Talk:Cabinet of the United Kingdom/Current cabinet

This redirect 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

Note re: my (very many) reversions on this page today—I consider them to be reverting blatant vandalism, and thus exempt from the 3RR, as they were restoring clearly sourced information, which was being deleted by a range of IPs, and an account, socking around and refusing to enter into dialogue. The account was blocked for vandalism, and a couple of other users were also reverting the same edits as vandalism. If anyone has a problem with my actions, or considers them excessive, I will gladly self-revert and allow other users to maintain the page. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was subsequently semi-protected from the vandalism, so everything should be fine now (for a while, anyway)... ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 130.88.168.226, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Iain Duncan Smith's name is misspelt.

130.88.168.226 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Celestra (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 86.29.79.235, 12 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I wish to change Nick Clegg's insert in the UK Cabinet Chart. He is Deputy prime minister of the UK AND First secretary of state. The First secretary of state title is missing from Clegg's section of the table. 86.29.79.235 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I thought first secretary of state is still distinct from deputy prime minister Foxhound66 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 81.152.13.205, 12 May 2010

George Osbourne should be a Rt Hon as he is now chancellor of the exchequer 81.152.13.205 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this as it is not clear whether he is actually a Privy Council member. If he is now, then his page (and other Wikipedia articles) will need updating too. David (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short of an announcement, I don't think we can assume appointments until late evening (i.e., after we can be sure they've met with the Queen. If people object to that, we probably can't move until the Court Circular is published at the TimesOnline. -Rrius (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please no responses to rumours alone. Is it true that the "Dr" honorific is included in such lists? I distinctly remember a WP guide that says not to, but where is it? Tony (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially confirmed by the Prime Minister's office that the Queen has made the appointment: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840 OCNative (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people are NOT privy councellors - the offical list - the one maintained by the crown is here - http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp#o - it hasnt met since april so these new appointments are NOT privy councellors. (Maidels (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Ok - now someone has taken away ALL the privy council listings - which is also incorrect as privy council appointments are for life.(Maidels (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Attorney General

Does the Attorney General actually sit in Cabinet or is he an "Also attends"? -Rrius (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Brown they were "also attends" because he hit the 22-member limit. It's generally a Cabinet position, and should be listed as such until we hear to the contrary, in my opinion. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "also attends" according to http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840 OCNative (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mitchell

When was his announcement made? No official link to say he's ID minister.Foxhound66 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840 OCNative (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rt Hon

Is it really necessary to put "The Rt Hon" in front of every single Cabinet member, considering that they all (will) have such an honorific? David (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its what they are - Privy Councilors. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. So why add unnecessary information to the table? If it's clear that all members of the Cabinet are Privy Councillors, then why point it out individually with each member's name? David (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes Number 2 for WP guidance. Tmol42 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes - it is really - its like having a meeting of Doctors and then not putting 'Dr' in front of all their names just because they all are. But at the moment MOST of them arent Rt Hon so the list is either half wrong or half right all the time because people go from one extreme (none of them) to the other (All of them) (Maidels (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

and with one or two exceptions they are all MPs, so why not leave that off and anotate those that aren't? It makes so sense to do so. Leaky Caldron 20:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that doesnt make sense. Its no different to writing down a list of peoples names and leaving off 'Mr' because you knew everyone in the room was a man. (Maidels (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What doesn't make sense? Should they be included or not? Leaky Caldron 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They SHOULD be included - it is there title - just because 'we' know that they all have the title does not mean that any old person looking at the list also knows it. Also - every other list on the same subject shows them with their titles - so if this list DOESNT include their titles then someone needs to go back and revise all the others. (Maidels (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Edit request RT HON

Please can you add Rt Hon to the following names only: David Cameron MP, Nick Clegg MP, William Hague MP, Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Theresa May MP, Iain Duncan Smith MP, The Lord Strathclyde PC, The Baroness Warsi, Francis Maude MP, Oliver Letwin MP, Sir George Young Bt. MP, Patrick McLoughlin MP,

All of these, and only these are either members of the privy council (referance - http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp#m) or they are peers who have the title anyway. Thank you (Maidels (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

It is frankly save to assume that by 9:30 a Privy Council meeting has been held during which the newbies, at least the department heads, have been appointed and sworn of council and have kissed hands, taken oaths, and received seals of office. -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea - but - it hasnt. The last privy council meeting was 12th april 2010. Since when does wikipedia work on 'assumption' rather than referanced evidence? (Maidels (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Also - the no.10 press report specifically issued on the subject notably shows that they havent been made privy council members - their appointment as ministers has been confirmed - but nothing else - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2010/05/12/Tory-LibDemGov.pdf (Maidels (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

It usually takes weeks for the Privy Council to post the orders online, so the absence of an order list is meaningless. As a matter of fact, I know for a fact there was a Privy Council meeting on 10 May. As far as working on assumption, from experience, we know how this works. There won't be any visible sign until the Court Circular posts tomorrow, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend to be idiots. These people were appointed and need to kiss hands before taking up office, but several of them met as part of the new National Security Council this evening, therefore we have enough reason not to be pedantic and wait until tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the no.10 press report is not being pedantic by making the distinction, but I am? Surely we need to go with the evidence at hand, rather than supposition (Maidels (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Ok - now - please can they all say Rt. Hon - its been confirmed. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840 (Maidels (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Chief Whip

The title of the Chief Whip is (as the Number 10 website gives) simply "Chief Whip". He is the ultimate government whip, above those in both Houses. As Wikipedia states in the main article on the matter:

"In British politics, the Chief Whip of the governing party in the House of Commons is usually appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury so that the incumbent, who represents the whips in general, has a seat and a voice in the Cabinet. By virtue of holding the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Government Chief Whip has an official residence at 12 Downing Street. However, the Chief Whip's office is currently located at 9 Downing Street."

I therefore suggest that "Chief Whip" is all that is needed, not "Chief Whip of the House of Commons". David (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not exactly a reliable source, though. There's been a Chief Whip of Commons and a Chief Whip of Lords at least as far back as Thatcher (I've not looked any further), why should this government be any different? It's probably The Baroness Anelay of St Johns. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see from the protocol that has been adopted for listing the Cabinet offices and those who attend cabinet meetings etc in the template it accurately reflects the titles as published today by the No 10 website without further clarification. As David (talk) says above the title is Chief Whip and so to be consistent will the approach adopted it does not need to refer to the Commons.Tmol42 (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there comes a time when we need to clarify something stated, regardless of protocol. If we just say "Chief Whip" people will assume they're Chief Whip of both houses, which they aren't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the same could be said about what some of the other more obscure Offices of State are and mean but there has been nor should there be any attempt to qualify these. As Chief Whip is wiki-linked to an article those who need to know more can go there as this is just meant to be a mere template list. I guess for those needing to be pointed directly at the information on the UK Government one could always redirect to Chief Whip#The Whips Office then its there in black and white, although I am not strongly advocating this beyond it being a way forward.Tmol42 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]