Talk:Ministerial Code

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ministerial Code/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Broad issues[edit]

I will be undertaking the review here. This article is very new, so it is not possible to comment on its stability. It appears neutral, well-written, and unlikely to be particularly unstable. There are no images, so no issues around licencing.

There are two main issues with this article:

  • 1. Whether it is sufficiently comprehensive with respect to the UK Code;
  • 2. Whether an article called "Ministerial Code", should cover only one such code, that of the UK government.

Comprehensiveness[edit]

<edit conflict> Here is what I was writing under the heading "comprehensiveness" at the same time TreasuryTag was making the comment that follows. Treasury, you might want to revisit / revise, and I'll have a look at your remarks too.
Assuming for the moment that the article were to be confined to the UK code, it is missing the following:

  • The first paragraph of the main text (as distinct from the lead) should describe what the Ministerial Code does, and how it does it. By the latter I mean does the Ministerial code have legal force, who implements it, are there reporting procedures, etc.
  • Under 'history and status', there should be more detail in that history. What events led to the need for the code - what events led to the Commission on Standards etc. Also, what changes have been made to the code since its introduction, and why?
  • Instead of the brief comment under 'controversies', there should be a section on 'consequences and controversies'. It should document the most significant effects on ministers in public life. This would be both any academic analysis of the impact of the code, and an outline of high profile 'falls from grace' under the code, followed by a discussion of the controversy you mention. There are also other anlyses in this area I think - eg. Nicholas Bamforth, 'Analysis: Political accountability in play:the Budd inquiry and David Blunkett's resignation', Public Law, 2005.
  • With respect to the UK code, I would suggest that it is comprehensive. It gives a summary of almost every paragraph, arranged by section. Anyone reading the article would only need to also read the code if they were doing anything very in-depth. The only things that could be improved in terms of coverage are the breaches of the code, but they tend to appear in ministers' own articles, and are less relevant to the code than to the person (as in, we don't list breaches of the Homicide Act 1957 = murders on that page, we have separate pages for the murderers if they're notable). But I'm open to comment on this. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, actually, you do make fair points. I don't have time right this second to do the further research and writing required, but I'll try to get onto it by the end of today (UK time!)... Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Treasury... it's not a race you know! I thought these were likely to be major additions, and wasn't sure whether it was too much to keep on hold for a GA review. But I've seen major work done under other reviews I've done, and I've been happy to keep things on hold for a few weeks when I've known work is underway. If I'm able to assist, I might add the odd bit or two. If we assume the codes from other countries are not going to be covered, then I support your suggestion below regarding renaming. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - The OOnagh Gay paper could be used as the basis of much of the history / lead up to the code, and as a lead on some sources for what happened once code was in place. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: timescales, shall we give it a week? There's not really that much to do, it shouldn't take more than an hour or so solid going. And of course you must feel free to make changes of your own, that'd be a great help! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happt to give it at least a week, but I envisaged more of a dig into the literature than you seem to envisage. The code, and its evolution, is covered by Amy Baker in Prime Ministers and the Rule Book (Politico's Publishing, London, 2000), and is dealt with (from memory) in at least one chapter in Holland and Fleming (eds) Motivating Ministers to Morality, (Ashgate Press 2001). I don't think at GA the article should pass if it relies overwhelmingly on the Code and the Gay paper as sources. Gay is crucial, but is not the only available source. I can't promise, but I might be able to check the Fleming and Holland book on this. I can't get to Baker though - can anyone else? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<< I might possibly be able to get hold of either or both of those, if they happen to be in the political library I use. I won't be able to do so this week, as it's closed for UK bank holiday + school half-terms. From the Google Books snippets of the texts, they do indeed look like they'll go into great depth, and would indeed be valuable. Perhaps a little more than a week, then ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other codes[edit]

Numerous Westminster-style jurisdictions have codes that are known as ministerial codes. They can be remarkably elusive when searching for them online. They include:

A (now out-of-date) survey of codes was published by the Australian parliamentary library here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/pol/codeconduct.htm

If this article were to continue to be about only the UK code, it may be appropriate that the article title be changed. I would think it might be better to have an article that covers the codes in general, with less detail (for example not having an article-by-article summary of a code. Would welcome other views. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see, I did mention the ministerial codes of the other UK nations (Scot/Wales/NI) in the opening, and they're all linked, but I'm not even sure that they're 100% notable in themselves. They receive very little coverage, just as Scottish/Welsh/NI ministers receive very little coverage, having small jobs, and breaching them being quite hard :P
I'm personally not qualified to write about other countries' political systems, really, so I'd recommend keeping this a UK article. Would you recommend a rename to Ministerial Code (United Kingdom) on the whole, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i support a rename. I've added a couple of points from a book I have, but the Baker book is crucial to advancing the article, and i don't have it to hand. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article out of date[edit]

Much of this article is now way out of date. A new Prime Minister published a new ministerial code in May 2010. Dybeck (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

controversy[edit]

The key controversy ought to be about the legitimacy of this code. It purports to prescribe how our nation should be governed yet appears to have undergone no parliamentary scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ministerial Code (United Kingdom). 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ministerial_Code&oldid=1204015721"