Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Proposed removal of "Economic liberalism" in the infobox

After previously bringing it up, I still believe the infobox can be improved, I am now proposing the removal of economic liberalism from the infobox, like we dont have social conservatism listed, often times the party is of catch all ideology, at various points in times, and economic liberalism itself is not an ideology. Also secondly proposing the addition of "cultural conservatism" to the infobox, using source listed below:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Conservative-Party-political-party-United-Kingdom

Basically the proposals are to either simply remove economic liberalism, as for example the Conservatives back in May of 2021 advocated nationalising the railway system, while Labour spoke out against the idea. Or to keep it but add cultural conservatism to the infobox. I really think the infobox for the parties ideology can be improved and either option would be an improvement!

Thoughts?! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I find it necessary. Economic liberalism is sourced and accurately describes the party -- even with a leftward turn under Johnson they can still be described as an economically liberal party. Ultimately to say they're not economically liberal now based on their policies would be WP:OR. Also, Britannica is... questionable as a source. It's not blacklisted, but it should probably be taken with a grain of salt. — Czello 20:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the infobox ideology field currently reflects the body of the article as well as it should (the only mention of British unionism, for example, is in the unreferenced sentence This can be seen as a victory for British Unionism, a core part of traditional Conservative ideology, and also for Cameron as the incumbent Prime Minister. and there's no section dedicated to the party's ideology. What the article really needs is a referenced section about the ideology of the Conservative Party that reflects the balance of academic sources on the subject, and then that should point conclusively at how the infobox should summarise the ideology. Ralbegen (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - You(=B. M. L. Peters) are too ignorant of European politics and have a POV view. If judging U.S. politics based on South Korean political standards is a logical error, judging European politics based on U.S. political standards is also a logical error. The Conservative Party is clearly a party advocating economic liberalism. Don't damage the article.--Storm598 (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about American political topics. But when it comes to European politics, I'm much more professional than you are. Because I've actually seen countless related books and materials. I think it would be better for you to edit only the American political topic, not the European political topic.--Storm598 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • No need to be rude, I study European politics more than I do American politics. I am of European descent. I am just trying to help! There happens to be another voice here who also thinks the infobox could use a change. It is not typical to have economic liberalism in the ideology field of a major political party. I am simply proposing either a change, the addition of its social policy or foreign policy for instance, or the removal of economic liberalism as its covered more than thoroughly enough in the body paragraphs. Either change would perhaps be better than what we have now. Either remove economic liberalism from the infobox, or add another position to counterbalance it! In my opinion, removing it is the better solution. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Let's cool our jets a little. I don't agree with BML's proposed changes but it's a valid suggestion, not an attempt to damage the article. We can discuss this without being uncivil. — Czello 06:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

FINAL VOTE (Update: More votes needed)

So I guess where were at, the final proposal, removal of "economic liberalism" from the infobox, what do we think of that? My justification being it is covered extremely thoroughly in the body paragraphs and the Conservatives throughout history have moved between advocating nationalisation or advocating privatisation. Thoughts? B. M. L. Peters (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I believe it is covered more than thoroughly in the "Economic policy" section to the article, breaking there economic policy down by era and time period, and in the "Party factions" section breaking it down by party factions and groupings, ranging from Thatcherism and complete economic liberalism, to nationalization, suggesting to me it is unnecessary to leave it in the infobox, and should be removed. Random bonus it will shrink the somewhat overloaded infobox a tad bit! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Conservative Party is clearly an economic liberal party, and "economic liberalism" is still mentioned in the articles related to numerous political parties in the infobox. I don't think "economic liberalism" should be erased from the infobox. --Storm598 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - While it is not common to have Economic Liberalism listed in a party's infobox, it does clearly define an aspect of the ideology of the Conservative Party. Kappasi (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Majority calculation

Can someone please explain how the 80-seat majority for the party from the last election is calculated? I'm not disputing it as I've seen it given by reliable sources, I'm just wondering how it is worked out. I thought it would be a 39-seat majority because 326 seats were needed for a majority and the party won 365, so I thought 365-326= 39 majority. So where does the 80-seat majority come from / how is it calculated? Helper201 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The 80 seat number is how many seats they have above all the other parties combined. So, if you tot up all the seats won by other parties it should come to 285. 285+80=365. — Czello 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for the explanation. Helper201 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Position should say "Center-Right to Right Wing" 69.80.22.185 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Covid restrictions

I am so disappointed in your rules on this Virus, please consider the people that are Vulnerable and are frightened to go about their daily duties, l feel you not making more restrictions Means you are willing to risk our lives. I have been a conservative since l was eligible to vote, never again will l vote for your party.

Maria Cleaver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.183.37 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is like a whole new level of tweeting at the wrong celebrity. How do you find your way into a Wiki talk page and still not realise it's not an "official" page for the person you're addressing? Dyaluk08 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is very far from meeting the GA criteria. There is significant unsourced content, and the content that is sourced relies far to heavily on news reports, when academic and historical analyses are available. (The issue of overuse of news sources as a POV issue for politics topics is discussed here). The length of this article is also an issue, because summary style is not employed and the party's recent history is given excessive space compared to past eras. Fixing these issues, realistically, would take weeks or months of work. (t · c) buidhe 08:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Centre-right?

I appreciate that the party is still considered centre-right, but there is no mention in the lead of the massive shift towards the right that the party has taken since 2010, and especially in the last two years. Why is this? Dyaluk08 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just realised this has been addressed above in the section #Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021. I'll have a look into primary sources when I can. Dyaluk08 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it curious you think the party took a surge to the right since 2010 since they famously moved much closer to the centre under Cameron. — Czello 20:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that this has been discussed a dozen times already and that "center-right" is still considered to be appropriate. This seems to be a temporary shift, like in every other political party. It was more centrist under Cameron, although they have shifted back to the right during Johnson's leadership. Vacant0 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no reference to the party's ideological English Nationalism. This should be included in the InfoBox and in the intro.

See https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jul/04/conservatives.uk

https://nation.cymru/news/conservative-party-has-become-the-english-nationalist-party-says-former-welsh-mp/

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-political-science-of-how-english-nationalism-is-becoming-entrenched

https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/03/20/the-disruptive-rise-of-english-nationalism

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tory-talk-of-union-hides-soft-underbelly-of-english-nationalism-1.3025164

Marlarkey (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Conservative Resident" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Conservative Resident and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 10#Conservative Resident until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Mayors and seats diagrams

Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 6
House of Commons	359 / 650
House of Lords	255 / 764
Scottish Parliament	31 / 129
Senedd	16 / 60
Regional mayors[nb]	2 / 10
London Assembly	9 / 25
PCCs and PFCCs	30 / 39
LA mayors	1 / 15
Councillors[nb]	7,429 / 19,943
^ The Mayor of London and nine combined authority 'metro' mayors. ^ Councillors of local authorities in England and Scotland, principal councils in Wales and local councils in Northern Ireland.

Hi all. I think it would be better to separate 'regional' mayors and local authority mayors on the seats diagrams in the infobox, since they are very different positions. I've mocked up an improvement on the right. Let me know if you have any thoughts! I didn't include any references, but these can be added if necessary. I'll also link to this discussion on the Labour article. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done (with amendments). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Johnson still leader?

