Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Resignation day
Theresa May has publicly stated her intention to reign in 2019. should this be included in the infobox? Stan traynor (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source for that? In any case I can't see that this is the right article for it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Prime Minister's Deputy
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom constitutionally has a second in command or Deputy. The question is, who is currently the Prime Ministers deputy following the recent cabinet reshuffle? ChieftanTartarus (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty clear, the page currently states that the Prime Minister's deputy is 'Vacant', however based on Cabinet positions, there is always a second in command. The question is who is Theresa May's current deputy. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources do you have for this claim? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not a Deputy Prime Minister at the moment, the official page https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/deputy-prime-ministers-office says clearly "Deputy Prime Minister's Office has closed" and "The current administration does not have a Deputy Prime Minister." is pretty clear. So "Vacant" is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure of the premise, Eden, A-D Home, Wilson, Callaghan and Heath list no deputy PM. I'm not sure that there is any constitutional requirement for a formal deputy. The PM can deputise temporarily as s/he wishes and there isn't the same constitutional necessity for a 'standby' that there is in the US for example. Pincrete (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The original post seems to be based upon a false assumption. It's covered at Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom which even has a section Absence of the office in the constitution. The article also has a List of Deputy Prime Ministers which shows that over the last 75 years, the office has only been in use for approximately 32 years in total - it's been vacant for 43 years.
 * The PM is not obliged to appoint a deputy, traditionally it was done in times of need (such as war). Cameron appointed Clegg to be deputy PM in 2010 because the LibDems would have kicked up a fuss if he hadn't. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I have to make it clearer for you? The Prime Minister's deputy IS NOT always a DEPUTY PM, Damian Green was May's deputy prior to his sacking, her current Deputy is whoever is next in the hierarchy, the question is, is that Philip Hammond or David Lidington? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChieftanTartarus (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I have to make it clearer for you? - enough with that.
 * You're talking about a hypothetical situation. There is no Deputy PM at the moment. Remember, Wikipedia works by describing what has been verifiably reported in reliable sources. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly none of you have any idea of the hierarchy in the British Cabinet, it's a simple question is Philip Hammond or David Lidington the PM's deputy. (DEPUTY PM is NOT the same thing so stop talking rubbish about a 'deputy pm', that role hasn't been used since Nick Clegg left government in 2015). Damian Green was the prime ministers deputy until he was sacked, therefore whoever was next in the cabinet hierarchy at the time became the deputy (at that time, that would have been Philip Hammond). Now that David Lidington is Cabinet Office Minister, does that make him higher up in the cabinet hierarchy and therefore Theresa May's deputy, or is Philip Hammond still her deputy. Its a simple thing to answer, I don't need to be patronised about the deputy pm role because we all know the prime ministers deputy is not necessarily a role that is used when you deputise the prime minister. And evidently I still had to make it clearer for you despite you trying to patronise me about that too. According to the ministers page at gov.uk, David Lidington appears to be the deputy to the PM followed by Philip Hammond. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm making the change in accordance with The Deputy PM page, David Lidington is the prime ministers deputy based on the citation on that page, as I first thought. Thank you for your input. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been removed from that page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding this Chief. There is no deputy. The PM may allow another minister (or indeed different ministers) to act for her at say PMQs or another event but this in no way creates a post of deputy. Speculation is not encyclopaedic. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not here to have an argument and attack one another, we are here to have a debate, we have done that and met a consensus, don't lecture me on what is and isn't encyclopedic, I know what I am doing, and I cited a source. If you don't like it, its not my problem. I know the facts and if the community on Wikipedia don't want them shared so be it. Good Day to you, don't bother tagging me, I won't be replying to this thread. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop writing comments that amount to "I'm right and you're all wrong", that is not the way we do things around here. We have certain core policies, amongst which there is that of verifiability. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Female mirrored initials
I suppose there's no place in this article for it. But, it's interesting to point out that the only female British prime ministers, have mirrored initials. Margaret Thatcher (MT) & Theresa May (TM). GoodDay (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019
In the "See also" section, please remove the link to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity, as it is a redirect to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age, which is already in the list. 2601:241:300:C930:E9EB:B17D:DD0E:CCB0 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

