Talk:First Johnson ministry

"Continuation"
As you two are insisting that re-appointed ministers should be listed as being appointed a year ago to a Ministry that starts today, please take the time to justify yourselves here. I'm not going to keep correcting it, but this is totally constitutionally wrong and misleading to readers. James F. (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your argument, frankly, is absolute nonsense. A Secretary of State does not cease to be in their role the moment a new Prime Minister is appointed, they are either retained or removed. Stephen Barclay did not stop being Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union between the hours of 3.30pm and 7.00pm today because Boris Johnson replaced Theresa May. Neither Barclay or Hancock have been "re-appointed" in a literal sense, because they never left their job.

This is not "constitutionally wrong" in the slightest - what on earth is your source for that? There is none. Please leave as it is. Vaze50 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear in the Cabinet Manual. James F. (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It simply is not. Drop it.. Vaze50 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the procedure followed at Second Cameron ministry and Second May ministry so I think might need to furnish his own reasoning for taking issue with it. Cabinet ministers are not automatically sacked upon the formation of a new ministry—the reason there were so many stories about people leaving the Cabinet today is, after all, precisely because the default without a change of party is that they stay on. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Spot on Vaze50 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Btw note that Downing Street used different language for Hancock and Barclay, who are staying in the same post, for this reason: for new officeholders they said "has been appointed", for those two they just said "is":  —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC))
 * It being wrong on other pages isn't proof that it's right, it's just more work to fix. James F. (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not proof that it's right, but it is a reason for you to explain your concern, which you have not. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/veiled-sceptre/dismissal-of-governments/715BBBF3EAAAD03FD15B915215203207:
 * "When a chief minister resigns [...] the traditional rule has been that the effect is the termination of the government [...] In the United Kingdom, it has been contended that [...] the termination of a Prime Minister's commission always results in a change in government. It appears that the Queen also takes this view, commissioning each new Prime Minister to form a new government, even when the previous Prime Minister has retired."
 * James F. (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none of that supports your point here. Vaze50 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, you clearly have a better reference that refutes my source. Please supply it. (I have to confess that it's been a decade since I worked with the Secretariats and so I don't have ready access to anything that's not published). James F. (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your source does not make the point you are trying to make. The two in particular remained in their jobs throughout 4.00pm this afternoon and 7.00pm this evening when they were kept on. You show a source that shows they were out of office during that period and you'll be right, but there isn't one, because they weren't. Vaze50 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll forgive me for being skeptical of your assertion. This reminds me of when the new administration accidentally renamed DCMS in 2010 (by appointed the SoS as COMS not CMS). What people "think" doesn't make it true. James F. (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate without doubt that they were out of office for any period today, or give it a rest. Vaze50 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're not going to convince anyone by continually appealing to your own authority. The issue is whether a minister retains their post unless and until dismissed by the new Prime Minister in the process of government formation (or, of course, until they resign). The citation, firstly, is ambivalent on the point it is making—one of the main arguments of that book is that it is undecided whether governments are formed by parties or individuals (hence "it has been contended" in the part you did cite)—and, secondly, has nothing to say on the more relevant point. The Cabinet Manual (p. 23) would rather suggest that they do retain their post, since their office begins with the conferral of the seal and ends upon their resignation. At any rate I don't imagine that Hancock and Barclay were asked to turn in the keys to their office. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 19:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On re-reading, you're right, it's not made explicit either way in the Manual. My apologies. I'll leave it as wrong for now. James F. (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

