Talk:October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis

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

Adding Kwasi Kwarteng's firing/budget plan as a possible cause in infobox?[edit]

It seems like one of the causes was the budget he had planned to use, until it was mostly scrapped and he was fired. At least, its seems like the BBC broadcast thinks so. TheCorriynial (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are used to summarise pertinent information from the article. If the article concluded that this was a cause, then there might be a case to add it to the infobox. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCorriynial: which exact article (URL), and which quote (full sentence)? (If there is a WP:RS it can be used + cited). —Sladen (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lettuce[edit]

I've just created a section regarding the lettuce. Just to check, I assume the Daily Star is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, despite being the primary source material? ISD (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Star is 100% reliable as a source for its own content. But the first comment was made by The Economist, and it has now been echoed by Chris Bryant. I suspect there may be coverage by other WP:RSs too. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than sufficient reliable coverage in secondary sources, which gives original credit to The Economist, and documents the global coverage outside the United Kingdom:
Rothwell, James; Badcock, James (2022-10-20). Crisp, James (ed.). "How Liz Truss lettuce news became a global joke". Telegraph. Retrieved 2022-10-20. The stunt was inspired by a column in The Economist, which branded the Prime Minister, who has only been in power since last month, "the iceberg lady" with "the shelf-life of a lettuce". … Swedish television was the latest to draw attention to …
and various other international publications. So it might not be flattering, but the WP:RS are there, although with lots of subtle references during TV/radio interviews. —Sladen (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Said section seems to have been removed because of Wikipedia:DUE. I tried to add the same section last night and also had it removed XxLuckyCxX (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XxLuckyCxX:: Thanks for pointing that out. It would appear that Special:Diff/1117076917, Special:Diff/1117185621, Special:Diff/1117186925 all removed "lettuce" content. All were made by the same editor. The third removal stated "per WP:BRD take to talk for consensus to include", but did not open a discussion here on the article Talk: page, and has also not commented—which makes it difficult to know what the concerns might be, and therefore how to address any remaining concerns. —Sladen (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto Would you be able to elaborate further on why you have removed these edits? XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way things are going Truss could hve a very short shelf life. Also the story is backed by reliable sources.Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lettuce just won. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the story has now moved to the point where the lettuce really has outreigned Truss. ISD (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth now, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a satirical magazine or tabloid newspaper. Glorifying sensationalist ridicule is very unedifying. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto:, thank you for contributing to the discussion. Which specific word or sentence could be adjusted so that the available WP:RSs are accurately reflected? —Sladen (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine an acceptable way of including that sort of trivia in this article. Perhaps an article about sensationalist journalism would be the place for it? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: per "I can't imagine an acceptable way of including that", that's perfect fine. Perhaps in the mean time other editors can be left to restore the original wording and WP:RS citations—which does not need any imagination and already existed in the article (in several variations). —Sladen (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which one those two do you see The Economist being? We're not "glorifying" anything, just reporting it. Although Truss has proved herself to be quite ridiculous anyway. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how they have let themselves down, don't you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto:, per WP:CITE, we just follow what the reliable citations say. —Sladen (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's only if we have a reasonable reason to include it in the first place, which, as far as I can tell, we do not. See WP:ONUS for more guidance on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think The Economist has let anyone down. The Truss government, on the other hand, has been an international embarrassment and a complete shambles. Lettuce or no lettuce. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gratuitous ridicule is never an acceptable device to use in serious articles in respectable publications. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide what the The Economist should or should not publish. We just cover what has been widely reported by a range of WP:RS sources. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have restored the Lettuce section. You cant erase it, Wikipedia is neutral. Haveanimpact (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the events are concerned, we should add in the lettuce (or make a new section titled "Parodies/political satire in relation to the crisis", seeing that there have been so many memes about it.) Orbitingelectron (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't matter , its not relevant really to the subject, there has been memes about lots of other things, maybe add it to the meme section? also a lettuce has a shelf-life of around 21 days so how its not even accurate, its just labour supporters being trolls as usual 92.30.245.77 (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If you discount the 10 days of mourning for the Queen and the days after the mini budget when she was trying to survive, she only lasted for about a week. Orbitingelectron (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence motion[edit]

