Talk:Labour Party (UK)

File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ILP 21st anniversary certificate large.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

To the person who removed ethical socialism from the infobox: it has been an official policy of the Labour Party

Here are the two sources that state that ethical socialism is a component of the Labour Party:

• Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. Pp. 284.
• Mark Bevir. New Labour: a critique. London, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2005. Pp. 72.

If you look at the article on ethical socialism it provides sources that state that ethical socialism has been a phenomenon in the Labour Party since the 1920s when it was developed by R. H. Tawney and since supported by Labour Party leaders and Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Atlee, and Tony Blair.--R-41 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not an ideology ----Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Ethical socialism" is rarely used to describe the ideology of the Labour Party. Of course, if you search for "Labour Party+ethical socialism", you will get some hits. I guess that if you type "Labour Party+fascism" you will get some hits too (I haven't tried though). If you enter "Labour Party+neoliberalism" you will probably get lots of hits. That doesn't mean that it is the usual mainstream description of Labour's ideology.

Moreover the second source (Bevir) reads "Sometimes they imply that the social values that thrived through to the 1950s have been eroded by the emergence of a rights-based culture during the 1960s and 1970s. 'The left got into trouble', according to Blair, 'when its basic values became divorced from ... ethical socialism'" First, it is a quote by Blair, not the independent scholar's statement. Second, it refers to the 1950s, and that "ethical socialism" was abandoned afterwards. So, how can you claim that "ethical socialism" is the actual ideology of the current Labour Party? Later, the source continues: "Whether New Labour promotes a return to elder ethical socialism or new values, its proposed ethic draws extensively on communitarianism." So, the author does not decide whether Labour has actually returned to "ethical socialism". He does not write that the ideology of the Labour Party is "ethical socialism". --RJFF (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Btw, "pp." is the abbreviation for "pages". If you cite only one page, why do you write "pp."? --RJFF (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Democratic socialism

So, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not applicable to this article? This article does not have to be written from a neutral point of view? This article's statements don't need to be supported by neutral, independent, third-party sources? I think they are applicable to every single article and cannot just be suspended by some user's agreement on this article's talk page. If you want to abandon them, propose it at the respective policies' talk pages. We describe parties' ideologies as they are described in neutral, third-party, if possible scholarly, sources, not as the parties themselves state them. If Labour is democratic socialist, because they claim to be, then UKIP is libertarian, because they claim to be, and BNP is an anti-fascist pro-freedom party, because they claim to be. Please find independent sources to verify democratic socialism as the Labour Party's ideology, like we have at every other party's articles, instead of referring to Labour's constitution, manifesto or website. --RJFF (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed there were various ones milling around and the B&I tradition has always been democratic socialism not social democracy which has a different history. But you can always tag it and give people time to hunt some down if its an issue for you. I have to leave for a long day of meetings but will hunt over the weekend if no one else has come up with one. Oh a quick look at Democratic Socialism shows several possibilities ----Snowded ^TALK 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this article has very similar problems to the article on the Liberal Democrat party. There too, people who are members of that party consistently revert attempts to describe the division in that party between 'social liberals' and 'orange book neoliberals', and insist on describing it in their ideology box as 'centre left' despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's an unfortunate consequence of crowdsourcing that a large enough group of people with a particular (and possibly unconscious) bias can continue to avoid reflecting RS's and prefering to continue to posit a rose-tinted and outdated view of their party. Riversider (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Riversider, if you have issues with the Liberal Democrats wikipage, bring the issues up for discussion on the talk page for the Liberal Democrats. That would be the best place to describe the issues you feel are a problem for page, as well as this. However, you shoudln't accuse people that revert your changes of being supporters of either the Labour Party or the Liberal Democratic party, they would have many reasons for reverting, some of which may have nothing to do with political bias. Indeed, I could point out that the Liberal Democrats also have an isue with the "third party sources", and wonder why this is the only page that gets targetted...yet that would not be assuming good faith.--Welshsocialist (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible to have good faith and unconscious bias at one and the same time, in fact it's almost impossible not to. Those who are consciously aware of their biases can take account of them. Those who refuse to acknowledge that they could possibly be biased make themselves incapable of avoiding bias. Riversider (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Unionism as ideology

