Talk:List of British shadow cabinets

Removal of Lib Dems

Please do not move the Lib Dems from this page, or the template that I created. They are here for a reason. Yes, there is controversy over whether they can “officially” be a shadow cabinet, but, nevertheless, they call themselves that, and their “shadow cabinets” are in every form the same as what a shadow cabinet should be. I created this page and the template that were change for a reason: to have places to centrally access all information on British shadow cabinets, be they unofficial, or official. Otherwise, the articles were scattered about and forgotten. The Lib Dems must be included here. This is not the place for a debate over semantics. The only appropriate way to centralise the information is the way in which I carried it out. These pages exist purely for that reason. Please do not tamper with them further, without discussion. RGloucester (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC - Inclusion of the Liberal Democrats on this page/template/category and the title of this page

I created this page a while ago to compile all the articles on British shadow cabinets in one place. Previously, they were scattered all over the place and difficult to find for users. They were barely ever touched by anyone. When I created this page, I also created a template Template:British shadow cabinets and a category Category:British shadow cabinets. Within these various items, I included the “shadow cabinets” of the Liberal Democrats. I did this because, regardless of the controversy that existed when the Lib. Dems. started calling them as such, they are essentially equivalent to the official shadow cabinet.

I thought that having all this information in one place would make the most sense, since someone who was looking for the Official Opposition shadow cabinet might also want to know about the Lib. Dem. equivalent. Previously, the Lib. Dem. articles were even worse off than the Official shadow cabinet pages, with regards to being hidden in the backwoods of Wikipedia. I make it clear in the introduction to this page, and elsewhere, that these Liberal Democrat shadow cabinets are not “official” that is, they are not the Official Opposition. That is also why I created the category. Previously, the only category was Category:Official Opposition (United Kingdom), which could not include the Lib. Dems. The new category was meant to be an inclusive title, allowing third parties who created unofficial shadow cabinets to also be included, which to me, made sense. The template was created at the request of Rrius, who had asked for a replacement to the old template (which was rather poor) at that template’s talk page, Template talk:UK Shadow Cabinets.

Recently, Timrollpickering had removed the Liberal Democrats from this page, the template, and the category. He also removed the template from the various Liberal Democrat pages. I reverted the changes, and began a discussion on his talk page. Both of us disagree about what to do, so I figured this would be the best place to figure out how to sort it.

As far as I’m concerned, I think things should be left as is. Perhaps more description could be added on this page to make it clear that the Lib. Dem. shadow cabinets are not official. But I think, because they are called “shadow cabinets” by the Lib. Dems. and because the controversy over this naming has disappeared over the years since that appellation’s introduction, it would be fine to call them shadow cabinets. Just not “official” shadow cabinets. I believe it is very valuable to have this information grouped together, as it is all connected, and provides easy access. I also believe that any attempt at a title change to “opposition frontbench teams” and other similar titles are counterproductive. Not only is that title less intuitive for the user, but it is also clunky, and simply not needed. At this point, I believe the use of shadow cabinet for Lib. Dems. is widespread, even in local government. Therefore, I recommend, as I said, that it be left alone. RGloucester (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Responses

I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Neither shadow cabinet is exactly an official thing, so it makes the most sense to just go with "Liberal Democrat Shadow Cabinet". I realize that the original usage of the term "shadow cabinet" referred to its function as a government-in-waiting, but the term has added the senses of "opposition party's decision making body" and "opposition party's 'core' front bench". I'm not sure about the power of the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet to make decisions, but it fits the last definition, and the party itself uses the term. As long as we are clear to distinguish between Official Opposition and Lib Dem shadow cabinets, I don't see the problem. -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The main reason this issue has quietened in recent years has been because the Lib Dems are now in government and so there's no current usage to check. When they were in opposition the issue was highly contentious both off and on Wikipedia (e.g. the BBC listing of "New Liberal Democrat frontbench" from early 2008). The issues at hand have not changed since then. The Official Opposition forms the Shadow Cabinet and is recognised as such. The Lib Dems calling the grouping of their lead spokespersons one did not make it so (even if they could get webmasters here and there to copy & paste the lists provided). It would be POV to use such a contentious non-universal term.

Additionally the articles on the Lib Dem Frontbench Team are listing the full set of spokespersons and not just the senior ones and "opposition front benches" does actually offer a way that not only sidesteps this issue but also allows for greater information to be available. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Even then, I can find many, many sources that would call the Lib. Dem. “thing” (for lack of a better neutral term) a shadow cabinet. You see, I agree with Rrius here. A shadow cabinet is not an official thing at all, really. The Official Opposition is, but the term shadow cabinet and everything associated is not. Nothing is stopping the official opposition party from not forming a shadow cabinet, but just having a Leader of the Opposition. There is no official definition for what a shadow cabinet is. And regardless, even parliament.uk referred to the “thing” as a shadow cabinet, as far back as the year 2000. What is more official for something so unofficial? RGloucester (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's just reprinting a list supplied by the Lib Dems themselves. The Shadow Cabinet is a body recognised at Westminster and allocated accommodation including the Shadow Cabinet Meeting Room - note the following 2006 written answer from a Lib Dem member of the House of Commons Commission about accommodation allocation that makes no need to distinguish between what is and what calls itself: [1]. But at the moment I think we're just batting the same points back and forth. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If Westminister did not recognize the Lib. Dem. “thing” as a shadow cabinet, I find it hard to believe they would list it as such on their website. I would assume they would rename it to something else, if they thought it was wrong, or misinformation, regardless of the source. But I agree with you, we are just going back and forth here. RGloucester (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're granting the website manager with a rather higher position of authority and/or assuming a greater degree of style control than there is in practice. In many organisations websites carry whatever text is supplied to them by individuals within the organisation and the website staff are only concerned with the technical presentation. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