link
Hi can someone fix the link in the lead it will be better if it’s Head of Government of the United Kingdom. Many thanks. SalaamAlaikum (talk)
 * Not really, perfect as it is. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2019
Change Incumbent to Boris Johnson. 148.64.19.30 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Prime Minister is Theresa May until the new Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen tomorrow. Farleysmaster (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Melmann (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
Boris Johnson is now the Prime Minister, as of July 24, 2019. Please edit the article to reflect this. Thank you. 2601:547:A00:ADC4:C92E:61ED:5089:88D9 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not until approximately 3pm UK time. Melmann (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming Royal Assent, which we cannot. Britmax (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we can assume, but it wouldn't be a fact... Farleysmaster (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Misuse of "Royal Assent." That's for legislation, for the Crown-in-Parliament.  Here, the monarch's just asking the new guy to form a government.  It's at most a long-standing custom.2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Take away the capital 'A' and it's fine Farleysmaster (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * NO, the "A" isn't the problem. Gosh, what misplaced pedantry.  The UK constitution doesn't trifle in capitali(s)ation.  The problem is that she's not assenting to legislation, so it's not assent at all, in the const. sense.  Here she's INITIATING the government, not assenting post hoc.2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * She's Royal and she's assenting, so... the fact that some language has a specific meaning, doesn't mean similar language has to. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The new guy has to accept the monarch's request..."kiss hands."  So it's not even assent in the colloquial sense...it's a simultaneous agreement.2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I love watching the Wikipedian Pedant Olympics. I also love that so many striving Wikipedians will NOT get to document the handover, and that they will be jealous of those who do.2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe encyclopedias should be factual rather than 'sort of' factual? If we can't be pedantic here, where can we be? Farleysmaster (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The Article is Not Clear on How a PM is Removed from Office (No Confidence)
Can somebody clarify the issue of how the PM is removed from office & Votes of No Confidence? Isn't there some rule about a party not being able to remove the PM for some time after lack of success? & is there not some other issue about Parliament voting NO Confidence? I suggest a special section in the article on removing the PM & No Confidence.(PeacePeace (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC))
 * It's already explained at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. There's no formal mechanism for removing a PM (as opposed to a government) from office, as that's a matter for the party and consequently depends on that particular party's rules. (A parliamentary vote of no confidence can bring down the government and either force an election or coalition-building among MPs to try to choose a PM who commands the confidence of the house, but the PM will remain in office unless and until a new PM is chosen.) Regarding some rule about a party not being able to remove the PM for some time after lack of success, I believe you're confusing this with the Conservative Party's internal rules for selecting its leader; they do indeed have a rule that if the party holds a vote of confidence in the leader which the leader goes on to win, that leader is safe from internal challenge for the next year—however, that's about the internal workings of the Conservative Party and applies whether or not the leader is PM. &#8209; Iridescent 08:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is highly probable that there is NO mechanism for removing a PM from office. There can be a vote of no confidence in the house and a general election, but if the incumbent PM refuses to comply with leaving office there is no mechanism for parliament to force the PM out.  The last PM to be dismissed by the Monarch was in 1834, and that was at a time when the monarch was active in meddling in parliamentary politics.  Realistically that power to dismiss no longer exists since the Monarch can only act on the formal Advice of her PM, and a PM that refuses to resign is clearly advising that the monarch should not dismiss the PM.  In such circumstances there is no reason to believe that the monarch has the power to act on her own initiative to dismiss the PM contrary to the PM's advice.
 * It is highly probable that there is NO mechanism for removing a PM from office. There can be a vote of no confidence in the house and a general election, but if the incumbent PM refuses to comply with leaving office there is no mechanism for parliament to force the PM out.  The last PM to be dismissed by the Monarch was in 1834, and that was at a time when the monarch was active in meddling in parliamentary politics.  Realistically that power to dismiss no longer exists since the Monarch can only act on the formal Advice of her PM, and a PM that refuses to resign is clearly advising that the monarch should not dismiss the PM.  In such circumstances there is no reason to believe that the monarch has the power to act on her own initiative to dismiss the PM contrary to the PM's advice.
 * It is highly probable that there is NO mechanism for removing a PM from office. There can be a vote of no confidence in the house and a general election, but if the incumbent PM refuses to comply with leaving office there is no mechanism for parliament to force the PM out.  The last PM to be dismissed by the Monarch was in 1834, and that was at a time when the monarch was active in meddling in parliamentary politics.  Realistically that power to dismiss no longer exists since the Monarch can only act on the formal Advice of her PM, and a PM that refuses to resign is clearly advising that the monarch should not dismiss the PM.  In such circumstances there is no reason to believe that the monarch has the power to act on her own initiative to dismiss the PM contrary to the PM's advice.

--81.103.19.44 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Will there be an hour or so with no Prime Minister?
How will this article be treated in this time? Farleysmaster (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had to witness this before, and I see you were also there right on time for the last one. There will probably be chaos here, and it might even be worth getting protection at some point. The traditional line is that between May leaving the palace, and Johnson leaving the palace, there is no Prime Minister - no acting Prime Minister, no one in charge, no deputies, no incumbent, not the Queen, nothing. In other words, chaos (at least when it comes to these articles). Hopefully, it should just involve tweaks to anything about incumbents and former PMs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a politics and trivia nerd. Not so bothered about updating the page this time, but I don't like non-factual things to be added. If protection is needed, Theresa May and Boris Johnson will probably need it as well. I think outside these big 3 people are probably less keen on the edit button... Just checking UK Government and Cabinet Office now, but people probably won't update the departments until replacements are announced (unless there are resignations).Farleysmaster (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC has said we can now assume we have no Prime Minister, so I'm going to suggest letting related pages say 'Vacant' now, I'd avoid saying Boris is PM until he leaves in the PM's car. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

New Prime Minister in place now. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What happened to "wait for him to get in the car"? That was your "rule."2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The BBC announced it with pictures of 'kissing hands'. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, so the "wait for the car" rule was wrong. It's okay to admit when you're wrong sometimes.  Especially when we're aiming for, as you say, encyclopedic precision.2601:204:D502:1837:6871:1E06:4406:96DD (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're going a bit weird with your quotation marks. It's fairly obvious that I didn't make a "rule", you can read what I wrote, try to "assume some good faith", and see what I "meant", and that it should go without saying that when facts come through, you adjust your understanding. I don't really think there's anything to admit, but I'm honoured you're trying to help in my quest for self-improvement. Feel free to have the last word, I've got nothing to add. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

One Party Government
In the section entitled "one party government" it states that "British governments (or Ministries) are generally formed by one party. The Prime Minister and Cabinet are usually all members of the same political party, almost always the one that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons. Coalition governments (a ministry that consists of representatives from two or more parties) and minority governments (a one-party ministry formed by a party that does not command a majority in the Commons) were relatively rare before the 2010 election"

This is entirely FALSE. Since universal suffrage in 1918 there have been more coalition or minority governments than there have been majority governments formed from one party.

