Talk:Second Johnson ministry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Minister for the Union

It appears that the position of Minister for the Union has not been retained in the Second Johnson Cabinet. The office of Minister for the Union is not listed in the official roll of Her Majesty's government published both in the House of Commons's and the House of Lords's Hansard at the start of the current parliamentary session (the final, official, pdf version of Hansard, for the day of The Queen's Speech, 19 December 2019). Prime Minister Boris Johnson is there listed only as "Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service" in the Ministry formed in December 2019. See: https://hansard.parliament.uk/pdf/commons/2019-12-19 and https://hansard.parliament.uk/pdf/lords/2019-12-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:A21E:9993:F842:3132:B7FC (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 like November 2019?

Is the initial list of the Second Johnson ministry exactly the same as the final list of the First Johnson ministry apart from the Secretary of State for Wales? 00:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1489:9900:E0EF:A8F7:6DB8:2338 (talk)

It looks that way. 213.253.7.254 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerial ranking

Hello everyone. With respect to ministerial ranking, there are three versions:

1) Raab > Javid > Patel, based on customs and conventions that see First Secretary of State as only second to PM;

2) Javid > Raab > Patel, based on gov.uk; and

3) Gove > Javid > Raab, based on parliament.uk.

As it stands, I support the third option. I am aware that 10 Downing Street released the list of ministers in the order of the second option in July 2019, but there is no official source showing that is the official ministerial ranking; even if there is one, I think it is for the first Johnson ministry. The third option is the only option that is yet sufficiently supported by an official source, i.e. parliament.uk, since the formation of the second Johnson ministry. However, I reckon that the first option with no source supporting should not be adopted anyhow. OliWatson (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should definitely be using the GOV.UK list, seeing as it is the list that is put out officially by the government. The Parliament list is curated separately by, presumably, staff members at the House of Commons library and it appears they group ministers by the seniority of the Department they are part of, not their individual seniority (ie Johnson and Gove at the top together because they are both Cabinet Office ministers.) The parliament.uk is not exhaustive either; it is missing quite a few ministers from the list. The list on GOV.UK is sanctioned by No. 10 and conforms pretty much to the list put out by the Press Secretary himself in July for the first Johnson ministry (it makes sense that not much will have changed since then seeing as the ministers largely remain the same; the only difference I can see is that Therese Coffey is slightly less senior than her predecessor Amber Rudd). It doesn't make sense to use a third party website (to government) when the government have an official list themselves. Colourlight (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your point of view. Whereas I understand your logic, in terms of evidence I don't agree with your stance. Firstly, I'd like to point out that the list of ministers from parliament.uk is not as you said ordered by seniority – but, very explicitly put, by Ministerial ranking; please do take a closer look at the source. Secondly, I don't think the staff of HoC put ministers from the same department together; if it is to be the case, Chief Whip Spencer would immediately follow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Sunak. Thirdly, I guess GOV.UK might generally rank ministers in ministerial ranking but it is also possible that it wanted to list out the four Great Offices of State at the beginning despite the genuine ministerial ranking – we never know because it didn't say that list was ordered by ministerial ranking on the "Ministers" page. OliWatson (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the difference between "ministerial ranking" and seniority in Cabinet is, however it appears all previous ministry pages rank each member by their individual seniority (ie 2nd May ministry, Lidington is second and in her first and Cameron's ministries Chancellor is second) vs. "ministerial ranking" which, as I said, I am not sure what it is exactly however it appears to differ significantly from the seniority in cabinet. The parliament.uk website is the only source out there which has said Michael Gove is second-in-charge, for lack of a better term. Johnson's original list for his first ministry and the official government website both disagree with the parliament.uk website, and I think it would be silly to use a third-party list as a source for this when a perfectly good official list for it already exists. Besides this point, there is the incredible unlikeliness that any Cabinet would have the CDL ahead of both a FSOS and a Chancellor which casts further doubt on the correctness of the parliament.uk source.Colourlight (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think ministerial ranking (i.e. ranking of ministers) are based on each minister's seniority in Cabinet – so there's no difference. As you said, Lidington (CDL and Minister for the CO) was second most senior minister in the second may ministry; so why is that not possible to also have a CDL over a Chancellor or an FSOS given that there is a precedence? What I'd also say is that there is no official list for the second Johnson ministry at the moment; the one that you're saying is only a list that you infer from the list of the first Johnson ministry, which can be described as an entirely different ministry. I also want to further highlight that there is no evidence from gov.uk that sets out explicitly a ministerial ranking as far as second Johnson ministry is concerned, but parliament.uk does. OliWatson (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I repeat my point – there is absolutely no reason to be using a third-party website for this when a perfectly good government page exists. As I have said, the parliament.uk source disagrees with every other source out there for this so we have decided to use it because it claims this is the "Ministerial ranking"? I'm in favour of using an official source instead of the current source. You speculate that it could be the case that there isn't an official ministerial ranking. If that is the case, surely we should be putting the Great Offices of State at the top and then listing the rest by surname? Colourlight (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't get me wrong! I do know that there is a ministerial ranking, but it's just that I think parliament.uk is the source that explicitly ranks each minister. Plus, parliament.uk isn't any other random webpage but the official website of the UK legislature; it is not as closely-related to the government as gov.uk, but it's not as distant as a third-party source. I also want to again put it clearly that gov.uk didn't say that the way it is listing out the ministers is ordered by any ranking. OliWatson (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I understand your points. Looking likely there will be some big changes in February anyway, so I'll stop getting hung up over this slightly trivial point! Colourlight (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! OliWatson (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Lists