With politics being the way they are, it pays to pay attention to detail, lest avoid a gaffe. I’d say they pay attention to detail…RGloucester (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just hunting around for sources to support either position and came across a blog on the Guardian website that provides an interesting summary.[2] The article makes a point that by 2008 the term had become accepted by "some" parts of the media. As we have to reflect the sources I am not sure how we can refer to the Lib Dems having a shadow cabinet if the majority of sources were in disagreement. At what time did the tipping point occur, if at all? Road Wizard (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Browsing about parliament.uk and hansard, I have seen multiple references to the Lib Dem shadow cabinet that were not made by Lib Dems. It is hard for me to doubt what the official parliamentary website / record says. RGloucester (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Links please. If you are requesting comments from other editors it would help to know which sources we are meant to comment on. Road Wizard (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

One example is above, here is another Lib Dem shadow cabinet list. Timrollpickering thinks these are not official, and do not denote recognition, but are merely reprints of Lib. Dem. material….but I find it hard to believe, as I stated above. There are more, non-list references, just search on parliament.uk. RGloucester (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think list publications are particularly useful, as Parliament is obliged to reprint what it is asked to do in a non-partisan manner. Per Timrollpickering's comments, it is harder to argue the exact relevance of the source when we are not sure if it is vetting or just reprinting the material.

What could be more interesting are the "multiple references to the Lib Dem shadow cabinet that were not made by Lib Dems" you have identified. Those will be more useful to the discussion as it will help to determine independent usage. However, as it is filtering out comments and publications by Lib Dem members, the exact pages will be harder to track down. Road Wizard (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This, to me, is a pretty good indication that the term “shadow cabinet” for the Liberal Democrats is recognized. It is an official directory of all MPs, and is perhaps better than the list pages. I’ll pull up the other pages later, for your perusal. RGloucester (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That directory is the same list as linked to above. The only difference is that the directory page provided a link to the "current" list as opposed to the versions available in the different weekly information bulletins. The same issue as before applies; is the House of Commons Information Office publishing the information it is provided with in a non-partisan manner without checks, or is it vetting the documents according to Parliamentary rules?

I think this is going to be a tough one to call. Unless some third party sources analysed the use and adoption of the term since 1997 we will have to make a judgement ourselves on the balance of sources. Road Wizard (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If it'll help, the Liberal Democrats adopted the term 'Shadow Cabinet' to refer to their frontbench team on 14 October 1999: "Instead of being called the front bench, the party will refer to its senior team as the Liberal Democrat 'shadow cabinet'." (The Herald, 15 October 1999). Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not say that the Lib Dems began calling their front bench a shadow cabinet in 1999, create a separate article and provide a link? TFD (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It just seems that having them consolidated here makes more sense, if someone wants to ahead and create that article, that’d work, I suppose. I still think it smarter to leave it as it is. RGloucester (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Lib Dem bias

This article unfortunately supports a lib dem aspiration that isn't reflective of reality, only the largest opposition party forms the shadow cabinet, all other parties have shadow spokespersons. Parliament website sets this out.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/government-and-opposition1/opposition-holding/

If the consensus is to deviate from parliamentary definitions then all minor parties front benches should be included. I believe prior to devolution the SNP westminister team refered to itself as a shadow cabinet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• The article makes it clear in the article that the Lib Dem shadow cabinet is "unofficial", which it is. No one is claiming it is the "Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet". As said above, the same parliament website you are using to support your claim describes a Lib Dem shadow cabinet link. If you have reliable sources that reference other parties having shadow cabinets, then, by all means, add them in. The fact remains that they call it a shadow cabinet, as do reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is any shadow cabinet "official"? They aren't defined by law, certainly. john k (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is frankly silly to have Farron on here, 8 MPs can't be a cabinet. If there on here so should the DUP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, they have more peers. john k (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The SNP do not have a shadow cabinet because they have not assigned MPs to shadow ministers the way Labour has. Instead, they assign their spokesmen to policy areas. TFD (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Earlier shadow cabinets?

Any chance of providing shadow cabinets before the Wilson years? I realize that they weren't quite as formalized in earlier time periods, but they certainly existed in some sense at least for most of the twentieth century. For example, you'll see numerous references to Churchill quitting Baldwin's shadow cabinet in 1930. Surely lists must exist? john k (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, they were such shadow cabinets. It is merely the case that no one has taken the time to compile articles on them. RGloucester — ☎ 04:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose what I was getting at was: is anyone aware of any sources for these earlier shadow cabinets? john k (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is misleading - Other opposition

The article is misleading as it seems to suggest that other than the lib dems there were no other opposition parties prior to the 2000s and even then only includes the SNP, whereas the SNP has had MPs for decades as has the SDLP, DUP, UUP, and even recently UKIP, Greens, Change UK, Plaid Cymru have all held seats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.118.0 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)