Talk:Cabinet of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

List order

What order is this list in? It looks like it was originally order by length of service in the Cabinet, in which case the recent changes are wrong? 80.229.39.194 13:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe it is in order of seniority. Mintguy (T)

I think the current listing, by length of continuous service is perfectly sensible, though it hadn't occured to me before and I didn't scroll down far enough to read the note (which I've now moved). However, if the list is ordered that way, shouldn't the individual members of the Cabinet be in the first column, and their offices in the second? -- Gregg 01:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. We're more interested in the offices than the holders thereof; however, the current listing (by order of seniority) is, amongst other things, their positions relative to one another in the Orders of Precedence, both for England and Wales, and for Scotland.

Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 10:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It only corresponds to their positions in the Order of Precedence for the Secretaries of State. The Lord Chancellor, Prime Minister, Lord President and Lord Privy Seal (in that order) are senior to all Secretaries of State and the others are junior to them all (ranking as Privy Counsellors in order of seniority in the Privy Council). Proteus (Talk) 12:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is rather odd right now. Why is the Home Secretary below the Chief Whip? That seems rather absurd. john k 20:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Privy Council

Is the Cabinet technically a committee of the Privy Council? I've read this somewhere but it's not mentioned in the article. David

I've found the information on the Privy Council page, so I'm going to update this page now... David. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpaajones (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

New Cabinet

The page needs updating as Mr blair has just announced a new cabinet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.64.9 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well done to whoever updated it that was fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.64.9 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Members

Members from the cabinet are drawn exclusively from the HoC and HoL, there is no usually about it. 18:30 - 10/07/2007 BST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.64.18 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

History

When was the first cabinet of the UK (or Great Britain) convened? Did England and Scotland each have their own cabinet before the union? — Instantnood 11:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

See Privy Council of Scotland and Privy Council of England.--Mais oui! 12:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Since when did the cabinet and privy council become different? — Instantnood 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that in the 18th century, the Cabinet was essentially informal - it just consisted of the ministers who were invited to informal meetings of the most important ministers. At least by Queen Anne's time there seems to have been a sense of an "inner cabinet" as distinguished from the Privy Council as a whole, although it took a long time to be formalized. Pitt the Younger is generally the first person where we actually get to the point where it's clear enough who's in the cabinet and who's not to be able to make lists in most references - although this might amount to laziness, to an extent - the ODNB speaks confidently of who's in cabinet and who's not for most of the 18th century. john k 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I guess there's no formal cabinet in the two kingdoms prior to the Act of Union 1707, am I right? — Instantnood 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's been an enumerated cabinet since William. Maybe even before. I mean, it's more the purpose of the cabinet that changes than its actual composition, as I understand. Pre-Revolution it seems like it was more a means of executing the King's power, whereas after it becomes something of a bureaucratic support system of the executive as a whole. If the political shifts that occurred in the early 18th as each new ministry was appointed are any indicator, I'd say the ministers had by then as much to do with the domestic agenda as the king. As I say below, I'm not a specialist in British history, but I've had a lot of 18th century press burned into my retinae via microfilm machine lately, and their sense of who is and is not in the ministry (and who serves what role) is quite clear by Anne's time. I would strongly suspect it goes back to the Revolution. Fearwig 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As an unofficial concept, the idea of a cabinet of the most important ministers has existed for a long time. But as late as the 18th century there still wasn't an official cabinet, just a group of ministers who "attended cabinet meetings." Sometimes this would actually be inconsistent, with some minister sometimes attending cabinet and sometimes not. The idea of cabinet as an official concept probably only goes back to Pitt the Younger or so, maybe later. john k 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Composition (historical)

"The cabinet has always been led by the Prime Minister, although his role is traditionally described as primus inter pares — first among equals."

