This is an archive of past discussions for the period 2010–2014. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
The strength of parties in devolved assemblies should not be included in the userbox, because they don't reflect the overall strength of the party at all. The infobox is supposed to pick out key characteristics of the party, not details about the party in select parts of the UK.
The editor that reverted claimed that devolved assemblies are more important than local government, but that's patently false. The Scottish Parliament is more important than Cumbria County Council, yes, but it's considerably less important than all the county councils, district councils, borough councils, and so on across the entirety of the UK. Hence, to use some reductio ad absurdum doesn't really work.
There are articles on Welsh Conservative Party, Scottish Conservative Party, and Conservatives in Northern Ireland. That is where the stats on devolved institution strength belong. Oh, wait, they already are there. My mistake. Bastin 23:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi - by 'British parties' I assume you mean Britain-wide parties. That would exclude the Green Party of England and Wales. 86.155.51.149 (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a pointless, unreferenced, and inconsequential paragraph in the "David Cameron" section that should be removed, although it seems I'm unable to remove the type if I edit the section.
Perhaps someone else could remediate this?
Thanks. Darren Wagner (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I just wondered if any editors feel as I do that the Current policies section needs looking at. It's subtle, but I believe there is a little bias in this section. Examples:
I won't claim to have read the other UK parties' pages, so I don't know if this is just a common theme. However I feel the section largely reads like promotional material (though there are parts of it which seem fine to me), and could do with a bit of nurturing. If there is consensus with my opinion, then this is a fairly big job. Thanks, -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 23:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you Off2riorob, but unfortunately I do not see how else I can address draw attention to the issue? Anyway, I haven't tagged it as NPOV, just as needing checking -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So there is an election in a few days, it is unfair to add a template, what exactly do you want to improve that section? Have you gat any new citations or ideas of what you want to do to improve the section? Please come and discuss your problems. Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure as to why it is unfair of me to say that the page looks biased, please clarify? Although I have been an editor for years, I am a little rusty on policies. If I had simply added the template without justification, then I agree that could easily be seen as vandalism and/or electioneering. However I quoted sections which I believe are embellished (not to the point of fiction, but through the use of certain words). So surely that is not unfair?
Now I have only given one example, because I personally do not have the time to work on the whole section. Hence the pov CHECK REQUEST tag as opposed to just a general NPOV tag. -m-i-k-e-y-Talk / C 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
((editsemiprotected)) please change 9538 to 9405 in local seats because no. of seats is changed after the election. Click http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm for reference
|seats7 =
Clementhkhk (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Labour Party (UK) article has a brief ideology section. Would something like that not be appropriate for this article (sorry, I'm no expert so cannot write it, I came here to expand my knowledge)? 89.243.247.200 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
it's a bit ironic that they use a sodding tree as their logo isn't it? This from the party that wants the ice caps to melt into oblivion. 64.222.106.70 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC) What a load of crap. Their official position is to belive global warming is happening and something should be done about it. Sounds like you are sore with the new National Coalition Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.58.204.226 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
However the far right asserts that Cameron's is an equally multicultural outlook[39] and accuses the Conservative Party of promoting what the far right calls as "Islamic extremists."[40]
This section under social policy is absolute nonsense so I plan to change it. Peter Hitchens and a writer for the National Review Online are not exactly "far right" (bit of an understating there...) so they should not be referred to as such.
I've decided to change it to "However conservative critics such as Peter Hitchens assert that Cameron's is an equally multicultural outlook[39] and accuse the Conservative Party of promoting what they see as "Islamic extremists."[40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.222.28 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The amount of vandalism is quite ridiculous, and therefore this page should be locked to prevent that. Duckelf (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
doesn't the Tory Party have faction of NeoCons in it?--130.218.71.138 (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
During the campaign trial, Gordon Brown pointed out that the conservative party have joined a conservative group within the European Union that is said to have fascist, racist and holocaust deniers within the group. Surely we should mention this? CovBiggsy (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
What about racism within the Conservative party? I bet I can find something on them from a reliable source indicating that there has been racist activity within the groupCovBiggsy (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I allowed to do it though? Because 'it's coatracking and not worthy of inclusion' is your personal opinion. CovBiggsy (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to the UK Independence Party page. It has controveries on individual people that were/are in or connected to the UK Independence Party in England and Wales. Should, if it's wikipedia's policy, this be allowed because if I use negative information against Labour (for example) one might use this against me, however it doesn't seem that there is a strong arguement supporting the disclosure of controveries that do so on UKIP's page. CovBiggsy (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Simon, I didn't think about that! I'll have a look in a minute, but that doesn't exclude Conservatist racism right? I mean we're supposed to be unbias, but we've got a lot of weight put upon UKIP and nearly non on the mainstream, why? Maybe its because more people support these political establishments and therefore are more willing to put something negative upon one party and not on another and use WP:UNDUE as a reason not to do it. That's what I think is happening. CovBiggsy (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In what way can the organisational structure of the party be considered unusual? in that the selection of leadership and local candidates falls to the local constituency parties, while finance and other administration is handled by the central office is nothing unusual: it is exactly the same modus operandi of the Labour party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.189.1 (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish to import Nasty party information I found the origin of the word [1][2][3][4] and its usage [5][6][7][8][9] I wish to know if this acceptable. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that the willful halting of benefits has made many disable and unemployed people homeless, then importing Nasty party information - or even using the term The Nasty Party - does seem acceptable. P.S: Why would anyone wish to delete Talk page inputs on this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.102.202 (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Who was Tory party leader for the five days between Margaret Thatcher resignation and John Major? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.214.185 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your edits because:
