Talk:2019 Conservative Party leadership election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Typo detected

Candidates - Withdrawn Candidates - Kit Malthouse is described as being deputy mayor of London from 2008 to 2006. Either that should say 2016 or man's a time traveller (would v much appreciate a time travelling prime minister lol)

Jumping the gun?

It's clearly going to happen, but the whens and the whos are all pure speculation is this point. Should this article be deleted until more concrete evidence of a mounting title bid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.219.91 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The article was WP:PRODed on those grounds and I de-PROD-ed it. If someone wants to take it to AfD, I respect that and we can have a discussion there.

My feeling is that the article will just get recreated if it's deleted! So we might as well make it as good as we can, noting that nothing at all has been scheduled, but covering the reasons why there is uncertainty around May's leadership and the possibility of a leadership election sooner rather than later. There is no lack of reliable source material discussing the possibility and the possible candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson

We've gone back and forth on whether Ruth Davidson should be included in the list of potential candidates.

Those opposing her inclusion point out that she is (currently) ineligible as the rules require the leader to be an MP, and she isn't. Ergo, she cannot be a potential candidate.

Those favouring her inclusion, myself included, feel she should be listed. My main argument is that reliable sources talk about her as a potential candidate/leader, indeed they do so more than some of the other names listed. It is not for us to do WP:OR and conclude those reliable sources are mistaken. My supplementary argument would be that, yes, she's currently ineligible, but we don't know when this leadership election will be. It could be a few years off (latest media reports talk of late 2019), so there's plenty of time in which Davidson could become eligible (either through the rules changing or her status changing), regardless of whether she is currently eligible right now.

Either way, let's reach a consensus and end the edit war. Bondegezou (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Under Tory leadership rules, she could run for the leadership if she had a proposer and seconder in Parliament. However, she wouldn't be Prime Minister if she won so it's impracticable in reality. However, she could run in a by-election from now until 2022 which judging by the nature of politics right now, is not unthinkable. However, it would be wrong to exclude her because there is speculation about Ruth and she has constantly been linked to the leadership. It's just like Boris before he became MP for Uxbridge. No Tory leadership speculation would exclude Boris but he wasn't an MP at the time.--109.153.64.65 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, fair point, but if she's not an MP when a leadership election is finally called, I'm deleting her again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.168 (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing relevant is whether reliable sources consider her to be a potential candidate. If, when a leadership election is called, she or any other candidate is not eligible under the rules at the time, reliable sources will not consider them to be potential candidates. At no point is original research necessary in the process. Ruth Davidson is somebody reliable sources consider a potential candidate, so as long as that's true, she should be listed on this page. Ralbegen (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

She could be Prime Minister if she won the contest. Alec Douglas-Home was a member of the House of Lords when he was elected Tory leader and made Prime Minister, and subsequently won a by-election. One would assume that the same situation would come about in the event of a Ruth Davidson victory in a Tory leadership contest. It would make sense for her to be included. TDK1881 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Way too many potentials

This article has been tracking every potential candidate who's ever been mentioned over the long time we've been waiting to see whether May's premiership can last. There are 40 of them right now. This is silly. We're not going to see 40 people standing in the leadership election, whenever it comes. We are breaking WP:BALANCE by giving WP:UNDUE attention to one-off mentions of people who don't really stand a chance. So, I am boldly chopping the long list and just writing something that reflects the actual probable candidates as described by reliable sources. I'm happy to see that edited, but I think months-old references to low-ranked MPs are unhelpful. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In the edits preceding your cuts I had started cutting down on unsourced or poorly-sourced potential candidates. Even getting rid of all of those would have left a total of about thirty, which I agree isn't useful to anybody. I'd been considering proposing a higher inclusion threshold, like the one used in some comparable American articles, such as speculation in at least two reliable sources or inclusion in a public poll. I had thought that listing people who had publicly expressed interest was useful even if we take a more editorial approach to potential candidates, but if you look at the sources provided before your edits not one of the people listed had actually publicly expressed interest...

I'd be interested in views as to whether a higher threshold for inclusion for a list in this article is something that could usefully complement what you've written, but either way a prose summary is something which adds to the article and is significantly better than what was here before. Ralbegen (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am reassured someone else was thinking along similar lines!