Have re-restored the link to Confidence motions in the United Kingdom—whether or not it/war/or was not a confidence motion; we need to help our readers to understand what a "confidence motion" is, and the implications (hence why MPs being unusually carefully about how to vote). —Sladen (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading links are not helpful to anyone, and please read WP:BRD. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Government whips meant something else? What was that?? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know exactly what was said or what was meant, which is why we need to err on the side of caution. It is not our place to try to interpret unclear meanings. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto:: WP:BRDD is fairly clear cut, discussion is required. So, if the stated link "Confidence motions in the United Kingdom" falls under "Misleading links are not helpful to anyone"—what would be a better Wiki link? —Sladen (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To link it to anything would be SYNTH. We do not know exactly what was meant. It's like linking ambiguous phrases in verbatim quotes are discussed in MOS:LWQ. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, moving the wikilink to Confidence motions in the United Kingdom outside of the quotes would solve that? —Sladen (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian says: "It was because of all the mayhem over whether it was a confidence vote or not. ... Another said it was nothing as dramatic as that there was just "lots of confusion" about whether it was a confidence vote or not." That was the situation. But we still need to link to the thing over which there was confusion. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All links to motions of no confidence or votes of no confidence should be removed as they do not reflect what is actually meant by confidence vote. the Traditional meaning which is what is linked implies that this was a vote to oust someone from power. What a confidence vote meant in this context is that the whip would be removed from anyone that doesn't vote in line with party procedure. as such any links here are inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.152.219.34 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct to Premiership of Liz Truss#Calls for Truss's resignation[edit]

No consensus Editors in favor of a merge argue that the article has little content beyond the main subject and it is too soon to know whether this article will have significant expansion. Editors opposed to a merge argue that this follows the scheme of the July crisis and already has implications beyond Truss's premiership. Most editors are opposed to the merge and it is unlikely that a consensus will form soon especially given the differing positions on how the future will play out. Better to revisit these questions in a few weeks when more information is available. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

