Talk:Labour Party (UK)

Keir Starmer as authoritarian

I reverted an edit (@Helper201) that describes Starmer as authoritarian that has now been un-reverted. I thought it would probably be best to discuss here than start an edit war. Here's the edit for reference:

He has been accused of being authoritarian during his leadership of the Labour Party, such as via not committing to overturn the Conservative Party’s anti-protest bill and via intolerance for dissent within the Labour Party; the latter of which has also been described as "anti-democratic and above all illiberal".

References

I reverted this on the basis that:

• This section counts as a WP:BLP, even if the article in entirety isn't: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia".
• That the description of 'authoritarian' is especially contentious and must be well justified as a WP:BLP.
• The sources used have an anti-Starmer slant and are all opinion sources.
• That undue weight has been given to the claims by relying only on such sources, and has not demonstrated that they have received enough media attention for them to deserve such weight.
• No balance has been given to these claims, though I myself have struggled to find any record of Starmer responding to claims of authoritarianism (maybe because they have not received significant attention...).

I would like to open up whether this sentence should remain, for discussion. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@SoThisIsPeter of course he's authoritarian, all the major parties in England are. 109.170.181.75 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

considering the purges he's made as Leader of the Labour Party and discrediting or removing 'left wing' members in the party, I think Starmer can be characterized as authoritarian 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:B1D5:B441:2AA4:5BF5 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Having four reliable sources for something is enough for inclusion.
• Only 2 of the 4 are in any way classified as opinion pieces and that doesn't mean they can't be used, so long as they aren't making factual statements. The Wiki text added clearly states this is an accusation, therefore complying with WP:RSOPINION.
• 4 sources is plenty of weight. All the sources are reliable and each of the 4 sources have their own Wikipedia page, which requires notability to exist
• If you want to add some balance in then please expand upon this rather than removing it. Take this away and the only thing that even boarders on anything like resembling criticism is the sentence prior to this one about purges. Literally the whole of the rest of the section is unbalanced in a pro or at least uncritical direction of the Starmer era.

Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I accept that the articles are reliable, however they must be regarded as biased sources of opinion given they related solely to claims. They do not demonstrate that these claims are widespread enough to warrant the weight given. Evidence of more widespread coverage of these claims in mainstream outlets would demonstrate this. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Only 2 of the 4 are classed anywhere on them as being in an opinion section or anything similar. It is fine to include statements of opinion as long as they aren't classed as fact, see: WP:RSOPINION. That's why the wording was very specifically and deliberately "has been accused of". I'd certainly say 4 sources saying the same thing is widespread enough for the inclusion of one sentence mid-article. It’s not like a whole paragraph is being made of this or that is placed in the prominence of the article's opening. Helper201 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Socalism ideology

It seems bizare that Democratic Socalism is listed as an ideolgy of the Labour Party (as a whole and not just a faction) while parties that seem clearly more left wing than the present iteration of Labour like PSOE and Workers' Party (Brazil) are only categorised as Social Democrats. 2A00:23C7:D1A5:1501:859F:1739:E013:5A3B (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There's already a discussion going on about this - see above. Also the Workers' Party of Brazil does have democratic socialism listed as one of its ideologies. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Socialist, democratic socialist and social democratic are synonyms, although some writers use the terms to distinguish the degree of commitment to socialism. There's also a difference in national usage: Labour calls itself democratic socialist, the Socialist Party of France calls itself socialist, while the Social Democratic Party of Germany calls itself social democratic. But the three parties share the same ideology. TFD (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, if we look at the page for the Peruvian party APRA(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Popular_Revolutionary_Alliance), it is considered a centre right party despite nominally calling itself a social democratic one because of its shift to neoliberalism under Alan Garcia's second presidency. Labour under Starmer has followed a similar path, so its not just the ideology I'd say needs changing, the political position does too. Tomwikiman (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I know what we can do! Maybe instead of removing it, why not this why?

Social democracy

Factions:

Democratic socialism

We have a win-win situation now. Anyone that agrees with this reply "I" or "Support". 174.135.36.220 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism depends on whether we are talking about the UK and France or German, Russia or Sweden. Democratic socialism, as defined by Tony Blair, is the official ideology of the Labour Party.

There is no faction of the Labour Party called Democratic Socialism. If I am wrong, can you tell me who its leaders or spokespersons are? TFD (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Socialist Campaign Group is the democratic socialist faction of Labour Party. also, I was talking about Labour Party of the United Kingdom. We can also do this:

Centre-left

Factions:

Left-wing 174.135.36.220 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

They and reliable sources do not call them "democratic socialist," but socialist. Presumably they do not want to be identified with the Blairites' "democratic socialism." TFD (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Painting all types of socialist ideologies as the same does not make any sense. Anarchists, Leninists, Marxists, state libertarians, and syndicalists are all generally considered socialists (ignoring how fascism developed out of the trade union movement in countries like Spain, Italy, and Portugal), but besides their end goal they don't often share much together in terms of practice.

Social Democracy being considered socialist or capitalist is still an ongoing debate in real life, journals, books, as well as Wikipedia, so it's description as a democratic socialist party - especially during and after Keir Starmer's leadership and those leadership decisions - could be misleading to readers who just want a basic overview on the subject.

If I knew nothing about Labour and was told they are a democratic socialist party I would assume they are Marxists who disagree with the USSR. If you told me they were social democrats I would assume they are centre-left to right and believe in an extensive welfare system as well as nationalising large parts or a majority of industry (like Britain post-war) EnbyEditor (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• While Keir Starmer has certainly moved Labour substantially to the right, Labour still defines itself as "a democratic socialist party" AusLondonder (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

AusLondonder in words, yes, in actions, no. Helper201 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a simple fix which other pages have done and I'm curious as to why it hasn't been done here as well (+ for the Swedish Social Democratic Party too).

New Zealand Labour Party:

"The party's platform programme describes its founding principle as democratic socialism, while observers describe Labour as social-democratic."

Labour Party (Malta):

"Ideologically, the party was orientated towards democratic socialism and other left-wing stances until the early 1990s, when it followed the lead of like-minded Western social-democratic parties like Britain's New Labour. The party still claims to be democratic-socialist in their party programme. Under the rule of Joseph Muscat, the party shifted to a more centrist position, adopting Third Way policies."

Israeli Labor Party:

"While originally a democratic socialist party, Labor has evolved into a programme that supports a mixed economy with strong social welfare programmes."

Labour Party (Ireland):

"...it describes itself as a "democratic socialist party" in its constitution."

Australian Labor Party:

"The Whitlam Labor government, marking a break with Labor's socialist tradition, pursued social-democratic policies rather than democratic socialist policies." and "Labor's constitution has long stated: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields" ... Labor governments have not attempted the "democratic socialisation" of any industry since the 1940s, when the Chifley government failed to nationalise the private banks, and in fact have privatised several industries such as aviation and banking."

Social Democratic Party of Germany:

"The party platform of the SPD espouses the goal of democratic socialism, which it envisions as a societal arrangement in which freedom and social justice are paramount. According to the party platform, political freedom, justice and social solidarity form the basis of social democracy."

All of these parties listed don't have democratic socialism in their infoboxes. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that explains the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy? AFAIK, social democracy is the description most favoured in Germany, Sweden and (historically) Russia. Hence, the communist party in Russia was originally called the "Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks)." TFD (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Absoulety!  Let me explain: The difference between democratic socialism and social democracy12is that social democracy seeks to reform capitalism and make it more democratic and egalitarian, while democratic socialism seeks to replace capitalism with a socialist planned economy12. Social democracy accepts some aspects of capitalism, while democratic socialism rejects it entirely [2].

Note that some Democratic socialist like Julia Salazar think reforming is the answer. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? The page you linked states: "Salazar characterizes democratic socialists as those who recognize capitalism to be an inherently oppressive and exploitative system and who actively work to dismantle it in favor of a socialist economic system." In fact, in the source in that article, she distinguishes herself from people who simply want to reform capitalism: "A progressive [as opposed to a democratic socialist] will stop short at proposing reforms that help people but don’t necessarily transform the system." RadioAlloy (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

“It Really Comes Down to Empowering the Working Class” (jacobin.com)

Maybe make democratic socialism on Labour's template as faction. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

By source for the distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism, I meant a reliable source, not another Wikipedia article or Stack Exchange answer.

There is a long tradition of socialists, from Ferdinand Lassalle, Eduard Bernstein, Friedrich Ebert and Willi Brandt to Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee and Tony Blair in the UK to Francois Mitterand in France to leave capitalism intact. Even Communist successor parties in Eastern Europe have made no efforts to replace capitalism once they took office. Even the chavistas, who call themselves democratic socialists have left capitalism in place. TFD (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, If you read through my whole comment you'd see that I did also refer to the source linked on that page, not just the page itself. RadioAlloy (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I'm not sure if you were actually replying to me. I find talk pages hard to read when there's lots of branches in parallel. RadioAlloy (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, we don't need to discuss what democratic socialism and social democracy are. We just need to describe the party the way secondary reliable sources do. Both labels are used in academic and news sources. Any decision about how we balance those labels needs to be based on the balance of coverage in secondary reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah...Let just keep the Labour Party's ideologies box on how it is.  :/ 174.135.36.220 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What sources actually call Labour centre-left in 2024? That's the real issue I see. I think there is common concensus that Labour is absolutely centrist at least and that Starmer is centre-right, with the whole party trending very much centre-right too. Many sources are calling the Labour Party centre-right and the policies reflect this such as promising no income tax hike, possible austerity, low public spending etc (Reeves has said all this in the past few weeks). Feedtherooks (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The socialist campaign group is significantly smaller than what it was under Corbyn due to Starmer's purges. I think there is a right wing element within the party, but only to Corbyn's right, many of Starmer's allies supported Owen Smith for leadership. They're not "right wing" in the way a Republican politician is right wing, they're closer to Third way European 'social democrats' like Olaf Scholz, or Francois Hollande than any left-wing political figure like Jean Luc Melenachon, Die Linke or other left-populist parties such as Podemos/Sumar who I would argue are way more closer to Corbyn (or even Michael Foot) for that matter. There's also the fact his leadership has absorbed some elements of Blue Labour, as well as his incoming government containing a number of high profile Blairites -- there has clearly been a synthesis between the Blue Labour groups and Blairites -- Starmer's Labour may have more in common with Olaf Scholz and to a lesser extent Macron (this is merely speculation) but the direction of the Labour party has clearly steered towards neoliberal economic reform, and appeasement of the British right on social issues (Starmer visiting the Jesus House Church in Brent Cross) as well as his rhetoric on trans rights being questionable at best

https://www.ft.com/content/b574f37c-7ff8-4e16-a5e8-88d31fafd0d4

https://labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-manifesto-2024-summary-keir-starmer/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/06/starmer-won-shifting-right-labour-left-wilderness-hope

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/starmer-welcomes-right-wing-tory-labour

https://unherd.com/newsroom/keir-starmer-finally-goes-blue-labour/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-keir-starmer-found-the-sweet-spot-in-british-politics/

It is not uncommon for socialist or social democratic parties to contain right wing figures or elements, see Robert Fico in Slovakia or Sahra Wagenknecht's Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht furthermore there is a tendency among centrist to appeal to right wing voters or concede to their electoral demands. Starmer's campaign has scrapped the Rwanda plan but will be all the more happy to engage with rhetorical and political attacks against immigrants, such as their proposed creation of a Border Force which sounds like a concession to the Reform/Tory voter demographic more than anything else. 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:E924:E768:E7BA:300F (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Centre-left"

Isnt it time to change this to something aligned with reality? Many sources quote Labour being at the very least centrist if not centre - right / right wing. Frankly I can't think of anything centre - left about Labour anymore as they are largely against public spending and are trending toward austerity listening to Reeves. Feedtherooks (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The current sources are largely all 2015.

Today, a very large amount of sources quote Labour as a centre-right party or centre party, specifically calling starmer right leaning in various terms. Labour has also said they won't be raising income tax, may do public spending cuts and they are welcoming Tory MPs to join while not allowing Diane Abbott etc back even though she was cleared.

Furthermore, Starmer constantly talks about how Labour has changed economically and one of the deflectors to Labour from the Tories even said he did it because the Tories aren't centre-right anymore.

Quite simply I think centre-left is just inaccurate now in any context, they don't sit in the centre left of British politics, global politics, internal labour politics or indeed any interpretation at all of politics that I can see. Starmer has even been making right wing social statements such as the recent trans comments. are current sources saying centrist and "very much centre-right". Even describing their last govt, it is commonly accepted that Blair etc were centre-right. Compared to Corbyn's Labour, Starmer is quick to tell you that Labour has politically changed and he means shifted righrwards. Labour is also also openly taking in right - far right Tories and not allowing in certain suspended Labour members who have been cleared like Diane Abbott. One of the Tories who defected to Labour even said they did it because the Tories aren't Centre-right anymore (implying Labour is).

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-starmer-faces-problems-in-government-policy-centre-right-gaza-climate-crisis/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/05/labour-can-be-proud-of-its-local-election-results-but-theres-still-a-way-to-go

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/opinion-keir-starmer-may-sleepy-112843015.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADPgHtTmV56meuPWynmb9eBzHuCAKFoSFI_gfPO7ncadZTsu6uS1YdHjIxdkb-mPHJgiGBQwnAkJlAaRz243bfRopv3_D_dod_veL32zKuBU9pZI9-H9blEBs_qDiQpC_aPRr8TvyID5IdsurRC0QfOa9raWq942AkzgqInw73Nr

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/11/rightwing-media-reaction-keir-starmer-labour-speech-murdoch

https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/politics/political-punches-exchanged-between-starmer-and-sunak-over-suffolk-tory-defector/

https://le.ac.uk/politics/research/research-projects/previous-research-projects/competing-on-the-centre-right

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/more-than-100-business-leaders-back-uks-opposition-labour-party-before-vote-2024-05-28/

https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-labour-party-prime-minister-british-elections/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/top-tory-mp-defects-to-labour-in-fury-at-nhs-crisis Feedtherooks (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources you list calls Starmer centre-left. Several say that Labour has moved "towards the centre". Several say Labour is trying to appeal to centre-right voters. None of them, except one letter to the editor which is not a high quality source, call the Labour Party centre-right. The ideology of the Labour Party is also something covered by academic and book sources, which are generally better than news sources and blogs. Ralbegen (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Who has written a book on the current Labour Party? That doesn't make sense. 91.125.23.152 (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also that's not even true. The first two specifically say centre right for a start. Also the policies are clearly centre right and a lot of them talk about the push for centre right voters.

The one you are referring to, the Politico article, calls him centre left and then spends the entire time explaining how he attacks the left.

