Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

message: Re Q of separate entries, ODPM is a department. All other departments and offices have entries of their own in which the ministers and officials are listed. The post is different in the same way that the Prime Minister is not the same as the Cabinet office so surely needs a separate entry. They need to x-ref but not automatically re-direct. That was how it was previously, leaving ODPM as the only government dept or agency that did not have its functions described or ministers listed. As with other depts, it will doubtless change post Blair and Prescott but many of its functions are very important for citizens, wherever located!--farsee50 09:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see them as the same thing really. Ardenn 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep them separate. I'm a bit perplexed that this has even been suggested - they are not the same thing. The Deputy Prime Minister is an individual and member of the Government - who currently heads up his own Ministry in the form of the ODPM (which heads policy on the likes of English local government and English housing etc). This has not always been the case. For example, the functions of the ODPM were exercised by the Department of the Environment during the Thatcher/Major years. Should we therefore merge Secretary of State for Trade and industry, with the DTI article, or the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office article etc etc? Answer - NO!.. Globaltraveller 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To look at it another way: when this grandiose title is abolished and the department renamed to something that vaguely describes what it does (like "The Department for Destruction of the Environment"), we shall have to Move the present ODPM article to the new title.  But the DPM article will have to stay for historical reasons, since there have been many DPMs.  It will be a pig to demerge them at that stage.  So I also vote keep and even propose that we delete the material that relates to the duties of the ODPM Department from the DPM article and replace it with a pointer.  --Concrete Cowboy 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree it should stay seperate. They are not the same and should not be confused.Alci12 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep the two articles separate. The functions of the ODPM are not traditionally those of the DPM, and may not be in the future. I see no good reason to merge now if a demerge may be necessary later. Furthermore, the article on the Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary etc have not been merged with those of the Home Office, or Foreign Office, so why start with this? CPCHEM 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with ODPM

message: Hi. One down and then another one pops its head over the parapet. I am proposing that we should merge First Secretary of State in here and redirect. It seems pointless having both. We just need a section examining the differences between the honorifics and their respective usages. Then I would proposes interleaving the 2 lists chronologically identifiying which title was bestowed on each holder.
I came to this article via  which lists Barbara Castle however there does not seem to be any mention of the office in her article. Buts that not for now. Suggestions? Frelke 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prescott has held the dual roles of DPM and FSOS since at least May 2002 when the ODPM became a separate department (note this legislation from July 2002 refers to him as  FSOS). I will correct the dates in the article of when he gained the title. He may have held the title before 2002, but I have yet to find verifiable evidence. Road Wizard 10:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with the inclusion of Harriet Harman. She is neither DPM nor FSoS and Brown's administration has often gone at great lengths to emphasise her exact official status. Inclusion on either list or a merged list should be restricted to verifiable holders of the titles. "Sort of Deputy" entries are too open to opinion. Road Wizard (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've found a way to deal with Harman, to include her without including her, as below. BartBassist (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Merge

message: I have managed to track down this source which lists John Prescott with the title FSOS in October 2001. If anyone can find the exact date he gained the title, please list it here. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Prescott 

message: The idea, expressed in a footnote, that Lloyd George was somehow forced to create a coalition because of the way the king invited him to form a government, is absurd.  Lloyd George had just joined with Bonar Law to lead a revolt against his own party leader, Asquith.  There was absolutely no question of Lloyd George forming any sort of government besides a coalition - the whole point of forcing Asquith's resignation was to create a new coalition between the Unionists and however much of the  Liberal Party Lloyd George could bring along.  The statement as it stands is totally odd. john k 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Lloyd George taking power 

message: One paragraph reads "In practice, however, only one Deputy Prime Minister has gone on to be appointed Prime Minister. Sir Anthony Eden was appointed not because he had been Deputy Prime Minister, but because he had long been seen as Churchill's heir apparent and natural successor."
However, the later table also describes Attlee as being a DPM. Anyone know which is true? Kaid100 (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might need better wording, but that section appears to be describing cases where the Deputy Prime Minister goes on to succeed the Prime Minister after resignation/death of the incumbent. In Atlee's case he was Churchill's deputy in a coalition/unity government during the second world war. As they were leaders of separate parties, Attlee fought a general election against Churchill after the break up of the coalition and became Prime Minister when the Labour Party won (relegating Churchill to the position of Leader of the opposition). Road Wizard (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the paragraph to reflect this. Kaid100 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy

message: Decided to remove these, partly for consistency with other lists, and partly for tidiness.
They're obviously all MPs, and The Rt. Hon. is also more-or-less ex officio.
Other honorifics are irrelevant to public office (Eden's MC dates from World War I, and Howe is a QC, like many other MPs, through his legal career). Other honours were only attained after the Deputy PM in question left that office. BartBassist (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorifics

message: It seems premature to say Clegg is deputy PM.  The linked source has reporters being told by anonymous sources that Clegg will likely be Deputy PM (and that Osborne will be Chancellor).  Shouldn't we await official announcements? john k (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. All reverted now. raseaCtalk to me 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now confirmed  "A Downing Street spokesman says: "Her Majesty The Queen has been pleased to approve the appointment of Nick Clegg as deputy prime minister.". Guest9999 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not knowing much about politics, I just wondered if the 'Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom' should still be there? AnemoneProjectors 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably never have been on there.  Deputy Prime Minister has always been an intermittent office.  Sometimes there is one, and sometimes there isn't.  That doesn't make it "defunct," when there isn't one, I don't think. john k (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature? 

