered by deficit spending, and only the Tories are confused about that fundamental truth.UberCryxic (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, modern liberals do support reducing deficits in economically productive times, and have actually done it successfully (refer to Clinton in the US and to Libs in Canada during their last period in power). These are not those times, however.UberCryxic (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes." (The Web of Government (1947) Robert M. MacIver)  I question some of your definitions:  conservatism is not the negation of ideology, even if they say it is, social liberalism is not left-wing and the Centre is a clear position distinct from left and right.  This may not translate to the US, which has a two-party system. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ok so even if Chateaubriand (who coined the term 'conservative' and defined it explicitly) or Russell Kirk say that's what conservatism is, that's (apparently) not what conservatism is because Deuces says so. In other words, some of the greatest conservative scholars in modern history are confused. I wonder why, Deuces, you even bother looking for sources when you obviously could care less about them. You can give many alternative definitions for conservatism, but ultimately they all boil down to that one. The same thing applies to the definition you quoted for right-wing: the right supports class hierarchies, ergo they prop up the wealthy and try to sabotage the lower classes. In supporting the wealthy, they are supporting traditional social structures that subsumed large groups in a society under a manipulative aristocratic order. That definition is perfectly consistent with what I wrote, only mine is more general and expansive. How is social liberalism not (mainly) leftist, or at the very least center-left? The dominant movements of social liberalism (in Britain, in the US, in Canada, but pretty much everywhere in the world where they happened) are generally center-left.UberCryxic (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that social liberalism is left-wing? What do you think left-wing means?  It seems you have redefined the Left to include social liberalism, which is the basis of your argument social liberalism is left-wing.  Incidentally my views on what conservatism means are consistent with how it described in the source I provided, and also with mainstream sources.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, incidentally, you're wrong. Modern conservatism is overwhelmingly defined and described as Burke, Chateaubriand, and Kirk conceived it (why would it be anything else, for the fake heaven's sake that doesn't exist, considering these are the most prominent conservative thinkers?). The opposition to ideological change is fundamentally what has driven modern conservatism to resist the left for over two centuries, ever since the French Revolution. How exactly have I redefined the left? That's what being a leftist means, in general: someone who wants to change the world. I understand that's vague, but the specifics come in with the different leftist ideologies. A (leftist) liberal wants to change the world according to liberal principles, a socialist according to socialist principles, a feminist according to feminist principles, and so on. Sometimes those principles converge, sometimes they don't. There's a lot of diversity within the left.UberCryxic (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you are reading something into social liberalism which is not there. They were trying to prevent change, viz., the threat of revolutionary socialism and the social destruction caused by classical liberal policies.  In fact their policies were pioneered by the Prussians and foreshadowed by the Tories.  The term "the Left" was not applied to ideologies until the establishment of socialism and was never applied to liberals.  Consider these books:  Forging democracy: the history of the Left in Europe, 1850-2000,, The history of the left from Marx to the present: theoretical perspectives, Learning from the left: children's literature, the Cold War, and radical politics in the United States,  There are Americans who believe that American liberals have a hidden agenda to turn the US into a socialist state, which would make them secretly left-wing, but it is not a mainstream view.
 * The conservative claim to not have an ideology was disputed by non-conservatives, but Thatcher actually told Ian Gilmour that in future they would have an ideology too. Gilmour accused Thatcher of betraying conservatism and of adopting neoliberalism.  (See:  Dancing with dogma.)
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you'll never find a reliable source saying the Liberals/Lib Dems are 'on the left'. In fact, Thatcher with her free market mantra was a classic nineteenth century Gladstonian Liberal. Haldraper (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I already have, or are you not paying attention to anything that's going on in this talk page? I have found sources that refer to the party as left-liberal and center-left. Now if, driven by some misguided sense of linguistic perfection, you're looking for a source that says "on the left," well that would be a completely arbitrary and stupid standard that no rational person would agree to meet.UberCryxic (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh Deuces, here we go again. We had this conversation before, I think, and it didn't end too well for you my friend. Now you're again claiming that social liberal policies were pioneered by conservatives. Well if you're looking for pioneers you might as well go all the way back to the French Revolution itself, in which the liberal government drafted a constitution that created (essentially) the first welfare state. Title I of the 1791 Constitution:


 * A general establishment for public relief shall be created and organized to raise foundlings, relieve the infirm poor, and furnish work for the able-bodied poor who have been unable to procure it for themselves.


 * That's from The Old Regime and the French Revolution (1987 ed), which is a text of primary sources that I have. Now no one called it "new liberalism" or "modern liberalism" or "social liberalism" back then, but that's essentially what it was. I don't know why you keep coming back to that thoroughly discredited point. The antithesis of the modern world (in all its forms) is conservatism, and it obviously never pioneered anything to do with social liberalism.UberCryxic (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the Revolution, liberalism, and the left, refer to my responses in the next section.UberCryxic (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You continue to provide sources that are contradictory, unreliable or out of context. Surely you can see that there is a difference between the ideology of the upper class, which is Conservatism, and the ideology of American hillbillies who for some reason call themselves conservatives.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How are the Americans entering into this picture? No one even mentioned the Americans (except you). Chateaubriand was not an American last time I checked. Kirk definitely was, but his influence extended well beyond America. The definition of conservatism that I've presented is backed both by the original thinkers (ie. Burke, Chateaubriand, de Maistre) and secondary scholarly sources. I cannot possibly understand what you're objecting to. What is so hard to comprehend about the following?


