Talk:Social Democratic Party (UK)

message: It is well cited in this article that the SDP was a centrist/social liberal party in its ideology.
Therefore why is there an insistence in making a claim to it coming from the "right wing" of a left wing political party?
Surely that is a POV rather than a fact, which is fixed with the edit I made correcting it to "centrist wing" from "right wing"?
It seems like language wholly designed to promote far left conspiracies rather than accurately portray the facts, even if that may not be the intention.Dynumo (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst it is correct to describe the SDP as a centrist/social liberal party in ideology, it is also correct to describe the founders as on the right-wing of the Labour Party. That is different from being on the right wing of politics generally. Anthony King and Ivor Crewe in their history of the SDP, SDP The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party, Oxford University Press, 1995; make frequent reference to the founders and MPs who joined the party, as being on the right wing of the Labour Party; pages 105, 109, 116 and generally in chapter 7 of the book. It is certainly not a POV edit by myself or any other editor. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are also placing your contributions in entirely the wrong position. New comments should be at the end of Talk page contributions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "right wing of the Labour Party"

message: I have edited the first 2 paragraphs to reflect the fact that Owen's rump SDP that existed between 1988 and 1990 was not, legally, the continuation of the original "Gang of Four" SDP, of which the Liberal Democrats are the legal successor party. Arguably, the two SDPs should have separate articles, but I can live with text that makes clear the legal line of continuation after the merger.  Flagboy 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm if the 1988 group were a continuation then what was different in 1990? Timrollpickering 20:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I have no association with Paddy Briggs.  I did do some fact checking though - with every change sourced (since I knew that, rightly, my edits would have more scrutiny) - pointing out that the SDP came fifth, not fourth at the Neath by-election (no apologies for that), pointing out that the Catterick councillors were district councillors, not county councillors, and that only one of them was still in place, and pointing out the factual differences between the current state of the post-1990 SDP and the Liberal Party. Despite the factual sourcing for each of these, the reversion was decidedly not NPOV.  Obvious examples were "very strong fifth" (5.3% of the vote is not 'very strong' by any political definition that I know of), "North Yorkshire County Council" (check the results - this never happened - it was a district council election - and one of the two people cited is no longer an SDP councillor), "thumping majority" (neutral language?), "like the Liberal Party" (the Electoral Commission report makes it crystal clear that the SDP is operating on a much smaller scale than the Liberal Party). In terms of the location of the 'post-1990 SDP' I'm pretty agnostic - just so long as the relative scale of the post-1990 SDP and the Lib Dems is clear and accurately portrayed for people who are not knowledgeable about UK politics. If the Lib Dems had a paragraph for every town, parish, district and county council group, the entry would be several megabytes long.  There are more councillors nationally for the "Neath Port Talbot Ratepayers Association" (8) than there are for the post-1990 SDP (7). Mpntod 10:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rump party/ies

message: This article needed a thorough clean-up to make it more readable and encyclopedic. I have also removed some passages that were unredeemably POV.  If I have made any errors, please correct them. Ground Zero 19:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: April 13 2005 edit

message: The present text contains a reference to Eddie Milne (MP for Blyth) having been the victim of a Militant conspiracy or some high-level dispute over the revelation of sharp practice. That is hardly true. He was deselected by the local party after a general (and very local) falling-out and Ivor Richard was selected in his place. Ivor Richard later became UK ambassador to the UN, an EU Commissioner and later still became Labour leader in the Lords - he was certainly no Trot!.
For those interested in the by-ways of history, Eddie Milne sought to establish an alternative Labour Party in Blyth. He had some initial success and his supporters captured a third of the seats on the local Council. But, it all came to nothing. One problem being that Milne never sought to extend his activities outside of Blyth. As far as I am aware, Milne declined to have anything to do with the SDP post 1981.
BScar23625 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct. Eddie Milne was actually a left-winger, and fell out with the right-wing Labour establishment in the north-east over corruption. His voters appear to have gone over to the SDP but not him, and he has no great relevance in the history of the SDP. David | Talk 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: The main article says that he lost his seat (Lincoln) in February 1974. In fact, he held it at that election and lost it to Margaret Jackson (now Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP) in the October 1974 election. At least that's what your article on her says (and it's right, trust me!)
Mike Killingworth
:Have changed this, having noticed Taverne's defeat when the BBC Parliament channel reran the Oct 1974 election night coverage. That programme is also full of speculation that the moderate wing of the Labour Party was on the verge of breaking away - does anyone know much about the background to the divisions in Labour in the 1970s to enhance this? At the moment it reads as though it was all a problem in local parties. Timrollpickering 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Taverne  