In Scotland and Wales, the Labour Party's political ideology is widely seen by party members, representatives and the electorate as not just centre-left or social democrat but also unionist, in the sense of favouring the continuation of the United Kingdom. I think this should be reflected in the ideology box. As a third-party citation, this Telegraph article refers to Labour as one of several "Unionist parties". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9035139/Unionist-parties-launch-coordinated-independence-referendum-campaigns.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.223 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This should have been placed at the bottom of the page. Moreoever, there is already a page for the Scottish Labour Party where this is mentioned in the ldealogy box. Unionism is more a Scottish issue, than a UK wide issue, or even a Welsh issue. I think that is the best place for it. --Welshsocialist (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you consider unionism to be simply a 'Scottish' issue WelshSocialist, I don't think the RS's will agree with that view. The conservative party in the UK actually calls itself the 'conservative and unionist party'. Independence for Scotland would affect everyone in the UK, even the Welsh. The right of nations to self determination is a key aspect of socialist ideology, but this sometimes balances problematically with the socialist aim of working class unity, however neither national self-determination nor working class unity are words you're likely to hear from a Labour leader these days. Riversider (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the formal name of the Conservative Party dates back to its merger with the Unionist Party back in 1965. The Unionist Party was the predecessor of the Conservatives in Scotland.
Secondly, the issue about including Unionism as in ideology in the infobox (I assume that's what's being requested here?) is that it isn't a significant enough and it certainly isn't a core, single-issue like, say, withdrawal from the EU is for UKIP. Labour is also pro-Europe, but that doesn't warrant an inclusion in the infobox either. I'm afraid you've arrived a month too late, since these discussions about what needs to go in the infobox have passed - descriptions that have been dismissed include ethical socialism, Democratic Socialism, Third Way and even "responsible capitalism". 'Social democracy' is roughly descriptive of the entire Labour Party and its core ideology. Unionism just isn't notable enough, especially since all three major parties and most Britons agree that the UK should stay united. --- --Peter ^{Talk page} 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I think I said pretty much the same thing at the bottom of the page. I'm going to move this section to the bottom of the talk page . -- Peter ^{Talk page} 14:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC) --Peter ^{Talk page} 14:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how WP works if you say things like "I'm afraid you've arrived a month too late, since these discussions about what needs to go in the infobox have passed" there are no timetables around editing decisions on WP and discussions around important aspects of an article can be re-opened at any time. The 'three major parties' in Scotland are very different from the 'three major parties' in England, (FYI the SNP have 67 seats in the Scottish Parliament, Labour 37 and Conservative 15) and your assertion that 'most Britons agree that the UK should stay united' does not mean that unionism is not an ideology, or that this could not become a very crucial issue for the Labour Party as Scotland ballots on increased powers for it's parliament. The infobox entry 'social democracy' is far too simplistic and inadequate to describe the complex and changing story of Labour's ideology, as I've pointed out elsewhere in this talkpage, it's so inaccurate it borders on being an outright misrepresentation of reality and the RS's. Because it is such a complex picture, with so many trends and nuances reflected in the RS's, and so many passionate editors with their own hobby horses and vested interests, it's going to be very difficult to come up with a consensus that works over the long term. The only consensual point I can make about the infobox is that the current version is very unsatisfactory to almost everybodyRiversider (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't seriously implying that the issue couldn't be brought up again, I was just saying that these discussions keep coming and going and perhaps it's time to just let it go. And your point about people with different hobby horses is what I'm getting at - too many people with too many different ideologies. We clearly can't put everything in the infobox, so why not keep social democracy? Or, better yet, remove the ideology parameter all together and/or add a link to the Ideology section of the article and expand that.
And we have to look at the party from a UK-wide POV. Yes, unionism and nationalism are big issues in Wales and Scotland, but not across the UK as a whole, so 'Unionism' isn't relevant enough to be included in the infobox. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking ideology out of the infobox altogether, and having a proper explanation of all the differing ideological currents that have affected Labour over its history in the main body of the text is an 'out of the box' solution to a perennial problem. This would solve the 'unionism' issue too, I suspect the Unionism/Independence issue is likely to spring up and bite Labour pretty soon and become an issue for England and Wales even if it isn't today. Great suggestion. Riversider (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont agree with axing the idealogy bit in the infobox altogether, that seems a little extreme and a bit of a cop out. Social Demcoracy is well referenced, and is widely agreed as the main idealogy of Labour. Unionism, as Peter said, is not a major issue UK wide. That is what I meant above. It is included in the Scottish Labour article, as an idealogy. Getting rid of the idealogy section altogether, just seems to be using a slegehammer to crack a nut.--Welshsocialist (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who started this section, and I really don't have any particular "hobby horse" - actually I have no strong opinions either way on Scottish or Welsh independence. The reason I think that unionism should be included is illustrated by the comparison to Europe policy above. It is totally acceptable for Labour MPs and activists to have Eurosceptic views, and many do. But it would not be acceptable to the party, and it would seem strange to the electorate, for a Labour MP - even an English one - to say that they thought Scottish or Welsh independence was a good idea. Unionism is one of the core propositions of the party in a way which things like support for Europe are not. And in fact, I note that the Conservative Party entry has "soft euroscepticism" listed as a "general ideology" even though this does not apply to even some of their most senior figures. Since there's so much disagreement, why not adopt the same format as the Tory article and give "general" ideologies (social democracy, british unionism) and "internal factions" (democratic socialism, Third Way, europhilic)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.223 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think comparisons between different articles can be useful, but I think a comparison between the Conservative Party, which is more pragmatic right-wing, and the Labour Party which has a disputed ideology, isn't helpful and Wikipedia articles can't always conform to each other's practises, especially since the Conservative Party article isn't a better quality than this one. I think the ideologies listed in the Conservative P. article are excessive actually.
Instead of throwing around various descriptions - because this has been going on for months - why not work unionism into the appropriate section of the article? Of course, it can't have undue weight, so maybe a sentence or a passing mention will do. I've seen more and more how inboxes encourage laziness by throwing easy and simple descriptons at readers so they don't have to read anything longer than a sentence ... It's not that simple.-- Peter ^{Talk page} 08:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Social Democracy is indeed well referenced, but there are also plenty plenty of RS's that dispute this description, saying that Labour has departed from the definition of a traditional social democratic party, or pose other ideological descriptions (many mentioned in above discussions, some with just as many RS's behind them), or suggest that the party no longer has ANY ideology, or that it has MANY competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies, and that it's ideological positions have changed radically over time, particularly in recent years. Taking ideology out of the infobox is not a cop out, it's a recognition that we can't accurately reflect RS's with a single word in the infobox, to keep it as it is oversimplifies to the point of outright misrepresentation, and gives undue weight to one particular set of RS's, it's like the HitchHiker's Guide To the Galaxy description of the planet earth as 'Harmless' (later made more accurate by being amended to 'mostly harmless') By keeping and developing the section on ideology in the main text, we can represent the complexity that an infobox simply can't.

