Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

General discussion

I find this article to be somewhat biased against the Conservative Party Does anyone else share my view?

Jer 17:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)JeremyCastle

With Messrs Hamilton, Archer, Powell and Aitken on the list, surely that should be Notorious Conservative MPs? sjc

Shouldn't the correct title be 'Conservative and Unionist' not 'Union', Party? Berek

Have added (00:18 BST 25 October) link to David Stewart's Conservative website. Going on the fact that the Spectator is in the link listings it appears that the list isn't confined to objective material.

The party is officially registered with the electoral commision as "The Conservative Party".

Sorry no it isn't but this was the standard we agreed befor... I forgot about the Unionist bit hym... damnit. Mintguy


I would suggest moving the page to Conservative and Unionist Party (UK) and a redirect from TCP (UK) - would that break anything?2toise 10:59, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You've decided to move this page without any agreement on its move. The Conservative and Unionist Party (UK) link has an unnecessary (UK) disambiguation. You also need to fix all the broken links you've created. I think it would be better to move the page back

I agree that the "and Unionist" party is unnecessary. I also question why British political party articles are all prefaced by a "the". What's wrong with "Conservative Party (UK)", "Liberal Party (UK)", and "Labour Party (UK)"? Why do we need the useless article? john 04:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I've move the page back, because it created zillions of broken links and as someone stated above The Conservative and Unionist Party (UK) contains the unnecessary (UK) disambiguation. The is officially party of the name, see Talk:The Labour Party (UK) (but then so is 'Conservative and Unionist'), so where this page should reside is up for discussion. However the use of the definite article is not unprecedented. See: The Football Association, The Daily Telegraph, The Hague, The Beatles, The Proms, The Americas, The Panthéon, The Gambia, The wheel, The Juilliard School. Mintguy 21:30, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page seems too focused on the present-day for me. By all means have the ins-and-outs of leadership challenges on pages like Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague, but the Conservative Party is, like, centuries old, and this article shouldn't have such focus on these relatively minor players in Tory history... Evercat 15:16, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, random IP address guy, can you show me any source which shows that Law between 1911 and 1916, and Chamberlain from 1921 to 1922, were not considered to be full leaders of the Conservative/Unionist Party? I've never before seen such a contention made. (Also was Lansdowne really the Tory leader in the Lords at that time? I'd have thought Curzon...) john 18:01, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the random IP address - I've had problems logging in.

The distinction about the Conservative leadership is mentioned in a number of books covering the party's history - the best one I can recommend is John Ramsden's "An Appetite for Power: A History of the Conservative Party since 1830" (published 1998). Appendix 2 lists "Officeholders in the Party since 1830" and has several lists. There is no formal list of leader of the overall party, but instead lists of Leaders in the Lords and the Commons, with an asterix denoting those who were recognised as overall leader and the periods. No asterixs cover the periods 1881-1885, 1911-1916 or 1921-1922. Other historians will confirm the distinction - the struggle between Salisbury and Northcote between 1881 and 1885 in particular receives a lot of coverage. In 1922 Austen Chamberlain found that his status as only leader of the Commons reduced his authority - and note that the Carlton Club meeting was a meeting of MPs only, not MPs, peers and candidates (unlike the one which formally elected Bonar Law the following week).

As for Landsdowne, the same book lists him as Leader in the Lords from October 1903 until December 1916, when Curzon succeeded him. There was quite a struggle for the leadership within the Conservatives (or Unionists as they were better known at the time) at this point, though the contemporary struggles within the Liberals receive far more attention.

Random IP address, trying to sort out logging in.

I have changed some of the Local Election information - previously it was stated that Ealing was a strong Labour borough which had never been under Conservative control. This was false as prior to 1994 Ealing had been Conservative controlled for some time. It is in fact seen as a "bellweather" council for the General Election, as is now in the article.

Excellent article! Was wondering what could be said about the Conservatives' set of mind on Bushist foreign policy; IIRC they oppose intervention in Iraq, but I see no mention of that here. ralian 03:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution on the endless rounds of leadership arguments

