Talk:Liberal Democrat frontbench team

message: Thanks to whoever was good enough to stick the 1966-2010 historical research of mine into table format. Still missing a few people on it, though... 217.33.79.34 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical List

message: It is not shadow cabinet officially.  So in the list, get rid of the 'shadows'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.156.240.17 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I have no idea about how we go about it. Will presumably need to create a redir from the other 'Shadow' link to prevent it being recreated.Alci12 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has already been done.  LD Shadow Cabinet directs to the Frontbench Team page which covers LD Shadow Cabinet members as well as more junior spokespeople.  Paulleake 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow 

message: Shouldn't this be "Liberal Democrat frontbench team"? - SoM 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Having seen the repeated back and forth on the LD Shadow Cabinet naming issue I've been reading the naming conventions to try and get some guidance and the following parts would suggest that the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet (as defined by its members) be named as such.
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)''
It is a name that has been used by the BBC, the Guardian and other media (although they also use the term frontbench team).  There is no other term in common usage that defines the specific subset of the Lib Dem Frontbench Team that the Liberal Democrats have designated as their shadow cabinet.
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
It is a name used on the Parliament website and the Liberal Democrat website.
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)
The Lib Dems has 'Shadow Cabinet meetings' and decide which front bench spokespeople are of shadow cabinet rank or not.
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?''
These reasons have all be used by people changing the section of the article from LD Shadow Cabinet to LD Frontbench Team (which is in itself inaccurate).
The guidance also says that "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name."  If you asked Vince Cable or Ming Campbell you would find they thought of themselves belonging to the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet.   I would propose changing the headings back to reflect that the Lib Dems form their most senior frontbenchers into a 'Shadow Cabinet' as a subset of the Lib Dem Frontbench Team unless there are good reasons based on Wikipedia guidelines (rather than asserting moral rights etc to use the name 'Shadow Cabinet').  Paulleake 19:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is especially important to use the term "Shadow Cabinet" so that the higher-ranking spokespeople can be distinguished from the junior spokespeople. It also reflects the practice of "shadowing" a government minister - which the Lib Dems adopted when they created their Shadow Cabinet, and which is not the usual practice for a "spokesperson". Tamino 09:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. The change to using Shadow Cabinet was an overt political move by the LDs to suggest they are the 'official opposition' because they, unlike the tories, have MPs across the UK (Scotland/Wales etc). Neither Labour nor the Tories except the Lib Dem usage - a joke by Brown isn't acceptance but a   way to irritate his tory rival. There is only one 'leader of the opposition', who for the last 180yrs has been the second largest party. Ministers like real objects only cast one shadow(!) and much as the Lib Dems might choose to call themselves what they like Wiki is essentially endorsing their political gesture if we use Shadow Cabinet except perhaps with 'quotes' or with some caveat attached. As to identifying a subset, I think Spokesman for Foreign Affairs or the Home Office is prefectly sufficient for people to understand they are senior LD members - it's not exactly spokesman for paper clips.Alci12 14:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  Yes, it's an overt political move to imply the Lib Dems are equal to the Tories, but then refusing to accept it is also an overt political move.  Wikipedia, like a dictionary, reports usage rather than dictating it.  Again, it's not about whether there is a legal right - incidentaly, there is no Shadow Cabinet in law anyway; the only legally established position is the Leader of the Opposition (which Nick Clegg does not claim to be).  You will note that the Speaker will refer to ministers as such, but to Shadow Ministers (whether Lib Dem or Tory) as the Hon or Right Hon Member for wherever. Richard Gadsden (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also disagree, on the basis that the Lib Dems actually have no legal right to these titles. They are not the shadow cabinet, as these titles are only granted to the official opposition. It also creates confusion, as there are two 'Shadow Chancellors' and two 'Shadow Home Secretaries'. If this is the case, George Galloway would have the right to claim his Shadow Secretary of State position too. But it is incorrect. 81.79.200.167 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note the BBC News listing of Clegg's team with not a shadow in sight. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The BBC style guide is telling as an indication as to what is common usage and we follow common usage not personal usage - e.g. Paddy Roy Bates not Prince Roy, The Prince of Sealand. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather difficult when there isn't a written constitution! As for when the term was first used, it was somewhat earlier. The term was occasionally used before the first world war, but took off in the 1920s - Churchill for instance used it for the body he resigned from in early 1931 - though Labour don't seem to have used it until after the second world war. The term's usage was intermittant but I think this more reflects the turbulent state of interwar opposition politics and the small sizes of the opposition parties in some of the Parliaments. Certainly the term came to be used informally to describe other aspirant groups such as the government of the first Dail (retrospectively in an obituary of Constance Markiewicz) and for a body of the Indian Congress, suggesting the concept was gaining ground as a summary of what it meant. It also took off in various Commonwealth parliaments. As for modern usage, the Shadow Cabinet has gained official standing, e.g. the office & accomodation allocations such as Shadow Cabinet Meeting Room in the House of Parliament - see here for written questions about office accomodation . Timrollpickering (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet

message: This category is bizarre, it seems to me. I assume this refers to junior spokespeople, in which case, why the odd title? In addition, there is no Lib Dem Cabinet. There isn't even a Shadow Cabinet, as discussed. Any objection to a name change to 'Liberal Democract Junior Spokespeople'? Jamesblythe 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Spokespeople of Lib Dem Cabinet' 

message: Now that the Lib Dems are in government, what should be done about this page? They cannot shadow their own government, and they certainly cannot shadow their own ministers. --Welshsocialist (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be a redirect to the Cabinet article until they go back to opposition? -Rrius (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, using the past tense and replacing the list of shadow portfolios with the Lib Dems in Government posts is probably enough. Some was good enough to do the former, and I've just done the latter. What does everyone else think? -Rrius (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, at some point the Lib Dems will formalise their own arrangements as to who speaks on which subjects - whether as part of the government, or independently - and that can then be reflected in this article, which may also then need renaming. For the time being - while there is still some uncertainty as to the party's position - should there be a tag added to the article, such as ?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently written in the conditional mood, with the condition being opposition status. There really isn't anything in need of update, so I don't think that would be necessary. I guess time will tell, but I figure the one-LIb-Dem-per-department policy will negate the need for a Lib Dem frontbench team beyond whips. Only time will tell, though. I keep wondering if they'll figure out a way to still get Short and Cranborne Money to help maintain their whipping operation. -Rrius (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being, this page on their website is still up.  It should be monitored, so that when it changes, the article changes.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be done? 

message: I think it would be worth having an article on the frontbench team as it was before the 2010 geneal election and teh subsequent coalition. The same has been done for Cameron, and as the LibDems are now in government it seems only right to do the same thing for them. So, I think something like "Opposition Frontbench Team of Nick Clegg" is worth considering. I'll leave it for a while to see if anyone supports or objects to the idea then might see if I can collect the information up from an earlier version of this article. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, decided to do it now as I'm eager to get the page up and running. The article is at Shadow Cabinet of Nick Clegg. One thing I can't seem to do though is get the correct colour in the  template - it's currently appearing blue - so if anyone can sort that out for me that would be grand. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now created a  template and several related articles dating (so far) back to 1999. Just one more to create for 1997-1999. The lists are not fully complete so if anyone wants to add missing members from reshuffles, etc, then please feel free to pop them in. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontbench Team before 2010 election 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Liberal Democrat frontbench team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007064254/http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080806123404/http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/libdems.cfm to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080806123404/http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/libdems.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Footnotes 1,2 3 and 5 are all dead links Unraed (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberal Democrat frontbench team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605032925/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031016/debtext/31016-02.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031016/debtext/31016-02.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand where the actual main frontbench table is...? Some template? But it needs updating. Several listed figures have now left Parliament, e.g. Gyimah. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main frontbench table