Talk:Minister without portfolio: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:02, 13 December 2015

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Possible article move

Should this article, perhaps, be moved simply to "minister without portfolio" (as opposed to the capitalised "Minister without Portfolio")? While it seems that it's a formal term in the United Kingdom, some other countries use it as a simple descriptive term. I'm not particularly familiar with the usage in other countries, but in early New Zealand politics, there were frequently "ministers without portfolio", but I don't think it was never an official title, and thus was never capitalised. I would prefer having the article refer to ministers without portfolio as a general category, while mentioning that some countries make it an official term. It's not important, though. -- Vardion 07:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The list of British ones should definitely stay capitalised. As you say, it's an official title in the UK. I would be surprised if this wasn't the case in other countries too. Even if it isn't an official title, it's likely to be formal. Minister for Women is not an official title, as no legislation has been passed to bring such an office into existence, but it is capitalised. Similarly, we have Prime Minister of Australia even though that is not an official title.

Deputy Prime Minister

The article says "The sinecure positions of Lord Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can also be used for equivalent effect." Would it be appropriate to add Deputy Prime Minister to this list? DavidFarmbrough 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and responsibilities

This article needs a cleanup and a clear definition. Would this minister be in the cabinet? How does this role come about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.5 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

I removed this, uncited and contradicts what I've replaced it with:

This provision has rarely been used and when so only for short periods before being assigned in charge of a Department of State.

The first two listed predate the 1939 Act in any case. jnestorius^(talk) 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks clarity

In Canada, and I believe in the UK, the Government is defined as those who can introduce a money bill. So: can a Minister without portfolio introduce a money bill, or are they in cabinet but not the government?

The Bear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Envirobear (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Spencer Horatio Walpole was a Conservative; just because he had Whig forebears did not make him one. Moreover, if the government of Derby and Disraeli (1866-8) wasn't a Conservative one, then I'd be very much surprised, and this fact would not only fly in the face of interpretation of history, but also historical fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.57.195 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinecure

My definition of "sinecure" would be a named post that doesn't have arduous duties, whereas a Minister Without Portfolio is someone (generally of cabinet rank) who is given a job to do and thus has significant duties, but doesn't have a specifically named post within the existing framework of government (ie the extant list of government departments). I'm posting this as a critique of the article summary, which in any case appears to be without citations.Silas Maxfield (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson and Lord Feldman

DO NOT PUT THEM THERE. Boris and Lord Feldman are not Ministers without Portfolio, they are not even ministers or any other member of the government. Boris and Feldman are allowed to attend the political cabinet which includes the chief of staff, senior advisers etc. but they are NOT ministers and it is factually incorrect (a downright lie) to include it on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy's Cafe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double Standards Fallacy

There is no valid reason the UK should have such pedant showmanship under its heading, while every other applicable sovereign is not afforded equal treatment. Either neuter the UK so they are equal to the rest of us, or give everyone else an equal dose of the psychosis, sans UK, macropenilephilia, so we can be ego-inflated too. 72.67.29.199 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 DO NOT PUT THEM THERE. Boris and Lord Feldman are not Ministers without Portfolio, they are not even ministers or any other member of the government. Boris and Feldman are allowed to attend the political cabinet which includes the chief of staff, senior advisers etc. but they are NOT ministers and it is factually incorrect (a downright lie) to include it on the page.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cindy's Cafe|Cindy's Cafe]] ([[User talk:Cindy's Cafe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cindy's Cafe|contribs]]) 04:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+==Double Standards Fallacy==
+There is no valid reason the UK should have such pedant showmanship under its heading, while every other applicable sovereign is not afforded equal treatment. Either neuter the UK so they are equal to the rest of us, or give everyone else an equal dose of the psychosis, sans UK, macropenilephilia, so we can be ego-inflated too.
+[[Special:Contributions/72.67.29.199|72.67.29.199]] ([[User talk:72.67.29.199|talk]]) 11:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)