Jump to content

Talk:Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

Have edited the first paragraph to reflect that David Owen's "continuing" SDP is not the same entity as the original SDP formed in 1981. The Liberal Democrats are the legal successor party to both that and the original Liberal Party, and that fact should be reflected in the article. Flagboy 11:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move this article?

Should we move this article to SDP (UK, 1988)? Despite all the bad feeling along the way, this has turned into a much better article. The extra detail about the Independent SDP is particularly interesting. Mpntod 12:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there are good arguments for restoring it to the old breakdown, i.e., the pre-1990 SDP that was a national party, and the post-1990 SDP that is a local grouplet. It would be better to avoid that issue, however, by having the party's history recounted in three articles: one for each phase of its history, i.e., 1981-1988, 1988-1990, and post-1990. I think that a consensus should be determined before further changes are made, however, because of the controversy about this article so far. As well, I plan to do a copyedit soon to ensure neutrality. Ground Zero | t 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one seemed to object to my proposal, I have created the third article, Social Democratic Party (UK, 1988)., covering the Owenite party. Ground Zero | t 06:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

I have undertaken a full-scale copyedit of the article to:

  • try to make it more neutral,
  • bring it into the Wikipeida style (e.g., sub-heading, capitalisation)
  • improve (in my opinion) the writing style and grammar.

If you disagree with any of my edits, or think that you can do even better, please edit individual portions of the article instrad of reverting the whole lot. A complete reversion will restore grammatical errors and things that are not consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Here are some of the more important edits that I have made and why:

  • The Road To Bootle > The road to Bootle The Manual of Style says that words in sub-heading should not be capitalised, except for the first word and proper nouns.
  • Secondly, they had in Dr David Owen the one thing the Liberal Democrats lacked (until the arrival of Paddy Ashdown) - a charismatic leader that looked & acted the part of a potential prime minister in waiting. > Secondly, David Owen was a charismatic leader who looked and acted the part of a potential prime minister. The Liberal Democrats lacked a leader of Owen's stature until the arrival of Paddy Ashdown. This was an awkard sentence for a number of reasons:
    • "&" is not used in formal writing - use "and".
    • people are normally referred to as "who" instead of "that"
    • "potential prime minister in waiting" is redundant. Did he have the potential to be prime minister, or only the potential to be prime minister-in-waiting?
    • I have broken up the sentence to make it easier to follow by moving the LibDem stuff into a separate sentence.
    • this was the third time in the article that David Owen's name is linked. The Style Manual discourages repeated linking.
    • "the one thing the Liberal Democrats lacked" -- The one thing? I thought they also lacked the financial support of a wealthy supermarket magnate.
  • call it a day > dissolve the party "Call it a day" is very colloquial for an encyclopedia, and may not be understand by a non-native speaker of English. I have changed this to "dissolve the party" to reflect the more formal style of an encycolpedia. If this is not the correct characterisation of what they voted to do, please change it to the correct description.
  • ironically led by the very Jack Holmes > led by Jack Holmes Let's let the readers decide if there is irony here. there is no need to tell them what to think about this. "the very" is unnecessary.
  • The Neath result proved that a greatly reduced SDP could continue to live & fight to another day. > The Neath result proved that a greatly reduced SDP could continue to be a viable party without David Owen. This is pretty florid language. I think that the replacement is clearer, and gets to the real point in a less dramatic way.
  • There has been a recent upturn in their fortunes with the announcement that Councillor Christine Allerston is the new Mayor of Bridlington for 2005/2006. > Councillor Christine Allerston is the new Mayor of Bridlington for 2005/2006. The old version sounds like political boosterism. The new version conveys the same information to the reader without intereting it for her or him.
  • The party also still has councillors > The party has councillors "also still" was awkward and unnecessary wording.
  • The "Newts" seem set to remain a part of British politics for some time yet (deleted) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
  • ...but like many minor British parties they are unlikely to contest Parliamentary elections when what resources they possess are more likely to yield results at local council level. > The SDP, like many minor British parties, is likely to focus its resources at local council level were they are more likely to win seats than in Parliamentary elections. I re-wrote this sentence for clarity and simplicity while retaining the key information.

And if anyone is interested in reading about a Canadian version of two parties merging into three parties, see the Progressive Canadian Party article. Ground Zero | t 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Ground Zero | t 16:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Confused?

