Talk:Liberal Democrats (UK)

Template:Election box metadata

Polling

Have added a sub section with a graph on polling. This is not only newsworthy but noteworthy as well. It has been going on for a long sustained period (since April 2012), it is very closely covered by what we regard as reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian, The Telegraph etc, so on and so forth). This definitely has a pace in both this article and UKIP's article, it is already in UKIP's article and the text has already been scrutinized by those who openly admit that they are Liberal Democrats. However I understand that with this being a Liberal Democrat article that it is indeed reasonable to add to the text and perhaps give a bit of background as to why the Lib Dem's have lost support (i.e. taking most of the blame for the coalition, tuition fees, mid term blues etc).

It is important to avoid speculation on this though and I'd be weary of opinion pieces when commenting on both UKIP and The Liberal Democrats. I have not added to the agreed text because it is so difficult to write something and then back it up without the source being blatantly biased one way or the other! We must be careful of this, it would be quite wrong to say that "The Lib Dem's are facing extinction because they are criticized of constantly giving in to the Tories" because that isn't completely true and also they are the junior member of a coalition and it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect them to get their own way most of the time. Equally it would be wrong to say that "UKIP have surged in support because they have capitalized on the disaffected Tory right", Yes that have gained votes from the Tory right but at the same time they have also gained large numbers from Labour (look at Rotherham) and the Lib Dem protest vote. I am giving a slight bit of analysis here which I know I shouldn't, I'm just trying to emphasize what would be an unreasonable thing to say. I hope you would know that but I have seen some far from neutrally written things on wikipedia, particularly on UKIP's page.

However, I am sure that as reasonable adults, we can agree a text, that is written neutrally, avoiding putting anyone's political point across! That is indeed if we need to expand this text! Just to note it was not me that wrote the current text, it has been altered a number of times by various editors, most of whom admit to having an interest in the Liberal Democrats but most regular editors of the UK Politics section do.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I aprove of this, there is no need for further expansion or analysis of any kind, that is not our job, we have not done this on related pages. Leave it as it is, it needs to be covered but not overhyped, the bigger the section you make it, the more overhyped it will be. That said it must be covered and the chart and inks to the polling page allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Let's not attempt to lead (or mislead as the case may be) down a certain path!Nick 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:Sheffno1gunner and User:Nick Dancer have been identified as one and the same person and blocked for socking. --RJFF (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:Recentism. The LibDems have existed for 25 years. There has always been some up and down in opinion poll ratings. Their recent poll ratings are utterly irrelevant in a historical perspective (which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia should try to maintain). If their yields in elections drop, this has to be noted, but temporary "struggles" in opinion polls are not relevant for an encyclopedia. --RJFF (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of agree with RJFF, the competition for 3rd place is worth mentioning...but that whole section is way too "recentism." By my resolution, the 2010 onwards section of 'history' is going at about 1 screen per year. Though much of that is the list of ministers & whips....certainly important, but shouldn't be under 'history'. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for mistakenly removing info, forgot to take into account UKIPs loss of MEPS since election. Section still reads a bit off though, cites halfway through sentence etc. And just noticed text refers to a table which only exists on the article it was copied from. Also, suggest moving list of their current ministers (which is presumably being kept up to date and so patently not history) to....possibly a new subsection under 'Structure'? 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a weird little section. That the Liberal Democrats have "struggled in the opinion polls" since joining the coalition seems important and uncontroversial; it ought to be discussed in the article. That said, I don't see what UKIP has to do with it. One might include a sentence to note that the Lib Dems have declined so far that UKIP is ahead of them in some opinion polls, but I don't see why there should be an extensive discussion of whether or not UKIP has surpassed them as Britain's third party (they would need to actually do better than the Lib Dems in a general election to make such a claim, I should think). This is especially true in the article's bizarre current form, where this dubious claim that nobody is really making is introduced and then immediately refuted. john k (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Sheffno1gunner can complain about a Lib Dem bias all he wants, but ultimately he has created myriad sockpuppets in order to push a pro-UKIP agenda. I think I agree with everything John K said — let's mention it, sure, but to give it the section it has now, with the chart that compares them to UKIP so directly, is WP:UNDUE weight. We should address who the "third party" truly is in 2015, after the next election. — Richard BB 07:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to add to this that the graph that Sheffno1gunner added, along with accompanying text, has long since been removed from the UKIP article, which has now been semi-protected in order to stop his IP disruption (seeing as all of his main accounts have been indeffed). — Richard BB 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of polls.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.37 (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not Enough Yet

Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use Encyclopedia Britannica etcetera. More on links with the Alliance Party, maybe. I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C

62.249.253.7 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

There's more information out there.

62.249.253.7 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

How much descended from Whig Party?

