Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Centre left

I've reverted this.

As described in the edit summary, the refs all have their own problems. Toynbee explicitly describes the Lib-Dems move away from centre-left politics, others like White and the Times journalist merely talk about a "centre-left constituency". As a blog, Conservative Home is not a verifiable source as per WP:RS. The all-words and britannica.com also fail this and are so vague and undated as to be useless anyway.Haldraper (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks very like POV pushing. The Liberal Democrats have at times picked different examples of their policies to promote, and throughout much of the 2000s they have most often highlighted those left-wing policies which put them on the left in an attempt to attract the votes of disillusioned former Labour voters. That does not mean that the party as a whole is on the centre-left because there have been times when they have highlighted right-wing policies. The party was strongly criticised by Labour in 1992 when its MPs voted with the Major government over the Maastricht Treaty. The party's own ideology has remained centrist throughout. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unpicking the sources

As a rule of thumb anything that needs six sources to justify a single word is probably very dodgy. Let's look at the sources in context:

• Polly Toynbee's Guardian article is an opinion piece arguing that the Liberal Democrats should do something, not describing what they are actually doing. At no point does it say directly that the Liberal Democrats are on the centre left.
• Peter Franklin's article for Centre Right is a blog post on ConservativeHome's most open forum and therefore not a reliable source as Haldraper points out above. The article nowhere makes a case that the Liberal Democrats are centre-left; rather it just assumes that it has already been established that they are.
• The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the Liberal Democrats not only as centre-left but as libertarian - I don't see many people rushing to agree with them on the second. However reading later on reveals the fundamental problem: this article was written over 10 years ago and refers to politics during the later Major years and early years of Blair, when Labour and the Liberal Democrats were very close. This is no longer the case.
• Michael White's article is also speculating about the future, but his main point is about how the Liberal Democrats affect the future of the Labour Party. Naturally this involves a discussion of the centre-left. It does not necessarily require the Liberal Democrats to be entirely and indisputably on the centre-left.
• Danny Finkelstein's article begins with a subheading describing the Liberal Democrats as "the centre party". The thrust of it is along the same lines as Michael White - looking at what might happen if there was a move for the Liberal Democrats and Labour to merge (however he comes to opposite conclusions).
• Allwords turns out to use Wiktionary as its source and does not explain the context at all.

I would say that none of these sources truly establishes what is claimed of them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I figured I'd use as many references as I could seeing as how it kept getting reverted. It seems logical that the Lib Dems can be both centrist and center-left seeing as how it contains policies and factions in both areas. I believe it should be listed as both, much like the Democratic Party (US) and the Labour Party. It seems that most agree that they at least partially lie on the left. It doesn't seem to be at all totally on the left in any way. I propose adding centre-left to their ideology much like center was added to the previously mentioned parties for the sake of reflecting reality.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Sam on this one --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article I just used was the very same article to reference the Labour Party as being center-left. It seems a majority of the British people believe the Lib Dems to be center-left. I however, would say that they are both center and center-left. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to deal with the specific challenges to your citations listed above. --Snowded ^TALK 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We've dealt with those it seems. While none truly make the case for them being center-left, they come from people across the spectrum who assume the party is at least partially on the center-left. I acknowledge that this isn't quite enough to justify this based on the standards being imposed.However, I think it would be fair for others to address the claim I've just made about the poll reference and how people percieve the party.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully acknowledge that, by and large, the sources used above border on absolute crap. That's why I've now reclassified the Liberal Democrats as center-left by appealing to that amazing conduit of human knowledge known as books, of which you'll find plenty at those things called libraries or the "internets" as well.UberCryxic (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For the love of all that is good can we not just say they're centre-left and centrist? All this back and forth is irritating. Besides both of its precursor parties are labeled on this very site as centre-left. I also find it hard to believe that advocating for a large welfare state and regulations and being for such things as same-sex marriage and being pro-choice are centrist positions even in the United Kingdom.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when as pro-choice/pro-life been a right-left issue in the UK? All the large parties have had staunch advocates on both sides of the fence - the Lib Dems have been the party of both David Steel and David Alton. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk demonstrates the problems that arise when American editors attempt to apply their own political labels to British parties. Just because some of the Lib Dems policies might put them on the left of - or even to the left of - the US Democrats does not mean that they are 'centre left' in British or European political terms. As the sources I've added show, the Lib Dems position is - and is seen by them as being - classically centrist. And Tim is right, the split between anti-abortion and pro-choice politicians runs through all British political parties from left to right.Haldraper (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very aware of the differences between the American and UK political spectrums but it seems that most people from the UK I've talked to classify them as center-left. And I notice you only picked out the abortion issue and not the others. Forgive my ignorance, but I do try to follow UK politics and I've failed to see how they're not center-left especially when compared to Labour or the Conservatives. On a side note I have not labeled any of your parties with American descriptors, center-left is a term never heard in American political nomenclature. If I had tried to label your parties like ours then the Lib Dems and Labour both would be "liberal" or "progressive" with "moderate factions" and the Conservaties "moderately conservative." We use center, center-left and center-right on our parties pages as more objective terms without regard to a countrys particular jargon, this policy is also used as a means of standardizing Wikipedia political party pages. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk, this is all original research on your part: "most people from the UK I've talked to classify them as center-left", "I do try to follow UK politics and I've failed to see how they're not center-left". What you need to do is what I have done: find up to date, academic sources that describe them as centre left and provide quotes to that effect.Haldraper (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I did find academic sources that said the Lib Dems were center-left....and you got rid of them!UberCryxic (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, I've reverted your sources for three reasons:

WP:RS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." A dictionary clearly should not replace an academic study as a source as your edit did.

As stated in my edit summary, your three sources are out-of-date (1993-97): why would you replace an academic study from 2008 with a dictionary definition from 1993? Two of them are also North American where the term 'center-left' invariably has a different meaning never mind a different spelling to that in Britain.Haldraper (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...the 90s are not that long ago...but ok, if time is your problem, here's some more recent stuff from Britain....

