Talk:List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Coloured boxes perhaps?

I think it would be helpful if we coloured the boxes that have Prime Minister's party in them because at the moment there are only small strips of colour at the most left hand side of the table. For example:

Golden/dark yellow = Whig (later Liberal)

Blue = Tory (later Conservative)

Red = Labour

Ducal titles

It is not useful to state a ducal title only in the list, eg The Duke of Deveonshire, instead of the person's actual name (eg William Cavendesh, 4th Duke of Deveonshire). This would be much more clear. Astrotrain 19:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wholly agree, the Duke of Devonshire includes several people who had that name (though admittedly not all at th same time), William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire is fairly clear exactly who it is. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although if you follow each link it does actually take you to the person rather than the title. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll fix these. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

fixed; now much better; thanks for the suggestion. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was like this before and it was decided that it makes the table look messy (which it does). See Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Proteus (Talk) 15:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) I agree. If there is no objection, I will change the article back to the previous state. -- Emsworth 19:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But itn't it more logical to list the people my name; it is not the office of e.g. the Duke of Devonshire that was PM, it was William Cavendish, who also happened to be Duke of Devonshire at the same time. Maybe drop ducal, etc., titles and keep just names? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then it gets confusing - to history he's known as the Duke of Devonshire but he's far from the only Duke who was at the frontline of politics. There are some who are better known by their ordinary names (e.g. Pitt the Elder - which is what a biography of him on my shelf is called) but others who are known by their titles (e.g. Rockingham, Portland, Salisbury, Rosebury) and a few who are known by an interim title (Shelburn, Goderich). Timrollpickering 22:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This concern, I believe, is based on a misunderstanding of the Peerage. The Dukedom of Devonshire, to take an example, is not an office, but a dignity: it forms a part of the name of the individual in question. Whenever one refers this Prime Minister, one uses "Devonshire," not "Cavendish." Similarly, one refers to Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston as "Palmerston," not "Temple." -- Emsworth 15:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave (1715 – 1763) First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister for five days in 1757? Several lists suggest he was. --Audiovideo 02:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

another column needs to be added

currently, the chart contains columns for Prime Minister, Entered office, Left office, and Party. another column should be added for "Number of terms" or something of that nature. i am reading how Blair's third term is significant. this chart should help me to understand why. but it doesn't.....yet. Kingturtle 01:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello? anyone out there? please fulfill my request :) Kingturtle 22:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

A third term is significant simply because it is rare. The electorate and party (often on behalf of the former) are disillusioned with the party leader by this time, thus they kick him/her out. Read about Margaret Thatcher. --62.171.194.7 10:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A number of terms column would be useful, but there would be the problem, if it is such, that most terms would be of different lengths eg only a few months for one of Wilsons but 4years for Blair. This may be confusing for some but I'd still support either the addition of a column of this type or a change to a seperate listing for each general election won. AllanHainey 14:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This list is misnamed

This list is of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom but until 1801 it wasn't the territory wasn't officially the United Kingdom (which didn't exist) but Great Britain & Northern Ireland. It may be worthwhile for the sake of accuracy either amending the page title or noting the fact on the page. I'm not making any changes at this time but wan to see what peoples views are on this AllanHainey 14:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually prior to 1801 it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain, also called the Kingdom of Great Britain. After 1801 the United Kingdom was united with the Kingdom of Ireland and became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Binabik80 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates

This page used to have individual dates for all PMs. These seem to have been removed by Talrias for no apparent reason. What's the deal? john k 19:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a mystery to me. I preferred the old list anyway... Proteus (Talk) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, all the PMs have their dates of terms in office in the article. I copied these from the Wikipedia articles about them. And I'm sorry you don't like the article Proteus as I spent a considerable amount of time on it. Could you go into more detail about what you preferred about the old one? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, this article used to have more detailed information than the individual PM articles, specifically giving actual dates, rather than just months. I (and, I'm sure, everybody else) would appreciate it if you would go through and restore the specific dates, if they were mistakenly deleted. john k 01:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the old article didn't have any sources for the dates. I would feel uncomfortable adding in the dates from the old article seeing as they weren't sourced. I'll look for a source on the Internet, but if someone else has one to hand, I'll add them in as soon as I've verified the dates. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Error in timeline bar?

I think there is an error in the timeline bar, where it indicates Ramsay MacDonald's first term in blue instead of red. I don't know how to fix it, or I would do it myself. Acsenray 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramsay McDonald's first time was less than a year and so it isn't visible on the scale. It's in between the two terms of Stanley Baldwin (who is shown in blue). McDonald's term is shown by the white line. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely there should be some mention of the coalition government under Lloyd George. One cannot simply label these years as a Liberal Government. This should be altered as soon as possible.

Stop Gap PMs

I don't think that the list includes William Pulteney (The Earl of Bath) who did hold the office of PM for 2 days in 1746. Nor does it include Earl Waldegrave who held the office for a couple of weeks in the 1750s nor The Duke of Wellington who held the office for a couple of days in the 1830s, around the time of the Reform Act. Of course, these ministries were very short but these people were, nevertheless, PMs. They 'kissed hands.' What do people think about including them in the list? Finnophile . 22nd Jan 06.

These people aren't listed at 10 Downing Street's list of Prime Ministers. Do you have a source of some kind of list which includes them? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica mention that he was PM for 2 days. It mentions Waldegrave's week as well. I think it might be worth mentioning but emphasising that they were only 'stop-gaps,' as they were 'First Lord's of the Treasury.' There are many lists that mention this pair. One can be found here http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/common/sitepages/pmindex.asp in Burke's Peerage. Most lists don't have them because the ministries were so short. Finnophile 23rd Jan 06

Were they actually Prime Minister or just First Lord of the Treasury? Often the two get mixed. Timrollpickering 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, they were 'Prime Minister,' they 'kissed hands' (were appointed PM by the King) but didn't have enough support so had to resign. They also cited as PM by the Dictionary of National Biography.

This has come up before - taken from Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:

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

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

--david 05:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)== Some comments == Thanks John for your detailed responses to the points I tried to make. I guess it is painfully obvious I am brand new to this .... but I will get the hang of it. Some years ago I developed a chart of the Chief Ministers following Bigham in "The Chief Ministers of England". True, it is very difficult to determine if there was a chief minister at any given time and for how long (just as it is with Prime Ministers, at least in the 18th century and a little after). Still, an article or at least a chart on chief ministers helps (I think) to complete the story of the evolution of the Prime Ministry, showing "trends" prior to Walpole (such as: a. increased importance of the treasury and treasury offices and 2. increased need for ministers to maintain "control" of Parliament, especially the Commons). I did conduct a search for several of the ideas mentioned in my list and couldn't find anything or much, at least. That is why I mentioned them. Anyway .... as I am new to this I'd like to suggest you take a look at my Chief Ministers chart to see if I/we want to proceed further. Is there a way of exchanging files in Wikipedia (like a Wiki-email)? I have some comments:

• Could someone expand the intro part of this list and include information about how Prime ministers are chosen, and how the position changed in time...
• The "Political party ideologies" is irrelevant here, it should belong to List of political parties in the United Kingdom
• The timeline is very "crowdy" and hard to understand. Could you keep only the time spent as prime minister without the birth, death and political career which is irrelevant to the list.
• Finally the long vertical should be removed, because it's hard to understand and the timleine above it is better to read.