Since we've had a slow edit war on whether or not the party had overall leaders in some periods, perhaps a better solution might be to copy The Liberal Party (UK) and do separate lists of the leaders in the Lords and Commons up to 1922 (with an indication of those accepted as overall party leader), then have a single leader from that point on. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Timrollpickering 17:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm happy to consider Northcote to have been co-leader with Salisbury from 1881-1885. I'm pretty dubious on Lansdowne. Every account of the origins of World War I that I've ever seen, for instance, makes clear that Bonar Law was leader of the Conservative Party. At any rate, I certainly agree that we should have leaders of both houses listed, as we do for the liberals. I don't even know some of it, like who led the Tories in the Lords from 1868-1876. (The Leader of the House of Lords article could use some help, too...There's some big gaps in the early 19th century, notably for 1846-1852. john 19:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem originates from the use of a modern consideration of what exactly makes someone leader. At the time the party was focused on Westminster so the notion of an overall leader would be whoever commanded authority across both chambers. When one of the leaders was the current or former PM it was pretty obvious who this was, but when that wasn't the case then the tendency for the one chamber not to accept the natural authority of the leader of the other could easily set in - Austen Chamberlain for example found his authority over the Lords to be exceptionally weak.
There's a good list of the leaders in both chambers in "An Appetite for Power" by John Ramsden (HarperCollins, 1998), which also aknowledges Landsdowne as Law's technical coequal (page 216). I have to admit a bias - John is my PhD supervisor - but the book is good. And to answer your question, it was the 3rd Earl of Malmesbury 1868-1869, 1st Lord Cairns 1869-1870 and 6th Duke of Richmond 1870-1876. Timrollpickering 21:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does this article have "The" at the beginning of its title? This hasn't been used for any other political party articles that I am aware of and seems quite redundant to me. I see that this has been discussed above, but I am unpersuaded. Most of analogies given (such as The Hague) are not in fact analogous. Adam 00:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's The Liberal Party (UK) and The Labour Party (UK). But, yeah, I don't really get it, either. john 01:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It's absurd - many names are preceded by the definite article in speech - the United Nations, the Catholic Church, the President of France - but we don't have articles called The United Nations, The Catholic Church etc. When I am in the mood for a fight I will come along and change this article accordingly. Adam 02:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The names under which the UK parties are listed was agreed on Talk:The Labour Party quite some time ago. The use of "The" has nothing to do with its use in speech. If you look at the Electoral Commission website http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272004%2D05%2D03%2011%3A44%3A07%27%7D they list the name of all of the political parties registered in the UK. The Tories are listed as "Conservative And Unionist Party [The]", Labour is listed as "Labour Party [The]", the Liberal Democrats are listed as "Liberal Democrats" (no The), the BNP are the "British National Party" (no The). The rump of the old Liberal party is "Liberal Party [The]". It is not unprecedented for organizations and indeed Wikipedia articles to have the definite article as part of the name as in "The Times", "The Kennel Club", "The Football Association", "The Actor's Studio", "The Alhambra", "The Americas", "The Anarchy", "The Annex", "The Ashes", "The Blitz", "The Hellfire Club", "The Hague", "The Hermitage", The Louvre", "The Cenotaph", "The Scarecrow", "The Sealed Knot", "The Weather Channel" etc.. Mintguy (T) 11:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with this move. I hardly ever want to write "The Conservative Party, instead I want to write the Conservative Party. If we have the page without the article I can do it with the pipe trick. Morwen 21:33, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
Have to agree, it's the natural way to do it. Yes "The" is in the title registered with the Electoral Commission, but so is "And Unionist" and I don't see a rush to put the page there. Keep it here. Timrollpickering 21:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and its not The Conservative Party in any case, its the Conservative Party. See [1]. Same goes with the Labour Party.

Whatever. There are suitable redirects for whatever you want to call the parties, so put [[Conservative Party (UK)|]] if you like. But these are the official names. On you ballot paper in 2001 it will have almost certainly have said "The Conservative Party Candidate", "The Labour Party Canditate" and "Liberal Democrats" (see http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/external/election2001/candidates/candidates.htm) because someone else could call themselved a member of "National Labour, Liberal and Conservative Democratic Alliance Party" if they like. Mintguy (T) 22:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Candidates use all kinds of labels. Lib Dems often run in local elections as "Liberal Democrat Focus Team". Many candidates stress local roots, whilst others will retain additional bits for historical reasons - e.g. Conservative & Unionist is used on many, or Labour & Co-operatibe.
The registration came about purely because of deliberate spoiler candidates trying to split the vote by confusing the electorate. Besides it's quite clear that in the case of the ballot you cite that the "The"s refer to the candidate - you wouldn't put "Conservative Party candidate" would you? Timrollpickering 22:43, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Eh? If you look at the link, those parties that don't officially have The as part of the name do not have "The" on the ballot paper e.g. "Liberal Democrat" Mintguy (T)
BTW The 1941 Pears Cyclopaedia entry mentioned below proves that "The" has been part of the name of the Labour Party for quite some time. Mintguy (T)

It is not a question of what the party's official or unofficial name is. It is a question of the correct way of titling encyclopaedia articles. If we put a definite article in one article, logically we have to put it in hundreds and hundreds of other articles (The Republican Party, The Australian Labor Party, The Church of England), which serves no good purpose and makes it harder for readers to find articles with the search device (try it and see). It should be a rule that article titles do not include the definite article, unless it is part of the title of a cultural product such as a newspaper (The Scotsman) or a book (The Grapes of Wrath). Adam 00:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't "logically" also apply to examples you set at all. Not unless these organizations use the definite article as part of their name, which I don't think they do, unlike The Football Association (website www.thefa.com), The Kennel Club (website www.the-kennel-club.org.uk), The Body Shop (website http://www.thebodyshop.com) or The Wallace Collection (website www.the-wallace-collection.org.uk). So your rule is bogus Mintguy (T) 01:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That various organisations use the definite article for commercial or other reasons doesn't mean we are bound to follow them. It would call those articles Kennel Club and The Football Association, and so would any other encyclopaedia or directory in the world. I might allow The Body Shop since it is a well-known brand name but I think most people would search for Body Shop. Adam 02:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well I think you would be wrong about that. I think you will find that those two particular organisations are usually listed as "Kennel Club, The" and "Football Association, The". And you might be interested to know that just picking up the nearest encyclopaedia to hand which happends to be a 1941 edition of Pears Cyclopaedia (I collect them), it lists the Labour Party under "Labour Party, The". Mintguy (T) 02:43, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia use "official names". What does having "the" in the article title add to it? Why does this increasing understanding? john 03:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

well for one thing (as far as the Labour Party is concerned) it distinguishesd it from Democratic Labour Party, Independant & Progressive Labour Party, Labour (Federation of Labour Groups), Liverpool Labour Community Party, Social Democratic and Labour Party and Socialist Labour Party which are all parties registered with the Electoral Commision in the UK. Not to mention the Labour Party of Scotland, Independent Labour Party, the various Constituency Labour Parties the Parliamentary Labour Party, Scottish Militant Labour, Democratic Labour. Which is precisely the reason that "The" is part of the official name. Mintguy (T) 03:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Everyone would know that Labour Party (UK) is about the Labour Party that's currently running the government. All those other parties have extra words in their name. john 05:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Does your encyclopaedia have articles on House of Lords, The, Statue of Liberty, The or Wars of the Roses, The? Adam 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you think it should (or might) for any particular reason? Mintguy (T)

