Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 1

message: I think that there needs to be an explanation of the rightwards shift the Labour party has taken...ie, originally a party for the working class, now a party for business. It has cut links with Trade Unions, it has embraced the free-market, it has scrapped Clause IV (public ownership), and its privatisation and racist immigration policies are just simply not the policies of a "left-of-centre" party.
:Isn't it self-evident why they changed?!
Labour under Michael Foot simply weren't electable.  The manifesto for the 1983 general election was very hard-left and contributed to Thatcher's landslide that year.  Kinnock realised this and gradually changed the party's policies.  The 1992 manifesto was far more centrist than the 1983 one.  It's only under Blair that the New Labour ethos and revision of Clause IV comes into play. Lapafrax 19:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rightwards 

message: Why might it be a good idea? The page Christopher Hitchens contains the text:
:is younger brother, Peter Hitchens, who is also a journalist, author and critic, was initially also a leftist but later came to hold radically different, conservative, political opinions after several years spent reporting on the British Labour movement and British politics, followed by many assignments in Communist Eastern Europe and a period as a resident correspondent in Moscow at the end of the Soviet era.
It would cleraly be preferable to have a link to the British labour movement, rather than a phrase with a not entirely appropriate link to the Labour party embedded in it.
Proposal: we create a new page that is mostly history, and which up to The split under MacDonald substantially duplicates the content of this page, with some material drawn from the Fabian Society and Independent Labour Party articles. ---- Charles Stewart 09:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case for a new [[British labour movement]] article

message: I've been working all day fixing these articles Jack Cox 03:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think? 

message: Futurue leaders of the Labour Party (sic) is a recent new article that has been sitting around untouched for about three weeks now. It is short and utterly speculative (and thus implicitly POV) but nevertheless it is speculation that is bound to take place given Blair's stated intention not to continue as leader beyond the 2005 parliament. We can either VfD it or move it to a better-spelled title and merge-and-redirect, though I'm not sure what in it is worth merging. Is (speculation about) the future of the Labour leadership something Wikipedia should cover, if a suitably NPOV way to do so can be found? --rbrwr± 22:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, IMO it should only cover factual events or things.  An article concerning future Labour party leaders would simply be speculation and not anything based on fact. Lapafrax 22:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future leaders... 

message: I know Labour calls itself a democratic socialist party, and that would imply it is centre-left, but that isn't really the case - tuition fees, no high rate of tax for the rich, authoritarian law and order policies etc. I think this part of the article should be changed-it is a centralist party, not centre-left. And despite the party's constitution it is not in reality democratic socialist, it is at  the most a social democratic party. Deus Ex 18:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just edited the first two paragraphs and the template-box to reflect the dispute over Labour's political stance; previously there was no suggestion there that it could be anything other than left-wing or centrist which, given the number of those who consider it right-wing (as in fact was already suggested much later in the article), was not neutral. Just felt I ought to explain. Ou tis 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just edited the page again. The article in its current form once again gives strong preference to the notion that Labour is left-wing, which, given the number of people who think the opposite, is in direct violation of WP:NPOV and therefore totally unacceptable. I have: removed the "moderate" preceding "conservatism", since quite radical conservatism has also been suggested; changed the "ideology" in the infobox to simply Officially Democratic socialism ", which states the bare fact and leaves open the possibility that the party's official line is misleading without actually weighing in to the dispute (this is the most concisely neutral position I can think of); changed the "position" field to "Disputed", which is simply neutral and factually accurate. I am not starting an edit war: I agree, on reflection, with the removal of my addition to the "has historically been..." sentence (whose earlier part, I am pleased to say, was left intact) to the effect that its present state is disputed. But the things I have just corrected, particularly the unqualified claim in the infobox that Labour is on the centre-left, simply would not do under WP:NPOV. Ou tis 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Direct violation", "totally unacceptable", "simply would not do"?  Oh dear, oh dear, well thats certainly told me.  (Especially as you put some of it in bold face).  Were you by any chance a headmaster at a public school in a past life?  Seriously though, lighten up a little son.  Marcus22 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The media like the terms left, centre or right although they don't really have any meaning - more than anything they are an excuse for the media to waffle on about what left, centre and right mean without really saying anything and this ends up with discussions in which people sit around saying such and such a party or person is left, centre or right - rather saying that they were frequently described as being a left or centre left party as these terms do get used even though their links to how they were used in the French National Assembly are somewhat tenuos.  By no means though is Labour laissez faire or neoliberal and even the Thatcher administration was not - in the 1980's new regulation of the labour market slowed but drives to cut regulation notably under Michael Hestletines bonfire of regulations frequently ended up introducing more regulations, the Conservatives in the 1980's setup regulators and Labour has continued this process, public spending remained high although fluctuating, the Thatcher, Major and Blair governments all increased Health & Education spending - Labour has started reversing deregulation in bus and train services and came up with a scheme that transferred railway infrastructure to a not for profit company, the Labour government also acquired the Northern Line and has been increasing Health and Education spending to record proportions of GDP with massive public projects, Tax Credits, raising many benefit rates and easing much of the eligibility criteria (very much contrary to laissez-faire or neoliberalism)- they use more market orientated approaches but all 3 main parties still advocate extensive action by the state to provide a safety net and public services.--Lord of the Isles 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Centre-left?

