Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice about renaming or moving this page, so long as a consensus is reached on the article talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I know there has never been a UK party called the Independent Liberal Party. This article is about the Liberal Party (UK) during the period 1918-23 when they were sometimes referred to as Independent Liberals to distinguish them from Coalition Liberals. Regardless of how they were described, they were always the Liberal Party and never the Independent Liberal Party. Graemp (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books searches turn up plenty of modern and contemporaneous texts that unambiguously refer to a British political party called the "Independent Liberal Party" active in the 1910s and 1920s. So it is clearly not correct to say that "there has never been a UK party called the Independent Liberal Party". Of course, many parties have more than one name in common use (e.g., "Conservative Party" vs. "Conservative and Unionist Party"). If "Independent Liberal Party" is just another name for the Liberal Party, then the article should be redirected and merged into Liberal Party (UK). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Books searches for "Independent Liberal Party" turn up very few references that specifically cover the subject of the article, and when they do, it is to use the suffix to distinguish them from the Coalition Liberals/National Liberal Party. Any source that uses it otherwise, does so in error. Perhaps the best and most reliable source to clarify if there was a party called the Independent Liberal Party is F. W. S. Craig. There is no mention in Craig, F. W. S. (1974). Minor parties at British parliamentary elections 1885–1974. London: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-17152-7 nor Craig, F. W. S. (1983). British parliamentary election results 1918–1949 (3 ed.). Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services. ISBN 0-900178-06-X. It would be a mistake to merge the content of this article into Liberal Party (UK) because just about all the content is factually incorrect or misleading. Unfortunately the editor who provided the two references used in the article has misunderstood the sources. This whole subject area is adequately and more accurately covered in many other wikipedia articles.Graemp (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion You may be referring to me, Graemp, and I don't agree that I have "misunderstood the sources", I've simply given the information in them, referring to an "Independent Liberal Party". You could of course say that the authors have misunderstood the outcome of the split of 1918. Clearly, for some years beginning in 1918 there were Liberals standing against each other, some under the leadership of a supposedly Liberal prime minister and some under the leadership of Asquith, but whether they were in formally separate parties seems obscure, as does which of those had the better claim to be the "real" Liberal party. It's entirely possible that neither Liberal parliamentary party had a formal corporate existence and that they were both merely the private office of a parliamentary leader, as was the case with the Conservative party until quite recently. We do of course have the article National Liberal Party (UK, 1922), and that seems to make rather vague claims about what exactly it was. If you could show us that there was a continuing organization before and after 1918 called the Liberal Party, which from 1918 excluded the Lloyd George Liberals, you might have a stronger case. Moonraker (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the problem here is that this is a very subtle matter which isn't resolved by the existence of different pages all including the word "Party" in their names. Until the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, absolutely anyone could stand for election using the label "Liberal", and once elected the successful candidates might or might not take a party whip. The only "Party" that mattered was a parliamentary party, and I'm not aware that there was a "Liberal Party" outside parliament, although there were of course constituency Liberal associations. At some point, the Asquithian Liberals (who were arguably a breakaway group, but that could be disputed) adopted the name of Parliamentary Liberal Party, in defiance of the Lloyd George Liberals. It might be useful to have a page for each of the Liberal parliamentary parties for the period from 1918 to 1922, when Lloyd George established the National Liberal Party. One of those might incorporate most of the content of this page, which could redirect there. We could perhaps call them Parliamentary Liberal Party (Asquith) and Parliamentary Liberal Party (Coalition). Moonraker (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original two sources used both present data about the Liberal Party not a party called the Independent Liberal Party and were mistakingly used as sources for this article. The recent edit adds material from a source whose author (Stobaugh) clearly misunderstood the situation. So I don't believe Moonraker is at fault here.

I will try and clarify what the actual situation was. The Liberal Party, which had Asquith as Leader, was the party that had been in existence since the 19th century.

In December 1918 there was a General Election at which Liberal Party candidates stood. Some of these candidates were endorsed by the Coalition Government led by Lloyd George. At the election neither Asquith nor the party that he led, the Liberal Party, either came out in favour or against the Coalition Government.

After the election there continued to be only one Liberal Party and one party organisation in the country. This party continued to be led by Asquith. However, in parliament the party's representatives were divided over their support for the Coalition Government. Those who supported it were called 'Coalition' Liberals and those who opposed it were called 'Independent' Liberals (ie. Independent from the Coalition with the Unionists). They organised themselves into two parliamentary groups.

Asquith continued as Liberal Party Leader, and had no need to create a new "Independent Liberal Party" because he remained in full control of the existing Liberal Party organisation.

In early 1922 the Coalition Liberals, led by Lloyd George, formed the National Liberal Party (UK, 1922) with a party structure, HQ and local associations. This meant that there were only then formally two parties, the Liberal Party and the National Liberal Party. In 1923 the two parties agreed to merge and the National Liberal Party was wound up.

Neither the National Liberal Party (UK, 1922) or Liberal Party (UK) articles explain the situation as clearly as I have. However, if you take all the wikipedia articles that cover this subject into consideration, that is the general picture that is portrayed. There is one particular article that runs directly counter to the situation, and that is the article which is the subject of this discussion.

