Talk:Political history of the United Kingdom (1979–present)/Archive 1

Archive 1

This archive is of discussions between 2007 and 2020 when the article covered the entirety of the post WW2 period of UK political history. It concludes with the final decision to split the article.

Renaming the Page?

Should this page really be called "History of the United Kingdom (1945-2000)" when its purpose seems to be to talk about the Prime Minister's of that period and what their government's achieved? Maybe this page could take a better name, or at least explain that it deals with Politics and not all types of History. What does everyone else think? --Woodgreener 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Second121.210.29.121 11:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - it should be expanded to a broader history. Cutler 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - it should be expanded to a broader history. --Red King (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

surely if we are mentioning even just the political history of the united kingdom we must include a mention of the death of the king and the assention of elizabth 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepher25 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg

Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Split?

I think this article should be split into two articles: 1945-79 and 1979-present. This would reflect the huge changes that happened since Thatcher got in. Any comments? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than split the article, could the title not simply be "History of the United Kingdom from 1945". There is no reason why the year 2000 should have special significance. I agree that 1979 was a significant turning point, but perhaps a more significant year will prove to be 1997 which led to devolution for Scotland - surely the most significant change in the relationship between Scotland and England/rest of the UK since 1707. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a point, the changes to the Celtic regions might be a better splitting point - or perhaps three articles (1945/79/97)? And "perhaps will prove to be" is a bit crystal ball-ish. Maybe do the 79 split, then a later 97 split at some future time (eg if/when Scotland finally becomes independent). BUT first things first, Shall I rename 2000 to "present" for the time being? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 'yes'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original poster, on 24 Feb 2008. That split would be adequate for limiting the size of the article (especially as it builds up the events of the recent years, such as the Olympics and stuff). There must be a cutoff, and I think that 1979 is a pretty good one. Anyway, the article doesn't really talk about the most recent events, so we should not try to catalogue every single major event which occurs in real time, but keep the subject matter consistent to a 1945-1979 time period. Ifly6 (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Callaghancrisisiv.jpg

The image Image:Callaghancrisisiv.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

EEC referendum(s)

Did Heath hold a referendum? If so, we don't say so. Or was it regarded as equivalent to joining the UN, a responsibility of HMG according to constitutional conventions? We don't say that either.

We don't say why Wilson wanted to renegotiate terms [other than that it was in the manifesto - why?], or why he held a referendum. I read somewhere [cite!] that both Labour and Conservatives were split down the middle, so a referendum was to get him off the hook. In the campaign, there was half of each on either side. Or summat. --Red King (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Why not split this article in to two new articles titled "Austerity era (1945-52)" and "Second Elizabethan era (1952-present day)". This way you can show how Britain recovered from WWII and how Britain evolved both socially and politically. Tory Jim 1996 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Omissions

The scope of this article is very ambitious, but there are a number of important omissions which reflect a focus on the political history of the period at the expense of the social and cultural. Just a couple of examples:

• No mention of the Equal Pay Act - a landmark. Or the Sexual revolution, though this is actually hinted at.
• The first mention of Commonwealth immigration ("the Windrush generation") is the Rivers of Blood speech
• The Korean War gets no mention in the "Labour Government (1945–51)" section, despite this being a key part of Britain's early enthusiasm for the UN ideal
• Why does the lede state that "Ghana, Malaya, Nigeria and Kenya were granted independence during this period"? This is, of course, true - but is perhaps a bit misleading. So were Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Malawi, Hong Kong and a dozen others. Is the rational behind the selection size or importance? Regardless, that it is only a selection should be made clear...

Just a few ideas. 129.67.64.10 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of the United Kingdom (1945–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070111060004/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=429&More=N&All=Y to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=429&More=N&All=Y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070111031022/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=430&More=Y to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/tsdataset.asp?vlnk=430&More=Y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Time for a split?

It's been 70 odd years since the end of WW2, I would suggest that a new set of pages be created, with the first covering 1946 to 1991 (Cold War) and then from 1991 onwards (Modern). Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the United Kingdom (1945–present). 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/20110929212354/http://www.bized.co.uk/dataserv/chron/kf1998.htm to http://www.bized.co.uk/dataserv/chron/kf1998.htm

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) 04:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Post-war Britain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

Eisenhower had actively supported French imperialism in Vietnam and British imperialism in Iran, so it is wrong to say he opposed imperialism. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:F430:5E02:B353:55ED (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC))

