Talk:Minister without portfolio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Possible article move[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Definition and responsibilities[edit]

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)

Ireland[edit]

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)

Lacks clarity[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

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)

Sinecure[edit]

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)