Not really true at all. Walpole, for instance, wasn't a PM (as the position didn't exist yet), nor were any before him. So... lots of cabinets weren't led by PMs. Someone want to rephrase this? Being a "'merkin" I don't want to intrude with an attempted edit--I only know enough to say this is inaccurate. Fearwig 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the Cabinet existed before Walpole is questionable. And the official position of prime minister didn't exist until 1905. Before that it was unofficial, but goes back at least to Walpole. Before Walpole, there was frequently a minister who was considered the chief minister, even if, in retrospect, they're not considered official "prime ministers". For instance, from 1702 to 1710, Lord Godolphin, the Lord Treasurer, is generally considered the chief minister, after him was Robert Harley, then the Duke of Shrewsbury, then Lord Townshend, then Stanhope and Sunderland together. john k 02:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Cabinet

Who changed the section at the bottom of the page? It's presently out of date since (for one) Charles Clarke isn't the Home Secretary any more. --Lapafrax 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A 'presidential' Prime Minister?

I added this part because (as people who follow British politics would know) Blair and other PM's in history have been criticised as being presidential and naturally this refers to the nature of cabinet government.

I found it peculiar that such an occurence wasn't previously noted in this paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.64.18 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This article leans too far in the direction of presidential.

• The Brown/Blair split in the current Government does not indicate the Blair is a President.
• Geoffrey Howe's devistating critisism of Thatcher on his dismissal shows that even the most powerful of Prime Ministers is only the first amoung equals not a President.

--PBS 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In this context, "presidential" means that the PM is using his Cabinet like a President within a presidential system. For example, President Bush in the USA isn't constituionally bound to collectively make decisions with his Cabinet. He has every right to force his agenda and viewpoints onto his Cabinet members. In the British system of government, a PM traditionally makes decisions in a collective manner with his Cabinet. This is why the PM is called "first among equals". Tony Blair and Thatcher were noted for not collectively making decisions with their Cabinet. Lapafrax 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think current events shows that this is much more to do with the power of the Prime Minster has as leader of their party than the power they as Prime Minister. As I have just added to the article "However the power that a Prime Minster can has over his or her Cabinet colleagues is directly proportional to the amount of support that they have with their political parties and this is often related to whether the party considers them to be an electoral asset or liability. Further when a party is divided into factions a Prime Minster may be forced to include other powerful party members in the Cabinet for party political cohesion." --PBS 12:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But to be honest I think that the whole paragraph/issue should have citations --PBS 12:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

historical

Can there be some citations in this section? How is it accurate exactly? Lapafrax 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor Suggestion

In the "current cabinet" section it might make things easier if we added a bracket with the common name for positions like "Secretary of State for the Home Department" to the table. Most people know this position as Home Secretary and it has the potential to confuse those not familiar with the correct terminology - at the very least it makes it more difficult than it should be. I would guess some people will find this suggestion abhorrent because it would be seen as dumbing down the article, but we have to remember that wikipedia is aimed at those with little to no background knowledge about a given subject. I know what the term means, whoever added the term knows what it means, but a casual reader looking for information on who the current Home Secretary is might be left frustrated. I would advocate adding a "(Home Secretary)" after this term and will do so if nobody objects. Blankfrackis 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet position?

Is the Secretary of State for Equalities really a cabinet position? Not just something Harman has, but not Cabinet-level? Therequiembellishere 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Secretaryships of State are generally cabinet level positions. john k 00:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Europe disappeared?

Minister of State for Europe seems to be missing from the list. Probably just an oversight? TimR (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An oversight by Gordon Brown and the British government, not anyone here. the official list didnt mention Europe minister because she quit after the detailed reshuffle had been complete. Once Glenys Kinnock has been put in the Lords and assumes her role as Europe minister im sure it will be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Glenys Kinnock has been saying that she IS minister for Europe. She is not in the Lords, and would lose a substantial pension entitlement if she joined the Lords before completing her term in the European Parliament (July 2009), but that does not mean she is not in the government. 07:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlangley (talk • contribs)

Ministers outside Parliament

It is normal for cabinet members to be drawn from the Commons or Lords, but there is no formal requirement for this. I can't think of any exceptions since the 1960s: Frank Cousins, joined the cabinet before entering Parliament; Patrick Gordon-Walker was (briefly) Foreign Secretary, and then Minister without Portfolio while outside Parliament; Alec Douglas-Home had renounced his peerage and was seeking election to the Commons on the day he became Prime Minister. Qlangley (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Cabinet mock-up

