Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 19 December 2007

2005 election slogan

"The campaign - based around the slogan,"It's not racist to impose limits on immigration. Are you thinking what we're thinking?" - was designed by controversial Australian pollster Lynton Crosby"

This is not true. The official election slogans were "Are you thinking what we're thinking" and "Take a stand on the issues that matter". "It's not racist to impose limits on immigrantion" was the slogan of a poster, not the central message of the campaign as the article seems to suggest. I will ammend this. 213.121.151.174 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Current policy review

I am surprised that there has been no mention on here of the current policy reviews within the party, especially the recent reports by Iain Duncan Smith and John Gummer. I will add more detail on this when I have time, unless there are any objections.

I will also continue to remove links to BNP and Nazi websites which various wags put into the article on a semi-regular basis. I cannot see the relevance. SupernautRemix 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Election box metadata

Conservative Party (UK) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

/Archive 1 – Nov 2001 to Sept 2006 Peer Review – June 2005

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.

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)

Political position

I don't think it's inconsistent to label the party 'centre-right' while it undergoes a period of ideological debate. Also, my edit summary was incomplete when I hit submit. Pstuart84 Talk 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfectly moderate and reasonable position. I think most people would agree with that. But there are one or two editors who will not. Marcus22 22:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Neoliberalism?

I'm not a Briton, but I'm wondering: if they oppose the EU how can they support globalization?? The Person Who Is Strange 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because they argue the EU is inward-looking and not truly internationalist. Conservatives would prefer NATO and the WTO over the EU every time. They also usually believe in globalization more for global trade than global government. 144.32.196.4 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation which was needed

Hi all. I noticed a sentence that was tagged as needing a citation. After extensive news searches I was unable to find substantiation for the statement that Cameron announced his intention to reform and realign the Conservative Party in a manner similar to that achieved by the Labour Party in opposition under Tony Blair. This may well have been his intention, but I can't find a record of him actually saying that. I've replaced it with a citation from his victory speech about how the party needed to change. I stand to be corrected if anyone can find a quote.

PS I've added citations to all the tagged statements now. If anyone thinks we should tag some more, I'd be happy to find some more citations later. --Neil W 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Would anyone object to the introduction of footnotes and citation templates on this article? (WP:CITE#HOW) — mholland (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I have done the above. — mholland (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Factions

I've made some alterations here. Cornerstone are an organisation equivalent to Tory Reform Group, No Turning Back etc so that grouping needs a heading of its own. I'm not sure Traditionalist is best but maybe someone can come up with something better -nationalist maybe? Also I've rejected "factions" whilst for much of the 90s and the naughties that is perhaps an apt description -the traditions (perhaps a better word that groupings even) are not always factions and there is as the article starts to hint at later much more overlapping than factions would imply. It is better to say that the Conservative Party includes a number of traditions and any conservative politician will have a different emphasis on them. Not sure if I am correct in indentifying Bow Group as One Nation. (Be Dave 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

Colours

Why have the Conservative Party colours been made into a lighter blue? The old royal blue is more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.221.100 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree, Royal Blue is far more appropriate and more in line with current Conservative practice. Yes I am aware that the darker colour has been assigned to the pre-1840's Tory party. I think rather that the reverse should be the case with the lighter colour for the Tory party and the darker, Royal Blue for the modern Conservative party. Galloglass 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the lighter blue is more official. — mholland (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, most of the party history has been associated, undisputedly, with royal blue. Could we have a vote to see which to use?

Political Ideology

I'm not satisfied with the ideology of the party being listed as "Conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Liberalism, Liberarianism". The Conservative Party does not have any libertarian credentials. In regards to 'liberalism' I would argue, in the wake of Thatcherism any claim that the party is liberal should receive the qualification 'classical liberalism' or 'neoliberalism' - but I still don't think they're sufficient.

Liberal conservatism is acceptable I think, given David Cameron's self-dubbed liberal conservative status, see: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=135823

Interested to hear thoughts? --Jason Hughes 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Two words: Margeret Thatcher. -- D-Katana 12:01, 07 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is simple, as David Cameron is leader the party does not have any ideologies.

