Talk Elections

(I hope than 'timeline" is the right word)

some explainations :

1-I have not obey to the traditionnal story of conservative party "her of torysm". Torysm is more social, more royalist and protectionnist. So, when Peel and Co. arrived in power, I use a MORE BLUE color, to sign than they are more whighs than tories.
But when Disraeli, Salisbury and McMillan goes to Downing Street, I re-open the tory color, cause they are more spiritually tories than conservative-wing of the whigh tree.

2-I change the color of the labour party in 1997. The party of Atlee and nationalisations is dead with tony blair.

Please, click on "show pic" for have it at right mensurations

()

What the hell is this?

It summarises the composition of the UK Parliament since 1690 by year and party. The best way of looking at it is to visit http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5987/timelineukp.png (http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5987/timelineukp.png) and then magnify it.

Here's a brief explaination:

From 1690 to 1694, the Tories had an overall majority, however between 1695 to 1700 the Whigs had an overall majority.

The Liberal/Whig and Tory colours need to be swapped.

Yeah.

Also, why giving a different color to "new labour" (which is mostly re-branding but not a new party) ? And why do you distinguish Tories and Conservatives, but not Whigs and Liberals ?

hem, the title of the topic seems obvious...

Because conservatives keep a lot from whighs ideas, and, at the opposite, the difference between whighs and liberals is very, very small.

I understand your logic, but I don't think it's a good idea to mix up party and ideology.

Also, why is it colored in Orange from 1957-1963 ? The conservatives had a majority back then.

Because they were one-nation Conservatives under Macmillan and as such filed under Toryism - as described in the opening paragraph. It'd probably be easier to understand/recognise if Toryism was the lighter shade of blue (just like New Labour's a lighter shade of red) and not the traditionally Liberal colour of orange.

yes, color-code is not the same in france and england

in england, liberalism is associate to orange/yellow, but to blue/light blue in france


"conservative ? what the hell did she conserve ? This woman is gengis khan" said a man call jack hayward (don't know)

for me, the actual conservative party is a far-liberal party, and labour party is a moderate-liberal party


torysm, actually, goes to UKIP, BNP and in the naive hearth of some old members of the CP.

socialism, hem...were is socialism in england today ?  I hope the crisis will change the labour (a mix between mc millan and atlee would enjoying me)

What about the WW1/Coupon coalition, the WW2 coalition, the current one and various minority governments (1910, late 70s, mid 90s to name a few)? Seems a bit inane to not signify those...

the rule is simple : the color goes to the party who win the more seats on the parliament

The constant (and often pretty dubious) editorialising makes it worse than useless. To point out one extremely obvious example, the domestic policies of the Macmillan government were not obviously different to those of the Eden and Churchill governments.

The problem is that "ideology", of collective bodies such as parliamentary parties especially, do not fall neatly into color-codeable categories. When a party's ideology shifts, it does so gradually. If the party is in office during the period, it is impossible to fairly set a date for a color change.
So, yeah. Useless.

How pointless then.

Yeah, coloring based of perceived ideology just can't work.