Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Merge with ODPM
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)


 * I see them as the same thing really. Ardenn 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Agree it should stay seperate. They are not the same and should not be confused.Alci12 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Removed merge tag as the Deputy Prime Minister no longer heads the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as of Tony Blair's reshuffle on 5th May. The department is awaiting its new title, but Ruth Kelly is now head of it making a merger absolutley out of the question. Ian3055 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New Merge
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)


 * The only problem I see with the merge is that the title "First Secretary of State" is no longer entirely honorific. Certainly since 1997 (if not earlier) the title has begun to appear in legislation. The two articles can still be merged, but care should be given when comparing the honorific title of Deputy Prime Minister and the legislative title of First Secretary of State. Road Wizard 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually if any office is purely honorific it is the DPM. It has no constitutional status, no salary, no residence, nothing behind it. Even its supposed department turns out not to have deputy prime ministerial at all &mdash; if it was, how on earth could it be given to a non DPM? First Secretary of State is a cabinet posting with a ministry, a salary and a grace and favour residence. Prescott was made FSOS when he lost his departments because otherwise he would have been unsalaried and homeless. lol (So no croquet then!) As they are different, albeit complimentary, and one, DPM, is honorific while the other is real in constitutional and statute law, I see no need to merge. As with First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister, they are two different offices, not one. FearÉIREANN \(caint)|undefined 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I support this merger. The two titles seem to perform the same, essentially honorific, function. They generally seem to be awarded to appease someone difficult, to recognise service or for other personal reasons, rather than in order to realise actual political ends. On the whole, (though not always), the Conservative Party appears historically to have preferred the DPM title, while the Labour Party has preferred FSoS. A new table for the combined roles could look as follows: (BartBassist (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * 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)

†Neither DPM nor FSoS, but nonetheless regarded as holding similar status (see Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)

John Prescott
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)

Description of Lloyd George taking power
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)

Discrepancy
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)
 * 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)
 * I've changed the paragraph to reflect this. Kaid100 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics
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)

Premature?
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)
 * Yep. All reverted now.  raseaC talk to me 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Not knowing much about politics, I just wondered if the 'Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom' should still be there? Anemone  Projectors  23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

DPM and First Secretary of State
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)
 * 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)

Harriet Harman
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)

Vacancies
Hi. You removed the vacancies from the lists at the pages Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and First Secretary of State. I understand the oft-quoted desire for simplicity in such tables, but the vacancies are surely important - they serve to demonstrate that these posts are not always extant. Vacant is perhaps the wrong phrase for this particular situation - office defunct might serve better - but it surely needs to be indicated. Also, you removed the colour bar which indicated the party of the Prime Minister on these tables. Not a big thing, but I found it useful on the DPM table to illustrate the Churchill-Attlee and Cameron-Clegg situations. BartBassist (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The vacancies are not important because they are non-existent. DPM is merely a title and FSoS is merely an honorary office that just don't exist when nobody is appointed to them. To make matters worse is the splitting of these "vacancies" under different PMs and administrations.
 * I don't mind colouring the PMs (those that actually have business in appearing in the list. Str1977 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that these titles become non-extant, rather than merely vacant, when nobody is appointed to them - but surely this in itself is worthy of demonstration in these tables. It seems odd to have a table full of temporal gaps, without any indication within the table of why these gaps came about. I agree that the phrase Vacant is misleading. BartBassist (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Str1977; there is a distinction between a vacancy and when the position actually does not exist. A table is not supposed to be stand-alone; it exists in the context of its article, and this article fully explains why there are temporal gaps. YLee (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

George Brown
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Sir Anthony-Eden number 10 Official.jpg

"Tending not to coincide"
"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)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.171.174 (talk)

Eden and Butler
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)

List
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Nevertheless, without Crown appointment, they cannot be listed as appointees. Could they be listed – subject to unambiguous citations of course – at the end of the section as de facto DPMs? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Whitelaw DPM?
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)

On another topic, given the discrepancies re. Whitelaw’s status, I propose that Deputy PM be added to Whitelaw’s info-box. We could add a “de facto” label if editors believe it is required. Thanks JLo-Watson (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Anthony Eden (retouched).jpg

Few
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)

Appointment
The article seems to refer to Deputy Prime Ministers being appointed by The Crown / making an issue of them *not* being formally appointed. Deputy Prime Ministers are never appointed as DPM by The Crown, see privy council note that appointed Coffee as Health Sec but not DPM: https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-13-The-List-of-Business.pdf DPM is a completely extra-constitutional role in the UK and it's just a designation by the PM - it doesn't draw a salary or cabinet position without a sinecure. 2603:9001:5201:5619:1C2B:7C94:A960:C548 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. I believe the Privy Council minute you linked to refers to oaths taken: there is an oath for Secretaries of State, but not Deputy Prime Ministers. You can see a similar distinction in the minutes of the most recent meeting: it is noted that Rishi Sunak was sworn in as First Lord of the Treasury, but there is no mention of him being Prime Minister. This is fully in line with the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. And I also believe there is good evidence that the King does approve the appointment of Deputy Prime Ministers: for instance, look at this GOV.UK page, which refers to the King approving the appointment of Dominic Raab as Deputy Prime Minister (among other offices). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the aforementioned gov.uk page is good evidence. It's just using the style of "The King has appointed ministers..." (standard) but it includes positions that we know aren't appointed by the Crown, such as the Leader of the House of Commons:
 * https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/leader-commons/ - "The leadership of the House is not a statutory office nor is the Leader formally appointed by the Crown; for these reasons the post has usually been held together with another office; recently this has usually been that of Lord President of the Council"
 * It's also mentioned here: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/62576-2/ that the DPM is not appointed by the Crown, and that it's a very vague position constitutionally. Going further in this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/bp.2015.42 to assert that the position is "invisible" under the constitution. 97.103.123.114 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I have taken so long to get back to you. The LSE blog does seem to contradict my claim that Deputy Prime Ministers are today appointed by the monarch (since it says that the post has "never been officially recognised by the monarch") — I hadn't seen that before, so thank you. I have also had a brief search through some literature and I haven't actually been able to find any explicit comment that Deputy Prime Ministers are today appointed by the monarch, though cited past palace concerns may suggest something along those lines and the GOV.UK lists do suggest this also. Nonetheless, in light of what you have pointed out, I would be happy if yourself or other editors were to edit the article to bring it into line with reliable sources. Thanks for your help and I hope that you have a nice Christmas! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have (finally) began to update the article. Thank you again for your useful comments! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi all. I think we have got ourselves into a bit of a bother on this article recently and I want to avoid anything even like an edit war. I essentially rewrote this article a couple of years ago, but I now realise (thanks to the above discussion) that I made some mistakes and even at one point may have violated WP:NOR. I have been trying to fix these edits recently, but @Ebonelm has been reversing my edits. I have been trying to speak to Ebonelm about this on their talk page, but they only responded once and have reversed my edits twice since then. Over concerns that my edits were not explained properly, I made sure in my third and most recent attempt at improving the article to do it in several edits so I could explain exactly what I was doing, but my edits were still reversed because of "unexplained removal of content and insertion of claims regarding Clement Atlee disputed by many reliable sources". I am not sure what I left unexplained and, as I explained on Ebonelm's talk page, the only person who seems to have disputed that Attlee was a Deputy Prime Minister was me two years ago (this is where I possibly violated WP:NOR), but I now understand that this was based on a misunderstanding that the monarch appoints Deputy Prime Ministers. Therefore, I was hoping that we could get a third opinion on this matter — the best place to speak may be on Ebonelm's talk page. I think that we both just want this article to be as accurate as possible. Thank you in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I should (belatedly) add that I have created a table with the 28 specific edits that I now want to make to the article and my rationale for each. It can be found here. I would be very grateful if editors could check this out and give their thoughts at some point! Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone! On the advice of @ThatRandomGuy1, and reflecting two minor alterations, I have reproduced said table below. Please do feel free to give your thoughts! To give some more context to these suggested edits, editors may find it useful to read the fuller discussion here and also to check out my recent (reversed) edits to the article from before I put this table together; a version of this article which reflects these edits can be found here (although, from what I can remember, this version of the article is not completely faithful to the table, it is pretty close!)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! !Suggested edit !Reason
 * colspan="3" |INFOBOX
 * 1
 * Remove 10 Downing Street as one of the departments of the Deputy Prime Minister
 * Unsourced
 * 2
 * Change the first Deputy Prime Minister from Michael Heseltine to Clement Attlee
 * See 26
 * colspan="3" |LEDE
 * 3
 * Remove "the second highest ranking minister of the Crown" from the lede
 * Unsourced
 * 4
 * Add to the lede that the title is not always in use and that Prime Ministers sometimes have 'informal deputies'
 * Useful context, particularly in light of the informal deputies section
 * colspan="3" |CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
 * 5
 * State that Deputy Prime Minister is a title
 * This is supported by Kirkup and Thornton (2017) and Norton (2020). "Title" is also uniquely used to describe the Deputy Prime Minister in the Cabinet Manual
 * 6
 * State that successive monarchs have refused to officially recognise the position of Deputy Prime Minister
 * This is supported by Bogdanor (1995), Kirkup and Thornton (2017) and Thornton and Kirkup (2017)
 * 7
 * Reword the "classical argument" sentence to make the context for royal objections to Deputy Prime Ministers clearer and add some information about its history in respect of Anthony Eden
 * This is a more accurate use of Bogdanor (1995) and useful context
 * 8
 * Move Brazier and Bogdanor's arguments in favour of appointing a Deputy Prime Minister to after Norton's two advantages of a Deputy Prime Minister, add Seldon's voice and cut this down to a sentence
 * This flows better and one sentence ensures that not too much prominence is given to this reason over Norton's two other reasons
 * 9
 * Remove "(though this might be different within political parties in relation to their respective leaderships)"
 * Unsourced
 * 10
 * Add "The title is not always in use and the holder's responsibilities will vary depending on the circumstances"
 * Useful context
 * 11
 * Add Kirkup and Thornton's list of why Deputy Prime Ministers are appointed to Brazier's
 * Useful context
 * 12
 * Add Norton's two advantages to having a Deputy Prime Minister
 * Useful context
 * colspan="2" |HISTORY
 * 13
 * Remove the examples of other junior party leaders given offices in coalitions
 * Irrelevant to a section about people who have been Deputy Prime Minister
 * 14
 * Add a source to why there was nobody formally styled Deputy Prime Minister until Michael Heseltine and that Heseltine was Deputy Prime Minister
 * Add source
 * 15
 * Add a source to Prescott, Clegg, Raab, Coffey and Dowden being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Add source
 * 16
 * Remove that there was no Deputy Prime Minister under Gordon Brown, David Cameron after 2015 and Theresa May
 * Irrelevant
 * 17
 * Remove explanations as to why Clegg left office
 * Irrelevant
 * 18
 * Remove explanation that Coffey is the shortest serving
 * Irrelevant plus currently untrue!
 * 19
 * Remove reference to Raab deputising for Boris Johnson in April 2020 before being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Included below
 * 20
 * Remove explanation as to Raab being the first non-consecutive Deputy Prime Minister and why he stopped being Deputy Prime Minister
 * Irrelevant
 * colspan="3" |SUCCESSION
 * 21
 * Move succession section to the bottom of the article
 * I think it fits better away from the sections on the title of Deputy Prime Minister, as being Deputy Prime Minister gives no right to succeed the Prime Minister!
 * 22
 * Replace 2006 Cabinet Office quote with 2021 Simon Case quote
 * The newer source is much more relevant
 * 23
 * Merge the travelling and April 2020 sentences into one paragraph
 * This reads better and means there is a paragraph on when there is not and when there is a Prime Minister
 * colspan="3" |LIST OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS
 * 24
 * Remove reference to ministers being appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister
 * This general rule is explicitly displaced by 6
 * 25
 * Remove the comment that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by the King
 * Included above (albeit in more brief form; more context could be added if necessary)
 * 26
 * Remove "Six people can be described as definitely having been appointed deputy prime minister in such a manner" and add Attlee to the table of Deputy Prime Ministers
 * Both Norton (2020) and Brazier (2020) include Attlee in their lists. Kirkup and Thornton (2017) also say, of three other lists, "Howard’s (1995) list, like Gay and Bogdanor starts with Attlee, seeing him as ‘official’ deputy". Perhaps see also WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH?
 * 27
 * Remove gaps from the table
 * I think that it would look silly to list every ministry between 1945 and 1995; in any case, I think it is obvious to the reader that there is sometimes not a Deputy Prime Minister (I have even suggested including this in the lede — see 4)
 * colspan="3" |TIMELINE
 * 28
 * Add Attlee to the timeline
 * See 26
 * }
 * Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise following on from our discussion, I'd say go ahead with the edits. I think it's important to fix some of the factual innaccuracies in this article and make it as accurate as possible. Thanks for taking the time to do this! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatRandomGuy1. I am sorry that it has taken me so long, but I have finally carried out the suggested edits in accordance with the table. This was a little tricky because the article has been edited since that table was initially put together and I did need reminding of what I meant at times, but I do think that the article is now much improved! If any editors have any problems, then please do highlight them here! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise Hi there. I just wanted to see if you know why edit three, “The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the second highest ranking minister of the Crown and a member of the British Cabinet” in the lead section has reappeared. Am I missing some crucial context or perhaps would you know if this is deliberate. I’m also not sure if you’re even active anymore, so I might have to create a new section on this, but this is worth a try too. notadev (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @NotADev! Firstly, thanks for noticing this! I am still active to the extent that I got an email about your message, but I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I note that, on 21 November, every edit made after 1 October was reversed by @Ebonelm, namely my big edit carried out on 20 October, which was made in accordance with the above discussion on this page and here. It was said that there had been "unexplained removal of well referenced material and the insertion of disputed claims". As you would probably expect, I refute the allegation that my edit was unexplained, as I hope that this discussion to date proves!
 * If you read the discussion on this page and here, you will note that this is not the first time that Ebonelm has reversed my edits to this article. They have only engaged once in a talk page discussion about this article with me and, while I am particularly keen to avoid anything like an edit war or bad feelings, and without having much expertise in this area, I do feel that Ebonelm's behaviour could be described as disruptive editing.
 * Going forward, Ebonelm, it would be really useful if you could set out which of the suggested edits in the above table you agree and disagree with. Otherwise, NotADev, I wonder if I might be able to trouble you for your thoughts about this whole situation, for perhaps I am misinterpreting the actions of Ebonelm? Apologies if this was a longer answer than you had asked for, but it would be lovely if we can get this article to a state of accuracy and usefulness ahead of what is likely to be (and perhaps already is) a big year in UK politics. Thanks again and best wishes! ~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes it does seem to me that his actions might’ve been inappropriate, especially as the removal of the items in the table was certainly not unexplained, and some items which should’ve been removed caught my attention for being potentially inaccurate. I do not enjoy concerning myself with wikipedia drama and therefore I really do not know how this could be resolved, except to try and implement the edits again (with changes, as the article has no doubt changed by now) and explicitly direct people to the talk page before reverting. notadev (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 23
 * Merge the travelling and April 2020 sentences into one paragraph
 * This reads better and means there is a paragraph on when there is not and when there is a Prime Minister
 * colspan="3" |LIST OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTERS
 * 24
 * Remove reference to ministers being appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister
 * This general rule is explicitly displaced by 6
 * 25
 * Remove the comment that Attlee's appointment as Deputy Prime Minister was not approved by the King
 * Included above (albeit in more brief form; more context could be added if necessary)
 * 26
 * Remove "Six people can be described as definitely having been appointed deputy prime minister in such a manner" and add Attlee to the table of Deputy Prime Ministers
 * Both Norton (2020) and Brazier (2020) include Attlee in their lists. Kirkup and Thornton (2017) also say, of three other lists, "Howard’s (1995) list, like Gay and Bogdanor starts with Attlee, seeing him as ‘official’ deputy". Perhaps see also WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH?
 * 27
 * Remove gaps from the table
 * I think that it would look silly to list every ministry between 1945 and 1995; in any case, I think it is obvious to the reader that there is sometimes not a Deputy Prime Minister (I have even suggested including this in the lede — see 4)
 * colspan="3" |TIMELINE
 * 28
 * Add Attlee to the timeline
 * See 26
 * }
 * Thanks in advance! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise following on from our discussion, I'd say go ahead with the edits. I think it's important to fix some of the factual innaccuracies in this article and make it as accurate as possible. Thanks for taking the time to do this! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatRandomGuy1. I am sorry that it has taken me so long, but I have finally carried out the suggested edits in accordance with the table. This was a little tricky because the article has been edited since that table was initially put together and I did need reminding of what I meant at times, but I do think that the article is now much improved! If any editors have any problems, then please do highlight them here! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise Hi there. I just wanted to see if you know why edit three, “The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the second highest ranking minister of the Crown and a member of the British Cabinet” in the lead section has reappeared. Am I missing some crucial context or perhaps would you know if this is deliberate. I’m also not sure if you’re even active anymore, so I might have to create a new section on this, but this is worth a try too. notadev (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @NotADev! Firstly, thanks for noticing this! I am still active to the extent that I got an email about your message, but I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I note that, on 21 November, every edit made after 1 October was reversed by @Ebonelm, namely my big edit carried out on 20 October, which was made in accordance with the above discussion on this page and here. It was said that there had been "unexplained removal of well referenced material and the insertion of disputed claims". As you would probably expect, I refute the allegation that my edit was unexplained, as I hope that this discussion to date proves!