 * The French Revolution and the new ideological style of politics


 * The term 'conservative' was first used in its distinctively modern sense in this context - i.e. to indicate a political position opposed to ideological politics - when Chateaubriand (1768-1848) gave the name Conservateur to a journal he issued in order to resist the spread of the new politics, and especially the democratic ideas which were its main manifestation. The name was soon taken up by many other groups that opposed the progress of democracy, in its more radical forms at least. In the USA, for example, the American national republicans were calling themselves 'conservatives' by 1830, and this term was used to describe the British Tory party in 1932.


 * The conservative critique of the new ideological style of politics inspired by the French Revolution centred on the optimistic belief underlying it, according to which human reason and will are sufficiently powerful for us to be able to shape history in accordance with whatever ideals we may feel inspired to adopt.


 * During the nineteenth century, the most influential vehicle for revolutionary optimism was liberalism, and conservative doctrine was consequently shaped primarily by the need to meet the challenge posed by liberal defenders of the democratic ideal. During the twentieth century, however, socialism replaced liberalism as the principle vehicle of radicalism, and it is in opposition to this new enemy that conservative doctrine has therefore mainly been defined in our age.UberCryxic (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about Russell Kirk? Do you think that he was a conservative?  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * W....T......F? You mean to tell me you do not think he was a conservative? Oh this will be good. I'm all ears.UberCryxic (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Americans suffer from spectrum envy. Other countries have Tories and left-wingers, so must we, by gosh, we are Americans.  Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin are in the same league with Disraeli?  Please.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Master Deuces, Russell was a conservative philosopher in his beliefs, which widely mirrored those of Burke. In fact, Russell was an avid follower of Burke. Now, the kind of conservatism that he espoused was heavily influenced by liberalism, no doubt, but that doesn't undercut the underlying and fundamental nature of his conservatism. "Conservatism is the negation of ideology," said Kirk, and he was right!UberCryxic (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirk's views are considered fringe, and are in opposition to mainstream history. But even if you accept his views, he thought that the last conservative president was Adams and that conservatism died in the South with the Civil War, and the Whigs were never conservatives.  And your view of the French Revolution establishing the first welfare state is fringe.  Assistance to the poor had long existed, but state health, accident and disability insurance, and unemployment insurance and old age pensions were never introduced by the Jacobins.  (P.S. - do they still call people "Master" in Virginia?)  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Master Deuces, Russell Kirk is pretty much the most mainstream conservative thinker in modern history. The mere fact that you called his views "fringe" is revealing a great a deal, I think, about how well you know this subject (read: not well). And the 1791 Constitution was not written by the Jacobins, so I don't know how they came into our debate. However, if you take the time to perform that activity called 'reading' once more, you'll find that the Constitution speaks about putting the poor to work, not just giving them assistance. In other words, some of the fundamental ideas in the Constitution (certainly not all, don't misconstrue my message) are effectively social liberal economic policies, although obviously they would not have been recognized as such back then. Why are you asking about Virginia? Do you not like the title Master Deuces? In that case, would you prefer it if I called you Captain Dunce instead? I'm just trying to find the proper honorific. I think the last one suits you well.UberCryxic (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to discuss issues with you when you are unwilling to read any of the source material. Your knowledge of conservatism seems to come from Young Americans for Freedom.  I can provide numerous writers about conservatism who contradict your view of Kirk - Louis Hartz, Morton Auerbach, George Grant, Gad Horowitz, Lipset, Peter Viereck, Frank S. Meyer, Hayek, Ayn Rand, Rossiter, Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, Robert Altemeyer.  But why read them when you can watch Fox News.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You did not answer what you prefer to be called. Choose carefully! Conservatism (or the right) as you defined it--a movement that supports the interests of the upper classes--is effectively the same thing, once you untangle the consequences of that statement, as the opposition to ideological change or the negation of ideology. As I explained before, in opposing ideological change, conservatives set up a socioeconomic and political environment that favors certain elite groups above others, whether it's the wealthy over the poor, men over women, or ethnic majorities over ethnic minorities. We're talking about the same thing, only you're too [use your imagination] to realize it.UberCryxic (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should avoid personal attacks which are beneath you. Since you appear to have no interest in reasonable discussion I see no further need to continue.  It is unfortunate that you approach these topics with a rigidity that you would never use in the study of physics or military history.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm very rigid in my approach to physics as well. I'm a hardass, what can I say....UberCryxic (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010

(UTC)********************HENRIETTA VAN LAER comments: the main reasons this discussion is not going anywhere are that (a) the terms are woolly and confused and (b) it is not referring back anywhere to specific policies in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Example: the LDs have long said that they want to abolish private schools. That is a socialist policy. Yet they claim they are in favour of civil liberties. Civil liberties include the right to choose one's child's education, indeed that is regarded as a human right by international standards. Total government control of education is a dangerous weapon, just as total control of the media is. Hitler used both very effectively. Read down through the whole LD manifesto and you find many similar contradictions. "Social liberalism" - another woolly term. It means we're ever such nice people, you couldn't possibly believe we are corrupt, law-bending opportunistic money-grabbing etc etc, could you? Not unless you are over the age of thirty-five maybe, and know a little more about the world.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even more fun
Once again, here we have another reputable source blatantly contradicting Haldraper...

Mair et al., Political parties and electoral change: party responses to electoral markets (2004)

I just love this source so much, so pay attention closely....

p. 26

''It should be said that questions of strategic manoeuvring and the breadth of electoral appeal have become increasingly bound up with the emergence of minor parties since 1970. For there is little doubt that centre parties, which in truth are centre Left parties in the British case (that is, either social democratic or social liberal: Jones 1996), have become serious competitors of Labour in particular.''

p. 35

Moreover, Labour's renewed pursuit of the median voter has brought the party even closer to the left-of-centre Liberal Democrats on many issues, a situation which creates possibilities both for greater competition and/or cooperation between the two.

