Talk:Churchill caretaker ministry

Party of Gwilym Lloyd George

 * G. Lloyd George, in my view, was a Liberal MP until shortly after the 1945 election.


 * British Political Facts, in its lists of ministers, characterises him as "Ind L" which in this article had been misinterpreted as Independent Labour before I corrected this.


 * Who's Who of British Members of Parliament Vol. IV describes him as "a Liberal until Oct. 1931, as a member of the Independent Liberal Group 1931-35, as a Liberal from 1935 until he joined the Government in Sept. 1939; allied with the Conservatives from 1939."

--Gary J 12:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The History of the Liberal Party 1895-1970 explains (in relation to the formation of the caretaker government in 1945) that "Gwilym Lloyd George, though still a Liberal, remained in office". After the 1945 election Lloyd George, the only Liberal MP elected with ministerial experience, was offerred the chairmanship of the Liberal Party in Parliament as well as the chairmanship of the Liberal National allies of the Conservatives, both of which he declined. "When the new House met, he was offered a place on the opposition front bench by Winston Churchill. Gwilym Lloyd George replied that he would only sit as a Liberal, Churchill's reply was characteristic: 'And what the hell else should you sit as?' But Liberals soon came to the conclusion that he was effectively supporting the Conservatives."

I have looked at The Times of London report on the formation of the government, in its edition of 26 May 1945. This clearly identifies Lloyd George as a member of the Liberal Party. --Gary J 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger
The page Caretaker Government 1945 has been merged into this page, as the two were redundant. This name follows consistent usage, and was retained. I also adjusted the title per WP:CAPS, added an image and provided some small revisions. RGloucester (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a name
I did a fair bit of reading about this earlier in the year after this cropped up on the main Winston Churchill biography page. Martin Gilbert, the most detailed account, does not talk of Churchill being asked to form "a caretaker government", indeed the only person who does so is Anthony Eden in his turgid memoirs. Most authoritative accounts refer to it by the proper name "the Caretaker Government". Churchill himself (in the final volume of "History of the Second World War") mentions that the government came to be known as "the Caretakers", i.e. a derogatory nickname which he hints that he found irritating.

"A caretaker" administration is one with reduced powers, often led by an individual who is not being expected to stand for re-election. The concept is legally meaningless in the UK - a government is a government, part of "the Crown" and performing under "binding ministerial advice" functions which were still the King's in 1688. That is why many government functions, e.g. declaring war and deploying troops, are conducted by the Prime Minister under Royal Prerogative and (in law) Parliament is asked merely as a courtesy. The idea that the rise and fall of governments coincides exactly with General Elections is one which evolved throughout the nineteenth century and this is one of those few occasions on which it did not happen in the twentieth century either.

If Churchill had won the 1945 election, which (as every schoolboy knows) almost everybody expected him to do, it would now be a piece of political history trivia that the National Government (a de facto Tory government) of 1945-50 had taken office a few weeks before its triumphant election victory, like Campbell-Bannerman's Liberal Government in December 1905. Instead, because it was so short-lived, the name stuck, like the "Who? Who?" Ministry of 1852.Paulturtle (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC) And conversely only political history geeks know that Pitt the Younger's ministry, which lasted for 18 years, was initially known as the "Mince Pie" ministry as it was not expected to last past Christmas 1783.Paulturtle (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Came across a quote which sheds a bit more light on Churchill's view of the nickname, although the book in question makes the error of referring to it as "a caretaker government" a few pages earlier.00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Paulturtle (talk) This comment is referring to Hermiston, who includes Churchill's speech in Woodford "condoning" the nickname, but a few pages earlier talks of "a" caretaker government, erroneously I think.Paulturtle (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I refer once again to my comments of a few years ago - although it is common for books to talk sloppily of this government as "a" caretaker administration, the more authoritative ones don't do so. That includes Martin Gilbert and Andrew Roberts, whose recent brick-sized Churchill biog just says that he was asked to form "a Conservative Government". Churchill himself (in his "History Of The Second World War") implies that it was just a nickname which he found irritating. We don't know exactly what was said between Prime Minister and Monarch (contrary to a lot of erroneous reporting, even our esteemed Supreme Court chose to "take no view" on Prime Ministerial advice to the Monarch last September) although Roberts does claim to have consulted the King's private diary in researching his biography. I did have a quick trawl through Hansard Online, both debates and written answers, but it didn't shed any light - but then you wouldn't necessarily expect it to, as governments are not legally appointed by Parliament. I think if one wanted to dig deeper one would have to find a book which looked at press reports, and whether the BBC and major newspapers talked of "a caretaker government", even if their reports weren't strictly accurate. But that would be digging deeper than any Churchill biography goes.

