Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photos of Headquarters

I took these photos of the new Labour Party Headquarters in Victoria Street, London. Would it be good to put one of them on this page? - The Blackfriar 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• 
  Picture 1
• 
  Picture 2
• 
  Picture 3

They are very boring - just and enormous, highly expensive inlet/outlet valve for the stream of crap that flows through them - £5 1/2 million pounds to Police the egofest at Bournemouth, in a town where Special Needs schools have been closed down -

Party of the left

We just had an edit in the intro declaring the Labour Party to be of the centre-left and not "left-wing" - presumably there is a political motivation behind this, but on an objective level, historically at least, the Labour Party was always the main party of the left in Britain unless you only classify the "left" in "purist" terms as meaning radical Marxist. So presumably we should not accept this edit, or else use a different phrase, personally I prefer "Party of the Left". MarkThomas 09:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before accusing contributors of having a "political motivation" for edits simply because you don't agree with them. I made the initial edit because the original version describing Labour as "left-wing" was clearly dubious. It may not be the case for you, but many readers will regard the phrase "left-wing" as having certain connotations, namely that the party is out on the left (rather than being a party of the broad left) and advocating radical leftist policies. That is plainly false today, and has rarely been the case in the past, with a few exceptions at various points in the party's history. What is considered left-wing today might be perceived as being moderate or even centrist a few decades ago. Labour has usually been a moderate centre-left party by the standards of the day, with a significant left-wing contingent. The previous version was therefore misleading, Labour has not generally been a 'left-wing' party but a party of the broad left most often advocating moderate progressive and democratic socialist policies. I have no idea why you so strongly object to the phrase 'centre-left' since hardly anyone would disagree with placing Labour historically at that point in the political spectrum and it's certainly more accurate than simply 'left-wing', and as for the suggestion that the only thing further left than the British Labour Party is "Radical Marxism", well surprisingly enough I find it rather hard to agree with that. However I have no objection to the paragraph in it's current form, since "of the left" doesn't have the same implications as 'left-wing' and could refer to anywhere on the left spectrum and can better sum up the party's broad left membership and the its idealogy. It may seem like a small detail, but for some readers unfamiliar with British politics, they could easily gain a very misleading impression from terms like 'left-wing' and 'leftist' used carelessly. --MarkB79 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming any bad faith on your part Mark... the term "political motivation" was intended by me as a comment on the obvious fact that this interpretation depends on one's political viewpoint as to what constitutes "left-wing", "centre-left" and "the left" and as you confirm above you evidently have your opinions on those points as do we all. I'm glad you like my edit. I prefer it to "left-wing" also, which apart from anything else I find a bit too imprecise. But my real problem with simplistic statements in the Lead is that Labour has changed so much in orientation over the years and according to who was leading it, the policies at the time, etc. For example, would you not say it had been "left-wing" at the time of the Foot leadership? I think most people would say it was. "Centre-left" might well apply to the various periods in government but not to the entire position of the party or a substantial minority of it's members, or it's enitre history. And that's what we're trying to snapshot in the lead section. MarkThomas 10:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well fair enough, as I say 'of the left' is probably the correct terminology since Labour is obviously 'the party of the left' in British politics historically. That's true for any era (yes it's debatable whether New Labour could be regarded as 'left' in any real sense but there are officially the 'left' alternative to the Tories regardless of your point of view). With regard to Foot, yes I agree that left-wing would be a fair description of the party under his leadership but then again it's a matter of opinion and you have to think about it in the context of the time. Foot's Labour were not as left-wing as they might have been had other elements of the party been in charge (such as Tony Benn or Eric Heffer). Foot was never left-wing enough for a sizable contingent of his party and the Labour movement at large. So whether Labour in 1983 should be called left or centre-left is inherently POV. From today's perspective, they would undoubtedly be seen as left-wing, from the perspective of the early 1980s and with all the social and economic upheavals of the day and the radical solutions being proposed from both sides of the spectrum, they might still have been thought of as a centre-left party by many and not 'leftist' as such. I'm sure they would have referred to themselves as centre-left and it's worth remembering that Healey was there as deputy leader to try and provide some balance. Hence why terms like 'left-wing' should largely be avoided - unless better explained in context - when discussing a party that is over a century old. At the time many people didn't see Foot as any more extreme than Thatcher and Tebbit, who certainly took a radical approach. MarkB79 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that there are many Labour MPs who are definitely 'left-wing'. John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn, Michael Meacher, and more outside the PLP, most obviously Ken Livingstone. Admittedly they constitute a minority, but I'd say it's undeniable that the faction exists. I've modified it to reflect the whole spectrum of views within the party BovineBeast 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well again, I suppose it depends what you mean by 'the left'. Some people seem to use the term to refer to anyone who is not a Blairite. Roy Hattersley is now referred to occasionally as being on party's left, which is extraordinary really. If you use that definition, I'm told that the majority of the PLP are probably 'on the left'. Certainly the vast majority of the party membership are. If however you mean the traditional true Labour left, the Bennites, Tribunites and whoever else who might not be seen as belonging to one of these groups, and I assume that is what you are referring to judging by the names you mention, then yes I agree they are still a small but significant wing of the party, but it goes without saying that they have nothing like the influence that they have in the past. There are still a fair number of them there though in the PLP, Diane Abbott is another who springs to mind, and there are plenty of others. Some people even maintain that Margaret Beckett is still very much on the left but she compromises her beliefs for a place in the cabinet and goes along with the current consensus of the party leadership. I seem to remember reading that Cruddas is reported to be on the tradional left (though not a member of the Socialist Campaign Group I think), and he looks a good bet for Deputy Leader. How many tradional leftists are out there in the party membership at large though I have no idea, surely huge numbers have left, especially after Iraq, but I'd be interested to get some idea of how many there actually are now. MarkB79 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

17 day Revert

Why was this article reverted back to November 16, 2006 02:33 by User:WGee on December 2, 2006 at 20:40, removing over 40 edits? You can see the changes here. It removed updates, a {{fact}} and a revert of the table of Labour Party leaders since 1906. I personally find the table nicer looking compared to what it was before. I see no discussion on the talk page to the revert and the editors have not been contacted. Could I have an explantion to why this revert occured? --TheTallOne 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Leader Margaret Beckett