He is still listed as leader but media in my country claim (or report as if) his resignation as party leader came immediately into effect and that he remains Prime Minister only, for as long as a new party leader is elected. I thought there should be another, acting, party leader now. If not, what's the difference between his retreat as leader and his retreat as prime minister? Do they happen at the same time, with Johnson as acting leader of the party until the election of a new one? 2001:4BC9:A46:BF35:CD7A:6AC0:69B5:EAF1 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It is unclear from reliable sources what Johnson's current status in relation to party leadership is. There is a lot of speculation. He has tendered a resignation but looking at past practice a leader's tenure continues until they are replaced. It is likely that once the 1922 committee meets on Monday it will become clearer SPACKlick (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this here Talk:Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)#Johnson's_pending_resignation , I think it's unclear but tend toward him still being leader at this time. JeffUK (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

DUP

The Conservatives have aligned with the DUP especially during the coalition government under Johnson. This is missing from the Irish affiliation section. 2A00:23C7:5122:BE01:B170:C8D1:312C:4E67 (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Far-Right Economically

The Financial Times has labeled the conservative party as the most right-wing party in the developed world [1]https://www.ft.com/content/d5f1d564-8c08-4711-b11d-9c6c7759f2b8 [2]https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/trussanomics-swings-tories-right-trump-and-bolsonaro 82.14.227.184 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They should be referred to as ‘Centre-right to right-wing’ in the political position section to reflect the different groupings within the party. Mooreo.odm (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Make it Centre-Right to Far Right because there is a far right group within the tories. we shouldn't downplay it. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The far-right element is not a major enough force to be in the description (Labour is not referred to on Wikipedia as 'Far-left to Centre' to reflect the penecommunist-to-Blairite spectrum). The two main groupings within the Conservative party are the broad centre-right, embodied by the administrations of the 2010s, and the right-wing, embodied by the figures of the 2020s. I'm endorsing 'Centre-right to right-wing'. I'd like to get concensus on this so we can change it. Mooreo.odm (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

okay 82.14.227.184 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, that's not what "far-right" means, where it comes to economics. The far-right are closer to the centre on economics. More importantly, though, we don't change the political position of the party based on a single leader -- we only do it if sources demonstrate that the party as a whole, from top to bottom, represents a new change in its direction. That definitely doesn't happen after a few weeks. — Czello 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not advocating for adding ‘far-right’ to the description. As you can see, I oppose it. What I do believe is that it is obvious that the Conservative party, as a whole like you appreciate, represents a centre-right to right-wing spectrum. These two broad categories have been the dominating forces in the party for essentially its entire existence. To merely call it ‘centre-right’ is an inaccuracy, and it should certainly be changed to ‘centre-right to right-wing’. Mooreo.odm (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, centre-right is not an apt description of the party and hasn't been for some time, there are mild far-right elements but as mentioned earlier these are not strong enough to incorporate 'far-right' in the description. However, for some time now the party has been controlled by MPs who would be considered 'right' on issues such as the economy, immigration and crime, with push back on some issues from those on the centre-right. Thus as these factions struggle for control of the party, centre-right to right would be a more apt description of the party. As mentioned previously the public has held this perception long before the lurch to the right under Truss, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/conservative-party-alignment. In terms of academia, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-021-00165-9 this article outlines the factional disputes between what can essentially be categorised as the centre-right and right within the party over Brexit, with this further article from 2020 outlining the ideological closeness of UKIP and the Conservative Party https://ras.jes.su/meimo/s013122270008985-4-1-en Txmhhh (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Conservate party are not "Centre" Right.

The Conservative and Union party of Great Britain are not a "Centre" Right party, they are a Right wing party. 78.145.65.76 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There might be some merit to this point. (This is WP:Synth. BUT.. yougov shows significantly more people think they are right wing or very right wing than 'centre' Conservative Party alignment (yougov.co.uk)) I'll see what other sources I can find for this. JeffUK (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Under the Truss premiership and government, the economic ideology of the party is (according to the Financial Times) the most right-wing in all of Europe, and more right-wing than the Republicans in the United States. I agree, and would want to change it as such. Mooreo.odm (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there is a significant consensus that the Truss administration pursued a right-wing libertarian policy which was shared by the membership. The party has abandoned the centre ground. --SW1APolitico (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

They're not even in power any more. — Czello 21:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Centre" right

I propose that the political position be changed to "centre-right to right wing" to accurately describe the factions in the party, especially due to the talking points in the Leadership campaign with regards to issues like LGBT topics, economic policy and migration. The party has shifted heavily away from the centre-right since 2016. 82.69.36.127 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed 47.16.149.241 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Under the Truss premiership and government, the economic ideology of the party is (according to the Financial Times) the most right-wing in all of Europe, and more right-wing than the Republicans in the United States. I agree, and will change it as such. Mooreo.odm (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Change "centre-right" to right wing

Agree with the above two comments that centre right now needs to be right-wing, especially under the leadership of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and with what we've seen in the Leadership Election. We now have a home secretary that supports leaving the European Convention of Human Rights , which would put the UK on-par with only Russia and Belarus, and there have been further threats to the humans rights act. The Conservatives' plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, a country with poor humans rights records, should also be noted.

That's not to mention a series of authoritarian laws implemented this year, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (removing the right to protest), the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (allowing the Home Office to strip British citizenship of any individual without warning), and the Elections Act 2022 (requiring voter ID, giving the Government power over the electoral commission). Additionally, Liz Truss has campaigned on tax cuts for the rich, and the leadership election had a disproportionate focus on "culture wars" and "woke issues". AWikipediaEditor99 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done .... would need academic sources that discuss this.Moxy- 20:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

while i agree with this judgement, it should be noted that the current academic sources are from 1994 (and so outdated with respect to the trajectory of the modern conservative party) and 2016 (since which uk politics has changed dramatically). the current description of 'centre-right' is inaccurate. Plifal (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

'Centre-right to right-wing' should be the description, it reflects the two main groupings within the party. The more moderate wing that governed in the 2010s, and the more right-wing faction that governs in the 2020s. Mooreo.odm (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Academic source like this? Much better of an academic source about Cameron's politics in 2016, as now... --Skyfall (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there is a significant consensus the party is no longer "centre right". However, I agree that this needs substantiating and academics have yet to play catch-up with the turmoil since 2019. --SW1APolitico (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Logging my agreement - it's misleading to imply that there's anything "centre" about 2022's Conservative Party.JayAmber (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

In the first sentence under the heading 'Logo', it reads '...he was surprised find to that...' it should read '...he was surprised TO FIND that...' (Emphasis added). JPBYR93 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. — Czello 16:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Slogan

Worth having the year of slogan present? I maybe understand during an election campaign, but not just for a parties everyday slogan. 65.211.16.54 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Bearing in mind WP:DUE and the fact that there are opinion polls published almost daily in the news media, is there a sound rationale to keep this one in particular in the Rishi Sunak section about a recent opinion poll? I'd say not, and think it could lead to a section full of opinion poll reports, but my removal of it, asking them to seek consensus here first, was reverted by the editor who added it, with the summary BRD is optional. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not every opinion poll should be cited here. I don't think anyone has suggested citing every opinion poll. I feel a few reprsentative polls should be cited. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

“Centre Right” should be “Right Wing”

The Conservative Party under the leadership of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak can no longer be affiliated with ”Centre Right” politics and it is dangerous and misleading for Wikipedia to say as such.

This revision was refused in September 2022. We are now 6 months after that date and the party has continued to become more extreme in its views and policies.

“Right Wing” would be a far more accurate term to describe the party’s current affiliation. Suggesting that Rishi Sunak’s recent Immigration Policies fall under “Centre Right” politics is completely absurd.

Academic Article discussing the shift of the Conservative Party from 2016 onwards: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s12115-022-00687-y?sharing_token=y1oVkDF_rowrERwgyowz8Pe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY7r70Lw1lzM75hG4FPp8bfblNbSVR8NfuOA2sX-ceOK7RtjrbeNBcXqZ40fQo6dI2jsed_PVjfR0Yb9iJ1Q1dOZ5qKOxzdbbjZa7vsLR0KEdxchwOMlIUusYPMd5ghuwdA%3D

Please, change this. DWMemories (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be WP:OR or even WP:SYNTH. Ultimately the labelling of the party needs to come from reliable sourcing - which predominately say "centre-right". I can't see where in the paper you link where it says the party is no longer "centre-right" (even so, it would require further sources). — Czello 10:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting that the Conservative Party is anything but “Right Wing” is wrong. The sources currently cited on the page are from 1994 and 2016 - both incredibly outdated and do not represent the current situation of the party. https://www.ft.com/content/d5f1d564-8c08-4711-b11d-9c6c7759f2b8 DWMemories (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Financial Times is a newspaper, and you've just posted an opinion piece from said news paper, not a scholarly analysis. If you have more recent scholarly sources that argue for a reclassification of the party, please post those instead. --Jayron32 14:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

“in an attempt to shore up support within the Conservative Party backbenches, where the hard right is prominent.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8932367/

Perhaps “Centre-Right to Right Wing” would be more accurate a term to use considering the factionalism within the party? DWMemories (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is again WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We need sources to explicitly state that they're no longer centre-right and are just cleanly right-wing, rather than interpreting the text.

