Talk:First Blair ministry

This page is under the stewardship of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom; changes to it should reflect consensus. If you are planning to make any significant changes, please discuss them first, and also read the list of conventions for British ministry articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First Blair ministry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split. Alex (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased[edit]

"While other developed countries, notably Japan, were hit by a financial crisis during Blair's first term in office, the British economy remained strong.[citation needed]

In September 2000, however, protests against fuel prices intensified across the country and the Leader of the Conservative Party William Hague exploited the situation by pointing out to voters just how much fuel prices had risen under Labour"

This sounds so biased towards labour, could we make it a bit more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of this article[edit]

Forgive my ignorance if this comment is out of place, but shouldn't this article be split up into three separate ministries, on the model of the successive Thatcher ones? 2.97.171.20 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Thatcher articles were grandfathered in, as they had already been created. All other articles in the category follow the convention that this article uses. It would take a good deal of work to turn the Thatcher ones into one article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been suggested for a split again in June 2017, and I support this action. There doesn't appear to be a set convention when it comes to splitting up ministries of the same Prime Minister. A lot of the older ministries before Margaret Thatcher are combined, whereas newer one are typically split (e.g. Thatcher I-III, Major I & II, Cameron I & II, May I & II). In this instance of Blair's ministries, there was a substantial number of reshuffles over ten years and three different electoral mandates, and as a result a lot of information is being combined on a single page. For the sake of clarity and uniformity with recent Prime Ministers ministries a split should happen.ToastButterToast (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^N.B. Nearly a year later and this issue doesn't seem to have resolved itself, however I am now of the opinion that a split should not be done. This format this article uses seems most appropriate; the Major 1 & 2 and Thatcher 1, 2, & 3, (possibly May 1 & 2 too) should be considered for merging in the style of this article. ToastButterToast (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly agree that the Tony Blair Ministries should be separated. Considering Blair recently held the office of Prime Minister, and his immediate successors (Cameron I & II, May I & II) and predecessors (Thatcher I-III, Major I & II) have that convention, consistency should be given in respect to Blair. ToastButterToast is most correct - 3 ministries under a 10 year period from 1997-2007 is a significantly long Premiership, and so 3 separate articles like Thatcher seems appropriate; although it would take some work to do so. JLo-Watson (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Article SHOULD be split into the First Blair, Second Blair and Third Blair Ministry. 213.205.242.105 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:F52A:131A:68C9:934C (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and will do per norm and consensus. Alex (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Biased[edit]

"While other developed countries, notably Japan, were hit by a financial crisis during Blair's first term in office, the British economy remained strong.[citation needed]

In September 2000, however, protests against fuel prices intensified across the country and the Leader of the Conservative Party William Hague exploited the situation by pointing out to voters just how much fuel prices had risen under Labour"

This sounds so biased towards labour, could we make it a bit more neutral?

[subscribe] Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]