Talk:2006 British cabinet reshuffle

2006 discussion
In the interests of accuracy the Chief Whip attends cabinet, but is not part of the cabinet. However, I won't alter the table myself as I would probably make a mess of it! Gretnagod 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have explained the traditional status of the Chief Whip, but if you look at the 10 Downing Street website you will see that Jacqui Smith is a full member of the cabinet. The Chief Whip in the House of Lords is noted as attending but not being a member; but Smith is not in that category. I have not myself amended the list, so that others can consider the issue first. --Gary J 02:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know if the fact that the Number 10 website says "Chief Whip (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)" is of any significance? But then they've also missed out Geoff Hoon as attending Cabinet. Maybe it'd be best to wait and see who comes out at the next meeting!!?? Ian3055 11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All of this does show the change of approach to cabinet government, and how it continues to evolve. But it does seem odd that a Chief Whip, whose job is to enforce Government policy, is also in a position to help with the creation of policy Gretnagod 12:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How odd it indeed is, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is indeed a full member of the Cabinet. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is commonly known as Chief Whip. I therefore changed the table. Morkyboy 15:24, 7 May 2006 (CET)

While it is all well and good using the "First Lord of the Treasury" tag for the PM, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the "Second Lord of the Treasury" since 1827. Would it not make sense to include both, if either is used? Perhaps this isn't the best place to discuss this, but surely it would make sense to lay down some rules? Gretnagod 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason that "First Lord of the Treasury" is included and "Second Lord of the Treasury" isnt is because thats how Downing Street list it on their website. It is possible that the reasoning is that the Chancellor has already clearly got a title within the Treasury but the PM hasnt. Hmm. its a good quesiton. Ian3055 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this really worthy of an article? A cabinet reshuffle? How many other cabinet reshuffles are in Wikipedia? 193.34.231.226 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been linked from the main page for a number of days as an in the news. Ian3055 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree but I'm not exactly in a position to judge. Anyway, as was noted above it has been in the news (although coulnd't this class as recentism?  Never mind, I made some initial formatting changes and other have followed suit so others obviously see it as appropriate... PageantUpdater 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ITN point was only really for info. I havent been able to find any other UK reshuffles with pages, however List_of_British_Governments is probably a more useful format as I think it probably is useful info for us to have. I would suggest that the format needs some attention - the current look reminds me of the old succession boxes, and perhaps we need to consider whether to include junior ministers as well as those attending Cabinet. Ian3055 12:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alhough having said that there are a collection of different ways of doing this in Category:British ministries. Perhaps this is the time to establish a consistent format? Ian3055 12:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

vry prfect Aboooda2 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)