However, another thing to consider is that we rarely change a party's political position based on recent trends (for example, the whole time Labour was under the thrall of Jeremy Corbyn, we didn't change their position to "left-wing" or "hard left", we kept it as "centre-left", despite an obvious shift in policy). Changing the position in this way is something that would probably have to come after years of consistent academic sourcing that indicates they've abandoned a prior position. — Czello 14:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too quick to rule this out. Of course, you are right that we need good sources to support any change but this move rightwards has been going on since 2016 under multiple leaders and seems to be both deeply embedded and accelerating daily. It is not just a flash in the pan like Corbyn was. So, let's leave the description as it is for now but if anybody can show some really good sources to support what we all know to be true then maybe something like “Centre-Right to Right Wing” should be where we are heading. I can't imagine that nobody has written anything scholarly about such a major political realignment. DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are two articles that express the change in Conservative Party politics seen since 2016. I would still argue that “Right Wing” better describes the party’s current affiliation. However, a “Centre-Right to Right-Wing” description would probably suit this page the best for now (at least, until further scholarly analyses have been written).

https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/108/David_Sanders.pdf

Quote: “His failure to understand the risks he was running or to campaign effectively for the deal he had secured resulted in his rapid politely demise and his replacement by a conservative government that seems bent on a ‘hard Brexit’ and moving the conservatives firmly to the authoritarian right”.

http://dermotfeenan.com/index.php/2020/11/02/ideological-shifts-on-race-among-uk-conservatives-implications-for-law-and-policy/

Quote: “The article fails to recognise and analyse the place of race with reference to the ideological shift further to the right in the party, especially in Cabinet.”

At the very least, these articles show that the party’s factions make describing the party as “Centre Right” a huge simplification. DWMemories (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a few issues with the first link: first, this alone is outdated as it's talking 3 Prime Ministers ago (if the argument the current citations are outdated holds, then it applies to this, too). Secondly it doesn't seem to say they have moved to the right, it says they're bent on it (whether they were successful remains to be seen). The 2nd link doesn't seem explicit enough to me and I'd say is still an interpretation of the text. — Czello 14:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Both articles currently cited on the Conservative Party page were written before the Brexit Referendum: a political event that has shaped UK politics dramatically. The articles are not outdated due to being written an arbitrary number of Prime Minsters ago. They are outdated because they do not reflect the change in party politics since the Brexit vote. The 2017 article I have cited discussed the effect that Brexit has had (and continues to have) on the Conservative Party. It is not outdated because the topics it discusses remain entirely relevant today.

You have claimed that the article only suggests that the Conservative Party *could* shift to the right. However, it clearly states that it has already shifted rightwards and that it *could* shift even further rightwards.

“As with Labour’s centrists, Tory centrists have an opportunity to defect from a party with which they no longer have very much in common.”

I’m not sure how an article that states “Boris Johnson’s victory in the leadership contest in July 2019, and the consolidation of his power through the party’s landslide gains in the general election in December 2019, has led to the most right-wing cabinet since the 1980s,” and references Nick Boles’ tweet “The hard right has taken over the Conservative Party,” to support its claim is not explicit. DWMemories (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be of "Centre right to Far-right" because Lizz Truss Is a very extremlist person and His faction Is of Far-right too Holiptholipt (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous. — Czello 07:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I notice Czello had you haven’t argued against my previous point? Should we take it that you now support a change to “Centre-Right to Right-Wing”? DWMemories (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo: “that” not “had”. DWMemories (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yea of course, we need to change This, Holiptholipt (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Luckily, we have a lot of academic sources that discuss the politics of the Conservative Party. Most of these are from the last few years. An academic writing in Renewal describes it as a centre-right party while covering the different forces acting on it; similarly in Political Studies—how the Conservative Party, as a centre-right party, appealed to supporters of radical right parties. An article that discusses the centre-right across Europe as an idea includes the UK's Conservative Party. A table in this article in Political Studies discusses increases in authoritarianism among European parties but includes the Conservative Party in a table as "mainstream right", which it earlier defines as centre-right. A 2020 article on political donations says "The Conservative party policy is still centre-right on left-right issues"

There are some sources which describe the party as covering a range of positions. This published masters thesis says "the Conservative Party has balanced between sometimes being more mainstream/centre right and sometimes being more radical right", but it's not the most authoritative source. An article in Party Politics says the Conservative Party "moved moderately rightwards after 2001" as an example of political change when the radical right does not play a role.

The best source for a change comes from Tim Bale's book The Conservative Party After Brexit: Turmoil and Transformation. He writes that "...anyone hoping that, under Sunak, [the Conservative Party] will downplay the culture war strategy so evident under Boris Johnson is likely to be sorely disappointed. Indeed, rather than the installation of a supposedly more 'technocratic' Cabinet halting and even reversing any transformation on the part of of the Conservative Party from a mainstream centre-right formation into an ersatz radical right-wing populist outfit, it could [...] just as easily accelerate and accentuate it". There are also plenty of academic sources which describe a rightward shift of the party without suggesting a move from one type of party (a centre-right one) to another (a right-wing, radical right, so on).

The best thing to do would be to incorporate some of these academic sources into the article to better cover the party's changing ideology and political position. I do not think that the balance of reliable source coverage of the party would support a change to the headline that the Conservative Party is the UK's centre-right political party. Ralbegen (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest centre right is replaced by Fascists

the Conservative party is showing increasing signs of fascism... 213.135.203.150 (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not doneMoxy- 08:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This Party was founded the same Decade Britain abolished Slavery.

Yet that issue doesn't come up on this page? Surely this party has a position on that debate? KuudereKun 16:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right"

Is the party "far right"? Comment here. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Too long to navigate

At 287,000 bytes, I would suggest that this article is too long to navigate comfortably (in particular the history section). Would anyone oppose me moving (especially more recent history) onto the History of the Conservative Party (UK) page and then condensing the history section of this page down? Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The history section is about the same length as the entire History of the Conservative Party (UK) page, it is far too long and recentist. Would anyone have any objections from me trimming down this section? Michaeldble (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Conservatives and Unionists (1867–1914)

The second paragraph says Churchill denounced chamberlain's attack on free trade but this 'attack' is not previously mentioned anywhere. Imo it needs stating that Chamberlain was one of the proponents of tariffs. Firestar47 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition

@Aubernas, it's not me that needs the consensus, it is you - per WP:ONUS. So please self-revert (per WP:BRD), continue with the talkpage discussion and to try to make your case. Before you do that though, it seems you need to brush-up on WP:WEASEL, WP:DATED, WP:NPOV, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:VER, WP:TALK/WP:READFIRST, and WP:NPA. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aubernas It is also probably best to assume good faith rather than attacking the neutrality of other editors in your edit summaries Michaeldble (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification tag

A failed verification tag was added for the political positions section in the infobox recently. If it does fail verification, does anyone have a better source for the centre-right claim, as this seems very important to source well. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any failed verification, both citations are correct and contain citation of the statement. Failed verification tag was added wrongly. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

One source is a website with a project summary that states that the Tories are competing "on the centre right of British politics", which, according to that summary, is also what New Labour and UKIP do. That is all it states. There is not claim that the Tories are a centre-right party, or where else they are competing. And again, it's just a project summary, not even a research paper, let alone a peer-reviewed one. That is not a good source. The other source is a book on the post-Thatcher Conservative Party. It is from 30 years ago, so unless we assume that the Tories have been politically frozen for three decades, it is likely outdated That aside, the book doesn't state anywhere that the Tories are a centre-right party. It does say (p. 141):

"It is clear from the distribution of opinions on these scales that most Conservatives think of themselves as being on the centre-right both within the Conservative party and within British politics as a whole."

However, right below that it states:

"What is interesting, however, is that some 41 per cent of members placed themselves in the left to centre categories (1 to 5) on the party scale, which, given the results of the factor analysis, implies that they tend towards the anti-traditionalist and anti-individualist ends of the spectrum."

So all we have here is one book from decades ago stating that a relative majority of Tories self-identify as centre-right, whereas a high number of other members self-identify as left or centre. Not only are we lacking a clear statement of the party's position, but what we get is self-identification as a broad party all the way from the left across the centre to the right. If we were to use this source at all (which we should not), the infobox should state "left to right", because that is what the source actually says. Yes, a relative majority of members back in the day said they identify as centre-right, but ignoring the position of the actual remaining majority isn't good enough.

Also, neither source does feature a "citation of the, statement", even though one is a book with 300+ pages and should definitely at least include a page number. Cortador (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new article?

With this article being quite long already, I was wondering if a new article could be made called 'Electoral history of the Conservative Party (UK)'. This would include general election results, European Parliament, Police and Crime Commissioner and all of the devolved election results as well as a link to all the leadership elections. We could then move most of this info (except the general election section), onto the new article and link it on this page. Would there be any support for this? All the best Michaeldble (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cortador (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!

