Jump to content

Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrDolomite (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 6 December 2006 (moved Template:intro length to article, instead of here on talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Template:V0.5

Powers and Restraints

The section on "powers and restraints" suddenly mentions Gordon Brown without explaining who he is. Brown is mentioned again in the next section, "precedence and privileges", but the fact that he is Chancellor of the Exchequer should be explained on first mention.

Perhaps more importantly, the section "powers and restraints" appears to suggest that "many sources such as former ministers have suggested that decision-making is centered around him [the Prime Minister] and Gordon Brown" backs up the argument that "there has gradually been a change from Cabinet decision making and deliberation to the dominance of the Prime Minister".

In fact, although it does suggest a decline in the authority of the Cabinet as an institution, it actually suggests that "the dominance of the Prime Minister" is not an accurate description of the way the British Government operates. Some space should be given to the argument that the Prime Minister is currently constrained by the need to secure the agreement of the Chancellor.

This argument is frequently pursued by the opposition Conservative Party and by sections of the media. For example, the Chancellor, not the Prime Minister, decides how the Government's annual budget will be spent. http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=1076442004

I am not suggesting references to "the dominance of the Prime Minister" should be deleted, merely that the argument that the situation is more complicated than this should also be acknowledged. Hobson 01:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"of the United Kingdom

When does of the United Kingdom apply? There should be an of England somewhere here. -- Zoe

The office of the Prime Minister did not exist in the Kingdom of England but was created during the Kingdom of Great Britain, though it did not receive constitutional status until the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at the start of the twentieth century. JTD 05:01 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Well, either way, this title doesn't apply to those prior to the creation of the United Kingdom. -- Zoe

It does. Can't you see the picture of Walpole? Calling the article PM of the United Kingdom is accurate since that is the name of the country. "England" doesn't exist as a sovereign political state and hasn't done since 1707. Lapafrax 19:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zoe. I would have thought that it is commonly held that the PM is the PM of Great Britain, not the UK. I've always thought that the UK includes Ireland and they have thier own PM. Also if England doesn't exist how come they still have a flag and an Army and a soccer team? The reference sounds obscure, even if it is technically correct doesn't the actuality and popular belief have some relevance here? Even if it only needs to be mentioned. Axle.

check out British Isles (terminology). UK has, at different times, meant both United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and (currently) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, depending on Ireland's status/independance. Also England doesn't exist as a sovereign state. We don't have an army, just as Rhode Island soesn't have one, though Rhode Island perhaps has more sovereignty within America than England does in the UK.--Mongreilf 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

"I've always thought that the UK includes Ireland and they have thier own PM." You really are stupid then. What's your opinion got to do with reality? 83.70.30.82 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't say England but to properly include everyone from Walpole on it should perhaps be "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister of Great Britain" although that is a bit long. hmmm A Geek Tragedy 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"semi-president"

I removed the term 'semi-president' from the article as it is unclear what this phrase means and fails the google test. Perhaps quasi-presidential might be better? Pcb21 10:45 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

'semi-president' is a term widely used informally (eg, in political science lectures to students studying politics) to describe the role of the PM. It means, as the name suggests, half-president, ie taking on the leadership role of president but not the ceremonial head of state role, with the Queen exercises. Quasi president suggests an evolution to a form of presidency. That is not accurate. Blair and other PMs have not taken on a presidential role in all its aspects, merely a more dominant political leadership role, hence semi-president.

As to the ridiculous google test, I do wish people would stop presuming google had some authority. It doesn't. Much of what google throws up is utter garbage. For example, a google test proves Prince Charles' name is Charles Windsor throwing up tens of thousands of references to prove that. Except that is crap. As Buckingham Palace confirmed when I was checking his name for wiki, his name is Charles Mountbatten-Windsor yet google has only a handful of references to that. I could fill this page with google searchs that produce produce similar monumental factual inaccuracies. Among other errors, it gives wrong names to people like William Ewart Gladstone, Lord John Russell, etc. STÓD/ÉÍRE 17:29 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

When I was having all that trouble over Richard Burton (actor), I found that nearly every web site listed on google repeated the same error about his university career. And of course, common incorrect spellings can deliberately be used as key words, just as we use redirects. Deb 17:34 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

(response to Jtdirl)

Oops, sorry! I was obviously too bold in editing. However, I wonder if this 'informal' term can be perhaps be explained better in the encyclopedia article. At the moment it is only defined by a list of examples and as such sounds, to an interested but essentially ignorant observer, as a made-up term! Now if something sounds made up, I don't think a google test is a completely unreasonable thing to carry out. The wikipedia is the only place in the google cache where 'semi-president' and 'Prime Minister' are mentioned on the same page. There are clearly very few sets of Political Science lecture notes available online! I don't doubt what you are saying and obviously am happy with the revert but I hope you can appreciate where I was coming from in making my edit.
Further, the problem both you and Deb cite with the 'google test' is that factual errors abound on the internet. Very true. However, I was searching for the existence of a word. Hardly the same thing! Pcb21 09:17 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
(later) I carried out the following search on JSTOR for my own interest You asked to search articles in: American Journal of International Law, American Political Science Review, International Organization, Journal of Politics, Midwest Journal of Political Science, Political Science Quarterly, Public Opinion Quarterly, World Politics, American Journal of Political Science, and Proceedings of the American Political Science Association for ("semi-president" OR "semi-presidential" or "semi president" or "semi-presidential").
There were (only) 10 hits, ranging from 1958 (a paper describing Hitler's government as semi-presidential) through to 1999 (a paper describing the politics of Supreme Court nominations. The phrase I searched for doesn't actually occur, but "semi-constrained president" does). I admit this search is not ideal because the journals are American and may also not contain the text of the latest journals, which are obviously need if we want to include Blair's government. However it all goes to show that we need to be clear when using the phrase in our article Pcb21 09:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
(Six days later) I added an explanation myself as I still feel it necessary. Hope that's OK. Pcb21 11:07 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to get back to the page. The changes do help clarify the phrase. I might tweak one or two words, but overall it is a good change. ÉÍREman 20:44 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

In any case, the term semi-president is incorrect as Britain does not have a President. It would be more accurate to use either of the terms, "semi-presidential style" or even, "presidential style". As in, "semi presidential style of government".

bios

Okay, I've been adding (rather lame) prime minister bios right and left. Now there's a bio for everyone back as far as 1783. I'll try to finish it up. A couple of questions:

First, what do people think of the lists of members of various prime ministers cabinets that I've been including in the prime minister bios? Currently, I have it from the Fox-North coalition (listed under Portland) to Baldwin's third government. I probably can expand it to show Chamberlain's cabinets, and Churchill's coalition and care-taker cabinet, but I couldn't get it past that.

Second, I've been contemplating starting an article on the positions of Lord Treasurer and First Lord of the Treasury, the precursors to the Prime Minister. The problem is, for a while these positions overlapped - you'd have a Lord Treasurer, and then the treasury would go into commission and there'd be a first commissioner or first lord, and then there'd be a lord treasurer again, until 1714. Trying to discuss the two in separate articles would be problematic, but if there is to be one article, what should it be called? [[Treasury]] is open, but that seems a bit presumptuous, given all the other meanings of Treasury. john 07:44 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi John. No real definitive suggestions in response to your questions, I'm afraid, but I did just want to say that I have been following your progress through the list, watching screen the turn from red to blue and wanted to thank you for the work you have been doing. The bios seem to be better than 'rather lame' to me. As for the cabinet data I think it is very good that this data is in the 'pedia. It may possibly be better to have pages Cabinet of the UK 18xx to 19xx with links to the bios of people we have bios for and also links to the previous cabinet page and the next one. The years would match the Prime Minsters with changes listed as currently in the bio articles ( I expect the changes list gets longer as we get closer to now!) However this would take a lot of grunt work which would be better spent with the bios, IMO. As for the Treasury article, I would guess First Lord of the Treasury is the best name, with appropiate redirects and early mention of the Commissions, but my knowledge is a bit sketchy that far back, I would have to read your article! Thanks again. Pcb21 17:36 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Glad to see my work is appreciated. Thanks for the word of confidence. Specific Cabinet Pages might be a good idea. If you want to split them off, feel free. For the Treasury, I'm thinking "Lord Treasurer". This was the basic office, and was more used in the period before the institution of a Prime Minister. The "First Lord of the Treasury" only came about when the Treasury went into commission. Since 1714, the Treasury has always been in commission john 17:51 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Why the edit wars?