message: The table does not refelct the situation (as extant at the moment) where the posts of DPM and First Secretary of State are both in existance but being held by different people, Nick Clegg ansd Wm Hague. Has this situation ever existed before? If not, I suggest the table is adjusted to list both Clegg and Hague, who are holding the posts at present.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restraining (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, the same table exists in two articles, covering the two offices when there should be a table for one and a table for the other. Str1977 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DPM and First Secretary of State 

message: Since when was Harriet Harman DPM, de jure or de facto?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restraining (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harriet Harman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100516202621/http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk:80/dpm/ContactUs.html to http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/dpm/ContactUs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: George Brown was not DPM; he was First Secretary of State, which is a separate and distinct office. He is not listed on the table of Deputy Prime Ministers (rightly so) and while some random article may informally describe him as "Deputy Prime Minister," the office was not in use under Harold Wilson; he was First Secretary of State and Secretary for Economic Affairs as the box describes. 98.10.179.163 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Brown 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: "Due to the two offices tending not to coincide, and both representing the Prime Minister's deputy, journalists will often refer to the First Secretary of State as the Deputy PM."
This is a weird sentence, in two respects: (1) If you deleted the word "not" in the first clause, it would make just as much sense. (2) The two offices have coexisted on at least three occasions (and on those three occasions the two offices belonged to the same individual) - which I assume counts as "coinciding".  (I haven't established whether there have been occasions when both offices have existed and haven't belonged to the same individual.)  18:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tending not to coincide"

message: I've created discussions on both Anthony Eden's and Rab Butler's talk pages as to whether they actually ever held the office of Deputy Prime Minister. Please feel free to contribute if you can. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eden and Butler 

message: I apologise if anybody feels that I've bought this up before, but Rodney Brazier, who is an eminant scholar on this topic and has been for several decades, lists in his recent book that there have only ever been five people formally appointed Prime Minister: Clement Attlee, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Heseltine, John Prescott and Nick Clegg (Brazier 2020 p.76-7). He later goes on to list 14 de facto deputies to the Prime Minister, most of whom, obviously, never officially held the office (Brazier 2020 p.80-2). I think that the list in this article should either reflect one or the other, not an unsourced mix of both. I personally favour only including the five people who were formally appointed Prime Minister. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: After recieving no replies either way, I have been bold and fixed the table so only the five who were formally appointed are included. Please be aware that a section on informal deputies already exists. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The list has since been pruned further, to exclude Attlee and Howe. I find this dubious – while I understand the footnotes that they may not have received Crown appointment as DPM, academic works acknowledge them as DPM (as opposed to merely acting or deputising, as in other cases). To exclude them seems pedantic.  grateful for your thoughts. LookLook36 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, without Crown appointment, they cannot be listed as appointees. Could they be listedsubject to unambiguous citations of course at the end of the section as de facto DPMs? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tagging me, LookLook36, and apologies for taking so long to reply. I agree with John Maynard Friedman. It was me who removed Clement Attlee and Geoffrey Howe from the list to begin with (after I made that initial comment in January 2021). I think it's best to list those who were objectively appointed deputy by the monarch in one section and those who are subjectively considered deputies in a different section. And Attlee and Howe are already considered as such below. I hope that makes sense! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: Copied from discussion at Willie Whitelaw:-
Many sources seem to point to Whitelaw being recognised as Deputy Prime Minister, including the House of Commons Library:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04023#fullreport JLo-Watson (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitelaw DPM? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The original wording at the top of the list of official DPMs was out of date because it said that "few" people have been formally appointed DPM.  This was once the case, but over the last 27 years there has been an official DPM 60% of the time.  It is no longer a rarety, and there have been five in total, all five of those within the last 27 years, four of them serving within the last 20 years, and three of them within the last decade.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.9.115 (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Few

message: The list cited to Brazier would seem to have a problem in that it lists George Brown as being defacto Deputy Prime Minister from 1964 to 1970.  I am not sure if this is an error in editing or by Brazier, but the 1970 end date makes no sense. Brown was not a member of the cabinet from 15 March 1968 after resigning from Harold Wilson's Government after he and Wilson had a very public falling out over Wilson holding a special meeting of the Privy Council to declare and acting bank holiday without informing him. As a a result he held no Government office until the fall of Wilson Government in 1970. He remained Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, largely as there was no way Wilson could remove him from the post, but he had no part in Government decisions and his Party post did not mean he would be considered Wilson's Deputy by the civil service or the Palace. Thus at best he could be considered Deputy PM up to 15 March 1968, but certainly not after that. Dunarc (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent spot! I just checked Brazier's book and he does indeed use the 1970 date, while also highlighting that Brown resigned as a minister in 1968. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial deputies - issue with Brazier list dates