Socialism Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Garageland66, you cannot just omit those who are commonly branded with the term years later because you believe it's 'disrespectful', regardless if you consider it pejorative or not. Everything else you modified is completely unsubstantiated, which is unsurprising from someone associated with the Trade Unions as denoted on your page. Attractel (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Garageland66, I see you've decided to continue with your reversals without talking on this page - I know you've read my comment because you've quickly removed your declared association with trade union(s) from your user page after I denoted your probable bias. That's quite sly, wouldn't you say. Attractel (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the removal of 'trade unionist' (which was not sly but pragmatic); being transparent about my political position was clearly a mistake. Most others, including Attractel, are not nearly as honest. Instead of trying to second guess the political persuasion of contributers, how about we stick to trying to get as near as possible to an objective description of a term such as hard left. (Garageland66 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Given the recent edit-warring and ref stripping here, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Garageland66_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley has edited this page but is not contributing to the Talk page. It cannot be right to smear current politicians with the Hard left label. Yet this is being dismissed as an edit war. Unless those names have the description Hard left used on their Wiki profile pages it is surely wrong that their names are included here. What is the consensus? (Garageland66 (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Also WP:OSE, a corollary of which is that sometimes other stuff doesn't exist.

It does not matter, for our purposes here, whether Ken Livingstone is described as "hard left" on that page or not. We go by whether an objective sourcing (or the best we can do from independent RS) describes him thus. Then, we see about making both pages accurately reflect how he's described.

Incidentally, he is of course described as being "situated on the party's hard left" within the first paragraph of that article, just as we'd expect. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So leave Ken Livingstone there and remove the others. Also the sources are not objective. They're mostly partisan publications. (Garageland66 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus to compromise on this. Leave Livingstone in the article (however the Hard left reference on His page is unsourced) and at least remove Corbyn? No one has dared put Hard left on his Wiki profile. It can't be objectively referenced as only media opponents use the pejorative to smear him. Can we compromise? Is there a consensus? (Garageland66 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way that all other editors seem to be reverting your blanket removals, then no. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also could we remove the Breitbart references? Breitbart is a right wing news source. Hardly an objective point of reference for the left! (Garageland66 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart's in there because it's a right wing source. Some of the others are theoretical texts on Marxism. It's a range. You can find sources describing them as "hard left" (and pretty much the same group of people) from across the spectrum. If you think that each name needs a source from academia, the left UK press, centre UK press and right-wing press, then go for it. That's quite a lot for a generally undisputed point though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy there has only been one other editor aside from you and me. And the third editor has made clear his views on the left and trade unionism? I'm politely asking for a compromise. Corbyn must surely be removed. He is only described as Hard right by opponents and others seeking to undermine him (Garageland66 (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what's my views on the left and trade unionism? I've never commented on trade unions or the left other than pointing out your potential bias as a self-declared trade unionist yourself. It's you who believes that Breitbart should be removed as a source because you believe it's "biased". If we started removing all sources from left and right-wing sources from Wikipedia because they're "biased" to one political viewpoint, there would be no Wikipedia at all. Furthermore, as seen over the past few years, there has clearly been a silent consensus among the editors that the information you're trying to blanket remove is indeed acceptable and relevant which is why it wasn't previously disputed. You're a one-man band. Attractel (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As Garageland66 is no longer replying above, I'll call for any opposition to make themselves known. I would like the edit to be reverted back to the original as seen in my protected edit request below. These names have been commonly associated with hard-left for decades. There are probably hundreds of instances of where they're regarded as hard-left in reputable media sources. If there's any opposition, please make yourself known - also list the reason(s) as to why you oppose the edit being reverted. Attractel (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem right to categorise current political figures as hard left. The term is not used in academia. It's not used by any of the listed political figures themselves and its hardly impartial to use such a controversial term to describe such people especially in the light of the current Labour leadership contest. Describing Corbyn as hard left is not a matter of fact. It's surely a matter of subjective political interpretation by elements in political debate that are opposed to Corbyn. Unless there is a consensus to keep these names, I suggest removing them. (Garageland66 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• No one is being branded as hard-left by anyone on Wikipedia. It's a statement of fact, and has been agreed upon for many years that those individuals were the ones branded as such by the media - which is entirely relevant as that's where the term sprung up. We wouldn't just remove something Hitler said about the jews, because you believe it's offensive. That's history, and it's being documented here on Wikipedia. Attractel (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poor analogy. If Hitler referred to the Labour left as the hard left it would not make it fact. Nor does such a description by a minority of the mass media. (Garageland66 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You just don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference: We're relaying the history of where the term hard-left originated from and who were commonly branded as the term by the media, whether they are that term or not. The Wikipedia article is not calling them hard left whatsoever, and therefore you have no reason to delete it unless you're actively seeking trouble from Wikipedia staff. Attractel (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No page exists for Hard Right. Hard right redirects to Far Right. Can I suggest that the same is done with Hard Left. The Hard Left page be put into the Far Left page. Is there a consensus on this? (Garageland66 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Hard Right has never been defined as being anything other than interchangeable with the far-right. However, the Hard Left has been, as denoted in the very Wikipedia article you're trying to redirect. The only reason you don't like this article Garageland66, is because you've continuously tried to remove names which were commonly branded with the term which are entirely relevant to where it originated from; the media. No one is saying they are that term as described nevertheless. I'm sorry, but not you may not like everything on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it's going to be removed. Attractel (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting removal. I'm suggesting merging it with Far left just as has happened with the Hard right. Surely, for reasons of impartiality, this would be the right thing to do (Garageland66 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)) Garageland66 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reasons of impartiality? That makes no sense. It doesn't need to be redirected or merged, because the Hard Left--in Britain at least-- has a sharp distinction from 'far left'. Attractel (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to ongoing edit warring this page has been protected for a week to encourage discussion rather than continuing to revert. Any further edit warring after the protection expires will be viewed very dimly. Stifle (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following:

Politicians commonly branded as hard left in the Labour Party included Derek Hatton, Ken Livingstone,^[1] Dennis Skinner^[2] and Eric Heffer.^[3]

Should be reverted back to (replaced) with:

Politicians associated with the hard left in the Labour Party included Diane Abbott,^[4][5] Jeremy Corbyn,^[5][6] Ken Livingstone,^[7] Dennis Skinner^[8] and Eric Heffer.^[9]

The reason being:

The original version should be restored because there was no consensus to change it in the first place. And it has not been changed for many years without anyone disputing it either. There is zero consensus for it to be the current version as it is now.

The only person disputing to omit a few names was Garageland66 as seen on the talk page - he's the only person who wanted to change it, and the individual who kept reverting it back to his version without using the talk page first. No one else over the years have disputed it, and me and Andy Dingley have evidently been opposing its' change.

The article was protected on the version of Garageland66's edit without consensus because he was reported by another editor with the support of myself for changing it in the first place and continuing to revert edits back to his version with clear opposition and no consensus. I refrained from reverting his edit again because I was hoping the admin would do something about it. It should be changed back to the original version of which we can then try to reach a consensus to change it.

Attractel (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined.

1. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. See m:The Wrong Version.
2. The page does not have to be reverted in order for anyone to start discussing the potential changes (and nobody has started any discussion yet).
3. Protected pages are only edited where the edit is uncontroversial or supported by consensus.