Contemporary Britain: a survey with texts (2001) on p. 107:

The Liberal Democrats have traditionally stressed constitutional reform, local government, civil liberties, citizen participation in politics and society, higher taxes for public services, internationalism, the environment, federalism and a pro-Europe stance involving a more integrated European Union. Commentators maintain that the Liberal Democrats must either remain true to their traditional principles on the centre-left of the political spectrum or develop even more distinctive radical policies.

Political culture in contemporary Britain: people and politicians (1996) on p. 301:

The ideological differences between party politicians and their own voters were perhaps most striking in the case of the Liberal Democrats. While Liberal Democrat politicians placed themselves firmly on the centre left, their voters placed themselves in the centre...

Political choice in Britain (2004) on p. 81:

To the extent that voters adhere to a Downsian utility-maximizing logic when making their decisions, these figures suggest that the Conservatives were at a disadvantage, not only relative to Labour, but also relative to the Liberal Democrats. As discussed in Chapter Three, in 2001 the latter party was seen as somewhat further to the left than Labour and more strongly in favor of additional government spending rather than tax reductions.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I've seen academic sources refer to them as both centrist and center-left, but it seems like the latter label is more prevalent, and hence it should feature prominently in the introduction. Some of their centrist tendencies can be mentioned later on in the body.UberCryxic (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from my user page:

"I just to want to say straight off: I respect your sources and I have no intention of engaging in an edit war. At the same time, I also hope that you can show deference to academic sources that disagree with your viewpoint. I find it almost astounding to believe that the Lib Dems have "moved to the right," as you said in your last edit, when the horse's mouth proudly proclaims "we are the only party that believes in fairness" ahead of the British general elections. If there are any more generally leftist concepts than equality and fairness, you'd be hard-pressed to find them. I hope we can come to some sort of amicable understanding here. Another user intimately involved with the article suggested that we could call the party both 'centrist' and 'centre-left.' I'm willing to adopt that framework, and include all of our sources, in the spirit of compromise. Let me know what you think.UberCryxic (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ubercyrix, every party in Britain claims to believe in "fairness", maybe we should tag them all as centre-left? The main body of the article is actually pretty clear about how the Liberals/Lib Dems while historically a centrist party adopted some centre-left positions under Kennedy at the time of the Iraq war to appeal to Labour voters but has since moved to the right - e.g. over tax cuts and student top-up fees - which is unsurprising given the number of Tory/Lib Dem marginals. You might also want to look at their recent record in local government which is certainly not centre-left.Haldraper (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)"

Haldraper (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic has found some good references that should be taken into account. Here are some more:

Neither left nor right? "the party's move from equidistance allowed the Lib Dems - as a centre-left party - to build support" Pg. 253

Political parties and electoral change "the left of centre Liberal Democrats" Pg. 35

Contemporary Britain: a survey with texts"The Libs Dems have traditionally seen themselves as a left of centre party" Pg. 91

All of these sources also speak of the centrist elements of the party, but, as you can see, the centre-left also plays a large part in the ideology of the party. I agree with UberCryxic that both centrist and centre-left should be used on this page as a compromise solution.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk, you're confusing the past with the present here, in a way that the sources you quote don't.

Russell/Fieldhouse: the source makes clear that the attempt to attract disillusioned Labour voters with centre-left policies pursued by Kennedy alienated just as many disillusioned Tory voters and has now been abandoned in favour of the "more effective strategy" outlined in the quote we already have from the same source: "centrist and radical".

Mair etc from 2004 also describes the Kennedy strategy.

Oakland from 1999 explicitly places the Lib Dems "in the centre" between the Tories on the right and Labour on the left, although like the other sources it talks about their vision of themselves as "left of centre" in the para on the newly elected leader Kennedy.

The article very clearly shows how the Liberals/Lib Dems have historically been a classically centrist party, went through a centre-left phase under Kennedy and have now shifted rightwards, back to their traditional position in the centre of British politics. It is not a question of a "compromise solution", it is a question of being accurate.Haldraper (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The second reference doesn't even mention the Kennedy strategy and the third clearly mentions the left of the party and then the center and the internal debate over the position of the party. There is undoubtedly a huge influence in the party from the centre-left as their main ideology is based off of the social liberalism of Keynes and Beveridge, who while not being socialists, were distinctly on the left. Additionally nearly half of the Lib Dem MPs are part of the "ginger group" called the Beveridge Group in the House of Commons and represent the left of the party. It is impossible to deny the influences of centre-left thought on the party (even if it has "moved right" as some say under Clegg) and this influence in its fundamental beliefs and in its current policy needs to be recognized on this page. Therefore, I suggest we remove centrist, or any ideological term, from the lede altogether and replace it with a position section in the info-box and place centre first, followed by centre-left.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk, the point you're missing is the age of your sources and the shifts that have occurred since they were written. You and Ubercryxic want to replace a British academic study from 2008 with a North American dictionary entry from 1999, and others older than that going back to 1993. Under Kennedy, the Lib Dems did move left during the late 90's and early 2000's as New Labour moved right onto their centre ground. Under Clegg, as the sources in the position section show, they have moved right again, back into the centre ground where they are now competing with the Tories, especially in marginals in the South.

There seems a lot original research/synthesis here: "There is undoubtedly a huge influence in the party from the centre-left as their main ideology is based off of the social liberalism of Keynes and Beveridge, who while not being socialists, were distinctly on the left. Additionally nearly half of the Lib Dem MPs are part of the "ginger group" called the Beveridge Group in the House of Commons and represent the left of the party. It is impossible to deny the influences of centre-left thought on the party (even if it has "moved right" as some say under Clegg) and this influence in its fundamental beliefs and in its current policy needs to be recognized on this page."