First Secretary of State
Doesn't First Secretary of State mean Raab ranks second, rather than third, as "First Secretary" implies ranking over all other Cabinet officers. Or is it just a meaningless title? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "meaningless" in that it doesn't have a particular ministry attached to it, but it does imply seniority over other secretaries of state. The Chancellor is not a Secretary of State so you could argue that the Chancellor isn't included in that, but given that First SoS means Deputy PM for all intents and purposes it makes sense to list Raab second, in line with the articles for previous ministries. I see moved it back there anyway. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 23:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the rank is determined by the Prime Minister when they publish the list of cabinet members. It could be whatever they want it to be. Farleysmaster (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In principle yes, but the published list (cited in the article) has Javid second and Raab third so at the moment this is an editorial decision on WP. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not seen/found where that list is officially published, but if that's what it says, that's what it should be. I presume it will be on gov.uk after all the junior positions are sorted. Farleysmaster (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The list was sent out to journalists. I remember seeing a picture of it on Twitter, however The Guardian have it written out here. It shows that Javid is indeed more senior than Raab; I have edited the template to reflect this. Colourlight (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Over Linking
Is it possible for not every use of the abbreviation MP to be a hyperlink? It looks a bit much. I would change it, but I'm a little unsure of the template rules. Farleysmaster (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Colouring of Lords/MPs
I have added the most recent appointments of the new PM, however, I am unable to add the colour indicating Lord of MP. Please could somebody assist and add the relevant colours. Thanks.PoliceSheep99 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Majority loss
Where we have minority with DUP Confidence and Supply. Should this be changed to reflect loss of majority? JamesVilla44 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean in the infobox? No, it's still a minority government with confidence and supply from the DUP (for now...). Captainllama (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the same as before though as the confidence and supply agreement results in a majority of -22 instead of +1.
 * JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The only place I can see "we have minority with DUP Confidence and Supply" is in the inbox, which says: "Status in legislature - Minority - with DUP confidence & supply". So far as I am aware the only thing to have changed is that they have lost their working majority. They are still a minority government, they still have a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP. The text you referred to says nothing about the numbers you subsequently mentioned. What exactly is it that you think needs changing, and replacing with what? Captainllama (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * [Edit] Are you perhaps confusing the confidence and supply of the DUP with the whip being withdrawn from the rebels? It makes no difference to the infobox in either case.

Infobox Picture
The reason I changed it to an earlier picture was because, to my knowledge, it was used practically everywhere else, and it seemed to be the closest to an official portrait for the prime minister that we have. Should we do an RFC? Lahndalot (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Changes - Jo Johnson
While it says "Jo Johnson resigned from the cabinet on 5 September 2019..." should it not actually say that Jo Johnson resigned as a minister? While he attended cabinet, he was not a full member of it (indeed I think he only attended when matters relevant to his portfolio were being discussed). Dunarc (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ranks of ministers
While there are views on whether Javid or Raab should be second to Johnson, I've got a different proposition - Gove should go second.

First, Gove represented the Treasury Bench to give remarks via a point of order after Bercow's statement on Sep 9 indicating that he would resign while Raab was present. Second, per parliament.uk, Gove was ranked above Javid and Raab in Her Majesty's Government.

