Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

I thought Tony Blair was Roman Catholic, he converted when he married Cherie. This occurred long before attaining office and no mention was made of it during his election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.76.15 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Officially Blair isn't Catholic although one gets the impression he'd convert if it wasn't potentially politically difficult. Certainly the head of the UK Catholic Church has slapped Blair down for taking mass when he's not a Catholic. Timrollpickering 20:59, 27 December 2006 (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: [1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)}

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)

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)}

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)

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)

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)}

I'm quite sure that no constitutional scholar in the UK (or Canada for that matter) would object to the statement that executive power and supreme command of the armed forces are formally vested in the Queen, but lie in practice with a cabinet of ministers drawn from Parliament and chaired by the Prime Minister, who serves as the de facto head of the British government. When it comes to the British (or Canadian, or Australian) constitution, one must distinguish between constitutional fiction and the realities of constitutional practice. I agree an encyclopedia should not be simplistic, but it shouldn't be misleading either, overemphasizing the role (now mostly ceremonial) of the monarch (or, in the realms, her surrogate, the Governor General). 161.24.19.82 13:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blair was born in Scotland to English parents, left Scotland as an infant, and was raised in England and Australia. He 'returned to Scotland at the age of 14' to attend boarding school, not to live there; his family home was still in England. The case for calling him a Scot is extremely weak.86.145.7.244 (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most people would call Leo Blair Scottish and Hazel Blair Northern Irish; but as noted elsewhere in this section, attempting to assign British people to a particular nation is a well-known minefield. I'm not sure I see any reason for calling either of them English; but as you say, Blair was largely raised in England.

Gordon Brown, of course, is pretty uncontroversially Scottish. TSP (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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[2] 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 [3].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Check Hansard; the standard form for ministers is Mr Officeshortform Surname. There are some exceptions eg Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer [4] However I can't see any basis for Rt Hon + PM as with a few well known exceptions (eg the Lord Mayor of London) the style is not linked to office but is a personal style Alci12 15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't think it should be merged. These are significant women (and Dennis) in their own right but their achievements would be overwhelmed by the 'interminably wikipedic deeds' of their spouses, (endless declarations of friendship followed by decisions that acts of slaughter of (mostly) other peoples children were necessary for the greater good.). This list, standing alone, and eventually accompanied by a complete series of articles and succession boxes, gives a very useful, informative, feminine perspective on British history. Autodidactyl 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I too think that they should remain seperate. I think the article on Prime Ministers doesn't need to be further cluttered with info about their spouses. It's good to have it's own article with a list, and it should stay that way Jamandell (d69) 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"term" of office

Who on earth wrote that rubbish about their being a "term of office" of a prime minister? There isn't. Thatcher served 1 term; 1979-1990. PMs are not, and never have been, appointed for the term of a parliament. That is a myth. They are appointed and remain in power until they resign. ANd they only resign if they lose a general election. If they don't lose the election, they continue on their old "term". They don't start a new one. *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)}

Absolutely! I have also been irritated by Prime Ministry of Tony Blair which organises the material according to his "terms" of office. It's just a bit daunting to sort out! Bluewave 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher picture text

Just a small note. She is dubbed 'iron woman' instead of 'iron lady'. On her main entry it is correct. I'm a new user, I can't correct it yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honey power (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I reverted the text on the assumption that someone was taking the piss. Apart from the incorrect "iron woman" mention, they said that she was the most popular world leader of the 20th century. That's not something you can add to a featured article without citing some convincing sources to back it up. Bluewave 16:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prime minister-elect?

The current version says "...Gordon Brown became Prime Minister-elect of the United Kingdom...". That looks a bit odd: I don't see that you can have a "prime minister-elect" in a system where prime ministers are not elected! Surely what has happened is that he has been elected as the new leader of the Labour party and, as such, is assumed to become the next prime minister. Can anyone help improve the wording? Bluewave 09:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need to be elected by voting to be "elect", just chosen in some/any manner. Which is not of course to say that Brown in PM-elect, mind you; he won't be that until the Queen asks him to be PM, which I presume she won't do until shortly before he accepts. Doops | talk 11:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point! But thanks for the edit. I think some of the UK media have used the term PM-elect ironically (because it carries connotations of U.S. presidential terminology) but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedic article. Bluewave 13:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'Prime Minister-Elect' used on BBC TV news caption. Would PM-designate be appropriate? Rutld001 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No. All we can say is "is expected to become the next prime minister." Doops | talk 07:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister-designate is accepted in Canada in most major news media to refer to the man "expected to become the next prime minister", whilst respecting the Governor-General's prerogative power to invite the man she believes will command a majority in the House to accept the position. 207.81.162.174 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.162.174 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wizards ?

Under the "Precedence and privileges" section, the first sentence reads "The Minister would be the only one to know of wizards in England.". Where does this statement come from ? Thanks. 64.180.149.45 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the impudence of vandal. Reverting. Doops | talk 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Inaugural speech

By tradition new Prime Ministers, before entering No. 10 for the first time, make a short speech in which they say words to the effect of, "Today I met with Her Majesty the Queen who asked me to form an administration and I have accepted." They then normally make a short statement; Margret Thatcher famously quoted Francis of Assisi. I think this tradition should be mentioned somewhere on this page, though I'm not sure where or how to word it. --Philip Stevens 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• It has now been added, thank you to User:86.156.97.208 --Philip Stevens 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Messy section removed

I just removed a messy section (diff) but I do think there may be useful information in there. If anyone would like to have it moved to a more appropriate area, the section is of course, in the above diff. Beno1000 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Er...that section has been there for ages, at least since the article was given featured status. I'm glad to see someone has restored it. Marks87 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The "messy section" is the introduction of the article, summarizing the major points of the rest of the article. It doesn't really have a place anywhere else. An anonymous user added that unnecesary header, but that's no reason to remove the whole thing. Leebo ^T/C 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister and Nuclear Weapons

Just out of curiosity, how do we know that the Prime Minister can authorise the use of nuclear weapons but not actually order them to be launched? Who actually orders the launch if the PM doesn't, and can the Prime Minister order said person to order a launch? I know the Prime Minister can't order the launch itself since he or she would not be aboard the submarine but surely he or she can order the submarine's captain to launch the Trident missiles?

I'm a bit unsure as to why the PM can't order the launch him/herself... he or she writes a letter at the beginning of their premiership in their own hand to be locked away in a safe aboard the Vanguard submarines giving detailed orders to the submarine's commander as to how to react to a nuclear attack on Britain should contact be lost (one of the options is obviously 'retaliate using nuclear weapons'). Are these not classed as orders? 88.104.254.149 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My (admittedly limited) understanding of nuclear protocol is that, formally, the Monarch is the only one with the power to order the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, I think that the orders to the nuclear submarines would be written in terms of 'Her Majesty orders...etc.etc. However, as with all things in the British Constitution, this power resides, de facto, with the PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.224.188 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! This one has been here a while with out an answer! In short answer is that the PM can, and is the only person who can request Her Majesty to deploy weapons of any type. With her presumed approval, this means the PM is also the only one that can order the release. The "power" of the Monarch to say no is less likely than the Cabinet to revolt. The concept of a Caucus revolt, is in reality the only thing stopping a PM from launching while drunk or somthing... ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the unwritten convention with regard to the exercise of prerogative powers: the PM is the only one who has the political legitimacy to use those powers, even though they technically belong to the monarch. RicJac (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Security

Who is responsible for personal protection of the Prime Minister? And has former PM's personal protections, like i.e. former U.S. Presidents Darth Kalwejt 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Security for the UK Prime Minister is covered by The Metropolitan Police Service (Diplomatic Protection Group).

The Diplomatic Protection Group’s (DPG) primary responsibility is the safety and security of London's diverse diplomatic and government community. The unit provides protection for foreign missions in London, such as embassies, high commissions, consular sections and official residencies in accordance with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention 1961. This duty is carried out whilst continuing to deliver a reassuring and highly professional service to the people of London.

