Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics UK.svg

This British politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Complete lack of any Bias[edit]

Can you tell I'm not a Tory voter? Silver Sloth 17:55, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

This is a rather biased piece. Disappointing really.


I had no idea that anyone, let alone MPs, seriously supported it anywhere in the world. Damn. Tetronian you're clueless 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just look at all the names here EDM 1240, pretty disappointing, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are on there too! Solarius (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Though in defence of those signatories, EDM 1240 was before the Science & Technology Select Committee met to discuss homeopathy. So odds are, prior to that most MPs would have thought "oh, homeopathy is alternative medicine, like herbal medicine, I'm sure that's grand stuff, let's keep an open mind" as not everyone knows what it actually is, and the anecdotal evidence and some passionate word-play often always outweighs proper statistics. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well as the record stands, none of the signatories have bothered to confirm whether or not they still believe that homeopathy is an effective and legitimate form of treatment, and those who have bothered to respond have only justified their resolve in regards to homeopathy, to the point that they would say things on the lines of "oh well we don't know everything about the human body, loads of my constituents have benefited, conventional medicine has side effects etc". Fair enough they may have had good intentions but ignorance is still ignorance and had we enough public scrutiny in the first place, we wouldn't have idiots signing these stupid Early Day Motions in the first place. Also this should serve to encourage more intellectual curiosity and hell we could always update this if anyone notices and were to admit how ill informed they were. Solarius (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you can't equate ignorance with wilful ignorance. I don't expect politicians to be aware of every alternative medicine in the cupboard, yet alone every medical issue or even every issue. Especially before it's been raised in a thorough context - we're all ignorant about a lot of things, there's no point in saying "there should have been more public scrutiny first" because that's only with the clarity of hindsight. At the actual time, an issue that hasn't been fully looked at is only as likely of cropping up as any other issue. Would you accuse MPs of being ignorant about tree diseases? No. What about after a massive epidemic that fells a ton of trees somewhere? People with a hindsight bias might well say "they should have been aware of the issue when the bad decisions were made" - except they don't become "bad" decisions until after the event, post facto. If we make a quick judgement as soon as a new issue came up, we'd probably go with gut instinct (this is because our ignorance prevents us making a fully informed decision). Later, if presented with a more thorough case, we might change our mind. If you don't change your mind to reflect the new information, then we're guilty of wilful ignorance, which is a different thing entirely, indeed it could be tantamount to full denial. Maybe these individual MPs haven't been approached about their support for alt med, maybe they want to save face by not changing their mind (a big factor in politics, unfortunately), maybe they have recounted their views and not made a big deal out of it, I don't know, that's got to be judged on a case by case basis. Now, post the Sci-Tech Select Committee report - which you do expect MPs to be aware of - if an MP put their name onto something like EDM 1240 I would hold it against them. These people are people, and they don't burst from the womb knowing every single issue that is important to every single person, it's a learning curve. So today they're knoweldgable about homeopathy due to the Sci-Tech Select Committee report, but they might be completely blank on the LHC. I'm a little appalled that the number of scientifically literate MPs is going down, but if that number went up, the number than knew a lot of world history (and the knowledge not to repeat stupid mistakes with foreign policy) would go down and we'd lose out there. Any other permuation of that sentence you'd like to make would also apply. The bottom line is, I don't think it's fair to criticise too much based on something that was done 3 years before the full information was made readily available. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Seriously, someone needs to stop using that word.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? ProudTory (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
"Dynamic" a political sense is kind of meaningless. If you guys give me a few minutes I'll try to include PTs comments in a way that I think will help balance the article with the bipolar love/hate it has otherwise.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've altered the article. I'm not too familiar with modern British politics so I cannot make much in the way of expansion, I just tried to include comments by PT in a way that is more in line with the site in general and the article in specific. Someone should probably expand the section on "policies" though.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


It's UK, not U.K. Justbrowsing (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we please stop this revert war.,[edit]

OK... I don't know if this is considered bad for to attack a user like this but for fucks sake Mikal give it a rest.