Err...why don't we discuss whether or not the list should be on this page, rather than edit warring it? A major change like that ought to be discussed on the talk page before being gone ahead with. Why is the list too long? What do you mean by that? Is it really so problematic? john 20:31, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand what "too long" means in this context. Too long for what? What is the reason for taking the context of the list out of the page, and moving somewhere else? Mintguy 13:39, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The list is something like 100+ PMs long, too long, in my opinion, I don't see why we can't have a separate page with a list, even so, it would be good to keep the nicely organized table I spent a good amount of time creating to make it easier to read.Vancouverguy 22:52, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I make it about 75 Prime Ministers.. 100 years or so before we get to 100. We could have a separate article and list but I so no compelling reason why we should do that or why the page is 'too long' when they are combined. Personally I like the look of the HTML table you created... and for me the optimum solution would be to put that table on this page... however some people don't like tables... I'm not sure why! Pete 23:05, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Agreed; I've merged it back in and neatened the HTML. And for the record, it's 72.
James F. 23:06, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Alright, I give up. Put it where you want it. Vancouverguy 23:07, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Don't like clumsy table

Can we revert this back to the way it was. The simple list was much better than this clumsy table. Mintguy 17:21, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. This is one location where I think that the use of the table is justified; it is actually being used to tabulate data (!) rather than merely act as a bodge for visual formatting. I like it.
James F. 17:56, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't -- I think the old layout was much more readable. Arwel 18:04, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the new table is much more professional and impressive than the list that was here before. Well done. FearÉIREANN 21:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Either my book is totally wrong, or this table is. My book lists Pitt as the Prime Minister in 1757 -- followed by Bute. LirQ

Compare the list here with that at http://www.btinternet.com/~spansoft/data/tl_brpm.txt LirQ
Hmm. Well, according to [1], Pitt-the-elder was PM from 1766-68, and on Secretary of State from 1757-61 (which differs from our table by a year; will correct); OTOH, [2], as well as your source, states that he was Prime Minister for both periods (note that William Pitt and the Earl of Chatham are the same person. It's possible there's some level of confusion as to what the term Secretary of State means to be people creating said sources; I would suggest that Number 10 would be the ones most likely to get it correct, though... :-).
James F. 15:09, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There was no official office of "prime minister" until 1905. The Prime Minister usually held the office of "First Lord of the Treasury", the office held by Walpole from 1721 to 1742, when he became the "first prime minister." But, the First Lord was not necessarily the most powerful minister at any particular time. Frequently, a Secretary of State would actually be directing affairs. Notably: 1742-1744, when Lord Carteret was Secretary of State, he directed affairs rather than the First Lords, Wilmington and Pelham. 1744-1754, when Pelham was essentially joint prime minister with his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State. 1756-1757, when Pitt, as Secretary of State, ran a ministry technically headed by the Duke of Devonshire. 1757-1761, when Pitt, as secretary of state, jointly ran the ministry with Newcastle as First Lord. 1761-1762, Newcastle ran the ministry jointly with Bute as Secretary of State. 1766-1768, the Duke of Grafton was First Lord, while Chatham was theoretically head of the ministry as Lord Privy Seal. Chatham, however, was not actually running things for most of this time, as he had some sort of disease or breakdown (can't recall which) that kept him from political involvement. In 1783, the Duke of Portland theoretically headed a ministry of which the effective leaders were Fox and North, as Secretaries of State. The "Ministry of All the Talents" was, at least initially, a pretty equal partnership between Lord Grenville as First Lord and C.J. Fox as Foreign Secretary. After Fox's death Grenville might be seen as effectively PM. And then, later in the century, you get Lord Salisbury, indisputably prime minister, but generally not First Lord (except briefly from 1886 to 1887) - rather he was Foreign Secretary (1885-1886, 1887-1892, 1895-1900) and Lord Privy Seal (1900-1902). So, anyway, until 1905, the listing isn't very neat. john 02:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Can you remember who was the last prime minister not to be also First Lord of the Treasury? I think it may be be Salisbury at the end of the 19th century. FearÉIREANN 18:13, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yup, Salisbury was Foreign Secretary (1895-1900) and then Lord Privy Seal (1900-1902) in his last ministry. Balfour was First Lord for the whole 1895-1905 period. In his previous ministries, Salisbury had only for a few months in late 1886 been First Lord. Otherwise (1885-1886, 1887-1892) he'd been Foreign Secretary. Prior to Salisbury, the last one is arguably Chatham in 1766-1768, when he was Lord Privy Seal and Grafton was First Lord. But Portland was only very dubiously PM in his first ministry, at least, and Fox was at least as important as Grenville in the first months of the All the Talents ministry.john 01:05, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jeez, you know your stuff. I'm impressed. I guess that means Salisbury though PM didn't live at 10 Downing Street, as that is the residence of the First Lord. I might tweek the article to mention that. That last PM not to live at No. 10 (excluding Blair who lives in Number 11) was I think Major, who lived in Admiralty House in the aftermath of the IRA mortar attack on Number 10. Of course Wilson also lived at Admiralty House when No. 10 was demolished and rebuilt after the found that it was structurally unsound (shades of the White House in the mid 1940s, when Truman lived in Blair House and the White House was reduced to a shell and rebuilt). When they checked they found that Number 10's Downing St. front isn't black at all. Cleaning showed the black was pollution. The actual colour of the brickwork was yellow. But after considering having a yellow Downing St. they decided against and so painted the newly cleaned yellow frontage black to keep the 'traditional' look. FearÉIREANN 02:23, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm also not keen on the large table at the end of the article. Is there any strong objection to making it a seperate entry w/ link?

Ramsay MacDonald and Labour Party

I just noticed an error, it states that Ramsay MacDonald's 1929-1935 was labour when in fact only during 1929-1930 was it labour, he spent the rest of his premiership as head of the National Government G-Man 17:54, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, it's saying Ramsay MacDonald was Labour, not his cabinet. Which he was. After 1931, he was "National Labour", I suppose, but that's hard to indicate. I mean, it calls Lloyd George a Liberal during his government, which is even more inaccurate, since the Liberal party was actually opposed to his government throughout (as opposed to MacDonald, who was only opposed to the Labour Party for the second part of his ministry). john 01:05, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
But Ramsay MacDonald was expelled from the Labour Party on 28 September 1931. So he was and Independent from that point on. Mintguy

was Pitt a Prime Minister?

In the official 10 Downing biography, it is said that Pitt served as Prime Minister; however, the person above states that the title "prime minister" wasn't used until 1905 -- who is right? The list of First Lords doesn't list the elder Pitt at all, so if he wasn't First Lord...then what was he? Lirath Q. Pynnor


Other sources state that he became Secretary of State, in 1757

Secretary of State for what!? Mintguy 02:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The southern department. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Apparently he was neither First Lord, nor Prime Minister; but, in fact, the Lord Privy Seal. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It is rather confusing. Basically different titles within the system of government were used for the first or prime minister in the cabinet at different periods. Sometimes it was Lord Privy Seal, earlier Lord Chancellor, sometimes Secretary of State (which at the time did not need qualification as the concept of multiple Secretaries of State is a relatively new phenomenon in UK constitutional theory). Usually the head of government was and is First Lord of the Treasury (hence they live at the First Lord's residence, 10 Downing Street, while the Second Lord of the Treasury, a post held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, lives at the Second Lord's residence, next door at Number 11.) Prime Minister first came officially into being in 1905, but had been used without legal existence since the eighteenth century; the PM up to 1905 exercised powers as First Lord or as the holder of other offices, but not as PM. Because there is no British constitution in the sense of a single text, no-one can say, as one could elsewhere, 'office 'x' was created in an amendment in year 'y'. Its critics call the British constitution haphazard and a mess, its supporters call it organic and flexible. But it does make clarity rather difficult in some cases to work out who and what.

Usually from Pitt it can be said that one cabinet minister was always senior, the person who from George I on chaired the cabinet, the minister who briefed the monarch, the minister who spoke for the ministry in whichever House he was based, the minister in whose official residence the cabinet met. He came to be called, on account of his seniority, the prime minister. Gradually additional powers and roles came to be played by this prime minister; the selection of ministers (as royal involvement in the process of cabinet government died away), the dismissal of ministers, the selection of portfolios for ministers, and from 1918 the sole power to advise the monarch on a dissolution of parliament (until 1918, the cabinet took the decision, with the Prime Minister simply communicating the decision to the monarch). The office underwent constant evolution; starting as in effect merely the stand-in chair of the cabinet in the absence of the monarch, the person who in an era of strong leaders (Wellington, Peel, Disraeli, Gladstone) and popular sovereignty after the Great Reform Act personified the ministry, the person who shaped the ministry (or government as it came to be called, under Lloyd George and Churchill), to the dominant force, as a form of quasi-presidential figure under Wilson, Thatcher and Blair. Unofficial tradition often became codified in law or through practice, though unless written down in law it is often difficult to know when exactly this or that specific change occured, as it evolved slowly. All we can say clearly is when some big changes occured; MPs not peers as PM (1963), PMs not cabinet deciding on elections (1918), first official mention of the PM's office (1905), etc. FearÉIREANN 19:33, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point - there have been at least two concurrent secretaries of state since before Walpole and the concept of Prime Minister. One of whom would sometimes be referred to as the principal secretary of state. Reorganised in 1660 to become responsible for the Northern Department (for Protestant Northern Europe) and the Southern Department (for Catholic southern Europe, and later Ireland and also the colonies). Mintguy 21:52, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I believe the term "Principal Secretary of State" was used for *all* Secretaries of State. So that, say, both Pitt, the actual director of the ministry from 1757-1761, and his colleague Holdernesse, a complete cipher, were "Principal Secretaries of State"...but I'm willing to be corrected. john 23:29, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is the term of the British prime minister?

I have moved the anonymous comment below and Chinju's response from the introduction of this page to this section. Hobson 01:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, unlike most Presidents, British Prime Ministers do not have "terms" stemming from General Elections, since their terms of office continue through Elections and are only ended by resignation, dismissal, or death. Margaret Thatcher only had one term of office, even though she won three Elections, and Tony Blair is still in his first term of office.