Specifically the DPG provides overt armed protection in the capital, armed guards at London's hospitals, and assistance to other police units and agencies at times of high demand, and an immediate response to armed and other critical incidents. They look after:

-The diplomatic community in London. -Her Majesty's Government, former prime ministers, government ministers and other people assessed to be at risk. -The Foreign & Commonwealth Office. -Visiting head's of state, and Government and Foreign Ministers. -Staff and visitors at New Scotland Yard. -Hospital patients at threat and hospital staff.

They use bright red police cars that are easily identifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.227.109 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Numeric order of PMs

I have just been on an edit skirmish, if not a war, with Bigdog77, who was systematically numbering all PMs down from Gordon Brown. He got as far back as Neville Chamberlain. A similar edit was started a few days ago, and there was a discussion (on either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair) which ended with the opinion that they should not be numbered, as unlike US presidents, their numeric progression is not often recalled, or used in any meaningful way, but I would be interested in the views of others. Regards, Lynbarn 10:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus on numerous questions in all this, which means that it's hard to say for certain who was the fourth PM - Bath? Pelham? Newcastle? Lord Grenville? Portland? Gladstone? Portland? Law? MacDonald? Baldwin? Churchill? Eden? See Talk:List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom#Numbering and Talk:Gordon Brown#52nd Prime Minister? for numerous points on this. When Gordon Brown could be reasonably numbered as low as 15th and as high as 84th there isn't much point in this and in any case it would be OR. Timrollpickering 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed one of the changes made by Bigdog77 and was just checking to see how extensive his or her changes were, when I realised that you (Lynbarn) were sorting them out. I absolutely agree that we don't number PMs. If we did, we could argue about where the numbering starts from - one could make a case for Disraeli, rather than Walpole, for instance. The other problem would be for PMs who served more than once: would you refer to Gladstone as the 40th, 42nd, 44th and 46th PM? I can't find any precedent for using numbers: the media, for example, never use them, so I agree that it is OR. Bluewave 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at Eton college's claim to have produced 19 prime ministers and wishing to put this into perspective, I was very disappointed that I had to come here to find a good explanation for the absence of numbers, albeit one that can't go in the article as is. Is it possible to provide the explanation in conjunction with the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom? I'm sure the media would use it!

JRPG (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons & Lords declarations

In 1741, it was declared in the Commons that "According to our Constitution we can have no sole and prime minister . . . every . . . officer has his own proper department; and no officer ought to meddle in the affairs belonging to the department of another." In the same year the Lords agreed that "We are persuaded that a sole, or even a first minister, is an officer unknown to the law of Britain, inconsistent with the Constitution of the country and destructive of liberty in any Government whatsoever." These were very much partisan assessments of the day, however.

"It was declared in the Commons" - does that mean the Commons passed a resolution or is this just from the speech of a single MP? Timrollpickering 14:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a speech by Samuel Sandys but he was leading a motion for the removal of Walpole so, although it was spoken by a single MP, it represented a body of opinion. I'm pretty sure that Walpole's speech, opposing the resolution, was based on a denial of the suggestion that he was the "sole and prime minister", rather than disputing the constitutional point. Clearly Walpole survived this attack. Bluewave 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem best to say who the actual speakers were, rather than to attribute all this to "the Commons" and "the Lords". john k 15:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting without references?

"Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" might be "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community", but its section "History" is largely based on an article at Archontology.org (see http://www.archontology.org/nations/uk/bpm/01_bpm.php): from "The history of the British Prime Ministers owes much more to speculation of historians, rather than to legal acts" to "The lack of official recognition for the position of Prime Minister..." is only a slightly changed version of the original.

As the author and editor of Archontology.org, I request to include reference to original source or to remove the quoted part.

Thanks.

Editor, Archontology.org editor@archontology.org

A quick glance at the website you mention does indeed show a number of parallels which go well beyond anything that could be attributed to coincidence. It goes without saying that if this turns out to be an instance of plagarism in the wikipedia we will unhesitatingly remove it.

Before we make that conclusion, though, we do have to check backwards in time to make sure that it is plagarism. Other possible explanations— 1) that website is copying the wikipedia (not the other way around); 2) both this article and that website are based on some common public-domain source (such as the 1911 Britannica or suchlike).

[By the way, you'll notice that I'm not taking it for granted that you are the editor of that page. Please don't take this as an insult; we have many instances here on the wikipedia of random busybodies pretending to be something they are not. But your concern is valid and merits investigation whether you are that editor or just a concerned citizen.]

Since I am extremely busy right now, I hope other editors will help me investigate this matter. Thanks, Doops | talk 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The earliest the Wayback Machine shows that the material was up on the Archontology website on February 26, 2006. The history of this article shows that this material was added by Oleg Schultz on 9 February 2005, about a year earlier. Schultz appears to still be about - he edited an article a month ago, so I'll notify him of the dispute. I think it would, however, behoove the original complainant to provide some evidence that his article existed and was available prior to February 9, 2005. As it stands now, the dates don't work out for the material to have been plagiarized by wikipedia from Archntology. john k 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, more information. Looking through Oleg Schultz's contributions, I see that he claims to be the editor of archontology. Thus, whatever is going on would appear to be an instance of Mr. Schultz adding his own work both to his personal website and to wikipedia. Is the original complainant above Mr. Schultz? If so, I don't see how one can complain about material that one oneself added to the site. john k 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I hope that I can explain the whole issue. One of my colleagues noticed a similarity between the article on British Prime Ministers at Archontology.org and Wikipedia and posted a complain, although I was not aware of it. It is true that I added the contribution on 9 Feb 2005 which seemed relevant at that time. Recently, I have reviewed the Wikipedia article on "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and found that for some reasons it would be better to remove the whole part posted by myself 9 Feb 2005. Thanks. Oleg Schultz 6 Aug 2007.

Mrs. Thatcher - "First Lady"?

Was Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher "First Lady of the Treasury? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.82.126 (talk) 22:21:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No, she was First Lord, just as Lord Mayors can also be women. Bizarre, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.224.188 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

de jure December 5, 1905

This date is given in the info box but surely de jure refers to the law, rather than the Order of Precedence? Wouldn't the first legislative recognition of the existance of the position/office be the correct de jure date? Timrollpickering 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oy, has that crept in again? That's the problem with infoboxes. They attempt to make the interesting boring. Doops | talk 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

is there a requirement to be British?

The US president has to be at least 35 years old, born in the USA and be resident there for at least 14 years. Are there any similar requirements on the British Prime Minister? The only thing I can think of is that they have to be voted in as an MP, but MPs don't have to be British, so maybe the PM doesn't either? raining girl (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Presidency requires the candidate to be a "natural born" citizen. They need not be born in the US. They may be born to at least one US citizen outside of the US, or born inside the US to any legally-entered parents.203.194.47.168 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• There are no requirements on being a PM. But there are on being a MP, and these days it is unlike you'd become Prime Minister without being a MP. To be a MP you must be over 21, and be allegeable to vote in the UK. It should be noted that William Pitt the Younger was only 24 when he became Prime Minister, had he been in the US he would have had to wait 11 years before even trying to be President. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Allegeable"? Surely you meant "eligible". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the original question I don't think it's ever been set down. In the modern citizenship era I think the person who came nearest to PM without definitely holding British citizenship was Bryan Gould, a New Zealander who lost the 1992 Labour leadership election. There's some uncertainty over whether he ever actually took out British citizenship. Admittedly Gould's chances were remote (he lost the leadership by 10:1 and wasn't the most electable of Labour figures) so I doubt anyone went to look up what forms he needed to fill in to be PM. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Salary

The article does not explain if the Prime Minister's salary (£127,334) is the monthly or annual salary. /Slarre (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The salary is NOT £142,500 "in addition to" the MPs' salary. The £142,500 is a 'combined' ministerial and parliamentary salary. When ministerial pay was cut, they kept Parliamentary salary and just cut the 'top up' salary. See here: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/05/a-new-politics-cutting-ministerial-pay-50065 Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister vs. First Lord of the Treasury

Yesterday, an anonymous user edited the infoboxes of every UK Prime Ministers from Walpole to Derby, replacing the term 'Prime Minister' with First Lord of the Treasury, saying in the edit summary of each 'the term Prime Minister was not used at this time'. See: Special:Contributions/86.162.150.82.

