Talk:Cabinet (government)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Parliament#:~:text=In modern politics and history,a legislative body of government.&text=The term is similar to,a monarch as the head.|parliament]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Origin of term

In school they taught us that the name cabinet came from an early US president that had his advisors meet him in a pantry or some-such place, and they were called his "kitchen cabinet." Any truth to this, and if so, should it be mentioned? Jafafa Hots 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the origin of "Cabinet," rather the existing term was borrowed to make the "kitchen cabinet" pun that describes unnofficial presidential advisors. see: Kitchen Cabinet. Ddye 21:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This story is tosh. The term originated as "cabinet counsel" in 1600s England, long before the US existed as a country, and referred to advice tendered to the Monarch (King or Queen of England) in private. The term "cabinet" here means a small room, an image which lends itself well to the concept of private advice (see Cabinet of the United Kingdom). When the US gained its independence, it borrowed heavily from both the British and French systems in establishing its politics and terminology. This is yet another example of US-centric revisionism, where all-American stories are substituted for the truth in order to bolster national pride. SteveMcQwark (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having some problems categorising the danish cabinet. Since that part of the wiki isnt as talkative as here I was hoping for some input. My problem is that the individual ministers can be fired by the prime minister or by the legeslative assembly, but neither can tell them what to do. At the same time there isnt any official cabinet meetings that have any juridical og executive powers. All coordination is done informal between relevant ministers. The most powerfull executive powers are the prime ministers to use when he sees fit. Any thoughts on how to categorise this system?Apupunchau 16:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I just signed up tonight, can't seem to make the link into an internal link. I will try to figure it out.

Modification/abolition of 'constitutional law'

Surely perogative powers do not extend to modification of statutes? Parliament is supreme... ( under section 'cabinet of UK' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.254.126 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Offensive

"The Westminster cabinet system is the foundation of cabinets as they are known at the federal and state (or provincial) levels of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, India and other Commonwealth of Nations countries whose parliamentary model was closely based on that of the United Kingdom." Ireland is not in the cmmonwealth and it is quite offensive to suggest that we are, removing the reference.plokt 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

The references to the United Kingdom are inaccurate. Cabinet members are mostly called Secretaries of State, not secretaries, and more importantly the cabinet minister is not considered the "chief civil servant" in that department - in the UK system, ministers are regarded as seperate to the permanent civil servants.saxmund —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:20060206 cab01.jpg, found on Cabinet (government), has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting🤔 129.232.65.219 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:20060206 cab01.jpg

The image File:20060206 cab01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cabinets? No

I came here after a list of the current UK cabinet. The article could do with a link to various country cabinet lists, or to a list of lists article - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US centric

The general part of the article seems overly US centric, which is inappropriate in a Wikipedia article about Cabinets in general. Either US specific examples should be removed, or a broader range of countries should be drawn on. Also, some of the information in the article is US specific, but not stated as such. SteveMcQwark (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SteveMcQwark take this sentence:

In most countries, including those that use the Westminster system, Cabinet ministers are appointed from among sitting members of the legislature and remain members of the legislature while serving in the cabinet. In other countries, especially countries with a presidential system, the opposite is true: Cabinet members must not be sitting legislators, and legislators who are offered appointments must resign if they wish to accept.

So let see Ireland for example has a president, but the there is no restriction that says "Cabinet members must not be sitting legislators". or in India, or in South Africa, or in Germany ... What is meant is in states that have a constitution that segregates executive and legislative functions, not states "with a presidential system". -- PBS (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster cabinets

This paragraph:

In theory the prime minister or premier is first among equals. However, the prime minister is the person from whom the head of state will ultimately take advice on the exercise of executive power, which may include the powers to declare war, use nuclear weapons, expel ministers from the cabinet, and to determine their portfolios in a cabinet reshuffle. This position in relation to the executive power means that, in practice, the prime minister has a high degree of control over the cabinet: any spreading of responsibility for the overall direction of the government has usually been done as a matter of preference by the prime minister – either because they are unpopular with their backbenchers, or because they believe that the cabinet should collectively decide things.

does not accurately reflect the powers of a prime minister. The relative strength of a Prime minister is directly reflected by the strength in their their party and their party in relation to the other parties in Parliament. For example Tony Blair could not have sacked Gordon Brown even if he had wanted to (and he probably wanted to). The current Tory leader has no choice over the inclusion of Lib-Dems. The paragraph needs to be re-written, explaining that the the control that a prime minister has depends on external political factors as much as their control of constitutional leavers of power and it often waxes and wanes over the life of a government. -- PBS (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sofa government"

Charles I began a formal "Cabinet Council" from his accession in 1625, as his Privy Council, or "private council", was evidently not private enough[citation needed], and the first recorded use of "cabinet" by itself for such a body comes from 1644, and is again hostile and associates the term with dubious foreign practices.[2] The process has repeated itself in recent times, as leaders have felt the need to have a Kitchen Cabinet or "sofa government"[original research?].

I didn't write this paragraph, but I do know what the last three words are referring to. In short, "sofa government" is the modern British English variant of the term "kitchen cabinet", especially applied to Tony Blair.

It was a criticism levied against the Blair government during the third term: the Conservatives and popular media were accusing the government's policy of being formulated a "presidential" manner, with those on the PM's sofa holding undemocratic influence. This was definitely a part of British political discourse during the Blair years. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6497751.stm

Blair's "sofa government" was directly comparable to Jackson's "kitchen cabinet" and the first monarchical cabinets, so the point the paragraph makes is correct. I will replace the Original Research tag with the above BBC News link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowOfMars (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]