Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 30

= May 30 =

British social class system
A British girl once told me that in the UK you are in the class where you were born. For example, Kathy Middleton is seen as upper-middle class, even if her parents are millionaires and she married a prince. In such scenarios, in a mixed-class marriage, would the kids be automatically and doubtlessly upper class like their one upper class parent?--Hofhof (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So a homeless gambling addict could still look down on the working class? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first point is the way things were traditionally viewed, see Social class in the United Kingdom. It's why you get articles like . How widely it's still accepted will vary, see e.g. . As for your later point, if the father was upper class and the eldest son (or otherwise had their own title or inherited estate) and married a lower class woman, the children (probably the eldest son) would still inherit any titles, estates etc so yes they would be upper class. See the subsection of the earlier article Social class in the United Kingdom although it doesn't directly deal with children. If the mother was upper class and the father was not, it would get more complicated. Likewise second or more sons. (Landed gentry does deal with this a bit, albeit not relating to children again.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW you may also want to read Morganatic marriage but as our article explains there isn't a strong history for that in the UK. (Although certain royals did need the sovereign's permission to marry so it was not always possible to marry.) There is of course the infamous case of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, but that was about more than her social class. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The British girl you spoke to must have been very old. That may have been true 100 years ago, but bears little resemblance to modern British society (with the possible exception of members of the hereditary nobility and royalty). Wymspen (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Working, middle and upper middle classes are now quite fluid, but class mobility ends at the boundary between upper middle class and upper class, does it not? Upper class status depends on titles and inheritance, so while a middle class person could technically attain upper class status, e.g. by marriage or being ennobled, it's not as fluid as someone moving between working, middle or upper middle classes simply by, for example, going to university or becoming unemployed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... There is a distinction between social class and economic class. The first is less fluid than the second. Blueboar (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What Blueboar said x100000. Money and class have absolutely nothing to do with one another. See nouveau riche, a status that isn't necessarily just for the first generation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Historically, things varied at different times. Remember that wealth and class didn't necessarily go together; one could encounter a middle class man who was far wealthier than a noble (not just gentry), e.g. a highly successful merchant and the son of a perpetual gambler, respectively.  There's a famous series of paintings from the early modern era in which an impoverished nobleman marries his daughter to a wealthy merchant; I thought it was A Rake's Progress by Hogarth, but my memory appears to be in error.  Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Marriage A-la-Mode. Amazingly, I didn't have to look that up as it was an answer in a crossword I recently tackled. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.8.213 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What is a possible way my ancestors met (I made a DNA test)?
I recently made a DNA test. My father was from Sierra Leone and I found out something quite extraordinary: from his side of the family I was only 14% Sierra Leonean, 22,6 West African, 9,8% Nigerian, 1% Central African but 1% Papuan and 1% Native American from the Amazon. As we all know, these were not places from which people travelled to other countries or continents. "How on earth could a Papuan from Oceania or an Amazonian from South America end up in Africa?", I thought. Then I realised that every single one of these countries (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Papua-New-Guinea, [British Guyana?]) were part of the British Empire. Slaves were sent from these countries to the West Indies, correct? I know for sure that from Africa (especially West Africa) slaves were transported to the Caribbean. And something interesting that I found out recently: in the Caribbean (where the British arrived) there were indigenous people called the Lucayan people whose ancestors were from the Amazon. That could perhaps explain the 1% indigenous Amazonian in me. The Lucayans were a branch of the Taínos who inhabited most of the Caribbean islands at the time. It would make perfect sense that in the Carribean the enslaved indigenous "Caribbeans" (indigenous Amazonians) interbred with transported African (and Oceanian) slaves, then slavery was abolished and some African with some Amazonian and someone with some Papuan (or both) was transported by the Brits to a random country in the empire. Or what's another possible way that my ancestors met? I'm planning to make a second DNA test (from a decent source, don't worry) which can show me what tribes my ancestors belonged to.