How does this square with the many references at the Tony Blair article to his three terms? -Chinju 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Ministers do not have terms. However, they are commonly referred to as serving a number of terms which actually refers to the number of terms of Parliament during which they have held the office. For example, see this story on the BBC news website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553403.stm. It may be technically incorrect, but it is widely-used. Having said that, "length of office" might make more sense than term. The Wikipedia entry itself implies (correctly) that there is in fact no such thing as the "term" served by a prime minister. Hobson 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the term of office of British prime minister? Please include in article. - Hemanshu 11:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no fixed term. A General Election must be called within 5 years of Parliament assembling after the last one, but it can be called at any time before then. - Arwel 13:00, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is that strictly true? I thought there had to be an election every 7 years (the Septennial Act? sp?) but that a parliament could not sit for more than 5 years without special legislation (1939-1945). However there is a need for a Parliament to be in place each year to pass a Budget and keep the Army in being (see Bill of Rights). The time between the 1992 and 1997 elections was just over 5 years. --Henrygb 22:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Septennial Act was effectively ammendmended by the 1911 Parliament Act to be the Quintennial Act. Timrollpickering 23:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
9th April 1992 and 1st May 1997. Remember that the 1992 Parliament would not have assembled until the following week, say the 13th or 14th April, and it would have been dissolved at least 3 weeks before the following election, so its total existence was just a fraction under 5 years -- in fact Major delayed calling an election until just about the last possible moment. -- Arwel 00:32, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
But that is just my point: parliament could not sit for more than five years, but the time between elections can be and indeed has been longer. The House of Commons Library note suggests that allowing an old parliament to expire is a "highly unlikely event", but all that means is that it has not happened recently. You easily imagine an election being postponed for a few weeks, if the Prime Minister had a good reason. --Henrygb 16:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Constitutionally the prime minister enters office by Kissing Hands and so being appointed. He or she leaves office when they either resign (after losing a general election, a budget vote or a confidence motion) or are dismissed, though the latter has not happened for centuries. Prime Ministerial appointments aren't linked to parliaments given that there is no parliamentary vote on the selection of a pm. (The nearest equivalent is the vote on the Queen's Speech, which, if it was rejected, amounts to a loss of confidence as so requires his resignation.) If a prime minister's party holds control of the House of Commons, they simply continue in power; they are not re-appointed, though the use the opportunity of the beginning of a new parliament after a general election to reshuffle the cabinet. So Margaret Thatcher was prime minister once; she was appointed in 1979 and remained pm continually in the post until she resigned. Blair has been pm once, since 1997. In the early 1970s Ted Heath initially chose not to resign after a general election defeat until he explored the prospect of forming a coalition government with the Liberals. Only when the talks failed did Heath formally resign, and only when he had done so did the Queen commission Harold Wilson to form a government. FearÉIREANN 20:56, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The last time a PM was dismissed was Lord Melbourne in November 1834. When was the last time a Prime Minister resigned, and was reappointed with no intervening PM? I know this happened with Melbourne in 1839, but I imagine it's happened more recently - MacDonald in 1931, perhaps? john 07:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Winston Churchill in May 1945. He resigned as PM of the coalition government and then "kissed hands" to accept the King's commision to form a "caretaker government" to run the country until the election. There were a number of times in the 19th century when a government was defeated in the Commons and resigned but took office again when it was clear no alternative government could be formed. Gladstone did quite a bit of this. Timrollpickering 23:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pitt the Elder and Bute dates

Lir raised some questions about the table of PMs in the eighteenth century in the Wiki Requests for Peer Review. Perhaps we could improve this article's discussion of how the office evolved, but her specific question was about order and dates for specific ministries.

I've checked several sources for the Wiki list and its dates and sequence. I'm primarily relying on two books (with some risk since both come from J.H. Plumb of Cambridge): The First Four Georges and Chatham. The entire office was evolving in the 18th century, and wasn't always coupled with another specific ministry (e.g. 1st Lord of the Treasury). Other questions are raised by the general attempt in the table to use one (or sometimes two dates) to presume an instant transition. Since they were frequently messy affairs, no single table can do justice to the events. That said, my general inclination is to leave the table alone, its about as good as can be without involved discussions, which might fit into individual articles, but not here. (I might make only one date change, to the Devonshire-Newcastle transition to 29 June on both sides) There are two specific questions Lir raised at issue here:

  1. Was Pitt (Chatham) a PM in 1757? - This transition, and a couple on either side, was just confusing. There was a gap between PMs. The question is how big, and who was in charge during it. The king ordered Cavendish out on June 25, and he resigned on June 29. On July 2 Newcastle agreed to return, and formed a government (shuffling offices of others) in about a week or ten days. For a brief time during the shuffle, Pitt was the senior officer at Treasury (but 1st Lord was vacant). Does that make Pitt the acting PM? My conclusion is to leave the table stand, since I haven't any clearer record to make.
  2. Are the dates for John Stuart (Lord Bute) correct? To state the conclusion first: Leave the dates alone, they're as good as any single date cold be. After George III became king in 1760, Newcastle's government was on increasingly shaky ground. Bute, who had been George's tutor, came into the cabinet and exerted continuously increasing influence. But Newcastle held on, even though he lost on some specific issues. Getting out of continental alliances (especially German ones) and the Seven Year's War, along with revenue needs were becoming major issues. We could seriously question the date used in the Wikipedia dates for this transition, but I don't have a better one to suggest.

Hope this helps, Lou I 18:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • So then, it would appear, that the table is wrong. We just don't know how to fix it. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Yes, its wrong. But, there can't be any usable table that doesn't contain some oversimplifaction. Given the limits of space and style for a table, I think its close to as good as can be. So I don't think of it as wrong, but inaccurate. Just as 3.14 is an inaccurate (but not wrong) value for Pi. Sometimes you want t use 3.14159, which is closer but still innacurate. The question here is what degree of accuracy is useful to the reader. Too much data confuses, too little promotes ignorance. Lou I 14:30, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Images and table

I was just comparing the look of this page with President of the United States. We need some images! They use (in order from top to bottom of the page):

  • Seal of the President of the United States official impression
  • George Washington 1st President (1789-1797)
  • Abraham Lincoln 16th President (1861-1865)
  • Theodore Roosevelt 26th President (1901-1909)
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt 32nd President (1933-1945)
  • John F. Kennedy 35th President (1961-1963)
  • North side of the White House

Before I saw that list, I was going to say that Blair should be included by default, but perhaps that isn't necessary. We could have a quick discussion on who's significant enough to include (and pragmatically, we might consider which PMs already have good photos uploaded to wikipedia). Is there something equivelant to the official seal that would be relevant to this article?

Also, for those who don't like the look of the table, check out their table, it's more streamlined, and colour-coded for parties which looks good. Fabiform 23:22, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say Walpole, Pitt the Younger, Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Thatcher, Blair would be good candidates for pictures. (of course, Campbell-Bannerman was the first to officially hold the office of "Prime Minister", as opposed to it as an unofficial office). I don't think there's an official seal that would have to do with the Prime Minister - the Great Seal is held by the Lord Chancellor, and the Privy Seal by the Lord Privy Seal. john 01:08, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jdforrester - I like what you did to the table. I streamlined it a little bit (removed boarders). I don't really know which pictures would be best. I'd definately agree with Churchill, Thatcher, Blair as being a reasonable modern selection, as for the more historic PMs, it's not really my specialist subject. Fabiform 03:18, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No problem; it was something to do whilst the tea was brewing. I've further split the entered/left office dates into two columns. The colours were picked based on the current party's approximate colours, lightened greatly, with the 3 other complementary colours assigned to the other three main groups (Whigs, National Government, and Tory/Unionists).
James F. (talk) 03:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Is it me, or are the colours, particular the violet Whigs, a bit light/bright? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
At the moment the colour for the Whigs is too similar to the colour for Labour. Can we use a green or something? Mintguy (T) 11:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Right, if you have a look here: Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/Images you can see images of the PMs mentioned so far. Comments, additional pictures, nominations, votes, etc.... Who should be featured on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? -- Fabiform 04:53, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Most Senior"?

Is it technically correct to say that the PM is the most senior member of HM Government? The Lord Chancellor is higher in precedence, certainly. What exactly does "most senior" mean? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he is the leader of HM Government? john 04:36, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to list Fox&North in 1783 instead of Portland, then we should list Pitt as PM from 1756 to 1757, Pitt&Newcastle for 1757-1761, and Bute&Newcastle for 1761-1762. It should also have Carteret for 1742-1744. john 05:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that Portland was considered officially to be the Prime Minister in the coalition as a figure head. In 1757-62 Newcastle was acknowledged as the headof the administration. I think the rule of thumb is whoever the monarch commissions to form an administration, not who the strong men of the government are. Timrollpickering 10:30 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is my feeling as well. I'm going to reinstate Portland. john 04:32, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wellington in 1834

I think Wellington was only standing in for Peel and did not formally form a government - he actually decline William IV's commission in favour of Peel. I don't think he is considered Prime Minister, merely someone acting as head of the government whilst the PM is incapacitated or the post is vacant. Timrollpickering 14:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is a fair point - but the previous list had Peel as PM from November 1834 when the bio gives December. Melbourne certainly left in November. There are satirical cartoons of a Cabinet table with Wellington sitting in every chair. So I put in "caretaker" next to Wellington's name and a more detailed explanation in the Wellington article. Are there any other examples of vacancies with caretakers? --Henrygb 00:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CUstomary honours

Currently in the article:

There are currently four former Prime Ministers still alive. As is customary, all but one have since been granted honours

Is it really customary that there is one living prime minister without honours. Or is it supposed to mean that all ex-Prime Ministers get honours? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One would assume the latter. Although it's not quite true, is it? Former PMs who retire from the commons are generally raised to the peerage. But ones still sitting in the Commons are not usually given honors, so far as I'm aware. And knighthoods seem to be very occasional - the only one I can think of in recent history is for Heath (Churchill got his while he was PM, and Eden and Douglas-Home before they became PMs). john 09:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wilson was knighted shortly after he stood down - he did not become a peer for another seven years. I think both Thatcher and Callaghan are knights, though their peerages take precedence.