The current sources saying centre left are not academic or book sources. I also strongly disagree given politics changes rapidly. And books on post 97 labour typically call Labour a centrist - centre right party anyway! 91.125.23.152 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The first source—an opinion piece, not news or analysis—talks about "suspicions that under Starmer, Labour is now on the centre-right"—it does not assert that the party is, it says that some voters might think that and that's why they're frustrated. The second one is a letter to an editor. The third one is an opinion piece that says Starmer "must pitch for business-friendly centre-Right votes"—not that he, or the party, is on the centre-right. The fourth one says "Leader writers at the centre-right Times noted that Starmer sounded like a prime minister-in-waiting". The fifth one is a quote from a defecting MP that you are projecting onto. The sixth one says "has moved towards the centre after veering left under his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn" and does not mention the political right. The Politco article differentiates between the centre-left and the left wing, which is a normal distinction to make. The final article repeats the same quote from Poulter.

It's correct to look for secondary source coverage but search terms aren't enough: the sources have to actually support including something. None of these does. This is something which has been discussed to death on this page and the times I have done a survey of coverage—when Corbyn was leader and users were proposing a change to "left-wing" or "far-left"—it has been very clear that reliable sources do not consider the leadership of Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn to fundamentally alter the centre-left character of the Labour Party.

Doing a quick survey of scholarly works published during the current leadership we find those that characterise the Labour Party as centre-left:

A progressive politics of work for the age on unpeace

The Politics of Social Democracy (which includes Labour in a survey of the centre-left across different countries)

Melancholia and Anti-Populist Discourse: The Case of the British Labour Party

A New Dilemma of Social Democracy? The British Labour Party, the White Working Class and Ethnic Minority Representation

What does it mean to be pro-European? The case of the European centre-left and centre-right in Austria, Germany and the UK

This one is interesting, talking about Labour moving "to the right (towards the political centre)", which is widely attested, as moving to left left was under Corbyn. But there is not high quality sourcing available for either period indicating that the party's character as a whole has changed. I can't find any academic sources that refer to Labour as centre-right—only sources that talk about the centre-right of the party in the way that internal party spectrums are often discussed. This has been discussed to death: in 2005, 2006 (twice), 2007 (twice), 2008 (twice, 2010 (twice), 2011, 2012, 2014 (four times now), 2015, 2016 (three times), 2017 (twice), 2018 and 2019 (several times). There was an RfC in 2019 which concluded: "It is highly unlikely that any future RFC to change "centre-left" to "centre-left to left-wing", "left-wing", or any other label, will be successful, unless it can be shown that the consensus of reliable sources explicitly use the new proposed label. "Consensus of reliable sources" doesn't mean unanimity, but it doesn't mean a minority viewpoint, either. If only some sources use the new proposed label, that may support an attributed statement in the body, but not necessarily a statement in wiki-voice in the lead. If no sources use the new proposed label, then we certainly cannot use the new proposed label in wiki-voice. Guidance can be found at WP:DUE." Ralbegen (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this shows the inherent flaw in Wikipedia and main cause of the total inaccuracy. The current Labour Party in the Overton window of the post war consensus would be far right on the British spectrum, or alternatively if Labour is centre left then the Tories under Macmillan would be far left.

Doesnt make any sense. A party that vows to largely continue the policies of a right wing party without any pull left is not centre left under any definition. 91.125.23.152 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. We need sources that call them centre-right, and it'd have to be significant. — Czello ^(music) 07:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is social democracy then the social democracy article should be entirely rewritten to reflect the fact we now consider right-wing policies like austerity and tax cuts for rich people to be social democratic ideals. You can't have it both ways. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that democratic socialism is in the infobox, this one is self-explanatory to anyone with even a basic level of reading comprehension. Michail (blah) 11:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, though, this is WP:OR. Whatever description or term is used by reliable sources is what we use. — Czello ^(music) 11:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the sources mentioned determing it as "centre-left" are very outdated the latest one being from 2015. Takis S1 (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/labour-party-alignment

For the last 9 months it has been considered slightly right of center I believe placing them on centre to centre right or contre to centre left or just centre and historically left wing is the way. In fact the guardian says that the Lib Dems may be considered more left wing than labour. So in fact there are sources.

"Labour has insisted on sticking to an increasingly conservative economic script"

"the real relevance of the plans is what they say about the party’s willingness – in contrast to Labour – to confront the concentrated wealth and corporate power that drain the UK’s potential."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/10/lib-dems-progressive-mantle-robust-opposition-labour Takis S1 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. None of these directly call Labour centre-right. — Czello ^(music) 12:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

One does indeed say that "Labour has insisted on sticking to an increasingly conservative economic script" economic conservatism can in no way be considered left of centre I say it should either be centre or centre right. Best case scenario Centre with left and centre left factions. Also for labour to be considered more right wing than the lib dems (which are considered centre to centre left) that at least implies labour is centre. Takis S1 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's still WP:OR. If it doesn't explicitly say centre-right, we don't either. — Czello ^(music) 15:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

https://unherd.com/newsroom/labour-is-now-the-centre-right-party/

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/labour-is-taking-the-centre-right-from-the-tories-3088606

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/05/in-the-uk-the-left-wing-of-the-labour-party-accuses-keir-starmer-of-a-purge_6673798_4.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22n56e3z6o

Those are Sources That do in fact call them straight up centre right but if somebody is economically conservative can he still be centre left? because youre basically saying yes. Takis S1 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Further Information.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/how-left-wing-is-labours-manifesto/

"By most accounts, the 2024 manifesto will sit on the Right of this ideological ledger." Takis S1 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently, I cant see any solid argument for Labour being centre-left and many that say it isn't. Takis S1 (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that we typically don't change a party's political position based on their current leader, as that tends to be a case of WP:RECENTISM. We didn't change it from "centre-left" to simply "left-wing" under Jeremy Corbyn, for example, despite there being a noticeable shift in policy. — Czello ^(music) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Valid point but the left party of the party is actively being purged therefore the push to the right is more unnatural and with more parties trying to catch the disatisfied left it may aswell be considered permenant. Takis S1 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also since Blair the party has been more or less been going right Corbyn was an outlier. Takis S1 (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not it's permanent remains to be seen; we can't assume that per WP:CRYSTAL. I'd be inclined to say that such a defining shift can only really be determined after a few years in power, such as come the next election.

As for the second point, sources largely called Labour centre-left until very recently, which includes under Brown and Miliband. Corbyn was just further left. — Czello ^(music) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait wasnt the page changed to add "Democratic Socialism" as an ideology during the corbyn years? Takis S1 (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can recall it predated his leadership – I think we've always had democratic socialism and social democracy (one source is from 2000, the other is from 2015 but before Corbyn became leader). — Czello ^(music) 15:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting I agree with that and we will see in the following years especially because of the very high possibility of a labour government. Takis S1 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that there are plenty if not a large consensus of sources that have started talking about its shift to the right and even one that says that they have become more right wing than the Liberal democrats (or more that the lib dems are "pushing the proggresive mantle") https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/10/lib-dems-progressive-mantle-robust-opposition-labour

Therefore, calling them centre left is definantly wrong the majority of labour's policies are right of centre and with constant attacks on the left by Keir Starmer the party should be considered at least Centrist.

"By most accounts, the 2024 manifesto will sit on the Right of this ideological ledger."

https://unherd.com/newsroom/how-left-wing-is-labours-manifesto/(14 June, 2024)

"Starmer left-wing purge row is not dying down"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22n56e3z6o(30 May 2024)

"The British public is increasingly willing to place its trust in a centre-right party with no major spending commitments, which is looking to make Brexit work and which aims to reduce the national debt over the next parliament."

https://unherd.com/newsroom/labour-is-now-the-centre-right-party/(1 September, 2023)

All these sources are not dated. Takis S1 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The only people calling labour centre-left in 2024 are far right sources and confused people 91.125.23.152 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is, but The Political Compass website rates the current Labour manifesto as centre-right. G-13114 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Although it's difficult to place them as their economic message is incredibly vague, I think describing a party that is advocating for the renationalisation of railways and GB Energy etc as centre-right is a bit silly personally. I'm also very doubtful that any reliable source (academic source ideally) would explicitly categorise them as centre-right as well. I do think the democratic socialist label in the infobox is a bit dated though Michaeldble (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@G-13114 Not at all relevant as Political Compass's election charts are notoriously out of touch. — Czello ^(music) 21:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Out of touch with whom? 81.153.140.220 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@81.153.140.220 Reality. — Czello ^(music) 06:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Centre-left is such a vague term, it should be taken out. Note that while Google books returns lots of books about far-right politics, there's nothing about centre-left politics. The center left depends on what the writer means. That's why there are endless arguments about this field for hundreds of parties.

Since our determination is based on the ideology, it's redundant information.

Also, there is a distinction between party ideology and policy. While ideology is like a flagstaff, policies shift according to the prevailing winds. With the normalization of far right politics in recent years, the policies of all parties has shifted right, but the parties' relative position to each other has remained the same.

We can see that in the Political Compass. Most normal people taking the test find themselves in the bottom left quadrant, while all major parties place in the upper right. TFD (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I propose the best consesus could be

Centre to Centre-Right [1] [2] [3]

Factions:

Centre-left

Left-Wing [4] Takis S1 (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Centre-left to left-wing is more ideal 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:24E5:C88D:EFF9:B87 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually quite shocked some people think Labour are a centre-right party. Their recent pledges look like a centre-left party to me. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:24E5:C88D:EFF9:B87 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

how? Like genuinly list me one policy that is centre left. Even Keir Starmer said that part of his economic program is based off bideonomics Takis S1 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

no the leftists are minor factions nowadays the general consesus is centrist or centre-left even here Takis S1 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feedtherooks Yes, Labour is clearly Right Wing, why is this even a question? 109.170.181.75 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. The party is centre to centre-right, or just centre right. I've already done a thing supporting it so I'll restate that here, ommitting the irrelevant parts.

Considering their selection for their candidates this election, and the fact that they self-sabotaged Corbyn (source) and kicked him out of the party (source), it cannot be said that they are centre-left to left-wing at all, barely even centre left at that point.

What a party says itself in its manifesto is often not reliable, and often they do not reflect the ideology of the party itself. There must be third party reliable sources saying it is centre-left. I have not seen any reliable third party sources saying the Labour party is centre-left, from after the expulsion of Corbyn, which are about it being centre-left (not just saying it within it briefly through circular sourcing). I have three saying it's centre-right. 1 2 3. (Note sources 2 and 3 are opinion, though are still of value while adjusting for that).

Additionally, the party itself says it is pro-business (source), which is mutually exclusive with being pro-worker; centre-left politics is pro-worker first and foremost, within a welfarist democratic capitalist system.

I do not see how they are still centre-left at all when they have shifted right on the economy (Blair notoriously gave up to the right mostly on economics), on immigration, on the EU, on trans rights, etc.}

Additionaly, the party under Starmer is, on almost all if not all issues, to the right of '''Joe Biden''', who is a centre to centre-left social liberal. And, in the UK, the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour on all issues, '''especially''' social and foreign policy.

So, I do not think it is centre-left at all. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A LabourList column went on to suggest Labour's "right-ward march continues" I think it's significant, theyre clearly trying to appeal to a more Third Way centrist approach, obviously continuing in the spirit of Blair, furthermore there is evidence to suggest that Labour have subsumed the more reactionary, markedly right wing elements of Blue Labour into their program, as several news outlets have suggested. There is clearly ideological overlap between the Blairite wing of the party (who are now government) and Blue Labour who've clearly influenced Starmer on economy and social/cultural issues. They are "socialist" (or social democratic) in name only. Many social democratic parties in Europe, have exhibited similiar attitudes, like Olaf Scholz and François Hollande. Also, "left wing conservatism" exists, as a syncretic ideology, it is clear from the outset that Labour's current leadership has synthesized ideas from Blue Labour, Blairism and "small c" conservatism into whatever their current ideological platform is. Only time will tell how Starmer's premiership turns out to be but discussion should be had about their current ideological character before more edits are made.

https://labourlist.org/2023/09/labour-shadow-cabinet-reshuffle-who-what-means/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-keir-starmer-found-the-sweet-spot-in-british-politics/

https://unherd.com/2020/09/keir-starmer-a-true-conservative/

https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/09/26/keir-starmers-rather-conservative-message-to-britain 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:38BC:FAE2:BF2:3654 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Labour is a centre-left party

Labour is a centre-left party. It is not a center-right party. If anything, it's a center-left to left-wing party, to reflect on the broad groups within the party itself. Some are more left-wing, others are more center-left.

Ideologies of the center-left include social democracy, social liberalism and green politics. Ideas commonly supported by the center-left include welfare capitalism, social justice, liberal internationalism, and multiculturalism. Economically, the center-left supports a mixed economy in a democratic capitalist system, often including economic interventionism, progressive taxation, and the right to unionize. Center-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution.

This pretty much sums up Labour's current manifesto perfectly. Have a read here.

We need to watch out of people who simply want to make out the party is center-right or even far-right (how, I really don't know) because they aren't happy that the party has reverted to a more center-left grounding, rather than a more left-wing grounding under the former leadership. Anyone who suggests a party that wants more state intervention, to bring the railways under public control, to bring bus networks under public control, to create a public green energy company, tax private schools to improve state education, and who wants to increase workers' rights (including banning zero-hour contracts and fire and rehire), probably think that just because they want to lower migration or now are on an economic stability standing, that they're a radical far-right party. It's protecting false information. It's worse than those who claim anything they disagree with is far-right.

In Europe, Labour are very much on the center-left grounding. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:24E5:C88D:EFF9:B87 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, considering their selection for their candidates this election, and the fact that they self-sabotaged Corbyn (source) and kicked him out of the party (source), it cannot be said that they are centre-left to left-wing at all, barely even centre left at that point.

Social liberalism is centre to centre-left. Green politics are not left-wing, centre-left, centre, nor right wing; it's a specific position on a specific policy. Welfare capitalism is often supported by centre and centre-right, social justice is supported by people from far-left to centre-right, liberal internationalism is just part of liberalism which is centre-left to centre-right, and multiculturalism is far-left to centre-right.

What a party says itself in its manifesto is often not reliable, and often they do not reflect the ideology of the party itself. You need third party reliable sources saying it is centre-left. Please provide reliable third party sources saying the Labour party is centre-left, from after the expulsion of Corbyn, which are about it being centre-left (not just saying it within it briefly through circular sourcing). I have three. 1 2 3. (Note for sources 2 and 3 are opinion, though are still of value while adjusting for that).

Additionally, the party itself says it is pro-business (source), which is mutually exclusive with being pro-worker; centre-left politics is pro-worker first and foremost, within a welfarist democratic capitalist system.

How are they still centre-left at all when they have shifted right on the economy (Blair notoriously gave up to the right mostly on economics), on immigration, on the EU, on trans rights, etc?

It's gone from left-wing (corbyn) to centre to centre-right. It doesn't have to go to centre-left first.

They're centre to centre-right. Nobody is seriously claiming they are far right. Don't make strawmen.