I quite like the idea of a list with a higher threshold of inclusion (although the details are bit trickier for an internal party process compared to what US election articles do). But then I fear any sort of list, particularly when we may be years off an actual election, merely accretes names thus replicating the original problem. A historical approach, tracking who's being talked about at different times, may be more practical until we know we're nearer an election. But happy to entertain discussion of possible list inclusion criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are many people in the running for the leadership. All should be included as potential candidates. I will include them as I founded this page. Thank you.--109.158.228.2 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Potentials have been added back in. I would still favour removing them. Can we come to a new consensus? Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think consensus has changed on this page. Note this when weighting the IP's view above, and I don't think any strong arguments for including a full list have been offered. Ralbegen (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the list again on that basis. Happy for further discussion if contested. Ralbegen (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this is silly. In every Wikipedia page on future leadership elections of parties (most notably the American presidential primaries for both Democrat and Republican Parties), all potential candidates or candidates who have expressed interest are named and listed with sources to back them up. That is how it has always been on Wikipedia. This was also true when this page existed pre-2016 Cameron leadership election, all prospective and potential candidates were named (in fact with the Democratic Party, the list of potential candidates is far longer). The same should apply here. It is a matter of fact as journalists in Westminster and commentators have said (if you read The Times or look at Stephen Bush in the New Statesman) that there is a high number of MPs (over 20 Conservative MPs) who are actively running for the leadership of party and over 30 MPs have been linked to the candidacy. It is very likely that the leadership election will have a high number of candidates putting their names forward according to reports. As an online encyclopedia and provider of knowledge, it is important and consistent that this information is provided to readers, instead of a paragraph on "candidates". Deleting it or hiding it is frankly stupid and inconsistent with best practice on Wikipedia pages of this nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConservativePartyLeadershipElectionPageFounder (talk • contribs) 12:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

With most of the cases you cite, there are defined election timetables. This article describes a leadership election with no timetable, that hasn't been called, that the current leader says is not going to happen any time soon, but has been a matter of speculation for over a year. Some have argued the page shouldn't exist at all. In that context, we found that the list of potential candidates had become very long, but also dated. Thus the decision to remove the whole list. We can, of course, revert that if there is a consensus to do so.

The argument you have made is an argument for not having the page at all. Which is something that you concluded that you would not do. So that is incoherent. Once you have the page then the logical thing to do is to have the list. It is not an argument for not having a list of prospective and potential candidates (which exists in both US primary elections and the list of potential candidates are far longer). If you believe that some of the candidates are dated then it is worth debating it on the talk page instead of the removal of a carefully crafted, carefully planned list on all potential candidates (which comes directly from the best political journos in the country). It worsens the quality of the page and information provided.--ConservativePartyLeadershipElectionPageFounder (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The list that existed was not "a carefully crafted, carefully planned list on all potential candidates (which comes directly from the best political journos in the country)"! It was a grab-bag of references of variable quality from all sorts of places, with no indication of currency.

