Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

Within the EU, the UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the European Union

Wouldn't it be time to write 'was'? Regards, ULF 2001:4C80:40:493:9AEE:CBFF:FEE7:FBAD (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Czello ^(music) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Marriage equality

"According to an estimation of the right-wing Bow Group think-tank, in 2013 the Conservative Party lost 35–40% of its membership due to the Same Sex Marriage Bill."

This is a baseless assertion. It should be deleted.

Citation link is dead, and Bow Group provides no data to ground this claim. "Evidence" comes from claimed "canvassing" of 100 local associations, typically one per constituency. UK has over 600 constituencies.

Same group found that average age of Conservative Party members is 72.

If not deleted, it should be contextualized:

"The right-wing Bow Group think tank claimed the Conservative Party lost 35–40% of its membership due to the Same Sex Marriage Bill in 2013. It based the claim on a canvassing of a fraction of local associations; it did not conduct a poll. The same group stated in 2017 that the average age of a Conservative Party member may be 72."

https://www.bowgroup.org/the-bow-group-finds-that-the-average-age-of-a-conservative-party-member-is-72/ 108.51.52.223 (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

== Policies section could be replaced with a Recent Policies section. ==

The policies section contains information from a decade or more ago. A soultion to this could be changing the ''Policies'' section to ''Modern policies'', focusing on the four recent Conservative manifestos. 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:319F:4C4A:6D08:9EEC (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)

That would be counter to the WP:RECENTISM guideline. Helper201 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Directly Elected Mayors Count

The article lists 2 Conservative mayors but there is only 1 92.40.218.87 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC) At the foot of the infobox they claim to have 9 Conservative mayors in combined authorities, including Mayor Of London. Somebody please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.236.81 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cambial — foliar❧ 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing to centre-right

This makes no sense.

Should be centre-right to right-wing like other pages. 2A02:C7C:75BE:B300:1C07:226B:DF20:61B3 (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The greater weight of reliable sources supports the term "right-wing", thus it appears first. Other pages, such as Electoral history of the Conservative Party (UK), use the same. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources for 'right-wing'

Cambial Yellowing I would have appreciated you offering some refutation to the reasoning behind my edit removing certain sources describing the Conservative Party as right-wing in part or whole.

As stated in my edit summary, the Tories are in some of the present sources labelled 'right-wing' in a comparative way that assigns similar labels to other parties which are not broadly adopted on Wikipedia (CDU as right-wing, Labour as left-wing). It cannot be argued that this source's description of the Tories or CDU as right wing conveys the same meaning as the definition of right-wing as being beyond centre-right. This source was rejected by another editor when I raised it at Talk:Labour Party (UK).

It is important to note that some of the sources also implicitly acknowledge the party's centre-right elements, some implying it to be the default for the party.

In any case, there are needlessly many sources to justify that there are right-wing elements in the Conservative Party, particularly when some of these sources are evidently being mis-applied. I will re-attempt my original edit a couple of days from now if there is no dispute.

Also, the initiator of the section above is correct. 'Centre-right to right-wing' is the norm for a largely liberal conservative party or a broad church party on the right of the centre. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

“The norm” is determined by the weight of up-to-date reliable sources, not editor’s views on what they perceive the party to be. The scholarly sources do not state the party has right-wing “elements”, they characterise it as a right-wing party. There are no sources “being mis-applied”, and you give no indication of what led you to perceive this to “evidently” be so. There’s simply text reflecting what scholarship says about the topic. The greater weight of scholarly sources characterise it as right-wing, not as centre-right, hence that characterisation appears first in the description in running text. “Other stuff”-type arguments about a different article carry little or no force. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing The application of 'right-wing' to the Tories in two of the sources is not being done to differentiate it from the centre-right, but rather – and only – to differentiate it from the left of centre. In one of these sources, the same sentence that invokes the Tories also refers to Labour as a left-wing party. Another refers to the Tories and CDU in one sentence as right-wing parties. This is apparent shorthand for a more apt description (right of centre i.e. centre right to right wing). I challenge you to contend that this is not the case.

