Talk:Cameron–Clegg coalition

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

Requested move 5 April 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus for a move at this time, and consensus against a move to the proposed title. There was an alternate proposal that didn't receive much discussion, but there was no consensus on any of those opitions, and some of them would affect pages outside of this page or which might not require an RM. Editors are free to start other discussions at their discretion. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Cameron ministry → Cameron–Clegg coalition – Having read the previous arguments over this article's title above, I was indeed cautious about opening another request here. However, having pondered over this article's title for quite some time now, I remain unconvinced that the present title is the WP:COMMONNAME rather than the WP:OFFICIALNAME. First of all, virtually nobody in Britain remembers this government as the "First Cameron ministry". There are 0 results for the term in Google Books, so one would assume this isn't the official title of the government either. The most common name for it is probably "The Coalition Government" or simply "The Coalition". Given how imprecise those two titles are, I'm proposing we retitle this article to Cameron–Clegg coalition, which incidentally has over 450 results in Google Books. I decided against Cameron–Clegg ministry for two reasons: (1) as with the present title there are zilch results for it in Google Books (2) unlike Lord Sunderland or Lord Townshend, Cameron undoubtedly had the most power as an individual in this government. Instead, Clegg's position is more comparable to that of Charles James Fox in the Fox–North coalition, which despite being led officially by the Queen's great-great-great-granddad, was in reality run by Lord North and Fox. I don't mean to ramble, but there is an interesting parallel between that 18th-century coalition and this 21st-century one: in April 1783 North and Fox "combined their forces in the House of Commons to throw out the Shelburne ministry and then formed a government of their own". Replace Shelburne with Brown and this multiple sentence could easily apply to Cameron and Clegg. Talking about Nick Clegg, another complaint I would have about the present title is how it understates his importance in the government (I mean, he isn't even mentioned in the lead section). Despite his seemingly modest leverage over the Conservatives when it came to policy, Clegg was undoubtedly the most powerful deputy prime minister since Clement Attlee. Unlike Attlee, Clegg was serving as deputy in a peacetime coalition government preoccupied by domestic issues in the aftermath of a major recession. Thus he was probably more influential than Attlee was under Churchill, when it came to partisan matters concerning government policy. This tweet by Clegg in 2016 pillorying the last ministry is worth a look. In conclusion, the present title is nothing more than (as Gymnophoria brilliantly noted) "peculiarly ecclestical". I am yet to find a journalist or academic using the present title to refer to this government anywhere online, without having seen it off Wikipedia. --Nevé–selbert 15:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support, as nominator. This was a coalition akin to the Fox-North example, in which Clegg played a defining role.--Nevé–selbert 13:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the analogy with the Fox–North coalition is flawed, as neither were Prime Minister but both were the dominant forces in the First Portland ministry. We don't call the Lloyd George ministry the Lloyd George–Law ministry although Bonar Law was in a much more powerful position in that government than Clegg was in the one discussed in this article. Law was both Chancellor of the Exchequer (and as such the Second Lord of the Treasury but also Leader of the House of Commons, which at that time was a position normally held by the head of government. Ebonelm (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The analogy isn't flawed at all, Clegg was undoubtedly a dominant force in the coalition. Indeed, nobody calls Lloyd George ministry the Lloyd George–Law coalition, since Law did not serve in one position throughout the ministry in order to retain a consistent degree of political clout, whereas Clegg served as deputy throughout the coalition and consistently maintained his political position. Pitt–Devonshire ministry is titled the way it is since both Pitt and Devonshire came from the same party, yet Pitt held unparalleled influence over Devonshire's foreign policy. Let's face it, nobody refers to this government by the way this article is presently titled. The proposed title is backed by reliable sources and that should be of paramount importance.--Nevé–selbert 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, yes it is indeed correct to note that neither North nor Fox were officially leading the ministry. Portland was nominally in charge, I am fully aware of that. But I would argue that the situation there actually strengthens the case we have here, i.e. ministries do not necessarily have to be named after the person officially leading it. The Lloyd George ministry was a coalition not just of the Liberal and Conservative parties, but of the Labour Party also. The only other alternative titles for that ministry would be (a) Lloyd George coalition, which would be misleading since it might imply that Lloyd George led a coalition rather of different factions within his own party, rather than a tripartite coalition or (b) Lloyd George–Law ministry, which would be similarly misleading since it would imply that DLG and Law were from the same party.--Nevé–selbert 17:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as below. SocialDem (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is sound. We either move this to a title supported by hundreds of reliable sources, or keep the nonsensical one we have now supported by naught.--Nevé–selbert 17:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • I have no problem with the proposal, and it makes sense. However, I think that if one is going to do something like this one, needs to attach either "ministry" or "government", e.g. "Cameron–Clegg coalition ministry" or "Cameron–Clegg coalition government". In truth, however, I'm skeptical about adding Clegg's name into the mix. People do not think of the government as having been his, and the general perception of where power lay in the government was clearly not with Clegg or his Liberals. A better title might be something like "Cameron coalition ministry". RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not people "think" of the government as being "his" is pretty irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant regarding North and Fox. What is at play here is de facto influence and power and it is inarguable that Clegg played a very visible and scrutinised role in the coalition government, and was both blamed and praised for his instrumental (arguably permissive) role in implementing (and allowing) the coalition's legislative agenda. "Cameron–Clegg coalition ministry" or "Cameron–Clegg coalition government" seems unnecessarily windy IMO. As for "Cameron coalition ministry"? It only renders six results in Books, a 98% decrease from the 400-odd results for "Cameron–Clegg coalition".--Nevé–selbert 15:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am no expert for the United Kingdom. However, would you also call the Third Merkel cabinet Merkel-Gabriel coalition? Nobody in Germany would ever do that. And how would you call a three-party-coalition, a very realistic scenario for the German future and many, many other countries? (In the 50's Adenauer already governed with four parties.) I don't think that de facto influence through realpolitik should play any role in a formal naming. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is entirely different with regard to Germany. Unlike in Britain, coalitions are the norm in that country. They are remarkably rare in Britain.--Nevé–selbert 13:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that Carteret ministry, Fox–North coalition, Pitt–Devonshire ministry were all named to reflect de facto influence through realpolitik.--Nevé–selbert 15:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate it's a bit obscure. But I'm not convinced how else it could be done. It follows that the Blair ministry is followed by the Brown ministry and then the Cameron ministry. There could be an argument to merge the first and second, as happened with Blair but not Major or Thatcher. But renaming to Cameron-Clegg ministry feels like it gives undue to prominence to the latter for what was essentially the prime minister's cabinet. SocialDem (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is to move this article to Cameron–Clegg coalition NOT ministry, for that exact reason.--Nevé–selbert 13:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I oppose the inclusion of Clegg, for ministry or coalition. SocialDem (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But why, though? Whether or not this is or isn't the prime minister's cabinet is historically irrelevant. Take Carteret ministry or Fox–North coalition. Carteret never served as Prime Minister but his influence in the cabinet was comparable to Clegg in many respects. Lord Wilmington was "a forceful Prime Minister" just like David Cameron, yet this is another irrelevancy. The fact is, Cameron depended on the support of Clegg's Lib Dems to sustain his government. Indeed, Clegg was referred to as "kingmaker" in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 election. To mitigate Clegg's influence in this government is both negligible and ahistorical; he was able to wield unparalleled influence for a Deputy Prime Minister.