When and where was this discussed? I disagree. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge, as it seemed like the obvious thing to do to me. There seems no point having this article now, when the other one can cover it with space to spare. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most of this article has been junked in the process, not "covered with space to spare". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with the merge as the article "Premiership of Liz Truss" is going to remain pretty short lol, I also agree that a discussion needs to be opened and that this has not been adequately merged. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm tempted to undo the merge/re-direct until a positive consensus emerges for one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support having an article but if anyone disagree then a request and a discussion would be best before a possible merge. Doomsday28 (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why dose the re-direct keep changing what are we keeping it to? Hi1872 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose do to this will probably Include more than what is has Right now like aftermath Hi1872 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this will water down the scale and impact of the crisis if merged.Abcmaxx (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is so closely related to the article on the premiership, it really only needs a stand-alone article if something like WP:LENGTH or WP:UNDUE mandates a split. This is not excessive text to need to be its own article, and the text can all be comfortably and naturally part of the Premiership article, it is functionally the most important part of her premiership, so the fact that it would be a sizable part of the article is also not a WP:UNDUE issue. --Jayron32 18:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per XxLuckyCxX Washing Machine (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The topic of this article does not carry any notability which is independent of Truss' premiership. No source that conveys notability on the crisis that brought down Truss' government does not also convey notability on Truss' government itself. JayAmber (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a distinct and deeply covered political moment that implicates the entire Tory party in its scope - it exceeds the bounds of simply discussing Truss' premiership, and focussed coverage of the actions of other party members in the proceedings would not be appropriate within an entirely Truss-centric article. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The crisis may have been caused by Truss' premiership, but it has been unleashed on us all: it already implicates Braverman, Hunt, that ruckus in the Commons, possibly Boris, and a 60p lettuce. It's more than Truss' premiership; even if you don't agree so, well, the crisis will likely persist through her resignation, the leadership election, and Hunt's (or whomever's) budget, the unfortunate next PM's early days (if not longer) ... perhaps it's too early to call all that, but then by default it would also be too early to call merging this article. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Braverman and Hunt are part of the Truss ministry, and their participation is intimately tied to her premiership. The "ruckus in the Commons" was due to Truss's leadership or lack thereof on the vote. It was too early to call to make this article in the first place. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The crisis goes beyond the scope of her premiership, and is a very notable event in its own right as demonstrated by sources. Keivan.fTalk 21:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the 'crisis' is already discussed plenty in Truss's premiership article or the mini-budget article and does not have enough information on its own to warrant an article. This article really just contains background on the mini-budget, the lettuce, and opinion polling - hardly enough information for an article.Yeoutie (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There exists precedent from other similar crises and their own pages to show that this should not be merged. While it was one of the most significant periods within the premiership, its scope extends well beyond this and could be argued is more relevant to the Party than the premiership. On the note of this article being too short, I think that that's a bit premature to say on an article discussing a current event. Moonwater21 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since the short tenure makes two articles redunant. Perhaps wait for the dust to settle before doing so. 60.241.110.166 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the event is distinct from the tenure, her tenure includes events other than the crisis (notably the death of the Queen), maintaining consistency between articles on similar subjects (see July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis) is important for disambiguation and because the crisis will not be over with her departure. Espatie (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose individually notable event outside of Truss's overall premiership, even if short-lived. Also agree with Kingsif. DecafPotato (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. As others have cited earlier, this does not EXCLUSIVELY involve Liz Truss but rather the government hence a "government crisis" and not a "Liz Truss crisis". Also, according to WP:Merge the topic should meet the notability guidelines which this topic does. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the crisis goes far beyond Truss herself; it represents a fundamental collapse of the structure of British government, originating from the crisis of identity within the Conservative Party and magnified by the total shitshow of the post-Brexit, post-Ukraine-occupation, post-Covid economy. Truss' premiership was a symptom, not the underlying malady. — The Anome (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - The crisis is now notable in itself, far beyond just Truss's premiership/resignation and includes the financial instability caused by the mini-budget, the events leading up to Truss's resignation and possibly the events of the forthcoming leadership election. Also, even for those who think this material will just duplicate other articles (i.e., Premiership of Liz Truss, September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget and October 2022 UK Conservative Party leadership election), WP:SPINOFF would allow us to do this. The mini-budget article is already very long and I think a lot of the reaction material could be summarised and the full details migrated to this page. Also, plenty of sources are now calling this a crisis: [1], [2], [3], [4] just from the first few pages of a Google News search. WJ94 (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Eventually this might be appropriate - but right now the crisis is not just Truss, but her successor and how they fix the issues caused. In the unlikely event that current issues are stabilised promptly with the selection of a new tory leader then it should be. However it is currently unknown if, and highly likely, there will still be a crisis due to the perceived lack of legitimacy of 3rd PM since an election. I'd suggest we let the dust settle before deciding -Natet/c 10:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. I was undecided about this but on balance I think it should be left as-is for now. The UK has been in a political crisis for most of this year and that won't change anytime soon. Eventually it's possible that this and July 2022 United Kingdom government crisis could be merged into a single article which also includes whatever happens between now and the end of the year. It's a developing situation so probably best not to rush and make changes that might eventually need to be undone when we have a fuller picture. Neiltonks (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. A merger could be appropriate later on, but for now I feel the two articles are better off remaining separate. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - We still don't know if its entirely over, being the current "election" in the party, potential of further crises related due to the election (i.e Boris Johnson returning?) and the unpopularity of the party in the public. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge --Woofboy (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- Merging this article with the premiership of Liz Tuss would provide a more fluid research experience to people in the future when this event is not so strongly etched in public memory ( say 10-15 years down the line ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria Bucephalous (talk • contribs) 04:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's such thing as hatnotes which guide users to other topics of interest or other related pages. Any user searching for the info on the other page will be easily redirected to here. Keivan.fTalk 06:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as the event's ongoing. Let's revisit this again in a few months when all of this is hopefully history and we can look at it all with perspective. This is Paul (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is clearly still a crisis post-Truss.TheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. While Liz Truss' entire premiership has been the one long government crisis, the current crisis seems unlikely to end after her successor is chosen. Therefore the scope of this article is likely to widen in future. gbrading (ταlκ) 16:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:POVFORK as the details covered in the article do not define an event that the consensus amongst reliable sources agrees is a "government crisis". Wikipedia should follow the sources and not try to invent things that do not exist in the literature. This is an encyclopaedia, not a leftist tabloid or satirical blog and any credible info in this article can be better and more NPOVedly absorbed into the "Premiership of Liz Truss" article.
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.

