Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

The issue at hand

Should we have a brief mention that:

  1. Convicted fraudster Michael Brown donated £2.4 million to the Lib Dems, their biggest ever donor, noting that the Electoral Commission said the donation was acceptable? I think we should: this donation and investigation got a lot of comment in the media, still persisting five years on.
  2. Nick Clegg's donations have recently had some press attention? Probably not, seems to give undue weight to a minor issue that would be better raised at Talk:Nick Clegg. To qoute from Politics.co.uk: "The attack on Clegg on the eve of the second TV debate told a story about editors frustrated with the way public sentiment did not confirm with their editorial line. The Daily Mail, in a rather questionable and distasteful article, challenged Clegg's Britishness. The Telegraph challenged his donations - a claim which did not last long. The Express happily joined in."[1] (my bolding)

Please discuss calmly and briefly. Fences&Windows 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would mention the Brown donation. However I would like to see more about the structure of the party. What are the demographics of the membership, how democratic is the organization and what are their main sources of financial support? TFD (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as it's something like one sentence, I don't really mind. But too much more on this subject and we'll run into POV issues.UBER (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Party funding scandals

I suggest inserting the following well-documented facts:- In 2006, the Liberal Democrats received an illegal donation of £2.4 from Michael Brown, a convicted serial fraudster, whose non-trading company, 5th Avenue Partners, is awaiting the outcome of an inquiry. The party may yet be forced by the Electoral Commission to pay back the money. Between 2006 and 2009, the party accepted a total of £570,000 from the companies of Mr. Sudhir Choudhrie, an Indian citizen based in Chelsea, west London. Foreign citizens are not permitted to fund British political parties. The Choudrie family is non-domiciled for tax purposes and base many of their business interests in tax havens, which the Lib Dems theoretically oppose and want to close down. Choudrie is under investigation by the Indian police for receiving £80.5 million in illegal commission for brokering arms deals between Israel and India. The revelations embarrassed Nick Clegg, who officially opposes the arms trade and sales of arms to Israel.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/19/liberaldemocrats-donors-corruption —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriettaVanLaer (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC) ***************HENRIETTA VAN LAER says: Six days have passed and nobody has produced any counter-evidence to gainsay the above paragraph. Even the Wiki-police would be hard pressed to assert that the Guardian is a right-wing newspaper or is prejudiced against the Liberal Democrats. The article gave its own sources in Indian publications which are also trustworthy. Since we now have consensus, I propose therefore to add this material to the article in order to give a more balanced view of the Liberal Democrats and to raise the level of the article above mere whitewash.****Eight days have now passed and nobody has provided any good reason why this information should not be in the article, so I am putting it in today. If the Wiki-police respond by expunging it, EDIT-WARRING, blocking or censoring me, they will simply prove they are naive student-leftie bigots with a biassed agenda, unfit to participate in something that calls itself an encyclopaedia.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

                    • I TOLD YOU SO! As soon as anyone adds any unwelcome facts about corruption in a liberal party the Wiki-police expunges it anonymously, with providing any records, or explanation. Just plain crude CENSORSHIP. Wikipedia is biassed. You are not neutral. You are deeply prejudiced and resort to the most despicable censorship tactics to impose your bias on other people. CENSORSHIP. CENSORSHIP. CENSORSHIP. Just what socialists and left-wingers from Stalin to Hitler have always practised!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot express how much I despise Wikipedia. It really is beneath comptempt.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Then why stay? Try Conservapedia instead, I'm sure you'll be welcome. Rodhullandemu 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Henrietta Van Laer says, "Such a comment is clear proof that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to aim at detachment and balance, and to confine itself to facts. Now you are admitting that you are some sort of left-wing propagandist society. Wikipedia seems to be run by American left-wingers who have given up hope of ever getting power in the USA, so they retreat into a fantasy-world, a sort of cyber-reality from which most facts are excluded. Your own personal contributions above show that you are intervening to suppress anything anybody puts in about the Lib Dem party that is less than complimentary. You are just being dishonest." HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 00
          • 13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is disgraceful that Rodhullandemu resorted to banning Hnenrietta Van Laer and silencing her comments on wikipedia. It just proves that Wikipedia is policed by a nasty authoritarian KGB which imposes its own views and censors even the most well-founded alternative views. LOOK at the wway that there has been a new party scandal in the Liberal Democrats just in the past few days! David Laws their Treasury secretary had to resign for stealing £40,000 of illicit expenses. Disgraceful. And yet this article gives the impression that the Lib Dems are whiter and than white. I think that Rodhullandemu ought to be banned for abusing power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackandwhiteprinting (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Listen, if you're not willing to civilly and constructively cooperate with other users to improve the content of the encylopedia, you simply have no place here. Sir Richardson (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Far left v. far right

If the BNP is "far-right" it follows the LibDems are "far-left". Wikipedia is apparently a collection of ideologically-driven anonymous editors. The "NPOV" enforcers didn't like the description of the LibDems as "far-left". What is the political views of the random, anonymous "administrator" who reverses my edits and throws ad hominem like "vandal" around? This is why Wikipedia will never be a reliable primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.0.154 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that the Liberal Democrats are "far left" is laughable and can be readily ignored, per numerous reputable sources already cited in the article. Beyond that, the current lead was the product of long discussions and represents consensus from several established Wikipedia editors.UBER (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
They are still left-wing. That being said, I'm not sure is I really care. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You have absolutely no consensus for your changes. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia.UBER (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You may think they're far-left, but that's your opinion. Every reputable source would call them centre-left or left. Sorry. You can't just put your opinion in, even with a justification. That's Original Research, really. To make a serious change to an article about a political party's position without clear referencing, a few months before an election... that'd require an overwhelming consensus. SmokingNewton (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Left and right are at best vague terms, but it is certainly ridiculous to call the Liberal Democrats "far-left". They are in many ways deeply conservative and their party remains, despite positive discrimination, dominated by white men. They have fewer women and members of ethnic minorities than any other party. Their leaders all went to British public schools. It is just as innaccurate to call the BNP a "far-right" party. The latter takes many of its ideas from socialism and appeals to the working class, encouraging them to feel resentment towards the "bosses". Its racist attitudes resemble those of Hitler, who was of course a "Nazi" i.e. National Socialist. HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This talk page discussion is about the LDP, not the BNP. But the normal usage of the terms is that conservative parties are right, liberal parties are center and socialist parties are left. The fact that conservative parties have sometimes adopted "socialist" policies, such as Tory socialism does not put them on the left. TFD (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)*********Henrietta Van Laer replies: If a party has socialist policies, why categorize he them as "conservative"? A party is defined by its policies. The Nazis were from the outset a very change-oriented party and cannot be called conservative by any standards. They exercised state control of the economy. To deny they were left-wing is, as you say, normal, but is still deeply confused and reveals woolly thinking.
Trying to force a party to fit a point on a single one-dimensional scale inevitably involves approximations, but doesn't everyone regard the Nazis as extreme right (but not conservative)? Dbfirs 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clegg's irregular financial dealings with donors

We need to add this paragraph:-

In 2006, Clegg received a series of payments from party donors directly into his private bank account, totalling £20,000. The donors were Ian Wright, a senior executive at Diageo; Neil Sherlock, head of public affairs at KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold mining executive. All are registered as Liberal Democrat donors. Records of Mr Clegg’s personal bank account show the three men each paid up to £250 a month into the account. Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee of standards in public life, described the arrangement as “irregular”. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriettaVanLaer (talk • HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)contribs) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. This sort of information needs cast-iron sources. So far, I'm not convinced of the neutrality of your above source, since The Daily Telegraph are not traditionally considered to be neutral as far as the Liberals are concerned. A wider range of properly-sourced material, not amounting to opinion/editorialism, would be welcome here. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
News stories from the Telegraph are reliable. TFD (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)***********************The same facts were published in the Financial Times :- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56c0f318-4de0-11df-b437-00144feab49a.html