The hat line on the article indicates "This article is about the party that existed from 1981 until 1988. ..." yet the article has the date 1990 in the title and appears to still be operating. Someone who knows the subject needs to correct the problem.

Keith D 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SDPLogo.jpg

Image:SDPLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1992 election vote figures

The vote figure and share % for the 1992 United Kingdom general election quoted here seem quite high. They are the same as in the 1992 election article, but as I noted on its talk page I am concerned that they seem to include the votes won by the defeated incumbent MPs Rosie Barnes in Greenwich and John Cartwright in Woolwich. However, neither was a member of this incarnation of the SDP. When the 1988 split occurred they did go with David Owen to the anti-merger SDP, but when it failed in 1990, they sat as Independent Social Democrats and this is the label they used in 1992. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly centrist

This party is not in the centre of UK politics. Many of the people involved hold strong nationalist viewpoints. Perhaps "nationalist" would be a better description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.67.208 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is Eurosceptic - that's not the same as being nationalist. It is centrist in general politics: centre-left in economics (believing in a mixed economy, the NHS and the welfare state) and centre-right in society (quite socially conservative, including being patriotic). The label "localism" refers to its communitarian beliefs and its support for local government and the establishment of an English parliament/government (and the raising of the Welsh parliament/government to the same level as Scotland). Sumorsǣte (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not CENTRE-right on societal issues. It is to the right of the Conservative (which has itself drifted to the nationalist right) and has much policy in common with other right and far-right parties eg UKIP, Brexit, RefUK eg on gender, homosexuality, immigration, women, equality, hate crime, black lives matters, etc. Its followers and supporters include prominent aggressively authoritarian, culture identity war, anti-liberal, anti-equality, anti-everything figures such as Rod Liddle, Lawrence Fox and Giles Fraser. Marlarkey (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally with this analysis. I say this as someone who actually thinks their fiscal policies are not too bad. But therein lies the problem.
Let's not forget also the policy of leaving both the the European Court of Human Rights, 1951 UN refugee convention, members of the right-wing conservative party defecting to the party, electoral alliances with Reform UK, part of the UK fringe and hard-right, for the next General Election.
Immigration
- We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR
- Any act considered materially hostile to Britain’s social peace will result in prompt deportation
Crime
- Maintaining the status quo drugs policy without review
Housing
- Married families will be given preference in social housing allocation
Education
- Teaching humanities subjects will be balanced and honest, and reflect Britain’s important contribution to the world in the context of its time.
Withdrawal from UN Refugee Conventions and the ECHR for the purpose of deporting vulnerable people such as refugees is policy of the UK far-right. There can be no doubt about that. To add to that it not only ignores the impact that continuous UK military intervention has had on the Middle East, but also fails to include any policy to replace and protect the human rights of the population from Government overseen by an organisation politically powerful enough to hold them to account.
Britain's social peace is I think especially vague and seems intentionally so. Social peace makes no distinction between types of conflict and whether they violent and non-violent, criminal and non-criminal activities. It's vague in all the right ways to attract xenophobes and the right.
On drugs policy the status quo has long been inadequate and criminalises those with mental health issues, vulnerable and also continues to ignore the research and works of David Nutt. This is policy of the right, it was policy of the right when Labour were in Government during the Blair and Brown era, it has remained so throughout this time. Criminalisation over rehabilitation, prevention, reform, treatment is a right wing policy whether it's from current Cons, Lab, or in this instance the SDP especially given the two major parties opposed to this sit centre/centre-left and that a social democratic Lab under Corbyn could only bring itself to legalise the substance medically.
Marriage being a prerequisite for priority in housing allocation is policy you'd hear coming out of the US Republicans if they ever supported welfare or social housing in any way. Family values have always been a staple of the right, the Christian right especially.. and its absolutely atypical of centre-right. It strips freedom from the individuals to choose, or face being denied priority.
Humanities teaching has never been balanced, don't get me wrong it absolutely should be. My experience in secondary school focused purely on British History, rather than world history, it's a complete white wash of the Empire. It fails to teach of the great contributions to science, mathematics, philosophy of the Greeks, the first known mechanical computer, not once is Islamic Golden Age that gave us the number system we used to this day, Algebra, Trig, Calculus, The Renaissance not a word But we did get that Henry had six wives. Thrilling. I can speak at length about the propaganda that is History in schools and it's not because it's woke, it's not because it's British-hating, It's largely just a pro-British, pro-conservative propaganda disguised as a serious syllabus. Nothing in the policy suggests anything will change on that part. No explanation on why it's not balanced, the loaded wording of 'reflect Britain's important contribution to the world' when that is already the sole purpose of a history lesson, only really