I'm all for more material on candidates, using good quality citations, in the article, so do make some suggestions for content, but I remain of the view that the old list was not helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid as someone who did the editing for the page, they were carefully crafted. Each candidate was mentioned by a reputable newspaper journalists. All of them came from the following: Ian Dale from LBC, Nick Watt from the BBC, Tim Shipman, Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, Sebastian Coates, Sebastian Payne from the Financial Times, BuzzFeed the Political Editor of the Sun (whose name eludes me) and direct sources from candidates who have hinted at or publicly expressed interest in the job. These are people who know candidates and talk to Conservative MPs who are considering running or talk of leadership speculation. What you said is untrue and I think you should retract the statement, accept that you have made a mistake and that your refusal to add a list of candidates is worsening the quality of the page. Thank you.--109.157.169.89 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Given you say the list included using The Sun as a source, when it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and that the list mixed "hinted at" with "publicly expressed", I feel confident my criticism stands. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First, The Sun referred to the inclusion of Mark Harper on the mention of potential leadership candidates. Second, politicians who publicly and openly "hint at" at the running for the leadership of their parties are expressing interest in the top job. They're not syaing "I will stand" but they are publicly expressing interest in becoming leader. Your criticism does not stand at all and your refusal to accept that these are well-sourced potential candidates and candidates who have expressed public in interest in the job of Tory leader makes me doubt your good faith intentions.--109.157.169.89 (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The other issue discussed above is over WP:BALANCE. We had a list and a single mention of someone as a possible candidate got them on the list, even if no-one else ever mentioned them again. Meanwhile, certain candidates have been the subject of intense speculation and extensive coverage. I don't feel a single list can meaningfully capture that variation, between significant potential candidates (Johnson, Javid) and one-off mentions. It is better, I believe, to write prose describing who the most likely candidates are, rather than having a list that strives for some faux completism. Bondegezou (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure you have quite understood the point that is being made. The point is that the Tory leadership election is wide open and therefore those candidates who may be the subject of extensive speculation and coverage may not be the eventual winner. If you look at the history of the Conservative Party, the outsider tends to win (apart from May). Cameron in 2005. IDS in 2001. Hague in 1997. Major in 1990. Thatcher in 1975. Heath in 1964 (I believe it was). In the 2016, Andrea Leadsom who was not a candidate receiving "intensive speculation" became the candidate in the final round. SO that is a very poor argument on your argument if I may say. And it is a matter of record that there are at least 20 Conservative MPs who are intending to run for the leadership of the party. So to completely delete a list of potential candidates (and leadership candidates who have expressed public interest) on the basis that the list of candidates is very long when it is about a page which is about a prospective leadership contest (which conservative estimates have around 20 MPs actively running) is illogical. And as I already noted there is a precedence for including *all* mentioned potential candidates for the primaries of the Democrats and Republicans in 2020 (and in previous Presidential elections). If your argument in response is to say "there is a clear time frame which does not apply to this election", then that is an argument for deleting this page. It is not argument for removing the list of potential candidates.--ConservativePartyLeadershipElectionPageFounder (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

As a casual user and reader, I find the addition of potential candidates very useful and I feel such greatly improves this article. Same argument that there are 'way too many potentials' could also be made about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, but that doesn't warrant deletion of a large amount of content there. If it's reliably sourced I see no reason for such to be deleted. --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential candidates are described in the current text and in the polling tables, but just the more likely figures rather than an exhaustive list. There is some support for the current version of the article (no potentials list) and some support for including a list of potential candidates. So what's the best way forward?

One problem with the article is that people have been anticipating a next election for a long time, yet one has still not been called. I question the relevance of someone saying in 2017 that they might stand to the current situation, and we don't even know whether the current situation will have much to do with the situation when an election eventually happens. (We know when the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries will be. We don't know when the next Conservative Party leadership election will be; it could be after 2020.)

One approach might be to have a list of potential candidates, but to restrict it to those who have been discussed/announced since the most recent crisis began, i.e since November. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel like that potential alternative you mention might be a bit OR-y in deciding what constitutes a crisis worth re-evaluating the list. I think the problems you've laid out are inherent to including any list here, and are all best dealt with using a prose summary instead of a list. If there needs to be a list, and I don't see why there should, a higher inclusion threshold such as requiring two independent sources mentioning a person would clear the list out a bit. There's definitely value to knowing that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are talked about as potential candidates. I'm not sure what use or encyclopedic value it is knowing that Rishi Sunak or Tobias Ellwood might have been mentioned once in a list of potential left-field candidates a year ago. Given the amount of attention given to these elections, that sort of threshold would still give a fairly long list. So my strong preference is to keep a prose passage only, with a weaker alternative of a list with a "two independent sources" threshold. Ralbegen (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with prose, although we could probably do with more than we currently have. That said, I don't think it's OR-y to note a current crisis kicking off with the ministerial resignations in Nov. That's how the situation is broadly reported. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my concern with a rolling cut-off was around defining what would constitute a crisis worth resetting a list over. There are certainly watersheds though, like the 2017 election, the resignations of Davis and Johnson in July, and the ongoing crisis (which should all definitely be noted). I think that's easier to handle in prose rather than in abstract. I'll have a look over the text that's there at the moment and see how it can be extended. Ralbegen (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a list would be good actually. As a casual user, I too think a list is more informative and visual. We should see all the rumoured candidates and all the ones who have declared. New Statesman has reports of up to 20 candidates and the PM has said she is standing down before the next election so it seems fair. I think the Downing Street memo on potential candidates may be something work looking at?--213.86.72.202