The donors themselves admit that they paid the money:- http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2942903/Cash-from-Lib-Dem-donors-paid-into-Nick-Cleggs-private-account-it-is-claimed.html Two Lib Dem offical website sources defend Clegg by saying that he used the donations to pay staff costs, but neither of them can name the member of staff. Nor has any other source named one. http://denzilcoulson.mycouncillor.org.uk/ http://liberalburblings.co.uk/2010/04/a-day-for-libdems-to-be-really-proud/ The fact remains that paying party donations into a personal account rather than the registered offical party account, is illegal. Clegg was caught up in the 2009 expenses scandal. It was revealed that he had not only spent tax-payers’ money on a new kitchen, garden wall and other garden landscaping, but he had claimed for personal telephone calls. He paid the money back. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7611192/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-defends-expenses-claims.html The code is that expenses may be claimed only for activites wholly, necessarily and unavoidably incurred for the purpose of carrying out parliamentary duties. Another well-documented recent press story about the Lib Dems relates how the party briefed MPs on how to squeeze the maximum payments out of their expenses accounts in order to fund their election campaigns:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1267835/General-Election-2010-Lib-Dem-MPs-told-milk-expenses-leaks-reveal.html You cannot really dismiss all this accumulated evidence as opinion and editorialism!!!!!!! Unless you have a blind prejudice in favour of this guy. Just because he calls himself a liberal, some people think he is an angel from heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriettaVanLaer (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the Telegraph story, Clegg clearly explained this and the Electoral Commission has accepted it. So what we are left with is spin. The Daily Mail is an unreliable source with a clear agenda. --Red King (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)************************HENRIETTA VAN LAER replies: You have got no source for your assertion that Clegg explained these facts away. It is more than a Telegraph story. The Telegraph has revealed immense amounts about the expenses and donor irregularities of several political parties over the past year and a half. You are trying to dismiss any newspaper whose opinions you dislike as a biassed source but all four of those I hav quoted are part of the mainstream media. The Telegraph is a respected newspaper. It seems to me that Wikipedia is a biassed source with a clear agenda [pro-socialists, liberals, greens and gays, determined to vilify and demonize conservatives]. To dismiss even the admissions of the donors themselves as "spin" is ridiculous. The fact that the Electoral Commission has not yet acted on the matter reveals that they are biassed, not that the Liberal Democrats are innocent. There is no excuse whatsoever for omitting the revelations of the 2009 MP expenses scandal from this article. It is cetainly a very bad article, which sets out to whitewash the Liberal Democrats. Since nobody has produced any substantial counter-evidence, I think I am justified in adding the emendations to the article's text.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Henrietta Van LAer says I OBJECT STRONGLY TO EDIT-WARRING WHICH HAS REMOVED MY CONTRIBUTIONS OF FACTS TO THIS ARTICLE. The material had all been discussed in the talk pages and was consensus approved. The user or users responsible should be banned and the contributions put back in the article main text immediately.HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the style guide and format your comments accordingly. A few colons not multiple asterisks and less SHOUTING please. You need to read WP:BRD and WP:AGF both of which you have broken. Your addition has not achieved consensus - all other contributing editors have disagreed with you as far as I can see. *******Henrietta Van Laer says , "Yiou are wrong about that. TFD did agree with me that the Telegraph is a reliable source. The other comments were claims that my courses were inadequate, so I provided a range of additional sources which all support the same view.". HenriettaVanLaer (talk) You might (and only might) have a case for a sentence or two but I think it is probably not noteworthy ****Henrietta Van Laer says "You are just being doggedly biassed." HenriettaVanLaer (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

and BLP policies apply. --Snowded TALK 11:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is no use pretending the Wikipedia is anything but a dishonest enterprise. It is simply not any kind of encyclopaedia, as it is controlled by administrators who use censorship to impose their own biassed agenda.

The problem is not with Wikipedia, it lies with biased editors who wish to impose their own view without reliable sources. There is no censorship here, just attempts by admins and non-admins (all volunteers) to control the excesses of soap-boxers. Dbfirs 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Centrist

Do we need to have these European terms imposed on a British article? Dbfirs 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No we do not. The consensus here is that the Liberal Democrats are a liberal party. The disagreement has been whether liberals are left, right or center. That discussion belongs in the Liberalism article. TFD (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Establishing Consensus on the position of the Liberal Democrats.

There has always been ongoing debate about the position of the Liberal Democrats, and a long-term edit war of flipping them between 'Centrist' and 'Centre-Left', or trying to use both. I think it's time we had a comprehensive discussion to reach a consensus, and then leave it that way.

Personally, I'm an advocate of the term Centre-Left because:

  • Centrist is not a term commonly applied to British Politics.
  • In the context of British Politics and World Politics, The Liberal Democrats are left of centre. One might argue that in the context of European Politics, they're a centre party - but I cannot think of a reasonable argument to write this article from the point of view of European Politics. If the description from a British and World point of view is the same, it is obviously the best use of the term.
  • Perhaps I'll be shown to be wrong, but I think very few serious sources would describe the Lib Dems as centrist, I think they'd generally be described as some form of Left-Wing.

I hope we can have serious and open debate. SmokingNewton (MESSAGE ME) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would also use "centre-left" if I had to explain "liberal", though I could understand if someone wanted to say "centre or centre-left". I'm not sure that it is possible to fix a point on this artificial one-dimensional scale, but I'm certain that "centrist" is not a term commonly used in this country. Dbfirs 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Centrist refers to the party of the middle class, which is typically liberal. They are called centrist because they are in the center between conservatives and socialists. The term centrism is more commonly used in Europe where they typically have many political parties. TFD (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I would question your assertion that centrist refers to the middle class. You didn't really mean "middle class" did you? My point was that the term is just not regularly used in the UK, so it does not belong in this article. Dbfirs 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You can read left-right politics for a background on the term. I would agree that the term should be avoided. TFD (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
So do I. The liberal/illiberal scale is orthogonal to the left-scale. The Labour Party recently has been centre-left and illiberal, the Conservatives centre right and illiberal. Is anyone suggesting that we should attach an liberal/illiberal scale to those two parties? I think not. So we shouldn't attach a left/right scale to this party unless and until a senior member explicitly claims it and we can cite it. The present text is uncited and therefore OR. --Red King (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the article's lead should simply read:

The Liberal Democrats, often shortened to Lib Dems, are liberal political party in the United Kingdom.

The left/right political paradigm is already subjective, and the liberalism article covers all of the differing ideological divides within the Liberal Democrats. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lib Dems are most definitely a left-of-center party, and their policies on the environment, immigration, and social welfare easily betray their orientation. We decided to compromise a few months ago and mention both centrist and center-left. The lead should continue to reflect that compromise.UBER (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The terms "left" and "right" in politics have been for too long regarded as convenient labels for one set of views as against another, and sadly, "centre" has been defined as being a mediation between the two, regardless of the detail. However, we are stuck with that labelling, imposed as it is mostly by journalists nowadays, because academics cannot agree on terminology. My own background is in the old-fashioned Liberal Party, which arguably had some very leftist views while I was a member in the 1970s; then we had the SDP, which I would regard as being socially centre-left but economically centre-right. This confusion only serves to show that simplistic labels such as "left", "right" and "centre", let alone subcategories thereof, are largely meaningless, because there is no clear uni-dimensional scale for such labels. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