State intervention is not neccesarily left-wing. And nationalization of public utilities is not a centre-left or left wing idea, before Thatcher, it was far-right (Through her privatisation efforts, Thatcher changed attitudes so that private ownership of public utilities moved from the far right to the centre of politics. source). With regards to the improving of workers rights, please provide reliable sources showing their non-manifesto support to improving workers rights to a considerable degree.

Again, I'm not seeing anybody here claim that it's far-right.

Additionaly, the party under Starmer is, on almost all if not all issues, to the right of Joe Biden, who is a centre to centre-left social liberal. And, in the UK, the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour on all issues, especially social and foreign policy.

[Insert conclusion] A Socialist Trans Girl 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Labour retains the rhetoric of centre left governance in terms of the policy outcomes it prioritises even if it has a fiscally cautious and unambitious manifesto. It is described in the media as a centre left party. It is also affiliate to trade unions and part of groups such as Party of European Socialists. It is always treated as equivalent to other parties labelled as centre left in the media and its voter base is similar to them. It also has some openness to some moderate state led economic planning slightly more open, saying 'Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy'- this is language that a centre or centre right parties in a western political system would never use but Labour does because it sees itself as and is the representative of the centre left in the UK. Ncnub (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct! 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:38BC:FAE2:BF2:3654 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ncnub The nazis co-opted left wing rhetoric to appeal to the working class. Does that mean they were left wing? No, of course not. Rhetoric does not mean anything on this matter.

Saying that "the media" describes it as centre-left is not accurate; rather, just that CNN describes them as centre-left.

Not sure what you mean by the "treated as equivalent to other parties" or how the source relates to that, nor am I sure what you mean by "its voter base similar to them".

And uh.. did you read my thing fully? I already addressed the state run businesses argument, that's a non-argument I've already addressed,

"Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy" is just a meaningless statement and pledge, and again, rhetoric doesn't matter. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology update

The U.K. Labour Party is now a neoliberal party & has removed all reference on its website of Social Democrats & Democratic Socialists 62.147.43.133 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it also say "Vote Conservative!" ? Boscaswell talk 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesnt need to it is shown by their manifesto Takis S1 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When was the last time Labour's platform used the term socialist? Clause IV still refers to the party as democratic socialist. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That the party calls itself something doesnt mean it is for example china calls itself a republic Takis S1 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support your opinion?

The accusation that Socialists are class traitors and not real socialists goes back to disputes between Marx and Lassalle. Despite the semantic argument, the description has continued in reliable sources, while their left-wing rivals are more likely to be called communists. TFD (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

China is, of course, a republic. It is not democratic however, as the country claims in its name (unless we're talking about the Republic of China, which claims to be a republic and is democratic). Regardless, reliable sources are needed to support this assertion that Labour is neoliberal. I would support adding centrism as its political stance alongside being centre-left as there are reliable sources to confirm this, but that's already been discussed elsewhere above.

I've also seen several people make the bizarre claim that Labour is centre-right or right-wing. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to adding this to the article provided it can be sourced, except at the moment reliable sources outright debunk this claim and reiterate that Labour is a centre-left (as stated in the article) to centrist party. Don't forget, a centrist or centre-left party can have some right wing elements to its policy, such as with New Labour's education policy (academies, partial selection, specialist schools, etc), but this does not make it centre-right or right-wing just because a few of its policies are somewhat in alignment with these stances, and vice versa. We don't call the Conservatives a left-wing or centre-left party because of levelling up and the pupil premium for example, and neither do reliable sources. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviving the Demsoc Infobox discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The sources for Democratic socialism are over 20 years old at this point. Removing the label is common sense at this point. Personally, I favour replacing its label with either Neoliberalism or Third way, due to Starmer's leadership, but that's a secondary goal of mine behind removing the demsoc label. Please begin responses with Support or Oppose, followed by your reasons for or against to establish consensus clearly. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao @Alexanderkowal @A Socialist Trans Girl @Autospark @Checco @Czello @Icantthinkofausernames @Kowal2701 @Takis S1 @Helper201 @Vif12vf @Michaeldble @ZlatanSweden10 @Paul Vaurie (others, don't be afraid to chime in). Sorry to mention you all, but as consensus seems to be in favour of removing the label but split on adding Neoliberalism/Third Way, I'd like to withdraw my previous two alternative suggestions and replace them both with Social liberalism, I believe this label indicates a slightly more politically moderate shift of the overall position (which is undeniably accurate for the party) but also responds to the complaints about neoliberalism being seldom used in Infoboxes, and to the complaints of both Third Way and Neoliberalism either not fitting well to the party or not being clear-cut ideologies. So I just wanted to try to get everybody's opinions on it to try to reach a consensus. If no consensus can be reached on "social liberalism", however, then I think a vast majority of us can agree on removing the demsoc ideology either way. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown No need to apologise for tagging me, I'm okay with it and actually prefer being tagged. I think having social liberalism instead of democratic socialism or social democracy makes sense, and reflects the rightward shift of the party. I support it. A Socialist Trans Girl 01:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, maybe putting both Third Way and Social Liberalism while stating social democracy as a faction is the best solution considering this would represent both the majority and the minority. Also no need to apologise i hate needing to look for replies Takis S1 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Takis S1 Yeah, though I'd say that putting "Minority: Social Democracy" would be better. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree Takis S1 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - I believe Third Way would be better rather than neoliberalism. As I've only ever seen neoliberalism used for centre-right and right-wing parties. The only one I can think of (off the top of my head) is the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) party who are part of the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) and International Democracy Union. Social liberalism I'm also not against, but that would be clash with the Liberal Democrats of course, so that I'm neutral on that addition. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean I believe that the liberal democrats may be pushing the proggresive mantle considering their manifesto was more left-wing than labour Takis S1 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. Thats why I have no opinion on adding social liberalism and/or third way into Labour's infobox. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Takis S1 Perhaps we could label the Liberal Democrats as Social Democratic/Social Liberal. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good im going to discuss it in the talk page Takis S1 (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This would line up with the history of the liberal democrats being a merger between the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party. But it is a discussion that should be had on the Liberal Democrats talk page instead of on the Labour parties. Apokra (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Social Liberalism may be a bit far to the left. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion - I'm not sure if these are dumb proposals but here are my two regardless:

Perhaps have this infobox like what the Social Liberal Party (Brazil) has?

Social democracy

Since 2024: (what is agreed upon)

Third Way

Social liberalism

Or

Social democracy (or perhaps under the postion would be better? - like what Freedom Party of Austria)

^ A: Since 2024 (or "Since under Keir Starmer's leadership), the party has shifted towards the centre, with the party being described as neoliberal and Third Way
ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My initial idea would be simply

Social democracy
Social liberalism

Perhaps there's a way to combine the two?

Social democracy
Social liberalism

^ A: Since 2024 (or "Since under Keir Starmer's leadership), the party has shifted towards the centre, with the party being described as having neoliberal and Third Way tendencies.
– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we have sufficient sources for social liberalism? Given the trans row in the party I wonder if that's a rather disputed label. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

Seems to be two academic sources that use that label I could find so far. Although I will admit, they may both be using the term as a synonym for "progressivism", I haven't read through them all the way. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Starmer has been described as neoliberal or third way. The first in particular would simply be false insofar as he's anti-globalisation, skeptical of free market solutions, and frankly pretty corporatist. KronosAlight (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

more of industrialist but the third way label still matters Takis S1 (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I think you are correct with your analysis. Hidolo (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, I highly doubt whether they are even social democrats the move away from the left and towards the third way is very visible and corbyn was an exeption to this rule considering currently the left labour faction has been oppresed silenced and shattered by starmers neoliberal beliefs and values. I propose To include neoliberalism, third way and social democracy instead of democratic socialism or to include democratic socialism as a faction. Takis S1 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The description in the info-box should be based on reliable sources, not our personal views. Socialist ideology has evolved over time and Labour does not pursue the same policies it did under Kier Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald or Clem Atlee. But it would be hard to argue that Starmer's Labour is different from Tony Blair's, who became leader more than twenty years ago.

Note also that Labour continues its associations with other socialist parties, such as the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democrats.

Liberal, conservative and Christian Democratic parties have also evolved in ideology. Liberals no longer build workhouses, Conservatives allow middle class people to vote, and Christian Democrats don't make citizens pay taxes to the church.

TFD (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to note that both of your examples of "other socialist parties" lack the Democratic socialism label in their infoboxes as well. Meanwhile, Blair's mention doesn't feel like an argument for keeping demsoc to me, especially as even in one of the 20 year old sources, it's mentioned that Blair removed (or at least intended to remove) the party's commitment to socialism from the Labour constitution: Ideology and politics in Britain today, not entirely sure why that was used as a source for democratic socialism, but I digress. In case it was unclear, I have no desire to remove Social democracy from the Infobox, only Democratic socialism, as I feel that after Starmer took over from Corbyn, the party has become too moderate for an ideology as far to the left as democratic socialism to be presented as a main ideology for Labour (perhaps listed as a faction, like the New Democratic Party (Canada)?). GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but i think Democratic Socialism is more comparable to parties like Die Linke, Syriza, Akel etc Takis S1 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

oh sorry wrong reply Takis S1 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, Starmer has expunged all democratic socialist elements from the poorly named Labour Party. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just attempting to achieve consensus here, what's your stance on having Social liberalism as a secondary ideology in place of Democratic socialism, Sup. or Opp.? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's simply untrue. He's kicked out a couple of the hard-left, but there's still plenty of leftists there. — Czello ^(music) 11:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the sources are woefully outdated and contradict the most recent literature

Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. We don't have recent reliable sources calling the party this. Sources that are over twenty years old are certainly not acceptable for describing the party in the present day. Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear on removing Democratic socialism from the infobox, but what is your stance on replacing it with Social liberalism? (reasoning behind it is to indicate a shift towards the centre). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How does social liberalism indicidate a shift toward the centre, exactly? Surely if anything it's the opposite. — Czello ^(music) 11:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The article describes social liberalism as generally speaking closer to the political centre than social democracy as a whole. It's placed on the left of liberalism as an umbrella term, and most parties that use it are defined as "centre to centre-left". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you're using these terms correctly? Previously we were talking about economics (soc dem / dem soc) but social liberalism is about social issues – it's unrelated to the inclusion of democratic socialist. Social liberalism is usually seen more on the left, too.

Ultimately if you want to include social liberalism you're going to have present some sources which show it's definining for the party in the way it would be for, say, the Lib Dems. So far it seems to have been disputed because of the trans row. — Czello ^(music) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism isn't an ideology unrelated to economics, it's a subset of liberalism. The lede of the article even says:

Social liberalism (German: Sozialliberalismus, Spanish: socioliberalismo, Dutch: Sociaalliberalisme) is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical liberalism which supports unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with very few government services.

and

Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centre to centre-left, although there are deviations from these positions to both the political left or right. Addressing economic and social issues, such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care and education using government intervention, while emphasising individual rights and autonomy, are expectations under a social liberal government. In modern political discourse, social liberalism is associated with progressivism, a left-liberalism contrasted to the right-leaning neoliberalism, and combines support for a mixed economy with cultural liberalism.

It's distinctly a centrist social and economic ideology with milder left-leaning tendencies than social democracy. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is a fair point and I am in error.

I would then instead that we'd need more sources to use this label. If Dem Soc is removed, I don't believe it necessarily needs to be replaced with anything. — Czello ^(music) 07:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Yep, sources are ancient and any democratic socialist traces in Labour are extremely nominal at this point, not nearly enough to warrant being named on the ideology list. Starmer's Labour has far more in common with with a typical European centrist/centre-right liberal-conservative party than anything even vaugely socialist. I would also replace dem soc with neoliberalism or maybe economic liberalism. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Partially out of curiosity, partially to help establish a consensus, what's your position on an infobox replacing demsoc with Third way? The reason I bring it up is because there generally seems to be more outright support for a Third Way label over a neoliberal one, and you're the only person who's outright expressed a desire to use neoliberalism or economic liberalism (this was before I edited the original proposal to include both labels as possibilities). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is rarely used in UK party ideology sections so if you can find enough sources for it, I would support adding Third Way, probably preferable to neoliberalism actually. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears as if Neoliberalism and Third Way have both been rejected by the consensus, but what's your opinion on Social liberalism? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not the person you’re responding to, but I think it’s not in line with sister parties like the Australian Labor Party and also more contestable, especially given the existence of a more socially conservative social democratic tradition within the UK Labour Party like Blue Labour and the Old Right.

Labour are not neoliberal because they fundamentally reject the mindset of marketisation, economic globalisation, and unrestricted competition in providing necessary services. They’re borderline Corporatist in their emphasis on public-private collaboration and class collaboration.

Let’s just keep it simple and inline with similar parties with similar policies, leaders and ideologies like The Australian Labor Party:

• Ideology: Social democracy
• Political position: Centre-left

KronosAlight (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, shall I close the discussion then and make that change or leave it open for another week or so to see if there's any dissenting viewpoints? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with social liberalism. However off a quick look struggled to find sources for it, although the term fits the current Labour Party. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Social democracy is an adequate and accurate description, personally.

