Talk:10 Downing Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 10 Downing Street article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] This may very well be an urban myth...

but I seem to remember reading that the ocupant of No 10 prior to it becoming the residence of the PM was a Mr Chicken or something of the sort - has anyone heard this?

I have found the site http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/HisDSt.html

Ten Downing Street is actually three houses combined in the early 1740's by William Kent under commission from Robert Walpole: two on Downing Street itself and Litchfiled HOuse (also known affectionately as "the house at the back) a mansion once owned and occupied by Lord Litchfield, Master of the Horse in the court of King James II. There was a small house next to Number Ten (I think it was the original Numebr Eleven). In the 1740's this house was occupied by a Mr Chicken. Walpole convinced Mr Chicken to relocate to another house in Downing Street so that he could impliment Kent's proposed fusion of this house with Numebr Ten and the House at the Back.

Please excuse my lousy spelling. This is my very first contribution to Wikipedia. I guess I was a little nervous. David

[edit] Posibly another Urban myth...

...but I read in the article on the Prime Minister that Mr Blair actually lives in NO. 11 as it is larger, while Mr. Brown occupies the residence in No 10. Any truth in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.15.24 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the Blairs live in the flat above No. 11 and Gordon Brown lives at No. 10, although, of coure, the offices "downstairs" are still in the usual places. Blair needed a bigger flat to house his larger family. This is actually already in the current version of the article. It goes on to say that Blair now occupies both flats and Brown lives elsewhere, which I haven't heard before. JRawle (Talk) 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

Can anyone explain that what do the "*" and "***" indicate in the "Residents of Ten Downing Street & the House at the Back (1650-present)" section? Thanks.--218.103.209.61 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh dear...

I remember reading this article some time ago, and while it wasn't featured quality, I'm sure it was of a higher standard than the current mess. I've tagged the overview section for cleanup because it reads poorly, contains irrelevant material, and appears to be the work of someone unfamiliar with the topic who I do not feel has made sufficient efforts at research. I'm guessing from the tone and phrasing that a well-meaning American Anglophile has been at work here. Nothing wrong with that of course, but the quality is nowhere near up to the standard of Lord Emsworth's contributions, which are the Wikipedia benchmark. I'm not sure I want to read on to the rest of the article, but the other sections seem to have many problems too. For a start, it all reads like a tourist brochure. There are things that jump out at the reader, like the strangely-worded "Westminster borough of London". What's wrong with "City of Westminster", which is the usual way of referring to it? There's also an overuse of the word "British". I'm all for Wikipedia articles being written in an international context, but in this case it looks as if the article has been written by a foreign author for a foreign audience. There's no need for wording like "symbol of British executive power and the centre of the British government" or "Westminster Palace, home of the British bicameral legislature". Choice of words is odd throughout, such as "legislature" (sometimes capitalised, sometimes not), instead of just "Parliament". There are also irritating slips, such as calling Pitt the Younger "England's greatest Prime Minister". There's way too much irrelevant material, such as talk of Westminster's role as the seat of government over the centuries, which duplicates the Westminster article, and a massive over-emphasis on the monarchy. The meetings with the sovereign don't even take place in 10 Downing Street, so there's no need for a whole paragraph on this. This is only scratching the surface, I'm afraid. I don't like to undo people's efforts, but I am sorely tempted to revert to the version of 14 June which was much shorter, but much better. Any comments? 86.136.4.119 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "overview" section is appalling now. Revert it. Morwen - Talk 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This was the offending edit, someone has changed "center" to "centre" since. I guess we're just lucky it didn't proclaim it to be near the Thames River. Morwen - Talk 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

At the moment, the article's a bit heavy on the history of the house. This section at least should be moved further down the page. How about moving the sections under "History" to a new article, History of 10 Downing Street. The 10 Downing Street article could then be a shorter one similar to the June version, with a Main article: History of 10 Downing Street toplink in the history section. JRawle (Talk) 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Comments

I was going to suggest myself, as JRawle has, that the article may need to be divided into two parts or two articles: 1. 10 Downing st - the history of the house and 2. 10 Downing st - the office (inner workings etc. PM, Ministers, etc). My impression a month or so ago was that the article was about the house itself - just as there is an article about the White House and the Taj Mahal and many other buildings - describing the interior and exterior, special features, who lived there, its history etc. I have been trying lately to find non-copyrighted pictures that will support that kind of narrative - pictures of the entrance staircase (before and after 1960), the Cabinet Room at different times showing different PM's seated at the table, Soane's State Room, the Reconstruction in Progress 1960-1964, and so forth. (With no luck so far!!)

However. . . if it was never the intention to have an article about the house itself then by all means PLEASE delete everything I have contributed because it is completely inappropriate.

As for the other comments made about my contributions. . . .

1. I agree the material I have contributed is not in the appropriate style. I have written it more in a narrative style suitable for a monthly popular history magazine NOT for an encyclopedia. I realized this several weeks ago and have been thinking of ways of changing the existing narrative accordingly. The encyclopedia style is not an easy one to adopt and it is taking me a while. I am reading through other articles to get a better feel for it. Obviously, if any of you want to do that ... again by all means feel free!!