I therefore reckon the reason why the list the Government released in July 2019 shows Gove below Javid and Raab is to first announce the occupants of the Great Offices of State, in which the public is usually more interested, but not to reveal ranks within the cabinet. I believe this does not contradict discussions above that Chancellors (of the Exchequer and of the Duchy of Lancaster) are not Secretaries of State so the First Secretary of State has superiority over other Secretaries of State but none over Chancellors - that is why Raab is always ranked above Patel (Secretary of State for the Home Department). OliWatson (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It seems clear that the other page is an inadvertent redundant content fork created after this page with a non-standard title, many fewer contributors, and much less content. As it looks not to be contentious I'm going to go ahead and work through my first merge. Easily undone if I've slipped up. Captainllama (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that was simple, there was literally nothing over there that wasn't already here. Captainllama (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Anonymoose. .helper/Proposed Title
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS for listing current peers
has reverted 4 related edits:. Their edit summary says "incorrect formatting"; my edits were clearly summarised: "links to current peers formatted per MOS:SURNAME and MOS:HON" with the relevant MOS sections linked. I would be interested to know precisely which section of the MOS prescribes the use of proper formal styles in these contexts. Long-standing-ness is no reason. Given that I have provided two links to the Manual of Style, what is the guideline against my edits? DBD 16:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the two guidelines you've linked does it specify that that style you've imposed should be used. In fact, MOS:SURNAME says 'A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her' (with an exception for hereditary peers, whereby use of the title alone may cause confusion). I'm glad that you've stopped adding the likes of 'Natalie Baroness Evans of Bowes Park', given how nonsensical that is, but your new change here is still inappropriate, if not inherently incorrect like your old one. British ministry lists on Wikipedia have always used the official style that one can see on the British government website, and indeed, on the Parliament's website. As you see, this is the 'customary' style, and I see no reason to deviate from this now. Continually changing away from the longstanding style without consensus is unacceptable, and I'm glad that at last you've chosen to sit down and discuss the matter. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith. So far, I find your tone needlessly adversarial. We are all here to work together and improve the 'pedia.
 * Directly after the passage you quote, MOS:SURNAME continues: "for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, may become the Earl of Leicester, the Earl, or just Leicester (if the context is clear enough) in subsequent mentions. For modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title..." The mentions we're discussing are not "subsequent mentions", and these are modern-day peers.
 * I also refer to MOS:HON because it begins "Honorifics and styles of nobility should normally be capitalized, e.g., Her Majesty, His Holiness. They are not usually used in running text, though some may be appropriate in the lead sentence of a biographical article, as detailed below, or in a section about the person's titles and styles."; which seems to me to preclude the usage of proper styles (such as The Rt Hon The Lord Callanan PC) outside of their own biography's lead or a titles and styles section.
 * The minister-peers we're linking to here — at least the life peers — are well known by their names, and Wikipedia is for a broad audience; it is not Debrett's Correct Form. DBD 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, you selectively quote the guidelines. You might read the second part of the the bit you quoted 'For modern-day nobility it is better to use name and title; at some time in the future the Prince of Wales will be a different person than Charles, Prince of Wales, and a great many articles risk becoming out of date'. As you see, this does not apply to life peers, as I mentioned above. As for MOS:HON, this clearly does not apply to tables, which are not running text. Indeed, part of the purpose of the tables is to convey the correct style, as they are referred to in the position they've been appointed to. No one has used 'The Lord such and such', 'The Rt Hon such and such' in running text, and this would indeed be unacceptable. Please note the difference between 'The Lord such and such' and 'Lord such and such'. The former is a styling, the latter a name. The title of a peer often serves as a name. Indeed, they are customarily referred to by their titles alone in media reporting. For example, see the BBC, where Baroness Evans of Bowes Park is referred to as such. See also The Times and the Financial Times (see also The Daily Mail/The Mirror/The Times for Baroness Morgan of Coates). There are some life peers who may well be more commonly known by their birth name, and those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but even in those cases, there would still be no justification for converting all use of the customary style in any article to a purely name-based style, especially when the title is relevant to their position or the events being described. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I quoted selectively because there's a semicolon there; it's a related thought but not the same thought. The guideline is not "better to use name and title" for "modern-day nobility" solely because of the phenomenon for which an example is listed; that is only one reason. Surely, this derives from the principle of simple language and common names. Peerages aren't names, and people should be referred to by name. I'm not against also using their peerage alongside their name; but their name should be made clear because that is the information we're trying to convey in these tables. "Who was the Shadow Chancellor in 2014?" "Oh, it was Ed Balls." There may be places in wikipedia where our purpose is to educate in Etiquette, but that's not the purpose of these pages. Do you understand my argument? DBD 18:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your reading of the passage is incorrect. The semicolon indicates the reason for the preceding statement. That's how semicolons work. Furthermore, as I said above, your interpretation of what the common name is is incorrect. If the BBC and major newspapers use the title alone in referring to these people, then it can clearly be determined that the title is the common name. Furthermore, your declaration that a 'peerage is not a name', is completely false. As above, media coverage uses them as such, and furthermore, titles have served as names in British society since their inception. See the British government guidance on the subject: 'Titles of nobility are part of a person's name and identity'. This is not a matter of 'etiquette', this is a matter of a person's name. You propose to erase their names (and the status that those names entail), as they are commonly and customarily used. This is not appropriate. If someone wants to know a person's full name, they can click on the hyperlink and find that out. This is not a paper encyclopaedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're getting anywhere. Let's seek other contributors' views. DBD 19:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think our next step would be to ask at WP:THIRD; would that have your consent? DBD 19:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it would not have my consent. The next step is for you to go to the relevant guideline, and seek either a clarification or a change. This is not a problem with individual articles. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:House of Lords DBD 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal with "First Johnson ministry"
Following a successful proposal for the merging of List of departures from the Truss ministry, this article similarly features a very short list that doesn't warrant its own existence and can easily be incorporated in the First Johnson ministry. Yeoutie (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks like the chart would fit nicely in the Cabinet changes section, maybe replacing the bullet-point list. Joyous! | Talk 16:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this merger proposal. DDMS123 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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. <!-- from