Talk:New localism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

New localism[edit]

What is this policy...?

  • Speedy deleted, by the looks of it. --fvw* 21:17, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
  • Nope, Mr. I'm too good to sign my name (BMWman) just linked to the wrong capitalization. -- Cyrius| 23:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, in that case, weak Keep. Needs a lot of work though. --fvw* 01:17, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
  • Delete: A substub like this is pretty wretched. "It is a policy" is nothing. Americans could certainly confuse the term with communalism, the new movement toward small communities. It's famous in the UK, but that's all the more reason that a person ought to write more than one sentence or write nothing at all. The people who know it are told less than they know, and the people who don't know it aren't informed at all. Imagine a researcher using Wikipedia, seeing that, and forming an opinion of our quality. Geogre 01:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 'New localism' is a slogan which has been much used in discussions on local government in the UK (where I am a councillor), but no-one can actually agree on what it means save that there would be more power for local councils. This page includes a government speech on their views on it. The New Local Government Network is a think-tank and campaigning group generally allied with the Labour Party which promotes it. Therefore keep and I will try to have a go at it. Dbiv 12:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If rewritten to explain the various views and purposes of the slogan/campaign, then I'm all for keeping it. Geogre 18:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On this basis, keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

So, where's the content? -- Cyrius| 05:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is not neutral[edit]

It reads like a press release or excerpts from a Government Policy document. It has no critical content. For example, as a previous commenter implies, it would be more appropriate to describe 'New Localism' as a (vague) 'concept' or inclination rather than a policy. Another problem is the lack of links to terms-of-art such as 'Best Value' or 'Local:Vision'. Their absence further implies that this article was cut and pasted from another source. It should not be the function of Wikipedia to parrot official government verbiage.

It might be rubbish, but it's not plagiarised[edit]

I wrote this article ages ago as a first (and only) experiment with Wikipedia. I acknowledge some of the weaknesses highlighted in the previous discussion and hope someone else will want to have a go at fixing them. There is plenty of room for improvement. In particular, I was very lazy in linking.

I would, however, like to offer a few words in defence of the piece's neutrality. First, the charge that it was cut and pasted is simply inaccurate. I wrote it myself and I am not affiliated to the government or the Labour party. Others will clearly have their own views as to whether or not the piece is critical enough. Re-reading it after a very long time, I still believe it to be an accurate and balanced description of the way that a number of politicians and policy analysts have applied the concept of new localism.

Perhaps it is a concept rather a policy, but I would still argue that it is an important concept that has had a demonstrable qualitative impact on government and opposition actions. In fact, the importance of the idea to the UK's political debate has probably increased since I first wrote this piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]