Shouldn't Margaret Beckett be added to the list of leaders? Under the party's constitution, she automatically became leader on the death of John Smith, not 'acting leader' as many thought. Dupont Circle 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rose logo

Caption: "The New Labour rose"

The rose was introduced under the leadership of Neil Kinnock, when the party was still social-democratic, before Blair's leadership and 'New Labour'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.183.162 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Membership 'base' of Labour

What the article fails to adequately mentions is that although the Labour Party's parliamentary and leadership position has moved to the neoliberal Right since 1994, the membership 'base' of the party is solidly left-wing. Although in Britain the Liberal Democrats are generally perceived as being 'to the left of Labour' in the House of Commons and their national policies, the LibDem membership is well to the right of Labour (I would describe the 'average' LibDem member as being on the centre-right, personally). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.201.68 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

This is true. I find it's quite hard to find someone who sympathises much with the current government, at least in my constituency party. The economic liberal faction is, of course, much stronger among the Lib Dems than in Labour, where it's restricted to a few Blairites. BovineBeast 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So could someone explain why the Labour "base" continues to elect "New Labour" MPs that do not share their beliefs and values? 71.203.209.0 05:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't as such. Surely the New Labour MP's are elected by the public at large, not Labour's base? The Labour vote in many of Labour's heartland constituencies has fallen. MarkB79 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Third full term?

I've never really understood this. When TB said he intended to serve a third full term, did he mean it literally? Since this implies the party running a leadership contest at the same as it fights a general election the notion seems ridiculous. BTLizard 13:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He would have stepped aside in sufficient time for a new leader to be elected and "bed down" before the general election. By saying he would serve a full term he was attempting to discredit the Tory "Vote Blair, get Brown" claims made during the 2005 election campaign. I believe he must have been aware that neither Gordon Brown, nor the Labour Party would be likely to allow him to complete the full term. -Mrf-rouk 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article says:

In England it lost so many local Councillors that it was reduced from second to third place in local Government, being overtaken by the Liberal Democrats.

Which is untrue (Labour still has about a thousand more councillers nationally than the LibDems). And pick another complaint, Labour lost it's overall majority in the Welsh Assembly when Peter Law left (and boundary changes took away another Labour seat).

Tony Blair still leader

Tony Blair should still be listed as leader as he only steps down on June 27 --202.156.14.10 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image vandalism

Over the past few days someone has kept removing images and some text from this article without any explanation. Which I have put back. I will assume this is vandalism. G-Man * 19:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

?

That last sentence of the page is poorly written and doesn't make sense. However, e.g. Claude Moraes, MEP, calls Gordon Brown as "a racist who will destroy the party".

84.65.205.187 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of High-Profile Supporters

I think this section should be altered and I'd like to proceed in doing so, if nobody objects. Firstly, some mention should be made of the various celebrity supporters of the Labour Party prior to 1997 and the emergence of New Labour, in fact it would be more informative if mention were made of Labour's supporters going right back to the 1960's when, I believe, celebrities began to publicly endorse political parties, especially Labour. Some mention should be made for instance of the Red Wedge in 1987. In addition, the section as it stands may be slightly misleading because it may imply that some of these celebrities starting supporting Labour, or only publicly announced their support, in the years they are listed under, which is not the case in many instances. Ben Elton and Richard Wilson for instance have been Labour supporters throughout their lives. In 2005, Richard Attenborough is named as someone who was "added to the list" of Labour supporters in that year, when in fact Attenborough publicly backed Labour in 1992 and appeared in a Labour election broadcast that year. There are numerous other examples. Some mention should probably also be made of those celebrities that, unlike others on the list who have been long-time Labour supporters with socialist priniciples, have previously voted Tory and have only recently began backing Labour since the emergence of New Labour, Alan Sugar being an example who is on there. It's would be handy if readers were informed which celebrities had actually come over to Labour due to the party's swing to the right under Blair and which celebrities are actually socialists and consistent Labour supporters. If nobody objects, I'd like to make some of these changes. MarkB79 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of celeb supporters are absurd and most of those people are merely expressing support at a particular election and not that they are actively involved in the Labour Party. If there is to be such a list then surely it should be in a separate article, I have to say though that parties with substantial support among the general population will almost certainly have a sizeable number of celebrity and business backers as well and these lists could get somewhat long. So far as Harry Enfield goes, as I recall it Labour and especially Peter Mandleson was eager to get his backing for Labour and that he did go to a Downing Street party, but that he has consistently supported the Conservative Party and at the Downing Street party he was openly critical of Tony Blair.--Lord of the Isles 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well while I am generally disdainful of celebrity culture I don't agree that a list of famous supporters of political parties is automatically absurd, although I would agree it looks slightly silly on the actual main page. I say that because firstly the American Republicans and Democrats have had such pages on here for a long time and personally I was intrigued to find out the politics of certain famous individuals, so I don't see why British political parties should be any different. Secondly, the reason it occured to me now was that somebody mentioned to me the other day about celebrity Tories in the 80s and I came here out of curiousity to see if there was a list of them, and I was slightly surprised to see that not only was there no such list on here, but that there wasn't one anywhere on the net other than some very brief lists of the most dislikable like Stringfellow, Paul Daniels, etc. on anti-Tory sites (not that I'm a Tory, quite the reverse, I was just curious to find out which celebrities had backed Thatcher during the 80's). People may well be interested to discover the politics of various famous British people and a list of supporters of various parties should probably be on Wikipedia somewhere. I do agree however that the lists should not be on the parties main page and I was actually going to suggest moving them, they look rather out of place and a bit silly on here, and like their American counterparts they should be on their own page. Either have each major party with its own page of famous supporters or perhaps it would be more sensible to just have one page listing the supporters of all three parties under 'High-profile supporters of British political parties' or something similar and just link to it from each party page. Either way, it keeps what is fairly trivial information of the main pages but the information is there if people want it, so I'd agree that the lists should be moved.