Comments[edit]

  •  COMMENT I see this merge discussion closed as "no consensus". It seems there is a consensus, to "not merge" ? That would be different from not having a consensus. -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 65.92.244.114, consensus isn't just a majority vote. There's also the reasoning involved. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 19:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the IP. Far too many discussions (of all kinds, not just merge discussions) are closed as "no consensus" when it is abundantly clear the proposal, whatever it is, has been roundly rejected. My best guess is that some closing editors choose "no consensus" as a way to placate the losing faction: "let's agree to disagree" as it were. Even when we really should conclude the discussion by clearly stating one viewpoint carried the day and the other was rejected. We actually did reach a consensus here. It was to reject the idea to merge the article. CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The opposition was generally quite weak---based largely on speculation about how the event might grow larger---whereas the support tended to articulate established reasons for merger and the notability guideline on breaking news. There was sufficient opposition to prevent the formation of consensus, but not enough to completely overcome the weight of merging guidelines. Based on my experience with articles on recent events, I doubt the opposition would have been so numerous if not for the high viewership. Roughly 1-in-7 participants have fewer than 100 edits, and they skew towards opposition. I saw no consensus (rather than consensus against) because the outcome seemed heavily biased by external political factors rather than our editorial guidelines. A new discussion, once it's out of the news cycle, will give a better sense of consensus and give more time for the predictions of both sides to actually play out, allowing us to make a more informed decision with minimal need for speculation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please resolve: "opposed" vs. "won" vs. "against"[edit]

Could someone please resolve this, from the Parliament section:

The motion was opposed, and easily won by the government, with a majority of 96 against it.

UK politics can be confusing, but which is it, opposed, won, or against ? BMJ-pdx (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Labour motion, so it was opposed successfully by the government, with a majority of 96. 'Against it' is unnecessary. GedUK  16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be more clearly written, e.g. “The motion was successfully opposed by the government with a large majority of 96 against it.” ? It all seems like too much detail to me, but someone who wants it can try a rewrite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this article[edit]

Can I just clarify the scope of this article? I understand it to be everything which led up to Liz Truss's resignation excluding the mini budget, which has its own article.

Am I also right in thinking that the scope of the article may extend beyond Truss's resignation if the crisis is perceived to continue? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer to the latter part of your question would be yes. The mini-budget fiasco is part of the background, the dismissals and resignations are what 'officially' started it all, and if the situation persists this page should continue to cover the subsequent events (if they don't merit their own pages, so we shall wait and see). Keivan.fTalk 22:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mini-budget not having its own article doesn't mean it shouldn't be included if it's relevant. History of the United States (1991–2008) doesn't exclude 9/11 just because it has its own article. So I think the mini-budget should be covered, just in the background. DecafPotato (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that's what I meant really. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

This is terribly written - 'got underway'? Come on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.240.192 (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the new age. 108.83.116.234 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is always going to happen with an article on a newsy topic. You get frantic bouts of editing and plenty of bad, careless or unencyclopaedic writing – alongside, however, the development of some really excellent content which will have a longer life. If you hate it right now my advice would be to not worry about it for a while then look back once the dust has settled when, with luck, you will find something much more stable and well-written. And with luck some editors will want to stay and will hone their writing skills, so although it is a rocky road there is a net benefit. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Credit ratings and calls for a general election[edit]

The reduction in the UK credit rating was clearly due to the crisis following the mini-budget. Calls for a general election happened for a long time but were intensified during the crisis. I feel both should be in the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As they stand, these additions add no value to the article. The credit ratings piece does not give the context or reasons for their inclusion in relation to the subject of the article. Calls for an election have been made several times a day for months, if not years, by opposition party members - what's so special about these calls to give them appropriate dueness to add here? For those reasons I do not support these additions. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with DeFacto, there is not a lot of value to add to the article by including credit ratings and calls for general election. If there are factors I am missing Proxima Centauri, I am willing to listen. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trussonomics[edit]

Trussonomics is another reason why Liz Truss resigned. The poor handling of the UK's economy. Trussonomics is having a major effect on the economy of the United Kingdom. Hsija (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The economic policies and failures of the truss government is pretty well covered here, I'm not understanding the issue. PaulRKil (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im just saying, it should be another reason why the government crisis is happening. Hsija (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis&oldid=1209480232"