--Nevé–selbert 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about examples from the 1700s, but I notice it's the Churchill war ministry rather than Churchill-Attlee. In a similar vein, it's the First Wilson ministry as opposed to Wilson-Thorpe or Wilson-Steel, when the Liberals also arguably acted as kingmakers. It therefore strikes me that Clegg doesn't merit inclusion in the title, as ultimately the government was Cameron's. I could see a case for the Cameron coalition ministry if first is undesirable. SocialDem (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, Churchill war ministry is titled that way as Attlee wasn't Deputy until 1942. If we were to have a "Churchill–Attlee coalition" article, we'd have to split the article, which is entirely unnecessary. Secondly, your reference to the Lib–Lab pact is disingenuous. It was only ever officially in practice in 1977 under Callaghan, and even then "it fell far short of a coalition". Clegg served throughout the 2010 coalition in the same role, and the agreement between the Tories and Libs was undoubtedly a coalition agreement.--Nevé–selbert 09:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One definitely must include either 'government' or 'ministry', otherwise the article title simply isn't WP:PRECISE enough to define the scope of the article. Second of all, you said that "what people think" is irrelevant, but that's not true. I'm afraid that including Clegg in the article title will give his position WP:UNDUE weight and importance, and therefore won't be neutral. This was clearly Cameron's ministry. RGloucester — ☎ 12:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Premiership ≠ ministry, you need to remember that. The proposed retitle is backed by WP:RS, which the current title is not. Your mention of WP:UNDUE is ridiculous. Is it undue having Carteret ministry, Pitt–Devonshire ministry, Fox–North coalition and Who? Who? ministry titled as they are rather than as Wilmington ministry, First Devonshire ministry, First Portland ministry and First Derby ministry? When history looks back on this coalition government, I am pretty sure they will not equate Cameron's dominance to Churchill, Thatcher or Blair. Two years into the coalition, Cameron, in an interview with the Daily Mail, bemoaned: "There's so much I want to do, but can't". If anything, the article's title is giving undue prominence to Cameron's dominance.--Nevé–selbert 13:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed title does exist in RS, but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it refers specifically to the subject of the article here (WP:PRECISE). It could refer to the coalition agreement, for instance, rather than the ministry. It is simply too vague. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not vague at all, that's just pedantry on your part. Interestingly, I'm not the only one to equate the 2010 coalition with the one formed by North and Fox. Andrew Adonis wrote a day after the coalition was formed: "Unprincipled governments are inevitably unstable, unsuccessful and short-lived. This will doubtless be true of the Cameron-Clegg coalition, the most unprincipled governing combination in Britain since the Fox-North coalition of 1783, which united a similarly implausible duo of the champion of royal power (Lord North) and the tribune of liberty (Charles Fox). If we are able to have Fox–North coalition titled the way it presently is without any problems, I see no reason why a mountain has to be made out of a molehill here.--Nevé–selbert 14:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No-one calls a prime minister's time in office a "ministry". I'll have to point out the emperor's new clothes here, and that articles referring to the Brown, Blair or Thatcher "ministry" are also nonsensical. Apart from anything they aren't ministers - they're Prime Ministers and leaders. They are called the "Blair government" or the "Thatcher government".Gymnophoria (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no real reason why the term "ministry" has to be included in the title, either. Besides, we have Fox–North coalition not Fox–North coalition ministry. So per that article's precedent, it would be inconsistent to include both "ministry" and "coalition" in the title here.--Nevé–selbert 13:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Ministry" and "government" mean the same thing...'ministry' is the older and more traditional term. I don't care which one is used as long as there is consistency. Regardless, I definitely believe that such an appendage is required in order to make the scope of the article clear. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just why is such an appendage necessary here, but not at Fox–North coalition? The article naming convention you instituted is a tad erratic, TBH.--Nevé–selbert 14:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that 'Fox-North coalition' is an appropriate article title. Putting that aside, at least 'Fox-North coalition' does not have any competing topics rendering it innately ambiguous. This article does, that being the coalition agreement (Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement). RGloucester — ☎ 14:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK RGloucester, Idea: here are three options that may help remove the supposed ambiguity:
  1. Propose Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement be moved to either Cameron–Clegg coalition agreement or Cameron–Clegg coalition (agreement). Hatnotes (For the coalition agreement, see Cameron–Clegg coalition (agreement), for example) are added to both articles shortly after.