Another of the sources only notes "an increasing turn to the Right" within the party. This is relative and factional. It is being misapplied and it implies the existence of a more centrist position within the party as well.

Another source (Bale) notes that trends in right-wing parties are evident in the Tories. Also note the source discusses the Tories in somewhat hypothetical terms ("any transformation on the part of the Conservative Party from a mainstream centre-right formation into an ersatz radical right-wing populist outfit"). No serious source would contend the Tories are a "ersatz radical right-wing populist outfit". The source is clearly being misapplied. It is not stating this is what the party is, but it is discussing a perceived trend.

Note also in many of the sources party ideology is not directly related to the primary subject. They can be expected to lack precision on this point as such, and clearly, some of them do.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Your speculation about the authors' purpose in characterising them as a right-wing party is a very weak argument. "the same sentence that invokes the Tories also refers to Labour as a left-wing party" - so what? This is apparent shorthand for a more apt description (right of centre i.e. centre right to right wing) - this is an entirely evidence-free claim about the source.

Rather than taking a battleground mentality of laying down an amusing "challenge" to other editors, you would need to make a persuasive argument, not merely make baseless claims about the real meaning of the sources that apparently only your special skills can decipher.

As to your claim that "No serious source would contend the Tories are a "ersatz radical right-wing populist outfit", that's precisely the topic of the book, and given it's written by a subject-matter expert at a leading institution, published by an academic press, and well-reviewed in both journals and the daily press, it is itself a serious source.

clearly, some of them do [lack precision] - the "clearly" in that sentence once again a product of your personal opinion. It's not persuasive, and it has no relevance to how we treat sources and represent them on this site. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing You are correct concerning Bale's book, which I apologise for – I was relying merely on the provided quotation from the source.

The evidence for the misuse of the first two sources identified is established through their method of describing other parties, and their academic purpose. Going by the quotations, the only positions they identify are 'centrist' and '[insert]-wing'. There is no 'centre-right'. The sources differentiate the party from the left of centre but not from the centre-right. Note how the title of one of these sources refers to conservatism (a term just as well associated with the centre-right) whilst the quotation & bio use the term 'right-wing' – there is ambiguity baked into the language. That source weaves between discussing the centre-right and the right-wing but for its purpose establishes common terms for both, so it isn't applicable for the purpose that it is being used for here.

A source noting "an increasing turn to the Right" is once again relative and factional, but looking at it further it is simply a case of bad quote selection. Another source I located (2019) notes an opposite relative trend a few years prior – "Theresa May's party produced its most left‐wing manifesto since 1964".

More broadly, there is an excess of sources for 'right-wing' and a lack of academic sources provided for 'centre-right', though plenty exist. A series of neutral searches (insofar as the difference between centre-right and right-wing) revealed the following sources:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1853909 (see abstract)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1853903#d1e249

"Specifically, the centre-right contains Christian Democratic parties such as the German CDU, Conservative parties such as the British Tories or the French Gaullists, and classically Liberal parties such as Venstre in Denmark or the VVD in the Netherlands."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1853901#d1e349 (interesting to note Bale is one of the authors)

"Hard-line stances on immigration and increased political salience can be electorally helpful to a centre-right party if it can win, retain or regain ownership of the issue, as in Hungary, in the UK, and in Austria, where the renewed emphasis and restrictive stance facilitated by a fundamental change of leadership bore fruit despite the existence of a strong and established anti-immigrant radical right."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1853909#abstract (Bale)

"The British Conservatives – one of the world’s oldest and most successful centre-right outfits – are a prime example of a party that began politicising immigration long ago."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1776596#d1e225

"Although more moderate than either the BNP or UKIP, the center-right Conservative Party has been consistently more restrictive on immigration than other mainstream parties, namely the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats."

