243:
222:
372:
naming has disappeared over the years since that appellationâs introduction, it would be fine to call them shadow cabinets. Just not âofficialâ 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 âopposition frontbench teamsâ 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.
316:
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.
191:
393:
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. -
414:). 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.
348:
pages, with regards to being hidden in the backwoods of
Knowledge. I make it clear in the introduction to this page, and elsewhere, that these Liberal Democrat shadow cabinets are not âofficialâ that is, they are not the Official Opposition. That is also why I created the category. Previously, the only category was
315:
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 âofficiallyâ be a shadow cabinet, but, nevertheless, they call themselves that, and their âshadow cabinetsâ are in every form the same as what a
1108:
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
556:
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
501:
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
486:
If
Westminister did not recognize the Lib. Dem. âthingâ 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,
367:
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
347:
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
1051:
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
392:
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
792:
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
371:
As far as Iâm 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 âshadow cabinetsâ by the Lib. Dems. and because the controversy over this
699:
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
952:
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
441:
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
335:
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
417:
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.
344:. Within these various items, I included the âshadow cabinetsâ 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.
460:
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
825:
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'."
738:, to me, is a pretty good indication that the term âshadow cabinetâ for the Liberal Democrats is recognized. It is an official directory of all MPs, and is perhaps better than the list pages. Iâll pull up the other pages later, for your perusal.
637:. Timrollpickering thinks these are not official, and do not denote recognition, but are merely reprints of Lib. Dem. materialâŚ.but I find it hard to believe, as I stated above. There are more, non-list references, just search on parliament.uk.
409:
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 Knowledge (e.g.
352:, 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
707:" 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.
920:
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.
153:
436:
Even then, I can find many, many sources that would call the Lib. Dem. âthingâ (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
578:
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.
929:
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.
1144:
796:
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.
283:
293:
957:. 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.
1139:
880:
It just seems that having them consolidated here makes more sense, if someone wants to ahead and create that article, thatâd work, I suppose. I still think it smarter to leave it as it is.
259:
147:
44:
250:
227:
1031:
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.
349:
79:
793:
publishing the information it is provided with in a non-partisan manner without checks, or is it vetting the documents according to Parliamentary rules?
553:
Just hunting around for sources to support either position and came across a blog on the Guardian website that provides an interesting summary.
168:
85:
242:
221:
135:
846:
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?
1116:
1000:
937:
518:
With politics being the way they are, it pays to pay attention to detail, lest avoid a gaffe. Iâd say they pay attention to detailâŚ
735:
341:
337:
129:
924:
593:
Links please. If you are requesting comments from other editors it would help to know which sources we are meant to comment on.
446:
referred to the âthingâ as a shadow cabinet, as far back as the year 2000. What is more official for something so unofficial?
99:
30:
24:
255:
104:
20:
125:
1069:
Indeed, they were such shadow cabinets. It is merely the case that no one has taken the time to compile articles on them.
466:
74:
202:
175:
462:
357:
65:
507:
473:
423:
1036:
851:
954:
634:
141:
835:
356:, who had asked for a replacement to the old template (which was rather poor) at that templateâs talk page,
109:
993:
It is frankly silly to have Farron on here, 8 MPs can't be a cabinet. If there on here so should the DUP.
443:
1120:
1004:
941:
1076:
964:
887:
802:
743:
712:
642:
598:
584:
562:
523:
503:
492:
469:
465:
about accommodation allocation that makes no need to distinguish between what is and what calls itself:
451:
419:
377:
364:
321:
208:
1084:
I suppose what I was getting at was: is anyone aware of any sources for these earlier shadow cabinets?
1112:
1032:
996:
933:
847:
438:
161:
55:
331:
RfC - Inclusion of the Liberal Democrats on this page/template/category and the title of this page
258:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
831:
554:
70:
1124:
1093:
1079:
1061:
1040:
1024:
1008:
985:
967:
945:
891:
855:
839:
806:
747:
716:
646:
602:
588:
566:
527:
511:
496:
477:
455:
427:
402:
381:
325:
51:
925:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/government-and-opposition1/opposition-holding/
1089:
1070:
1057:
1020:
981:
958:
881:
798:
739:
708:
638:
594:
580:
558:
519:
488:
447:
373:
317:
398:
976:
In what sense is any shadow cabinet "official"? They aren't defined by law, certainly.
1133:
411:
1085:
1053:
1016:
977:
705:
multiple references to the Lib Dem shadow cabinet that were not made by Lib Dems
468:. But at the moment I think we're just batting the same points back and forth.
394:
353:
412:
the BBC listing of "New Liberal Democrat frontbench" from early 2008
184:
15:
1145:
High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
160:
268:
Knowledge:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
271:
Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
1140:List-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
1052:shadow cabinet in 1930. Surely lists must exist?
502:only concerned with the technical presentation.
