Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberal Democrats (UK) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 180 days

Liberal Democrats (UK) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

'Is' vs 'Are'

The Liberal Democrats are a federal party, thus, shouldn't it be: "The Liberal Democrats are...", rather than "The Liberal Democrats is..."? Touslesmemes49 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Liberal Democrats" is a proper singular noun. therefore "The Liberal Democrats is..." would be a proper way to start a sentence. 129.79.234.209 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In British English we tend to use notional agreement, so "are" is correct. DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Election Results

In the overview the text reads "and a poor performance in the 2019 general election saw Swinson lose her seat." But the link to the election page shows that the party saw a 4% swing, comparing that with the -7% of Labour or the ~1% of the Tories/SNP suggests a relatively good performance that was adversely affected by FPTP.

I'd like to change it to read" and the 2019 general election saw Swinson lose her seat." A factual statement without any judgement of the performance. Would that be OK with others? Efan78 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is a more neutral statement. Go for it. — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agreeSpinney Hill (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dem ideology may clash with labour's

In a discussion in the labour talk page it ha sbeen proposed for labour's ideology to be changed to social liberalism but due to the liberal deocrat page also has this ideology it was proposed that the liberal democrats also add social democracy as an ideology not only to avoid confusion but also due to some sources suggesting they may be taking up a more centre-left position.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/10/lib-dems-progressive-mantle-robust-opposition-labour Takis S1 (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being an opinion piece, that article doesn't call them socdems. Also I don't think it's logical to alter this article based on what another does – we just say what the sources say. — Czello ^(music) 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, same as on the Labour page, we should avoid WP:RECENTISM. A socdem trend in the Lib Dems isn't new, but the two wings of the party are already detailed in the body of the article. The infobox should remain broad. — Czello ^(music) 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressivism may be better than Social liberalism considering it is a bit broader Takis S1 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe Progressivism is a better label to add. Implies a shift to the explicit left while also not tying itself to a specific economic system. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes propably or maybe just removing social liberalism Takis S1 (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we remove social liberalism? There's no question that they're a socially liberal party. — Czello ^(music) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, there is no reason to remove social liberalism. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose to removing social liberalism from the Infobox – in fact, my personal view is that if we were going to list a single ideology, it would be social liberalism, given it is the party's raison d'etre. I similarly oppose "progressivism", as it is essentially a meaningless term, particularly as we have actual political ideologies backed up with reliable references.-- Autospark (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have only "social liberalism" in the infobox, while I surely oppose "social democracy" (only a minority of the party adheres to that ideology), "progressivisim" (too generic) and "pro-Europeanism" (policy, not an ideology). Possibly, I would also remove "liberalism", but I am also fine with "liberalism" and "social liberalism". Two ideologies are enough. --Checco (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about liberalism and social liberalism – those are two specific ideologies, backed up with sources, and are relevant. Social democracy is at best an exaggeration.— Autospark (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the clue is in the name Jaybainshetland (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political Position

Is it worth reviewing/having a discussion about the Lib Dems' listed position? In the current parliament, the party has voted against (or abstained on) nationalisation of the railways, the employment rights bill, and the introduction of VAT on private schools. These policies have arguably been the most notably left-oriented policies of the present Labour government.

From memory, the Lib Dems were positioned as "centre", but this has changed to "centre to centre left". I know many party members and MPs describe themselves as centre-left and many voters perceive them as such, but should there not be a more objective analysis of how they vote in the parliament?

I'm open to discussion on this as there may be solid arguments in favour of keeping this as is. Jonzo67 (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonzo67: It's not the job of an opposition party to support the government. And not supporting the Labour Party does not preclude being centre-left or left-wing. And as for what Wikipedia says, we go on what reliabel sources say, not your personal analysis or feelings. Declaration of Interest - I am a member of the LibDems. I'm sure you will declare any relevant party membership. DuncanHill (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, the Lib Dems were positioned as "centre", but this has changed to "centre to centre left".

As far as I can recall, "centre to centre-left" has been the default for some time now. Regardless, a lot of the reasoning here is WP:OR – we can't make personal interpretations of their position based on how they vote. Instead we have to go where the sources take us, which has consistency been described as this. — Czello ^(music) 10:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too declare an interest as a registered Labour supporter at the last two leadership elections. The relevant references in this article are getting a little old. I see the reference 18 (the guardian one) leads to letters so perhaps not reliable independent sources. Ref 19 is more recent but refers back to the merger of the old Liberals and SDP as a merger of centre and centre- left. However if the refs are reliable and give a consensus of "centre to centre-left" the question is has the position changed recently. I would say not. In the Corbyn years the Labour Party was definitely to the left of the Lib Dems. The votes mentioned by Jonzo67 certainly are leftist measures so it is still possible that even though the Lib Dems are to the right of Labour they can still be left of centre so the description in the article can still be true, and does not yet need to be altered. The Conservatives however seem to be lurching to the right. It may be that their old supporters will remain or become Lib Dem voters or members so that the Party moves to the right. Therefore we may need to reconsider matters in the next twelve months-perhaps after the local elections and a few bye elections. Spinney Hill (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I point you both to WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:SPECULATION.— Autospark (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, historically we've not altered a political party's positions based on recent events or their most recent leader. We didn't do it for Labour under Corbyn (albeit we did change the Conservatives about a year ago – though I was opposed to that). I would say it would be recentism to change the Lib Dems' current position. — Czello ^(music) 12:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]