Talk:2016 Conservative Party leadership election

Article challenges

The article currently divides people into "Publicly expressed interest", "Potential" and "Declined", but these are very fluid categories and I am concerned that, by imposing structure, we are editorialising and not representing reality. For example, Michael Gove may have once declined in 2012, but how relevant is that now in 2016 when people are speculating that he has a good chance: see [1]? Saying something to a newspaper in 2012 means nothing, in effect. I suggest less attempting to categorise people and more free text where issues are discussed. If we are to list runners and riders, so to speak, let's do so based on a recent reliable source rather than constructing a list ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Next Prime Minister

It should be noted that the new leader might not necessarily become the next Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is whoever can command a majority in the commons not necessarily the leader of the largest party. There is a plausible scenario where there is a leadership election 6 months before the general election with whoever wins allowing Cameron to see out the final months of his term (he has said he'd serve a full second term) and the new leader focused on their own election campaign for 2020, not unlike an outgoing US President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.154.155 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the PM is whoever the Queen asks to form a government. But I think, in practical terms, the next leader of he Conservative Party is the next PM. DC has said he's going. They might not last very long, of course, if they don't command a majority. GoldenRing (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, hypothetically, the next leader might not be the PM. But every news article that I have read is quite sure that the new leader be PM as well. If I were a betting man, I would bet in that direction. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to explain the mechanism

Lot of speculation about candidates here but nothing about the rules. Who's eligible to run? Who's eligible to vote? Are there any thresholds for election/voting? Who's responsible for overseeing the contest? etc etc Jatrius (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are people screwing around with this page? Removing candidates, adding stuff which is just nonsensical? Extremely frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.50.89 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Why have you added unsourced candidates? That's not allowed on any Wikipedia election page. Earthscent (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Out of date

I think this article is problematic. The lists of people who have publicly expressed interested or declined are often based on old citations. What someone said 9 months ago, before the referendum, before Cameron resigned, is of limited relevance now. So, for example, current media reports would suggest that Justine Greening is not a likely candidate, but we have her prominently displayed because of an article from 3 Oct 2015. We should follow what reliable sources are reporting now. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polling table

The margins of error in the opinion polling table are wrong: you can't have the same margin of error for 2,000 residents and for 400 voters. The smaller sample will have a larger margin of error, following an inverse square root rule. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to add this info the the poll chart but here is some info I posted in the Theresa May Wikipedia article: In late June 2016, after Cameron had resigned, May was touted as the favourite to replace him as PM by a narrow margin over Boris Johnson in opinion polls commissioned by The Times and by The Independent. She was a strong leader (31 percent vs. 24 percent) among Conservative voters polled by YouGov. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made a number of attempts to tackle the margin of error problem in the opinion polling table. The margins of error given are wrong: you cannot have the same margin of error for two very different sized groups, as the table currently claims. All my attempts to address this have been reverted, but no-one appears to wish to discuss the point...? I will try again. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why a margin of error column is needed, the table is already fairly big. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, scrap the MOE column. 79.74.28.48 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Endorsements

Why display endorsements for a candidate who has not confirmed they are standing? 86.135.5.172 (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this- many people are going to be using this page as a source in the coming weeks, so let's make sure it's crystal clear who has confirmed they are standing and who hasn't.

Has May confirmed that she is standing? News reports seem to imply that she has, but has she actually said so? e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-leadership-race-boris-johnson-theresa-may-new-prime-minister-7108171.html Boris Johnson and Theresa May rally support for Tory leadership race

Neither she nor Johnson have confirmed.

QUOTE: The deadline for nominations will come on Thursday at noon, with Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Dr Liam Fox among those also expected to run in the contest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-labour-angela-eagle-david-cameron-eu-brexit/ Peter K Burian (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements for Johnson and for May

A useful article http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/justine-greening-and-mike-penning-back-theresa-mays-bid-for-tory-leadership-a3283721.html

In a boost to Mrs May, Cabinet minister Justine Greening - one of Boris’s closest friends in the battle to stop a third runway - swung behind her, hailing her “professionalism and steel”. Mr Johnson looks set to have at least 100 backers - and was cheered by over 100 Leave campaign MPs at a private meeting held in Westminster.

And in another coup, Justice Minister Mike Penning - a former top aide to Iain Duncan Smith and committed Brexiteer - said he would back her over Boris because she was “tough and experienced”. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

May and Johnson have not announced their candidacy so this cannot be included. 86.135.5.172 (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed! They will do so tomorrow. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-labour-angela-eagle-david-cameron-eu-brexit Peter K Burian (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with including endorsements for people who have not formally announced their candidacies. We have multiples reliable sources saying they are expected to stand. And if they have endorsements, it is notable even were they not to go on to stand. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why UNDO my changes re: citation about the election date?

