Jump to content

Talk:Cameron–Clegg coalition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.35.251.109 (talk) at 01:24, 10 May 2015 (→Date dissolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Offices included

Stale
 – Resolved with new conventions for British ministry articles.

Shouldn't this be pared down to just the Cabinet and Cabinet attenders? That is what we have for previous, similar articles. Moreover, this is quite unwieldy. The exact portfolios for junior ministers change from time to time, even if the gist of the role is the same. Frankly, there are just too many line-items for this to be of much use in keeping track of the reshuffles. -Rrius (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Cameron Ministry, so it should be the whole Ministry - or else change the name to Cameron Cabinet, maybe (or create a seperate article for that)? If previous articles are missing junior ministers, that's down to data not being known/added. If the issue is the exact portfolio, that could simply be left out (it’s just a conceit rather than an official title, anyway - the “Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Forks and Spoons” is really just “Parliamentary Under-Secretary”, the “for Forks and Spoons” could be validly excluded if changing those appellations to reflect government press releases becomes problematic). —86.179.225.42 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This whole issue was resolved earlier this year. Prior, there was a mess with all the different members of a ministry spread across many articles, with inconsistent information. The only ministry article at present that lacks junior ministers is the Blair ministry, and no one has undertaken the job to find them…every other article has both junior and cabinet ministers. This is article is now correct, with both a cabinet shortlist and full list of ministers, per the conventions for these articles listed at this page. The comment above yours dealt with a mess that doesn’t exist anymore. Anyway, I welcome anyone to compile Blair ministry junior ministers…RGloucester (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of pictures

I think the addition of pictures to this article is unneeded and has made a mess of the tables. What say you all? RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might work if all of the pictures were the same size and were all head shots. But they are not and I agree it looks sloppy. - Nbpolitico (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting the changes per WP:BRD, if anyone would like to discuss. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time, after extended discussion. There is also a clear lack of consensus for a move target. bd2412 T 15:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron ministry → Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition – No-one refers to the coalition as the "Cameron ministry", and this is a weasel-worded title for a coalition Relisted -- Calidum 05:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Gymnophoria (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this called the "Cameron ministry"? No-one calls it that, and I challenge anyone to find any newspaper articles calling it that. It sounds most peculiarly ecclestical. Since it's a coalition of two parties, it's inaccurate to name it purely after Cameron. It's more often called the ConDem Coalition, or more formally the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. As it stands the article is misleading since I can't imagine anyone searching for this title. A redirect already exists for this title, I can't understand why it wasn't used.Gymnophoria (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Something similar was proposed to once before. First, "ministry" is the term used in all academic research of successive British ministries. All of our articles follow this pattern, based on Butler and Butler's Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900–2000 and Dod’s Parliamentary Companion. Reliable sources on the subject of the successive ministries of Britain make it clear that this is the proper title. Ministries are always titled by Prime Minister, unless there is some clear reason to not do so. In this case, there is no such clear reason. Nothing about it is "weasel-worded". It isn't anyone's fault other than your own that you don't know what a ministry is, and think it is "ecclesiastical ". This is a British tradition that goes back to the first day of the Union and before. To be clear, this article is not supposed to be a history of the coalition. It is supposed to only be a list of ministers in the Cameron ministry, which is another reason why this title must be maintained. We don't want to broaden the scope of this article. The history of the coalition is documented at Premiership of David Cameron, which you may want to draw your attention to. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Twentieth Century British Political Facts lists ministries by party (e.g. Conservative Government 1979–1990), not by leader. Opera hat (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has two schemes of listing. It only lists by party when it includes more than one consecutive term (i.e. ministry), as in the example you provided. In cases where only one term (i.e. ministry) is dealt with, it goes by leader. I think you and I discussed this once before. Anyway, Dodds continues to go entirely by ministry. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have my (2000) copy open in front of me now. The lists of ministries are on pages 1–50. Nowhere are the ministries named after the Prime Minister. Opera hat (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at British Historical Facts. RGloucester — ☎ 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite what you said before, but OK: Cook and Stevenson's British Historical Facts 1688–1760 (1988, pages 33–46) and British Historical Facts 1760–1830 (1980, pages 11–20) have their lists of "ministries and administrations" named by leader(s), with the exception of the Ministry of All the Talents. These lists of ministers for the most part only include Cabinet offices, so are not really comparable to this article. Cook and Keith's British Historical Facts 1830–1900 (1975, pages 1–47), which does include full lists of all ministers, has the ministries named by party, with the exceptions of the Aberdeen Coalition 1852–1855 (page 16) and the Palmerston Government 1855–1858 (page 18). I don't have access to any volumes of Dod's; are they available online at all? Opera hat (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, library only. Most libraries should have a few of them, though. They are comparable. To be clear, I'm sure you are aware that prior to the late 19th century, there were many fewer posts in the ministry than there are now, meaning that often all members would be in the cabinet. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of anything of the sort, but we're getting a bit off-topic here, so I'll reply on your talk page. Opera hat (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is reliable sources that matter, such as the books presented above. It is also consistency with our conventions that matter, as mentioned above. We are not a newspaper. We write an encylopaedia. Please go to the library, don't just use rubbish Google searches. That's lazy. Spend two ounces of time in the British politics section, and you'll see that this should be called "ministry". RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may support Cameron-Clegg ministry, as this seems to be supported by reliable sources. Having looked at it, coalitions of this sort are usually defined by the PM and First Secretary of State. RGloucester — ☎ 15:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources" like what? Can you cite a newspaper article that refers to the the "Cameron ministry", or the "Cameron-Clegg Ministry"? You seem to forget that we have a party-based democracy in the UK, not a presidential system.
There are consistent conventions. You were even present for their formalisation. The proposed title simply isn't good. Unless you are going to rename all articles in Category:British ministries and make new conventions, this will simply make a mess. In fact, I'd argue that this party disambiguation is highly inappropriate. If we're going purely on the basis of WP:UCN, rather than WP:CONSISTENCY or own conventions, then "Cameron Government" is the most common name by far in books, whereas the proposed name is often not used to refer to this specific ministry, but to the coalition agreement. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These "consistent conventions" were drawn up by you, and the only other editor to comment upon them (me) disagreed with part of them. I don't think you can claim much consensus there. There's nothing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) to cover this sort of article, and their format and scope varies widely, especially when including different countries - e.g. for Ireland they are sorted by each Dáil (Parliament), while for the USA they are a section within the "Presidency of ..." articles. If you're concerned about uniformity, then it's already a mess; there is no consistency, so each article title should be considered on its own merits.
You make a fair point that the proposed title is ambiguous and could also refer to the coalition agreement. But why do you say that using the party label is "highly inappropriate"? What's wrong with, say, Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government (or ministry, if you prefer)? Opera hat (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were drawn-up by me, because we had a mess of duplicate articles before, as I'm sure you remember. However, they were merely an updating of the existing conventions, described here, which had been in place for years. I oppose those titles because they are not the most common, nor are they WP:CONCISE or WP:CONSISTENT with our other articles. The most common disambiguation for modern British ministries is by Prime Minister. There is no doubt about this, as demonstrated above in my book search. If you search for "Blair Government" or "Blair Ministry", you'll find many more results than for "Labour Government XXXX-XXXX". I can provide more, if you like. I don't really care whether they are called "governments" or "ministries", though I think "ministry" is more correct, traditional, and favored by higher quality sources on the matter. However, I simply cannot support party-based disambiguation. It simply isn't as common. I certainly cannot support such a long title as what you proposed, which absolutely fails WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[shrug] You clearly feel more strongly about it than I do. You were right to merge all of those articles on Cabinet members with the full lists of ministers a while back. I would have preferred to keep those articles under the party name, because that's what the source for the articles used. You prefer to use the Prime Minister's name. Because they can all be redirected anyway it doesn't really matter, unless the article title is actually wrong (like Coalition Ministry was). Opera hat (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want "Government" I'll take "Government". If you want "Ministry" I'll take "Ministry". Yes, I prefer "Ministry", but I don't care enough to oppose such a move. Either way, I think we should be uniform. If we're going to move this to "Government", then the rest should be at "Government". That might be anachronistic, though, for earlier ministries. However, I cannot support using parties for 21st century ministries, as I said. If we're going into the realm of common usage, as you mentioned in your support for this proposal, then disambiguation by party is simply not supported. A search for "Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition" gets 60,900 hits. Most of these having nothing to do with the government, but instead have to do with the coalition agreement. The first hits are newspaper articles about the original signing of that deal. If you start adding "government" onto the end of that, the result is that the title fails WP:CONCISE. If one searches for "Cameron Government", one gets 274,000 results, all having to do with what this article is about. It is also WP:CONCISE. As I said above, I'd prefer no change in line with WP:TITLECHANGES. However, if a change is to occur, the only logical moves are to either "Cameron Government" or "Cameron-Clegg ministry", to address the proposer's concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an academic paper - it's an encyclopedia which will be used in future by ordinary people to look up facts relating to the current Coalition Government. No-one in the media calls it the "Cameron Ministry". No-one calls the last government the "Blair ministry", or the "Thatcher ministry" or the "Churchill ministry" for that matter. Giving an article a title which is not what everyone calls it, purely because that's what academics call it, is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, imho.Gymnophoria (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there is an article on the Premiership of David Cameron which is fine, because it talks specifically about Cameron and his role as Prime Minister. This article is more generally about the Coalition Government. It's also ambiguous: what if Cameron (gods spare us) wins the next election outright? What happens with this article? The coalition government will be over so this article would strictly come to an end, since a purely Tory government would be of a very different political makeup of the current coalition. "Cameron ministry" really doesn't seem to work as a term; for the benefit of Wikipedia readers, we need to be clear and specific. "Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition" does what it says on the tin: it's clear, precise, and unambiguous. It's what people call it now, and what they will most likely call it in future.Gymnophoria (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not any of those things. Party-based titles are not supported by common usage, and it is ambiguous, as it can refer to the coalition agreement. Did you see all the sources I provided above? Whether you like it or not, your proposal is not the common name of this body. If Cameron forms a new ministry, this article becomes the "First Cameron Ministry". I don't know who "no-one" is, exactly. Who is "no-one"? Regardless, if you'd take the time to read the sources above, you'd see that the only viable alternative to the present title, if "ministry" must go, is "Cameron Government". This would also require moving all other articles in the category. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed or Cameron-Clegg coalition government (or something of the like). "Cameron Clegg coalition" -wikipedia produced 168 Google Book hits, "Cameron ministry" -wikipedia 158 hits[1]. In terms of news hits, "Cameron ministry" -wikipedia get 40 hits[2] and "Cameron Clegg coalition" -wikipedia[3] 63 hits. "Conservative-liberal democrat coalition" -wikipedia get 1090 Google news hits[4] and "Conservative-liberal democrat coalition" -wikipedia gets over 1500 Google Book hits.[5]. It's clearly the case that the current name is by no means the common name and more than likely not how people are searching for the term. That being said, consistency certainly plays into this situation as almost every government follows the XX ministry format.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second Salisbury ministry, Seventh Menzies Ministry, Third Orbán Government, Verhofstadt II Government, Fox–North Coalition, Unionist Government 1895–1905, List of Thatcher ministers 1979–90, 24th Canadian Ministry, Government of the 14th Dáil, Dominique de Villepin#Cabinet membership, Presidency of George W. Bush#Administration and cabinet. There is no consistency. Opera hat (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per RGloucester & Brigade Piron. To add, the proposed move is ambiguous, as there is no reference to this being a government. A coalition is just a temporary alliance of parties, not necessarily of parties in government. Parties can form a coalition for elections and never make it to government. Walrasiad (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Including military ranks in names

