Talk:Third Way/Archive 1

message: "Why it is that the latter run consistent trade surpluses, while the former run consistent trade deficits, so that it would appear that it is free-market economies, not well-regulated economies, that have trouble competing, is a problem that is never addressed."
I agree with the point but the wording is too POV. - Aaron Hill 07:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Too POV

message: Mussolini's Third Way is mistakenly defined as a centrist policy in this article. As we know, the term 'Third Way' has been applied to more than one spot on the political spectrum (see Third Way (France), Third Position, Third Way (UK), and so on and so forth, ad nauseam), thus there is room for misinterpretation. To quote from the source used as reference to present Mussolini as a centrist third way politician: 
Bull, this is exactly what Fascism claimed to be. There is nothing new in the concept of "Radical Center" or "Third Way". 
It was what Mussolini and the Italian Fascist used to describe Fascism, after they split from the Socialists. Ditto National Socialism, not "Marxist Socialism, nor Capitalism.  
Anyone espousing this bears watching, closely. 108.241.120.20 
(talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref specifically cites Barack Obama as third way. I'm in Australia, and even I know the primaries are over. Get over it, now. Timeshift (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, we Americans have a long standing love for outsider accounts of our politics, from de Tocqueville to Christopher Hitchens, so feel free. We'll still let you know when we think you're wrong, of course. For instance, I added more on the Obama debate below, you might want to give it a read. :) --Thomas B♘talk 12:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mussolini removed from list 

message: The so called third way is an ideology which had a tremendous effect on the policies of centre-left governments around the world for the last two decades yet the examples given of their actions are pretty minimal. I added a pretty substantive section about the history of "third way" politics in both the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party I feel that it gives better insight into the kinds of policies adherents to the third way usually advocate and what effects they have had. I think a much more informative section should be devoted to explain the policies of Tony Blair and his so called New Labour government as they were also very influential, not just on Britain but much of the western world, for better of worse.  (Canadianpunk77 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detail is needed 

message: A typical Labor government in Australia, driven by factionism to throw the nations money at endless social agendas. In no way Centrist whatsoever.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.86.232 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd 

message: does anyone know sources about Blair and his third way?
Blair's Third Way is inspired from the theories of Anthony Giddens, British sociologist, from works like Beyond Left and Right (1994) and further works questioning the nature of modernity. To be honest, that was what I was expecting to find in greatest detail in this page since it is the most popular incarnation of Third Way politics (although some might say that it is arguably Continental European corporatism). Third Way (disambiguation) contains more information on Blair's Third Way and Anthony Giddens than the article it directs to, which is ridiculous. By the way Third Way and centrism are not the same and I'm uncertain if Giddens would appreciate that. Jeshmir (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Blair 

message: Probably not a good idea, third way is much broader, radical centrism is only one of the many variations of it. Besides, both articles are long enough to merit their own article space. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Radical Middle]] merge? 

message: I think not. He, if anything was a Liberal(in the American sense) and had to contend with a Conservative Congress. Thus he was forced to moderate his views.--68.81.205.212 13:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to make judgements. Gough Whitlam didn't implement left wing economic policies (infact he slashed tariffs by 25 percent across the board after 23 years of Labor being in opposition) yet I wouldn't for one second call him Third Way. Yet i'd apply that to Hawke and Keating. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, you get no arguments from me on that. But I am not really talking any longer about who should be regarded as thirdway and who should not. My initial point was simply that who is centrist and who is not is always going to be a very highly debated (to the point that it is nearly unresolvable) issue because of the fact that this middle ground is such valuable territory to occupy in politics. I would like to have more in this article that makes reference to the fact that it is far more important to Blair, Clinton, Rudd that they be perceived as "centrists" than any policy reality. They may or may not be centrists but the perception of their position doesn't necessarily have to exactly match the reality. We can start by finding a reference that talks about how thirdway or centrist politicians are, in the recent politics of the developed world, highly highly highly electable. From there we can go on to say that as a result of this, debate over who is thirdway and who is not will naturally be highly contested. Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Clinton, a Centrist? 