I've worked up a "just in case" Tory Cabinet based on the current Shadow Cabinet. Feel free to tinker with it. The idea is to copy it here (with whatever adjustments Cameron makes) in the event he wins. -Rrius (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest we follow suit with the US cabinet table seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_line_of_succession) using a colour key to denote party affiliation in this new coalition cabinet --78.109.182.37 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lock Article

Perhaps this article should be locked due to the level of vandalism. I think Nick Clegg has been changed froma Lib Dem to a Conservative and back several times in the past few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.173.36 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There's all kinds of vandalism going on. There's a few of us reverting things very quickly. Protection recommendation seconded. Gs83 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lock down needed, this page is getting very heavily vandalised 130.88.162.30 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A request has been made for semi-protection, at the moment all you can to is wait and attempt to sort any messes out. Will Bradshaw (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Are the Conservatives and Lib Dems automatically Secretaries of State, or just designates before the Seals of State and letters patent have been issued by Her Majesty? They certainly won't get Rt Hons until they are appointed to the Privy Council unless they already had one. Anyone know when all that will happen? Tomorrow? Rednaxela (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It has probably happened already. If you go back and look, there is usually a privy council meeting on the day a Cabinet is formed or reshuffled. They don't even have to be at the meeting to be entitled to "Rt Hon". At most, it requires recording the order of appointment. -Rrius (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion

The usage of a kind-of-subpage in the article namespace via Cabinet of the United Kingdom/Current cabinet is totally unnecessary - subpages in the namespace are rightfully disabled - , I moved the content to the article. Hekerui (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems editors were using that page as a template; there is a now obsolete transclusion at Cameron ministry#Inaugural cabinet (11 May 2010 onwards). If editors want to use a sub-page as a template I would suggest converting it to a template. Road Wizard (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Absurdalex5, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone should add the The Rt. Hon. to some of the members as they're now in the privy council http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/cameron+to+chair+first+coalition+cabinet/3646992

Absurdalex5 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a specific list.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Cameron Ministry

Someone has suggested merging from Cameron Ministry, but I guess that he didn't read the previous discussion at Talk:Cameron Ministry#Needs moving, where the idea was overwhelmingly rejected.

• Oppose, for reasons previously stated.

David Biddulph (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, this proposal is even more shortsighted. The Current cabinet section of Cabinet of the United Kingdom will change when future governments come along. Cameron Ministry will remain a record of this goverment, following on from the list at List of British ministries.

• Strongly oppose.

David Biddulph (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose for all the reasons stated above, and the fact that when the government changes again we'd need to recreate this article. Plus there are articles for practically every other ministry, so why not Cameron? Even if it does, at present, duplicate the info at Cabinet of the United Kingdom. That won't always be the case. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris Huhne

I posted a link to this article into a Lib Dem Forum yesterday and someone pointed out Chris is still listed as a minister, despite his resignation last week. I see that Cameron Ministery has been updated, and that the tables of Ministers appear to be linked somehow; perhaps someone could point me to an explaination, so it can be updated, or preferably automated more effectively? Tagilbert (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

case

Cabinet minister is not a title any more than constitutional monarch, and minister should not be upper case. Does anyone disagree? So far as I can see The Times and Daily Telegraph both use the style Cabinet minister. Spicemix (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed accordingly. Spicemix (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

A 'presidential' Prime Minister? (2)

See section above A 'presidential' Prime Minister?

I think that the sentence in the lead that starts "The political and decision-making authority of the cabinet has been gradually reduced over the last several decades ..." can not be substantiated, particularly when the cabinet consists of members of two different parties as it does at the moment.

As I wrote previously how regal a PM behaves is a function of how big the PM's majority is and the power the PM has as party leader over his/her party. This was seen in the last labour government in microcosm. At the start of his reign Tony Blair acted as if he were president/dictator, but as his party split between Balirites and Brownites his power in Cabinet diminished. Brown was never able to act in a presidential/dictatorial way because he did not command a majority in his party to behave that way.