Please please please I dare you to try and spin this one! I can't wait for your latest efforts, Haldraper. Make my day, go ahead: lie, manipulate, and pull things out of you know where to satisfy your skewed version of reality.UberCryxic (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we're up to....12 books and 4 recent articles that strongly or explicitly (most explicitly) classify the party as a social liberal, center-left institution. We're arguing about.....what????UberCryxic (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And another book (mostly about Australian politics though), this one varying the prose a little bit, calling the Liberal Democrats "left-liberal"....

Greg Barns What's wrong with the Liberal Party? (2003)

p. 129

The venerable Economist magazine is not usually a friend of left-liberal parties such as the UK's Liberal Democrats.

Hmm. Perhaps we might need to call them leftist after all! Let's see how many references I can find for that.UberCryxic (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm ahead of you UberCryxic, they're all from Tory blogs :-) Haldraper (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I love this statement so much, so I'm just going to randomly repeat it in the talk page.


 * It should be said that questions of strategic manoeuvring and the breadth of electoral appeal have become increasingly bound up with the emergence of minor parties since 1970. For there is little doubt that centre parties, which in truth are centre Left parties in the British case (that is, either social democratic or social liberal: Jones 1996), have become serious competitors of Labour in particular.


 * Hmm....the truth is so refreshing. Seriously isn't that a pretty cool find Haldraper? Like, doesn't it go against everything (literally) you've been saying? Haven't I just blown your mind? Even you should be impressed.UberCryxic (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haldraper, can you please tell Wikipedia what it feels like to be contradicted by three political scientists?


 * Peter Mair is Professor of Comparative Politics at Leiden University.


 * Wolfgang C. M ller is Professor of Political Science at the University of Mannheim and previously taught at the University of Vienna.


 * Fritz Plasser is Professor of Political Science at the University of Innsbruck.UberCryxic (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the Lib Dem website where they discuss their position on the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you forgot the link, but does it matter? As the great Deuces said in the fascism talk page about precisely these kinds of issues:


 * Normally secondary sources should be used - writngs by scholars of fascism rather than by fascists themselves.


 * I rest my case?UberCryxic (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said normally - there is a difference between Liberal Democrats and Fascists - Lib Dems are more reliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ok. So you mean it wasn't like a rigorous standard that should be applied across Wikipedia? It was more like some contrived standard that differs from article to article depending on your mood? Good standard. That's exactly how we build a reliable encyclopedia.UberCryxic (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yawn, 1996, none of it specifically calling the Lib Dems centre-left never mind left-wing, is that the best you can come up with?


 * To answer your questions:


 * 'Seriously isn't that a pretty cool find Haldraper?' No; see above


 * 'Like, doesn't it go against everything (literally) you've been saying?': I think there's a 'dude' or 'man' missing here, you seem to have relocated to the West Coast.


 * 'Haven't I just blown your mind?' No, and given your intellectual wattage appears equivalent to that of the old East German electricity system I think it's unlikely you'll ever manage to do so.


 * 'can you please tell Wikipedia what it feels like to be contradicted by three political scientists?' I'll let you know if it ever happens.
 * Haldraper (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? The source above is from 2004 and says explicitly that the Lib Dems are center-left. Blatant lying is something...even for you.UberCryxic (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I can tell that you obviously have a strong aversion for books or articles. Maybe you like encyclopedias better. Here's Britannica on the Lib Dems:

''British political party founded in 1988 through a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, or SDP. In the middle ground between the dominant Labour Party and the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats occupy a centre-left, libertarian position.''