message: She's what is discribed here at wiki as a democratic socialist (with an arguement for social democrat), and definetly not a centrist! Every election she ran on she kept redefining what was "rich" in Canada. I believe she started at $60,000/yr and by her last election she worked her way down to $40,000/yr (and the avg wage in Canada is around $32-35k). She never fought for decentralizing anything, and only gave lip service to fair trade when it became the new "thing" for socialists to attack free trade with. Quite literally, she had fought against free-trade her whole time as leader then some musician (maybe Bono) says the term Fair Trade, and suddenly the next day she admits Free-trade is okay.. when it's fair trade. Ah.
She should be removed in this list. Just because she was a socialist party leader during the Clinton/Blair years doesn't make her politics the same.
It's interesting though that to many in her own party her views were seen as being rather centre-left and close to those of Tony Blair. That uneasiness over her political position was one of the catylists that forced her from the leadership in 2003 and brought Jack Layton to power. After which he promised to keep the NDP away from the "mushy middle". (Canadianpunk77 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa McDonough, a Centrist? No, no, no... 

message: This article misses the point--Third Way is more than centrism or a compromise: It values a smart and effective integration of Left and Right politics. 
Centrism is usally associated with watering down or compromise: Third Way is, at least in it's intentions, not this-- it's an integration that creates an entirely new entity with strong values placed on effectiveness as well as social progress- free market and social responsibility working together rather than as they have been traditionally polarized-- and therefore eternally at odds with each other.  Avoiding the paralysis of polarization, Third Way instead marries Left and Right into a hybrid politics of social responsibility and economic practicality, with a great deal of focus on practical application. 
72.16.201.2 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Third Way is a centrist political ideology that, at least from a traditional social democratic perspective, usually stands for deregulation, decentralisation and lower taxes.
Why is this "Third Way"? Isn't this just "Conservative"? I honestly cannot tell from the article what would distinguish the two. Someone help me out. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but what separates this from being "conservative", or maybe what's now being called "paleo-conservative"? Is it the fact that some liberals don't want the conservative label? If you really aren't sure, is there someone else who may be able to help? And thank you nonetheless. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I think I can see that. And I suppose this is only referring to the economy and size of government, and not social issues, where people may still be liberal or conservative. Thanks for your help. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually the welfare state is the Third way.  The ulimate aim of democratic socialism was not the welfare state.  It was the complete nationalization of the whole economy so that the means of production were controlled by the state.  After the fall of communism people realized socialism wasn't working.  The solution:  keep the free market economic system but temper it with a social safety net and extensive regulation.  This is of course exactly what was happening already.  However it marked a significant ideological shift.  Up till this point all social democratic parties in Europe had been committed to achieving complete nationalization of the economy (at least in theory).  The third way was simply a matching of the ideological ideas of democratic socialism to the actual reality.  I don't consider this ideologically bankrupt.  As a matter of fact I consider all other ideas to be far more ideologically bankrupt since they have no relation to reality.
Your concept of the welfare state as the third way is flawed, especially since it (the welfare state) developed mainly in the era where communism was thriving, not after the fall of communism. But I see where you were coming from, however you seem to be describing Scandinavian Social Democracy. Jeshmir (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain? 

message: In order to include this we need a verifyable authoritative/reliable source that links the image to the article topic. WAS 4.250 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even show up correctly for me... I only see a transparent square. —Nightstallion (?) 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: I'm all for incorporating negative perspectives, but right now the "criticism" section citing Somchai Phatharathananunth is almost as long as the rest of the article!  Could someone (ideally more neutral than I) see if it could be trimmed down? Thanks. Drernie 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a rewrite of the criticism section. It was extremely difficult, mainly because the person who originally contributed the information failed to provide some key points of the arguments of Somchai and instead went on to describe in detail, the workings of a liberal capitalist state - which for Somchai and the contributor were somewhat less than good! I briefly glanced at his book in my uni library and have to say its more a general criticism of Thailands democracy than anything serious about Third Way governance. Anyway I have tried to summarise his only argument in regards to Third Way, in that it encourages social movements to support human rights abuses - a poor argument (with very little support) in the first place, however I think the edit is neutral, especially since I have given a criticism of Somchai to balance the paragraph - namely that his example is limited only to Thailand. Feel free to edit if its still too long etc LordHarris 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your making it more NPOV. My larger concern is that it mostly seems a criticism of Thailand, without any strong tie to the rest of the article.  Plus, it is still painfully long. I'd be tempted to replace it with 1-2 sentences summarizing his argument (with a citation), and perhaps a link to Human_rights_in_Thailand, which seems a more appropriate venue for these facts. But, I don't know if that is just my bias. Anyone else have an opioion?Drernie 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree, it is mostly a criticism of Thailand. To be honest I dont think its entirely relevant to this article and from the brief glance at the book - his ideas dont seem mainstream enough to be a critcism of the theory across the board. In many ways it might be best to delete the whole thing - unless someone wants to summarise it more concisely etc.LordHarris 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somchai Phatharathananunth? 