All these edits were quickly reverted. Having looked into this however, the user was correct, the first person to use the term 'Prime Minister' in an official way was Benjamin Disraeli in 1874. All his processors would have been called the First Lord of the Treasury. So which should it be, what we call the equivalent office today, or what the office was called at that time? I note that Walpole is called Prime Minister of Great Britain not Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure putting [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|First Lord of the Treasury]] really solves the problem in any way (especially when Walpole's page now implies he was the first ever First Lord, rather than following Sunderland). The problem with info boxes are that they often take what can be very ambiguous information and try to crowbar it into a simplistic format - here it's not at all clear when the post of Prime Minister became "official" with 1874, 1905, 1917 and 1937 all being tossed around as possible dates, but virtually everyone regards Walpole as the "first" (and the GB/UK changeover as not particularly important compared to a continuous sequence from Walpole to Brown). Plus Chatham wasn't First Lord in this period (and Salisbury usually wasn't if we go later) but to imply a direct jump from Rockingham to Grafton wouldn't be terribly informative.

I think including "Prime Minister" in the infobox is definitely the least worst option, as it's important to indicate the sequence. And this isn't a unique case - look at List of leaders of the Soviet Union for the problems of multiple posts there! But it's clear that there is a position of leading minister in the government that is near universally identified as starting with Walpole and continuing through to today, only gradually accumulating formal recognition. That's what the boxes need to reflect, with perhaps First Lord listed as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Earl of Orford
First Lord of the Treasury (Prime Minister of Great Britain)
In office 4 April 1721 – 11 February 1742
Monarchs	George I George II
Preceded by	The Earl of Carlisle (not Prime Minister)
Succeeded by	The Earl of Wilmington

What about this? --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Most definetly not this just makes the situation a whole lost worse and confuses everybody. Please revert all of the vandalism (and that is what it will be classes as) straight away. The rules say you must have a discussion about changing a major thing like this before you do it. Until a desicion is reached all infoboxs must be reverted back so that they read Prime Minister of Great Britain and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland respectaively. (Electrobe (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm not reverting anything. I had a discussion here and on this page - no one responded. So I practiced the WP:BE BOLD policy within the rules.

Also, why is this edit confusing, if anyone didn't know what the 'First Lord of the Treasury' was all they'd have to do is click the link and they'd see it was the modern version of the Prime Minister? I don't think these are major edits either; it's only one link per page. I note your only objection to the edit is that I didn't have a discussion (except I did), so I can only assume you have no valid objections other than you don't like it. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems more like trying to over-ride what’s a clear consensus rather than being BOLD. This has been discussed several times and each time the clear balance of opinion is to use Prime Minister rather than First Lord of the Treasury. - Galloglass 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the clear consensus, where has this been discussed? --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(generally regarded as the first incumbent) (generally regarded as the first incumbent)

• (generally regarded as the wiktionary:first incumbent)
• (generally regarded as the first wiktionary:incumbent)

I do bet that a less confusing phrase is feasible.

• Winston_Leonard_Spencer_Churchill
• Churchill_(disambiguation)
• Robert_Walpole

incumbent

1. imposed on someone as an obligation, especially due to one's office
2. {{geology}} resting on something else
3. being the current holder of an office

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with "incumbent"? The OED gives 3 meanings for incumbent as a noun (which is clearly what it is here): 1. The holder of an ecclesiastical benefice; 2. In general sense: The holder of any office; 3. One who leans over something - nonce-use. I doubt if anyone in Wikipedia has heard of the third use and none would really think the first was meant here. The second seems to be exactly the right word for the job: "the holder of any office". Bluewave (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Frequent characteristics

How about mentioning that many PMs went to Eton and then to Oxford or Cambridge (without actually counting the number that did) Hugo999 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NEEDS TO BE FIXED

This timeline image needs to be fixed. Such that Conservative politician is under Conservative Prime Minister (rather than above Liberal Prime Minister) and such that Liberal Prime Minister needs to be above Liberal politician - at the bottom of the table.

It is slightly confusing at present, probably a simple fix, but I don't have the time. 202.139.104.226 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've fixed it now. (though it's a bit of a bodge job) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

SOURCES?

Doesn't this article read like original research? Where are the sources that are supposed to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.252.21 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, I was about to make the same comment when I saw yours here. I read this article for the first time tonight and that is the first thing that struck me. There are only 10 citations and only 6 references. For an article this length with as many names, dates, conclusions, inferences etc., and also given the ambiguity of the subject matter, I would expect at least 100 citations and maybe twice as many references. But rather than just complain, I will try to make a contribution by adding references and citations in the next few days - as many as I can find in my library. Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting, Reorganization and References

When I read this article for the first time a week or so ago, I found it very confusing. While it is obvious that those who have been working on it know their stuff (especially after reading some of the comments in this Discussion section), the narrative was (and still is) a jumble of statements about the Prime Ministry (particularly in the History section), and there were (and still are) virtually NO REFERENCES. I see now from earlier comments that these are common complaints. To help clear things up (or maybe add to the confusion) I have:

• 1. added an entirely new section at the beginning called "Constitutional Background". As we all know, briefly describing the British constitution and particularly the relationship between the Sovereign and Prime Minister is VERY, VERY tricky. I am not sure I have suceeded. Being an American Anglophile, I may have gotten carried away with my choice of words in a few places! - feel free to revert, edit etc etc
• 2. imposed an outline on the History section (with specific years for each subsection) in an effort to give the article a "framework" and improve the flow of the narrative. I have STARTED to reorganize the information in each subsection, putting different points in their right place historically, but there is still a lot more to do - a LOT more! Consequently, the narrative is still a jumble, jumping from one time period to another. My choice of beginning and ending years for each subsection is, of course, debatable - again feel free to revert, edit etc etc. The point is we need some time periods so that each of us knows where to add information. I ended the History section at the year "1911" and created a new main section called "The Modern Office of the Prime Minister" from 1911 to the present. Personally, I think the bulk of the article should be in this main section. I think the narrative framework (apart from the years) for each subsection should be a discussion of the changing relationship during each time period between the Prime Minister on the one hand and the Sovereign, Parliament, Cabinet and political parties on the other. This would add some internal consistency across subsections.
• 3. started to add references and citations. A week ago when I started working on this article there were only 10 citations; now there are 29. Since Wikipedia claims no original research, I would expect almost every few lines or so would eventually have a reference - well over a hundred by the time it is finished. (I noticed that a few days after I started working on this someone - from Wikipedia? - inserted a statement at the beginning that this article "needs references". So I guess I am not alone in this opinion.)
• 4. Changed the title of the Chart (for clarity) and shifted it from the middle of the article (where it disrupted the narrative flow and added to confusion) to the end. I too think the Chart is a little confusing; it's an interesting approach and obviously took a lot of work and knowledge to create, but it is confusing. Furthermore, because it is in an unusual format, I wouldn't know how to edit it, even if I wanted to. Maybe a simple "easy to edit" list, like those that appear in other articles, would be better. Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reading the new section on the constitutional background. I agree with the need to set the role of PM in context, to be able to explain, for example, the paradox that a PM has almost no statutory powers but, if he or she commands a large Commons majority, wields almost unlimited de facto power. However, I think the new section is over-long and the detail really belongs to the article on the constitution of the United Kingdom. For instance, by the time I read that the constitution is "a river, whose moving surface glides away at ones feet, meandering in and out in endless curves", I'm thinking "sod the river: just tell me about the prime minister!" There are some stylistic points that could be improved (his/her is an abomination found on government forms, but does not belong in an encyclopaedia, for example) but, overall, I suggest summarising the section quite ruthlessly. Just my view! Bluewave (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and spent a little time this morning editing. Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• 5: The section titled: Populist Prime Ministers - Disraeli and Gladstone has no text, and only consists of a picture. I think this section certainly belongs -- Gladstone and Disraeli are probably two of the most important PMs in UK history, next to Churchill -- but it needs to actually contain a descriptive segment about them, not just a single picture. I don't know if this was inadvertently eliminated at some point or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.218.18 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason that section is empty, as well as a couple of others (Effects of Devolution and Entry into EU), is that I havent gotten around to writing them yet. I too think they are essential to the overall article. I added them to the outline a couple of weeks ago in the hope that others might contribute. I am starting to write narrative on all three of these blank sections this weekend; hoping to finish them in a week or two (or three) and also clean up the sections on "Confusion and Denial". Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro section