SDP weren't centre-right in the 1970s and even if they were the centre has moved further to the right since then and their policies then would definetly be considered centre-left now. I would argue that due to the recent coalition with the conservatives the parties policy(not neccessairly their objectives) have moved to the right and are closer to centre than centre-left now but I do like the current changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.232.130 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If we insist on a position on this artificial scale, I think our "centre to centre-left" is still roughly correct. (It remains to be seen whether the coalition will move them to the right, but we shouldn't attach a coalition label to the minor party in that coalition). I would be happy to remove the label completely, but, if we keep it, then I don't think we can claim anywhere to the right of centre. Some politicians in the USA consider nearly all British politics to be left of centre! Dbfirs 07:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead says the Lib Dems are a "centre to centre-left social liberal political party". This is redundant because liberals are by definition centrist and whether the Lib Dems are center-left depends on one's view of the position of social liberals on the political spectrum. The section Ideology and internal factions begins, "The Lib Dems are a centre-left party..." and then quotes a former leader saying they "were not a centre-left party". We should not report as fact descriptions that are not universally accepted. TFD (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Our article on Liberalism says that liberals can be left or right of centre. The Rallings reference following the statement says that they are centre-left. I doubt whether you will find any political definition that is universally agreed, so the best we can do is to report reliable sources. Dbfirs 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The LibDems aren't as right-wing (yet) as the German FDP or Dutch VVD, or the Belgian liberal parties, but I would doubt very strongly that they are a centre-left party. Perhaps pre-2003, yes, but they've moved ever rightwards and are now the standard coalition allies for the Tories, and thus sit on the centre-right of British political spectrum.--Autospark (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless they've changed their party constitution, they are very much at present in a marriage of convenience, albeit of a temporary nature, in order to maintain good government. I don't see complementary proposals on the Conservative Party (UK) page to accommodate this arrangement. It is foolish in the extreme to state that either party has modified its principles other than on a mere basis of convenience, because this arrangement is, and has to be, one of given and take. That doesn't imply a major shift in principles, merely pragmatics. The Lib Dems may be seen as the "junior partner" in this coalition, but they are by no means powerless, nor have they permanently abandoned their principles, and anyone who suggests otherwise may not appreciate the dynamics of realpolitik. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Rodhull(andemu) that most liberals would not change their beliefs just to gain a share of government (am I being too idealistic?) . The coalition is certainly right of centre, but that does not mean that most conservatives have moved left or that most liberals have moved right, just that they are temporarily agreeing on compromises to make a coalition government work. If the coalition lasts for ten years (!?!) then we might see some changes in the policies of the individual parties, but certainly not yet. The law used to assume (falsely) that a wife changed her beliefs on marriage to those of her husband, but I doubt whether any modern wife would agree that this happens immediately (or ever in many marriages). Dbfirs 06:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It seemed (and still seems) obvious to me that the only stable coalition after the election was the one we have now. Given the state of the world today, it would have been criminally irresponsible for the LDs to stand back from it. It also made clear that a Lib/Lab Pact is not the only option. As things stand, the only way that the LDs can have a real impact on the national direction is to be in government and accept the compromises that go with being the junior partner of it. --Red King (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this from senior LibDem member Richard Grayson seems to sum up the dichotomy: "Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats may soon realise that a centre-left party is being led from the centre-right."[1] (Richard Grayson is vice-chair of the Liberal Democrat federal policy committee and head of politics at Goldsmiths, University of London)[2] --Red King (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me just throw in my two cents here;

  • Centre/Centre-left - In many ways, it is comparable to the Democratic Party (United States); both are social liberal, support progressive taxation and social justice. Both also have reasonable disparities in ideology in-party. For example, the Democratic Party has both a sizable moderate/libertarian wing (New Democrats/Blue Dogs) and progressive/liberal wing (Congressional Progressive Caucus). Thus, the party can be considered centre to centre-left. The Liberal Democrats also have these disparities, with the moderate (I hate the term 'centrism', as it is not an ideology) (Market Liberals/Libertarians) and progressive/liberal (Social liberals/Social democrats). Thus, the party can be considered centre to centre-left. That does not mean it is both, but rather a mix of the two.
  • Is liberalism centre, left, or right? - IMO, it depends on what type; Liberalism in and of itself. There are three main types of liberalism; Economic, Classical, and Social. Economic/Market liberalsim could be considered centre-right, Social liberalism could be considered centre-left, and Classical liberalism could be considered moderate. The Lib. Dems are mainly social liberal, but have a market liberal minority.
  • Can capitalism be left wing? - Social capitalism.

Also, just to quell any 'conservative bias' arguments against me, I am a libertarian conservative. I got a 9.34 Economic and -1.04 Social on the Political Compass, so I am not some ultra-conservative. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/lib-dem-leadership-cuts
  2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/richard-grayson
We may agree that they are a social liberal party, and there are sources for that. What we are arguing about is whether social liberalism is left wing. Why don't we leave that to articles about liberalism. Also, unless there is academic consensus that the Lib Dems are center-left, it is NPOV to claim that they are. TFD (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That statement is absurd. Academia is not the only group capable of determining whether something is centre-left; there have been numerous links above showing reliable third-party sources calling them 'centre-left', and that is enough to place that info on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available."[3] "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."[4] If you think that WP policies on verifiability and neutrality are absurd then you should get them changed. Otherwise you should follow them. I suppose that where you live they would appear to be "far left" (in the U. S. tradition of overstatement), but then so would the Tories. TFD (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read my statement? I said your assumption that academia is the only group capable of determining the political philosophy of an organization is absurd, not Wikipedia policy. Also, I doubt you have a good understanding U.S. politics, as your comments regarding us are completely ridiculous; the Lib. Dems could be considered the rough equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party (centre to centre-left), like I stated above. The Tories way be slightly left of the Republicans, but they are still viewed as centre-right here. No sane person would assume Americans are idiotic enough to consider both the Lib. Dems and Tories 'far left'; far left is reserved for socialists/communists here. You need to rethink your facts and stop acting obnoxious about Americans and your ridiculous stance on the Lib Dems. Toa Nidhiki05 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
So in your state a party that calls itself "liberal" and "progressive"[5], and supports universal health care, gun control and civil union ceremonies in the state church[6] would be "center right". TFD (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I live in fairly Republican North Carolina, so no. The Tories would be considered more centrist in NC, but in the Northern/New England/Western states, it would be a mainstream, centre-right party. I also said the Tories would be considered 'centre to centre-right', as the Tories definitely have both a more centrist wing (David Cameron, for example), as well as an 'old guard', more conservative wing. That is beside the point however; Liberal conservatism (which is what the Tories use) is a centre-right ideology, and is quite common in Europe. Besides, you have admitted yourself in the past the Tories are conservative:

Remember this debate? You stated this:

The world's two largest conservative parties, in the UK and Canada, support gun control... The UK leader says he supports same sex marriage... neither have any plans to outlaw abortion.

I also fail to see how the Torie discussion relates to the question of 'Are the Lib. Dems centre-left?'. Toa Nidhiki05 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since they have or will have the same policies as the Tories, then there is no reason to place them on separate positions in the political spectrum. It looks like the two parties are moving toward a permanent coalition arrangement, like the CDU/CSU or Liberal/National Party.[7] TFD (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh... That seems really weird that they would do that. Anyway, if what you were asking about was the coalition, there is no doubt it is moderate, as the center-right and the center-left forming common policy would be moderate/centrist anywhere. Toa Nidhiki05 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that whatever we think, it is clear that the Lib Dems can't just be described as "Centre" or as "Left-wing" (I don't think anyone is suggesting the latter). I would suggest we either stick with the current centre to centre-left, or simply use centre-left - the definition of which is "a political term that describes political parties whose ideology lies between the centre and the left" (Centre-left). Does that description not adequately describe the Lib Dems, without being too specific?

The internal situation within the Lib Dems is such that a follow-up label of liberal would not apply to the party as a whole. I think it is fair to say that overall, Lib Dems are social liberal, but not all Lib Dems are social democrats or market liberals - those last two terms should stay firmly routed in the infobox.