I am making the point that attaching definite articles to the titles of encyclopaedia articles is stupid and pointless. But since we are just going round in circles here, I won't pursue this argument unless someone decides to move this article back to the earlier title. On the other hand if this article is going to retain its current title then the Labour Party and the Liberal Party articles ought to be moved to conform to this one. Adam 03:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

It is stupid and pointless to put the definite article where it doesn't belong; granted. But what has that got to do with the price of fish? I have less of a problem with this page, because really it should be at Conservative and Unionist anyway, but I do really think the other pages should be at the correct name. Mintguy (T)

No, they should be at the name under which most people may be expected to look for them, which is Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Party (UK). Encyclopaedias exist for the benefit of readers, not to satisfy the pedantic fetishes of writers. Adam 04:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If this were the case then (UK) should be dropped altogether, but we have it for disambiguation. Mintguy (T)

Yes, there is absolutely no reason for the definite article to be used. The idea that people would confuse the Labour party with the Social Democratic and Labour Party if the article is not used is completely ludicrous. john 05:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

So ludicrous that the thought of preceeding the name with "The" would be so absurd as to be impossible, yet, it is part of the official name and you can find at least one Encyclopaedia listing it as "Labour Party, The" Mintguy (T) 08:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Huh? I said it was ludicrous to think that the presence of "the" prevented confusion with the Social Democratic and Labour Party. Given that there is pretty much no confusion with that (or any other party including "Labour" in its name), I stand by that statement. Any reasonable person, seeing Labour Party (UK), would assume it is talking about the Labour Party. I didn't say it was ludicrous to use that definite article, only that there is no reason to do so. At any rate, the presence of "The" doesn't necessarily differentiate it from other weird parties. For instance, couldn't you have a party called, say, "The Labour Party of Democracy and Freedom", or something? john 09:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The use of the definite article was originally supported by User:Rbrwr and [User:Jtdirl]] (who left Wikipedia some time ago). When the Labour Party page was moved and then moved back, he said "May I be the first to welcome back The Labour Party to its rightful place and name. JTD 22:57 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)" Mintguy (T)

I certainly respect JTD, who was a fine user, and I was saddened by his unheralded departure from Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he said. I doubt that arguments from authority (even if it is the respected, and sadly departed, authority of Jtdirl) is going to have much weight. john 09:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


It seems that the Liberal and Labour Party articles have now been moved to the same form as this one, so unless and until someone tries to move them back again, this debate can be closed. Adam 09:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I moved them. I'd like to try to command some kind of acquiescence on Mintguy's part, rather than simply ignoring the issue because we've "won". john 09:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I've not attempted to move this page back, because we are having a debate, and I don't think we have canvassed enough opinions on the subject yet to make any decision, so for the sake of civility, I would like to make a request of John, that you move those pages back until the debate is properly concluded, and not arbitrarily ended by a unilateral page move, and the declaration of a "fait accompli". Mintguy (T) 09:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I am also saddened that you choose to leave broken redirects like UK Labour Party. Just like Adam did when he moved The Conservative Party page. Mintguy (T) 09:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I agreed with (and helped research) the original change (which was desperately needed for the sake of consistency) to The Labour Party (UK) and The Conservative Party (UK) but in practice I have found the "The"s tend to produce awkward links. (I speak as someone who has made a habit of doing disambiguation runs on Labour, Labour Party, etc.) For what it's worth, the Electoral Commission uses a format like Labour Party [The], suggesting that the "The"s are optional or detachable. I won't fight to keep them. I will however agree with Mintguy that it is bad form not to fix the redirects when you move something. --rbrwrˆ 10:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That's fair enough for me. I concede the argument about the Political parties, upon Rob's views. However, I strongly oppose a move for The Football Association or other similar pages. The FA strongly defend the use of the definite article in their name. Mintguy (T) 10:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't move the article. I threatened to, but someone else did so. Go look. Adam 11:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did you a disservice. Mintguy (T)

Have just seen photos of the ballot paper for the current European elections. "Conservatives - Putting Britain First" is the party description used on this occasion. Now please can we have absolutely no moving of the page to anything remotely like that! Timrollpickering 00:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Not sure how to "annotate" a change. I removed the bit about the Conservatives moving to the centre (not NPOV) and the reference to Mike Smith. I count myself as being well informed on UK politics but I've never heard of him. He doesn't rate a sentence in the introduction.

Exile

You did exactly the right thing. I had a look back and that thing has been in there for way too long. Presuamably somebody self-promoting. Morwen - Talk 18:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Needs info!