Is it even true? Major is a CH, Thatcher an LG and a Baroness, Callaghan a KG and a Baron and Heath a KG. They certainly sound like honours to me... Proteus 12:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Colo(u)r-coded List

The list of PMs is color-coded by party, but there's no key, which limits the effectiveness. -- orthogonal 00:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I originally picked the 8 colours furthest apart in hues for a given saturation/luminence pair, and assigned them approximately-sensibly (i.e., red to Labour, blue to Tories, yellow to Liberals) to those governments of the most common parties, and so are somewhat self-explanatory, I had thought... I'm not so sure now that it is so clear, however.
James F. (talk) 01:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, the colors make sense, although I used to associate Red with the US Democratic Party and Blue with Republican, but then in 2000 the major networks switched the colors, and now "Red State" and "Blue State" have entered the political lexicon with (to me) completely counter-intuitive meanings. I don't object to the color choices, I just point out that (especially to non-UKers) a key would make the meanings of the colors clearer. -- orthogonal 01:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For a time, the media custom in the United States was to assign blue to the incumbent party and red to the challenger. (The parties themselves use both colors pretty indiscriminately.) I'm not sure how this evolved into GOP=red and Dem=blue, but I imagine the change occurred after a period of Democratic control of the White House (during which time they would be the "blue" party). Funnyhat 02:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

America's use of colors reversed from the rest of the world's dates back earlier than 2000. (It's fair to say, though, that this election locked them in permanently -- previously, not every media outlet had always concurred.) I think to most Americans our colors are actually intuitive: Republicans (as Americans see it) are harsh (red); Democrats are wishy-washy (blue). The whole "socialism and unions = red" thing isn't really a part of American consciousness. As far as this article is concerned, though, I don't think a key is needed -- each line already mentions the prime minister's party by name! The color merely highlights this. I do wonder, though, why the whigs' color is closer to labour's than to the Liberals'. Surely, since the liberals grew from the whigs, their colors should be the ones to be similar. Doops 02:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eerm. As you were writing that there's no need for a key (and you have a point) I was Labouriously putting one together with a Liberal use of html table codes. But I won't Whig out if you prefer to be Conservative and Peel-it away with a revert. After all, we must work to compromise on Wikipedia, forming a united Coalition. -- orthogonal 02:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Can I suggest we use green for the entirity of the National Government (1931-1940) and it's near sequel, the Caretaker government. At the time the former was regarded as a constinuous unit and more than a party government, whilst the latter had a significant portion of non-Conservatives in it. Timrollpickering 20:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I used as key colo(u)rs the colors already being used in the list, so "'that's not my department' says Wernher von Braun". Convince James F., who came up withg the colors initially. -- orthogonal 21:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There, is that what you wanted? I suppose that makes more sense, in a way.
Of course, the best thing to do is be bold, and just make the changes yourself :-)
James F. (talk) 21:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would have done if not beaten to it but wanted to run the idea here first given a number of discussions first. I've changed the chart so Churchill's 1940-1945 government has the standard coalition colours to distinguish it from the National Government. I've used the same colours for the National Government and the 1945 two month Caretaker government since politically they were more or less the same (Conservatives, Liberal Nationals and non-party "Nationals"). Timrollpickering 23:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the earlier portion of the list...First: Should Lord Grenville be considered a "Whig"? He was a former supporter of Pitt, and his supporters, the Grenvillites, were distinct from Fox and Grey's Whigs, with whom (along with the Sidmouthites) they formed the "Government of All the Talents". Perhaps this should be noted as a coalition of some sort, and color coded as such. Similarly, the Canning and Goderich governments were effectively coalitions, with prominent Whigs like Lamb and Lansdowne participating. As such, perhaps a different color scheme from the more orthodoxly tory Liverpool and Wellington administrations that preceded and followed them would be in order. Finally, in the early period of George III - the governments between Bute and North, inclusive, the normal Whig/Tory distinction is hard to make. Bute is always called a "Tory", but I think this was more a term of abuse by his opponents than him being part of any organized "Tory" party, which didn't exist at the time in any real way. By the time of North, the term "Tory" was still being used as abuse, but a recognizable embryo of Pitt's Tory party was starting to emerge, so the use of Tory is probably appropriate. What about the guys in between? The only one that I think is in any way clear is Rockingham's, which was old line Newcastle Whigs. But the politics of the period were essentially factional, and you have some factions that are proto-Whigs (primarily Rockingham's), some that are proto-Tories (the "King's Party", or whatever), and others that are just very difficult to classify (the Chathamites, for instance. Or the Bedfordites, or George Grenville and his followers). The color coding seems to me to suggest a degree of uniformity which is misleading, although I'm not sure the best way to handle this. BTW, what happened to "National Labour" after MacDonald and Snowden were gone from the scene? john k 20:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay there is a big problem with a lot of party labels in the eighteenth century. Different historians have different opinions on whether there was a party system and sometimes it's not clear if "Whig" and "Tory" more mean an individual's philosophy than a clearly organised party.
There was a very clear party system in the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714) with Whigs and Tories fiercely competing. However the Tories deeply offended the future George I when they signed the Treaty of Utrecht - he believed that Hannover had been abandoned and so when he aceded he made it clear he would dismiss them from office.
For the next 45 years the Whigs were politically dominant but there were a number of factions - often they're described as "Court Whigs" and "Opposition Court Whigs" (with the opposition court often being that of the Prince of Wales), with much fluidity. There was still a rump Tory Party on the fringes.
The first 23 years of George III's reign is much harder. Bute is described as a Tory which I think is a pretty accurate summation of his political philosophy but he was very much a "King's Man" and not in any way a conventional party politician. With the Pitt-Newcastle ministry commanding all round support a lot of party distinctions faded away. The "parties" of the period c1760-c1784 are very much individual factions - there were for example the Pitt the Elder/Chathamite/Selbournite Whigs, the Newcastle/Rockingham/Fox Whigs and so on. Individual politicians are difficult to place at times - Lord North started out a Whig but was head of a predominantly Tory ministry. Many individual ministers remained in the same posts in successive administrations. This is a very fluid situation.
With Pitt the Younger becoming Prime Minister there is a degree of crystalisation - the 1784 general election was effectively fought as either Pitt's government or the Fox-North coalition. Pitt went on to pick up a lot of defectors and by the 1800s his grouping was considered the new Tories whilst Fox's were the Whigs (though even in the 1810s the terms "Pittite" and "Foxite" were most commonly used in the Commons, even though both Pitt and Fox were now dead).
The labels used for the period are probably as accurate as can be guessed for the individual's philosophies but parties are harder. In later periods this is similar - in 1940 Churchill was initially just a Prime Minister who happened to be from the Conservative Party (and at times faced a split in his government that would have been him vs the Conservative Party).
As for National Labour, this is easier. The party lasted until 1945, though with diminishing returns. After MacDonald finally retired in 1937, his son Malcolm was a cabinet minister for the next four years and led the party. However it did not attract recruits in its own right - all attempts to form a "National Labour" movement founded. The party became increasigly just another part of the National Government and finally formally dissolved itself just before the 1945 General Election, with its MPs either retiring, standing as independents or as non-party specific "Nationals" supporting Churchill and his "Caretaker" (i.e. National reborn) Government.
Hope that helps! Timrollpickering 21:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - basically what I already knew (except for the National Labour stuff), but presented more clearly. So perhaps it's best just to leave the pre-1783 ministries as is. What do you think of my comments regarding color changes for the 1806-1807 and 1827-1828 governments? john k 21:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the 1827-1828 governments - they were clearly Tory governments that happened to have non Tories in them. Other governments would seek to broaden their basis by inviting outside figures in - Palmerston was invited to join later Conservative governments for example, whilst the first Labour Cabinet contained a numer of non-Labour figures. It's true that these governments were drawn from the moderate rather than the reactionary wing of the party, but that makes them no less Tory.
Grenville is more complicated. It's true he had a Pittite past, but closer to his ministry he had been allied more with Fox and is generally considered a Whig at the time of his premiership. I think also the main Pittites were briefly in opposition at this time. I'm not sure if this one should be changed. Timrollpickering 23:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Palmerston himself was not exactly a Whig...He began his career as a Canningite, and was never really at home with the Whigs. But I'll defer to you on 1827-1828. As to the All the Talents ministry, I'm not sure. The ministry had some old Foxite whigs (besides Fox himself, there was Grey, Petty, Erskine, probably Moira), people like Grenville, Windham, Spencer, and Fitzwilliam who had served in Pitt's first government, and then the Sidmouthites - Sidmouth and Ellenborough - who are generally considered to be Tories. It was essentially a coalition of everyone who was dissatisfied with the followers of the late Pitt, including various people who either had, or would later, participate in governments with the Pittites. And it was headed by a man (and, after Fox's death, actually directed by him) who was not himself obviously a "Whig". The All the Talents ministry (as its name suggests) is frequently described as a coalition. I'd suggest that we give it the coalition color, rather than the "Whig" pink. Another question - what about the first Palmerston government? I've usually read it described as a "personalist" government - not really a party government at all. Russell, the leading Whig when the government was formed, almost immediately departed...on the other hand, the government consisted pretty much entirely of Whigs.john k 16:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should we include the brief gaps?

Further research has yielded a list of occasions when the government of the day resigned, but the opposition declined to take office and so the government returned. For a bit in the meantime there was nominally no government.

These occasions were:

7th-10th May 1839 - Melbourne and his government resigned, but Peel refused to take office so Melbourne returned. I forget what the issue for Melbourne resigning was, but Peel wanted change some of the Queen's staff and refused office when he couln't.

6th-20th December 1845. Peel tried to resign - possibly to being in office and having to handle the question of the Corn Laws - but no alternative administration would take office and so he returned.

22nd February-3rd March 1851. Lord John Russell's government resigned but the Conservatives didn't feel they were in a strong enough position to take office (and the next time they did, it was a very inexperienced team), so Russell returned.

13th-16th March 1873. Gladstone resigned after a defeat in the Commons but Disraeli declined office so Gladstone returned.

