Talk:Official Opposition frontbench

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated List-class)
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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article title[edit]

The title of this article should specify that it is referring to the British one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The other countries that have official oppositions do not have articles called "Official Opposition frontbench (Country)". Because of that, "Official Opposition frontbench" would redirect here anyway. As such, there is no point in moving it. If the other countries end up with similarly named articles, then this will become a disambiguation page. Until then, no change is needed. -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-General Election[edit]

I've been mildly audacious and removed the links about the Conservative shadow cabinet, given that there is no Conservative shadow cabinet now that there's a Cameron Ministry. We should have comparable pieces (from and from the BBC, like before) up, but I don't know if that sort of thing's even up yet, much less where to find it. dcd139 (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Table Style[edit]

Lucie-marie made a number of recent edits, which I have reverted. That should have brought us to the D in BRD, but she restored herself, so I have reverted again and am bringing the discussion here. The edits were of various types, only one of which is non-controversial. That one was the removal of "MP" from after the names of Commons shadow ministers and the word "The" from before names of Lords. I wouldn't have reverted it, but it was made along with edits I do object to. Those are as follows:

  1. Removing links on the belief that WP:OVERLINK is violated
  2. Removing the territorial disambiguator from peers
  3. Removing "Rt Hon" from names
  4. Removing notations telling readers that the shadow minister also serves on other shadow teams

The first two categories are ones I do not even recognize as valid. The first is a misapprehension of policy. Yes, WP:OVERLINK generally precludes multiple links to the same article, but WP:REPEATLINK makes clear that in tables, where each entry stands alone, and where there is a significant amount of space between instances of the term. The point of the exception is clear: linking Baroness Royall only under the Cabinet Office portion of this table would be completely unhelpful to someone who looks at the floor leaders or Northern Ireland team and wants to see her article. Lucy-marie's change here is a hinderance to readers with nothing to support it but an incomplete interpretation of Wikipedia's linking policy.

Removing the "of Kings Heath" from "Lord Hunt of Kings Heath" is simply wrong. The man's title is "Lord Hunt of Kings Heath", so that is what we should use. What's more, he isn't the only Lord Hunt in the House of Lords. There is simply no excuse for chopping off part of the peers' names.

Including Rt Hon may not provide any useful information to Lucy-marie, but it does for other editors (for instance, it gives a clue that the person was in Cabinet or is otherwise experienced), so I would like to know why she thinks it vital that the information not be included.

In her edit summary restoring her edits, Lucy-marie made a strange comment that "[this is] not a commentarry on the intenal Labour party". The best I can make of that is that she thinks noting what other teams a person belongs to has something to do with commenting on the internal dynamics of the Labour Party. It is not. As has been done at this and similar articles for a long time, notes are included for the benefit of the reader. It reflects what has been done at Parliament's website for most of the last several years for both parties, so it is frankly impossible for me to see what this has to do with commentary on the "internal Labour Party", but that seems to have even less to do with any of the other edits, so I have to assume that was purpose of the argument. In any event, telling the full responsibilities for each shadow minister is valuable, and without the notes, it would be necessary to have an alphabetical list of all frontbenchers to show it. The status quo is simply a more efficient method of achieving that end. -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In simplicity, the table needs to look an awful lot tidier and there for more accessible. I agree with some of you points but disagree with the geographic disambiguater as the titles are in my opinion wrong for the majority of British peers as the title is not their common name, as no peer is known as Baron Sugar of Clapton or Baroness Amos of Brondesbury. They are simply known as Lady Amos or Lord Sugar and the geographic disambiguate is not used in common speech and is not the common name. Also including the Rt. Hon prefix is not needed in the table as it simply clogs up the table and is not necessary for their table as it simply adds extra text to the table which is not useful. The Rt. Hon prefix is only really useful on the individual article of the person. If the Rt. Hon is useful information then a simple line “members who are shadow cabinet members are styled with the prefix Rt. Hon.” as for the notations stating jointly with department x adds extra text which is distracting from the actual information the table is designed to convey. I do though concede the point on linking.

