Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 1

message: This article has no information at all about the relationship between constituency parties, Conservative Central Office, the 1922 committee etc. Morwen - Talk 19:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs info!

message: I don't like this phraseology.  For a political party to be "on the right" and for it to be "right wing" have different connotations.  john k 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Centre-right is the term used by most commentators here. "Right-wing" is primarily used as a political point by opponents. Timrollpickering 10:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  largest right-wing party 

message: Currently, the Conservative Party is the largest party in opposition to the British government,
:Whoa, this can't possibly be right. Does the Conservative party really oppose the British government?? Terrorists and traitors oppose the government. I think someone is confusing "the government" with "the current plurality in the government". Revolver 07:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Government" and "opposition" have technical meanings in British politics of "the party controlling the executive" and "the other parties in parliament". The Conservatives are "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". This is perfectly normal terminology, but mybe it needs a link to Parliamentary opposition or Official Opposition (UK). --rbrwr± 08:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs more than a link. You should explain it in the article. Otherwise, many people will be totally confused. Revolver 18:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: For one thing, the links you give go to articles that give no explanation of these terms (or inadequate), so linking to them would accomplish nothing (until those articles are changed, I mean). Revolver 19:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Even in a non-technical sense, the Conservative party frequently opposes the government - by voting against its bills, by criticising its policies, by questioning its competence, etc..  Just as many other people do, who are not members of political parties.  I think Revolver is confusing "the government" with "the country," or "the state".--Townmouse 22:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad choice of words 

message: It's gotten so big that I think it should be its own article with just a little blurb in the main article.  --4.244.105.147 21:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: It seems to me that this article has a very strong pro-Tory slant to it.  It seems to ascribe the party's popularity (when it's popular) to its economic policies being "successful" and the left being "loony," while its failures and scandals are portrayed as being due to the media being out to get them.  I'd like to see more balance.  --Blackcats 22:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: this really is an awful piece of work. I'm shocked that half of the post-war era is reduced to a mere paragraph as if this is of no consequence to the present day. It also contains factual omissions and inaccuracies. I'm not a Conservative, but this does a disservice to Conservative history.
This is a really dreadful article for a piece on a major political party. JuntungWu 13:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I restructured a little, but there's plenty more to do. The lists need to go into separate List articles. The History needs a separate article, and the summary shortening. Then there'll be breathing space to say a bit more about the nature and future of the party. Rd232 14:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It says nothing about how the party is governed, nor mentions the local Conservative Associations. - Rwendland 20:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure? Content? 

message: The logo on the article page is out of date. It was recently replaced by one with a stronger-looking arm and less of the torch, but i'm still new enough to Wikipedia that I don't quite get the whole copyright thing. Until I've read and digested the relevant policy, can somebody else look at replacing the logo? I'd be happy to do it, but it will take a while for me to get confident with images on WP. Peeper 11:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party logo

message: "tactical unwind" in this article links to Tactical voting, but I can't find the term on that page. It needs to be explained either here or there. -- Tarquin 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now on that page. Timrollpickering 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tactical unwind 

message: Should there be a section on criticisms of the conservative party? Or would this warrant a whole new article... Sorry, I'm new to wikipedia but in order to get a fair and balanced view shouldn't the article also look at points continually brought up by critics?
: I think this is a vallid point, but their is a distinction to be made between the writings of say Andrew Gamble on the left and Peter Hitchens on the right. I've added the paragraph in which Hitchens is mentioned because the responses to rhe dissatisfaction on the right deserve more than the passing mention they gain over Hague and Howard's "pre-election swings to the right (in 2001 and 2005, respectively)". Currently, Hitchens is the *conservative journalist with the highest profile, I would argue, and should be mentioned in this context. (*Melanie Phillips would not except this label and  Boris Johnson's high profile is not as a consequence of his journalism.) Philip Cross 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: This is the sort of entry one doesn't like to criticise because of the obvious amount of work which has gone into it. However, for a subject of such importance and sensitivity there are some shockers in here. Poll Tax was a nick-name with negative historical connotations used by the party's oppponents - you can't just throw in such phrases in a serious history. I've changed that and sorted out the problem with John Major - who hadn't been mentioned previously, being called just Major. Words like 'infamous' are surely not appropriate. And what does  'increased government intervention in the social or cultural sphere' mean? Surely it is Tory policy to roll back what they call the 'nanny state': this sounds like the opposite. I also removed the bizarre suggestion that devolution to NI has been successful. I don't want to leap straight into a serious re-write of an entry of this importance but I also have some problems with the style - 'since 1922, only.....' is not too pretty, neither is ' have faced problems in returning the party to being serious...' 
Perhaps more controversially for some, I have removed the word 'positively' from the comments on the election of a black Conservative MP. It is not an encyclopaedia's place to push doctrine, even one as generally accepted as the equal political representation of races. The change in the party speaks for itself. For most people it will be positive, for a few it will not, but that's their decision. Any comments before I do a more thorough re-write? (Mdhinton 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, the readability and grammatical integrity of the article could be improved- nobody will complain if you make corrections as you see fit. As for the many opinions that you would like to incorporate into the article- perhaps you should bring them up one by one and hope that we reach a consensus. Fergie 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't like to be harsh but ...

