Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Strength in devolved assemblies

The strength of parties in devolved assemblies should not be included in the userbox, because they don't reflect the overall strength of the party at all. The infobox is supposed to pick out key characteristics of the party, not details about the party in select parts of the UK.

The editor that reverted claimed that devolved assemblies are more important than local government, but that's patently false. The Scottish Parliament is more important than Cumbria County Council, yes, but it's considerably less important than all the county councils, district councils, borough councils, and so on across the entirety of the UK. Hence, to use some reductio ad absurdum doesn't really work.

There are articles on Welsh Conservative Party, Scottish Conservative Party, and Conservatives in Northern Ireland. That is where the stats on devolved institution strength belong. Oh, wait, they already are there. My mistake. Bastin 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm afraid I just plain disagree with most of what you say. In particular, I am not persuaded that a parliament with legislative powers is somehow of less importance than a large number of local authorities. Finally, for a party that has the title 'Unionist' in its name, I would have thought that its strength or otherwise in individual countries of the Union would be an important issue, that may be of interest to readers. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Unionist bit is reflected (as contra-policy as it is - Wikipedia doesn't reflect the Conservatives' philosophy). In the number of MPs, Peers, MEPs, and local councillors - all of which include all of the United Kingdom. Plainly, you are giving undue weight to Scotland, Wales, and London by including their local institutions when they're already included. Bastin 00:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it is bizarre to seek to exclude information about the electoral performance of the Conservative Party - the details of are not 'already included' as you suggest. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an infobox, so should present summary information that is relevant to the overall characteristics of the subject of the article. It is not there to include all information about the Conservative Party - that's what the article itself is for - so your argument for inclusionism doesn't apply. Bastin 12:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To remove the devolved assemblies from one party infobox and leave it on another serves no real purpose and is more likely to be confusing to readers. Either the information is relevant to all parties in the legislature or it is irrelevant to all. Road Wizard (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. Which is why I removed it from all of them after they were unilaterally added by an anonymous user that has not discussed why the change was made. However, there is no point having a conversation in more than one place when, as you state, the conclusion has to apply to all. Bastin 13:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As you have left Plaid Cymru alone then your statement of applying it to all is incorrect. Either apply it to all parties in the legislature or restore it to all parties in the legislature. Going halfway is pointless. Please post a link here if you want to start a centralised discussion. Road Wizard (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a case to make exceptions for regional parties; clearly, the Welsh Conservative Party's strength is reflected by its number of AMs. That can be argued separately, and I have no interest in bogging down this issue with a completely separate one. For UK-wide parties, for whom numbers of MSPs, AMs, and MLAs do not reflect overall strength, the case is considerably more simple. As such, this serves as a perfectly good centralised discussion. Bastin 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the British National Party article also includes details for the London Assembly in the info box. It is a UK wide party just like the Conservative Party, so are you saying that those details should be removed from that article also? I agree that one approach for all parties is required, and I would favour including details rather than excluding them. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, I am saying that. In fact, there should almost certainly be a specific infobox for British parties, as there are for a number of other countries, to make all this standardisation more simple and to provide a forum for future centralised discussions. Bastin 14:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - by 'British parties' I assume you mean Britain-wide parties. That would exclude the Green Party of England and Wales. 86.155.51.149 (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean all parties active in the United Kingdom. A field can then be used to denote in which areas the party is active, and that would change the characteristics that the userbox would show. Bastin 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Bog Off" in the "David Cameron" section

There is a pointless, unreferenced, and inconsequential paragraph in the "David Cameron" section that should be removed, although it seems I'm unable to remove the type if I edit the section.

Perhaps someone else could remediate this?

Thanks. Darren Wagner (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. AlexiusHoratius 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV check

I just wondered if any editors feel as I do that the Current policies section needs looking at. It's subtle, but I believe there is a little bias in this section. Examples:

• "...has always a been a very important issue for the Conservative Party."
• "The Party is committed to..."
• "The Conservatives see it as a priority to...".
• "They believe that NATO, which has been the cornerstone of British security for the past 60 years, should continue to have primacy on all issues relating to Europe’s defence."