The current cabinet is made up of members from two parties and as such the power of the current prime minster over his cabinet is probably more restricted than any since the minority governments of the 1970s and possibly since the coalition governments of the 1930s.

Therefore I propose that the sentence is removed from the lead. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

impeachment

"Parliament cannot dismiss individual ministers" - presumambly impeachment is still possible, albeit extremely improbable? --211.150.222.2 15:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not clear. It's probably illegal under European law. jguk 18:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It only makes sense to impeach when there is no higher authority that can simply dismiss - impeachment is something done "against a power-holder by his ordinary subjects" as a precaution for abusing said power (or against getting a pass for normal criminal offences due to having said power). Hence, the Americans only impeach their President, and the only English politician it would make sense to impeach is the King, though I doubt there is an established procedure for that, and it certainly never was used in a manner survived by the King.--2001:A61:20C1:DA01:A094:35B0:DE9E:B0D6 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

question

I am a user from zh.wikipedia and attemt to translate the article to chinese now. I have some question on some sentences. 1. what does the "a justification for the vigour " mean in the following sentence

The relative impotence of Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account is often cited by the UK media as a justification for the vigour with which they question and challenge the Government.

2. what does this sentence mean.

Perhaps surprisingly, this is relatively rare in practice, perhaps because, whilst many would consider incompetence more harmful than personal scandal, it is of less interest to more populist elements of the media, and less susceptible to unequivocal proof.

Thanks in advance. --Yongxinge (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

any thing can go on this website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.57.241 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   I've reformatted IP-edr 78...'s in the hope it was somehow intended to respond to Y__x__.
--Jerzy•t 17:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

   If our colleague User:Yongxinge will contact me on my en:WP talk page, i think i can answer both questions. I will also try to "make time to" make the same offer on their talk page at zh.WP .
--Jerzy•t 18:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

jobs?

Is the Minister for the Cabinet Office no longer attending Cabinet? Who's May's deputy? Phillip Hammond? Is there a Lord President of the Council and Lord Privy Seal anymore? How does the Leader of the Lords get paid otherwise? 98.10.179.163 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cabinet of the United Kingdom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030034917/http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/vernon-bogdanor-britain-is-in-the-process-of-developing-a-constitution-6161122.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/vernon-bogdanor-britain-is-in-the-process-of-developing-a-constitution-6161122.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Baron Adonis

It's said it was "rare" for a peer to be appointed to the Cabinet other than as Leader of the Lords. Lord Adonis was Secretary of State for Transport from 2009 until the end of the Labour government. He was the most recent peer to be appointed to Cabinet, not Lord Peter Puffer. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Constituencies added to Cabinet Wikitable

I have added the constituencies of all Cabinet members to the Wikitable as I believe this is informative and for those who may be interested don't then have to trawl through various pages to find them. I wish to do the same with the Shadow Cabinet also. 81.102.134.93 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Current Cabinet

Should the current cabinet section do what it says and just show the current cabinet? Rather than showing the many people who have been replaced over the past year (i.e. Johnson, Davis ect.). Wouldn't it be best for this table to be separate from the May ministry page and just show what is required of it. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree! Just current positions here, and leave the changes to the May Ministry page. VelvetCommuter (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Any idea about how to do this? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why "Dr Liam Fox" but not "Dr Greg Clark"?

In the list of officers, Liam Fox is listed as "Dr Liam Fox", but Greg Clark, who has a PhD in Economics from LSE, is listed just as plain ol' "Greg Clark". Why the discrepancy? Surely it should either be "Liam Fox" and "Greg Clark", or "Dr Liam Fox" and "Dr Greg Clark".

