Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

'Neoliberalism has collapsed'

Gordon Brown's Fabian pamphlet "Why the Right is Wrong" has a first chapter entitled "The Battle of Ideas and the Collapse of Neo-Liberalism". It concludes on page 12 with "We are living in a progressive moment. Neo-liberalism has, quite simply, collapsed." This is a total repudiation by the Leader of the party and I have therefore removed the ideology from the infobox. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We saw yesterday that what Brown says in public, and does in private are two quite different things. Even if despite this we accept Brown as an authoritative source, his single assertion that Neoliberalism has collapsed is not enough to outweigh the hundreds of authoritative published sources that assert that Labour's ideology IS neoliberal - unless we accord to Brown the ideological equivalent of papal infallibility and treat his pronouncements as received truth. He also proclaimed 'the end of boom and bust', this did not prove to be accurate. Riversider (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, firstly I don't think your private/public point really applies to economics. However the massive adoption of keynsian approaches surely backs up his stated opinion? --Snowded ^TALK 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you find sources that suggest Labour has pursued 'massive adoption of Keynesian approaches'? Their election manifesto hints at precisely the opposite: £billions in cuts in public services over the next few years. Lobbygate is an example of how the private behaviour of MPs and ministers can have big implications for economic policies and of corporate regulation. Riversider (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you notice the size of the national debt? Read the newspapers to see the massive intervention policy that generated it? --Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not agreeing with a source doesn't mean it is inaccurate. Gordon Brown is, currently, the leader of the Labour Party, I don't think you can get much more "authoritative" then that really. As Snowded said, the "private/public" arguement doesn't hold much water, and seems to be dismissing the source out of hand. --Welshsocialist (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if we accept Gordon Brown as an authoritative source, he remains one single source in a sea of sources (a fraction of which are cited on this talk page) that state that Labour has a neo-liberal ideology. The leader of a party is also clearly a POV 'self published' source, with an axe to grind. If we treat Brown as the ultimate authoritative source on the Labour Party, with the ability to 'trump' all other sources, then we should treat Sun Myung Moon as the ultimate authoritative source on the Moonies, and Griffin as the ultimate authoritative source on the BNP. Riversider (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any question that neoliberalism was an ideology within the party under Blair/Brown. It hadn't been in the past, it isn't now. OK it needs some more sources other than Brown to confirm with policy but the facts are pretty clear. --Snowded ^TALK 18:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

you have had parties with a democratic socialist orientation adopting neoliberal methods and to a degree ideology. You see a lot of idealistic instrumentalism in the Labour Party as well during the Blair years with neoliberal economic ideas being used as control mechanisms

Quote from Snowded on 6 April of 2010. You are perfectly entitled to change your mind, but I think your opinion on 6th April 2010 more accurately reflects published sources than your opinion on 30th April 2010. There clearly is a strong body of opinion that Labour has had, and continues to have, a neoliberal ideology. This is disputed, by some leading Labour figures including Brown, so I am quite happy with the page as it stands, including the 'disputed' tag that WelshSocialist added. I think this reflects that there are two strong and diametrically opposed sets of views on this, and makes this clear to the reader. Riversider (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I like that quote - for a long period the Labour Party took a neoliberal position in economic control and this there was a ideological component "to a degree". Neoiberalism has now been abandoned in respect of the economy as a whole, but it persists in the control mechanisms (making the NHS into an internal market which always was and always will be a disaster). Overall I don't think its an ideology any more. --Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Having 'Neoliberalism (disputed)' in the infobox strikes me as a messy compromise that does not conform to Wikipedia policy. I've cut it. The choice seems clear to me:

1. we leave it out or;

2. we find a reliable source for it: how about this? Haldraper (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources for neo-liberalism, have been contridicted by Gordon Brown's speeches and policies that Labour has persued, epseically in the post global economic crisis era.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at when I talked about Wikipedia policy in my last post. If there's a reliable, secondary source per WP:V, I see no problem with including neoliberalism as part of the description of New Labour's ideology. What Welshsocialist thinks of Gordon Brown's speeches or his party's policies is clearly WP:OR and neither here nor there. Haldraper (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no WP justification for removing 'neoliberalism' as a description of Labour's ideology. It's also clear that this is a disputed description. It is disputed by Brown, who despite being Chancellor during the Blair years and allowing unprecedented freedom of action for the bankers and speculators, is the one to proclaim the 'collapse' of the very neoliberalism he facilitated, without even an inkling of the irony of his remarks. It's clear to me that the tag should be included, and the source Haldraper has found is yet another impeccable and authoritative one to add to the ever-growing list. I'm not particularly concerned whether neoliberalism is included with or without the 'disputed' tag. Objections to the disputed tag are more aesthetic than factual to my mind. Editing on this page and around this particular word has become particularly intense, but what was accurate 1 month before the election is still accurate 1 day before the election, so let's hold our nerve and not get spooked.Riversider (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's a reliable, secondary source for it 'neoliberalism' can go in. 'Disputed' is unnecessary because much if not all that sources say will be disputed by someone, in terms of Wikipedia policy Labour supporters don't get special rights to tag everything they disagree with. Haldraper (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable secondary sources, a good number of which have been quoted on this talk page in the extensive discussion above. With political parties, the statement that 'the sky is blue' is likely to get disputed, so I can see why disputed tags should be used sparingly if at all, and have therefore removed that tag. I see that yesterday Labour haemorraged support from it's heartland votes, a clear indication that Labour voters have also recognised Labour's neoliberalism, and rejected it. Riversider (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This term should apply to the liberal democrats, not Labour, and should be removed asap. --98.252.232.142 (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party did not fight the election on a neoliberal platform so while the tag is appropriate in the past its not clear if it is now the case. I think the argument is now strong to retain the reference to it having taken a neoliberal position whil in office (which is sustained by the references) but remove the tag from the information box. --Snowded ^TALK 09:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party fought the election having promised 'worse cuts than Thatcher', which could be interpreted as a neoliberal position. You're right that now they have the luxury of opposition, the rhetoric might change, but whether this will reflect a fundamental shift in the ideology of the leadership is another question. I think it is a little early to remove the tag, particularly as there is a leadership election in progress. With up to 4 candidates from the neoliberal wing of the party, and 2 from the 'left', we may yet gain some insight into the state of the internal debate in the party over the next months. (See the quote from Seamus Milne of the Guardian further down this page). Removing the tag now would be recentism, unjustified by published material. Riversider (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Its worth remembering that the citations showed the adoption of a neoliberal economic policy and there was concern that this did not of itself justify the wider neoliberal label. We are now in a position in which the Labour Party fought the last election taking a Kensian position, and the various stimuli given to the economy were the antithesis of neoliberalism. I don't see it as recentism etc and I am concerned that the label is being applied to make a political point, rather than to inform the reader. It is the case that there are references that establish the Labour Party adopted a neoliberal economic strategy at one time. So body of the article fine, information box - I think the inclusion is no longer sustainable.--Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that coverage of the leadership election will provide a swathe of new citations to add to the huge number already provided attaching the label 'neoliberal' to the leading ideology in Labour. I'd suggest we hang fire and wait to see the outcome of this election and the set of policies and ideologies that emerges with the new leadership, if there is a return to traditional social democracy, or to socialism, then we can safely consign 'neoliberalism' to an episode in Labour's history, if not, the label should stay. It would be wrong to change it while everything is uncertain as we do not know yet who the next leader will be, or what ideology they will promote. Riversider (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It was abandoned with the rescue of the banks - its not a leadership issue. --Snowded ^TALK 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, in fact even before the financial crisis some commentators (such as Ben Clift and Jim Tomlinson writing in the British Journal of Political Science, Volume 36 (2006)) argued that "focusing on a single ('neo-liberal’ or ‘monetarist’) characterisation [of macroeconomic policy] is misleading and unhelpful given the range of macroeconomic thinking upon which New Labour has drawn, ignoring as it does significant Keynesian elements."--Pondle (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If, as already seems almost certain, David Miliband wins the leadership election, it will mean more of the same neoliberal policies. Here's what Ian Dunt, editor of Politics.co.uk has to say about it:

"The response of the parliamentary party to the leadership contest demonstrates its caution, and its fundamental inability to grasp that its entire political philosophy has to change. The belief that market freedom can be used for redistribution is dead following the financial crisis, when the private sector was revealed to be even more counter-productive and inefficient than the public sector. The party's inability to adopt a critical attitude to the state has been rejected by the public. It's managerial, system-based approach to public services has been shown to be severely limited. The former Cabinet ministers running for leadership were either unaware of this, or too cowardly to do anything about it while in government.