seems to suggest current the current history syllabus doesn't do it enough? I can tell you categorically that's false. The history syllabus is not fit for purpose but purely because it is a white wash of this is all the things we contributed to the world (except concentration camps, that was Hitler - Kitchner you say? Your country needs you guy? he was a good dude) and all the things we saved the world from. And not that the world could have possibly needed saving from us just as equally. History is written by the victor after all and we've seldom not been the victor even when we haven't been. We just don't teach it (i.e. American Revolutionary War). I know this because I left school incredibly right-wing and looking back I can see why. All it takes is one underqualified teacher reading straight from the syllabus in a history class and you're being told that Socialism, Nazism, Fascism are all sides of the same left-wing coin.. and Communism is somehow worse than all of those and your a kid in year 8 that knows no better. But anyone serious knows that's simplistic view that fails to account for the vast differences in the fiscal and in the social that differentiate these ideologies.
The SDP at their most recent conference hosting has hosted individuals like Graham Linehan and Rod Liddle on their main stage. Now it's no secret that Liddle is an SDP member and, that's their prerogative. But to platform them at their party conference is to endorse them, is to promote what they have to say.
Graham Linehan has recently gone down the CRT rabbit-hole talking about how white musicians have no future their own country and that he suspects certain centre-right Lab politicians are trying to push CRT. He said the first statement 3 days before his appearance on the SDP main stage and the second statement over two weeks before his appearance.
Rod Liddle... well he is infamous at this point for his views on homosexuality, underage girls, and if his actions have anything to go by, women in general. Writer for the right-wing news outlets The Sunday Times, The Sun and the hard-right The Spectator. I'm not gonna dare go down the Spectator rabbit-hole with some of the egregious op-eds and articles they've run in recent history. But the 'centre-right' is where we believe he's supposed to have found his home? Yeah. Forgive me but no.
This is not socially centre-right, these are not the actions of the centre-right, its speakers are not of the centre-right, its allies are not of the centre-right. They are attempting to fight a culture war in British politics and those on the centre-right/right as is current Lab aren't even entertaining this rhetoric. To argue that they're somehow not right arguing from an extreme or being disingenuous in attempt to appeal to readers.
There is very little in their social policy.. it's not a serious document, but what is clear is by their choice of alliances, affiliations and people platformed is that they wouldn't be out of place among the Conservative, UKIP, Reform, Reclaim Parties. None of the centre-right, even if some members proclaim to be.
The idea that being slight left of centre fiscally that you can shift your social from right to centre-right is misleading and I'd probably say that for the sake of consistency the separation of the fiscal from the social, not seen on any other UK Party's articles, is a cheap attempt at masking what the party at this stage currently stands for.
That's just short list I could be bothered to make or write up. In the absence of any manifesto or serious political document outlining their agenda, any real plans or policy. Their policy page is just weak bullet points consisting of right-wing talking points on family, immigration, nationalism, law and order, buried amongst agreeable fiscal policy. So it's right-wing populism. Like the Swedish Democrats and pledge not to cut welfare spending, like the BNP in attempt to appeal to working classes in 2010, like UKIP except that smoking in pubs isn't important to people, but improvements in pay, housing, healthcare and QoL is. Bury the right-wing rhetoric in the palatable. And if this article is anything to go by, it's working. Someone will correct it within a few hours if you try and change the social, in any way even if it gives them the benefit of the doubt, to centre-right to right rather than just right. BolshieIndividual (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic original research. — Czello (music) 19:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware I needed to cite my sources in a talk page full of unsubstantiated discussion. I was merely stating my agreement with the above posters and while my opinion of these policies is only my own. You can find the policies themselves under:
https://sdp.org.uk/policies/immigration/
https://sdp.org.uk/policies/constitution/
https://sdp.org.uk/policies/schools/
https://sdp.org.uk/policies/crime-justice/
https://sdp.org.uk/policies/housing/
You may come to a different judgement and that is fine. But I don't see anyone else on this page substantiating the 'centre-right' label. In fact folk seem to largely agree they are right-wing, not with my post specifically, but to others in other posts.
You can find Rod Liddle and Graham Linehan all over their social media at party conference.
You want absolute proof, here it is complete with a nice quote demonstrating the language of the right. (I guess that's just my opinion right, because it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but no one important has called the duck a duck)
https://twitter.com/SDPhq/status/1713235378738508288
You can find Graham's latest CRT nonsense on his own social media.. I'm less fussed about this.
on Rod Liddle's situation you can find articles and whom he writes them for
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/oh-dear-the-telephone-puts-poor-rod-on-the-hook-again-489914.html
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-teenage-girl-a-maths-teacher-and-a-righteous-tabloid-fury/
On points about history. This is from the national curriculum. The scope is broad, however schools have the opportunity to be selective with what is taught from a broad list of topics that pertain to particular historical topics, be it church and state, the roman empire, challenges for Britain, Europe and the wider world 1901 to the present day
