Jump to content

Talk:1945 United Kingdom general election: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 8: Line 8:


__TOC__
__TOC__

== Result detail part - "Standing" ==

I have to assume most British understands what "Standing" means in this context. But although I watched most of BBC's recent Election Night (through Danish [[DR2]]) just last week, I can't be certain of its meaning here. I might guess though, perhaps not all parties participated in all constituencies. But this doesn't really explain why the largest parties, Labour and Tories not even have a candidate in every constituency. However hopeless result the party in question made in the previous election. So I'm back to uncertainty, and would very much get some help regarding the word "standing" in this context. [[User:Boeing720|Boeing720]] ([[User talk:Boeing720|talk]]) 21:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
: Standing is short for candidates nominated. Running could equally be used. The word Standing will be widely understood in the UK in this context. The Conservatives contested the election in alliance with others including the Liberal Nationals. There was also some electoral arrangements between the left of centre parties to not run against each other. This explains why no party ran a full slate. [[User:Graemp|Graemp]] ([[User talk:Graemp|talk]]) 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

::This was still an era when parties did not stand everywhere - in some cases parties either had no local organisation (there's a tale of how a father and son held a two person meeting in the Western Isles creating a Conservative Association and appointing themselves as chairman and candidate respectively) or had pacts with another party (there were stll some areas with pacts between Conservatives and Sinclairite Liberals) or found the local MP sufficiently agreeable to not oppose them. Additionally the Labour Party wasn't organised in Northern Ireland at this time. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|talk]]) 15:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
::The Conservative Party didn't organise in Northern Ireland either, while in Churchill's own Woodford seat Labour and Liberal parties abstained from contesting, leaving one independent candidate opposing Churchill.[[User:Cloptonson|Cloptonson]] ([[User talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 19:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


== National Liberals ==
== National Liberals ==

Revision as of 15:35, 15 September 2022

National Liberals

In my view, the infobox on this article ought to contain the National Liberals: for one thing, they had only one fewer MP than the Sinclairite Liberals; for another, they had more MPs than the Sinclairite Liberals in 1945 (edit - I mean 1935); for another, their MPs are counted as a part of the Tory party in the 1950 infobox because they had, by that point, merged with the Conservatives at constituency level (if I remember correctly); for another, they had 11 MPs, which is more than many parties that are included in election infoboxes, such as the Lib Dems at the 2015 election. However, 86.184.5.236 removed them in January, and when I reinstated them the other day, 86.152.221.76 has twice reverted my edits. I have explained my rationale (which I have outlined again here) in the edit summaries, whereas 86.152.221.76 has left their summaries blank.

I do not wish to engage in an WP:edit war. Could 86.152.221.76 explain themself, please, and could anyone else who has an opinion comment, so that we can have a consensus on this rather trivial, and rather obvious, point? If no other comments, I will revert again in two days. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was 1947 that the Conservatives and Liberal Nationals agreed an effective merger of organisations, so that from 1950 onwards they should be regarded as one and the same (even though a variety of party labels continued to be used at election time). As far as Wikipedia's General Election pages are concerned, this provides a reason why we may want to treat the Liberal Nationals of 1945 differently from the National Liberals of 1950. I can see no logical reason to treat the 1945 Liberal Nationals any differently from the 1935 Liberal Nationals. Therefore, in my view, there is a case for continuing to include the Liberal Nationals in the infobox for 1945 but probably not thereafter. Hence Dionysodorus is right to restore. Graemp (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well, I will restore then. Thanks Graemp. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom general election, 1945. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonialism factor

I read in multiple sources that Britain's overseas territories were also one major talking point particularly regarding India. The British outlook on colonialism seems to have changed drastically since their war against the racist Nazis. Particularly people began to be inclined towards Gandhiji, while Churchill was making remarks like "Oh famine in Bengal, hasnt that Gandhi fellow died yet" I think this needs to be included as well 11:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)LostCitrationHunter (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:1945_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1110456828"