WHOEVER wrote this has simply NOT reflected the ample evidence available - and in fact available in wikipedia. But the page is locked so this gross error cannot be fixed. --81.103.19.44 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be the case since 1918, but the article is not limited to that time frame and government by the majority party where there is one is the default position.--DavidCane (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But that isn't what the text says. It is false to say that coalitions and minority governments were relatively rare before 2010 (they were in fact common) or that the PM and cabinet are almost always from a single party that has a majority.  It would be more accurate to say something along the lines of "British governments are formed by one party if that party has a majority of seats in the House of Commons.  If not then typically a coalition or minority government may be formed usually led by whoever can command the support of a majority in parliament, usually whichever party has the largest number of seats."   But nobody can make a change because the page is locked. --81.103.19.44 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Between 1918 and 2010 there were three hung parliaments. The first, in 1923, lasted around 10 months; the second, in 1929, lasted two years; and the third, in 1974 lasted eight months. So overall, that's around 3.5 years of minority government out of 92. Whether that's "almost always" is open for debate, but it certainly means majority government was the usual arrangement. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2019 (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) 19:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Theresa May Official.jpg

"Acting" Prime Minister.
Although Boris Johnson is still officially Prime Minister, and Dominic Raab is or was never officially the "acting" Prime Minister, do you think this situation with him sort of being the acting Prime Minister is worth of a mention in the article? Theofficeprankster (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization
From MOS:JOBTITLES, Capitalize "[w]hen a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description." This means that "The prime minister" is correct, as it's preceded by a definite article. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 22:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, it would usually be "the Prime Minister", if you're talking about a specific individual. The relevant line in JOBTITLES is: "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. In the lede, we are discussing the prime minister generally, not a specific person as a substitute for their name. Otherwise, we could rewrite the lede as "Prime Minister Johnson is the head of government of the United Kingdom", and that's not what this article is about. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 22:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "Consensus was reached to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article." See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 00:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about the office of "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". Adding the definite article makes it about a person occupying the office and this seems something of a contadiction in respect to the article title. JOBTITLES is fairly clear, to lowercase with "the". The alternative is to rewrite the opening sentence without "the". The definite article is frequently omitted when there is only one incumbent. The recent RfC really says "be consistent" and the majority usage (ie most consistently used) in the article is to LC with "the". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed; "the" makes it about a generic holder of the office, as opposed to Prime Minister Boris Johnson or the office Prime Minister. So as written it should be lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit on 25 May 2020
vandalism surrounding Dominic Cummings SquadFam9000 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit on 25 May 2020 #2
. SquadFam9000 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  18:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this was a malformed request to protect the page due to the Dominic Cummings vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is consistent vandalism because of the allegations surrounding Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to the prime minister. As a result, an account has been made to spam Dominic's name as prime minister. SquadFam9000 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020
"They also provided the basis for the evolution of the office of Prime Minister, which did not exist at that time"

"Once the office of Prime Minister was created, they also provided the basis for its evolution"

