Talk:David Cameron

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131202232935/http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2205628-torture-claims-cast-shadow-over-sri-lankas-commonwealth-summit/ to http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2205628-torture-claims-cast-shadow-over-sri-lankas-commonwealth-summit/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080225193435/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nbrown115.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nbrown115.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pig intercourse

there is no mention of the allegations of bestiality against cameron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

Copypaste of article removed 139.216.235.151 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Statutory instruments and democracy.

Hi Collect. I agree that with the statement on your page that “sometimes even editors who lock horns can show respect for each other” and please note, I always seek resolution not confrontation. Could I ask you to have a look at your edit of 19 January as you may have overlooked its significance or thought it breachedWP:NPOV? The Independent article is important because it describes HMG’s implementation or attempted implementation of very significant cuts which were neither spelt out before the election nor debated in parliament. The words in the original title appear in the article –though I accept I should have put them in quotes. Your title refers simply refers to the innocuous sounding “statutory instrument” which the article itself describes as “a little-known device” The title does need explanation as Wikipedia’s primary purpose is to educate people less well informed than ourselves. I’ll update in the next few days taking into account comments from anyone -the current version is too short and meaningless to be of use. This link highlights the same concerns about democracy.
Regards JRPG (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I rather think I need to looks ta is closely - I do know that it is not usual for Wikipedia to "explain" what an article says, as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem & wp:NORUSH -you do far more edits than I do but I perhaps study papers & news in more detail. The sums involved & the strong views of cross party backbench MPs suggest a change is happening and this makes it important that we get it right. Sam Blacketer and Absolutelypuremilk may also find it interesting. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be ok with changing the explanation to "to allow the government to modify existing laws without necessarily debating them in Parliament, although MPs can debate them if they wish" which is what I understood from the Statutory Instrument (UK) article (which also needs work), rather than the previous explanation which seemed slightly misleading, as both the electoral changes and tax credits have been debated in Parliament. The electoral changes point seems pushing a point of view, and the Osborne point probably applies to him rather than Cameron, but I'm not opposed in principle to including an example of where it has been used, provided it uses a secondary source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for suggestions Absolutelypuremilk and Collect. I should explain that as a believer in democracy, I found this a very disturbing article albeit one which needs reading a couple of times. I was one of 160,000 people who lost a pension following a change to the 1995 Pensions act & hence was already familiar with the egregious possibilities. In 1995 the main debates took place in the Lords, it certainly wasn't discussed in the press and most MPs knew nothing about it. Statutory Instruments are used for aspects which don't go through a select committee.

Three quotes

The problem is that statutory instruments are not well scrutinised in the Commons ..

The policy was not included in the Conservatives’ election manifesto and was nodded through by an obscure Commons committee without the substance of the change being debated.

In short, it is way of way of forcing through key law changes without debate

I think we are at risk of ignoring a very significant change. I’d like to get consensus on reinstalling my original quite short offering though I don’t object if it goes on Osbourne's page. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right JRPG - the greater use of statutory instruments is widely recognised as a very concerning trend. --ℕ ℱ 19:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You need reliable (non-political, ideally) sources making claims about the "attempt" being unusual in some manner and, frankly, I think the issue of being a "statutory instrument" is moot here. AFAICT, the use of that procedure is akin to listing regulations on the US Federal Register ... which is very frequent. And it is not our task to make sure readers hold "correct opinions" - we only use what the reliable sources specifically state as fact, and do not act as though we, as editors, know more than the sources state outright. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Collect. I had assumed, probably wrongly, that you are UK based. There are quite fundamental difference between the UK & US not least because the ministers have always been appointed by the Queen AKA the crown & not by parliament. MPs remain concerned about being ignored by ministers.

Re reliable sources, WP:Suggested sources#Current news clearly shows the Independent which has an excellent reputation. I'm not sure if you get the Independent but I believe my contribution is a succinct summary of an article which should be read by everyone. JRPG (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source - where its article is actually specific to the article for which it is being used as a source. Thus, many of the "thought pieces" in many sources which are not specific to a living person are good sources for stating the opinions therein, cited as opinions., in broad articles not dealing with a specific person. The link at politics.co given above is, for example, labeled as "comment", and does not deal with Cameron, and so is not a good source for claims of fact in the Cameron BLP. In the case of my edit on 19 Jan, note that I did not remove the Independent as a source, but only removed the claims:

"highlighted an over 50% increase to allow ministers to change the law without a debate in Parliament. In particular it mentioned electoral register changes believed likely to deny over a million people their rights and George Osborn's unsuccessful attempt to cut £4Billion from tax credits

Which has several claims of fact: 1. That the purpose of the rise since 2010 was specifically "to allow ministers" etc. Second that the changes would, as a matter of fact, "deny over a million persons their rights." Third that it was related, as fact, to a claim that Osborn sought to cut an amount from tax credits. The Independent in its commentary states:

"Since the election the Conservative Government has used a parliamentary procedure called a statutory instrument to try to introduce swathes of significant new laws covering everything from fracking to fox hunting and benefit cuts without debate on the floor of the House of Commons."

