Talk:Second Salisbury ministry

Title

What's wrong with "Second Salisbury ministry"? I don't see why we need to get fancy with these names. john k (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The present title is WP:RECOGNISABLE and descriptive, backed by reliable sources.--Nevé–selbert 19:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

1) I don't think it is particularly recognizable. 2) There are way more results for "Second Salisbury ministry" than there are for this title. 3) Your search is going to give you a bunch of false positives that are actually about the 1895 ministry; 4) this ministry was a Conservative ministry, not a Unionist one. Hartington and Chamberlain sat on the opposition benches. The only Liberal Unionist in the ministry was Goschen, who joined six months in and participated in a personal capacity, not as a representative of a party. That no more makes it a "Unionist" ministry than Lord Derby's participation in Gladstone's second ministry made it a coalition. john k (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a perfectly recognisable title. Per Tout (1910), this was the first of two Unionist ministries formed by Salisbury. It was a de facto coalition from 1887 following the appointment of Goschen as Chancellor, who was a Liberal Unionist. Your point that Goschen served in a personal capacity is besides the point, as most Liberal Unionists supported the ministry anyway. Sure, Hartington and Chamberlain sat on the opposition benches, but so did Asquith and his followers during the Lloyd George ministry. Unlike with Asquith and Lloyd George, Hartington gave his blessing to Goschen in his decision to join the government (Hart & Carr 2013). Had he not done so, Goschen likely would not have joined the ministry. Furthermore, Goschen was given the prestigious post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, which certainly gave the impression that the ministry was virtually a coalition. The Illustrated London News refers to the ministry as "the first Unionist government". Your point about Lord Derby is irrelevant, for most of the Conservative Party opposed the Liberal administration. That is not the case here.--Nevé–selbert 18:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this, the specific question seems to be: Should article be named "First Salisbury Unionist ministry" or "Second Salisbury ministry"?.

• First Salisbury Unionist ministry: The current title of the article, alongside the date "1886" appears in the sources 5 times, Tout (1910) being one of these.
• Second Salisbury ministry: The title that the article used to go under, alongside the date "1886" appears in the sources 1,440 times.

Directly comparing one against the other, Second Salisbury ministry is the more recognisable name by a very wide margin, and should return as the article name. ToastButterToast (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)::

I am not denying that Second Salisbury ministry is a recognisable name. What I am disputing is that it is the most descriptive name, which it most certainly is not. This was indeed a Unionist ministry, as the sources provided have shown. We really ought to aim for the most descriptive title, not necessarily the most popular one.--Nevé–selbert 02:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Article titles are meant to follow what the significant majority of sources say. It's not up us to decide what we as individuals personally think the best name would be, we're just following what the sources say. 1400+ Sources identify it as 'Second Salisbury ministry' and only 5 call it the 'First Salisbury Unionist ministry'. It's irrelevant if you personally think the name is more 'descriptive' because only a handful of authors have ever used the name. To put it bluntly: 'Second Salisbury ministry' is the commonly used and recognisable name, and 'First Salisbury Unionist ministry' is not.

@John K: What do think about reverting the name back to 'Second Salisbury ministry'? This was the name from 4 May 2012 to 28 October 2017, and in my opinion best complies with Wikipedia naming policy. ToastButterToast (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this (and, indeed, continue to insist that calling this a "Unionist ministry," implying that the Liberal Unionists were part of the ministry, is wrong. Goschen was a Liberal Unionist who joined the ministry in a personal capacity. The leaders of the party in the Commons - Lord Hartington and Joseph Chamberlain - sat on the opposition benches throughout Salisbury's second ministry. Of course Salisbury was dependent on Liberal Unionist votes for his majority, but it is hard to see how he could have been in a coalition with a party that took no government offices (save for Goschen, who was already a Conservative in all but name) and sat on the opposition benches.) See this bio of Lord Hartington, which describes the situation from 1886 to 1892 quite clearly. john k (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not wrong. Numerous sources describe this ministry as Unionist ministry, as it was supported by the Unionists and included a Liberal Unionist as Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the Great Offices of State. I am not going to repeat myself, and I have already responded to your point about Hartington and Chamberlain. They sat on the opposition benches but did not oppose the government, that is the key fact here. Goschen may very well have been "a Conservative in all but name", but officially he was a Liberal Unionist whose taking of government office was not made without the permission of his party i.e. Hartington.--Nevé–selbert 06:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That is what is called a minority government, not a coalition. It's no more a Unionist coalition than Russell's first government was a coalition because it depended on support from the Peelites, or than Gladstone's third and fourth ministries were coalitions with the Irish Nationalists. Most sources do not call it a unionist ministry, a term that mostly refers to Salisbury's third ministry. john k (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It might not have been a Unionist ministry by the narrowest of definitions, but by many reliable accounts it is considered to have been a Unionist coalition. I have cited my sources, and I have nothing more to say on the matter.--Nevé–selbert 18:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been doing some research on this topic. It's not totally clear in some cases whether an author is talking about a "formal" coalition (such as the recent one between the Conservatives and Lib-Dems) or an informal one, such as the 'pro-Home Rule coalition' of Gladstonian Liberals and Irish Nationalists. It's definitely clear that there was an alliance between the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists in 1886, but to post some sources which are against the position that a coalition was formed:

