Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

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)

Perhaps you ought to have noted that on that page it is the result of your own editing. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Were that relevant I may have done so. But it's not. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:27, 11 December 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)

Request for comment on order of spectrum position

In the article lede, should the Conservative Party be described as 'centre-right to right-wing', 'right-wing to centre-right', 'centre-right', or 'right-wing'? Will Thorpe (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Right-wing as Centre-Right is part of the Right-wing spectrum. It's simpler just to use the broad term. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you might have misinterpreted the question, as this is about the order of the terms rather that which terms themselves. Nonetheless, it is useful to distinguish where on the political spectrum a party sits in accordance with the sources. — Czello ^(music) 14:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's no misinterpretation in TarnishedPath's comment, they simply looked at the question – should the Conservative Party be described as... – and found the options provided to be wanting. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Cambial Yellowing, precisely. It is always open to those participating in an RFC to arrive at answers outside of the defined set of the RFC question. TarnishedPath^talk 01:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. — Czello ^(music) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Anything more granular than "right-wing" is false precision. Policies, perceptions, points of comparison, &c., all vary and change. In general it is fair to say the party is right-wing. I think it is unhelpful to assign parties "centre-" and "far-" designations except where they use these terms themselves, since they often obscure both substantial policy overlaps and departures from strict orthodoxy. Regulov (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that in common parlance there is a difference between 'right-wing' and 'right-of-centre'. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd dispute that there is any differentiation in common usage. Anecdotal as it may be I generally see the terms used interchangeably. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would agree - except that we describe the Labour Party as "sits on the centre-left of the political spectrum". So we would need to lose the center- if we wanted to avoid false precision there. Let's keep it simple - as has beeen said. But let's keep it consistent.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing to have parity with other articles. — Czello ^(music) 14:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Right-wing so as to avoid false precision and to represent the broad spectrum of academic statements on the topic. Right-wing to centre-right is a second, inferior option. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing. Both are cited, so this is therefore fair and balanced. It’s also consistent across Wikipedia that we state the position closest to the centre first. Helper201 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing is best, given that as far as I can gather 'centre-right' is the dominant and most apt description. 'Centre-right' on its own is a reasonable second option, with further elaboration later on in the lede. 'Right-wing' on its own would be the least ideal, unjustifiably separating the Conservative Party from other mainstream conservative parties like it in the Anglosphere; a false in-equivalence if you will. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing. Per what Helper201 and Will Thorpe said above 13:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Michaeldble (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing per above Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Centre-right to right-wing per WP:NPOV given the content of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Right wing or right is the ideology of the political spectrum associated with conservative political thought. Anything more specific would be false precision and lose out from representing the ideology of some members/voters of the conservative party. Rigorousmortal (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  'Right-of-centre' would be more acceptable. 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Will Thorpe (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Centre-right to right-wing As per the reasoning presented above. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Right-wing as per stated above, secondary preference for Right-wing to centre-right. The argument that this designation "would seperate it from other parties in the anglosphere", and likewise for other appeals to consistancy, is an unencylopedic rational (and as such a kind of argument is advised against in WP:Othercontnent) Bejakyo (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Consistency is not to be disregarded, when there appears to be a patently different treatment or standard being applied to one article compared to its closest counterparts.

  I suspect you were referring to this essay, which states 'Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without considering the Wikipedia:Five pillars. ... Countering or dismissing someone's keep or delete argument by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged.' Will Thorpe (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Of course an appeal to an (always specious) claim of consistency is not a valid argument. Political parties are different; they are characterised by sources differently; they are neither static nor monolithic. Whether a different article is judged by a small minority of editors to be mislabelled/whatever, has no bearing on the content of this article. If editors feel a different article falls down in some way, they should raise their concerns at that article’s talk page. We don’t seek to make other articles “also-and-equally wrong”. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, but we seek to follow standards that allow for easy comparison, which is why these terms exist anyway. The argument for 'right wing' being the principal or only term is hollow; the phrase 'centre-right to right wing' carries a differentiation between the two which is well established and there is no apparent majority among scholarly or reliable sources for the latter term over the former – in fact, it seems quite the opposite. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Centre-right to right-wing as per the arguments above. Also, if it is too wordy, just centre-right (which is supposedly a subsection of "right-wing" anyway) would do as well. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Note to others: this !vote is evidently an example of Str1977 practicing what he refers to as "revenge editing", due to his inability to deal with an unrelated conflict on a different article like an adult. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I commented on the substance of issue here (without even knowing your stance on it). Stop your childish "tu quoque". Str1977 ^(talk) 14:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You will find that others treat you like an adult if you start behaving like one. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What is this in relation to? — Czello ^(music) 16:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Centre-right to right-wing is the only correct way to display this. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Note on closure

This ought to go without saying, but trying to close a narrow split of !votes with a supervote by pretending there is an overwhelming consensus is not an appropriate way to close a discussion of any kind. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It may not be overwhelming, but a strong consensus is apparent and I'm willing to stake that won't change.