message: There is obviously no perfect agreement on what the "third way" constitutes, but for a century or more it has been understood by many to mean a mixed economy. On this basis it has been criticized by many capitalist intellectuals. In the Criticism section I have cited a few of those critics. Nicmart 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The critcism section is massive compared to the rest of the article - theres barely an information on what third way actually is, how its implemented, policies/lawsetc. Instead we have a large criticism section of a subject thats barely explained in the first place. Perhaps you would care also to expand some of the ideas on what third way is? As Im no expert on the subject. LordHarris 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point. The criticism section isn't too large, but the rest of the article needs some fleshing out. It's a bit confused on what even constitutes the "third way." Nicmart 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining "third way" 

message: This article really should focus much more on what the Third Way actually is, rather than on examples and criticisms. Only the first paragraph offers any sort of description, and that is incredibly brief and vague. It could be used to describe any Centrist philosophy or ideal, and there is nothing in the article that actually distinguishes the Third Way from those other centrist philosophies. I'd like to know more about Third Way to find out whether or not it is similar to my own ideals, but there just isn't enough information in this article. Uniqueuponhim 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a coherent definition of third way that can be separated from examples. From my sense, it just describes politicians who move parties historically on "the left" of their nation's relative political spectrum to "the right". Canadianism (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ''is'' the third way? 

message: "...funding cuts led to a massive decline in the quality of healthcare services..." (under 'Canada'): this needs verification and, especially, citation.  I am neither pro- nor con-Liberal, but this is clearly POV.  What is 'massive'?  20%, 80%, 8%?  How is 'decline' defined?  Was there, say, an 18.2% increase in average wait times for hip-surgery for person aged 45-65 (as a fictitious example)?  And if so, was this perhaps happening G8-wide and had nothing to do with domestic political policies?  In fact, how is 'quality' of health-care even defined, anywhere, let alone here?
If studies themselves can not be referenced, at least statistical reports should be, such as those issued by Statistics Canada.  Failing that, references should noted to articles on quality of health-care, published in major Canadian newspapers during the time-period being referenced here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikokan (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I'm thinking it's better than rather add individual leaders of parties, we should be adding simply the parties. In the 21st century, it's obvious that the major centre-left parties of first world countries have all moved further to the right to the point of third-wayism. Australian and UK Labor, US Democrats, not familiar with Canada but i'd presume so, etc etc. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead of article 

message: Does anyone have a reference for the following: Robert Putnam, Ian Winter (Latham cites Winter's "Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia" on p. 13 of the Latham diaries), and Mark Lyon are amongst a range of academics who have recently contributed key academic theory on the subject. Before adding it back to the article, can someone please add a citation and also explain the latter section - who is Latham, what does page 13 of his diary have to do with Third Way. Are these significant academics with published works - if so lets establish their notability. Thanks.  LordHarris 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: This is just a new name for a thousands year old idea that rejects the extreme positions that claim it is useful to maximize government control or minimize government control over the economy. See Mixed economy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Mixed Economy" is a descriptive term while "Third Way" is a normative stance, but you're right to note the similarities. --Thomas B♘talk 11:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed economy 

message: Would it be too far fetched to say that the reason why anti-status quo (e.g.: communist) revolutions never occurred in North America and Western Europe, is EXACTLY due to the Third Way? For example, governments and companies began to yield to labour unions, rather than trying to squish them?24.80.236.14 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Way as they key reason why anti-status quo revolutions never took place in Western Europe and North America 

message: One of the links towards the end of the article reads second way, but goes to second world. Is this intended as a joke or is it correct, and if so should the context of the link make it more obvious it is correct. (The joke I am assuming is that if Second way = second world then presumably Third way = third world, as some sort of imputation that Third Way politics is going to end in economic disaster somehow) --86.128.12.102 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second way = second world? 

message: The "Third Way" means something different in Europe than it does in the US because the center of European politics is much to the left of the center in US politics. Bill Clinton's "Third Way" was not a path between socialism and capitalism--only right-wing propaganda asserts that.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page makes too many generalizations 

message: I first came across the term Third Way describing a trend of thought that sought to find a more radical democratic socialist position between social democracy and communism.
As I remember it it overlapped with elements of the Eurocommunism and was heavily influenced by the possibilites opened up by the reforms in the Soviet Union under Gorbachev.
It does not belong in this article but I feel in the absence of an article on the topic a note clarifying the difference would be helpful.
--Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 11:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Way Socialism? 