This article has no information at all about the relationship between constituency parties, Conservative Central Office, the 1922 committee etc. Morwen - Talk 19:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


quality of grammar an NPOV in this article

Yo. The standard of English, certainly in the early part of the entry, is really pretty low. It also seems to have been written by a conservative party supporter ("British pride in being Britons"?? "Prime Minister Thatcher"?? we dont have the "Mr. President" thing in Britain. She is just Margaret Thatcher now.

Some politico type wikipedia author ought to take a look - I dont know much about the conservative party

When I type 'Conservative Party Wikipedia' into Google, and click on the relevant link (ie for the UK not Canadian Party), I get some short piece about the Party being a political think tank with a nihilistic belief in laissez faire. Yet when I click "edit", I'm faced with the correct article ready for editing. Is it just me and my computer, or does Mr Wikipedia have hackers to face?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=conservative+party+wikipedia&meta= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)

largest right-wing party

I don't like this phraseology. For a political party to be "on the right" and for it to be "right wing" have different connotations. john k 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Centre-right is the term used by most commentators here. "Right-wing" is primarily used as a political point by opponents. Timrollpickering 10:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

bad choice of words

Currently, the Conservative Party is the largest party in opposition to the British government,

Whoa, this can't possibly be right. Does the Conservative party really oppose the British government?? Terrorists and traitors oppose the government. I think someone is confusing "the government" with "the current plurality in the government". Revolver 07:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
"Government" and "opposition" have technical meanings in British politics of "the party controlling the executive" and "the other parties in parliament". The Conservatives are "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". This is perfectly normal terminology, but mybe it needs a link to Parliamentary opposition or Official Opposition (UK). --rbrwr± 08:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
It needs more than a link. You should explain it in the article. Otherwise, many people will be totally confused. Revolver 18:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
For one thing, the links you give go to articles that give no explanation of these terms (or inadequate), so linking to them would accomplish nothing (until those articles are changed, I mean). Revolver 19:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Even in a non-technical sense, the Conservative party frequently opposes the government - by voting against its bills, by criticising its policies, by questioning its competence, etc.. Just as many other people do, who are not members of political parties. I think Revolver is confusing "the government" with "the country," or "the state".--Townmouse 22:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

History section

It's gotten so big that I think it should be its own article with just a little blurb in the main article. --4.244.105.147 21:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

It seems to me that this article has a very strong pro-Tory slant to it. It seems to ascribe the party's popularity (when it's popular) to its economic policies being "successful" and the left being "loony," while its failures and scandals are portrayed as being due to the media being out to get them. I'd like to see more balance. --Blackcats 22:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Cash for questions and similar tory-era scandals recieved far more attention in the press (and still do) than the million pound donations that paid for legal interventions on behalf of Lakshmi Mittal or Bernie Ecclestone. To some extent, the media is still looking to capitalise on decade old tory scandals whilst ignoring more recent labour misdeeds. 62.255.64.6

Structure? Content?

this really is an awful piece of work. I'm shocked that half of the post-war era is reduced to a mere paragraph as if this is of no consequence to the present day. It also contains factual omissions and inaccuracies. I'm not a Conservative, but this does a disservice to Conservative history.

This is a really dreadful article for a piece on a major political party. JuntungWu 13:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd advertise this on peer review. JuntungWu 13:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I restructured a little, but there's plenty more to do. The lists need to go into separate List articles. The History needs a separate article, and the summary shortening. Then there'll be breathing space to say a bit more about the nature and future of the party. Rd232 14:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. It says nothing about how the party is governed, nor mentions the local Conservative Associations. - Rwendland 20:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do people vote Conservative?

Lets have a discussion and then include a section in the article on why people vote for the Conservative Party. What is it that the Conservatives represent to people?--Fergie 12:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a need for this? There is no such section in the Labour party article. Lapafrax 19:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a serious question. It is a given that in a state where the majority of citizens are workers, they will naturally vote for the 'worker's party' which in the case of the UK is Labour. Why then should a party which is not run in the (obvious) interests of the majority, nonetheless gain the majority of votes? I think that this would make an interesting addition to the article.Fergie 19:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This is because working class people voted Conservative out of deference. British society was far more deferential in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th century, in that people held greater respect for their "social betters". Conservatives were seen as being better educated and from more priviledged backgrounds. Lapafrax 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

thats like saying why should leftist pinko's gain rights in America in the 1950's when the majority of citizens don't want them to? This is the kind of mentality (above) that is so DISGUSTING. There is no temperence for anything conservative ANYWHERE in europe. The UK conservatives just built the British Empire and became the strongest power since Rome thats all..... (68.228.14.176 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

erm... actually, a good deal of the British Empire was "built" under the Liberal Administration. And even then, it was mostly "built" by a combination of trade and cheap labour - and where that failed, by the military. Not sure where you get your UK history from? Marcus22 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

erm...actually, a good deal of the empire was 'built' under the CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATION. and no it wasn't built by cheap labor.. Not sure where you get YOUR UK history from. YankeeRoman (24.75.194.50 17:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

darn, where's the rolleyes.... Marcus22 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

not where you are....FrenchFrog!! YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

