Talk:First Blair ministry

Biased
"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)

Identity of this article
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)
 * 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)
 * 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) 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)
 * 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)

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

Biased
"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)