Talk:First Lord of the Treasury

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 8, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too Long?[edit]

Is this page getting too long? I wanted to try to list all of the Commissioners of the Treasury for as long as I have lists of them (up to 1892), and then at least list the First Lord and the CHancellor of the Exchequer thereafter, up to the present. But now it's giving me the "32 K, hard to edit" deal. I'm not sure how I could break it up to make it of reasonable length. What do others think?

john 07:45 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I think it might be good to part the list out into its own article, if only because the other text has a lot of room to grow. Hephaestos 07:48 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But what ought that article to be called. List of Lord Treasurers and Commissioners of the Treasury, or some such? john 08:35 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've broken off the list onto two separate pages, and replaced it with a shorter list (mostly duplicating the Prime Minister list, but not quite). I've also acquired from the library a history of the treasury, which I shall take a look at and try to use to add more description of the treasury's function through the years. john 23:05 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Merge and Separate?[edit]

Perhaps this page should be merged with HM Treasury and the list of First Lords of the Treasury moved to somewhere else. Any opinions? Mintguy 09:12, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It should definitely be merged with HM Treasury; the two pages being essentially duplicates. Andrew Yong 13:22, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Residence?[edit]

Why does the article say that 10 Downing Street if the Offical Residence of the Prime Minister? The '10 Downing Street' page (correctly) says it's the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury. 10 Downing Street is not the official residence of the PM - if you think it is you might as well say it's the offical residence of the MP for Maidenhead. For many years this page correctly said that 10 Downing St. was the official residence of the first load of the treasury. Can someone please put this back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.64.51 (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colours[edit]

What is the purpose of the colours on the left side of the list? They're not explained anywhere. Fishhead64 17:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They stand for the parties. VM 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st Duke of Wellington, 1834[edit]

Wasn't the 1st Duke of Wellington during the Caretaker Government of 1834 (Nov-Dec.) also 1st Lord of the Treasury?
VM 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Thatcher - "First Lady"?[edit]

Was Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher "First Lady of the Treasury? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.82.126 (talk) 22:12:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

No, she was First Lord of the Treasury. --Zundark (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powers[edit]

This article doesn't actually say what the powers associated with the office are - surely the most important part? Would anyone be able to set out what they are, and (therefore) why the PM always takes the position? Art Markham (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist?[edit]

I have looked at the external website and it does not look like anything that should be on a blacklist. I would actually consider the site a reliable source under most circumstances, due to its editorial policy. Should this site get white-listed? What do others think? Nutster (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. This site was blacklisted a couple of years ago because some people associated with the site went around Wikipedia and attached references with links to their site on a variety of articles and did not stop when asked. Nutster (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave[edit]

I think James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave inclusion on this list is dubious. On the article for him it states "Lord Waldegrave is not usually counted as Prime Minister or First Lord of the Treasury, but as he was, he is sometimes regarded as the second-shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history." Also if he is included should William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath not also be added for his 2 day term (See Short-lived ministry)? Personally I think the case for both is weak, but think having one without the other is very inconsistent. Dunarc (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to have one and not the other, and the argument for not counting them as PM doesn't apply to 1st Lord. I've added William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath. Richard75 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Descripancy between articles[edit]

There is a descripancy between this article and Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The latter article states:

"It is commonly thought that the Lords Commissioners of HM Treasury serve as commissioners for exercising the office of Lord High Treasurer, however this is not true. The confusion arises because both offices used to be held by the same individual at the same time."

This is contradicted in this article. Which is it? 101090ABC (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. The office of Lord High Treasurer is vacant, and the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer is in commission. See the article Lord High Treasurer#Origins. Richard75 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]