To answer Fergie, simple reasons for voting Conservative: Belief that low-tax economies are better for low-paid individuals than high tax economies. Belief that consumer power is a better indicator of business-needs than a trade-union blocking any change that 'harms workers' regardless of whether or not no-change will lead to worse outcomes. Belief that the government should provide a safety-net to help the poor, but that it also must ensure life-choices (good and bad) are in the hands of the people, not the state. I think you would need to find a study, however, to be able to include such items in the article. There is no doubt a 'why do you vote conservative' study out there somewhere, it just has to be found, referenced and pass the whim of the wiki-reverters.ny156uk 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow- a thread answered after 1 and a half years! Thanks for taking the time to give a serious answer. Allow me to comment on your reasoning-
Belief that low-tax economies are better for low-paid individuals than high tax economies
Agreed, given that one party is seen as maintaing low taxation levels, and that people are ok with the consequent reduction in government spending this seems reasonable.
Belief that consumer power is a better indicator of business-needs than a trade-union blocking any change that 'harms workers' regardless of whether or not no-change will lead to worse outcomes
Not sure about this: why should the majority of workers care about 'business needs'? Business could need to cut pay and conditions, pollute, change legislation, or kick people out of work. I do not understand how this could win a majority of votes.
Belief that the government should provide a safety-net to help the poor, but that it also must ensure life-choices (good and bad) are in the hands of the people, not the state
Agree that the principle of personal choice seems like a vote winner, but not sure how this applies to poverty. Additionally, when it comes to personal choice the the UK Conservative party seems to be much more restrictive than the other UK parties (think about gay rights, constitutional referendums, 'family values', 'Britishness', and so on).
Clearly the Conservative party is popular, and have often commanded the majority vote, but the exact reasons why this should be so seem to be hard to pin down.--Fergie 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha I hadn't notice it was such an old thread! Ah well. I (at least) believe in the conservative values I stated for a variety of reasons
To explain my points further - workers are not universally helped by unions and many people believe that businesses should enjoy more freedom to make business-decisions than other political parties might offer. It is a vote-winner (for many) to support the increased freedom of business. I don't see why business-needs that reduce pay, condition, lower staffing levels are necessarily negative in voters eyes. Reduced staff levels from 4,000 to 2,000 could ensure the long term profitability of the business - many would agree it is better to give business the freedom to shed 2,000 staff and survive than to have the company not be able to shed the workers and end up all 4,000 losing their jobs when the company goes bust. Overly simplistic? Definitely, but logically many people agree that businesses are best placed to make decisions in the interest of the long term stability of the business, not trade unions. Now whether or not this is the case is irregardless, but the reasoning is quite understandable
I believe the Conservative party has two quite distinct groups. One group is very much classic-liberal and in favour of freedom of the individual, the other is more traditional in that they believe in maintaining a specific way of life and are willing to legislate/enforce those rules.
Freedom from a poverty point of view is a form of financial-freedom. The less taxation individuals pay the more free they are to make their own decisions, similiarly the less that is provide by government the more individuals are free to decide what they wish to spend their finances on. A government could take 40% of my salary and decide that it will provide me with education, healthcare, policing, security, law, benefits and etc. etc. Another government (perhaps a conservative government) might provide a more basic system and give you the freedom to make the choice about whether or not to, say, buy healthcare insurance or that sort of thing.
You seem to be approaching the question from a viewpoint that hinges on people only vote in favour of party policies that directly help themselves. Simplistically speaking it seems sensible that workers should support parties that support them over parties that support 'rich people' and 'employer's, but the points I note above are well-supported and closely tied to the conservative party. I vote for the party that I believe runs the country best, not the party that gives me the best deal, the conservative party has a reptuation for strong stewardship of the economy, and the economy is probably more important to voters than almost anything else.ny156uk 12:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting that you say that people vote for the parties that do not help them directly. This means that people vote Conservative out of a sense of altruism: supporting the economy even when it is hurting the voter in question. And what do we mean by a 'healthy economy', do we mean high GDP? high wages? Low inflation? Low house prices? High house prices? I completely take your point on the 'flag and family' voters who vote Conservative out of a sense of tradition, but the economic arguments I find harder to fathom because the concept of a 'healthy economy' is too woolly. What economic indicators do people actually want? Surely not low wages and significant unemployment (conditions regarded as 'good' for the economy)--Fergie 09:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What is bad for you individually short-term is not necessarily bad for you long term. What is good for you individually short term is not necessarily for the best in the long term. The stewardship of the economy was one of the strongest factors of modern Conservative times in office and is rightly looked back on as a key vote winner. Good economies have flexibility to react - an amount of unemployment allows for expansion/change/movement of work quicker than one with full employment (though this contest economic argument would require a seperate discussion of its own).
I'm not sure i understand why or who would consider 'low wages' as being 'good' for the economy. I have not come across the claim and I read free-market, pro laissez-faire publicatons/websites a lot. In the uk only 1.4% of workers are on the minimum wage, yet the economy remains one of the strongest in the world. A strong economy is one with workers that do work which commands a high value in the marketplace. The financial and science industries in the UK are higher value (for employees, for the economy) than some industry/manufacturing because those in the UK within that industry can be underpriced on the international markets. They cannot, therefore, command as high a value. The knowledge and service economy we live in (partially brought about by structural reforms by Conservative governments of the past) are worth more internationally than manufacturing/industry as there are less competitors, yet still high demand. I've babbling a little, but in short I think people vote conservative becuase they believe they will look after the economy in a way that makes us competitive international, locally and in a way that will raise the wealth of the entire nation. That may mean I, or the man next door, are displaced from our job, but I consider that a fair trade-off as there is nothing to stop me retraining/becoming employed elsewhere. Prior to New-labour the opposition parties have not embraced this so it is harder (now) to see why the conservatives are considered good economically. ny156uk 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The logo on the article page is out of date. It was recently replaced by one with a stronger-looking arm and less of the torch, but i'm still new enough to Wikipedia that I don't quite get the whole copyright thing. Until I've read and digested the relevant policy, can somebody else look at replacing the logo? I'd be happy to do it, but it will take a while for me to get confident with images on WP. Peeper 11:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Policies