David Miliband has some good qualities. He was impressively on top of his brief while in the Foreign Office and his appearances at select committees and ministerial debates showed he is not someone to be taken lightly. But he has not shown any political views which distance him from New Labour dogma. His comments on the end of Blairism and Brownism, two laughably over-used phrases considering the miniscule policy differences between the two men, is no substitute for action. Those awful descriptions will disappear when Labour finally gives up on its New Labour variant. His failure to criticise neo-liberalism, or statism, or authoritarian criminal legislation, or the management-speak rhetoric which has so alienated the electorate, puts the lie to his professed desire for change".

I'm pretty sure that as the leadership election proceeds, other authoritative commentators will add their voices to this analysis of Miliband's ideology Riversider (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Riversider, you are in a clear minority of one here and its pretty obvious that you have a political position here (see your penultimate paragraph above). The clear consensus of other editors is to remove it so I am going to revert your revert. Until you can get agreement here I suggest you leave this aspect of the article alone. --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. AJRG (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can WP editors reach a 'consensus' to over-rule such a large body of published material? I've actually added to this body of material recently, with an article from LABOUR LEADERSHIP CANDIDATE John McDonnell, showing that he describes the Labour ideology as 'neoliberal'. If a Labour leadership contender is not an authoritative source, then who is? I do not accept that editors can defy the weight of published material in this way. The fact is that there is a large, growing body of literature describing Labours ideology as neoliberal, and that WP must reflect what authoritative published sources say. Riversider (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The pejorative use of a term to characterize political opponents doesn't make it a substantitive ideology of the party. The Third Way was always an uncomfortable compromise. AJRG (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors are not overruling a body of evidence, it is agreed that the Labour Party has adopted neoliberal economic policies in the past and that this is sourced and should be mentioned in the main body of the article. However it is no longer that policy. Sometimes Riversider you just have to realise that other editors disagree. You have made your point here and no one has supported you. If you don't like that then you can take the matter to review or ANI or whatever, but you have to do that to reinstate it. --Snowded ^TALK 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A small group of editors have taken it upon themselves to defy what a very large quantity of authoritative published sources say - including sources such as Labour MPs and leadership contenders. These editors are placing their own POV and party loyalties ahead of WP's mission to reflect what authoritative published sources say. No matter how they paint it, this is not how WP should work. The original consensus was to include a section on Labour's neoliberalism in the main article. This has not yet happened. We now have the worst of both worlds, as what is at least a 'large minority viewpoint', well referenced and backed by a huge amount of material is not reflected at all in the article anywhere.Riversider (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

{{od}Actually Riversider I think its your POV that is showing given the above comments. Other editors have done their best to address your concerns and in some detail. You have not really addressed their arguments and trying to pretend that you are being objective while everyone else is POV pushing is a nonsense. I suggest you get on with a section on the Labour Party's adoption of neo-liberal economic policy in the Blair and early Brown years rather than winging about the information box. --Snowded ^TALK 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This may help. AJRG (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Centre-right

I don't feel this appellation is really suitable. While there are neoliberals in the party leadership (such as Mandy) and while Blair was a Third Way pioneer, all this means that, on average, they are centrist if not centre-left; the core party base, and quite a lot of the backbenchers, are definitely leftist. Definitely in the sphere of British politics, Labour are the centre-left party, Lib Dems the centrists (or not as centre-left as Labour), and Tories the centre-rights. If we used the Political Compass site as a reliable source, we'd be describing the US Democrats as centre-right, and the Tories, UKIP, and Republicans as far-right. The other source given doesn't seem to be reliable either; it'd be like using the Cato Institute as a source to prove that Barack Obama is a communist. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Political Compass make a perfectly valid argument- "Labour has moved markedly towards a more authoritarian position than the circumstances justify. Along with the indefinite retention of DNA profiles of people arrested but not convicted and the 42-day pre-charge detention, the party also continues to champion ID cards, an identity database and much else that has upset civil libertarians. While fiscally there are hints that the party is now reaching back to its core values, under Blair and Brown Labour has gone to extraordinary lengths to privatise the economy and nationalise the public."

But, as the same site says, authoritarianism isn't dependent on left-right politics, and, "if Hitler and Stalin didn't mention economic policy, they would've found a lot of common ground". That said, they have moved back to the centre of the spectrum (in comparison to things like the Militant Tendency of the 80s), but they're still centre-left in the British political spectrum. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"we'd be describing the US Democrats as centre-right, and the Tories, UKIP, and Republicans as far-right" - and the problem with this is?

Of course there's the problem of where the "centre" line is drawn, but ultimately all we can do is refer to what it's labelled as - and we are showing a POV if we hand-pick only the sources we like. And, I don't see why Labour are more left than Lib Dems?

I've reverted the recent removal of the sourced Centre definition. The reason given was that the source [1] was "massively out of date" - yet it was only from 2004. Meanwhile, the one for centre-left [2] is from 1998! So in fact, it's the centre-left source that is way out of date for the Labour that were in power during the 2000s.

I've also reverted your removal of sourced information. This kind of change needs some wider discussion - and as I say, whilst I admit that political compass isn't great, there is also the problem that the BBC ref for them being centre-left is way out of date; the political compass source is specific to 2010. Mdwh (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Political Compass is not a reliable source. Labour is center-left because it self-identifies as such. That's ultimately the only reasonable measure of such things, because the left-right spectrum is a relative, and not an absolute, condition. Of the major parties in Britain, Labour is certainly to the left of the Tories. In many (but not all) ways, it is also to the left of the Liberal Democrats - it has close ties to the trade unions, for instance, and it still officially describes itself as socialist. There is no reasonable way to describe the party other than centre-left. john k (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The questionnaire used by Political Compass is also dubious in use outside of a US political context --Snowded ^TALK 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is highly dubious to describe Labour as centre-right. Labour is a democratic socialist party/social democratic party, that is, on the British political spectrum, on the centre-left of politics. Don't forget that political centres vary depending on the nation, and the political compass does not take that into account. It is time and place netural and therefore a unreiable source to describe British political party positions. If you want a more up to date reference desribing Labour as centre-left, I am pretty sure that it can be found.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The old 'left-right' spectrum method of analysing the relative positions of political parties is pretty creaking and outdated. It really doesn't help in understanding the dynamics of political parties, certainly since the late 70's anyway - individuals like Mandelson or Kenneth Clarke would find themselves equally at home in any of the major parties, we were told that the libdems were part of the 'progressive' wing of politics, yet they had no problem in forming a coalition with the Tories around a programme of the biggest set of public sector cuts since the second world war - labels like 'left' 'right' and 'progressive' therefore do not help us understand a party or to predict its behaviour while in office. Riversider (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Evaluations of Labour's Recent Terms in Office

