Talk:Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

Comments

Hi - this is a funny choice of article theme. The term 'Shadow Chancellor' was invented in the 1980s I believe - it was certainly never used by Howe (who was referred to as 'Chief Economic Spokesman').

Also, the list was missing Ken Clarke, who was Shadow Chancellor for a few weeks after the 1997 election - he did actually give a series of Oral Questions to Gordon Brown.

This list will also irritate Lib Dems who call their Shadow Chancellor 'Shadow Chancellor' not unreasonably!

I researched the list and found the term was in use in the 1950s. The Times of April 8, 1957 made reference to it. I'll add Kenneth Clarke, who was indeed there from May to July 1997. Meanwhile, irritating the Lib Dems is just a happy coincidence. David | Talk 22:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi David,

I've added the note about the term falling into disuse under Thatcher (Howe is given the title 'Economic Spokesman' in 1979 Campaign Guide - the full manifesto). I've also added that there is a claim on the title from Vince Cable. It is pertinent since he now gets credited with it as regularly as George Osborne. I've also added the note about how media outlets often call him an econmic spokesman. I can find lots of examples, but didnt think it worth bothiering. I thought the title confusion worth clearing up.

I was going to ask about the list - is it complete?

I'm not sure the list is accurate for 1945-1951 and possible not also for 1951-1955. From memory of reading, the "shadow cabinet" in 1945-1951 was a grouping of senior ex ministers without speciic portfolios but rather speaking on a variety of topics (though inevitably with a bit of specialisation by those who'd held the relevant job in government). Certainly Butler's appointment in 1951 is commented on in biographies as having surprised some, who seemed to expect Oliver Lyttleton, which certainly suggests the idea that Butler was "Chancellor in waiting" wasn't current then. Then I don't think Labour introduced the formal portfolio system until about 1955, although I'm not 100% sure. Timrollpickering 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roy Jenkins, Brussels.jpg

Image:Roy Jenkins, Brussels.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maudling-Heath

The date of the Maudling-Heath handover is wrong: Heath was already Shadow Chancellor when he was elected party leader in July 1965. BartBassist (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Denis Healey.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Denis Healey.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

John Smith

I added an image of John Smith to the table and User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz keeps deleting it without giving clear reasons as to why or linking to any policy etc. I will restore the image once more and refer them to the talk page, if he/she reverses it again without coming to the talk page that will constitute an edit war. I can't see any reason for us not to be able to use this image as it is also the main image on the main article for: John Smith (Labour Party leader). The addition of the image makyes the article more complete and is therefore a constructive edit. User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's editing in this regard seems far from constructive and may even constitute Vandalism. I have referred the user to this page. Owl In The House (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You're dead wrong. As I indicated, nonfree images shouldn't be used in lists per WP:NFLISTS, the usage clearly fails WP:NFCC#8, since you don't need an image to understand he held the position, and you can't include a nonfree image on a page without an appropriate article-specific nonfree use rationale (per WP:FUR). Your suggestion of vandalism and the warning you posted on my talk page are thoroughly groundless, and you should retract them, and keep in mind that removal of such obvious copyright policy/NFCC violations is exempt from 3RR/edit warring limits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In future when citing policies justifying the removal of sourced material can you please cite the relevant policies properly and when challenged more then once, you should immediately post your reasoning on the talk page, it's how most of us regular contributors conduct ourselves. Indeed you could have linked the policies in the edit log, you did have enough characters to do so.

You did not link the policies straight away for others (including myself) to verify that what you were doing was correct, you merely posted a series of acronyms in the edit log repeatedly: If it was an insufficient means of communicating what you were trying to say the first time, then it is going to be the second time as well. I don't understand why you did this twice in a row, is it a belligerent attitude of "What I'm doing is right, I don't need to explain myself"? Or that you just didn't think/care/you could only see your point of view and not understand why someone else was questioning you? As editors we have a duty to avoid edit warring and we do this through clear communication, this is why I used your talk page and this talk page as well as being a bit clearer then yourself in the edit log. You did not, make sufficient efforts to avoid an edit war, indeed you actively broke WP:3RR in correcting this mistake and that simply wouldn't have been necessary had you gone to the talk page. I hope you bare this in mind in the future. That said I do accept your reversion was correct. It's just you went completely the wrong way about doing it. Owl In The House (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I've just been concentrating on nonfree content policy compliance for two and a half years, using a standard process and pretty uniform edit summaries, and have done more editing in the area than your account has total edits. No more than one other editor has complained, and he promptly got himself blocked, as I recall, over related issues. Your failure to understand basic NFC requirements is the only real cause of problems here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a failure to understand, once you'd actually cited the policies correctly I could tell that your reversion was in compliance with Wiki policy because there was something to refer to. Just because you might know all the acronyms in this area of Wiki policy does not mean that everyone else does and it is unreasonable to expect people to; this is why it is important to link and cite policies properly. I have conceded that your edit was right but you seem so short of humility that you can't admit that had you gone about things a different way, you wouldn't have had to break WP:3RR and we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Anyway, no hard feelings. Owl In The House (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your inadequate grasp of policy is quite clearly demonstrated by your false accusations that I broke 3RR. Rather than going on tendentiously about your nonconsensus interpretation of policy, you should be reviewing your work with nonfree images and cleaning up whatever other mistakes you made. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