The first line exists in the article, but it sounds like the acts were forward looking (like they envisioned the creation of the office). Please replace it with the second. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  08:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Let's try repeating what I already said: The first line exists in the article...Please replace it with the second.  208.95.49.53 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Powers of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Should there be a separate Powers of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article? This would be incredibly useful, though quite an undertaking – as the article says, 'These powers, according to Crossman, are so immense that their study require the use of presidential parallels'. There are significant powers the PM has which are not mentioned in this article, for example the right to advise the Monarch to prorogue Parliament or appoint peers, the power to sign treaties, and the powers they have over their political party as its leader. There are other statements about the PM's power which are in the article but are not in the 'Powers and constraints' section, such as the fact the PM has authority over the civil service. Other statements could bear more detail, for example, 'members of important committees and commissions, and other officials are selected, and in most cases may be removed, by the prime minister' – which committees and commissions? These are not criticisms of this article, this is a complicated topic and this article is already long enough! There would be precedent for such an article as there are already, for example, articles on Powers of the police in England and Wales, and Powers of the president of the United States. Mmitchell10 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be such an article. I also agree that it would be a large undertaking, but I hope that it would help future readers clarify what the Prime Minister actually does and can do (not to mention doesn't and can't do). FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Appointment
I'm not British and the author of this article should write for everyone, including ignorant folks like me. I find the discussion of how the UK selects its prime minister inadequate. Firstly, this important issue ought to be in the initial section before the table of contents. Secondly, the table of contents ought to have a special section on this topic with all the details. When we finally arrive at an answer, all we get is: "British prime ministers have never been elected directly by the public. A prime minister need not be a party leader; David Lloyd George was not a party leader during his service as prime Minister during World War I, and neither was Ramsay MacDonald from 1931 to 1935.[67] Prime ministers have taken office because they were members of either the Commons or Lords, and either inherited a majority in the Commons or won more seats than the opposition in a general election." This really doesn't tell us much. "[I]nherited" a majority--what's that supposed to mean? "[W]on more seats than the opposition in a general election"? Ok, so Party X wins the most seats. Then what? All members of the Commons in Party X get together and vote for who'll be Prime Minister?184.180.87.188 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be a section on how the Prime Minister is appointed. If nobody else gets there first, I can have a go at writing it over the next couple of days: I have a few ideas about what it could include. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Former Prime Ministers
According to the UK Government, there have been 76 former prime ministers since Sir Robert Walpole in 1721. I don't see why removing this sentence saying there have been 77 prime ministers is appropriate. This is different to the issues of adding numbers to offices on individual profiles and is a factual sentence. DaleYorks (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there have been 77 individuals (including the incumbent), then I've no objections to adding that fact. But, it's best you get a consensus for that, first. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There have been, as per the government website. I don't see why a consensus is needed for something which is clearly verifiable? DaleYorks (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned as to why the prime minister of the uk is described as being the primary minister of the crown. The meanings are literally the same (prime minister and primary minister) so it's not informative at all. Please change it back to the fact that the pm is the head of government otherwise I will file a report for you making a page that is not informative. It should be head of government "of" the UK not "for". 82.37.162.122 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.162.122 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that most of sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.2 are SPLIT out into a separate article called History of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, and instead this article contains a single History section which summarises the key historical developments which led to the modern PM role. (The core of a good summary History section is already provided by the current Lead section – the 2nd half of 2nd para + 3rd and 4th paras.) Because: Thanks. Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is really quite big. The history is the obvious candidate for a separate article.
 * Although it's true that 'The office [of PM] is best understood from a historical perspective', I find the key historical developments which led to the current PM role very hard to identify at the moment; I think the sheer volume of historical information is overwhelming.
 * It would free up space for mentions of other related areas that are more directly relevant to the current day. For example, the British Prime Minister's Office, Deputy PM, Prime Minister's Questions, PM's Resignation Honours, cultural influence (Cultural depictions and Fictional PMs).
 * Having a standalone History article is a standard Wikipedia approach to a topic with a notable history, for example History of the National Health Service (England), History of Formula One, History of bitcoin.


 * I agree. However this is a major undertaking involving not just splitting the current article but also writing and organizing a considerable amount of new material for both new articles, especially the one on the "current" office of PM. I am willing to participate in this process but cannot (should not) do it alone and will not do it unless there are more who say this is a good idea. So for now I will only add a few suggestions of my own to those made by Mitchel:


 * 1. one thing we need to agree on is when to end the "history" and start the "current" office. My own thinking is that discussion of the Parliament Act of 1911 and 1949 makes for a natural end point for the "history" of the office. Even though those dates are some time ago now I would argue that the current office had pretty much taken shape with the passage of the Act in 1911 and only to be strengthened in 1949. A few other end points might be suggested but the Parliament Act of 1911 and 1949 is my preference.


 * 2. in addition to the topics suggested by Mitchel for the "new" article (PM's office, resignation, deputy PM, etc.), I think we need a detailed discussion of how each of the major parties select their leader who in turn may become PM depending on the results of a general election. The Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties each have their own method. This discussion would go a long way I think to explain for the novice reader how a person becomes PM. After all the first step is to be chosen as the leader of the party. Related to this I would suggest a more detailed discussion of the "Shadow" Government


 * 3. also I think we need to expand the discussion of the Cabinet: typical membership, Cabinet vs Prime Ministerial government, etc


 * 4. finally (for now) I think we need to add a discussion of the Civil Service: why it exists, how it has evolved and most importantly why since the 1970's every PM has also been Minister of the Civil Service. What does that mean? and why is it necessary?