I see there is common ground on the removal of suffixes, theremoval of the word "the" and linking, but I have laid out my reasoning for disagreeing with your reversions on the prefixes and the geographic title in Lords names. I still disagree on the notations but am not wholly bothered if you are insistant on the inclusion and can provide sensible reasoning.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm glad we have been able to agree on some things. But, I take it ill that you ask for "sensible" reasons for my position, which implies that my reasons aren't sensible. That's offensive in the first instance, but doubly so because you didn't even address them. I will however discuss yours.
On peers, I think, based on your examples, you are confused. When a peer is created, they are given a title and a territorial designation. For instance, Alan Sugar is Baron Sugar, of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney; "Baron Sugar" is the title, and "Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney" is the territorial designation. That is something different from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose title is "Baron Hunt of Kings Heath" and whose territorial designation is "Birmingham in the County of West Midlands". The reason for the "of Kings Heath" is that there are other Barons Hunt.
Not including the disambiguator makes things ambiguous. This isn't "common speech" (which isn't the test for common name in any event), and the disambiguators are used in common speech when there is a possibility of confusion. If I came across this table and saw "Lord Hunt" was a Labour frontbencher, I'd have to look to see which one. Of course you could say, "Fine, just do it for peers who could be confused with others." The problem with that is that the person who keeps this page up to date (for the moment that's me), would have to look through the list of peers at every time there was a change in the front bench or a new peers joined the House of Lords to make sure there wasn't a new conflict. What's more, the person would have to make sure there was no conflict with titles that sound the same or similar.
I realize from your page moves and your interventions at NCROY that you are troubled by the use of titles, but this is not a case of formality for formality's sake. In the end, the full titles do some good and no harm.
As for "the Rt Hon", I've already responded, but I'll do so again. I understand you get nothing out of it, but others do. Why should your preference trump others when others find the information interesting and it takes up so little space?
Finally, we come to the multiple offices bit. How exactly does this hurt? Would you find it less intrusive if the information were on the individual's side of the table? In any event, the information has three benefits. One, it gives the reader a sense of how wide the person's responsibilities are. Second, it helps the reader see who a person works with. It's hard to describe how this matters, but I know I have used it that way before. Finally, it helps the editor navigate about when there are reshuffles and minor changes.
I realize you don't seem to derive any benefit, but these things are a help to other editors, so I hope you'll reconsider your opposition. -Rrius (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do see some benefit to some of what you have said but including the prefixes and suffixes is not needed. The main opposition i have is that it makes the table less accessible and few people will understand at a glance what the Rt. Hon. suffix means. I feel it would be far better covered at the top of the page rather than including in the title. I am also seriously opposed to professional suffixes being added especially QC as they are not acting the capacity of a legal counsel they are acting as a government official. There is also no need to include the suffix of QC for the government appointed legal officers as the holding of the qualification is unrelated to them being appointed to the position. All other suffixes are unecessary as all members of the house of commons are MPs and the PC suffix is not understood and is potentially confusing, the bold is enough.

As for the geographic locaters, MPs while styled as Ed Milliband the member for Doncaster North or David Cameron the member for Whitney,they are not in every day speech refered to in that manner and Lords are no different. The geographic addition is not necessary as it does not aid in disambiguation as the person in most cases is the main focus of their original name for Example Janet Roayll (the Baroness in this article) is the main subject for the article titled Janet Royall. Adding excessive information is unnecessary as it is there for semantic reasons and not there for practical navigational aiding reasons or for easier understanding of who the Lord actually is.