The current intro says "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is often described alongside the President of the United States as being one of the most powerful men in the world. This is mainly due to the stretching cultural, political, military and financial influence the United Kingdom has." This sounds to me like wishful thinking! (And I doubt if there is a source for it.) Should it, rather, talk about the considerable powers of the PM in the UK, rather than the world? At home, the PM is arguably more powerful than, for example the President of the US, as he is not constrained by such things as a Constitution! Bluewave (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. But since I did not add those two sentences myself, I was reluctant to delete or edit them. Your suggested change is more accurate (or more "factual" and not wishful thinking) and can be referenced. Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

why not lift then smoking ban and let the pubs fill up again and thats more money in the banks 81.132.142.52 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mortgages and the economy

Dear Sirs Just a thought that since the Banks are not passing the benefits through to the working people why not reintroduce the MIRAS scheme and give mortgage relief back to the people who deserve it thereby timulating money back into the banking system and arrange some kind of indemnity scheme for the first 30% of a first time buyers 95% mortgage thereby putting confidence back into the market and allowing banks to lend freely The benefits would then go where they are needed Yours repectfully Robert Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.70.81 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First Lady?

This may be an Americanism.... but on ABC news just now they described the meeting between Michelle Obama and Sarah Brown as the "meeting of the First Ladies". Is the wife of the UK PM called the First Lady? Wouldn't this conflict with the role of the Queen regnant or Queen Consort as the "First lady"♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If mentioned at all she's called the wife of the Prime Minister. Upon Charles's accession, Camilla won't be referred to as First Lady - we just don't use the term at all unless talking about America. JacobJHWard (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, First Lady of the United States is only an unofficial title in any case. The term First Lady is used in some other countries, but I guess this is mainly from American influence. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

His/Her Majesty's Government

The Government is legally called "Her Majesty's Government" (see Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Chapter 27 Section 46(7) among many others). As well as being an ugly phrase, it is not correct to refer to it as His/Her Majesty's Government. Of course, it has been His Majesty's Government in the past and could be again in the future, but currently it is most definitely Her Majesty's Government. Thom2002 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

First Lords of the Treasury

The article states:

The term "Prime Minister" first appears at this time as an unofficial title for the head of the Treasury. Jonathan Swift, for example, wrote in 1713 about "those who are now commonly called Prime Minister among us", referring to Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin and Robert Harley, Queen Anne's Lord Treasurers and chief ministers. [12] From this time, every head of the Sovereign's government – with one exception in the 18th century and one in the 19th – has been either Lord High Treasurer or, more commonly, First Lord of the Treasury.

I assume the exceptions intended are Chatham and Salisbury. But this isn't really true, is it? Lord Halifax was not head of George I's first government, nor was Walpole the head of a government in 1716. For the 1714-1721 period, for the most part, it was the secretaries of state who were considered heads of the administration, not the First Lords of the Treasury (except for Stanhope's stint at the treasury in 1717-1718). Even beyond that, we have several periods in the eighteenth century where it's not at all clear that the man at the treasury should be considered "the head of the sovereign's government," even though he is the man on our lists of prime ministers. john k (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The United Kingdom is part of the Commonwealth so I think it should have the same infobox template as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other commonwealth realms. So I am changing it because it only makes sense for the Prime Minister of the UK's page and the other Prime Minister of those commonwealth realms to be the same. Unless someone wants to make the other commonwealth realms the same as the Prime Minister of the UK's page. I don't care which but I think they should be the same considering they are all in the Commonwealth together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What should be done: A discussion covering all Commonwealth realm PMs at a chosen place. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Why don't you respond to the posts at User talk:174.7.14.105? -- GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to. And I told you what I think. Choose one. Convert them all the the UK's page or chnage the Uk's page liek the rest of the commonwealth realms. It only makes sense that they should be the same. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to bow to your demands. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

174.7.14.105, patients is a virtue & you've just tried by virtue. IMHO, it's best an adminstrator gives you some time off. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONWEALTH, as I've opened a discussion there, concerning all Commonwealth realm PMs. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification for having these match across commonwealth countries. There is no real reason why the articles should fit into any particular framework, but, as it is, they look like similar articles related to their respective countries. If there has been some degree of imitation among Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, that does not create a need for the UK to conform. -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFF to the anon when he tried to remove the minister infobox from Prime Minister of Canada on the grounds that this page used the political office infobox. Of course, now it applies here to the reverse scenario, but, I'm nearly convinced he simply doesn't bother to read the guidelines. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Because Miesianiacal keeps telling me how the template of the infobox for Canada, Austrailia and the other comolonwealth realms should be the same. Thats why we compremised on it and we both got what we wanted. I think it makes a lot of sense for it to be the same. So compremise or I'll keep doing what I am doing. I'm not doing anything wrong. I am stating my opinion and I am going by it. And i am disscussing it. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I said no such thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'll keep doing what I'm doing", that's not very good. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did. You didn't let me change the Prime Minsiter of Canada's infobox like the PM of the Uk or thew President of the US's infobox. you said it should be the same as the other templates.

"The template you keep deleting was designed so as to use a colour coding system to differentiate between ministers in simple states and federations, as well as between federal and provincial/state ministers in the latter. " That is what you said. Austrailia, and all the other commonwealth realms have it too so why not the Uk???????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in what you quote from me did I say the infoboxes for all Commonwealth realms ministers should be the same. What I said regarding the Canadian prime minister's infobox was that it should be the same as the other Canadian ministers. Regardless of that, your bulldozing of consensus was the bigger concern. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to our guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Trying to be disruptive here to undermine an argument in another part of Wikipedia is not particularly helpful. The edit summary on your latest edit is quite informative of your motivations; "Yes it is. If you don't like it change it for Canada and all the other commonwealth realms."[5] Road Wizard (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The UK isn't a federal system, so a template designed for such a system doesn't fit its articles. More importantly, you are entitled to have and express your opinion, but you are not allowed to enforce it on Wikipedia when you meet resistance. You edited, were reverted, and it is now time to talk without changing the article. Before continuing, you really need to read up on Wikipedia policy. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisions Made to Introduction and Other Sections

A few minutes ago, I made some major changes to the Introduction and other sections: rearranging paragraphs, eliminating a section entirely and eliminating a few sentences and words here and there. Since this editing is fairly radical I thought I should briefly explain the reasons. I have been working on this article for more than two years and have contributed significantly (and I hope positively) to it as can be seen in the "history".

First: For the past several months, I have been reading and re-reading the Introduction and first section and always felt that they just didn't seem to flow right. The major problem was that the Introduction didn't completely summarize the article, as I think an Introduction should. Therefore, I moved the paragraph that summarizes the history of the Premiership from the first section back into the Introduction (where it was originally). I wrote this paragraph myself some time ago. It divides the history of the Premiership (somewhat arbitrarily) into three periods: Early (1720-1784), Classical (1784-1911) and Modern (1911 to present). This is also roughly the way the entire article is organized.

Second: Since the Introduction is a "summary" I also eliminated some of the detail that has crept into it. This detail is presented in the body of the article and should not clog up the Introduction. In particular, I eliminated the parenthetical phrase "(Britain's membership in the European Union, the devolution of certain government functions to Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the enactment of a British Bill of Rights)" because it was too much detail for an Introduction.

Finally, I also eliminated the section called "Peers as Prime Ministers" because it was mostly redundant; almost all of this material was already covered in previous sections. The few points not covered previously could be added elsewhere or as footnotes.