 * As stated I am willing to participate in this major revision provided there is a broad consensus that it it the right thing to do. Actually it might be a lot of fun. Terence (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * From a size point of view, I'm not 100% convinced of the need for a split just yet (I probably could be convinced, however), because if it's split now, all that would be left would be sections 1, 2, the rest of 7, 8, 9, and then the references and stuff at the end, which doesn't appear to be that long in terms of text (to me, at least). So I think that the proposed additions to this article suggested by both and  would have to be fairly in-depth to make this article more than just a short description of what the PM is. From a content point of view, however, I think that a split could be beneficial, with this page explaining the situation currently: what the powers of the PM are, what role they have, etc, etc; and the history page explaining the development of that role. In terms of the suggestions made above in this discussion, I would strongly agree with 's third bullet point, and 's second point - perhaps the new content for this page could be drafted now (prior to a potential split)? That would, for me at least, clear up my concerns regarding size, because we could then see how long the new articles would be after a split (perhaps such as Draft:History of the prime minister of the United Kingdom and Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/temp (a subpage of the talk per WP:SP) ?) I hope my concerns make sense: but essentially my opinion is that: size-wise, we'd have to make sure the new content for the main page should be fairly in-depth to avoid this becoming an overly short article; but content-wise I'd be largely in favour.  Seagull123  Φ  19:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you make some really valid points. I think it's a really good idea for the proposed new History of the PM article, and the replacement material for this original PM article, to be drafted first, before any split is made. And we need to be careful, as there are, for example, already articles on Cabinet of the United Kingdom, Civil Service (United Kingdom), and Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) (and similar articles for Labour and Lib Dem leaders), so we shouldn't stray into material which is most appropriate for those articles. Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to make editors aware of two things in relation to what has been touted to add to this article. Firstly, I wanted to make editors aware of this section of the article on the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in relation to unofficial deputies. Secondly, I wanted to point out that Rodney Brazier's 'Choosing a Prime Mnister: The Transfer of Power in Britain' might be an excellent source to use, as it touches on many topics, including how party leaders are elected. All the best, FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article is to be split, might the new article be better titled History of the premiership of the United Kingdom (just as one might say "history of the presidency of the United States")? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, however I think it is about specifically the 'prime minister', rather than just who's in charge - it focuses on how Walpole's role emerged then developed. Therefore I would stick with PM. As suggested, I've created Draft:History of the prime minister of the United Kingdom for the proposed new article, into which I've copied the relevant material, and I've created Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/temp with proposed new content for this article, and the new single History section for this article. Do you think this new content is (a) suitable for the article, and (b) enough in volume? Obviously it's significantly less in volume than the material being removed into the separate History article, however, I ran out of new things to talk about... Mmitchell10 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, in the absence of any comment I've added the new content into this article, leaving just a possible replacement summary History section on the Talk:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom/temp page. Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lede
The prime minister is the primary minister of the crown? really? the name literally suggests it. Also there are many primary ministers of the crown e.g. the pm of canada so you aren't being very specific at all. This edit has been very badly worded and I suggest you make the change because it is not helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.162.122 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

These changes are not good. Please remove the phrase primary minister of the crown.--82.37.162.122 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The prime minister is the primary minister of the crown? really? the name literally suggests it. Also there are many primary ministers of the crown e.g. the pm of canada so you aren't being very specific at all. This edit has been very badly worded and I suggest you make the change because it is not helpful! --82.37.162.122 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current first lede paragraph could be improved. What do people think about the following, which I think takes the best parts of both the old and new first lede paragraph:

"The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet, recommends the appointment of ministers and generally advises the monarch on the exercise of royal prerogative powers in relation to government. The Prime Minister is also almost always (but not necessarily) both the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons and a sitting MP. They hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons."
 * FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, that is perfect. I love the wording.

In my opinion, I think that is perfect. Beautifully worded.

In my opinion that is perfect! Beautifully worded.82.37.162.122 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Since this is a popular article and it's been over 24 hours, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you for the edit. It was really bugging me that I couldn't edit it haha. I have also changed the page of the pm of New Zealand which followed a similar format.

Many thanks --82.37.162.122 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, I was the one who reworded the lead paragraph because the previous one was technically incorrect, so I thought I'd comment on this:


 * The reason why I included primary minister of the Crown is because of the role's Primus inter pares status, or first among equals. While in a presidential system for example like in the US, the head of government is explicitly above other members of government. While there has been a "presidentialisation" of the role, constitutionally in the Westminster system of the UK, the PM remains a minister of the Crown, albeit the "primary" minister.


 * "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government of the United Kingdom." - This sentence is actually constitutionally not true, which is why I was careful to say that the PM acts as head of government instead of is the head of government; the monarch, as the corporation sole is the de jure chief executive, however as all executive functions are only exercised on advice, so the PM is de facto head of government. As well, this violates MOS:JOBTITLES


 * "The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet, recommends the appointment of ministers and generally advises the monarch on the exercise of royal prerogative powers in relation to government." -> I believe it's more concise and constitutionally accurate to simply say "The prime minister chairs the Cabinet and selects its members, advises the Crown on the exercise of executive power". Executive power is action of the Crown-in-Council, whereas royal prerogative includes functions of the Crown-in-Council, but is also includes a more constitutionally grey-area surrounding advice, such as the dissolution of Parliament.


 * "The Prime Minister is also almost always (but not necessarily) both the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons and a sitting MP. They hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons." -> As there have been historically many examples of PMs who are not leaders of the largest party or an MP, I feel like this is an oversimplification. The only historic constant with the modern office is the ability to command the confidence of the House. This also leaves out the concept of Responsible government, which is a key pillar of the Westminster system. as well, this violates MOS:ACRO1STUSEI believe "The prime minister is appointed on the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, and is responsible to Parliament" more accurately summarizes the position's democratic mandate and accountability.


 * Thanks for starting discussion on this, let me know what you think, in the meantime, I hope you don't mind if I edit the article to comply with the MOS. Thanks, WildComet (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey! I hope that you didn't think that I was too hasty in making my edits on Monday. The source that I used for a lot of the wording of my edit was The Cabinet Manual, which is also used later on in the page. I've included my responses to your comments below:


 * I completely agree that the Prime Minister is a Minister of the Crown, but I'm wary of using terms that aren't very commonplace in the UK (at least in my experience) like "primary minister of the Crown". I'd feel more comfortable using it, however, if you could provide a source.