I hope this will spark some interesting conversation. Thank you. --Sullay (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If I were you I'd look at the quality of your data, perhaps if necessary by asking a question at the science desk, before trying to come up with elaborate explanations for your alleged ancestry. At the very least, I suggest you take a read of genealogical DNA test which is flawed in some areas but seems to sort of cover the basics. Especially Genealogical DNA test and the 3rd paragraph of Genealogical DNA test. Then I'd proceed to read further. seems to cover the science at a basic level (open the hidden sections).  seems to give a good explanation of how to treat the data. And if you have time,  gives an idea of the complexity if you want to actually do an even basic decent (I think) analysis.  Some things not covered there which you probably want to look in to is what sort of accuracy you can expect when you aren't looking at something which really fits into a continental modem like Papuan. And what sort of accuracy applies to low estimates of ancestry, e.g. does it mean there is probably really some ancestry from there, or is there a good chance it's just a spurious result?  P.S. I came across some links on sites offering related services discussing the issue, but I have intentionally not included them because as with all things, you have to be very cautious about trusting someone who may be effectively trying to sell you something. I will include  however even though it's from someone who offers to analyse results and from 2012, as it seems to IMO offer a decent explanation why you have to be careful with any estimates.  Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that Sierra Leone (Freetown, especially), like Liberia and Gabon, was established as a settlement for freed slaves, and that there was some movement back from the West Indies to that part of Africa. That does not explain the Papuan - though there was settlement from Asia in parts of the West Indies, the chronology would make a link back to Sierra Leone unlikely (they were mostly brough over to work after slavery was ended). Wymspen (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is worth keeping in mind that a 1% mix would be roughly equivalent to a pure ancestor from that population 6 generations ago, i.e. a great-great-great-great-grandparent. Which suggests you should be thinking about events ~150 years ago.  However, we have to take such estimates with a huge grain of salt because the actual DNA transmission rates can vary from the ideal 25% from each grandparent.  And even if they didn't vary, the tests come with significant inaccuracies when considering small fractions (as Nil Einne discusses above).  Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As previous responders mentioned, DNA tests are not entirely accurate, so the results must be taken with a grain of salt. "The other day we had a bird strike. We sent the sample to the DNA lab and it came back as rabbit. How do you explain to the FAA that we had a rabbit strike at 1,800 feet?" Dr Dima (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's probably accurate ... nothing in the test says you didn't hit a piece of rabbit in the belly of a crow. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated." :) Dr Dima (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've seen various indications of meetings of native Americans and Polynesians in the area of Easter Island and Brazil. I am intrigued to think that the mix of these localities might have occurred pre European contact. That said, we can't tell the quality of the data or evaluate such hypotheses without looking at it... and to be sure, this data is something so private that I would not have urged you to allow even the company you contracted with to see it, let alone anyone else, so I'm not going to suggest giving us a look really - not unless you can pick out just a few specific markers of interest and be fairly knowledgeable about what you're sharing. Still, some detective work with ancestors and relatives could shed light on it, if you have historical data or even other family members who have gone for such tests, to see if the American/Polynesian heritage came by the same route. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to contradict any of the above: ships were often willing to recruit (voluntarily or not) sailors from absolutely anywhere they visited. Such sailors might later father children in any port they visited on shore leave, and/or might marry and ultimately settle in or near such ports. Areas such as the Port of London or Cardiff's Tiger Bay ("dockworkers and sailors from across the world settled in neighbourhoods close to the docks . . .") were well known for their racially diverse and mixed populations – doubtless the same was/is true of many other ports worldwide. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.8.213 (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Sierra Leone Creole people. It appears to be a good match for you. Also, as mentioned by the prior poster, the Royal Navy recruited (often forcibly) all over the world, and their ships (the West Africa Squadron) were responsible for enforcing the interdiction of the slave trade. When they recaptured slaves on the high seas, the freed many (most?) in Sierra Leone. It is very easy to imagine a Papuan being pressed into the navy and fathering a child in Sierra Leone. This was the period in the Napoleonic wars when the Navy was most desperate and was grabbing a lot of sailors. An Amazonian is even simpler. By far the largest portion of the Atlantic slave trade (39%) was Portuguese transport of Africans to Brazil. Seafaring in those times was dangerous, and ships routinely lost men and then recruited locally in any port of call. -Arch dude (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Slavery is never entirely abolished, but often it's made a state monopoly. —Tamfang (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Charles Samuel Stewart
This is the fifth edition. My question is where is the first fourth editions, there publishers and publication years and the greatest of all links to these sources. By the way, this is not the same thing as "A Residence Of Twenty-One Years In the Sandwich Islands" which is a separate book. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The earlier editions, issued in London, have the longer title "Journal of a Residence in the Sandwich Islands during the Years 1823, 1824 and 1825". This is a Google books link to the second edition. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wBQIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=%22a+residence+in+the+sandwich+islands%22&source=bl&ots=5GhxCg6MW4&sig=hCFWnqROmuaW6Js-kVK0knuI6O4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_mofIpJfUAhWHIVAKHRPdBJIQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=%22a%20residence%20in%20the%20sandwich%20islands%22&f=false Wymspen (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The same one at archive.org (a whole lot easier to read) gives a publication date of 1828 (2nd edition).
