Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 2

message: I don't think it's inconsistent to label the party 'centre-right' while it undergoes a period of ideological debate.  Also, my edit summary was incomplete when I hit submit. Pstuart84 Talk 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position 

message: I'm not a Briton, but I'm wondering: if they oppose the EU how can they support globalization?? The Person Who Is Strange 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they argue the EU is inward-looking and not truly internationalist. Conservatives would prefer NATO and the WTO over the EU every time. They also usually believe in globalization more for global trade than global government. 144.32.196.4 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoliberalism? 

message: Hi all. I noticed a sentence that was tagged as needing a citation. After extensive news searches I was unable to find substantiation for the statement that Cameron announced his intention to reform and realign the Conservative Party in a manner similar to that achieved by the Labour Party in opposition under Tony Blair. This may well have been his intention, but I can't find a record of him actually saying that. I've replaced it with a citation from his victory speech about how the party needed to change. I stand to be corrected if anyone can find a quote. 
PS  I've added citations to all the tagged statements now. If anyone thinks we should tag some more, I'd be happy to find some more citations later.  --Neil W 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation which was needed 

message: Would anyone object to the introduction of footnotes and citation templates on this article? (WP:CITE#HOW) — mholland (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any objections, I have done the above. — mholland (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: I've made some alterations here.  Cornerstone are an organisation equivalent to Tory Reform Group, No Turning Back etc so that grouping needs a heading of its own.  I'm not sure Traditionalist is best but maybe someone can come up with something better -nationalist maybe?  Also I've rejected "factions" whilst for much of the 90s and the naughties that is perhaps an apt description -the traditions (perhaps a better word that groupings even) are not always factions and there is as the article starts to hint at later much more overlapping than factions would imply.  It is better to say that the Conservative Party includes a number of traditions and any conservative politician will have a different emphasis on them.  Not sure if I am correct in indentifying Bow Group as One Nation. (Be Dave 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factions

message: Why have the Conservative Party colours been made into a lighter blue? The old royal blue is more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.221.100 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, Royal Blue is far more appropriate and more in line with current Conservative practice. Yes I am aware that the darker colour has been assigned to the pre-1840's Tory party. I think rather that the reverse should be the case with the lighter colour for the Tory party and the darker, Royal Blue for the modern Conservative party. Galloglass 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested that the lighter blue is more official. — mholland (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: I'm not satisfied with the ideology of the party being listed as "Conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Liberalism, Liberarianism". The Conservative Party does not have any libertarian credentials. In regards to 'liberalism' I would argue, in the wake of Thatcherism any claim that the party is liberal should receive the qualification 'classical liberalism' or 'neoliberalism' - but I still don't think they're sufficient.
Liberal conservatism is acceptable I think, given David Cameron's self-dubbed liberal conservative status, see: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=135823 
Interested to hear thoughts?
--Jason Hughes 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two words: Margeret Thatcher. -- D-Katana 12:01, 07 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Ideology 

message: I’m frankly appalled by the lack of credibility in this section. Moreover there are no sources to back up the claims made is this section. For example Alan Sugar is a noted supporter of the Labour party! There is sourced evidence that he donated £200,000 to Labour in 2001. It is my belief that all apparent high-profile supports be deleted until sources ratifying the claims are found. I feel that this would ensure the credibility of wikipedia.
: Given Ray Davies' general left wing views, I doubt whether he has ever been a committed Tory. His Tory vote in 1974 probably had to do with his oft expressed dislike for Harold Wilson. Davies voted for Michael Foot in 1983 over Thatcher, so I highly doubt he's a big supporter of the Party.
I added the section some months back because there was already such a section on the Labour Party page and I figured if the Labour page has one, so should the page on the Tories (not that I am a Tory, far from it, I just did it in the interests of fairness and consistency). However I pointed out over on the Labour talk page that the lists look silly on the main pages of the parties, it's trivial information and clearly dosen't belong and the suggestion made - which other users who discussed the matter agreed with - was that the information should be shifted to it's own page. However nobody did this, and the Labour list has since been deleted without discussion by another user who chose to completely ignore the talk page. Bearing that in mind, feel free to delete or move it to its own page, in fact just delete if you like, if someone wants to create the page at a later date the information is archived in the page history. While the infomation is trivial, I myself and others I know have gone looking for comprehensive lists of famous figures who have funded/supported the two major parties and none can be found, so there is a case for pages with this information on Wiki but it's hardly a priority. However I agree that it obviously needs to be sourced - I intended to add sources for the names I originally put up there but never got around to it and no-one else has bothered. Since then, numerous other names have been added unsourced, such as Freddie Mercury and Mick Jagger, these people may have voted Tory but I've never heard of it. I was astonished to see Harold Pinter added, but having checked this out it is actually true, he did vote Tory in '79, he has admitted this in interviews. Alan Sugar has indeed donated to Labour but he did support and donate to the Tory Party in the 80's and this can easily be sourced, he shifted his support to Labour when Blair took over. As for Ray Davies, I added his name and the source is a book called 'Rebel Rock' by John Street. He states that in 1974 the Musicians Union sent out requests to all it's famous rock and pop star members asking for them to help campaign for a Labour victory, and they recieved only two responses, one from Alan Price offering to help, and the other from Ray Davies explaining that he would not be assisting as he was voting Tory. I agree that Davies is almost certainly not a Conservative and was only voting Tory that year over some specific issue or unhappiness with Labour which is why I added the qualification that there is no evidence that he is a committed Tory, which I strongly doubt. In any case, as I say feel free to delete it, if the info stays, it should be moved to it's own page and properly sourced for each name on the list. MarkB79 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete them both (and any others). There are some celebrities who are party members and can be found at fundraising events and, more occassionally, fronting Party Political Broadcasts, as well as a few who go into politics (Seb Coe, Gyles Brandreth and Esther McVey are the main ones who spring to mind in recent years) but I suspect most of the celebrity backers are just people who've said in interviews that they support the party, which can often mean little more than voting for it. And some of the people listed seem to have voted for it only once or twice. Timrollpickering 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-profile supporters of the Conservative Party.  