(talk) 15:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC) I also think it would be a good idea. Especially as Tory leadership elections tend to be unpredictable. And also there could be a contest if May resigns due to Brexit. But yes, a list is more informative imho ;)

Discussion driven by indefinitely blocked user

Not happy to do prose. I prefer a long list. There are more contributors on this talk page who have written in favour of having a full comprehensive list of potential candidates. Only two contributors have written against the idea. Completely flawed. It is useful for research and consistent with practice on virtually every other potential contest (such as the Democratic primaries) and what was done before in the 2016 Tory leadership contest. This is a public encyclopedia and it has a duty to inform. I see no logical reason other than stubborness not to include a long list of potentials ESPECIALLY when most commentators have said that it will be up to 20 candidates in contention.--Wasteman1000 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Also, more to the point, having it on prose looks terrible presentationally.--Wasteman1000 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Firstly, you will achieve nothing if you do not respect other editors and Wikipedia practice and policy. If there is a dispute, we talk first, then we edit. Repeatedly edit-warring will get you blocked. Secondly, the text you are trying to add is highly questionable. Comments made in 2017 have little relevance to the current situation. Take for example the Rory Stewart citation. It's a three paragraph gossip-y report from July 2017: it has little relevance to what might happen now, should there be a leadership election (which is far from determined). Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC) @Wasteman1000: Just so you know, two of the contributors advocating for a list above identified themselves as sockpuppets of a user who has been banned indefinitely. Their voices don't contribute towards consensus. Another is a single-purpose account that hasn't edited any other article. I feel like all the arguments have been presented in the discussion already, but: this article is different to comparable ones because there isn't a fixed time scale. People who are relevant runners and riders at one point aren't at another. Prose can communicate that, a list cannot. Other articles also take different approaches: the Democratic Primary one you've mentioned use a higher inclusion threshold, where two independent sources need to speculate about a candidate for inclusion. They also use a time limit as a criterion for their "publicly expressed interest" section. Maybe there's a way to make a list work for this article including those sorts of elements? There aren't hard-and-fast rules, but an indiscriminate list isn't appropriate for this article. Ralbegen (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC) I have reported Wasteman1000 for WP:3RR violation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wasteman1000_reported_by_User:Bondegezou_(Result:_). Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Wasteman1000 has been indefinitely blocked. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC) The argument that you used to claim that the reason why 2022 Presidential elections have a long list because of the time period now does not make sense because we know that the next Tory leadership contest will be before the next general election which has to be before 2022. So using your own argument it does not work. Is consensus just for people who agree with your views?--109.158.53.64 (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC) As a member of the Conservative Party, I happen to agree. As a casual reader of this article, I quite like a good comprehensive list of candidates provided that it is backed up with sources. Works well for other pages. No reason why the same should not apply here.--John4v16 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Semi-protection was added to this article because 109.158.53.64 appears to be an indefinitely blocked user posting anonymously. It would appear that every comment above calling for a long list (except Theimmortalgodemperor) is the same blocked person. Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC) For reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Torygreen84/Archive. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

March discussion

I think there should be reform in regards to the list of potential candidates. Some candidates have explicitly said they are NOT running: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Ruth Davidson, to name a few. These names need to be removed if they have explicitly said they are not running and properly cited. --TomPumpkin69 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the long list, as that has been the previous consensus. The current remaining text notes that Davidson has ruled herself out (and is ineligible anyway). Some text about Rees-Mogg is appropriate; feel free to add some. Bondegezou (talk) 14:10, 25 March 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:

• Ruth Davidson MSP .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Idle thought...