Jinlye (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Power to remove

"Parliament cannot dismiss individual ministers (though members or a House may call for their resignation, or formally resolve to reduce their salary by a nominal amount), but the House of Commons is able to determine the fate of the entire Government." Is 'cannot' too strong a word here? Isn't it fairly accepted that impeachment still technically exists as a power, but is rarely ever useful in practice? (Though probably not much rarer than reducing the salary of a Minister.) SmellsBurntToast (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Markspencer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Thérèse Coffey MP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Department column in list of cabinet ministers

The choice of values in the 'Department' column of the list of cabinet ministers appears to be based on accounting departments rather than ministerial departments. The clearest examples are the Scotland Office and Wales Office. If you look at the list of ministerial departments at UK.gov, the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales are listed. The same hold true for the List of Ministerial Responsibilities. The only evidence of their not being fully fledged departments on that site comes from the fact that the top civil servant listed is a director rather than a permanent secretary.

It strikes me as odd that the table calls out this somewhat arcane distinction without any explanation in the article, let alone the section containing the list or the list itself. I believe we should either switch to the ministerial department as listed at UK.gov or get rid of the column altogether. -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I was the person who put the citation needed tags on the Scotland and Wales Secretary rows and I agree that the ministerial departments at [1] (or, failing that, [2]) should be used, rather than the departments which are currently used. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

First Secretary of State

By definition, the First Secretary of State takes precedence over all other ministers except for the Prime Minister; Raab should be listed second in seniority after Johnson, before Sunak. He is listed as such in the "Johnson ministry," article. The Cabinet article should be in sync. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Raab is actually third in the ministerial ranking, behind Johnson and Sunak. That is why he is third in this list.

Too, the FSoS, like the DPM, doesn't necessarily take precedence over all other ministers except the PM; there is no right of sucession to the office of PM in the UK. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Attorney General's Office.png
• Cabinet-Office.pgn.png
• Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.png
• Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.png
• Department for Education.png
• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.png
• Department for International Trade.png
• Department for Transport.png
• Department for Work and Pensions.png
• Department of Health and Social Care.png
• Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.png
• HM Treasury.png
• Home Office.png
• Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.png
• Ministry of Justice.png
• Northern Ireland Office.png
• Scotland Office.png
• UK Ministry of Defence.png
• Wales Office.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Format of the current cabinet table

I think we should make a decision on what format the current cabinet table should be, as in what the column names should be and what information should be included in each row. I have noticed recently that the structure of the table keeps changing regularly, for example I am not sure why the column for the minister's name has been changed from 'Minister' to 'Incumbent' and 'Department' to 'Executive Department'? I have also noticed that the logos have gone, which were unnecessary in my opinion.

In addition, as the table currently stands we have 3 columns with left-aligned text and 2 columns center-aligned text? It just seems odd to me, plus I don't think it is necessary to include when the department was first formed?

Thoughts?

Alexdaveroberts (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this conversation is one worth having. I noticed that some edits had been made yesterday and tried my best to help out to standardise them. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CsHBoP4f.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Great Offices of State

I notice that different sections for the holders of the Great Offices of State and other Cabinet ministers have been readded to the table. I was wondering what other people thought about this. Personally, I don't think that we should make the distinction, as (although it doesn't at the moment) the distinction might contradict the order by which the table is currently formatted, ministerial ranking. This would have been the case in December 2019 and January 2020, for instance. I also don't really think that the Great Offices of State are different enough to the other Cabinet rank offices to warrant a distinction. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I added the Great Offices of State section and also distinguished from the other counterparts from Cabinet as I think it is necessary for the distinction between the four titles which comprise the Great Offices of State and those that do not. We have a section which states of other Cabinet colleagues who attend the Cabinet when matters amongst their remit are discussed so why would we not make it clear that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs are the Great Offices of State? If we distinguish one set of Cabinet colleagues, why would we not be consistent with others? RyanPLB (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! From what I can tell, the distinction between Cabinet ministers and "Also attends Cabinet" ministers is 'official' and can be found on the government website, for instance. However, the distinction between the holders of the Great Offices of State and others is not really as official. Additionally, as I have said above, the distinction might contradict the order by which the table is currently formatted, ministerial ranking. I'm more than happy to go with the consensus. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for responding also! I see your point but I still feel strongly that it is of paramount importance to separate the four that comprise the Great Offices of State. As you mention about the ministerial ranking, you'll find the first four on there are the ones who are the Great Offices of State so I think it makes sense in the way I've done it. RyanPLB (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Other than your personal preference, there is absolutely NO "paramount importance" as you describe it. The cabinet does not operate on seniority and the only person EVER to have the final say is the PM. The great office holders sit there, alongside the most junior member. You are offering WP:POV and WP:OR. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, having had a quick look back at the talk page for this page, there hasn't actually ever been an agreed way to order the list (there was a short discussion in 2004 that, from what I can tell, never really got anywhere: in it, there was talk of using order of length of service in Cabinet, "...order of seniority" and Order of Precedence). It just appears that one day somebody decided to start using the ministerial ranking and making the distinction between the Great Offices and State and non-Great Offices of State and it stuck! So a conversation like this is a really useful one to have.