I won't claim to have read the other UK parties' pages, so I don't know if this is just a common theme. However I feel the section largely reads like promotional material (though there are parts of it which seem fine to me), and could do with a bit of nurturing. If there is consensus with my opinion, then this is a fairly big job. Thanks, -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mikey. I think a comparrison of the other parties is a good idea, perhaps it is normal practice to report the parties commentary about their policies.. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mikey, please don't add a NPOV template to the article, there is an election in a few days and it is unfair, as you said yourself you havent compared the other parties articles. Adding the NPOV template is of no benefit to the article at all, please reconsider. I will happily discuss it with you but at this time tagging the article like that is point of view in itself. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Off2riorob, but unfortunately I do not see how else I can address draw attention to the issue? Anyway, I haven't tagged it as NPOV, just as needing checking -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you agree with me then remove the template or at least correct yourself as you don't think the whole article is biased do you? and add the this section is npov to the section you dispute, right now you have labeled the whole article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: I partially agree with you, in that the template was in the wrong place. Unfortunately (there doesn't seem to be / I couldn't find) a section NPOV check template. I will reiterate that the template I have used requests a check rather than stating it is NPOV. If you can find a section NPOV check template, feel free to apply it appropriately or point it out to me so that I can. In the mean time, I have moved the template to the section. Looks a bit dodgy, having a "This article..." template in a section, but hey! I do not feel, however, that the template "is of no benefit to the article at all" given that I am using it for its intended purpose... -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 00:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it. Cheers. -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 00:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The following relevant piece of discussion (three comments) was carried out on my talk page and I have copied it here for clarity:

So there is an election in a few days, it is unfair to add a template, what exactly do you want to improve that section? Have you gat any new citations or ideas of what you want to do to improve the section? Please come and discuss your problems. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the sensitive timing, but perhaps this is exactly when it is most important to check these things? And surely Wikipedia policy on how to use templates doesn't change simply because there is soon to be an election? Isn't a template's validity independent of when it is used unless it is a time based template?
I simply want to draw attention to the issue in order to generate a discussion, but I do not see how that is possible without placing the template there. -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you have never edited political articles previously, there is an election in a few days and it is not fair to come along and go , this looks biased, you said yourself that you have not even compared the other parties articles. The content is very well cited, please explain exactly what you have issues with and we can look at the problem or remove the template. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why it is unfair of me to say that the page looks biased, please clarify? Although I have been an editor for years, I am a little rusty on policies. If I had simply added the template without justification, then I agree that could easily be seen as vandalism and/or electioneering. However I quoted sections which I believe are embellished (not to the point of fiction, but through the use of certain words). So surely that is not unfair?

As an example, I will take the following sentence I referred to earlier:

In the WP article: "Mental health has always a been a very important issue for the Conservative Party, particularly when it comes to service personnel."

In the referenced article on the Conservative Party's website: "For me mental health has always been a very important subject."

Surely the sentence on the WP page, or at least part of it, needs to be in quote marks? I contend that an ideal NPOV wikipedian would have written the sentence differently.

Now I have only given one example, because I personally do not have the time to work on the whole section. Hence the pov CHECK REQUEST tag as opposed to just a general NPOV tag. -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clementhkhk, 9 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please change 9538 to 9405 in local seats because no. of seats is changed after the election. Click http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm for reference

|seats7 =

9,538 / 21,871

Clementhkhk (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Clementhkhk, I've edited the infobox and changed the number of seats accordingly. KaySL (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideology

The Labour Party (UK) article has a brief ideology section. Would something like that not be appropriate for this article (sorry, I'm no expert so cannot write it, I came here to expand my knowledge)? 89.243.247.200 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo

it's a bit ironic that they use a sodding tree as their logo isn't it? This from the party that wants the ice caps to melt into oblivion. 64.222.106.70 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC) What a load of crap. Their official position is to belive global warming is happening and something should be done about it. Sounds like you are sore with the new National Coalition Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.58.204.226 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Change to the Social Policy Section

However the far right asserts that Cameron's is an equally multicultural outlook[39] and accuses the Conservative Party of promoting what the far right calls as "Islamic extremists."[40]

This section under social policy is absolute nonsense so I plan to change it. Peter Hitchens and a writer for the National Review Online are not exactly "far right" (bit of an understating there...) so they should not be referred to as such.

