Talk:Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge with ODPM 2 New Merge 3 John Prescott 4 Description of Lloyd George taking power

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{UKDeputyPrimeMinisters}} 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 — 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) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)