I've noticed that some of the ministers who currently serve or have formerly served as commissioned officers in the British Army have their military rank stated. This includes Desmond Swayne (Major), Hugh Robertson (Major), Andrew Robathan (Major), Andrew Selous (Major), Julian Brazier (Captain), Tobias Ellwood (Captain) and Crispin Blunt (Captain). I wonder why this is necessary? None of them appear to be in active servicein the regular army (some might be in the Army Reserve, some definitely have left the army in the past). I suppose, if their rank is stated, it gives the impression they are currently active in the Army, which is not really the case. Seaweed (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of their proper title. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date dissolved

I don't know how best to communicate this in the article, but the Cameron ministry has not in any sense been "dissolved", and there isn't really a Second Cameron Ministry replacing a First one. The Cameron ministry is still in office, a number of members have simply resigned. This press release makes that clear. What's going on right now is really a reshuffle, not the formation of a new ministry. I'm not entirely sure there should be separate articles, although a precedent has been set with the three articles that treat the one Thatcher ministry as if it was three ministries (though on the other hand, Wikipedia doesn't do that with the Blair ministry).--82.35.251.109 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new ministry. A new ministry is formed after each election, by convention. You must realise that when Parliament is dissolved, the government is also technically dissolved. Even if a Prime Minister wins an election, he still must go to the Queen and form a new ministry, just as if had won for the first time. All PMs must do this, as shown here with Blair. The only reason he has one mass article is because of the haphazard way that his article was developed, which I don't think I need to recount. It would be best to split it up, but no one has the time or effort to do so. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, that's wrong. There is absolutely no convention that a government is dissolved when Parliament is dissolved, and no a new government is not appointed after each election. Technically and by convention, a government (or ministry) stays in office until the Prime Minister resigns. The notion that Prime Ministers have separate terms is entirely the product of modern media following the language of American politics. A Prime Minister's term (and therefore the term of his or her government) begins when he kisses the ring and ends when he resigns. So, Harold Wilson had two terms in office, not three, and Margaret Thatcher had only one. The reference I provided in my edit to the other article (which you bizarrely reverted) made it clear that all that has happened is the Lib Dems have resigned from the government. The government was at no point dissolved, and there is not a new ministry in any real sense. I don't want to challenge Wikipedia's right to invent its own reality, but please don't pretend that having three Thatcher ministries or two Cameron ministries reflects anything beyond Wikipedia. It's just how editors here choose to talk about it, and while it may catch on in the wider world one day, it's really no more than Original Research at the moment.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is correct. It has nothing to do with American politics. This division on the basis of ministries has always been the British format. It is not a "term", as it has nothing to do with the PM. A new ministry is formed after each election. Following an election, the Queen offers a party leader the chance to form a ministry. Prior to that offer, there is technically no government, even though the government remains in office in practice until someone forms a new government. A new ministry must be formed after each dissolution of parliament, even if the same party remains in power. Please read Dod's Parliamentary Companion. You will see the division by ministries listed very clearly. There is nothing more to say on this matter. If you do not understand the British political system, do not complain when your incorrect edits are reverted. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to post the comment that you deleted from your talk page, with only the addition that I do very much understand the British political system and I have checked both the copies of Dod's Parliamentary Companion that I own (1992, 2001), and I can find absolutely no trace of terms such as "First Thatcher Ministry" or anything that remotely suggests governments are dissolved at the same time as Parliaments. You have made it up, but I can see there's no way I'll be able to get you to reconsider this extreme Originality. Perhaps there is someone you can discuss this with, whose opinion you trust and who understands British politics. They'll confirm what I'm trying to explain to you.