I don’t think neoliberalism or third way is helpful, because in many ways especially under Starmer there’s been a very strong rejection of marketisation, economic globalisation, etc. You can’t reject those and still be neoliberal. KronosAlight (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I since retracted TW and Neo, and replaced them with social liberalism, thoughts on that? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think Social democracy is fine by itself. Sister parties like the Australian Labor Party simply have Social democracy and centre-left in their infoboxes and I think that’s fine for our purposes here too. KronosAlight (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, it seems clear to me that the removal will easily go through, but no consensus can be reached for a second label (which I am alright with). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@KronosAlight No, the ALP is very VERY different in policy to the labor party and has notn done a purge of the left like Labour has. Their economic, and especially social policy (especially with regard to trans rights) is FAR to the left of Labour. Describing ALP as a sister party to the Labor party is inaccurate, its more like a 1st cousin. A Socialist Trans Girl 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true. KronosAlight (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support for simply listing Social democracy and centre-left. KronosAlight (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have to say it would be very odd for us to add "neoliberalism" to the infobox, as three of the comments above have now suggested, given that it isn't in the infobox for the Tories, the Lib Dems, or the other UK parties that maintain the status quo. I understand that some people might be disconcerted that Labour's economics are not traditionally left-wing, but it would be WP:UNDUE to us to mention it here when it is the default for British politics in general. — Czello ^(music) 23:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, and like I said, including neoliberalism isn't top priority for me, I'd be willing to change it to Third way if that helps consensus go through. I still have a minor preference to neoliberalism however. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

True, calling them neoliberal would be more odd than incorrect like im not suggesting its incorrect but i still believe and agree that Third Way is better Takis S1 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It would actually be incorrect. The core tenet of neoliberalism is the belief in unregulated free markets, and the abstract logic of market competition applied in all aspects of public life. Labour have been profoundly skeptical of this idea under Starmer, similar to Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz. Third Way also isn’t an ideology. Labour should simply be labelled a centre-left social Democratic Party like all its other sister parties, from the Australian Labor Party to the German Social Democrats. KronosAlight (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Massive support, I myself have attempted this change before, though, by replacing it with faction of demsoc. I support the removal from the infobox, as the sources are massively outdated. Especially since they kicked Corbyn out of the party, and have not been selecting socialists as nominees for this election. Regardless of my personal views towards the party, describing it as socialist requires reliable, up to date sources, which are not present. A Socialist Trans Girl 09:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is your support solely for the removal of demsoc or also for the addition of neoliberal (or Third Way), please don't be afraid to oppose the Neoliberal/Third Way label (as I've said, it's not top-priority for me), I'd just like to clarify what Massively support means in this instance. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown I support removal of demsoc & socdem, and also support the addition of neoliberal and or third way, as well as social liberalism. Massively support is basically meaning I very strongly support the removal of demsoc. Hope that clears things up! A Socialist Trans Girl 02:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support As far as I am concerned, the party practically abandoned any form of socialism or left-wing politics several decades ago, with Corbyn being the only exception (outside of certain other members). I dont like the idea of replacing it with neoliberalism though, which is a term I see thrown around a bit too "liberally", often because some people think that a social democratic party adopting more economically liberal or pro-austerity policies is neoliberalism. Third way however, would probably be a more fitting term for the kind of pro-austerity and pro-market policies currently mixed in with some social democratic policies in the current Labour Party discourse. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll edit my initial comment to suggest Neoliberalism OR Third way, since both of those options seem pretty solid to me, and it seems like more people are in favour of the latter. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

[3] "Labour's Politics of Anti-Neoliberalism from Corbyn to Starmer" contradicts neoliberalism Kowal2701 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support I'd agree that the sources seem out of date so I think it warrants deletion. However, I definitely don't support adding Third Way or neoliberalism into the infobox - this seems more like Wikipedia editors giving their opinion rather than reflecting what academic sources are saying Michaeldble (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree to add Third Way/Neoliberalism (whatever applies) if recent academic sources were provided that said so? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 16:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is a widespread classification in academic sources I would have no issue Michaeldble (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - but perhaps move democratic socialism into the body. Like what I mentioned in my other comment under here: #Democratic Socalism ideology ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal of democratic socialism from the Infobox (long overdue, IMO); very strong oppose to neoliberalism being in the Infobox (neoliberalism is an economic doctrine, not a political ideology) and strong oppose to the inclusion of Third Way (it is a political philosophy or trend, depending on your perspective, not a broad political ideology – if anything, it could loosely be considered a subtype of social democracy, which is already listed).--Autospark (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then what would you propose? Takis S1 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Takis S1 solely social democracy. Labour is clearly a party in the social-democratic tradition, and the Infobox is meant to be a summary using the broadest possible terms, not an exhaustive essay. One or two recognised ideologies is more than enough for summarising most political parties, and in this particular case, one is more than enough.-- Autospark (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah but isnt Third Way a more descriptive way to describe the labour party still using only one word? Takis S1 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Takis S1 I think Third Way would be more appropriate for New Labour, not Starmer's. Social democracy is sufficient Michaeldble (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Takis S1 No, because Third Way isn't a political ideology (and if it is, it's a subset of social democracy, or a political philosophy that aimed to reform social democracy). Also, we are describing a party with a history of more than a century, not the current leadership.-- Autospark (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Even if third Way is a subset of social democracy it is still useful to be more exact and specific, also ever since Tony Blair the party has been adopting a more and more centrist position and as third way is described as having roots in social democracy but being mostly centrist i think labour perfectly fits this definition. Takis S1 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Describing "Third Way" as a fully-fledged political ideology on level with social democracy is at best WP:OR. The party's relationship with that particular academic philosophy should be described (with references) in the article body, not the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this.

  Social democracy as ideology

  Centre-left as political position.

  This is in line with all available evidence. KronosAlight (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Autospark. I would have only social democracy. --Checco (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

And I also oppose "third way" (non an ideology and, at best, a trend within social democracy) or, for that matter, "progressivism". We do not need generic terms, when there are clear distinctive ideologies. By the way, it is perfectly possible to be at the same time a social democrat and a centrist, like Blair was/is. --Checco (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for removal of democratic socialism from the infobox. Either the position needs be written as "centre-left to left-wing" or demsoc needs to be removed. Seems to be consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Just clarifying, does your support extend to replacing it with another label (suggested so far are "Third Way" and "Neoliberalism") or just removing it, as consensus so far is in favour of removing it, but consensus seems to be split on a new secondary label. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any thoughts about other labels. Just that democratic socialism is inaccurate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a secondary label. Social democracy is accurate and adequate. KronosAlight (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @KronosAlight's comments. I think democratic socialism should be removed. Social democracy and centre-left is sufficient. Any further additions of third way, neoliberalism or social liberalism seems unnecessary and like original research once again Michaeldble (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with your further comments Michael. No other centre-left party I’m aware of would have ‘neoliberalism’ or ‘third way’ in their primary inbox. Not in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, etc. Let’s keep personal politics out of this and just be clear, neutral and fair – they’re a centre-left social democratic party and should be labelled as their sister parties are as well. KronosAlight (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support removing democratic socialism as indicated above (I recognise my vote still only counts as one on this and I'm not trying to duplicate it), however I strongly oppose adding social liberalism. No reliable sources have been presented explicitly calling the party itself socially liberal. We'd also need at least a couple of reliable sources explicitly stating this (WP:SYNTH) so as to avoid undue weight. (@ GlowstoneUnknown) Helper201 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Rounding off this discussion

I think it might be time to end this discussion and formalise a conclusion. It might be worth requesting an official close at WP:CR given how many variables were introduced (do we just remove demsoc? Do we remove socdem, also? Do we add neoliberal, third way, or social liberal?), but it might be unnecessary if we can agree what the consensus is. Would others agree the consensus is as follows:

• Remove democratic socialism from the infobox
• Retain social democracy in the infobox
• No consensus to include any additional ideologies.

Note that I am not discussing any changes to the political position as that's a separate discussion below. — Czello ^(music) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It might not be my favourite option, but it does seem like that's what consensus shows right now. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we not survey the labels used in academic sources and establish how the party should be described based on those? There is a lot of material in books and academic papers that we can summarise in this article: a consensus is not a strawpoll of editors' gut instincts. Ralbegen (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm basing my summary above on the discussions that have taken place on those sources. However, I would welcome the opinions of other users who feel I may have misjudged the conclusions of said discussions. — Czello ^(music) 16:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you’re right. I know we’re meant to assume good faith, but I think it’s quite obvious that one reason for the sheer number of subheadings on this Talk Page about Labour’s ideology/position is aggrieved people on the left who feel that Labour has betrayed their values or don’t share their beliefs and therefore must be labelled as centre-right or centrist (as many have done on this page). That’s not based on a clear-eyed or unbiased assessment of their reformist social democratic platform, it’s more about settling scores, in my view. I don’t make that claim about any particular users, just in the general.

It’s clear that Labour has no intention of abolishing private property or a market economy or a liberal democratic representative democracy at any point in the future no matter how long they might go on. They also don’t believe in either vast state-owned industrial sectors or a centrally-planned economy. So they can’t be democratic socialists. But the social democratic ideology does perfectly fit comparable parties in, for example, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.

I think this is a bit of a fuss over nothing, really. Labour are a centre-left social democratic party with no intention of revolutionising our economic system even via reform. So let’s just call a spade a spade: they’re a centre-left social Democratic Party. KronosAlight (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Social democracy and centre-left is accurate, unbiased, and in line with dozens of other sister parties (many of which draw even their own party names from the UK Labour Party) who have very similar policies and ideologies to the current UK Labour Party like the Australian Labor Party. KronosAlight (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with stated consensus above. Let's close this discussion and remove democratic socialism from the infobox. Virtually no need to ask for "confirmation" of the consensus since this is clearly the consensus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, regardless of whether people want to add further ideologies/alter the position, there seems to be consensus to remove democratic socialism I'd say Michaeldble (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the discussion is over, I'll just WP:BEBOLD and close it – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS was to:

• Remove democratic socialism from the infobox
• Retain social democracy in the infobox
• No consensus to include any additional ideologies. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political positions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, in the infobox, it says that Labour's political position is centre-left. But I think this is an outdated label.

In the article, Political positions of Keir Starmer, it says:

In a January 2020 interview, Starmer described himself as a socialist, and stated in an opinion piece published by The Guardian the same month that his advocacy of socialism is motivated by "a burning desire to tackle inequality and injustice".

In the very next paragraph it says,

In an interview with the i's Francis Elliott in December 2021, Starmer refused to characterise himself as a socialist, asking "What does that mean?" ...

Later,

...[I]n the run-up to the 2024 general election, Starmer told the BBC "I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive. I'd describe myself as somebody who always puts the country first and party second"

Since flip–floppery is not considered a political position in Wikipedia, we have to analyze the actions of the Labour Party and contrast them with that of the Conservatives, which are labeled as centre–right to right–wing. From the same article:

In 2023, Starmer removed the ten socialism-based pledges that he had made in the 2020 party leadership contest from his website, after having abandoned or rolled back on many of these, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic situation as reasons for having to "adapt".

During the 2020 Labour leadership election, Starmer pledged to scrap university tuition fees; he dropped this pledge in May 2023, citing a "different financial situation" following Liz Truss' premiership.

[Starmer] has ruled out extending free school meals to all primary school pupils in England, instead pledging to extend breakfast clubs including free breakfasts for every primary school in England.

Starmer's position on public ownership over national infrastructure has changed over time. In the 2020 Labour Party leadership election, Starmer ran on a pledge to renationalise rail, mail, water, and energy back into common ownership; he dropped this pledge in July 2022 and said he would take a "pragmatic approach" to public ownership.

Perhaps this is Starmer's socialism with British characteristics, the idea that every country has different conditions under which to establish socialism, or a society where the workers own the means of production. In Britain's case, its conditions involve Covid-19, climate change, and an incompetent government allergic to the concept of egalitarianism. In other words, Britain's conditions are no different from what every other country has been forced to endure in the past few years, and every socialist country has at one point had to deal with a government similar to the one led by Sunak and his predecessors, of which there are many, and therefore the label of democratic socialism that is also included in the infobox (but which is currently being discussed in another topic) is completely untrue.

Starmer favours partnership between government and business, having said: "A political party without a clear plan for making sure businesses are successful and growing ... which doesn't want them to do well and make a profit ... has no hope of being a successful government."

May I ask what Starmer thinks of lobbying and chaebols?

Oh, dear...[4]

Starmer favors Britain's current first-past-the-post voting system and opposes proposals for electoral reform, such as the adoption of proportional representation.

Apparently, Labour thinks more than 5,000,000 votes translating into 2 seats is democratic.[5]

In a Sunday Telegraph article he wrote in December 2023, Starmer praised Margaret Thatcher for seeking to "drag Britain out of its stupor", saying Thatcher had "set loose our natural entrepreneurialism" during her time as prime minister, and used Thatcher, as well as Tony Blair and Clement Attlee, as examples of how politicians can effect "meaningful change".

Does anyone here believe that Margaret Thatcher was anything that even closely resembled center left politics? Additionally, I would like to point out that Tony Blair, who is widely anatagonized by his own party for, among other things, spearheading the British effort to back America in a war without international support that led to the deaths of, possibly, more than a million people. Attlee is not clean either in the eyes of many British leftists, presumably, as he was led the British role in the Korean War, as more than 50,000 British troops saw combat in a war "justified" by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 82, the legitimacy of which is questionable due to the lack of representation for the government of China, represented by a military dictatorship in the Island of Taiwan, no less violent than the Communists, and the Soviet boycott of the UN due to the aforementioned lack of Chinese representation. The bombing and starvation of North Korea, supported by Attlee, killed potentially 1,500,000 million civilians.[6]

The Labour Party does not support the abolition of the unelected, undemocratic, aristocratic House of Lords.[7] In fact, Labour has 171 seats and are looking to appoint more.[8] Labour has also vowed to block any attempts to hold a second Scottish independence referendum, even if the Scottish National Party win a majority in Scotland.[9] Because Starmer cannot be accused of trying to implement socialism in one country, we can interpret this as Labour being a British nationalist party opposed to the democratic will of the Scottish people, pretending the situation in Scotland hadn't changed significantly since Brexit.

In 2005, Starmer stated that "I got made a Queen’s Counsel, which is odd since I often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy".

Starmer has also been knighted, hence Sir Keir Starmer.

Starmer supports maintaining the UK's nuclear arsenal as a nuclear deterrent, and voted for renewal of the Trident programme; he supports the general post-Cold War British policy of a gradual reduction in nuclear stockpiles.

This is militarism and is not in line with center left politics as far as I'm aware. The UK, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, does not need nuclear weapons to provide a 'deterrence'.

He also criticised the Stop the War Coalition in an op-ed for The Guardian, writing that the group's members were "not benign voices for peace" but rather "[a]t best they are naive, at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders" such as Russian President Vladimir Putin "who directly threaten democracies."

Labour's idea of a democracy is a society where 34% of the 60% voter turnout translates into a parliamentary majority and can do, in the context of British politics, close to whatever it wants.

In an interview with LBC on 11 October 2023, Starmer was asked whether it would be appropriate for Israel to totally cut off power and water supplies to the Gaza Strip, with Starmer replying that "I think that Israel does have that right" and that "obviously everything should be done within international law".

Within the context of foreign policy, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is a nationalist concept.

Labour are also known to be purging left wing members of the party, promoting instead candidates such Luke Akehurst. I haven't offer citations here because they kept torpedoing this long topic because of 'broken links' that I had removed. Sorry, I am not really very tech savvy.