 * The 3rd edition was published in London by H. Fisher, Son, & P. Jackson, in 1830. Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I also found Private Journal of a Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, and Residence At the Sandwich Islands At the Years 1822, 1823, 1824, and 1825 by C S Stewart, which claims to be a first edition and is also dated 1828, published by John P Haven, New York. Yours today for $408.00. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Early US crime records
Just noticed that Pearl Hart's birth year, for instance, is only approximate and similar situation is with Billy the Kid and the likes. So back then criminal records in the United States did not contain birth dates of the convicted or arrested people? I'd assume age was important for conviction purposes, so maybe some prison archives have the birth dates anyway. Brandmeistertalk  08:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Until around 1900, there was no official registry of birth in the US (or for that matter birth certificates, though year of introduction varies by state). Prior to that time, births were recorded by the family and often the family's church but usually not the government.  (The US census did ask about family member ages every 10 years, but didn't ask for day or month of birth.)  Family / church records were often lost, so it can be difficult to establish precise birth information for 19th century persons.  And, since the government didn't have a registry of birth dates, the criminal justice system at the time probably had less interest in asking for and recording specific birthdates.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ancestry.com, the LDS archives and other online sources offer some 19th century official birth records for some states. Coverage is spotty. The US Census of 1900 asked for the year and month of birth.  Sad to say the censuses often had incorrect years of birth,as if the census taker made it up, the family lied or was uncertain. or someone lied about their age to seem younger. World War 1 and 2 draft registrations give birth dates for US men who had to register, and seem more accurate than censuses. Edison (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've worked with census records on ancestry.com quite a lot, and there are lots of errors. The best anyone can hope for is to use it as a guideline. And on draft registrations, I can think of some relatives who fibbed about their ages to either avoid or be included in the draft. Those family Bibles and such probably have the best information - when you can find them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * People actually knowing their birth dates is quite recent. As an example from Ireland, My great great grandmother gave her age when she married in 1881 as 25, on the 1901 census as 45, on the 1911 census as 56, and her death certificate in 1924 says she was 70. That would put her birth date somewhere between 1854 and 1856. Except I've recently turned up a baptism search done when she claimed her pension in 1920, and she was baptised in 1850. She consistently underestimated her age by 4 to 6 years. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * An example from the twentieth century was given here:

You wouldn't necessarily expect this kind of detail. My father, for example, knew only that he was born on the second Wednesday of the month at harvest time. He wouldn't have been able to give the exact year. 86.171.242.107 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

When people are asked to provide an exact birthdate they usually select a date and stick with it (for obvious reasons). You don't give the date of your great - great grandmother's marriage, but on the information provided she was likely using a date between 2 January 1855 and 31 December 1856. The 1901 and 1911 census returns suggest she was using either 1 or 2 April 1855. By 1920 she had found documentation which showed she was born no later than 1850. Ages given on death certificates are frequently guesstimates. In one case even the name provided by the informant to the registrar was a guesstimate, resulting in the names entered on the certificate and carved on the tombstone being different. 81.148.187.1 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dancer's "originated roles" in works by Choreographer X
The term "originated roles" is a section heading for ballet and modern dancer Wendy Whelan. It's also used on WP s for actors and opera singers besides other dancers, but nowhere have I seen it defined. What does it mean: just "first person to perform this role" - in which case is it related to "debut" - or does the performer necessarily have some part in creating it? And is it used properly on that page? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The implication is that Whelan was involved in the first performance in collaboration with the choreographer of each ballet named, which may be the case. If that is uncertain a less assertive heading title that may be used is "Starring roles" (optionally "rôles"). Blooteuth (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Palin mama grizzlies
Is there a website that shows the list of women who were endorsed by Sarah Palin for the 2010 mid-term elections and thus were dubbed as "mama grizzlies"? Donmust90 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our article Mama grizzly doesn't list them. The Atlantic included a list of twelve "she has endorsed, what they're running for, and how they're doing" as per Aug 11, 2010, three months before the elections: "Mama Grizzly Watch". The twelve listed there were Nikki Haley, Mary Fallin, Star Parker, Ann Marie Buerkle, Kelly Ayotte, CeCe Heil, Rita Meyer, Carly Fiorina, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Cecile Bledsoe, Susana Martinez, and Susan Handel. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a more comprehensive list ("Summary of Gov. Palin's Endorsements (Updated 7/29/10)"), but it also includes papa grizzlies. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What G8/7/6 meeting had the most recently inaugurated full member?