I've decided to change it to "However conservative critics such as Peter Hitchens assert that Cameron's is an equally multicultural outlook[39] and accuse the Conservative Party of promoting what they see as "Islamic extremists."[40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.222.28 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This page should probably be locked

The amount of vandalism is quite ridiculous, and therefore this page should be locked to prevent that. Duckelf (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a careful balance with protecting a page between preventing damage from vandalism and keeping the article open to allow improvement. You can request protection at WP:RPP but judging from the relatively low level of vandalism in the last few days (2 vandal edits in 48 hours) it is likely to be refused. You can read the protection policy if you want more background information. Road Wizard (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is once a day meant to be a small amount? I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia, but that doesn't sound quite right. Duckelf (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

With the first vandal edit the article was repaired within 5 minutes. With the second vandal edit the article was repaired within 3 minutes. While protection would have kept the erroneous text from appearing in the article for those 8 minutes, it would also have blocked editing for the other 2,872 minutes within the last two days. In this case protection provides little benefit for the cost.

It is difficult to set a solid definition of when to apply protection as each case is unique, but generally speaking if you can solve the problem in a few minutes and the vandalism doesn't occur within a short space of time then protection isn't necessary. Road Wizard (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

NeoConsevatives?

doesn't the Tory Party have faction of NeoCons in it?--130.218.71.138 (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a term used much in British politics, but looking at NeoCon ideology, I'd suggest that the Thatcher years were closer to that than anything the Conservative Party claims to stand for these days. Certainly, there have always been right-wing fundamentalists (according to the then current ideologies) in the Conservative Party, but it's been a long time since there has been any religious dimension (as would appear in NeoCon) in the UK party. Rodhullandemu 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The neocons (at least the American ones) are focused on foreign policy. Many of them, like John McCain and Joe Lieberman, are fairly liberal on social issues and moderate on fiscal issues compared to the rest of their party. They are separate from the religious right, which has both neoconservative and paleoconservative elements. George Osbourne and Michael Gove have expressed their support for neoconservative ideas and are affiliated with neoconservative groups. --86.166.118.232 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

EU Group - Racists and Holocaust deniers

During the campaign trial, Gordon Brown pointed out that the conservative party have joined a conservative group within the European Union that is said to have fascist, racist and holocaust deniers within the group. Surely we should mention this? CovBiggsy (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Gordon Brown made a claim, as did David Miliband, that has not been corroborated by reliable sources. Which is unsurprising, given that David Miliband was confusing the Conservatives' allies Law and Justice for a completely different party altogether: Self-Defense of the Republic of Poland. The article states clearly what the Conservative Party's European affiliation is (to the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists). An entire paragraph already deals with the issue. To go into details of an accusation levelled by an unreliable source at an individual formerly associated with a party that is now affiliated to the Conservative Party is WP:COATRACKing. Bastin 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What about racism within the Conservative party? I bet I can find something on them from a reliable source indicating that there has been racist activity within the groupCovBiggsy (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. I'm sure anyone could find references saying there are racist members of any organisation of 250,000 members - unless reliable sources indicate that it reflects the character of the organisation as a whole, it's coatracking, and not worthy of inclusion. Issues related to other AECR members are already discussed at length in the articles on the European Conservatives and Reformists (the group) and the member parties at whom the specific criticisms are levelled. Bastin 11:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to do it though? Because 'it's coatracking and not worthy of inclusion' is your personal opinion. CovBiggsy (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion that I'd be happy to assert has wide support (including BritishWatcher above). If you did make an edit that gave undue weight to positions to promote a certain bias, I'd revert your edit and ask that you take your issue here. Community consensus, reflecting core policies (WP:UNDUE), guidelines (WP:RS), and widely-observed destructive phenomena (WP:COATRACK), would say that it should not be included. Bastin 12:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the UK Independence Party page. It has controveries on individual people that were/are in or connected to the UK Independence Party in England and Wales. Should, if it's wikipedia's policy, this be allowed because if I use negative information against Labour (for example) one might use this against me, however it doesn't seem that there is a strong arguement supporting the disclosure of controveries that do so on UKIP's page. CovBiggsy (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're so concerned with outing racists in political parties, CovBiggsy, why aren't you highlighting what Gordon Brown said about Gillian Duffy, a member of his own party, on the Labour Party page? --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Simon, I didn't think about that! I'll have a look in a minute, but that doesn't exclude Conservatist racism right? I mean we're supposed to be unbias, but we've got a lot of weight put upon UKIP and nearly non on the mainstream, why? Maybe its because more people support these political establishments and therefore are more willing to put something negative upon one party and not on another and use WP:UNDUE as a reason not to do it. That's what I think is happening. CovBiggsy (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of material on the UKIP article is a matter for that article, not this one. It will always be the case that certain incidents/people are more notable for inclusion when dealing with a fairly new and small political party, compared to a political party with a long history and large membership/MPs etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Organisation and Membership