So Keynes and Beveridge were 'on the left'(?), 'nearly half of the Lib Dem MP's are part of nearly half of the Lib Dem MPs are part of the "ginger group" called the Beveridge Group in the House of Commons" so "It is impossible to deny the influences of centre-left thought on the party (even if it has "moved right" as some say under Clegg) and this influence in its fundamental beliefs and in its current policy needs to be recognized on this page."?

Keynes and Beveridge are not seen as left-wingers in Britain: in the twentieth century that term would include the Labour Party, the Communist Party, the Independent Labour Party and smaller socialist groups but certainly not the Liberals/Lib Dems.

I can see why from a North American perspective the Lib Dems seem left-wing: they are in favour of publicly funded health care, mainly pro-choice, support keeping the minimum wage etc. But then so do the Tories, do you want to tag them centre-left? In fact, their record in local government underlines the Lib Dems evolution into a centre-right party. Haldraper (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough with the "North American perspective" non-sense. You've made enough comments in this debate to show that you yourself have little clue about British politics. How you can assign the same beliefs to the Tories and the Lib Dems is astounding, especially on issues like abortion, in which the Tories voted last year in large numbers to restrict access to abortion services. Keynes and Beveridge are not seen as hardcore left-wingers, sure, but they are seen as definitely to the center-left in Britain, and their economic ideas and policies are regurgitated all the time by Labour (just one session of PMQ with Brown and Cameron will easily testify to that). The accusation of original research is patently absurd given the large number of academic sources in the last decade that classify the party as center-left. Frankly, I don't care that you have just one British source from 2008 giving your version of events. You can't dismiss all the other sources just because of that, especially when they're relatively recent. Realistically, this article should classify the party as center-left. At best, given current circumstances, it should say they're centrist and center-left (or somewhere between the two).UberCryxic (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I also want to add something else: what is this unreasonable obsession with the date of the sources? Does Haldraper actually propose that we simply ignore the traditional center-left orientation of the party? Even setting aside our squabbles over the party's current situation, its recent historical tendencies need attention in the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldrapper, the book that classified the Lib Dems as having a centre-left wing and a centrist wing was from 2004, which, I believe is fairly recent. I never said Beveridge or Keynes were "left-wingers" which has an altogether different meaning from what I intended to imply, which was that they were on the centre-left. Even from an American perspective neither the Lib Dems or Labour are "left-wing". I understand that there has been somewhat of a rightward shift since Kennedy but you missed my point. Centre-left ideas from Keynes and Beveridge are what the party is founded upon and as can be seen from the Beveridge Group, it remains a potent force within the party. I'm not saying they should be classified solely as a centre-left party; indeed, currently they're more centrist than centre-left but the more left-leaning elements of the party still exert considerable influence and that needs to be recognized on this page.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sparrowhawk, 2004. Ever heard of Harold Wilson's quip that "a week is a long time in politics"? Well six years is a lot longer and hardly "fairly recent" as you claim.

Read the Position section: it details (with sources) the rightward shift of the Lib Dem from a centre-left to centre/centre-right position on tax, spending and student fees at their 2005, 2008 and 2009 conferences. I don't dispute your sources are reliable ones, just that they are now out of date.

If as you say, "Centre-left ideas from Keynes and Beveridge are what the party is founded upon and as can be seen from the Beveridge Group, it remains a potent force within the party." you need to find a current source for that, not a Canadian political ditionary from 1993 or unreferenced original research. Haldraper (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The mere existence of the Beveridge Group (a group, unless its namesake is not explicit enough, that exists to promote social liberalism in the party) and the fact that it contains almost half of the Lib Dem MPs should be enough to claim that it is still a potent force within the party.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, this is original research/synthesis on your part:

You assert without a reliable source that Beveridge was on the left/centre-left.

You similarly assert that the group named after him to pursue social liberal policies 'is still a potent force within the party'. What are your reliable sources for this claim? The Position section which charts the Lib Dems move from centre-left to centre/centre-right positions between 2005-2009 is fully referenced. So is the opening sentence, with sources from 2008-2009. If we want to describe accurately the current ideological position of the party, it doesn't seem a good idea to replace those sources with ones from 1993-2004, especially when they are North American rather than British and dictionaries or similar reference works rather than academic studies. Haldraper (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all I wasn't the one that cited the North American dictionary. Second of all, the Beveridge Group themselves, on their Facebook page, make claim to being centre-left. As to whether or not they are a potent force within the party I simply cannot see how a group containing almost half of their nationally elected members cannot be seen to exert influence on the party and its policies. I fully realize your sources are good. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I wish to replace them. I do not. I say again, I believe we should remove the ideological label from the lede altogether in favor of placing a position section in the info-box with centrism being thee first one mentioned (since it seems to predominate party politics) with centre-left having a secondary mention. As for you claiming the move to the right is well documented...the articles in the position section from the Gaurdian and the Telegraph, the Lib Dem leaders claim the new policies were not moving the party to the right because they were cutting taxes on the poor, raising the capital gains tax on the rich and adding green taxes to the mix all to help the "less well off." In the Telegraph article Campbell still claimed he was a "centre-left politician" while in the Gaurdian article a senior party leader said "we are not doing this from the right." As loose and unconnected newspaper articles they are hardly "well documented."--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk, I accept that the Beveridge Group are a centre-left faction within the Lib Dems, the question is whether as you say "they are a potent force within the party". You say that you "simply cannot see how a group containing almost half of their nationally elected members cannot be seen to exert influence on the party and its policies". The answer is straightforward: the parliamentary party doesn't decide party policy, the party conference made up of hundreds of local activists does. If Clegg convinces them that cutting taxes or dropping the pledge to scrap student fees will win Tory votes it doesn't matter what 29 MP's think.

