Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Teather

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

The non-Candidacy

[edit]

Just a note that I've removed the reference by User:mikeroberts to Sarah supposedly standing in the leadership election as I've been unable to find any other reputable references to it in news coverage nor, for what it's worth, any discussions I've had with people inside the party. Idp 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note - I think the discussion of the leadership in 2006 now drowns out the rest of her bio. Under a settled menzies cambell leadership I believe this section should be removed. I have not done this myself since I am not a registered user.

I believe Sarah Teather's role in the letter mentioned in the Guardian merits a mention, but the section could be thinned out. Catchpole 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

[edit]

See Leicester Grammar School- it has a reference to her as a noticeable alumni, which may warrant a mention. 86.2.106.90 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood illness

[edit]

I remember reading in an interview with her some time ago that she suffered a lengthy illness which caused her to miss out on a lot of her schooling. Is this true?

If it is, her later achievements (a science degree from Cambridge etc.) are the more remarkable.

Meltingpot (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical inclinations

[edit]

Doesn't she also play the clarinet?

Meltingpot (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to campaign for selection. All this POV-pushing is pretty pathetic. You're in the same party, too! Doing it from a parliament IP address is particularly unprofessional. Take it elsewhere or get banned. --ascorbic 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster war over Wikipedia

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Press_coverage#July news Item under "Westminster war over Wikipedia" --Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

[edit]

There was a conflict in her date of birth, which I have now corrected. The infobox gave it as 6 January 1974, while the article said 1 June 1974. One of these is obviously wrong, so I've opted for 1 June. Hopefully, this is the right one. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC and Lib Dems both give it as June 1st. I assume it was a case of a 1/6 vs 6/1 error. --Cherry blossom tree 16:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was probably the case, but wasn't sure. Easy enough mistake to make. Paul20070 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick pronunciation query

[edit]
te-ther. Like Heather. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
grand, cheers. tomasz. 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British... or English?

[edit]

What is Sarah's nationality?

- she was born in London, lives in London to English parents.... so why do we say her nationality is british and not English?

Because it's standard to list UK level politicians as British politicians as that is the level they operate at. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Minister

[edit]

I see my use of the phrase "Shadow Minister" has been reverted by an editor twice, although that is the term used by the official Parliamentary website at http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/government_and_opposition/libdems.cfm

As it is the official term being used by Parliament, I'm not sure why it's not being seen as acceptable to have in this piece? Markpackuk (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brent east/central infobox

[edit]

As you all know Brent east was a former constituency and brent central is the new one however they both seperate and i think we should have an infobox stating she was mp for brent east between 2003 to 2010 and another for brent central from 2010 onwards, what do you all think? Pro66 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote on tuition fees

[edit]

I think we should use the full quote of Teather's reasoning for voting in favour of the increase. This would mean the article would read "Stating her reasons for voting for the increase, Teather said "I have always supported the need to introduce a more progressive and fairer way of funding higher education. This is what the government is introducing ... At the time I signed the pledge nobody knew how bad the mess Labour would leave the British economy in. The staggering amount the country is paying in interest alone means that some very tough decisions need to me made. This is one of those." instead of "Teather justified this action by claiming that at the time she signed the pledge, she did not know the true state of the British economy, and that as a result very tough decisions needed to made" as the latter does not correctly or fully summarise her reasoning and it would be far simpler to use a direct quote--Matt Downey (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also quite plain that the ip 138.38.32.170 is a partisan user trying to make anything Lib Dem look bad. This ip on 10th Nov 2010 changed the Liberal Democrats page to read "Since the United Kingdom 2010 election however, the Party leader, Nick Clegg, announced that all Party policies were up for review, admitting in a private meeting that they now had to tow the Conservative Party line. This issue was highlighted most clearly by the issue of University tuition fees. Despite vigorously pledging before the election to oppose any attempted rise in tuition fees, the Liberal Democrats abandoned their principles (and voters) by declaring their support for a threefold rise in tuition fees. When challenged about this u-turn by Harriet Harman in Prime Minister's questions on 10/11/10, Nick Clegg first criticised the Labour Party for introducing top-up fees after pledging not to do so, seemingly unaware of the fact that he was now doing the exact same thing. Then, roused to exasperation by her persistent questioning, he roared, "Well why can't they just get their parents to pay the blasted fees?" When it was pointed out to him that not all students had rich daddies, his anger visibly increased. With his face red as a beetroot he brandished his finger at the Right honourable lady in front of him and bellowed, "This is what happens when you insist on 50% going to University. You open the floodgates and let the plebs in!" During this time, senior Lib Dem MPs quietly held their face in their hands, knowing that their party is heading for complete annhilation at the 2015 election." --Matt Downey (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to assume consensus if no one objects.--Matt Downey (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Remember, there is no deadline. No reason why we can't wait a couple of weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have anything against having the full quote? --Matt Downey (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not part of the discussion. I'm mediating. There's no deadline. You'd be well advised to find other interested editors (perhaps in relevant projects) to contribute. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if no one ever bothered to object on here and I therefore added the full quote to the article and then someone reverted it, what would that mean?--Matt Downey (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean that there's no true consensus. One v one rules I suppose. Akin to an edit war. Hence why I recommend you try to gain further support for your position from relevant parties such as interested Wikiprojects. If you can demonstrate consensus, then there's little room for manoeuvre. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hang on! I have made no such edit at all, where on earth did that come from? All I've been doing is reversing your vandalism here. And frankly, given your own history, I think it's a little rich of you to be accusing others of being 'partisan' when it comes to the Lib Dems!