As for the other issues you raised, I agree the lists could get long but I don't think they will get as long as the Republican and Democrat lists, they are fairly huge. Very minor celebrities should probably not be included in most instances and hopefully they won't get too long. I don't agree that most of the people on this list only supported the party at certain elections, there are cases of that but most of those listed are life-time supporters (though a fair few of them no longer support the party because of the swing to the right and Iraq, others are non-socialists who have only supported the party since New Labour). In any case, such information should probably be listed briefly if known. You are right that most are not actually involved in the party as such (though many are or were members), though there are exceptions such as Booth, Pat Phoenix, and the Red Wedge crowd in the 80s. As for Harry Enfield, I'm astonished to hear it claimed that he's a Tory, he endorsed Labour in 1987, his political beliefs have always sounded very left wing and he has always seemed to despise Tories. He was involved in Red Wedge, his 'Loadsamoney' was supposed to satirise what he regarded as the greed Thatcherism had inspired in oridinary people in Britain and he produced his 'Tory Boy' sketches in the early 90's, Tory Boy being Enfield dressed as a spotty teenage Tory wandering around on a battle bas with a megaphone telling single mothers to keep their knickers on and find work, and sick people to get out of hospital beds and get back to work and so on. He appeared on Question Time a short while back and while he seemed to hate Blair and New Labour, most of his criticism was firmly from the left and he was complaining about the party abandoning socialist principles. I do remember the party you mention that he attended at Downing Street and if I remember rightly he got drunk and told Mandelson that he was revolting and suggested he leave the Labour Party (I think he introduced himself to him by saying "You're the reptile, arn't you?" or something similar, and ended up being asked to leave). He later said he thought Mandelson and much of New Labour was too right wing. I'd be very surprised, but I suppose you could be right to some extent and it's possible that he may have withdrawn his support for Labour and endorsed the Tories at some elections or praised them at times, or perhaps he may be some sort of very moderate Conservative who has opposed the Tories since Thatcherism (and the Blarite successors) but it would seem to be very much at odds with his stated political beliefs. MarkB79 03:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Enfield is a hunting supporter [1], opposed to the Euro [2]. True though that he apparently backed Ken Livingstone for Mayor of London [3]. Statements such as support for a political party can't be based on comedy sketches someone has done, because comedians are doing it for their living and are in many cases quite capable of giving other than their own actual views simply out of a need to appeal to a broader audience than their own views and so make a living. Just as Kenny Everett appeared at the 1983 Conservative election campaign and said things about kicking Michael Foot's stick away and bombing Russia - he was playing to an audience and in his case probably didn't support anyone, but as he said later only turned up at the Conservative campaign because they asked him and no one else did!--Lord of the Isles 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Also it should be noted that there is both a tendency in comedy to go for the more obvious political target and team production can often push a joke one way or another - in the run up to the 1997 election on of the Have I Got News For You writers (I can't remember the name but he wrote the book Things Can Only Get Better and stood for Labour in 2001) suggested a joke with a statement about BBC impartiality being combined with a caption saying "Vote Labour". The editors liked the idea but felt it would get more laughs if it said "Vote Conservative". Similarly Enfield's "Tory Boy" sketch in a sense sends up the politically active teenager with staunch absolutist black & white views that can be found in all parties but at the time the Young Conservatives were the easiest target. Timrollpickering 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Enfield was well known as a left-wing socialist throughout the late 80's and early 90's. I checked online and there is any number of articles here [4] which confirm that he has been a life-long Labour supporter who has grown disillusioned by New Labour, including references to him being a "former Labour Party donor" and a "dedicated Labour supporter" who has suggested he would like to stand for parliament as a Labour candidate. I can't find anything suggesting he has ever backed the Tories in any election, in fact all I can find on the subject suggests he despises the Tories as I suspected. The fact that he is anti-Euro is irrelevant, there are plenty of left-wingers and Labour supporters who are anti-Euro, another celebrity example being Rik Mayall. Michael Foot and Tony Benn are not only anti-Euro but anti-EU. As for fox-hunting, opposing the fox-hunting ban does not automatically mark you down as a Conservative party supporter, it's quite possible to oppose the ban while being left-wing. Roger Waters is an ex-communist and is very left-wing but passionately opposes the fox-hunting ban. There are Labour MP's who oppose the ban, such as Kate Hoey. Melvyn Bragg opposes it and he is a life-long Labour supporter and a Labour lord. As for his comic act, I think its a profound misunderstanding of Enfield's comedy to suggest he is just picking his targets at random. Enfield has said 'Loadsamoney' was intended as an attack on Thatcherism and that he retired the character when it became clear that some people were misinterpereting it as a celebration of Thatcherite values. As for Tory Boy, its disingenious to suggest that this is an attack on teenagers with black & white political views regardless of whether they are left or right-wing, in fact I think the suggestion is extraordinary. The sketch is an attack on what Enfield regards as selfish Tory values and it's rather hard not to notice that. It's somehow difficult to imagine how a Conservative supporter could possibly produce such a sketch (unless they were extremely cynical). I don't recall Enfield ever attacking left-wing figures in his comedy either (with the exception of Blair, who is hardly left-wing). Enfield has often had some political content in his comedy, and to suggest that his targets are just picked at random and without any regard to his own political beliefs is a serious misunderstanding of him. In any case, quite apart from the actual content of his comedy, you didn't perform on Red Wedge unless you supported Labour - the performers lent their services for free, in support of the Labour Party. You wouldn't have found Jimmy Tarbuck on Red Wedge (and come to think of it I can't imagine Jimmy Tarbuck taking the piss out of the Tories with a act like Tory Boy either). I have no idea where you got the idea that he is a Tory, but I think he'd be rather horrified by the suggestion. MarkB79 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Centre-right?

Since when has the Labour Party been centre-right?? Admittedly, some Blairites are more central than the majority of the Labour base but I would really draw the line at putting "centre-right" in the infobox - you could possibly get away with centrist. From the Labour constitution (1995):

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few."