message: The "split in the centre-left" concept mentioned under Effects is POV. It is based on the theory that if the Labour and the Alliance had fought as one grouping, most people who voted for one or the other would have voted for the unified party. This cannot be assumed, and I understand that there is opinion poll evidence from the time that suggests it is not true (i.e. that if the Alliance had not existed, then its vote would have been roughly evenly distributed between the other two parties]. I have amended the text accordingly to mark the phrase as opinion rather than fact; see also my amendments to Margaret Thatcher article on similar lines. Flagboy 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Split in centre-left"

message: Can we verify a source that the SDP were in fact part of SI/PES? I find it slightly difficult to believe that a party which was a series electoral threat to the Labour party would have been admitted, but it's not an impossibility, I concede. (Also, if in fact the SDP were a SI/PES affiliated party, did the Owenite rump SDP remain an affiliate?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShyguy (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between sitting in the European Parliament group and being affiliated to the wider party though - was the SDP actually affiliated? (Labour often claims that SI/PES affiliation bars member parties from running against each other, giving that as its reason for not standing in Northern Irish seats.) Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that I'm entering this debate 14 months late but the SDP did get one MEP by defection: Michael Gallagher. The European Parliament website shows that when he joined the SDP, he left the Socialist Group and as an SDP MEP sat in the "Group for the Technical Coordination and Defence of Indipendent Groups and Members". Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist International/Party of European Socialists membership 

message: :Image:SDP gangoffour.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SDP gangoffour.jpg

message: :Image:SDPLogo.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SDPLogo.jpg

message: Having looked at the website of the SDP, I find that a great deal of the material included in this Wikipedia article is identical (word for word, paragraph after paragraph) to what is said on the SDP's site.
Now, the SDP site declares that its content "is based on articles written by third parties available at Wikipedia." While this may well be the case, the fact that it is presented on an official party political website is suggestive of bias (i.e. a certain POV at least).
I accept that the material may well have been initially laid out here, on Wikipedia, but the fact that it has been used for official purposes by a registered and electorally competing political party makes me question the possible neutrality of the material.
Of course, it would be seriously different if the material had originally come from the SDP website; but the fact that it can be accepted by the SDP, taken from here and used on their site, indicates that the SDP are supportive (in agreement with) this material. The SDP is, as stated, a political party. Its ideas, views, opinions, practices, etc., are necessarily partisan. What it declares on its website cannot but reflect its partisan politics - thus its material is POV. For Wikipedia to continue to reproduce such material infers a support of this POV.
I might be taking things too far. All I'm saying is, the matter should be debated somewhat. Simon P Blackburn (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical to the SDP's own website! 

message: When exactly did the party start? I know it was some time in 1981, but the article isn't much more explicit than that. 86.179.101.29 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of ambiguity because of the time it took to formally constitute the party after the announcement - often the political reality and constitutional/legal fiction doesn't always have the same date. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The official launch was on the 27th March 1981. Hope this helps.  - Galloglass 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: On Shirley Williams' page there is a "Gang of Four" link which links to this page. My question/suggestion is, should there be a separate Wikipedia page for the Gang of Four? 128.232.134.163 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gang of Four 