I know that making significant changes like these often offends some people. That is not my intent and if I have caused offense I apologize. Obviously, the changes I have made can easily be reverted if there is consensus to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Selection procedure

I was surprised to find that the article does not cover the current procedure for selecting the PM. --Smack (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The monarch formally requests the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons to form a government. This is usually the leader of the party that has won a majority of seats at a Generaol Election. The parties choose their own leaders according to their own constitutions--Captdoc (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that the outgoing PM advises the Queen to invite the new PM to form a government? That is to say, Major would have, upon resigning, advised her to invite Blair, and that at Blair's resignation he would have advised her to appoint Brown. -Rrius (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the opinion of two witnesses before the Justice Committee in February this year;[6]

"I think it is clear that the incumbent Prime Minister in a sense has first refusal in this process. He can see whether he can find an arrangement that would produce support for himself and his party. This is what happened in 1974..." Lord Turnbull

"it is important that the Queen is not involved until the Queen can be sure that the person she invites to form a government has got the best possible chance of doing that. That is something which the outgoing Prime Minister has got a duty to advise her on." Lord Butler of Brockwell

From the way the witnesses phrased themselves throughout the hearing I think the Prime Minister advising the Monarch is a constitutional convention where the advice is expected but where there is no written/legal requirement to provide it. That is the trouble with unwritten constitutions, as there is far greater room for alternative interpretations. Road Wizard (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

came here to try to understand how a prime minister is elected/selected to the office. the wiki article gives much information on the intricate history of the u.k. prime minister, but very little on just how one arrives to the office in simplistic terms (and in modern times). this user was fortunate that a google search "how is uk prime minister elected" offered up this link - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100506183243AAiYVEO - which pretty much answered a casually interested non-brit's question. too bad wikipedia couldn't achieve that somewhere in its lengthy article. regards.--98.113.187.11 (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Representative examples

This article is very overloaded in examples which pertain to Tony Blair. It is in real need of making those more neutral - both in time and political leaning. Examples should not, and need not be the most recent popular PM. wangi (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree completely with this comment for the following reasons.

1. The use of Tony Blair as an example of a modern PM at the beginning of several sections is a "literary devise" (if you will); a. it provides a consistent structure to the narrative, 2. it makes the narrative easier and more familiar for the average reader who may know little about PM's and the history of the PM but at least knows the names of recent ones.

2. The treatment of the Blair examples is very neutral; they appear very factual (in keeping with the wikipedia style)

3. Most (not all) of the other PM's are mentioned as examples at least once, some several times (i.e. Walpole, Pitt the Younger, Liverpool, Peel, Thatcher, Churchill)

4. Some PM's are given much MORE space overall in the article than Blair (such as: Walpole, Pitt the Younger, Grey, Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone, Asquith)

Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Change in Prime Minister

It's amazing just how many people want to play Monarch and appoint a Prime Minister before Her Majesty allows one of them to Kiss Hands.. I just wanted to give a pat on the back to those of you who are putting Partisan issues aside an ensuring that the Incumbent accurately stays as PM on this page. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

This page should be protected until the Queen's Speech, or whenever it has become official that Her Majesty has chosen a Prime Minister. Jagislaqroo (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}

I have added a semiprotection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Cameron

Now I don't particularly like David Cameron, but can't someone put up a picture that doesn't make him look like a douche? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a particularly good picture, sure, but it's the one that has been used for David Cameron in every Wiki article.94.173.12.152 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommended Reorganization

Based on some of the comments made recently, I recommend that we reorganize this article and add a new section. Basically, I think it should have two major parts in this order:

Modern Office of Prime Minister

History of the Office of Prime Minister

Sections that are currently at the end - such as "Precedence, Priviledges, and Forms of Address" and "Retirement Honors" - would be moved to the front into the first part. The first part would also have a new section I have given the working title of "General Election and Appointment". This new section would describe how a person becomes prime minister: election to the Commons, election as leader of a major party, etc etc.

The second part would contain only the history of the office. Althoough there would have to be some repition of information in order for the narrative to make sense, some sentences and paragraphs currently in the historical section could be moved into the new first part.

This is a radical change so I have not made the actual edit. Instead I have created this proposed version in my sandbox which can be accessed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II/Sandbox In this "sandbox" version, I have not only rearranged the parts and sections but also made some (but by no means all) of the other edits that will be necessary. I will wait a while to see if there are any comments or objections before actually making this proposed reorganization in the article itself.

Wikipedia considers the article to be too long (over 90 KB); the recommended length is more like 30-50 KB. Therefore, eventually, we may want to divide it into two separate articles: "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and "History of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" Sir Cloudesley Shovel II (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: In an article of this size, there should be more than two level-two headings. What's more, not all of what you are calling history is history. Also, it seems odd to bury the "Background" section in the history section. The article should tell you what the office is before it tells you anything else. It is not necessarily a bad idea to have a section called "Appointment", but mentioning general elections in the heading is unnecessary (and only the first word of the heading and proper nouns should be capitalised). The section on precedence and the like is less important than other sections, so it makes sense to keep it toward the end. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

New section needed

Salary and benefits. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Salary in the infobox?

Why is DC's salary int he infobox? It's not particularly important information, atleast not as far as the inforbox is concerned. Objections to removal? raseaC^{talk to me} 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Error in salary

There's an error in the sentence: "The Prime Minister's current salary is £142,500, in addition to a salary of £65,000 as a Member of Parliament." The Number Ten website makes it clear that his combined ministerial and parliamentary salary is £142,500.[7] This article in the Telegraph explains that the Prime Minister's remuneration was cut from £194,000 to £150,000 by Gordon Brown.[8] Cameron's 5% cut then takes it to £142,500.[9][10] --86.145.163.16 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Substituting for a PM

As a foreigner who is interested in politics, but who is no expert, I would like to know -and I think it would be relevant for this article to explain- who takes over if the prime minister dies or is taken seriously ill while still in office, or resigns for personal rather than political reasons, and until a new prime minister is elected. That is, what happens when a PM who has not lost the confidence of the Commons cannot or will not govern any longer?

Also, I would like to know who effectively takes governmental decisions while the prime minister is abroad, or does s/he govern from wherever s/he is.

I hope these doubts are considered relevant to the scope of this article and someone can include the information. Thank you. Eduarodi (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's done more by custom and the circumstances of the day rather than a formal order of succession which makes it hard to describe succinctly. (There are various Cabinet "rankings" floating about but different lists have different orders. And most of these lists mainly concern things like official seating orders or determining which minister has to go to another's office for a meeting or even just ego & prestige.)

If the Prime Minister resigns or dies for whatever reason the monarch will appoint a new one. Who will get appointed will be the person the monarch considers the most appropriate in the circumstances with some consideration of precedence but also of the political situation of the day. If the Prime Minister's party is likely to have a protracted leadership election between multiple parties then the monarch will want to avoid giving a candidate an advantage and would likely instead appointed either an elder statesman or a coalition Deputy Prime Minister from a junior party, but on the understanding that as soon as the main party has elected a new leader they will become PM. Conversely a party might have a very quick procedure for picking a new leader or there may be one candidate who is clearly ahead of all others, so there would be no point in awaiting the formalities. The monarch will be advised by a number of sources and in particular will be advised if there's something that makes a particular person unsuitable, regardless of whatever formal position they may hold.

In terms of decisions when the PM is abroad, there's various procedures in place. When they're on official trips they'll usually stay in touch with the situation back home and make emergency decisions. When they're on holiday or otherwise out of the scene another senior minister will usually mind the shop but will rarely do anything of significance beyond formal duties.

