Talk:September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

On 6 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to United Kingdom mini-budget. The result of the discussion was not moved.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Flora Bowen (17 October 2022). "Wikipedia adds separate page for Truss government crisis to avoid confusion with Johnson era". The Daily Telegraph. An article titled '2022 United Kingdom government crisis', originally created on Jul 6, was altered on Oct 16 to direct a fresh wave of users looking for information to a new page on the economic crisis resulting from Ms Truss's mini-budget. The message at the top of the page, added on 16 October, reads: "This article is about the mass resignation of ministers from the Johnson government in July 2022. "For the Truss government crisis resulting from the September 2022 mini-budget, see September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget".

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section "The budget"

In the section "The budget" I cannot decipherer what this should mean
which in m were far greater than in some budgets
(bold highlighting by me) Rava77 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed it as this was a typo. It should read "which were far greater than in some budgets". This is Paul (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a redirect to this page be made for "2022 United Kingdom economic crisis"

I believe others are also trying to search, as I did, and this page is not in the list of results. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan, I'll do it if it hasn't already been done. Going forward though, if the economic fallout from this mini-budget continues we may need to split it into a separate article. This is Paul (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this page should stand & another page for the search term named. I do agree the 2 pages should be strongly linked & this page should appear in the specified search. Alanthehat (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget → United Kingdom mini-budget – No need to disambiguate by month and year, since there have been no other similar "fiscal events". I would also support a move to just mini-budget if other editors agree, but I think the proposed title is a good compromise. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because other events could be regarded as mini-budgets, such as the July 2020 United Kingdom summer statement and the September 2020 United Kingdom Winter Economy Plan. There's a case for dropping the September from the title, but that really depends on what happens on 23 November. If that "fiscal event" is given the title "budget" or "mini-budget" then moving this article may cause confusion, and be pointless since we'd then need to move it again. Like the People's Budget of 1909, I suspect in time this event may be given its own nickname, but let's leave it as it is for now. This is Paul (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@This is Paul: In this case, do you think that mini-budget should be made into a disambiguation page? QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for exactly the same reason as This is Paul. Having the year is useful to distinguish from other events (both the article This is Paul links use the phrase "mini-budget" in their first sentence). Moving to mini-budget has all the same problems, plus it suggests that the article is about the concept of a mini-budget in general, rather than this specific one. WJ94 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WJ94: That's fair enough. As above - do you think that mini-budget should be made into a disambiguation page, rather than redirect here? QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just thinking that but decided not to do anything till after the discussion was closed. It's a good plan though. This is Paul (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @QueenofBithynia: Yes, I think that is a good idea. WJ94 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the current title is fitting. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I started the article as "September 2022 United Kingdom budget", but it was then specified as a "mini-budget". I agree with HandsomeFella, the title is fitting. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Things like this are always best described more fully to avoid ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mini-budget page created

Now the move discussion is closed I've created the disambiguation page Mini-budget and added the three events that are referred to as mini-budgets. Feel free to add any more that fit the description and also to change the wording if you feel that is necessary. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - a good decision in my mind. I'm also interested to see how the media refer to the statement which is now due at the end of this month, and the possibility of moving this page to 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget. But let's not do anything pre-emptively; no harm in waiting and seeing. WJ94 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Developing events: potential split soon?

Given the events that are currently developing in Westminster (multiple government policy U-turns, the Chancellor's sacking, and the political fallout), should we consider splitting this article? I would propose a new article entitled Aftermath of the September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget, or something like that, as an initial split. It is currently unclear whether this situation will continue in its current direction (much speculation that Tory MPs will move against Truss and replace her). Emphasis on "speculation", which is why I would stop short of calling it a "government / political crisis" yet. Willwal1 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be hesitant to make this split just yet. I think it makes sense for the economic reaction to remain in this article, so any split would be to focus on the political ramifications. So far, most of the government reaction has been policy changes which are directly reversing measures in the mini-budget. Much of the political reaction has been, as you note, largely speculation. If in a few months this all turns out to be a lot of heat but things just carried on largely as they were, having an "aftermath" article might seem odd. On the other hand, if this turns out the be the first step towards Truss's downfall or a general election, then splitting the article would make sense. At the moment we don't know, so a split would fall foul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Of course, Kwarteng's sacking pushes us further in the "political crisis" direction - but there's every possibility that his sacking and some policy reversals are the end of the matter. I'm not opposed to splitting the article in principle but I'd rather wait at least a few weeks to see if this triggers something which escapes the bounds of the mini-budget and economic policy (eg. a serious attempt to unseat Truss). WJ94 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, best to wait for a few weeks as we don't know what's going to happen. This could be the beginning of the next Conservative leadership election, or even a general election, but only time will tell. This is Paul (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably an argument for an article titled 2022 United Kingdom financial crisis, which was sparked by the mini-budget and therefore can be regarded as an aftermath, but I don't know if that article would repeat some of the stuff already included in this one. This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's most certainly an argument for an article titled