In conclusion, I think the article should either read "The Liberal Democrats... are a centre-left social liberal political party..." or as is ("The Liberal Democrats... are a centre to centre-left social liberal political party..."). Thanks, Woodgreener (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the article is fine as it stands. If the coalition lasts long enough to change the ideologies of the separate parties, then we can change the description in (say) ten years time. The whole concept of left-right is artificial anyway and, as pointed out above, is not parallel to the "liberal"/"illiberal" axis. Dbfirs 06:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Woodgreener, the Lib Dems are "social democrats"? Read their website: "Labour can fund their party by passing the begging bowl around to the trade unions".[8] TFD (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with TFD; the Lib. Dems are social liberal, not social democrat. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As there are quotes from various party members claiming 'centre-left' and most other quotes spend more time denying a position, centre left is the most valid reference available and so correct?

As a side note, I've re-inserted the first line in the ideology section that was previously removed - while the paragraph on taxation plans was indeed listing policy, I think statements that they are centre-left, in favour of the welfare state and progressive taxation are ideologies and not policies. Such things only become policy once they have some plans for implementation, but that line is talking generally about their ideals. Not really related to this bit but I couldn't be bothered creating a new section, and felt the need to comment here! Bertcocaine (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No, they are policies which are accepted by all major political parties in the U. K. The modern progressive income tax was introduced by Robert Peel and the modern welfare state by Otto von Bismarck, neither of whom were center-left. Anyway, there must be consensus among informed writers that they are center-left before we may introduce it as a fact. Where there are differing mainstream opinions, we have to follow WP:NPOV. TFD (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I cannot concur. Ignoring the fact that further down in the same section, it states that social liberals advocate a welfare state and higher taxation, the definition of 'ideology' and 'policy' in Wikipedia suggest that such arguments are over semantics. Policy would be stating something like 'The Lib Dems have declared they wish to increase funding to the NHS and schools'. The ideology is the common belief that draws members to the party - the whole purpose of a party is to bring together those with similar ideals! Those are two of the key beliefs held by the vast majority of party members. Your statement that such ideals were not created by the centre left is irrelevant - as I stated, that comment is unrelated to the actual topic of this section. Moving on to this section, point taken about consensus amongst informed writers - although as politics and all commentary is entirely personal opinion, and I have yet to see a media source which is not biased one way or another, so there is unlikely to be this clarification at any time in the foreseeable future, so keeping the current description seems valid. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately we cannot make our own calls on this and must rely on reliable sources. You need to find that there is a consensus in academic literature that they are left-wing, center-left, centrist, center-right etc. Also, you need to find a source that provides a clear definition of "center-left". BTW to you intend to label the Conservatives as center-left as well? TFD (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused - why would I label the Conservatives as a centre left party? As to the labelling of the Lib Dems, I think I clarified that I took your point about consensus amongst informed writers, indicating that I agree we cannot 'make our own calls'. I'm assuming that when you say 'You need' you are referring to a hypothetical contributor and not specifically implying that I am responsible for finding sources for something I haven't even edited.. While there is no clear concensus in academic literature (hardly the only valid reliable source) I think the general average of opinions offered in the reliable media suggest that the current opening description of 'centre to centre left' covers the majority of opinions offered by informed writers, and I agree that it is as close as we can get without the previously mentioned consensus, which I have already opined that I think it unlikely to be clarified. Since you seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick from my comments and feel the need to correct me, I'm now considering removing my comments from this talk page! I thought this was a debate on the topic, not somewhere I would be responded to in a mocking tone. Bertcocaine (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Having read some of the above in greater depth, it occurs to me that you have some strange views, such as 'Since they have or will have the same policies as the Tories, then there is no reason to place them on separate positions in the political spectrum. It looks like the two parties are moving toward a permanent coalition arrangement' - given your contributions and knowledge about politics, I am amazed that you think the current behaviour is anything more than posturing designed to keep the coalition together! Given the dedicated followers in both parties, any such permanent joining of the parties attempted by the leadership would result in two 'new' parties splitting off to replace them, and the coalition in effect becoming a new party. It also explains your suggestion that I would label the Tories as centre-left! Bertcocaine (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned the Conservatives because they also "advocate a welfare state and higher taxation". But I wonder what information it would provide to label the LDP "center-left". Does it mean they are in the left range of centrism, in the right range of the left, in between the left and the center or a combination of the center and the left, which are four possible definitions of the term. TFD (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you trying to impose foreign definitions on the British political system? I think the article is fine as it stands, and in line with most published material on British politics. All four possibilities are valid. It depends on whom you ask. Further precision is just not possible. Dbfirs 07:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
TFD, you clearly cannot read. In my first comment on this section, I clearly stated that my comments about the Idealogy section is 'Not really related to this bit but I couldn't be bothered creating a new section' and so clearly those comments are separate from this discussion, but despite pointing this out to you in subsequent comments, you keep linking the two together. RETURNING TO THE TOPIC OF THE LIB DEMS POSITION IN THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM (sorry to shout everyone but I wanted to be clear I'm changing topic) I stand by my previous comments, and so feel no need to contribute further to this discussion. Bertcocaine (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Centre-Left?