223 has put forward an alternative that did exist for a while in a previous iteration fof the article: this listed 3 or for 4 general ideologies, and a number of internal ideological trends, and was more accurate. I preferred this to what is basically a lie of just having a single word that pretends the party is a monolithic organisation with just one set of ideas that have stayed constant throughout its history. I'd support an infobox that listed multiple ideologies supported by RS's, or an infobox with no section on ideology so that the reader is made to read the section in the main text. The only accurate status to put for 'ideology' in the current UK Labour party would be to take the words from facebook: "It's complicated"... Riversider (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ideology again.

I note that the longrunning edit war over what to put in the ideology section has continued without my assistance. Much of what I wrote earlier on this topic is still relevant, including the many RS's I listed, which have now been ignored. The key problem is that editors have been seeking a single word or concept to sum up the entire Labour Party's ideology for the full 110 years of it's existence. It's evidence that editors here haven't really got their heads round postmodernism, which would explain to them that Labour has many different (and sometimes mutually contradictory) ideologies at the same time, and the fact that the independent RS's reflect this. If you go back over the debate you'll find that I argued that finding one word to sum up such a complex situation can lead to a deeply oversimplified and innaccurate description - like describing a zebra as 'grey'. The way Labour used to describe itself was as a 'broad church' or a 'big tent' with lots of differing trends and ideas within it. In the 1930's there was a strong marxist trend, and Labour printed it's own edition of the Communist Manifesto to distribute among young members. Since then we've seen many other ideological trends, including social democracy (which was originally the same as marxism, but has gradually come to mean something entirely different), 'democratic socialism', trade unionism, communitarianism, the 'left nationalism' of Blue Labour, and the neoliberalism of Tony Blair and the still strong trend of those who support his approach within the party. The way to reflect this diversity is to stop pretending that Labour is a monolithic party with only one idea in it's head, and to list the full range of ideologies that influence the party's thinking. I've pointed out the problem of people who belong to the party editing the page - read WP's 'Who Better?' discussion on the idea that members of the KKK might be the best people to edit that particular topic. Because Labour is a large party with a number of people who wish to portray it here in the rosiest light possible, edits that have been well supported by RS's have ended up disappearing, particularly on the question of ideology, leading to the current misleading description (which is only slightly less misleading than the alternative being advocated by the LP members). River:sider (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a good point and I can understand why descriptions like "Third Way" and "ethical socialism" (even, as one user tried to push a few months ago, the wishy-washy "responsible capitalism") have been left out, as they only appropriately describe the ideology of the party leadership at a particular point in hisotry. I think we should hedge our bets with social democracy, because it appears to be the most common description used to describe the contemporary party and its actions by independent observers ... regardless of how much lip service the leadership pay to socialism. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to say, I edited the lead so that it now simply describes the Labour Party as "centre-left". The infobox still says social democracy. Whilst centre-left is a little vague, which given the disputes may not be such a bad thing. We have an entire section in the article focusing on ideology, so I think any future information about ideology should be added there. The lead is only a brief(ish) summary. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter made a great suggestion in the section below on 'Unionism as an ideology' that we get rid of the ideology section from the infobox altogether, to solve the perennial problems that afflict this part of the article. I think this edit really works - it's certainly far too complex an area to sum up with a single word in an infobox, and many RS's suggest that LP and other parties have left 'the age of ideologies' and become pragmatic parties. Riversider (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter's most recent edit - referring people from the infobox directly to the paragraph on ideology in the body of the text is just excellent. It solves problems that have afflicted this article for years, and allows readers to discover the full story of Labour's shifting ideological sands, rather than palming them off with a single word that many would dispute and in no way reflects the diversity of the RS's. The task now is to make that paragraph on ideology as representative of the RS's as possible. Well done Peter. Riversider (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't list idealogies (the main ones being, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism and Third Way) in the info box. The current set up does look a bit like vandalism, and is not really the solution in my opinion. All parties are coalitions of simular idealogies, be them Labour, the Tories, Liberal Democrats or even Welsh and Scottlish natonalists. --Welshsocialist (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Conservatives have always been more pragmatic rather than ideological, and their ideology isn't as disputed. Some of their stances may cause disagreement (i.e. Europe), but their ideology is broadly pro-business, socially conservative. This isn't the Lib Dem or Conservative article - the Labour Party is different, as evidenced by the disputes over ideology that occur on this talk page regularly. Personally, I did support including social democracy and democratic socialism, but the lack of third-party sources for the latter ideology means it can't be included (not when this is so controversial). Rather than a long list of various ideologies which encourages laziness in both editing and reading, because various labels can be added without justification or any context (can we honestly say that New Labour still applies?), whereas a link to a section of the article allows the inclusion of various ideologies, each with justification and some explanation.