  2. Make Cameron–Clegg coalition a disambiguation page, retitling Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement to Cameron–Clegg coalition (agreement) and First Cameron ministry to Cameron–Clegg coalition (ministry). With this option, neither article is primary.
  3. Simply add {{Distinguish}} hatnotes to both articles, without moving Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement.
I would prefer Option 3 as it would mean less bother, but I'd be happy to give way if you prefer Options 1 or 2.--Nevé–selbert 15:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your proposal. The status quo is obviously preferable to any of your proposals. RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A simple hatnote should disambiguate fine. The coalition government itself is undoubtedly wp:primary over the agreement.--Nevé–selbert 18:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. The proposed title is inadequate, ambiguous, and unclear. The present one is not. We should not endorse change for change's sake. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment I would suggest that those involved in this discussion make it clear what the current proposal(s) are and then explain in the survey section their preference for a move proposal, or opposition to moving entirely. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC about what to rename this article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this RfC is absolutely clear. As no other editor has closed the request, and as it has been lingering on for far too long, I've taken it upon myself to close it. This article has been moved to Cameron–Clegg coalition, in line with the broad spectrum of opinions in favour of this request below. This title has merit in that it is clearer, and more in line with how other British coalition governments are treated on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debate has been raging over whether or not the title of this article is adequate for several years now. Most discussants have opposed the status quo in the past, mostly due to a lack of reliable sources supporting it and the fact that it's not the common name for the subject. The trouble is that editors have found it difficult to agree on a better name for this article. I proposed Cameron–Clegg coalition above, yet support for it failed to gain much traction. Indeed, the RM itself was mostly ignored until a couple of days ago. Nevertheless, I do believe there is consensus to rename this article, but rename it to what remains an open question. Here are a few alternatives that have been put forth, which all abide by the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Ministries:

I have stated the case as to why I believe Cameron–Clegg coalition, given its popularity among reliable sources.  Relisted --Nevé–selbert 07:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC), originally started by Nevé–selbert 18:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Than I would note that in French Wikipedia any Luxembourgish government that had a deputy Prime Minister is named like that. It has nothing to do with coalition governments. However, the best thing might be to consider literature about Walpole–Townshend ministry, Pitt–Devonshire ministry and Fox–North coalition and how those are named by historians instead of refering to past decisions by Wikipedians. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pitt–Devonshire and Fox–North are the names given in the British Historical Facts series. The whole administration 1721–1742 is named after Walpole only in British Historical Facts 1688–1760 (1988, p. 39–41). I personally would be more likely to call the subject of this article "the 2010 coalition government" rather than after David Cameron. Opera hat (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you make of Cameron–Clegg coalition as a title, Opera hat? 2010 coalition government should be a redirect, in any case.--Nevé–selbert 21:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would never ever call it that, but I know Wikipedia is supposed to go off what reliable sources use. My only reason for commenting at all was to point out that the historical names SamWinchester000 mentioned were not just made up by Wikipedia editors. Opera hat (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support "2010 coalition government" (or "2010 coalition government (UK)" if needed) as per Opera hat. That's what reliable sources call it. I just did a Google Scholar search (rather than the general Google search above) and that's by far the most commonly used term. There's a handful of uses for "first Cameron ministry" and 0-1 for anything else. Wikipedia should not be inventing its own jargon. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Coalition government 2010–15 would be more suitable than "2010 coalition goverment" (consistency, e.g. Labour government 1974–79 and per guidelines).--Nevé–selbert 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these are ambiguous, and do not indicate anything about 'what' coalition is being referred to. Adding a (UK) might make that clear, but WP:NATURAL favours natural disambiguation over the parenthetical, so that's out compared to the present title. More importantly, the title simply doesn't make sense in that it does not follow convention of naming governments by prime ministers...this is indeed the most common way to name governments in Britain. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming: the current title follows the traditional form of how ministries are titled used not just on Wikipedia but in general. We just had a move request which was rejected, attempting to re-propose the rejected title here through an RFC is bordering on violating WP:STICK. The current title is fine and also follows the criteria set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Ministries, of most relevance, point one that: "Articles that cover the ministries of one PM should be titled “Name ministry”". Ebonelm (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to British governments as a "ministry" is archaic and has been for quite some time now, and it is even more outdated with respect to this unique government, the first coalition Britain has had since 1945. The record must be set straight: this government has been referred to as "The Coalition" by an abundance of reliable sources since its inception. The present title is most certainly not the common name by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps Cameron–Clegg coalition isn't either, but at least it has the term "coalition" in the title. The move request wasn't rejected, that's a preposterous claim; there was merely a lack of consensus. WP:STICK is a red herring, since WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. The current title is mediocre and overemphasises Cameron's power. The criteria you mention hasn't been edited in nearly half a decade and ought to be updated and revised, given that it is pretty much ignored already: Lord Wilmington's government is titled Carteret ministry, Portland's first government as the Fox–North coalition and Derby's first government as the Who? Who? ministry. Your edit summary here was highly misleading, and has been undone.--Nevé–selbert 21:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course newspapers &c. would write 'the Coalition', but that's not an acceptable encyclopaedic style, as it is ambiguous and tied to certain cultural and temporal context. Newspapers also wrote 'the Cameron government', and other similar formulations, but tallying those would be a waste of time. The fundamental problem with your proposal is not the inclusion of the word 'coalition', but the lack of a descriptive qualifier to ensure that the title clearly defines the scope of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it is "an acceptable encyclopaedic style" is subjective. Interestingly, The Coalition redirects to Coalition (Australia), whether or not that should be the case is certainly debatable. "A descriptive qualifier" isn't necessary at all. The coalition government is clearly wp:primary over the agreement, so a hatnote should solve any ambiguity.--Nevé–selbert 16:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we determine what is "an acceptable encyclopaedic style"? Well, we could follow standard Wikipedia sources and look at what secondary sources use. Not newspapers, but what academic sources use. I did that with a Google Scholar search. And they overwhelmingly use "the Coalition", "the 2010 Coalition" or something like that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, what you found was usage in reliable sources when the context is clear, as it was already defined. Perhaps you might want to read the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia titles one more time before claiming to have satisfied the article title criteria with such vagaries. There were other coalitions in other countries in 2010...such a usage is not suitable as a title of an article, per WP:PRECISE or WP:CONCISE. It's fine for the body of an article as an abbreviation when the context is clear, but not for a title. The title must clearly and precisely define the scope of the article. '2010 coalition' does not define the scope of the article in anyway. It gives no indication of what the subject of the article is, and could well indicate a coalition in some other country, or a list of all coalitions across the world in 2010, or indeed non-political or military coalitions. Titles of articles are different from what's used in the body...is this a surprise to anyone? There has been no evidence provided to show that this article is the primary topic of the term suggested by Neve-selbert. RGloucester — ☎ 02:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There were certainly other Conservative and Labour governments in 1957 and 1974 respectively, yet apparently it's acceptable to have Conservative government 1957–64 and Labour government 1974–79 as article titles, but not Coalition government 2010–15. It is quite frankly silly to suggest that no evidence has been provided on my part for "Cameron–Clegg coalition". To provide further evidence, Google Books renders 181 results for "Cameron Clegg coalition government" versus zero results for "Cameron Clegg coalition agreement". Certainly, the former is primary. I have yet to come across RS referring to the agreement alone as the "Cameron–Clegg coalition", which doesn't make any sense.