A number of evaluations from authoritative political commentators are beginning to emerge on the last Labour Government's term in office and the significance of the transformation to the current Lib-Con coalition. One of these is by Anthony Barnett, the founder of 'Open Democracy', his evaluation clearly ascribes a neoliberal ideology to Blair and Brown's regimes: The End of Thatcherism In this article he states:

"(Thatcher's) election in 1979 was thus a true turning point for the UK. After 1997 Blair and Brown proved to be Thatcher’s “sons” as Simon Jenkins documented. They oversaw many humanizing reforms, and tried to heal the social wounds of Thatcher's divisiveness, but were unable to offer a coherent alternative to her Tory nationalism. Instead they sought to protect their efforts at social improvement by outbidding her search for national greatness: backing globalisation and finance capital by giving the City of London an even bigger bang than she did, and outdoing her belligerence by going to war even more often and doing so illegally as well. Looking back one can see that the many good things that have happened since 1997 were achieved despite the core project of New Labour not because of it. That core project was to climb on board the neo-liberal engine of global finance and military supremacy to ensure continuity in office.

David Cameron's stated aim was to carry on this tradition and at the same time persuade both his party and the country that the Conservatives had returned to their inclusive whig tradition. In other words to be even better at providing Thatcherism with a human face than Blair and Brown. But the still ongoing great financial crash put an end to this vainglorious ambition. Instead, Cameron has seized the opportunity offered by a hung parliament to reshape the nature of his party and the country’s politics. It is a turning point as sharp as 1979. It deposits New Labour into its Thatcherite dustbin."

Another such evaluation comes from Seamus Milne of the Guardian who analyses Labour's term in office, and puts Miliband firmly in the 'neoliberal' wing of the party:

"Labour has lost five million votes since 1997, four million of them under Tony Blair. The largest share came from a working-class electorate New Labour insisted had nowhere else to go, with a significant chunk from a progressive middle-class constituency revolted by wars and attacks on civil liberties.

To win those voters back demands first of all a recognition that the neoliberal dogma of the New Labour years has been discredited by epic market failure and its disastrous impact on working-class communities. There's room to build on the outgoing government's recent tentative shift towards more social democratic solutions. But it also requires a clear break with the calamitous ideology that led Britain into five wars in succession, as it tailed behind the US imperial juggernaut.

That must be the starting point of the Labour leadership contest that has now begun. The attempt to build up a media and New Labour establishment bandwagon behind David Miliband – the heir to Blair who voted to invade Iraq, out-hawked the Bush administration during the 2008 Georgian crisis and has continued to hanker after the marketisation of public services – risks turning Labour inwards and backwards." Riversider (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an evaluation of the last Labour government from Labour MP and leadership candidate John McDonnell. I'd suggest that being a leadership candidate makes him a fairly authoritative commentator on Labour: "The penetration of neoliberalism deep into the government's psyche meant we let the market rip, finance to dominate, manufacturing to decline and debt to reach crisis point". http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/01/labour-leadership-hustings-john-mcdonnell

A number of editors are now taking it on themselves to ignore the published material and delete the tag 'neoliberalism' from the infobox. As this talk page evidences, there is a huge number of published articles from authoritative sources, both outside and inside the Labour Party that describe its ruling ideology as 'neoliberal'. Nobody has been able to show that these articles are not authoritative, yet they still persist in deleting the tag. This can only be seen as POV vandalism. WP is based on reflecting what authoritative sources say, or it is based on pure opinion. The deleters are letting their own opinions over-rule the published sources. Riversider (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a list of sources that unquestionably describe the political ideology of the Labour Party as "neo-liberal"? ninety:one 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read through this talk page 91. I provide source after source from an incredible variety of sources. Those who would delete neoliberalism have proved unable to show that these sources are not authoritative. When you have Labour MPs and Labour leadership contenders, as well as numerous well known political commentators from every UK broadsheet, as well as academics from every relevant discipline, it becomes something that is impossible to ignore or over-rule, unless you would arrogantly place your own opinions and party affiliations ahead of WP's mission to reflect what the authoritative published sources say on any particular topic. Riversider (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not, and have never been, a member of the Labour Party. Neoliberal economic policies were adopted across the world before the recent credit crunch, in a very wide variety of political contexts. Inferring from this that the broader American sense of neoliberalism somehow applies to the Labour Party (except as an insult) is the problem here. AJRG (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Riversider, it is a very simple request. Let me repeat it: can you please provide a list of sources that unquestionably describe the political ideology of the Labour Party as "neo-liberal"? Don't refer me to 'this talk page', I would like a list. I don't give too hoots about anyone's stated political opinion, I would just to see a list of these sources. ninety:one 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Ninetyone he has provided some very long lists and no one disputes that they establish that the Labour Party adopted a neo-Liberal economic policy for a substantial period of time. There was always a question as to wether this justified it being an "ideology" hence an earlier compromise. However with the collapse of the Banks the economic policy changed drastically which is when the issue was raised again.--Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, which is why I'm asking for sources that state that the current political ideology of the party is "neo-liberal". ninety:one 16:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether you've noticed 91, but there's a leadership election in process at the moment in the UK Labour Party. This means matters of ideology are up for debate and discussion. When we know who the next leader of the Labour Party will be, we will be able to describe the ideology of the party definitively, which is why I suggested we wait until the outcome of the leadership election before making drastic changes to the infobox. One leadership contender has already described the party's current ideology as 'neoliberal', which you would know if you had read the citations I have posted on this page. Seamus Milne is an authoritative political commentator on the Guardian newspaper - can anyone tell me why his description of the Labour Party 'dogma' as neoliberal can be discounted by the editors here so easily?Riversider (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that there are no sources that can describe the current political idealogy of the party as "neo-liberal". Therefore, we should not include "neo-liberal" in the infobox, surely? I had noticed your repeated references to McDowell, but his statements as a leadership candidate are not 'sources that state that the current political ideology of the party is "neo-liberal"'. And there's no need to take a smary tone, please. ninety:one 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonnell clearly states in the citation I posted, and elsewhere, that he believes the current Labour leadership ideology to be neoliberal, and that he intends to change this. There is a long, long list of citations on this talk page describing the Labour ideology as neoliberal, and even Snowded admits that Labour had neoliberal economic policies. I've merely suggested that we should have left the infobox as it was until we knew who had won the leadership, unfortunately other people here have jumped the gun, leading to what is now a highly POV distorted article, that ignores a whole wealth of sources and citations in a way that would make most serious WP editors weep. Riversider (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Riversider, you've been invited more than once to add a new section on Neoliberalism in the Blair/Brown years to enact the consensus on NPOV. You've got enough material for a sub-article, so what's delaying you? AJRG (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Finding sources is a first step, but leads to the question: how representative are these sources? Milne's politics are those of the hard Left, and his statement that Labour is neo-liberal has to be viewed in that context. It's just as easy to find commentators on the hard Right (such as Melanie Phillips) who say Labour is essentially Marxist. To the extent Wikipedia reflects either view it should treat them as views, not statements of fact. Similarly, McDonnell is a leadership contender from the hard Left. It's unclear why his view of the Labour Party's ideological position should prevail over other leadership contenders (who are generally regarded as considerably more likely to win) or for that matter previous leaders of the Party, or other politicians in other parties. We need to take particular care given that some labels ("neo-liberal", "Marxist", "socialist") are used as insults rather than as neutral descriptions. LeContexte (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Contexte, The WP test of information is not whether it is 'fact' or 'opinion', as such judgements will depend on the POV of the editor, but on whether the source of such information can be seen as reliable and authoritative on the topic in question. For example, Colin Leys is an honorary professor of Politics, at Goldsmiths College London. This makes him a pretty reliable and authoritative source on matters of Labour Party ideology. This recent interview with Edward Lewis http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/365.php gives a really good account of how neoliberalism became endemic in the ideology of the Labour government. As for the suggestion that I should write the section on 'Neoliberalism in the Blair/Brown years' - I'd be glad to, it will however take some time, and if anyone else wants to make a start on the section, they should feel free. In the meantime, to restore the balance of the article, I'd suggest that the 'neoliberal' tag is restored. Riversider (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Colin Leys once wrote a very good book on politics in Southern Rhodesia but I don't think his views here are so decisive. The context is an interview between two people of broadly similar political outlook, which is to the left of Labour. Leys is editor of the Socialist Register which has never supported the Labour Party; the New Left Project which published the interview allies itself with several SWP-supporting blogs. Whether they can be described as 'partisan' is perhaps debatable, but they come from a perspective which clearly motivates them to produce criticism. As I have pointed out before those who describe Labour Party policy as 'neoliberal' are almost invariably advancing the description as a criticism and coming from a political background outside of the Labour Party and to its left. I doubt whether the term is descriptively useful as it simply seems to mean "supports an economic policy I don't like". Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ideology