Hardly anything centre-right there. In my opinion, the infobox should be reverted to left and centre-left, or else the centre-right label referenced. (chgallen 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Removed it. Sounds like someone politically posturing, the idea that Labour is right wing is a sad joke put about by leftist extremists, SqueakBox 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the Labour Party in itself is not centre-right, parts of the Blairite faction most certainly are. If the info-box is to have it that some factions are left-wing, it should also mention the far more influential centre-right group.Nwe 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Labour is definitely recognised as traditionally being left-wing. To include centre-right would need some sort of evidence since we're trying to reflect the views of the party (remember, this is a broad-chuch party). Kevin Judson 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A political party's ideological positioning can only be determined based on its relationship to the rest of the political spectrum in that country, not based on some dubious "absolute" standards of left and right. The Labour Party contains diverse bodies of opinion, but is distinctly to the left of the Conservatives, and at least its official constitution and historical development (as well as considerable elements of the parliamentary party itself) put it at least arguably to the left of the Liberal Democrats as well (although it's hard to argue that "New Labour" is really substantively to the left of the Liberal Democrats on a lot of issues). This kind of thing is tiresome in the extreme. john k 23:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The party's leadership, at least under Blair, was in some areas significantly to the right of Cameron's Conservatives, particularly with respect to civil liberties and even foreign relations. At least one analysis ([5]) seems to demonstrate this, aswell as showing that Labour is now well to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Though I don't know if any investigation of Brown has yet been done, Tony Blair was also found ([6]) to be to the right of Angela Merkel, Jacques Chirac and, most remarkably, even Stephen Harper.Nwe 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Political Compass is not a reliable source. And that Blair is to the right of Ted Heath is really neither here nor there - British politics as a whole moved a long way to the right under Thatcher. The Labour Party's relative position on the spectrum can only be determined by its position with respect to contemporaries, not the politics of decades ago. john k 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it? And as I say Labour is also shown to be on the right of a number of contemporary conservatives and on some issues to the right of the Conservative Party in Britain. Nor is the fact that Blair is to the right of Heath neither here nor there, people's and party's political positions have more to do than mere relativity to their contemporaries.Nwe 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an absolute left wing position or an absolute right wing one. There are merely political spectrums that exist, and trying to say that the center-left party in a country is actually a center-right party obfuscates far more than it explains. The Labour Party is, and always has been, a party with a social democratic orientation. It's a member of the Socialist International, and in the European Parliament it forms a group with the other mainstream social democratic parties. It was created by the trade unions, and continues to have close associations with them. It is virtually the archetype of a mainstream center-left political party. That the current Labour government (which is, it is worth saying, not the same thing as the party as such) holds to certain positions on issues (especially law and order type issues, on which subject the Labour Party has never been particularly liberal) that are not terribly left wing is pretty irrelevant. Once can almost certainly point to such things in just about any system. What we are trying to do in the infobox and introduction is to establish basic facts about the party, and the basic fact is that it is considered to be the party of the left in Great Britain. All caveats, and so forth, really belong elsewhere. john k 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There needn't be any obfuscation if the complexities are approached in the right manner. Besides, even if people are confused, that is better than being misinformed. What the Labour party was is besides the point. The present fact of the matter is that the current government is one of the most right-wing in Europe. A member of PES and the Socialist Internation Labour may be, but it was an open secret that the Blair government wanted Sarkozy to win the elections in France and supported Merkel in the elections in Germany. Blair himself even went so far as to appear on party political broadcast in support of Bertie Ahern's outgoing right-wing coalition in the recent elections in Ireland. Even the new prime minister, in one of his last acts as chancellor, over-ruled attempts by Sarkozy, of all people, to improve the position of the concept of a social Europe in the EU Constitution negotiations. Your claim that Labour is still regarded as the party of the left in Britain is, meanwhile, highly debatable. I am also amazed that you regard the policies a party pursues in government as irrelevent in this. Surely it is the policies that a party pursues that defines it position on the political spectrum? And this Labour government has followed a programme of privatisation, economic liberalisation, an aggressive law and order approach and a militaristic foreign policy. For the results of this on its relative political position I refer back to the Political Compass findings. Nwe 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll just point again to the fact that Political Compass is not a reliable source. The Labour party describes itself and considers itself to be a party of the left. So do most people who consider themselves to be "on the left" - certainly you see almost nobody on the left in Britain who advocates voting for the Tories as the lesser evil! That Labour has advanced policies that can be seen as "right wing" is of course significant, and ought to be discussed in the article. But it's absurd to call the party "center-right" in an infobox. I'll add that in a state like the UK, with very well-established political parties, what is "left" and "right" is often going to be defined by the policies of the major parties, and not vice versa. i.e., because the Labour Party is, axiomatically, the party of the left, its policies represent what it means to be "on the left" in Britain, and vice versa with respect to the Tories. There are some instances where this can clearly be said to not be true - the war in Iraq, notably - but as a general statement it makes at least as much sense as the reverse idea of their being some real and objective standard of "left" and "right" by which we can measure political parties. john k 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly,you haven't explained why exactly Political Compass isn't a reliable source. Your next two assertions are also dubious. A large segment of the Labour party certainly considers itself to be on the left, but when was the last time you heard Blair or Brown describe themselves as centre-left (by contrast to Cameron who, for now at least, does describe himself as centre-right, and Campbell, who says he's centre-left)? While its hard to prove one way or the other whether or not British people on the left generally consider Labour to so absolutely, I can only refer you to my own personal experience, though I am aware of how much of a cliché of bad argument this is. Though I am not British, I am on the left and heavily involved with British politics. I know a significant number of Brits with the same political views as myself (including my mother and several very good friends) who have come to regard the leadership of the Labour party, at the very least, as right-wing. New Labour's right-wing features extend far beyond single issues such as the war in Iraq, but insted reach right to the heart of economic and internal policies, on which these political definitions are essentially founded. It has promoted privatisation of the health service, education system and prison service and major welfare reforms, and its war on crime seems to have lost all proportion while war on the causes of crime has taken a back seat. And in Europe the government is very much an ally of the right. Finally, invariably vague and imperfect though the political spectrum we use may be, it has to be based on some understanding of positions on policy. The tautological definition which you propose- "because the Labour Party is, axiomatically, the party of the left, its policies represent what it means to be "on the left" in Britain, and vice versa with respect to the Tories"- strikes me as unworkable. Simply because Labour isn't as far to the right as the conservatives does not automatically make it the party of the left. If this was so then Labour would presumably have to be the party of the right in Scotland and Wales because it is more conservative than Plaid Cymru or the SNP, even though Scottish and Welsh Labour is actually far closer the traditional party than the branch in Westminster . And how would we apply such an explanation to the politics of the US, with even more established parties whose positions have shifted so dramatically over the years.Nwe 17:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The expressions "left", "right" and "centre" are completely subjective and increasingly meaningless. There is no objective criterion for what is "left", so this argument is pointless and the "political position" line in the infobox should be deleted. The party can only be described by the term it uses to describe itself, which I assume is either "social democratic" or "democratic socialist." Whether or not this conforms to the reality of Labour's behaviour in government can be discussed in the text. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is doubtless true that the terms are subjective. That does not make them meaningless - there have been fairly clearly established distinctions of left/right that have been around for the last two centuries, and which are still pretty easily applied to the political systems of most countries (with a few exceptions, like Ireland). The precise differences between political parties obviously change, but the basic gut-level "which party is to the left" is a question that just about anyone can answer. Beyond that, any definition of "left" in a political sense would pretty clearly encompass any group which is "social democratic" or "democratic socialist." If the argument is that Labour isn't really "on the left," the argument also has to be that it isn't really social democratic or democratic socialist. "Left" and "right" are pretty broad terms, but have fairly well-established meanings. Any party with any pretension to being socialist (other than fascist parties) is on the left or center left. Any party which calls itself "conservative" or "Christian Democratic" or which is generally understood to be "facist" is on the right or the center right. Parties which self describe as "liberal" have to be judged individually. But, anyway, the point is that "left" and "right" are broad umbrella terms with pretty generally understood meanings. Nwe's argument points just as well at Labour not being "democratic socialist" as it does at Labour not being "left". The basic point is that self-description is key to assigning these kind of labels, and that any party which considers itself in some way "socialist" (as Labour clearly does) also considers itself in some way "left." The argument that Labour is not on the left is simply a polemical claim being made by people who are dissastisfied with New Labour, and should not have any influence on issues of basic categorization. And as to the political compass, of course it's not a reliable source - it is just something made up by random people with no rigorous scholarly or intellectual basis at all. The FAQ, so far as I can tell, provides absolutely no information about who they are, or why we should take their claims seriously. They're a pretty textbook instance of a not reliable source. john k 09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly you should discuss the legitimacy of the argument, not make assumptions about the motivation of those who make them. You're right that "if the argument is that Labour isn't really "on the left," the argument also has to be that it isn't really social democratic or democratic socialist" and that ""Left" and "right" are pretty broad terms, but have fairly well-established meanings", even if this is substantially different from the claim you made in your last message. The point I have made is that Labour's mainstream, and especially, Labour's leadership clearly does not consider itself socialist, or even social-democratic, and it pursues policies that patently do not reflect those ideologies.Nwe 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nwe - the Political Compass people aren't making an argument. They have simply put up a graph, with no clear explanation of how they've derived it. There is no methodological argument made anywhere on the site which explains the basis of their calculations, or why anyone should consider them to be authoritative. What they have is a quiz. With no methodological basis whatever, they then decide that people's answers to questions on their quiz is dispositive of where they stand on the political spectrum. This is dubious to begin with, as the "center" appears to be defined in an entirely arbitrary manner. Going beyond the problematicness of this calibration of individual testing, the determination of the position of various famous people and political parties seems to be based on the proprietors filling out the test themselves on the behalf of these people and organizations, making intelligent guesses as to how they would answer. I don't see how one could possibly consider this to be a reliable source on political ideology. john k 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the Political Compass argument I was referring to. I was speaking about your suggestion that "The argument that Labour is not on the left is simply a polemical claim being made by people who are dissastisfied with New Labour". A I said whether or not this is true, and I would dispute it, is besides the point. As for Political Compass, this was merely intended as an adjoining piece of evidence that some research has found the Labour party and its leadership on the right of others who are considered centre-right. The graph, I agree, may well have a dubious configuration, but it is the relativity between different figures or parties that is of interest. Its methodology and the availability thereof has been criticised. But as I have said, this is not intended as an absolute demonstration of Labour's political position, but as an example of findings that the party, particularly its leadership is on the right. Nor is there anything particularly incongruous about the site's general findings. What is of more concern, though, is that the entirety of your post discusses this site alone. The essentials of my argument are based around policies and associations. Your claim in a previous message "any party which considers itself in some way "socialist" (as Labour clearly does) also considers itself in some way "left."". Labour's leadership clearly does not consider itself in some way socialist, and Labour's policies manifestly do not reflect any substantial degree of socialism. In fact, and message below seems to indicate you have some comprehension of this, the government's approach to economics is decidedly neo-liberal, as is its position in Europe. A government which persues an agenda of privatisation and liberalisation, a tough on crime view on law and order and a militant foreign policy and which allies itself with the right in western Europe, to the extent of tacitly supporting them during national elections, to the detriment of their ostensible social-democratic allies cannot seriously be regarded to occupy the left.Nwe 22:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nwe - Labour continues to describe itself as a "democratic socialist" party. And, at the very least, many elements within the party do hold views that could be considered "democratic socialist" (although Blair and, to a lesser extent, Brown, are clearly fairly far from the Old Labour elements of the party). Labour clearly considers itself in some way a socialist party. It participates in the Party of European Socialists and the Socialist International. Etc. etc. etc. Obviously, it's moved fairly far from its origins, but this is still its basic self-designation. And, again, the "findings" of Political Compass are worthless. As to the claims about Labour not being on the left or not being socialist being polemical, this seems fairly clear. What you are arguing above is a polemical argument - a party which supports the policies that the Labour Party supports cannot be on the left. But that is a matter of POV. One could just as easily argue that Labour's particular policies are not particularly more right wing than those of other mainstream social democratic parties, all of which have moved to the right of late. john k 17:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

