Talk:Liberal Alliance (Denmark)

Social conservatism ?

Link to Social conservatism is wrong. The danish(nordic/north european?) concept of social conservatism is not what that article describes. Since the concept translated to American terms as: Social minded liberal conservatism, maybe that should be described? Carewolf 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To claim they are social conservative (in english terms) is wrong. I think the party is social liberal, and we should refrain from speculating what their ideologies are. We can add the proper info when we see the party platform in Aug. this year. Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote was simply what Khader said himself during the press conference. Their webpage states the same: Ny Alliance er et borgerligt midterparti, der vil bygge bro mellem blokkene. Partiet vil bygge på det, der samler, frem for det, der skiller. Vi vil tage det bedste fra social-liberalister og social-konservative og bruge det til at reformere det danske samfund. [1] It looks to me like Khader is trying to avoid having his new party identified simply as Denmark's fourth liberal party (Venstre, Radikale, Liberalisterne, Ny Alliance). Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I've heard the word socialkonservatisme used before in both danish and swedish politics (in Denmark to describe the pro-welfare part of the Conservative party), but this is not the same as what is meant by Social Conservatism in english. The swedish computer game Victoria had the same problem, since no one knew what they meant by Social Conservative parties. I just think that socialkonservatisme is completely different from Social Conservatism. Either the Social Conservatism article needs to be expanded to cover the nordic translation, or it should be translated differently. Carewolf 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. In that case, an expansion of the Social Conservatism article seems in order. Or alternatively a new one explaining the Scandinavian concept to avoid false friends. I didn't think about the "Victoria" example myself, but I am a fan of Paradox's games. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to patch up a quick fix, but if you have a better idea in mind, feel free to edit away. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the term social conservatism should, at least, stay in the infobox under Official ideology since the party repeatedly declares itself "social liberal and social conservative" when asked. Even in the Nordic countries, the term social conservatism is pretty vague. In Denmark, it is almost only used by members of the Conservative Party themselves to distinguish them from the Liberal Party (Venstre), for the reason that very little in fact distinguishes the two parties politically and ideologically. Both are more liberal than conservative, but they have a difference of traditions, voter groups and style. In the case of New Alliance, they obviously want to underline the fact that they consist of defectors of both the social liberal Radikale Venstre and a socially minded defector of the Conservatives. Khader himself is not a sharp analytic, and I think he would have difficulties if asked to describe social conservatism. Seeberg obviously wants to legitimate her conservative past, so she can't just accept a new purely "social liberal" party. --Sasper 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote the Policies section, defining the ideology this way: "New Alliance considers itself a centre party, "taking the best values of social liberalism and social conservatism".[3] The meaning of the latter is the same as compassionate conservatism in English-speaking countries (not to be mistaken with the morally right-wing social conservatism of US politics)." I also put compassionate conservatism in the info box; it may appear a bit odd there but is better than social conservatism. --Sasper 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the Scandinavian/European meaning of "social conservatism" has been added to the article of the same name, I find that it only makes sense to have the infobox say "social conservatism" rather than "compassionate conservatism". In addition, it is how the party defines itself. --Akuen 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the audience reading this material is overwhelmingly non-Danes, the average reader will most likely think in terms of the word from American political debate which has nothing to do with how this party defines itself. Using the American word here is too much of a "false friend". Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In particular since the Scandinavian meaning of this term covers 1 single line in the article in question. The rest is about neo-Conservative "family values". Given its origins, New Alliance will be anything but traditional family values, it will be supportive of both abortion, homosexuality and the separation between church and state. Besides, I doubt that the average (American) reader even knows that Denmark is a Nordic country, so he/she will very likely miss the point completely. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is up to an encyclopedia to take into account the 'dumbness' of it's readers? If your logic were to be enforced, we would have to change the article "Liberalism" into describing american liberalism, rather than a broad article describing liberalism as a way of thought and summarizing the sub-ideologies of liberalism.

In any case, why not just add a line to the article, explaining that it is not social conservatism in the american sense?

I can understand if you feel that I ramble on about neglectible details, but to me it is important that we create an international encyclopedia - not an Americentric one.

European Parliament representation

It appears that someone resents this article containing the information that the New Alliance wishes to join the ALDE group should it be re-elected in the next European Elections (so far, Seeberg and Samuelsen remain part of their "old" groups). This information is well-sourced as it comes from a public statement by Anders Samuelsen - one of the three founders of the party - and was published in a Danish national newspaper. I believe it is highly relevant, as it is one of the few specific indicators concerning the party's view on the EU. This information has been removed three times over several days, in one of these cases by a single-edit account. Unless these editors wish to state their case here on the talk page explaining why this piece of information should be excluded from the article, I'll continue considering mere deletions of sourced material as acts of vandalism and treat them accordingly. If anybody wishes this information to be excluded, please state your case publicly here on the talk page, and see if the majority of editors agree with your reasoning or not. I've personally been searching for this information in other media, and I believe other readers will also find it relevant as it is an indicator concerning the party's EU policy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just took a second look. Two of the three times this material has been removed, it was done by accounts without other edits.[2], [3] The IP editor has other edits. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've listed this page on WP:RFP and asked for semi-protection to stop this vandalism. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)