I think it should say centre, with a note adding that it has left–wing (Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, etc), centre–right (Such as Labour Party leader... Keir Starmer), and centre–left (Such asAngela Rayner) elements. Obviously, Labour is in love with the free market, supports US foreign policy, supports the monarchy, supports closed electoral systems, etc... this is not center left. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Aficionado538 (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not an argument. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

truly wonderful and constractive critique Takis S1 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OR and the closing statement of Talk:Labour Party (UK)/Archive 12#Request for comment on lede sentence which suggests "It is highly unlikely that any future RFC to change "centre-left" to "centre-left to left-wing", "left-wing", or any other label, will be successful, unless it can be shown that the consensus of reliable sources explicitly use the new proposed label. "Consensus of reliable sources" doesn't mean unanimity, but it doesn't mean a minority viewpoint, either. If only some sources use the new proposed label, that may support an attributed statement in the body, but not necessarily a statement in wiki-voice in the lead. If no sources use the new proposed label, then we certainly cannot use the new proposed label in wiki-voice. Guidance can be found at WP:DUE." Editors' personal opinions on the Labour Party and its politicians are not useful for building the encyclopaedia. Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Most sources agree that Labour is going down a rightward path. From a starting point of centre–left, the obvious answer that may be in our conscience is that Labour are now a centrist–ish party with centre–right and centre–left elements. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You've got to do a survey of RSs on google scholar by searching something neutral like "Labour party Starmer ideology" and tallying the results. Personally I think it's a mistake to view Starmer as in any way ideological. It's not part of his thought process. If he thought communism solved more problems than it caused, he'd have communist policies. Alexanderkowal (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources currently listed are from three elections ago, 2015. They no longer really apply to the new Starmer Labour. Maurnxiao (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

better idea show me a credible not outdated source taht actually labels them as centre-left or left wing also its not that radical to assume labour has moved right i agree with the centre label. Takis S1 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Soft Support, a centrist label seems more fitting under Starmer's leadership GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I second this and this has been sourced in several reliable sources. Starmer is undoubtedly a centrist so it makes sense to describe him as such. I disagree with the notion that Starmer is centre-right and this description has not been supported by reliable sources as far as I am aware. I'd argue that several of those positions listed above are more than compatible with centre-left politics contrary to some claims, such as the position on Trident and nuclear weaponry.

As for the position of the Labour Party as a whole, I'd support something like "Centrist to centre-left" in the infobox. This characterisation is supported by sources. I would not support "left-wing to centrist". There are some more left-wing elements in the party, but these are mainly just minor factions, and the current leadership has sidelined them as part of its programme to move the party toward the centre, unlike with the broad church approach employed by Corbyn's leadership of accepting the party right (centrists) and involving them in party processes. In addition, although Corbyn's leadership was certainly firmly on the left, the party as a whole during this period remained on the centre-left, and Corbyn himself moderated several of his policy positions. His left-wing leadership was also the exception not the norm, with the party almost always taking a centre-left or centrist position from Attlee onwards, with Michael Foot being the only other exception to the rule. Kinnock and Wilson, like Starmer, moved to the centre-left or the centre after they became leader, so I don't think the party can be described as left-wing really. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the only time "centrist to left-wing" or "centre-left to centre-right" (as in as a single label going more than one position over if that makes sense) is when the article's about an alliance or a coalition of some sort, à la New Popular Front with its "centre-left to far-left" label. Otherwise anything that encapsulates that wide of a spread of positions should either be labelled with the majority position(s) or simply "big tent" GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Third this. I would also favour "Centre to centre-left" personally. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, my remark about a centrist label refers to this (potentially also to a solo "centrist" label, but only if consensus decided as such). I simply meant the inclusion of "centre" without the qualifier of "...-left", whether that includes both labels or a singular one. Hopefully that makes sense. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Centre to centre-left describes the Labour Party well in my opinion. To suggest centre to centre-right seems incorrect to me. PlatypusAreDucks (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Some quick concerns about listing the Labour Party as centre to centre-left without making valid references from the latest leadership election to the latest General Election (2020-2024), and only than citing sources that end in 2015. This approach appears to subjectively reflect how editors personally view the ideological spectrum and the Labour Party, rather than either where Labour position themselves or how 'centre-left' is consistently presented across Wikipedia; especially because it might mean the Liberal Democrats would then have to shift towards being exclusively centre-left, and althoguh I would agree that it has recently adopted a more centrist overtone with some centre-right elements, I would disagree that this makes them any more 'centre to centre-left' than other nominally social democratic parties; for example, Italy's Democratic Party, Slovakia's Hlas, Germany's SDP, or Australia's Labor Party.

I would also like to point out that Clause IV of the 2022 Labour Party Rule Book; the most recent version of the party's constitution, explicitly says "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist Party", and this has not been raised in the discussion of whether Labour is a democratic socialist party (I know there's a wider question about "whether the leadership is democratically socialist", but please actually give some consideration to how the party refers to itself before making edits. GuernseyIndependenceParty (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR. I'm disappointingly seeing a lot of that here lately where it concern's Labour's political ideologies/position. — Czello ^(music) 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you consider wanting to use sources more recent than ones from 2015 original research? I don't, I'm providing some additional information with which we can work to update the political position. Maurnxiao (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about the sources you've linked in your opening post, then yes - it's WP:SYNTH. The sources need to directly say what you're intending to change the article to, but you appear to be making interpretations based on them. — Czello ^(music) 10:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Those sources I used to back up claims such as Labour wanting to appoint members to the House of Lords. There are other sources directly showing Starmer's path away from the left...[10][11][12] Maurnxiao (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Suppose it turned out the Pope was an atheist. Would that mean the Catholic Church wasn't Christian? The description of the ideology of the Labour party should be based on what reliable sources say, not our interpretations of whoever happens to be the current leader.

I would however remove the political position info-box which merely tells readers where Wikipedia editors place the party's ideology along the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the Pope had spent his time appointing atheist Cardinals and getting rid of Catholic ones, then that might change the situation a little bit more. Maurnxiao (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Dont all reliable sources say its right wing, the few that dont are either outdated or downright biased to the right Takis S1 (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No they don’t, I’ll do a survey Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources don't really discuss ideology when talking about Starmer's LP, ultimately because it doesn't make sense. He engages in ideological quietism, academics don't attempt to pin a political ideology on him. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Starmer is an adherent of flippism–floppism. But we are discussing the political position of the Labour Party, and he has played a significant role in shaping it since he became leader. It's no longer the Party of Corbyn and co., it is ideologically soulless and wishes to win over centrists, centre-left, center-right and even right–wingers unhappy with the Tories. This broad appeal, and the large tent where its members are, make me think labelling it as a big–tent centrist party, with a note mentioning its various if unofficial factions, might be a better thing to do than label it centre-left, using decade old sources from three election cycles ago. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR, this is WP:Not a forum. You’re not going to convince anyone or make any progress without using WP:RSs, only academic sources would be applicable here, and from the survey I did some appear Corbynite but not even they call Labour right wing, at most centrist. Centre to centre-left would be the most accurate representation of RSs Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that there are plenty if not a large consensus of sources that have started talking about its shift to the right and even one that says that they have become more right wing than the Liberal democrats (or more that the lib dems are "pushing the proggresive mantle") https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/10/lib-dems-progressive-mantle-robust-opposition-labour

Therefore, calling them centre left is definantly wrong the majority of labour's policies are right of centre and with constant attacks on the left by Keir Starmer the party should be considered at least Centrist.

"By most accounts, the 2024 manifesto will sit on the Right of this ideological ledger."

https://unherd.com/newsroom/how-left-wing-is-labours-manifesto/(14 June, 2024)

"Starmer left-wing purge row is not dying down"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22n56e3z6o(30 May 2024)

"The British public is increasingly willing to place its trust in a centre-right party with no major spending commitments, which is looking to make Brexit work and which aims to reduce the national debt over the next parliament."

https://unherd.com/newsroom/labour-is-now-the-centre-right-party/(1 September, 2023)

In general they are placed right of center of course because there are plenty of leftists and centre-leftists but they arent the majority i thing calling a centrist party with leftist, centre-leftist and centre-right factions is best

Takis S1 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Only academic sources for something like this I think Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In the absense of many academic sources on it, we'd have to use news sources. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No. KronosAlight (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I just agree with your propose. Hidolo (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support Keir is not remotely left-wing and is as centrist as Blair. He's probably to the right of Joe Biden. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

“Since flip-floppery isn’t a political ideology”… what you’ve just described is what is called pragmatism. It doesn’t fit nicely into a box somewhere on the commonly-accepted left-right political spectrum. I would argue there’s no problem with that - why should people have to fit into these stringent classifications?? I would say Labour is a big-tent centre to centre-left political movement primarily based around principles of social democracy, social liberalism and delivering social justice TheKlowster (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, doesn't matter if Keir Starmer is not considered centre-left, but Labour Party as majority social democratic should stay centre-left. Odideum (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion - Perhaps we add a footnote as I suggested in another discussion for the time-being/a middle-ground until more academic sources come around during Starmer's leadership of the country? As I am sure there will be several done during his tenure as he is a quite an unknown figure and lacks any true position/ideology so far. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly Left wing. Maybe not far left. 99.76.143.165 (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the party is a big tent at the moment, still enconpassing young left wing types, and older more moderate blairites. Centre Left is an apt discription, as that is the base from which the party intermitently sways left (under Corbyn) or right (under Starmer). By the same logic I don't get why the tories have been moved to Centre right-right wing, they've drifted slightly, given policies like Rwanda, but apart from that its clear they've swayed less than labour has from the centre left, given that labour isn't hiking the main taxes, or promising increased spending. 86.129.233.186 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The conservatives drifted more than slightly, the European Research Group practically ran the party Kowal2701 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Along with the Common Sense Group Kowal2701 (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Opposed. Sources referring to the Labour Party as a centre-left party:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/04/europe/uk-election-europe-populist-surge-intl/index.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/05/center-left-in-us-sees-a-lesson-in-british-election-results-00166686

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/uk-election-live-updates-rcna160149

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/04/uk-election-2024-polls-open-for-landmark-vote-.html

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/05/g-s1-8456/uk-labour-party-win-keir-starmer

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/02/uk-election-labour-keir-starmer-sunak-class-supermajority-social-democracy-global-left/

https://www.semafor.com/article/07/05/2024/how-the-center-left-won-in-britain-even-as-europe-moves-right

https://abcnews.go.com/International/keir-starmer-uk-pm-conservatives-suffer-record-defeat/story?id=111689276

https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-election-results-2024-6649b68c

https://apnews.com/article/uk-labour-leader-keir-starmer-profile-dc40877586d32b903e4ecdb7e397f803

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-labour-win-massive-election-majority-exit-poll-shows-2024-07-04/ KronosAlight (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

what a load of shit 2A00:23EE:1590:40AC:68A7:76AD:396C:E24F (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This should not be changed unless reliable and recent sources can be presented that explicitly state the party to be of a political position other than centre-left. These reliable sources must comply with WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• [13], 2024; "left/centrist divide"
• [14], 2023; quietism or third way
• [15], 2023; "decentralised communitarian socialism", basically the Cooperative Party
• [16], 2023; "moved Labour into a more centrist position"
• there was another one describing it as centrist when I did my initial survey but can't find it now

Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

None of those directly above quotes call the Labour as a whole centrist. Saying the party has a "divide" is not that, third way is not something that is usually put in the position section of the infobox, the "decentralised communitarian socialism" is not relevant to political position, and "moved Labour into a more centrist position" like the rest breaks WP:SYNTH as "more centrist position" is not saying the party is overall and/or as a whole centrist. Also, please provide full sentences when you give quotes, this much better helps identify whether or not they comply with the synth guideline. Helper201 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Left/centrist divide supports “Centre to centre-left”. Genuinely those are the only academic sources I could find that discuss Labour’s ideology under Starmer. There’s next to no literature on it Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re not going to find any sources that call Labour as a whole centrist because that would be obv incorrect. The proposal is centre to centre-left Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose It's worth pointing out that we generally don't alter a party's position based on their current leader, as it's WP:RECENTISM. For example, we didn't change Labour to be further to the left under Corbyn; we kept them as they were under Miliband. For us to move the party's position I think we're going to need several years worth of sources that demonstrate their shift has been a permanent one, up and down the party. — Czello ^(music) 12:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Miliband and Corbyn were centre-left.Meesher (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ditto. Aficionado538 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Neither Miliband nor Corbyn made efforts to purge ideologically moderate sections of the party in the way that Starmer has. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't really address my point. It's recentism to alter the whole ideology of the party based on recent events; it should only be done after a few years when sources are still describing them as centre/centre-right/whaterver. — Czello ^(music) 09:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  As opposed to having nearly decade old sources from three election cycles ago that do not adequately describe the Labour Party which is possibly going to be in the British government for the next five years? Isn't there a difference between resentism and being outright outdated? Maurnxiao (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again, we'd need several years worth of sources illustrating there's been a WP:LASTING shift in the party in order to make that change. Until then I think sources from 2015 suit just fine (and, again, were fine during the Corbyn years). We also don't know if they'll govern as a centre-right party when in office, or if their huge majority will allow them to be comfortably centre-left. — Czello ^(music) 15:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again, Corbyn didn't purge members ideologically to the right of him. Labour has rid itself of most of the leftists in their ranks, that isn't undone in just a few weeks. This is a long lasting change for the Labour Party akin to 1997. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is a long lasting change This is WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know if it's a long lasting change yet. — Czello ^(music) 15:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  If, say, the Republican and Democratic parties were banned today, would considering that a long lasting change be crystal balling? Maurnxiao (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is a bit of a non-sequitur, and distracting from the point. Labour hasn't been banned, and neither has its left wing members. It's WP:OR to suggest that a few on the hard-left being booted out has a long term impact. — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  "...and neither has its left wing members" That's not true. Sources: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Also, they intentionally sabotaged Corbyn so that a left wing party leader wouldn't win and become prime minister [25], and then banned him from even being a regular Labour MP [26]. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Some of the hard-left were booted out; there are still leftists in the party. And again, this is all beside the point – it's not like the party is solely populated by right wing people now. It still overwhelmingly has left/centre-left politicians in its ranks. It's WP:OR for us to speculate like this. — Czello ^(music) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Centre to centre-left" wouldn't be a radical change, it's not exactly excessive recentism or crystalballing; no-one's proposing a change to centre-right. A party's position should reflect its current position. Parties' ideologies do change overtime and it should be updated to reflect that.

  UKIP's position was changed from "right-wing" to "right-wing to far-right" in 2018/19ish after quite a bit of debate and back-and-forth. The party had clearly moved towards the far-right after its mid-2010s heyday even though it was only 2-3 years ago at that point. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  ..."no-one's proposing a change to centre-right." I am, more specifically a change to; centre, centre to centre-right, or centre-right. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, somehow missed that. I do agree Starmer's Labour definitely has some centre-right elements but I think describing them as centre-right overall is a little too far, and we'd probably struggle to find enough sources to justify it. Although... Labour is clearly to the right of the Lib Dems now, and they're classed as "centre to centre-left" (or maybe just "centre-left" would fit them better nowadays?) Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  He's purged the leftists, not the soft left, ie centre-left, which still make up a considerable part of the party with some serving in the shadow cabinet. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Historically socialist parties have routinely purged left-wing elements. That doesn't mean they change their ideology every twenty years. TFD (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  British Labour's hardly socialist. Maurnxiao (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  As Herbert Morrison said, "socialism is what the Labour government does." More broadly, socialist party refers to a group of parties that arose in the 19th century to support labour but have over time broadened their constituency. At least, that's how the terminology is used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why is Herbert Morrison – whom I did not know before you brought him up – considered an authority in this matter when he is making comments such as these? It is like saying Nazism is whatever the Tories do, ergo, Conservative Party far right. Maurnxiao (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  In order to categorize socialist parties, do we start with Labour, the German Social Democrats, the French Socialists and the numerous other parties that have called themselves socialist for decades and cooperated in self-described socialist organizations or do we start with a Platonic ideal that no perhaps no party meets?

