Talk:Stanley Baldwin

The current picture of Baldwin (which, admittedly, I uploaded in my first month here) is unsourced and too small. Does anyone have a line on a decent picture of Baldwin that we can use? Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

And now it's been deleted. The problem remains. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back the comment "He is more commonly known for his famous great granddaughter Stacey Baldwin." in the introduction. I've never heard of Stacey Baldwin, and a quick google doesn't through anything up. As there's no Wikipedia page for Stacey Baldwin, I find the claim dubious and if it isn't vandalism, it needs to be properly resourced!. Thomas1974 (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Three monarchs

Baldwin was the only PM to serve under three different monarchs (George V, Edward VIII, and George VI). Is this worth mentioning in the article? 172.129.234.70 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (TysK, not signed in)

Strikingly odd omission!

Having come to the article on Baldwin after reading the article on Edward, I wanted more information on why Baldwin would resign if Wallis was made Edward's consort or whatever the terminology is. The article on Baldwin is almost ludicrously detailed - much more so than most Wikipedia articles - EXCEPT when it comes to the section titled "Abdication." Unlike the entirety of the rest of the article, this section merely notes that Edward abdicated, and that Baldwin weathered the crisis. What gives? Surely the rest of this article was lifted or taken from an encyclopedia article - such is its style and tone and exhaustive detail - yet the section on abdication contains almost nothing. Isn't the abdication a rather significant fact that is of interest to people reading about Baldwin? and, as the article on Edward states, didn't Baldwin threaten to resign from the PMship? Why does this otherwise excruciatingly detailed article gloss over the abdication and Baldwin's motives? Mysterious... Dveej (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to your question. At first blush I agree it seems a bit odd. Since I've been 'watchlisting' this entry for less than 24 hours I can only speculate. I GUESS that the section on Baldwin and The King's Abdication must have grown rambling and contradictory, and someone came along and decided to remove it, using the justification that there's a perfectly good entry on the Abdication Crisis under ... Abdication Crisis. As far as I know, there is STILL an absence of consensus among the historically good and articulate about several aspects of Baldwin's role in The Crisis, so (1) it's easy to see how such a para might have become a bit inconsistent and so (2) any attempt to enter a couple of paras on Baldwin's role in the matter would need to be carefully structured and well sourced. BUT (3) if anyone reading has access to appropriate sources and background knowledge, and the time to think the thing through a bit first, please add (or reinstate) the section. I'm interested! Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not "lift" the contents of this article from an encyclopedia, please avoid personal attacks if you intend to stay on Wikipedia. Before I edited it, the article was basically a skeleton article with only the basics outlined. I added nearly all the sourced information to this article, and did so on the basis that Baldwin's foreign policy and rearmament programme were the most notable and controversial aspects of his premiership. I have little interest in the Abdication, which is the reason why I did not sift through Baldwin's biography to add the relevant information. Undoubtedly it is an important subject, not least for the reason that it added weight to the claims of Baldwin's status as a statesman, but I did not see it as a priority considering the almost total lack of information on his foreign policy and rearmament programme which are far more important.--Johnbull (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this background explanation, JB. In my judgement, and for what it may be worth, you have produced an unusually well crafted wiki entry. (presumably that is why our friend came up with the 'lifted' charge which I agree comes over as graceless, though I suppose we are required to view it as thoughtless rather than as malicious - applying the 'good faith' assumption and all that... it is a weakness of web based communication that we cannot catch one another's eye and wink / grin. Nor even scowl horribly.) And interesting. Quite a challenge to match the quality of what is already there for anyone minded to build a bit more about the abdication crisis. Matching what is already there, in terms of quality, style and 'article architecture' is of course a wider wiki challenge that I think touches us all. Ho hum. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Abdication Crisis Neutrality

I'm not an expert on the field, but this section seems to be highly biased against Baldwin. It provides no context as to why Baldwin would wnat to get rid of the King, and it seems to be highly reliant on a single source

Thomas1974 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to my last edit - I also noticed a final comment at the end of legacy that is unsourced and makes reference to the modern Conservative Party and the EU. The use of the phrase "making the monarch a citizen of the European Union." seems to indicate a strong Euro sceptic viewpoint, as well as being inaccurate (at this point in time, the EU does not award citizenship, the member states do according to their own laws).

The relevant edits all seem to have been made by Utinomen who doesn't appear to have a User page (though there is a talk one!). This is pure speculation on my part, but the style of English and the political viewpoint is remininscent of User:Sussexman

Thomas1974 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the collapse of the first Labour government

"Baldwin decided to vote against the government over the Russian Treaties, which brought the government down on 8 October" I do not think that this is true and I believe that "Baldwin campaigned on the "impracticability" of socialism, the Campbell Case, the Zinoviev Letter" is only partially correct. From my understanding, the Campbell Case led to the collapse of the First Labour Govenrment as the intervention by MacDonald portrayed the party as radical; this triggered the vote of no confidence which caused the collapse of the Government. Therefore it was a collection of factors with the Russian Treaties being one of them but the actual spark was the Campbell Case. If you read Campbell Case it shows it to be the spark so, in order to gain continuity, ths should be changed on this page too. I will do this myself in a week if no one else does it or if anyone wants to prove me wrong. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.159.245 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The vote was on the Campbell Case but the primary reason was the Russian Treaties:

"Baldwin was careful to emphasise that the Treaties were the substance of his objections. Standfordham wrote to the King, on 7 October, 'I saw Mr Baldwin who, in reply to my question "Do you want to turn the Government out?" said "Yes, but not on the Campbell issue, but on the Russian Treaties which the country generally condemns." He sees no alternative to a dissolution; it has always been expected, some wished for it before now, though he is opposed to hastening the Government's fall. ...' ... And it is true that only in the House of Commons were Baldwin's strictures based on the Campbell case – at Newcastle on 2 October he congratulated MacDonald on the agreement, achieved at a conference in London, on the Dawes Plan for reparations, and then spent the rest of the speech alternately pouring scorn on the Labour party's subservience to its extremists, and tearing to pieces the Russian agreement. But the final debate on 8 October was a mean Parliamentary occasion. Two days before, in a meeting which was something of a suave qui puet, the Cabinet decided to take it as a vote of confidence, preferring to go out on the Campbell case to a defeat on the Russian Treaties which might give the left wing too much prominence.—Middlemas and Barnes, p. 273.

--Johnbull (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be best to put the issue of the Campbell case in as it did cause the vote although it may have just been the mask for the Russian Treaties. It just seems a bit misleading. Thanks for that anyway.