Talk:Cabinet of the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid-importance in Politics. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. |
Contents |
[edit] 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 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] New Cabinet
The page needs updating as Mr blair has just announced a new cabinet
Well done to whoever updated it that was fast!
[edit] 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.
- --Philip Baird Shearer 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." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- But to be honnest I think that the whole paragraph/issue should have citations --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] historical
Can there be some citations in this section? How is it accurate exactly? Lapafrax 18:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