message: I see the UK section cites devolution to Scotland and Wales as an example of a Third Way policy.  How can this possibly be, when it was a long-standing Labour commitment that Blair simply inherited, and that had been supported by every party leader since Harold Wilson?  By all accounts Blair was not even particularly enthusiastic about it, but he realised he had no choice.  I don't really see what devolution has got to do with the left-right spectrum anyway - it's about decentralisation and perhaps about small 'n' nationalism, but it could just as easily be implemented by a socialist, conservative or centrist government. Sofia9 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devolution in the UK 

message: None of the source call the "Third Way Centrism, although centrism is a possible third way, e.g., the German Centre Party was seated between Conservatives and Liberals.  Could someone please provide a source for including centrism in the title.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centrism 

message: The article about Obama being a "third way" President was written the day after election day and it is now clear to everyone in America that he has his own left-leaning political views. No one can dispute that, and your only fooling people who read this article by including the link. Let people embrace his left wing views or attack it instead of hiding them to the rest of the world by calling them "third way".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.64.35 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you're so right wing you consider anyone who isn't a communist, that doesn't mean they actually are. --DraconianDebate (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama AGAIN 

message: "The financial crisis of 2008 has demonstrated that Third Way economic policies, as fundamentally neoliberal as they are, could not weather the global economic collapse, further discrediting the movement as a true 'third alternative' to traditional right and left ideologies." has been removes from this article for violating NPOV guidelines, and for not having a source as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DraconianDebate (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst you're right, WP:OR is the key issue more than WP:NPOV. Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant disregard of NPOV guidelines 

message: *Keynesian economics, Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini
keynes(1930´s) was a plagiarist of mussolini(1920´s)..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  it´s center-left and not "third way" 

message: The dictionary defines it as a political policy that is neither Socialist nor Conservative, but combines aspects of free-market capitalism with egalitarian social aims. 
It is capitalist and not socialist so it doesnt advocate the state owning the mean of production. I understand that but what does not conservative mean and what does egalitarian social aims mean?
Is it social justice capitalism? Welfare capitalism? Neo-liberalism economically and liberal socially? 
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a novice to this word I do not understand so perhaps more details are needed. 

