Talk:Great Offices of State

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

Five great offices?[edit]

Since when have there suddenly been five great offices of state? There were four until a few days ago. The chance has been made without any verifiable reference that I can see. If Lord Chancellor (a position which has existed for centuries) was not a great office of state last week, what exactly has changed? The fact he's now got responsibility for prisons doesn't cut it. These are supposed to be ancient and prestigious posts - Justice Secretary is certainly not the former and it is far too early to say whether it is the latter. 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Chancellor has always been ancient and prestigious, but somewhat hampered by having to be held by a peer and a lawyer - Birkenhead's political career was, notably, rather damaged by being moved off to the legal track which culminated in his appointment as lord chancellor in 1919. I would assume that the supposed change has something to do with the fact that Straw, who is probably after Brown himself the most experienced and well-known member of the Cabinet, was given the position. I agree, though, that this is premature, at best. john k 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As no one is defending the switch I've changed it back, but with a new section suggesting that there might be 5 offices in the future if a consensus among analysts emerged. The reference by Straw does not imply he thinks that it is now one of the Great Offices, only that he thinks it is a great office - otherwise, he would be implying that Lord Chancellor was always a great office in the past. Obviously this is all a bit subjective but I think the reversion means that the piece is more verifiable. 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who added the references yesterday. I must admit, I found it surprising that there was suddenly mention of five Great Offices and Jack Straw's own comments were the only ones I could find in relation the fifth. He wasn't saying that the office of Lord Chancellor had become a Great Office (or great office, if you prefer), but that the new office of Secretary of State for Justice (which is completely separate even though currently held by the same person) had become one through its responsibilities previously held by the Secretary of State for the Home Office. In the end, though, there is no solid definition of this term, it's purely convention and down to people's own opinions. - Heavens To Betsy 07:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, perhaps when Jack Straw said that he was, "the first holder of this great office of state to sit in the Commons", he meant it in the sense of his being a Great Officer of State.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the fact that official list has shown Jack Straw between David Miliband and Jacqui Smith both before and after the reshuffle be taken as evidence that GB thinks of it as a fifth Great Office of State or just that Mr Straw ranks above Ms Smith in his Cabinet? -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The order is not evidence of anything. As you can see in this official list from 2006, Home Secretary came in 7th behind Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House of Commons and Secretary for Trade and Industry. The order may be indicative of the order of precedence the Prime Minister has placed on the individuals, or then again it may just be the order in which the positions were confirmed. Road Wizard (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more peers[edit]

"Because of how politics in the United Kingdom is now structured, with the House of Commons retaining most of the power, it is accepted that it is no longer practical for one of the holders of the Great Offices of State to be a member of the House of Lords. The House of Lords has traditionally been restrained in the passage of financial bills, meaning that the office of Chancellor is effectively limited to the House of Commons."

Um, how true is this? Or is it just the author's supposition? I can understand the reason given for the Chancellor not being taken from the Lords, and it was certainly established as far back as the 1920s that the Prime Minister should be from the Commons (this was a factor against Curzon in 1922), though it didn't debar Halifax from consideration in 1940, or Home in 1963.

However, there really is no constitutional reason I can think of that would prevent the Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary today from being a peer. Foreign affairs are particularly more detached than most other matters from the hurly-burly of the House of Commons, with Patrick Gordon-Walker, the Foreign Secretary 1964-5, not even being in either house of parliament!

I suspect this section should be removed, and the point should be made instead about the premiership and the Exchequer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politico234 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With the Foreign Secretary in particular, if there could be a peer in that office in the 1980s it seems rather strong to say there could not be one now. The point is even more weak now Lord Mandelson has such a high position in the Government whilst a peer. Granted, he's not Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary, but in his current position he's arguably more important than either of them. Proteus (Talk) 23:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barrington[edit]

"Chancellor of the Exchequer: The Lord Denman (14 November–15 December 1834): Denman only held the post on an interim basis, as did the peer before him, The Lord Tenterden (8 August–3 September 1827); the last peer to hold the office substantively was The Viscount Barrington (1761–1762)."