Thank you for responding to my comments. CG 12:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The information about Prime Ministers is in the article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which is a more appropriate place for this. The political party ideologies was added due a request when this was nominated as a featured list. I've split out the two timelines. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:What is a featured list?:

Featured lists should includes having a lead section where appropriate, which is brief but sufficient to summarize the nature of the list.

Also check List of Presidents of Venezuela, List of Presidents of the United States and List of Presidents of Portugal, they all have enough information in their intro. About the "political parties" section, I'm opposed to it, but if you want to keep it, it must at least be shortened a lot. The paragraph about the Prime minister should be the most important piece of text in this list. CG 16:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from making those changes to the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, About the timelines, you understood me wrong. The horizontal timeline (Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2 doesn't show all prime ministers, plus, the birth and political career information masks the term of the PM being in office, that's why we should remove all other information and keep the duration on which the PM has been in office. Anyway, this kind of timeline is relevant only if the duration in which the PM serves in office varies from one PM to another (see for example List of popes (graphical)). This seems to be the case for UK PMs (tell me if I'm wrong). About the vertical timeline, just delete it: it's unreadable. CG 17:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC) I am new to this Wikipedia. I have been doing some editing but mostly "catching up" by reading all the current sections on the Prime Ministry and the comments back a couple of years. I must say you have all done a fantastic job. I also have several comments or maybe observations: 1. I have edited the section on "political party ideologies. However, I agree with Cedar-Guardian that it is out of place here in a List of Prime Ministers. It should probably be its own section. 2. I think there needs to be a section on the evolution and history of the Prime Ministry (the office itself, rather than those who ocupied it), where it came from and why, and how it changed over time and why. For example, George Downing (who built the Downing Street houses) was Secretary of the Treasury Commission during the Great Treasury Commission of 1667-73 and in that position reformed the Treasury in ways that had profound political and constitutional implications for the relationship between Parliament and the Crown, and ultimately the evolution of the Prime Ministry. 3. As part of the "history/evolution of the Prime Ministry I think there should be an entirely new section on the so-called Chief Ministers of Great Britain from St Dunstan of Glastonbury (10th century) to Harley (18th century) A section like this would show that the Prime Ministry did not simply appear in the early 18th century with Walpole. There were in fact numerous individuals who have wielded powers SIMILAR to a Prime Minister. 4. I think Ten Downing Street should be a completely separate section. There is some fasinating history behind the three houses that make up Number Ten and the land it occupies and former houses that were there going back to late Tudor / early Stuart times. For example, General Monke, who oversaw the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660, was, as Duke of Albmarle, the figurehead leader of the Great Treasury Commission of 1667-73. He also lived in Lichfield House, the house in the back which Walpole combined with Number Ten in the 1730's. 5. Lastly, I think all the section headings need to be ..... lets say .... standardized, so that they are clearly related. As a suggestion, we could use British Prime Ministry as the lead for all sections followed by a statement that identifies what specific aspect is being discussed. For example British Prime Ministry: List of Prime Ministers of Great Britain, and British Prime Ministry: History of Number Ten Downing Street and British Prime Ministry: Origins from 10th century to 17th. etc etc Let me know what you all think and how I should proceed if at all. --david 01:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Individual responses:

1. By "section," do you mean "article?" If not, I'm confused. I agree that the political party ideology doesn't really belong here. We have detailed articles on all of the various parties which can easily be accessed by clicking on links.
2. This material belongs in Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not here, and much of it probably is there (although I've no idea if the specific stuff you mention is).
3. See below.
4. There is an article on 10 Downing Street. That is the place for discussion of this sort. The material you suggest would be useful there.
5. Ah, so by section, you do mean article. We normally use section to refer to subdivisions of an article. Each web page on wikipedia is an "article." In terms of the specific suggestion, this would go against the general guidelines we have for how to name articles. Basically, each article is supposed to stand on its own, and not be a subsection of some larger article. Obviously, articles are going to be related, but they're not supposed to actually be subsidiary to one another in that way.

In terms of the Chief Ministers issue, that's an interesting question. I'm not really sure about the medieval stuff (I'm really not familiar with it, but from Tudor and Stuart (and very early Hanoverian) times I've generally seen the following listed as "chief ministers:

• Wolsey (1514?-1529)
• Cromwell (1533?-1540)
• Somerset (1547-1550)
• Northumberland (1550-1553)
• Gardiner, I suppose (1553-1555)
• Cecil/Burghley (1558-1598)
• Robert Cecil (1598-1612)
• Buckingham (1618-1628)
• Strafford (1639-1641)
• Clarendon (1660-1667)
• Danby/Carmarthen/Leeds (1673-1679, 1689-1695)
• Rochester (1679-1684)
• Sunderland (1684-1688)
• Shrewsbury (1695-1698, 1714)
• Godolphin (1702-1710)
• Harley/Oxford (1710-1714)
• Townshend (1714-1716)
• Stanhope & Sunderland (1717-1721)

Would that be about the lines you were thinking? I'm not sure how to do this, though, because it's often quite hard to determine when there's a single chief minister, especially when the person is always holding different offices. In this list, we've got Lord Chancellors, Lord Privy Seals, Lord Treasurers, Secretaries of State, Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, Lord High Admirals, Lord Presidents, and one mere Chancellor of the Exchequer (Harley from 1710-1711). In the later years, one can clearly see the idea that it's natural for one man to lead the ministry developing. But even so, you have significant periods when there's not really any single dominant minister. The Cabal period, for instance, as well as the Chits period that I've listed as "Rochester's" ministry; the Stanhope/Sunderland ministry was obviously a partnership, with Stanhope running foreign affairs and Sunderland domestic. I think the same can be said of the first 9 years of Walpole's premiership - as long as Townshend was in the government, he was effectively in charge of foreign affairs. I would suggest we make another page with a list of "Chief Ministers of England" (as, indeed, for almost the entire period we are referring to England, rather than Britain as a whole), and we note the informal nature of the list. I'd think that we should be able to list more than one minister at a time, for instance. john k 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New redesign

I'm going to change the table and make it more readable. I think that the "Notes and key events" column should be deleted. Instead we use symbols to refer to PMs who resigned or died in office (see List of Presidents of the United States). Plus, we should use various colors according to the political party instead of the plain grey. Finally a picture of the PM should also be included. (see also List of Presidents of Venezuela and List of Presidents of Portugal). I need your comments before I make those changes. CG 12:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to removing the notes and key events column. This list became featured probably due to this column which is incredibly useful in my opinion. There are colours for the various political parties, see the bar down the left? If we have pictures of all the Prime Ministers then adding them might be a good idea. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Talrias, we should keep the notes & key events, it is extremely useful as an overview of the PMs accomplishments/failures/events they had to deal with. You suggest using symbols for those who resigned/died, etc like on the list of U.S.A. Presidents. I think this may not be feasible due to the differences in political systems (no fixed terms, choice of who is PM is the Monarchs (the more so the earlier you go) not the incumbents, hard to determine if one resigned/was sacked/wanted to continue but didn't have support, is it a resignation if a PM calls a general election or not (usually because they were defeated on votes)?)and the fact that most early PMs weren't officially PMs but considered as 'first amoung equals'.