This is getting tedious. The term Social Democracy has a specific meaning within continental europe, it is not a part of the British political tradition. While the Labour Party occupies a similar political position int he spectrum, it is a Democratic Socialist party. Third Way is a more open question, during the Blair years it had a case but its not in any current documentation that I can see. Lets keep this simple. --Snowded ^TALK 21:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Social democracy is or was only one strand in Labour thinking, associated particularly with the right of the party in the 50s, 60s and 70s (at least according to Ian Adams (1998), Ideology and Politics in Britain today).--Pondle (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read that one and I am happy to be proved wrong if there are references. However I think they would need to be current. --Snowded ^{[[Use[[File:Example.jpg--92.30.62.86 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)]]r talk:Snowded#top|TALK]]} 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the infobox is concerned I agree with your edit; there have been several strands in Labour thinking according to Adams, classical socialism, liberal socialism or social democracy and then what he calls "Blairite supply-side socialism" (New Labour / Third Way). They have all waxed and waned in different periods and I don't think it's worth listing them all in the infobox. Blair's refreshed Clause 4 calls Labour a "democratic socialist" party so let's stick with that. --Pondle (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur, other material to the main body of the article. Ironic that Clause 4 has been finally achieved with national ownership of the banks mind you! --Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party is progressive look at the website right?--92.30.62.86 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please follow style guidelines and indent your comments, I have done it for you here so you can see. Please also gain agreement to changes here on the talk page if your edits are disputed per WP:BRD. The Labour Party may or may not be progressive, I am sure most parties would claim that label. Regardless it is not an ideology. --Snowded ^TALK 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that under 'Party ideology' the provided reference for the line "However, since the "New Labour" project began, a larger proportion of its support has come from middle-class voters and many perceive this support as key to Labour's electoral success since 1997" is merely a link to the Labour leadership election page. The page provides no basis for the claim made in the quoted line, which is very dubious. Would anyone disagree? Have added some tags 86.16.135.174 (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I challenge anyone who wants to retain the socialist definition to show me a statement from any post-Thatcher party leader, advocating common ownership of the means of production and distribution. The Socialism article clearly states that socialism is an economic system wherein the means of production and distribution are either state-owned or commonly owned. When you click the Democratic Socialist link in the ideology infobox, you're taken to an article which outlines a political and economic system that clearly has nothing to do with the Labour party. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Change either the Democratic Socialism article or the ideology infobox. 90.201.207.22 (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The categorization of political parties is based on reliable sources, not whether their policies meet the criterion of socialist ideology. TFD (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong to say Labour is not social democratic and say it is democratic socialist. Wikipedia has said Labour is social democratic, look on the Social democracy page!--92.30.108.69 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is ridiculous. The logic offered by the people who want to keep the Democratic Socialist label is that Labour call themselves socialists. That's it. If they were to follow that logic to it's obvious conclusion, they would change the Worker's Party of Korea (North) article so that it reflects Kim-Jong il's stated commitment to republicanism, democracy and the rule of the proletariat. They would also have to remove the fascism tag from the BNP article, as the party strongly rejects that definition. I think that the people who keep fiddling with the ideology infobox are just committed Labour-Party hacks, not honest editors. I'm changing the ideology back to social democracy now and will do so everytime I visit this page and see that I've been reverted. 90.196.36.205 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't use WIkipedia as an authority I'm afraid. The Labour Party is allied with the Social Democratic movement in Europe, but that is a term with a continental history but not a British one, which is about Democratic socialism. Two single purpose IPs agreeing with each other, threatening to edit war, failing to abide by WP:AGF etc. sounds suspicious to me. --Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The 92.30.*.* range is owned by Carphone Warehouse, whilst the 90.201.*.* range is owned by BskyB. Are you implying that I've signed up to two different ISPs just so I can start an edit war? 90.196.36.205 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The British and Irish Labour parties refer to being "democratic socialist" in their constitutions, yes, but that is not the same thing as objectively adhering to the ideology of democratic socialism. Wikipedia is an international resource, and by international standards, both would safely be described as social-democratic (and Third Way, in the case of the British Labour party). Think about it; compared to, say, Germany, is Labour closer to the the social-democratic SPD or democratic socialist Die Linke?--Autospark (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me, you are making comparisons with a different political tradition. --Snowded ^TALK 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You need sources - we do not add descriptions based on our personal reasoning. TFD (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Duffy

I'm suprised no one has put anything up about Gillian Duffy because that was a pretty big deal at the time. Can I be granted permittion to add a Gillian Duffy title with an explanation onto what happened? CovBiggsy (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant to an article on the election, but not really to this one. In the overall scheme its small beer --Snowded ^TALK 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's relevent to the article because he was the Leader of the Labour Party and he made a comment which shocked many and greatly offended Mrs. Duffy CovBiggsy (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you go to any general election for any political party you will find many similar cases. They are notable in the context of the campaign only. --Snowded ^TALK 09:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Snowded is quite correct. Duffy is only relevant to an article on the election and has very little to do with the history of the Labour party. (Remember, you are dealing here with an article relating to a party with over 100 years history including several periods in government!) Wembwandt (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok Fair Enough - I'm just trying to make sure that we (you guys) are being bias without realising it. Thomas Biggs 11:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CovBiggsy (talk • contribs)

Separate article on New Labour

Should there not be a separate article for New Labour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.240.223 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so; it's pretty much a phase in the party's history as the so-called "loony-left" years of the 1980s, so I can't see a reason to do this. Rodhullandemu 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