--Nevé–selbert 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Ministries is effectively one editor's WP:essay on maintaining consistency across these types of articles. This is a perfectly reasonable goal, and the editor in question has put in a lot of work in this area, but the essay is not part of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and should not be treated as if it were; as far as I can tell it is not even the product of any WP:local consensus within the UK Politics WikiProject. WP:Article titles is the relevant policy to this discussion, and consistency is only one of several criteria to be used when deciding on article titles. Opera hat (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a guideline, merely a convention, but I find it strange that you are repudiating what I wrote there, as it is merely the codification of conventions that were discussed collaboratively...indeed, you participated in the discussion that led to the creation of that page, but I have no interest in such conflict as you're are prone to. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cameron-Clegg Coalition The existing terminology is both archaic, not reflecting common British usage, and does not reflect the very unusual circumstance for the Uk of a peacetime coalition government. The OED definition of "ministry" is "a period of government under one Prime Minister", the 'under' in this definition referring to the normal circumstance where the PM is the ultimate authority solely responsible for appointing (and firing) the rest of the government. In the case of the 2010-15 government this was not the situation. The framework for the government was set out in an agreement between two political parties, and the PM was not responsible thereafter for Liberal Democrat appointments. Crucially, whilst the government continued, he had no power to choose or replace the Deputy PM. As far as the LibDem part of the coalition administration was concerned, this was not "Cameron's" in the generally accepted sense of the phrase, and therefore the existing title for the article is inadequate MapReader (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename Support Cameron–Clegg coalition - "First Cameron ministry" seems to be more common than "Cameron–Clegg coalition" according to search engine testing. Not sure why we'd want to change to a less common article title. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NickCT: Take Wikipedia out of the equation and "First Cameron ministry" renders about 1,660 results vs. 2,400 rendered for "Cameron Clegg coalition".--Nevé–selbert 14:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neve-selbert: - Ok. I stand corrected. Looking again, I make unique, non-wikipedia Google hits for "First Cameron ministry" -en.wikipedia.org to be 38 and "Cameron–Clegg coalition" -en.wikipedia.org to be 134. "Cameron–Clegg coalition" appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks .--Nevé–selbert 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 'Cameron–Clegg coalition' – Having gone through reliable sources a bit more over the past couple of days, and having looked at other articles in the category, I see no reason why this title cannot be used, and I do see it as preferable to the present one for the sole reason that it makes it clear that there was a coalition, and not a one-party ministry. I'd still prefer 'Cameron-Clegg coalition ministry' or something else along those lines for clarity, but it is quite clear that others do not agree with my desire for precision. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for coming round, RGloucester. You might just want to strikethrough your original comment above, to clarify your position.--Nevé–selbert 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daft article title: “Cameron–Clegg coalition”[edit]

Dearie me. I have seen some awful article names on Wikipedia, but this one must take a prize. The coalition was not between two people, but between two organisations. The current title is profoundly misleading, and a million miles from common usage.Mais oui! (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The present title is fine and there is nothing "daft" nor "profoundly misleading" about it. You are right that the coalition was not between two people, hence why the title of this article is at Cameron–Clegg coalition and not Cameron–Clegg duumvirate, the latter of which would be truly daft. The coalition programme was ratified by Cameron and Clegg, both leaders of their respective parties, as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister respectively, rather than as party leaders. Your assertion that the current title is a million miles from common usage is plain wrong. There are over a thousand results in Google Books for "Cameron Clegg coalition" plus another couple thousand for "Cameron Clegg government". The convention for British governments as set out here is to name them according to its leader(s) rather than by member party. The present title is not without precedent either, having taken inspiration from Fox–North coalition (Google Books).--Nevé–selbert 17:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new book[edit]

Sasha Swire: Diary of an MP's Wife: Inside and Outside Power

https://www.amazon.de/Diary-MPs-wife-Inside-Outside/dp/1408713411/

Mention in Bibliography ? --94.114.120.19 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cameron–Clegg_coalition&oldid=1212779969"