  BTW, it's a little too early in the discussion to bring up HItler. But it would be peculiar to argue that the Nazi Party weren't really a Nazi party because they didn't live up to whatever definition of a Nazi Party you had. TFD (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Neither the SPD in Germany nor the Socialists in France have shifted anywhere near as much to the right as the Labour Party did under Blair and is doing under Starmer. Not that I'd consider any of these parties socialist, really, it is like calling the Nazis socialist because they called themselves National Socialists. By the way, I think you should reread the earlier Nazi analogy I made, you seemed to have completely missed the mark. I was talking about the Conservative Party in the UK, not the Nazis. Maurnxiao (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces Neither of those parties are socialist, they are social democratic. In the case of the french socialists, they merely align themselves with left wing political groups/coalitions. In the case of SPD, the party as it currently is, is not socialist and hasn't been for decades if not over a century.

  The Nazi party is by definition Nazi, as Naziïsm is defined as being the ideology of the Nazi party. Such is not the case for Labour and Socialism. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Socialism is defined as the ideology of socialists. Parties and groups calling themselves socialist came together in the 1889 Socialist International. The more radical members would eventually regroup in the Communist International, while the moderates would continue to be called socialists.

  Do you think that no socialist parties ever existed or somehow they morphed into something else? People who think that have little understanding of the history of socialism. TFD (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I have to mention, Nazïsm being defined as the ideology of the Nazi party isn't comparable to Socialism being the ideology of Socialist parties. The Nazi party was a single party that established its own ideology, Socialism isn't defined by its relationship to a party or a group of parties, it's a clear cut ideology with its own origins outside of the party system of most liberal-democratic nations. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Socialism is not what the Labour government does, the Labour government is very capable of doing non-socialist things. I don't understand how socialism can be defined that way at all. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's the No true Scotsman fallacy. A Scottish person refuses to accept that a criminal is Scottish because no Scot would commit such a crime. But even though Scots may be mostly law abiding, that's not the definition of a Scotsman. We learn about the Scots by studying them, not by creating an ideal.

  Do you think that socialist parties ever existed and if not what is the point of having such a term? TFD (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Socialism is a set of ideas that are not bound to a single party which has deviated greatly from the beliefs of its founders over a hundred year journey. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, please do not forget the apparently very common fallacy fallacy. Maurnxiao (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  So are you saying that while we can talk about liberal, conservative, Christian Democratic, nationalist, fascist, and communist parties, we cannot talk about socialist parties? Why is there a special rule? TFD (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  No I am not saying anything even remotely like that so that seems like an odd question to me. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would you agree that the Liberal Democratic Party is a liberal party, the Conservative Party is a conservative party, the Green Party is a green party, the Scottish National Party is a nationalist party, the Communist Party of GB is a communist party? Why therefore can we not say Labour is a socialist party? Is there some sort of purity test we apply to Labour but not these other parties? TFD (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  If their actions defy their name then yes? Do you consider the Nazi Party socialist because it had National Socialist in the name? Misnomer. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would assume that the people who coined the term socialist to describe their movement were socialists, just as the people who coined the term liberal to describe their movement were liberals. Of course some parties deliberately misname themselves. But I see no evidence that when the Labour Party was founded in 1900 it as significantly different from other socialist parties or that it is today.

  One of the ways to determine if the self-description fits the facts is to look at international affiliations. Labour for example was in the Socialist International and the Socialist caucus in the European parliament. Nazis OTOH never belonged to any international socialist organizations.

  Do you not think that Marx and Lassalle, Engels and Bernstein and Kier Hardie were socialists? I have seen no sources they weren't. TFD (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  None of which has any bearing on the policies of the modern Labour Party. It was socialist, once, but that is clearly no longer the case. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Policies and ideology are separate things. Liberals, conservatives and socialists have supported and opposed free trade, the welfare state, immigration, high taxes, slavery, abortion and anything else you want to name. Parties change policies based on ideology. The developed world today is not the same place as Europe 100 years ago. Only a fool would insist on keeping the 1924 platform of the Labour Party UK, the Social Democratic Party of Germany or the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks). TFD (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Czello In that case I propose that we have different political positions listed for the different time frames, like what's done at Radical Party (France). A Socialist Trans Girl 02:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. You have, in great and very sufficient detail, detailed how the labour party is not centre-left. The party is centre, centre to centre-right, or just centre right. I've already written a thing supporting it so I'll restate that here, ommitting the irrelevant parts.

Considering their selection for their candidates this election, and the fact that they self-sabotaged Corbyn (source) and kicked him out of the party (source), it cannot be said that they are centre-left to left-wing at all, barely even centre left at that point.

What a party says itself in its manifesto is often not reliable, and often they do not reflect the ideology of the party itself. There must be third party reliable sources saying it is centre-left. I have not seen any reliable third party sources saying the Labour party is centre-left, from after the expulsion of Corbyn, which are about it being centre-left (not just saying it within it briefly through circular sourcing). I have three saying it's centre-right. 1 2 3. (Note sources 2 and 3 are opinion, though are still of value while adjusting for that).

Additionally, the party itself says it is pro-business (source), which is mutually exclusive with being pro-worker; centre-left politics is pro-worker first and foremost, within a welfarist democratic capitalist system.

I do not see how they are still centre-left at all when they have shifted right on the economy (Blair notoriously gave up to the right mostly on economics), on immigration, on the EU, on trans rights, etc.}

Additionaly, the party under Starmer is, on almost all if not all issues, to the right of Joe Biden, who is a centre to centre-left social liberal. And, in the UK, the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour on all issues, especially social and foreign policy.

Therefore, it is my belief that it cannot reasonably be considered centre-left. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I have seen this and your other recent comments in this discussion and I agree completely with you. It should also be pointed out that on foreign policy, Labour is nearly indistinguishable from the Conservatives. It's pretty neoconservative, militaristic, and aligned almost symmetrically with the US.

By the way, it wasn't just Corbyn who was expelled from the party. Probably the other most notable attempt at destroying the remnants of the leftist Labour was the botched attempt to get rid of Diane Abbott. The party is currently at war with the left, and in fact there has been a significant rightward shift in British politics recently. Current Labour is, in my estimation, closer to the early 2010s Tories than any party with the interests of the working class in mind. Maurnxiao (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, no academic sources state centre-right or even centre. They just say the party has been moved from left/hard left towards the centre. I think this is WP:POV pushing Kowal2701 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Pushing from a POV is a valid way of working because others will push from a different one and we’ll arrive at a middle ground, but it is time consuming, I’d rather we just tried to put our own opinions aside and followed academic sources. Personally I’m to the left of Starmer, but I’d rather this encyclopaedia were accurate Kowal2701 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there's a lot of WP:OR arguments in here, such as Additionally, the party itself says it is pro-business, which is mutually exclusive with being pro-worker (aside from being untrue/POV). Comparisons to Joe Biden are also WP:OR, but don't really tally given that the American political landscape is to the right of ours, anyway. Biden might be considered centre-left in the US, but if you plopped him in in the UK it'd be harder to make that point. — Czello ^(music) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Starmer's Labour Party is no longer the party of Corbyn. They are definitely centrist at this point, but given the party isn't just about Starmer, I think centre to centre-left would be the most appropriate label. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  They were labelled simply "centre-left" before Corbyn, too. We explicitly didn't move their position when they shifted to the left under him. — Czello ^(music) 07:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  The party still had a significant number of centre-left and centre politicians, and many of whom were in his shadow cabinet. Maurnxiao (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  And there's a considerable number of centre-left politicians in the shadow cabinent now (including left-wing members like Lisa Nandy), so that argument goes both ways. — Czello ^(music) 10:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hence, centre to centre-left Maurnxiao (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Lisa Nandy is soft left, so centre-left [27] Kowal2701 (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  there are still left wing factions like Momentum Kowal2701 (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  That is a separate organisation that supports the Labour Party; it is not the Labour Party. Regardless, it has 13 staff. While we can agree that Labour has leftist factions and these could be discussed later in the article, the mainstream of the party varies from centre to centre-left as described by news outlets, and this is the information that should be used in the infobox. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't saying it was the labour party, but it represents a faction within the party. I agree with centre to centre-left, but I'm very wary of using news articles as sources, in my mind an academic source is worth 5 news sources. Like TFD has said, news sources represent a POV. We should survey across the spectrum Kowal2701 (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  “Centre to centre-left” is nonsense and basically tautology. Centre-left as a political position inherently contains the political “centre”. List centre or centre-left, but not some utter nonsense which is utterly redundant.— Autospark (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a ludicrous argument.Meesher (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Lots of pages have "centre to centre-left/right": Modern Centre Party, Center Party (Norway), The Centre (political party), Alliance of the Centre (Italy), United Bermuda Party, Centre Party (Turkey), Centre Party (Sweden), Progressive Conservative Party of Canada Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  What point are you making there, other than noting that there are some poorly-written political party articles on en.wiki?-- Autospark (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  That convention supports it. Centre to centre left is used when sources disagree and either say centre or centre left Kowal2701 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is no "convention", merely that poorly-written articles continue to use that trope – that is a good argument for the "Position" field to be removed entirely from political party Infoboxes, but while it remains, it absolutely should not list confusing and tautological nonsense like "centre to centre-left".-- Autospark (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that it is confusing, it means the party is between centre and centre left when averaging sources’ analysis, and I think that’s quite intuitive for the reader and makes it easy for them to place the party on the spectrum. And remember it is a spectrum, not discrete right, centre-right, centre etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Mention those descriptions (where based on reliable, preferably scholarly, sources) in the article body, not the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The Infobox is the part that people see first and is supposed to be a summary that easily and succinctly explains all the off-hand information people may be interested in at a glance. Position is one of those pieces of info, convention supports using multiple labels to either show that different sources describe it differently or to show that a party sits somewhere between two labels, since, as @Kowal2701 brought up, it's a spectrum, not a filing cabinet, the same way something can be North-North-West of you, a party can be centre to centre left. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can anyone provide a reliably sourced explanation of the distinction between center-left and left-wing? It seems that what they mean changes depending on context. For example, when the media distinguish between center-left and left-wing they are saying the first is acceptable and the second isn't. TFD (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  An example of well-cited and documented sources for a left-wing party would be Green Party of England and Wales. There is a clear political difference between the Labour Party or LibDems vs. the Greens. Left-wing is closer to far-left, and we classify many left wing parties such as Movimiento al Socialismo and Workers Party of Britain as "left-wing to far-left." --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a reliably sourced explanation? Do you have an essay that explains why the Greens are left, but not center left or far left? In this case you are placing them between Labour and the Workers' Party, which is valid. But all that shows is relative position rather than their absolute position in the spectrum. TFD (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have an opinion on the Greens. I'm merely using them as an example because there are two sources cited in the infobox. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  And there are other reliable sources that place the party differently. TFD (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose, as there is so many way much more "centre-grounded" parties than the current Labour Party (under Starmer) in the other European countries and around the globe (including various third way, social-liberal, neoliberal, nationalist big tent parties, "social democrats" only by name, etc. - which also include parties without ANY left-wing faction within it), that are still clasified as "centre-left" in political spectrum. Also in the U.K. politics the Liberal Democrats are traditionally "centre to centre-left" party in the Parliament. Also, durring Blair (much more centrist programe) and Corbyn (leftist) terms Labour was still seen as "centre-left" political party. --Dav988, 07:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep the current Infobox:
Ideology: Social democracy
Political position: Centre-left
Which is the most common Infobox description for similar parties, also based by the vast majority of the main sources in case of the U.K. Labour. --Dav988, 07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, must keep center-left as it does with sister parties like Australian Labor Party , Social Democratic Party of Germany and New Zealand Labour Party given these parties have been also labelled "moved to the center" and "adopted some center-right policies" yet retained being labelled Centre-left. Please remove the [under discussion] Mhaot (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You don’t get the deciding vote, it is still under discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Similar parties still are not the Labour Party. Maurnxiao (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree to this. Social-democracy and centre-left. Gc12847 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, the party are simply prima facie not left of the centre based on the policies they've adopted. People citing recentism ignore that they've been centrist to centre-right for 30 years, with a brief blip.Meesher (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose,

- Under that logic, many other sister parties would had their Centre-left position removed. One example is the Australian Labor Party which they too had moved to the center and adopted certain centrist to center-right policies ever since Bob Hawke (1980s) from economic liberalization to Asylum Seekers to Immigration.

- Starmer in May 2024 reiterated he and the parties commitment to social democracy in a statement saying “I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive” Source: https://theconversation.com/is-keir-starmer-a-socialist-232567#:~:text=%E2%80%9CI%20would%20describe%20myself%20as,as%20a%20democratic%20socialist%20party.

