Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

'Controversies' section

As per WP:CRITS, should this 'Controversies' section even exist? Surely it should either be incorporated into other sections or removed entirely? Michaeldble (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It should not exist: the content needs to be incorporated into the relevant History or Organisation section(s). As well as the essay to which you point, the policy at WP:STRUCTURE indicates that maintaining a NPOV means we ought to avoid segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content and we ought to be folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The sexual abuse section feels like POV to me. 2A00:23C7:6989:2701:D45D:AEF4:E222:51BC (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the section do you believe is no neutral? Cortador (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I'm inclined to say the section should be incorporated into the relevant "Premiership of..." articles. — Czello ^(music) 18:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that maybe a few sentences of the Russian part could be incorporated into the funding section but apart from that I can't see anything else that should remain on this article personally. The rest should be condensed and placed on different articles imo. Thoughts? @Cortador

Michaeldble (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As that article you linked to itself states: "In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material." There's absolute swathes of reliable reporting on Tory Islamophobia (with has its own article), the Russian donors, and the sex pest problem the party has, which doesn't just include allegations, but also convictions. Cortador (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is this preferable to incorporating it into more relevant sections and articles? — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

In what section would you incorporate this information? All these events cover at least three, sometimes four or five governments and/or involve the party as a whole i.e. are not appropriate to be moved to premiership articles. Cortador (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well the sexual abuse section is predicated on the Cameron and Johnson governments, so that's easy. It also appears to be WP:UNDUE given the length. I agree with the above that the Russian money would, quite obviously, be better served under the funding section - under its own subheading if need be. The Islamophopbia section is the one that stands out as it has its own article, but given that all the accusations have been post-2010, it could easily be divided between the section on Cameron's government (where almost all of what's written takes place) and a small bit more under the Johnson government to cover the report. — Czello ^(music) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Tbh I don't see how any of this could reasonably be incorporated into the history section. The history section is only a brief overview of the key issues from each period. None of these issues are remotely close to being the most important issues in each Premiership. I think they should be moved onto the 'Premiership of' articles personally Michaeldble (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; they are there, after all, for more detailed information on exactly this kind of information. — Czello ^(music) 11:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. Sexual abuse has been an issue with the Tories for at least the last seven years now i.e. during four different premierships. It's na issue with the party and their MPs, which is also reflected by the sources, and should be presented as such, not as an issue regarding individual premierships. Cortador (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

These are about the party, not about a specific premisership. They carry over multiple premierships and over a much wider timespan. They're discussed widely in reliable sources and are entirely appropriate to this article. They ought to be incorporated into the main sections rather than in a separate "controversies" section. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Which sections specifically do you feel they're best incorporated into? The history section is still divided up by leader. — Czello ^(music) 12:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree about funding....belonging in funding lol. We can put other parts in a separate section of the 2010-present L2 heading. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I considered that after Conservative Party (UK)#2010–present:_Return_to_government and before Conservative Party (UK)#2010–2016: David Cameron we could have a summary of the following 13 years, which could be a broad overview of the time in government and the other two sections being merged into there? — Czello ^(music) 12:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is also my view. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Rebel Tories Are Revolting

Could this article have a section on the hard-right Tory MPs? With the likes of Suella Braverman willing to attack her leader and undermine the Tory Party, is it not clear that the 'mad, swivel-eyed, loons' remain an ever-present danger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.229 (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for this article; if anything of substance comes from a revolt it can go into the Premiership of Rishi Sunak article. — Czello ^(music) 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

'Economic liberalism', 'British unionism'

Is there really a particular need to include them in the box's ideology field? Both fall under the umbrella of 'British conservatism'. Setting aside my dislike of the ugliness of the political position's 'to', I would propose the following, as seen to the right, also getting rid of the slogan, given their transience and irrelevance in British politics. And why do the references for British unionism concern the Home Rule movement? They're irrelevant to the party's current position.

Extended content

Conservative and Unionist Party Leader Rishi Sunak Lords Leader The Lord True Chief Whips Simon Hart (Commons) The Baroness Williams of Trafford (Lords) Chairman Richard Holden Chief Executive Stephen Massey Founded 1834 (1834) (original form) 1912 (1912) (current form) Merger of Conservative Party Liberal Unionist Party Preceded by Tories Headquarters Conservative Campaign Headquarters 4 Matthew Parker Street, London SW1H 9HQ Youth wing Young Conservatives Women's wing Conservative Women's Organisation Overseas wing Conservatives Abroad LGBT wing LGBT+ Conservatives Membership (2022) 172,437 Ideology Conservatism Political position Centre-right to right-wing European affiliation None International affiliation International Democracy Union Irish affiliation Ulster Unionist Party (1922–1972) Irish Unionist Alliance (1891–1922) Irish Conservative Party (1834–1891) Colours   Sky blue Governing body Conservative Party Board Devolved or semi-autonomous branches London Conservatives Scottish Conservatives Welsh Conservatives Northern Ireland Conservatives Parliamentary party 1922 Committee House of Commons 350 / 650 House of Lords 271 / 784 Scottish Parliament 31 / 129 Senedd 16 / 60 Regional mayors 2 / 10 London Assembly 9 / 25 PCCs and PFCCs 30 / 39 Directly elected mayors 2 / 16 Councillors 5,596 / 18,641 Politics of the United Kingdom Political parties Elections ^ Mayor of London and nine combined authority mayors. ^ Councillors of local authorities in England (including 25 aldermen of the City of London) and Scotland, principal councils in Wales and local councils in Northern Ireland.

92.26.38.106 (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism doesn't always include economic liberalism; it's probably better to make this clear. — Czello ^(music) 10:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Political party funding.

The rules on donations to political parties.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain/who-can-you-accept-donations-and-loans Jaymailsays (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Conservative Party

The Conservative Party is no doubt a center-right party and not a right wing party דולב חולב (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The multiple reliable secondary sources you deleted from the article indicate otherwise. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)