(A comparison is useful here: the Labour Party is a centre-left party that includes left-wing and far-left groups within its ranks. The left in Parliament, the Socialist Campaign Group has about thirty or so MP's, the Trotskyist Socialist Appeal activists in maybe a dozen constituencies. Neither has the influence on party policy or organisation they had in the 1980's so it would be misleading to write: "The Labour Party is a centre-left, left-wing and far-left political party".)

On your other points:

"I fully realize your sources are good. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I wish to replace them. I do not. "

OK, but Ubercryxic does and has.

"I say again, I believe we should remove the ideological label from the lede altogether in favor of placing a position section in the info-box with centrism being thee first one mentioned (since it seems to predominate party politics) with centre-left having a secondary mention."

How would that read? "The Lib Dems are a political party in the UK"? Doesn't seem very informative to the general reader to me.

As for you claiming the move to the right is well documented...the articles in the position section from the Gaurdian and the Telegraph, the Lib Dem leaders claim the new policies were not moving the party to the right because they were cutting taxes on the poor, raising the capital gains tax on the rich and adding green taxes to the mix all to help the "less well off." In the Telegraph article Campbell still claimed he was a "centre-left politician" while in the Gaurdian article a senior party leader said "we are not doing this from the right." As loose and unconnected newspaper articles they are hardly "well documented."

Two things: newspapers are reliable sources per WP:RS and 'centrist party' in the lead is supported not by that but by two academic studies from 2005 and 2009. Haldraper (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This source from 2006 claims the party activists are more to the left than the leadership: [1]. As for how the lede would read, it could be something along the lines of the the Lib Dems are a liberal party in the UK or they are the third largest party in the Uk or a combination of the two. It's not a necessity that their political position be in the lede. And finally, I never said that newspapers were not reliable sources but that two unconnected newspaper articles to not constitute a well documented shift in party policy to the right. While being reliable in their reporting, neither make the claim of a massive shift to the right in the party and in both, the leaders of the party claim the opposite, that they are not moving to the right. Neither did I claim that "centrist" was obtained from newspaper articles. In addition, one of your references (Neither left nor right) also call the party centre-left, as I pointed out in one of my sources.

So...party activists are to the left of leadership, in the two articles you claim that point to a shift in the right, the leaders deny it, half of its sitting MPs belong to a group that identifies as centre-left and the party itself is founded upon social liberalism and centre-left principles. Explain to me again how it is unfair the we remove political position from the lede (which would cease the edit war) and replace it with an info-box section placing centre and not centre-left first? Seems like a reasonable proposition to me.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Even if we adopt your talking points about how the party has moved to the right in the last few years, which is an assertion that I vehemently disagree with, the change would have been so recent that the center-left tendencies you yourself acknowledge existed at the turn of the millennium must be mentioned in the lead. How you can erase the party's late history like that is unimaginable. Of course, your fundamental premise is flawed, as the Liberal Democrats are just as leftist today as they were ten years ago, if not more so.

I would be fine with the following version for the opening sentence:

The Liberal Democrats, often shortened to Lib Dems, are a centrist and center-left political party in the United Kingdom, formed in 1988 by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party.

If not that, then I agree with Sparrow that we should just say it's a liberal party....or a social liberal party. I'd be fine with:

The Liberal Democrats, often shortened to Lib Dems, are a social liberal political party in the United Kingdom, formed in 1988 by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party.

What I will never accept is a lead that exclusively calls them 'centrist'.UberCryxic (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should take into account their history and think it illogical to do otherwise. I also agree with the notion of removing centre/centre-left from the lead and am in favor of UberCyxic's proposal of putting in place "social liberal" but would be willing to consider just "liberal". For the sake of maintaining similarities among Wikipedia's political party pages I still think we should place this in the position section of the info-box: Centre, Centre-left.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk, 'liberal' does seems a better suggestion. I think the nuances as to centrist/centre-left/centre-right may be best in the Position section anyway. I think you'd need a source for 'the party itself is founded upon social liberalism and centre-left principles' rather than it being one strand in the party.

Ubercryxic, you just seem to be pushing your own conservative POV here, whether it fits British political reality or not: if the Lib Dems are all social liberals and "just as leftist today as they were ten years ago, if not more so" how do you explain the formation of the Beveridge Group to oppose what they see as the party's shift to the right under free market liberals who want, for example, to privatise the Post Office? Haldraper (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it best if we steer away from anymore political debating and focus on the compromise. So we replace centrist with liberal. What do the two of you think about my proposal for the position section of the info-box? Having center listed first and in bold while centre-left is second and not in bold?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We've already got liberal, social liberal, market liberal, green liberal, progressive and civil libertarian in the infobox. It seems enough to me. Haldraper (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant under the ideology section, in the position section which most political party pages have (such as Labour and the Conservatives). Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly ok with the lead. I'd prefer social liberal, but I'm willing to live with the current version. The position part of the article needs some more modification, however, as currently it's suffering from Haldraper's propaganda that the party is shifting to the right, which isn't true. I'd remind Haldraper that it's common for center-left and center-right parties to enter coalitions with ideological opponents (the Purple Coalition in the Netherlands was a famous example, and a socialist party in my native Albania entered into coalition with the center-right government after the 2009 elections). Just because the Lib Dems might be thinking of entering into coalition with the Conservatives does not mean they are going to the right; it just means they think they have a better shot at power with Cameron than with Labour.UberCryxic (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, since I love the horse's mouth, here you have Nick Clegg in the Lib Dem conference speech blasting Cameron and the Tories. I just don't want there to be any confusion over the recent news reports, which can often be sensationalized to the point of sounding silly.UberCryxic (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do have to admit, after watching his speech it sounds as though Clegg was putting his party on the centre-left when he said that the Lib Dems were replacing Labour as the progressive party of British politics and as an alternative to the Conservatives. And he even specifically ask for Labour voters to vote Lib Dem and against the Conservatives,--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sparrowhawk, let's distinguish between electioneering/vote-catching speeches and the party's official policies.