To be honest, I'm not sure why this needs discussing, but if people want me to spell it out, I shall do so:

The section as it stands is, in my view, perfectly acceptable. Teather's stance has been articulated in a concise, fair and reasonable way. Wikipedia is not obliged to be a mouthpiece for Teather (or any other politician for that matter) and this proposal simply seeks to sneak what are non-objective assertions into this article by the back door, by enclosing them in quote marks.138.38.32.170 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did make that edit, simple fact. An accusation of vandalism is a very serious personal attack, please provide evidence of this. Correct, WP is not obliged to be the mouthpiece for her or any other. But there is a difference between being a mouthpiece and giving "Teather's stance has been articulated in a concise, fair and reasonable way" which there currently isn't. "I have always supported the need to introduce a more progressive and fairer way of funding higher education. This is what the government is introducing ... At the time I signed the pledge nobody knew how bad the mess Labour would leave the British economy in. The staggering amount the country is paying in interest alone means that some very tough decisions need to me made. This is one of those." is her statement on the subject. Your summary is "Teather justified this action (negative implications of that she must 'justify' herself ie, that her position is wrong unless justification is provided is very NPOV) by claiming that at the time she signed the pledge, she did not know the true state of the British economy, and that as a result very tough decisions needed to made" This summary includes nothing about that she believes that it is a fairer more progressive system or that in her opinion the state of the economy was created by the Labour party. Your summary is not "articulated in a concise, fair and reasonable way" and clearly does not demonstrate Teather's opinion on the matter.

Do not call me partisan, I have not been.--Matt Downey (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not partisan? Your repeated vandalism of this page, your past history of vandalism and your sheer desperation to insert inappropriate material - as evidenced by your threatening to insert it less than 24 hours after proposing it - rather suggests the opposite. What's even worse is that you're attempting to tarnish me with the same brush by sticking to a ridiculous lie about some made up edit you claim I've made. This behaviour is pathetic.

Now, you still fail to understand that Wikipedia is here to report facts, not political spin. The accusation made against Teather was that she voted for a raise in tuition fees despite having pledged not to. Opinions on whether or not tuition fees are fair or whether or not Labour was to blame for the current economy, are completely irrelevant for the purposes of this accusation, since neither explain why you would vote for a policy despite having previously promised not to do so. The explanation that she did not know the true state of the economy when she made the promise, and that tough decisions had to be made as a result, does explain it - hence why it is rightly reported.

And finally, the use of the word 'justified' is, well, perfectly justified! It is common practice, when a person defends an action that has provoked criticism (whether or not you believe that criticism to be merited) to describe them as 'justifying' their decision. The word recognises the factual existence of criticism, nothing more. 138.38.32.170 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement

[edit]

I have tried to reduce the number of chronologies in this article by breaking up several sections and redistributing their content. This assumes that people access Wikipedia articles on politicians for a resume of their career rather than an outline of their positions. The later structural practice could be confused with advocacy of particular stances. Also, because Teather has changed her mind, or felt to be bound by collective responsibility during her period as a government minister, the previous use of "Welfare reform" and "Higher Education" section headings, could be thought to be making a point against her. This goes against Wikipedia policy on neutrality, although obviously any reliable sources criticising Teather for her apparent change of heart can still be incorporated. Philip Cross (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sarah Teather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Height

[edit]

I discovered yesterday that Hazel Blears, who was also serving in Parliament from 1997 to 2015 was said in 2014 (according to Guardian profile on Frank Dobson) to be the same height 4 feet 10 inches as Teather. Fellow Labour MP Dobson once jokingly remarked about her height, "The good thing about global warming is that Hazel Blears will be the first to go when the water rises." Source - http://www.theguardian.com/global/2014/jul/30/frank-dobson-interview-labour-needs-knocking-lumps-off-this-government |title=Frank Dobson: Labour needs to be 'knocking lumps off' this government |publisher=The Guardian |date=30 July 2014 |accessdate=30 July 2014. Cloptonson (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarah Teather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sarah Teather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Teather&oldid=1255956404"