There are colours for the various parties (though which 'party' they belonged to is often in dispute in the 18th/19th c) though I see that there isn't a key to this any more. There did used to be one. We could extend the colours to include the whole of that line rather than just being in the bar, I'm not too concerned about that but it may look a bit messy for some. I'm not convinced that we need pictures and it may make it look too crowded. I don't think it'd be too hard to find pictures of the PMs though, whether they're distinct at thumbnail size or any good is a different matter. AllanHainey 07:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

——— The "Notes and key events" column has now been absent for about a year, and has been replaced by that oddest of columns, the PMs' birthplaces. I cannot think of a more trivial piece of information – certainly far less useful than the notes. I am thinking about reinstating the notes column. As I envisage it at the moment, I would get the list looking something like this:

	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Political party	Other ministerial offices held while Prime Minister	Monarchs served · Electoral mandates Notes and key events	Refs
		Tony Blair	2 May 1997 27 June 2007	Labour	First Lord of the Treasury & Minister for the Civil Service	Elizabeth II · 1997, 2001, 2005Independence for the Bank of England; Ecclestone tobacco controversy; Belfast Agreement; Human Rights Act; devolution to Scotland and Wales; House of Lords Reform; Minimum wage; Kosovo War; Mayor of London and Greater London Authority; War in Afghanistan; Iraq War; University tuition fees; Civil Partnership Act; 7 July 2005 London bombings; Cash for Peerages; Identity cards.

or, alternatively (in the style of the German version of the list of US Presidents),

	Portrait	Name	Term of office	Electoral mandates	Political party	Other ministerial offices held while Prime Minister	Refs
		Tony Blair	2 May 1997 27 June 2007	1997, 2001, 2005	Labour	First Lord of the Treasury & Minister for the Civil Service
			Independence for the Bank of England; Ecclestone tobacco controversy; Belfast Agreement; Human Rights Act; devolution to Scotland and Wales; House of Lords Reform; Minimum wage; Kosovo War; Mayor of London and Greater London Authority; War in Afghanistan; Iraq War; University tuition fees; Civil Partnership Act; 7 July 2005 London bombings; Cash for Peerages; Identity cards.

What do people think? BartBassist (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New graphical list

I created List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (graphical) in order ro replace the unreadable Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers and Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2. What are your thoughts? CG 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually quite like Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers, but anyway to comment on your graphical list:

1) I think you can knock the first 20 years off the first graph as it's just empty space. 2) Lords shouldn't be listed as The Lord ...(eg The Lord John Russell makes him sound like a pub) but as Lord ... as Lord is a courtesy title. 3) I'm not sure of the appropriate convention for naming members of the peerage by their titles but I'd leave off the "the" here too as it seems unecessary & a little annoying (eg the Viscount Palmerston, the Earl Grey, it just sounds wrong). AllanHainey 12:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the first point, it's done, although this stretches the bars and would make comparisions between two centuries difficult. As for the second and third point, I just copied the names format used in the table of List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I see that there is a lot of difference between the names used in Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers and in this page. I won't change anything unless it's resolved and the names are changed into the appropriate name format. Finally, when all these issues are solved, I suggest we delete Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers and Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2 for the reason that my design is the most readable, where most of the primes ministers are visible without scrolling through the page. CG 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To help this discussion I thought it might be useful to explain why I created Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2. I wanted to exploit the timeline functionaility to show the context of each of the PM's terms of office. Unlike, say, US Presidents, the PM has to build an extensive career in the House of Commons, then serves a variable term of office, sometimes many terms, then returns to the Commons for a variable length of time before finally retiring. Ted Heath for example, served for many years after his term of office, longer than the three PM's that succeeded him, and even longer than Home, Callaghan and Churchill. Margaret Thatcher, in contrast, left the Commons very shortly after being ousted from office, and Bonar Law and Chamberlain left the Commons shortly after leaving office and died shortly afterwards. Also it can be seen that Macmillan, Eden and Home enjoyed long retirements. So Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2 complements the timelines that show term of office only (such as the very clear and readable List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (graphical)) and one day I will find the time to complete it! Wikipete 09:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) I've just had a look at Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2 & spotted an easily made error in it. The grey line is entitled "not in parliament" but I think it should really be either not in House of Commons or corrected to show when the people in question were in Parliament but in the House of Lords rather than Commons after their Prime Ministerial terms. AllanHainey 07:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit and make the change...I did consider making the Lords/Commons distinction when I first created the timeline but decided that could be a future development since it needs a fair bit of research to pull out all the ennoblement dates. Wikipete 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I responded so late. Even though I'm not really convinced about the usefulness of Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2, I won't ask for its removal. But since Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers is superseded by List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (graphical), can we just delete it? CG 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't they be merged into one page, or something? I regard Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers 2 as a creation of brilliance, partly because it lists PMs who served non-consecutive terms on the same line, and partly because it clearly shows the way in which the post passed between the great political rivals (Gladstone/Disraeli, Gladstone/Salisbury, Baldwin/MacDonald). It also highlights interesting little features such as Churchill's time as a Liberal, the fact that Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law died almost immediately after leaving office, and that MacDonald lost his seat in 1918, and Callaghan's long political experience and John Major's short political experience. As for Template:Timeline UK Prime Ministers, I have to say that I too rather like it: I agree that CG's version is more legible, but the need for multiple lines makes it a little unwieldy. BartBassist (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideology

I don't think the likes of Pitt, Addington, Portland and Perceval should be described as Tories. Pitt was certainly an independent when he became Prime Minister, the Fox-North Coalition that he opposed was almost a Whig-Tory alliance against him. With the others, though the group they led became Tories, they did not use the label themselves. To call them Tories because their group became Tories is analogous to calling Liverpool a Conservative because the Tories in turn became Conservatives. 134.226.1.136 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This has come round a few times and is rather messy to sort out anyway. Using the "Tory" label for the Pittites from 1783 is perhaps anacrhonistic but there isn't really an alternative way to express this well. The term "Tory" was slowly taken up but does really emerge around the time of Perceval's assassination. Certainly there were clear groups, with the Foxites unambiguously seen as "Whigs". If anything it's the use of "Tory" for Lord North that's more confusing - North had been consistently in office since the Chatham ministry and wasn't really a continuity with any of Harley & Bolingbroke, Bute or Pitt the Younger.

For the most part I'm not sure there's a solution, although for the first Palmerston ministry we seem to be labelling it as "Liberal" despite most datings of that party's origins being to 1859. Maybe make that one "Whig" as well? Timrollpickering 14:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would favour relabelling Palmerston's first ministry as Whig, because the 1859 is the clearest date we can find, though I would still not be entirely satisfied that that suits the situtation. As to the Pittites, I knew it would be difficult, as most reference books ascribe parties as they are here (e.g. the Oxford Reference Dictionary, FWS Craig's Parliaments of England), but that in itself is not a reason to use them here. If we have Peelites, why not have Pittites. William Quill 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this debate. Having studied eighteenth-century British political history in depth, it is clear that the case for labelling Bute, North, Pitt the Younger or Addington 'Tory' is increasingly feeble. By middle of the century, everyone essentially identified as a Whig; in many ways it was a catch-all term which merely meant support for the Hanoverian succession and belief in the integrity of the Revolution Settlement, which at this point was not in doubt. Even George III identified as a Whig; his gripes were against one strand of the Whigs in particular, the Old Corps, whom he had seen as keeping his royal ancestors in toils. Bute cannot be convincingly called a Whig; Lord North had impeccable Whig credentials and the tenor of his premiership is very similar to that of Walpole (reducing the land tax, emphasising financial reform). Pitt the Younger identified as an 'independent Whig'; just take a look at page 52 of William Hague's biography of him, or page 128 of Michael J. Turner's Pitt The Younger: A Life. The idea of Pitt The Younger as a Tory generally owes to his political followers who were selective with his beliefs in their attempt to transform him into an arch-conservative; they ignored his sceptical attitude to religion and his support for Catholic Emancipation, for instance, as it did not fit in to this view. For more, look at J.J. Sack's excellent article, 'The Memory of Burke and the Memory of Pitt: English Conservatism Confronts Its Past, 1806-29', in The Historical Journal, 30:3.

This confusion is largely owing to the fact that 'Tory' was used as a term of abuse for political opponents; yes, Bute was called a Tory by opponents, but so was, say, the Duke of Grafton, whose Whig credentials are never questioned. There needs to be a significant overhaul in our thinking, as we risk promoting an anachronistic view of the British party system, and of what is meant by the term Whig. The Wonky Gnome 21:48, 27 March 2011 (GMT)

So, to summarise: Bute, Tory(?); North, Whig/Independent; Pitt the Younger, Independent Whig or Pittite. How about Addington? He started out as a Pittite, but Pitt opposed him, so if Addington was a Pittite, then Pitt himself wasn't a Pittite by his second ministry! Portland's ministries are both problematic: Portland had unquestionable Whig credentials, but if North is considered Tory then the Fox-North administration cannot be labelled 'Whig', and his second administration was post-Pittite / proto-Tory. BartBassist (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting up the list

What about splitting up the list by the monarchs the prime minister served under, instead of by time period? I'm only thinking this because, after Blair goes, there will only be one PM in the 21st century PMs, which will look a bit silly.Mathsguy 13:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC) It will fill up with new PMs as time goes by, there'll be at least two when Blair goes. Leave as is I suggest. Nigel45 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Prime Ministers

The birthplace of Prime Ministers has been removed, I find this useful and interesting, is there any view on replacing it? Nigel45 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There also used to be a page titled List of UK Prime Ministers' Burial Places, which although incomplete and horribly formatted, seemed to be a useful idea. It has since been deleted, I may propose an undelete. What is the argument for not including either of these pieces of information on this page (as a group they are an interesting, perhaps enlightening historical record). This information should be available on the individual pages, but there is no reason not to have separated pages devoted to it, is there? Tadramgo (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

One reason for not including them on this page is to avoid overloading the reader with useless trivia. With only a limited amount of space for information in a list-class article, tough decisions need to be made as to what is relevant. What bearing does the place of birth or death have on the role of a Prime Minister? What information do you think would be worth losing from the article to make way for such lesser details?

There were three key problems with the burial place article that was deleted; it was incomplete, poorly formatted and completely unreferenced. If you can fix all those problems then it might be worth resurrecting the article. However, I would suggest that a more appropriate alternative would be to incorporate the birth place and death place fields into the List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity as that list is specifically about the life time of each Prime Minister. Road Wizard (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, the information would be relevant on that page. As a new contributor to Wikipedia it seems to me odd that I can find no method for centrally storing such information. Eg in this instance: having a method of collating information from various personal pages onto things like "list" pages. Perhaps pulling the info from info-boxes etc, along with the references, rather than having the same information, and associated refs. spread across the project. Does wikipedia have the capacity for such database like structures?

If I can spare the time I might take on adding birth/death/burial places to the Longevity page, however it feels a little like a waste of time considering the possibility of what I have outlined above. Also: the Longevity page is as completely unreferenced as the original burial place was - unless we consider a link to the individuals' page an assumption that those will have the information - though far better formatted and complete. Tadramgo (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A database structure similar to the one you mention is in the process is being built (see Wikipedia:Persondata). As a first step WikiProject Persondata is focusing on the basic details of each biographical article (name, date of birth, place of birth, date of death and place of death) though if the project is able to show significant benefits I expect that it will be expanded to incorporate other data as well. In the long term I think we will see a greater reliance on external database tools for basic biographical information.

You are right that the longevity article is also completely unreferenced. Until it receives references there is the potential that it will be deleted as an unverified article. Links to other Wikipedia articles is not sufficient for referencing an article as Wikipedia cannot be used as its own source. Road Wizard (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My own view, for what it's worth, is that the birthplace of a Prime Minister is completely irrelevant to his ministry, and should not be listed in this article. It is trivial and it's taking up space. If another page can be found to accommodate their birthplaces, all well and good. BartBassist (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

W. H. Smith and the Duke of Wellington's second government

Two changes I thought were neccessary. The Duke of Wellington ran the British government single handedly (six ministries or something like that) for almost a month after King William IV sacked Parlmiston, and I thought that the list should reflect that. Also, What about WH Smith? It's agreed that Lord Salsbury was "Prime Minister" (when the conservatives held power) but the official title of PRIME MINISTER didn't exist until the Campbell Bannerman government. That's why I mentioned the anomoly.

I think there's a danger of overhyping 1905 as some revolution when all that really happened was the term was used in a list. One could equally use whenever official government statements used the term (during Disraeli's time), or when the title was used formally in Parliament, or legislation (1917).

As for Smith, I'm remvoing the following section as highly flawed:

Since the accession of King George III in 1760, the title "First Lord of the Treasury" has been the official title of the Prime Minister . However, 14 January 1887 to 6 October 1891 William Henry Smith held the office while Lord Salsbury held the unofficial title and actual powers of Prime minister. Smith was succeeded by Arthur Balfour on 6 October 1891.

Balfour became "Prime Minister" on Salsbury's resignation on July 11, 1902. Smith therefore is the only First Lord of the Treasury never to have been "Prime Minister."

Where do I begin? First off there were numerous First Lords pre Walpole. Secondly Smith wasn't the only one post 1760 - Chatham never held the title (I think Grafton did), whilst Salisbury only held it briefly during the start of his second ministry. Otherwise I think Northcote/Iddlesleigh held it in the first ministry (and he never became PM either), whilst Balfour holding it 1891-1892 and 1895-1902 is a very different thing even if he did subsequently become PM. Thirdly First Lord was still a nominally different post that just happened to be held by the PM. Even the 1937 Ministers of the Crown Act differentiates between the post of PM and office of First Lord. Not all held it and it was more the case that the head of the government tended to hold the post rather than holding the post conferred leadership of the government.

The British constition is notorious for relying on precedent rather than having everything written down and the idea that somehow Smith was the nominal leader of the government whilst Salisbury exercised actual power is very strange. Timrollpickering 18:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Images

Is it not possible to use more 'formal' portraits for some of the more recent Prime Ministers? I think the List of President of the United States looks quite good with the official photographs of the recent US Presidents. Looking at this list of Prime Ministers I think that surely there must be better images available for Blair, Major, Thatcher, Callaghan and Eden... --Popeyedoyle 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

21 centuary prime minister

its time to add the 21st century pm as tony blair announced his retirement. manchurian candidate 11:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The merger tag was placed on Dec. 31, yet there's no discussion on it. I'm starting this section so it can be discussed. Personally, I think it's a little neater to keep them separate, but, in any event, let's start talking and make a decision. --Steven J. Anderson 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Merge: Don't Merge: --Steven J. Anderson 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Neater this way. A week without a word. I'm taking the tags off --Steven J. Anderson 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbering

1) Even though UK PMs are not numbered like US presidents, could numbering still not exist on PM's infoboxes 2) The numbering on this page (which seems correct) does not match the numbering given to PMs by a user recently (which has subsequently been removed) Rutld001 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on numbering - do PMs who have more than one tenure get counted more than once? What about when a PM resigns but is then reappointed (eg. 1931, 1945 - which we currently don't have here at all)? Or when they try to resign but an alternative government can't be formed and so they continue in office (1839, 1851, 1873)? Or when the government collapses and it's not entirely clear who's left running the shop for a bit (1757)? What about cases like 1746 when the Earl of Bath tried to form a ministry - was he PM? And of course we get the modern idea that a PM serves multiple terms divided by general elections...

I think any numbering scheme would invariably involve some degree of POV on some of the above questions, since otherwise it gets messy with the Pelham brothers. Some of the distinctions are well known, others aren't (e.g. Churchill's resignation and appointment on May 23rd 1945). With no official or even widely recognised numbering, any attempt to apply one will lead to loads of reverts. No-one thinks of the PMs by numbers but by when they were in office. Timrollpickering 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible. Numbering is likely to only cause problems, given the number of possible ambiguities. john k 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm ashamed to say that I'm the one who added to numbering to this page and I've just removed it. I wasn't completely happy with it to begin with; it was very messy with MacDonald. --Philip Stevens 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's just added it again, this time on a "PMs with multiple terms have multiple numbers" basis. Numbering UK PMs just isn't done, and internationally practices vary heavily - compare Robert Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia 1939-1941 & 1949-1966 who is listed as just the "twelth", and Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan 1988-1990 and 1993-1996 who is listed as both the twelth and the sixteenth. Timrollpickering 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just messed with the numbering scheme, one number for each PM. I saw and liked this scheme in the Guiness Book of Answers, though it implies that the list of PM's is more widely accepted than it really is. The EB 11th ed. lists Carteret after Walpole in the "Prime Minister" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixpmlist (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's one particular numbering scheme but it's far from universal and as you yourself says there is some dissent from the traditional list. But numbering is hardly ever used and quite apart from the question of which names to include and exclude the lists tend to just transfer the conventions for another country rather than reflect active usage. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue keeps cropping up in the article. Is it worth leaving a message to editors within the article text such as <!--The issue of numbering the sequence of Prime Ministers has been discussed several times. Please see the talk page and discuss new proposals before implementing them. -->? This note could be placed at or near the top of each table and would be invisible to normal readers. Road Wizard (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has recently added numbering again. There are several media sources which call Cameron the 53rd: the Times online, the Mirror, [1], and there are quite a few hits for a google search David Cameron "53rd Prime Minister", which affirm the numbering scheme currently used, so I am unwilling to reverse the numbering, though I am not entirely comfortable with it for the reasons outlined above. BartBassist (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Try the equivalent search for winston churchill "41st prime minister" and you get just 7 hits, one of which instead numbers him as 55th and instead gives 41st to Gladstone's third/1886 term. That indicates just how rare it is to actually number PMs and how little consensus there is on how to handle multiple terms. Including numbering here is OR territory. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do think that the previous numbering scheme is actually quite useful. Even the Times has stated that David Cameron is the 53rd PM. That does go to prove that this is not WP:OR. It may be true that past PM's were not thought about as their number, but the title Prime Minister is also a recent name that was retroactively put on past PM's. This being the case I plan to revert to the past version. If that is not liked I hope that this conversation would be opened up as to the pros and cons to having numbered Prime Ministers. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Other ministerial offices held

Just a thought but would it be useful to include the other offices held by the Prime Minister whilst in post? (e.g. MacDonald as Foreign Secretary in 1924, Pitt the Younger as Chancellor, Asquith briefly as Secretary of State for War in 1914, Churchill as Minister of Defence) This could be useful for showing both how the Premiership has evolved and also how much direct power individual PMs had in their government. Timrollpickering 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This might make sense. It'll get fairly complicated in the late 19th century, especially for Salisbury, who, in all his time as PM, was only First Lord of the Treasury from 1886-1887. That ought to be made clear, as well as any additional posts held. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer for parts of his premierships, and then he and Rosebery both held sinecure positions in the last few liberal governments of the century. The fact that, before Peel's second government, all commoner PMs were also at the Exchequer is certainly worth indicating. john k 17:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a start I've added the other offices for the 20th century PMs (and also taken the opportunity to separate Churchill's coalition and caretaker governments - he did actually resign and get reappointed for this). A few notes so far:

I've only included dates when some posts were not held for the entire premiership.

I'm not sure what dates to give when a PM carried over offices they were holding at the time of their appointment. Currently this only covers Balfour (First Lord and Commons Leader since 1895) and Baldwin (Chancellor of the Exchequer since October 1922) but for earlier periods a lot of PMs carried forward posts they already held (e.g. Newcastle, Devonshire, Grafton, North, Perceval, Liverpool, Canning, Goderich and Disraeli). There may also have been some PMs who stood down from the premiership but carried on in other offices - Wellington as Foreign Secretary & Lords Leader in 1834 is the only one I can think of. At the moment I've only listed when they held it during their premiership but listing the entire tenure may be equally valid. What do others think?

Timrollpickering 18:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Explaining my recent edit: Though Brown is scheduled to become Prime Minister on June 27, 2007, he's yet to actually take office (as of today). Many unforseen things can occur to 'change' the swearing-in date. Therefore, let's wait until Brown is sworn as PM (then we can make the needed edits, for it). Let's be patient (it's only 'til Wednesday). GoodDay 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

20th century

Tony blair was bot 20th century and 21st should he be down for 20th 21st or both?

The Two Days & Four Days Prime Ministers

One way or another the various relavent pages handle these inconsistently. On James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave the position boxes list him as Prime Minister between two terms by Devonshire. However this list just shows one Devonshire term and no Waldegrave. The position boxes for William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath don't show him as PM. Nor do Henry Pelham or William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire indicate interregnums. But in the case of Bath's ministry, the one actual appointment, of John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville (as both Secretaries of State), is acknowledged on both his page and also on Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne & William Stanhope, 1st Earl of Harrington and on the lists for Secretary of State for the Southern Department and Secretary of State for the Northern Department. Plus the Short-lived Ministry (aka "Bath/Granville Ministry") appears on List of British ministries (and the template) but nothing appears for Waldegrave. A consistent position as to whether or not the Bath and Waldegrave ministries and the ministers in them should appear on the lists is needed. Thoughts? Timrollpickering 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC) I think they should not. They were entirely abortive, and are not usually listed in official lists and the like. john k 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay there's been no other comment so can I suggest that unless there are any objections within three days the articles are amended accordingly to not count the Bath & Waldegrave ministries completely? Timrollpickering 21:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes made (a little later than planned). Timrollpickering 11:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of colors?

What is the purpose of the colors to indicate political party when the actual party is listed in the 6th column? Tocharianne 19:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) It more efficient than reading all the parties. Leave it as is, it's not like it is taking up room or anything.

Mrs. Thatcher - "First Lady"?

Was Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher "First Lady of the Treasury? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.82.126 ([[User talk:{[[User:69.141.82.126}|69.141.82.126}]] ([[User talk:69.141.82.126}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/69.141.82.126}|contribs]] · WHOIS)|talk]]) 22:18:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

A late reply, but no, I don't think so. Just as Baroness Amos was Lord President of the Council, these offices are retained in the male form. Craigy (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No. of Terms served by Blair

Should not Mr Blair be listed as haveing served more than one term, as he has been re-elected a number of times. For earlier prime ministers, the terms are divided - even where they follow on from one another without a pase.(brzak 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

This is a common misconception. In the British constitution general elections are in and of themselves irrelevant to the premiership. A Prime Minister is appointed and remains appointed until they resign, are dismissed or die. The number of general elections that pass makes no difference. So Blair, like Thatcher, Asquith, Liverpool, North, Walpole and so forth only served one term. Timrollpickering 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. So Churchill successive terms are an exception to this due to the circumstances at the time - how does that work? i.e. you say that a "Prime Minister is appointed and remains appointed until they resign, are dismissed or die", but Churchill's 1st and 2nd terms do not follow this, should they be merged or... (brzak 09:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

Churchill in 1945, and MacDonald in 1931, both formally resigned and were appointed again the same day. In both cases this was due to political changes with coalitions being made and unmade. Both are noted separately becayse of this. Timrollpickering 10:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

cumalalative notes

can we remove some of these notes surrounding recent pms? 2007 floods in UK is hardly what Gordon Brown will be remembered for, can we trim them to essentials? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the reference to the "Credit Crunch" for G. Brown. I havent gone looking for a wikepedia page for this as a link.

Is it my imagination or does gordon's list of notable and memorable "achievements" actually read as a list of disasters?

Bute left office 8 April 1763

See discussion attached to Bute's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.72.45 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair 21st century PM?

Having been elected for a second term in 2005 and resigning in 2007, doesn't that make Blair a 21st century prime minister as well as a 20th Century one? Pathfinder2006 19:24, 13 Oct 2007 (UTC)

His second term was 2001. But anyway, his tenure would probably only be classed as 21st century if he'd been interrupted and returned - i.e. if he lost in 2001 to William Hague, then won again in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.213.106 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: William Pitts 1786 the decision to send convicts to Australia - not mentioned

Hello, yes, something minor, but not altogether insignificant: my understanding was that the decision to send convicts to Australia was made on the 18 August 1786, while William Pitt was in office. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/English_Australian . This information is missing from his achievements. 58.161.57.229 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Melbourne was fired

Melbourne did not resign in 1834, the king dismissed him: the last time this happened. I have changed his entry in the list to reflect this. Richard75 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflation of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with Kingdom of Great Britain

The article makes no distinction between heads of government of the Kingdom of Great Britain (sometimes called the United Kingdom of Great Britain) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

The kingdoms of Ireland and Great Britain united in 1801. Prior to then they were separate kingdoms. Ireland didn't merge into Great Britain, no more than Scotland merged into England in 1707. The inclusions of First Lord of the Treasury of Great Britain prior to union has about as much place here as does a list of Lords Lieutenant of Ireland.

This list should begin in 1801 (when the United Kingdom began) and with the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (and when the term is first used). There are separate articles for List of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury (of Great Britain) and List of Lords Lieutenant of Ireland.

Background information on the head of government of Great Britain and Ireland before union is fine, but it should not be confused with the subject of this article. --RA (✍) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Monarchs

An observation: I dislike how PMs already serving before a new monarch's ascension are accredited to the preceding monarch. Churchill was Elizabeth II's first PM but the way information is laid out currently hides that crucial fact. Perhaps someone can find a better presentation style. User:SamUK 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Why are they listed by monarchs anyway? Richard75 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects by the weekend, I am going to be bold and change the list format to divide the list of PMs by century instead of reign. Richard75 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Richard75 (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say, not as a member of the Wikipedia community, but as some who frequently uses this list: the change from monarch headings to century headings now effectively means that the list contains less information. Previously, the list told you under which monarch any given PM took power, plus since you have their dates anyway, you obviously new what century they belonged to. Now there is no information on the monarch and a sectional title that gives you no further information (as, like I said, you already have their dates). Could an extra column be added for the monarch they were serving under? 129.67.118.160 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The monarchs should be reinstated, the article as it currently stands gives the impression to one who is not familiar with our political system that each PM merely succeeded the previous one, and omits the formalities of our constitutional monarchy. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No one is likely to infer that. The PM's status is given in the first sentence of the lead paragraph (although we could add a sentence about how they are appointed if you like). I have nothing against adding another column, but the previous organisation of headings was misleading, as SamUK pointed out. Richard75 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

He did make a brilliant point! I'll summon up the spirit of Bagehot and try and think of an aesthetic compromise. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Chatham, Grafton, and the 1768 General Election

The 1768 General Election, in the due box, has been put against the Duke of Grafton, while the corresponding box against his predecessor the Earl of Chatham (Pitt the Elder) is blank; this is incorrect - the election was in March-May 1768, Chatham did not leave PM office until 14 October that year, when Grafton immediately succeeded. I amend the position of the election detail accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Electoral Mandate

Could someone please define "electoral mandate" as used here? I'm guessing that this indicates year(s) in which there was an election and the indicated PM was selected as the leader by the party that won. However, that's far from obvious and could use a definition -- perhaps in a note. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I assume it must mean the mandate that the prime minister could reasonably have said to have been given to govern. Recent non-mandates include Douglas Home and Brown. Quite difficult to define though. Possible note: "General elections in which the Prime Minister won as incumbent or challenger"? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

London car bombings

I am deleting the linked reference to (2007) London car bombings against Gordon Brown because it is not the first such incident of its kind and not the worst in terms of loss of life caused. The first London car bombings in my living memory (by IRA) occurred in the 1970s, and the IRA caused some explosions in London during its 1939 S-Plan campaign.Cloptonson (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference but for reason of their precedent I have added against Neville Chamberlain's tenure the so-called S-Plan bombings of 1939 by IRA (during the campaign a hotel where his son was staying in Ireland was attacked).Cloptonson (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added the 7/7 bombings as the first event listed in Brown's tenure because I appreciate the major loss of life caused. They were NOT car bombings, the bombs being detonated from public transport.Cloptonson (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you whoever withdrew this last addition- I now realise Blair was still in office at the 7/7 bombings.Cloptonson (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are the devisons by century

Just restored the page to monarch devision as this fits best for this list16:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)31.77.87.119 (talk)

Proposals not introduced

I just removed 42 days detention from Gordon Brown. If we list things which were proposed and not accepted, we will be here all day. Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

For similar consideration I have deleted from information on David Lloyd George's tenure statement he "attempted to extend conscription to Ireland in First World War", an effort which was politically resisted.Cloptonson (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice the latter appears to have been reinstated since the table was divided by reigns, but I am hesitant to delete it after reading the Wikipedia article on the Irish conscription crisis, where I notice it was passed into law but never implemented but did much damage among Irish opinion towards Britain. Cloptonson (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The most historically important PM is Kirkpatrick?

Rampant recentism at play. If there is no meaningful criteria under which items are added to the "acheivements/notes" section, it should be removed. At present,Kirkpatrick's less than a year has nearly 5 lines of text: can someone explain on what basis he is more than 5 times as historical as Pitt the Elder, and 10 times more than Wellington. Is it really only in modern times that tax rates have changed or media have published uncomplimentary things about politicians or students have protested? Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are more Wikipedians in the c21st than in the c19th. That is the problem. Perhaps we should endeavour to add more historical events to the previous PMs? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why a clear set of criteria should be in place, so that Recentism doesn't have free reign. If that can't be established, then remove that section: it is a list of UK Prime Ministers, not a list of events in UK politics sorted by PM. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this sort of article is going to be an easy victim of recentism. Let's put it back into context and carve out things which will probably not be relevant in a year, let alone a decade or a century. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect the concerns and share agreement with bias due to recent history. Either collaboration to bulk other PM histories, or minimalism for them all is the best course of action. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The bulk should appear in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been bold and made large...cuts to Cameron's section. Sir Richardson (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Poetic justice, I hear opponents say!Cloptonson (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This still appears to be the case. I don't see how the Belfast flag protests are of any great relevance to David Cameron, let alone David Cameron as a Prime Minister (I may be wrong), and there are other events where the same applies. dpchalmers (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Theresa May

Andrea Leadsom has withdrawn from the Tory leadership race. That means Theresa May's going to be prime minister. This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.125.231 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

She shouldn't be on this list until she is appointed as Prime Minister. Not "presumptive", not "designate", not "elect", not anything. This is to confuse the British constitutional position with that of the United States or other Presidential systems that have a delay between the Presidential election and inauguration. She is the Leader of the Conservative Party and Secretary of State for the Home Department, nothing more, until Her Majesty the Queen decides otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.89.60 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill should also be listed under Elizabeth II, because during his second term as prime minister the monarch was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.223.231 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Entries are never repeated for a change of monarch. BartBassist (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I dislike how PMs already serving before a new monarch's ascension are accredited to the preceding monarch. Churchill was Elizabeth II's first PM but the way information is laid out currently hides that crucial fact. Perhaps someone can find a better presentation style. 137.222.64.100 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be the case that Walpole's ministry was dissolved and reformed under the new monarch in 1727 (as was usual among the Hanoverians father and son detested one another and it had been assumed George II would want a new ministry, so it was a bit of a surprise when he kept Walpole on), but I don't really recall for certain. However, Churchill in 1952-3 was certainly the same ministry carrying on, the same as Melbourne in 1837, Salisbury in 1901, Asquith in 1910 or Baldwin in 1936. Nowadays ministries are part of "the Crown" in a metaphysical sense, rather than reporting personally to a Monarch and being expected to defer to his wishes as in Hanoverian times.Paulturtle (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous collections of random events

The lists of events in a PM's term should be of things he did: policies and achievements. Instead many of them, especially the recent ones, contain all sorts of events that have nothing at all to do with the PM in question, except that they happen to have occurred during that PM's term of office. We should review them all and trim them down, especially Cameron's. Richard75 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, but in many cases the events had a profound effect on that person's premiership. Cameron's list is quite long though, victim of recentism etc. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I too agree. For guidance, I suggest events listed be those personally involving the PM, or initiated by the PM or his government such as political campaigns (eg Major's Back to Basics) or key legislation and reforms, declared wars, major battles in which British forces participated, political scandals. I notice the Battles of Ulm and Austerlitz are mentioned against Pitt the Younger's second spell as Prime Minister; while they were significant in Europe, they did not involve British forces.Cloptonson (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I question the value of this table listing the death of Diana, Princess of Wales among events of Blair's PM tenure. This does not fall in the criteria I have suggested above. His part was little more than ceremonial, with some liaison with the royal family. Were not earlier PMs in the loop over earlier royal deaths?Cloptonson (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

On similar grounds I question relevance of mentioning the London 2012 Summer Olympics under David Cameron's tenure. The selection of London had been voted by the IOC in 2005, in the time of a previous prime minister and different governing party. No one has seen fit to mention the previous UK hosted Summer Olympics of 1908 and 1948 against Asquith and Attlee.Cloptonson (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the above points, Pitt the Younger is supposed to have mentioned Austerlitz on his deathbed ("Roll up that map of Europe, it will not be needed again for ten years" or whatever doubtless apocryphal words were put in his mouth). The death of Diana was a very strange event, accompanied by something not far from mass hysteria, in which Blair did play an important role for a few days while the Queen was at Balmoral and becoming a focus for public criticism which was starting to turn very ugly. Perhaps the Abdication in 1936 is the nearest parallel for a "Royal" event like that in recent decades.Paulturtle (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Theresa May

I updated the picture of Theresa May to a more recent one, closer to the time (now) that she is actually Prime Minister. This was reverted with the comment "The prev/ image is fine & newer image is already used in lede; note Heath pic was taken in 1965, a four full years before his becoming PM". The fact that the Heath picture was taken four years before his becoming PM is no reason whatsoever that the May picture also needs to be out of date. Ideally we should have pictures taken during the time that the person is PM. Where this is not available, the closer the better, given of course that the picture is good quality, as this one is. 86.185.70.240 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It was reverted again with the comment "superior image". This is clearly untrue. The new image is actually aesthetically superior, even disregarding the issues of when the photos were taken. 86.185.70.240 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

May has only been Prime Minister for a little over a week now. Give it time, and somebody is bound to take a decent new photo of her. And I must reiterate that the image you prefer is already included in the lede, for everyone to see right at the very top of the article. Besides, her appearance has not drastically changed since May 2010 anyway. By the end of the year, the 2010 image of May should be replaced with a newer image, one that may not yet have been taken as of this writing.--Neve–selbert 23:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Consecutive terms

It is somewhat confusing, in the "Term of office" column, that some PMs (e.g. Thatcher, Blair) have consecutive terms combined into a single date range, while others (e.g. Cameron) have each term shown separately. It seems that the latter is currently done when there is a change in the nature of the government, but I think it would be more helpful to do it consistently throughout. 81.157.10.181 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

British governments don't, in principle, have "terms" in the way that governments in other countries do. They are sets of ministers governing on the Monarch's behalf until replaced by another set of ministers. So the Thatcher governments of 1979-83, 1983-7 and 1987-90 were technically the same government, whereas 1915, 1931, 1945 (for two months) and 2015 saw different ministries headed up by the same Prime Minister continuing in office (Churchill actually resigned and was reappointed in May 1945, which was a piece of constitutional pedantry on his part; normally the Prime Minister stays put, demands the resignations of all "his" ministers (unlike a normal reshuffle) and then forms a new administration).Paulturtle (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC) And in the eighteenth century, and again for a period in the mid-nineteenth century, the rise and fall of ministries did not coincide with general elections anyway.Paulturtle (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is contrary to general usage. If you ask anyone how many terms of office Blair had, they would say three (two full terms and one part). Even the article Tony Blair says he was "the only Labour prime minister to serve two full consecutive terms". Similarly, the article Margaret Thatcher says "Thatcher was re-elected for a third term in 1987". I think if this article is to use the concept of "term" in an unfamiliar technical sense that makes the treatment appear inconsistent then it would be well to explain this somewhere. 86.185.70.240 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I take your point, but this article does include general elections, but also covers all the Prime Ministers since Walpole's time. There simply isn't any clear point at which the loose modern practice of talking of Prime Ministerial "terms", coinciding with the length of a Parliament, began. It would be wholly wrong, for example, to split the first Palmerston ministry of 1855-8 into separate "terms" around his triumphant re-election in 1857, or to split off from his 1859-65 ministry a brief final "term" between the 1865 election and his death a few months later. It is sometimes, but not always, used about Harold Macmillan's re-election in 1959. Sometimes there are clear breaks in constitutional practice but this isn't one of them.Paulturtle (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Melbourne's resignation in 1839

We should record the fact that Melbourne resigned on 7 May 1839, but I don't know the date when he got his job back. But there was no PM for a few days, and the list should reflect that. Richard75 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Melbourne never formally resigned. Similar to how Cameron resigned the day following the Brexit vote, he just announced his intention to resign. With Melbourne, he simply decided not to go through with it and was persuaded to stay on, given the refusal of Peel to form a new ministry.--Nevé–selbert 23:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Richard75 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Official images

I think we need to find a consensus for the images used on this article. LookLook36 and Ebonelm have added the official images for Brown, Cameron, etc. even though this is not strictly necessary. At only 75 pixels, we should be choosing images that look their best at that quality. Compare:

Personally I believe that the unofficial images for Brown and Cameron are of a higher quality at this picture size than their official counterparts. I will however concede that the same thing cannot be said for May, and I look forward to someone uploading a portrait (either unofficial or official) of Theresa May as Prime Minister, in the near future.--Nevé–selbert 20:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Neve-selbert, could you explain your criteria for a judgement of "looking better"? The official pics look fine to me. The Brown and Cameron official pics have a less intrusive background than the alternatives (that beam through the top of Brown's head, and a heavy wood panelling for Cameron), and that Theresa May pic is from 2010, she looks younger than she now does. LookLook36 (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Neve-selbert, personally I think that the official Brown portrait and the official Home Office portrait of May are much better quality than the others being used. To be honest I don't really like either of the Cameron pictures, the shadowing on the official one is quite noticeable in such a small size but then the 2013 picture is taken at an odd angle which makes it difficult to really see his face, so I'm happy to go with either. The May one has to be the official Home Office picture, the other image is taken at an odd angle with her mouth wide open. Ebonelm (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@LookLook36: The problem I have with the official images is to do with the image noise. I agree that the 2010 image for May is pretty terrible, but as for Brown and Cameron I must diverge. It could just be my monitor, but the way those two images look at 75 pixels looks unbearably awful. @Ebonelm: I would note that there is a cropped version for Cameron's unofficial image here and here.--Nevé–selbert 21:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I returned the unofficial Brown image, since it's easier to discern his face from the background at such a resolution. I kept the others in check, albeit with minor tweaks.--Nevé–selbert 22:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Neve-selbert:, this looks fine for now. We should keep an eye out for a pic of Theresa May as PM - one is bound to turn up within a few months. LookLook36 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a request for someone to crop an image of Theresa May (probably temporary) as PM here.--Nevé–selbert 19:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've notified the creator of the May image to improve the quality somewhat. I'm not satisfied either. Please be patient, Ebonelm.--Nevé–selbert 23:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict @Neve-selbert: we really can't use that new image of May its such low quality and taken at such a bad angle. While we do need an image of May as PM a balance has to be struck and a high quality official image from last year, even if May is now in a different role is by far preferable to a drastically cropped pciture. Ebonelm (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, hopefully the creator of the image will darken the background and possibly upload a PNG version of the image.--Nevé–selbert 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302002528/http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk:80/OutPut/Page751.asp to http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/OutPut/Page751.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/OutPut/Page751.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301195439/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950806/ai_n13998865 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950806/ai_n13998865

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing the notes

Could someone help in removing the unsourced notes from the table? There is an FLR discussion going on at present and this is a key sticking point.--Nevé–selbert 19:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Working on it. This will take some time. Huon (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. The only issue that may need more work is Edward VIII; the table is supposed to have his portrait in a cell by itself while George VI begins within Baldwin's term; for some reason I can't quite figure out Edward VIII and Baldwin seem to end at the same time with George VI only beginning concurrently with Chamberlain. Huon (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Huon. Is there any way to get the table to span the entire width of the page? Thanks for the help.--Nevé–selbert 17:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary; I think it would amount to adding whitespace within the table. Which column do you think isn't wide enough when the table doesn't take up the entire page width? Huon (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: On my screen, the table looks squeezed. It would be better if the table could fit the entire screen like List of Presidents of the United States does.--Nevé–selbert 18:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Tell me what exactly you want done, and I can try and give it a shot (or maybe tell you how to do it). The Presidents list is a little wider than this one (given enough space), but it also won't take the whole screen's width if the window is wide enough. Huon (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Huon: I had the same problem on the list for Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Edward VIII cell. Apparently this is a thing that happens in HTML as described here in Wikipedia's guide to Advanced table formatting. The fix is somewhat of a fudge.
N.B. I don't think too much aesthetic inspiration should be taken from List of Presidents of the United States, my opinion is that the portraits are obnoxiously large and column layout confusing ToastButterToast (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)