John, so do you agree with my basic point - that the "political position" line in the infobox should be deleted, and that the party should be described by the term it uses to describe itself ("democratic socialist"), which arguments about that conducted in the text and not in the infobox - or not? Intelligent Mr Toad 10:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that our argument is not polemical, and your position is besides as likely to be so as mine, but objected to your attempt to discredit the possibility that Labour might be partly on the right by associating such a claim to an unfavourable “type of people”. Labour’s move to the right has been far more dramatic than, and is utterly distinctive from, any other social-democratic party’s. The German or Swedish Social Democrats, for example, have indeed adopted policies that are more moderate than their traditional positions, but they come nowhere near to the neo-liberal economic policies of New Labour. Nor did any other “centre-left” party in Western Europe support the war in Iraq. You have already mentioned its membership of PES and Socialist International, and, if you remember, I responded that while it superficially associates with other parties of the left, in reality the Labour leadership allies itself with the right. It is absolutely irrefutable that elements of the Labour party are still on the left, but that does not mean that another, far more significant, faction is not on the right. A party’s position on the political spectrum should also follow the actual policies it advocates and pursues, as well as self-description. Just as a party constitution that describes the party as “socialist” and makes a dispensation for trades-unions has supposedly to reflect some centre-left values, so a leadership that disputes a reference to “social Europe” in the EU constitution cannot be seen as part of the left, and indeed must be regarded as centre-right. Nwe 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