message: This is what it says in the box, but is it strictly true? Whilst it certainly was the media perception (and it is true that most of the founding MPs were ex-Labour) the truth is that the rank and file membership were not. A survey found that sixty per cent of card carrying members had not previously joined a political party, whereas only 25% were ex-Labour, 10% were ex-Tory and 5% were ex-Liberal. Sadly, being a party that predates the internet age, I cannot find a source to prove this. I would also contest the claim that the SDP was "centre left". Just "centre" would be more appropriate: it was originally marketed as a "centre" party and even its logo was carefully designed to incorporate equal amounts of red and blue (the red bar which underlines the party's three initials is missing from the logo shown in the box). As an active member from 1981-87 who served on the Council for Social Democracy, I would say "centre left" is not accurate. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that 'centre' is much more appropriate than centre-left. The party's name should certainly not be taken too literally.--Autospark (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well I think people have had long enough to contribute to this discussion. It is clearly "centre" and I will change it accordingly. If anyone disagrees please discuss it here before reverting.Multiculturalist (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakaway from Labour? 

message: As Purple has now been allocated rightly to UKIP would anyone object if we allocated a new colour to the SDP user boxes? My own suggestion would be the Gold now used for the LibDems as the SDP did fight the 1987 General Election under that Colour. Thoughts on this please.  - Galloglass 20:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem with continuing the use of purple -- after all, the SDP was dissolved years before UKIP was founded, they have never competed in elections simultaneously. Purple was used as a de facto colour of the SDP by the media, as a 'blend' of the blue and red, or red white and blue, used by the SDP. Yellow or gold was never used by the SDP itself, only the SDP–Liberal Alliance, so I am against using that. I support continued use of purple, or as an alternative, using the royal blue colour that was prominent in the SDP logo.--Autospark (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue is for the tories an I never remember any purple for the SDP ever same with using red thats labour or communist in the 80s Yellow or gold seems ok  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.227.157 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Galloglass, do not make sockpuppet comments as an anonymous IP. That IP address comes from the Lancashire border. It is quite obvious what you are doing.--Autospark (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Now relating to the discussion, do you have a source for the use of Purple for the SDP Autospark? I'd be interested to see it. Many thanks  - Galloglass 19:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

text: To repeat the request Autospark, do you have a source for purple being used in the way stated. The only connection I am aware of purple being used in anything connected to the SDP is in the Crosby by-election and then it was used by the Crosby Conservative association, not the SDP.  - Galloglass 10:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the rich blue from the SDP logo instead then. That's probably better all round, as it was a colour they actually used in their promotional material. Gold I object to as it was the Alliance colour, and only from 1987.--Autospark (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I'd have no objection to using blue from the Logo. Not in any rush though so quite happy to see if anyone objects. Regards  - Galloglass 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election box metadata colour 

message: You might want to check out and help with Gang of Four (SDP). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gang of Four (SDP) 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I am not sure that the material relating to Spitting Image's treatment of the Alliance in the Alliance section of the article works as it stands. It is not referenced and I think there is an argument that overdue prominence is being given to one sketch which is described in some detail. I do think that it is worth mentioning Spitting Image as I know programmes about both it and the SDP have highlighted how its treatment of Owen and Steel impacted upon who they and the Alliance were seen, but we could really do with sources and evidence for the impact if anybody has anything that would allow this to be added. Dunarc (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Alliance section - Spitting Image material 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Social Democratic Party (UK) →  – Per WP:INCDAB, if an incomplete title disambiguation is to be used, the article must be an overwhelmingly primary topic, with the standard for that being higher than that for determining a primary topic otherwise. Whilst there is a good argument for the 1981–88 party being the most notable one, the pageviews graph indicates that since 2018, the article on the 1990–present SDP has consistently had almost as many views as the article on the 1981–88 SDP. As a result, whilst the 1981–88 SDP is clearly more notable historically, I don't believe it meets the criteria for being the overwhelmingly primary topic enough to have incomplete disambiguation per WP:INCDAB (and WP:PDAB for more info). Chessrat (talk, contributions)  21:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 October 2023