message: I am surprised that there has been no mention on here of the current policy reviews within the party, especially the recent reports by Iain Duncan Smith and John Gummer. I will add more detail on this when I have time, unless there are any objections.
I will also continue to remove links to BNP and Nazi websites which various wags put into the article on a semi-regular basis. I cannot see the relevance. SupernautRemix 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current policy review

message: I'm not comfortable with the sentence "More recently however Gordon Brown has re-asserted his lead over the Conservatives".
The sentence says it about Gordon Brown, not about the Labour Party. This implies that Gordon Brown as leader had a lead that he then lost, and has since regained. This is not the case.
Would it not be more accurate to say something like: "More recently, since Gordon Brown was selected as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party on XXX date, the Labour Party has pulled ahead of the Conservative Party in the opinion polls."
Would it then be a POV to make a comment about new leader bounces? Any thoughts?
Wikifellow 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Cameron Entry 

message: "The campaign - based around the slogan,"It's not racist to impose limits on immigration. Are you thinking what we're thinking?" - was designed by controversial Australian pollster Lynton Crosby"
This is not true.  The official election slogans were "Are you thinking what we're thinking" and "Take a stand on the issues that matter".  "It's not racist to impose limits on immigrantion" was the slogan of a poster, not the central message of the campaign as the article seems to suggest.  I will ammend this. 213.121.151.174 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 election slogan

message: Is this really the Party's official name? I know that it is in Scotland, but as far as I am aware it was dropped in England many years ago.193.195.75.20 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's formally registered as "Conservative and Unionist" - see the party's entry on the register of parties. Unionist is ocassionally still used on the odd document or advert (and some members will come out with "we are the Conservative and Unionist party" in opposition to anything they see as an anti-Union policy), and some local associations do make use of it in their title. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative and Unionist Party