Which does not say that there was a specific percentage rise in use (derived only by the graph from 1996 to date), or that the use of such instruments was not used in the past, nor that the use was to allow ministers to somehow do something illicit or illegal. Sorry - the fact is the "statutory instruments" were introduced by Labour in the late 1940s. The purpose of such instruments has naught to do with trying to deny anyone their voting rights, and that the relationship of Cameron as a living person to denial of voting rights etc. is improper insertion of opinion into a BLP here. Parliament itself is a good source on what they are, and are not, if we wish to simply address the use of such instruments: "Statutory Instruments, also known as SIs, are a form of legislation which allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. They are also referred to as secondary, delegated or subordinate legislation." That is, they are precisely the same as issuing rules and regulations as found in every parliamentary democracy across the globe. The relevance to the Cameron BLP is de minimis at most. The adding of "side issues" (seeking to deny a million persons the right to vote, etc.) not related to Cameron is improper here. Thus the edit I made which sticks to matters of fact cited as fact, and removes material not related to Cameron as a living person. Is this clear? I removed zero sources there, and simply removed material not properly germane to this article, including claims which were claims of opinion. Collect (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Collect, I'm short of time at the moment but please don't take my comments as a personal challenge or a desire to go to Ukip style edit wars as these damage everyone & life is too short. I'd appreciate constructive comments from you and others on whether or where there is an alternate position/article for this summary & proceed relatively peacefully from there :) Regards JRPG (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Look at the edit I made:

In January 2016, [[The Independent]] said there was an over 50% increase of the use of [[Statutory Instrument (UK)|statutory instruments]] since 2010. [[Michael Jopling, Baron Jopling| Lord Jopling]] deplored the behaviour which he called an abuse whilst [[Baroness Smith of Basildon]] asked whether it was the start of "constitutional gerrymandering."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-waging-war-on-parliament-by-forcing-through-key-legal-changes-without-debate-a6820176.html|title=Government accused of 'waging war' on Parliament by forcing through key law changes without debate|author=Oliver Wright, Nigel Morris|work=The Independent|date=18 January 2016|accessdate=18 January 2016}}</ref>''

Note I specifically used the Independent source - so please do not assert that I removed it. And the edit gives a reasonable summary of the Independent article. It includes the quoted opinions of two persons who are upset at SI, and cites their opinions as being opinions. What more can you ask for? Collect (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points on the text as is: first with statutory instruments being to most readers a rather arcane point, I'd rather see it referenced in passing in a paragraph on his actions and views on Westminster democracy rather than as a standalone item, e.g.

Cameron argued in favour of retaining the FPTP Parliamentary system when it was put to referendum, (quote from Cameron). He has ruled out reforms of the House of Lords, although he called for a review into limiting the Lords' powers to block legislation following their rejection of planned tax credit cuts in late 2015. Cameron's government has used statutory instruments, which allow legislation to be amended without members of both houses voting on a new Act, significantly more than previous administrations

(note this Telegraph article [1] covers both statutory instruments and the Strathclyde review as related concepts, so I don't think this runs the risk of being a WP:synthy way of presenting the issue) Secondly, there's a Premiership of David Cameron article intended to cover all aspects of how the country has been governed in the last six years rather than focusing specifically on Cameron's actions, so this might be a better home for any detailed commentary on how the administration have used statutory instruments Dtellett (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dtellett. This looks a better idea. Collect I haven't, as far as I can see, asserted at any time that you removed the source ..probably because you didn't!! You removed some of the description and leaving what UK residents would regard as an arcane term. Perhaps people in the US are familiar with it. I am particularly interested in constitutional change and will move the item in a few days as suggested.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Cameron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111118033918/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/First-PMQs-Of-Coalition-Government-David-Cameron-Takes-His-First-Prime-Ministers-Questions/Article/201006115642233?f=rss to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/First-PMQs-Of-Coalition-Government-David-Cameron-Takes-His-First-Prime-Ministers-Questions/Article/201006115642233?f=rss
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118093856/http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-trackers-leaders-140611.pdf to http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-trackers-leaders-140611.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Urgent clarification needed

In view of the 'Panama Papers' the sentence "In 1982, Cameron created the Panamanian Blairmore Holdings Inc....." could be read as that it was the father of David Cameron who created that entity, or David Cameron. It needs to be crystal clear, when it has been written in this early stage of examining the Panama Parers that David Cameron's father did not pay taxes for 30 years. Whoever has inherited the assets sits pretty on tax-free yields. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)