Any thoughts from some other regular contributors? I've not seen this done for any of the other UK political parties yet so I didn't want to break any previous consensus/start anything that would just end up deleted.

@Cambial Yellowing @DeFacto @Czello Michaeldble (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a no-brainer. Go for it. — Czello ^(music) 04:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead revision proposal

Here's my proposed revised lead paragraph:

--------------------------------------------

The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party and also known colloquially as the Tories, is one of the two main political parties in the United Kingdom, along with the Labour Party. It is the current governing party, having won the 2019 general election, and has been the primary governing party in the United Kingdom since 2010. The party is on the right-wing or centre-right of the political spectrum, and encompasses various ideological factions including one-nation conservatives, Thatcherites, and traditionalist conservatives. The party currently has 354 members of Parliament, 260 members of the House of Lords, 9 members of the London Assembly, 31 members of the Scottish Parliament, 16 members of the Welsh Parliament, 4 directly elected mayors, 30 police and crime commissioners, and around 5,647 local councillors.

The Conservative Party was founded in 1834 from the Tory Party and was one of two dominant political parties in the 19th century, along with the Liberal Party. Under Benjamin Disraeli, it played a preeminent role in politics at the height of the British Empire. In 1912, the Liberal Unionist Party merged with the party to form the Conservative and Unionist Party. Since the 1920s, the Labour Party emerged to be the Conservatives' main rival and the Conservative–Labour political rivalry has shaped modern British politics for the last century.

The party has generally adopted liberal economic policies favouring free markets, including deregulation, privatisation, and marketisation, since the 1980s, although historically it advocated for protectionism. The party is British unionist, opposing a united Ireland as well as Scottish and Welsh independence, and has been critical of devolution. Historically, the party supported the continuance and maintenance of the British Empire. The party has taken various approaches towards the European Union (EU), with eurosceptic and, to an increasingly lesser extent, pro-European factions within it. It embraced a strongly eurosceptic position, with the slogan "Get Brexit Done", following the decision to leave the EU in a 2016 referendum held under the Conservative Party Cameron government. Historically, the party took a socially conservative approach. In defence policy, it supports an independent nuclear weapons programme and commitment to NATO membership.

For much of modern British political history, the United Kingdom exhibited a wide urban–rural political divide; the Conservative Party's voting and financial support base has historically consisted primarily of homeowners, business owners, farmers, real estate developers and middle class voters, especially in rural and suburban areas of England. However, since the EU referendum in 2016, the Conservatives have also targeted working class voters from traditional Labour strongholds. The Conservatives' domination of British politics throughout the 20th century—having governed for 65 nonconsecutive years—and its re-emergence in the 2010s has led to it being referred to as one of the most successful political parties in the Western world.

References

--------------------------------------------

Notes regarding the changes: I don't think mentioning that the Tories hold an annual conference is needed. It's common for parties, and nothing particularly noticeable for the Tories specifically. The sentence about the party becoming more socially liberal is dubious. The body text notes that "the extent to which this policy truly represented a more 'liberal' Conservative party has been challenged." Thus, the lead should not state that the Tories have indeed become more liberal. Same-sex marriage should also not be mentioned as an example of that, as this was a LibDem proposition which was passed despite the Conservatives, not because of them. However, discussing this is, in my opinion, not suitable for the lead, and I propose that instead, we note that the Tories are historically socially conservative. I also think the main body does not explicitly backs up that the Tories "favours a strong military capability", and I think it should simply state that they support Trident and NATO. Furthermore, I think it's sufficient to state that the Tories have recently been gaining in traditional Labour strongholds without getting into too many details. Lastly, I don't think that mentioning the semi-autonomous branches of the party is needed in the lead.

This condenses the lead to four paragraphs and about 450 words. Comments are welcome. Cortador (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If we are to re-write the lead, perhaps we should take the opportunity to follow the appropriate Wiki guideline for it (WP:LEAD) too. Particularly:

1. The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. So avoid the present recentism and concentrate on a broader overview and context of the party.
2. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article So, not introducing novel content in it which is not a summary of stuff already in the article's main body.
3. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. and The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. So we can consider eliminating most, if not all, of the citations in the lead.
4. ... emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. Obvious really.

-- DeFacto (talk). 13:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Tories are centre-right. Not right-wing. 109.147.138.27 (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing

The Cons are a centre-right party. If you compare their agenda to other right-wing parties in the world, they are on the centre.

Just because the party has some more right-wing MPs it doesn't mean they represent the party. Also, the page badly needs to be trimmed down (it's way too large) and there needs to be more of a neutral tone. 109.147.138.27 (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, in the fraction section, One-Nation Cons should be the highest above tradional Conservatives. In fact, the tradional Conservatives should be the lowest because One Nation Tories and Free Market Tories tend to lead the party today. 109.147.138.27 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Finally, this page should be more like Conservative Party of Canada. 109.147.138.27 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If you wish for this page to be rewritten, you are free to do so yourself, following Wikipedia's policies. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources, and sourcing decisions have an academic bias, with scholarship considered the most reliable. Content is never based on the opinions of contributors to the talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Centre-right" should, at the very least, be replaced by "Centre-right to right-wing"

As the thread above states, the two sources used to justify listing the party's political position as "Centre-right" are from 1994 and 2016 - to pretend that the party is still the same party that it was back then is dishonest and dangerous.

The party's current agenda is most certainly not "centre-right" - its immigration policy in particular has more in common with the BNP than it does with the Conservative Party of 2016.

Furthermore, many of the people in the party's cabinet, such as Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and David TC Davies, as well as the party's deputy chair Lee Anderson, are recognised by Wikipedia as being explicitly right-wing - an explicitly right-wing faction, which includes other prominent Conservative politicians, such as Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Esther McVey, Nadine Dorries, Priti Patel, Bill Cash, John Hayes, etc, exists and is very influential in the party, which, for other conservative parties, such as the Conservative Party of Canada, has been enough to earn the label "Centre-right to right-wing" on Wikipedia, which is an accurate label; some factions are centre-right, and some are right-wing.

I don't see why we can't do the same thing here, especially since the right-wing faction is more influential than it ever has been at any point since the 1980s. Wikipedia's job is to state the facts as they are, and stating that a party that has been shifting right for the past half-decade is still "centre-right", using wildly outdated sources to justify this, is not stating the facts; it is purely irresponsible.

Please change the party's position to "centre-right to right-wing", as this more accurately represents the true political position of the party. 2.100.64.182 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I second this. There's ample evidence in support of the Conservative and Unionist Party no longer being considered a strictly centre-right only party (really the evidence is much stronger that it's a right-wing to far-right party). Evidence describing the Tories as centre-right is a decade out of date at best, and rather disengenious of us to continue claiming it's souly a centre-right political party.

I've provided a non-exhastive list list of outlets across the political spectrum that have described the Conservative Party as either right-wing or far-right over the past few years [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Aditionaly, though while not a news source, yougov polling indicates 41% of people in the UK consider the tories right-wing or very right-wing, with only 13% calling it centre-right. [14].

One of wikipedia's greatest benefits is that it can keep up with the times, and it's time to update this article to do just that. Bejakyo (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of issues with the sources you list. Many are opinion pieces, which comes under WP:RSOPINION. And there's ones like the BBC video involving Anna Soubry, again its clearly her stating her personal view point. You really need reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) that comply with WP:SYNTH in explicitly calling the party right-wing, and not via an opinion piece. Helper201 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that those sources have such issues. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

2.100.64.182, I completely agree with this concern. I think it's wrong that WP:SYNTH should be misused to stop people from saying that the Conservatives have a right-wing faction, despite it being absolutely, emphatically, obviously true, and recognised by its own accord across Wikipedia. There's such a ridiculous abundance of sources to state it, as well. The idea you need a vague, "non-opinion"-based source that nobody can seem to identify is a bit silly. The statement that the Conservatives are solely centre-right is utterly bizarre, given how misleading and demonstrably untrue it is. Aubernas (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to this, both current sources don't even explicitly state that the Tories are a centre-right party. One is a project summary (not a research paper) that merely states that the Tories compete on the centre-right, not that they are predominantly a centre-right party. The other source, a book on the post-Thatcher party from 30 years ago (thoroughly outdated unless we assume the Tores have been frozen in time for three decades), has one sentence that states that most Tory member identify as centre-right, but again doesn't explicitly state that the party is centre-right. Those are some weak sources. Cortador (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and there are several prominent right wing people in the party including the Foreign Secretary, the Leader, and the Deputy Chairman Sbad61 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll see whether I can dig out some more recent sources, preferably academic. Cortador (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

