Talk:Radicals (UK)

message: If the Radicals had nothing to do with socialism, why is there an external link to a history of the Co-op, a socialist organisation? The linked article even starts off taling about Robert Owen, the father of socialism.
:No idea. Remove the link, I suppose. john k 22:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: .

message: Mill was a Radical MP from 1865 to 1868. Worth mentioning in its own right I'd say, but also throws the article into question a bit since it seems to mean that the party did not merge with the Whigs in 1859, as what's there now suggests. 88.104.174.248 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Radical was more a tendency than a political party.  Most self-described Radicals would have also considered themselves to be Liberals, and this is true going back to well before 1859.  1859 represents the final merger of the remaining Peelites (Gladstone, Graham, Herbert, Newcastle) with Palmerston and Russell's Liberals, who were themselves a loose coalition of Whigs and Radicals.  The "Radicals" as a distinct subset of the Liberal Party lasted until at least 1886, if not to the First World War. john k 16:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Stuart Mill

message: Ok so if someone asks someone if they are a Radical and the person responds by saying, "I'm about as radical as Cotton Tom Heflin", what do they mean by that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ray1416 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably they mean to convey that they've got an obscure sense of humour. Please find a verifiable source if this is something you want to add to the article. .. dave souza, talk 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cotton Tom Heflin 

message: These liberals were classical liberals - today they would be considered libertarians. Also the tone of the article is typical of the uninformed left. 
this
duties on imported grain which raised the price of food to help landowners but harmed manufacturers 
is nonsense. Corn laws harmed everybody, but the most harmed were the working poor.
201.212.153.133 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why were the Corn Laws adopted then, if they harmed everybody?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.245.25 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong terminology

message: I'm not sure that fictional parties are really relevant for this article, but at least now the reference mentions what novel it comes from.  However, I wonder if this party should be excised altogether.  Wardog (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial Radical Party 

message: The Radicals were never an organised party as such but many shaded into Socialism or - after 1886 with Joseph Chamberlain - into imperialism. They were usually regarded as the more extreme wing of the Liberal party. Lloyd George still thought of himself as both a Liberal and a 'Radical' into the 1930s. Between 1924 and 1929 there was also a distinctive 'Radical group' within the Liberal party in parliament, organised by Walter Runciman. Ironically he and others in that block ended up in the Conservative allied National Liberals. --Gepid (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radicals and the Liberal Party 

message: The political ideology is in the infobox is in part attributed as Jacobinism.  Nothing in the article links this movement to Jacobinism. Skingski (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobin? 

message: and one of them "Simple English"? But the link goes to a disambiguation page, there is no article. --Cabanero (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 languages