High-profile supporters of the Conservative Party.

I’m frankly appalled by the lack of credibility in this section. Moreover there are no sources to back up the claims made is this section. For example Alan Sugar is a noted supporter of the Labour party! There is sourced evidence that he donated £200,000 to Labour in 2001. It is my belief that all apparent high-profile supports be deleted until sources ratifying the claims are found. I feel that this would ensure the credibility of wikipedia.

Given Ray Davies' general left wing views, I doubt whether he has ever been a committed Tory. His Tory vote in 1974 probably had to do with his oft expressed dislike for Harold Wilson. Davies voted for Michael Foot in 1983 over Thatcher, so I highly doubt he's a big supporter of the Party.

I added the section some months back because there was already such a section on the Labour Party page and I figured if the Labour page has one, so should the page on the Tories (not that I am a Tory, far from it, I just did it in the interests of fairness and consistency). However I pointed out over on the Labour talk page that the lists look silly on the main pages of the parties, it's trivial information and clearly dosen't belong and the suggestion made - which other users who discussed the matter agreed with - was that the information should be shifted to it's own page. However nobody did this, and the Labour list has since been deleted without discussion by another user who chose to completely ignore the talk page. Bearing that in mind, feel free to delete or move it to its own page, in fact just delete if you like, if someone wants to create the page at a later date the information is archived in the page history. While the infomation is trivial, I myself and others I know have gone looking for comprehensive lists of famous figures who have funded/supported the two major parties and none can be found, so there is a case for pages with this information on Wiki but it's hardly a priority. However I agree that it obviously needs to be sourced - I intended to add sources for the names I originally put up there but never got around to it and no-one else has bothered. Since then, numerous other names have been added unsourced, such as Freddie Mercury and Mick Jagger, these people may have voted Tory but I've never heard of it. I was astonished to see Harold Pinter added, but having checked this out it is actually true, he did vote Tory in '79, he has admitted this in interviews. Alan Sugar has indeed donated to Labour but he did support and donate to the Tory Party in the 80's and this can easily be sourced, he shifted his support to Labour when Blair took over. As for Ray Davies, I added his name and the source is a book called 'Rebel Rock' by John Street. He states that in 1974 the Musicians Union sent out requests to all it's famous rock and pop star members asking for them to help campaign for a Labour victory, and they recieved only two responses, one from Alan Price offering to help, and the other from Ray Davies explaining that he would not be assisting as he was voting Tory. I agree that Davies is almost certainly not a Conservative and was only voting Tory that year over some specific issue or unhappiness with Labour which is why I added the qualification that there is no evidence that he is a committed Tory, which I strongly doubt. In any case, as I say feel free to delete it, if the info stays, it should be moved to it's own page and properly sourced for each name on the list. MarkB79 12:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete them both (and any others). There are some celebrities who are party members and can be found at fundraising events and, more occassionally, fronting Party Political Broadcasts, as well as a few who go into politics (Seb Coe, Gyles Brandreth and Esther McVey are the main ones who spring to mind in recent years) but I suspect most of the celebrity backers are just people who've said in interviews that they support the party, which can often mean little more than voting for it. And some of the people listed seem to have voted for it only once or twice. Timrollpickering 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these high profile party supporter sections should be deleted. They serve no real purpose, other than the fact it's a POV raising subject, and could also inadvertantly cause any neutrals reading to deter from a party because of a celebrity they dislike on the list. It's ridiculous!

Logo

I didn't know the Tories change their logo to a Tree!? That one passed me by. I would have thought it a rich vein for ridicule. Jooler 11:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

David Cameron Entry

I'm not comfortable with the sentence "More recently however Gordon Brown has re-asserted his lead over the Conservatives".

The sentence says it about Gordon Brown, not about the Labour Party. This implies that Gordon Brown as leader had a lead that he then lost, and has since regained. This is not the case.

Would it not be more accurate to say something like: "More recently, since Gordon Brown was selected as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party on XXX date, the Labour Party has pulled ahead of the Conservative Party in the opinion polls."

Would it then be a POV to make a comment about new leader bounces? Any thoughts? Wikifellow 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review