Talk:Labour Party

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Labour Party as edited by 1990'sguy (Talk | contribs) at 21:39, December 23, 2016. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Labour Party, socialists or not?

Yes. Their party website decribes them as being a socialist party.

No. Fidel Castro describes Cuba as being a democracy - what the leader says doesn't make it so! Labour has pursued Third Way social-democratic policies since 1997, and during their time in power they have significantly shifted to the right. --Rafa 18:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyway, where does it describe them as socialist on their website?Sitedrm 14:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I think it is more accurate to call the Labour Party a social democrat party rather than a democratic socialist party. While there are still elements with the party that could still be described as socialist, very few of the party's objectives match the definition. They are recognised as being centre-left much like other parties in Europe and social democrat is the label that is typically applied to this part of the political spectrum. They would be closest to the Democrats if an American comparison had to be made. I will make this minor change if nobody objects. Ajkgordon 13:16, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Ajkgordon, although I agree with the essence of what you are saying, I think it is also worth noting that the Labour party does use the term "democratic socialist" to describe itself - see [1]. Many Labour party members would be proud to emphasise that term, so I don't personally think it's misleading. OurMike 13:37, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Goodness, so it does! Well, I'll leave it then. Thanks. Ajkgordon 13:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

The acutal socialists from the Labour party left ages ago with Arthur Scargill who aligned himself alongside Greenpeace and the Green Party trying to get the British coal mines reopened. That is why the Labour party advertises itself as "New Labour". They are anything but socialist. --EllisUSA 18:15, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


Shouldn't this be located at a more appropriate title given the numerous parties around the world with the name? I know how fond Conservapedians are of Wikipedia, but just as a comparison... Thought I'd throw that out there. I doubt the one whose page I was looking for would merit much interest here anyway. :) Punuma 19:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

The leading "Labour Party" is in England. We're not going to elevate political correctness over the obvious here by linking to obscure parties in other countries copying the same name.--Aschlafly 00:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, most other leading Labo(u)r parties tend to have a nationality descriptor, such as the New Zealand Labour Party. The only exception I can think of is the Labour Party in Ireland, which is one of the top three or four political parties there. Ajkgordon 20:02, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Needs revamping

This article is massively outdated - Labour have been out of government for half a year now (thank God) and this needs to be recognised. However, I can't edit the article. Can someone please change this/unlock the article. Many thanks, ChelseaR 13:26, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

Socialism owed more to Methodism than Marx? Seriously?

Morgan Phillips obviously has a right to his own opinion, but I don't buy his view that Methodism contributed more to British socialism than Marx did [2]. First off, the Labour Party was formed in 1900, right at the same time that socialism (Marx's forerunner to communism) was taking root in all the west. Other countries had labor or socialist parties springing up at the same time. Also, unbiblical theological liberalism was popular among Protestants during this time (a major departure from Church fathers such as Wesley, who actually was politically conservative, even by 18th Century standards). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2016 (EST)

Generally, the big problem is that socialism has been cowed into the Marxist camp while Christian socialism and its influence has been ignored. Christian socialism is specifically cited as an early influence in The History of the Fabian Society, by Edward Pease.(1916) The Fabian Society was founded in 1884.
I did not scratch my head at the quote considering the deep influence of Christian socialism, only that Phillips cited Methodism. Kingsley, Ludlow, and Maurice(early Christian socialists in the 1850s) were all of the Church of England, not Methodists. I'm not well versed enough in British Christian socialism to cite for you chapter and verse the timeline about how the Christian socialist movement moved from the Church of England and expanded into to the Methodist church, and from there to the Fabians and then to Labour. What I do know is that Phillips is not alone in his contention. There is Pease, cited above. Also, the first leader of the Labour party, Kier Hardie, had this to say, that socialism in his view was "the embodiment of Christianity in our industrial system". Hardie also was the leader of the ILP, a Christian socialist political party.
One last thing of note. The Fellowship of the New Life, which was where the Fabian Society was born, was highly influenced by the Leo Tolstoy, a Christian socialist.(Some would say Christian anarchist, but in this context the difference is lacking a distinction) The point being, I have little doubt that it's accurate. Keep in mind, that when he says "Methodism" he clearly, absolutely, only means the Christian socialist portions of Methodism and not all of Methodism.
Specifically, see this. Christian socialists(throw in Labour and the Fabians, of course) created a "Labour Church", and between the 1910's to the mid 1930's, the "movement" seems to be that they were largely Methodists, or perhaps the more notable members were. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2016 (EST)

Phillips' claim has gotten a lot of attention over the years, it seems. I just noticed that this book, which I just cited: "Labour and the Free Churches, 1918-1939: Radicalism, Righteousness and Religion" has as its goal of answering that very question - was Phillips correct? See the description page. I have never read the book, but it probably has all the answers sought after. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2016 (EST)

Thank you for the reasonable explanation. It now seems like a substantive opinion, but both ideologies still seem quite interrelated to each other. Would Christian Socialism (in this specific form) have existed if Marxist Socialism were never created? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2016 (EST)
Probably. Socialism goes back much further than Marx. There's Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and Fourier. I personally think that the first socialist was Nimrod, based on the testimony and imagery of the Bible. Rabbi Daniel Lapin has explained it very well(much better than I could) in interviews that I have seen him in.
Communism also goes back further than Marx. Francois-Noel Babeuf is regarded by many to be the first communist.
Those are good points. However I have to admit, the emergence of Christian Socialism (in the specific form that we think about it today) and Marxist Socialism still appear very interconnected with each other to be regarded as completely separate. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2016 (EST)