As I posted earlier:
You removed my attempt to make Second Cameron ministry better reflect the reality of the situation. I thought what I added was a good compromise between the invention that's going on here on Wikipedia and the reality, but I guess it's not enough. I'm not going to get into a revert war or anything. It's late and I'm untroubled by Wikipedia being wrong about so many other things, so I'll just move on and forget about this too. But the article is wrong and what you've said is wrong. It is an entirely factual statement that the current ministry is the same ministry as before the election, and this is really just a reshuffle. If the ministry had been dissolved in any sense when Parliament was, it would not have been necessary for a bunch of ministers to tender their resignations to the Queen nor for the Queen to accept them, as happened yesterday (as per the reference I added). The media isn't reporting the matter in an entirely consistent or accurate way (it rarely does), but the majority of what I've seen is correctly referring to this as a reshuffle. But if you are going to insist on two Cameron ministries, and given the three Thatcher ones, there shouldn't just be three Blair ones but also three (not two) Wilson ones, two Macmillan ones (before and after 1959), two Eden ones (one for the seven weeks before the 1955 election and one for after) and probably many more splits necessary before that. I have never seen the history of British government treated in this way outside of Wikipedia, and I will eat Paddy Ashdown's hat if there are any peer-reviewed texts anywhere that will tell you Thatcher had three distinct ministries--82.35.251.109 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you? This aggression is absurd. Given that you seem unable to process basic information, I've taken the liberty of scanning Dod's (2009 is what I have on hand). Take a look. You'll see the three Thatcher ministries very clearly. Now, stop this behaviour at once. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is in no way a "reshuffle". A "reshuffle" is a change in the composition of the ministry that occurs during a given parliamentary term, sans an election. A ministry is created following an election, and ends at the next election. This new ministry is being formed because of the election. Even if the incumbent party wins an election, they must still form a new ministry in a formal sense, i.e. travel to the Palace and be granted permission to form such a government by the Queen. RS reportage on the current government formation is absolutely clear. For example, take a look at this article in The Guardian. Regardless, I believe that you need to do a bit of reading on the British constitutional system. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe you do. There's no aggression. You rudely suggested I know nothing about a subject that I actually know an awful lot about, so I've been rude back. The list you have scanned contains no ordinal numbering and it's ridiculous to argue that it provides a basis for this system you seem to have invented. It's just a rather haphazardly put-together list, I can't believe anybody at Dod's would endorse what you reading into it. For starters, if what you're suggesting was right, then "Cameron's Second Ministry" included the Liberal Democrats from the 7th to the 8th of May (note that the dates in the "Took office" column are the days of the elections themselves, not the days after the elections, and we know that the Lib Dems didn't resign from the ministry until the 8th - so if as you say there is a Second Cameron Ministry, formed on the day of the election because this is how you're interpreting that list in Dod's, then that ministry included Lib Dems for a day).
If the incumbent government wins re-election there is absolutely no need to form a new ministry in any sense, and no need to receive permission to do such from the Queen: the ministry is already in office. From what both Major and Blair have said that there was no "invitation to form a government", no permission needed or granted to form a government, and no kissing of hands except in 1997 for Blair and 1990 for Major. On the occasions of subsequent election victories, it was taken as read that they were still Prime Minister, that the office had not been vacated and the government had not been dissolved. I'm fairly sure Thatcher indicated the same in her written recollections. The constitutional experts on the BBC's live coverage yesterday, made it repeatedly clear that there was no actual need for Cameron to go and see the Queen and he was only doing so out of courtesy, because nothing had changed and he had in no sense left office nor was he going to be invited to form a new government (because the government/ministry that was in office before the election, is still in office right now, at least as far as the constitution is concerned if not as far as you are concerned). No minister returned his or her seals of office at the start of or during the election, and the only ones who did on the day after the election were the Lib Dems and the retiring Conservatives (and the fact that they needed to tender their resignations and the Queen needed to accept them, makes it pretty clear that the ministry was not dissolved, that this is still the same ministry). The ministry ceased to be a coalition but it did not cease to be. It's 2am, I'm not going to go on with this. You are wrong, and the way Wikipedia is recording this aspect of British political history isn't recognizable to people (like me) who study it, but it's clear I can't make you see that.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cameron–Clegg_coalition&oldid=661635132"