Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:The Labour Party (UK))


1918 vs 1922 general election[edit]

When I was adding additional refs in the 'UK general election results', I noticed that throughout this article it says that Labour has been either the Opposition or the governing party since the 1922 general election. However, on the House of Commons Library source that I used, it said "After the 1918 election, a coalition between Conservatives and Liberals meant Labour became the largest opposition party despite having only 59 MPs."[1] Which one is correct? Thanks in advance Michaeldble (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Michaeldble (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum wage[edit]

I've tried to place this information - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labour_Party_(UK)&oldid=prev&diff=1187373222 - in the "Keir Starmer era (2020–present)" but have been reverted. What place would be suitable for this information if not here? It’s cited with a reliable source (the BBC) and this to me seems like the most relevant place for it. The section "Keir Starmer era (2020–present)" isn't particularly big and this doesn't add a large amount more to it, so is it obstructive, and it also happened during the Starmer era so it seems like it fits best here to me. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is sufficient reason to highlight this policy detail, it might be worthy of inclusion at the main article linked at the top of the section, Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer. It seems moot even for that article though. It certainly doesn't appear of significance in an overview of the party as a whole and its history. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to put it somewhere in Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer. It feels a bit like WP:RECENTISM to put it in this article as it's not too relevant to the Starmer era (this article doesn't show Neil Kinnock, Jeremy Corbyn or Ed Miliband's views on the minimum wage or right to buy for example since that's not too relevant to their leaderships in the bigger picture of things, that stuff's best saved for their respective leadership or personal articles.) ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it has more relevance here than Stamer's leadership page, as its main focus is the party conference, policy and the Unite union and its core subject, minimum wage. A policy proposed by a major union affiliated with the party and an issue like minimum wage (which was introduced by the Labour Party) has a significant attachment to the party, more so than Starmer or his leadership. Helper201 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every event that relates to the Labour Party in reliable sources needs to be included on this article. The history section should only include the most significant events in a 123-year long history. I see it has been included on the Labour Party Conference page under the 2021 Brighton heading. This seems sufficient to me. Michaeldble (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, not every event needs to be included here. But it’s something published by a major news outlet (arguably the most senior news outlet in the UK) and it’s an issue that's centrally linked to the party (and the working class of whom it claims to represent). What we should be asking is how does including it detract from the article? We have History of the Labour Party (UK) for an in-depth analysis of the party's history. This is adding a small amount to a small subsection. I don't see how obstructing the inclusion of this information improves the page or how adding it would subtract from the page. Helper201 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you correctly say, we have distinct articles to cover matters like this in more depth. Including links to those articles serves the user better than duplicating the material across multiple articles. See WP:ARTICLESIZE. If every mention of the Labour party by the BBC were noted in this article it would be immense. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I don't think you've addressed most of the points I made in my above comment. I'm not saying all BBC articles about the party should be included here, I listed this as one of multiple contributing factors. Any of the points I made above alone I could understand why the information would not be justifiable, but taken as a whole (most senior news outlet in the UK, issue centrally linked to the party and the working class it claims to represent, no argument presented as to how this specific piece of information detracts from the page, it’s a small amount of info so wouldn't affect WP:ARTICLESIZE etc). These points should be taken as a whole. To say allowing this means all BBC info about the party can be added is a strawman argument and not what I'm saying. Helper201 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you effectively are saying this. Amongst the multitude of facts of comparative, or indeed greater, significance in sub-articles, yours is to go in because a little bit more won't hurt? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not denying other people's content as is being done with me. It’s clear no one has been able to present how this information itself would harm the article, nor effectively demonstrate how it breaks any guidelines. My multiple points are again being ignored in favour of targeting and isolating single points. But to this point, its brevity does avoid the WP:ARTICLESIZE issue and its reliably sourced. The only other point being used against this being included is what other editors could or may argue by also adding sourced content from the BBC, which is frankly not an argument against what I'm doing due to this not being the sole reason as to why I added it. I'm not justifying everything that is reliably sourced be included, I'm saying this should due the multiple reasons I've indicated above (such as the party's strong connection and associated to the topic of minimum wage and it being proposed by one of the largest unions in the UK which is affiliated to the party; just two of the multiple reasons I gave). Helper201 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Richard Cracknell, Elise Uberoi, Matthew Burton (9 August 2023). "UK Election Statistics: 1918–2023, A Long Century of Elections (p8)" (PDF). House of Commons Library. Retrieved 27 September 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Keir Starmer as authoritarian[edit]

I reverted an edit (@Helper201) that describes Starmer as authoritarian that has now been un-reverted. I thought it would probably be best to discuss here than start an edit war. Here's the edit for reference:

He has been accused of being authoritarian during his leadership of the Labour Party, such as via not committing to overturn the Conservative Party’s anti-protest bill and via intolerance for dissent within the Labour Party; the latter of which has also been described as "anti-democratic and above all illiberal".[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Blackburn, Tom (28 May 2023). "Keir Starmer Is Keeping New Labour's Authoritarianism Alive". Jacobin. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
  2. ^ Oborne, Peter; Sanders, Richard (26 September 2023). "UK Labour: Why Starmer's growing authoritarianism should be ringing alarm bells". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
  3. ^ Blackburn, Tom (26 May 2023). "New Labour's Authoritarianism Is Back". Tribune. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
  4. ^ Fletcher, Simon (9 October 2023). "'Keir Starmer's Authoritarian Approach to Politics Risks Stifling a Labour Government'". Byline Times. Retrieved 12 January 2024.