Very curious. That's 17 reputable sources now (that I've collected).UberCryxic (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * UberCryxic, do you think libertarians are center-left? Here's a mention of the Liberals in Introduction to British politics:  "By the 1980s, the Liberal Party had lost most of its original grounding in classical liberalism and had become firmly centrist....  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Libertarians are an interesting lot, mainly because they are little more than classical liberals who for some reason decided to come up with a new name for their beliefs (kind of like how Western conservatives started saying limited government and individual liberties were conservative principles, an absolutely stunning claim for its bravado). What we do know is that, by and large, classical liberals in the 19th century were not only center-left, but in many cases flatly radical leftists. In particular, liberalism in Latin America was completely radical. There was no difference between radicalism and liberalism in that region for an entire century. Liberals crippled the power of the Catholic Church and violently overthrew or fought against conservative regimes in country after country (see Liberal Revolution of 1895 in Ecuador for one example). In Europe, classical liberals differed tremendously. Some were radicals, like in Spain, where they repeatedly overthrew monarchies (in 1820, in 1868, etc). Others, especially those in Central Europe, were supportive of constitutional monarchies and were less revolutionary, although they were still leftists, being the primary movers behind the 1848 revolutions. So why am I going over all this stuff? I'm trying to argue that historical context, and not the content of their beliefs, is what significantly differentiates libertarians and classical liberals. Classical liberals still lived in a predominantly conservative world that many thought could only be overturned through violent activism. In other words, they were the hard, radical, and far left until they were replaced by anarchists, socialists, and communists in that department later in the 19th century. Libertarians had the privilege of growing up in a world constructed by those liberals, and so they had less incentive to show the same kind of propensity towards radicalism. In some countries, libertarians are considered center-left, and center-right in others. Judging solely from the content of their beliefs, and refusing to look at the movements themselves, I would say libertarians are to the left of center. But again, take that judgment with a grain of salt.UberCryxic (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The classical liberals and radicals were never left-wing even though they opposed conservatives and conservative liberals. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ??!?!? Of course they were. Liberalism was the dominant current of the left in the 19th century, to say nothing of the fact that radical liberals in the French Revolution founded and defined the left. "Left" by itself means nothing without liberalism. "Liberty, equality, fraternity" is a liberal motto, as well as the motto of the entire progressive and modern world, in some sense.UberCryxic (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And even if you disagree with that interpretation Deuces, take up your allegations of contradiction with Britannica. They're the ones who made the claim. I don't know why you want me to respond on behalf of Britannica's statements. I promise you I'm not their spokesperson.UberCryxic (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Deuces, as to your source above, it's a perfectly great source and I have absolutely nothing against it. Haldraper might have complained that it's a decade old or something, but I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that reputable sources disagree on this subject. It's a very common phenomenon on many topics and I've come across it several times in Wikipedia. What I'm arguing, however, is that the weight of the evidence leans towards identifying the Lib Dems as a progressive, center-left, social liberal party. In other words, you've presented a minority viewpoint. I acknowledge that viewpoint, but it doesn't deserve prominent coverage in the article. I appreciate your one great source, and counter it with my 17 greater ones.UberCryxic (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * " radical liberals in the French Revolution founded and defined the left"? Really? How about Gracchus Babeuf and Henri de Saint-Simon, both founders of the socialist movement on the left-wing of the French revolution in the 1790's? I will be impressed if you can find a source that describes them as 'liberals', radical or otherwise. Off you go! Even more fun, eh? Haldraper (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for 17 poor sources rather than 1 good one. Citing so many sources is really original research where we say that 17 people have called them center-left therefore we can say they have been called center-left.  What is needed is a quality reliable source about either the ideology of the LDP or about center-left ideology.  The discussion reminds me of Fascism, where some writers will google fascism+left-wing and get numerous hits that other editors are supposed to sift through.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, your claims are absurd as I never referenced Babeuf, who was obviously a protocommunist, not a liberal. Babeuf was an inspiration to future leftists, but he himself did not initiate any great left-wing movement. The terms "left" and "right" started from the divisions in the French assembly, with (initially) the monarchist Feuillaints sitting on the right and various liberal groups on the left. They became amplified later with the Jacobins and the Girondists, who were both liberal groups that differed mostly over their approach to politics (Jacobins were activists who accused the Girondists of being too theoretical and intellectual). Let's start with some basics, since I'm noticing profound ignorance on the subject both from you and Deuces, who needs to pay attention as well....

Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright Contemporary political ideologies (1999)

p. 52

The French Revolution and the new ideological style of politics

''The term 'conservative' was first used in its distinctively modern sense in this context - i.e. to indicate a political position opposed to ideological politics - when Chateaubriand (1768-1848) gave the name Conservateur to a journal he issued in order to resist the spread of the new politics, and especially the democratic ideas which were its main manifestation. The name was soon taken up by many other groups that opposed the progress of democracy, in its more radical forms at least. In the USA, for example, the American national republicans were calling themselves 'conservatives' by 1830, and this term was used to describe the British Tory party in 1932.''

The conservative critique of the new ideological style of politics inspired by the French Revolution centred on the optimistic belief underlying it, according to which human reason and will are sufficiently powerful for us to be able to shape history in accordance with whatever ideals we may feel inspired to adopt.

''During the nineteenth century, the most influential vehicle for revolutionary optimism was liberalism, and conservative doctrine was consequently shaped primarily by the need to meet the challenge posed by liberal defenders of the democratic ideal. During the twentieth century, however, socialism replaced liberalism as the principle vehicle of radicalism, and it is in opposition to this new enemy that conservative doctrine has therefore mainly been defined in our age.''

This source says basically everything I said to Deuces above.

Deuces, please start paying attention to what other people write. I already told you that some of those sources called the party center-left and explained what they meant by that term. If you disagree with their interpretation, then we have another problem. But don't say those sources aren't there. However, as I've explained before, this silly standard that the sources must explain what center-left means doesn't pass your own original research claims. Instead of sabotaging the integrity of the sources with your own bias, how about you simply accept their explicit claims? Come on, this isn't difficult.UberCryxic (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Deuces, the analogy to the fascism article is ridiculous and you know it. The people who claim that fascism is leftist are the likes of Jonah Goldberg, right-wing hacks hired by right-wing organizations to do hit jobs against the left using the most atrocious methods and intellectual dishonesty. The people who are claiming that the Liberal Democrats are center-left are professional political scientists who know far more about the topic than you, I, or Haldraper ever will. And for you to insult sources written by political scientists, who just happen to flatly contradict your (flawed) understanding of the situation, is abominable and palpably opportunistic. You're trying to elevate your one single source at the expense of everything I've presented, and you're doing it by being dishonest about my sources and ignoring them altogether.UberCryxic (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "The Left" was not used at the time of the revolution. (They said "the Left Side" which referred to deputies, including the Feuillants, not to ideology or political parties.)  The connection between the term "left" and ideology was not used until late in the 19th century when it was used to apply to socialism.  BTW it is very easy to google search and liberal democrats+centre-left and leave us with 17 sources to read through.  It would be helpul if you found a single good source, read it, and then present it to us.  You should try to find reliable sources, read them and present what is said in them rather than searching for articles that support your views.  Incidentally your views on conservatism and the Left have a lot of resemblance with American conservative writing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh spare me your lecturing. You did the exact same thing: you went on Google Books and found a source that supported your claims. And I didn't berate you for your efforts; I commended you! Yet here you are attacking the sources on the basis that I have not studied them enough, as if the onus is on me to somehow study them and present a thesis defense. My end of the bargain was to find reputable sources that classify the party as center-left. If you don't like those sources because they haven't been analyzed properly, then go ahead and analyze them yourself! The burden of proof is on you here, not on me.UberCryxic (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for liberalism and the left, I'm not quite sure what your fundamental argument consists of, and I hesitate to respond with that uncertain background. Nevertheless, the basic fact that liberalism was associated with the left and had a profound impact on the left is indisputable. Read the following passage well because you might actually learn something. Norman Wintrop's Liberal democratic theory and its critics (1983) states on page 165:


 * The terms Left and Right are relational; more than most political labels they obtain their meaning from their context. They were originally used during the French Revolution to describe the extent to which a person within the nation's Assemblies advocated or resisted revolution. They were used, in fact, to decide seating. The extreme left were the Revolution's most fervent supporters, the extreme right its bitterest opponents. During and since the French Revolution, the European Left have been associated with demands for freedom, equality, justice, and popular sovereignty; the Right have emphasized law, order, social hierarchy, the depravity of human nature, and the need for discipline. In the political conflicts of the past two centuries, right-wing positions have been largely synonymous with conservative ones. The politics of the Left, however, have been more complex: liberals have followed Jacobins, socialists have followed liberals and communists have followed socialists as the Right's principal adversaries.....Conservative, liberal, socialist and other movements and sections of them have all had their right wings and their left wings.


 * Clearly the author portrays liberalism as a left-wing force in European politics, at least in those early times (19th century and right after the Revolution).UberCryxic (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean, frankly Deuces, some of your comments seem surreal in the sense that the rational person cannot believe they are being made. You said above:


 * "The classical liberals and radicals were never left-wing even though they opposed conservatives and conservative liberals."


 * Well I'm sorry but you're just confused here. If they opposed the conservatives, then by definition they are left-wing. That's what the left and the right did: fought and opposed one another. Sorry to sound Hegelian here, but it's not that complicated. It's hard to believe some of the things I'm reading.UberCryxic (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And what the heck, while we're it, let's contradict you some more. Feher's The French Revolution and the birth of modernity on p. 106:


 * But while Talmon attacked the liberal ideals of the revolutionary left, he ignored Jewish emancipation altogether.UberCryxic (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And here is yet another source tying liberals to the French revolutionary left in 19th century. Patrick Hutton's The cult of the revolutionary tradition: the blanquists in French politics states on page 5:


 * Third, Jacobins were republicans. The meaning of republicanism in the Jacobin perspective must be understood in terms of the political struggles of the French Left in the nineteenth century, struggles which perpetuated a fundamental quarrel among the leaders of the French Revolution. The revolution had begun with a consolidated front of opposition to the institutions of the Old Regime. But as the old order collapsed, this revolutionary phalanx divided into liberal and democratic movements. The liberals, identified especially with the interests of the middle class, quickly consolidated their power and proceeded to create a regime based upon constitutional law, parliamentary supremacy, administrative uniformity, and special political privileges for the propertied classes. This model of revolution, with its accent upon juridical reconstruction, served as the foundation for the Constitutional Monarchy of 1791, the Constitutional Republic of 1795, and the July Monarchy of 1830.....It was as a liberal movement, therefore, that the French Revolution bequeathed its most enduring legacy to the nineteenth century.UberCryxic (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interpreting the total sum of these sources, they claim exactly what I argued: liberalism in the nineteenth century was the primary vehicle of left-wing radicalism. I'll be happy to provide more sources as time goes on, but this is another closed case.UberCryxic (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's agree to disagree. If you believe that monopoly capitalism, the exploitation of the working  class and imperialism are "left-wing" then I will agree that you are a left-winger.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha....that's me, the liberal imperialist--or stalinist, to quote Haldraper. But all kidding aside, I accept your concession.UberCryxic (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I never called you a Stalinist and neither did Haldraper. But there is no light between your ideology and that of the other advocates of "Americanism" as Hartz called it.  The Four Deuces (talk)


 * Ummm....I think you came to this debate a bit too late. Haldraper: "I must say UberCryxic for a self-proclaimed liberal you've got some decidely Stalinist tendencies..." It's all in good fun don't worry. I wasn't offended or anything.UberCryxic (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I do want Haldraper to know I've always found greater comfort in the radical, revolutionary kind of liberalism in the tradition of Camille Desmoulins, Rafael del Riego, and Piero Gobetti. Liberals....they'll fuck you up if you're not careful. Ask Louis XVI or Nicholas II. They know.UberCryxic (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and as a radical feminist myself I can't forget Emmeline Pankhurst, even though she joined the Conservatives later on in her life (tisk tisk....)UberCryxic (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haldraper's comment was not an accusation that you were a leftist - obviously you are not - but rather a comment on your ideological rigidity. It reminds me of a joke - he is a middle of the road extremist.  It is very unusual for anyone to hold an extreme attachment to what is basically a moderate point of view.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad this is turning into a political therapy session to determine what I am and am not. As a matter of fact, I do consider myself a liberal leftist. I would also call myself a radical liberal, radical social liberal, or simply social/modern liberal. It's not relevant to anything, of course, but since the masses are so eager to know, who am I to disappoint them? At one point in history, liberalism was the most radical belief system around. The very reason why you can sit in front of your computer and write on Wikipedia that it's a "moderate" point of view is because a few centuries ago a lot of liberals essentially went to war to give the world constitutions, democracies, republics, secularism, free trade, and open markets. Now they're going to "war" (metaphorically) to give gays and lesbians the right to marry, women the right to reproductive choice, and the people of this planet a fighting chance at not destroying themselves from global warming. To me, liberalism is, was, and always will be radical. It's the ideology of the modern world--the one that produced it. How can I be anything but a firm, dedicated liberal? Long live liberty!