message: I propose to merge Third Way social democracy into this article. It is not clear how these two topics are distnct, as most literature uses them interchangeably and mostly as one topic. It is theory construction (WP:OR) to make two topics out of it. RJFF (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Merge the articles. Dnm (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: yes merge. "Third Way" is generally explained as a centrist development within Social Democracy in the 1990es.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Disagree. Third Way social democracy is distinct from Third Way liberalism in the United States. Third Way social democracy declares itself to be socialist (Tony Blair has called it "ethical socialism") while Third Way liberalism supports reformed capitalism.--R-41 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comment: You know that we write Wikipedia from a neutral POV. It is not relevant how the actors and protagonists (e.g. Blair) see the issue themselves, but how independent, third-party scholars analyse and assess it. --RJFF (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are insinuating that Blair could be dishonest when he calls what he advocates "ethical socialism". You need reliable sources to demonstrate this. Also remember, that discussion at the Socialism talk page and at a neutrality discussion board, has not yet been able to arrive at an encompassing definition of socialism - what is known is that encompassing definition of socialism is not the common stereotypical definition of public ownership of the means of production - because the original socialists Saint Simon and Fourier never advocated that, and modern socialists like anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe have advocated a socialist form of private property.--R-41 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that you had edited for quite some time and would know Wikipedia guidelines. We adher to NPOV and persons tied to the subject or actors of a movement (like Blair) are first-party, and never independent third-party sources, no matter whether we believe them to be honest or not. This has nothing to do with honesty, but only with POV, because the description of political ideologies and currents is not an exact, natural science, and there is no absolute truth here. --RJFF (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  I don't want to argue about the definition of socialism with you, but about whether or not Third Way social democracy and this article treat basically one and the same topic. And the sources indicate so. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  R-41, as you have started the article Third Way social democracy, you are basically its sole editor, and you are the only to oppose the merger, could you please explain what - in your view - is the topic of that article, what is the topic of this article (Third way (centrism)), how can the two be delimited, and why is it untenable to merge the two? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all "Third Way (centrism)" is an inaccurate name for the article. The movement is led by centre-left progressives. A more accurate name would be "Third Way (centre-left)" If it is going to be included, it has to account for the variation of economic policy positions between the social liberal Democratic Party of the United States under Clinton and the social democratic and liberal socialist Labour Party of the United Kingdom under Blair. Their policies are related but distinct, Clinton officially supports capitalism, Blair officially supports ethical socialism. The Labour Party openly supports a greater sphere of public enterprise in the economy than the Democratic Party of the US does. They both agree upon centre-left, fiscally responsible progressive politics.--R-41 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please get me right: just because some supporters of Third Way have a social-democratic background, and others don't, it is not two distinct topics. Third Way basically is a variant of social democracy, so there is no point in having an extra article on Third Way social democracy. It is quite redundant. If we have an article on Third Way social democracy, then what is the topic of this article? --RJFF (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I support a merge. Seems silly having this article; Third Way is a type of social democracy. --Peter (Talk page) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of the article could be easily incorporated into the United Kingdom section of this article, which is lacking currently. --Peter (Talk page) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree to a merger if the article is appropriately renamed Third Way (centre-left politics) and that the intro be specific that Third Way is about centre-left progressivism.--R-41 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who holds you from editing the intro and posting a move request? But this has nothing to do with the merger discussion. The only question in the merger discussion is whether or not both articles cover one and the same subject that should be treated in one article. And this is the case. --RJFF (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text:  PS: I would say that the bracket title is unnecessary as this is the primary topic - 29,290 views in the last 3 months vs. 916 for Third Way (India) + 386 for Third Way (France) + 641 for Third Way (Israel) + 1,064 for Third Way (Palestinian Authority) + 1,826 for Third Way (UK) + 1,095 for Ulster Third Way + 117 for The Third Way community + 1,339 for Third Way Magazine + 2,598 for Third Way (think tank) = 9,982 for all other articles together. So this articles gets viewed three times as often as all other articles under this title together. This indicates that this is the primary topic. --RJFF (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I would support a move to Third Way, as this is the primary topic. This also has the bonus of not immediately labeling Third Way as either centre-left or centrist. An adequate hat note link would be: . Simple. -- Peter Talk page 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: *The third way transformation of social democracy: normative claims and policy initiatives in the 21st century. Oliver Schmidtke Ashgate, 2002 - 252
*The third way: the renewal of social democracy. Anthony Giddens. Wiley-Blackwell, 1998
*Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way. Flavio Romano. Routledge.
* Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century. Steve Bastow, James Martin. Edinburgh University Press, jun 1, 2003·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: As I have noted earlier, Third Way is promoted as a centre-left progressive doctrine by its adherents. It is a response to the neoliberal monetarist condemnation of state interventionist economics. Therefore I am supporting that it be renamed (and in affect on Wikipedia, moved to) "Third Way (centre-left)".--R-41 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Third Way (centre-left)" 

message: Third Way (centrism) →  –
I propose that this article is simply moved to Third Way. As discussed, "the third way" can just as easily be described as cente-left, even if it is intended to be a compromise between capitalism and socialism. Simply be titled as Third Way leaves a lot more room for a discussion of what this means and I'd hope the article can be edited to explain this.
A quick Google search of the term shows that this article tops the results, followed by a BBC news article on the ideology and after that a link to the UK political party. Using stats, it is clear that this article is by far the most visited (compare 10,000+ views to the 222 views that the mentioned UK party's article got last month ). It seems unnecessarily cumbersome to have a postfix added after the title when this article is by far the most visited. 
I also propose adding to this article a hatnote similar to:
The last link would be the current Third Way article renamed. 
I hope other users will agree that a rename is needed. -- Peter Talk to me 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Third Way is capitalised as a common noun. Somewhat comparable to "New Deal". See:
*What is the Third Way? - BBC
*The Third Way - Guardian
*Neoliberalism, the Third Way and Social Work: the UK Experience.
All use "Third Way", capitalised, throughout.
Additional citations in the article use capitalisation. And Giddens (the man who effectively coined the phrase) titled his book "The Third Way:
The Renewal of Social Democracy" -- Peter Talk to me 20:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article 

message: I understand that this talk page is not really in use (although it's an oversophisticated thing for me why), but i just have to add a few thoughts, hoping there are people following this page.The whole discussion seems to be quite speculative. The tendency is not having basic knowledge about third way, and it has an extremely narrow and partisan (leftist) bias.Third way is a rich and incoherent field, consult Steve Bastow, James Martin (2003): Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century, Edinburgh University Press  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.36.175 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  left-right dimension and third way