- A key element that keeps center-left parties center-left is the affiliation and support from Trade Unions even if the party itself moves slightly economically right. Labour Party and other sister parties fits in this category. Mhaot (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, all of those should be changed to reflect their actual ideology, and wikipedia shouldn't be used to whitewash them with outdated labels like "social democracy" (lol) and "centre-left". Michail (blah) 09:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose there is no notable difference between it and other social democratic political parties in Europe. Support leaving it "Centre-left". Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose as I also support leaving "centre-left" alone. To be honest, as I always state in similiar discussions, I oppose the "xxxxx to xxxxx" format (e.g. "centre-left to left-wing") and political positions in infoboxes. The Labour Party has been broadly and quintessentially a centre-left, social-democratic party for almost a century, including when its leaders came from the left. Also under Corbyn, the party's majority was arguably centre-left. It is surely centre-left now, as the party has lost votes to its left to the Greens and independent candidates. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconded, also strong oppose. I would not recommend adding "democratic socialism" back in, by the way. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also strong oppose The policies on worker's rights, rail renationalisation, soereign wealth-fund and green energy and still centre-left. Also, others have said, it is no diffeent from other centre-left parties. Gc12847 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose for the reasons set out immediately above by Checco; also, irrespective of Labour's purportedly 'centre-right' (dubious...) leadership, the parliamentary party is still a heterogeneous coalition of the solid left (as per Socialist Campaign Group) right through to the soft left and moderates. 'Centre-left' applies perfectly fine and I would suggest adding democratic socialism back to the ideology section too. · | (t - c) 16:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong consensus was already reached to remove Democratic Socialism, there were very few dissenting voices, it won't be added back in in the absence of a brand new discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've already opposed above, but we've now got a reliable source from today that explicitly calls Labour centre-left. — Czello ^(music) 17:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Changing to Centre to Centre-left seems like the most logical option. Viatori (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Further comment: "centre-left" already includes both "centre" and "left-wing"; it is perfectly OK to describe a quintessential social-democratic party like Labour. --Checco (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support — Labour is clearly not a centre-left political party. It self-describes as the natural party of business. Centre to centre-right is the correct label for this mess of a party. The zeal with which some editors are defending the centre-left / social democracy label with links to sources from 2010 is honestly quite pathetic. Michail (blah) 09:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Arguably the zeal with which some editors propose centre-right without any academic sources is equally pathetic Kowal2701 (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is literally indistinguishable from one-nation conservatism ("the preservation of established institutions and traditional principles within a political democracy, in combination with social and economic programmes designed to benefit the ordinary person"), but you do you I guess. For some people it's acceptable for Wikipedia articles to gaslight readers with sources from 2010. Michail (blah) 10:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources are outdated and from three election cycles ago. Maurnxiao (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Being a party of business is not a left/right distinguisher in the modern day. A centrist or centre-left party can certainly be pro-business. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Important to note that there is a difference between small businesses and bigger ones. Maurnxiao (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong support - After weeks of discussions, it's clear that strong support indicates the correct ideological label under Starmer's leadership is centre to centre-left. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not unprecedented, either; look at the Liberal Party in Canada. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that Labour Party should be labelled centre to centre-left rather than keeping the centre-left position as:

- Liberal Party of Canada shouldn't even compared here as LPC is not grouped as Progressive Alliance but rather Liberal International (as with Liberal Democrats (UK))

- A key element of a centre-left party is the link to Trade Unions and adherence to Social Democracy (even if not adhered strongly)

- May as well change most other sister parties (such as Australian Labor Party, Social Democratic Party of Germany) under this argument as they had also been label "moving the center" and "Third Way" Mhaot (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would be entirely opposed to that third point you brought up. Maurnxiao (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I haven't been very involved in this discussion as a participant but have read through it so far. The vast majority of news sources, many of which have already been linked by other editors, describe Labour's win as a victory for the center-left. Additionally, while there are some issues they have moderated on, many of the party's priorities remain oriented with the left, such as workers' rights and environmental policies (see here [28]). Additionally, as another editor pointed out, centre-left can encompass some centrist or even slightly centre right views, as well as ideas farther to the left. It's a label for a slightly left wing party, which I think fits Labour's current ideology quite well. Harshalrach (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2024

NPR describes Starmer as a "centrist."[29] The problem is that these terms mean different things depending on context. If you want to say the party is left-wing, right-wing, centre-left, centrist, etc., you have to tell the readers what you mean by those terms. TFD (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose As other users have mentioned, reliable sources have consistently described Labour as a center-left party. Those voicing support, in contrast, seem to mainly be rooting their arguments in a personally-defined purity test, rather than basing said arguments in any sort of academic or journalistic consensus.Jogarz1921 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this take is that journalists also apply personally-defined purity tests. The centre-left for a journalist in the United States is the centre/centre-right for any European politician. Also, the political compass placed Labour squarely in the centre-right camp based on its policies. Michail (blah) 09:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Although it is true that some journalists do this, academic sources are also available that would place Labour on the centre-left; such as a recent paper from The British Journal of Politics and International Relations that was published this year and argues that the UK, Australian and and New Zealand Labour Parties "are still rooted in a recognisable centre–left tradition, but operating from a narrower base of core values". The discussion on this page appears to have avoided looking at publications like this, and instead given near-exclusive preference to the 'personally-defined purity test' you mention, which should be anathema for an encyclopaedia (albeit historically consistent with some of the earliest versions!).

Likewise, I would strongly advise against using the Political Compass as a reliable indicator of any party's ideology. It has no clear methodology, is not tested for reliability, is frequently criticised by academics, and only represents the views of its editor(s). GuernseyIndependenceParty (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• last year, not this year - sorry, completely forgot what year this is!

GuernseyIndependenceParty (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to remove social democracy from the ALP infobox in this case, because "it remains unable – even through third way means – to offer policy innovations or solutions. It cannot or will not reactivate core values of the social democratic tradition". And feel free to remove it from Labour as well, since the jist is that these three sister parties have essentially the same definitely-not-social-democratic platform. Michail (blah) 13:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Political Compass is nowhere near reliable as a source – in fact I'd go as far as to say it's actively untrustworthy. — Czello ^(music) 11:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, centre-left is well sourced and still reflects the bulk of the party - regardless of some of the policies of the current leader. Labour has moderated towards the centre since the Corbyn-era, but certainly not much more so than the Liberal Democrats or Labour's social democratic counterparts in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.--Jay942942 (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well sourced? The current sources are from four election cycles and three leaders ago. Maurnxiao (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A list of recent sources that state Labour is centre-left:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/04/europe/uk-election-europe-populist-surge-intl/index.html

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/spain-sanchez-scholz-germany/ (from politics lecturer at King's College London)

https://www.newstatesman.com/editors-note/2023/03/jason-cowley-keir-starmer-learnt-return-german-social-democrats

https://sciencebusiness.net/news/universities/uk-universities-crisis-centre-left-takes-power

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/16/centre-left-revival-keir-starmer-labour

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240705-uk-s-labour-sweeps-to-power-as-leader-starmer-vows-to-bring-change

https://www.france24.com/en/20200404-britain-s-labour-party-picks-keir-starmer-as-its-new-leader

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-labour-can-navigate-the-pitfalls-of-moving-from-opposition-to-government/

Labour's membership of the main alliance of centre left parties in Europe: https://pes.eu/member/labour-party/

A statement from Labour's website that 'Labour will introduce a new industrial strategy', language that is inconceivable for a centre right or centrist neoliberal party in a western political system would use because it represents support for some state direction of the economy to achieve policy outcomes such as Labour's statement it will 'Make Britain a clean energy superpower' by establishing a new state led energy company, some of its other policies like free breakfast clubs at schools and public ownership of railways are the type of thing that would be firmly associated with centre-left politics

Here is the obviously centre-left Socialist Party (France) congratulating Labour on its victory and saying it gives 'a new impetus on the left': https://x.com/partisocialiste/status/1808984915813277743

The fact that Starmer chose a cautious and unambitious campaign and manifesto does not mean that it is not a fundemntally centre left party full of politicians who would identify that way (even Stammer said he describes himself as a Socialist) and voted for by the same kind of people who vote for centre-left parties across Europe. The fact that it upsets some editors who clearly align with the faction of the party that is more left wing than CENTRE-left and who are unhappy Starmer moved away from them and suspended Corbyn does not mean it is not the party that occupies the centre-left space in British politics, will shift between different centre-left tendencies and levels of radicalism over time and is affiliated with trade unions. Wikipedia can only reflect reliable sources which have a very clear consensus, if this changes the political position can change but so far it has not.Ncnub (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

None of this has any bearing on the fact that this discussion is NOT over, as is evidenced by the fact that you just contributed to it, so please stop removing the under discussion label on the infobox. Besides, people are arguing that Labour should be centre to centre-left in the infobox, not right-wing. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, we are talking about the Labour Party here. Everyone fundamentally disagreeing about its political identity and never reaching a firm conclusion is a fundamental part of its internal culture. GuernseyIndependenceParty (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also some of the people proposing the discussion didn't want centre-centre left even though there are no reliable sources for the centre bit. They were talking about centre-right which demonstrates the extent to which they are obviously extremely bitter Corbynites who are offering ideological diatribes and not any correctly interpreted reliable sources to back up there assertions. The discussion is unserious and has no prospect of success. Ncnub (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has not been contributed to except for your comment for a couple days and it shows no conensus for a change that is proposed based on personal ideologicaly driven opinions rather than reliable sources. My comment was to justify edit. Reliable sources describe labour exclusively as centre-left, not centrist (some may say it has 'become more centrist' which is not the same thing). I can imagine in the future if the Conservatives drift to the populist right to chase Reform and parties like the Greens grow on the left Labour could be seen to represent a broader political centre and this would then be reflected in reliable sources that could be used to change the position on wikipedia. However, it is currently still the party that represents the centre-left of British politics and seen as analagous to other quintescently centre-left sister parties such as SPD,PSOE and PS which all have 'centre-left' and 'social democracy' as there political positions and ideology. Labour has the same kind of people as politicians and voters as these parties and is in international groupings with them as well as its political traditions and history and trade union affiliation marking it as the centre-left force in British politics. This must remain the case as longs as reliable sources reflect it. Ncnub (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at the other topics on here discussing the democratic socialism label. Those are finished discussions, whereas this one is not and until the discussion is over the infobox should reflect this. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Examples of how this pointless discussion that petered out days ago is based on ideological editors and has no prospect of success:

One editor brought up how 'Starmer favors Britain's current first-past-the-post voting system and opposes proposals for electoral reform, such as the adoption of proportional representation'. This has been the position of the Labour Party since the day it was founded and so is clearly compatible with some traditions of centre-left thought.

They bring up quotes they claim praise Margret Thactor without the context the authors of these quotes later made clear they strongly opposed Thactor and there argument was that,like Atlee and Blair, her government was one that left a lasting legacy like they want their one to.

They bring up Labour's not supporting full abolition of the house of lords (but proposing some reform) despite the fact that previous Labour leaders have often taken this position. They bring up opposing a second Scotish independce referendum which was Labour's position in the Corbyn years and is simlair to the PSOE position on Catalonia. They bring up Labour supporting NATO and nuclear weapons which was the position even in the Corbyn years.

A different editor said they are proposing 'centre, centre to centre-right' which highlights how these are the ideolgical diatribes of bitter Corbynites not serious arguments backed up by reliable sources with a chance of sucess.

Another said 'the party itself says it is pro-business, which is mutually exclusive with being pro-worker'. This ignores the fact that working with business is a core tenent of social democratic and third way centre-left politics. There are no reliable sources to sustain a shift and no arguments with any more substance than 'because it is not left wing- far left it cannot be centre-left'. With no reliable sources and the discussion not showing any consensus for a change the discussion must be brought to a close. Ncnub (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Closing this discussion

I think it's time we draw this one to a close, too. While I was certain of the consensus of the last discussion, I'm less so here. I'd be inclined to say it's no consensus to change, but it's less clear to me. Do we have a consensus, or should we raise it at WP:CR for an uninvolved third party to give their verdict? My only hesitation is that CR has a notoriously long wait time. — Czello ^(music) 16:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say we close it but as Labour are now in power and can implement their policies, perhaps we should revisit this discussion in a few months' time? Maurnxiao (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Happy to come back in the new year (2025) once they've had the first budget and some time to begin implementing policies. GuernseyIndependenceParty (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Maurnxiao (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Time to close discussion, see my final comment in discussion that dissects how arguments made lack any substance, reliable sources or chance of success. Going through discussion makes clear that consensus will not be reached in favour of change. No point in continuing so I will close. WP:BOLD Ncnub (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No, not time, for the reasons I explained on your talk page. I count over a dozen people who have been involved in this discussion, and given that the consensus is unclear we should give them a chance to have input. Given that you already have a report open at EWN I suggest you drop stop edit waring. — Czello ^(music) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Czello I think there's no consensus, yeah. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Talking of which, I'm going to ping a few people to get their input. @The Four Deuces:, @Takis S1: @GlowstoneUnknown: @A Socialist Trans Girl: @Kowal2701: @Autospark: — Czello ^(music) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You're handling this very functionally, thank you. I think no consensus is most accurate, with a closing remark that the premise of future discussions need to be on reliable sources. I agree that January 2025 would be a good time to reopen discussion when we have more sources Kowal2701 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No consensus and moratorium on further discussions until January 2025, it seems to be, if others agree. — Czello ^(music) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Czello I do NOT agree with a moratorium, I see no need for one, especially since there's no consensus one way or the other. Also I think until January is too long. May I ask your reasoning for supporting a moratorium? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the first person to suggest it (that was Maurnxiao, but then endorsed by GuernseyIndependenceparty, Ncnub, and Kowal2701). However I do support it because right now there are clearly not enough sources to achieve a consensus, and part of the reason for this is that the sources are all from before they were in government. After 6 months we might have a clearer direction of travel. — Czello ^(music) 07:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me that changing the position of one of Europe's quintessentialy centre-left parties, universally agreed to be centre-left by reliable sources and that is beginning to implement a centre-left program of government and has a unanimously center-left set of politicians and party members as well as a voter base typical of centre-left parties because of the ideological position of a few editors clearly a lot more left wing than centre-left politics and social democracy and a discussion that has not reached consensus for change would generate a major backlash from other editors if it were to be done. Time to end discussion because the outcome is obvious. Ncnub (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not for the first time I will see WP:AGF. The opinions of other editors shouldn't be disregarded because of their perceived political views. — Czello ^(music) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

See some of my previous comments which explain how it is possible British politics could develop in a way over the next 5-10 years that could see reliable sources start to provide a basis for a change in political position however right now they do not because Labour occupies the centre-left space in British politics as agreed by all recent reliable sources. Ncnub (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

changing the position of one of Europe's quintessentialy centre-left parties

Political parties can change ideologies. Democrats used to support state rights to own slaves while Radical Republicans led the effort against slavery and southern seccession. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

They can, but right now all reliable sources agree on Labour being centre-left. It has merely shifted between different strands of centre-left politics. It is also notable it maintains close connections with Europe's other quintessentialy centre-left parties, many of whom congratulated Labour on its victory. That fact that it is one of the quintesential standard bearers of the European tradition of centre-left politics and social democracy and a member of the Party of European Socialists means that changing its position would be particularly monumental and cannot be done while all recent reliable sources agree it is centre-left. There have been many goverment of these kind of parties that have perused very moderate policies such as those of Gerhard Schröder and Tony Blair that have not resulted in their parties political positions being changed- this is because just like Keir Starmer they represent a strand of centre-left politics. Ncnub (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You claiming Schröder or Starmer represent this or that is a matter of personal opinion. There are sources that point towards Labour's status as a centre to centre-left party, and it is diplomatic for leaders and political parties to congratulate election victors. Maurnxiao (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean countries leaders diplomatically congratulating them on their elections, I mean political parties congratulating and welcoming another ones victory because it aligns with their ideology. This is what has happened with Labour (see the tweet I linked from the centre-left Socialist Party (France)) and this is relevent as a reflection of the kind of politics the party is seen to represent. It is not relevant my personal opinion of various leaders but it is relevent that Wikipedia did not change their parties political positions becuase of them and I would recomend reading a bit about the governments of Schröder in particular if you think he was any more left wing than Starmer. All the sources brought up to support a change have ever been misunderstood (as explained by previous editors) or say something like 'Labour has become more centrist' which is not incompatible with it being centre-left. In contrast, there is an overwhelming bulk of recent reliable sources that say it is centre-left Ncnub (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No consensus and moratorium on further discussions until January 2025 Ncnub (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ncnub It's fine if you disagree with the proposal, but you shouldn't assume that those who support it support it because they're much further left and want to rebrand a type of party as centre or center-right; that's not the case. Nobody's trying to make PSOE or Socialist Party (Portugal) centre or cente-right. The reason they do for labour is because of a massive shift of policy in recent years, especially in regards to social policy. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@A Socialist Trans Girl The Social Democratic Party (Romania) is labelled as centre -left despite social conservatism being one of its ideoligies. The mainstream of British politics is more sceptical of trans rights in particular than e.g Spain so it makes sense the centre-left party reflects this and Labour is typically on the centre left of British politics on social issues e.g: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/04/labour-plans-extend-equal-pay-rights-black-asian-minority-ethnic-staff https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-plans-simplify-process-change-231853344.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADApARmL-_m5yBdew3Enza-fzmmZHFXnQ4jOVM24SP2Zg2HST7eK2gumR0g8vosiJ-bWh70KJwIvkoaaIAKeBl4Ar1uN-QMR8anpE9SHkyDSVu46kxr1t3zkb7eDK9paBW1iudD9kyxXYqvaEwQichhrclw7w7qayTGezRMv_-No https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-unveils-commission-to-review-diversity https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/27/labours-race-equality-act-south-africas-apartheid-badenoch/ Furthermore, when I explained how the way Labour talks about the economy is aligned with traditional centre left rhetoric and distinct from how e.g a centrist neolibreal or centre right parties would frame things, and that the (few) policies they have announced are in line with typical centre-left governance you did not help this conversation by making a bizarre reference to the Nazis. Additionally, the starting point for the massive shift in policy is Corbyn Who is way to the left of the parties you mentioned. Is it such a massive shift from the centre-left governments of Blair or Scholz?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncnub (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cooperative Party