I think that an overview of the 'main' ideologies that you listed, as well as internal factions, may be useful, but this could be better done using prose -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think that the complete absence of any ideology parameter in the infobox looks more like vandalism than a neat link. It works either way though. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It only looks like vandalism because we know what isn't there. The general reader coming to the article for the first time can't see what's not there, and would find it perfectly natural to look for the section on ideology in the main article. It was a Gordian knot and had to be cut. However, Peter's link direct from the word ideology in the infobox to that section of the article is an even better solution that meets everyone's concerns Riversider (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The removal of all the sourced material on the Labour Party's ideology is unacceptable. The section it redirects to does not mention hardly any of the stances previously shown in the infobox. Ethical socialism has been an important ideology within the Labour Party since the 1920s - promoted by one of its key manifesto writers, R. H. Tawney - Labour Prime Ministers Ramsay Macdonald, Clement Attlee and Tony Blair were all adherents of restore socialism. One user noticed that not all members believe in each idea - that is because most major political parties have internal factions - look at the example of the Democratic Party (United States) article, it shows the internal factions. Please restore the infobox section.--R-41 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with R-41. The problem with the infobox was not the idealogy section, it is certain users who have fixed views about idealogy, especially in terms of mentioning "third way", "social demcoracy" or "ethical socialism". I am going to restore the infobox idealogy section along the lines suggested above.--Welshsocialist (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But the situation you just created is a huge leap backwards. We've already had one dispute over democratic socialism in the past, with the argument being that it has no third-party references.
I do think ethical socialism and the like should be worked into the article, and I originally supported the inclusion in the infobox. However, as we have been arguing, you just can't sum up any ideology using five labels with no explanation. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 00:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The solution to the removal of sourced material from the infobox is simply to re-insert it in the ideology paragraph. Even if we left the infobox as it is, it should not contain anything that's not in the article already as it's meant to be a very concise summary of key points from the article. Our big problem is that as soon as we insert ONE ideology backed by RS's into the infobox, we have to justify why we do not include all the other LP ideologies that are equally well sourced. Accusing other editors of having tunnel vision about one particular ideology is not constructive, particularly if you yourself are insisting that the infobox should only contain one ideological label. It is the inadequacy of the infobox to summarise what is a highly complex and evolving story that means peter's edit directing the reader from the infobox to the relevant paragraph is the best one, particularly if we ensure that paragraph is as representative as possible of ALL the RSs. Riversider (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some Wikipedia users are completely deranged and non-objective, and cannot stomach their beloved Labour party being associated with those horrible supposedly 'continental' terms like social democracy, even though that and Third Way are bang-on-the-nose exactly the textbook term to describe Labour and it's ideology. The removal of the 'ideology' heading of the infobox is basically because some users CAN'T HANDLE being proven WRONG by academic sources! --Autospark (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sparkie, I don't think it's a case of 'proving' anybody wrong, and that's not a way of building consensus here. What I think is more accurate is that each of the ideologies that has been put forward here is 'right', as each are backed by RS's, so each editor has had a strong case, but singling out one to represent all was always going to be a gross over-simplification of a highly complex story. Referring the reader to infobox where we can elaborate some of this complexity, including how the party has changed over the century of it's existence, and cover all the terms, including social democracy, democratic socialism, ethical socialism, third way, neoliberalism, 'responsible capitalism', in a way that reflects the weight of reliable literature behind each of them seems the only satisfactory way of doing justice to the topic, this also enables each editor to improve the article by finding the best references for the particular part of the elephant that they can see, hopefully giving the reader a composite picture of the whole elephant.