Technically this sentence is correct, but it rather misses the point - Barrington, whilst a peer, was an Irish peer, who was sitting in the Commons as Member for Plymouth whilst Chancellor. Proteus (Talk) 23:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many held three?[edit]

From Rab Butler:

Butler was one of only eight British politicians to have served in three of the four Great Offices of State

I'm not sure this number is correct. This page lists the following:

  • Callaghan - all posts
  • Asquith, Churchill - PM, Chancellor, Home
  • Simon, Butler - Chancellor, Home, Foreign
  • Macmillan, Major - PM, Chancellor, Foreign
  • Wellington - PM, Home, Foreign

I know there are several others including:

  • PM, Chancellor, Home - North, Addington, Peel
  • PM, Chancellor, Foreign - Canning
  • PM, Home, Foreign - William Grenville, Liverpool, Russell, Palmerston

For Addington, Canning and Peel it was less of an achievement that it seems to modern eyes because prior to the 1840s Prime Ministers in the Commons served as their own Chancellors (North was Chancellor first from 1767 before becoming PM as well in 1770). I think I've read that the Chancellorship didn't really become that prominent a post until the 1850s onwards when Gladstone and Disraeli raised its prfoile by virtue of their own statute; and prior to that the three Secretaries of State were regarded as the highest posts. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective category, should be deleted[edit]

The term 'Great Offices of State' is subjective and has no standing. Unless firm references can be cited, the article should be deleted.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not subjective - try a quick google, the meaning and context of the phrase is long established and well understood, and the article is perfectly adequately referenced. Ghughesarch (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are all these 'long established and well understood' meanings, add the references to support this claim. Four references is hardly 'adequately referenced'. It is just a subjective peacock term and

there is no official basis to the journalisitic term, 'four great offices'.

As one of the alleged holders might have said: "You Google if you want to. The articles's not for keeping." So delete.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have removed the tag without the dispute being settled first. I will be referring this to an established editor in due course.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would- it is quite absurd to go straight to nominating a long-established article for deletion just because it doesn't accord your own subjective views.
The term is well-known, long-established, and the article does not claim any more than that - it makes no claims that "Great Offices of State" is an "official" title, only that it is one in widespread use (by politicians and the public as well as journalists). It would only be an article for deletion if you could show that the term is never used in a political context as meaning what the article says it means.Ghughesarch (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
while "Great Offices of State" may well be an "armchair" term, it's a widely used and well-understood one. Wikipedia is not a repository only for "official" political terms.
Other examples of "armchair" political terms include "Tory", "Foreign Secretary" and "Prime Minister" (Officially, "Conservative", "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" and "First Lord of the Treasury", respectively) - perhaps you would like to nominate those articles for deletion too? Ghughesarch (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission, there are no officially recognised 'Great Offices of State' so the article should go.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, try reading what I wrote - the article is about a commonly used term encompassing the four government posts. It does not claim that the term is "official", and being unofficial does not mean that it isn't used, or that it doesn't merit an article in Wikipedia. You only want it deleting so you can then delete a sentence you happen, subjectively, to disapprove of in the Theresa May article. Ghughesarch (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the official website of the Conservative Party: http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Clarke_Kenneth.aspx
"“Ken has extensive experience in government, spanning three decades. He has served in two of the four Great Offices of State: Chancellor and Home Secretary.”" So the current party of government use the term, whether it's "official" or not Ghughesarch (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political websites and newprint are not academic sources. So it remains a Whiggish term until an academic book or journal can be cited at first reference to the term, e.g. "X was the first to use the term in the Journal of X" date, reference, publisher. Political websites are no more "official" than newsprint, if anything more subjective.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you are still failing to understand that Wikipedia policy is not that sources should be "academic". Newsprint (particularly the broadsheets) and political parties' official websites satisfy Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and are therefore entirely acceptable as references for this article. See WP:RS Ghughesarch (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pots and kettles. Not worth it.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article demonstrates what is meant by the "Great Offices of State", the prestige (and notability) of holding only one of these positions, and the signifigant notability of holding more than one of these. Also, listing the only four women that have held any one of these posts is a notable item related to this topic. This is obviously not a subjective term, nor is it synthesis, and it is not original research. An AfD in this instance has no standing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the references used in this article are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy regarding this matter. In fact the Larkin 25 article uses no academic sources. Accorging to the statements made by a certain editor that article should be deleted. And what are academic sources, anyway? There is no WP:ACADEMIC SOURCE. Apparently this is vague terminology. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lord-chancellor[edit]