'Centre-right' is the standard ideological positioning for the Conservative Party.

Will Thorpe (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just inserted these sources into the article. I repeated one in the above list twice. I didn't realise earlier but these all come from the same journal, though they represent a number of different collaborating authors (even if Bale is present across three). Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The bizarre test you've invented for sources, seemingly created specifically to bar sources of which you dislike the content, is not a standard for verifiability on this site. The test is whether a source explicitly states what the article content states. The scholarly sources do indeed explicitly characterise the subject as a right-wing party. Your subjective opinion about what the sources "differentiate the party from" is not a useful or appropriate test. Furthermore, the fact that the sources you added all come from the same journal whose focus is a narrow issue only tangentially related to the article subject, gives them less weight in aggregate than the broad spectrum of academia represented by the consensus understanding of the subject as a right-wing party. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing I'm frustrated that ours are the only opinions in this discussion.

I apologise for the arrogant manner of my earlier engagement – particularly to "challenge" you to disprove my assertion. The matter here is what in fact the sources are trying to convey and is a better dedication of your effort than attacks on my good faith and flippant dismissal of the question altogether. You are, with the full respect you deserve, an experienced enough editor (indeed twice as much as me) to know better. And likewise I ought to have been.

This is not a matter of original research; it is a matter of the correct interpretation of the sources – are their definitions of right-wing politics inclusive of the centre-right? Following, are they apt to differentiate between 'centre-right' and 'right-wing?', the sole purpose of their employ here? Each of these sources describe other parties in ways which are not supported on this encyclopaedia, and while every article is different, this is still instructive in how we understand the sources. They are engaging only in the dichotomy between left and right – which parties are on which side of the centre but not how close they are to it. You can read the sources for yourself. Two of them make no provision for the centre at all and the other one makes no provision for centre-left or centre-right. Their definition of right-wing is right of centre and that is all that is relevantly being discussed within those sources. Will Thorpe (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Some may define the centre-right as separate to the right more generally, others may define it as part of the right. We do not know how all these authors characterise it. We cannot guess, as you do above, as to whether they are engaging only in the dichotomy between left and right. We might just as well suppose that the authors in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies are seeking only to find a way to discriminate between the relative positions of, say, the British National Party (to which one article compares the article subject), and not to indicate how it is perceived on the political spectrum more generally. [This is indicated clearly to be the purpose for the characterisation in one of those articles, titled "The centre-right versus the radical right" (my emph.)]. That is, your criticism of the sources can be turned around and applied from the opposite perspective. This is possible because you are discussing subjective and relative interpretation of the sources (and, coincidence or no, your interpretation all biased to support the change you want to make the article) rather than simply reflecting what the sources explicitly state. It is not necessary to ping me on every reply. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not a guessing game. The difference between the source that refers to the BNP and those others is that the former makes provision for the centre-right, the others only for left and right (and, for one, centre).

At this point, there are an equal number of sources for each descriptor, notwithstanding the arguable flaws in some of the sources for 'right-wing' and the lesser number of unique journals for those denoting 'centre-right'. This could keep going and so at this point little is or will be proven in this way. Will Thorpe (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You write that "The difference between the source that refers to the BNP and those others is that the former makes provision for the centre-right" - exactly so. That source uses the term "centre-right" as a way to differentiate from a far-right fascist party to which the author compares the article subject.

Regarding this edit summary, the aim here is not "equalise" the sources in number but to simply reflect what the spectrum of sources say about the topic. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think having ten or eleven sources for both reflects a failure. This shouldn’t be necessary and it will be possible to find more sources for both. I’m not sure what there is left to do other than look at other articles on Wikipedia, particularly with reference to which claims in which sources are accepted there. While every article is different, a game of finding more sources to top off an already excessive number doesn’t prove anything. Will Thorpe (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

May open an RfC shortly. Will Thorpe (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

finding more sources to top off an already excessive number doesn’t prove anything. This we agree on. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)