100% please do, centre right to right wing is accurate, far-right wouldn't be correct but centre-right isn't correct either. Sbad61 (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

and here are some sources that back this up also

https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/4912091#page=54

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/09/30/the-tories-are-now-the-most-rightwing-governing-party-in-the-developed-world/ Sbad61 (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few sources:

Al-Jazeera describing the party as being on the right (not centre-right): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/20/how-a-change-in-leadership-could-affect-uks-conservative-party

Time Bale, a professor for politics, describes the party as right-wing populist in his book, The Conservative Party After Brexit: Turmoil and Transformation: https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-british-conservative-partys-journey-towards-the-populist-radical-right/

Evan et al. argue that the Tories used to be a centre-right party, but adopted right-wing politics to appease right-wing populist voters: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00323217211051191

The Week cites the Tories as a moderate right-wing party that has now become increasingly nationalist and populist: https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/politics/958099/tories-at-war-what-happened-to-the-worlds-most-successful-party

The Guardian notes that the Tories have "shifted decisively to the right": https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/01/righter-than-right-tory-conservative-hardline-drift-public-opinion

The Morning Express has a piece that echoes that: https://morningexpress.in/right-wing-extremism-infiltrates-the-uk-conservative-party/

The TLDR here is that the Tories used to be a centre-right party, but have shifted to the right in recent years in order to appease right-wing voters and the right wing of their party, which used to be a minority wing. I believe this is sufficient to position the party as right-wing in the infobox, and to add "right-wing populism" under the list of ideologies - especially considering the current weak sources that put it as centre-right. Cortador (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, were those sources cherry-picked or randomly selected? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't agree with this assessment, feel free to provide reliable sources to the contrary. Cortador (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, I haven't read them yet, but I just wondered how you came across them. Did you search specifically for those views, or what? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you concerned about sourced you haven't even looked at being potentially "cherry-picked"? Cortador (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, I'm curious as to whether they represent a random cross-section of sources, or just a cross-section of sources selected because of the opinion they support. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

See my reply above. Cortador (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, which of your several replies above do you mean? None of them seem to answer my question. You must know how you selected the sources to present here. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you concerned about sourced you haven't even looked at being potentially "cherry-picked"? Cortador (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, see my reply above, the one I made in response to exactly the same question last time you asked it.

Now please tell us how you selected those particular sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

See my reply above. Cortador (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Could we assume then, that you cherry-picked those particular sources to support a particular POV, rather than to try to understand what the balance of views amongst reliable sources was? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, I'm not happy with you misrepresenting my remarks as you did here and here, apparently as an excuse to 'collapse', and thus hide, the section of the discussion that shows you as being unwilling to tell us how you made that selection of sources. My remarks relate very specifically to the article content and I have never complained about the sources, just questioned how you selected them. However, I'll leave it collapsed as that stands out like a huge red flag, drawing immediate attention to that section of the discussion and the tactics you are prepared to employ to avoid answering a straightforward and very pertinent question.

Without knowing how you selected those sources, how can we decide how much weight to give to the views in them and to the opinion you give based on them? WP:NPOV is clear about this, it says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sbad61I think the Britain at the Polls book is useful, but I don't have access to it. The Tax Research blog takes information from the Financial Times, though the actual article explicitly notes that this is only the Tories' economic position. Cortador (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sbad61, given the amount of turmoil in the party recently, I'm not sure that the views relayed in the book Britain at the Polls 2010, which relate to an election held 13 years ago, are very relevant to today's situation in the party (and btw, I couldn't find anything relevant on page 54). The Richard Murphy blog is talking about just in relation to economics, and under Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, so clearly irrelevant to today's situation too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@AubernasI found some sources on the Tories' current political ideology (see below). Sources frequently state that the Tories used to be centre-right, but have gone a right shift in recent years. I think this is sufficient for inclusion in the article. Cortador (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

100% agree Sbad61 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Why has this not yet been changed? There is ample evidence to support the idea that the conservatives are no longer a “centre-right” party.

The sources currently listed on Wikipedia have been obsolete since the Brexit Referendum seven years ago (one of the sources provided is older than New Labour; it is ludicrous that it is still being used to support the “centre-right” claim).

This needs to be fixed. It is indisputable that the party’s position has dramatically shifted rightwards. DWMemories (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@DWMemories I've implemented the changes now, changing the position of the party from "centre-right" to "centre-right to right-wing" as well as adding right-wing populism to the list of ideologies. Cortador (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's an interesting present-day piece by a columnist in The Telegraph, arguing that whereas Margaret Thatcher and John Major handed Blair a nation that had dramatically shifted Right-wards during their rule. The Tories today will bequeath Sir Keir Starmer a far more Left-wing country. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That is an opinion piece by Allister Heath, whose opinions can safely be described as "far-right" a man who regularly promotes the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and is thus not a reliable source. Looking at the source itself, the subheading is literally "The cult of the NHS, the woke takeover, the return of socialism, eco-insanity: all are worse since 2010," which tells me all I need to know about what kind of screed we'll find within. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@DontKnowWhyIBother, yes I know what it is, and who it's by, which is how I introduced it. It was published as a comment piece in a well respected and reliable source, and is clearly the view of its author, and clearly informs this discussion. Your view of him is irrelevant in this context. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It was published as a comment piece in a well respected and reliable source [my emph.] so it's not relevant to determining page content. We don't determine key facts for the page with reference to the untutored opinions (Heath has no expertise in political science) of those who promote far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; the notion that it informs this discussion is tenuous at best. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, it's an example of the diversity of views on this. It isn't a source that's suitable for anything other than to support the views of the author - as with all sources that only document personal views. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read it? Because it doesn't say what you're claiming it says; nowhere in the piece does Heath claim that the Tories are left-wing. He's stating that Tory incompetence has cause the average Briton to become more left-wing. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@DontKnowWhyIBother, what are you now alleging that I claimed it says? I certainly didn't claim that it says the Tories are left-wing. All I wrote was a verbatim quote from that source. You need to concentrate more on comprehension I think. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There's at least six editors clearly in favour of making these changes. I also agree with Cortado and IP's proposals, making seven. @DontKnowWhyIBother: Would you mind clarifying your position on the proposed changes? Cambial — foliar❧ 10:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add that nobody has clearly spoken out against the changes in addition to that. DeFacto resorted to questioning some of the sources I named without reading them (as they themselves admitted) while not making a case for retaining the current position. Czello, who reverted the change, hasn't participated in the discussion at all. ThecentreCZ stated that they don't agree that the old sources failed to confirm that the Tories are just centre-right (see "Failed verification tag" discussion below) but didn't respond to my criticism with the sources, nor did they bring up additional sources. Cortador (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm on mobile right now so I'll keep my reply brief - my revert is on the subject of the populism ideology, which I do not see consensus for. If I'm mistaken, please direct me to the appropriate comments/users. — Czello ^(music) 10:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it was not. You reverted both the changes to position and ideology. I brought up several sources that confirm a shift of the Tory Party towards populism (see sourced I listed above), and other agreed with these changes regarding their ideology. Lastly, that changes is well-sourced and does not require your personal approval. if you don't agree with it, start a discussion and argue against the change instead of making reverts without further participation. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador: Czello has a good point – while numerous editors have agreed that the sources support the inclusion of "right-wing" and support its inclusion, "populist" does not have the same support from editors. You remain the only editor to have actually used either the words "populism" or "populist" in the comments above. I think more discussion is needed on that - perhaps in a separate section. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not opposed to adding populism somewhere in the body of the article (I considered the factions section, but that doesn't seem appropriate. Maybe somewhere in policies) but adding it to the infobox strikes me as very WP:UNDUE, given that it doesn't really represent the party as a whole and more certain MPs. For example, the third source is about Boris himself, and even then only says he "flirted" with it. I actually can't even see where the first two sources even call the Tories populist overtly. — Czello ^(music) 17:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The source states that (in the second sentence of the article body) "Nowhere is this more evident than in the populist turn taken by the Conservative Party" - the party, no just Johnson. The term "flirtation" is solely used in he headline. If you think more sources are needed on top of that, I listed several above. Bale describes the Tories as transforming into an "an ersatz populist radical right party", and The Week is citing Benjamin Fox stating that the Tories "morphed into an increasingly nationalist and populist party since Brexit". Cortador (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador: Yes, there seems to be significant support for the notion of populism or populist in the reliable sources, including in academic sources. Combined with other academic sources, I would support the use of this term in the body and possibly lead/IBX if it can be fleshed out a little. But Czello is correct in pointing out that it doesn't yet have the consensus support that right-wing does from the discussion above. It's also better not to conflate the two discussions: better to have a separate discussion about that below. We also need to consider whether "centre-right" should remain, given the current absence of sourcing for it, and less support for it in contemporary academic sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing We have a source (Evan et al. cited above) stating that the Tories are a centre-right party that has drifted to the right to appease right-wing and far-right voters. That said, none of the other sources still calls the party that. Czello hasn't further replied to the citations I provided above, and nobody else has commented on the matter. If they don't want "right-wing populism" to be added, they can make a case against it based on content, not policy. They claimed that right-wing populism doesn't affect the entire party, but there's sources staying just that. Cortador (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear on my position, I'm opposed to populism being added to the infobox. An addition to the body, as you have just done, I think is fair. — Czello ^(music) 11:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Czello I don't necessarily disagree with 'populism' if it's well sourced, but I was under the impression that the term right-wing populism has very different connotations. I'm not a political scientist but I thought this describes more fascist-lite politicians/parties - i.e. Bolsonaro/Trump. This doesn't seem quite right to me Michaeldble (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

