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 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)
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)
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 see an argument here against splitting off the list. --Jiang 04:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A paper from the House of Commons: [1] 85.124.40.194 22:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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.
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?
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T11:13:00.000Z","author":"Oxymoron01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oxymoron01-2006-07-16T11:13:00.000Z-Who_Can_Be_Prime_Minister?_\/_What_Happens_of_the_P.M._Loses_His_Seat?","replies":[],"displayName":"Oxymoron"}}-->
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)
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)
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-31T09:32:00.000Z","author":"AllanHainey","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AllanHainey-2005-10-31T09:32:00.000Z-1905_&_1st_use_of_PM_title","replies":["c-Doops-2005-10-31T10:05:00.000Z-AllanHainey-2005-10-31T09:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-04-10T14:33:00.000Z","author":"Gareth E Kegg","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Gareth_E_Kegg-2006-04-10T14:33:00.000Z-Spouses_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom","replies":["c-AllanHainey-2006-04-11T11:51:00.000Z-Gareth_E_Kegg-2006-04-10T14:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
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 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) __DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-02T23:17:00.000Z","author":"Jtdirl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jtdirl-2006-05-02T23:17:00.000Z-Who_the_heck_._._._?","replies":["c-Lapafrax-2006-05-24T16:08:00.000Z-Jtdirl-2006-05-02T23:17:00.000Z","c-161.24.19.82-2007-04-09T13:25:00.000Z-Jtdirl-2006-05-02T23:17:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Fear\u00c9IREANN"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-20T18:36:00.000Z","author":"Dtcdthingy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dtcdthingy-2006-06-20T18:36:00.000Z-Blair_Force_One_merger","replies":["c-Jbou-2006-06-20T21:13:00.000Z-Dtcdthingy-2006-06-20T18:36:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T08:29:00.000Z","author":"Dhartung","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dhartung-2006-07-16T08:29:00.000Z-Cleanup","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T16:36:00.000Z","author":"Carcharoth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carcharoth-2006-07-16T16:36:00.000Z-Dates_for_the_pictures","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T16:55:00.000Z","author":"Carcharoth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carcharoth-2006-07-16T16:55:00.000Z-Lloyd_George_picture_-_at_least_two_pictures_exist","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T17:06:00.000Z","author":"Carcharoth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carcharoth-2006-07-16T17:06:00.000Z-Two_more_\"picture_dates\"_issues","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T23:27:00.000Z","author":"Carcharoth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carcharoth-2006-07-16T23:27:00.000Z-Why_was_the_article_not_checked_before_going_on_the_Main_Page?","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-16T23:49:00.000Z","author":"Jason Jones","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jason_Jones-2006-07-16T23:49:00.000Z-Scottish,_Welsh,_or_Irish_PMs?","replies":[]}}-->
Hobson 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-17T00:15:00.000Z","author":"Hobson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hobson-2006-07-17T00:15:00.000Z-Scottish,_Welsh,_or_Irish_PMs?","replies":["c-86.145.7.244-2007-11-24T20:12:00.000Z-Hobson-2006-07-17T00:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-17T00:54:00.000Z","author":"Carcharoth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carcharoth-2006-07-17T00:54:00.000Z-Scottish,_Welsh,_or_Irish_PMs?","replies":["c-AllanHainey-2006-07-17T15:32:00.000Z-Carcharoth-2006-07-17T00:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-07-17T08:51:00.000Z","author":"Kayman1uk","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kayman1uk-2006-07-17T08:51:00.000Z-Deputy_PM?","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-02T10:52:00.000Z","author":"Lapafrax","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lapafrax-2006-09-02T10:52:00.000Z-De_facto","replies":[]}}-->
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).
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.
The caption to Image:Blair_Cheney_at_Number_10.jpg
However next to the image, in the article, it is stated
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-09T08:16:00.000Z","author":"Nil Einne","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nil_Einne-2006-09-09T08:16:00.000Z-Inconsistent\/confusing","replies":["c-Nil_Einne-2006-09-09T08:33:00.000Z-Nil_Einne-2006-09-09T08:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
This currently says:
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-11T12:15:00.000Z","author":"Bluewave","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bluewave-2006-09-11T12:15:00.000Z-Form_of_address","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-11T23:22:00.000Z","author":"Hobson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hobson-2006-09-11T23:22:00.000Z-Form_of_address","replies":["c-Alci12-2007-04-12T15:46:00.000Z-Hobson-2006-09-11T23:22:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-11-03T09:11:00.000Z","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thryduulf-2006-11-03T09:11:00.000Z-Merge_from_Spouses_of_the_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-15T19:23:00.000Z","author":"Autodidactyl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Autodidactyl-2007-05-15T19:23:00.000Z-Merge_from_Spouses_of_the_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-06-26T18:03:00.000Z","author":"Jamandell (d69)","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jamandell_(d69)-2007-06-26T18:03:00.000Z-Merge_from_Spouses_of_the_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom","replies":[]}}-->
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) __DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-04-01T19:35:00.000Z","author":"Jtdirl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jtdirl-2007-04-01T19:35:00.000Z-\"term\"_of_office","replies":["c-Bluewave-2007-04-01T19:53:00.000Z-Jtdirl-2007-04-01T19:35:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Fear\u00c9IREANN"}}-->
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).__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-05T01:57:00.000Z","author":"Honey power","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Honey_power-2007-05-05T01:57:00.000Z-Thatcher_picture_text","replies":["c-Bluewave-2007-05-05T16:43:00.000Z-Honey_power-2007-05-05T01:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-18T09:00:00.000Z","author":"Bluewave","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bluewave-2007-05-18T09:00:00.000Z-Prime_minister-elect?","replies":["c-Doops-2007-05-18T11:34:00.000Z-Bluewave-2007-05-18T09:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-23T15:14:00.000Z","author":"64.180.149.45","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-64.180.149.45-2007-05-23T15:14:00.000Z-Wizards_?","replies":["c-Doops-2007-05-23T15:31:00.000Z-64.180.149.45-2007-05-23T15:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-06-01T12:02:00.000Z","author":"Philip Stevens","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philip_Stevens-2007-06-01T12:02:00.000Z-Inaugural_speech","replies":["c-Philip_Stevens-2007-06-03T16:36:00.000Z-Philip_Stevens-2007-06-01T12:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-06-27T15:49:00.000Z","author":"Beno1000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Beno1000-2007-06-27T15:49:00.000Z-Messy_section_removed","replies":["c-Marks87-2007-06-27T16:12:00.000Z-Beno1000-2007-06-27T15:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-06-28T23:42:00.000Z","author":"88.104.254.149","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-88.104.254.149-2007-06-28T23:42:00.000Z-Prime_Minister_and_Nuclear_Weapons","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-24T21:43:00.000Z","author":"81.157.224.188","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-81.157.224.188-2008-08-24T21:43:00.000Z-Prime_Minister_and_Nuclear_Weapons","replies":["c-Dphilp75-2010-05-07T17:23:00.000Z-81.157.224.188-2008-08-24T21:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-02T13:13:00.000Z","author":"Darth Kalwejt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darth_Kalwejt-2007-07-02T13:13:00.000Z-Security","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-22T03:01:00.000Z","author":"2.123.227.109","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2.123.227.109-2011-12-22T03:01:00.000Z-Security","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-06T10:55:00.000Z","author":"Lynbarn","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lynbarn-2007-07-06T10:55:00.000Z-Numeric_order_of_PMs","replies":["c-Timrollpickering-2007-07-06T11:39:00.000Z-Lynbarn-2007-07-06T10:55:00.000Z","c-Bluewave-2007-07-06T11:58:00.000Z-Lynbarn-2007-07-06T10:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-15T14:50:00.000Z","author":"Timrollpickering","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Timrollpickering-2007-07-15T14:50:00.000Z-Commons_&_Lords_declarations","replies":["c-Bluewave-2007-07-15T18:55:00.000Z-Timrollpickering-2007-07-15T14:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
"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
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-26T15:02:00.000Z","author":"John Kenney","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Kenney-2007-07-26T15:02:00.000Z-Quoting_without_references?","replies":[],"displayName":"john k"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-26T15:07:00.000Z","author":"John Kenney","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Kenney-2007-07-26T15:07:00.000Z-Quoting_without_references?","replies":[],"displayName":"john k"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-24T21:46:00.000Z","author":"81.157.224.188","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-81.157.224.188-2008-08-24T21:46:00.000Z-Mrs._Thatcher_-_\"First_Lady\"?","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-10-06T23:10:00.000Z","author":"Timrollpickering","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Timrollpickering-2007-10-06T23:10:00.000Z-de_jure_December_5,_1905","replies":["c-Doops-2007-10-07T04:38:00.000Z-Timrollpickering-2007-10-06T23:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-12-29T22:35:00.000Z","author":"Raining girl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Raining_girl-2007-12-29T22:35:00.000Z-is_there_a_requirement_to_be_British?","replies":["c-203.194.47.168-2016-06-26T06:14:00.000Z-Raining_girl-2007-12-29T22:35:00.000Z","c-Philip_Stevens-2008-02-27T10:46:00.000Z-Raining_girl-2007-12-29T22:35:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-23T11:55:00.000Z","author":"Timrollpickering","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Timrollpickering-2012-06-23T11:55:00.000Z-is_there_a_requirement_to_be_British?","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-01-05T23:32:00.000Z","author":"Slarre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slarre-2008-01-05T23:32:00.000Z-Salary","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-19T11:32:00.000Z","author":"Hypnoticmonkey","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hypnoticmonkey-2010-06-19T11:32:00.000Z-Salary","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-27T10:48:00.000Z","author":"Philip Stevens","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philip_Stevens-2008-02-27T10:48:00.000Z-Prime_Minister_vs._First_Lord_of_the_Treasury","replies":["c-Timrollpickering-2008-03-09T17:54:00.000Z-Philip_Stevens-2008-02-27T10:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
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))__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-10T16:36:00.000Z","author":"Electrobe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Electrobe-2008-03-10T16:36:00.000Z-Prime_Minister_vs._First_Lord_of_the_Treasury","replies":["c-Philip_Stevens-2008-03-10T16:53:00.000Z-Electrobe-2008-03-10T16:36:00.000Z"]}}-->
I do bet that a less confusing phrase is feasible.
incumbent
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-22T15:45:00.000Z","author":"Hopiakuta","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hopiakuta-2008-03-22T15:45:00.000Z-(generally_regarded_as_the_first_incumbent)_(generally_regarded_as_the_first_inc","replies":["c-Bluewave-2008-03-22T21:57:00.000Z-Hopiakuta-2008-03-22T15:45:00.000Z"],"displayName":"[[ hopiakuta"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-15T00:36:00.000Z","author":"Hugo999","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hugo999-2008-05-15T00:36:00.000Z-Frequent_characteristics","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-16T02:25:00.000Z","author":"202.139.104.226","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-202.139.104.226-2008-05-16T02:25:00.000Z-NEEDS_TO_BE_FIXED","replies":["c-Chessrat-2016-07-12T21:50:00.000Z-202.139.104.226-2008-05-16T02:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-07-26T17:48:00.000Z","author":"204.102.252.21","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-204.102.252.21-2008-07-26T17:48:00.000Z-SOURCES?","replies":["c-Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II-2008-08-02T03:53:00.000Z-204.102.252.21-2008-07-26T17:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
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:
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-28T09:55:00.000Z","author":"Bluewave","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bluewave-2008-08-28T09:55:00.000Z-Intro_section","replies":["c-Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II-2008-08-28T13:06:00.000Z-Bluewave-2008-08-28T09:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-05T13:29:00.000Z","author":"81.132.142.52","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-81.132.142.52-2009-02-05T13:29:00.000Z-Intro_section","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-06T15:15:00.000Z","author":"86.168.70.81","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.168.70.81-2009-02-06T15:15:00.000Z-Mortgages_and_the_economy","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-02T07:05:00.000Z","author":"Drachenfyre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drachenfyre-2009-04-02T07:05:00.000Z-First_Lady?","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2666Drachenfyre\u2666"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-02T11:19:00.000Z","author":"JacobJHWard","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JacobJHWard-2009-04-02T11:19:00.000Z-First_Lady?","replies":["c-Lynbarn-2009-04-02T12:02:00.000Z-JacobJHWard-2009-04-02T11:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-07T23:18:00.000Z","author":"Thom2002","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thom2002-2009-07-07T23:18:00.000Z-His\/Her_Majesty's_Government","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-26T16:26:00.000Z","author":"John Kenney","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-John_Kenney-2009-07-26T16:26:00.000Z-First_Lords_of_the_Treasury","replies":[],"displayName":"john k"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-17T22:15:00.000Z","author":"174.7.14.105","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:15:00.000Z-Infobox","replies":["c-GoodDay-2010-01-17T22:17:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:15:00.000Z","c-GoodDay-2010-01-17T22:19:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-17T22:24:00.000Z","author":"174.7.14.105","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:24:00.000Z-Infobox","replies":["c-Miesianiacal-2010-01-17T22:25:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:24:00.000Z","c-GoodDay-2010-01-17T22:28:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thats nice. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-17T22:32:00.000Z","author":"174.7.14.105","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:32:00.000Z-Infobox","replies":["c-GoodDay-2010-01-17T22:34:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-17T22:43:00.000Z","author":"Rrius","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rrius-2010-01-17T22:43:00.000Z-Infobox","replies":["c-Miesianiacal-2010-01-17T22:53:00.000Z-Rrius-2010-01-17T22:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-17T22:49:00.000Z","author":"174.7.14.105","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:49:00.000Z-Infobox","replies":["c-Miesianiacal-2010-01-17T22:53:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-01-17T22:59:00.000Z","author":"174.7.14.105","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:59:00.000Z-Infobox","replies":["c-Miesianiacal-2010-01-17T23:09:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:59:00.000Z","c-Road_Wizard-2010-01-17T23:02:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:59:00.000Z","c-Rrius-2010-01-17T23:06:00.000Z-174.7.14.105-2010-01-17T22:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-25T10:50:00.000Z","author":"Sir Cloudesley Shovel II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II-2010-03-25T10:50:00.000Z-Revisions_Made_to_Introduction_and_Other_Sections","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-04T04:38:00.000Z","author":"Smack","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Smack-2010-04-04T04:38:00.000Z-Selection_procedure","replies":["c-Captdoc-2010-04-04T19:27:00.000Z-Smack-2010-04-04T04:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-04T19:38:00.000Z","author":"Rrius","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rrius-2010-04-04T19:38:00.000Z-Selection_procedure","replies":["c-Road_Wizard-2010-04-04T22:19:00.000Z-Rrius-2010-04-04T19:38:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-10T05:11:00.000Z","author":"98.113.187.11","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-98.113.187.11-2010-05-10T05:11:00.000Z-Selection_procedure","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-09T02:59:00.000Z","author":"Wangi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wangi-2010-04-09T02:59:00.000Z-Representative_examples","replies":["c-Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II-2010-04-12T09:30:00.000Z-Wangi-2010-04-09T02:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-07T17:16:00.000Z","author":"Dphilp75","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dphilp75-2010-05-07T17:16:00.000Z-Change_in_Prime_Minister","replies":[]}}-->
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}}__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-11T18:36:00.000Z","author":"Jagislaqroo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jagislaqroo-2010-05-11T18:36:00.000Z-Protection","replies":[]}}-->
I have added a semiprotection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-11T18:47:00.000Z","author":"Twp","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Twp-2010-05-11T18:47:00.000Z-Protection","replies":[],"displayName":"Tim Pierce"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-12T00:10:00.000Z","author":"82.32.84.204","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-82.32.84.204-2010-05-12T00:10:00.000Z-Picture_of_Cameron","replies":["c-94.173.12.152-2010-05-18T15:12:00.000Z-82.32.84.204-2010-05-12T00:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
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:
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-14T20:46:00.000Z","author":"Sir Cloudesley Shovel II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II-2010-05-14T20:46:00.000Z-Recommended_Reorganization","replies":["c-Rrius-2010-05-14T20:50:00.000Z-Sir_Cloudesley_Shovel_II-2010-05-14T20:46:00.000Z"]}}-->
Salary and benefits. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-24T13:31:00.000Z","author":"Kittybrewster","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kittybrewster-2010-06-24T13:31:00.000Z-New_section_needed","replies":[]}}-->
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? raseaCtalk to me 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-06-30T22:40:00.000Z","author":"RaseaC","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-RaseaC-2010-06-30T22:40:00.000Z-Salary_in_the_infobox?","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-05T23:56:00.000Z","author":"86.145.163.16","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.145.163.16-2010-07-05T23:56:00.000Z-Error_in_salary","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-16T09:41:00.000Z","author":"Eduarodi","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eduarodi-2010-09-16T09:41:00.000Z-Substituting_for_a_PM","replies":["c-Timrollpickering-2010-09-16T11:11:00.000Z-Eduarodi-2010-09-16T09:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-30T13:49:00.000Z","author":"Codf1977","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Codf1977-2010-09-30T13:49:00.000Z-infobox_\"Term\"","replies":["c-Sam_Blacketer-2011-02-23T15:22:00.000Z-Codf1977-2010-09-30T13:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-02T09:03:00.000Z","author":"Chrism","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Chrism-2011-03-02T09:03:00.000Z-infobox_\"Term\"","replies":["c-Snowded-2011-03-02T10:29:00.000Z-Chrism-2011-03-02T09:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-11-11T04:44:00.000Z","author":"Paulturtle","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Paulturtle-2016-11-11T04:44:00.000Z-infobox_\"Term\"","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-10-12T21:39:00.000Z","author":"Philip Baird Shearer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Philip_Baird_Shearer-2010-10-12T21:39:00.000Z-Political_leader_of_the_United_Kingdom","replies":[],"displayName":"PBS"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-05-17T21:25:00.000Z","author":"188.29.20.161","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-188.29.20.161-2011-05-17T21:25:00.000Z-work","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-04-08T15:04:00.000Z","author":"Dpaajones","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dpaajones-2013-04-08T15:04:00.000Z-Some_absolute_nonsense_in_this_article","replies":["c-Thom2002-2013-04-08T19:06:00.000Z-Dpaajones-2013-04-08T15:04:00.000Z"],"displayName":"David"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-15T16:29:00.000Z","author":"86.154.20.59","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.154.20.59-2013-09-15T16:29:00.000Z-Some_absolute_nonsense_in_this_article","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-15T17:29:00.000Z","author":"86.154.20.59","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-86.154.20.59-2013-09-15T17:29:00.000Z-Some_absolute_nonsense_in_this_article","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-12-11T23:21:00.000Z","author":"Herbolzheim","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Herbolzheim-2013-12-11T23:21:00.000Z-Thanks","replies":[]}}-->
"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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-09-08T10:59:00.000Z","author":"Garlicplanting","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Garlicplanting-2014-09-08T10:59:00.000Z-Evidence?","replies":["c-Farleysmaster-2016-07-18T22:21:00.000Z-Garlicplanting-2014-09-08T10:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-04-03T04:19:00.000Z","author":"Anglicanus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Anglicanus-2015-04-03T04:19:00.000Z-Name_clarification_request","replies":["c-Mabelina-2015-04-03T17:32:00.000Z-Anglicanus-2015-04-03T04:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
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:
{{cbignore}}
{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
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: 5 June 2024).
{{source check}}
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-08-27T10:35:00.000Z","author":"Cyberbot II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cyberbot_II-2015-08-27T10:35:00.000Z-External_links_modified","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-10-12T15:34:00.000Z","author":"Wymanb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wymanb-2015-10-12T15:34:00.000Z-Prefix","replies":["c-DVdm-2015-10-12T15:42:00.000Z-Wymanb-2015-10-12T15:34:00.000Z"]}}-->
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-02-27T13:16:00.000Z","author":"Cyberbot II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cyberbot_II-2016-02-27T13:16:00.000Z-External_links_modified_2","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-24T07:33:00.000Z","author":"82.25.89.162","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-82.25.89.162-2016-06-24T07:33:00.000Z-Resignation","replies":["c-Wymspen-2016-06-24T14:53:00.000Z-82.25.89.162-2016-06-24T07:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-28T15:39:00.000Z","author":"Said Tavakoli Parsan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Said_Tavakoli_Parsan-2016-06-28T15:39:00.000Z-Resignation","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-24T14:57:00.000Z","author":"Wymspen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wymspen-2016-06-24T14:57:00.000Z-Leader_of_the_House_of_Commons","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-26T06:24:00.000Z","author":"203.194.47.168","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-203.194.47.168-2016-06-26T06:24:00.000Z-Leader_of_the_House_of_Commons","replies":["c-Farleysmaster-2016-07-18T22:54:00.000Z-203.194.47.168-2016-06-26T06:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
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.
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-06-28T15:11:00.000Z","author":"Said Tavakoli Parsan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Said_Tavakoli_Parsan-2016-06-28T15:11:00.000Z-Resignation_of_the_PM","replies":["c-Proteus-2016-06-28T15:27:00.000Z-Said_Tavakoli_Parsan-2016-06-28T15:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-08T15:06:00.000Z","author":"Aw16","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aw16-2016-07-08T15:06:00.000Z-Gender_neutral_language","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-13T13:41:00.000Z","author":"CalvinK","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CalvinK-2016-07-13T13:41:00.000Z-Early_editing","replies":["c-Cantab1985-2016-07-13T13:46:00.000Z-CalvinK-2016-07-13T13:41:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Calvin"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-13T14:14:00.000Z","author":"Amadeus2k8","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Amadeus2k8-2016-07-13T14:14:00.000Z-Fixed_Term_Parliament_Act","replies":["c-CalvinK-2016-07-13T14:27:00.000Z-Amadeus2k8-2016-07-13T14:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
Shome mishtake surely? 89.207.1.20 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-13T14:58:00.000Z","author":"89.207.1.20","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-89.207.1.20-2016-07-13T14:58:00.000Z-Why_does_the_article_have_a_picture_of_David_Cameron_but_say_the_incumbent_since","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-13T16:48:00.000Z","author":"Farleysmaster","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Farleysmaster-2016-07-13T16:48:00.000Z-Cabinet_Secretary_was_acting_PM?","replies":["c-Sumors\u01e3te-2016-07-13T20:28:00.000Z-Farleysmaster-2016-07-13T16:48:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Gordon"}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-16T12:11:00.000Z","author":"Farleysmaster","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Farleysmaster-2016-07-16T12:11:00.000Z-Cabinet_Secretary_was_acting_PM?","replies":["c-62.156.255.28-2016-09-13T15:54:00.000Z-Farleysmaster-2016-07-16T12:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-03-31T03:01:00.000Z","author":"98.10.165.90","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-98.10.165.90-2017-03-31T03:01:00.000Z-Cabinet_Secretary_was_acting_PM?","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-03T16:20:00.000Z","author":"62.190.148.115","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-62.190.148.115-2016-08-03T16:20:00.000Z-\"John_Smith\"","replies":["c-Farleysmaster-2016-08-03T16:34:00.000Z-62.190.148.115-2016-08-03T16:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
|answered=
|ans=
I would like to update some facts Sebcru (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-11-23T16:35:00.000Z","author":"Sebcru","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sebcru-2016-11-23T16:35:00.000Z-Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_November_2016","replies":["c-Arjayay-2016-11-23T16:39:00.000Z-Sebcru-2016-11-23T16:35:00.000Z"]}}-->
@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.fTalk 04:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-22T04:05:00.000Z","author":"Keivan.f","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Keivan.f-2017-01-22T04:05:00.000Z-Former_Prime_Ministers","replies":["c-Neve-selbert-2017-01-22T23:34:00.000Z-Keivan.f-2017-01-22T04:05:00.000Z"]}}-->
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:
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:
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T10:13:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T10:13:00.000Z-\"Presidential\"_Premiership","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-1","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-2","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-3","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-4","replies":[]}}-->
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.
1649 and the Interregnum! -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-5","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-6","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-7","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-8","replies":[]}}-->
What does the term "Modern Premiership" mean in that heading? -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-9","replies":[]}}-->
This needs breaking out in to powers, patronage (one of the powers) and constraints.
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-10","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-11","replies":[]}}-->
Were they ever, or is it that they were describe that way? -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-12","replies":[]}}-->
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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z","author":"PBS","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PBS-2017-06-28T11:25:00.000Z-The_Interregnum_and_all_that-13","replies":[]}}-->
Protection of wilderness areas in the U.S. The Wilderness Act protects exceptionally undisturbed natural areas and scenery, such as in the Ansel Adams Wilderness. The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) of the United States protects federally managed wilderness areas designated for preservation in their natural condition. Activity on formally designated wilderness areas is coordinated by the National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness areas are managed by four federal land man…
Вельфлен-ле-СарргемінWœlfling-lès-Sarreguemines Країна Франція Регіон Гранд-Ест Департамент Мозель Округ Сарргемін Кантон Сарргемін-Кампань Код INSEE 57750 Поштові індекси 57200 Координати 49°05′10″ пн. ш. 7°10′29″ сх. д.H G O Висота 270 - 357 м.н.р.м. Площа 6,24 км² Населення 710 (0…
Die wohl von Johannes Philagathos gestiftete Elfenbeintafel betont die Gleichrangigkeit zwischen Otto und Theophanu. Sie tragen griechische Gewänder und empfangen ihre Kronen aus den Händen Christi. Erstmals im Abendland werden hier Kaiser und Kaiserin gleich groß dargestellt. Allerdings steht Theophanu auf der weniger vornehmen linken Seite des Heilands. Otto II. (auch Otto der Rote genannt; * 955; † 7. Dezember 983 in Rom) aus dem Adelsgeschlecht der Liudolfinger war römisch-deutscher Ka…
Stadt Hasselfelde Stadt Oberharz am Brocken Wappen von Stadt Hasselfelde Koordinaten: 51° 41′ N, 10° 51′ O51.68972222222210.856111111111455Koordinaten: 51° 41′ 23″ N, 10° 51′ 22″ O Höhe: 455 m ü. NN Fläche: 74,28 km² Einwohner: 2904 (31. Dez. 2008) Bevölkerungsdichte: 39 Einwohner/km² Eingemeindung: 1. Januar 2010 Postleitzahl: 38899 Vorwahl: 039459 Karte Lage von Stadt Hasselfelde in Oberh…
Великі Учалирос. Большие Учалыбашк. Оло Учалы 54°20′39″ пн. ш. 59°25′36″ сх. д. / 54.34417° пн. ш. 59.42667° сх. д. / 54.34417; 59.42667Розташування Країна Росія[4]Розташування Росія, Башкортостан, Учалинський районГеологічні дані Розміри Площа поверхн
دي لاند الإحداثيات 40°07′18″N 88°38′42″W / 40.1217°N 88.645°W / 40.1217; -88.645 تقسيم إداري البلد الولايات المتحدة[1] التقسيم الأعلى مقاطعة بايات، إلينوي خصائص جغرافية المساحة 0.41 ميل مربع ارتفاع 700 قدم عدد السكان عدد السكان 446 (2010)[2]447 (1 أبري…
?Chelodina kuchlingi Біологічна класифікація Домен: Ядерні (Eukaryota) Царство: Тварини (Animalia) Тип: Хордові (Chordata) Підтип: Черепні (Craniata) Інфратип: Хребетні (Vertebrata) Клас: Плазуни (Reptilia) Ряд: Черепахи (Testudines) Підряд: Бокошиї черепахи (Pleurodira) Родина: Змієшиї черепахи (Chelidae) Рід: Австралійська змі
2023 edition of the Women's Bandy World Championship 2023 Women's Bandy World Championship12th Women's Bandy World ChampionshipTournament detailsHost country SwedenCityVäxjö (Åby), SwedenDates28 March – 2 AprilTeams6Venue(s)Eriksson Arena (in 1 host city)Final positionsChampions SwedenRunner-up FinlandThird place United StatesFourth place NetherlandsTournament statisticsGames played16Goals scored65 (4.06 per game)Attendance3…
Untuk kegunaan lain, lihat NET. NET.JenisJaringan televisiSloganKini Makin AsikNegaraIndonesiaBahasaBahasa IndonesiaPendiriAgus Lasmono SudwikatmonoWishnutamaTanggal siaran perdana18 Mei 2013 (siaran percobaan)Tanggal peluncuran26 Mei 2013[1]Kantor pusatThe East, Lt. 27–29, Jl. Dr. Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung No. 1, Mega Kuningan, Kuningan Timur, Setiabudi, Jakarta Selatan 12950, IndonesiaStudio : Gedung Graha Mitra, Jl. Jendral Gatot Subroto Kav. 21, Karet Semanggi, Setiabudi, Jakar…
الحرس السويسري الدولة الفاتيكان الإنشاء 22 يناير 1506 الاشتباكات احتلال روما، ومعركة ليبانت الموقع الرسمي الموقع الرسمي تعديل مصدري - تعديل جندي وضابط من الحرس السويسري في الخدمة الفرنسية في عام 1757 الحرس السويسري ((بالفرنسية: Gardes Suisses). (بالألمانية:…
Indian actor For the American author, see Vijay Menon (writer). Vijay MenonBornLondon, England, United KingdomOccupationsFilm directoreditoractordubbing artistYears active1981–present Vijay Menon is an Indian actor, editor, director and dubbing artist in Malayalam cinema.[1] He has acted in more than 100 films in South Indian languages. He mainly handles in character roles and supporting roles. He has won Kerala State Film Awards thrice, including Kerala State Film Award for Best …
Untuk pemeran panggung dan naturalis (1827–1891), lihat Henry Edwards (entomologis). Henry EdwardsLahir(1882-09-18)18 September 1882Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, InggrisMeninggal2 November 1952(1952-11-02) (umur 70)Chobham, Surrey, InggrisPekerjaanPemeran, sutradaraTahun aktif1915–1952Suami/istriChrissie White Henry Edwards (18 September 1882 – 2 November 1952) adalah seorang pemeran dan sutradara asal Inggris. Ia tampil dalam 81 film antara 1915 dan 1952. Ia juga me…
سمفونية حلوة مرة الأغنية لريتشارد أشكروفت، ذا فيرف (فرقة موسيقية) غلاف قرص أغنية السمفونية الحلوة المرة. الفنان ريتشارد أشكروفت، ذا فيرف (فرقة موسيقية) الألبوم بألبوم التراتيل الحضرية (بالإنجليزية) Urban Hymns تاريخ الإصدار 1997 النوع روك بديل، روك السمفوني اللغة إنجليزية المدة 5:59…
Irish lawyer and writer (1819–1880) Edward Kenealy at the Tichborne trial Edward Vaughan Hyde Kenealy (2 July 1819 – 16 April 1880) was an Irish barrister and writer. He is best remembered as counsel for the Tichborne claimant[1] and the eccentric and disturbed conduct of the trial that led to his ruin. Early life He was born on Nile Street (now Sheares Street), Cork, the son of a local merchant. He was educated at Trinity College Dublin, and was called to the Irish Bar in 1840 …
Aeronave com extensão no extremo das asas Uma extensão de ponta de asa (em inglês leading-edge extension) é uma pequena extensão na superfície de asa da aeronave, além da aresta extrema. O principal motivo para ser adicionado em uma aeronave concerne em melhorar o fluxo de ar em ângulo de ataque e baixas velocidades de voo, para melhorar a manobrabilidade e atrasar o estol. Slat Slats propostos em um Airbus A318 Um Slat é uma superfície de movimento que fica a acima dos extremos das as…
This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: CorrOcean – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) CorrOcean ASATypePublic (OSE: COR)IndustryEngineering technologyHeadquartersTrondheim, Norway, USAArea servedGlobalProductscorrosion monitoringParentEmersonWebsitewww.emerson.com[1] CorrOc…
2008 film by Bruce McDonald PontypoolPromotional film posterDirected byBruce McDonaldScreenplay byTony BurgessBased onPontypool Changes Everythingby Tony BurgessProduced byJeffrey CoghlanAmbrose RocheStarringStephen McHattieLisa HouleGeorgina ReillyCinematographyMiroslaw BaszakEdited byJeremiah MunceMusic byClaude FoisyProductioncompaniesPonty Up PicturesShadow ShowsDistributed byMaple PicturesRelease dates September 6, 2008 (2008-09-06) (Toronto International Film Festival) M…
Map of the distribution of the Kelteminar culture The Kelteminar culture (5500–3500 BCE)[1] was a Neolithic archaeological culture of sedentary fishermen occupying the semi-desert and desert areas of the Karakum and Kyzyl Kum deserts and the deltas of the Amu Darya and Zeravshan rivers[2] in the territories of ancient Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.[3] The culture was discovered and first excavated in 1939 by the USSR Chorasmian Archaeological and Ethnographic…
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (May 2017)Sudeep SarkarCitizenshipAmericanAlma materOhio State University (PhD, MS) Indian Institute of Technology (BS)Scientific careerFieldsComputer vision, pattern recognition, activity recognition, biometrics, sign language, gaitInstitutionsUniversity of South Florida, TampaDoctoral advisorKim L. Boyer WebsiteHomepage [1] Sudeep S…
Parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom, 1801–1950 Cambridge UniversityFormer University constituencyfor the House of Commons1603–1950Seats2Replaced byCambridge Cambridge University was a university constituency electing two members to the British House of Commons, from 1603 to 1950. Franchise and method of election This university constituency was created by a Royal Charter of 1603. It was abolished in 1950 by the Representation of the People Act 1948. The constituency was not a ge…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 52.15.78.84