It seems perverse to me that the first list on the page is not the list of the current cabinet. Can we collapse old cabinets, and possibly move them to later in the article (maybe as a list of changes) Hoffie01 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we follow chronological order, as do all previous ministry articles. These are history articles that exist specifically for the purpose of cataloguing changes in the composition of the ministry. The current cabinet takes primacy at Cabinet of the United Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD and possible merge

There is an on-going discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Sabisky that could involve merging to this article. Otr500 (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2.3 September 2020 – present

The way that I see it, the September 2020 cabinet is almost identical to the August 2020 cabinet. In fact, I can only see difference: the creation of the new Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. I know that a reshuffle was rumoured, but that is looking increasingly unlikely now.

Therefore, I suggest that the whole new section (2.3) for September 2020 should not have been created and that we should keep using section 2.2 until another reshuffle takes place. Does anybody else have any thoughts about this? Please do tell me if I've got something wrong. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This wasn't a proper reshuffle, and no new section should've been created. RGloucester — ☎ 21:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerial Portraits on Cabinet Table

I’ve added ministerial portraits to the Second Johnson Cabinet. But, I can’t seem to figure out how to add the portraits to the Current Cabinet table due to Dominic Raab having three sections, if someone could help me out that with this it would be most grateful! Ciaran.london (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minister on Leave

I have removed the entry for Suella Braverman as Minister on Leave. This is certainly not a Cabinet Minister – where it had been positioned – and as I understand it is not "Attending Cabinet" either. That is kind of the point of the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 11:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. For a short period at the beginning of this month, Suella Braverman was listed as a full Cabinet minister as Minister on Leave here, but this is no longer the case. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tomlinson MP

Michael Tomlinson MP (unpaid) (no longer unpaid)

So which is he?

Condo951795 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore above, saw the link. Thank you. Condo951795 (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS for listing current peers

Talk:First Johnson ministry#MOS for listing current peers DBD 16:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Braveman is Attorney General again

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/10/suella-bravermans-return-maternity-forces-cabinet-mini-reshuffle/

"After a week of swirling rumours about a looming reshuffle, Boris Johnson finally conducted a shake-up of his front bench on Friday.

It was a modest change, however, that resulted from the return of Suella Braverman from maternity leave rather than the seismic restructuring of his top team that was widely anticipated.

The 41-year-old QC was reappointed Attorney General following six months off in the wake of the arrival of her second child.

She was the first Cabinet-level minister to take her entitlement to maternity leave, a move commended by equality campaigners. Previously only junior ministers, including Tracey Crouch and Kemi Badenoch, had taken time off after having children.

Mrs Braverman attended Cabinet earlier this week when the Prime Minister’s senior team met in person for the first time in 18 months, ending the era of video meetings that took place throughout the pandemic. She formally takes up her portfolio again next week.

Special legislation had to be passed by Parliament to enable her to take time off from her ministerial duties.

During her absence, she was designated Minister on Leave (Attorney General) while her deputy, Solicitor General Michael Ellis, served as Attorney General. His place was taken by Lucy Frazer, the prisons minister.

Number 10 confirmed on Friday that, as part of a mini-reshuffle, Mr Ellis and Ms Frazer would return to their previous roles."

Condo951795 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Suella

I've done a provisional update to show the current Cabinet, but should Suella Braverman have two complete rows rather than one row with two sets of dates? I can't think of any applicable precedent...Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 16:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 September Reshuffle live

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-facing-commons-grilling-amid-whispers-cabinet-reshuffle-is-about-to-begin-politics-latest-12408484

Williamson, Jenrick, Buckland all removed from posts.

Condo951795 (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not edit the Fourth Cabinet's Table, except if changing from "Present" to "2021", and since its a reshuffle we make a new table, I also ask that it be reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Johnson_ministry&oldid=1044491912 accordingly JamesHawkes0161 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made a new table. It is here. The old table is at Template:Boris Johnson cabinet 3 vertical, and should remain unchanged. You are mistakenly viewing the fourth table as the third table. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I looked earlier and it was labeled September 2019. The Department of International Trade is missing from it JamesHawkes0161 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

"Second Johnson ministry" is a meaningless invented term, or at best misleading. It should be Prime Ministry or, more properly, the existing term for a PM's government: "administration". Not "ministry" which refers to a government department, so Johnson being Foreign Secretary would count as an earlier ministry of his, making this second government administration a third ministry. 185.13.50.218 (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Administration" is an Americanism. Headhitter (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audience with the Queen

Is there a source for the claim that "Queen Elizabeth II where ... invited him to form a new administration following the 2019 general election"? The Cabinet Manual states that when a sitting Government wins an overall majority in a general election "it will normally continue in office and resume normal business. There is no need for the Sovereign to ask the Prime Minister to continue." See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf section 2.11 And of course, a Prime Minister remains in office "unless and until they resign" (section 2.8 - see also https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/how-is-a-prime-minister-appointed/) The implication in this article is that something unusual happened in this case, but there does not appear to be any source cited.

Hobson (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Johnson_ministry&oldid=1204795192"