Can anyone call the Lib Dems a centre-left political party with their budget being exposed as being regressive and hitting the poorest hardest by the IFS? I think that there is a genuine debate to be had on the Lib Dems poitical positions. --Welshsocialist (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We refer to to the Lib Dems as a centre to centre-left party, as the reliable sources we reference do. Sir Richardson (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse an emergency compromise coalition budget with party policy. Many budgets from left(ish) parties have been regressive, including Gordon Brown's "abolition" (actually doubling) of the 10p tax rate. Dbfirs 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The lib dems are left wing, centre left or far left. Their support for a budget needed to clean up the mess of a decade of labour does not suddenly make them Fiscal conservatives. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Considering the fact their leader, Nick Clegg, said before the election he wanted the party to be the 'vanguard of the progressive centre left', I would say they are centre to centre-left. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Some sources use the term "centre-left" but others call them centrist, so we should follow WP:NPOV and not consider one opinion to be definitive. BritishWatcher seems to believe that when liberals follow social liberal policies they are being ideological and when they follow neoliberal policies they are being pragmatic, which is contrary to mainstream understanding of liberal policies. Toa Nidhiki05 seems to think their own description of their position on the political spectrum is definitive, but their statements have been contradictory and do not meet WP:RS anyway. But those two editors probably place the center far to the right of where most sources would place it. BritishWatcher for example considers the British National Party to be moderate while Toa considers the U. S. Democratic Party to be far left. TFD (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think DP leadership is center-left, not far-left. There are a good number of moderate liberal and moderate Democrats out there that basically cancel out the progressive, left-wing faction of the party, but social liberals still make up 50% of the party. I don't place the center far to the right, either; I pretty much agree with the Classical left-right spectrum. We mainly disagree over whether social liberalism is centrist or centre-left, with me thinking it is center left, and you thinking it is center. Toa Nidhiki05 16:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide a source that supports your view of the classical political spectrum. All the sources I have read place liberalism in the center. TFD (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Social liberalism and liberalism are two different things; social liberalism is the left of the movement, and conservative liberalism is the right. Since conservative liberalism is center right, it only makes since social liberalism is center left. Also, putting aside my opinion, read the Social liberalism page here; it says center or center-left in the first section, and includes links as well. Toa Nidhiki05
I do not consider the BNP moderate, some of their policies are far right (even for my views) and some of them are far left. Either way the BNP are dangerous and not a party i support. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That is original research. But suppose social liberalism was either centre or centre-right. Then this article should not label it as either, but report what reliable sources say. You should always be wary when five sources are added to support a single statement. In fact none of them say that social liberalism is centre-left, which is why Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I know your opinion, and you know mine. Can we just leave it at that? Toa Nidhiki05 20:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is no future for us as a party of the left" - Nick Clegg, leader Liberal Democratic Party http://www.politicshome.com/uk/front_pages_console.html?edition_id=395&article_id=14859 Game over I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.216.37 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tediously simplistic. I think it's plain, or should be, that the Lib Dems are a centrist party, leaning to the left. That does not make them "a party of the Left", whatever Clegg says, and citing a soundbite alone doesn't help. I remember the Liberal Party way before the Alliance, when in student elections at least it was part of "Left Umbrella" along with the CND and anti-Apartheid movements and the Socialist Workers' Party", but those days are long gone. Game on, as they say. Please provide a reliable, third party source. Rodhullandemu 21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but there are quite large sectors of very poor, vunerable and powerless people in the UK at the moment who don't think the Liberal Democrats look very left-wing at all from where they are standing. In fact, the policies the Lib Dems are introducing look so far removed from the 'centre-left' they are causing these people to seriously fear for their futures. But thankfully there is a remedy, because when the numbers of jobless/homeless/suicidal individuals rise to a level unsurpassed in British post-war history, at least we can tell the unfortunate persons affected that they will feel so much better about their situation once they take a look at the Liberal Democrat entry on Wikipedia the Online Encyclopedia, which can provide vital reassurance by presenting them with "reliable third party sources" explaining that the Lib Dems, contray to the impression they may have gained from somewhere else, are in a fact a political party of the "centre-left" after all. I'm sure they'll find this revelation no end of comfort in their hour of direst need. 92.9.109.43 (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Although this is not the place to discuss our opinions of the Lib Dems, your comments show the unhelpfulness of labelling parties according to policies. TFD (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
... and the policies of a coalition where the Lib-Dems are a junior partner cannot be used to deduce any change in the Liberal Democrat ideology. Dbfirs 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is the point. The policies that parties choose to follow at any time depend on circumstances, but the elements that determine whether a party is left-wing, right-wing or whatever do not. We cannot say that because LibDem policy while they were in opposition was to the left of Labour makes them a left-wing party while the fact they govern from the right can be explained by pragmatism. TFD (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I see that Autospark (in a recent edit) considers the Lib-Dems to be right of centre, and requests a reference, so I provided a survey in which 65% of Lib-Dems consider themselves to be left of centre. Just today, a Lib-Dem on Radio 4 claimed that the figure was 68% left-wing. Dbfirs 17:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
perhaps political position should be removed entirely because regardless of Clegg claiming to be left of centre a growing number of lib dems are tending right, in terms of economic goals most parties tend right now. So basically I think political position no longer accurately describes differences between parties — Preceding Trebor29 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC
Some English editors thought that the Lib Dems would take Britain out of the American wars and eliminate tuition fees. Of course they had no intention of doing that and are not a left wing party. TFD (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
People are still confusing the actions of a coalition government with the ideology of one of the parties in that coalition. Left and right labels are so widespread that I think it would be a mistake to remove some indication of position on this axis from all of out articles on politics. We need to be aware that the Lib Dems were the third choice of the electorate, so voters could hardly expect all of their policies to be implemented if they didn't vote for them. In my view, the surprise is that the Lib Dems are having such a significant influence on right-wing conservatives, moving some of the policies (such as less regressive taxation) to the left of Labour. Dbfirs 08:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats' ideology and position on the political spectrum

There seems to be considerable confusion on this talk page about the lib dems ideology. Firstly, it has been wrongly asserted that Nick Clegg has said that the party is no longer "of the left"; in reality he said that the party are not Labour's left wing conscience; the liberal democrats are not simply a protest party. Secondly, it is not the position of the leadership which defines a political party, it is its members'. The vast majority of Liberal Democrats are on the centre-left, depite their leadership's more centrist/centre-right position. The "Orange Booker" (the economic liberal wing of the party) are a tiny minority, although they hold considerable influence (they include both Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the treasury). Even so, Liberal Democrat policy is mainly decided democratically (the party conference chooses what becomes policy) and because of this the party entered the 2010 general election with broadly centre-left policy, which gained the support of the Guardian newspaper. 'The Political Compass', a website which classifies political opinion on a left/right and libertarian/authoritarian basis, whilst placing all three main parties as on the economic right, put the Liberal Democrats to the left of Labour. Wikipedia currently calls the Labour party 'centre-left', so in order to be consistent should do the same for the Liberal Democrats. ('the political compass' places all 3 main parties on the right because its spectrum aims to be universal, not just applicable to the fairly right wing politics of the west.) The current coalition is not an issue in classifying the political position of the LibDems. A serious encyclopedia should base its analysis upon official party policy; this has not changed. The Liberal Democrats asserted their hostiility towards the conservatives' free schools policy at their autumn conference of 2010, and, if there is vote, are likely to do the same with the government's NHS reforms. The issue of ideology is far simpler; the Liberal Democrats are a social liberal party. full stop. Towards the end of the 19th century, the Liberal Party moved towards a new, social justice liberalism, as opposed to the classical liberalism which had dominated up until that point. During the first decade of the 20th century this shift was mad irreversable. Lloyd George and Asquith, as well as thinkers such as Hobson and Green, were quite clearly social liberals. The Liberal Democrats are, themselves, the result of a merger between the Liberal Party, which was committed to social liberalism, and the SDP, who were committed to social democracy. There is very little contradiction between these two ideologies; both are left of centre. In what sense, givent hsi history, can the Liberal Democrats not be a social liberal party? I am aware that David Laws has expressed his wish for the party to "reclaim it's economic liberal heritage", but in order to do so the Liberal Democrats would have to go all the way back to the 19th century. The truth is that the LibDems are the heirs to a long (just over 100 years) history of social liberalism. David Laws opinion runs counter to the vast majority of the party membership, who are either perfectly happy with current policy, or would prefer for it to be more left wing. Given the above, the Liberal Democrats' ideology would be best classified as "Social Liberalism". Their position should be, preferably, "centre-left", but I can understand that "centrist to centre-left" is justifiable. (Although it is also justifiable to classify the Labour party as "centre-right to centre-left").

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-there-is-no-future-for-us-as-leftwing-rivals-to-labour-2082689.html (Check where he is actually quoted) http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/lib-dem-conference — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielKlein8 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The major classification of political parties by "ideological family" was made by Klaus von Beyme.[9] The Liberal Democrats were identified as a liberal party. TFD (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Four Types of Liberal Democrat

This article by Paul Whiteley, a professor of politics at the University of Essex clearly identifies that there are no less than 4 types of Liberal Democrat, based on the various ideologies that have been gathered together under the party's umbrella: http://www.progressonline.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=7479 These include 'Equality and Redistribution' (equivalent to 'social liberalism') and 'free market liberalism'. It is misleading to assert that the party has a single ideology, when there are clearly several. Riversider (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Neoliberal/Orange Book

Some users are changing the ideology so that it says neoliberal/orange book. I have removed this because a)orange book isn't an ideology and b)neoliberalism isn't an ideology within the Liberal Democrats. As is pointed out here http://socialliberal.net/2010/11/17/david-hall-matthews-writes-in-renewal-coalition-politics-a-view-from-the-liberal-democrats/ orange bookers are first and foremost social liberals with a different idea of how to meet the same ends, whereas neoliberalism is an entirely separate ideology with totally different ends to social liberalism. As is shown here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/27/david-laws-profile David Laws, one of the most influential and important orange bookers says that his economic liberalism is tempered with his social liberalism. --Matt Downey (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Kovar's article, and the Stourton piece on Radio 4 are strong sources asserting that neoliberalism/orange book is a significant ideology, particularly in the leadership of the LibDems, however, I think we may be able to reach a consensus around the phrase 'free-market liberalism' which means very much the same thing. See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiberal_Democrats&action=historysubmit&diff=415883129&oldid=415882513 Riversider (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with "market liberalism" personally; my objections to "neoliberal" is that it's used as negative slur by some left-wing people, especially in the context of the American economy, so that a greater standard of due care is needed. Sceptre (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree that they are the same thing, however I suppose I could agree that free market liberalism is a significant ideology within the party.--Matt Downey (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason to say that these different viewpoints cannot all be considered to be aspects of liberal ideology? TFD (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kovar, a prominent LibDem and editor of 'The Liberal' doesn't think so. Riversider (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any better sources for this? A complaint by a party member that the party has abandoned its values is pretty common. TFD (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That very well may be so, particularly in the LibDem Party, however, it's unusual that that party member happens to be the editor of 'The Liberal', which makes them an authoritative source by WP criteria. Riversider (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Neoliberalism and Christian Democracy

doesn't the LDs have those ideas as factions of its party? --130.218.71.138 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Christian Democracy does not exist as a major group in the U. K. and neoliberalism refers more to polices, than ideology. TFD (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Then where would neo conservatism fall in that range?--130.218.71.194 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. Neoconservatism is an American political movement. TFD (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually is British neoconservatism, but it is not a major political movement (thank GOD). Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing it so that under ideology it says neoliberalism, even though it has been established that this is not an ideology belonging to the Lib Dems, please can someone change this it's really getting on my nerves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.38.108.138 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

