Talk:1922 Committee

When and Why Formed and Named

I must say that I was sceptical about the 1922 being formed in 1923 having held the view that it was formed in 1922 following a Conservative victory at a by-election in Newport and the following events whereby Conservative MPs voted to leave the then Liberal-Conservative coalition causing Conservative leader Austen Chamberlain to resign.

Chamberlain was replaced by Andrew Bonar Law who won a majority for the Conservatives at the 1922 General Election. The 1922 Committee was then formed by Conservative backbench MPs in April 1923 and named after the year in which the MPs who formed the committee were elected (1922).

UK Parliament Web Site

BBC Politics A-Z

The links are confused on the matter. The 1922 Committee was originally a support group for new members elected in the 1922 election and founded by them. It was only in subsequent years that membership was expanded to the full parliamentary party. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

'The name does not stem from a famous October 1922 meeting in which Conservative MPs successfully demanded that the party withdraw from the coalition government of David Lloyd George.' This does not make sense, and looks like vandalism. 109.154.233.80 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. The 1922 Committee is named after the 1922 General Election at which the MPs who founded it had just been returned (and it was at first just one of many ginger groups of the kind that ambitious rookie MPs often form - only later did it become institutionalised to represent all Tory backbenchers). It does not, as is often popularly supposed, refer to the Carlton Club meeting in October 1922 which voted to end the coalition. Debunking popular myths and misconceptions like this is actually something which Wikipedia is very good at.Paulturtle (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The UK Parliament website seems to be saying the exact opposite though. 128.30.9.163 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is a classic example of why Wikipedia articles need to be based on proper research into what old-fashioned authoritative books have to say on the topic in question, not rubbish which somebody has posted on another website.Paulturtle (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

And I now see that some anonymous idiot has added the myth that it is named after the 1922 Carlton Club meeting, based on that clearly rather rubbishy and under-researched website above. Despite the fact that there is already a link in the article to a more carefully-researched paper produced by the House of Commons Library putting people straight. I have changed it back.Paulturtle (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC) And I've just added another book knocking the myth on the head, although his footnotes trace back to the early 1970s Philip Goodhart study mentioned above.Paulturtle (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible anon vandalism?

This large edit was carried out by an anon IP with a recent vandalism history. Can anyone confirm if it's a good one, or should it be reverted? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I've now reverted it as per WP:Honorific. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mad

I forget the exact quote, but who was it who said that "the first two (or three) people who speak at the 1922 Committee, on any topic, are mad?" The quote was already in circulation in the 1980s iirc. I dare say Julian Critchley circulated it, but I doubt he invented it.Paulturtle (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've found a source attributing it to David Walder.Paulturtle (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Looking into the sources of both 'misogyny' and 'homophobia' under affiliations, there was no mention of such. The placement as well under affiliations seems to be inappropriate and would be better replaced under the headings/within the body of the article if correctly backed up. The motto source is also not accessible. I have a feeling that this may be vandalism that has not been detected in edits and therefore not changed. CorrectiveMeasures (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Source numbers [3] and [4] under the 'Origins' subheading

If compared to the article on the Labour parliamentary organisation, these sources appear a bit wishy-washy, no? Accordingly, we apparently have the Tory one because it was there all the time. And the Labour one because it first appeared outside of parliament. Did the Liberals and Social Democrats have these and how did they have theirs? This article here, under this subheading, have sources [3], which mentions "appendices" and doesn't have any--nor does it explain how one shouldn't look to the 1922 elections for reasons we've always had a Tory parliamentary group; and also source [4], which is not a proper source nor reference-material as there is but a page-number and no title. Seems a bit John Doe to me.

Former chairmen section - should the two acting chairmen in 2019 be added

As I have noted in a related discussion at Template talk:Chairmen of the 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady's article's infobox makes that he has technically had two spells as chair of the 1922 Committee after resigning in 2019 as he was considering contesting that year's Conservative Party leadership contest. During this time the late Dame Cheryl Gillan and Sir Charles Walker acted as joint Chairmen (and indeed did so during the contest thereby acting as returning officers) from May 2019 until until Brady resumed office in September 2019 (at first in an acting capacity then being re-elected to the post in 2020). This is also noted in the infoboxes in their articles. Thus should they be listed in this section (with note making clear they were acting in the role)? Cheryl Gillan's inclusion would be particularly significant as she is the only example of a woman chairing the 1922 Committee in its near 100 year history. Dunarc (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

All Conservative MPs except those who are members of the Government?

"The 1922 Committee has an 18-member executive committee, whose members are elected by all Conservative MPs except those who are members of the Government". Does that mean that when the Conservatives are not in government, frontbenchers take part in the election, or does the sentence need to be reworded? 2001:BB6:4734:5658:5DFC:4772:925B:D565 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Executive who join government?

Is Nus Ghani still a Vice Chair, considering she's been a minister since September? The way the article is worded implies that she could be, but it would be against convention (although it wasn't at the time of her election). Farleysmaster (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)