In what way can the organisational structure of the party be considered unusual? in that the selection of leadership and local candidates falls to the local constituency parties, while finance and other administration is handled by the central office is nothing unusual: it is exactly the same modus operandi of the Labour party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.189.1 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Party I wish to import

I wish to import Nasty party information I found the origin of the word [1][2][3][4] and its usage [5][6][7][8][9] I wish to know if this acceptable. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the willful halting of benefits has made many disable and unemployed people homeless, then importing Nasty party information - or even using the term The Nasty Party - does seem acceptable. P.S: Why would anyone wish to delete Talk page inputs on this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.102.202 (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: I would suggest a brief mention, preferably in the relevant period in the party's history, linking to the main Nasty Party article. Regarding the comment from the unregistered user I deleted yesterday: unlike today's comment, it was 2 chatty questions without any editorial relevance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

tory leadership question

Who was Tory party leader for the five days between Margaret Thatcher resignation and John Major? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.214.185 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Opening

I reverted your edits because:

1. The party is primarily a centre-right party and there is no need for right-wing to be in the infobox as well.

2. The party's full name is the Conservative & Unionist Party, which should be in bold at the start of the article.

3. To say it is the largest party in the UK will undoubtedly confuse some people, so the opening should be specific and mention that it is the largest party in parliament, with 306 out of 650 seats.

4. The opening should have some mention of the party's historical successes by saying that it was in power for two thirds of the 20th century and that famous PM's Churchill and Thatcher were of the party.

5. The paragraph on the subdivisions within the party is neccesary to show the various idealogies within the party.

Counter-arguments are welcome. MWhite 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK on the first point I agree it has centre-right elements but it also has right-wing so both are legitimate. You removed right-wing and replaced it with centre-right I simply restored one element. I'm OK on the full name and a modified form of the largest number of seats. In respect of 4&5 those seem to be laudatory in nature and unnecessary. Churchill may be famous as is Thatcher, but for many people they are also notorious, maybe we should mention the Suez disaster? The lede should stay factual. You also need to read WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, by famous I meant well-known and I suppose it's difficult to state which Tory Prime Ministers are less known than others. I've taken the reference to Churchill and Thatcher out but I still think the paragraph on the various idealogies within the party should stay. People viewing the page with no fore-knowledge on Tory idealogy will be looking for more information than centre-right, conservative and unionist in the opening summary. MWhite 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a third party reference on those factions/ideologies? If so I would be more comfortable --Snowded ^TALK 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any third party sources which corroborate the information except for another Wikipedia page which describes the Conservative Party with similiar wording called List of political parties in the United Kingdom. I am however willing to respect your decision to leave this paragraph out of the opening, given that you have had more experience on wikipedia than I have. MWhite 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We are all equal here! However we would need a RS for that sort of statement. I'll have a look at the list and may fact tag it on that basis. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra paragraph to introduction

I'm in favour of adding another paragraph to the introduction. It would not, of course, include reference to Baroness Warsi as one of the party's great figures, although there's no reason reference to Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher can't be made in a very concise, five-line summary of the party's history. It is strange that the introduction includes such a lengthy discussion of the evolution of the party's name, as well as its strength in the devolved assemblies, but no indication of its historical contribution to government or its ideology beyond 'conservatism'. Bastin 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's my go at it. BE BOLD in changing it, removing it, or moving the debate here. Bastin 02:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Appallingly badly-organised article

This article seems to be a collection of topics of interest to various editors:

• There is no need for a blow-by-blow account of the party since 1997.
• The 'Current policies' section needs to be greatly improved by better references to give it more balance between different policy areas.
• A section on Ideology is necessary; in-depth discussions of differences within the party hardly capture the nature of the party itself.
• A section on political support (who tends to vote for the party, etc) is also useful (see this or this).
• There's a great deal about organisation that's currently left out in favour of a snapshot of the party's accounts from 2004-5.

