Talk:Susan Kramer, Baroness Kramer

Background

The article has just been edited to add the comment "she has a jewish background." While I don't think our MPs backgrounds are totally irrelevant, this comment comes across as complete non-sequiter, leaving me feeling "So what?" I think the reference to her jewish background should be expanded, rephrased or deleted. Biscit (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and will remove this sentence. She's already in Category:English Jews, I don't see the need to draw further emphasis to her background by mentioning it in the article. Terraxos (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"local people" v. role in Westminster to help the rest of us

"resigned from the Lib Dem front bench to defend her seat from a renewed Conservative campaign to regain Richmond." which on letterbox leaflets translates as "a strong voice for local people" and at a meeting with constituents in Mortlake Church translated as something like "I spend most of my time on local issues because that's what most people contact me about", for example Thames Water's practice of digging up roads, a post office closure reversed, planning issues around Sainsbury's in Barnes, behind Waitrose in East Sheen and of course number 24 Avenue Gardens. I did try to ask about why she'd failed to follow a national issue after making a show of forwarding letters and telling me that she'd keep me informed (it turned out that a bill on the subject had been going through parliament and she didn't know) but I live in Avenune Gardens so she gave me the speel about number 24.

When I contacted her she had not put me in touch with a party specialist on the subject, nor had an opinion on it, nor know about it even though the subject was being debated by both houses of parliament (twice) and at whatever committees. It was about access to legal help after machiavellian unfair dismissals by government funded agencies, and the way unions use no-win no-fee lawyers on commission. Pretty technical stuff unless you're embroiled in it, or an MP debating the legal services bill. To people who are embroiled in it, it's as important as being the victim of a life-changing crime. To MPs debating it, it's a zero priority compared to access to the back of Waitrose in East Sheen or the new Sainsbury's development in Barnes. And the delegate from Barnes didn't hang-on to listen to East Sheen either. Most of the delegates in this South West London meeting were quite well educated and knew perfectly well that Sue Kramer was not on the planning committee of the council, but at Westminster, but they hastle her nevertheless as an excuse to see inside each other's living rooms in protest meetings over cheese straws. Maybe there should be a new offence called hassling an MP about something that is known to be a council issue.

I think there could be an interesting paragraph about this type of MP: the one who knows every council issue, asks her secretary to forward every letter, and doesn't consider a law or a budget or a national administrative isue from one year to the next. For example SK was vice chair of Citibank before the collapse and bail-out of US and UK banking but did not volunteer to be on any select committees about banking. Personally I think that concentrating on "local people" instead of doing something related to the right to vote at Westminster and use the library and offices there with three staff is as bad as some of the levels of expenses claims that are in the news, but I may be in a minority.

To end on a positive note, SK is one of the few MPs not to have used the concealed salary or generous expenses scheme, and so deserves great credit for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganline (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Balding

I've removed that she is a 'balding London businesswoman', on the grounds that it is a patently sexist description (it's not gratuitously applied to men in Wiki). If she goes out of her way to discuss balding, then that would be a reason to put it back.--JO 24 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Consolation prize?

I have put a "citation needed" template by the following sentence:

"In March 2003, she again sought the party's nomination for Major of London, but was beaten in a three-way race for the candidacy by Simon Hughes, and given the option to stand for Richmond as a consolation by the party."

It is the last clause that needs backing up with sources: the Lib Dems do not usually give people "consolation" seats, simply because candidate selection is up to each constituency party. It might be possible for the London or federal party to "encourage" someone's adoption on a shortlist, but they would still have to win the votes of the local membership. If there is no source the last statement should be rephrased. Tamino (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Those claims are nonsense and need removing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page title when Ennobled

When Karmer becomes Ennobled she will still commonly be known as Susan Kramer and and that will be the common name. The page must not be moved to the Ennobled title as it would violate WP:commonname. The page must not be renamed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to stay at Susan Kramer, Baroness Kramer, but support for stable name Susan Kramer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Susan Kramer, Baroness Kramer → Susan Kramer — per WP:COMMONNAME.

The common name of the subject is simply Susan Kramer. Until such a time becomes that she is commonly known by the ennobled title the page must remain at the common name.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (Susan Kramer currently redirects to Susan Kramer, Baroness Kramer. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Breach of WP:NCPEER. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Actually, it is Wikipedia convention not to attach titles to people who became well-known before they were ennobled; see fellow life peers Margaret Thatcher, Paddy Ashdown, Michael Heseltine, John Prescott, Michael Howard etc. Kramer is best known for her time as a Liberal Democrat MP, so should be likewise listed without her title. The Celestial City (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It is not wiki convention at celestial the wording of NCPEER is much tighter. "Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled. Garlicplanting (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To focus on WP:NCPEER, it actually states:

Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell"). The same applies to many well-known politicians who only received a title after they retired: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher"). An exception is where the peerage title is useful for disambiguation, e.g. Chris Smith, Baron Smith of Finsbury.