No, Ike helped force France out of Vietnam in 1954. He strongly supported the Diem-led nationalists. The Iranian case was an intervention but not "imperialism"-The Brits restored the Shah to power. 1) Tucker 2010 says "While Dulles sought to help U.S. allies in Europe, however, he nevertheless deplored British and French imperialism." 2) Richard A. Melanson, ‎David Mayers - 1987 - ‎say Ike's "acid remark that the British ... have been drowned out by a wave of revived age-old hatred of Western imperialism and colonialism" Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Eisenhower gave the French massive military help until they were defeated in 1954. South Vietnam was a product of US imperialism, the country should have been united as soon as the French withdrew. (81.159.7.10 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC))

India

Please note that this is a sockpuppet account of banned editor User:HarveyCarter, and their edits can be reverted per WP:DENY Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present). 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/20071108021324/http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/charter88archive/pubs/voting/av_apend1.html to http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/charter88archive/pubs/voting/av_apend1.html

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) 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Alleged National Humiliation in 1947

Andrew Roberts is a decent historian on a good day, but he has his moments of silliness. By 1947 it had been obvious for nearly a generation that Indian independence was only a matter of time, and in recent years that time had clearly been growing ever closer. I suppose a lot of old-fashioned people may have been quietly and deeply angry at the loss of India, the same as many had been at Irish independence in 1922, but it was not publicly discussed in that way. Far from being "a national humiliation" it was announced, like many colonial independences to come, as a magnificent achievement.

Can we not find another quote to counterbalance Roberts? Indian Independence was hardly the Fall of Singapore.Paulturtle (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Splitting page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be a something of a consensus in favour of a split with only one editor directly arguing against it and a lot of interest expressed in the idea over time. Llewee (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

---

People have given multiple ideas for splitting the article over the years, I would suggest a page for the post war period (1945 to 1979) and more recent history (1979 to present). Any thoughts? Llewee (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No need for that. With the entire period in one place people can read all they want and thewn stop and not have to jump to another article for continuity. Rjensen (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Llewee: I would support some sort of splitting of the article along your lines. Maybe one named 'Postwar Britain' for the 1945 to 1979 history, and the other named 'Political history of the United Kingdom (1979–present)'. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andysmith248: I think there is a strong argument for that as almost all sections of this page and it's social equivalent fall clearly before or after that dividing line and 1945 to present is a era longer than the previous five era's of British history covered on wikipedia. I have added this notice in the hope of opening the issue up to wider discussion. Llewee (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the {{rfc}} tag because RfCs are not for discussing split proposals, for which we have the WP:Splitting process. I've also restored the falsified timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Llewee: Driveby comment: It might help if you summarise all these splitting ideas you refer to, giving pros/cons on each one. I don't follow the naming logic or the dates selected, so presenting all the ideas together would be welcome. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Ok, I have various reasons for wanted this article to be split the main one which I have not already mentioned in this thread is that the article is now 140,364 bytes long much longer than the recommended level for splitting. I suggested the 1979 cutoff point as this not only marks the election of Margaret Thatcher which led to a shift from the post war consensus to the more market based economy of the 1980s and beyond, but also on a more practical level, with the exception of one paragraph in the intro, almost all information before and after that date is clearly in separate sections making the article relatively easy to split. Other splits people have suggested include an article for the late 40s\early 50s and another for the reign of Elizabeth II an idea I wasn't hugely keen on as almost all the information in this page would have to go into the second article so it wouldn't really achieve the point of splitting. Other people have suggested one article for the Cold War and another for more recent history an idea I also had my doubts about that as though the end of the Cold War was a dramatic change for the world and many countries it didn't cause a significant shift the in political situation in the UK straightaway. Llewee (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support on grounds of size. It's a straight chronological account, so the split should be easily done. Ok with the proposed break date, and new titles. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• oppose the article is already split chronologically so it's not "too long" for typical readers., The logical split is not 1979 but the Brexit episode. Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

140,368 bytes is indeed too long. Brexit might well be the point for a further split, in several years time. One can't really split it at like ... now. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• The proposed split along the post-war consensus would make sense to me as that provides some external source basis for the split. There may be a case for a post-Brexit split (or post-referendum probably), but it's really too soon to say. CMD (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Should an article titled Postwar Britain (1945–1979) (as the {{Split}} template on the article currently suggests) also have material split off from Social history of the United Kingdom (1945–present)? If so, should that article's chronological scope be narrowed as well? Postwar Britain and Post-war Britain both currently redirect to History of the United Kingdom (1945–present), a disambiguation page for the articles on political and social history. Also, what is preferable: "Postwar", "Post-war" or "Post-War"? Ham II (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The titles should just disambiguate by date, due to as you note the larger scope of "Postwar Britain". CMD (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.