In each of the last three cases, the government that returned to office limped on for less than a year before finally falling.

Should we include these occasions in the list? Timrollpickering 19:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave was, I think, PM, for five days in 1757. We don't even have an article on him, though. James F. (talk) 16:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I imagine he was First Lord of the Treasury. Calling him Prime Minister seems a bit dubious, although I suppose we do the same with the Duke of Devonshire or the Earl of Wilmington...but I've never seen this Lord Waldegrave on any list that I've come across. Was this following the dismissal of the Devonshire ministry but before the creation of the Newcastle one? john k 17:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Redirect solution

I notice that there are redirects from 'British Prime Minister' and 'Prime Minister of Great Britain'. I support this solution to widespread misunderstanding and mislabelling. There is a lot of confusion about Britain and British.

However, this issue does not merely apply in references to the Prime Minister, it applies generally in references to the nation, culture, and people. I am no longer surprised to read things similar to The RAF of Great Britain or Great Britain has traded with the United States for more than two centuries. I am considering proposing a similar redirect solution for Great Britain -> United Kingdom and Britain -> United Kingdom. Your comments are welcome.
Bobblewik 10:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Err, whut? The terms "Great Britain" and "Britain" both have meaning and significant articles in their place; throwing this away in favour of redirects merely due to some editors' ignorance would seem to be... foolish, no?
James F. (talk) 12:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Readers are advised to read User_talk:Bobblewik before starting another repetitive debate here. Pcb21| Pete 12:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Series / Category

Hi. I'm wondering if anybody could explain why all the series are disappearing and being replaced by categories? I have nothing against categories, mind you; but for certain topics that nice, clear series box helped you navigate the whole thing in a logical way. You could see how articles related to one another, you could go through the main ones in sequence and know that you had read them all; it organized links from the page into a coherent whole. Why have they gone out of favor? Doops 16:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dunno; I thought that the two systems complemented one another (computerised meta-data vs. a structured display of linkages) - why can't we have both?
James F. (talk) 20:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once we've settled on which form the series box should take, it will be clear where on the page it belongs; but until then, as long as it keeps getting reverted back and forth, don't forget that each time it happens the box has to be relocated here (and on other series pages). So in moving it today, I wasn't being ideological, just practical. (In case anybody cares, though, I do have to say that I agree with DeusEx, the old version is nicer than Lord Emsworth's new version.) Doops 01:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Title

Does the PM's official title actually end with "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? No other government minister's title does. Proteus (Talk) 12:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following phrases are used in respectable references:
Bobblewik  (talk) 13:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That the PM is customarily the FLotT and MftCS is irrelevent, though; the actual position is a semi-informal term that has been adopted into formal usage, and yes, I'd imagine that it's just "Prime Minister".
James F. (talk) 14:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also think that it is just "Prime Minister". The appending of the country does not appear to be official. I was providing the references for information and they happened to include the additional titles. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The position of "Prime Minister" has been an official one since 1905, when the Prime Minister was given precedence immediately after the Archbishop of York. While no other government minister's title may include "of the UK", by the way, there is certainly the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. I'm not sure if there are any others (is there a fuller title for the Lord Great Chamberlain, for instance? Or for the Lord High Constable and the Lord High Steward when these offices are resurrected at coronations?) john k 18:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They're all "of England", which in the case of the last two distinguishes them from the Lord High Constable of Scotland (the Earl of Erroll), the Great Steward of Scotland (the Duke of Rothesay) and the Lord High Steward of Ireland (the Earl of Waterford). I'm not aware of any Scottish or Irish Chamberlain, though. Proteus (Talk) 18:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
While we're on the matter, a bio of the William Wellesley-Pole, 3rd Earl of Mornington says that he was Chancellor the Exchequer (Ireland). Was that simply a ministry post within the Treasury? Mackensen 19:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Table

I think the table would be easier to read if it simplified the names of PMs - "The Marquess of Salisbury" instead of "Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury", for instance. The combination of unwieldy names and different colours makes it a bit overwhelming at the moment. Proteus (Talk) 14:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. john k 15:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have implemented the suggestion above. I also propose that consecutive listings of the same PM be consolidated. For example, Asquith is listed twice consecutively, first from 7 April 1908 to 27 May 1915 (as a "Liberal") and then from 27 May 1915 to 7 December 1916 (as a "Liberal/ Coalition Government"). As far as I know, however, he was not dismissed in 1915 and re-appointed, so the two rows should be merged into one. (The same with Churchill during the Second World War.) -- Emsworth 01:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I imagine it's how it is at the moment to cope with the change in colour necessitated by a change in party. I don't know if there's any way to have one line two different colours. Proteus (Talk) 17:11, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But appearance should not be privileged over accuracy. I think that the colour appropriate to the party could be preserved, with the final column including: "Liberal (afterwards Coalition)," or words to that effect. -- Emsworth 19:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Proteus (Talk) 20:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Asquith may not have resigned in 1915, but in both 1931 and 1945 MacDonald and Churchill formally resigned and were then reappointed as head of a new administration - should we really have them merged in as one, especially as in the case of MacDonald he was not even a member of Labour for his last four years in office? Timrollpickering 13:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If we are to list these twice, then Lord Melbourne would also have to be listed twice consecutively, rather than once from 1835 to 1841. I believe that he resigned due to some colonial issue, that Sir Robert Peel was about to form a new Government but could not because Queen Victoria was reluctant to dismiss certain Whig ladies of her Household, and that Melbourne returned. Similar changes may have to be made elsewhere in the table as well. -- Emsworth 16:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this "appearance privileged over accuracy" business. Asquith had one cabinet that was entirely Liberal until 1915, then he had a coalition cabinet for a year. Currently the table reflects this very clearly. The fact of a change in the nature of the government seems more important than whether or not he resigned and was reappointed or just changed the entire basis of his government without resigning. I would agree that it would be appropriate to separate out Melbourne, though. john k 00:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Images

How does everyone think the images should be aligned? Should there be specific captions for each image of a PM, or should each caption merely list the name and term (as in, for example, President of the United States or Prime Minister of Canada)? -- Emsworth 22:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the alignment, but the captions in the POTUS article strike me as distinctly unhelpful. The fact that JFK was the 35th President is utterly irrelevant, while a short caption describing why he was an important President (and thus why his picture has been chosen) would be much more useful (and interesting). The latter is what we seem to have here (with Thatcher's picture especially), and I think it would be better to keep it. Proteus (Talk) 23:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep as is, mainly. Of course, there are always tweaks to be made. :-)
James F. (talk) 23:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I disagree. I think it's difficult to sum up the accomplishments of a leading politician in a small photo caption. IMO, the POTUS captions are simple and attractive-looking. If someone is curious as to why a certain individual made the page, they can always click on the link provided. Funnyhat 01:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page length

Surely it were long since time to spin off the list of prime ministers to its own page. Doops 09:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so, no; perhaps we could spin it off into a sub-page for template-style transclusion, though, if you're worried about Wikitax page length issues?
James F. (talk) 11:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, the ominous rumblings about page length keep making me feel guilty. Would "transclusion" actully be a solution, in an objective sense, to this — or is it just a technique to fool the software? Doops 17:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, on further thoughts, I think we shouldn't use transclusion here, but just learn to cope with the warning. It obfuscates the article's content, and is thus non-wiki :-)
James F. (talk) 17:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just as a matter of record: the table occupies 12KB of space. -- Emsworth 21:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If only we could use style tags, it could be quite a lot smaller. I remember thinking this when I created it. Oh well.
James F. (talk) 22:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see an argument here against splitting off the list. --Jiang 04:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you; but I should point out that an argument has been given farther up the page — some feel that the context of the article is useful for the list, and vice versa. (Of course, that argument could apply to practically every spun-off list in Wikipeida.) Doops 04:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

first section

Perhaps the first section is getting too long and should be trimmed. But we shouldn't banish real, encyclopedia-style information just so we can keep our own beloved trivia there. If people think that the first § is still too long, I'll volunteer to move some of the official/unofficial explanation elsewhere to save space. Doops 21:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are viewed as too powerful has not been "banished"—this information is in the section "Powers and restraints" already. The official status of the premiership seems to me more important than the perceptions of these two Prime Ministers, which, in any event, has a better context in the section "Powers and restraints." -- Emsworth 22:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first section of any article should contain the essence of what is important about it; it's not only acceptable but desirable to mention current controversies briefly, even if they have a longer section devoted to them elsewhere in the article. The prime minister is not a museum-piece, but an active, working figure with a real effect on the world. In any respectable printed encyclopedia, the article on the prime minister would be written by a political scientist. I'm not one, and I suspect you aren't one either — but we can do our best to step outside ourselves and write an article which will be as useful as possible to the readership at large. Doops 22:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Putting the information on current controversies in a separate section will not make the article less "useful to the readership at large." Having a lead which is too long, on the other hand, may make the article less convenient. I just do not feel that the controversies of the present are as important as other pieces of information, such as the official status of the PM. -- Emsworth 00:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In any event, I think an appropriate compromise would be to leave the Thatcher/Blair information, but to move some information about the official status to a separate section. Since this proposition has been supported by the user Doops, I will soon execute it. -- Emsworth 00:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Lord Emsworth. I have to say that in my mind the key distinction here is between interesting and important: like you, I find the prime minister's ambiguous status the most interesting thing about the article, and indeed if you check the edit history you will find that (several months ago) I was the author who originally wrote a lot of it, as well as the person who (yesterday) restored some of it to the page after it had been lost in a rewrite. It's my cherished baby and (as I say) the most interesting thing in the section — but I am compelled to disagree with suggestions that it is the most important. At any rate, thanks for working with me towards a compromise & good job spinning it out smoothly. Doops 01:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doubts about overhyping 1905

As far as 1905 is concerned, I don't think that year represents some seismic shift in status from unofficial to official: inclusion of the prime minister in the order of precedence in that year, although significant, is merely one of the numerous occasions over time in which more and more offical imprimatur has been given to the office. Other examples would include— the first time the speaker of the commons called on the prime minister by that title (I've no idea when that occured), the first time stationary was printed with the title "prime minister" on it or a press release was issued in that name (again, I've no idea when), the first time a law court issued a ruling regarding the "prime minister" (empty hands once again). And surely the most important evidence that the office exists are those pieces of emergency wartime legislation I mentioned — and even with regards to those I am lacking concrete information (do any of them predate the 2nd world war?). That's why I removed mention of 1905 from the opening section: I think that year's development is adequately explained elsewhere in the article and would represent a sort of "false precision" in the intro. Doops 01:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 1937 Ministers of the Crown Act does mention the PM by nam, possibly in the context of their salary. It's cited as a rare mention of the PM, and the first time the Cabinet is mentioned in law, but I'm not sure which other legislation does so as well. And please don't seize upon the idea that 1937 represents a landmark for the Cabinet - it's just a formal recognition of longstanding practice. Timrollpickering 09:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How come...