Some of these topics include (complete list here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study)
'the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements, some should be used to compare aspects of life in different periods'
'Renaissance and Reformation in Europe'
'a study of an aspect or theme in British history that extends pupils’ chronological knowledge beyond 1066'
'the Norman Conquest'
'Christendom, the importance of religion and the Crusades'
'the struggle between Church and crown'
'the First World War and the Peace Settlement'
'the Second World War and the wartime leadership of Winston Churchill'
'Britain’s place in the world since 1945'
'the Enlightenment in Europe and Britain, with links back to 17th-century thinkers and scientists and the founding of the Royal Society'
Keeping in mind that this is taught at KS 1-3, by teachers that teach one classroom of the same children the entire day, they are required to teach English, maths, EE, science, art, PE, geography, history, PSHE, heaven know what else I've forgotten. And this largely applies to the early years in secondary. Teachers teaching this are required to have a broad knowledge on all of these topics, so when it comes to teaching kids about:
- the development of Church, state and society in Britain 1509-1745
Do they pick
- Renaissance and Reformation in Europe
or do they pick
- the English Reformation and Counter-Reformation (Henry VIII to Mary I)
- ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901
Do they pick
- the Enlightenment in Europe and Britain, with links back to 17th-century thinkers and scientists and the founding of the Royal Society
or do they pick
- Britain as the first industrial nation – the impact on society
- the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements, some should be used to compare aspects of life in different periods
Do they pick
- Queen Victoria
- Florence Nightingale
- Emily Davison
or
- Christopher Columbus
- Neil Armstrong
- Pieter Bruegel
However it's basic common sense what gets picked and why it gets picked and I understand why completely. But I'll concede that it is 100% my own analysis of my childhood education, which was in my opinion was largely ethnocentric and that's the experience of many up and down the UK whether you choose to acknowledge that fact or not. Ask any 10 year old about Henry VIII you'll get the names of all six wives and why the Anglican church exists. Ask them who Columbus, Bruegel and see the look you get, as best you'll get well 'he landed on the moon' for Armstrong, 'yeah and what else'?
Unfortunately it's difficult to prove that the education system with regard to humanities doesn't already do what is stated, it largely varies up and down the country and is slowly changing i.e. One study of a non-European society (examples being Islamic, Mesoamerican and Sub-Saharan African) is still a recent addition. It took until 2013 for the national curriculum to acknowledge that deficit and begin teaching about civilisations and empires that existed outside of Europe and more specifically Britain. Before that it was simply Rome, Greece and Egypt.
And while anything when it comes to Left/Right discussion it all depends on the individual's own stances as well as the position of Overton window of the time. It may as well all be 'own research' unless they state it themselves that they're right-wing, then to top it off you'd need a third-party source, by who's authority, to satisfy it further.
I'll provide these extracts from the Right-wing populism article, there are more parallels but I've spent far to much time on this:
Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg see "national populism" as an attempt to combine the socio-economical values of the left and political values of the right and the support for a referendary republic that would bypass traditional political divisions and institutions as they aim for the unity of the political (the demos), ethnic (the ethnos) and social (the working class) interpretations of the "people", national populists claim to defend the "average citizen" and "common sense", against the "betrayal of inevitably corrupt elites".
Camus, Jean-Yves; Lebourg, Nicolas ISBN 9780674971530
-
While immigration is a common theme at the center of many national right-wing populist movements, the theme often crystallizes around cultural issues, such as religion, gender roles, and sexuality, as is the case with the transnational anti-gender theory movements
-
I mean ultimately it's still my own analysis of their policies only against those statements instead.
So essentially until an academic or journalist pays heed to this party and publishes that it is neither social democratic or centre-right, it is welcome to claim here to be centre-right by someone, who? while being completely inconsistent with the format of other UK political party, separating the social from the fiscal and all while being completely unsubstantiated..?
While we're at it where is the substantiation for the centre-right label?
FWIW I'm no ideology warrior, I don't think the edit is unfair. I didn't push it into the far-right when it is clearly not, even when policies do overlap.
When its talk page has had several people question its 'centre-right' and saying it's right-wing. It's a small change, with policy to back it up, especially when you compare with other parties with similar platforms, I find this reasoning to be completely and utterly pedantic. But rules are rules. BolshieIndividual (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, looking at the party, it’s clearly based on a mix of right-wing populist and national-conservative positions, and certainly isn’t social-democratic in any sense (or even like the old SDP, whose skin it’s wearing). So I agree that it is right-wing. Anyway, we shouldn’t accept the party’s self-descriptions that it is in any way social-democratic, because it blatantly isn’t.— Autospark (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also "conservative", "labour", "liberal" and "democrat". H Remster (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDP Local Government

