Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservative Party (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, 7: 3 months

Conservative Party (UK) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
February 16, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
January 5, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Conservative Party (UK) (64 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	31,598	31,598
History	439	79,286
Origins	2,768	2,768
1867–1914: Conservatives and Unionists	4,557	4,557
First World War	1,980	1,980
1920–1945	2,086	2,086
1945–1975: Post-war consensus	80	8,114
Popular dissatisfaction	675	675
Modernising the party	5,332	5,332
1965–1975: Edward Heath	2,027	2,027
1975–1990: Margaret Thatcher	7,041	7,041
1990–1997: John Major	7,190	7,190
1997–2010: Political wilderness	6,772	6,772
2010–2025: Austerity, Brexit, and the pandemic	7,585	38,339
2010–2016: David Cameron	5,894	5,894
2016–2019: Theresa May	5,373	5,373
2019–2022: Boris Johnson	8,025	8,025
2022: Liz Truss	6,376	6,376
2022–2025: Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch	5,086	5,086
Policies	43	63,535
Economic policy	3,779	17,817
Jobs and welfare policy	5,445	5,445
Transport and infrastructure policy	4,745	4,745
Energy and climate change policy	3,848	3,848
Social policy	12,513	18,883
Family policy	3,278	3,278
Health and drug policy	3,092	3,092
Foreign policy	11,669	19,317
Defence policy	5,072	5,072
European Union policy	2,576	2,576
Domestic policy	24	7,475
Constitutional policy	2,237	2,237
Justice, crime and security policy	1,624	1,624
Education and research	3,590	3,590
Organisation	20	35,091
Party structure	2,970	2,970
Membership	5,336	5,336
Prospective parliamentary candidates	2,232	2,232
Young Conservatives	2,654	2,654
Conferences	252	252
Funding	4,883	11,230
Financial ties to Russian oligarchs	6,347	6,347
International affiliation	3,119	3,119
Logo	4,471	4,471
Associated groups	107	2,807
Ideological groups	1,034	1,034
Interest groups	433	433
Think tanks	228	228
Alliances	469	469
Party branches	536	536
Party factions	3,069	11,212
One-nation Conservatives	2,018	2,018
Free-market Conservatives	3,301	3,301
Traditionalist Conservatives	1,663	1,663
Relationships between the factions	1,161	1,161
Election results and campaigns	2,045	20,684
UK general election results	18,639	18,639
Notes	1,202	1,202
See also	409	409
Notes	74	74
References	35	35
Further reading	6,678	8,176
Historiography	1,498	1,498
External links	2,112	2,112
Total	253,414	253,414

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)[reply]

It seems odd to say the Conservative Party is 'centre-right to rightwing' but the Labour Party is 'centre-left'. It is also important to note that the Labour Party was not described on Wikipedia as 'leftwing' or leftwing' to 'far-left' but 'centre-left' when Corbyn was Labour leader. It does seem extremely inconsistent. 81.145.109.134 (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Fair enough. — Czello ^(music) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Centre-right to right-wing to have parity with other articles. — Czello ^(music) 14:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Centre-right to right-wing per above Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Centre-right to right-wing per WP:NPOV given the content of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
'Right-of-centre' would be more acceptable. 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Will Thorpe (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Centre-right to right-wing As per the reasoning presented above. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Membership source

The reference for the historic membership figures possibly needs updating to point to this. The current reference just leads to an image of the contents page. See Organisation#Membership in the article, reference 277: McGuinness, Feargal (3 December 2012). "Membership of UK political parties" (PDF). House of Commons Library. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014. Perhaps the reference should be replaced. TrottieTrue (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi

Add section on the current leader. 2A0A:EF40:E49:CF01:4A69:45:5019:E703 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2025

The number of Senedd members should be reduced to 15, as one of their MSs (Russell George) has been suspended following them being charged by police for gambling ooffences BBC News: Three Welsh Tories charged with betting offences --78.148.101.117 (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2025 (2)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Conservative Party (UK). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Change "are" to "were" at the start of the section on European affiliation, in International Affiliation, under Organisations. AmpersandBoroughCouncil (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]