message: The Tories just ain't Libertarian! I know it's very modern right now to call oneself Libertarian, but the Conservative Party isn't (ok there may be one or two Libertarians in the party)--84.164.240.26 18:31, February 23, 2008 
:The Conservatives are quite libertarian - small government, etc. David (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conservatives as a party are not libertarian, they have one libertarian MP that I know of (Alan Duncan) but just because the party is economically liberal it doesn't make them libertarian as a whole. Their policies on immigration, for example, are not what you would typically label libertarian but conservative.--Johnbull (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: they do have 'libertarian conservative' instincts these days, such as the opposition to ID cards, I don't think immigration is a defining issue for libertarians, as it is for social liberals. Joe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.10.232 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Libertarian" currently only occurs once in the article, contrasting Michael Portillo with other supporters of Thatcher. Frankly anything about any party's philosophical position beyond what it states itself to be should be based on analysis by recognised political scientists, not on individual Wikipedians' understanding of both the party and philosophy - that approach is the classic definition of original research. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about the British Conservative Party, and in Britain "libertarian" refers to civil libertarians rather than US-style economic libertarians, so the word is not appropriate. A libertarian in Britain would be someone who supported the legalisation of drugs, gay marriage, freer immigration, the devolution of power, etc. More often than not these people are on the left of the political spectrum (traditionally, they have been socialists), although there are some New Conservatives who show libertarian inclinations (Portillo, Alan Duncan). The only notable libertarian policy the Conservative Party has is opposition to ID cards. Contrasting with this is the strongly authoritarian policies that characterised the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and which still underpin their policies (all that stuff about telling people what sort of families they should have, for instance). 92.12.213.254 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on Google Books, search Conservative Party and Libertarian and you will find MANY books which identify key aspects of libertarianism as one of the major ideologies defining the party throughout its history.  The Wikipedia article on Libertarianism is sufficiently detailed as to show which section the party does identify with if noone can be bothered putting it into this article.  Harlsbottom (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The distinction between British and American libertarians is inaccurate. American libertarians oppose government action and regulation in all but the most limited situations. An American libertarian would support decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs and would be more likely to support eliminating legal marriage than providing for gay marriage. That some people assume the mantle of libertarianism based on economic views without regard to social issues are misusing the term. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And you reference for that would be...?  Harlsbottom (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand: it is the people who wish to add 'Libertarian' to the article who must properly reference it, per WP:WIKIFY. No WP:RS = no 'Libertarian' in the Infobox. Simple as that. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And since no-one else has bothered, I may as well add a section on it.  However, your view "that is just pants" hardly seems to be informed.  Harlsbottom (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely disagree with calling the Conservative party 'libertarian' in the infobox, I would only think it was justified a mention somewhere else in the article, IFF there was a reliable mainstream reference stating that it is one of their doctrines (i.e. not just a passing mention or that one policy is libertarian). Even if it can be proven that the party in general has some libertarian policies, it wouldn't deserve a place in the infobox as it isn't the main (or one of two main) wings of Tory ideology. 217.44.234.78 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term seems to be used by some followers of parties such as UKIP aimed at David Cameron, but its used as more of an insult or critism more than anything else. I think its unfair to slur the party as "libertarian" until the full and complete policy is revealed nearer to the time of the next general election. But would it still be recentism to include it? Obviously "Conservatism" has been accurate throughout all of the "Conservative Party" existence. From what we have to work with; Cameron's Manifesto prepared for William Hague was well in line with Conservatism. If they ran with that manifesto they'd probably defeat Brown today too. We shouldn't confuse green politics with the "libertarianism", lets not forget Lady Thatcher herself "went green" too. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian?

message: Recently David Cameron has repeatedly said that hed like To fix Britain's "broken" society and would like to do to society what Margaret thatcher did for the economy in the 80's and that if he ever gets to become our prime minister fixing society would be his main Focus. In light of this i am proposing to add Social conservatism to the info box as i believe reforming society, making it more responsible and making society adhere to socially conservative values of morality is the platform the conservatives will fight the next general election on. What would other Wikipedians think of this proposal?.
Gr8opinionater (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2008 (GMT)
:"i believe" is original research. Are there any published sources for this? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Socially Conservative?

message: The statement "The Conservative Party is [...] the oldest political party in the world." is flatly false. It is based upon the heritage of the political party, not the actual length of time it has existed as a political party. It is clearly a reference to the founding of the "Tory faction" in 1678, however, considering that the Tory Party split in 1846, and the creation of the Conservative Party based upon Robert Peel's manifesto. However, just because someone was once a member of a party and then followers of his created a new political party, this does not mean that it is the same party, it is the definition of a NEW party. So, if the Coservatives were founded in 1832 http://www.victorianweb.org/history/conservative.html, they are not the world's oldest political party. This honourable distinction belongs to the Democratic Party of the United States of America, which was arguably founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson, and officially in 1828 by Andrew Jackson http://dnc.org/a/party/history.html. As a result, I will be removing this section from the Conservative Party (UK) article. Uoregonduckman (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been argued endlessly over at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) - see Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 7#Introduction: Oldest Political Party for the last round and some of the actual commentary by professional historians on the matter. Whilst I agree making an unambiguous statement here is dubious, it also dubious at that page as well. Remember the Democrats are also the product of splits - to claim unambiguously they are the party of Jefferson is false as that party split in the 1820s and the Democrats were only one of the emergent factions. The party of Peel can claim similar continuity to the party of Pitt, founded in the 1780s and there historians who argue that Pitt's party absorbed the remnants of the Tory Party that can be traced all the way back to Danby. Historians of the Conservative Party have traditionally not written that much on this point as their focus has been the 19th and 20th centuries (the curse of excessive division in historical studies). Timrollpickering (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they split in the 1820's, but the Democratic Party can trace themselves CLEARLY to 1828 with the same name, and that should be the biggest factor. Uoregonduckman (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement!! 