New Labour is still the Labour Party, and part of the history of the party. It was more or less an martketing phase to signal to the electorate that Labour had moved on from the era of Michae Foot, Tony Benn and Militant Tendencies. That it was a centrist party, rather than a left wing one, and that the party had reformed. However it was still the Labour Party, with the same history and core values. So no.--Welshsocialist (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're all talking as though New Labour is now consigned to the past. While Blair and Mandelson seem to have stepped away from the fray, plenty of other key New Labour people are still in powerful positions. More importantly, the fundamental constitutional changes that New Laobur pushed through remain in place - the power of the NEC, and the ability of conference to make decisions that are binding on the leadership for example are now negligible compared to 20 years ago. There's also no evidence of any real policy shift. The 'marketing' element of New Labour may have been dropped, in that the term itself, and some of the language that went with it has become discredited, but the ideology, policy and political practices brought in by New Labour remain firmly in place. Will Ed Milliband change this? Clearly many hoped he would when they voted for him, but whether this is reflected in his actions as leader is still far too early to say. I'd oppose a separate article on New Labour, but the article as it stands still does not detail the fundamental changes that NL made to the party. Riversider (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any evolutionary trait persists to some extend and an entity of ecology moves on; that is as true for New Labour as it was for other periods such as the "loony left" one. This needs to be identified in the main body of the article. Our various opinions on that matter little, we need to use third party sources to document those changes. A separate article on New Labour seems to be to add little value. --Snowded ^TALK 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Lord Kinnock views New Labour as an ultimately unsuccessful Entryist attempt in his 2010 Conference Speech, stating "We've got our party back." In this context, New Labour should be handled on the same level as Militant. Martinb9999 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Iraq

The article states that the war was unpopular, even though the 2005 UK election (at which the Iraq war was a major issue) saw the two pro-war parties come 1st and 2nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Much the same as any election since at least 1924! I doubt you can read much into that; people vote on many issues and it just isn't possible to discover how much of an influence Iraq was. Rodhullandemu 17:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism, Social Democracy and Social Liberalism.

The references do not work however there is proof in this site and in others backing what I am saying. As to progressivism this website, a Lib Dem think thank, has called Labour progressive: http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/10/social-liberal-forum-statement-on-lab-lib-talks Also, as to social democracy, Labour's rose means social democracy and according to the list of social democratic parties, Labour is one of them. AS to social liberalism, if you look at social liberalism's page on Wikipedia, you'll find the Labour Party regarded as social liberal with references tagged onto it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.108.69 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Brewer's Politics quotes Hugh Brogan on the word "progressive" - "a curiously empty word". The non-Labour group on the London County Council in the early 20th C. called themselves "progressives" and David Cameron has also described the Con-Lib coalition as such. We discussed the relevance of "social democracy" here and concluded that we wouldn't use it in the infobox.--Pondle (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Canada's "Progressive Conservative" parties, affectionately called "Tories", the Progressive Unionist Party in Northern Ireland or countless other "progressive" parties across the political spectrum. There is standard usage of categorization of political parties, as explained in left-right politics. If there is another system used in the literature, then it would be helpful if it could be provided. TFD (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the word 'progressive' means social and economic change something the Labour Party has been part of. In America, the Democrats have called themselves progressives and it is allowed in their infobox. There is a strong Democrat/Labour relationship! Social democracy relevant to Labour- I think it is risible to call Labour democratic socialist without saying they are social democratic. Even this very website has said Labour is a social democratic and social liberal party. As regards to PUP, they are leftwing and they are allowed 'progressive' in their infobox! Thanks for reading.--92.30.108.69 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, you need citation support to sustain it. Please stop editing the page directly without talk page agreement --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Snowded but I have given websites, I have used Wikipedia as well to prove it. I have used SocialLiberal Forum a Lib Dem think thank! I have used Labour's website! I think Wikipedia should be consistant and as a reader who uses this website it is inconsistent. That is why you should put progressive, social liberal, social democratic and I am reaching out for an agreement not based on political belief but on references.--92.30.108.69 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't given reliable sources, or in some cases any reference. As far as I can see "progressive" is from a self declared left of centre multiple authored blog and its not an ideology anyway. You say that there is a list of social democratic organisations but you don't provide it. You can't use wikipedia as a source and the article only references that some labour party policy after WWII was designed by liberals. In other words nothing of substance. --Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

92.30, you've provided liberalconspiracy.org, interpretation of Labour's logo, and Wikipedia pages. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources to help understand why you're getting such resistance to your proposed change.