Rather than opposing it, this policy therefore supports titling this article as simply "Susan Kramer". The Celestial City (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly - the examples given of "well known" are two prime ministers and a cabinet minister. These are hugely prominent figures not people briefly being MPs and holding no ministerial office. I'd also note the standard we are discussing has been edited without consensus to rather change its meaning.Garlicplanting (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence she is well known by her ennobled title? If not common name dictates that the most widely accepted and well used version is used over more formal rarely used versions. The naming convention explicitly states the following "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English".--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cherry-picking policies and guidelines is not a good-faith way to proceed, Lucie-marie. The policy Wikipedia:Article titles from which you quoted also contains Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions which specifically endorses the creation in some cases of naming conventions which do not strictly follow the COMMONNAME approach, and says that when they are adopted "the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain". In this case the guideline adopted is WP:NCPEER. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a form of cherrypickinjg to quote other parts of a convention which have been quoted here to give a fuller picture of the whole convention. The exception as you have said is for not "strictly" following common name. The exception wasn't meant for the complete ignoring of common name, with the smallest possible use of common name. In this case Susan Kramer is the main focus of the title and is her common name. The ennobled title is not needed for disambiguation and is not needed as she is not known by the ennobled title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Only reading the naming convention ignores the fact that the common name policy states the common name should be used over rarer more formal versions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  The naming convention represents the long-standing consensus to make peers a special case. It was drawn up with a knowledge of WP:COMMONNAME, and your arguments here amount to a rejection of that guideline. Since you want to change it, you should propose that change, rather than just ignoring the guideline here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl, I would disagree with that stance. Our "rules" here ("Wikipedia does not have firm rules") are not enforced from top-down in a prescriptive manner, but recorded from bottom-up in a descriptive manner. The place where guidelines change is in the field, in the contexts of actual articles, and the guideline pages eventually reflect that change.

  There may be a lot of talk at guideline pages, and people will interpret them as statutory law, but they've got it wrong. We decide everything on a case-by-case basis, and arguing that a guideline should not be applied in some particular case is always permissible. It's better to respond to the argument on merits than to say, there's a rule, so we have to follow that rule until it changes.

  You're right about the rule representing long-standing and broad (although clearly not universal) consensus, but what is the content of that consensus? What is the spirit behind WP:COMMONNAME, and how is it served in this case? These are the questions to ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support no evidence she is widely known by noble title. PatGallacher (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCPEER. Kramer has not retired, as Thatcher did when entering the Lords. Kraner was defeated and has gone to the Lords as a working peer, so the exception for retirement listed in WP:NCPEER does not apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Do we have clear guidance about who is or is not a working peer? PatGallacher (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Prime Minister's Office" a good enough source? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcferran (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 December 2010

• Support, for the same reason Peter Mandelson is at that title and not Peter Mandelson, Baron Mandelson: like the other examples above, this person is generally known by their common name, not their peerage title. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  You are applying the test in WP:COMMONNAME, whereas per Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit_conventions you should be applying the more specific test in WP:NCPEER. NCPEER says "Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled", and specifically ties it to "well-known politicians who only received a title after they retired", giving the example of some former prime ministers.

  The notion of Kramer being "well-known" doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny. She was an MP for only five years, and not a prominent one. Before that her only claim to fame was being the 4th-placed candidate in the 2000 election for Mayor London, when her obscurity was her defining characteristic in Lord Carrington's bitchy comment about the candidates: "Who are you going to vote for? The sex maniac? The baboon? The communist? Or the Lib Dem woman no one's heard of?" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as everyone will know by now, I prefer to stick with Wikipedia's general naming standards (pick one common name for the article title rather than combine two), rather than follow the strict wording of a non-consensus "guideline". --Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment with Support; Using two names does not seem logical nor per WP policy. If the person had notoriety with any title why is this omitted from the article? Just this fact seems to warrant a name change that wouldn't seem to be contested, however, that is still not a reason to have a duel titled biographical article. Otr500 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She only took her seat today. Just seen it happen on The Record on BBC Parliament.--23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.54.219 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Kramer, Baroness Kramer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030806025827/http://www.richmondlibdems.co.uk/ to http://www.richmondlibdems.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Susan Kramer, Baroness Kramer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604040450/http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/intheboroughs/boroughpolitics/councilnews/4035476.RICHMOND__MP_Susan_Kramer_steps_down_from_Lib_Dem_front_bench_to_lead_Heathrow_fight/ to http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/intheboroughs/boroughpolitics/councilnews/4035476.RICHMOND__MP_Susan_Kramer_steps_down_from_Lib_Dem_front_bench_to_lead_Heathrow_fight

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)