For clarity here are your 3 reversions of the same edit:

1. 18:24, 14 September 2014‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,365 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (fails NFCC#8, also no valid article-specific NFCC rationale) (undo)

2. 21:45, 14 September 2014‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,365 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (remove per NFCC8 and NFLISTS, also no FUR; Undid revision 625560512 by Owl In The House (talk)) (undo)

3. 19:32, 15 September 2014‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,365 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (as before, clear NFCC violation; Undid revision 625618654 by Owl In The House (talk)) (undo)

You broke WP:3RR, you did not instigate dialogue on a talk page, therefore you did not make sufficient efforts to avoid breaking WP:3RR. I've admitted to my mistake and I actually learnt something extra about Wikipedia Policy (re non-free images), normally I'd thank you but your manner is so odiously belligerent a compliment might go to your head. You on the other hand have zero humility; you feel the need to deny a blatant fact when it is presented to you; because to you admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness and that really isn't/shouldn't be the case. At the end of the day all I am saying is you should maybe consider the way you revert edits when necessary, you clearly feel threatened by such a criticism. That isn't rational. Owl In The House (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I quite seriously suggest you read WP:3RR, because you make three gross errors above. WP:CIR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OH, a technicality, of course there is a massive difference between 24hours and 25hours and 8minutes...not really. You are basing your argument on a technicality, what you did was still bad practice and had you communicated properly sooner, you'd have only had to make 1 reversion (certainly no more then 2). Well done for waiting that extra hour and 8minutes, technically it makes all the difference but in practice it was still bad practice. I really am astounded as to just how arrogantly belligerent you come across on here, it's really quite sad. Owl In The House (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• 240 F 146445266 ewos9Tpw9TVLhBAxfbBzFIUjpHo8jnpD (cropped) (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2018 (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:

• Smith 1990 crop.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Robert Carr2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2019 (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:

• Robert Carr2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• GaitskellMP.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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:

• GaitskellMP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Reginald Maudling.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Butler date and predecessors

Is there a source for the date Butler became Shadow Chancellor. I note that 10 December 1950 - the date cited - is the date Oliver Stanley died. Many consider Stanley would have been Chancellor after the next election had he lived, but I am not sure he was formally Shadow Chancellor and he is not in the list, but it seems a bit of a coincidence that this date appears. There was an additional complication at this time in that Sir John Anderson had been the last Chancellor in a Conservative government, but had not stood in the 1950 election as he was an MP for Combined Scottish Universities and the university seats were abolished, and up to that point he was still seen as a likely Chancellor in a future Conservative government. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Carr- Howe dates

I am not sure that it is correct to say Robert Carr ceased to be Shadow Chancellor on 11 February 1975 and that Geoffrey Howe replaced him on that date. That is the date of the final ballot of the 1975 Conservative Party leadership election, which was won by Margaret Thatcher, but I do not think she appointed her Shadow Cabinet until the following day (I do not have her memoirs to hand to confirm). Certainly the next morning's edition of The Glasgow Herald indicated that no appointment had been made as Shadow Chancellor and wrongly speculated about Edward du Cann and Keith Joseph as key contenders to be appointed to the office . Thus I would think Howe did not start until 12 February at the earliest. Carr's departure date is more problematic as it could be argued that all office became vacant on Thatcher's election as the new leader. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I would note that Margaret Thatcher's own memoirs make clear she did not start appointing the Shadow Cabinet until after she had met with Ted Heath on 12 February and after Carr had said he would only accept the position of Shadow Foreign Secretary. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

References