I will go about fixing the above issues, but I suggest that others take an interest in the process. Bastin 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all your points. There seems to be too many time lines organized into subjective sections. This is not to say the article is inaccurate, but it doesn't give the overall thrust of party goals and recent activity, more or less since 2010.--TGC55 (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Logo (Union Jack Tree)

I am pretty sure that the party has altered its logo from the typical green tree to a union jack tree? Surely we should change the logo on the article? Willwal, talk. 06 April 2011 22:08 (BST)

Their webite seems to use both versions. --81.107.133.5 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The party's primary logo remains the blue/green tree, as you can see here. Bastin 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

centre-right

I have put a citation needed tag on "centre-right" as there is no evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.217.159 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. You could have provided some references; the Conservative Party is probably the world's archetypal centre-right party, so there are thousands out there you could have used. Bastin 20:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideologies

For the past eighteen or so months, this article's infobox had a short list of ideologies held by members in the infobox as well as the 'general ideology'. Instead of leaving what was included up to POV-pushers that found the odd reference here or there saying all sorts of different overlapping ideologies (and thus leaving it endless), I used and cited a Guardian article, which has a comprehensive list of the five broad ideologies held by politicians in the party: One nation conservatism, Thatcherism, 'Cameronism', 'Cornerstone', and libertarianism. Per various sources that equate the two, when listing these in the infobox, 'Cameronism' is translated into 'liberal conservatism and 'Cornerstone' is translated into social conservatism. This was discussed on the talk page. As noted, this became consensus and remained unchanged for 18 months.

Fast-forward to this month. A vandal removed 'libertarianism' and replaced it with 'authoritarianism'. This was removed by an user, but 'libertarianism' wasn't replaced, despite the source naming it as one of the five major ideologies in the party. It is obviously not WP:NPOV to cite the Guardian source to justify four of the ideologies and ignore the other one: particularly as the source denotes libertarianism as a larger faction than social conservatism. However, when I attempt to undo the vandalism, one user, User:Matt Downey, insists on excluding it, without reference to policy. It should be reinstated, per WP:NPOV. Bastin 15:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other sources Bastin? I agree libertarianism is a distinct and growing ideology based on my own reading/observation and authoritarianism is not an ideology. However a Guardian blog reporting a limited survey is not really a reliable source --Snowded ^TALK 15:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian and Total Politics are both reliable sources. You'll also note that I'm hesitant to justify any given ideology's inclusion - libertarian or otherwise - based on sources that might mention a faction here or there, for the reason explained above and below; I could provide news or academic sources that name give examples of specific prominent politicians as libertarians (Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan, Douglas Carswell, Alan Duncan, Peter Lilley, Richard Shepherd, Syed Kamall, Mark Reckless, Sajid Javid, Steve Baker, et al), but that would defeat the point. Nonetheless, there is a huge range of sources that support the view that libertarianism forms a distinct ideology within the party. Indeed, I find it hard to believe there's any academic work or textbook dedicated to the ideologies within the Conservative Party that does not discuss libertarianism. Bastin 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

3-7 % cannot count as an internal faction. If we counted every ideological trend supported by 3% of Tory MPs as a faction, we'd have an endless list. Going into my own views (which are NOT what guided me to these edits) I don't see any libertarian policies.--Matt Downey (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, so if 3-7% can't count as a faction (despite reliable sources saying it's a faction), let's get rid of 'social conservative' as a listed ideology: which is held by between 0% and 6% of the party! You have arbitrarily and personally chosen to remove libertarian because you disagree with it, not because the source suggests that it - of the five - should be the one that gets removed.