When I say populism I'm referring to the right-wing variant, as that's what Cortador is suggesting adding to the article. I agree it doesn't seem right for an infobox ideology (though there may be some individuals within the party who could fit this label). — Czello ^(music) 13:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reply Cortador. The above description of the Evans et al. source indicates it says the article subject used to be centre-right but has now become a right-wing party. “Centre-right” needs up-to-date sourcing characterising it a such in the present.

I agree that populist and the reference to right-wing populism should be included. How prominent they are (infobox, lead) depends on how well-supported they are in the academic literature. Bale is an excellent source (distinguished subject expert; academic publisher; book well-reviewed in scholarship and elsewhere). We could do with additional academic sources analysing this turn to populism to determine if it ought to be included in the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. Thus far, nobody has brought up good sources for the Tories still being a centre-right party, neither in this discussion nor in the one about the failed verification of the old citations. Let's see whether anyone brings up sources.

I'll see what other academics have to say about the party's recent development. Cortador (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing,

Firstly, it is a consensus we need, not a popular vote.

Secondly, consensuses are generally rooted in Wiki policy argument, or as WP:DETCON puts it: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And as WP:NPOV, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:DUE seem to be appropriate areas of policy for this, we need to know how Cortador selected those particular sources to help us evaluate how representative they are of the views expressed in the totality of available sources, and the weight they deserve to be given.

Thirdly, until a consensus is reached, it is generally accepted that the original content should be left in place. Currently, the non-agreed content keeps being forced back in, which is verging on the uncivil and disruptive, and doesn't promote the collegial approach that is essential for productive Wiki editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Firstly, it is a consensus we need, and a consensus that is apparent. Two editors' opposition, apparently based on policies that are of little or no relevance to the material facts, do not vitiate the emerging consensus.

Secondly, you are not qualified to be the arbiter of what arguments have quality, nor does your position as an involved party allow such a role. I mean, I think your arguments are specious, fatuous nonsense, but I'm not going to elevate myself as the one to discard them on that basis. But the consensus evidently rejects them.

Thirdly, we do not need to know how Cortador selected those particular sources. That's an irrelevant tangent; Cortador has not responded (I would think) because he is not interested in arbitrary hoops created by you for him to jump through. We could equally ask that the editors who inserted sources that indicate "centre-right" explain exactly how they selected those particular sources: but that's not how this website works. We should indeed weigh the significant number of sources that describe the article subject as right-wing, hard-right, or radical right against those which continue to characterise it as centre-right. Evidently the view of them as right-wing is a mainstream view.

Fourthly, the "right-wing" position is only, as you put it, "non-agreed", by you and one other person. Whereas at least seven others are very much agreed. Don't confuse "consensus" with "unanimous". You made an argument against inclusion. More than three times as many other editors rejected your argument. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The opposition you allude to is opposition to changing the article without a clear policy-based consensus, that's all. Whether the previous content had a consensus when it was added is irrelevant, it is the current consensus until a new consensus is reached. The policies I mentioned are as relevant for this article as for any other - views need to be balanced wrt their prevalence. I am qualified to challenge the quality of an argument which takes no account of Wiki policies, as are all Wiki editors. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You referred, or supported reference to, the policy about syntheses of two or more reliable sources. The sources each individually support the material, so that is literally completely irrelevant: nothing has been combined from multiple sources to produce a synthesis. You are qualified to challenge the quality of an argument. You’re not qualified to decide the apparent consensus is not real because you think certain arguments ought to be discarded. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I said they were relevant policies, which they are for dealing with multiple opinions on the same subject, that's all. And I am qualified to opine that there is currently no policy-based consensus for content that was added. BTW, did you have any arguments in mind that you think I thought ought to be discarded? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis is about combining sources to produce a novel synthesis, not dealing with multiple opinions on the same subject.

You asked did you have any arguments in mind that you think I thought ought to be discarded? Reply: You claim there is not a consensus. You say consensuses are generally rooted in Wiki policy argument, or as WP:DETCONputs it: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments. One naturally infers you view the quality of the seven arguments against your position as inferior to your own, and some ought to be discarded in determining consensus. If not, and you accept those arguments are of equal quality, it follows that there is a consensus and your claim was unsupported rhetoric contrary to your own understanding of the facts. If that’s the case, apologies for misinterpreting what you said, but it’s not a good look on your part. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis, yes, when we have multiple opinions we need to keep them separate and not mix them. Eg. if 'source A' says the car was red and 'source B' says it was blue we cannot say it was red-blue. I don't see how that isn't a relevant consideration when dealing with multiple sources on the same subject.

My position on this dispute is that I don't think we have a sufficiently convincing case yet to say what the consensus of the significant views published by reliable sources is. Can you list the "seven arguments against your position" that you referred to please. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Stating that different sources say different things is not combining them into something new. However, we could potentially change the word “to” to the word “or” if that will assuage your extremely tenuous concern.

I’m not going to list diffs from the seven editors who argued the opposing view to your own in a discussion that you took part in. Can you please explain whether it’s the case that you don’t think other editor’s arguments ought to be discarded for lack of quality (in which case you effectively agree there is a consensus) or, if you do think some should be discarded, why you asked did you have any arguments in mind that you think I thought ought to be discarded?, which in that context would constitute pointless sophistry – how are others to know which arguments you consider of insufficient quality and you think are not able to form part of a consensus? Cambial — foliar❧ 14:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good. At least we now we seem to agree that all the policies are relevant and need to be complied with.

The reason I asked for your list of seven is because I'm struggling to find seven editors who gave arguments against my position. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your claim that the policy on synthesis is relevant, as I stated in my last comment. I think it's irrelevant. Trying to understand your unclear logic is not the same as agreeing with it.

I can only suggest reading the content of the comments to which you replied earlier in this discussion. Six of those editors argued to include this. I also voiced my agreement.

The reason I asked you to explain whether you think some arguments ought to be discarded as lacking quality, or not, is because: if you don't, we agree there is a consensus, and if you do, I'd like to know why you asked BTW, did you have any arguments in mind that you think I thought ought to be discarded? If you do think some arguments ought to be discarded that has the appearance of sophistry and merely arguing for the sake of it. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

When you wrote we could potentially change the word "to" to the word "or" I thought the penny had dropped with you.

You originally said there were seven arguments against your position, now you've subtly changed that to six of those editors argued to include this. My position was never that we don't include it, but that I don't think we have a sufficiently convincing case yet to say what the consensus of the significant views published by reliable sources is. That I don't think that there is yet a convincing policy-based reason to change the status quo does not mean that I think any of the arguments need to be discarded, just that I don't think that the sum of them outweigh the status quo. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no "penny" to drop. Merely an illogical argument that you appear unwilling to flesh out into something worth discussing at length. I suggested a compromise to assuage your claimed concern, even though I do not share it. That's the purpose of the talk page; if you instead want to try to convince others that actually they do share your concern - even though they've explicitly said they do not - go right ahead, but don't expect much in the way of response.

I said Six of those editors argued to include this. I also voiced my agreement. Just so we're clear: six plus one is seven. If the level of argument you want to operate at is selective quotation to make it appear to some - I don't know who; those without a maths GCSE? - that I subtly changed what I said, when I evidently did not, I'm afraid you'll have that conversation on your own. WP:CONSENSUS is about the views of editors, not those of sources. So whether you think there is a consensus of the significant views published by reliable sources is not the salient issue; it’s whether you are able to recognise the consensus of six and now seven editors. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The argument that we need to be policy compliant is above.