The policies section is definately lacking in quantity. Is there anyone willing to enter a more comprehensive list of the Conservative Party's policies?


tactical unwind

"tactical unwind" in this article links to Tactical voting, but I can't find the term on that page. It needs to be explained either here or there. -- Tarquin 09:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There is now on that page. Timrollpickering 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

Should there be a section on criticisms of the conservative party? Or would this warrant a whole new article... Sorry, I'm new to wikipedia but in order to get a fair and balanced view shouldn't the article also look at points continually brought up by critics?

I think this is a vallid point, but their is a distinction to be made between the writings of say Andrew Gamble on the left and Peter Hitchens on the right. I've added the paragraph in which Hitchens is mentioned because the responses to rhe dissatisfaction on the right deserve more than the passing mention they gain over Hague and Howard's "pre-election swings to the right (in 2001 and 2005, respectively)". Currently, Hitchens is the *conservative journalist with the highest profile, I would argue, and should be mentioned in this context. (*Melanie Phillips would not except this label and Boris Johnson's high profile is not as a consequence of his journalism.) Philip Cross 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't like to be harsh but ...

This is the sort of entry one doesn't like to criticise because of the obvious amount of work which has gone into it. However, for a subject of such importance and sensitivity there are some shockers in here. Poll Tax was a nick-name with negative historical connotations used by the party's oppponents - you can't just throw in such phrases in a serious history. I've changed that and sorted out the problem with John Major - who hadn't been mentioned previously, being called just Major. Words like 'infamous' are surely not appropriate. And what does 'increased government intervention in the social or cultural sphere' mean? Surely it is Tory policy to roll back what they call the 'nanny state': this sounds like the opposite. I also removed the bizarre suggestion that devolution to NI has been successful. I don't want to leap straight into a serious re-write of an entry of this importance but I also have some problems with the style - 'since 1922, only.....' is not too pretty, neither is ' have faced problems in returning the party to being serious...' Perhaps more controversially for some, I have removed the word 'positively' from the comments on the election of a black Conservative MP. It is not an encyclopaedia's place to push doctrine, even one as generally accepted as the equal political representation of races. The change in the party speaks for itself. For most people it will be positive, for a few it will not, but that's their decision. Any comments before I do a more thorough re-write? (Mdhinton 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Granted, the readability and grammatical integrity of the article could be improved- nobody will complain if you make corrections as you see fit. As for the many opinions that you would like to incorporate into the article- perhaps you should bring them up one by one and hope that we reach a consensus. Fergie 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Cameron a 'neoconservative'

It seems the same person who kept putting this stuff in on Cameron's wiki article are doing it here too. Firstly I don't think speculation and conjecture have a place in an encyclopedia. Secondly it's too early to say what relationship Cameron will have with Dubya but from the way Cameron has advertised himself and his support for some socially liberal policies on civil partnerships and drugs I don't labelling him a 'neoconservative' is accurate.Johnbull 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. But the substance of the paragraph is true and adds to the entry therefore I have put it back but without the "N" word. By the way you may refer to me by by name if you like, unlike your nickname, my name is real!!PaddyBriggs 18:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think what you've added should even be in the article:
David Cameron and his supporters have expressed sympathy for manys of the political positions of George Bush, Condoleeza Rice and other leaders of the (Republican) Bush administration - Why are there no examples? Maybe because it isn't true?
it is likely that the Conservative party will seek to rebuild their historic links with the American Republican Party in the run up to the next British General Election. - They might. Or they might not. Pretty much pointless to add speculation and conjecture to an article in an encyclopedia. Today the BBC has reported Cameron as saying his and the LibDems views on the Iraq War are now the 'same' [2]. Johnbull 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Balance and readability

I've just completed some edits which rebalance some elements (especially regarding 'Euroscepticism') to a more generally accepted and neutral point of view. I've also put references to the Major governments more clearly in the past tense and built in recent political events surrounding the election of David Cameron. JDancer 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Conservatism" on the template

Are people happy with this label? I think it could perhaps benefit from another term alongsde "Conservatism", perhaps "Classical Liberalism." I think it should definitely be there, but perhaps with the add-on of Classical Liberalism What do people think?--Jason Hughes 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism is really only associated with the Thatcherite wing of the party (if that even is classical liberalism in the first place). It isn't really the core ideology of the party as a whole and the current signs suggest that it is being diminished in importance. Timrollpickering 00:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true. A very large number of Conservatives would define themselves as Classical Liberals. Nor does Classical Liberalism necessarily imply Thatcherism (in the commonly understood form), as a Classical Liberal could easily be socially liberal (Portillo at present?) or a traditional conservative Thatcherite. The party doesn't have a core ideology and subsumes the whole range of right-of-centre opinion. I think the discussion of thought/philosophy within the party is weak and probably outdated: where does David Cameron fit in the structure we outline? JDancer 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the label should remain as Conservatism. Classical liberalism emphasises personal and economic freedoms. Thatcher and the New Right may have drawn upon classical liberalism as an influence, but Thatcher is socially conservative. New Right beliefs and classical liberalism aren't wholly synonymous. Lapafrax 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Conservative Party is the second-largest political party in the United Kingdom

"The Conservative Party is the second-largest political party in the United Kingdom"

Im presuming that this refers to the number of MPs the party has and not the number of councillors, councils or members because it is the largest in these terms?!?!