• 'Lord Derby in 1866 tried to form a Coalition Government, but failed to obtain support outside his own party, and formed a minority Conservative Government instead. The same result followed in 1886, though Lord Salisbury was assured of Liberal Unionist support and a coalition was formed in 1895.' (Jennings, 1959, p29) Jennings states the 1886–92 ministry was a minority government.
• '...the original Liberal Unionist Party, led by Lord Hartington and Joseph Chamberlain, which split from the Gladstonian majority of the Liberal Party over the issue of Irish Home Rule in 1886, supported the Conservative government of 1886–1892 in votes but did not take office, and then accepted a share of ministerial posts in the Unionist governments of 1895–1905...' (Ball, 2016). Obviously Goschen was in the cabinet, but this was an exception. Other Liberal Unionist MPs did not join him in cabinet.
• 'Salisbury won the General Election (1886) and his second government lasted, with Liberal Unionist support (though not yet a formal coalition), until 1892.' (Haigh, 1985, p.259)
• 'From 1886 to 1892 Salisbury's minority second ministry was maintained in office by Liberal Unionist support. Gladstone and Rosebery's minority ministries of 1892–5 were again sustained by the Irish Nationalists. From 1895 to 1905 Salisbury's and Balfour's governments were coalitions of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists' (Hawkins, 2015, p.286) This is a particularly helpful source as it helps to distinguish between actual coalitions and when the minority party is merely being 'propped up'.
• This source is discussing the India, but is helpful nonetheless 'He was, after all, only a minority Conservative Premier, dependent on the support of Liberal-Unionists, some of whom were disturbingly apt to out-Gladstone the Gladstonians whenever Ireland was not in question.' (Maccoby, 2001, p.425)
• I have taken a look at the sources which are meant to support the idea that it was a coalition, some of them aren't particularly helpful as the Google preview only provides a small snippet. 'The Coalition and the Constitution' by Vernon Bogdanor is the source that is most intact, but I think it addresses the 1886 situation quite an interesting way. It avoids the subject in one paragraph by stating 'Since 1895, there have been three peacetime coalitions...'. Then in the next paragraph explicitly states 'The Unionist coalition was formed in 1886' but then confuses the point by stating 'Gladstone's government of 1886 was followed, until 1892, by a purely Conservative administration, the Liberal Unionists preferring to offer support from outside the government. But after the interlude of a short Liberal administration which lasted from 1892 to 1895, the Liberal Unionists joined the Conservatives in a coalition and fought the 1895 election on that basis'. I'm not sure whether the author is stating that in 1886 it was an 'informal coalition' or merely the point at which the foundations of the actual 1895 coalition was formed. Bogdanor is a constitutional expert and a reliable source, but I don't completely understand what he means when stating there was a Unionist coalition in 1886, but that Liberal Unionists didn't join the Conservatives until 1895. I just wanted to point out the issues with using this source as evidence.

Before looking at the sources I was on the fence about this issue, but having spent some time trying to find answers I have to agree with john k. This ministry wasn't a true coalition, but rather a minority government that had an alliance with the Liberal Unionists. I know you have said you 'have nothing more to say on the matter' but these points need to be taken into consideration. ToastButterToast (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work and looking at a wide variety of sources! This accords with what I've read in the past. I really do think the fact that Hartington and Chamberlain sat on the opposition front bench throughout Salisbury's ministry makes pretty clear that this wasn't a formal coalition. john k (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Kudos on the research ToastButterToast. For the record, I'm a great fan of Bogdanor and I regularly listen to his lectures while editing. I will concede that the second Salisbury ministry was not a formal coalition, but for all intents and purposes it was a de facto coalition. I suppose an analogy could be made between the Conservatives and DUP today. If May were to replace Hammond with a Democratic Unionist as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am pretty certain that most of the British press will describe May's minority government as a de facto coalition.--Nevé–selbert 20:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, no, and no. You don't get to decide that. This is about the third time I've got in to a debate with you and you've brought up the de facto argument and it's getting ridiculous. The de facto vs de jure isn't even relevant here, and for that matter neither is conjecture about a Conservative-DUP deal that doesn't exist. I checked Google books and found literally one source describing it as a de facto coalition, so it doesn't even merit inclusion in the article in my opinion. However, there is a wide selection of reliable sources that explicitly state it was not a coalition, there isn't anything more to it. I don't know what you're hoping to achieve here, both the sources and the rough consensus here is against you. ToastButterToast (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

We just have to agree to disagree with this one.--Nevé–selbert 20:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You're the only person in disagreement here. I don't think me or john k really need to spend anymore time pandering to you on this. Sometimes you just need to consider that you might be wrong. I'm going to go ahead and take out all references you've added on this article and other articles to this being a coalition, although this probably won't be immediate as it's clear you've edited a lot of pages with AWB so it's not a straight forward revert. ToastButterToast (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That should be most references removed, Neve-selbert you are welcome to try and form a greater consensus on this in the future but the micro-consensus here is that it wasn't a true coalition and shouldn't be included in the article. ToastButterToast (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I remain unconvinced, though I fully realise that the ball is not in my court.--Nevé–selbert 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just remember nothing is in stone –ToastButterToast (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)