How come there isn't any trivia about Prime Ministers like there is on the US President page? I presume the information is harder to come by? --Ben davison 20:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is certainly not the reason. A trivia section is inherently unencyclopedic, so no one chose to put one in. -- Emsworth 20:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean stuff like a list of the longest-lived Prime Ministers etc. Sounds perfectly encyclopaedic to me, since this site also has lists of the longest rivers etc. But, whatever, it's hardly life or death to me :) --Ben davison 21:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only article so far is Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom which lists a few of the big ones. I reckon such lists would be worth it - things like who the longest and shortest serving were are of inherent interest to many. Timrollpickering 22:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing! However, the lists on the American page are maybe a better way of doing it, 'cos then you can do a whole list rather than just the one longest-lived etc. If there isn't a link to Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom on the Prime Minister page, there should be. --Ben davison 11:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Is it true that Roman Catholics are barred from becoming PM? 85.124.41.250 11:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's NOT the case. You're probably thinking of Catholics not being able to become King/Queen. --Ben davison 11:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, possibly. But if a Roman Catholic became PM, then he would have the power to nominate bishops of the Church of England, wouldn't he? Somehow strange. 85.124.40.194 20:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is, as far as I know, no precedent for what would be done in case of a Roman Catholic Prime Minister. However, there is a law relating to the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical functions. According to the act, passed in 1974, the Sovereign may transfer the functions to another minister if the LC is a Roman Catholic. Presumably, the same would be done in the case of a Catholic PM. -- Emsworth 20:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unitarian Neville Chamberlain got to be PM. He was just as much not a member of the CofE. Catholics were barred from becoming PM prior to 1829, I think. john k 20:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd George certainly wasn't CofE, either. I think pre-1829 Catholics couldn't be elected to Parliament, or vote. -- Arwel 21:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A paper from the House of Commons: [3] 85.124.40.194 22:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolute majority in UK

The article says that in the UK general election of 1974, Heath opted to form a coalition government because he did not achieve absolute majority. What has changed? In 2005 general election, Labour did not achieve absolute majority but have not had to form a coalition.

Actually, Labour did achieve an absolute majority of seats in Parliament. -- Emsworth 10:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In UK politics, an "absolute majority" means 50%+1 of the seats in the Parliament, not of votes cast, or even more so of voters on the electoral register. While at 36% the 2005 election has thrown up the smallest number of votes cast to obtain an absolute majority ever, this is just a reflection that the election was contested by more than two parties -- I don't think the winning party in any election since the end of WW2 has had over 50% of the votes cast. -- Arwel 18:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who Can Be Prime Minister? / What Happens of the P.M. Loses His Seat?

I think these questions need to be addressed in the article. We know that the majority party's leader is customarily presented to the monarch to be named prime minister. But who is eligible to be chosen the leader of the majority party? Must the majority party choose from its elected members in the House of Commons or may they choose someone else, such as a member of the House of Lords, or someone who is not a member of Parliament at all? If they do so what happens? Must that person then stand for election to the House of Commons in a by-election?

And the related question begs an answer also: What if a sitting prime minister's party maintains its status as the majority party after an election, but the prime minister himself loses the vote in his own constituency? Does the P.M. continue to be the leader of the party and the prime minister? Are things put on hold until the P.M. can win another seat in a by-election? What happens?

  • There are two ways of answering your question. Strictly speaking, one would not necessarily have to hold a seat in Parliament prior to becoming party leader, but he or she would be expected to secure a seat for him/herself as soon as possible after winning the leadership race. A well-known precedent is the case of the Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who was not an MP when he was selected as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in the 1983 leadership convention, but entered the House of Commons two months later by winning a by-election in a Tory safe seat in Nova Scotia. More recently (2004), Canadian auto parts millionaire Belinda Stronach ran (unsuccessfully) for the leadership of the new Conservative Party of Canada without being in Parliament at the time (she would later be elected a Conservative MP for Newmarket-Aurora in Ontario and, then, cross the floor and join the Liberal Party in 2005). In the UK, however, and that brings us to the second possible answer to your question, I suspect the actual internal rules set out by each party to elect their leaders now prevent them from choosing a leader who is not an elected MP. I believe that is the case e.g. in the British Conservative Party, but since I'm not as familiar with UK politics as I am with Canadian politics, I would leave it to a Briton to confirm or refute my assumption..


Given the lack of a definative written constitution in the UK, these questions are all governed by convention: and the conventions are really only formed by precedent. Bear in mind that prime minister isnt really the same sort of position as US president, and only needs to "command the confidence of the commons" in order to function or be selected. Theoretically this could be done by someone not an MP. Sir Alec Douglas-Home was in the Lords when he was appointed by the Queen, but belived it was impractical to serve as PM from outside the commons, and so discarded his peerage and contested a byelection in a safe seat (which was triggered by the poor junior MP who had orignally won the seat resigning in order to make way). This is also likely to be what happened if the leader of the largest party in parliment after a General Election should lose in thier own constituancy, or otherwise wasnt an MP. There is certainly no requirement (there arnt any rules except for the each parties own rules) for any party to select it's leader from sitting MPs... consider, for example, all those political parties which dont have any! But it would be very unlikely that any mainstream party nowadays would select a leader who wasnt an MP. Iain 11:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the by-election was pending when Douglas-Home became PM and the existing Conservative candidate stood aside for him. But otherwise I agree. Timrollpickering 12:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Labour Party's rules clearly state that, in order to be elgible to stand for the leadership or the deputy leadership of the party, an individual must be "a Commons Member of the Parliamentary Labour Party" (rule 4b2b). Oxymoron 11:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Prime Minister

I think that any wiki article about a Government position should be headlined by the current holder of that position. For that reason, I think Tony Blair's portrait should be toward the front of the article, on the left-top. The picture at the head of his own wiki should be sufficient. --Kitch 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I note that the President of the United States article dosent do this. There is also an NPOV issue, as this article should be about the office, and headlineing the current holder would too strongly assosiate the office with the holder. Iain 08:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it really necessary? It's a nice idea, but I think the large size spoils the article somewhat. Anyone agree/disagree? Deus Ex 12:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Mackensen (talk) 13:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - it should be spun out to Timeline of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or something similar and extended back to Robert Walpole. Compare List of popes (graphical). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It'll be really huge then, but OK. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way, there are technical limitations on how far it can go back. It can either go back to 1800 and include months, or it can go back before then, except only in years. Bear in mind that some Prime Minsters were PM for less than a year. Thoughts? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1905 & 1st use of PM title

As I understand it from the article & this talk page 1905 was the first year in which the title of PM was entered in the official order of court precedence. By concentrating on this I think a misleading emphasis is being placed on 1905 as the year of the 1st official PM. I'd suggest there should be some reference in the article to the fact that the 1st use of the term Prime Minister in an official document was during Disraeli's premiership (unfortunately I don't know the exact year) & that the title PM was used before 1905 (it may have been used before Disraeli too, though I'm not too sure on that). AllanHainey 09:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I haven't looked at this page for a while, and today I'm shocked by how much trivia you have to wade through in the present enormously bloated history section before you get to anything of substance -- while the arguably even more relevant info about the present-day office is buried still deeper. Being a big fan of quirks and oddities myself, I love the fact that the PM, like so much of the British constitution, is such an ad-hoc thing; and like pretty much every Wikipedian I'm a stickler for strict accuracy; but I think we all have to admit that an encyclopedia should mention quirks and oddities only briefly and concentrate on what really matters. Furthermore, the absolute obsession people have with 1905 always annoys me -- obviously in a de facto sense that date is of no significance whatever; while to those with dry, legalistic minds it's hard to see how something as trivial as the order of precedence is regarded as endowing somebody with de jure power. Doops | talk 10:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

How can we go about securing greater recognition for the man and women who have been married to the Prime Minister? When one looks at the articles on EVERY First Lady of the United States, it rather puts us to shame, neglecting this important part of the Prime Ministers lives... Gareth E Kegg 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider this worthwhile or particularly relevant, traditionally First ladies in the U.S.A. have had a greater ceremonial (& more recently political) role than the wives of U.K. Prime Ministers. Most PMs wives in the UK are non-notable for anything other than being the wives of PMs & there would be little to fill an encyclopedia entry on them with, of course there are notable exceptions of women (& Denis Thatcher) notable in their own right or who gained individual noteriety due the way they conducted themselves when married & these already have articles. I don't think we should be creating articles on Prime Ministerial spouses simply because they were Prime Ministerial spouses. AllanHainey 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with AllanHainey. A First Lady is automatically notable in the USA, the same is not true for Britain (or rather it wasn't). Captainj 23:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Who the heck . . . ?

