Contents

Talk:One-nation conservatism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One-nation conservatism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

	One-nation conservatism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 15, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

"a paternalistic form" - straight from an ignorant essay written by a 14-year old.

This page is not an encyclopedia article but an opinion piece. It lacks objectivity and is far too informal in style.

Indeed. Look at the juvenile term 'a paternalistic form' ...

Yes, I think the penultimate paragraph in particular needs some work. -- Joolz 01:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In his 2012 Conference Speech, Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, sought to claim the phrase and apply it to Labour. It has been used by the Labour Party ever since.

It has been used for four months! It's a bit too soon to say that it has been used 'ever since' as though it is a successor to 'New Labour'. At least wait until the election or a change in leader.

Does Disraeli get his subtitle for _Sybil_ from Plato _Republic_ Book 8 chapter 7 -- 551 D  ? Socrates says : That such a city should of necessity be not one, but two, a city of the rich & a city of the poor, dwelling together & always plotting against one another.  ? (Shorey in Loeb)