The new BBC citation that I added is more specific to the Conservative leadership http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36640889 and does not include a discussion of Corbyn, etc. as the previous citation did.

Why would someone have undone my revision?? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36640889 is a solid citation that works well and is specific to the topic. Let's not start an edit war. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Winner of election ... requires an election

"Ebonelm (Undid revision 727543655 by Peter K Burian (talk) announcement takes place after election is finished)"

Well, right now your chart never mentions a word about the actual election. They send out ballots. Then they announce the winner. Surely between those two steps there is an election where members cast their ballots!

5 July 2016 – The first ballot is held by the Parliamentary Party. 7 July 2016 – A second ballot, if required, is held. Should further ballots be required, they will take place on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays.

8 September 2016 – Closing date for the postal ballot. 9 September 2016 – New leader announced. BUT WHEN WAS THE ACTUAL ELECTION? Peter K Burian (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian, firstly its when is not when was. As more than one candidate has declared their candidacy the election will be put to the full Conservative party membership by postal ballot. As it looks like more than two candidates the parliamentary party will first have a series of voting rounds to whittle this number down to two, as only two candidates can go to the membership vote. All these round are part of the election. And as the membership vote is a postal ballot there isn't an election 'day' so to speak of. But as the article which you have quoted makes abundantly clear the postal ballots must be returned by 8 September. Ebonelm (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, the current version seems fine to me Ebonelm Peter K Burian (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson

It is extremely frustrating that some editors are removing some hard researched sources in regards to Ruth Davidson in regards to her being a totued candidate and her position in regards to Stephen Crabb. Firstly, removing Davidson from the list of declined candidates is utterly foolish. For the last year or so, Davidson has been talked about by several media sources as a possible replacement to David Cameron. Why remove that? I could find more than 10 hinting at Davidson being in that position. Moreover, there is nothing in rules of the leadership of the Conservative Party that prevents non-MPs from standing. It is just a case of having support from members of the parliamentary party and finding a seat. Of course, it wouldn't be practicable for a non-MP to stand for the leadership of the Conservative Party BUT there's nothing preventing it from happening and therefore shouldn't be removed. There's no need to remove unsourced material like that - in fact it's plain rude. Additionally, Davidson has made it clear on several ocassions (very publicly) that she supports Stephen Crabb to succeed David Cameron. I could find two videos where she endorses him and several quotes (even look at her Twitter). Ruth. Davidson. Is. Supporting. Stephen. Crabb. So again, stop removing well-sourced information like that. No need to be annoying.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I find there are some arbitrary deletions in this article by some editors.

She does not have much of a chance but she is a potential candidate, according to a respected newspaper, The Telegraph; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/conservative-leadership-election-runners-and-riders/ When someone deletes fully cited content, I re-do it and start a Talk topic explaining why and asking that the other editor not start an Edit War. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC) I agree that Ruth Davidson should be in the article, after all, in the Labour leadership election, 2015 page David Miliband is listed as a "declined candidate" while he was living in the United States and not a member of any UK political body. Further, Davidson is listed on polls that are on this page, including 24-25 June 2016. Davidson should be re-added and remain listed as a "declined" candidate; especially since she appears on polls on this page. Fritz1543 (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160630190011/http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/whos-backing-who-our-running-list-of-mps-supporting-each-leadership-candidate.html to http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/06/whos-backing-who-our-running-list-of-mps-supporting-each-leadership-candidate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Opt-in polling

I don't think opt-in polling should be shown. To start with, by its very nature it is not accurate because it is self-selecting. Secondly, and probably more importantly, the polls themselves are not reported, someone has just taken the figure at the time when they saw the quiz, so I would say this is WP:OR Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Practice on Wikipedia had always been to exclude such. They're entirely unreliable. I've deleted the section. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Louise Mensch

I don't understand the black and white thinking behind the edits to Louise Mensch's nuanced/inconsistent positions, she can endorse a candidate yet still hold the opinion that her "money is on" another.Lacunae (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

She can, but why is the subtle nuance of her position worthy of coverage? We can't fill the article with the tweets of every ex-MP's nuanced position. I would suggest keeping the endorsements section straightforward in its layout, so no extraneous notes. The campaign section can discuss nuance, but should restrict itself to noteworthy stuff: who Mensch thinks will win simply isn't notable enough. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

MP numbers

We've got two differing sets of numbers of MPs supporting each candidate: in the table and in the endorsements lists. Neither agrees with the latest BBC figures here. This is not good. I suggest, as per practice on some US election articles, we don't add up our own endorsement list and base the figures in the table on reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: BBC has a full public list here. Hopefully it will be updated as endorsements come in. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Home has a pretty authoritative list, IMO. [2] Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

We could cite both, then attribute to each. I've been citing to ConservativeHome in the table section (I have not been working on the endorsement-list section). I of course have no objection to the BBC News cites.