The lord-chancellor is an office of state and outranks all four of those described here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of the Great Officers of State; since there is already a note at the top of the article saying, "Not to be confused with Great Officers of State," I don't think any change is needed to avoid this situation arising again. -Rrius (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Senior Duty Minister"[edit]

What is this, where has it been used and where are the sources for it? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some research I have come to the conclusion that the position of 'senior duty minister' is not a 'thing'. I think it is most likely that an editor was confused by some poor quality writing in the telegraph (here) where the phrase was used, however having read this BBC article about the same topic it makes it clear that Johnson was the '"senior minister" on duty'. I think we can just put the phrase 'senior duty minister' as being the product of poor syntax. I shall remove the statement. Ebonelm (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Offices of State. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"x years ago"[edit]

There seems to be a bug with the formula - July 2016 is not "2 years ago". --2A02:2454:9845:7F00:D5FB:EFB9:1BA2:CF9A (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic minorities - Johnson[edit]

Boris Johnson is not considered to be a member of an ethnic minority by any source I could find, including the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49034735), the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2020/feb/14/how-representative-is-boris-johnsons-new-cabinet?) or the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/25/boris-johnson-assembles-youngest-ethnically-diverse-cabinet/). As such, I will remove him from this section for now. Nt1192 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the BBC states he has Turkish heritage [1].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dispute that he does, but I don't think that's the point of that section of the article. There is a difference between having heritage of an ethnic minority and being a member of that minority yourself. Most importantly, secondary sources do not consider him to be a member of an ethnic minority. Nt1192 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself though lists him as having Turkish and Circassian origins. So if you wish to dispute that you need to go and do it on Johnson's main page - I'll be frank, you won't get anywhere because it's a matter of fact but you're welcome to try. Johnson is, without any dispute, of Turkish ancestry. You are being very selective about the sources - the BBC has made entire pogrammes about his Turkish ancestry. The real problem though is your second sentence - the alleged difference between having heritage of a minority and being of that minority. This turns it all into a subjective analysis. If you can persuade the editors on Johnson's main page to remove the references to his family being Turkish then by all means please revisit this page but right now it is fact that Johnson is of Turkish ancestry. It would be absurd beyond belief to claim that Turks are not a minority in western nations. It's important to assume good faith so this isn't aimed at you personally but I think a quite common problem in some white nations is that if someone can "pass" as white and in particular has blond hair, some white people seem to insist that person can not be a minority - for example Cameron Diaz has faced the same kind of prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:987:BB00:7C39:A338:5ECF:7D08 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the Guardian is specifically looking at non–"white British" ministers and the BBC similarly specifies "non-white descent", which rules out white ethnic minorities from the start (and hence the ministers of Jewish heritage currently listed). I agree with Nt1192 though that this section is poorly sourced and I would probably expect citation of reliable sources that explicitly describe a particular minister as a member of an ethnic minority—any position on this seems subjective without clear sourcing. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nizolan in that this section could be sourced better, and I would say to anon that of course this section is subjective, ethnicity is a social construct. Both James Callaghan and David Cameron have Jewish ancestry at least as recently as Boris Johnson has Turkish ancestry, but are not listed here. The Institute for Race Relations defines an ethnic group as "A group of people whose members identify with each other through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, common culture (which can include a religion) and or an ideology which stresses a common ancestry. It is the way that most countries and peoples choose to delineate groups and has superseded the biological idea of ‘race’."