None of this is easy to summarise because it's not done by statute and the personnel of the day play a key role in determining what actually happens. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the last time a prime minister died in office? 1812? I guess Bonar Law is the most recent example of a situation where the PM resigned and the successor was not clear. In that case, the king just appointed who he wanted to, pretty much, since there were no leadership elections for the Conservative Party at the time. Most of the possible expedients you mention haven't ever actually happened - there has never been, so far as I'm aware, a true caretaker prime minister of that kind, with the sole exception of the Duke of Wellington in 1834, which was not the case Eduarodi was referring to. That happened when the prime minister (for the last time) simply dismissed Melbourne and appointed Wellington as a caretaker because Peel was out of the country. john k (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the explanations and the examples. You see, as a resident in a republic I was looking for some sort of vice-presidential figure in the UK. I understand there haven't been many examples in British history where my scenarios have applied. But even in republics, most presidents don't die in office or resign. So, vice-presidents are there just in case they need to replace the president, and in the meantime they have other duties such as presiding over the Senate. Now I see in the UK it's quite different. Thanks again. Eduarodi (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

infobox "Term"

I have changed the Term in the infobox as it is not correct to say "While commanding the confidence of the House of Commons" as losing the confidence does not automatically mean a person stops being PM. This is exampled by James Callaghan losing a vote of no confidence in 1979 and remaining as PM for another 36 days. It is better to say "At Her Majesty's pleasure" since even a PM who wishes to resign must obtain Her Majesty's permission to do so. Codf1977 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This will not do. For one thing, "at Her Majesty's pleasure" is the term used for a life sentence passed on a juvenile defendant, and is indelibly linked with this concept by British people. For another, the monarch's power to dismiss a Prime Minister is by now entirely theoretical. Not since 1931 has the monarch actually played any role in deciding what government is formed. I think the previous formulation, "while commanding the confidence of the House of Commons", is far better. In the case above noted, Callaghan remained temporary Prime Minister while he attempted to regain the confidence of a newly elected House of Commons; if you read Tony Benn's diaries you will see that after the vote of no confidence was carried, the Government had to obtain the agreement of the Opposition on key decisions and others were held over until a new government was formed.

There were widespread hints during the 1980s that Her Majesty was not exactly the number one fan of Margaret Thatcher. As written the article might be taken as implying the Prime Minister had to be the Monarch's personal choice, which is not true. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing a strawman with this whole idea of a prison sentence; a PM does not serve indefinitely, and I challenge you to find any RS to make that claim stick. The other two ideas, either at HM's pleasure, or while maintaining the confidence of Parliament both are informative and correct; the fact that HM Elizabeth II is not known to have influenced the selection of a PM does not remove the absolute requirement that she formally appoint each one, and that she has the legal right to fire the current holder at any time. That this particular Queen won't do that doesn't mean her or her heirs lack that power, or will never exercise it. Courcelles 20:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing that a PM serves indefinitely. What Sam Blacketer is arguing is that the PM serves "while commanding the confidence of the House of Commons", which is exactly correct. The Queen's theoretical right to appoint anyone she damn well pleases, and her theoretical right to sack the incumbent because she's having a bad hair day or whatever, are utterly circumscribed by a convention which is as binding as if it were a law set in concrete. To even remotely suggest she would ever act contrary to this convention - that's the straw man here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "term" simply isn't applicable. We should therefore either put "none", or "not applicable", or remove the option altogether. As has already been stated, "at her majesty's pleasure" is wrong in every way. ðarkuncoll 00:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"While commanding the confidence of the House of Commons" is not "exactly correct". As has already been noted, the prime minister remains prime minister even after a vote of non-confidence in the lower chamber; a prime minister ceases to be prime minister when his commission is revoked by the Queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, so in other words, there is no "term", which implies a fixed limit. "At Her Majesty's Pleasure" is certainly wrong too, as that phrase, as has already been pointed out, is exclusively used for young offenders given a custodial sentence with no predefined length. ðarkuncoll 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, no it isn't. It is also quite correctly used (along with the similar phrasing during her majesty's pleasure) to mean someone holding an office with no set limit for their duration of office e.g. "The First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure." ([11]); "A person appointed as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure." ([12]) or "There shall be a Governor-General of Saint Lucia who shall be a citizen appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Saint Lucia." ([13])

On that basis, I'm reverting the change as lacking consensus. - Chrism would like to hear from you 09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree reasonable phrasing --Snowded ^TALK 10:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source applying the phrase to the prime minister, rather than, say, the governor-general of Saint Lucia? If not, it's Synthesis. ðarkuncoll 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. It's the proper application of a term according to its definition; appointment by the Queen without set term limit = serving at the Queen's pleasure. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better just to say "Term: None" - since the word "term" means a fixed limit? ðarkuncoll 12:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That would actually be reasonable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

An old discussion I know, but it is simply not correct (however strange this may seem to the man on the Clapham Omnibus) that Prime Ministers are appointed by the House of Commons. In principle they are appointed by the monarch, which in practice nowadays means that they are a bit of a self-perpetuating oligarchy as the present Queen simply does not get involved in, say, coalition negotiations in the way that Queen Victoria or King George V would have done. A government without a majority would have problems getting even an interim budget through, but it is not entirely inconceivable that a Prime Minister might struggle on without a majority in the House of Commons - Baldwin very nearly did in January 1924.Paulturtle (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Political leader of the United Kingdom

The term "political leader of the United Kingdom" is not needed as it makes it sound like a one party state, and is not accurate as the prime minster is head of government and usually but not always leads the largest faction in the Commons, but there is also leader of the opposition and the opposition parties do not consider the prime minster to the their political leader. -- PBS (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

work

how can i become someone like the goverment who can hear what the average british man on the street is talking about and voice it to the people that can do something about it. or how can i be a member of parliment so i can stand up and make my thoughts heard? 188.29.20.161 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Some absolute nonsense in this article

I'm quite shocked at how flowery this article has become, with assertions that simply are not true in fact.

For example "Parliament placed the Crown in "commission"..." - no it hasn't. The Crown is not in commission. That word should not be used to describe the dispersal of day-to-day political power to the various ministers and public bodies.

This article needs a serious clean-up, removing the flowery language and get it back to being a factual account of the office of Prime Minister. David (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Flowery is exactly the right word! The sing-song style and the undue weight on ceremonial aspects make it read more like a period novel than an encylopedia article. It's just hard to know where to start... Thom2002 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I have extensive knowledge in constitutional law (from university) but am sometimes daunted at the stuff to sort out on many Wikipedia articles! For example, this article has far too much about general constitutional history and "discussion" which really belongs in Constitution of the United Kingdom et al. - this article should focus more on the office of Prime Minister. Now, of course the office is "at the centre of the web" of British politics and has a complex legal background and historical development, but there is no excuse for the waffle and - more seriously - the misleading or even wrong assertions such as this nonsense about the Crown being in commission! David (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have dealt with one particular paragraph that before my edits was awash with incorrect stuff and the "flowery language" mentioned above. There are however many more such paragraphs in this article. Why is no one dealing with this? 86.154.20.59 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Done some more work. Was surprised that Minister for the Civil Service wasn't mentioned at all in this article. This is a pretty major aspect of where the Prime Minister derives his power from. If not appointed to this position, he wouldn't control the civil service. 86.154.20.59 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

This article on the office of PM is superb. I'm sure that it is correct; and it's well written, especially the opening summary from a historical perspective. Thanks to all involved. Suits my purpose very well indeed.Herbolzheim (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence?

"According to the now defunct Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Prime Minister is made a Privy Counsellor as a result of taking office and should be addressed by the official title prefixed by "The Right Honourable" and not by a personal name. "

Do we have a citation for this? Its complete nonsense (although the DCA was perfectly capable of such things!) Membership of the Privy council is a personal appointment and as such cannot be attached before an office. A style can be attached to an office but no warrant granting such a thing has ever existed for 'PM' or 'FLOT' Garlicplanting (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is still awaiting clarification. I'm tempted to remove the whole sentence (What is the 'official title?'), but for now will just add a 'citation needed'. Farleysmaster (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Name clarification request

Hello, Can any editor(s) please clarify whether there is a more correct or official form of name for the prime minister's position as I'm having a silly dispute over this at the Peniston Booth article. Is it "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", "Prime Minister of Great Britain" or something else? The prime minister's website indicates that it's "Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" but this article suggests that it's "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I don't really care what it is but I don't see how "Prime Minister of Great Britain" is any more correct than "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" (which is this article's name). Has the name ever changed from "PM of GB" to "PM of the UK" or vice-versa? Thanks for any help. Anglicanus (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Easypeasy - qv: Kingdom of Great Britain or Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle etc etc..
Fr Anglicanus, let's complement each other's knowledge (for instance you know abt MOS - I don't, whilst I try to maintain that I know a little bit abt history..!) if okay? M Mabelina (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (retired)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618230623/http://www.number10.gov.uk:80/news/latest-news/2010/05/a-new-politics-cutting-ministerial-pay-50065 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/05/a-new-politics-cutting-ministerial-pay-50065