message: Origin of this insult? It appears to be of 19th C. vintage. I notice it has lately also begun to be used to describe the US Republican Party. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an example of usage from 1925. Drutt (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was once told this was from the time in the 1840's after the Peelite's split off and the remainder was assumed stupid without him, not sure but maybe someone can find a reference? 87.113.76.44 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Stupid Party'

message: Just letting you know my site has a copy of the full Conservative Party Manifesto and their 'Policy Overview' section. We're driving towards having all English-language political manifestos of every political party in the world on our site in the same/similar format. All the content, except the Policy Overview sections are contained in PDF files on the Conservatives website. As more and more manifestos are added over time, in my opinion, it could become a useful resource for Wikipedia. 
Conservative Policies
Declaration of Interest: I own the site so shouldn't add the link myself. Jdfjurn (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Manifesto 

message: No mention of the Board of the Conservative Party  --Espoo (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  organization 

message: As a newish user, I am not sure how to do this, however at the moment Welsh Conservative redirects to this page, rather than to the Welsh Conservative Party page. Is it at all possible for someone with more wiki experience than me to fix this, or at least tell me how to fix this please. Thanks. --Welshsocialist (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh Conservative redirect 

message: "For the months between October and December 2008, the Conservative Party received £5.1 million in donations, compared to £2.6 million for the Labour Party, as declared by The Electoral Commission on 25 February 2008. The Conservatives are also £12.0 million in debt, compared to Labour's £15.8 million and the Liberal Democrats' £1.13 million." - this paragraph suggests the Electoral Commission announced these statistics half a year before they happened. Wrong date somewhere? Tom walker (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates of donation statistics 

message: I removed: "UCL Conservative Society" from list of associated groups, because they don't seem to be on a similar scale to the other national/international organisations on this list. This is best mentioned on the page linked here: List of organisations associated with the British Conservative Party--Thudso (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCL Conservative Society 

message: (The name as it appears on the logo.)
* Support As a consensus position, I would support Conservatives (UK). As I said initially, anything other than the present arrangement. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservatives (UK)

message: (The Party's official name according to its constitution.)
#Support: This is the Party's official name. However out of fashion it may be in popular usage, this should be the official title for the article. Orthorhombic (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia policy, which should be strictly adhered to, states directly that the common name for articles should be used. That's why Cat Stevens is at that page, and not at Yusuf Islam, which is his official name. It is very rare to ever call it its official name, nor does it help identify the subject. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Conservative and Unionist Party

message: Please note that refs 8 and 9, dealing with views of Churchill on Europe, are 404 not available. Hopefully alternative sources can be found.... Redheylin (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead external links

message: I have excised the paragraph below to be considered here by other editors for the following reasons;
1) It is tangential to the subject of the page
2) Much material is covered elsewhere (see links)
3) Accounts elsewhere in wiki (of Kaminski's case) do not tally with this one
4) This particular account is poorly referenced and apparently justificatory.
The Jedwabne pogrom occurred in July 1941 during Nazi occupation, in what had been the Soviet zone until a few weeks previously until the full scale invasion of Soviet Russia by Hitler's Germany (including Austria). The role of Polish citizens in the Jedwabne pogrom in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, was uncovered by Jan T. Gross in his book, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland in which he described how the Jedwabne pogrom was perpetrated by Poles and not by the German occupiers, as was previously assumed. The .[http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/en/1/2/Institute_of_National_Remembrance__Commission_for_the_Prosecution_of_Crimes_agai.html
Polish Institute of National Remembrance] has concluded that the crime was committed by a mob of Polish Gentiles, not by a Nazi German Einsatzgruppe or 'death squad' as was once thought. Nazi (German & Austrian) forces were present, but their involvement remains the subject of debate. According to some commentators, many people were shocked by the details of the pogrom, which contrasts with the rescue of Polish Jews by Polish Gentiles during the Holocaust.  The point Michał Kamiński was making (however clumsily) was that while the Jedwabne pogrom was the act of Polish Gentile citizens during Nazi-occupation it was not a deliberate act of policy of the Polish state, which did not exist at the time. This point was also made in the [official address delivered by the President of the Republic of Poland] Mr. Aleksander Kwasniewski on July 10, 2001, in Jedwabne, when he apologised on behalf of the Polish People (Gentiles) for this murder of their fellow Polish citizens on the 60th anniversary of the Jedwabne pogrom.
Please comment... Redheylin (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rem para