Who the heck keeps adding in variations of this paragraph across articles about prime ministerial offices?

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the head of government and so exercises many of the executive functions nominally vested in the Sovereign, who is head of state. According to custom, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (which he or she heads) are accountable for their actions to Parliament, of which they are members by (modern) convention. The current Prime Minister is Tony Blair (of the Labour Party), who has been in office since 1997. For the complete list of British Prime Ministers, see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

It has so many clangers it would be funny (except this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia).

Among the mistakes:

  • The Prime Minister is NOT head of government. No such post exists. If anyone constitutionally holds that post it would be the Queen, because executive authority is vested in her.
  • The paragraph equates the Prime Minister and cabinet. Constitutionally there is no such equation. The monarch appoints the Prime Minister (literally the prime minister in the cabinet, not some separate overloading post outside it). The Prime Minister advises the monarch who to appoint as his or her fellow "Ministers of the Crown" in "Her Majesty's Government". In theory the Prime Minister is literally prime minister in the cabinet, not an additional office holder above it. Over the last century and a half, prime ministerial control in cabinet has grown dramatically, but the article makes it sound as though constitutionally it has that status. Constitutionally it doesn't. Politically it does. That is why weak prime ministers like Callaghan and Major felt unable to sack ministers who they felt were undermining them, "bastards" in Major's famous phrase. And why strong PMs like Thatcher and Blair felt able to pack the cabinet full of yes men and yes women. It is only since 1918 that prime ministers, for example, have the right to ask for a dissolution. Before 1918 the cabinet did it. But a strong prime minister, David Lloyd George, seized political control of that power, and no cabinet has been able (or tried) to wrestle it back.

The very opening paragraph of the article gets the understanding of the complexity of the British constitution all wrong. It seems to be mixing up concepts in presidential systems of a quasi-president doing the non-head of state business, with the concept in a parliamentary democracy of a prime minister in, not outside or above, cabinet.

Other paragraphs have their own factual errors, interpretational errors, etc. Saying that the Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury at least nominally is plain daft. He is First Lord of the Treasury. There is nothing nominal about it. FLotT may now be a meaningless office (the only thing important about it is that you get a residence as First Lord, 10 Downing Street) but there is nothing nominal about holding it. It is like saying that the Pope is Sovereign of the Vatican, "at least nominally" or Ian Paisley is leader of the Democratic Unionist Party "at least nominally". There is nothing nominal. Either you hold the post or you don't. The powers may be nominal, not the fact that you hold the office. But as all through this article, such important distinctions are lost through poor writing, inaccurate use of terminology, simplistic understanding of complex constitutional procedures, etc etc. It would probably get a 50% mark as an essay in an exam. If the examiner was in a good mood it might get a bottom third class honour. It needs a lot of work to hit good honours standards of knowledge, accuracy, context and content. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term head of government means the head or leader of the executive branch of the government. The Prime Minister is this because he appoints all other members of the executive (including the Cabinet) and generally exercises executive powers. So he is the practical head of the executive. The Sovereign is only the theoretical head of the executive. It's similar to the situation in Canada or Australia. In Australia, the de jure (since the constitution is codified) executive is the Executive Council, led by the Governor General. However, the Australian PM is the de facto executive, since he and his Cabinet actually make the executive decisions. The Executive Council simply act upon the advice of the PM, just as the British Sovereign does. Lapafrax 16:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wrong. The Prime Minister does not appoint all other members of the cabinet. He doesn't have the constitutional power to do that. He selects them. They are appointed by the Queen. Prime Ministers constitutionally are not the head of the executive. The may head the executive, which is something different. Nor is the sovereign merely the theoretical head of the executive. She actually is an active participant, as ministers are often surprised to find out when appointed. She spends three hours a day on ministerial briefing papers, meets ministers to discuss departmental business, makes appointments and can carry a lot of behind the scenes influence, as various prime ministers have noted. It is not correct to talk of the prime minister as head of the executive. He simply heads it, a powerful role, but far less powerful than being the "head of the executive". In political science, we have to be very careful about accurate use of terminology. Calling a PM head of the executive is inaccurate. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Executive powers are more extensive than simply reading documents and holding discussions with ministers. Executive powers include controlling the police and armed forces, running public services, etc. The Sovereign has no day to day control over these, even if such decisions are made in her name. In my opinion it would be better to say that the Sovereign is the "nominal" executive, whilst the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are the de facto executive. Such a system has been duplicated in most Commonwealth countries that have a parliamentary system. Even India (which is a republic and not a monarchy) has the President as the official and legal executive, even though practical executive powers are made by the Indian PM and his Cabinet. Lapafrax 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're placing too much legalism on the term "head of government". It's nonsensical to label the Queen head of government when all she does is make a speech largely written by the PM. It's also nonsensical to say the UK has no head of government. It's pretty clear that the PM in practice exercises the basic powers of a HoG, and in most Westminster systems, the PM is explicitly and constitutionally designated as such. So, if the PM in systems based on London's is the HoG, and there's obviously an HoG unless Anarchy in the UK has come to pass, and the Queen isn't it, who is it? The constitutional details may be left to political science texts on the UK; here we're just trying to be practical. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid if you think all the Queen does is read speeches written for her by the Government, you are seriously misinformed. Her role is far more extensive, from reading cabinet papers and discussing policy matters with ministers to using Bagehot's three rights extensively, and a host of other things. Constitutionally Britain does have a head of government: the Queen. Most parliamentary systems have their head of state as legal head of government. They then have a prime minister to exercise those powers in the name of the head of state. The Queen appoints a prime minister and a cabinet who act on her authority, with hundreds of their decisions requiring her active involvement. This an an encyclopaedia. If your concept of practicality involves being factually wrong and getting the basics of the British system government wrong, then that concept has no place in an encyclopaedia. It belongs in The Sun. Encyclopaedias have to be accurate, not simplistic. Oh and BTW the PM doesn't write the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament. The Cabinet does. The PM writes none of the Queen's speeches. Please do some reading as to the constitutional structures of the UK. Read Bagehot, Jennings and the autobiographies of successive PMs. You will then find a different reality to what you mistakenly seem to think is how the British system of government actually works. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Force One merger

There's a useless article at Blair Force One that needs to be merged into this one, creating a section on transport arrangements or whatever. Once you remove the speculation and other non-encyclopadic content from the original article it shouldn't add too much to the length of this one. --Dtcdthingy 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I like the term "Blair Force One", but there's no reason to delete the article, is there?--James 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on the talk page of the other article, it's a news story masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Some of the facts are useful and should be merged into other articles, but on the whole it's an article that has no reason to exist other than a crappy pun. --Dtcdthingy 22:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it's a crappy pun is because that is the most common name used in the media for the concept, and even respected news-sources use it; see this article in the Guardian or this one in the Independent. I also can't see why we would want to lose a well-sourced article on a current political event which is receiving plenty attention in the media and House of Parliament. I've taken out the speculation section and replaced it with the new facts; I think anyone would be hard-pressed to call the article "non-encyclopedic" now. Erath 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the article could be renamed "Personal aircraft of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" or somesuch, but as it is, Blair Force One is a perfectly good article, and quite separate from the rest of the PM stuff. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I assume the article was in better shape before the Main Pagers got their grubby hands all over it. ;-) There seems to be a great deal of repetition and chronological jumping around on the evolution of the office, particularly in the History section but also scattered elsewhere, to the detriment of clarity. There were several points where e.g. the Commons quotes made that "there is no such thing as a prime minister" seem to indicate that, long before the article admits, other unquoted persons thought there was such a beast, or should be. So I'd like to see that tension fleshed out and treated a little less mysteriously. And I'd really prefer not to read about Walpole again every second paragraph, if you please. Ultimately, though, I think this is leaning towards a History of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom split, as I think the article should more helpfully be about the duties and powers of the present office, not 1905 or 1605. With constitutional reform (e.g. devolution, Lords) ongoing this is an actively changing topic and the article doesn't really get into much of that. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates for the pictures

Why do none of the picture captions in this article say when the photographs were taken? This is basic stuff. A picture caption needs to say what (or who) is in the picture, and where and when it was taken. Even if the information is not relevant for this page, the information should still be on the upload page for the picture.

Some of the pictures do have this information on their upload pages: the Walpole picture has "Portrait of Sir Robert Walpole, studio of Jean-Baptiste van Loo, 1740"; the Margaret Thatcher picture has the date of "1975 September 18"; the Lloyd George picture has no further information (aat least not on Wikipedia); the Cheney-Blair picture says "March 11, 2002"; the Tony Blair picture has no further information, though a source website is given.

I'm going to add the dates (where known) to the captions, but I would strongly encourage editors to read Wikipedia:Captions for guidelines on how to write better picture captions. Carcharoth 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd George picture - at least two pictures exist

There are two similar pictures: Image:David Lloyd George.jpg and Image:Lloyd george.jpg - I would suggest using the former, as that gives a picture source from which I got the approximate date of the picture (the other image doesn't give a source). The only potential problem is that one (the former) is a Commons picture, and the other seems to be resident on Wikipedia. I read somewhere that there are reasons for using one sort of picture and not the other, but it seems silly to have two pictures showing the same thing. I've replaced Image:Lloyd george.jpg with Image:David Lloyd George.jpg. If anyone reverts this, can they please explain here. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two more "picture dates" issues

1) The Margaret Thatcher picture is not when she was PM. It would be better (if possible) to have a picture from when she was PM. If not, then this will have to do.

2) The Tony Blair picture is nice, but it is undermined by not having a date. I have looked on the website source given on the upload page, but cannot find a date. Again, it would be better to replace this picture with one where a date can be verified.