If you think that a quote from a has-been TV presenter calling the Conservative Party a bunch of cunts is acceptable but a finely crafted bit of abuse from one of history's great politicians is not then you must have something wrong with your sense of priorities.

You removed the quote from Bevan on the grounds that a quote from 60 years ago was irrelevant but a quote from a TV 'sleb' nobody outside of the UK has even heard of is in some way more relevant?

Get a fucking grip man or go to bed and sober up a bit. Longdog (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Carswell[edit]

Welp, he's just become UKIP's first elected MP, hasn't he? Might wanna add something saying "enough of a wingnut to defect to UKIP" (talk)

Randian bastards[edit]

Sajid Javid, the Business Secretary, is a big fan of The Fountainhead. And surprise came there none. Worth talking about in the article? Pascal yuiop (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a quick mention and cite will do for now, unless the new Shortest Ever Australian Holiday champion becomes party leader. Flannan Isle (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

List of MPs[edit]

The list is significantly out of date - it lists members who stepped down from the Commons nearly two years ago, and also lists ministers with portfolios they no longer hold. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I noticed this as well. I'd propose separating out the current from the past, but it might be easier just to retitle it "Current or past MPs". I also wondered if some MPs deserve their own subsection, together with an "others" subsection listing the rest. It would be useful if it was easier to link to specific MPs (you can do a trick with inserting section IDs to link to an arbitrary point, but it may be confusing). If nobody has a strong opinion how to proceed, I'll try and remember to tidy this up in a few days/weeks. --Gospatric (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


for the record, i am far from a tory supporter, but i find this article misleading, namely the section listing individual mps and their positions on varying issues.

i dont doubt that the positions stated positions are accurate, my issue is that taken in its totality, it makes it look like the tories are on the verge of banning abortion and stripping the gays of rights, all the while pushing homeopathy like labour isnt just as bad on that score.

abortion will not be banned by the tories or even made harder to get or what have you. its simply not an issue and as such there is no opportunity to doing with it. where it is an issue is n. ireland. there its not an issue stripping away reasonable abortion laws its about making abortion law reasonable and in line with the rest of the uk. the debate is whether parliament should impose this or leave to a referendum in n. ireland. its only really an issue now because brexit and the minority government gives the unionists more power than they would usually in parliament. and even that wouldnt be too much of an issue if northern ireland assembly hadnt collapsed and not sat for over 2 years.

its the same situation with lgbt rights. any issues are about bringing them in line with the rest of the of country.

Parliament will not be asked to decide any of this and on mainland uk, its pretty much a done deal mps had their say a while ago on and whatever their views then or now there is no push to step backwards. the focus on these issues here seem very americentric.

homeopathy is not really much of a issue either. with the issues facing nhs its a sideshow and i'd rather some homeopathic options available if it means it increases public support. after all, giving someone sugar pills for something that would clear up on its own, and is cheaper that actual medicine while avoiding the image of an uncaring nhs refusing to treat your life threatening (a cold) malady. labour is just as bad here - corbyn is a fan.

Long story short - too much weighting on irrelevant non issues while ignoring the really egregious views that some have that they are actually in a position to influence. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it's misleading. There's a lengthy section on actual Tory policies, and the section on individuals is titled "wingnuts", strongly implying that they're the eccentrics and outcasts: if anything, they're less marginal than the article suggests. You can hope that they're unlikely to repeal gay rights or abortion. However there have been repeated attempts (including by MPs) to reduce the time limit for abortions and make it harder to get abortions; England still doesn't have abortion on demand but requires the charade of 2 doctors judging it would cause harm to the mother to continue pregnancy[1]. There are increasing protests outside abortion clinics.[2] But that's only semi relevant. As for homeopathy - it's a good surrogate for attitude to science and evidence-based policymaking. If you want to see more homeopathy, I'd suggest you're at the wrong website. If you think there's something else that should be in the article, there's nothing to stop you, but I don't get what you want done - deleting the list of MPs would be bad. --Annanoon (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, none that addresses what i said and does not convince me that these are particularly pressing issues out side of n.i. as homeopathy,i'll say again - its a side show. the nhs has much much bigger issues. no i am not worried about these rights being repealed. its rights derived from the eu i'm more concerned with.
again. i will repeat - its totality of it. the list of mps is fucking huge. it says they are wingnuts, but its half the entire article. it gives the section more weight than it warrants and bar a couple most of them do not need a mention at all - particularly when whats mentioned ignores more relevant criticism - and theres so many listed here its unlikely ever to be current. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Authoritarian wingnuttery?[edit]