Hi everyone,

I've just looked at the SDP figure for local government. It says two, however there is no evidence to suggest that on the citation linked. On their site, it only lists there as being one councillor (https://sdp.org.uk/people/). Can someone check up on this? I don't want to edit as I may have just missed something.

Many thanks,

Wikieditor123000

Agreed. Needs updating following May 2019 local elections. Sumorsǣte (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– This is in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions regarding states and political parties: in general, the extant entity that holds a name is referred to as that name-holder without qualification, whereas predecessors have the date qualification at the end of their title. There's a strong clarity/public interest case in this change, since the current incarnation of the SDP is an active political party which is contesting elections and receiving an increasing amount of exposure and coverage in its own right, which means the current party's nominal title should be its page title (so as to enable easy search and discovery). Consgay (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The original SDP is the most recognised party of that name, and has a legacy in a current day party and was a significant part of British political history. The modern day SDP on the other hand is a fringe party, which has never had representation in the House of Commons as is possibly on the edges of WP:NOTABILITY.—Autospark (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:NCPP tells us: Generally, if one can differentiate between the original inventor of a party name and later inheritors, then the original party could be named without disambiguating brackets. However, if a later party is considerably more notable than the original one then that party could own the name without clarifying brackets. The later party is by no means more notable than the original one. Ralbegen (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same reasons as Autospark. The 1981-1988 party is the original, historic party. The 1988-1990 party was a fringe offshoot, significant in that it represented the terminal end of the original party. The present day party is a fringe successor of no meaningful political significance. Marlarkey (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fiscal: Centre-left + Social: Centre-right = Christian Democracy?

With the info-box, couldn't the party be described as Christian Democratic?

As per the Christian democracy page, it states:

  • "This has meant that Christian Democracy has historically been considered centre-left on economics and centre-right on many social, and moral issues.".

Which this party is, and is referred to in the political position info-box section of this party.

Plus, this party supports a social market economy, and Christian democratic parties support that. As well stated it being stated the Christian democracy page:

  • "Christian democrats support a "slightly regulated market economy", featuring an effective social security system, a model also known as a social market economy."

I would also like to mention, a party's name doesn't have to equal the party's ideology. It is totally irrelevant. There is even a party called Social Democratic party called the Social Democratic Party (Portugal), and isn't even Social Democratic. So this party wouldn't be the first to be named Social Democratic, and isn't "truly" social democratic. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be described as Christian democratic without at least one strong referenced third-party source, i.e. not the party itself, otherwise that is clearly WP:SYNTH. (FWIW, in actuality the party a right-wing populist party in the mould of UKIP or the Brexit Party, despite how it names and describes itself).-- Autospark (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources required for policy points?

References to the SDP's own website for policies have all been marked as 'third-party source needed'. I'm not sure if these are required as they are statements of fact rather than viewpoints or opinions, but I am not a frequent editor on Wikipedia so I wanted to discuss before changing.

To me it seems akin to a page on Joe Bloggs stating 'his favourite colour is blue' referencing a blog post from Joe Bloggs who writes 'my favourite colour is blue'. Senfre (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the issue is not "is it true" (assuming it's something Joe Bloggs has no reason to lie about) but "is it interesting enough to put in the page". Roderick Spode may want to turn the entire county of Kent over to the production of turnips, but when The Times prints an article about his turnip policy, then it merits inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_Democratic_Party_(UK,_1990–present)&oldid=1232564010"