Talk:Reform Act 1867

was there an increase in party dominance?

did voter behaviour change?

did parties change their policy and presentation?

did the new electoral register rule help or hinder the development of democratic politics?

Bright

"the radical Bright" Can someone explain this "Bright"? Memenen 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Bright. john k 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Russell and Gladstone

The article currently says, Earl Russell resigned when his proposed reforms were rejected and William Gladstone became leader of the Liberal party in 1866. In 1866, Gladstone's Whig government introduced a Reform Bill.

Besides the oddness of calling Gladstone a Whig (he was a Tory, and then a Liberal, but never a Whig), this is simply wrong - Gladstone did not become PM until 1868. The whole account seems garbled. Can anyone clear things up? john k 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete Changes

I am editing in the full changes to the seats as per Cook in British historical facts, 1830-1900. Shipguy 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This article is a mess, full of unlikely-sounding interpretations and at times hard to follow. For example, I doubt the repeated insistence that Disraeli did things only to thumb his nose at Gladstone is a solidly grounded interpretation of how this bill took the form it did. I hope someone who knows the subject will clean it up thoroughly.

Lubejob 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree--this one should be nominated for a "Worst of Wikipedia" award. Totally and completely un-useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.249.72 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiting Gladstone was certainly a major part of what Disraeli was up to, if Roy Jenkins' Gladstone biography is any guide. That said, the article isn't particularly well or sophisticatedly written. john k 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Necessary improvements

Certainly the First Reform Act was preceded by a mass movement in the country. IT would be useful to know to what extent the 1867 Act was a result of social movements. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Context - what next?

Hi,

The article currently does a pretty good job of saying what went before, but I can't see any pointers on which articles to look to to see what happened next. The big dangling question for me is that of further enfranchisement - it looks like this act doubled enfranchisement from 1 to 2 million, but out of a total of 5 million - so when did the next three million get the vote?

Perhaps a succession box, listing acts that progressively enfranchised more groups, might be a good way of showing this?

Thanks, 217.46.192.153 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reform Act, which covers all the UK Reform Acts, has a graph which tries to show votes by gender. It's not very good (I know, because I made it), and could do with somebody with better graphing skills making a better version.--ML5 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Norfolk Meirion?

One of the disenfranchised boroughs is given as "Great Yarmouth, Norfolk Meirion". What does this mean? A Google for the phrase "Norfolk Meirion" returns no hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. Is it simply a mistake? 86.136.250.154 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)