62.249.253.37 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

Membership source is dubious

Lib Dem Voice is hardly an appropriate source. If it is inappropriate for us to use official party sources, or party affiliated outlets (e.g.Conservative Home, Labourlist, UKIP Daily or whatever else)for sourcing membership (which has been very robustly stated and upheld on other pages), then it is also not right for us to use the LibDemVoice source. I shall therefore remove the source and replace it with the most recent figure I can find. This is in accordance with Wiki policy and recent precedents set by regular editors. Owl In The House (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Euro Conservatives

I have been replacing content that was added quite some time ago that various editors (mainly IP editors) have recently been deleting for whatever reason. It is well documented that the Pro-Euro Conservative Party merged into the Liberal Democrats, here are just a few sources: 1 2 Some are trying to say that this isn't a merger because the old party was disolved and that not every single member didn't join the Lib Dems. I'm sorry but by that token then the [Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]] didn't merge into the party because not only did every member not join the Lib Dems but a new smaller Liberal Party was formed. To those who say "this was just the party dissolving and all its most senior members joining the Lib Dems, I hate to break it to you but that is the procedure for a merger. For a party to merge into another it has to dissolve and de-register with the electoral commission, that is exactly what they did. It simply is a fact that the current Liberal Democrat Party is as a result of 3 parties merging (all be it at different times): the bulk of the old Liberal Party, the SDP (a breakaway part of Labour) and the the Pro-Euro Conservatives (a breakaway part of the Tories). This is well sourced material and simply shouldn't be persistently deleted by IPs. Owl In The House (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The two sources you've provided don't help your case; it was a statement that the PECP was disbanded in favour of the leadership joining the Lib Dems; contrast with the formal merger process between the SDP and the Liberals in 1988. Even today, the party has the distinct divided wings from the merger, although perspectives of what each wing stands for has changed over time (From my own perception, what was primarily a left/right split [with the SDP on the right] as of late has become more of a centrist/radical split). Sceptre ^(talk) 10:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a merger, it is a party dissolving and its members going elsewhere. A merger occurs when two parties decide to join together, even though legally both parties disband and urge their members to join a new party, as happened with the SDP-Liberal merger. TFD (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian article is very clear that it was disbanding of the party and its members joining. So the party did not join the Lib Dems - it was not a merger. The Independent article is somewhat amibiguous -- the article title says that party members were joining the Lib Dems, while the article could be interpreted either way: "We have therefore decided to join the Liberal Democrats." By "we", does Stevens means the party? Or its members? THe Telegraph article here says "the tiny Pro-Euro Conservative Party, founded by breakaway Tory MEPs, disbanded itself and its entire membership of 17 also joined the Liberal Democrats." The balance of evidence, therefore is clear that it was not a merger of two parties, but a dissolution of the PECP, and this article should say that. Ground Zero | t 03:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not using the sources in the correct way, you seem to be ignoring journalistic or creative license, Wikipedia is not news, we use what are considered to be reliable sources to get to the facts. This is often difficult with reporting on such a political event because different papers will put their own narrative on these things. In the UK it is quite clear that the process for a party to merge into another party is for a party to de-register it's self with the electoral commission and for its membership to be incorporated into the other party, this is what happened. Indeed if two parties want to merge under a different name from either of their two previous names, those two parties have to dissolve, deregister from the electoral commission and found and register a new party. That is the process for mergers, parties get disolved and its membership join the new party, that is process, what you and indeed the Guardian described is process. In effect your argument actually suggests that dissolving and de-registering the SDP and the liberal parties and their memberships joining a new party was not a merger; but of course this is a ridiculous claim to make. If you attempt to balance sources in the way you just have (based on journalistic narrative) then you don't get to the facts. The sources tell us (and you have quoted) that the party has been disolved and that the party's leadership have said "We have therefore decided to join the Liberal Democrats." Ergo it is a merger as it follows the process of a merger, especially if it's "entire membership of 17 also joined the Liberal Democrats.". Now, lets just say for a minute that the entire membership didn't join the Liberal Democrats, would that stop it from being a merger? No, it is what the leadership have decided to do and the fact they have followed the merger process. This can be highlighted by the example of not all of the members of the old Liberal Party joining the Lib Dems when the party was de-registered, indeed many of them who were unhappy with the merger relaunched the party, they did this by registering a new party with the electoral commission with the same (old) name, see Liberal Party (UK, 1989). Now if you are trying to argue that the Pro-Euro Conservatives haven't merged into the Lib Dems, then surely you have to argue that the Liberal Party didn't merge into the Lib Dems. Your argument relies on journalistic narratives and treating them as facts (despite them contradicting each other), it is very easy to get to the bottom of this if you keep it fact based and ignore the journalistic narratives. Owl In The House (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The PEC membership may have merged into the Lib Dems but nowhere in the sources does it state that there was any formal merger process whatsoever. If there was, you'd be able to find conference motions, statements by people such as Ashdown, and so forth. All this was an incredibly small party disbanding itself, and then as normal members of the public, joining the Lib Dems. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You have basically just rehashed process of what a merger is; the disbanding of one party and it's leadership formally declaring that it's membership are joining another party....that is what has happened, you've said so yourself. Your point about "statements by people such as Ashdown" is far from an encyclopedic one, Ashdown wasn't even an MP at the time, never mind Leader. However I can go one better, here are some reliable source where the then party leader Charles Kennedy welcomes the Pro Euro-Conservatives into the party BBC,EUobserver. Your line of "Normal members of the public" is a good way of spinning it to suit your argument, you should be a politician/spin doctor if you aren't one already but those sports of naratives are things an encyclopedia should ignore outright when digging for the facts. Secondtime I've hadto make this point in this thread. Reliable sources often contradict each other, which is why it is vital we don't base our coverage on article narratives. I see you have ignored my comparison between the merger of the Liberal Party and the merge of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. Owl In The House (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)