Get talking. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usual arrogance of an inept admin, I see. See #Those commonly branded as 'Hard left' for a section that has already been discussing this for a few weeks. You and Garageland's unreferenced version has no support, other than you two. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Andy. This is utterly absurd. Whether it's an endorsement or not, there was no consensus to change anything in the first place. We've already been discussing. The arrogance is astonishing to say the least. Once it's no longer protected, I will revert it back myself - there was no consensus to change it, and the only person engaging in an edit war was Garageland66, which may I add, edited it after I created a topic on the talk page and only decided to reply once I reverted it yet again. Furthermore, Garageland66 hasn't even replied to me. He's no longer talking whatsoever. I suppose I should just talk to a brick wall then, shall I. Attractel (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem now is to decide what the consensus is. There only seem to be two people opposing my changes. The article originally did not have names such as Jeremy Corbyn. There is no consensus in the media to describe someone like Corbyn as Hard left. And the term is certainly not used in academia. So to describe the current leader of a large mainstream party as Hard left is simply wrong and can surely not be allowed on this a website which prides itself on impartiality. The origins of the term lie in the right wing media who use it to smear political opponents. To give it such recognition is to give credence to this media smear. (Garageland66 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I have tried to compromise. I've returned the name Derek Hatton to the article. I've used Attractel's phrase "commonly branded as". I haven't reversed the omission of the word pejorative although it is still my contention that this is, self-evidently, a pejorative used only by British media opponents of the radical left. I compromised on leaving Ken Livingstone in because his Wiki profile does describe him as Hard left. I've also compromised on leaving some of those highly questionable and highly subjective references in. So I can only hope that others are willing to compromise so we arrive at a consensus. (Garageland66 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

It is also my hope that Hard left be placed in the Far left article. This would achieve parity with the Hard right which redirects to the Far right. (Garageland66 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

One other point; it does seem very wrong to leave such a respected figure as Dennis Skinner in, but I'll have to take some of these smears in order to compromise and achieve a consensus. I hope others are willing to do the same. (Garageland66 (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The article should stay much as it was, with inclusions and references. To address your points:

• Hard left is far from a synonym for Far-left. As you point out yourself, "hard left" has generally been applied as a pejorative term by right-wing newspapers. It has been applied to members on the left wing of a fairly centrist Labour party. These people are not "far left" by the standards of much of European politics. Most oddly, you are trying to merge Diane Abbott into "far-left" with this approach, yet you objected strongly to the Communist Party of Britain being labelled as such. Diane Abbott is on the left wing of the Labour party for sure, but she's no Communist.
• The term should not be restricted to the Labour Party. Otherwise it's difficult to cover such prominent hard left UK politicians as Hatton, Galloway or Terry Fields. Maybe current or past members of the PLP would be workable.
• We agree that the term has developed pejoratively. Yet it's a feeble insult. Those subject to it have never hidden their leftward position. Are you willing to tell Dennis Skinner that's he's not up to being part of the "hard" left? I think that's the way one gets one's head acquainted with the pavement.
• I'm equivocal on Corbyn's inclusion here. He's left wing, he's consistently and honourably left wing, but how "hard" left is he? Economically he's not as far left as he's usually portrayed. Sourcing will of course now support anything from "Hard left" to "Spawn of Satan" and "threat to Your Security!!".

You seem to think than "Hard left" is incompatible with "respected". Why? For a professed trade unionist, you seem unwilling to stand with a socialist principle. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is your problem Garageland. You believe that you're making a compromise by not omitting Dennis Skinner from the list because he's 'respected' - whether they're 'respected' or not is irrelevant. Are they commonly branded and/or referred to as hard-left in the media? If so, there's no need to remove any of names and I still propose to reimplement those you continuously reverted. You shed light on the fact that there's only two of us opposing you, but I would consider those who left it untouched for a few years as being a silent consensus. There's no real reason to remove anything. You believe that they should be removed because it's considered 'slander' and 'disrespectful' - but then again, you're a self-declared trade unionist after all. Your edits are motivated by a strong bias (something the admins seem to support.) Attractel (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hard left is far from a synonym for Far-left." I agree and so I'm proposing not that the pages be merged but that there is a subsection on the Far left page for the Hard right. This would deal with your point about Diane Abbott.
• "We agree that the term has developed pejoratively." So can we include this point in the article?
• On your point about Skinner, on the left recognize the term is a media constructed pejorative. Just as Hard democrat, Hard liberal or Hard progressive would be pejoratives. The term "Hard" self-evidently is designed to give a political perspective a negative connotation.
• "I'm equivocal on Corbyn's inclusion here." So can we agree to leave the name out?
• Attractel appears to be unwilling to compromise. But on the point about names of politicians, those names were not, in fact, in the original article. (Garageland66 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