You stated in your edit description that it is a 7-6 consensus. This was a mis-count. Presently it's 9-5. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

At the time of that edit summary it was a 7-6 split of !votes, and thus the edit summary is accurate. I did not describe it as "consensus", as that term does not describe such a split. Two editors commented since (albeit one as, in their term, "revenge editing") making it 9-6. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

9-5 it is. I counted a few times. I suspect you're counting @Lukewarmbeer as having voted in favour of the status quo despite their saying 'except'.

My apologies about mis-stating your edit description.

I'll also note that per the relevant page on RfCs they are typically closed after a month, so I will do this on the appropriate date if you have no objection. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As per that same page, RfCs typically run for those 30 days, rather than being removed after two weeks when the request's author believes the position to be favourable. Also per that page, with the possible exception of instances of WP:SNOW, they are not closed by the author of the RfC. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would not attack my motivations as I have sought to follow the process and have kept you informed of my actions. Glass houses.

Per WP:RFCEND, discussion should be closed 'as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course' and 'may be withdrawn by the poster'. This is the first instance provided for how RfCs may be terminated. I will be closing the discussion now as there is a clear majority on this matter and the discussion has subsided now for twelve days, with no real prospect of any fundamental shift at this time. Will Thorpe (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Rename the article to "Tories (British political party)"

Per the common use reasoning in WP:MOVE, this proposal is a sensible proposal. It could be argued that from the position of the existence of the page on the historical British political party of the same name, it isn't overprecise or otherwise would cause confusion to alter the article in this way. However, it remains the case that Tories is more commonly used by reliable sources in the English language, that it is the most recognizable, natural, concise, and consistent name for the article. It is again its common name and is often referred to as such when referenced in other articles. This is therefore a double proposal: this article should take the mantle of "Tories (British political party)"; and the article which presently exists under that name should also be renamed to avoid confusion. Something to the effect of "Tories (historical)" would likely be sufficient.

I mentioned that this move would not just be recognizable, etc. but consistent with the naming conventions for other articles pertaining to political parties vis a vis their common English names. The Wikipedia community has a glowing example of a party's official name being disregarded in favour of its common name: the article titled Chinese Communist Party. This is obviously not the name of the party in any official capacity; the party's name in English is officially the Communist Party of China, but for the same reasons listed above its official name is disregarded for its colloquial name in the title, while its actual name is referenced within the article. There is no well considered policy reason for the Conservative Party (UK) to be a unique exception to this stance from the Wikipedia community. SuperUltraMegaDeluxe (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

nope...Tories (British political party) Moxy🍁 06:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I would ask that you read the argument before responding and appeal to specific Wikipedia guidelines and precedent. SuperUltraMegaDeluxe (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You claim that it is more commonly used, but over no evidence to support that.

Actually, my worry is that your purpose here is not to improve Wikipedia by renaming this article, but to make a point about your wish to rename the Chinese Communist Party article. Please don't waste other editors' time in this way.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the BBC referring to the party as the Tories in an article today, as well as the Guardian and Bloomberg. Financial Times also typically refers to them as such. The three articles referenced also quote Labour party's Keir Starmer referring to them as such. The BBC has this article from a number of years ago about the distinction, and how the party itself doesn't admonish the moniker. If UK outlets commonly using the term aren't sufficient, I would assume party members themselves doing so would be. If the name being rather obviously prominent, used by UK and other news outlets, the party, and its opposition is insufficient, I rather don't know what would be sufficient evidence. SuperUltraMegaDeluxe (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No per WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello ^(music) 18:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. I rarely see them referred to as anything other than the Tories. Terrible Beast (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an absurd proposal. "Tory" is a nickname harkening back to the party's predecessor, to which it more properly refers. Also, the number of inimical voices among those cited here using the nickname is telling.Str1977 ^(talk) 20:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)