[2] As such, we should be looking for sources showing that the people listed in this section identify as being a member of an ethnic minority themselves; I acknowledge that this is a tricky subject though. I apologise for not vetting my initial sources well enough, and also for it coming across that the reason I disputed whether Johnson was a member of an ethnic minority was the colour of his skin or hair. Nt1192 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that we need to have far more complete and reliable referencing in the ethinic minorities section especially as we are doing with living people. Additionally, I would agree that ethnicity is pretty vague and subjective as you pointed out. Although, if we are going to base it of they identify as such we would have to remove Priti Patel as she found the term "patronising" and "insulting" [3]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some question marks for me over how useful this list is given that it encourages this uncomfortable sort of "one drop rule" of listing people because there are non-British relatives somewhere in their family tree. A short prose section might be better than a list. Incidentally there is an interesting blog posted by the Civil Service on the issue of "BAME" and white ethnic minorities which might be relevant: [4]. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 02:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating that A) Johnson was removed by Dorsetonian from the list, I have since restored him, and B) Lord Liverpool was added to the list, who I would consider similarly contentious. I have also tagged him as disputed neutrality. Nt1192 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page having arrived at it from Recent Change patrol and did not see that there was an ongoing discussion - obviously it was correct to restore until the conclusion of the discussion; thank you for doing so and for notifying me of it. TBH, I find this whole section of the article to be out of place; it is about the office, not the officers. A well-sourced discussion about the history of minorities in parliament might well have a place in the encyclopaedia - the best I can find is List of ethnic minority politicians in the United Kingdom and a section in Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom - but here is seems like a coat rack. But, that aside, some of the entries on the list are a nonsense - Boris Johnson's in particular. Are we sure it wasn't put there in order to make a point about the absurdity of the section? It is a verifiable truth that he has a Turkish great-grandfather, but the conclusion that this makes him a member of an ethnic minority seems to be a fallacy. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, the more I think about it, the more I think that the section is inappropriate on this page. Perhaps its removal is in order; *maybe* a note about the fact that there have been more holders of these offices from ethnic minorities in modern times would be appropriate. This is not the page to be discussing the topic on, much less listing holders as is done here. I agree with Dorsetonian that it seems like a coat rack. Nt1192 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this now, should it still be here? Practising and self-identifying Jews are definitely a religious minority, but it seems problematic "othering" visibly white people (who may be Christian or non-religious) from being white because of a sort of one drop rule in their lineage. This is different to people like Sunak who are undoubtedly from an ethnic and religious minority background and identify as such. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My new sources and the Prime Minister[edit]

Hi! In light of a note on this article stating that it needs more sources, I set out earlier today to find more sources to define which offices are the Great Offices of State, as the only two existing sources were both 15 years old and both obituaries of James Callaghan.

I added two, one from BBC Four and another from BritPolitics. To my surprise, neither made reference to the Prime Minister and I made a note of this on the article. However, it seems like both my sources and my reference to a discrepancy as to whether the Prime Minister is or isn't a Great Office of State have since been deleted. I just wondered whether there was a reason for that, for instance, were my sources not reliable enough? Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I received no reply to this message, I'm going to assume that it's safe to readd my old edits to this article. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced sections[edit]

I've noticed that there are several sections of this article that are minimally or totally unsourced and that it has been this way for a while. Tags have also been in place for a while. I propose that if reliable sources haven't been added by 1 September, then these sections should be deleted (the only part from these sections that I think we would keep in such a scenario is the sentence about James Callaghan, which is sourced). Let me know if anybody would have a problem with this. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Offices_of_State&oldid=1202439129"