More than one person is changing it, because it is well sourced. 'Orange Book' adherents now have the majority of leadership positions, and cabinet positions and are practicing neoliberal policies, it would be utterly inaccurate NOT to include neoliberalism as one of the ideologies prevalent in the party. Your disagreement is not with those making the reversion, but with LibDems like Kovar who have written the articles on which this description is based. Riversider (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Another authoritative source to check out is Edward Stourton in Radio 4's 'Analysis' programme. Here Stourton describes the process by which the 'Orange Book' wing of the party seized the ideological initiative, drove the party away from social liberalism and into coalition with the Tories: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yqjtj/Analysis_The_Orange_Book_Cleggs_Political_Lemon/ Riversider (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've altered the phrase 'Neoliberalism/Orange Book to 'Free-Market Liberalism'. It's clear from the sources I've cited that there is a strong case for the use of 'neoliberalism' as a description of one of the ideological trends in the LibDem Party. However the phrase 'free-market liberalism' may be more acceptable to the majority of editors here, and means very much the same thing. I offer it as a possible consensus option. As it's clear that there are now strong ideological factions within the LibDems, I feel it would be an oversimplification to present one single ideology as representing the ideology of all libdems. Describing a zebra as 'grey' is an oversimplification which loses the truth. Failing to recognise the sharp differences between social liberalism, social democracy and market liberalism would be a similar oversimplification. Riversider (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because the orange book was written by some prominent liberal democrat MPs does not mean that its most controversial suggestions are supported by any significant part of the membership. If even the smallest of ideological factions deserve to be listed, then the labour party should not be classed as only a centre-left and democratic socialist one. Neoliberal policies were certainly persued by the last MAJORITY labour government and yet neoliberalism is not listed on their page. So please can wikipedia be consistent, and not give such a misleading picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.89.191 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that Labour did indeed practice neoliberal policies, and that many leading members still exhibit a neoliberal ideology. There are also many RS's that state exactly that point, and I have made the edits you suggest. Unfortunately the majority of editors writing that page did not accept the edits I made so it was impossible to achieve consensus for the inclusion of 'neoliberalism' as a Labour Party ideology. Perhaps in time this position will shift as more RSs appear and the case becomes even more unanswerable. There is no requirement on WP for it to be internally consistent or logical (any more than there is a requirement for the sum of human knowledge to be internally consistent or logical), just for it to reflect what RS's say, or at least the consensus of editors about what RS's say. Riversider (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ideology bloat

I've noticed some bloat in the number of ideologies we list in the infobox. It's not the job of an infobox to explain anything; the purpose of them is to state things. We've got history here, where the term "centre-right" was added to the Labour Party article by people who felt that they had betrayed an ideology (gee, sounds familiar). As such, I've got rid of the small factions of liberalism and left just "liberalism", to facilitate this discussion: what should we have in the infobox?

Personally, I would be fine leaving it as "liberalism", as it's something that everyone can agree on. It's wide enough to encompass the parts of the party near to both market and social liberalism, but not so wide it becomes meaningless. We only need one or two terms to encompass the general ideology; for Labour and the Tories, we use "centre-x", for the Greens we use "Green politics" and "Eco-socialism", et cetera. I'd also be fine with market and social liberalism as "factions".

For disclosure, I'm a party member, with membership due to lapse soon. Sceptre (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Reliable sources clearly describe the Lib Dems as a liberal party. All the other descriptions are really arguments about what liberalism is, which belongs in the main liberalism article. TFD (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I also agree; such fine distinctions do not belong in an infobox, for that is intended for generalisms. Neither are factions within the party that relevant there, because that surely belongs in a discussion in the main body of the article. And for disclosure, I was a Lib/SDP Alliance District Councillor from 1987-1989 and drafted the merger constitution while being interim Chairman for the Selby Liberal Democrats; however, I can still take a step back and realise that there is bollocks, and there is utter bollocks. Neither belong in the infobox; generalities do. Rodhullandemu 01:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, theres plenty of evidence of very deep divisions over ideology within the Liberal Democrat Party between the 'social liberals' and the 'orange book' neoliberals. These are not 'fine distinctions', but quite fundamental differences in philosophy that are causing deep agony in the party. The reference I used from 'The Liberal' comes from the chair of a large branch of the Liberal Democrat party, who is also editor of the 'The Liberal' which is a strongly authoritative source for Liberal politics in the uk: Simon Kovar, 'The Neoliberal Democrats; The Liberal August 2010: http://www.theliberal.co.uk/libdems/neo-liberal-democrats.html Here are a few aposite quotes from this very important article, showing that 'Liberalism' is not broad enough to encompass both 'market liberalism' and 'social liberalism':

What today is called ‘economic liberalism’ is not Liberalism at all. It is neo-liberalism: a C20th phenomenon of the New Right.

How did a party of the liberal left, proud of its heritage as the progenitor of the great civic amenities of the C19th and the jewels in the crown of the C20th social welfare settlement, including the NHS, fall in thrall to a neo-liberal fringe regarded, until relatively recently, with derision across the broad Liberal Democrat mainstream?

The Orange Book was published in 2004, featuring contributions from three current members of the coalition cabinet plus David Laws, all of whom later held senior shadow positions under the leadership of Menzies Campbell. Notoriously, this volume called for a social insurance scheme with private providers to replace the NHS: a direction of travel now emulated by the Coalition’s recent reforms. Kennedy’s forward to the book declared of its ideas that “all are compatible with our Liberal heritage”. He later went further, suggesting that there was no incompatibility between the party’s traditional social liberalism and the Orange Book, an exercise in triangulation that (together with the manner of his departure) both obscured and denied the fundamental debate the party needed to have regarding its future philosophical definition and direction. The absence of that debate meant that the eventual rise to dominance of the Orange Book tendency represented not a decisive exercise in collective party position-taking but something more akin to a coup, built in part on the complete disarray, muddle and indecisiveness of the party’s left.

The last 13 years have seen a deep-seated erosion of public faith in the political establishment and the comprehensive discrediting of the neo-liberal consensus that has dominated British politics for over 30 years. Yet during that period the Liberal Democrats made a net gain of just 11 seats. Despite the unprecedented boon of the leader’s debates, in 2010 the party gained a mere 1 percentage point more of the vote and lost a net 5 seats. Can it be a coincidence that this period coincides precisely with the rise of the party’s neo-liberal wing?

I can understand why party members wish to conceal the deep divisions in the Liberal Democrat Party, but it is the job of Wikipedia to clarify and reveal not to obfuscate and conceal.