There's nothing to compromise with, Garageland66. You want to remove names simply because you don't like that they're there - I won't compromise with editors who have biased motives like yourself. Also, you seem to have replied to me using quotes from Andy Dingley -- please reply to the right people next time. There are signatures above. I'm going to cease concerning myself about this. It's quite clear that this admin bureaucracy is killing Wikipedia. I'll let Andy Dingley do the compromising with you on my behalf. I'll just let it go. Attractel (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an attempt to add the name Jeremy Corbyn without any discussion. I'm willing to have the discussion here. I would assert that the use of the term hard left is only used as a pejorative by those in the media opposed to the left. To use it to describe the current Labour Party leader is to smear his reputation. There are plenty of places where you can do that if you want. However hard left is NOT recognised in academia. As someone who holds a PhD in political science I can certainly vouch for this. Wikipedia is not the place to smear public figures but to provide objective information.

Can I suggest that if it is being claimed that the term applies to Jeremy Corbyn, then can you add it to his main Wikipedia page. There are few people discussing this page; but there is considerable interest in the main Jeremy Corbyn page. If using the term hard left on his main page is accepted then I, for one, would be willing to accept it on this page. There have been a number of discussions and compromises but there's been no new discussion on this. Can I ask that those want to change this page wait for the conclusion of a discussion. And one last point of information; Jeremy Corbyn was not originally included on this page. (Garageland66 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Some seem to be intent on an edit war by including (and thereby smearing) the names of serving shadow cabinet members. Should Nigel Farage and George Osborne be added to the Hard right page? If not, then can the same respect be shown to serving leaders of the Labour Party. At least propose and discuss suggested names on the talk page first. (Garageland66 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If there's a place for this article at all on Wikipedia, there's certainly a place for Corbyn in it (and probably John McDonnell too). Whilst he's spent much of his career under the radar, I can't think of anyone that's had the descriptor applied to them more frequently by a wider range of publications over the last year, including in articles which are not polemical in tone and comments from those generally considered to be left of centre. To be honest if "only used by media outlets not actively supporting the cause" was a criteria for excluding a term from WP we'd have no article on the far right - also commonly applied as a pejorative term - either. UKIP *is* described as "radical right" in its article, because various reliable sources describe it as that (and similarly, the party's supporters are very unhappy and claim it's bias on the part of all the sources). Osborne isn't described as "hard right" by Wikipedia because he isn't described by a WP:RS as "hard right", and the label doesn't really exist in UK political discourse anyway Dtellett (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly the inclusion of the term hard left in the Jeremy Corbyn article has been overturned. The alleged "reliable source" was rejected. I will therefore go ahead and remove both source and the reference to Corbyn from this article also. If anyone is still disputing this then I propose that you contribute to the Jeremy Corbyn talk page in the section where this is discussed. (Garageland66 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Stating that hard left is a pejorative used by conservative elements and using this source would breach WP:PRIMARY which states "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The source does not state that hard left is a pejorative used by conservative elements and therefore the statement counts as original research. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this and redirected the page because there's no clear definition of the term anywhere that I can see. It is hopelessly vague label that applies to anything the newspapers want to paint as extreme. The alternative would be deletion I reckon --ℕ ℱ 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look at this page. I know very little about British politics, but it seems to me that word pairs like hard/soft, far/center, extreme/moderate are applied equally to left and right to place people or groups on some political spectrum. I would want to see more sourcing that specifically says "hard left" is/was a thing in its own right in British politics, not just a common adjective applied to a political label to distinguish the position of two camps within a political party at some moment in time. There is room for discussing better wording, alternately an AfD or a merge request might be the next step.--agr (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this ought to be on the Far left as a subsection. Wouldn't that count as a merger? (Garageland66 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

