Talk:2010 Labour Party Shadow Cabinet election

Title

Wouldn't Labour Party Shadow Cabinet election, 2010 be a more accurate title? --RFBailey (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To make my point in more detail, such a change would emphasise that this is an internal Labour Party matter. (Besides, we usually use "United Kingdom" rather than "British" in such titles.) --RFBailey (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the right title would be Labour Party (UK) Shadow Cabinet election, 2010, mirroring Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 and other Labour Party leadership and deputy leadership elections. I'm going to be bold and make the move. -Rrius (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough--that's fine by me. --RFBailey (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ex officio members

At some point in the past I did some lengthy online research about who sits in the Shadow Cabinet other than those elected. That the Leader and Deputy Leader is pretty easy support. Most sources also mention the Leader of the Opposition the Lords. Aside from that, it was hard to find sources that were consistent with one another and remotely current (defined as 1980s to present). Because the information was contradictory, I e-mailed Tony Wright, the Chair of the PLP, before the recent changes to find out who the ex officios really are. He responded that in addition to the three I mentioned, the Chair of the PLP, the Lords Chief Whip, and a peer representing backbenchers were also members. All of these were mentioned in sources, but not necessarily the same one, and some included others, such as the Deputy Leader in the Lords, who are not in the Shadow Cabinet. If I had a source that backed had it right, I've lost it because the computer I relied on when I was working on this had an existential crisis and decided it wanted to reinvent itself as a paperwork. Since my paperweight won't tell me the answer and I know I will drag my feet on this for a while, I decided to explain why I'm not providing a source for my list. I also learned from the email that when a Labour Leader gives Shadow Cabinet portfolios to people not in the Shadow Cabinet, they are technically "in attendance", and not actually members of the Shadow Cabinet. That's intuitive, but not something I came across in my research (not that I was necessarily looking for it). -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hain

Although Peter Hain failed to get elected by MPs, there are a few rumours that he will retain his Shadow Welsh Secertary post, due to failure of the Parliamentary Labour Party to actually elect any Welsh Labour MP[1]. To say he was voted out could end up being misleading. While it is okay for now, if Peter Hain does retain Shadow Wales, maybe there needs to be a new colour someone in his position? or am I missing the point? Of course I am not argueing for it now, just saying it something to be prepared for. --Welshsocialist (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not misleading. He was voted out. If, as expected, he is given Shadow Welsh Secretary anyway, he will not be a full member of the Shadow Cabinet; rather, he will be "in attendance". The same thing happened to Harriet Harman during the Blair years in opposition. Blair might have rescued her, but she was still voted out. -Rrius (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Harman wasn't voted out, though it was a pretty near thing after the row about her son's school. She was elected in the last place following a coherent approach. One was was voted out was Jack Cunningham in 1994 and Blair appointed him Shadow Culture Secretary for the next years before he made it back in. Andrew Smith was appointed Shadow Transport Secretary in 1996 despite not being elected to the Shadow Cabinet - ISTR he wasn't even a candidate. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

John Healey

I'm very sorry this is so long, but I felt it necessary, in the interests of intellectual honesty, to set out my thinking. The for those wanting the abridged version, the question is in the next sentence, and my conclusion is in the last (mercifully short) paragraph.

There is a lingering question of what to do with John Healey. An argument could be made that he was a full member of the Shadow Cabinet or that he was in attendance, in which case he should be listed as joining, rather than remaining, in Shadow Cabinet. That he was merely in attendance to Cabinet before the election is unhelpful. Dawn Primarolo was a "attends when responsibilities are on the agenda" sort, but moved up to full Shadow Cabinet before being elected Deputy Speaker, making essentially two steps up. Pat McFadden and Sadiq Khan were both promoted to Shadow Secretary of State to replace resigning peers. McFadden went from "attends" to full, and Khan went from "agenda" to "attends". Finally Rosie Winterton went from "agenda" as Shadow Regional Development minister to full as Shadow Leader of the House. I just don't think there's anything we can do with that mess that wouldn't be pure speculation.

So what has Labour said? There are four relevant sources: the Labour.org.uk Shadow Cabinet list, the same site's frontbench list, the Parliament.co.uk list, and the list published in the Weekly Information Bulletin. Comparison with Khan and Lady Scotland, both Shadow Cabinet attendees, should yield the answer, but doesn't.

The Labour site's Shadow Cabinet lists Healey as a member, but also lists Khan and Scotland as members without distinguishing that they are just in attendance. The Labour frontbench list shows Khan and Scotland as in attendance, but makes no reference to Healey being associated with the Shadow Cabinet at all.

The Parliament sources are also contradictory. The Parliament website included a list of Shadow Cabinet ministers identical to the one at the Labour site, thus including Healey, Khan, and Scotland without noting whether they were full members or in attendance. Below that list was the full the list of shadow ministers. Khan and Scotland are noted as "in attendance", but Healey is again not noted as having any association with the Shadow Cabinet. Finally, the WIB (Issue 2 for the current session) does not note Healey as being on the Shadow Cabinet list at all.

What to make of it? As I see it, there are two possibilities. The first, Healey was always meant to be marked as in attendance, but wasn't. The second is that he was a full member but wasn't marked. Both possibilities rest on the assumption that he was supposed to be associated with the Shadow Cabinet, and that he wasn't marked because he did not head a department. Aside from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, each Shadow Cabinet minister was the head of some shadow team or shadowing some Cabinet-level sinecure (i.e., Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal). Tessa Jowell and Lady Royall both served on shadow teams aside from their main role. For instance, Jowell was Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, but also served as a shadow minister in Culture, Media, and Sport. When their names appear in relation to the Shadow Cabinet-level office, they are marked as Shadow Cabinet ministers, but when they are listed in their other departments, the are not.

I think the problem with Healey is that the role that put him in Shadow Cabinet was a within a shadow department, and when someone failed to mark him once, the mistake was repeated as the list was copied and sent on. That doesn't explain why the WIB is inconsistent, but since Healey was listed elsewhere as a member of some sort, I think it can be disregarded.

In the end, we have sources saying he was in Shadow Cabinet, but none saying he was in attendance. As a result, it seems to me we should treat him as such unless and until we hear differently from a good source. -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to solve this problem by way of a footnote at the end of the table. -Rrius (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)