The reason we looked for a particular source that gave a comprehensive list was to avoid such an infinite list being created. You will, no doubt, be able to find sources that say a certain MP is a neoconservative (eg Gove), another is a cooperative conservative (eg Norman), etc, which makes it very difficult for Wikipedia to balance 'all significant views' per WP:NPOV while maintaining brevity required by an infobox. Hence, a comprehensive list was required, and that was one that we adopted (incidentally, it also mirrored the pre-existing list, whose only difference is that it said 'Thatcherite libertarianism'. Bastin 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that original survey which is a limited number of MPs and reported on a blog. Its not a comprehensive survey and I don't think it can be used to support the inclusion of an ideology. Equally it can't be used to exclude one (the 3-7% argument). It is very clear from multiple sources that libertarianism is an ideology within the Conservative Party which overlays some of the factions. So I am with Bastin on its inclusion, but I would like better sources for the other factions --Snowded ^TALK 07:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps social conservatism should also be taken down, I wouldn't object to this. The sources provided still don't actually seem to say that libertarianism is a distinct faction, only that there are some libertarians within the party. I think we should follow the example of the Lib Dem article on this, where the one of the sources is a survey of 530 active Lib Dem members. If everything that had got 3+% merited mentioning, there would have to be a list of about 20 --> http://www.libdemvoice.org/how-lib-dem-members-describe-their-political-identity-liberal-progressive-and-social-liberal-top-the-bill-23928.html.--Matt Downey (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We needed a short list of ideologies provided by a reliable source that treats them as mutually-exclusive, so we used one. That's demonstrable different to the LDV poll: which does not provide a short list, is not from a reliable source, and does not treat them as mutually-exclusive. Thus, it is not even remotely apt. But you've made a good case not to use another list in another article: and no reason not to use this list in this article. Bastin 12:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunday Times article: "‘Toxic’ Scottish Tory party faces abolition"

Please see Talk:Scottish Conservative Party#Sunday Times article: "‘Toxic’ Scottish Tory party faces abolition" --Mais oui! (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration forming for Good Article effort

WikiProject Conservatism is spearheading an effort to get this article promoted to Good Article. You can join the discussion here.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideologies

I am quite sure that Liberal Conservatism is now one of the General Ideologies of the Conservative Party. (E.P. Davies (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

St Andrews Obama effigy

Can whoever thinks that the content of this edit should be included in the article please explain why this is the case, instead of edit warring about it? Also, the Young Conservatives were abolished more than a decade ago, although that is irrelevant in this case anyway. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The source does not support the edit. I do not think the incidenct is noteworthy enough to include. TFD (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia not accept that the party has *307* seats?

I have changed this a couple times but someone keeps reverting it back. The Conservative Party currently have 307 seats in the House of Commons, not 306.

At the end of 06 May 2010, they did have 306 seats as the 'Thirsk and Molton' seat was delayed until postponed until 27th May as one of the candidates had passed away. After the poll had been held, the Conservatives won the seat bringing their total to 307.

Can someone *please* correct this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.253.68 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this. I assume it's due to a confusion about John Bercow, who - as Speaker - is most emphatically not a Conservative. Bastin 09:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Conservative party actually won the largest share of the vote in England, though not the largest number of seats"

Hello, new to "talk", so forgive me if this is the wrong place for this comment;

Section: "Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard"

A reference to the percentage of votes in England seems inappropriate when mentioned after a disussion of seats won at a national level. The sentence "The Conservative party actually won the largest share of the vote in England, though not the largest number of seats" seems misleading given labour won 35.2% of the total national vote as opposed to 32.4% for the conservatives. Suggest either the labour % total vote is mentioned in the previous sentence, or this statement is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyreorpheus (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 January 2012‎

Good catch (and yes, this is the right place to discuss changes to content.) I deleted the sentence and fixed up the previous two sentences with a reference. The party is a unionist party, not an English party, so the specifics of an English vote 7 years ago are only of passing interest: not useful to readers of this article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

92 Group

Hello. Would it be acceptable to merge the stub on the 92 Group into this article? Or should it just be deleted? Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there should be two separate pages. The 92 Group page should be expanded.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cornerstone Group

The article on the Cornerstone Group is based on one press release, one link to a primary source, and three editorial footnotes. That's simply not enough for a separate article and I recommend merging to this parent article if it is notable enough, or failing that, deletion. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Here are the external links. TFD (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on last editing

Fatherhood is an ordinary word, with no particularly archaic sound compared to the life of British parties. Traditionalist conservatives use the word in its ordinary sense, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, in the 1994 edition: "[The state, condition, quality, or character of being] a man who has begotten a child; also SIRE." If they don't, then please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What I intend to add

1) Under the section of '1920-1963', details about the introduction of leadership elections in 1965

2) Clarification on the 'social policy section', with the modernizers being updated, as Portillo has left the party