I didn't write the part of the Position section that describes the shift rightwards between 2005-2009 by the way so it's hardly my 'propaganda'. UberCryxic says what it describes isn't true but we've got reliable sources showing how the party conferences dropped social liberal policies over taxation, spending and student fees in that period. And as I asked before: why was the Beveridge Group formed to oppose this shift to the right, are the Orange Book Liberals just a mirage?

I've done three things to the Position section:

1. added the academic sources cut from the lead.

2. cut unreferenced stuff that speculated about the electoral motives of New Labour and the Lib Dems in the late 90's.

3. added the Clegg interview which I thought was interesting but actually doesn't tell you about the party's position as you say, just as the Clegg speech doesn't. I'll cut it. Haldraper (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually reverted his edits from centre-left and liberal works just fine for me. I liked our compromise but he decided to change his mind apparently. I don't agree that they've shifted very far but that's a whole other topic.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, what Haldraper has done is sabotage this article. Now the user can either acknowledge what the majority of the sources are saying, as well as public opinion, or the user can be obstructionist and continue on this edit war eternally.UberCryxic (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ubercryxic, Wikipedia doesn't operate on the basis of "what the majority of the sources are saying, as well as public opinion" but on verifiable, reliable, independendent and up to date sources. There is no point you just adding your own POV and OR, it will just be RVed 'eternally'.Haldraper (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And given your history of blocks and warnings, eternal reverting is all I expect. I believe you don't worry! Talk about pushing a POV....I've given you what you've requested: a half-dozen academic sources that classify the party as belonging to the left of center. There are plenty more that call them social liberals as well. This version is the best.UberCryxic (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They're out of date and shoddy, schoolbook-type texts. Please do as Sparrowhawk and I have done and build consensus for your changes on this page and not just add unreferenced material that you think (from several thousand miles away) reflects "public opinion". Of your POV material you humbly say, "This version is the best". And then you have the nerve to accuse me of POV-pushing! Haldraper (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are POV pushing. Now you're even edit warring with some anon user. You don't have consensus for your version either. Setting the lead aside, I provided plenty of objections to your flagrantly misguided changes describing the ideological orientation of the party in the body. You continuously ignore these well-intended objections and rampage through the article as you see fit.UberCryxic (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideological orientation of Lib Dems

To permanently settle this kerfuffle we're having, I have amassed and consolidated the following reputable sources—books, magazines, and newspaper articles—that refer to the social liberal and center-left political character of the party. They are largely unequivocal and I intend to include some of them in the article. I have taken note of Haldraper's criticism surrounding the time of publication for the sources, and all but one of the following books were published in the last decade.

BOOKS

1. Whiteley et al., Third force politics: liberal democrats at the grassroots (2008), p. 96-7

Speaking about party activism:

It will be recalled that the theory Curvilinear Disparity suggests that party activists will be more radical than the party leadership and also the supporters in the electorate. In the case of Labour, this means that the activists would be to the left of the leadership and in the case of the Conservatives, to the right. It is not absolutely clear what this would mean for the Liberal Democrats, although it is likely to mean that activists are more to the left of the leadership because they are a progressive centre party. To investigate this possibility, we use the two indicators of the members' perceptions of ideology introduced in Chapter 4.

(after a few more sentences describing the standards, they announce the results)

We see in Table 5.3 that activism within the party on both scales is firmly rooted on the left.

2. D. N. Maclver, The Liberal Democrats (1996), p. 143

On socio-economic issues, the Liberal Democrat membership can accurately be described as centre-left.

3. John Oakland, Contemporary Britain: a survey with texts (2001), p. 107

The Liberal Democrats have traditionally stressed constitutional reform, local government, civil liberties, citizen participation in politics and society, higher taxes for public services, internationalism, the environment, federalism and a pro-Europe stance involving a more integrated European Union. Commentators maintain that the Liberal Democrats must either remain true to their traditional principles on the centre-left of the political spectrum or develop even more distinctive radical policies.

4. Harold Clarke, Political choice in Britain (2004), p. 81

These figures suggest that the Conservatives were at a disadvantage, not only relative to Labour, but also relative to the Liberal Democrats. As discussed in Chapter Three, in 2001 the latter party was seen as somewhat further to the left than Labour and more strongly in favor of additional government spending rather than tax reductions.

5. Michael Keating, The government of Scotland: public policy making after devolution (2005), p. 41

Talking about Scotland:

On socio-economic issues, there are three parties on the centre-left, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP, and one party on the centre-right, the Conservatives.

6. Elliott et al., In the name of social democracy: the great transformation, 1945 to the present (2002), p. 353

In 2001, profiting from the Conservatives' 'rightist' turn and Europhobic profile, Labour consolidated its domination of the centre. Such was its occupation of the centre that the Liberal Democrats were once again generally regarded as a centre-left party, positioning themselves...to the left of New Labour.

7. Glen Segell, Electronic democracy and the UK 2001 elections (2001), p. 69

The social policies of the Liberal Democrats have placed the party on the centre-left, in territory also occupied by New Labour.

8. Rallings et al., British Elections and Parties Review (2003), p. 140

The Liberal Democrats represent the coming together of two traditions - liberalism and social democracy....Over time, the party has adopted a centre-left position on socio-economic matters.

9. Ward et al., Making a difference: a comparative view of the role of the Internet in election politics (2008), p. 134

During this period there has been a corresponding rise in support for third parties, such as the centrist/centre-left Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and, more recently, anti-EU parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party as well as the far right British National Party (BNP).

MAGAZINE OR NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

1. Bill Gleeson, Hung parliament would be bad news for Britain (Feb 3, 2010) in the Liverpool Daily Post

Labour has moved closer to Conservative policy on the economy, leaving the Liberal Democrats to occupy the centre-left ground.