Can anyone help? Carcharoth 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article not checked before going on the Main Page?

Have a look at this edit. A basic and easily checkable fact in the article (the salary) was not updated. This is the sort of thing that justifiably gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. What is the point of saying that our articles can be more up-to-date than others, when no-one checks to see if they are up-to-date? Carcharoth 23:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish, Welsh, or Irish PMs?

Sorry for being an ignorant American, but I'm quite curious if there have been any PMs who were not English. Google has not been too helpful, and I thought I could turn to Wikipedia for the info. -- Jason Jones 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd George, although born in England, grew up in Wales and is usually thought of as Welsh. http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page139.asp. William Petty was born in Dublin. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page163.asp as was Arthur Wellesley http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page153.asp. The Earl of Aberdeen was (of course) Scottish http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page150.asp. James Balfour was born in Scotland http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page142.asp, as was Henry Campbell-Bannerman http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page141.asp. Andrew Bonar Law was the Canadian son of a Scottish clergyman http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page138.asp. James Ramsay Macdonald was Scottish http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page136.asp. Tony Blair was born in Scotland, spent much of his childhood in England and returned to Scotland at the age of 14 http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4.asp.

Hobson 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can this information be added to the article without being Original Research? I would use the above sources to state the nationalities on each PM's page. But saying "X PMs were Welsh, Y PMs were English, etc" would seem to require another source. Or is deductive reasoning allowed, and this is just a way to rephrase the same information? Carcharoth 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this original research as the nationality (or his claims to nationality) are well known facts. If it doesn't already say in the article it'd probably be a good idea to note that there are no restrictions re nationality (or anything else except I think not being Catholic) on who becomes PM.
On noting X PMs welsh, etc I think you may come up with some problems in categorising PMs nationality EG Tony Blair has claimed at times to be Scottish & being born in Scotland arguably has a claim to be, William Gladstone is generally considered English but both his mother & father were Scottish & he described himself both as Scottish and as English on different occasions. I don't though see an original research problem in collating this info as it is just the same sort of thing as collating information on U.S.A. President's heights into a List of United States Presidents by height order, which someone has done.
Incidentally other non-English PMs include Rosebery (Scottish), Palmerston (Irish), Campbell-Bannerman (Scottish), & a few more of the early titled ones were Scots too but I can't remember who. AllanHainey 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this takes us into the thorny subject of nationality in the UK. Two particular problems here are: 1) English, Welsh and Scottish are not strictly "nationalities" because the individual countries are not sovereign states; 2) being born in a country is not the test for nationality. Bluewave 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy PM?

Why did this article feel the need to delve into the role of the deputy PM?

The article calls the role a sinecure but this is generally defined as a salaried position with no responsibility. Blair has given Prescott a whole stack of responsibilities[4] and ODPM carries no salary, so isn't it a Figurehead_(metaphor) i.e. a role with de facto responsibilities but no de jure power? The sinecure for the current deputy PM is surely the First Secretary of State office, which allows him to draw a salary and keep a government residence, but has no authority. Previous deputy PMs also held a sinecure office in addition to the DPM role.

Also, the article implies that the extent of the DPM's responsibilities when standing in for the PM is an appearance at PMQs. In fact, the deputy may be required to stand in for the PM in any number of committees or even international junkets [5].

Personally, I don't think there's any need at all to go into the role of the Deputy PM. I'm going to remove much of the current text and leave the link to the DPM page. Kayman1uk 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De facto

I added this phrase because that's essentially what the PM is. The PM exercises executive functions, but does so on the Sovereign's behalf. The government technically belongs to the Sovereign and not the PM, hence the term "Her Majesty's Government". The PM simply heads a Cabinet of the Sovereign's ministers and the role of PM has always been a de facto role in this sense. This is why the PM's of Australia and Canada are de facto positions, despite both countries possessing codified constitutions, because of this British influence. Lapafrax 10:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be titled Her Majesty's government, the prime minister is the head of her majesty's government. That's why he is called the head of government, rather than the head of state. All governments are subordinate to the state-- whether in a westminster system or not. So I think adding this "de facto" language is too esoteric for a encyclopedia.


Heads of government are the prime ministers, chancellors, or other heads of cabinet; heads of state are presidents, emperors, monarchs, etc. The leader of the cabinet is always the head of the government, no matter if that cabinet serves at the whim of the head of state (or more often, simply at the pro forma approval of him; like, say, in the german system).

I disagree. This is true only in parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, like the US, the President is also head of government. In absolute monarchies, like Brunei, then the monarch is head of government, by defintion. The British government is called "Her Majesty's Government" because it is, in theory at least, HER government. The British Sovereign theoretically and nominally has executive powers vested in her. In essence, she then is the head of government in that case. The PM and his Cabinet merely are a de facto executive, in that they actually make executive decisions and determine governmental policy, but do so on behalf of the Sovereign. So the concept of a de facto head of government in this sense is totally accurate. In Westminster Systems, there is often a head of state who is the nominal source of executive power. A PM and Cabinet then make executive decisions on his/her behalf. This is the case in India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and other Commonwealth countries with a parliamentary system. Lapafrax 11:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All heads of government govern on behalf of their respective heads of state. The fact that the British monarchy reserves executive powers is irrelevant to putting the label "head of government" onto the PM. HoG is a term from political science, and always refers to the head of the cabinet in parliamentary systems. But if even that phrasing were accurate, this is a level of granularity too great for an encyclopedia.

Again, head of government simply means the leader of the executive branch. And what you're saying is only true in parliamentary systems. George W. Bush doesn't govern on "behalf" of a head of state. He is BOTH head of government and head of state! In Westminster Systems, there is generally a de jure/theoeretical/nominal executive and a de facto one. The British PM may head the government, but he is only a de facto executive authority. In the British government, executive authority is theoretically vested in the Sovereign. So labelling the PM as a de facto executive position is entirely accurate. Lapafrax 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the distinction between "Head of State" and "Head of Government" only exists in parliamentary systems. By your definition, there would seem to be no such thing as a de jure "Head of Government" who is not also Head of State. john k 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Much clearer than I was able to convey. In an absolute monarchy, the head of state is the same as the head of government. In a presidential system, the head of state is the same as the head of government. In a parliamentary system (aka a westminster system), the head of state is the titular monarch (the queen in Britain or in the Netherlands) or the president (Czech Republic, Italy, Israel, France) and the head of government is the leader of the cabinet. The degree of executive authority given the head of government vs. the head of state doesn't matter in the "naming" of the head of government. For instance, the French President has far more power than the Israeli or Italian president (and the Prime Ministers in Italy and Israel have more power than in French Fifth Republic). Yet in each of these countries the Head of Government is the Prime Minister, and the Head of State is the President. I don't think any political science textbook would make the fine distinction made in the opening paragraph. If I weren't so lazy, I might dig out my textbooks.
If I remember correctly, another thing to note: these labels came about for reasons of protocol. Heads of state are on par ceremonially (i.e. emperors, presidents, and monarchs are equals), heads of government are with each other as well.

Inconsistent/confusing

The caption to Image:Blair_Cheney_at_Number_10.jpg

Tony Blair and Dick Cheney at the main door to 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister's residence in London, on 11 March 2002.

However next to the image, in the article, it is stated

After he became Prime Minister in 1997, Tony Blair found 10 Downing Street too meagre for his large family, and he swapped residences with the Chancellor and Second Lord, Gordon Brown. However, the Prime Ministerial offices are still maintained in Number 10.

These therefore appear inconsistent. Unless Blair only swapped after March 2002, which I doubt, then 10 Downing Street was not his residence simply the location of his offices (even if it would have been his residence were it not for the swap)... Nil Einne 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually with further research, it appears the caption is correct, the article is simply incomplete. From the 10 Downing Street article
Tony Blair was a married man with three children still living at home, whilst his counterpart, Gordon Brown, was unmarried at the time of taking up his post. Thus, although Number 10 continued to be the Prime Minister's official residence and contained the prime ministerial offices, Blair and his family actually lived in the more spacious Number 11, while Brown lived in the more meagre apartments of Number 10. After Brown married and the Blairs had their fourth child, Brown moved out to his own private flat nearby and the Blair family occupied both.
Since Blair's fourth child was born in 2000 and Brown married in 2000, I would assume by 2002 Blair was living in both 10 and 11... Nil Einne 08:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form of address

This currently says:

In recent years this formal standards of address has become more relaxed. Tony Blair, the current Prime Minister, is frequently referred in print as "Prime Minister Blair" and occasionally orally as "Mr Prime Minister".

I'm sure he is referred to in all kinds of ways in other countries, but I have rarely seen these forms in the UK. Looking, for example, at yesterday's Sunday Times, which devotes quite a bit of space to him, he is referred to as "Tony Blair", "Blair" and "the Prime Minister", but never as "Prime Minister Blair". Orally, (eg radio 4) I thought he was usually addressed as "Prime Minister" or "Mr Blair", rather than "Mr Prime Minister", which doesn't sound very British! Am I right, or am I just following the wrong media? Bluewave 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is referred to as "Prime Minister". I can't cite any sources for this at the moment, but watch any press conference where he takes questions. The journalists call him Prime Minister. The phrase Prime Minister is not an honorific - it is wrong to call him Prime Minister Blair, although of course it is understandable if people make this error as they may be used to hearing President Bush, President Clinton etc referred to in a similar way. In this speech, available on the Downing Street website, Tony Blair mentions that the correct form of address is "Mr Prime Minister". http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1154.asp Hobson 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

I suggest that Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom be merged into this article. I did put the {{mergefrom}} tag on the article, but it was removed for stylistic reasons. Thryduulf 09:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=92497610"