 * The Cabinet Manual (at para. 3.1) states that "The Prime Minister is the head of the Government..." and this UN document describes the Prime Minister as Head of Government too, so I would disagree with you that it's not constitutionally true to describe the Prime Minister as such. Again, I'm happy to be proven wrong with a source, but The Cabinet Manual does come straight from the top of government and information for the UN document from permanent missions.


 * Thank you for your corrections in line with MOS:JOBTITLES, I have to say that I'm still getting used to that policy, after always treating job titles as proper nouns!


 * I like your concise edit of the second sentence.


 * I might just say selects "ministers", instead of "its members", however, as this perhaps better represents their role in appointing not just the most senior ministers, but all of them (The Cabinet Manual, para. 3.3).


 * I'm also wary about using "executive power", which is a term that I have never come across in relation to the royal prerogative or, generally, the UK constitution. I'm still not completely sure what it means, or the meaning of "Crown in Council" (a Google search has made me nonethewiser), so I would really appreciate it if you could provide another explaination, preferably with a source. My wording, again, came from The Cabinet Manual (para. 3.4): "It is for the Prime Minister to advise the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative powers in relation to government". I'd be happy to substitute "the royal prerogative" for "executive power" in your concise version.


 * Additionally, and I am sorry to be nitpicky, but I think that "monarch" or "sovereign" is better than "Crown" in the second sentence as the definition of "Crown" can be iffy (see its page) and The Cabinet Manual uses "Sovereign" (see above).


 * You are absolutely correct that there have been numerous occasions in the past where the Prime Minister has not been the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons or an MP (putting aside the periods around general elections), but this hasn't been the case (as far as I'm aware) since 1935 and (briefly) 1963, before that 1902, respectively, so I'd be happy to add "In modern times," to the beginning of the third sentence. I also feel that "(but not necessarily)" covers the fact that this isn't a legal rule and the subject is also touched upon later down in the article, I believe, if a reader isn't happy with a simplified version in the lede.


 * I'm sorry about violating MOS:ACRO1STUSE, you are absolutely right to say that it should read "Member of Parliament" instead of "MP".


 * As somebody who has read around this subject before, I feel that "The prime minister is appointed on the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons" is bit tricky (if that's the right word), as this area is extremely complicated and so would require a good source to use, even if technically correct (I've read hundreds of pages on this subject and I'm still not sure about whether it's correct). I feel that "The prime minister holds office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons and is responsible to Parliament" works better, as it is attributable to The Cabinet Manual (para. 3.1).


 * As for "and is responsible to Parliament", I'm not sure about that wording (I can't find a source that directly says it) and I'm personally minded to keep it out, as I feel that it says the same as the clause before it. Though, as with my last point, I'm not necessarily disputing its accuracy, I'd just like to see a source before including it.


 * Thank you for leaving such a detailed comment and for fixing the policy issues. It's important that we have these sorts of debates as this is such a popular page! To clarify, this is how I now think the first paragraph of the lede should read:


 * "The prime minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government of the United Kingdom. The prime minister chairs the Cabinet, selects ministers and advises the monarch on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. In modern times, the prime minister is also almost always (but not necessarily) both the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons and a sitting Member of Parliament. They hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons." FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello


 * With being the head of government, my main nitpick was that the monarch as the source of any government action meant that while the PM essentially directs the action, the exercise remains with the monarch, who is the titular head of the executive branch (government), and that's why I included the "acts as". Outside of any technical descriptions of government authority, I see that the PM is generally accepted as not just acting, but occupying that role.


 * Sorry for the confusion with "Crown in Council". I'm Canadian and as we have a governor general who represents the Queen, we refer to the role they occupy very generally as the "Crown" (because either the Queen or GG can exercise related functions), so Crown in Council would in this context refer to the Queen-in-Council, "the technical term of constitutional law for the exercise of executive authority in a Commonwealth realm, denoting the monarch acting by and with the advice and consent of his or her privy council" (which might just be more of a Canadian/commonwealth term). Obviously the GG/Queen generalization isn't present in the UK, so I agree that "sovereign" would be the best description for this role.


 * Brings me to my nitpick with "advises the monarch on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative", it's very broad. Certain prerogative powers are not necessarily exercised on advice, such as the "reserve powers", which is why I used language about executive power instead of the blanket Royal Prerogative.


 * I agree the appointment/accountability thing is tricky, hard to describe without being too wordy.


 * With that in mind, how do you feel about the following adjustments:


 * "The prime minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government of the United Kingdom. The prime minister chairs the Cabinet and selects its ministers, and advises the sovereign on the exercise of much of the Royal Prerogative. As modern prime ministers hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, they typically sit as a Member of Parliament and lead the largest party or coalition in the House of Commons."


 * Let me know what you think! WildComet (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey! I absolutely understand your point about the head of government, as you understand my concern was with finding a source that says this. And absolutely no problem about the confusion over the "Crown": I'm hopefully going to be moving to Canada for a short while later this year and I'm sure that I'm going to get very confused about the terminology on the other side of the pond! Now that I understand, I also think that I made a mistake in saying that "executive power" isn't an accepted term in the UK, as The Cabinet Manual para. 3.34 shows, we do divide the Royal Prerogative into "constitutional or personal prerogatives" and "prerogative executive powers" in the UK, so my apologies about that, though ministers are still involved in the exercise of both. Your draft is great and I especially like your "much of", I'd just insert an "a" in front of coalition on grammar grounds and hyperlink it and then I think that we're good to go! In full:


 * "The prime minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government of the United Kingdom. The prime minister chairs the Cabinet and selects its ministers, and advises the sovereign on the exercise of much of the Royal Prerogative. As modern prime ministers hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, they typically sit as a Member of Parliament and lead the largest party or a coalition in the House of Commons."


 * I've enjoyed working with you on this. Have a nice rest of weekend! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad we could work on this too, hope you enjoy Canada! WildComet (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Primus inter pares
I've started a discussion on a different talk page concerning Walter Bagehot's use of "primus inter pares" to describe the Prime Minister. If you're interested, you can find it here. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021
The informal style of "Mr Prime Minister" is never used in the United Kingdom. The occupant is addressed as "Prime Minister" without any style. Remove "Mr" from the informal style in the infobox. 2607:FEA8:81F:FB70:D0AE:10A8:A65B:6167 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of 'Mr Prime Minister' for informal usage.
I don't think I've ever heard the term Mr Prime Minister used informally in the UK. It is far far more common to hear and use Prime Minister when referring to or speaking at the Prime Minister. Using Mr/Madam etc. + [Title Name] is far far more common in the USA than the UK and I'd wager that the American precedent has been applied wrongly here. RavingWelsh (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems a strange construction and I doubt it is used in the UK, I would be tempted to just remove it. "Prime Minister" is the normal use. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sadly I myself can't edit it away, but there are a few websites even from the US acknowledging the convention that it is just 'Prime Minister' the confusion may be that Canada sometimes uses the term 'Mr Prime Minister' but can confirm from my experience it is almost never done here. RavingWelsh (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Here being UK RavingWelsh (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it here. Thanks for pointing it out (and yes, I've never heard it here either). -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Went to check the Deputy PM page and have changed its style to be in line with this one too. RavingWelsh (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Liz Truss is not PM
The Queen has not invivted Liz Truss to form a government, and won't do until September 6th, so why is this page claiming she's PM? 86.159.195.165 (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Second this. Even if she WILL be tomorrow she is not right now. The incumbent is Bojo. InspectorRage (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, the page should be reverted to show Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. 86.12.124.167 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss is expected to become PM tomorrow.
Liz Truss shall meet with HM The Queen at Balmoral tomorrow, September 6th 2022, to form a Government under the sovereignty of HM The Queen. This page should thus be set for reformation once the announcement of formality has been granted. Robertheslop91 (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed incumbent from Boris Johnson to Liz Truss
It's now 6th September 2022 local time, so I thought I might as well change it considering she's PM today. Friendly Engineer (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @AviationEnzo I understand why you reverted my edit, I saw people saying not to edit until 6th September 2022, it's that date today so I thought I might as well. I suppose you are right she isn't technically Prime Minister until she goes to Balmoral later today. Friendly Engineer (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022
Current prime minister post is now vacant (albeit for a short period). Should it be updated to reflect that? Melrose1980 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Already done. -- Mvqr (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A list is needed in this article
I find it to be extraordinarily unfortunate that this article contains no list of even recent prime ministers.

In order to find the name of any prime minister other than the current one, it is necessary to click on a link and be taken to another article.

I suggest that this article contain at least the compact illustration of all prime ministers to date at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain_and_the_United_Kingdom#Combined_timeline. 2601:200:C000:1A0:19E6:E019:A222:B2F0 (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Read the top of the page, where it says This article is about the office. For current holder, see Liz Truss. For a list of British prime ministers, see List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Bazza (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022
In the introduction, please remove this:

they sit as a member of Parliament

and add this

they sit as members of Parliament

"they" and "sit" are both plural, so "a member" is wrong. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: They is gender neutral singular. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, why are "sit" and "modern prime ministers" used? Please read the sentence in question before declining requests.  123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ in this case, the plural is indeed correct.  Madeline  ( part of me ) 15:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References to The Queen
References to The Queen will need to be corrected. 159.196.201.118 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The only references to the Queen I can see seem to be quotes, which shouldn't be altered. — Czello 09:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Question: Although Truss has resigned is she still for a time PM?
If I understand the unwritten British constitution correctly, Truss is still PM - albeit "interim" - until the King invites someone else to form a government. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss is no longer PM
Her premiership ended on Oct. 20. It lasted less than someone's adding a comment to this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.135.204 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

She remains PM until the king invites her successor to form a government Haroldrobertdixon (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * She has ceased to be PM after leaving the meeting with the King. At this precise moment there is no prime minister because Rishi Sunak hasn't arrived yet at Buckingham Palace. Ajs41 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true. She remains prime minster till the Sunak is. Uwappa (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022
{{subst:trim|1=

PM needs to be changed to Rushi Sunak in several places.

{{Infobox official post Prime Minister's Office Cabinet Office
 * post = Prime Minister
 * body = the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
 * insignia = Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
 * insigniacaption = Royal Arms of His Majesty's Government
 * flag = Flag of the United Kingdom.svg
 * flagcaption = Flag of the United Kingdom
 * flagborder = yes
 * image = Liz Truss official portrait (cropped)2.jpg
 * incumbent = Rushi Sunak
 * incumbentsince = 6 September 2022
 * department = Government of the United Kingdom
 * style = {{plainlist|

}} CxJamster (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. WAIT. ― Blaze Wolf{{sup|Talk}}<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 14:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Residence
In the info box it currently says that 10 Downing Street is the unofficial residence of the PM. My understanding is that it is the official residence. It is also shown as the official residence on 10 Downing Street and on the .gov.uk webpage. Am I missing something or should this be changed? Casey boy (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 10 Downing Street is indeed only a convention, as the official residing here is actually the First Lord of the Treasury, which just so happens to be the Prime Minister for a long time (in various times and continuously since 1902). I am bothered though that even this page has inconsistency because while the Infobox says
 * 10 Downing Street (unofficial)
 * later down the page (specifically on the caption of the picture)
 * 10 Downing Street the official place of residence of the prime minister.
 * I suggest that it could be edited to be
 * 10 Downing Street (by convention)
 * and have a footnote saying that it is officially the residence of the First Lord of the Treasury which since 1902 is always held by the prime minister. - 2001:4453:526:9200:E86E:86CD:1A63:5DEE (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Rishi sunak is the new prime minister of United Kingdom
Conservative party choosen Rishi sunak as new leader of the party and now he will be the new prime minister of the country. Mohit dp (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * He's not PM yet. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 14:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He is now the Prime minister of UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common77 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Incoming prime minister
Rishi Sunak is the incoming prime minster. 86.24.231.185 (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022 (2)
Liz Truss became Prime Minister on 6 September 2022,[7] after replacing Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party, becoming the third female prime minister after Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May. Truss announced her resignation as party leader on 20 October 2022, and will be succeeded by Rishi Sunak

Change Rishi Sunak to Liam Fox

Liz Truss became Prime Minister on 6 September 2022,[7] after replacing Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party, becoming the third female prime minister after Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May. Truss announced her resignation as party leader on 20 October 2022, and will be succeeded by Liam Fox 94.197.129.143 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You also need to gain consensus for this. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022
10 downing street is listed as unofficial residence number ten is the ‘official residence’ 90.241.189.1 (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please describe what changes you are requesting be made in an "x to y" format. Thank you. BlueNoise  ( Désorienté? It's just purple ) 04:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022 (2)
To add rishi sunak’s name for pm 158.255.110.170 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Wait for him to officially become the PM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Replace Liz Truss template with Rishi Sunak
She is no longer the PM. 92.30.72.123 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed she is not. There is currently no PM. Bazza (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is now. So can the Liz Truss template be replaced with the Rishi Sunak one? --92.30.72.123 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Sunak is not PM yet
Sunak has not recieved the King's appointment, he is expected to recieve it. But at this very moment he is still not the PM. So why list it as PM..

What if Charles III Appoints another one or say NO ?, yes an improbavility, but not an impossibility. 37.119.216.90 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Then we update the article. It's a big advantage we have over print encyclopaedias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

£115,000 perpetual funding (2022 figure).
There is no mention of the £115,000 funding provided to ex-prime ministers in the article. Can a confirmed user take a look at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/02/effigy-liz-truss-lettuce-burned-edenbridge-bonfire-night thanks 92.9.42.182 (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * General gov.uk link explaining purpose. Bazza (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

To change Queen references to King
This article still refers to the monarch as queen. I believe it can already be updated. 177.133.49.204 Marcelo Meireles msg


 * :The only uses of the word "Queen" which I can find are:
 * in a quotation, which should not be changed MOS:QUOTATION;
 * in a form of words, parenthesised to show an alternative to "King";
 * and in references, which should retain whatever wording is used in those references.
 * Have you found other uses in the article? Bazza (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Government coat of arms change
There has been some disagreement on this page as to whether the coat of arms should change to using the Tudor Crown. It has already been accepted that this is the case on most other articles relating to the British government, and I would direct people to take a look at the talk page for talk:Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom where this has already been discussed.

As for evidence, I would encourage people to look at the website for the College of Arms which states that "It is envisaged that the form of the Crown seen in the new cypher will be adopted as the form used in representations of the Royal Arms", also noting that "the new cypher and new rendering of the Crown will be introduced gradually". The continued use of St Edward's Crown in some instances is therefore not evidence that the new crown has not been adopted. Furthermore, the Tudor crown has already appeared in recent letters patent and in official invitations to the upcoming coronation

DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC) DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @DanielMichaelPerry: Which bit of the "D" in WP:BRD is causing you a problem? You ought to give a bit more time for people to read the extensive talk page you linked to above, digest what it says, then respond here before unilaterally imposing your preference. Bazza (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking this. Was not aware of this process.
 * DanielMichaelPerry (talk) DanielMichaelPerry (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The House of Lords once again has a former prime minister member
The last paragraph on the retirement honours states that no former prime minister is member of the house of lords as of this year. This is (or will very soon be, I'm unclear on the official timeline) no longer the case.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/david-cameron 89.27.237.91 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)