Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Speaker of the British House of Commons/archive1
Self-nomination. -- Emsworth 23:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support--very well done. Just a few quick requests: I gather that there's no way to remove a Speaker unless he/she chooses to go; is this true, and could it be clarified? Secondly, a picture of a Speaker in action (e.g. calling on somebody in the chamber) would be nice. Meelar (talk) 00:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- The first request has been addressed. -- Emsworth 00:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - shouldn't this article be something along the lines of "Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom" due to (what seems to me to be) Wikipedia's convention preference for nouns? --JuntungWu 12:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- After a rather lengthy dispute, it was decided that the article on the House itself should be at British House of Commons, rather than House of Commons of the United Kingdom, or United Kingdom House of Commons, or some other form. The article on the Speaker is named in a parallel fashion. -- Emsworth 19:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support but I have two requests. The salary is in the British pound and it would be helpful to have that figure in United States dollar or euro which more people would be familiar with. Second request is that with this much history behind it, some may have done stupid things, and really bad one might be worth mentioning. Revth 13:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The first request has been addressed. -- Emsworth 00:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk)
- Support. --Travisyoung 10:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Object. This is a good article about the formal duties and ceremony around the speaker, but is not a useful article about UK politics. For example, there had been a long time of alternating Labour and Tory speakers - Michael Martin's election broke this, no mention of this that I can see. Also there is no real discussion of how independently the Speaker really behaves, or examples of the Speaker defying the government. Also: the article says "the claim was wrong" about the SNP contesting the speakers seat. This seems POV. Morwen - Talk 13:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)- The issue of alternating Labour and Tory speakers is mentioned on the talk page. It was determined that there is really no "convention" under which the speakership alternates. -- Emsworth 13:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Then this deserves to be mentioned! Certainly various people complained about it at the time. This article could do with a great deal of expansion. What sort of people are speakers (I understand senior MPs who've never held ministerial office)? Countless other things need to be added for this article to be balanced. Morwen - Talk 19:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have addressed the NPOV issue, the issue of Speakers normally being MPs from the government party, and the issue of Speakers sometimes being past ministers. I would submit that the Speaker does not behave in any particular fashion, as he or she is entirely impartial and non-partisan (as is covered by a separate section of the article). -- Emsworth 20:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You would suggest taking such a claim on face value? We can say that the Speaker is supposed to remain impartial, but outright saying he is is a value judgement. For the impartiality to mean anything the Speaker must occasionally do things that the Government would prefer him not to. One notable instance recently (quite unprecedent) was where the current speaker told off Tony Blair for not answer a question. Are there instances where the government has tried improperly to lean on speakers? Morwen - Talk 18:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Some source material here [1], [2], [3] about the meaning of impartiality. The current speaker has faced criticism on this issue, although the rebuke of the Prime Minister rather balances that out. Also [4] claims that the election procedure is regarded as a bit of embarrasment in certain quarters - I remember reading a lot about that in the press at the time. That also claims that candidates were openly campaigning this time. Morwen - Talk 18:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You would suggest taking such a claim on face value? We can say that the Speaker is supposed to remain impartial, but outright saying he is is a value judgement. For the impartiality to mean anything the Speaker must occasionally do things that the Government would prefer him not to. One notable instance recently (quite unprecedent) was where the current speaker told off Tony Blair for not answer a question. Are there instances where the government has tried improperly to lean on speakers? Morwen - Talk 18:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have addressed the NPOV issue, the issue of Speakers normally being MPs from the government party, and the issue of Speakers sometimes being past ministers. I would submit that the Speaker does not behave in any particular fashion, as he or she is entirely impartial and non-partisan (as is covered by a separate section of the article). -- Emsworth 20:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Then this deserves to be mentioned! Certainly various people complained about it at the time. This article could do with a great deal of expansion. What sort of people are speakers (I understand senior MPs who've never held ministerial office)? Countless other things need to be added for this article to be balanced. Morwen - Talk 19:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The issue of alternating Labour and Tory speakers is mentioned on the talk page. It was determined that there is really no "convention" under which the speakership alternates. -- Emsworth 13:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support, a very informative article as to the history and current role of the office. Edeans 17:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I have done some copyediting. I think the objection above has been dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Much improved now. Morwen - Talk 12:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)