1. The party is primarily a centre-right party and there is no need for right-wing to be in the infobox as well.
2. The party's full name is the Conservative & Unionist Party, which should be in bold at the start of the article.
3. To say it is the largest party in the UK will undoubtedly confuse some people, so the opening should be specific and mention that it is the largest party in parliament, with 306 out of 650 seats.
4. The opening should have some mention of the party's historical successes by saying that it was in power for two thirds of the 20th century and that famous PM's Churchill and Thatcher were of the party.
5. The paragraph on the subdivisions within the party is neccesary to show the various idealogies within the party.
Counter-arguments are welcome. MWhite 17:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
OK on the first point I agree it has centre-right elements but it also has right-wing so both are legitimate. You removed right-wing and replaced it with centre-right I simply restored one element. I'm OK on the full name and a modified form of the largest number of seats. In respect of 4&5 those seem to be laudatory in nature and unnecessary. Churchill may be famous as is Thatcher, but for many people they are also notorious, maybe we should mention the Suez disaster? The lede should stay factual. You also need to read WP:BRD --Snowded TALK 18:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favour of adding another paragraph to the introduction. It would not, of course, include reference to Baroness Warsi as one of the party's great figures, although there's no reason reference to Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher can't be made in a very concise, five-line summary of the party's history. It is strange that the introduction includes such a lengthy discussion of the evolution of the party's name, as well as its strength in the devolved assemblies, but no indication of its historical contribution to government or its ideology beyond 'conservatism'. Bastin 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to be a collection of topics of interest to various editors:
I will go about fixing the above issues, but I suggest that others take an interest in the process. Bastin 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the party has altered its logo from the typical green tree to a union jack tree? Surely we should change the logo on the article? Willwal, talk. 06 April 2011 22:08 (BST)
I have put a citation needed tag on "centre-right" as there is no evidence to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.217.159 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
For the past eighteen or so months, this article's infobox had a short list of ideologies held by members in the infobox as well as the 'general ideology'. Instead of leaving what was included up to POV-pushers that found the odd reference here or there saying all sorts of different overlapping ideologies (and thus leaving it endless), I used and cited a Guardian article, which has a comprehensive list of the five broad ideologies held by politicians in the party: One nation conservatism, Thatcherism, 'Cameronism', 'Cornerstone', and libertarianism. Per various sources that equate the two, when listing these in the infobox, 'Cameronism' is translated into 'liberal conservatism and 'Cornerstone' is translated into social conservatism. This was discussed on the talk page. As noted, this became consensus and remained unchanged for 18 months.
Fast-forward to this month. A vandal removed 'libertarianism' and replaced it with 'authoritarianism'. This was removed by an user, but 'libertarianism' wasn't replaced, despite the source naming it as one of the five major ideologies in the party. It is obviously not WP:NPOV to cite the Guardian source to justify four of the ideologies and ignore the other one: particularly as the source denotes libertarianism as a larger faction than social conservatism. However, when I attempt to undo the vandalism, one user, User:Matt Downey, insists on excluding it, without reference to policy. It should be reinstated, per WP:NPOV. Bastin 15:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
3-7 % cannot count as an internal faction. If we counted every ideological trend supported by 3% of Tory MPs as a faction, we'd have an endless list. Going into my own views (which are NOT what guided me to these edits) I don't see any libertarian policies.--Matt Downey (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps social conservatism should also be taken down, I wouldn't object to this. The sources provided still don't actually seem to say that libertarianism is a distinct faction, only that there are some libertarians within the party. I think we should follow the example of the Lib Dem article on this, where the one of the sources is a survey of 530 active Lib Dem members. If everything that had got 3+% merited mentioning, there would have to be a list of about 20 --> 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) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Scottish Conservative Party#Sunday Times article: "‘Toxic’ Scottish Tory party faces abolition" --Mais oui! (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Conservatism is spearheading an effort to get this article promoted to Good Article. You can join the discussion here.– Lionel (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I am quite sure that Liberal Conservatism is now one of the General Ideologies of the Conservative Party. (E.P. Davies (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC))
Can whoever thinks that the content of this edit should be included in the article please explain why this is the case, instead of edit warring about it? Also, the Young Conservatives were abolished more than a decade ago, although that is irrelevant in this case anyway. Thanks, NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I have changed this a couple times but someone keeps reverting it back. The Conservative Party currently have 307 seats in the House of Commons, not 306.