2. I also agree the material I have contributed is far to long - there is even a message from Wikipedia to that effect now. I have been reading through the narrative and thinking of how to cut it down. Perhaps doing #1 will achieve this goal as well.

3. As for the spelling and word choices . . . well what can I say? I tend to be a little split-brained about American vs British spellings, wording etc since I am half American and half British. And, spelling has never been a strong suit with me in any case - I was always the first to sit down in class spelling bees.

However, I'm not sure that the spelling and word choices should necessarily be British just because this article is about a British subject. After all, most of the people reading it are NOT likely to be British. By that agrument, anything about Canada should use Canadian spellings and idioms, anything about the United States should use . . . anything about Australia ..... etc etc There are obviously some words that MUST have British spelling/common usage such as people and place names. But other than that, it would be better to use a standard that is found throughout the English version of Wikipedia (if there is one). Given my lifelong problem with spelling I am certainly NOT the one to do that part of this project.

Perhaps I have said enough for now. (Now I will brace myself for more scathing comments from all the highly offended and indignant Brits out there.)

The guidelines on when to use British or American English are at Manual of Style#National varieties of English, the two most relevant points being:
  • Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
  • If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
As you say, place names certainly must be written according to British conventions (e.g. River Thames not Thames River) – that holds true even if writing in American English. But as you can see, the guideline also states that, indeed, you should use the variety of English that is used in the region the article refers to.
Wikipedia's servers may be based in the USA, but its contributers are from all over the world, many even from countries where English is not the first language, but where people have learnt English as a second language – often Commonwealth English. It would be impossible ever to get everyone agreeing on a standard for English throughout Wikipedia, so I think the current guidelines are sensible. JRawle (Talk) 19:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


That makes sense. Thanks.

david

§===Reversion to June 14 Version===

Both Morwen and the unidentified user suggest that all the material I have included over the past two months be deleted and that this article revert to its June 14th version because it is "better". As I said above that is fine with me if you want to do that. I would however like to make a comment about the June 14th version. I am not going to quibble about the word "better". I will only say that when I read the article for the first time back in June, my reaction was that it was completely inadequate. That is not meant as a criticism or attack on anyone. What I mean is that I really did think that it was merely a first or second rough draft and that someone was going to come back to do a lot more work on it - it ceretainly needs it. And, of course, no one has. I think it is inadequate as it is (as of June 14th) for at least two important reasons (there are a few other minor ones):

1. There is no discussion at all of the Treasury Commission. The article refers to the PM's official office as being First Lord of the Treasury Commission but never explains what that commission was historically or is today. As the article stands as of June 14th it is very inadequate on this point. The novice reader is going to be puzzled as to why the PM is actually officially the First Lord Treasury and why the British play such silly games over something as important as this. (To a foreigner, it does appear silly you know. It only begins to make sense after it is explained) To fill in the gaps, to make it complete, the reader needs to know that the Commission was a devise used more often by sovereigns in the 17th century; that Walpole and other First Lords used it to consolidate power in the 18th century; that it faded into disuse as a commission in the 19th century; and that although the Commission no longer meets formally, its members still perform functions in the government, not only the PM but also Chancellor Exchequer and the Junior Lords of the Treasury. etc etc

2. There is no discussion of the Permanent Civil Service: The title "Principle Private Secretary" is mentioned but it is meaningless to a novice reader without some discussion. There is a link, but all you get when you go there is a definition of that title and a list of its holders for the past 200 hundred years. That doesnt explain anything adequately to the novice reader. A few paragraphs explaining the history of the permament civil service and why the permanent civil service has become a vital characteristic of the government today would help the reader a lot. To give some sense of some of the discussion that is missing (and what makes it currently inadequate) here is a quote about it from Prof Fry U of Leeds:

"Britain does not have changes of political regime, because in modern times it has always been a constitutional monarchy with a system of representative government. So, the most that normally happens is that the Labour Party defeats the Conservative Party, or vice versa, at a General Election and inherits the same Civil Service as its predecessor worked with, bringing in a small number of people of its own. Thus, the British Civil Service is a classical Weberian one in the sense that the presumption would be that it would faithfully carry out the preferred policies of the Government of the day irrespective of that Government's political complexion. It is also a Civil Service which would have an independence based on the continuity that resulted from a career commitment on the part of the overwhelming majority of civil servants. The Thatcher era witnessed concerns that the Prime Minister of the day wanted to politicize the career Civil Service, although she was actually using powers over high level promotions that dated from 1920 not to advance political sympathizers, but to attempt to change the culture of the Senior Civil Service."

This discussion of the role of the Permanent Civil Service would help to explain why Tony Blair chose also to be Minister for the Civil Service as well as First Lord and PM.

It is also inadequate because there is some confusing language now about the Chief of Staff and the Principle Private Secretary. Without more historical context, it is all just so many words on the page - nothing more.