message: I've rejiged the opening section to draw together the discussion about Labour's alleged ideological shift to the centre or centre right (including the party's own continuing self definition as dem soc) and have separated this from the section about its current status as part of govt and recent electoral performances.
I hope people agree this makes a bit more sense now, and reflects the full spectrum of opinion on where Labour has taken itself in the last few years.
OK with me. I'd say the below would be better in the infobox though:
Social Democratic
(party charter: Democratic Socialist)
-Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 19:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This compromise looks good; in addition, this is not long and descriptive. --Constanz - Talk 16:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New opening 

message: Curse your odd spelling of words!  I had to teach my spell checker that those were okay. :P --Kross 01:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Hmmm... The OED prefers -ize spellings, but in general -ise is preferred in the UK and should be followed in articles on UK topics. --rbrwr± 01:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed spelling 

message: I reverted back to 65.27.68.173's last edit, because 140.198.153.104 added a bunch of POV changes. Just because you don't like Labour or Blair doesn't mean you can or have to pseudo-vandalize a wiki article. --Kross 00:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC) 
: Nor vandalize the discussion pages of the same. Alan Davidson 18:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted POV edits 

message: Seems to be nothing in the article on the party's first decade or so. In particular, what were the circumstances of Labour's formation?
:Good idea - however, the first six years of the party's existence are covered (perhaps not in great enough detail as yet) by Labour Representation Committee - should the material from that article be merged into this one, I wonder, or just crossreferenced?  The Labour Party was founded as the LRC in 1900 and took its present name in 1906.  We also need to add to the article the party's stance (and divisions) during WWI, the position towards Communism, the writing of the party constitution in 1918, the Zinoviev Letter affair, and the General Strike.RichardQ 21:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much more early history please 

message: Blair has pursued war in Iraq; this is unpopular in the UK.
However, there is nothing in this article about this. Dogru144 7:57 30 July 2006 (UTC)
===Left critiques of Blair/ New Labour===
Blair, et al have been in charge since the 1990s.
Yet, there is only a fleeting mention of Kinnock as a left opponent of Blair's move to the right.
However, neither in this article, nor in the Kinnock article is there anything on whether Blair has challenged the right direction of New Labour and Blair.
Where is the discussion of current left opposition within the Labour Party against Blair?
Where is the discussion of the left opposition to Blair's war policy? Where is the discussion about left frustration over collaboration with Bush or question of negotiations re Lebanon war? Dogru144 7:57 30 July 2006 (UTC)
: This is an encyclopaedic entry about the Labour Party: not a running record of the whines and complaints from the perpetual oppositionists, masquerading as commentary. Alan Davidson 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More current history, please 

message: Blair, et al have been in charge since the 1990s.
Yet, there is only a fleeting mention of Kinnock as a left opponent of Blair's move to the right.
However, neither in this article, nor in the Kinnock article is there anything on whether Blair has challenged the right direction of New Labour and Blair.
Where is the discussion of current left opposition within the Labour Party against Blair?
Where is the discussion of the left opposition to Blair's war policy? Where is the discussion about left frustration over collaboration with Bush or question of negotiations re Lebanon war? Dogru144 7:57 30 July 2006 (UTC)
: This is an encyclopaedic entry about the Labour Party: not a running record of the whines and complaints from the perpetual oppositionists, masquerading as commentary. Alan Davidson 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Left critiques of Blair/ New Labour

message: I'm sure i remember putting up the two old Labour logos on the page yesterday. Perhaps i didn't and only pressed preview because i couldn't find it in 'my contributions' as having updated the page.
Or perhaps they got they got deleted, i don't know.
I'm going to put them on (again?), just in case i did actually forget to save the page, but if they were deleted, i'll understand if they get removed again, no worries :)
Kristallstadt 14:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Logos 

message: Hello,
I already have a Labour history website which I would like to move somewhere on a more permanent basis. Currently it sits at http://labhist.tripod.com
I'd like to move the site onto Wikipedia if possible, but do others agree that it would be a useful appendix to the brief, but excellent history already here?
Regards
No! its too much detail and dross!
Hayday 07:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of Labour History 

message: There doesn't seem to be much info on their current potential problems viz-a-viz their secret loans which have to be repaid and according to some media reports could potentially bankcrupt the party Nil Einne 10:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current problems 

message: (From New Labour, In Government) "Consequently one of the most popular policies introduced was Britain's first National Minimum Wage Act, a policy negotiated by Labour's affiliated trade unions in return for accepting the change to Clause IV of the party constitution." Is this right? I thought the old unions used to be opposed to a statutory minimum wage (since it involves government legislation doing the unions' job of wage bargaining, further weakening the trade union movement) - this is why the "Old" Labour governments never introduced a NMW. Does anyone have a citation that shows the NMW to be a union-led policy rather than a Labour-led one? - Modernway 15:54, 17 August 2006
:As a policy the National Minimum Wage was in the 1992 Labour manifesto (The TUC adopted it as policy in the 1980's but Labour was unsure and it was only right at the end of the 1980's that it was adopted as a party policy - it was then set at half male manual earnings - this was then altered under Tony Blair to a promise to introduce it at a rate that would be fair but not so high as to damage economic growth and it was pledged that the rate would only be introduced after consultation and the way it would be introduced would be decided only after such consultation, the Minimum Wage that would have been introduced under Labour proposals in 1992 if they had won would have been £3.40 an hour .--Lord of the Isles 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum wage 

message: "its first election victory in 18 years since 1979"
As the Labour Party did not win the 1979 general election this is a bit misleading, 1997 was actually their first victory since 1974. Although 1979 was the last time they were in power I think this quote should be removed or amended to say something like "returned it to office for the first time since 1979/after 18 years" or "its first election victory in 18 years since it's defeat in 1979" for example. Benson85 01:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election victory 

message: I suggest that First Labour Government be merged into Labour Party (UK) as it's title doesn't state which country it is referring to and is probably better not to have a seperate article, particularly as Labour Party (UK) already has a section on it. --BigChicken 10:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger from First Labour Government