Thus, and without any Wikipedia policy that I know of to guide us, whatever decision we make has to be subjective in some sense (if I'm not mistaken in my understanding of how Wikipedia works). In my view, while I do think that just using the ministerial ranking to order the list and only differentiating between Cabinet ministers and "Also attends Cabinet" ministers would be preferable (for the reasons given above), from this discussion and noting that these offices are certainly seen by many as (at least some of) the 'top jobs' and so that the distinction might help to guide some novice readers (we're not the London Gazette, after all), I would be happy to continue to include the Great Offices of State subtitle for now, as it in no way changes the order of the list. Perhaps we could reevaluate this decision in the future if a situation like in December 2019 and January 2020 arose again. As I say, this has been a really valuable discussion to have, so thank you for replying and best wishes! If anybody else has any thoughts on this, then please feel free to add them below! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet executives

I've noticed that there has been some disagreement as to who should be labelled Cabinet executives in the infobox. I'm not completely sure what the term means myself, so I favour either not including it at all or just having Boris Johnson as the sole Cabinet executive. I'm not completely sure how Dominic Raab and, especially, Michael Gove qualify to be included in this category. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. Having been reverted following my removal of these "roles" I think a discussion here would be useful. I can say with certainty that there is no official "executive" functions in the UK's unwritten constitution. The so-called "Great Offices" of state are Foreign, Home, Defense and CofE and the Cabinet Office has always been a rather shady, background outfit. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Dominic Raab and Michael Gove qualify to be Cabinet Executives as they Supporting the Prime Minister in the running of the Cabinet and Government of the United Kingdom in their roles as First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office. Politicsnerd123 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a source. Your argument sounds like a personal point of view or opinion. The cabinet is supported by the cabinet secretary and civil service. The UK does not have cabinet executives at secretary of state level. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Did we ever come to a conclusion on this point? Or is everybody happy just having Boris Johnson as the sole Cabinet executive? I'd, personally, slightly prefer not including any Cabinet executives in the infobox at all, as I'm not completely sure what the term means and certainly how it relates to the Cabinet, but I'm really easy over. I just wanted to check that we're not still outstanding on this point. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any replies to my last comment here, I've removed any reference to "Cabinet executives" completely (among other things). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Primus inter pares

I've started a discussion on a different talk page concerning Walter Bagehot's use of "primus inter pares" to describe the Prime Minister. If you're interested, you can find it here. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Suella Braverman’s return from maternity leave forces Cabinet mini-reshuffle

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/10/suella-bravermans-return-maternity-forces-cabinet-mini-reshuffle/

"After a week of swirling rumours about a looming reshuffle, Boris Johnson finally conducted a shake-up of his front bench on Friday.

It was a modest change, however, that resulted from the return of Suella Braverman from maternity leave rather than the seismic restructuring of his top team that was widely anticipated.

The 41-year-old QC was reappointed Attorney General following six months off in the wake of the arrival of her second child. ...During her absence, she was designated Minister on Leave (Attorney General) while her deputy, Solicitor General Michael Ellis, served as Attorney General. His place was taken by Lucy Frazer, the prisons minister.

Number 10 confirmed on Friday that, as part of a mini-reshuffle, Mr Ellis and Ms Frazer would return to their previous roles."

FYI

Condo951795 (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)