Anyone wishing to further read around their subject, in addition to Craig and Cook, can check the Liberal Year Books of the time and visit the Liberal Democrat History Group website.Graemp (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to re-assure Moonraker and others that the Liberal Party organisation outside of parliament, that oversaw the constituency Liberal Associations really existed. There are a number of wiki article that confirm this;

Graemp (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages aren't helpful, and what they say rather strengthens the case I was making. On the page Leader of the Liberal Party (UK) we read (probably correctly) "Before the adoption of the 1969 constitution of the party, the party was led by the prime minister or the most recent politically active prime minister from the party." If that's correct (which it may not be) the leader was presumably Lloyd George throughout the period in question, although a list on that page asserts that it wasn't. But I doubt that there was a party leader distinct from a parliamentary party leader. On the page President of the Liberal Party, we read that until 1936 there was no President of the Liberal Party and no Liberal Party Organisation, instead there was the National Liberal Federation, in which, please correct me if I'm wrong, both the Asquith and Lloyd George Liberals continued to slug it out until 1922. I'd be amazed if the Women's Liberal Federation excluded the womenfolk of either side, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. It isn't clear from the National League of Young Liberals page that it split before 1922, or indeed ever. These aren't something called the Liberal Party, they are surely support organizations which were led by people not subject to any formal split. In the mean time, Asquith and Lloyd George led rival parliamentary parties. Moonraker (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why there's no page for Liberal Party Organization? What exactly was it? Moonraker (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Roy Douglas's later book, the Liberal Party Organisation was the product of the 1936 reforms that overhauled the party and appear to have consolidated the structures as a single organisation. Whilst the Conservatives weren't actually terribly well constituted until the 1998 reforms, other political groups had the concept of the mass party rather than the parliamentary party & supporters' clubs - Labour was reconstituted along such a model in 1918. I suspect the LPO doesn't get much attention because to all extents and purposes it was The Liberal Party (in more ways than one - the reforms also allowed for a clean cut out of Liberal National supporting bodies) in a way that the National Liberal Federation hadn't been. Timrollpickering 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages confirm my earlier comment that there was only one party organisation until 1922, the Liberal Party. Your comments clearly acknowledge that, which is helpful as this AfD is about whether some other different additional party existed between 1918-22 as claimed in the article.Graemp (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graemp, two points on your comment above. 1. You say "Those pages confirm my earlier comment..." but they are all so badly referenced that they confirm almost nothing. 2. What you say is confirmed is that "there was only one party organisation until 1922, the Liberal Party". I notice that one or two of them do refer to something called the "official Liberal Party", but I strongly suspect that's just a figment of someone's imagination, perhaps yours. The National Liberal Federation was not in itself a political party, any more than a local association or a local or National Liberal Club was. They were all support organisations, generally favouring something called "Liberalism" and the election of "Liberal" politicians.

Before the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, "political parties" were simply parliamentary parties, constituted (if at all) by their members in the Commons and the Lords, and at the time we're speaking of there were two Liberal parliamentary parties existing alongside each other, both no doubt with relationships with the support organizations. What exactly those relationships were could be helpfully clarified here at Wikipedia by the use of reliable sources, but that can only happen by establishing articles that are in synch with the reality.

My question is still outstanding, does anyone know why there's no page for Liberal Party Organization? What exactly was it? When was it created? When did it come to an end? Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will help this AfD discussion if we stick to the subject of the article under discussion.Graemp (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled that you can't see the complete relevance of all those points. And my question is still outstanding, does anyone know why there's no page for Liberal Party Organization? What exactly was it? When was it created? When did it come to an end? Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a titling problem about what is apparently a notable organized faction of the Liberal Party. By all means the title should be fixed. There needs to be more work on the Liberal Party in general, it sounds like. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem with your idea is this was not a faction of the Liberal Party, it was the Liberal Party. Graemp (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Parliamentary Liberal Party (Asquith). Carrite has grasped the issue here. Graemp, we all agree that this page deals with a notable faction which was within the vague concept of "Liberal Party", not outside it. It was only a separate "party" in the sense of being a parliamentary party in its own right, one of the two that for some years were within the loose family of political associations and organizations then described as the "Liberal Party". So for clarity the title needs to include "parliamentary" and not "independent". We should perhaps say "sometimes misleadingly called the Independent Liberal Party" in the intro. Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Parliamentary" over "Independent" might get there. The problem with the current title is that it smacks of the name of the Independent Labour Party, the UK sister party of the Socialist Party of America, which WAS the name of that organization (a constituent part of the broad Labour Party umbrella). That isn't the case with this faction, there was no true organizational independence, I am hearing from the debate. It was an organized faction, not an organization. Hopefully that makes sense. The way forward is to get some Keep votes stacked up and to get this deletion debate closed down and for people to get bold with a new title. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Liberal Party was a "vague concept" is not something that has found agreement in this discussion. Both myself and Timrollpickering have confirmed that the Liberal Party was not just a parliamentary grouping but a mass party with an organised structure. This fact is confirmed by links to other articles that detail the Liberal Party structure.

The idea of renaming this page as Parliamentary Liberal Party (Asquith) or variants of, is not a good one. The structure of this group in parliament was that of the Liberal Party rather than any separate new entity, here is another page that confirms this fact Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats. Also renaming the article would mean that the article would need to be completely re-written as just about everything in it is wrong.

I welcome the contribution of Americans like Carrite to this Afd discussion as I don't believe that you actually need to know much about a subject to make a useful contribution. What is useful is ones understanding of Wikipedia and its processes. It should not be overlooked by this discussion that this article does not actually link with any other article in wikipedia. That alone should seriously question its justification for existence. Graemp (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the other people in this discussion aren't also Americans (or at least, not British)? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be renamed, then the text should still discuss the usage of the "Independent Liberal Party" name, since this name is used in several reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we please get this debate shut down "No Consensus" so that the titling debate can move forward? Carrite (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.