Riversider (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This division in English liberalism goes back to the Levellers and the Grandees of Cromwell's time and is a world-wide phenomenon. See for example, Contending liberalisms in world politics[10] Neoliberalism however is a variety of liberalism and seeks to restrict social liberal reforms and draws inspiration from classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Why should we use a double standard? We don't include "social democracy", "democratic socialism", "Third Way" in the Labour article, or "One nation conservatism", "neoliberalism", "liberal conservatism" in the Conservative article. We use terms that encompass nearly the entirety of the party. Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We may be about to get a definitive ideology for the Lib Dems at the upcoming Spring conference. There is a policy motion to do with ensuring that the party fight the next elections as an independent party. However on the last few lines of the motion on page 51 it says "Conference re-asserts that the UK Liberal Democrats are based firmly in the historical and global traditions of the liberal and social democratic philosophy and beliefs and commits the party to developing and promoting a clear narrative setting out what modern liberalism is and can do". If this motion is carried without this section being amended it would appear that in the ideology section it would have to say something along the lines of social liberalism and social democracy. Social liberalism as it refers to modern liberalism which, as I understand it, is the same thing. It also very clearly sets out that there is a philosophy of social democracy in the party. http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/conference/Spr11%20Agenda&Directory%20book.pdf 01:00, 24/02/2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.101.198 (talk)

We can't base WP's description of the LibDem party's ideology on what a future conference might decide. We have to base it on existing authoritative published sources. The published sources cited point out that 'orange book' neoliberals now dominate the party's leadership and also the cabinet positions held by the party. The ideology of the leadership of the party is the leading ideology of the party. The 'social liberals' in the party rank and file may not be comfortable with this, but it's what the published sources say, summed up very concisely by Kovar, chair of a large LibDem branch, former LibDem candidate, and contributing editor of one of the party's theoretical journals, 'The Liberal', and therefore how we at WP must also describe the ideology. Riversider (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what it says above, the ideology in the box should be whatever is most agreed on. The only thing we can all agree on is that the Liberal Democrats have an ideology of liberalism. However, if in the future it is democratically accepted by the main decision making body of the Lib Dems, the conference, that they are a party of modern liberalism and social democracy, then we must accept that this is the ideology that they follow. Just because one bloke who wrote an article calls them neoliberals, doesn't make them neoliberals. Especially when MOST reliable sources suggest otherwise. 15:39, 24/02/2012

Of course it's not just 'one bloke' (in fact a highly respected longstanding member of the LibDem party), but several very authoritative references that identify the 'Orange Book' wing as neoliberal. Even if this were a minority viewpoint, WP should represent well sourced minority views in proportion to the amount of authoritative sources that hold that view. The infobox does not claim that neoliberalism is the ONLY ideology of the LibDem party, but one among several that include social liberalism, social democracy etc. This is the most accurate way of representing the range of ideologies that have grouped together under the umbrella of the LibDem party. Riversider (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What wikipedia should have is an ideology which encompasses the party, same as on the Labour page. you have Simon Kovar and that is about it. There is no real evidence that shows that the Lib Dems are neoliberals in any way, look on the neoliberalism page if you like and you can see how that does not in any way match up to the Liberal Democrats party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.101.198 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you really asserting that the LibDems are a monolithic party with a single ideology like the Labour Party? It's quite clear from the way that the LibDems were formed, that they're an alliance of a number of different traditions: the social liberalism and market liberalism of the Liberal Party, and the Social Democracy of the Social Democrats. Now do you really wish to deny this history and assert that all LibDems are programmed with the same ideology? Such an assertion is an insult to reality, and to the history and practices of Liberalism. Riversider (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

what I'm asserting is that the ideology of the party is either what it has listed for itself (ie in an accepted motion at a conference), or what it is most commonly accepted that the party stands for. If that motion is accepted then the ideology box should read social liberalism + social democracy. Until/if that doesn't happen, the only ideology which we can say really is liberalism. I'm sure if you looked at people in the Labour party many would say that they aren't democratic socialists, we have that as the ideology as it is both most commonly accepted as what most members follow and because it is written into their constitution.--82.6.101.198 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually what the party decides to say it is, is a self-published source. I could vote to describe myself as the Great Philanthropist, it wouldn't neccessarily be how others might describe me, and it wouldn't neccessarily reflect the truth. We need to listen to the many different sources that write about the ideology of the LibDems, as well as the label they give themselves. Voter's experience of the LibDems in government is that what they said about themselves before the election, and what they do in office are not neccessarily the same thing. In order to achieve NPOV, we need to do more than regurgitate the 'official' party line: otherwise we'd have to do the same with parties like the BNP. Riversider (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats and Centrism

Liberal Democrats are centrist as said by former Leader Charles Kennedy and current British Business Secretary Vince Cable they are not left nor right. Reason being it is a mix of social liberalism and market liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.89.85 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. "Centrist" is a European term seldom used in the UK. Do you have any references to support your claims? Dbfirs 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is purely Charles Kennedy's opinion; many would say that he is himself on the centre-left. Also, Market liberalism isn't really an ideology on its own, it's simply the right wing of social liberalism. Classical liberalism and Conservative liberalism are separate ideologies, but neither are represented within the Liberal Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielKlein8 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Italic text== Edit request ==

{{Edit semi-protected}}Under Ideology please remove the word Libertarian, nothing needs to be put in it's place once removed. This is incorrect there is no Libertarian ideology in the Liberal Democrats. Matt Downey (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Matt Downey (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It is listed as an "internal faction". It probably would be better to remove that subsection altogether. TFD (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Logan Talk Contributions 03:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK It maybe listed as an internal faction, but it is still not true. There aren't any Libertarians in the Liberal Democrats so how can it be an internal faction. Perhaps removing that subcategory would help. But more than anything Libertarian must be removed Matt Downey (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Matt Downey (talk)19:44, 3 January 2011(UTC

Of course there are.[11] TFD (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One person isn't enough to count as an internal faction. He left the party, show me a single elected representative or anyone official from inside the party that would say that Libertarians count as a faction of the party. Matt Downey (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Matt Downey (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have read past the first paragraph: "there are some good classical liberal and libertarian types in the party, with whom I hope to continue to have a good relationship...." TFD (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did and I don't happen to believe him. I also know many people in the Lib Dems and none of them would call themselves Libertarians. As I said show me a single elected representative or anyone official from inside the party that would say that Libertarians count as a faction of the party. Matt Downey (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)(UTC)Matt Downey (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well he was an elected Liberal Democrat, and you do not believe him. TFD (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To depend on one letter of resignation from the Lib Dems by a councillor who decided to join the Libertarian Party proves nothing about the Party Make-up (except that maybe Libertarians DON'T feel at home in the Liberal Democrats). Matt Downey (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Matt Downey (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The councillor who left to join the Libertarian Party said, "there are some good classical liberal and libertarian types in the [Liberal Democratic] party", but you do not believe him. TFD (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything to back your argument up other than this sole councillor and his opinions of the party? Matt Downey (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Liberal Democrats are centre-right. Clegg said the Lib Dems have no future on the left, he ahs admitted to being a secret Tory, in some ways. The Orange Book is an extremely centre-right neoliberal book. Write instead: libertarianism, Liberalism, Neoliberalism (David Laws and the Orange Book remember), Market liberalism, and also liberal conservatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.235.66 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt there are some Lib Dems who are right of centre, but the party in general (as opposed to the coalition government) are centre to centre-left, with 65% of members labelling themselves as left of centre. Dbfirs 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not true, there is no statistics citing in. The LEADER of the Liberal Democrats, has confirmed very clearly that the Liberal Democrats is NOT a party of the left. Laws has said he is centre-right, and the Orange Book now dominates Lib Dem thinking. The party leader, for heavens' sake is a Conservative, and so are many of his followers. It is a centre-right party and plus, they are in an alliance with the Conservative Party showing that they are a party of the right. Even Michael Gove said that the Liberal Democrats, have moved away from the centre-left to meet the Conservatives at the centre-right. The Liberal Democrats are also backing rightwing, stepfoward Thatcherite policies such as the welfare reform, education reform, health reform and of course the cuts and the Budget - which is driven forward by a Gladstonian Chief Secretary. Even Richard Grayson, the Lib Dem policy director, said the party has become centre-right. The Lib Dems are effectively rightwing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.235.66 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the liberal democrats are not in an alliance with the conservative party, they are in a coalition. The point of a coalition is that it is between DIFFERENT parties with DIFFERENT positions. Secondly, neither Nick Clegg, who, by the way, has not said that the LibDems are not a party of the left, nor David Laws represent the Liberal Democrats as a whole. David Laws represents the very furthest right wing of the party, which only really consists of him and a few of the most extreme "Orange Bookers". Thirdly, Richard Grayson has not said that the party is centre-right; he has said that the party, which is left of centre, is being lead toward the centre-right by the leadership. It is totally rediculous to assert that the Liberal Democrats are "effectively right wing". (Also, YouGov's finding are quite clear.)