I ask you to compare the way your preferred version looks with my preferred version. Ask this question which is easier for an outsider to extract who is the member responsible for being Shadow Home Secretary or who is a Shadow Justice Minister. Adding the prefixes and suffixes and the geographic stuff makes extracting the core information the table was designed to covey much harder. I do though accept the joint responsibility addition but next to the name would be preferable as you have suggested.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about QC or OBE or anything like that. That has been a part of the style from the beginning, and was not my choice. On peers, you are wrong. The "of Kings Heath" in Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is nothing like a constituency. You are also wrong that it is not part of his name as the title is part of his name. Your statement that "it is there for semantic reasons and not there for practical navigational aiding reasons or for easier understanding of who the Lord actually is" simply makes no sense. The full title is there because it is the person's name. Whether you like it or not, when peers are referred to in their capacity as a peer, their title should be used. Full stop. I think it odd that you have failed to actually address my points about this but have instead dismissed them as not being true. Frankly, your position seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that you don't like peerages.
I will make the change regarding multiple responsibilities. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm also going to make the QC change. Also, I'd like to hear your proposal on alternative markings for Privy Counsellors, but my instinct is that putting something only at the top is unhelpful because people may well navigate straight to the individual sections, thereby skipping the legend, but I take your point that "Rt Hon" and "PC" aren't entirely transparent anyway. Please let me know what you have in mind.
Also, anywhere on this site where peers are mentioned by title, whether it be a list (such as any of the articles on Lords or joint committees) or inline at a regular article, they are virtually always noted by their full titles. It is unclear why this article is somehow different. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The article for Jeremy John Durham Ashdown, Baron Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, is titled as Paddy Ashdwon and not by his full formal name and Lord Ashdown is used in committee articles for committees he serves on. It is titled as Paddy Ashdown as he is known by that name in common everyday speech name and under WP:commonname the geographic disambiguater and formal names are not used. In general common everyday use Philip Hunt, Baron Hunt of Kings Heath, is just Lord Hunt. No peer is known in common speech as Barron Sugar of Clapton or similar. It is just not done and is a violation of WP:Commonname to use a formal name which is not the common name. Also just because something is one way as with the suffixes it doesn't mean it must stay that way just because it is the way it is done. That is just sheer nonsense. I also have nothing against peerages I am just opposed to not using the common name of individuals or the original name where the person in the main focus of the title, without the need for any disambiguation. Violating WP:commonname just to use a formal name is the main reason we have that policy. It is so the most easily navigable name is used so the most number of users can understand and find the articles and extract the information required. If you don’t care for the Suffixes or the Prefixes why not just accept the removal. If you form a new consensus then that is fine because consensus changes over time and "just the way it is" is something which must be never be used or even considered as a valid argument or else consensus would never change.--19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I simply believe they should not be included, in the table. The Rt. Hon and PC additions if needed at all should be covered in the lead in a simple sentence. Along the lines of "Senior opposition members who shadow officer of state are usually styled with the suffix PC as they are usually invited to the Privy Council. Some Senior opposition members are also titled Rt. Hon if they shadow officers of state." i attest that may not be factually accurate but the drift of what I am trying for.--19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
You keep conflating two different things. Alan Sugar is Lord Sugar—full stop. The "of Clapton" bit is something different altogether from the "of Kings Heath" part of "Lord Hunt of Kings Heath". I've already explained the difference above, but I'll reiterate that Alan Sugar's title is Baron Sugar, while Hunt's is "Baron Hunt of Kings Heath". Please point to what committee Paddy Ashdown is on. For each and every Lords and joint committee, "of X" is included for a peer where "of X" is part of the actual title. I think you just misunderstand this. What's more, you are trying to apply COMMONNAME where it doesn't belong. That is about article titles, not about references inline.
The bit that you feared might be factually inaccurate about shadow department heads. A simple note at the beginning would be useless as it would not identify the people who actually are Privy Counsellors I realise that you don't get anything out of it, but I and others do. For one, since only a very few opposition MPs and peers are made Privy Counsellors by convention (the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Whip, and their counterparts in the Lords), noting privy counsellors tends to show prior experience in Cabinet or the very top of opposition.
Finally, I have made the changes we talked about. I made the notes of other responsibilities small so as to be less obtrusive, which I think you will like. Anyway, let me know what you think of them being small and on a separate line. -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
How does identifying who is and is not a Privy Councillor aid the table. Surely it is not relevant information to the table. If you can demonstrate why the information is necessary and aids the table it will aid in my understanding of the addition of the information. At the moment it is just information without a purpose. Stating few people get made into Privy Councillors is not good enough to warrant its inclusion, it has to demonstrably add and aid the tables core purpose and the core purpose is to show who and who is not in the opposition front bench.
Common name applies universally and not selectively, while it is generally for article titles, article titles are what should be used to describe the subject when it is being talked about, specifically people. If Common name is selectively applied then confusion will be caused and Common name becomes redundant. If an article title uses the common name and the subject is not referred to by that common name when being discussed then it creates confusion and ambiguity.
Disambiguation is only needed where there is a conflict and need for clarification. In this instance no clarification is required; it is simply more unneeded information being added for the sake of it. I do not accept that the disambiguation is needed and the title of simply Lord Hunt is sufficient, to identify who is being referring to.
The responsibility additions in small are fine.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is worth repeating myself again regarding privy counsellors, and I don't appreciate you misstating what I said. I have already said that I recognise that you get nothing from it, but you would do well to recognise that others do. If you go back and actually read what I've actually said, the value of listing who is a privy counsellor comes from the connection between membership in the Privy Council and experience in top roles. That is helpful to readers and creates absolutely no problems whatsoever.
Common name is not universal as you should know by now and as I pointed out in my previous contribution here. Your basic point about disambiguation is irrelevant. It is right to list peers by the actual titles they hold rather than shortened versions. That is especially important for people like Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is absolutely not the only Lord Hunt in the House of Lords. What's more, "Lord Hunt of Kings Heath" is his title, his name; "Lord Hunt" is a short form that is fine in conversation and when it is already understood exactly whom you are speaking of. That is simply not the case here, which is why every single list of peers on Wikipedia uses the actual title rather than just a part of it. You just don't understand how titles work, which would be fine except for the fact that you insist on trying to impose your false understanding on the real world. -Rrius (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shadow DFD Team[edit]

Can some one fix tahat table. Not sure how.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Opposition?[edit]

No such title used commonly in British Media. This is done via Google News (Not so trustworthy) and NexisLexis (trust worthy). But I can't fight against Wikipeida.Phd8511 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What titles are or aren't used by the media is irrelevant. All that matters is what titles have been granted by the Leader of the Opposition. We see from Harman's Parliament bio and Parliament's shadow cabinet list use that title. Just to make sure it wasn't an accident, I emailed the House of Commons Information Office, and they confirmed it is not a mistake. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see the email. You often claim you email the HoC. I can also claim that. I have also emailed bigger offices than the HoC. IT is also relevant whether it is used in the media. Who are you to judge? Please tell.Phd8511 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Ivan Lewis is the Rt. Hon?[edit]

I've not heard his promotion to the Privy Council at all.Phd8511 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated List is out[edit]

Phd8511 (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Thomas[edit]

is also still the frontbench, under Cabinet Office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd8511 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to update[edit]

with the Nov 2014 reshuffle.Phd8511 (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

not updated[edit]

at all.Phd8511 (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


see Talk:List of current members of the British Privy Council DBD 20:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Full June 2016 Resignations[edit]

The Telegraph has a full list of the 60 frontbench resignations so far, just in case it needs referencing somewhere. The article itself is unrelated, I just saw the list at the bottom and thought it'd be worth saving somewhere. [1] Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Official Opposition frontbench. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)