And now break out the Marseillaise haha....UberCryxic (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you ever read Babbitt or see All in the family? They were about people who thought they were liberals.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with those. Did you ever see Liar Liar?


 * Just asking.UberCryxic (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not left-wing although that is how people may see you where you live (in the US South). The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Master Deuces.UberCryxic (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my allusion to Stalinism was after all mention of the 2005, 2008 and 2009 Lib Dem conferences (at which the party dropped many of its progressive/social liberal policies) was removed from the page so as not to contradict the idea that they are 'centre-left', much like Stalin had his opponents airbrushed out of photographs. Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah but Stalin wasn't the only one who pulled dirty tricks like that. You could've said something like "you've got Napoleonic tendencies" or "you've got Jacobin tendencies." I mean come on Haldraper, make your insults true to the spirit of the article for goodness sake. We're talking about the Liberal, not the Communist, Democrats. Try to insult properly next time.UberCryxic (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry UberCryxic, I forgot, Napoleon and Robespierre were always having their opponents airbrushed out of photographs. Thanks for reminding us all. Haldraper (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Airbrushed out of history is the general point you were trying to make, I think.UberCryxic (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know they executed and exiled them but when did the Jacobins or Napoleon airbrush their opponents out of history? I'd be genuinely interested if you could give us some examples. Haldraper (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You know what, you're absolutely right. They were angels who never eliminated anyone from history.UberCryxic (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know they physically eliminated opponents, what I was asking was whether they then rewrote books, records etc to excise any mention of them? Haldraper (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * UberCryxic, do you believe that the UK and Canadian Liberals are a bunch of Marseillaise-singing, red flag waving radical leftists out to change the world? Even the Tories do not see them that way.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He clearly does, it's the standard North American academic view of any European political party to the left of their right-wing two-party system. Haldraper (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer the above question: no obviously I don't. The radical liberalism of the 19th century has largely died out because, as I explained before, it accomplished most of its objectives. But certainly there are remnant radical elements among leftist liberals to this day. The Liberals in Canada, for example, want to establish universal childcare. Given where we are in the world on that front, that's a pretty radical policy. I wouldn't call the party itself radical (they're center-left at best), but there are radical themes within it.UberCryxic (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And by the way, I'm not American (for the umpteenth time), but I do live in America and I don't appreciate these snide remarks. In the middle of the 20th century, the American left was the most powerful left in the world outside of communist nations. A third of American workers were in labor unions (same as France now), the government taxed the wealthy at rates that would shock all European nations then and today (up to 90% income tax for wealthiest brackets), the Gini coefficient was relatively low (near 0.3), the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party dominated the political process and the rhetoric, and no Republican could be elected president except as a "moderate" who would preserve the welfare state constructed during the New Deal. Compared to American liberals back then, socialists were wimps. Unfortunately, our right-wing fascists here came back in force during the 1960s and the 1970s in a way that we never witnessed in Europe (although that's changing now!), and in some sense we still feel their odious presence. In other words, your characterizations of the American left are breathtaking in their ignorance. This country used to have a powerful left. It doesn't anymore, unfortunately, although there are signs of a turnaround. The American voting youth (18-24 year olds), in particular, very clearly lean towards the liberal left, and they're going to have an enormous impact on American society and politics in the next few decades.UberCryxic (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The American Left made its best electoral showing in 1912, when the Socialist Party won 6% of the vote. (That was the election where Teddy Roosevelt promised universal health care.)  The Canadian Liberals stole their universal childcare plan from the Progressive Conservatives, but once in power it joined the long list of "Fiberal" broken promises.  Mind you that did not stop them from promising it in future elections.  But there will always be other priorities - subsidies to US corporations and support of American military intervention overseas.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The banner year of the American left was undoubtedly 1932, which is regarded as a realigning election. The left would dominate American politics until 1968, when it sort of shot itself in the foot. But since you mentioned the Socialists, I give you Norman Thomas, the six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate:


 * "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program."


 * And he was kind of right. Social Security is widely accepted today, but in America it was first proposed by the Socialist Party in the 1920s.UberCryxic (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Actually Norman Thomas never said that, it was a story invented by Ronald Reagan misquoting a letter from Upton Sinclair:"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.'" Norman Thomas of course opposed the New Deal. See Is the New Deal Socialism?: "But I am concerned to point out how false is the charge that Roosevelt and the New Deal represent socialism."  It is interesting how you have basically the same views as American conservatives. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You never answered my question about Liar Liar, by the way. I'm not going to give you a few books here and there this time....I'm actually going to give you the entire catalog of Google Books that cite Norman Thomas for that quotation. He made the statement in 1944 I think. Ronald Reagan quoted Thomas in 1961, but I don't think he made it up, nor did he ever pretend to make it up.