...but if this article exists then shouldn't this:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Proposed second United Kingdom European Union membership / final deal referendum

be revisted featuring:

• United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union#Reversibility, and
• Brexit#Support for a second referendum, to reduce the size of the Brexit article.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There was an AfD on this page too, which was resolved without consensus. I think the difference in terms of WP:CRYSTAL is that another Conservative Party leadership election is almost certain to take place, whereas a subsequent referendum on the UK's relationship with the European Union is not. There are probably better places to get broader input on this. Ralbegen (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. At some point, there will be a next conservative Party leadership election. It may be very soon, or it may not, but May is not immortal, so it must occur one day! The Vintage Feminist, you can bring this article back to AfD. You can propose a new draft on a second referendum article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. (If my participation in this RM is a problem for this closure, then any page mover or admin may re-close without asking my permission). (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 21:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election → 2018 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election – We know when the next vote will be, it will be tonight (at least the vote of confidence). The current article title fails MOS:RELTIME. I suggest that the article be moved without leaving a redirect. Strictly I suppose the leadership election has not yet started, yet practically the vote of confidence is the start of the election process. Existing references should be updated, but appear to be mostly from transclusion of the {{UK Conservative Party}} navbox. 89.147.70.16 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. There is also a redirect (the only one to this article) at Next uk conservative party leadership election. 89.147.70.16 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If we follow process the result will be over long before we make the requested move. Let's wait until it is officially announced and then move without the need for a requested move discussion. I oppose this discussion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose until we know whether a leadership election will actually take place. If May wins, then we probably won't have one. Number 57 09:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a vote of confidence in May forthcoming. There may or may not be a leadership election. We wait until we know there is a leadership election. If we know that later today, then change it. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. It might not actually happen until the New Year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the vote of no confidence is not a leadership election. I suggest that this RM be SNOW closed if May survives the confidence vote tonight. Iffy★Chat -- 10:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and close this RM as per SNOW. No leadership election is yet certain, and once it is (if May loses the confidence vote) no discussion would be required, as the date for the leadership election will then become uncontroversial. Further, it is not even certain any leadership election will take place in 2018, considering it's 12 December today; it could occur in 2019 or with ballots occuring in both years. This discussion is thus pointless. Impru20^talk 11:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If there is an election, what do we do about the date? Do we date it in terms of when the final ballot is (2019) or when it begins (2018), or even both ("2018/9")? Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bondegezou: That'd surely have to be thoroughly discussed. There is a practice for naming some events spanning several years including both the start and end dates (including elections, such as this). However, there is also some precedent where that is not the case (for example, this). Typically, the name mostly used by reliable sources would be the one to go, but as this would be an ongoing event in such a case, it won't become obvious at first. I'd say to provisionally move the article to "2018 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election" at first if May loses, then have a discussion on the actual name if the election spans 2019 as well. Impru20^talk 18:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close. The article can be moved without discussion when we know the dates of the election. If an election is called as the result of a no confidence vote, I'd support using the year in which the end of the ballot of members is due to take place. If it's due to end in 2019, but instead every candidate but one withdraws before the end of 2018 like in 2016, then the article can be moved to 2018 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. I can't find a precedent leadership election that spans two years. Ralbegen (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as we don't know yet if there'll be a leadership election. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and close this RM as no confidence vote failed PotentPotables ( talk ) 21:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restoration of the whip vs. eligibility rules

Are the rules for the vote of confidence amongst MPs publicly available? There is a briefing note here from the House of Commons Library: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01366 It refers at various points to the "Parliamentary Party" suggesting that perhaps all party members who are MPs are eligible to vote (which may therefore apply even to those who have 'had the whip removed' if this is an informal matter within parliament and does not affect official membership of the party). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.172.41 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, it so happens that the total of 317 may be reduced by up to 3 without changing the 15% threshold from 48. So we can't tell from 48 whether or not these were already taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.172.41 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This would be determined by the rules of the Conservative Party. Either way, we have multiple RS reports that the electorate was 317 (although there was one report on the day before the vote that said it was 316). Bondegezou (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I get it now: earlier reports claiming 316 had missed the restoration of the whip to Elphicke. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

List of candidates

I have included an updated list of candidates for the Conservative Party leadership. There is a clear precedent for this if one looks at the previous Tory leadership page for the 2016 before Cameron stepped down and also the US Presidential primaries (even before the contest began). There is no reason why it should not include the full list of candidates who have been listed since 2017 and it is informative for people using the article. Other accounts (a majority) - bar two - have said that this is something worth doing and several accounts have made similar changes. Due to the wide berth of Tory leadership candidates (around 20 are expected in the first round of the contest), there is no reason why all rumoured candidates should not be included. We also know that the Prime Minister has stated that she will resign this year by Conservative Party Conference so again the excuse that such list should not be included because of timing is completely false. There is no reason for a detailed list of prospective candidates for the leadership.

