Talk:Tories (British political party)

Party vs. faction

There seems to be no good reason to be squeamish about using the term "party" to refer to either of the two political organizations that operated under that name in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The term "Tory Party" was frequently used in the contemporary political discourse, and referred to a group of people sharing common political principles, as well as a smaller group of politicians operating under a common leader, debating and (generally) voting together in the Parliament. This is close enough to the modern definition of "party" as not to require further comment.

The term "faction" was also used of the Tories in contemporary literature, but the words "faction" and "party" were not used in distinctive or contrasting ways at the time. At the present, however, "faction" may imply a splinter or dissident group of a larger party, and it seems inappropriate to use it with reference to the historical Tories. RandomCritic (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will the article on the Whig party be moved to "British Whig party"?--Britannicus (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually think we should just have one centralised article called "Toryism", the title before was quite messy and as it is now it isn't too much better IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better to separate the ideology from the party. I think the pages on both parties should be moved to "Tory (British political party)" and "Whig (British political party)".--Britannicus (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about having two articles named "Toryism" (ideology in general), "Tories" (for this). - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to "grouping" to meet the objection of ambiguity of faction (splinter-group). The sense in which "party" is used today makes it misleading to call them a party. BillMasen (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why misleading? Unless you are talking about confusion with "birthday parties" or "pyjama parties", which is unlikely! Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and moved the page to "party". The article uses the word and I cannot see any real conflict with other modern uses of the word. Jubilee♫clipman 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On the article titled the Tory Party William Pitt the Elder is placed as Tory leader for 1784-1801. This is odd as the ministries he led until at least 1794 were Whig in character. Robin Harris argues in his book The Conservatives a History that the 3rd Duke of Portland was the leader of the Tories and other Conservative Whigs. So I petition that for the 1784 and 1790 elections for Pitt to be substituted for Portland. 1TetsuoSSJ (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming of articles

BTW, for the sake of consistency a change to the name of this article should be mirrored in a change to the name of the article Whig (British political faction) (which still uses the silly faction thing). What is wrong with "party"? (See comment immediately above.)Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd moved this one to party, so I moved the tory one to grouping for the sake of consistency.

What is a modern political party? It is a permanent organisation with paying members, structure, a single manifesto, and a single leadership. The whigs and tories had none of these things, and people unfamiliar with this political history might assume that they did if we call them parties.

It is true that they called themselves parties, but they also used several other names for themselves which are not at all ambiguous. Why not use one of their non-ambiguous names? BillMasen (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Under this definition, most American political parties (including the Democrats and Republicans) are not "parties":

• Members of the Democratic and Republican parties do not pay dues or membership fees; they are identified as members by voting (free of charge) in party elections
• The structure is very loose, to the extent that the national parties are little more than umbrella organizations for the fifty state parties
• The only time that the parties produce a "single manifesto" is in their quadrennial party platforms, which are promptly ignored by everyone in the party, including the Presidential candidate;
• Except when a party controls the White House, there is no identifiable single party leader.

I'm curious: should we move, for instance, Democratic Party (United States) to Democrats (United States political grouping)? RandomCritic (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved again

Explanation: I moved Whig back to "party" and previously moved Tory to the same for the following reasons:
1. The word "grouping" is rarely used in either of the actual articles to describe either the Tories or the Whigs, and even then only as part of the formation history.
2. The word "party", on the other hand, is used consistently throughout both articles to describe both groups of politicians. eg A few decades later, a new Tory party would rise..., The first Tory party could trace its principles and politics..., The Whigs are often described as one of the two original political parties (the other being the Tories), etc etc.
3. The actual distinction between the modern word "Party" and older uses is not addressed in either article.
4. Most modern readers will not understand the meaning of the word "grouping" and will misunderstand "faction".
5. Modern readers will understand "Party" in the wide context of "a group of politicians sharing common policies and working together in opposition to other such groups".
6. The word "Party" was used by both groups to label themselves long before subscriptions came into force.

Therefore, I have moved Whig back to "party". The Tory article is also under "party".

Note: Perhaps further changes should be proposed via Wikipedia:Requested moves? This will avoid edit warring!

Jubilee♫clipman 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been at wikipedia long enough to recognise the tactic of reverting to your version, and then recommending the drawn-out formal process. I would move it again if I thought it was right to do so. However, I'm clearly in the minority, so I won't bother to argue, even though I find all of your reasons to be specious. BillMasen (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the move. Faction makes either sound like a small group within a larger body but the Whigs and Tories were parties of their own standing. Granted, they were not parties like today's but they had a fierce rivalry and were political parties in that they coalesced around distinctive principles.--Britannicus (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Status of James, Duke of York

In the section on the exclusion crisis, James is referred to as "heir apparent". This is incorrect as he was only ever heir presumptive. The key point is that Charles II could- in theory at least- have produced a legitimate male heir who would have overtaken James in the line of succession. I don't think this needs any discussion so I'm going to be bold and just change it. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tories (British political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313085926/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Update and Expand

I was looking through this and I started to make notes on all the things that are either factually wrong or misleading but there's too many; what I'd like to do is to start, explain the changes and I'm happy to make corrections and as when raised. It seems a lot easier to do it that way than argue individual points. It also needs more references.

Any objections?

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Silly addition

Someone's tried to be funny and added a comment about modern Conservative party policy at the end of the first section. I'm afraid I'm not tech savvy enough to fix it, sorry. Rowanwphillips (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Table

The table in the "Electoral performance" section needs modification: it states that Henry Seymour Conway, a Rockingham Whig, as a Tory leader for the 1770 and 1780 elections. Another Rockingham Whig, Edmund Burke, is listed as a Tory leader for the elections of 1780, 1784 and 1790. For the 1784 and 1790 elections the table lists the Whig leader the Duke of Portland, along with Burke, as the leaders of the Tory Party. In the article H. T. Dickinson is quoted as saying: "All historians are agreed that the Tory party...ceased to be an organized party by 1760". Perhaps the table after 1754 should therefore be removed?--Britannicus (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Improve the clarity in the History?

In the first history section pertaining to the Civil War, I struggled to get the sense of what the original party's purpose or goals were, why they banded together. There's statements re. the divide, but it's not clear what side the Tories were on. There's mention of how the Whigs coalesced as pro-Protestant, pro-Parliament - did the Tories form as an oposition to that, or where they a faction within the Whigs? There's a mention of a prominent Irish Tory, but no explanation of how this nascent party had Irish representation . Is it feasible to have some clarification here?Chumpih (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes Tory refers to Jacobite rising of 1745. Sometimes Tory refers to a conservative fraction within Whig under Whig Supremacy. Sometimes Tory refers a party descendant from Liberal Unionist Party. But these three groups has no connection. Without a common goal, without a positive tone. Their link is missing. It seems to assumed that reader has understand its underlying context (if existed). --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"Tory party" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tory party and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 20 § Tory party until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gingermead (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Confusing attribution of 'Tory'

Wiki as a encyclopedia, I wish to show how 'Tory' is used in confusing way to obstruct non-UK readers to understand English history. For example William Pitt the Younger was labelled as Tory, but he should be more properly conservative Whig because he at least self-identify as a Whig. Frederick North, Lord North has similar problem. It seems that those people did not **voluntarily** joined the fraction of Tory, but rather a view of descendants.

I also ocurr with Chumpih at 2020. What goal this fraction try to achieve? This article lacks a positive tone. There are so many great statesmen attributed to be 'Tory', which of them have a lot of achievement, but the fraction itself has no goal or try to achieve something is too difficult to understand. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)