You're missing the argument of Norman Thomas: whether you call it "liberalism" or "socialism" is totally irrelevant. What the New Deal did was a revolution in and of itself. It fundamentally changed American society, certainly much more than socialists managed to change European societies at that point in history. But I think the fundamental delusion under which you're operating--that liberalism does not belong with the left at all--is something that I really can't cure, Captain D. I don't know how your imagination reached that conclusion, but apparently it's a fantasy that rational argument will not dispel.UberCryxic (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I want Wikipedia to know that Captain D considers snopes.com a reliable source, which is why he gave us that wonderful tale about Upton Sinclair and Ronald Reagan. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and a ton of reliable sources attribute that statement to Norman Thomas. Others also attribute similar comments, if not that one exactly. Seriously Captain D, the next time you decide to scour the internet and make a fool of yourself, at least make an admirable attempt. If you're being influenced by this kind of material on the internet, no wonder you hold some of the views you do about liberalism.UberCryxic (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you never read the sources you provide and leave that to others. The first book cited is  The unseen hand: an introduction to the conspiratorial view of history (Ralph Epperson contends that the major events of the past, the revolutions, the wars, the depressions and the revolutions, have been planned years in advance by an international conspiracy. He puts forward his Conspiratorial View of History.)  Other titles are The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness and Welcome to Soviet America.  None of them provide any sources, they are merely repeating a statement that was never made.  BTW I did not quote Snopes.  When Snopes posted the question about the Thomas quote I wrote to them providing my opinion that Reagan got his quote from Sinclair.  There is no doubt that Reagan said this and in fact gave different dates for the Thomas speech.  You are welcome to send them the "sources" you provided me.  My opinion that the New Deal was not socialism is based on writings not only by socialists but by mainstream writers.  By the way you obviously have never read Kirk, Sinclair or Thomas.  Why bother?  (Never saw Liar Liar).  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many reputable sources in that list that attribute the statement to Thomas. You're one to talk about reputable sources when you just admitted that you got these delusional theories from some fun-while-at-work website. Yes, there's no doubt that Reagan quoted that statement from Thomas (or said he did), but to come up with wild conspiracies from some silly website about where and how he got that statement is absurd. Even you should know better than that.


 * No one is arguing that the New Deal was socialist, but certainly it had many socialist themes and elements. One could easily argue, however, that it was liberal--specifically modern or social liberal. One could also easily argue that the New Deal received its primary impetus from the left-wing of the Democratic Party, even though large majorities across the country supported its basic principles.UberCryxic (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, enjoy being contradicted again by one of the greatest pieces on the subject to come out in recent times, although this passage concerns the Democrats and their modern liberal efforts in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it's important because it shows that liberals were tied to the left as a political movement in the US.


 * G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot The liberal hour: Washington and the politics of change in the 1960s


 * p. 355


 * With the South growing less and less relevant to political calculations in the party, the counterweight was gone and liberals could push further and further to the left. And they did. What had been the party of the center left became for a time the party of the left.


 * Owned.UberCryxic (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide one reliable source for the Thomas quote. (BTW as I explained I did not form my opinion about the quote from Snopes but wrote to them with my opinion when they asked readers if they thought the quote was real.  In the end the opinion they expressed agreed with mine.)  Now did you read this book you are quoting or did you just Google "liberal left Democratic Party new Deal" and pick the first book other than Liberal fascism?  My guess is that you did not read it and therefore have no idea of the context of the quote.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong again, Captain D. I actually have read that book. I even owned it for a while, but I gave it to a friend a while ago. Once again, you don't address the content, which flatly contradicts your assertions, but you sit there and presume to know what I have or have not done with the book. Your erroneous presumptions are famous by this point. You were wrong about liberalism and the European left, as I convincingly demonstrated above. Now you're wrong about liberalism and the American left, as I've also just shown. Hey remember how in our arguments about demographics you presumed that Robert Wexler wrote his book after retiring from Congress? You remember how you flatly said no Democratic presidential candidate called himself 'liberal' since 1972? Do you remember your persistent lies and distortions whenever you argue with me? It seems to be a trend. I hope you don't do this kind of shoddy research with other interlocutors here on Wikipedia.


 * And again, drop your crap with the sources. You're using snopes for heaven's sake! And you're doing it proudly! I don't care what opinion snopes has. IT IS STILL SNOPES! This is nuts. Even the most rabid right-wing rants would qualify as more reliable, although it seems difficult to believe, I know.UberCryxic (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Captain D likes to talk about "context" like he actually cares for it. Here's the context from Captain D himself:


 * "The classical liberals and radicals were never left-wing even though they opposed conservatives and conservative liberals."


 * Very blatant comment, surprising for the fact that there is absolutely no context about it. It's just Captain D flatly claiming that liberals were never left-wing, even though he was horrendously contradicted by multiple reputable sources.


 * "The term "the Left" was not applied to ideologies until the establishment of socialism and was never applied to liberals."


 * Lie, lie, lie, lie. These comments are stunning, both for their total lack of context, but also for the fact that they occur so frequently in our conversations. Where exactly did you learn anything about history and politics, Captain D? You seem to be amazingly confused, and that's if I was being polite. Liberalism founded the left, liberalism nurtured the left for over a century in Europe, and the left would be a meaningless contrivance masquerading as a movement were it not for the liberals of the Revolution.