 * If you read the discussion on this page and here, you will note that this is not the first time that Ebonelm has reversed my edits to this article. They have only engaged once in a talk page discussion about this article with me and, while I am particularly keen to avoid anything like an edit war or bad feelings, and without having much expertise in this area, I do feel that Ebonelm's behaviour could be described as disruptive editing.
 * Going forward, Ebonelm, it would be really useful if you could set out which of the suggested edits in the above table you agree and disagree with. Otherwise, NotADev, I wonder if I might be able to trouble you for your thoughts about this whole situation, for perhaps I am misinterpreting the actions of Ebonelm? Apologies if this was a longer answer than you had asked for, but it would be lovely if we can get this article to a state of accuracy and usefulness ahead of what is likely to be (and perhaps already is) a big year in UK politics. Thanks again and best wishes! ~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes it does seem to me that his actions might’ve been inappropriate, especially as the removal of the items in the table was certainly not unexplained, and some items which should’ve been removed caught my attention for being potentially inaccurate. I do not enjoy concerning myself with wikipedia drama and therefore I really do not know how this could be resolved, except to try and implement the edits again (with changes, as the article has no doubt changed by now) and explicitly direct people to the talk page before reverting. notadev (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise following on from our discussion, I'd say go ahead with the edits. I think it's important to fix some of the factual innaccuracies in this article and make it as accurate as possible. Thanks for taking the time to do this! ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThatRandomGuy1. I am sorry that it has taken me so long, but I have finally carried out the suggested edits in accordance with the table. This was a little tricky because the article has been edited since that table was initially put together and I did need reminding of what I meant at times, but I do think that the article is now much improved! If any editors have any problems, then please do highlight them here! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @FollowTheTortoise Hi there. I just wanted to see if you know why edit three, “The Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the second highest ranking minister of the Crown and a member of the British Cabinet” in the lead section has reappeared. Am I missing some crucial context or perhaps would you know if this is deliberate. I’m also not sure if you’re even active anymore, so I might have to create a new section on this, but this is worth a try too. notadev (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @NotADev! Firstly, thanks for noticing this! I am still active to the extent that I got an email about your message, but I am afraid that I do not have much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I note that, on 21 November, every edit made after 1 October was reversed by @Ebonelm, namely my big edit carried out on 20 October, which was made in accordance with the above discussion on this page and here. It was said that there had been "unexplained removal of well referenced material and the insertion of disputed claims". As you would probably expect, I refute the allegation that my edit was unexplained, as I hope that this discussion to date proves!
 * If you read the discussion on this page and here, you will note that this is not the first time that Ebonelm has reversed my edits to this article. They have only engaged once in a talk page discussion about this article with me and, while I am particularly keen to avoid anything like an edit war or bad feelings, and without having much expertise in this area, I do feel that Ebonelm's behaviour could be described as disruptive editing.
 * Going forward, Ebonelm, it would be really useful if you could set out which of the suggested edits in the above table you agree and disagree with. Otherwise, NotADev, I wonder if I might be able to trouble you for your thoughts about this whole situation, for perhaps I am misinterpreting the actions of Ebonelm? Apologies if this was a longer answer than you had asked for, but it would be lovely if we can get this article to a state of accuracy and usefulness ahead of what is likely to be (and perhaps already is) a big year in UK politics. Thanks again and best wishes! ~ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes it does seem to me that his actions might’ve been inappropriate, especially as the removal of the items in the table was certainly not unexplained, and some items which should’ve been removed caught my attention for being potentially inaccurate. I do not enjoy concerning myself with wikipedia drama and therefore I really do not know how this could be resolved, except to try and implement the edits again (with changes, as the article has no doubt changed by now) and explicitly direct people to the talk page before reverting. notadev (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Unofficial deputies - issue with Brazier list dates
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)


 * 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)