Jump to content

Talk:Cameron–Clegg coalition/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 are 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 so from the Queen: the ministry is already in office. From what both Major and Blair have said we know 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 2.30am, 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)
It is recognisable to Dod's, and to anyone with a knowledge of parliamentary and constitutional history. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Might I just suggest that this disagreement seems to hinge upon whether a ministry is the same as a government? I would also suggest that they are not the same - and that's why this article is called "First Cameron ministry" rather than "First Cameron government". It is true that there is only one Cameron government, but I'm not sure "ministry" has any official meaning at all, it's just a convenient subdivision. Therefore a single government may consist of any number of ministries. This article concerns the first ministry of the (only) Cameron government, and the other concerns the second ministry of that government. Whether you can call the transition from from to another a "dissolution" is another matter, but I would argue that yes, there are two Cameron ministries and the article title is therefore fine as it is (and in fact would probably be materially wrong were it otherwise). --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2015

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 consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


First Cameron ministry → 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government – as per it's what it's called:

site:https://www.gov.uk/ "cameron ministry" gets "1 result" which presents page content: "From:Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable, The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, The Rt Hon David Cameron, Ministry of Defence and + others"
"cameron ministry" gets to "Page 3 of 28 results" in news - I have not seen anything convincing in the minimal results

The Liberal Democrats may, on frequent occasion,[1][2][3] try to wipe themselves from history but this is no reason for us to help. GregKaye 09:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Parliament is elected, but Government is appointed, so no. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no "ranking" of article title criteria, and the proposed title is just plain rubbish. All of our British ministries are arranged like this so as to follow the system in Dod's and other reliable sources on this matter. Regardless, this title is precise. This article is about the first ministry led by David Cameron, which it is. RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester Not at all. David Cameron's Conservatives were far from having free reign with total control and a significant proportion of the ministers were Lib Dems. The present title is misleading. Why not follow what the government directly says themselves? GregKaye 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no such implication. Prime Ministers never have "free reign". Ministries, however, are always titled by the ministry leader. You can try "Cameron–Clegg ministry", if you'd like. 13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even if precision did rank higher than concision as Greg Kaye suggests, to my mind "First Cameron Ministry" would still win on both counts. It surely defines its subject as unambiguously as the more unwieldy title he suggests. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cameron–Clegg_coalition/Archive_2&oldid=1076346156"