this is all very arguable and POV. On what basis is supporting the war in Iraq inherently right wing? Is the argument about "Social Europe" a debate about objectives, or about means? In assessing a party's position on the political spectrum, do you discount social reforms such as civil partnerships? LeContexte 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course supporting the war in Iraq is not inherently right-wing, but Labour’s position does distinguish it from its supposedly complementary parties in other western European countries. An initial draft for the EU treaty agreed last June referred to a “social market economy aiming at full employment". Last minute demands from Blair, apparently under pressure from Brown in London had the statement removed at the last minute. In this they were to the right event of Sarkozy, who actually pushed for the original form of words. And naturally social issues such as civil partnerships have some significance but, in defining distinctions such as left and right, economic policy has to take precedence.Nwe 21:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Although there are many practical difficulties with "left" and "right" definitions, and many outside this site may dispute their relevance, they are commonly used popularly and in the media, a use that has to be reflected by wikipedia.Nwe 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no objective definition of "left", let alone "centre left", that would just lead to an endless round of conflicting opinions about whether Labor is "really" left or not. Much better surely simply to note the party's official definition of itself, then have a discussion in the text about the party's political positions - which are not uniform across all issues. Is a pary which is "left" on one issue and "right" on another therefore on average in the "centre"? I don't think so. Intelligent Mr Toad 00:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One could just as easily have endless rounds of conflicting opinions as to whether Labour is really socialist or not. Nwe does exactly this above. I don't see how refocusing on those issues really gets to the criticism Nwe is making, which is, so far as I can tell, that New Labour is actually neoliberal. john k 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is missing the point. This is a discussion about what, if anything, should be in the infobox about Labour's "ideology" or "position." If, as I understand to be the case, Labour officially describes itself to be "democratic socialist," that is what should go in the infobox: anything else is just someone's opinion. If people want to argue that Labour is actually some other kind of party, they can find sources for that view and put them in the body of the article. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How is "anything else...just someone's opinion?" It seems to me that by definition the "political left" would have to include anything that considers itself as socialist (with the obvious exception of "national socialism"). That's what the left is. Saying the Labour Party is on the left is simply an application of a dictionary definition, no more, no less. john k 00:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It's an opinion I might well agree with, but it's still an opinion. Any characterisation of a political party's "position", other than the one it gives itself, is an opinion. There are plenty of people who dispute that the Labour Party is "left." But no-one can dispute that the party describes itself as a democratic socialist party. This is not a question that can be debated in an infobox. If the infobox is to contain a one-line characterisation of Labour's "position", it can only be the one the party gives itself. Intelligent Mr Toad 13:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not just my opinion. What I'm saying is that "the left" is just a general kind of designation, and it is one that is used for socialist parties. Whether the Labour Party is "really" on the left is exactly the same issue was whether it's "really" socialist. It is a fact that the Labour Party describes itself as "Democratic Socialist" (although I would suspect that you could find a whole lot of instances of Labour figures describing the party as being "center left" or "the party of the mainstream left" as well), but it is not a fact that Labour is Democratic Socialist. Just because something is not a black and white fact, however, does not make it a mere "opinion," either. Describing Labour as being on the Center Left is a pretty basic and limited extrapolation from its self-description. john k 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And, hell, even the complaints of people like Nwe that the Labour Party is not "really" on the left are based from a common understanding that Labour is supposed to be on the left. I.e., the very fact that we are having this dispute is indicative of a general consensus that Labour is generally considered to be on the left. We aren't arguing about whether the Tories are on the left. john k 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