eg 2022 United Kingdom fiscal crisis

I prefer 'fiscal' as the origin of the crisis was a so-called 'mini-budget' (a misnomer, ... rather a fiscal policy announcement)

This then led to financial consequences and a political crisis. TGcoa (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that makes better sense to describe it as a fiscal crisis. This is Paul (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but I believe such a page should be called 2022 United Kingdom fiscal crisis instead of Aftermath of the September 2022 mini-budget. --KeyKing666 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps September 2022 United Kingdom government crisis might be better, with 2022 United Kingdom government crisis renamed to July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis and a disambiguation page created? Or perhaps September 2022 United Kingdom government omnishambles might be even better, as this combines fiscal, financial and political crises all at the same time. — The Anome (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, there's a logical split between the immediate (largely financial & economic) aftermath to the mini-budget (currently contained in the "Reaction" section) and the more concrete political ramifications (which would include the sacking of Kwarteng, the appointment of Hunt, the repealing of most of the mini-budget, and the moves to replace Truss). It makes sense that the immediate financial reaction to the mini-budget (and the immediate political reaction) is discussed in this article; as This is Paul mentioned above, an article on the financial aftermath risks being too repetitive. The longer-term political ramifications probably deserve their own article at this stage - something like Political aftermath of the 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget. WJ94 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's the political impact that should probably be spun-off into a separate article. It's difficult to know what title to give it though as it largely depends on what happens next. The efforts to remove Truss could end up with another leadership election (rather like the 1990 one that elected John Major) or the Conservatives could limp on with Truss at the helm until a general election. Autumn 2022 United Kingdom government crisis could be one possibility (as the crisis has gone past September) or Political impact of the September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget (a bit of a mouthful though), or Growth Plan controversy, or even Political impact of the Growth Plan. This is Paul (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you there. Suella Braverman has just resigned as Home Secetary as well. KeyKing666 (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Morton and Craig Whittaker have gone from the Whips' Office according to BBC News, and there are reports of people being manhandled through the no lobby in a fracking vote that may or may not have been a vote of confidence in the government. I'd say we're definitely in government crisis territory now, if not a government in its death throes. Looks like there's probably enough to start an article either tonight or tomorrow. This is Paul (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Gust Justice has created October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis. I think there's scope to move a good deal of the reaction section of this article over there. WJ94 (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any splits With Truss's resignation, there is no need for any articles beyond this one and Premiership of Liz Truss. At 37kb characters here and just 15kb there, a split is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 16:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opionion poll claim

The statement that an "opinion poll published by Redfield and Wilton Strategies on 17 October showed a 36-point lead for Labour, the largest ever poll lead for a political party" is slightly misleading. I think it is the largest lead that Redfield and Wilton Strategies have shown, though I think they only started voting intention polls in 2020. However it is not the largest lead shown by any UK poll ever. For example in October 1995 a Gallup/Telegraph poll had Labour on 61% and the Conservatives on 21.5% a 39.5% lead and there were other polls in 1994-1995 which had a lead of 39-39.5%, with one in January 1995 being over 43%. Similarly in the months after the 1997 United Kingdom general election, Labour had leads between 38% and 40% with some pollsters. Thus I think it should be made clearer that the statement refers to this polling company only. Dunarc (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess journalism isn't what it used to be. This is Paul (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair as polling methodology has evolved and polling companies have come and gone there is a case for arguing making comparisons with the 1990s is not scientific, but then again plenty of political writers still do it. Dunarc (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]