2. Daniel Finkelstein, Wake up, Liberal Democrats. Your moment is nigh (September 23, 2009) in the Times Online

On electoral strategy:

It should do two things. The first, and most important, is to realise that Mr Clegg’s stated strategic goal of taking over the centre Left is at odds with his tactic of targeting Labour seats at the next election. Labour retains sufficient regional strength that an attempt by the Liberal Democrats simply to wipe them out seems almost certain to fail. They may, to be sure, win a few seats in Labour areas next time. But, after that, progress will stall. And the targeting will have had a huge cost. It will make the sort of soft merger of the forces of the centre Left — the informal, coalition-in-all-but- name that the Liberals must hope to lead in a few years’ time — much harder to form.

and...

Liberal Democrat strategy — their goal of leading the centre Left and what Mr Clegg calls a "progressive realignment" — must trump Liberal Democrat tactical advantage — picking off seats that seem vulnerable.

3. Gary O'Donoghue, Clegg's proposal to voters (September 23, 2009) in BBC News

So in his speech he practically went down on one knee to make a direct appeal to the disillusioned and the undecided, as he tries to position his party as the vanguard of the progressive centre left - the natural successors to Labour who, he says, are finished.

4. Britain's Brown prepares for election battle (September 27, 2009) in AFP

The ICM survey also revealed that just 20 per cent think Mr Brown is the best man to be premier when compared with Mr Cameron and the leader of the centre-left Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, while 43 per cent picked Cameron.

I contend that the above sources are sufficient enough to close this debate in favor of the Liberal Democrats as a center-left, social liberal party, which is what they have been since they were founded over two decades ago. The sources cannot be attacked for being antiquated: two books from 2008 identify the party as center-left, on top of numerous newspaper articles from the last few months. Just as importantly, those newspaper articles analyzed Clegg's speech to the party conference last September as marking the beginning of a progressive, center-left campaign. I have definitively shown—with sources examining the party's activists, membership, and political leaders—that the Liberal Democrats are, quite simply, a party of the left.UberCryxic (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have do admit this pretty well proves it.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. It's about as close as we can come to 'proof' in a field outside mathematics. The sources above reveal two fundamental truths:

1) The Liberal Democrats have a tradition of center-left politics. The books show that trend quite clearly.

2) Under Clegg, the party is actually making a significant push for the left-wing vote. They are not, as has been mistakenly suggested, going to the right. The newspaper articles demonstrate this push quite convincingly. Now that this issue is settled, we can move on to fixing other parts of the article.UberCryxic (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you're both wrong here and in fact UbercCryxic your sources prove my points, not yours.

BOOKS:

1. is about party activists who it says are usually more radical than a party's voters and goes on to say that "It is not absolutely clear what this would mean for the Liberal Democrats, although it is likely to mean that activists are more to the left of the leadership because they are a progressive centre party." That is why the Orange Book market liberals who lead the party have had to drag their activists into dropping social liberal policies at successive conferences in order to attract/retain Tory voters. This source tells us nothing about offical party policy/ideology.

2. is also about membership rather than policy/ideology and like 3-8 is from 1996-2005 when we are agreed the LIb Dems adopted a centre-left position. What about now? I see despite sincere protestations of respect for them my up to date academic sources on their ideological position have been thoroughly erased to fit the new POV!

9.it is unclear what 'during this period' refers to: I note Ubercrycix cherrypicks 'centre-left' from the source's designation of 'centrist/centre-left' and by the end even says the "Liberal Democrats are, quite simply, a party of the left."

NEWSPAPERS/MAGAZINES

As we've been through before, this is all speculative stuff by journalists as to where the Lib Dems might move next. Let's wait until they do, adopt some concrete policies such as reinstating progressive taxation and the pledge to scrap student fees?

Similarly, Sparrowhawk you seem to take at face value whatever Clegg said in his last speech as the last word in Lib Dem ideology. You do realise that the Lib Dems are basically fighting on two fronts: crudely, in the North/cities against Labour and in the South/countryside against the Tories? That requires them to put on left and right faces, especially in the run up to a General Election. We should be wary of recentism and assess their actual policies as decided by their conferences.Haldraper (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok we're actually making progress here. I'm glad that you're only questioning three out of nine books! I was expecting a lot worse to be honest. I included the first book, as well as some other references in our previous discussions, because I thought it did a good job of covering a sorely misrepresented group in our arguments: the Lib Dems themselves! You've now had two sources saying that Lib Dem politicians and party activists are to the left of their constituency, with the activists also being to the left of the politicians. Clearly this fact is important because it influences the policies that the Lib Dems would pursue if they were in power. The more leftist the activists and the politicians, the more leftist the policies. Not a hard concept! As for your tired mantra that the Lib Dems are no longer center-left, that they were only center-left a few years ago, and that now they're moving to the right...none of that matches the sources, which you misinterpret incredibly. The journalists in those articles did not talk about where the Lib Dems "might move next", but rather about what they are doing now to get the left-wing vote. Any other interpretation constitutes original research because you're manipulating their words to fit your ends.UberCryxic (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Another note on the articles: the first three are opinion pieces by journalists and, I suppose, could be discounted as reputable sources. I included them, however, because I wanted you to have a sense for what the pundit class in Britain thought about the Liberal Democrats. The last, however, is a standard news article from one of the most respected news agencies in the world -- Agence France Presse, the French AP. That, most definitely, is a reputable source, and it's one of the best we have because it's so recent!UberCryxic (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you UberCryxic but I actually wrote "2. is also about membership rather than policy/ideology and like 3-8 is from 1996-2005 when we are agreed the LIb Dems adopted a centre-left position." I dispute the relevancy of all 9 books.Haldraper (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you obviously got lazy and didn't analyze the others individually! When the weight of the evidence is so overwhelming, I think that's an appropriate reaction.UberCryxic (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for History