In the meantime, I've protected the article for two weeks. This constant edit-warring over ideologies and currents has been going on for far too long, from far too many IPs and registered editors. TFOWR 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If editors stuck to sources, then we would describe Labour's ideology as 'neoliberal', as the many sources I listed on this talk page several months ago prove this conclusively. There is definitely a real reluctance from party members who are also editors here to face up to the fundamental ideological shift that has happened in the leadership of the party away from democratic socialism, and even social democracy to the acceptance of neoliberal values and precepts. Some of the current leadership candidates have made implied criticisms of the previous leadership's shift away from Labour's founding values, but there's little evidence of any genuine policy changes that would return Labour to those values in their election statements. The one thing most of us agree on is that the current description of Labour's ideology as democratic socialist is so factually wrong as to be risible in any academic environment. We need something better than this. The old uncomfortable compromise listing 3 competing ideologies was closer to the truth. Riversider (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are comfortable with the sources that demonstrate that Labour, especially under Blair adopted a neo-liberal economic policy but that is not the same thing as an ideology. Neither is Third Way really appropriate and the social democratic label is a continental tradition. --Snowded ^TALK 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Political scientists classify political parties by ideological families. Here is one of many reliable sources that provide an explanation. Parties are classified according to history, ethos, and membership, which remain constant over time. Policy on the other hand changes with circumstances, and the social liberal paradigm has been replaced by neoliberalism. That does not mean that we re-label most parties as neoliberal. And hereditary peers still support the Tories and the unions still support Labour. TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Policies and ideologies are tightly tied together - it's utterly contradictory say a party has neoliberal policies and a socialist ideology. Labour's membership has changed drastically in the post war period, both in terms of numbers and of class composition http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2475301/Labour-membership-falls-to-historic-low.html . According to a couple of Labour leadership candidates in their recent TV debate, the 4m voters that abandoned Labour during it's last period in office were overwhelmingly from it's traditional working class base. Fundamental shifts have happened in Labour, in its make up and its ideology. This has been recognised by multiple published sources, but not yet recognised by WP, because of the recalcitrance of editors that are also Labour Party members, and do not wish to admit the truth to themselves. Riversider (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Riversider2008, knock off the unfounded speculation about the party loyalties of good-faith editors. If you're interested in my "party affiliations" you can check my userpage, but I'm sick and tired of being labelled a Labour Party apologist just because you disagree with me. TFOWR 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw that point, but would ask you to consider the evidence of membership numbers, composition, policy, and the vast amount of published material that shows that Labour's ideology is anything but 'democratic socialist'. WP editors should not overrule the weight of published sources, and plenty of authoritative published sources exist that state that Labour's ideology is neoliberal. This is at least a 'large minority view', and should be reflected in the article in proportion to the authority and weight of these sources. Riversider (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Should this be mentioned in the article? Quite possibly. Views from reliable sources are useful - indeed, they're necessary. Should it be mentioned in the infobox? No, I don't believe so. The party itself describes itself as "democratic socialist", and that ideological description is broadly accepted in the United Kingdom. Debates about whether the party's view of itself is accurate belong in the article, not in the infobox. TFOWR 13:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source that shows that political scientists now classify it as a liberal party. The fact that the source provided says that most of their contributions come from labor unions and that it cannot attract wealthy contributors do not make that look promising. Here is a chart from Ware's 1996 Political parties and party systems, which classified them under "Socialist and Social Democratic parties". If later scholarship has re-classified them, then please provide sources. We cannot however conduct our own original research and decide among ourselves where they belong. The information on falling membership, etc,, is howver relevant to the article. TFD (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've provided multiple sources from various authoritative academic and political commentators higher in this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)/Archive_3#Even_More_Published_Sources , so it certainly isn't original research. For example Fullbrook says in Economics and Neo-Liberalism http://www.paecon.net/Fullbrook/EconomicsandNeoliberalism.pdf "Neoliberalism is the ideology of our time. And of New Labour and Tony Blair." and even Labour MPs have used the term: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)/Archive_4#Labour_MP_on_Neoliberalism A huge number of sources listed here too: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Labour_Party_(UK)/Archive_4#Supporting_material I'd like to refer you to the WP infobox of the UK Conservative party. here the infobox lists two ideologies, and multiple internal factions, going well beyond what the party 'officially' says about itself. Sticking purely to what parties say about themselves would lead to all kinds of problems, particularly when dealing with parties like the BNP, it is not an encyclopaedic way of achieving a definition. Earlier this year, the infobox listed 3 'ideological currents' to define Labour's ideology: democratic socialism, social democracy and neoliberalism. This was an uncomfortable editorial compromise, yet it reflected the published sources far better than the current infobox. Riversider (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While newspaper articles are good sources for facts, e.g., membership totals, you should use peer-reviewed articles or books published in the academic press for explanation of a party's ideology. Of course, blogs and columns are not even reliable sources for facts. And we cannot interpret information such as privatization to form our own conclusions about the party's ideology. Remember too that one good source is all that is needed, and is worth more than many poor sources. And while how other articles are written may provide an example, they are not guidelines that we must follow. TFD (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you take the time to check the links I've provided, you'll find multiple academic articles from peer reviewed journals in several academic disciplines, as well as articles from leading political journalists, Labour insiders and Labour critics. Incidentally on the 'social liberalism' debate, articles that apply the term 'neoliberalism' to labour outnumber those that apply the term 'social liberalism' to it by a huge factor. I think the WP article on the UK conservative party serves as a good example, and you've not explained why we should simply take a political party's word for what their ideology is, rather than listening to all the other commentators.Riversider (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And the arguments against that assertion have been made several times. Summary repetition: adopting a neo-liberal economic policy does not mean a neo-liberal ideology per se; post the banking collapse everything changed anyway; you have to look at the whole history of a party. Unless there is something new this should be closed off, especially given the accusations against other editors --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been 'accusations' levelled at me too during this debate, which I have taken in good spirit. You can see that I have withdrawn any comments about party affiliations affecting editors capacity to look at Labour objectively, that is clearly a matter for them to consider for themselves. The way to achieve objectivity is to stick to published sources. Many sources go beyond saying Labour had neoliberal policies, and do assert that Labour had a neoliberal ideology. You're correct that there has been a banking crisis, and a major economic downturn which has certainly set neoliberalism back - but how this will affect Labour's ideology is not yet clear. We'll need to await the outcome of the leadership election before we can see this clearly, so I think removing the tag was unneccessary recentism. Riversider (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When I look at the first source I find a link to an article by a freelance writer and college tutor in the Telegraph about privatizing the post office.[3] Among all the numerous sources could you please point to one that supports the changes you wish to make. TFD (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I included the Telegraph source because earlier in the debate I'd been accused of only finding sources that reflected the views of those on the left. It was easy to find people on the right using similar language to criticise Labour's ideology. I've a sneaking suspicion that you want me to put up a single source, which you will then find an reason to show is not authoritative, and we will end up in a game where I continue to post up source after source, and you post up objection after objection. However I'm going to assume good faith and post up this: Colin Hay's book 'The Political Economy of New Labour' where he makes statements like "My aim in this chapter is to establish that by the completion of the policy review, Labour had ceased effectively to be a social democratic party, committed as it had by then become to a neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and to a basic acceptance of the legacy of the Thatcher years." He also states in this book, to those who would separate economics from ideology, that "the political, economic and the cultural are not independent arenas...it is important that we resist the narrow privileging of the economic and the political"

Colin Hay is a professor of political analysis at the University of Sheffield Riversider (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that. Hay's thesis was picked up in a more recent book, The death of social democracy (2008).[4] However, as acknowledged by the writers, this is a minority view and in fact was argued in the 1950s, as socialists embraced social liberalism, in the interwar period, when socialists accepted parliamentary democracy, and during the Great War, when socialists supported their national governments. As Alain observed in 1931, "[P]eople ask me if the division between parties of the right and parties of the left, men of the right and men of the left, still makes sense...." TFD (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou too, you seem to have provided yet another excellent reference that supports the case for the 'neoliberalism' tag being restored: http://books.google.com/books?id=e-V-2PYJWVkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false You're clearly quite familiar with this literature yourself. WP is required to give representation to 'significant minority viewpoints', and those that argue that Labour's ideology is neoliberal ar not flat-earthers, but are arguing a cogent case based on strong evidence. If you accept that this is a significant minority viewpoint, backed up by a considerable amount of literature (including some you have provided yourself), then it should receive representation in the article. I have never argued for replacing the words 'democratic socialism' with 'neoliberalism', just that neoliberalism should appear alongside this description, as one of the ideological currents that undeniably exists in the Labour Party. Riversider (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be acceptable for the article but the infobox is supposed to show a maintream understanding. It may be that Blair wanted to turn Labour into a liberal party, like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party run by an elite with corporate support, little union influence and no left wing. But that would only have worked had the Left broken away to form its own party as they did in Germany. TFD (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The key problem TFD is that it is not the 'mainstream understanding' that Labour is now a 'democratic socialist' party, either in political or academic circles. People would laugh if anyone argued seriously that Labour's recent policies or ideology bore any relationship to socialism. 'Democratic socialism' is Labour's official designation, but everyone knows it is little more than a historic label, and bears little relation to present reality, the controversy starts when discussing what to replace it with. By having the three descriptions in the infobox, it made it clear to the reader that Labour's ideology was very much in flux, and that there were different trends in the party, very much as the UK Consertive Party's article does. Riversider (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source that says this is the mainstream understanding. From reading the sources it appears that they do not claim that it is anything beyond a minority opinion, let alone a consensus view, hence phrasing like, "My aim in this chapter is to establish that...." Here is a link to a 2002 book that says, "social democracy, even when it is 'neoliberalized', is not neoliberal" (p. 173). But it may be that you believe Labour was once something that it never was. TFD (talk)