John, you continue, with uncharacteristic obtuseness, to fail either to grasp or to address the point I am making. I'm talking about the infobox, OK? The infobox requires a one or two word characterisation of the party's "ideology" and "position" (whatever the difference is). The infobox cannot be the place for a debate about whether or not the Labour Party is or is not any particular kind of party. My position is that the box should contain the party's own, official characterisation of itself, from its own constitution, which I believe is "democratic socialist." Your position is apparently that it should contain "left" or "centre-left", which are (a) catch-phrases of dubious validity (b) not officially used by the party to describe itself, and (c) opinions which are disputed by many people. (To argue that the Labour Party is no longer "left" in any meaningful sense is not the view of a few cranks, it is a widely held view, and is indeed the only reason why a lot of non-left people felt able to vote for it during Blair's time.) By putting "left" in the infobox you are making an assertion about what the Labour Party is, in other words you are inserting your opinion. The only indisputable assertion about the party's position is that is officially "democratic socialist." Kindly address this point. Intelligent Mr Toad 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To argue that the Labour party is no longer "democratic socialist" in any meaningful sense is an opinion which is, I would imagine, held by pretty much everyone who believes that it is no longer "left" in any meaningful sense. As to people who voted for New Labour because they decided it was no longer on the left, sure, but that's not in comparison to some mythical "center," but simply noting that Labour was a lot to the right of where it had been in, say, 1983. It is really not relevant to whether Labour is currently "center left" or not. On what basis do you claim that only official descriptions go in the infobox? Pretty much every description of Democratic Party (United States) is one that the official party probably would not use to identify itself. Furthermore, virtually every political party in the world has a "center-left," &c. description in its infobox. The party's "official description" is the kind of official description that is made by a party which "officially" considers itself a party of the center-left. There's a specific box in the political parties infobox for position on the left-right spectrum. You should be arguing against that box entirely. In general, though, we should be able to put anything in the infobox which we can find a reliable source to support. There is absolutely nothing which says that we can only use "official descriptions." john k 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Johnm, when you have time, could you fully respond to my last message? Cheers.Nwe 15:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regional party masquerading as national

This article is listed as Labour Party (UK), which implies that it is a national party, the Labour party only organises in Great Britian, and has only recently as a result of legal action permitted people from the rest of the UK to join it, should this article be moved to Labour Party (Great Britian)?

Although I'm a fierce critic of Labour's traditional position on Northern Ireland, they have in recent years been slowly conceding ground - the last I read was that a formal branch could be formed once members reach a critical number, allowing them to at least participate in the internal structures (similar to the Lib Dems in the province).

But Labour is a party that operates at UK level, seeking to govern the United Kingdom. That should be the key point, not its organisation. We don't have the National Party of Australia at "National Party of Mainland Australia" on the basis of not currently running in Tasmania. Timrollpickering 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a good analogy. And, really, "the rest of the UK"? What you mean is Northern Ireland, which has, what, 3% of the total population of the country? This is rather an absurd standard. By this standard the Christian Democrats are not a German political party, but a political party found in Germany-other-than-Bavaria. Which would be absurd. And Bavaria is a much larger proportion of the German population than Northern Ireland is of the UK's (it's close to 15%). john k 23:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I was thinking it might be a good idea if the long history section was split off into its own article such as History of the British Labour Party say, and a cut down summary put on the main page. As it currently dominates the article. This has been done at the Conservative Party article. The Main article should focus more on the recent history of the party and its present policies I feel. Any thoughts? G-Man * 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph restructuring

Deep breath now - "New Labour" is an alternative branding for the Labour Party dating from a conference slogan first used by the Labour Party in 1994 which was later seen in a draft manifesto published by the party in 1996, called New Labour, New Life For Britain and presented by Labour as being the brand of the new reformed party that had in 1995 altered Clause IV and reduced the Trade Union vote in the electoral college used to elect the leader and deputy leader to have equal weighting with individual other parts of the electoral college.

All one sentence!?! - I am happy to split the clauses into a better structure (For H&S reasons) unless anyone has any additional suggestions to extend the lung capacity of our readers --»»» M ª ««« 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

the change to the electoral college was pushed through by John Smith, and pre-dated "New Labour". I'd therefore delete from "and reduced" to the end LeContexte 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown and Beckett

Neither George Brown nor Margaret Beckett were ever Leader of the Labour Party. They were acting leaders. In 1963 the Leader was chosen by the Parliamentary party, and in 1994 by the process laid down in the constitution. Neither was ever elected Leader, indeed both were specifically rejected as leader by the party's electoral processes. The table should be changed accordingly. Intelligent Mr Toad 10:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They were, however, each briefly Leader of the Opposition. john k 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a separate matter. Leader of the Opposition is a state position, and it is possible for a person to receive the pay and entitlements of Leader of the Opposition while occupying their party's leadership on an interim basis. Did Brown and Beckett actually do so? Even if they did, however, that does not alter the fact that they had NOT been elected Leader of the Labour Party, held the position only because of the death of the incumbent, and were removed as soon as a leadership election could be organised. Intelligent Mr Toad 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having read over this again, the claim is that the constitution of the Labour Party basically states that the Deputy Leader becomes Leader of the party if the leader dies, until a successor can be elected. john k 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the claim then it is incorrect: the constitution of the Labour Party contains detailed provisions for the election of the Leader and Deputy Leader but no provision for the Deputy Leader to replace the Leader if the Leader resigns/dies, or indeed anyone to replace the Deputy Leader if they resign/die. It must follow that, after John Smith died, there was technically no Leader of the Party. "Acting Leader" is a term of convenience and not a position in the Party's constitution. Mr Toad is clearly correct that, whatever Parliamentary position George Brown and Margaret Beckett held, they were at no time the Leader of the Labour Party. (Unless of course the Party's rules were different in this respect in George Brown's day)LeContexte 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that George Brown's article makes no mention of his ever having been Leader of the Labour Party, even in an acting capacity. Since whoever wrote that article evidently knows a lot about Brown's tragic career, this seems a surprising point to have overlooked. Intelligent Mr Toad 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also my recollection from readings that in 1963 there was no election for the deputy leadership and George Brown's tenure continued uninterrupted. Because the 1994 election involved an expensive contest including a postal ballot, Beckett pretty much had to put herself for re-election as deputy as well as run for leader, as otherwise electing her and then having another contest for the deputy leadership would have been a major burden for the party. But if Beckett hadn't contested the vacant leadership she would have stayed Deputy Leader. (Indeed much was made at the time that the new system makes it very difficult for a sitting Deputy to contest the leadership as they risk either losing their own post, burdening the party with separate elections or losing the leadership because they effectively have a price tag!) Timrollpickering 22:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Still socialists

Are they really still socialists?

The Labour Party was never really socialist, not even when it was still called the Labour Representation Committee. There have been some elements within the party who were socialist, but the party's agenda has never been socialist.

Arn't they affiliated with Socialist international? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.132.20 (talk) 10:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

POV

The historical part of this article is pretty good (with the occasional oddity, such as the claim that Labour avoided wipeout in 1983 due to tactical voting by Conservative supporters). But the modern stuff needs a great deal of work.