Yes, in terms of the total amount of representatives and elected officials the Conservative party is the second largest in the UK. It is also the second largest in terms of membership numbers. -- D-Katana 14:51 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Which has the largest membership? Labour's is sinking fast. Timrollpickering 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a pointless debate. I'm not sure either the Tories or Labour can claim to be the 'largest party' per se. Perhaps it would be better if the line were re-written? Marcus22 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its an unneccesary line - Plus the Conservatives have a larger membership than Labour[3], and Im not sure that they are behind labour in terms 'of representatives and elected officials'. Labour have more MP's, MSP's and Wlesh AM's but the tories have far more councillors, more MEP's and more members of the London assembly. It should be looked at more closely and sources cited. TFoxton 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Have changed the line. Marcus22 10:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make this a little milder:
Unfortunately the Conservative Party do not provide reliable or verifiable figures in regard of their membership and until they do it is impossible to regard any membership figure they give as anything but speculation.
The assertion that membership figures ought to be regarded as speculation is itself speculation. All that we can say is that they're not verified. --Lo2u (T • C) 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideology?

Isn't the post-Thatcher Conservative party also neoliberal in terms of ideology? David Cameron himself has stated he is a libertarian. I believe we should amend the party Ideology to "Conservatism/Neoliberalism". Can someone give some feedback as to their opinion, if we agree then I'm sure we can impliment this slight change. -- D-Katana 14:48 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In that they stand for economic liberalism but social conservatism the Tories have been 'neoliberal' since (and including) Thatcher. There is still a strong tendency towards that in the party today. I think Cameron actually desires to make them less 'socially' conservative and hence less 'neoliberal' - but it remains to be seen whether the bulk of the party (not least the membership) will allow him to do this. So, in short, I would agree that the tag 'neoliberal', as it is defined on wikipedia, is currently applicable to them. Marcus22 17:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I have added Neoliberalism to the Ideology section of the infobox. I agree with your definition of the party; we will see what happens over the next few years - policy changes and such, to see if any other changes occur. -- D-Katana 12:21 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Neoliberalism" doesn't necessarily mean social conservatism. The term is used in the context of economic policies: it is essentially the re-emergence of liberal economics. Some of those who are in favour of neoliberalism, most notably Samuel Brittan, are both economically and socially liberal and explicitly reject social conservatism.--Johnbull 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct. But in the sense in which the term is being applied here I'm not sure it makes any difference. Conservatives are 'neoliberal' in the economic sense under either definition. And as there are sections of the party which advocate strong 'social conservatism' and sections which advocate a form of 'social liberalism' - and several shades in between - it would still seem appropriate to call their ideology 'neoliberal'. Marcus22 13:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Fascism

Why is "fascism" listed as an ideology? I doubt many, if any, Conservative Party members would agree that their party supports fascist ideology or policies. Oswaldojh 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

er... not sure that the article ever suggests that they are... and if it does, then you're right. Feel free to edit out any such reference. Marcus22 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

older even than the Democratic Party of the United States.

Is there a reason for this entry. If it is the oldest in the world why does it need a reference to a US party? Is there some dispute that this is supposed to stop being re-edited if that is the case a link to a source after world oldest party would be more appropriate than a link to a foreign party in the inline.Alci12 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an attempt to assert it's older than the Democrats - where the dating of the origin of the party is in dispute on that page. Indeed I'm not sure one can say the Conservatives are the oldest party in the world - no-one seems to date their origin as Conservatives (rather than the earlier Tory Party) any earlier than 1830 (and usually a few years later) whilst did the latest date for the Democrats forming is 1828. Timrollpickering 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it hangs or falls on whether we call the 'founding' more than a rebranding of an old existing entity and the creation of something intended to be new. Certainly key figures like the D of Wellington certainly saw it as the same thing Alci12 13:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's considered to be the oldest political party in the world because it was never disbanded and re-formed. Thus it has been in existence since the beginnings of the 'Tory' party prior to the 19th century. Have a look at the 'Tory pary' wikipedia entry (which I haven't edited, incase I am to be accused) - you'll find it says:

"After becoming associated with repression of popular discontent in the years after 1815, the Tories underwent a fundamental transformation under the influence of Robert Peel, himself an industrialist rather than a landowner, who in his 1834 "Tamworth Manifesto" outlined a new "Conservative" philosophy of reforming ills while conserving the good. From then on the subsequent Peel administrations have been labelled "Conservative" rather than "Tory", but the older term remains in use even today."

So, you see, it was merely a change in the terms of the manifesto that was then adopted as a party name. There's a reason why they're still called 'Tories' to this day! By comparison, how often do we hear the phrase 'Whigs'? They're rarely even refered to as 'Liberals' anymore (without the suffix 'Democrat', that is). Gunray, 11 July 2006


People may wish to refer to this site: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page

Ledzeppelin321295 here. The fact is both the US party and the UK party have roots in different times but I believe we are discussing how old they are based on when they were officially founded as the parties they are known as today.

Iraq

What is the stance of the Conservatives on the Iraq War? --69.242.243.90 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Iraq War, Pro-War on Terror and Pro-Retaining Troops in Iraq, Darling.