We weren't discussing that comment of yours though, we were discussing this one: One naturally infers you view the quality of the seven arguments against your position as inferior to your own...

As you seem determined to misrepresent my stance, and so unwilling to accept my position, no matter how I try to explain it, I'll leave it there. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I find your odd claim of misrepresentation on my part, immediately after a comment in which you deliberately truncated a quotation to give the false impression I've "subtly changed" something, quite amusing. Quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say is widely considered to be uncivil; thus we can at least agree that this is a good point to end the discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this right-wing claim in the infobox/lede, there is now only one academic source and two journalistic ones. Would it be better to have some additional academic sources instead of the Guardian and Al Jazeeera for this? Michaeldble (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. There are now. We now need an academic citation for "centre-right", or to remove this original research from the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: I'm afraid you can't simply rely on the claim you don't see a consensus to restore unsourced material. We require material to be reliably sourced here, as you undoubtedly know; neither of the sources cited in the body make even a single refence to the the term "centre-right", or indeed any political position on the spectrum at all. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material; please demonstrate verifiability, with similar contemporary scholarship. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

Cambial Yellowing, at the beginning of the previous section you said: There's at least six editors clearly in favour of making these changes. I also agree with Cortado and IP's proposals, making seven. Yet you have now disregarded that grand proclamation, and, flying in the face of Wiki norms wrt consensus and edit-warring, pushed your personal choice of wording into the article, whilst this discussion is still open and without the decency of proposing it here first. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your wording, just that it has no consensus and the change should not have been made without discussing it here first. Also, as the gratuitous citation overkill clearly red-flags a likelihood of desperation to push a POV, it would help if you explained how you selected those particular sources, and if there really are no other sourced opinions on this subjective view. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your absurd characterisation of a grand proclamation for the words “There's at least six editors clearly in favour of making these changes”. It’s a prosaic observation of fact. The only changes I made were the word “to" to the word “or”, and only because you claim to say “to” is a synthesis – I disagree with your claim, but tried to accommodate it anyway. It isn’t a synthesis, because there are no sources that support the words “centre-right”, and the appropriate solution in the absence of sources is to remove that original research entirely. I also placed the sourced content before that which lacks any sources whatsoever - also appropriate.

I find your charge that what you describe as gratuitous citation overkill clearly red-flags a likelihood of desperation to push a POV groundless and silly. It’s appropriate for content to have robust academic sourcing. It’s precisely wild accusations such as those you make above which led to your earlier four-year block. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, the thing is, you said you agreed with what the six agreed with before, and after it was added as the consensus (which I don't agree it was) you then unilaterally changed it to your preferred version.

Whether there is an "or" or a "to" between the two positions is irrelevant to whether it is OR/synth or not as whichever is written needs sourcing, context, and attribution.

And the thing about the sources is that, without proper discussion and open disclosure, no-one else knows whether they were selected solely because of the view you imply they portray, or whether there were no other views apparent amongst the published reliable sources. And multiple sourcing of the same thing does not make it more robust, it just raises the suspicion that it is an attempt to drown out any other notable view (have you ever read the WP:Citation overkill essay?). So how did you select those particular sources?

And let's try and act as grown-ups eh, and ditch the inflammatory muckraking. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Yes there was a consensus. Regardless, we cannot include unsourced content. "Centre-right" remains unsourced. It needs sourcing, and peer-reviewed academic sourcing to establish weight.

I agree that "to" vs. "for" is irrelevant to whether it is OR/SYNTH: neither constitutes original research. Stating that different sources say different things is not a synthesis. It does not reach or imply a conclusion.

If you would like to be treated more like a grown-up, please behave like one, by avoiding fatuous descriptions of other editors' words as "grand proclamation" or making obviously specious claims like gratuitous citation overkill clearly red-flags a likelihood of desperation to push a POV. That is a groundless speculation on your part, whereas the statement that you were blocked for four years - including noting the stated reason was similar behaviour - is one of fact.

Your extreme, badgering concern over the academic sources that support "right-wing", and over an ostensible but ill-defined and illusory synthesis, contrasts sharply with your total lack of concern over a statement which lacks any source whatsoever - coincidentally the statement for which you advocate. That really does have the appearance of pushing your point of view. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, you agree you broke the consensus then. It may have lacked sources, but all that needs is a 'cn' tag, not a complete trashing of the consensus. Attributing different opinions and sourcing them with different sources is fine, but presenting a conclusion drawn from the contents of different sources, and sourcing it to both is OR/synth.

Attempting to arrive at a policy-compliant consensus is something we should be working towards, and disrupting that process, which can be quite a challenge anyway, by blowing away everything already achieved, and replacing it with a totally different view is unacceptable. You might consider a bit of humility now, and restore the status quo ante bellum in the meantime?

To then raise ancient historically alleged misdemeanours as derogatory comments on the contributor rather than on the content is a total no-no.

Let's draw a line under this bit now and try to improve the article.

---

I think rather than a short assertion in the lead and a repeat in the infobox, we need to create a new article section to discuss their position within the political spectrum. It is clear it is not black and white, with different commentators having different views on it, and that it varies over time. Having done that, we can try to agree how best to summarise that for the lead and for the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto:. You earlier claimed there was no consensus. Now you claim there is one which you imagine I "broke". You suggest all that needs is a 'cn' tag, shortly after I added a cn tag to the article; a cn tag that you are aware of because you edited it yourself. Playing pointless games like that suggest you are not here to build an encyclopaedia. You attack other editors as "arrogantly" doing something, and then claim you are the victim of a personal attack when editors make factual statements about your earlier block. This suggests a total lack of self-awareness, and you mischaracterise other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper.

We can draw a line under this when you modify your inappropriate behaviour on this talk page, by ceasing your personal attacks like groundless accusations of desperation to push a POV and arrogantly doing such-and-such. Adding academic sources to the article at the quite proper suggestion of another editor is not indicative of pushing a POV.

The consensus from the discussion supports adding "right wing". There is considerably less discussion of whether to retain "centre-right", and several editors advocate against it.

Your stated desire and badgering advocacy, to give equal weight to original research as to the findings of six published academic works, does constitute POV-pushing. I strongly suggest you find the strength to think and write differently going forward.

My edits were entirely in line with established consensus policy; so I'll not be taking up your poorly-considered suggestion. If you would like to add a new section; why not propose some content and scholarly sourcing below. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, I disagree with most of that, especially the inflammatory spins you put on my actions, and your accusations, but will leave it at that. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward

I think rather than a short assertion in the lead and a repeat of it in the infobox, we need to create a new article section to discuss their position within the political spectrum. It is clear it is not black and white - with different commentators giving different views on it, and that it varies over time. Having done that, we can try to agree how best to summarise that for the lead and for the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

While I would support a section that delves into the history of the party’s political position, I think it is more important to first come to a conclusion on what the party’s current position is.

No party’s position is “black and white” and that is why any change to the page needs to first be discussed in depth here. We should not use the page itself as a playground for us to come to a conclusion.

From what I’ve read on this thread, most editors seem to agree that the party can no longer only be described as “Centre-Right”. The important thing now is understanding what political position should be put instead.

We need to find sources that back up a “Centre Right to Right-Wing” position OR a “Right-Wing” position.

