Talk:Shadow Minister for Cornwall

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Cornwall

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

Edits edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Full texts of letters to the editor do not belong in encyclopaedia articles, and nor do gushing reviews of food and drinks. Ground Zero | t 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Evolution, not Devolution! edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is very disappointing from the Tory Party. They are, after all the "Conservative and Unionist Party", and as such should be encouraging the notion of "Britishness", not giving succour to New Labour "devolution" policies (remember "devolution" is the opposite of "evolution").

I sincerely hope that when the Tories get back into power, they will be making stenuous efforts to strengthen the United Kingdom, not fragment it further.

For one thing, because "devolution" is fundamentally unfair.....all the "free" services that Scotland and Wales (and presumably Cornwall at some point, if the malcontents get their way) offer aren't "free" at all, but paid for by the English tax-payer.

This "free lunch" isn't going to last forever, once the English actually start standing up for themselves, and I'm sure that Cornwall doesn't want to be in the firing line as part of the backlash...

82.5.68.95 (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merge/redirect post-AFD edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've copied across anything here that is properly sourced into the Mark Prisk page, with some detail trimmed, and also added a note about the appointment to the Constitutional status page. If I read the consensus at the AfD properly, this page can probably just be cleared and made a redirect to Mark Prisk now. Arguably there should be a formal merge discussion, and if agreed, the move done that way, but this seems to be to be a quicker and simper way to just get on and get this done, rather than having to jump through time-consuming bureaucratic hoops, only to end up more or less in the same place anyway. I'll hold off for a while though, in case anyone else has a view on that. Cheers N-HH talk/edits 13:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

ps: interestingly, the page on Prisk at the Tory website makes no mention of this post. Have they quietly let it slip?

I think that this merge/redirect should go right ahead. If the 'Shadow Minister for Cornwall' is being let slide, it will be dealt with more effectively as part of the Prisk article, rather than left to stagnate as a standalone article.Poltair (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010

I've come to this a bit late but I absolutely agree with the merge/redir option. Andy F (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll make a redirect. It can always be undone, or more content retrieved from the history if people wish to. I'm not that clever with the technical stuff, so hopefully it'll work alright. N-HH talk/edits 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic