Jump to content

Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simontrumpet (talk | contribs) at 07:47, 6 May 2005 (Absolute majority in UK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

"of the United Kingdom

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

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

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



"semi-president"

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

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

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

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

(response to Jtdirl)

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

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

bios

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

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

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

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

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

Why the edit wars?

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

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

Don't like clumsy table

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Ramsay MacDonald and Labour Party

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

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

was Pitt a Prime Minister?

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


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

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

The southern department. Lirath Q. Pynnor

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

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

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

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

What is the term of the British prime minister?

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

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

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

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

Pitt the Elder and Bute dates

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

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

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

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

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

Images and table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Most Senior"?

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

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

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

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

Wellington in 1834

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

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

CUstomary honours

Currently in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

Colo(u)r-coded List

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we include the brief gaps?

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

These occasions were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect solution

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

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

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

Series / Category

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

Table

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

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

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

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

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

Images

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

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

Page length

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

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

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

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

first section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doubts about overhyping 1905

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

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

How come...

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolute majority in UK

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=13335123"