Talk:National Liberal Party (UK)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Politics of the United Kingdom

This redirect 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

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal This redirect 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
	This redirect is supported by Political parties task force.

Relevant

Is it relevant to mention this group with only 25 members in 2007?

Lloyd George

Lloyd George is described on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page as being a "National Liberal" during his tenure 1916-22; is this just a previous use of the name, or was there any relationship between the two? Psmith 09:42, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

They were a different group altogether, though annoyingly the same term is frequently used for both. The Liberals split during the First World War but reunified in 1923. Another split occurred in 1931 and just to confuse things even further a tiny group of Liberals followed Lloyd George (most were members of his family) in complete opposition to the National Government whilst the two main groups remained in government during the general election.

Both groups

Perhaps this article should mention both groups of National Liberals, perhaps with a horizontal border (like above) between them G-Man 00:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First half

The first half of this article is hopeless. It doesn't actually say anywhere which group of Liberals was which, or who led which one. Someone needs to improve it. Thedreamdied 13:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simonites - one to watch out for

There's a major book on the Liberal Nationals due out in a couple of months called "Liberals in Schism: A History of the National Liberal Party" by David Dutton. [1] It will be the first significant work on the party, including its origins, exactly when it became a clear separate party (something that in places at the local level wasn't clear for the entire decade) and its nature in the post war period (when it's traditionally written off as being just being a name used by a few post merger). When it comes out I'll aim to expand the article a bit, but we may want to split the Simonite party into an article in its own right. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any word on this? Also, who were the leaders of the party after 1945, if any? john k (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

This article needs splitting, we shouldn't have three separate entities discussed in the same article. Fences&Windows 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages please

While I think some of the criticism above is over the top, I do agree that it would make more sense to have separate pages, one dealing with the Lloyd George National Liberals of 1922 and another for the later group formed at the time of the National Government in 1931 which eventually merged with the Conservative Party. This makes more sense as the two groups are not connected either in terms of continuity of history or significant overlap of personnel. If we do have two separate pages, the section about the Third Way grouping which has no true connection with the historic Liberal Party, could disappear or the name National Liberal Party - the Third Way, could simply redirect to the main Third Way (UK) page.

Also, the page List of National Liberal Party (UK) MPs deals exclusively with the 1931-1947 entity, which is quite right but some may think it odd not to find the Lloyd George MPs included. If we separate the pages, a new page listing all the MPs elected in 1922 as LG National Liberals might be a good idea.

Hope this helps--Graham Lippiatt (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall go ahead and split the pages.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split - but when this happens, remember that the meta data will have to be updated as well for differentiation in the Election box templates. At the moment there is:

Template:National Liberal Party (UK)/meta/color Content:
Template:National Liberal Party (UK)/meta/shortname Content: {{National Liberal Party (UK, 1931)/meta/shortname}}
Template:National Liberal Party/meta/color Content:
Template:National Liberal Party/meta/shortname Content: {{National Liberal Party (Denmark)/meta/shortname}}

I'd suggest if we're moving the 1922 party info to National Liberal Party (UK, 1922) then we should move the "National Liberal Party" meta data to "National Liberal Party (UK, 1922)" meta data. Cheers Zangar (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only should Lloyd George's group be split off, it is wrong to refer to the group from 1931 to 1948 as 'National Liberals'. They were Liberal Nationals, so referred in all contemporary sources. Their sponsorship was structurally different to the years after the Woolton-Teviot agreement. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]