Talk:Liberal Party (UK)/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Stats/Maths Suggestion

The graph of popular vote by time is fascinating, but the minor parties get squashed up at the bottom.

A suggestion would be to plot the graph with a log scale on the vertical axis.

That way the bit at the bottom will get 'zoomed in' and so be much clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj manton (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Prepare for Government

I am surprised there is no note of David Steel's famous line. With the footnote that the Liberal's had roughly 50% of the polls at the time.(Halbared 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) Ahh, I see that this is covered in his bio.(Halbared 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Status of the Current Liberal Party

Will 210.49.196.232 please come here to discuss the issue of the existance/non-existance of the Liberal party. See http://www.liberal.org.uk/.

Can I put my oar in and say that the Liberal Party which existed from the c19th to 1988 is indeed defunct, and that the Liberal party which exists now is a new and non-defunct (but rather small) party. There's no grey area about either. --rbrwr

I bow to your expert view. I'd like to know what makes the party currently called the Liberal Party 'new'? Is it the fact that it was 'formed' by non-leading figures in the old Liberal party?

---

It's new because when the old Liberal Party merged with the Social Dems to form what became the LibDems it ceased to exist - thus any Liberal Party formed since is a new party not related to the original Liberal party. 210.49.196.232

---

As I understand it, a two-thirds majority vote of the Liberal Assembly on January 23, 1988, wound up the Liberal Party and transfered its assets to the new S&LDP. This is from Chris Cook, A Short History of the Liberal Party (6th ed, 2002) ISBN 033391838X p.198. There was also a vote of members in which 90% of those who voted (but a bit under 50% of the whole membership) approved the merger.

What I meant when I said "there's no grey area" was if you accept that the new party is new, then it follows from that that there's no grey area. It is perhaps a moot point whether the new party is new or (as they would have it) "continuing".

--rbrwr

---

Hmmm. The grey area has struck back, and we're back to "continuing" rather than "new party". A little NPOV (not to mention a decent article) is obviously called for. I'll see what I can do. --rbrwr

---

Should this article really mention first the tiny current Liberal party, when almost certainly a person looking for this article would be interested in either the original Liberal Party or the present Liberal Democratic Party? john 00:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Was Thorpe offered Home or Foreign Office?

The Jeremy Thorpe article says it was the Home office, while this article maintained Foreign office. What small research I can do on the internet right now suggests that it was the Home office (e.g. see [1]). So I have changed this article to Home office from Foreign office. If anyone has better information feel free to change both articles; they should be consistent. Blorg 14:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everything I've read suggests the Home Office, though why given the rumours and intelligence on Thorpe prevalent in 1974 is beyond me! I've added some stuff from the recent release of Cabinet papers such as the demand by the party (though not Thorpe's own wish) for a new Prime Minister of a coalition. Timrollpickering 06:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Centenary of 1906 election

Is anything being done to mark the centenary of the Liberals' greatest election triumph in 1906? Adam 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Campbell-Bannerman

Campbell-Bannerman's ministry was one of the most brilliant in British history--Hardly NPOV and it doesn't give reasons.--Johnbull 00:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Boer War

This article's analysis of the Liberal Party during the Boer War is grossly inaccurate. The party did not "bravely" go into opposition, nor did Campbell-Bannerman lead it there. The party actually endured a messy three-way split. A Liberal Imperialist faction led by Lord Rosebery and featuring such prominent Liberals as Richard Burdon Haldane, Edward Grey, and H.H. Asquith supported the war effort, while a Pro-Boer faction led by Rosebery's bitter rival, Sir William Harcourt, and John Morley, an important follower of Gladstone, opposed the war. Campbell-Bannerman was left somewhere in the middle with a moderate group that was more concerned with party unity than wartime rhetoric. Campbell-Bannerman did finally make his Pro-Boer sentiments known with his "Methods of Barbarism" speech, but he certainly never led the Pro-Boer faction and never fully divorced himself from the Liberal Imperialists, particularly fellow moderate Asquith. This inaccuracy needs to be removed. Indrian 04:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"New Liberal Reforms"

Should there not be an expanded section or seperate article on the 1906-1914 reforms of the Liberal goverment - at least a list of the acts? Maybe there already is one, but I couldn't find it. These are extremely significant in British Social history and certainly ought to be covered by Wikipedia. Does anyone know any more about the status of this area?

There's a sentence about these reforms in the 'Liberal Zenith' section, feel free to expand it.--Johnbull 18:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

British English

Considering that this is about an institution in the UK, British English seems more appropriate than US English. Please refrain form applying US English to the page. Freedomlinux 01:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideology

It might be a good idea to include a section on what the Liberal Party actually stood for. And where it drew support from etc. G-Man ^? 01:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with G-Man, I think their stance would be a useful addition M.a.stephens87 11:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins

"The leading Peelite was William Ewart Gladstone, who was a zealous reforming Chancellor of the Exchequer in most of these governments."

Does any one else think the word 'zelous' has some what negative conitations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.2.100 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)