European Section + Naming

Is it just me or does the section beginning "The Conservatives are a member of the International Democrat Union and its European section. In the summer of 2006 the Conservatives became" seem out of place. It seems out of all prominance by its inclusion in the intro section rather than a subsection of the body of the article

In the name section we have a para beginning "The internal organisation of the Conservative Party is a contrast between constituency parties who dominate in the selection of candidates and election of party leaders" Should this not be under a new section - Membership or Party Structure? It's certainly not about naming more about finance membership and logos. Alci12 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I know Wiki does not like using blog sites as sources, but just for info/reference conservativehome.com claims that a new "Oak Tree" emblem is being considered to replace the torch.


doktorb wordsdeeds 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia does not need to mention the fact that the party leader and chairman are considering changing the party's logo? It's not definite yet and therefore is pretty much speculation. -- (A.szczep) 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unionism

What? Erm, the current linkage of Unionism in referance to 1800 Irish politics is wrong. The Tories favour the Union. Not Eire being in the UK. Having COnservatism and NeoLiberalism is correct. Indeed, Conservatism = favouring a small Government and seldom will a Conservative aired Government give a green light to seperatists. One is also forgetting the favour Unionism in Scotland and Wales. Fools! Damned fools! - I don't know how to sign...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenhusted (talk • contribs)

Just type four tildes: ~~~~ -- the GREAT Gavini 19:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New Logo II

Offical now =) doktorb wordsdeeds 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Threenationslogos.JPG

This logo has been officially endorsed, but the party's website hasn't updated yet. It's probably prudent to wait until they switch over, before Wikipedia changes it's logo. Redfoxtx 11:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


More than happy to wait. I have only got access to these 3 logos, not the single national emblem so maybe someone can help with this? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the party website hasn't changed yet is because while the change is happening, it will only be announced in a week or so. However, since the logo which is currently showing is the new one, shouldn't we look for a better one? It's rather low quality, when there are better quality ones available on the web.
-- (A.szczep) 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


There, the new logo is in place. -- (A.szczep) 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to write this myself, but an article on the Party's various logos might be in order. We'd have quite a bit to mention–the history of the torch logo and its association with Thatcherism, the new one and the reasons for the change, the Scottish one being a little different, the cost, etc. Biruitorul 01:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "POV"

I really do not want to have to go on at length about what follows, but I have had these style edits reverted twice now by one contributor, with the revert being based on a "POV" accusation. So, here goes, one by one:

1. "Perhaps the most notable Conservative economic policy....." If you really think that opposition to the euro is "perhaps the most notable" policy, then you must realize that the point of a policy is not simply a negative stance or a negation (e.g. opposition). Opposition (to the Euro) in this case means nothing if there is not something to be preserved (the Pound). Also, the addition of the phrase "support for the pound" adds balance, in that it makes the stance (subtly, to be sure) something more than just being against something.

2. "David Cameron and William Hague .... EU" -- Here i replaced a meandering 36-word section with a ten-word declarative sentence. The phrase "though providing little clear benefit.....in elections" is a repeat of a supposed fact already gone into in the article, and it is a very "soft" idea at that. And the bit about "his equally euroskeptic foreign secretary William Hague" -- "equally euroskeptic" is not a neutral phrase. And how can you be so sure about their supposed equality on this anyway? Simply stating the two men's names with their stated policy is the clearest and tightest way to go on this one. If you want, you could certainly cite why they feel the way they do about specific treaties and what those treaties are. [but since this article is still too long I wouldn't, for one, advise that]

3. "Under current EU law" -- if we take for granted that the UK government could only renegotiate their treaties if they had full approval to do so by the other member states (btw I do not know myself to what extent this happens to be the case), it is so not because of the need to observe the good manners of gentlemanly diplomacy, nor is it an act of fate, nor is it due to Jose Baroso's mood at a given moment. If it is true at all it is true because of current EU law. You may feel that those four words are already implied in the sentence. But because that additional phrase is the very crux of the UK's current relationship with the EU, it is a central point and should be stated. And it is a point that does not take two paragraphs to relate, only four words. --longlivefolkmusic 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Well, to be precise, you have not had "these style edits" reverted by me. You made sweeping, often POV, changes to the whole article. I removed all of them. Then went back over the whole lot, in turn, and put back any which were balanced and well-considered. We have now got down to these last three. Isn't that the truth?

Now, as for these three:

1. 'Support for the pound' is not a policy. It is a statement. (And a rather flag-waving one at that!) The Conservative policy has been, and remains, to not join the Euro. So I have once again reverted this surplus and inaccurate addition.

2. I prefer a short sentence too. I dont like yours. It changes the sense of what was being said. But despite your assertions to the contrary I am not unreasonable and so, as yours is a better sentence, lets keep it.

3. You are more or less correct but your comments make a change in EU law on this point look a possibility. As far as I know it is not. So the statement you wish to include is, or could be construed as being, misleading. Furthermore it is implied in the sentence without those additional words. It looks rather as if you have a point to make... all the same, if it matters to you, and as I dont want to be unfair, please keep it.

Marcus22 09:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


It is time to reevaluate the way political positions are applied as clearly the Tories and Labour are too close in policy detail to describe one as centre-left and the other as centre-right. This is simply misleading as it presents a 'cosy' but misleading picture of British politics today. Poprischin 10:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Party_(UK)/Archive_1&oldid=1136636463"