Talk:1979 vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 28, 2010, March 28, 2012, March 28, 2015, March 28, 2019, March 28, 2022, and March 28, 2024.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Should it not be described as a "vote of no confidence in the govt." or a "vote against the govt."? PatGallacher (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Election Trigger

Changed the Aftermath paragraph. As Baldwin's lost confidence vote in 1924 shows, a lost vote doesn't automatically trigger an election, Callaghan had a choice between an election and resignation, the monarch could then have appointed Thatcher, who would likely have asked for a dissolution, but that's speculation. Callaghan's choice wasn't much of one, but it was there, lost confidence votes don't automatically create GEs. 82.38.130.34 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)MatGB[reply]

There's no automatic about it at all. The sovereign can commission an alternate government - I think they may even be able to commission the incumbent Prime Minister at the head of a broader coalition - or call an election but it doesn't trigger automatically. Certainly Parliament carries on until the monarch is advised otherwise - as shown by the wash period. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airey Neave

I well recall Airey Neave was assassinated a day or so after the vote. Did he participate in the vote? I recall my father saying had the IRA timed the bomb 48 hrs earlier the government numerically could have won the confidence vote on a draw.Cloptonson (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We have consensus against the proposed move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1979 vote of no confidence in the government of James Callaghan → 1979 vote of no confidence against the government of James Callaghan – Consistency given the scope, e.g. 1742 vote of no confidence against the government of Robert Walpole and 1782 vote of no confidence against the government of Lord North, et al. --Neve –selbert 08:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per WP:CONSISTENCY, most "vote of no confidence" articles have "against the government" in their titles. (e.g. 1924 vote of no confidence against the government of Ramsay MacDonald, 1866 vote of no confidence against the government of the Earl Russell) Gabe Iglesia (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per basic grammar, and fix the other articles, too. The word "confidence" doesn't work that way. "I have no confidence in you" is a proper English utterance; "I have no confidence against you" does not parse as English. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except we need to consider the term "vote of no confidence" all-together. Another way to look at it is a "no-confidence vote" or a "no-confidence motion," which are alternative names for the term. While true that "I have no confidence in you" is correct rather than "I have no confidence against you," "a vote against/for someone" is more correct than "a vote in someone." Gabe Iglesia (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prepositional element applies to the confidence as much as to the vote, perhaps more so, since without this element either being stated or being already understood, "no confidence" has no referent and is meaningless. If I say "I'm voting 'no confidence'" and you don't know the context, you're just as apt to ask "no confidence in whom?" as "voting against whom?". Neither construction is universally preferable, so the name should be left as-is. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What I think is happening here is that English usage is changing, so reliable sources tend to use the more formal but now archaic against for older incidents. In any case, it's up to the proponents to demonstrate that the current usage is against for this particular incident, and they have not done so. Consistency does not come in to it as these titles are from reliable sources rather than our own natural language constructions. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per User:GabeIglesia's reply to User:SMcCandlish. Both forms are used so default to WP:CONSISTENCY. — AjaxSmack 14:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SMcCandlish and Andrewa. The proposed form just doesn't scan, and no evidence has been presented for either WP:COMMONNAME or grammar. You have or don't have confidence in something, not against it. — Amakuru (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "No confidence against ..." reads stupid.

The actual motion read ‘That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.’ The core clause is "no confidence in <thing>" The other articles are badly titled.

That said, the current title is not good. You have to read a lot of words before being able to start guessing the topic. I suggest Thatcher's motion of no confidence in the Callaghan government. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"To date" unclear

"As of 2017, this is the last occasion on which a British government has lost a vote of confidence." keeps being changed to "To date, this is the last occasion...". I think "To date" is unclear; it might stay in the article even when it's no longer true. "As of 2017" would at least make it clear that the information is outdated, when read in 2018 or later. -- UKoch (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

illness

I seem to recall, from a news report later on, that one of the reasons the government lost the vote was that one of its MP's was out ill (he later died), and there was some grousing about Thatcher's making her motion at that particular time. Anyone else remember that? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]