Presumably they try to avoid predictable busy times like mid-late January, early November or early May? Has the GX ever been so close to an important debate, election, inauguration, primary or caucus that a full member or major election opponent got one or the other rescheduled, or was overworked or missed one? Did a GX leader ever not show up or get it rescheduled because of anything else like a domestic crisis? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't an answer to your question, as you asked only about G6-8, but I thought it might be interesting to note: the Australian prime minister missed both the 2010 and 2013 G20 summits, because in 2010 an internal party coup had just replaced the prime minister Kevin Rudd a few days before, and the newly minted prime minister Julia Gillard could not / did not want to leave the country so soon after taking over; and in 2013, the aforesaid new prime minister Gillard was deposed shortly before an election in favour of her predecessor Rudd, and Rudd did not want to leave the country just before the election. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Why did some of the go governing bodies give Alphago a 9p rank while FIDE didn't make Deep Blue a GM?
Might it be a difference between Eastern and Western culture? Why did people use to say [term for computer] will never be world chess champion/will be world chess champion [by 19XX] yet no one considered the Deep Blue matches world championships much less deem them worthy of >6 games (even today's short championships are 12 games long). Did they think a computer world chess champion would have to be literally sentient? And that that would be invented before 1970? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Deep Blue match was a one-off publicity stunt. It was not a FIDE tournament. ApLundell (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, our Grandmaster article says that the current (1970) FIDE rules specify that to qualify for Grandmaster status, one needs "three such GM results within a rolling period of three years." A single tournament, even if it were a FIDE event, would not qualify. CodeTalker (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AlphaGo's 9p title given after the Lee Sedol match was honorary, I think. And I doubt that match was more of an officially sanctioned event than Kasparov vs. Deep Blue.  The AlphaGo and Deep Blue matches were exhibition matches and therefore not treated as official championships.  At the time of the Deep Blue matches, the computer's strength vs. top GM's was very much in doubt, while I think everyone agrees that computers now outperform humans at both chess and go.  In the 1970s people extrapolated known computer chess techniques to the level it would take to beat a GM (in terms of tree search depth etc) and found that it would take a ridiculous and impractical amount of computing power.  By the 1990s, techniques had improved a little, but mostly, hardware had become orders of magnitude faster (especially counting Deep Blue's custom chips), so enough computing power (an unforeseen amount) was in fact delivered to beat GM's with methods basically similar to those originally proposed decades earlier. To do the same thing with Go would take a truly astronomical and unachievable amount of computation, far beyond anything currently envisioned.  So people thought that human Go players would stay unbeatable for a long time.  Instead, much better computer Go algorithms were developed: Monte Carlo tree search is very simple and quite effective at Go, and AlphaGo used it along with large scale machine learning and neural nets to analyze millions of human games.  So it reached championship level with a large but attainable computer power, by using methods much different than the ones foreseen not that long ago. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom General Election, 2017
The Times has an interesting article this evening highlighting a YouGov poll that shows the Conservative party losing seats. It anticipated that they will also lose their majority, with only 310 seats and 326 being required to form a majority in the Commons. The Liberal Democrats are expected to only have ten seats, making a re-run of the 2010 coalition government unlikely. The SNP would be impossible to negotiate a coalition government with given their commitment to dismantling the United Kingdom, and the other parties are also unlikely candidates for a coalition. If the result is a hung parliament and no coalition can be formed, what happens? Is the election simply re-ran. Presumably, given the need for a coherent Brexit strategy, a minority government is out of the question? I suppose another conceivable option is the formation of a national government, like the one we had in the thirties, although this seems extremely unlikely to me. --Andrew 22:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is likely one or more of the minor parties would form a coalition with one of the majors with some concessions; some combination of 326 would be possible. For historical examples, 1910 seems as good as any, there were two elections that year, both of which did not return a majority: United Kingdom general election, January 1910 and United Kingdom general election, December 1910, and both required a coalition of the Liberals and Irish Parliamentary Parties to form a government.  As a concession to the Irish Nationalists, the Asquith government made possible Irish home rule with a series of acts to provide for devolved government in Ireland.  One could conceive of such concessions for the SNP as well as some concessions to the Lib Dems, such as key ministerial positions. -- Jayron 32 01:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Simply re-running the election is not an option. The Fixed Term Parliament Act makes it necessary to get a two thirds majority in parliament, and if the Conservatives do not have an overall majority it is very unlikely that enough people from other parties would agree to that: they won't want to fight another election anyway, and they won't want to give the conservatives a second go at getting a majority. A minority government is a possibility (that usually involves other parties agreeing not to oppose the budget or to move a motion of no confidence), as is some sort of coalition - but until the actual results are out any prediction is simply guesswork. Wymspen (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Lib Dem leader has said that his party will not join a coalition with either of the two major parties, though he may have given himself a get-out clause by saying 'There is no way we can countenance any kind of arrangement or coalition with the Conservative party and likewise with the Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn' (emphasis added). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See also "confidence and supply" - that is, not a formal coalition agreement, but an agreement that the smaller party will not support a vote of no confidence in the major (governing) party. If the Conservatives lose their majority, the likeliest scenario might be a Labour minority government with the SNP and/or Lib Dems supporting them in most votes.  In that scenario, it's quite unlikely in the short term that the Labour Party will seek to remove Corbyn - he will be seen as having done exceptionally well.  But, it's all very hypothetical, and all that can be said about British politics at the moment is that it's unpredictable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you taking into account the Northern Irish unionist parties that traditionally vote with the Conservative Party, and the fact that Sinn Féin traditionally practice Abstentionism and do not take up their Westminster seats, thus reducing the number needed for an effective majority? The linked Times article doesn't seem to address that clearly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.8.213 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW as our article mentions and somewhat hinted at by Ghmyrtle's first sentence, confidence and supply agreements could involve the smaller party simply agreeing to abstain on confidence and supply issues rather than explicitly supporting the government, assuming the government would then end up with a majority. (I.E. This wouldn't work between Labour and the SNP for example.) Such agreements could also potentially involve the minority party getting ministerial positions. This has happened a few times in New Zealand, the appointment of Winston Peters as foreign minister outside cabinet after the New Zealand general election, 2005 was a particularly notable case although I believe the UK doesn't really have the same concept of ministers outside cabinet. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What is a "minister outside cabinet" in NZ? The UK has Secretaries of State (generally, cabinet ministers) and Ministers of State (generally, non-cabinet ministers). Is that the same distinction? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See [//cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/2.15] and Cabinet of New Zealand. At least as I understand it according to our articles, Ministers of State (and anyone else outside of cabinet in the UK) are junior to Secretaries of State. In NZ, Ministers outside of cabinet hold the full powers as ministers inside cabinet and can be appoint to full portfolios. The primary difference is they don't attend cabinet, except when it relates to their portfolio and with the agreement of the Prime Minister. Also although they are bound by collective responsibility, this could potentially be limited to only their portfolio. (When representing NZ overseas, they do have to speak for the government on all issues that may be raised with them.) [//cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/5.11#5.22] I admit I'm not that familiar with how the cabinet attendance works in practice. I wouldn't be surprised if it's an import portfolion that that attendance may be common and it's mostly a way of allowing public dissent albeit with the understanding this could only happen once whatever it was became public, as well as reducing the association of the person with the governmental policy in general. (See also .) That said, in the particular case of Winston Peters there was controversy over him not even attending related committees so I'm pretty sure he didn't regularly attend cabinet. .  NZ does have a similar concept of Ministers of State, in their roles they are called Associate Ministers. These will also be outside cabinet, except the fairly small size of the parliament and government means quite a few of these may be part of cabinet in one or more portfolio anyway. That said, the size of the NZ cabinet isn't that much smaller than the UK one, see Cabinet of New Zealand vs [//www.gov.uk/government/ministers].  Also although I think there was some very limited precedent I believe the NZ system largely developed in the MMP era, see Executive Council of New Zealand. (Note that all Ministers, includes Associate Ministers even those without a full portfolio are members of the executive council. [//cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/2.15#2.33]) So it's not impossible that things could change in the UK if needed although the fact the UK is still using FPTP probably means there's less need even if it does turn out no one has a clear majority after this election and government formation also turns out to be difficult.  Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are 650 seats in the Commons. Sinn Féin have a very strong chance of winning at least four, and do not take their seats, and one seat is the Speaker's, so 323 seats will give a working majority.  If the Conservatives won 310 seats, they would be the largest party and have first shot at forming a government.  They might well look to an arrangement with the unionist parties in Northern Ireland (likely to win about 10 seats again), but that wouldn't be quite enough.  The only party who might plausibly make a deal is the Lib Dems, so it might come down to what they are prepared to agree to (and how many seats they have; a two-party arrangement would be much more workable than one also involving the unionists).  Alternatively, they could announce that they don't quite have the numbers to form a "strong and stable" government, and challenge Labour to do so.  I can't see any way they could make it work with the numbers from the YouGov poll and, if they admit they can't, they'd have to support a motion to call a new general election.  Also worth noting that that poll is the lowest figure for Conservative seats any poll has shown in the run-up to the election, so it's still highly likely that the Conservatives will win a majority. Warofdreams talk 01:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)