At the end of 06 May 2010, they did have 306 seats as the 'Thirsk and Molton' seat was delayed until postponed until 27th May as one of the candidates had passed away. After the poll had been held, the Conservatives won the seat bringing their total to 307.
Can someone *please* correct this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.253.68 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, new to "talk", so forgive me if this is the wrong place for this comment;
Section: "Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard"
A reference to the percentage of votes in England seems inappropriate when mentioned after a disussion of seats won at a national level. The sentence "The Conservative party actually won the largest share of the vote in England, though not the largest number of seats" seems misleading given labour won 35.2% of the total national vote as opposed to 32.4% for the conservatives. Suggest either the labour % total vote is mentioned in the previous sentence, or this statement is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyreorpheus (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 January 2012
Hello. Would it be acceptable to merge the stub on the 92 Group into this article? Or should it just be deleted? Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Cornerstone Group is based on one press release, one link to a primary source, and three editorial footnotes. That's simply not enough for a separate article and I recommend merging to this parent article if it is notable enough, or failing that, deletion. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Fatherhood is an ordinary word, with no particularly archaic sound compared to the life of British parties. Traditionalist conservatives use the word in its ordinary sense, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, in the 1994 edition: "[The state, condition, quality, or character of being] a man who has begotten a child; also SIRE." If they don't, then please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1) Under the section of '1920-1963', details about the introduction of leadership elections in 1965
2) Clarification on the 'social policy section', with the modernizers being updated, as Portillo has left the party
3) A section on the Constitution. This has been a crucial issue to the Conservative Party throughout its history and it still is today
4) Under the 'One Nation' section, a detail to show how all Prime Ministers between Baldwin and Heath held the same view as well as a section on the new phenomenon of Red Tory
5) An update on the Eurosceptic tendencies of the free market Tories
6) Details of The High Tory tradition under the 'Traditionalist' section as well as broadening what constitutes traditionalism; it is not purely about the Cornerstone Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambivalence888 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The Liberal Democrats' WP page has a section showing party membership by year since 2001, using the figures in the party's Statement of Accounts as published by the Electoral Commission. Under the PPERA legislation every UK political party has to provide annual accounts including membership to the Commission, which then publishes them.
It would be useful to have a similar table for the other Party articles, including the Conservatives, for whom it might show what impact major political changes such as the coalition government has had on their membership. 91.125.228.78 (talk) dww —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the membership figure which was 58,000. This is based on figures released by 139 constituency Conservative Associations out of a possible 400. It is therefore not accurate to base the party's overall membership figure on less than half of all constituency associations. Scouserjack (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the recent news about the Conservatives and their website notable enough to warrant an entire section, with regards to WP:UNDUE? Especially since the Labour Party has apparently deleted all news from before 2010 as well. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
To editor David J Johnson: Re. edit I deleted unnecessary repetition of the formal title. It is also mentioned later in the introduction. If we leave 'Conservative and Unionist Party' and 'Conservative Party' both twice in the intro makes it clunky, difficult to read, and unnecessarily long. Can we remove the duplication? By the way, your edit accidentally reverted my fixes of the incorrect capitals in 'Unionism' and 'Capitalism'. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've seen at parties register on electoral commission website and I discovered that name of party is only: Conservative Party. Conservative and Unionist Party as well as Name of Party in Welsh are only registered slogans, not names. Please include this information to the article Aight 2009 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC) https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/EntitySearch.aspx There is stated that Conservative Party is registered only in Britain. it's ally in NI is named Conservative and unionist party. This is the record of cons: Primary name: Conservative Party Alternative name ?: Plaid Geidwadol Cymru Register: Great Britain Status ?: Authorised Date registered: 14/01/1999 Party Leader: The Rt Hon David Cameron Nominating officer: Mr Alan Mabbutt Treasurer: Mr Simon Charles Day
This is the record of C&U party on EC website: Primary name: Conservative and Unionist Party Register: Northern Ireland Status ?: Authorised Date registered: 16/02/2001 Party Leader: The Rt Hon David Cameron Nominating officer: Mr Alan Mabbutt Treasurer: Mr George Irwin Armstrong
Aight 2009 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
With the Conservatives trying to take on a more Eurosceptic anti-open door immigration crusty exterior. Is it now safe to assume they are trying pander to the populist vote? Does this make them a populist party? They wouldn't be speaking about open-door immigration or quiting the EU had it not been for UKIP so think the "Populist" vote element should be added to the Tories list of viewpoints. RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (GMT)
https://www.conservatives.com/OurTeam/Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates.aspx currently gives a list of 142 candidates, I assume for the May 2015 general election. Can someone please clarify what this list means, I couldn't find it mentioned in the main article. John a s (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The list is now 169 names long. Having checked through a few names on the list and not found any current Conservative MPs, I assume this is a list of candidates for May 2015 who are not current MPs. Please can someone verify this and add PPCs to the article? John a s (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)