At the moment you seem to be doing my work for me TFD, that's a cracking reference. The chapter on 'The New Social Democracy' starting on p228 repeats, almost word for word what I've been arguing here, and recounts the depth of the transformation that has occurred in the UK Labour Party. This source argues that the transformation toward neoliberalism actually began much earlier than Blair, back in the 1980's under Kinnock. I've no reason to dispute this. What is clear is that as well as there being highly authoritative sources, there is also a huge weight of sources. I disagree with you slightly on the authority of newspaper articles and blogs, the authority of these nowadays depends on who has written them and which institutions they are attached to. It's difficult to determine which view is the majority, but while I have been repeatedly asked (and repeatedly succeeded) to provide published sources to show that people are asserting that Labour's ideology is neoliberal, those who argue that Labour's ideology should be described as democratic socialist have come up with not one single published source that could not be described as a self-published source, I.e. a Labour Party publication. Let's have that side produce some citations to back their case for a change... Riversider (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Labour Party's website describes the party as "democratic, socialist". Organisations are regarded as reliable sources for their own views. TFOWR 13:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...but an external cite wouldn't hurt: The New World of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science, Neal Riemer and Douglas Simon. Note that these two refs took me all of thirty seconds on Google, and this second ref was the first one that came up on Google Books. I'd imagine that there are many more. TFOWR 13:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but might be useful for context. I'm not a Labour Party member or supporter. On the rare occasions I vote, I vote tactically - at my last general election I voted for Labour (NZ) and Greens (Aotearoa) as a tactical vote to hinder the National Party (who won). But I don't regard Labour (UK) as either democratic or socialist. But my views are irrelevant: our role here is to write a neutral article, reflecting widespread understanding of the topic. The Labour Party in the UK is considered a democratic socialist party. That's maybe because the party's dominant role in UK politics shapes UK understanding of the term "democratic socialist". That's maybe due to other factors. But it doesn't matter. We still need to reflect the mainstream view. TFOWR 13:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My turn to question the authority of sources now. Firstly the Labour Party's website is a 'self published source'. I could write a website and say that I was a philanthropist and a world champion weight lifter. Secondary sources are important. The second citation TFOWR gives was published in 1997 while Labour was still in opposition, and is a 4th edition, so it's likely the chapter cited could have been written years earlier, it certainly reads as incredibly out of date, and as if it were written for American schoolchildren. In any case it predates the experience of the most recent Labour government. The argument that Labour is democratic socialist because it says it is, and that democratic socialism is what Labour says it is, is dangerously circular, yet seems the only one that justifies the current infobox. Riversider (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You missed the part where I said "Organisations are regarded as reliable sources for their own views". The article can say that the Labour Party describes itself as "democratic socialist". If the Labour Party said that "heritary peerages are evil" we couldn't cite them for that claim, only for their belief. Using your example, we could cite you to show that you believe you are a philanthropist, but we could not cite you to claim that you are a philanthropist. WP:PRIMARY sources are fine for "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". TFOWR 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case the current infobox should be qualified by using the word 'official' or 'self-proclaimed' before the word 'ideology', those arguing for keeping the infobox as it is need to come up with much more up to date and authoritative sources to show that there is a commonly held view among academics and political commentators that Labour's current ideology is democratic socialist. Riversider (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, the burden of evidence rests on the side proposing a change. The party has described itself as "democratic socialist" since 1994: if academia disagrees with that it should be easy to demonstrate. If academia believes the UK Labour Party is something else ("neoliberal", perhaps) than, again, that should be easy to demonstrate. But, again, the onus is on the proposers of the change to make their case. To date I've seen evidence that the neoliberalism thesis exists, and that's maybe worth mentioning in the article as a minority viewpoint. But I don't see any case to change the infobox. TFOWR 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox was changed from a previous version which included the term 'neoliberalism' as one (among several) descriptions of Labour's ideology to it's current one pretty recently. This is how it looked back in May this year: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=364034611 I don't think that there has ever been any evidence produced to justify that change. That's what I'm asking for. There's plenty of evidence that shows that many in academia do use the word 'neoliberalism' to describe Labour ideology, as the long list of citations I've produced, and TFD's kind additions clearly demonstrate. The previous version reflected the balance of published sources more accurately, changing it was unjustified by published sources, and flew in the face of a long list of authoritative sources (that is now even longer). Expecting academia to have one single consensus view about Labour's ideology is to misunderstand how academia works, especially on inherently contraversial topics like political parties. An infobox that reflects the various strands of academic debate is more accurate than one which posits a non-existent consensus. Riversider (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "Neoliberalism" was removed in the edit you provided. I checked back through the article's history to see how long "neoliberalism" had been in the article prior to that. It was added here, by an editor called... Riversider2008. Right now I'm thinking that we're all probably too involved (though my involvement here really only stems from, I think, a request at WP:RFPP). I'm thinking that raising this at WP:NPOVN may be the answer. That'll draw in outside eyes, and I think this subject definitely needs examining closely. TFOWR 15:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This source which is about political parties in the 1980s shows that Labour was grouped as a socialist party. The book is unavailable on Google but can be read on Questia. There is no evidence that this grouping has changed. Is "neoliberal" a new party type and if so should any of the other U.K. parties be grouped within it? TFD (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raised at WP:NPOVN. TFOWR 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it TFOWR. One mistake editors are making here is assuming that the change I am arguing for is one that states that Labour has become a neoliberal party, while several of the sources I cited state this, this is not what the infobox itself actually states. Instead the infobox lists 'neoliberalism' as one of several ideological trends influencing the party. This is softer, more subtle and more complex, and as such is also a better representation of reality than a gross oversimplification in any one particular direction. Oversimplification of a complex situation leads to POV distortion, and a bald oversimplified unqualified statement that Labour's ideology is 'democratic socialist' in no way reflects reality or published sources. One more good article in Labour's house journal, the New Statesman, which is today calling for the next Labour leader to break with "New Labour's Neoliberal economic model" http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/labour-leader-miliband-deficit Riversider (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"One mistake editors are making here..." Riversider2008, please don't make sweeping comments about other editors, or at least be prepared to back them up with diffs. I know what my concerns are, and they certainly aren't that you'd be quite that blunt. Back to the issue at hand, "New Labour" is not the Labour Party. Certain figures around Blair may have subscribed to neoliberalism, but that doesn't automatically make it appropriate to use "neoliberalism" as an ideology for the party as a whole. The party is more than just the previous leadership: it's the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the rank-and-file membership, and the affiliated socialist societies' members as well. (I'm also unconvinced that it's correct to describe the New Statesmen as the party's house journal - but that's another issue). TFOWR 23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies TFOWR, part of the problem is my writing style,where I do make my points quite emphatically, which I suspect makes people believe that the wording I am arguing for is equally sweeping and emphatic. The sentence you pick out is one example of my emphatic style, which was not meant as a criticism of all editors. The New Statesman is a pretty authoritative source on the Labour Party, and the article I cite is an editorial leader, which I believe gives it extra authority. You're right that the party is not a simple institution, it's a large coalition of disparate forces, and this makes it more unsatisfactory to use a single bald label for it's ideology to describe what is a far more complex situation. The Infobox as it stood up to May did not state that neoliberalism was an ideology for the party as a whole, but listed neoliberalism as one of several 'ideological currents' influencing the party. If you accept that Blair and several people round him 'subscribed to neoliberalism', then this formulation would reflect that fact accurately, while also representing the fact that other sections of the party held to social democratic or democratic socialist values. Riversider (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've subscribed to the New Statesman for the whole of my adult life, and I'd count it as an authoritative source on most subjects, but it does represent a wing of the Labour Party and comments in the Leader columns are political positions not neutral comments. I really do think you are mixing up the requirements for content in the main article with the proper purpose and function of the information box

It's certainly evidence that a significant section of the Labour Party itself believes that the previous Labour leadership had a neoliberal economic model. The purpose of the infobox is not to give a falsely simplified version of a far more complex situation. This is the infobox I am arguing for: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=364034611 This shows that there is more than one ideological current in the Labour Party. If we look at the WP infobox for the UK conservative party, that lists 5 or 6 ideologies that are influencing that party. I understand the attraction of simplification, but oversimplification leads to POV distortion, and does not help the reader. Riversider (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

See previous discussions/arguments on all those points --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Show me any published source anywhere that says the Labour Party has only one ideology. Riversider (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