I reverted this on the basis that:

  • This section counts as a WP:BLP, even if the article in entirety isn't: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia".
  • That the description of 'authoritarian' is especially contentious and must be well justified as a WP:BLP.
  • The sources used have an anti-Starmer slant and are all opinion sources.
  • That undue weight has been given to the claims by relying only on such sources, and has not demonstrated that they have received enough media attention for them to deserve such weight.
  • No balance has been given to these claims, though I myself have struggled to find any record of Starmer responding to claims of authoritarianism (maybe because they have not received significant attention...).

I would like to open up whether this sentence should remain, for discussion. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having four reliable sources for something is enough for inclusion.
  • Only 2 of the 4 are in any way classified as opinion pieces and that doesn't mean they can't be used, so long as they aren't making factual statements. The Wiki text added clearly states this is an accusation, therefore complying with WP:RSOPINION.
  • 4 sources is plenty of weight. All the sources are reliable and each of the 4 sources have their own Wikipedia page, which requires notability to exist
  • If you want to add some balance in then please expand upon this rather than removing it. Take this away and the only thing that even boarders on anything like resembling criticism is the sentence prior to this one about purges. Literally the whole of the rest of the section is unbalanced in a pro or at least uncritical direction of the Starmer era.

Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the articles are reliable, however they must be regarded as biased sources of opinion given they related solely to claims. They do not demonstrate that these claims are widespread enough to warrant the weight given. Evidence of more widespread coverage of these claims in mainstream outlets would demonstrate this. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 of the 4 are classed anywhere on them as being in an opinion section or anything similar. It is fine to include statements of opinion as long as they aren't classed as fact, see: WP:RSOPINION. That's why the wording was very specifically and deliberately "has been accused of". I'd certainly say 4 sources saying the same thing is widespread enough for the inclusion of one sentence mid-article. It’s not like a whole paragraph is being made of this or that is placed in the prominence of the article's opening. Helper201 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters link in infobox please[edit]

Hi, I'd like to link the article Labour Party headquarters in the infobox in the same way Leader and Deputy Leader are linked, but I'm not sure how to do so. If anybody could help with this that would be great. Thanks! JamJamSvn (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology update?[edit]

I’ve noticed that all the sources in the ideology section in the infobox are over a decade old. It’s especially relevant, considering the party’s recent ideological shift under Kier Starmer, with labour now holding similar stances to the Conservatives on many issues and much of the party’s left-wing being expelled or otherwise sidelined. Considering that the party has undergone multiple changes in leadership with substantially different political positions over since those sources were written, maybe it would be prudent to consider updating that section? 86.161.0.39 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could do with some more up to date sources, but it still says on the back of party membership cards that Labour is a democratic socialist party (for now). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We really need some WP:SYNTH complying sources calling the party democratic socialist as a whole from the last few years. In regards to the above comment, having democratic socialism still on membership cards isn't evidence that the party actually still follows this ideology. Its highly problematic to use this as evidence given its not from a third-party, plus it’s just an old statement, not actually evidence of anything current. As far as I can see democratic socialism no longer stretches beyond a faction or factions of the party and is not a current ideology of the party as a whole anymore. Helper201 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Britannica.com still describes it as a democratic socialist party. The difficulty here is that the precise definition of socialism - democratic or otherwise - varies according to who you're asking. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All successful political parties routinely update their policies to reflect changing times. Throughout most of its history, the party has not been particularly left-wing and has routinely purged more left-wing elements, such as the Militant tendency in the 1980s. TFD (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Socalism ideology[edit]

It seems bizare that Democratic Socalism is listed as an ideolgy of the Labour Party (as a whole and not just a faction) while parties that seem clearly more left wing than the present iteration of Labour like PSOE and Workers' Party (Brazil) are only categorised as Social Democrats. 2A00:23C7:D1A5:1501:859F:1739:E013:5A3B (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion going on about this - see above. Also the Workers' Party of Brazil does have democratic socialism listed as one of its ideologies. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Socialist, democratic socialist and social democratic are synonyms, although some writers use the terms to distinguish the degree of commitment to socialism. There's also a difference in national usage: Labour calls itself democratic socialist, the Socialist Party of France calls itself socialist, while the Social Democratic Party of Germany calls itself social democratic. But the three parties share the same ideology. TFD (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we look at the page for the Peruvian party APRA(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Popular_Revolutionary_Alliance), it is considered a centre right party despite nominally calling itself a social democratic one because of its shift to neoliberalism under Alan Garcia's second presidency. Labour under Starmer has followed a similar path, so its not just the ideology I'd say needs changing, the political position does too. Tomwikiman (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]