Talk:First May ministry

Date dissolved

Is it certain that the May ministry will be dissolved on election day 2017? What if she wins again - Tony Blair's ministry lasted from 2 May 1997 until 27 June 2007? What if none get an overall majority and it takes a day, or more, to get a coilition together? What if (heaven forbid) there is some incident in the meantime and the election has to be postponed? What if... -- de Facto (talk). 17:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the statement. All government ministers continue in post during the election. If the government loses the election, then they will resign. If the government does not lose, it is up to the Prime Minister to reshuffle ministerial offices if she wishes. Opera hat (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. The ministry dissolves regardless of who wins. If she wins again, she will form a new ministry. That's how ministries work. There is no such "reshuffling". A reshuffle is a different thing. After an election, a new ministry forms. One needs to go to the Queen to ask for permission to form said ministry. The ministry does not merely continue in office, even if the composition is the same. The Blair article is wrong, and has been. I've made an issue of that before. No one has had the time to divide it into separate ministry articles, as it should be. All other ministry articles, however, follow the correct pattern.

I find it interesting that you do not remember our prior exchange from 2012, where such was discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A "ministry" is merely a list of government employees. Parliaments dissolve, ministers resign or are sacked. Opera hat (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I started this thread because I was concerned about two things:

1. That we were using a past tense infobox field (Date dissolved) to hold the date of a future event
2. That by providing a date we were speculating, in defiance of WP:CRYSTAL, that the ministry would definitely be dissolved on that date (hence my scenarios of reasons which may stop it happening then)

The first two concerns are still not resolved, and now a third concern has been raised: if, as RGloucester states, it is definite that the ministry will be dissolved on election day and we keep that statement in the article, then we need a reliable source saying that as the BBC page cited does not support that. -- de Facto (talk). 08:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The BBC source merely says "Thursday 8 June - polling day. In the following days, a new Cabinet and team of ministers will be appointed - again it will be very interesting to see who is chosen and who is rejected." It is likely that there will be some changes, but the source doesn't explicitly state that the Prime Minister and all the other ministers will necessarily resign and be reappointed on that day. Even if the Conservatives do not win the election, Theresa May will still be the Prime Minister until she sees the Queen to resign and recommend her successor, like Edward Heath in 1974. Opera hat (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible that the ministry could remain in office as a caretaker if coalition negotiations were necessary. I suppose leaving it out for now makes sense in that context, and on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL. Regardless, the one thing that is clear, and which I do not appreciate being disputed, is that even if the Conservatives win the election, this ministry will not remain in office. May will have to go to the Queen and request to form a new ministry, as has always been the case. This ministry will cease to exist, and a new one will take its place. I suggest that you once again study the British constitution more closely, and indeed, the nature of ministries. Last time you quickly found the reality that has always been the reality, so I don't see why you're having trouble grappling with that now. RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony Blair did see the Queen after winning in 2001 and 2005, but I don't really see why it would have been constitutionally necessary for him to do so. It has certainly not "always been the case" that the Prime Minister has to be reappointed by the Sovereign every time there is an election.

Anyway, let's wait until the outcome of the election is known, and then we can discuss it again if you try and argue for a "Second May ministry" article. Opera hat (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It has always been the case that a Prime Minister cannot just 'continue in office' following an election. He or she must be asked by the Queen to form a new ministry, and he must then do so. The previous ministry ceases to exist, because said ministry's existence hinges on the composition of the previous parliament that was dissolved. Said ministry does continue as a de facto government in the interim period between when parliament was dissolved and when the new ministry is formed, but this convention has no connection to whether a new ministry is formed. There is no 'try and argue'. If she wins, there's a new article. There is no alternative, and such an article will be created, in line with all other British ministry articles and in line with the scheme provided by Dod's. Your ignorance of what a ministry is, as opposed to what a 'government' is, is no reason to spread misinformation. I suggest you withdraw. RGloucester — ☎ 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And I suggest you re-read WP:Civility. I will await the outcome of the election. Opera hat (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the ministries list from Dods...notice that new ministries form in the manner I described. Let's follow reliable sources and reason, instead of making stuff up out of thin air. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Theresa May official portrait (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)