 * I mean seriously, how could you make such mistakes, normally suited for beginners? How could you ignore the fact that in Scandinavia, for example, "liberal" was a synonym for "left-wing" (Venstre), hence the name of the Liberal Party of Denmark (founded 1870) or the Liberal Party of Norway (founded 1884)? I realize some of these Scandinavian parties might be centrist, center-left, or center-right now, but back then they were founded as leftist liberal parties. Do you even....read what you write?? Do you think about what you write? Do you ever stop to think, "what the hell am I doing"? You should, Captain D. By the way, have I explained what the D stands for? The thing is, it can stand for anything. It's just as lost as you are, Deuces.UberCryxic (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source (just one) for the alleged Thomas quote. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you just want a source, without any qualifications whatsoever, then here you go (although bear in mind that book is crap). But even if Thomas said that or he didn't, it doesn't matter. It's still true, for example, that the Socialist Party proposed Social Security before the New Deal and the Democrats eventually adopted that proposal. In other words, the substance of that statement is true, even if the statement itself is not. And I told you what I'd read before; it may or may not be true. I don't care either way.UberCryxic (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Social Security might have been proposed in the 1920's in the USA by the Socialist Party, but it was enacted by Bismarck in Germany in the 1880's. He was, as far as I know, not considered neither a liberal nor a socialist. Was he centre-left? And when someone is proclaiming that liberalism is always to the left, I can only point to the most right-wing party in the German Parliament, the Free Democratic Party. They are liberal, but certainly not centre-left. On the other hand, there are liberal parties that are centre-left, and the Liberal Democrats have been that in much of their existence. However, it is not obvious that it still will be possible to call them that after five years in a Tory-led government.--152.94.82.100 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) The book you offer as a source is Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, the Global New Left, and Radical Islam by Robert Chandler. You should stop using American "conservative" conspiracy theorists as sources of your opinions. Read real academic sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't feign academic professionalism. You've goofed enough times that you shouldn't even dare, especially when I already said myself the source was sketchy. It's obviously not reputable. I don't remember where I first saw the quotation, but I know it wasn't from that book. You asked me to give you a source, without qualifying what kind, and I gave you a source. If you make a crappy request, don't be surprised if you receive a crappy response.UberCryxic (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now Political fiction, the spirit of the age, and Allen Drury by Tom Kemme speaks of that quotation, attributes it to Norman Thomas, and also mentions Reagan. The book itself seems reputable, but it falls under literary criticism. Take it for what's worth. Let's just put it this way: if it's a battle between Mr. Kemme and snopes, I'd take Mr. Kemme.


 * I realize you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill by constantly harping on this silly fight, but I'll reiterate: the veracity of that comment is absolutely irrelevant to my point, which is that the left of the Democratic Party adopted some of the ideas and principles of the Socialist Party and enacted them into law.UberCryxic (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You provided a quote which is popular with American "conservative" conspiracy theorists and I asked you if you could provide a source. You ridiculed me because of a website "Snopes".  However the quote is bogus.  Please provide a source for the quote or at least tell me which of the many years your hero Ronald Reagan provided it supposedly happened.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not very good at provoking, so stop embarrassing yourself. You have the sources and you have my response: I myself am not certain if that statement was truly made by Norman Thomas, but in the end it doesn't matter. Also, if you still have any shred of honesty left, you'd acknowledge that you don't know either whether that quotation is true or not. No one knows. Even Snopes said it's "probably false" in its judgment, but without quantifying or qualifying what "probably" means (60% probable? 80% probable? very probable? a little probable?).UberCryxic (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You said he made it, so please give me the source. Stop repeating American "conservative" conspiracy theories.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to go on like a broken record? Because two can play that game.UberCryxic (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source or are you just repeating American "conservative" conspiracy theorists? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to go on like a broken record? Because two can play that game.UberCryxic (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism had the decency not to repeat this lie about Norman Thomas and he had the decency to respect Eugene Debs for his pacifism. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good for him. I think we're done here.UberCryxic (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, you repeated a "conservative" conspiracy theory and now wish to back away. Good move.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok let me rephrase: I'm done here. Look Deuces, I know you love endlessly sparring on talk pages with other people, judging from the fact that 62% of your total edits on Wikipedia occur there, which is insanely abnormal. You basically see Wikipedia as a social networking site, and I'll be honest in admitting you're the kind of user I've always strongly disliked. I don't want to go down the road you've chosen, and I'm sorry for egging you on. Part of this whole fiasco was my fault. But seriously, I would ask you to look at yourself and your role in Wikipedia and question just exactly what you're doing. To put it in perspective, only about 20% of Haldraper's edits have been on talk pages, while talk page edits make up 27% of my total. That's what's normal. You're off the charts, and not in a very good way. Please change.


 * I have absolutely no desire to engage you any further unless the subject specifically involves this article.UberCryxic (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahahahaha wait wait WAIT! While we're at this, let me just take a moment to suck up insanely to Haldraper. Dude have you looked at your stats??? 76% of your edits are in mainspace articles. That's also off the charts, in a good way. I'm jealous. You're an exemplary editor. I'm currently at 44% mainspace. I always wanted to be above 50%, but I just never managed to get there. I haven't helped my cause either by sitting here and wasting my time with Deuces.UberCryxic (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) The issue is that you wish to portray the Liberal Democrats as "a bunch of Marseillaise-singing, red flag waving radical leftists out to change the world" which is an American "conservative" view and totally out of step with reality. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your accusation is false. I'm just regurgitating what reputable sources are saying.UberCryxic (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What the hell has happened on this talk page?! An explosion of text meets my eyes after a few days absence. I really hate to be the one to mention Wikipedia policy but I don't think this page is meant for political debate even if it pertains to the page. Additionally there is far, far too much information on this page to the point where it might comical but has become distressing especially seeing as any semblance of civility in the discourse has evaporated. As I, understandably, have not read the novel-like quantity of text above, would someone please fill me in on what's being discussed?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't miss much, don't worry. Welcome back.UberCryxic (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The main issue is whether Liberal Democrats or Liberals in general are leftists or centrists. The former position is supported by among other things the statement, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program."  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But...you're just lying. I mean you're not even pretending at this point. You're setting up false dichotomies, using weasel words, and doing anything and everything to maximally distort my position. It's becoming difficult to count the number of strawmen arguments you're setting up. Whether they're leftists or centrists is not the main issue because, as I've told you a million times, I don't think they're "leftists." No one here thinks they're leftists, so stop repeating this lie. If I thought they were leftists, or if I thought they were Marseillaise-singing revolutionaries, I wouldn't have called them "center-left" in the lead. And this last label is supported by secondary sources written by political scientists.UberCryxic (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of lying is apparently acceptable in the US Congress, but is still considered offensive in other countries. But let us re-open the discussion.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)