If you revert this article back to June 14th and it becomes devoted to "10 Downing Street: the Office and how it is organized and functions" then I strongly suggest that two sections be added: 1. discussion of the Treasury Commission and what all its members currently actually do and 2. discussion of the Permament Civil Service, who they are and the roles they play ensuring stability from one government to the next.

Thats just my suggestion - from a half Brit. Thought I would pass it on for what it is worth. Hope I am not causing trouble . . . Ohhhhh Dear

There are, I'm sure, already plenty pages describing the civil service and the British government as a whole. This is certainly not the article to go into that level of detail. – Smyth\talk 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are pages on the British Civil Service and the Treasury Commission. I am not suggesting a lot of detail only a "context" and some appropriate links to flesh out what is there now. If the reader wants more detail, he/she can go to the links.

"...King James I’s four-year-old son Prince Charles (the future King Charles II)..." James I was Charles II's grandfather.--87.80.44.52 03:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended Reorganization

I have some observations.

First: There are two major topics in this article: 1. The Office and 2. The House.

Second: The article would read better if the narrative covers The Office first rather than second as it is now.

Third: Under the topic "The House", there are currently six subtopics when only five are needed. I think there should only be two sections after the section called "The First Lord's House." These would be "My Vast Awkward House 1735-1902" and "A Precious Jewel 1902 to Present". This revision would make sense historically, would clean up the narrative making it easier to follow and might shorten the article.

Forth: One or two pictures in the subsections under "The House" seem to be misplaced historically and may need to be shifted.

Given these observations, I recommend we revise the outline (and of course the narrative and picture arrangement) as follows:

1. Overview

2. 10 Downing Street: The Office

 2.1 The Prime Minister's Office
 2.2 Security
 2.3 Media Relations

3. 10 Downing Street: The House

 3.1 The "House At The Back": Before 1733
 3.2 George Downing's House:  Before 1733
 3.3 The First Lord's House: 1733-1735
 3.4 "My Vast Awkward House": 1735-1902
 3.5 A Precious Jewel: 1902 to present

4. Chart: Residents of Ten Downing Street and The House at the Back (1650-present)

5. References

6. See Also

7. External Links

Alternatively, we could, as has already been suggested, split this article into two basing the two new articles on the topics: "The Office" and "The House".

Comments?


[edit] Tony Blair.

The article says that Tony Blair has lived at 10 Downing Street since 1997. I seem to recall that in fact Gordon Brown lived at No. 10, at least during the first few years of this period, because the private apartments were too small for the Blair family. Can anyone confirm this please. Gadsby West 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does the Cabinet Room really have a thick metal failsafe doors?

In an episode of the 2005 season of Doctor Who (World War Three (Doctor Who)), the Cabinet Room is shown to have a several-foot-thick metal shell hidden by the woodwork, with panels that slam closed over the doors and windows on cue to protect the occupants against attack. It is explained that this was installed in 1991.

Is this for real, or did they make this up out of whole cloth?

--Nomad Of Norad 23:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the metal work but the windows of the cabinet room are bomb proof. This is because in the early 90's while the cabinet was sitting (under PM John Major) the IRA fired a rocket at the building shattering the glass etc so they beefed up the security. I also reas somewhere that the room is soundproofed so the cabinet can converse in secrecy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.189.225 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Late 1870s residents

This page claims Disraeli occupied Number 10, but on Downing Street#Who lives where it states it was his Chancellor, Sir Stafford Northcote - under a similar arrangement to today. Which is right? Timrollpickering 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access to Downing St

The article says that "People are still allowed access to the street, providing prior security checks are run and they adhere to certain protocol." This is incredibly vague, and appears to be unreferenced. Which people? When? What sort of protocol? Etc etc etc. 86.149.0.139 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Residence of the Prime Minister

I was just reading the opening paragraph, and it does not seem very useful that it states that '10 Downing Street is the residence of the Prime Minister etc.' and then, a few sentences later 'Actually it is the residence of the First Lord of the Secretary.' Shouldn't this be changed? MadJaxter 13:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zero

Anyone know why the zero in the number "10" on the front door looks so askew? It's been like that for as long as I can remember. 195.188.208.250 10:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"there has been a cat at 10 downing street since the days of henry viii"

i call bull as the office of Prime Minister didnt exist during henry's time.

[edit] pictures

There is currently only one picture of the house, and that is only of the front door. Couldn't we have a few more pictures of the building itself, rather then the number of portraits of former prime ministers which currently occupy the page? Rudy Breteler (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. A picture of the Cabinet Room, especially, would be a great addition to the article. Surely there must be a free picture somewhere... And if not, a petition could be made for a picture to be released; for it to be successful, of course, the article would first have to be of a very high quality. Quite far from what it is now, that is, in spite of the great wealth of information that can be found in it. Waltham, The Duke of 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling?

According to the Reuters and BBC references listed at Talk:Chief_Mouser_to_the_Cabinet_Office, Gordon Brown is now living at 11 Downing Street, and Alistair Darling at 10 Downing Street, but this article disagrees. Could someone with some actual knowledge of British government residences (or at least a better grasp of what sources are reliable in this area) please check on this and correct whichever articles need correcting? John Darrow (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)