People of all political persuasions belong to all major political parties and often hold important positions. That does not mean that we add every ideology to every party. TFD (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that either, that's a 'straw man' argument, I'm merely suggesting that we list the significant ideologies that have an impact on the party's direction. People above have accepted that Blair and others around him 'subscribed to neoliberalism' (and theres plenty of published material that verifies this view). The ideology subscribed to by someone that led the party for a decade must surely be considered significant. Riversider (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the most common explanation is that Labour inherited neoliberalism and attempted to modify its extreme nature. Instead of going back to redistributionism, they sought a "Third Way". Some writers believe that the Third Way was merely "spin-doctoring".[5] But as Tony Blair said, socialism was never about nationalization. And the post WW2 policies of Labour were not socialism, but social liberalism, policies adopted by all parties everywhere, anf no more socialist than classical liberalism or neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are suggesting, however, that we add an ideology that a group of people who held important positions for a limited period be added. I disagree. This was a decade in the history of a party that spans a century. Add "neoliberalism" to Blair's article, mention it in the article-proper here, but I'm just not seeing this as anything other than WP:UNDUE in the infobox. Neoliberalism is really not what most people think of when they think of the Labour Party. "Social democracy" - quite likely. "Third way" - maybe. "Neoliberalism" - no. This is a small period, involving a small (though admittedly important) group. It just smacks of WP:UNDUE. I've hinted above that I'm surprised that you were the editor who initially added "neoliberalism" (and then failed to mention that in this discussion). I was less surprised to see that your editing focus centres around "neoliberalism" - either arguing for it on this talk page, or editing at Talk:Neoliberalism and Neoliberalism. That, coupled with the IP pushing here, and that this current discussion only started when I protected the article, has me very concerned. Several editors have disagreed with your proposed inclusion. I'd suggest it's time to drop it, and let WP:NPOVN weigh in with neutral views. TFOWR 11:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you seem to be arguing 'everyone knows labour isn't socialist' as an argument for keeping 'democratic socialism' as the description of Labour's ideology.

TFOWR: We seem to have shifted on the criteria for inclusion into the article from accurately reflecting the balance of published sources to "what most people think of when they think about this topic" (if this was the criteria for inclusion on all articles, nobody would ever learn anything by coming here). I have never made any secret of the fact that I posted neoliberalism as a tag originally and believed it to be common knowledge among the editors who usually edit this page. In fact several editors have posted 'neoliberalism' before me, but without making reference to the many published sources that exist, mine was the first such edit that 'stuck', and lasted between October and May, in fact it became the basis for an agreed consensus among editors during those months, as the edit record and the talk page discussion will confirm. If you are implying that I am connected with IP pushing, I can reassure you that I always edit using my username, and have not engaged in canvassing or other editorial malpractice. Although Blair is no longer leader, a number of those who were part of his coterie remain in leading positions, and a couple are leadership candidates, so it is recentism to suggest that Labour's 'neoliberal' period has now ended, we'll only know this when we see how things settle after the leadership election. I can say that in the time I have spent adding to WP, I believe I have behaved well as an editor, using published sources as the basis for my edits, seeking consensus where others disagree with my edits and conducting debate on the talk page in a constructive, friendly and good faith way, with the aim of helping this article be as accurate as it can be in reflecting the published sources. I thanked you for referring this to NPOVN, and welcome neutral viewpoints on this matter (if it is philosophically possible to have a genuinely neutral viewpoint on a topic that relates to a political party). I think, given the weight of published sources that even if I personally were to 'DROP IT', this issue will return as a perennial one on this topic, as diligent editors whose concern is to represent accurately what the growing number of published sources say will end up re-including it, sooner or later. I'm happy to 'COOL IT' and wait for NPOVN. Riversider (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"We" seem to have done nothing of the sort. This isn't about inclusion in the article (I've said it's maybe worth a mention in this article), it's about inclusion in the infobox. The infobox should provide a balanced overview of the subject, an "at a glance" summary. This is a subject that spans a considerable history - you're wanting to summarise that history with a comparatively recent, minor ideology, an ideology that may well not even be relevant any more. I don't, to be honest, see much difference between that and trying to suggest that the party's ideologies include Marxism, Co-operation or Trotskyism. Indeed, these latter two arguably have far greater validity - the Co-operative Party remains a strong force within the Labour Party (and has been since the 30s), and the Militant Tendency was incredibly relevant between 1964 and 1987. These are worth discussing in the article but none of them, in my view, not even Co-operation, belong in the infobox. TFOWR 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying the everyone knows that Labour is not socialist but that it that has always governed following broadly liberal policies, as have the "Conservatives". TFD (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be fair to say that the Labour Party is now a Social Democratic and Progressive party much like the German Social Democratic Party and Swedish Social Democratic Party. Because to me that is the way Ed Miliband is taking Labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PerseusMCMXCII (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It might well be, and if reliable sources start describing the party in that way then this article should too. Until then it's just our own original research. TFOWR 17:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read of political parties, typology rarely changes despite policy changes. (See Left-right politics). TFD (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to election

I think this is not balanced at the moment - OK the TU response is quoted, but we also have the Newsnight attempt to avoid the RedEd label. THere is a danger of cherry picking here. I suggest we need a more balanced summary to the response. Opened for discussion here rather than just reverting --Snowded ^TALK 14:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Kind of related question: was it trade unionists' votes that swung it, or trade union block votes? I don't know how Labour handle trade union votes these days, but back in the day it wouldn't have been individual trade unionists per se. Has that changed with OMOV? TFOWR 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And that statement has been challenged, the votes are close throughout, at the moment the wording looks like the Telegraph not a NPOV. --Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indivisual Trade Union members that vote. The block vote is long dead in Labour. The "Red Ed" title is more of a slur by the right wing press and the Tories than a genuine tag that states the centrist Ed Miliband's political position. Maybe the tag can be mentioned as a slur used against him, but not as a definite title.--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't cherry picking, simply quoting published sources. I actually disagree with Woodley and think that trade unionists are being very naive if they believe Ed will mean the end of New Labour, however Woodley is an authoritative spokesman for his union, and the wider union movement, so I have to stick with what published sources say. The Huhne quote is put in to balance the Woodley quote, so that there are responses from both left and right. It's hard to say whether there was a little bit of mischief in his suggestion that there might be a future Lib/Lab pact, especially from a cabinet minister, but in a way this makes the comment even more notable, as it gives a flavour of some of the politicking that is to come. WS is right, TU members voted individually. The middle class party membership and MPs voted Dave, the working class trade unionists voted Ed.Riversider (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you were cherry picking from published sources. We need to show balance here and proportionality a lot of this is too current to be creating expanded entries. Do we put in Kinnocks email to all Party members supporting his election, the commentary on his first full address? His brother's response on Iraq? There is a lot of material that can be linked to published sources. --Snowded ^TALK 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The narrowness of Ed's victory and it's repercussions, the disloyalty of some of DM's New Labour backers, the relationship with Trade Unions, all will be key themes in this period of Labour's story. If the articles I chose don't reflect this adequately, find better ones. Riversider (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we could use articles to reflect many many responses, its too soon and too recent to provide a balanced summary of reaction. Best to leave it that he won the election. --Snowded ^TALK 20:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objection to this wording. It has nothing to do with the Telegraph, the sources are the Financial Times and the Daily Mirror. At present "In opposition 2010-present" is a basically empty section, which looks daft. The notable event so far has been the election of Ed Miliband and the light it shines on the 'New Labour' period. the continuing importance of the Trade Union movement in the Labour Party and the future direction of the party - to the left, or into coalition with the Lib Dems? I feel that the wording I've used reflects this complexity in a short space. What I'd really prefer, is rather than merely deleting it, editors tried to improve it. Riversider (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)