The current page confusingly reads “Centre Right OR Right Wing” (a conflicting position not found on any other political party page). DWMemories (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The current and up-to-date sourcing supports “right-wing”. None of it supports “centre-right”. So unless current academic sources are added to support it, the tagged unsourced “centre-right” will need to be removed in the near future, as per Wp:UNSOURCED. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the centre-right claim:

• Centre Right and Radical Right Party Competition in Europe: Strategic Emphasis on Immigration, Anti-Incumbency, and Economic Crisis (2018) James F. Downes - categories the Conservatives' party family as centre-right (p31): https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/57145/Downes_and_Loveless_Centre%20Right_PostPrint_2018.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=n
• Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes : Support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament Elections (2012) by Robert Ford*, Matthew J. Goodwin** and David Cutts, p15

Also, shouldn't the political positions part in the infobox represent the party's position over time (including now) rather than only the current period? There has been 3 different leaders in the last year Michaeldble (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out in a recent edit summary on this page about a 2015 journal article, age is a relevant factor in sourcing, particularly when a fluid organisation can change rapidly. A 2023 academic work by a subject expert, cited in the article, indicates that the party has moved to the right, or populist right, in the recent past. So 2012 and 2018 sources are rather out-of-date. Of the six academic sources cited to support “right-wing”, four are less than a year old; another less than two years old; the oldest is from 2020. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to be left with a great deal of sources to review with such a narrow window surely. As you said, "a fluid organisation can change rapidly", would it not make more sense for the political positions to reflect the party's positions over its entire history rather than just the last two years or so to avoid WP:Recentism? Michaeldble (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

In the body, and particularly the history section, we should certainly describe how the party’s position on the political spectrum has changed over time. The essay WP:RECENTISM is about undue focus on recent events. It’s not about characterising something in the present tense using recently published sources that are up-to-date. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Bale, T., 2022. Policy, office, votes–and integrity. The British Conservative Party, Brexit, and immigration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(2), pp.482-501.
• Luke, S., 2023. What does it mean to be pro-European? The case of the European centre-left and centre-right in Austria, Germany and the UK. Party Politics, p.13540688231198794.

I would say that 2018 is recent history. These both describe the Conservatives as centre-right explicitly and are written in the last year. Michaeldble (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, articles like that are the kind of thing that is needed. Open access all the better. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, you say: The current and up-to-date sourcing supports “right-wing”. No it does not.

All that the current (and not all very up-to-date) sources do is support the opinions of their respective authors at the time they were written.

That said, let's see what their opinions at the time were...

We have three primary sources (they'd ideally need secondaries citing them), one from each of these three journals:

• Race & Class – a journal on racism, empire and globalisation from the Institute of Race Relations - a paper by Saini, Bankole and Begum, published in 2023, which argues that following a leftward move in the 2000s, the party may have moved back to its original position. There's no claim that it is now right-wing.
• Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics from Elsevier, a paper by Alzuabi, Brown, and Taylor, published in 2021, exploring the effect of political party alignment on the likelihood of undertaking charitable behaviour, using data from 2010-2020. They characterise the Labour Party as left-wing and the Conservative Party as right-wing for that period. There is no claim that the Conservative Party is right-wing now.
• Public Administration Review from Wiley Online Library, a paper by Alonso and Andrews, published in 2020, looking at the relationship between government ideological position and the likelihood they would contract out services. The data used was from 2009-2016. For that period they characterised the Labour Party as left-wing and the Conservative Party as right-wing. There is no claim that the Conservative Party is right-wing now.

We have three books:

• the first written by Tim Bale, a politics professor, and published in 2023, asks whether, since Brexit, the party has moved right, and if it has will it stay there - so no actual assertion of whether it has moved to the rigth, or not.
• the second, edited by Och, Shames, and Cooperman, in which the party is characterised as right-wing in the Theresa May era (July 2016-July 2019). There is no claim that the party is currently right-wing.
• the third, by Alvaro Oleart, published in 2021, is a book about the debate and politicisation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The author characterises the party as right-wing in 2015, then led by David Cameron. There is no claim that the party is currently right-wing.

We have two news media articles:

• one published in August 2022 by The Guardian, speculating what might happen to the party after Johnson's resignation. There is no claim that the party is currently right-wing.
• one published in July 2022 by AlJazeera, a Qatari state-owned news outlet, which never asserts that the Tories are a right-wing party, but that under Johnson, "his critics" say they had moved further right, and they speculate whether it will move back following his resignation. There is no claim that the party is currently right-wing.

So there is nothing in either of those sources that supports the assertion, in Wiki's voice, that the party's position is currently right-wing. So unless current sources are added that support it, "right-wing" will need to be removed in the near future, as per WP:UNSOURCED. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: You make claims about the nature of the sources that are false. Included in the citations are the relevant quotes where these peer-reviewed academic articles – not merely "opinions of their respective authors" – characterise explicitly the article subject as “right-wing”.

There is no reference whatsoever to a “leftward move” in the article in Race & Class, neither by the Conservative Party nor any other. It describes how “[t]he party’s modernisation in the 2000s was designed to make it seem more socially representative, compassionate and progressive”, a description of electioneering, not ideological change, and in no way describing a “leftward move”, a phrase and a notion of your own invention.

The other sources are amongst the most recently published scholarship on the article subject. With one possible exception, they characterise the article subject as right wing, they do not indicate the party used to be right-wing during an earlier period under study. The exception is Oleart (2021) which situates the references to the right-wing Conservative Party “in government” in a historical context: that context being 2014 – 2016.

Two sources from 2005 and 2009 you accepted as sufficient to characterise the article subject as “centre-right” – your preferred term; neither of the sources making so much as a single mention of that term nor any other left-right position. This selective concern for accurate sourcing – misplaced as it evidently is – is strongly indicative of pushing a POV.

Refrain from mischaracterising the nature or content of academic sources to push your POV. If you do not understand the difference between a source published as an opinion piece and a peer-reviewed journal article, please familiarise yourself with Wp:V and WP:RS.

If your position is that the article subject has moved politically left in the past 3 years, you will need academic sources to back that extraordinary claim up. This especially given that Bale (2023), contrary to your misrepresentation, states that the party has moved to become right-wing, now including elements of the radical right, during the period since 2019. Good luck finding such sources – I mean it. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, I didn't make any false claims about the nature of the sources, I expressed my opinions - which is what the talkpage is for - none of which are false. They are all based on what I understood from the sources.

Where there actually were quotes in the citations (in 5 of the 8) these were naturally my starting point, and I looked at the context and background of each of these, and used that to help me form my opinion of them.

Whether those sources are "amongst the most recently published scholarship on the article subject", or not, is irrelevant. The important thing is how up-to-date they are. Characterisations made about the party in the Cameron, May, Johnson, or Truss eras are clearly ancient history in political terms. As we are using them to support an assertion of what the party currently is, left/centre/right, or whatever, they need to support that as of today, not as of five, or whatever, years ago.

It was the fact that "centre-right" was the status quo that led me to believe that it should be restored, nothing else. I was concerned about the lack of consensus and verifiability for the imposed "right-wing" addition. That is why I looked into the supplied sources for that - and I was clearly right to do so.

I have no POV to push, other than, as I keep saying, that we need a consensus for any new content or replacement of the status quo, and anything new needs to be supported by reliable sources. And currently, although "right-wing" seems to be the POV of several contributors (although far from all), it is not verifiable from the supplied sources.

On the sources, I have not mischaracterised them, I have reviewed them and listed the problems I perceived with them. That is all. I do not have a position on whether the Tories have moved left or right, or stayed where they were; I am commenting on what the sources cited to support "right-wing" say, and arguing how they do not do that. All I want to see is that whatsoever the status quo is changed to, that it is verifiable from the cited sources.

Now I propose that we remove the six out-dated sources: the two news media sources opining about the Boris Johnson era, the article from the Och, Shames, and Cooperman edited book talking about the Theresa May era, the Oleart book with discussion based on the David Cameron era, and the two papers basing their arguments on now-out-dated data from the 2010s.

That leaves two sources - the Bale book and the paper in the Race & Class journal. I'll look at them again, bearing in mind your latest opinions and observations on them and on my thoughts. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There is already a consensus, established in the discussion above, to add “right-wing” to the political position. The characterisation of the party as right-wing is in the present tense in the sources, except possibly Oleart. They refer to it as the right-wing Conservative Party, they don’t say the party was previously right-wing during an earlier period under study. Repeating your mischaracterisation will not change that. I disagree with your claim that those periods represent “ancient history”. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, you seem to be implying that if the authors of those now out-of-date sources thought the party was right-wing in the study periods that they were concentrating on, that it holds that it is right-wing now - all theses years later. That is clearly a non-sequitur.

This is exactly the reason why we need a new section to cover the opinions of the party's position in the political spectrum in more detail. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources are not out of date. The authors refer to the party as right-wing, writing in 2022 and 2023. The fact that academic sources from 2015 and others from earlier say the same thing indicate it has been a considered a right-wing party for some time. That’s why the consensus on this talk page agrees it should say “right-wing”. It’s good that editors could come together to make what is evidently an overdue correction. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, no. The use of six out-of-date sources to bolster the claim of the present-day position is clearly ridiculous.

If a football match between team A and team B played in 2023 had the same result as the same match played in 2015, would you expect to see the 2015 sources being used to support the 2023 result? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Your analogy makes no sense. The sources remain up-to-date. The consensus remains to include the characterisation “right-wing”. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)