The last few sections - "Criticism", "Labour's third successive term from 2005", "Party finances", "Tony Blair Resigns" and "Government difficulties with public opinion" are largely one-sided (e.g. "He failed to pass three bills restricting civil liberties") and unsourced. They are also peculiarly ordered, full of minor errors (e.g. the Sierra Leone intervention pre-dating Kosovo; reference to a £40m debt; claim Labour is in third place in local government), irrelevant detail (a curious reference to Queen's Market, Upton Park) and repetition (Lebanon war mentioned twice). It would also seem appropriate to add something on the post-Brown era, and to note the controversy over his unopposed election.

Do others agree? LeContexte 17:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep quite agree. This article kind of looses it a bit after we get into the 'New Labour' section. I argued further up the page that we should create a seperate History of the British Labour Party article, and leave the main article to concentrate on the party's more recent history, but no-one responded. G-Man ^? 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lapoor" or "Labour"?

Hi everyone!

I just edited the first instance of "Lapoor" back to "Labour" on the main page, but then noticed that each other instance of the word (At least in the top section) is also "Lapoor". Could this the work of a vandal bot or am I unwittingly editing factual information? If I've made an error here, please undo it and leave a message in my talk page. Cheers! :-)

Hyperspeed 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism [7] which has now been fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree on what the party's ideology is

Everytime I come to this page I see that someone or other has changed the party's ideology in the infobox. When I was last here the info box said democratic socialism, social democracy and Third Way. Apparently now however, the party is no longer democratic socialist as is stated in its constitution, or Third Way as stated by Tony Blair but stands for something called civic nationalism (no I've never heard of it either) and Liberalism??? all of which is completely unreferenced.

I'm going to change it back to how it was.

What exactly are the criteria for party ideology in the infobox. It seems to me to be open to POV. It seems best to me to put in the party's stated positions, which was what was there before. G-Man ^? 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Socially on the right

I know they are fiscally Center left, am I right in assuming that they are socially on the center right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.132.20 (talk) 10:28, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody wrote "Centre right" under "Political position", and this was considered "vandalism" and reverted, with no discussion. I don't agree.

IF these notions of right, centre, left etc. still have a sense nowadays, I think that the new Labour could be better defined as being a "centre-right" party than as a "left", or even a "centre-left" party (the latter label seems to me more appropriate for the liberal-democrats).

I would define my political position as one of centre-left, but under many aspects I might also be considered a conservative. Now, it happens that, e.g. about the war in Iraq, I find myself very much on the left of the Labour party: so, what does that mean?

At least, you should admit that the question is worth discussing. Tom Hope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.152.53 (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, New Labour (moreover the current administration) is centre right as proved in this link here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.95.82 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Its rules like mandatory smoking ban signs an ID cards that make me think they are on the social right. Wouldn't surprise me if in the event of a hung parliament they formed a coalition with the Conservatives rather than the Liberals! AJUK ^Talk!! 09:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh not this again! Political Compass is not an authorative site by any means. As has been discussed umpteen times, "left" and "right" as absolutes are not very clear and in general a party is defined by where it is on the political spectrum in the country it operates in. The Labour Party is clearly to the left of the Conservatives and somewhat to the left of the Lib Dems, in so far as the Lib Dems have anything remotely approaching a coherent position. And Labour still has a statist approach which is hardly on the right! Timrollpickering 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? So, Tony Blair is left wing. Hmmm, I DO wonder...79.2.156.126 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Political parties in the UK are not mere vehicles for one person's ideas (give or take a few phonebox parties; heck even Veritas proved to contain more than just Robert Kilroy Silk's ego and Respect has just proved to be not merely George Galloway). This isn't about Blair but about the party as a whole. In a country with strongly established large parties conceptions of "left" and "right" are usually defined by the positions of the parties, rather than some idea that "left" and "right" are absolute statements (and trying to fix "centre" is even worse). Timrollpickering 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is of course correct. Transplant Labour to France and they look impossibly right wing on economic policy: anti-CAP, pro "flexible" labour market, anti-protectionist. Transplant them to the US and they look impossibly left-wing on social policy: pro-socalised healthcare, pro-abortion on demand, pro-gun control, pro-same sex partnerships (as, indeed, are the Tories to a great extent). But these are meaningless comparisons - a mainstream party, of necessity, will operate within the policy of the society in which it operates. Furthermore, cherry-picking individual policies can be misleading. On the basis of its economic policy, the BNP looks like a party of the traditional Left, but calling the BNP a left-wing party would be daft: its social policy - far more important to it and its opponents - originates somewhere entirely different. LeContexte 10:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm abortion isn't a partisan issue in British politics. Both main parties as well as the Liberal Democrats and most of the smaller parties in parliament have always made this a free vote issue of conscience and declined to take any formal position on it. You'll find fervant advocates on both sides of the debate in all parties and near unanimous support for keeping it out of partisan politics (not least because most look on in aghast at the way the US handles the matter). Otherwise I'd agree (although some of the basic issues listed are not really live matters). An even more telling issue over time is the changing alignments on free trade vs protectionism. At the start of the twentieth century this was very much a dividing issue in British politics, with the left (Liberals and Labour) staunchly pro free trade (the "anti-protectionist" stance mentioned above) whilst the Conservatives were increasingly moving towards protectionism, with the loudest support on the right of the party. Then by the 1930s most of the support for free trade evaporated with the Great Depression but things swung back in later eras and it's now the right that's most closely associated with free markets. Timrollpickering 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neil kinnock.jpg

Image:Neil kinnock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Section : 5.4 Party funding through illegal means

This section could be termed a little "previous". Whilst clearly there are legal issues to be dealt with over November 2007 funding revelations no one has as yet been convicted of breaking any law. The tone of this section is very much written as "after the fact" of such a conviction.

Yes, Brown declared stuff unlawful but he is only the PM - It is up to the courts to determine if laws have been broken.

Suggest this receives a rewording probably with copious use of the word "allegedly" :) Ei2g (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)