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Prefix

Shouldn't the Prime Minister info box should be inline with other Great Offices of State, prefix should be included with his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymanb (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Preferably only once, in the article about the person, in the "initial reference and infobox heading for the person". See MOS:HONORIFIC. - DVdm (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080514004118/http://www.parliament.uk:80/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/analysis_by_composition.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/analysis_by_composition.cfm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Resignation

The PM just resigned, someone who knows how to do it should change this page to mark David Cameron as no longer the PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.89.162 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No - he announced that he is going to resign once the party has elected a new leader (probably sometime in September) - but he remains prime minister for the next few months. Wymspen (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

In case that David Cameron has not in fact resigned, as it is claimed, how may he, as the PM, postpone the implementation of, and thus ignore the will of the British people to leave the EU? Mr. Cameron seems to have created some state of affairs by which he is the PM and, simultaneously, not the PM. Said Tavakoli Parsan (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Leader of the House of Commons

The paragraph Parliament Act and the Premiership states that the prime minister is also the leader of the House of Commons. This was the case historically, but has not been so since 1942 (Churchill was the last to combine the two). Since then the Leader of the House of Commons has been a member of the cabinet rather than the prime minister. See the article Leader of the House of Commons Wymspen (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The legality of this matter needs cleaning up in the article. Is it a legal requirement for the PM to be a member of the Commons? My understanding is that the PM may be in the Lords, and need not be directly elected by the people.203.194.47.168 (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You're correct, see here: https://history.blog.gov.uk/2013/04/24/prime-ministers-in-the-house-of-lords/:

Halifax was correct that the centre of gravity of British political life had shifted decisively to the Commons. The political power and influence of the House of Lords had diminished significantly since the nineteenth century, a trend which continued apace in the second half of the twentieth century, making the possibility of any further Prime Ministers governing from the Lords increasingly unlikely.

Farleysmaster (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Resignation of the PM

David Cameron has announced his resignation after the results of the Brexit were officially released. Yet he set a 3 month period during which he would act as PM, without any obligation to, and therefore any responsibility as to the implementation of the Brexit.The question is: is Mr. David Cameron the Prime minister, considering that he has resigned? If yes, considering that he has conditioned its enactment to passage of 3 months of time, can he claim irresponsibility to the implementation of the general will of the British people to have their country out of the EU. [There rises, furthermore, the question concerning the right of the PM to condition his resignation.] Said Tavakoli Parsan (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't resigned - he has merely said that he will resign. He remains the Prime Minister until such point as he actually resigns (or is dismissed by the Queen). I'm not sure what your second question means, I'm afraid. Proteus (Talk) 15:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Gender neutral language

As the next Prime Minister is (barring any issues arising) going to be female, should some of the language of this article not be revised to reflect this? There are several instances in the lead alone of male pronouns being used when referring to the position in general (e.g. "by virtue of his role"). Whilst I haven't yet checked through the whole article, I would not be surprised if it occurs throughout. I suggest that we have a section-by-section look through of the article and - when the text is not referring to specific past or present PMs - replace any male pronouns (he, his) with gender-neutral alternatives (them, their). Aw16 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Early editing

WP:TIND. There is no need to state that Theresa May is the Prime Minister until she actually becomes the Prime Minister. David Cameron is still to resign, Theresa is still to ask to form the government and the Queen is yet to appoint her. Stating she is the Prime Minister is plain wrong. Wait until she is appointed before editing it in. Calvin (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You.Cantab1985 (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed Term Parliament Act

I notice in the infobox it says "Term Length" is "At her Majesty's pleasure" - is this not inaccurate now given the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which requires a General Election to be called no longer than 5 years from the previous? Amadeus2k8 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct. I'll let you edit it in :) Calvin (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't edit the article as it is semi-protected. I'd request someone who can, do so.Amadeus2k8 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Edited Calvin (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is NOT correct - the Act fixed terms of Parliament, not the Prime Minister. Show me where it says that the Prime Minister has a term of five years. Show me. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why does the article have a picture of David Cameron but say the incumbent since 2010 is Tony Blair?

Shome mishtake surely? 89.207.1.20 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet Secretary was acting PM?

What is the source for the changes that kept being made asserting Jeremy Heywood was acting PM during the transition of PMs? Gordon (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's absolute nonsense. This article has been taken over in recent days by people who frankly haven't got a clue. Sumorsǣte (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Heywood's responsibilities as Cabinet Secretary included executing the duties of the Prime Minister's office during a vacancy. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this incredible claim that a Civil Servant was acting PM. Gordon (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's usually described along these lines: "the UK will not have a Prime Minster ... the country will be managed by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a source for that convention? Gordon (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Usually the TV in the gap while we're waiting for cars to and from Buckingham Palace :) I could have sworn that I saw a recent interesting article on the BBC website mentioning Deputy Prime Ministers at this time, which I can't now find. But officially I expect it's due to the fact he could be described as 'running the country' at any time. I think it's important to note that it isn't the PM - there isn't one, and several important powers are likely to be missing. But I am short on sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds a bit like pub musings dressed up as fact. If some State emergency did happen in this interim period, Ive got to imagine that the senior politicians of the party of government would be be in charge in the first instance. There's no question of the Cabinet secretary calling any shots, I wouldn't have though.Farleysmaster (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I fully concur with Sumorsǣte. The United Kingdom has not and will not ever have an Acting Prime Minister. In my view, May was practically the de facto prime minister the exact millisecond that Cameron had formally resigned. The monarch is merely ceremonial when it comes to prime ministerial transition.--Neve–selbert 22:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good/related point from Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:

Many theories exist as to the absence of a formal post of Deputy Prime Minister in Britain's uncodified constitution. Theoretically the sovereign possesses the unrestricted right to choose someone to form a government following the death, resignation or dismissal of a Prime Minister.One argument made to justify the non-existence of a permanent deputy premiership is that such an office-holder would be seen as possessing a presumption of succession to the premiership, thereby effectively limiting the sovereign's right to choose a prime minister.

Farleysmaster (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Pure supposition on my part, but given that PM only exercises power on behalf of the monarch, then I would expect that executive power is, de jure, exercised by the monarch directly in the "gap" between PMs. Or possibly the Privy Council. Interesting thought-exercise/constitutional conundrum. 62.156.255.28 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The gap between PMs going to the Palace and resigning and a new one arriving is an hour, perhaps more. Just as there is always a monarch, there is always a Prime Minister. The circumstances around the likelihood of any international crisis or national emergency arising in the gap between PMs is so infinitesimally small as to be scarcely imaginable. If there was such a crisis, I don't think we would have a Queen or a country left. In nuclear war times, there was a classified plan for the Queen to put on HMY Britannia with the Duke of Edinburgh, her Private Secretary and the Home Secretary and sail to the far north of Scotland. With three Privy Counsellors they could hold a Privy Council and continue running the Government if the bunkers at Northwood were hit, since only the Queen can form a government. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"John Smith"

Re: "The title "Prime Minister" (e.g. "Prime Minister John Smith") is technically incorrect " - perhaps a different specimen name should be used, seeing as "John Smith" was the name of an actual Leader of the Opposition and therefore potential Prime Minister of the early 1990s 62.190.148.115 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Jane Smith? Farleysmaster (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Or Joseph Bloggs? Farleysmaster (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - changed it to James Smith. No UK politician of this name active within living memory. 95.151.137.139 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Er, why not "The title "Prime Minister" (e.g. "Prime Minister Theresa May") is technically incorrect "? john k (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

I would like to update some facts Sebcru (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Former Prime Ministers

