,
8 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The most fundamental & enduring division in English politics was that over the Exclusion Bill of 1679. The "Tories" favoured allowing James II to become King, allowing England to fall under the pan-European political structure (at that time the Papacy). The "Whigs" opposed this.
As their Jacobite opponents discredited themselves the Whigs eventually became utterly dominant. From the mid 18th century on, the UK was a one-party state - the Whig Party.
The Whig Party eventually split into 2 factions. One Whig faction eventually, in the early 19th century, came to be known as "Tories", despite having no connection to the previous party called by that name.
This Whig faction - the "Tory" whigs, formed the nucleus of the Conservative Party when it was formed in 1830. Through the 1830s many other Whigs joined the Conservatives.
There was another influx of Whigs into the Conservatives in the 1880s. But in the meantime the Conservatives themselves had split, with their smaller faction forming the key leading input into the Liberal Party in the 1860s incl figures such as Gladstone (originally Conservative)
We now face that fundamental qstn that faced the 1st Tories & Whigs again. Do we believe the UK shld be part of the pan-European political structure, in which case we're true Tories? Or do we believe the UK shld be sovereign unto itself under God alone, in which case we're Whigs?
So if pro-Brexit MPs want a nickname for themselves they don't need to go for "Spartans" or "Wizards". They can use the nickname that has existed for their kind for centuries - the Old Whigs.
If you self-identify as an Old Whig, maybe put it in your bio?
