Talk:First Secretary of State

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 11:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Prescott First Secretary of State

This Source states that Prescott was appointed first Secretary as soon as the labour government was elected in 1997. Article updated. 172.189.26.231 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding constitutional objections to the term Deputy Prime Minister

The sovereign appoints all ministerial positions including the First Secretary of State and people with the title (not actually recognised under the British constitution) of Deputy Prime Minister, so even if it was automatic it would still be an appointment under the Royal Prerogative by the monarch--Lord of the Isles 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Straw

Could the people adding Jack Straw to this page provide a reference, please? There's no mention in the official announcement of the new Cabinet that he's taking this job; only Justice and LC. --Psmith 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement_280607.htm ;) Tim! 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me; I wonder why it's not being reported elsewhere. I'm happy now that it's been sourced, though :-) --Psmith 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As the title has now been used three times in succession, may be worth deleting "occasionally used" from the first sentence of the article?-23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~

The Justice Ministry site currently says nothing about him being First Secretary of State. Maybe it has changed since yesterday. It means, though, that the current page is wrong. --GwydionM 18:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to a constitutional fiction

No such expectation could exist in the UK, since the Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign, whose discretion could not constitutionally be fettered.

This ceased to be the case in the 18th century. The role of the monarch is entirely ceremonial and has no element of choice. I removed the misleading sentence. --GwydionM 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's a legal fiction doesn't mean that the objections weren't made in the interest of preserving that legal fiction. (But I agree that it's not particularly vital to include, at least until the objectors are cited specifically.) --Psmith 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Being monarch is more than a ceremonial role, no one knows exactly what the monarch could do if they chose to do so - a monarch can be removed in exceptional circumstances, but a lot of what the Crown does is secret and discussions of Privy Council and Privy Councillors with the Monarch are mostly secret, the House of Commons can replace the monarch, but only if they are sitting, the powers are very real and the role of monarch in the 20th and so far this century has been overwhelmingly down to monarchs following convention through their own choice to avoid a constitutional crisis.--Lord of the Isles 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The monarch's power of choice is widely recognised as still existing; it's just that for at least 45 years they haven't actually had anything to choose between. At the moment general elections almost always deliver a single party majority and thus a single option for the Queen. Even in February-March 1974 any choice would have been between just Wilson and Heath and the Queen never got to exercise it because Ted Heath came to the conclusion he could not sustain his existing government. And because both main parties now have a formal process to elect a leader once again the Queen is presented with just one option to appoint.

But if the Prime Minister were to suddenly die in office or resign immediately it's probable that the Queen would have to exercise some choice in picking a caretaker. This is especially complicated if there is any existing Deputy Prime Minister who is going to contest the leadership election to seek the premiership on a permanent basis as the Queen wouldn't want to be effectively endorsing a candidate by giving them the advantage of incumbency, whereas if a deputy is an elder statesman or the leader of a junior coalition partner then appointing them to take charge for the meantime is much easier. There's also the question of the individual's suitability for the role as a lot of deputies and vices are appointed for various political reasons that can put utterly unsuitable people in the "heir apparent" post - George Brown in the UK for one, Dan Quayle in the US for another. So again the discretion of the Queen and those advising her in an emergency would be crucial. Then there's the possibility of the party system fragmenting to the point where the monarch has rather more choice than just the incumbent and opposition leader when it comes to deciding who to invite to try to form a government (and the trying itself would be more than a formality) and once again some kind of discretion would be needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Barbara Castle 27.jpg

The image Image:Barbara Castle 27.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Abolished"

I have removed the following sentence about abolition of the title from the article:

• The office was abolished in 2008. [1]

The source itself refers to the office of First Secretary of State as being currently "vacant" and not "abolished." Using the word "abolished" suggests that the lack of a First Secretary of State is now permanent, where in reality the Prime Minister could appoint a new First Secretary of State at the next Cabinet reshuffle. Road Wizard (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Clegg

Is there a citation that supports Clegg being given this position, I can't find one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It was supported by two citations in which the claim did not appear, I have removed it, if you can cite it feel free to replace. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 12 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)

Origins

I removed the following text from the article, because it seems highly doubtful:

It originated as an alternative to the use of the title Deputy Prime Minister, which was opposed by some for constitutional reasons, the principal objection being that the title implied some degree of expectation that there would be a right of succession to the Prime Minister's position in the event of the death or resignation of the incumbent.

According to the list in the article, the first ever use of the office was in conjunction with the title Deputy Prime Minister, so it doesn't make sense that it can have originated through objection to that title.--86.179.225.42 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue seems to be confused. The Rab Butler article says he was both DPM and FSoS but the Night of the Long Knives (1962) specifically says he was named FSoS instead of DPM. There is a supporting reference for the FSoS only claim but no supporting references for the dual DPM FSoS claim. Road Wizard (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Title of Honour

Is this truly a "title of honor" as the first sentence says? The second sentence goes on to say the holder has the same authority as any other SoS, which suggests it is not an honorific. Similarly, the Deputy PM article implies FSOS has been used to give the DPM holder actual authority (and the right to be paid as a cabinet member), because DPM is honorific.

Also the spelling looks odd for a UK government post article, but perhaps that cannot be changed since the link does use the US spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.190.208 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the role's position as unofficially being deputy prime minister is considered honorific, as opposed to the job itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.53.32 (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Substantial edits

I just thought that I'd add here that I've made substantial edits to this article today. These primarily revolved around pointing out uncited material, perhaps most importantly in relation to the claim that the title of Deputy Prime Minister does not confer cabinet rank, while the title of First Secretary of State does. If this claim can be backed up, then that's great, but I can't currently find any source that suggests so.

All the best,

FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Philip Hammond

Good Afternoon - i've decided to be bold and add him as a First Secretary outright as I have now found a source in which he was reffered to as such here. 82.41.12.175 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I see this has now been reverted, which I think is correct as I believe the announcement of Hammond as First Secretary was a genuinely unintended mistake. Source

I think we should include a short sentence on the mistake though for clarity. Bizegar (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)