I don't think the Conservative party is so authoritarian as the Republican Party of the United States. During Margaret Thatcher's days the Conservatives were authoritarian. But is the current Conservative Party so authoritarian in international standards? I honestly disagree. (However, I accept that the Conservative party is economically laissez-faire. That is why "Libertarian Wingnuttery" is an appropriate classification.)

It is not clear that the British Conservative Party is a social conservative line. Rather, it is just a faction within a political party and a liberal stand over the French Republican Party and the Christian Democratic Union in Germany on the issue of sexual minorities.

I honestly believe that 'Authoritarian Wingnuttery' should be removed. Current Prime Minister Boris Johnson is also not a Trump-class ultra-rightist racist, though he is a populist. In fact, the mainstream liberal parties in East Asia are more conservative and authoritarian in social and cultural issues than the British Conservatives. Nor does it appear to be an authoritarian party by international standards, much more moderate than the U.S. Republican Party.

The bottom line is that Britain's Conservative Party has not deviated much from its center-right bias. Even in the English Wikipedia department, it is rated as a simple center-right. (I may think this because I live in conservative East Asia.)

The UKIP documents, which are crucially more right-wing than the Conservatives, also did not have the category "Authoritarian Wingnuttery." Rather, I think it should be removed from Conservative documents and added to UKIP documents.

Of course I hope you don't misunderstand me. I am not a conservative but I am a supporter of Bernie Sanders. But when it comes to party orientation and category classification, I think we should remain neutral in the opinion of mainstreamers and focus on uncovering the irrationality of the policies that the conservative party is making.

I didn't remove the category because I was afraid that it might be misunderstood as a half month.--BluePink (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

For now, the category was removed. I think it is right to attach that category to UKIP, not the Conservative party, given its social conservative ideology or political position.--BluePink (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

list of mps[edit]

we dont need a list of every tory mps ever. we dont need to document every opinion they have ever had as if it were official tory policy and not something floated once but never went any where. and 'prominent' doesnt mean 'used to be'. needs serious culling.

honestly, i wish the true believers, of the right and left variety, would at least try to pretend they are capable of giving an honest account of uk politics or at least pretend they actually understand it. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I detest these kinds of lists. Heavily reduce or cut entirely, I say! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 12:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
its easier to cut entirely than figure out who to keep. i think i'll go ahead and do that. notable torires can be readded on a case by case basis. people should think about why they are notable and realise, for the purposes of this article, that it means more than 'currently in the news' before they do put anyone back in. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Fuck you, this is petty vandalism. The onus is on you to delete clearly irrelevant stuff. I just added some relevant material about authoritarianism which you deleted. Either sort it or I'll revert your entire edit. --Annanoon (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
it was all irrelevent AMassiveGay (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
and if priti patel required thatt mu?ch column inches she should have her own article 13:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
and no mention of britain unchained? ha AMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't an article on the Conservative Party list prominent Conservative Party politicians? --Annanoon (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


this looks like a potted tory history and a poor one at that. i think its meant to represent current tory policy but im not sure what its purpose is really, when on race it talks more about enoch powell and some arse that misses the point concerning class than, say, the on going windrush scandal.

documenting current policy is always going to be dated imho so should cover should cover more the broadstrokes than anything too in depth on specific policy. historically this should be broken down to 'origins/pre war', 'postwar', 'thatcher, including post thatcher', 'post brexit ie. current policy/thinking'. post brexit is embroiled with the pandemic and is going to a lot more speculative.

as it is i'd delete the lot (i would with our labour party article too) but i just not up to doing the necessary work to replace it, so i'll leave it as it is, obvious wank though it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)