Now that our bloody fight is behind us, hopefully we can come together to improve the rest of the article. And we could start with the History section. Right now it doesn't mention much about the Liberal Party being the inspiration, or at least an inspiration, for the development and formation of the party. We need to mention a few things about the Liberal Party (ie. especially its trends towards modern liberalism) and how it affected the Liberal Democrats. In other words, we want to show continuity, to use that fancy word historians love so much.UberCryxic (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloody fight, we've not even started! :-)

As for the history section, I notice those pesky centre-right, I mean social liberal practically Bolshevik (sorry, keep forgetting the new line!), conferences of 2005-2009 have mysteriously disappeared. I must say UberCryxic for a self-proclaimed liberal you've got some decidely Stalinist tendencies...Haldraper (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Those parts disappeared because they were based on a faulty narrative that you were trying to shove down the article's throat. We now have convincing evidence that the party has moved to the left, not the right, in the last few years.

This fight is to no one's benefit. There now finally seems to be some consensus on what the article should look like. I hope you can see past our divisions and attempt to work within that consensus from now on.UberCryxic (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" here seems to be your one-man, transatlantic campaign to airbrush out of history/this article any mention of the right-wing element in the Lib Dems ideology or their attempts to appeal to Tory voters.Haldraper (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence doesn't show "right-wing" elements in the party, nor does it show they have tacked left. Mention should be made of a slight change in policies to attract Tory voters but every bit of evidence shows the party to be a centrist to centre-left party where both factions have considerable influence. We agreed that the party is liberal before, but new evidence shows us that they're slightly to the left overall, so I suggest we name them social liberal and add a section in the info-box that says both centre-left and centrist.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The campaign strategy that Clegg is pursuing involves going after the left. That's basically how he thinks he can get in power. He wants to out-Labour Labour, who did the same thing to the Liberals back in the 1920s. As Sparrow suggested, there are no relevant "right-wing" elements in the party, hence they're not being mentioned. Again, when you look at their actual policies (I'm hoping Haldraper reads stuff on the "Internets," like this website here), you find that the Lib Dems are a standard center-left party (and in some policies they are just leftist, in others centrist).UberCryxic (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, you say "there are no relevant "right-wing" elements in the party hence they're not being mentioned". So Orange Book centre-right market liberals like Clegg, Cable and Laws are being airbrushed now are they?

I've restored the POV tag (please read the template and don't remove it until we've resolved this dispute). The irony is that myself and Sparrowhawk already have once by agreeing to substitute 'liberal' for 'centrist' because you didn't like it only for you to change your mind again and start your disruptive POV-pushing. I'm happy with either word, they both cover the two wings of the party. Haldraper (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the History section, there's another major problem: the entire Founding sub-section is based solely on "A concise history of the Liberal Party, SDP and Liberal Democrats" by the Liberal Democrat History Group which is a self-published rather than a third party source and thus fails WP:INDEPENDENT. Haldraper (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's consensus for the current version and the POV tag is not needed. Just because you argue there's POV doesn't actually make it so! Unfortunately, I and other users cannot rectify your misguided bias, which refuses to acknowledge the totality of the sources contradicting your claims. Having a POV tag in this article now, after everything I've presented, would be like a Holocaust denier placing a POV tag in the Holocaust article because it doesn't cite some absurd and fringe views. Move on from the tag already. This article has far more pressing problems than our hassles over center-left or social liberal, and you've identified some of them yourself.

By the way I would point out that the Lib Dem History Group is very much a reputable source considering how much of their stuff comes from professional scholars. The name itself just implies they are interested in the history of the party. It's not a reason to claim they're biased.UberCryxic (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the POV tag doesn't need to go back on: the thing I found most frustrating was not the centre-left/social liberal stuff but the amount of POV/unreferenced material that kept getting reinserted in breach of WP:V and which I'm glad you accept needed editing.

On the Lib Dem History Group, I suggest you take a look at WP:INDEPENDENT. It may be that they are "a reputable source considering how much of their stuff comes from professional scholars." That's not the issue here, the policy clearly states the need for reliable third party sources, defined as: "A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject". Given their email address is liberalhistory-subscribe@lists.libdems.org.uk, it's pretty clear they're not independent of the subject. Haldraper (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Centrist or Center-Left

The Liberal Party and their successor are seen as being in the center of the UK political spectrum and that is how they see themselves. Although some writers have said that they now position themselves on the "center-left", there are no reliable sources that they are a "center-left" party. In fact the Labour Party calls itself "center-left" because they claim to unite liberal and social democratic ideology. Since the Conservatives now call themselves "progressive conservatives", one could say that all the major UK parties are now center-left. Let us call them "centrist". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is your legendary "context" at work again Deuces:

"There are no reliable sources that they are a "center-left" party."

How can you make such a profoundly dishonest claim after I presented a book, written by three political scientists from Germany and Austria, that explicitly calls them center-left? Or how about all the other books written by political scientists that also said the same thing? And take a look at this new article today from Reuters (one of the most respected news agencies in the world) that says the following:

But a series of polls has shown the center-right Conservatives falling short of the support needed for a majority. The left-leaning Liberal Democrats, who have 63 seats in the current 646-member parliament, could become kingmakers in that scenario.

The AFP also called them center-left in a straight news piece (ie. not an opinion piece, see above). Seriously, how can you ignore all of that? Those sources don't matter according to you? Are you just trying to airbrush them out of history, to borrow Haldraper's terminology? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. There are plenty of reputable sources that call the party center-left, which is what this article should do as well.

On the party and progressivism: again, you have reputable sources for this claim too. See the Ideology and Internal factions section.UberCryxic (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Deuces, you're caring an awful lot now about what the Lib Dems call themselves, especially since WP:RS flatly states something you (should) know very well:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources.