@Neve-selbert: So because the "section has existed at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for years" it shouldn't be moved to the list. Take a look at List of Presidents of the United States and List of First Ladies of the United States. As you can see the former presidents and first ladies who are still alive are mentioned on these two lists. In my opinion it's more reasonable as we're actually "listing" the living former Prime Ministers, thus this section probably should be placed there. Keivan.f^Talk 04:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That section has existed at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for years, Keivan.f. I cannot see why we should break with precedent based on your opinion alone. Those articles you mention have their own precedent, and per WP:OSE there is no imperative need for us to duplicate that with UK-related articles.--Nevé–selbert 23:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: And I don't understand why we should keep this section here based on your opinion. The fact that it's been here for a long time doesn't make what I said impossible. Anyway, I think the only way is to wait for the other interested users who may want to discuss the topic because you and I probably won't reach an agreement here. Have a nice day. Keivan.f^Talk 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: The section you refer to at List of Presidents of the United States has since been removed, per discussion.--Nevé–selbert 23:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: I see, that's the users' decision and I respect it. They're now mentioned here President of the United States#Post-presidency, exactly like this article. I have also created a similar section on Spouse of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Now that the living former presidents of the USA, and living former prime ministers of the UK and their spouses are all listed and mentioned on the main articles, don't you think we should do the same thing for first ladies of the USA and move that similar section from here to here? Keivan.f^Talk 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure Keivan.f, go ahead. As a side note (with respect to your editing here), I find it hard to believe that the wives of Eden and Wilson are still alive.--Nevé–selbert 12:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Well, I don't know. I just listed them based on the information provided here on Wikipedia. If you believe they're dead or have access to a source that proves your statement, then surely you can correct my mistake. Keivan.f^Talk 12:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Well Wilson seems to be alive. At least she was alive until last year according to this article by the Independent. Keivan.f^Talk 12:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, we have articles for both of them: Mary Wilson, Baroness Wilson of Rievaulx and Clarissa Eden. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Presidential" Premiership

I have replaced a lot of the text in the section '"Presidential" Premiership' with text copied from Cabinet of the United Kingdom. There were two reasons for this:

1. Much of the text that I replaced had lots of speculation in it but it was not sourced. For example Prime Ministers may dominate the Cabinet so much that they become "Semi-Presidents". Examples are William Ewart Gladstone, David Lloyd George, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and Tony Blair. Who says that they dominated their Cabinet so much that they become "Semi-Presidents"?
2. The very first two sentence advances a point: "The role and power of the Prime Minister have been subject to much change in the last fifty years.There has gradually been a change from Cabinet decision-making and deliberation to the dominance of the Prime Minister." These sentences advances a point for the whole section without any evidence to support it.

It is true that those who have written about the Premiership such as Richard Crossman have put forward ideas that suggest that the relationship between the prime mister and his or her cabinet collogues is different from that which Bagehot's phrase primus‐inter‐pares ("first among equals" implies but:

1. Crossman was writing more than 50 years ago so he was basing his analysis on cabinets from before that. So it is not in the last 50 years.
2. Just because the people have advanced new ideas on the relationship between the prime minster and the cabinet have fundamentally changed, it may be that it is just the analysis that has changed, and the the relationship between PM and cabinet has not.

If one cherry picks premierships such as Thatcher's and Blair's then one can argue for a presidential style (at least in the Thatcher's second government and Blair's first). But in her first term Thatcher had to deal with rifts in her Cabinet and relied heavily on members such as Keith Joseph (if it had not been for the Falklands war it is unlikely she would ever have dominated her party and cabinet as she did afterwards). In the case of Blair, if as did the political scientist Michael Foley writing in 2000 and Graham Allen (a former Whip) writing in 2003, one concentrates on the his first government, then a case could be made for it appearing presidential. However during his second government and the near war between Numbers 10 and 11 Downing street Blair hardly appeared presidential and it was obvious that his cabinet was split, and that he could not dominate it.

If on the other hand, one picks Heath's, Callahnd's and Major's terms in office few would argue that they were presidential in style or substance, and since Blair has gone there have been three PMs. Brown, Cameron and May. Few would argue that these are examples of Presidential premierships. Indeed during his first term, Cameron was a prime minster over the first official peacetime coalition since the 1930s, and all the pundits seem to agree that his motives for calling the referendum was because of internal splits within his own party, not because of some presidential action in the interests of the nation. May is hanging on, but the recent purchase of the DUP does not seen the actions of a "Presidential" Premier.

So my point is that the section "Presidential" Premiership needs to be constructed in such a way that it does not try to lead the reader to one point of view, because when it comes to politics in the UK and the arrangement between the main players much of it is driven by "Events, dear boy, events." (to quote a former PM) rather than some developing constitutional precedence towards an ever more authoritative office of Prime Minister.

-- PBS (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Interregnum and all that

Constitutional background

• As the "Head of Her Majesty's Government" the modern Prime Minister leads the Cabinet (the Executive).

Why "modern"? when does modern start? The prime minister has been head of a government since the death of Albert and one can argue since the beginning of Victoria's reign. Would the average reader consider Melbourne to be modern?

The government consists of more that the Cabinet (which only includes senior members of the executive) think of all the junior members of the government who are also bound by collective responsibility. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Before the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, the Sovereign exclusively wielded the powers of the Crown

What about 1649 and the execution of a sovereign and the interregnum that followed?

Also this whole section is assuming that and article about the Minister of the United Kingdom is based on the history of England alone and takes no account of the histories of Ireland and Scotland. I happen to agree with that, but that is a POV, (1) needs explaining (2) needs reliable sources to back it up. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Under this arrangement, Britain might appear to have two executives: the Prime Minister and the Sovereign.

I don't see how anything in the previous paragraphs draws this conclusion. The prime minister is the head of "Head of Her Majesty's Government" so clearly there is nothing to suggest two executives. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• leaving the monarch in practice with three constitutional rights: to be kept informed, to advise, and to warn

If there is a hung parliament the monarch has the power to select a government from those offered by the competing parties. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Revolutionary settlement

• A meaningful starting point, however, is 1688–9 ... shifting the balance of power from the Sovereign to Parliament.

Again this starts with the assumption that the current office is derived solely from English history. It would be better if this article started with Walpole who was the first (and as a derogatory term) called Prime Minister, this would skip that problem. Failing that start with the act of union in 1707. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Beginnings of the Prime Minister's party leadership

• Political parties first appeared during the Exclusion Crisis of 1678–1681.

English history again, and it is ignoring earlier political parties such as the Cavaliers [[[Roundhead]]s and Levellers. Again this problem disappears if this article concentrates on the UK office of Prime Minster and starts with Walpole.

• A major deterrent to the development of opposing parties was the idea that there could only be one "King's Party" and to oppose it would be disloyal or even treasonous.

1649 and the Interregnum! -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Cabinet

• The modern Prime Minister is also the leader of the Cabinet.

The Prime Mister is leader of their party but head of the Cabinet. Again what does modern mean? -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Revolutionary Settlement

Again it was an English Revolutionary Settlement and as such has little to do with the office of Prime Minister of the UK. Better to keep it post the Act of Union and preferably with Walpole rise to power. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"One Party Government"

Early in his reign, William III... I suggest this is dropped and Anne too and start with George I. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Modern Premiership

What does the term "Modern Premiership" mean in that heading? -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Powers and constraints

This needs breaking out in to powers, patronage (one of the powers) and constraints.

• The Prime Minister can authorise, but not directly order, the use of Britain's nuclear weapons and the Prime Minister is hence a Commander-in-Chief in all but name.

No he or she is not. This is part of the separation of powers, and is an important check in the use of atomic weapons (and other military actions). -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• The Prime Minister appoints officials known as the "Government Whips"

It it the Prime Minister (as head of the government) or the leader of the party who appoints government whips? This document "Chief Whip (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)" is ambivalent about the role. If they only whip their own party then they are acting for their own party. What about in a coalition government who whips whom? -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Likewise, a Prime Minister is no longer just "first amongst equals" in HM Government;

Were they ever, or is it that they were describe that way? -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Precedence, privileges and form of address

• According to the now defunct Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Prime Minister is made a Privy Counsellor as a result of taking office and should be addressed by the official title prefixed by "The Right Honourable" and not by a personal name

This is a very confusing sentence and incorrect. Most prime ministers are privy counsellors long before the become prime minister (either as a cabinet minister or leader if the opposition). They do not have to be addressed as "The Right Honourable", that is parliamentary procedure, where privy counsellors are addressed as "The Right Honourable" (name of the constituency) by the speaker etc. The sentence either needs a rewrite or removal. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)