I think you are confusing the coalition, and the current leadership, with the party. Leadership changes, but the party (or at least 65% of the members in the cited reference) consider themselves to be left of centre. Dbfirs 09:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this discussion has finished , but (if you want my opinion)I think "radical centre" on its own would be a reasonable summary, as arguably, while the Lib Dems are hard to describe as centre left, it has been clear that the party is not centre -right either. Just a suggestion, Thanks. JDMedia (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Liberal Democrats contain many elements. Social liberals, radical centrists, libertarians, georgists, mutualists etc. Charlotte Gore (http://charlottegore.com/) was once considered the top LibDem blogger in the UK and she is a self-described libertarian. This article could be improved substantially by facing the internal factions, wings (whatever you want to call them...) head on. The LDs cannot really be described as one ideology (neither can Labour or the Tories). All political parties in the UK are broad churches. Also, if the many factions are not dealt with then the article contradicts itself. How can a party descend from Peelites, Whigs and the SPD and suddenly contain no different ideological strands? Did differences in ideology simply melt away? I think not. This article reads as though it has been written by a social liberal in denial. In my humble opinion! --Wikimoderate (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I recently added the "Internal ideological trends: 

• Social liberalism
• Market liberalism
• Social democracy
• Green liberalism / Green politics
• Civil libertarianism
• Internationalism "

part of the article. This recent addition was made due to considerable polling of Lib Dem members by Liberal Democrat Voice, they are reasonably respected for their findings when polling Lib Dem members. I put the base line for inclusion at about 30%, but didn't include those which aren't really ideological viewpoints, eg pragmatism, or progressivism (see below I think). Survey found here http://www.libdemvoice.org/how-lib-dem-members-describe-their-political-identity-liberal-progressive-and-social-liberal-top-the-bill-23928.html --Matt Downey (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with calling them liberals? Do any of their "elements" oppose liberalism or at least do not consider themselves liberals? TFD (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. 87% class themselves as "liberal". But seen as liberalism as term also covers classical liberalism and conservative liberalism I think it is important to specify what, in the large umbrella term that liberalism appears to be, the Lib Dems represent. And that would be social liberalism, market/economic liberalism, social democracy, green liberalism, civil libertarianism and internationalism. None of these elements contradict liberalism as a whole, but would largely contradict the party being called, or thought of as classical liberalism. Surely the encyclopaedia must do all it can to avoid people getting confused over what ideology the party has. One person could read the word "Liberalism" and go straight to thinking of classical liberalism, or another simply social liberalism. --Matt Downey (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

'Progressivism'

To put the term 'Progressivism' as an identified party ideology in the infobox really does need more than somebody mentioning in passing that their party is 'progressive'. The term 'Progressivism' itself is pretty meaningless, at least until you find a politician who says they oppose progress on principle. An ideology is not just a characteristic, it is a well-defined set of ideas that are philosophically congruent and lead to particular policy implications. This is a much higher bar than anything Farron has said in the speech that is currently being cited to justify the assertion that the LibDems have a 'Progressivist' ideology. Riversider (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed it as one speech is not a reliable third party source. --Snowded TALK 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who chooses to say that progressivism isn't an ideology need only look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States), one of the most established, important and powerful parties in the world has progressivism listed as an ideology. So progressivism is now at least established as an ideology, regardless of whether some people see it as meaningless or not. Nick Clegg called the party "a vanguard of the progressive centre left". Here Simon Hughes, party deputy leader, said that the party represented progressive people http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11978427. This article is all about how the Lib Dems are progressive http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/22/vince-cable-liberal-democrats-progressive-policies Here Simon Hughes again calls the party progressive "the Lib Dems are now the "constructive progressives" of British politics" http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/lib-dems-support-party-british Not to mention this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/7661100/General-Election-2010-Nick-Clegg-says-Lib-Dems-have-replaced-Labour-as-progressive-party.html. Progressivism is an ideology and all my links show that it is one that the Liberal Democrats follow, therefore it should be in the ideology box just as much as the others. --Matt Downey (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If progressivism is an ideology, could you please provide a source that distinguishes it from right-wing populism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism and communism - because parties in all those groups have described themselves as progressive in their party names. TFD (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

TFD, that point could go for any word or ideology. The link I posted shows that it is an ideology and listed as so in what is perhaps the most powerful political party in the world right now. Not to mention that it is called an ideology on its own page, if you want to find out more about what makes it a distinct ideology, here's a good way to learn more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism --Matt Downey (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a 2001 book Political ideology today, that describes the major ideological families. Notice progressivism is not mentioned in the book. Do you have any sources that explain what is, other than the Wikipedia article? TFD (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Several other Wikipedia articles for starters, as well as this http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:progressivism&sa=X&ei=IIeKTbmzL4-1hAeF-bWvDg&ved=0CBoQkAE and others if I tried looking. As well as the other very established wikipedia pages it is certainly an ideology and as I have shown, it is an ideology of the Lib Dems. --Matt Downey (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? TFD (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a politician saying their party is 'progressive', and a politician saying that their party has a 'progressivist ideology'. The citation being used certainly does the former, but goes nowhere near the latter. 'Progressive' is a bland descriptive word meaning that you believe in progress, it's meaningless because who doesn't believe in progress? It is not a definitive word like 'Progressivism'. Matt you are right that there is a WP page asserting that 'progressivism' is an ideology, but this does not help your case one iota, because WP pages cannot be used as sources for quite obvious reasons of circularity, WP pages are not a Reliable Source for WP purposes. What you need to justify your case for making an edit to the effect that the Liberal Democrats have a progressivist ideology, is a body of articles by respected political scientists and experts on the LibDem Party, that clearly and unambiguously use the words 'Progressivist Ideology' and directly link these words to the Liberal Democrat Party. Of course, no such body of articles exists, because no self-respecting political scientist would associate themselves with as weak and empty a term as 'Progressivist Ideology', and because the LibDems emerged from the Liberal Party, which has alternated between its social liberal and market liberal/neoliberal ideological wings over time, and the Social Democrat Party, which claimed to have a Social Democratic ideology. Come up with such an article from an RS, and perhaps you will get further with your attempted edit. Riversider (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I've just checked the WP article on Progressivism, and it doesn't describe Progressivism as an ideology, but as an 'attitude'. An attitude is something far less clearly defined and thought through than a full scale ideology, it is a tendency to think and act in a certain way, rather than a well defined, internally consistent set of ideas. Of course this is academic, as my original point that WP articles are not acceptable sources for WP still applies Riversider (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So in other words, you want wikipedia to contradict itself? I quote from the contents box "Relation to other political ideologies" meaning that it is an ideology. It would be stupid to leave wikipedia inconsistent.--Matt Downey (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is incorrect information in one article we do not import it into another article for consistency. But notice that the article on progressivism does not call it an ideology but contains a quote that says it is not an ideology. TFD (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia contradicts itself in many places. This is partly because it attempts to reflect the sum of published human knowledge, which also contradicts itself in many places> Riversider (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Liberal_Democrats_(UK)/Archive_4"