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
350:Category:Official Opposition (United Kingdom)
174:
8:
1110:
994:
251:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
216:
190:
188:
1104:Article is misleading - Other opposition
703:What could be more interesting are the "
487:we are just going back and forth here.
274:Politics of the United Kingdom articles
218:
633:One example is above, here is another
7:
248:This article is within the scope of
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
358:Template talk:UK Shadow Cabinets
342:Category:British shadow cabinets
338:Template:British shadow cabinets
241:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
288:This article has been rated as
25:List of British shadow cabinets
1009:15:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
840:18:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
807:23:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
748:23:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
717:21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
647:20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
603:06:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
589:23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
567:20:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
528:01:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
512:01:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
497:00:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
478:00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
456:00:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
428:22:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
403:21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
382:20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
265:Politics of the United Kingdom
256:Politics of the United Kingdom
228:Politics of the United Kingdom
1:
1125:16:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
1094:20:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
1080:04:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1062:04:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
1041:22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
1025:04:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
986:04:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
326:00:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
262:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1015:Well, they have more peers.
892:15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
856:09:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
635:Lib Dem shadow cabinet list
463:House of Commons Commission
368:figure out how to sort it.
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1161:
968:23:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
946:23:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
294:project's importance scale
287:
236:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1047:Earlier shadow cabinets?
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
100:Neutral point of view
830:, 15 October 1999).
105:No original research
439:Official Opposition
311:Removal of Lib Dems
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1127:
1115:comment added by
1109:all held seats.
1011:
999:comment added by
936:comment added by
308:
307:
304:
303:
300:
299:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1152:
1073:
961:
948:
884:
504:Timrollpickering
470:Timrollpickering
420:Timrollpickering
365:Timrollpickering
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
245:
238:
237:
232:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1130:
1129:
1106:
1071:
1049:
959:
931:
918:
882:
389:
340:and a category
333:
313:
290:High-importance
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
231:Highâimportance
230:
201:on Knowledge's
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1158:
1156:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1132:
1131:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1028:
1027:
991:
990:
989:
988:
971:
970:
917:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
859:
858:
843:
842:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
794:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
701:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
415:
406:
405:
388:
385:
332:
329:
312:
309:
306:
305:
302:
301:
298:
297:
286:
280:
279:
277:
260:the discussion
246:
234:
233:
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1157:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1135:
1128:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1103:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
969:
966:
962:
956:
951:
950:
949:
947:
943:
939:
935:
927:
926:
922:
915:
893:
889:
885:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
841:
837:
833:
832:Sam Blacketer
829:
824:
823:
808:
804:
800:
795:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
555:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
459:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:parliament.uk
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
413:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
386:
384:
383:
379:
375:
369:
366:
361:
359:
355:
351:
345:
343:
339:
330:
328:
327:
323:
319:
310:
295:
291:
285:
282:
281:
278:
261:
257:
253:
252:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1117:78.149.118.0
1111:â Preceding
1107:
1072:RGloucester
1050:
1001:82.41.41.184
995:â Preceding
992:
960:RGloucester
938:82.41.41.184
932:â Preceding
928:
923:
919:
916:Lib Dem bias
883:RGloucester
827:
704:
552:
370:
362:
346:
334:
314:
289:
249:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
799:Road Wizard
740:RGloucester
709:Road Wizard
639:RGloucester
595:Road Wizard
581:RGloucester
559:Road Wizard
520:RGloucester
489:RGloucester
448:RGloucester
374:RGloucester
318:RGloucester
148:free images
31:not a forum
1134:Categories
828:The Herald
363:Recently,
199:List-class
700:material.
387:Responses
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1113:unsigned
997:unsigned
934:unsigned
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
292:on the
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1086:john k
1054:john k
1017:john k
978:john k
205:scale.
126:Google
557:all?
395:Rrius
354:Rrius
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1121:talk
1090:talk
1058:talk
1037:talk
1021:talk
1005:talk
982:talk
955:link
942:talk
888:talk
852:talk
836:talk
803:talk
744:talk
736:This
713:talk
643:talk
599:talk
585:talk
563:talk
524:talk
508:talk
493:talk
474:talk
452:talk
424:talk
399:talk
378:talk
322:talk
284:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1033:TFD
848:TFD
176:TWL
1136::
1123:)
1092:)
1075:â
1060:)
1039:)
1023:)
1007:)
984:)
963:â
944:)
890:)
854:)
838:)
805:)
746:)
715:)
645:)
601:)
587:)
565:)
526:)
510:)
495:)
476:)
454:)
426:)
401:)
380:)
360:.
324:)
156:)
54:;
1119:(
1088:(
1077:â
1056:(
1035:(
1019:(
1003:(
980:(
965:â
940:(
886:(
850:(
834:(
826:(
801:(
742:(
711:(
641:(
597:(
583:(
561:(
522:(
506:(
491:(
472:(
450:(
422:(
397:(
376:(
320:(
296:.
211::
172:¡
166:¡
158:¡
151:¡
145:¡
139:¡
133:¡
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