In autumn 2019 there was talk of "a caretaker government" being formed, pending a general election, if Boris Johnson's government had fallen and the Opposition had been able to unite behind another Prime Minister. But that was last year, and we are concerned with the events of May 1945.Paulturtle (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and thanks for your improvements to the article. I entirely agree about the name and I think the label where it has been used is actually erroneous because, as you've said above, a "caretaker" is normally an acting or interim leader who isn't seeking election. Margaret Beckett is a good example, following the death of John Smith. This government was really a return to the Chamberlain one which ended on 10 May 1940 but I'm not sure how best to illustrate that in the article title, perhaps simplify it as "Churchill ministry, May–July 1945". Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Margaret Beckett insisted that she actually was briefly leader of the Labour Party back in 1994, and she did stand for the leadership, coming third. It was much remarked at the time that if she'd just stood for deputy again she might have held on to that job instead of losing it to Prescott. But enough of her.Paulturtle (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We refer to things by their common names here, just like with the Who? Who? Ministry mentioned above. I'm not sure this name is 'erroneous' (it would certainly be possible for a government to be called 'caretaker' without fitting squarely into the usual form of a 'caretaker government'), but even if it is, it is the common name, and appears in a substantial number of what are usually considered reliable sources. I'm not sure any change will be beneficial, per WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The title of the article is fine - of course it's known as the Caretaker Government, a nickname which stuck because the government was so short-lived. I'm not disputing that this should be the name of the article, My point is that although some books talk sloppily about Churchill being asked to form a caretaker government, the more authoritative ones don't do so, nor have I come across any contemporary references to him being given such a commission. According to the best sources, and we must strive for accuracy, he was simply asked to form a government. And let's not forget the elephant in the room, so massive that it's easy to lose sight of it - most people assumed Churchill would be triumphantly re-elected like Lloyd George had been in 1918. The (so-called) Caretaker Government was not actually a caretaker government, strictly speaking. (I must come across as having a bee in my bonnet on this topic - I got interested in it when I got into a stupid argument back in 2015 with somebody who refused to accept that any such government ever existed!)Paulturtle (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I except that argument, and I think that can be explained in the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre material removed
I've just removed some bizarre material claiming that the Japanese called a ceasefire in May 1945, leading the Allies to land in western Malaya and enter Thailand. Nothing of the sort ever happened - this seems to be confusing what happened after the cease-fire when the Japanese announced their intention to surrender in mid-August 1945. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right, that was wrong and it slipped through the review too. It was partly borrowed from another article, including the source, but the wires must have crossed somewhere along the way. Embarrassing. Well spotted and thanks for correcting it. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm at fault for missing this on the GA review – when I read the article my attention was grabbed by the next section on the Potsdam conference where I had some immediate concerns. But I'm not the first reviewer to miss it – the exact same text and source is in Battle of Elephant Point, and has been since that article's creation in 2009, and that is a GA article too.  From a root cause analysis perspective I'd be curious to see what the Tugwell book pp 284–85 actually says – from some snippet looks at its index I can tell it does have something to do with Elephant Point and Singapore and Thailand, but I don't know what.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It was not called a National Government"
Standard histories like Hermiston's book (it is online here) and biographies of Churchill like Jenkins and Roberts never call it a National Government, nor does the Keesing  weekly report), so I dropped the unsourced speculation.  See also Pelling biography. Martin Gilbert, Never despair': Winston S. Churchill 1945-1965. Vol. 8 (1990), uses "National Government" only for the wartime government that ended on 23 May 1945--he uses "caretaker government" 16 times, and that is the term used by all the biographers as well as historians like AJP Taylor. Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)