I agree with Bondegezou that we should rely on authoritative lists complied by outside news agencies rather than coming up with our own top-line numbers based on our tallies of MPs. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello there

Would someone please put the words "non-legally binding" back into the first block of text of the article for me? The automatic bot thing deleted it because it's stupid algorithm thought the information was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.4.49 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I understand the logic of the current infobox, but it's really big and wide now. I'm on an iPad right now and it squishes all the text up. Infoboxes are meant to be compact. Election article infoboxes in multi-stage elections often just show the candidates in the final round: look at the recent Austrian Presidential election for example. Other election articles just show the top vote getters: see the London mayoral election article for this year.

I don't think Crabb or Fox's role in this election is particularly noteworthy such that it has to be in the Infobox. Boris's non-involvement is a bigger part of the story than Fox's involvement! So why not just have a compact infobox with May and Leadsom, the final two? Bondegezou (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Irmgard Griss got 810,641 votes in the Austrian presidential election, 2016 and doesn't get into the infobox, but Liam Fox gets 16 votes and does?! Multistage elections on Wikipedia usually only show the final round's candidates in the infobox: see Austrian presidential election, 2016, French presidential election, 2012 and Romanian presidential election, 2014. Other election articles omit candidates getting fewer votes, so London mayoral election, 2016 excludes those with fewer than 5%, as does Tooting by-election, 2016 and all the other Westminster by-election articles. So why should this article include Crabb and Fox in the infobox? Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Crabb sexting

Former leadership candidate Crabb has been caught in a sexting scandal. While this has emerged shortly after his exit from the campaign, it is being reported in the context of the campaign and is fallout from his candidacy, so I have included it in this article. User:Absolutelypuremilk disagrees. What do others think?

Articles on the topic include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Bondegezou (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

The introduction is currently six paragraphs long. Though MOS:LEAD can be treated with common sense, the lead is a tad too long for readers to introduce the replacement election. The guideline says normally no more than four paragraphs. As the election is very recent, I don't see an exception to the four-paragraph rule, unlike Napoleon, which has more than four currently. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted two paragraphs which were now of only vague interest to get it down to 4 paragraphs. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now one of the paragraphs was reinserted, summing to five paragraphs. Really, there is no need to over-introduce the readers the election. The ending (i.e. results) is spoiled already; that's all that matters to readers... Well, they can read further if they choose. Pinging Peter and Bondegezou to make compromises together. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC) My bad. --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I was probably over-eager to re-add material -- my bad -- but we have to make sure that material is covered adequately in the article (and then summarised in the lede). Bondegezou (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Major points of the topic: David Cameron resigned, candidates campaigned their premierships toward their party, so many declined Conservatory leadership and others withdrew and/or were eliminated, and the woman becomes the second female PM after Thatcher. Having five paragraphs is beyond adequate but excessive, especially to readers who cared about the results a lot more than about the process. The process took just one month, and readers cared that May won by default. End of story. I don't think readers would care much about ad nauseam process, which was overly done and sensationalized by the press. If you don't want to re-remove the paragraph that you reinserted, perhaps find other ways to reduce the lede to just either three or four paragraphs. I prefer three, but if the process is just "complicated", remember that the time span between Cameron's resignation and May's accession is very short. Four is enough for most readers, especially ones who would just (per guideline) read the whole intro and then move on to other subjects, like... the Brexit aftermath probably.

Re-reading the reinserted paragraph, Boris Johnson's declination is overemphasized and should be merged into a paragraph or re-removed. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Boris Johnson not standing is a key part of the story and should be mentioned in the lede. But you're right: it doesn't need all the text I re-inserted. Bondegezou (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the Boris story is important (if brief) but does not belong in the lede. The body of the article needs more sub-heads (topics); too much of this article is charts and dates. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Either the lead is still too long, or the article needs more prose content. I didn't count lists and charts. If more prose is added, then the lead would no longer be too long. Otherwise, key events should be de-emphasized or less emphasized. --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Per guideline, the lead at this stage should be reduced to two paragraphs, though I prefer just one. George Ho (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have boldly pruned the section back. See what y'all think. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty good; it's got all the main facts in which we want. I did have a go myself offline, but you beat me to it. :) This is Paul (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I merged the Boris paragraph with the one about the candidates. We need to mention him, but only briefly since he wasn't actually a candidate. I also rewrote some of the opening paragraph for clarity, explaining why Cameron resigned. This is Paul (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Right now, Paul, Bondegezou, and Peter, I am unsure whether mentioning Johnson in the lead is necessary anymore. If so, Boris is appointed Secretary of Foreign Affairs, so the update must be added in the article to reflect that. Otherwise, I think about re-removing it... unless Boris quickly turns down the offer. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It was worth mentioning had it ended his career on the world stage, but it looks like there is life post-Brexit after all. This is Paul (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I added the update in the Timeline section. I still wonder whether the Boris thing is needed anymore in the lead. --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I took it out; if anybody disagrees then feel free to restore it. This is Paul (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Boris was the frontrunner going into the campaign. That he didn't even stand is far more important than the failed campaigns of Fox or Crabb, who get mentioned in the lede and infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If Boris is that important in the intro, then I already changed the sentence and then moved it. I added Johnson's appointment as replacement to Gove's decision to no longer endorse Johnson. Readers can read further about Johnson's... fall and resurrection in either the page or Johnson's Wiki bio. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

A draft lead

I see someone's already done this, but I've just finished work on a draft lead which attempts to put everything in order so thought I'd post it here anyway for feedback:

The 2016 Conservative Party leadership election occurred as a result of David Cameron's announcement that he would resign as prime minister in the immediate aftermath of the European Union membership referendum, in which the UK had voted to leave the EU. Cameron, who supported Britain's continued membership of the EU, made his announcement on 24 June, saying that he would step down by October.

The new Conservative leader was to be chosen in a multi-step process, in which Conservative MPs voted initially in a series of ballots with the candidate receiving least votes eliminated from the following ballot until two candidates remained,; these would go forward to a nationwide ballot of Conservative Party members, who would make the final decision. Five Conservative members of Parliament (MPs) initially put themselves forward as candidates for their party's leadership: Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Stephen Crabb, former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change Andrea Leadsom, and Home Secretary Theresa May. In the first-round ballot held on 5 July, May placed first, gaining the support of exactly half of Conservative MPs, with Leadsom coming in second place. Fox finished in last place and was eliminated, while Crabb withdrew from the contest; both subsequently announced their support of May. On 7 July May, Leadsom and Gove proceeded to the next round, where Gove was eliminated.

Political analysts had seen former Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who played a prominent role for the leave campaign during the referendum, as a strong candidate for Conservative leader. However, on 30 June, and in a move that surprised most commentators, Gove withdrew his support for Johnson, and announced his own candidacy. Shortly before the deadline for filing for candidacy, Johnson declared that he did not intend to run.

With ballots due to be sent out to party members, Leadsom withdrew from the leadership race on 11 July, apparently over controversial remarks made in the days before. Her withdrawal lead to May being appointed party leader and hence, Prime Minister, on 13 July, after Cameron's official resignation to the Queen.

Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Either a little too long to me, or there should be one or two line breaks if all the points are most important to general readers per WP:Summary style. George Ho (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

At least Bondegezou's version is a little or tad better than this. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP:LEAD suggests a limit of four paragraphs, so I worked on it with that in mind. As I see it the main points of this are: There was an election because..., the following people stood, they were eliminated through a series of ballots, Boris was seen as a favourite but withdrew, May and Leadsom went forward to the national ballot, but Leadsom withdrew meaning that May was declared winner. This is Paul (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I also used this article as a template, which I took through WP:GAN last year. This is Paul (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox layout

If you wish to change the layout of the infobox, talk here before making any changes to the infobox. At the moment, the layout is 3 on the top, 2 on the bottom, but this layout is disputed by some users.TedEdwards (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is too wide and for some users breaks the lead into two pieces.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ages

There is currently a conversation going on here about whether or not candidates' ages should be included. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Uncontested elections

I am not sure this should be in Category:Uncontested elections. Although Andrea Leadsom withdrew before the vote of the membership, the two earlier rounds among the MPs certainly were contested. Thus this is not the same as the 2003 Conservative Party leadership election which is also in this category. I would appreciate the views of other editors.Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

As I really don't think it can be considered uncontested (given votes actually took place) I have removed it from Category:Uncontested elections, but am happy to discuss further if anyone disagrees. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)