message: I've just completed some edits which rebalance some elements (especially regarding 'Euroscepticism') to a more generally accepted and neutral point of view. I've also put references to the Major governments more clearly in the past tense and built in recent political events surrounding the election of David Cameron. JDancer 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance and readability

message: Are people happy with this label? I think it could perhaps benefit from another term alongsde "Conservatism", perhaps "Classical Liberalism." I think it should definitely be there, but perhaps with the add-on of Classical Liberalism What do people think?--Jason Hughes 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical Liberalism is really only associated with the Thatcherite wing of the party (if that even is classical liberalism in the first place). It isn't really the core ideology of the party as a whole and the current signs suggest that it is being diminished in importance. Timrollpickering 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the label should remain as Conservatism.  Classical liberalism emphasises personal and economic freedoms.  Thatcher and the New Right may have drawn upon classical liberalism as an influence, but Thatcher is socially conservative.  New Right beliefs and classical liberalism aren't wholly synonymous.  Lapafrax 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservatism" on the template 

message: Why is "fascism" listed as an ideology? I doubt many, if any, Conservative Party members would agree that their party supports fascist ideology or policies. Oswaldojh 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fascism

message: Is there a reason for this entry. If it is the oldest in the world why does it need a reference to a US party? Is there some dispute that this is supposed to stop being re-edited if that is the case a link to a source after world oldest party would be more appropriate than a link to a foreign party in the inline.Alci12 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an attempt to assert it's older than the Democrats - where the dating of the origin of the party is in dispute on that page. Indeed I'm not sure one can say the Conservatives are the oldest party in the world - no-one seems to date their origin as Conservatives (rather than the earlier Tory Party) any earlier than 1830 (and usually a few years later) whilst did the latest date for the Democrats forming is 1828. Timrollpickering 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it hangs or falls on whether we call the 'founding' more than a  rebranding of an old existing entity and the creation of something intended to be new. Certainly key figures like the D of Wellington certainly saw it as the same thing Alci12 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  older even than the Democratic Party of the United States.  

message: What is the stance of the Conservatives on the Iraq War? --69.242.243.90 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq 

message: Is it just me or does the section beginning "The Conservatives are a member of the International Democrat Union and its European section. In the summer of 2006 the Conservatives became" seem out of place. It seems out of all prominance by its inclusion in the intro section rather than a subsection of the body of the article 
In the name section we have a para beginning "The internal organisation of the Conservative Party is a contrast between constituency parties who dominate in the selection of candidates and election of party leaders" Should this not be under a new section - Membership or Party Structure? It's certainly not about naming more about finance membership and logos. Alci12 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Section + Naming 

message: I know Wiki does not like using blog sites as sources, but just for info/reference conservativehome.com claims that a new "Oak Tree" emblem is being considered to replace the torch.
doktorb wordsdeeds 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely Wikipedia does not need to mention the fact that the party leader and chairman are considering changing the party's logo? It's not definite yet and therefore is pretty much speculation. -- (A.szczep) 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Logo 

message: What? Erm, the current linkage of Unionism in referance to 1800 Irish politics is wrong. The Tories favour the Union. Not Eire being in the UK. Having COnservatism and NeoLiberalism is correct. Indeed, Conservatism = favouring a small Government and seldom will a Conservative aired Government give a green light to seperatists. One is also forgetting the favour Unionism in Scotland and Wales. Fools! Damned fools! - I don't know how to sign...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenhusted (talk • contribs) 
:Just type four tildes: ~~~~  -- the GREAT Gavini 19:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unionism

message: I really do not want to have to go on at length about what follows, but I have had these style edits reverted twice now by one contributor, with the revert being based on a "POV" accusation. So, here goes, one by one:
1. "Perhaps the most notable Conservative economic policy....." If you really think that opposition to the euro is "perhaps the most notable" policy, then you must realize that the point of a policy is not simply a negative stance or a negation (e.g. opposition). Opposition (to the Euro) in this case means nothing if there is not something to be preserved (the Pound). Also, the addition of the phrase "support for the pound" adds balance, in that it makes the stance (subtly, to be sure) something more than just being against something.
2. "David Cameron and William Hague .... EU" -- Here i replaced a meandering 36-word section with a ten-word declarative sentence. The phrase "though providing little clear benefit.....in elections" is a repeat of a supposed fact already gone into in the article, and it is a very "soft" idea at that. 
And the bit about "his equally euroskeptic foreign secretary William Hague" -- "equally euroskeptic" is not a neutral phrase. And how can you be so sure about their supposed equality on this anyway? Simply stating the two men's names with their stated policy is the clearest and tightest way to go on this one. If you want, you could certainly cite why they feel the way they do about specific treaties and what those treaties are. [but since this article is still too long I wouldn't, for one, advise that]
3. "Under current EU law" -- if we take for granted that the UK government could only renegotiate their treaties if they had full approval to do so by the other member states (btw I do not know myself to what extent this happens to be the case), it is so not because of the need to observe the good manners of gentlemanly diplomacy, nor is it an act of fate, nor is it due to Jose Baroso's mood at a given moment. If it is true at all it is true because of current EU law. 
You may feel that those four words are already implied in the sentence. But because that additional phrase is the very crux of the UK's current relationship with the EU, it is a central point and should be stated. And it is a point that does not take two paragraphs to relate, only four words.
--longlivefolkmusic 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing to do with "POV"