agr, surely the statement 'The'hard left' is a pejorative used used by conservative elements in the media' cannot be backed by these sources:^{[1] [2]}. The first is a relatively obscure book which may be written by a biased author and the second's usage would be in contravention of WP:NOR.Reaganomics88 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: I don't think it is a thing in its own right at all. It is entirely vague and interchangeable with every other such 'extremist' pejorative label. I did redirect the page, but this was reverted. So can anyone demonstrate this is an actual thing in it's own right? I suspect there would be a consensus for deletion or merge. --ℕ ℱ 19:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge seems appropriate, maybe to British Left or History of the socialist movement in the United Kingdom. --agr (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Far-left politics, or do you think that too should be merged/split? --ℕ ℱ 00:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to have this page as a sub-section of the Far left page. Someone's recently added the SWP, AWL, SPEW and Left Unity (which could hardly be considered Hard left) but all of these are on the Far left page. So some sort of merger would make sense. (Garageland66 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: Can you please answer my query. Reaganomics88 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Far left has some of the same issues as this page, a vague, somewhat negative label for a political category with no clear test for membership, so I suggested pages with more specific content. But I would not oppose merging with Far left as a start.--agr (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: Sorry, let me clarify, presumably, as an admin, you would be able to provide an answer to this query: "agr, surely the statement 'The'hard left' is a pejorative used used by conservative elements in the media' cannot be backed by these sources:^{[3] [4]}. The first is a relatively obscure book which may be written by a biased author and the second's usage would be in contravention of WP:NOR." --Reaganomics88 (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "which may be written by a biased author" is the best argument you can make, I don't think you are going to convince anyone here. It is a reputable work available in libraries across the world. --ℕ ℱ 18:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking User:ArnoldReinhold actually. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's two points to that. You don't get to pick and choose who can discuss improvements to articles on talkpages. Secondly, it was me that added the source you are questioning. I think I've fairly rebutted your spurious argument. Anything more to add? --ℕ ℱ 19:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only that you should calm down and try not to overreact, take up yoga maybe?--Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. My role as an admin does not give me any extra weight in editorial decisions. I do have a role in encouraging civility and would suggest the the question at hand does not require tempers to be raised. But as to the question asked, I speak only as an editor with some experience and very little knowledge of British political usage. I don't think the Sun source carries much weight in this. It is only one example of the term's usage. The Wilson book, on the other hand, obscure or not, only confirms common sense understanding, at least on this side of the Atlantic, of terms like hard- or far- as attached to political labels. I suspect additional sources would not be hard to find. That said I think the lede sentence might better begin something like "Hard left is a political label that characterizes a person, group or idea as being at an extreme end of the political spectrum. Like hard-right or far-right it can carry negative connotations, and is often used that way used by adherents of the opposing persuasion." That would be well supported by the Wilson source. Using the contentious label "pejorative" to characterize another label, "hard left", seems contrary to Wikipedia guideline WP:LABEL. Again I'm not convinced that "hard left" is a well defined term as opposed to a noun amplified by an adjective and would therefore prefer to merge this article rather than argue about the lede.--agr (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's rather ironic to claim that pejorative is contentious when the very term hard left is highly contentious. (Garageland66 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Reaganomics88 has stated "Reverting removal of sourced an relevant content, if you really have time to spend endlessly trolling on Wikipedia then I feel sorry for you." This is someone clearly opposed to the left and determined to have the description of socialist elements as Hard Left a matter of fact rather than opinion. (Garageland66 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"Someone clearly opposed to the left", hmm, interesting. So you think that articles about the left should only be written by the left? Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is Luke Akehurst doing on here? He's a solitary figure in the Labour Party and a centre right critic of the Labour Left. Why on earth would his views be considered of any validity or worth? He's not an MP and he's certainly no academic. (Garageland66 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I agree and have removed this. --ℕ ℱ 21:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Centre-right critic of the Labour Left"-Oh, dear I am afraid you are simply deluded. You actually think that a Labour activist is centre-right? --Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]