3) A section on the Constitution. This has been a crucial issue to the Conservative Party throughout its history and it still is today

4) Under the 'One Nation' section, a detail to show how all Prime Ministers between Baldwin and Heath held the same view as well as a section on the new phenomenon of Red Tory

5) An update on the Eurosceptic tendencies of the free market Tories

6) Details of The High Tory tradition under the 'Traditionalist' section as well as broadening what constitutes traditionalism; it is not purely about the Cornerstone Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambivalence888 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Membership

The Liberal Democrats' WP page has a section showing party membership by year since 2001, using the figures in the party's Statement of Accounts as published by the Electoral Commission. Under the PPERA legislation every UK political party has to provide annual accounts including membership to the Commission, which then publishes them.

It would be useful to have a similar table for the other Party articles, including the Conservatives, for whom it might show what impact major political changes such as the coalition government has had on their membership. 91.125.228.78 (talk) dww —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the membership figure which was 58,000. This is based on figures released by 139 constituency Conservative Associations out of a possible 400. It is therefore not accurate to base the party's overall membership figure on less than half of all constituency associations. Scouserjack (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of speeches and articles section

Is the recent news about the Conservatives and their website notable enough to warrant an entire section, with regards to WP:UNDUE? Especially since the Labour Party has apparently deleted all news from before 2010 as well. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like WP:RECENTISM and a possible WP:COATRACK personally '''tAD''' (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Conservative and Unionist Party duplication

To editor David J Johnson: Re. edit I deleted unnecessary repetition of the formal title. It is also mentioned later in the introduction. If we leave 'Conservative and Unionist Party' and 'Conservative Party' both twice in the intro makes it clunky, difficult to read, and unnecessarily long. Can we remove the duplication? By the way, your edit accidentally reverted my fixes of the incorrect capitals in 'Unionism' and 'Capitalism'. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Then the formal title should be in the first paragraph and it is certainly not difficult to read My edit did not "accidently" revert the caps, if you check all quality newspapers - they refer to Unionism with a cap U. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Official name

I've seen at parties register on electoral commission website and I discovered that name of party is only: Conservative Party. Conservative and Unionist Party as well as Name of Party in Welsh are only registered slogans, not names. Please include this information to the article Aight 2009 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC) https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx There is stated that Conservative Party is registered only in Britain. it's ally in NI is named Conservative and unionist party. This is the record of cons: Primary name: Conservative Party Alternative name ?: Plaid Geidwadol Cymru Register: Great Britain Status ?: Authorised Date registered: 14/01/1999 Party Leader: The Rt Hon David Cameron Nominating officer: Mr Alan Mabbutt Treasurer: Mr Simon Charles Day

This is the record of C&U party on EC website: Primary name: Conservative and Unionist Party Register: Northern Ireland Status ?: Authorised Date registered: 16/02/2001 Party Leader: The Rt Hon David Cameron Nominating officer: Mr Alan Mabbutt Treasurer: Mr George Irwin Armstrong

Aight 2009 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Populist Party

With the Conservatives trying to take on a more Eurosceptic anti-open door immigration crusty exterior. Is it now safe to assume they are trying pander to the populist vote? Does this make them a populist party? They wouldn't be speaking about open-door immigration or quiting the EU had it not been for UKIP so think the "Populist" vote element should be added to the Tories list of viewpoints. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (GMT)

No, generally, more restrictions on immigration are a part of standard conservatism, while euroscepticism generally is, but is also made explicit in this article (as an aside, the Conservatives do not support leaving the EU - they support reforming it). Therefore, there is no need for this. You may want to refer in future to reliable sources to make your case on Wikipedia. Obviously, hundreds of books have been written about the Conservative Party, so a reference to a defining feature of the party, such as its ideology, would need to be supported by a multitude of very highly-regarded tertiary sources: something that you clearly wouldn't get for 'populist'. Bastin 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs)

https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates.aspx currently gives a list of 142 candidates, I assume for the May 2015 general election. Can someone please clarify what this list means, I couldn't find it mentioned in the main article. John a s (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The list is now 169 names long. Having checked through a few names on the list and not found any current Conservative MPs, I assume this is a list of candidates for May 2015 who are not current MPs. Please can someone verify this and add PPCs to the article? John a s (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)