Talk:Ramsay MacDonald
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Miscellaneous
Does anyone really see Ramsay MacDonald as "the father of appeasement"? Surely this is nonsense. --Mr impossible 09:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This article should probably say more about his disarmament plan, as it is more accurately interpreted as the last real hope for peace for Europe in the 1930s than 'appeasement.'
- The original Early career section contained a number of inaccuracies and needed filling out. There is a lot more that needs saying generally so intend to have more input. --Billreid 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I corrected to "Originally a socialist". i think that leading a government made up of a majority of Conservatives is a reasonable excuse fo rtaking away the label 'socialist' from someone ! Johncmullen1960 12:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- But that is not NPOV. Please cite proof of your statement.--Billreid 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That he led a government with a majority of Conservatives is a fact, not an opinion. IMHO it would be not NPOV to call him a socialist :=)
Johncmullen1960 08:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expulsion from Labour party
I would be interested to know why he did not leave the Labour party of his own accord ... anyone know ? I think it would be worth mentioning . Johncmullen1960 08:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
He never ceased to regard himself as a socialist AFAIK and would have been happy for more Labour Ministers to stay on board in 1931. He thought he was acting in the national interest (rightly or wrongly) and then found himself trapped.
- From what I can recall of David Marquand's toe stubber of a biography, MacDonald by c1936/1937 certainly still considered himself a socialist, believing there was something of a "National Labour" feeling in the country (he regarded his son Malcolm's victory in a by-election in early 1936 as a "victory for Labour, not 'Opposition Labour'") and as late as autumn 1937 at a party with old ILP colleagues he made a speech insisting he was still and always had been.
- As for Labour ministers I've read conflicting accounts on this. There were certainly some who were asked and declined such as Herbert Morrison (although HM later rewrote history to claim he was against the National Government literally from the moment it was announced), Stafford Cripps (who declined as soon as he was back in the country and aware of the political situation) and Thomas Shaw (the War Office wasn't filled in the initial announcements of the National Government and some thought Shaw was being asked to stay on). However other accounts suggest he limited the appeal to those with little strong connection with Labour (mainly law officers, which were semi-non-partisan posts, military ministers and those whose main connection was to MacDonald not the movement) suggesting that from the outset he knew he was severing links from the outset. Certainly in the final days of the Labour government MacDonald believed that were it to resign (as seemed likely) he could neither get the party to support a new government making the budget cuts or credibly lead it in opposing cuts, indicating he knew one way or another his leadership of the party was up, though he had visions of supporting Baldwin "from below the [Labour] gangway" - i.e. the bench in the Commons were distinguished senior non-spokespersons sit. (Think where Dennis Skinner sits for an idea.) Timrollpickering 02:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zinoviev letter
How has this article been so extensively written without any link to the Zinoviev Letter? I know that certain Wikipedians are allergic to anything that smells even faintly of conspiracy but this omission is taking the ...! If no-one objects, I'm going to write a little section next week.Garrick92 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MacDonald Poster.jpg
Image:MacDonald Poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Death?
Died: 9 November 1937 on the liner Reina del Pacifico on holiday during the crossing of the Atlantic.
Could not see mention of this in the main text...
Ref: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page136.asp
Royzee 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Error
How can he be proceeded and succeeded by the same person, i.e. Stanley Baldwin. Forgive me if I am mistake, but I believe this to be an error? 78.86.166.102 (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- He had more than one period in office, alternating with Baldwin. No error. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
