Talk:British left

message: I'd like to replace this with a page boasting a better name (List of Left-Wing Parties in the United Kingdom or something of the like). Does anyone agree with me that this is required? The Last Melon 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a list of left-wing parties in the Political Parties of the UK page. I created this page so there could be a more descriptive entry of parties on the left in the UK. The list is lacking in information about them such as popularity and ideology.--Darrelljon 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another article comparing them (by votes, members, newspapers, roots, age) may be appropriate.--Darrelljon 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gramatically, though, "British left" leaves something to be desired. Even "British Left" would be slightly better. The Last Melon 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, beg pardon. You put in a '(formerly)'. Still, I think the article should reflect current positions. Asha28 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Neither are 'New Labour' to be honest. They have fallen FAR from the Socialist tree of late and I'd put them more slightly right of centre. (Run by millionaires, expenses scandals, cash for questions, corporate control, TUC corruption, etc.) 81.110.230.38 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When Labour added the "New" Labour they moved quite far to the right. While you can certainly show that the Corbyn era was a big jump left, it is back to the right with rather Conservative Sir Keir Starmer. By no definition are Labour currently a left wing party. 77.100.225.159 (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "British Left"

message: I've reverted these additions because the grammar is confusing, and due to the lack of cited sources, I can't figure out what the contributor meant. If someone understands what was meant, feel free to reintroduce the text with a different wording (citing sources would be helpful as well). -kotra (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusingly worded content removed 

message: Considering the number of polemical articles written, this section may be something of a mistake.  I propose simply removing it.  --Nixin06 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques section 

message: Delete or merge. Not sure this will ever be able to be kept substantially up-to-date without overlap with History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom.--Darrelljon (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: does socialism = left?  perhaps in the old days but not since the New Left of the 1960s  Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I support a merger of the two pages, if that's at all possible. Otherwise, just delete British left. I don't think the page really serves much purpose when we already have History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom. -- Zcbeaton (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me, however, I think it should be merged under the title "Biritish Left", considering that title is more encompassing of other leftist movements in the United Kingdom, such as, Anarchism, Communism, and Republicanism. Charles Essie (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary of the discussion: stale, with no discussion in almost 3 years. In 2013, there were two statemnts for merge or delete, one questioning the equivalence (presumably therefore no merge) and two for merge. However, both pages, particularly British Left have been extensively modified over the last 3 years, meaning the arguments made for a merge or deletion no longer seem valid. With about 19 article links to "British Left" and its common use, an AfD discussion would almost certainly be a speedy keep. A merge doesn't seem to work because of the breadth of meaning of British Left, which itself is part of the topic of the articles. Therefore, closing on the grounds of a stale proposal with no consensus. Klbrain (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete or merge

message: During a discussion about article scope at Talk:American Left#(After-the-fact sarcasm alert): This article's POV must be strengthened, the scope of this British Left article was mentioned as an example to follow which, of course, it isn't. I think I may have just channeled John Oliver. Oh well. Worse things could happen. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This way to appropriate mockery 

message: Aside from Labour, the biggest left-wing party is considered to be the Green Party. Presumably this refers to the Green Party of England and Wales (as opposed to the Scottish or Northern Ireland Greens) ? Do the Greens still reject conventional left/right labeling ? 94.1.28.200 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Party 

message: The History of split and splinters from the British Labour party is hardly as simple as the timeline suggests. There was the SDP in the 1980's an "Independent Labour Party" in the 1930's and many others. 94.1.28.200 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labour timeline 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Left. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720094419/http://cpgb.org.uk:80/home/weekly-worker/ to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is that timeline a screenshot of a table? Why not just use an actual table that you can click on? It's pretty bizarre. 94.173.197.120 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: LOL, who wrote this.  The "lowest share of seats since 1935" whilst technically true is a well known Centrist attack cliche.  In 1987 the Conservatives won a 102 seat majority (compared with 80 seat majority in 2019).  Labour's percentage share of the vote was also very slightly higher than in 2005.  Author is also keen to spin 2017 as a loss for the left, without mentioning that over 30 seats were gained confounding expectations of massive losses in the Labour establishment (20% behind in some opinion polls going into the election etc).  Most importantly it's not mentioned that nearly all of the seats lost in 2019 were in leave voting seats, with big swings to conservative in strong leave seats.  Trust me, the "get brexit done" effect was huge in some of these seats, and whilst the confetti-like delivery of manifesto policies may not have been great, it wasn't really mentioned on the doorstep a whole lot.  The assertion that GE2019 was lost because of the "Get Brexit Done" effect is surely a key side of the debate in any analysis of GE2019, I'm sure you can find people of that opinion to cite. 2A02:88FD:26:C:0:0:C0CA:C01A (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious bias 

message: Okay, I've tried multiple times to engage with User:31.125.85.48 on their talk page regarding their changes to this page and Neo-marxism. Other editors (@Saintstephen000 and @Matt Deres) have as well and we have receieved little response. I want to caution everyone involved about the three-revert rule but I do want to indicate that multiple editors have indicated they have issues with the IP editor's changes and have tried to communicate that to the editor. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If it continues to happen, I'm considering seeking a different venue to discuss these changes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

text: What issues do you have with additions I have made?  31.125.85.48 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing changes