The thing is, the infobox is meant to be a quick reference point, not a detailed history. This is true for all parties. I agree with autospark, this is being cooked up by two users who have very...fixed views on what the Labour Party is, and were deeply unhappy by the infobox stating social democracy as the main idealogy (which is again what the infobox is for). The infobox idealogy section really should be retored.--Welshsocialist (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored rather. By the way, the bit abouve my previous post, talking about elephants, is nothing to do with my post. It is an unsigned post by another user. --Welshsocialist (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be restored ASAP, yes. Anything else is destroying the whole notion of Wikipedia being an objective academically-sourced encyclopaedia. If other major European political parties such as the German SPD and French PS, with their party histories as least as deep and rich as Labour, can be described as social-democratic in their infobox why not Labour? Britain is not 'special' in regards to its counterparts in the rest of Europe and neither is the British Labour Party.--Autospark (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to say that nobody here, me included, has a problem with listing social democracy as one of the major ideological trends in the Labour Party. You're practically accusing users of bad faith by claiming we're trying to remove the ideology section of the infobox for our own person interests. This isn't true. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The bit about elephants was me. I'm referring to the story about the 9 blind men who all thought an elephant was something different, depending on which part they touched. It's nonsensical today to give a single word description of Labour's ideology, and any attempt to do so virtually condemns the topic to perpetual edit wars. An elephant is not a leg like a tree trunk, it's not a trunk like a snake, it's not an ear like a fan, it's not a tail like a whip, it's something that combines all those things and more in a very complex arrangement. Hence our alternative, represent the full diversity of the RS's, tell the full complicated story, rather than a convenient lie. I've nothing against expanding the part in the main article that refers to social democracy, as I think this is currently badly worded anyway, Labour was at least partly a social democratic party right back at it's inception (just as the Russian Bolshevik party were around the same time!). The problem we have is that there's a pile of RS's for every stage of Labour's history that also point to other strong ideological trends within the party, along with a strong 'pragmatic' trend that rejects ideology altogether. Let's be brave enough not to oversimplify or to describe the zebra as 'grey'.Riversider (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As Autospark said though, why just Labour? other European centre-left parties have just as varied historys. You can even look at other UK parties to show how they have shifted to various in the years. The so-called 'elephant' problem is not just Labour's and historical positions should be refered to in a historical context, as was the case and is done in other parties historys. The infobox does not have to list just one idealogy, other parties also cope with have multiple idealogies listed in the infobox. I cannot see why this cannot be the case with this page. As long as they are referenced properly.--Welshsocialist (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Welshsocialist, that's the alternative, an infobox that contains multiple ideologies. We already had this though, and some editors hated having more than one ideology listed. If we're going to list multiple ideologies then we need to decide a 'threshold criteria' for inclusion - as from the experience on this page, the list of ideologies and internal ideological currents just gets longer, with some included because of a particularly active editor rather than because this reflects the strength of the ideology within the party or in the RS's, and others excluded despite being well-founded on respectable academic sources. We would also need to decide whether the ideologies that informed Labour's founding and were present throughout most of it's history - like marxism, should be included, or present day phenomena like Blairite neoliberalism, and these are exactly the discussions that have led to edit war after edit war as an infobox simply can't reflect the complexity of the ideological battles, shifts and transformations that have characterised the Labour experience throughout its history. You're also right that other European 'social democratic' parties have had a very similar experience to Labour, to different degrees, PASOK in Greece for example has utterly collapsed as a social democratic party in recent months to be eclipsed by SYRIZA, while the PS in France seems to be going in entirely a different direction. If I had more time and expertise on those parties, I might make edits that reflect this myself, but I've never found a rule that insists WP has to be internally consistent, the aim of WP is to reflect the whole of human knowledge, and human knowledge by it's very nature is contradictory and lacks any kind of internal consistency, so the result is that WP is forced to reflect this, much to the chagrin of individual editors Riversider (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)