Hi, should the Cooperative Party be mentioned in the lede? It is mentioned in the body and personally I think it's due, candidates stand under Labour and Co-operative Party. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: The party was founded in 1900, having grown out of the trade union movement and socialist parties of the 19th century, and absorbed the Cooperative Party in 1927.

absorbed could be replaced by "entered into an electoral pact with" but that might mislead the reader and be verbose Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the lede, but I don't think the phrasing of it 'absorbing' the coöp party is particularly accurate. A Socialist Trans Girl 02:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t know how to summarise it because whilst it was willingly entered, it’s clearly not a relationship of equals, they operate as more of a faction within the party Kowal2701 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

incorporated/allied with instead of absorbed? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's split off History section to existing article on History of Labour Party

The article is much too long because it has so much history to cover before it gets to the 21st century. I think the best solution is to spin off much of the History section to the already existing article History of the Labour Party (UK) . Most readers I think are interested in current events and will have more space to deal with that. Some people (like me) are interested in the history and they will not be inconvenienced. Any comments? Rjensen (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, no brainer, keep recent/relevant history in this article, spin off the wordier older sections into the extant article. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there should still be a paragraph or two on the pre-war history, but so long as the it’s page linked it shouldn’t be an issue for the reader Kowal2701 (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I made a start on ssection 1.1 just now. Rjensen (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the second paragraph "and then Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010." needs to be corrected with "and then Gordon Brown from 2007 to 2010." CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a typo - Blair came to power in 1997 and the sentence refers to the whole Blair-Brown era. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following the recent productive discussion about democratic socialism in the infobox, I believe we should address what was not addressed in that discussion; neoliberalism and third way in the infobox. I support it having neoliberalism and third way in the infobox.

Please begin messages with either Support including neoliberalism or Oppose including neoliberalism, as well as either Support including third way or Oppose including third way. Or just comment, or some other opinion/ideology (not socialism though, already have consensus to remove that.). A Socialist Trans Girl 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is the economic paradigm which governing parties across the political spectrum have followed for the last forty years. Even leftist parties, such as Syriza, and neofascist parties, such as Meloni's Brothers of Italy, have governed as neoliberals.

If we follow your suggestion, then every party would be labelled as neoliberal. However, despite similarities in government, political parties retain distinct ideologies.

Third Way is ambiguous because it literally means a position that is an alternative to two established ones. What those two positions and the alternative are is however unclear. Both Fascists and Blairites for example presented themselves as a third way. TFD (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, Fascists are Third Positonists, Third Way is a liberal Ideology.

Third Way on The Polcompball Wiki RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's a mostly economic position.

Do you have an alternative suggestion for what ideology it should be? A Socialist Trans Girl 10:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support including third way,

Oppose including neoliberalism RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Aristotle Kallis and Norberto Bobbio among other leading experts use the term "third way" to describe the fascist attempt to position themselves between liberal individualism and socialism,[30] which incidentally is what Blair attempted to do. Note also that Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. saw centrism as an alternative to the extremes of communism and fascism, making it a form of third way as well.

Any party in a three or multiple party system can be described as a third way. So Nigel Farage is a third way between Labour's socialism and the Tory's support for traditional social hierarchy. A roofer who doesn't want to be taxed by Labour or looked down upon by Tory aristocrats can find a third way with Reform. TFD (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, this is WP:OR, you need to provide sources. I’ve already provided one academic source that argues Labour are anti-neoliberal. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's some sources on it (use as appropriate):

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/08/09/this-country-does-not-need-a-neoliberal-labour-party/

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/jessop-from-thatcherism-to-new-labour.pdf

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ed-miliband-new-labour/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0745627412

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3676360

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030857590803200409

https://jacobin.com/2020/01/third-way-democratic-socialism-tony-blair-bill-clinton-uk

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230554573_3

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10379456/

https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526137883/9781526137883.00017.xml A Socialist Trans Girl 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Tbf lots of sources support this. I'd support Third Way, since neoliberalism is within that Kowal2701 (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot about social liberalism

Okay uhh I forgot about social liberalism. I support adding social liberalism. This is just a new seperate section to discuss social liberalism and sources for and against it, I guess. Sorry for forgetting it at the start. A Socialist Trans Girl 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose since this is within 'Social democracy', the convention appears to have gotten much stricter around how many ideologies to have in the parameter Kowal2701 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@User:Czello I don't think the previous discussion had that much discussion regarding other ideologies, it was mostly about the removal of democratic socialism, which I think we largely got done with with consensus on removing democratic socialism as the main goal, which happened. There's still a lot more discussion on the other ideologies to be had I believe. Could we please re-open the discussion? A Socialist Trans Girl 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I counted five people who agreed with the closing consensus, which included users that were previously in support of additional labels being added. I'm going to have to disagree that there wasn't enough discussion around them - I saw a fair amount, which persistently had a lot of resistance to each label for different reasons. I think instead of re-opening that discussion we really need to be drawing the #Political_positions to a close now. — Czello ^(music) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change, we should wait at least six months for more sources Kowal2701 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I think there's a distinct chance more sources can appear six months from now. — Czello ^(music) 12:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Czello If I were to find sources not previously mentioned nor considered which support it, would that be grounds to re-opening it before the 6 months? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Again I'm not in charge here so don't take my word as authoritative if you think there's good reason to reopen the discussion. — Czello ^(music) 08:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

oki A Socialist Trans Girl 08:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Czello Okay. Discussion of other adding ideologies would be okay though since they weren't discussed nor mentioned in the consensus, right? A Socialist Trans Girl 12:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to open a new discussion to propose new ideologies (other than neoliberalism, Third Way, or social liberalism - as they were all covered by the previous discussion) then, sure. But remember it's all going to have to be thoroughly sourced and avoiding WP:OR or personal interpretation. Honestly, I think it'd be a wasted effort as I can't see the discussion developing further than it did, and I think people are exhausted from the last one - but hey, I don't WP:OWN this page. — Czello ^(music) 12:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, we reached a consensus that Labour is a social democratic party. Surely this means by definition that it is a centre-left party? Can we just remove the ‘under discussion’ tag from that bit of the infobox? KronosAlight (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The political position is still under a separate discussion to the ideology, consensus will have to wait until that discussion is closed. Ideology and position don't go hand in hand. For instance, there are several partied labelled "Christian democratic" with labels spanning from "centre-left" to "centre-right to right-wing". Just be patient and wait for consensus. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 03:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If a social democratic party is by definition center left, can you explain what additional information the field has for readers? Basically it is saying reliable sources categorize Labour as social democratic and Wikipedia editors classify social democracy as center left. TFD (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, its a different thing. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agreed that it was consensus, but expressed my disagreement with it. I would still support a new motion to add "Social liberalism", "Neoliberalism", or "Third Way". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 17:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Broad-church "social democracy" perfectly suits the Labour Party. Anything else, factional, generic, neologistic or journalistic, like "democratic socialism", "social liberalism", "progressivism", "third way" and "neoliberalism" would not be improvements for the ideology parameter of the infobox. --Checco (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Checco We don't need to replace socdem with it, we can have them alongside it. A Socialist Trans Girl 04:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Then, those additions would be redundant or misplaced. --Checco (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Checco huh? how? parties can have multiple ideologies, I don't understand A Socialist Trans Girl 23:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that there are multiple ideologies in the Labour Party? As I see it, there is agreement on ideology but differences on how they should be applied. Specifically, there is disagreement about the extent to which collective control and/or ownership of the economy should be applied.

While the Liberals, Conservatives and lastly Labour all implemented social liberal policies, there's no evidence that they adopted liberal ideology. LIberals advocated these policies on the basis that they would empower individuals so there would be a level playing field in capitalist competition. I don't know who in the Labour Party ever explained it that way. TFD (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces The discussion is for broader discussion of sources for and against.

And, I'm not sure what you mean; Social liberalism is a type of liberalism. From Liberalism;

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights.

A Socialist Trans Girl 04:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism is a branch of liberalism emerged toward the end of the 19th century advocating social welfare in order to help people realize freedom. The pinnacle was the People's budget of 1906. Liberals then devised a comprehensive welfare system which was implemented by the Labour Party after WWII and continued by successive Conservative and Labour governments until the late 70s, after which both parties pursued neo-liberal policies.

The question is whether these period shifts in policy by all three parties represents a shift in ideology. Does the UK have a liberal, conservative and socialist party or does it have three neo-liberal parties which fifty years ago would have been social liberal parties and fifty years before that would have been classical liberal parties?

From a Communist perspective, all three parties are liberal and always have been. Any differences are cosmetic. While I agree somewhat with that approach, reliable sources distinguish between different parties by describing their ideologies differently. TFD (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism nor anything else should be added unless it is stated to be the ideology of the party by reliable third-party sources. Helper201 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideology (Infobox)

I would like to add Anti-Status Quo, Because from what I've seen, Starmer is pretty much against Tories -- RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that isn’t an ideology, the convention has gotten much stricter around what we put in the parameter Kowal2701 (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Now Starmer is the status quo. TFD (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

True now. RegierungDavidlands1852 (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

He's pretty pro-status quo in my view. Do you have any reliable sources for that? A Socialist Trans Girl 12:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament

Why does it say the Labour Party is the largest party in the Scottish parliament? From the most recent Scottish Parliament election, it’s the third largest party behind the conservatives and the SNP. Jisagay (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re right it’s not the biggest party in Holyrood, but it won most Scottish seats in Westminster Kowal2701 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be “centre to centre-left”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kier Starmer has rolled back on many left-wing policies so in my opinion describing the Labour Party as “centre-left” should be changed to “centre to centre-left” Mnbvr92 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources that make that distinction. We shouldn't make changes based on random personal observations. --Onorem (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the Political positions topic. Maurnxiao (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A response to the whole issue after reading the related discussions

While I agree on the issues of the Third Way and neoliberalism as reflected by the likes of A Socialist Trans Girl, I do not think they should make it to the infobox for all the reasons cited by TFD. To summarise the collapsed text, just like Corbyn's extremism (on economic issues, he took the Labour Party under a classic left-wing social democracy and Keynesian (e.g. Old Labour vis-a-vis New Labour), not Marxist, platform; I would argue his main issues on the leadership were Brexit, foreign policy, and antisemitism, it was not his economic platform to be extremist, especially in 2017) as Labour Leader was overstated, so is Starmer's rightward turn. In fact, Starmer was elected on a left-wing platform, essentially promising to be a popular and competent (e.g. keep its left-wing and anti-austerity economic policies, while taking centre-left views on foreign policy). While he made U-turns on that, I think that what will matter is what his government will actually do rather than words that were perhaps part of an electoral strategy. I think it makes more sense to consider (classical, e.g. anti-Third Way) social democracy to be socialist and the Third Way to be centrist rather than narrowing it too much and either consider all reformist socialists to be not "true socialists" (as some of more radical socialists do) just because they did not abolish capitalism or consider even governments that admittedly were centrist (New Labour) to be socialists (e.g. the Right considering any economic interventionism or any policy taken a by a self-professed socialist government to be automatically socialist).

We did not change to "Left-wing" when Corbyn (who economically took the part under a left-wing social democracy, not communism), I do not think we should do the same just because of Starmer's leadership; that would require academic, not news media, sources in support and no WP:OR/WP:SYNTH: if the source is saying "Starmer moved the party rightward", we should not interpret that to automatically mean support to change "Centre-left" to "Centre" in the infobox. Indeed, I recall there were reliable sources, including a BBC article that discussed the Labour Party and Blair and how many voters saw it as centre-right: that does not mean the Labour Party under Blair was centre-right (I think the majority view according to reliable sources is that it was centrist and/or neoliberal, with a significant minority arguing that it was centre-left but more rightward than the pre-Thatcher era), and I do not think we should state that as fact, just that some observers and voters saw it that way, exactly like the source (not our own views) said. Just like reliable sources discussing New Labour and Blair as neoliberal should be used in their proper context (e.g. the Labour Party under Blair) and not make generalisation to the party as a whole and its whole history. I would not have had an issue with keeping "Democratic socialism" because that is also a big part of the party history (notwithstanding the terminology issues) but it is not a big deal and I am fine with just "Social democracy". Davide King (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether Starmer eventually goes back to his policy platform in the 2020 Labour leadership contest does not affect how this article should look like today. Otherwise it is speculation, which is not really what Wikipedia is for. And again, Corbyn didn't purge elements of the party that were to his right; in fact, he collaborated with them and conceded policies to them on multiple occasions (e.g. Britain's nuclear arsenal). Maurnxiao (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's another discussion going on, use that one.

Add socialism as a historical ideology?

before new labour, the party was more about actual socialist ideas and not just centre left democracy. it should be added to the infobox ManU9827 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

More of Democratic socialism maybe in theory "socialism" but it was said so in a broad manner not in an overthrow the current regime and establish a communist utopia manner. Takis S1 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

labour blocked investigations into child rape cases in oldham seven times

ive added this to the oldham council page and am wondering if i should add a single line somewhere on this page mentioning this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_Council#Controversy_around_Child_Sexual_Exploitation NotQualified (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It is probably not significant to the party overall. Is it an issue that the national leadership has been confronted with? TFD (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

no more regional to manchester, i say it warrants a one line mention cause the case was pretty massive and 100s of kids were raped. NotQualified (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)