It can't get any clearer than that.UberCryxic (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Reuters U.S. edition" cited actually calls them "left-leaning" which is not the same thing but probably accurately reflects an American POV. The article also states that they "would be prepared to support either main party". The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Both UberCryxic and myself have provided numerous reliable sources that indicate they are at least partially centre-left. I do not believe, in either my own opinion, or in light of all the sources that they are entirely centre-left. I believe they should be defined as both with centrism being the slightly more predominant position within the party.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Four Deuces that we should call the Lib Dems 'centrist' in the lead and ideology section of the article: this would cover both the centre-left social liberal and centre-right market liberal wings of the party.

On a separate point, UberCryxic says: "Seriously, how can you ignore all of that? Those sources don't matter according to you? Are you just trying to airbrush them out of history, to borrow Haldraper's terminology? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. There are plenty of reputable sources that call the party center-left, which is what this article should do as well." Yet he has done just that with equally reputable, and in some cases more up to date, academic sources - for example Colomar and Fieldhouse/Russell which describe the Lib Dems as "centrist" and "centrist and radical" respectively. Haldraper (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I reassert my idea to simply call the party a liberal party in the lead since that will cover social and market liberalism. In addition to that, in the info-box section for position I suggest we put: Centre, Centre-left. We need to end this dispute. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I find with the term "center-left" is that it is ill-defined and its meaning only becomes apparent in the context in which it is used. Essentially if we want to say that x called them "center-left" we should explain what they meant. I have no problem with calling them "liberal" - it may appear obvious but party names are not always descriptive. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting calling them centre-left in the lead, but to put centre and centre-left in the info-box section for their position since most every other political party page has ideology and position. Also, I think centre-left is purposely "ill-defined" because it can include: social liberalism, social democracy, progressivism, green politics, and moderate democratic socialism. The Labour Party page has centre-left in the lead so I'm not sure why it would make a difference if it was used in the correct context on this page. However, as I stated earlier, I don't believe we should have centre-left in the lead but instead go with "liberal." It may be obvious and I agree sometimes a party's name may be deceptive but in this case liberal is an apt term since it includes both social and market/classical varieties. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And might I add that the current version of the Labour Party article calls the party "center-left" with one citation from the BBC. That's it. That's what it's come to. One citation passes in the Labour article without a hitch, but nearly 20 reputable sources for the Lib Dems is not enough! Unbelievable. Per WP:RS again, in response to Deuces, it is not our job to interpret what the sources mean when they say "center-left". I'll agree that, depending on the context, the term can seem quite confusing, but given the regularity with which it's used for the Lib Dems, confusion is the last thing that term represents here.UberCryxic (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As before, I'm fine with Sparrowhawk's proposal to use 'liberal' in the lead.

UberCryxic, you still haven't addressed the point about your cherrypicking of sources that include "center-left" (sic) and ignoring those equally reliable ones that describe the Lib Dems as "centrist". Haldraper (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This interview by Vince Cable for the December 2009 issue of Total Politics magazine contains an interesting exchange:

"Do you see the Liberal Democrats as a centreleft party?

No, I don't use that description. I know some of my colleagues have in the past. There are some areas where we are, to use the jargon, centre-left progressive. A redistributive approach to taxation is obviously one of them, but there are other respects in which we are genuinely liberal, which puts us on the other side. Lots of the writing I've done on economics is very much about a liberal approach to economic policy, free-trade and open markets. I don't use that term because, although some of the things we say can be very clearly put in that box, in other respects, we are economically liberal. I think the other thing is, a lot of the things we're about have nothing to do with the traditional left/right spectrum - localism, environmentalism, civil liberties, you can argue these from either a libertarian or a leftist perspective."

http://www.totalpolitics.com/magazine_detail.php?id=650

Haldraper (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source for them being a centrist party that also rather handily refutes the charge that I somehow invented their shift to the right in the mid to late 2000's as part of some POV-pushing campaign:

"Back to the centre; Liberal Democrats.(Lib Dems return to the centre)

IT MAY not sound dramatic, but for the Liberal Democrats it will mark a critical break with the recent past. The Lib Dems, who have prospered by positioning themselves to Labour's left, are about to declare a policy of strict neutrality as far as their bigger rivals are concerned. This means that in the event of a hung parliament after the general election, the Lib Dems would negotiate even-handedly with both Labour and the Tories."

The Economist (US), November 13, 2004

I seem to remember Fieldhouse/Russell making the same point about "equidistance" in the same source that described the Lib Dems as "centrist and radical" that was deleted/"airbrushed" as rather incoveniently not fitting the line about them being solely a "centre-left" party. Haldraper (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also a distinction between the nature of the party and its current policies. Policies of course change but the history and membership of the party (and membership in the Liberal International) show continuity as the party of the center. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true Deuces This source shows how the Kennedy leadership was a "centre-left" blip in a long-history of Liberal/SDP/Lib Dem centrism:

"Since the 1980's, a changing roster of centrist parties has posed a potentially significant threat to the two-party dominance of Conservative and Labour. Through the 1970's, the Liberal Party, a governing party before World War I and thereafter the traditional centrist third party in Britain, was the only centrist challenger to the Labour and Conservative parties. In 1981, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was formed out of a split within the Labour Party...The strength of centrist parties in the mid-1980's []...the 2001 general election...positioned the party as a potentially powerful centre-left critic of New Labour. That said, Labour has not made it easy for them. As the Blair government began to spend massively to improve education and health care, it narrowed the range of policy issues on which the Liberal Democrats could take on New Labour."

Mark Kesselmann, Joel Krieger, Christopher S. Allen, Stephen Hellman, European Politics in transition (2008), p88.

I make that four descriptions of them and their tradition as "centrist" in just this one source and four other sources - Colomar, Fieldhouse/Russell, The Economist and Cable in Total Politics - also saying the same, all of them from between 2004 and 2009. Haldraper (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)