Talk:Independent Alliance (UK)

Political position=far left

This quintet is undoubtedly the farthest left group in parliament. They should be listed as such in the infobox. 9toedfreak (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It being the most left wing of all parties/alliances in the UK Parliament does not make it itself far left. Frankly, people should let go of these stupid and oversimplistic left-right labels. Jang317 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What specifically makes them a left-wing organisation exactly? They have some policies that the left section of the aisle would support, they have some left-wing & former Labour party members, but they're not all Corbynistas (despite the fact that one of them is Corbyn himself!). Alssa1 (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? That's what matters. 9toedfreak, do you have any RS calling them "far left"? Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If they were a in norway or france, they would be considered centre-left, its only because the political centre has shifted so far right. 92.40.218.223 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

An interesting hypothesis, but not really relevant here... Alssa1 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

For me, it looks like this - this group wants to abolish the two-child benefit cap (in fact, this is why its members were suspended from the Labour Party - because they voted to abolish it), they want to keep the winter fuel allowance, and they state their opposition to 'austerity and inequality'. Most important matter for this group is, however, Gaza - they want to suspend arms sales and supplies to Israel.

Are these left-wing policies? They are certainly majority views amongst the left. But the only thing that will allow us to describe the party as left-wing is a reliable source that says so. Currently we only have GB News, and we'd be hard-pressed to call it reliable.

There's little we can do but wait on more coverage for the group and see if their political alignment is discussed. Brat Forelli🦊 22:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A source that I saw, at least hints at left-wing alignment. 5Pillars has this:

The aim of the formal arrangement is to give the MPs (who are all left-leaning) greater opportunities to ask questions and hold the government to account on behalf of their constituents.

Is 5Pillars reliable? It is used as a source in numerous Wiki articles such as Hamza Yusuf, 2022 Leicester unrest, Sylvia Hermon and Humza Yousaf. So it certainly seems that way. Brat Forelli🦊 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there should not be a Political Position stated in the infobox for the indefinite future.

For one thing I'm not entirely sure if a technical group can really be described to have a political alignment in the same way we would ascribe to an individual, or to a political party with a more homogenous political programme. That aside, the perennial reporting of the group as left-wing has only come from either definitely unreliable sources, or sources with uncertain reliability.

I believe it would be better to wait for either a book about the technical grouping, though of course that's likely a ways off. Failing that, I believe waiting to see if multiple reliable perennial sources describe it as such. Untill then, I think it should be left alone to avoid precluding such texts (ideally with a hidden-note for editors explaining this, and to refer to the talk page) Bejakyo (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe left-wing is the correct designation. Building off a similar point by Jang317, I would point out that the Democratic Party is the furtherest left of all political parties represented in the US Congress. Yet it would not be accurate to label the Democratic Party as left-wing. If we want to update the infobox so that we can quickly inform readers, perhaps we should start by filling out the ideology field (as opposed to the political position field) first. I suspect that we can probably reach a consensus on that sooner. ROADKILL (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Rebranding as "Collective"

Corbin announced he wanted to form a party(probably with these guys and presumably other candidates endorsed by "The Muslim Vote) presumably it will be like the Turkish DENK party in the Netherlands and likely split the Labour vote if not replace them entirely.

Besides a few articles there's scant info on this but it's highly likely that such a party would be the successor to "Independent Alliance" 94.194.201.102 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Over-reference to the child-benefit-cap-seven

Three times in this short article this group of MPs elected as Labout are referred to. They have no collective presence, they have stated no response, collective or individual, to the IA, they have never intimated in the slightest that they are inclined to become part of the IA. The IA was formed without reference to them, and while it might welcome them, it is in no way dependent on them. They are over-referenced in this article to such an extent that Brat Forelli writes above describing the IA as that group.

I propose that such reference is scaled right back. Kevin McE (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

Quinnnnnby The Guardian article says "announced she is resigning from the party to join Jeremy Corbyn’s Independent Alliance", they key words here are "to join", i.e. implying she hasn't done it yet. It doesn't explicitly say she is now a member, so fails WP:SYNTH.

Also, the infobox is very specifically called "Infobox political party", not "political organisation" or "political group", i.e. it is specifically meant for political parties, of which this is not. Helper201 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201 I read it as 'in order to'. Also, I have found another source (1) which says she is now a part of it.
RE: The infobox, political party infoboxes have been used for a number of political groups where relevant and I believe there is enough precedence to allow for this (especially many of the early 20th century groups were much more informal than current political parties, but they have used infoboxes). Quinby (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Quinnnnnby, okay, that Birmingham source seems like a good indication of her membership. Regarding the infobox, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Just because something is done elsewhere doesn't make it correct. There has already been confusion over whether or not this is a party with many people, having the infobox only further complicates that. If the template were meant for non-parties, it would be labelled as such and not specially for political parties in its title. Helper201 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201 I think the page contents makes it clear enough it isn't a party. The page in my view would be much less useful without an infobox, it is a neater & more concise way of displaying the information. If there are non-party infoboxes that could be used instead that would work, I'm just not familiar with what the other possibilities are. Quinby (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Quinnnnnby, I see no problem with not having an infobox. The key information is clearly and simply displayed without it. Alternatively, we could use Template:Infobox organization. Helper201 (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy to see swap to that Quinby (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I have re-jigged the article so it no longer claims Sultana as (yet) part of the group, but it notes her interest in starting a new party related to it. I think I have reflected what reliable sources are actually saying. Bondegezou (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)