Also, any allegation that I am a 'sock' is false. I use this resource for my work advising clients and it is frustrating that a list of prospective candidates is not up. It is important that we know from a commercial standpoint, the candidates who have publicly declared interest and their policies, political philosophy and the potential impact it could have shaping public policy. --Johnny Moore12 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, many pages on future elections have a list such as this. But we definitely can't include candidates without citing a reliable source. Hankyjade (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The list of candidates that was added by Johnny Moore12 heavily relied upon two year old references that have no relevance for the current situation. Unlike in, say, the US Presidential primaries, we don't even have a date for the Conservative leadership contest: it is constantly speculated, but never comes. The current text describes the main candidates that reliable sources have consistently talked about. That is plenty until a contest actually is imminent. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Then trim Moore's list down to those with more recent sources. But you haven't offered a reason to not have a list. Hankyjade (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You can include more information in prose than a list. You can communicate that who has been discussed as relevant over the years that there has been speculation about the future leadership of the Conservative Party. A big bulleted list doesn't allow for that. This has been discussed at length before. Listing a significant portion of Conservative MPs doesn't really help anybody. Ralbegen (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hardly anybody reads prose, more people will notice a list. But why not have both? Hankyjade (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia Manual of Style explicitly prefers prose: MOS:PROSE. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: Hankyjade, you refer to this as "Moore's list". As far as I can tell, the text in question was written by a repeatedly banned sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Torygreen84/Archive). Johnny Moore12 brought it back into the article. I'm generally against using large chunks of text written by permabanned individuals. When (if) we decide a list of candidates is appropriate, I would hope that we would start from scratch with the contents of such a list. Bondegezou (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion driven by indefinitely blocked user

Again, instead of accusing me of being a sockpoppet, you still have not given a reason why the list should not be included. Only two users on the talk page have spoken against it. A majority (excluded banned individuals - who it seems were banned by you for disagreeing with them) are in favour of a list. In terms of pages on the US primaries and previous Tory leadership elections, there has always been a list of candidates. Always. Even before the launch of the US primaries, there was a list with potential candidates and pictures. Always. It is a non-argument on your part. On every article that is substantive which profiles individuals, there is a similar style (so using MOS:PROSE does not apply. As for the date of the Tory leadership election, it will be taking place this year as the Prime Minister has confirmed her resignation will happen once Brexit is delivered. Plus her immunity runs out by the end of the year at which point it is unfeasible that she will maintain confidence from the Parliamentary Conservative Party after having pledged to a) not fight a contest another election (so even on that basis there is a date as it will be by 2022), b) pledged to resign in order to get her deal through, c) has all but confirmed that the Tory conference will be her last, d) even her Cabinet ministers - including Amber Rudd - has said that the contest will be this year. So the argument based on a date is a non starter. It is just an extremely poor argument. As for candidates who were mentioned in 2017, you do not know who will stand for sure. Therefore, best practice is that all potential candidates who have been linked to the Tory succession, or who have declared their intention to stand, should be listed as POINT OF REFERENCE. This is an encyclopedia. (P.S. Do not remove Gove, Hunt, Leadsom, Boris, Greening, Rudd or Leadsom - these are candidates who have made clear their intention to contest the leadership election or who have run for the leadership before and are linked to the succession. Find a citation instead.)--Johnny Moore12 (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Johnny Moore12, whoever you are, the text you wish to add was written by a banned sock. Generally, I believe we should avoid re-adding text by banned individuals. If there is content that should be added, we can start again in writing that content. I did not ban anyone: I don't have the power to ban anyone. The same individual under multiple user accounts was banned for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. I have asked for an investigation into whether you are the same person returned given the prima facie evidence for this possibility: I will respect the outcome of that investigation. This current discussion has two people in favour of a list, yourself and Hankyjade, and two against, myself and Ralbegen. However, I note Mélencron has also recently edited to remove the list. That's 3:2 against this list at this time. Therefore, the list stays out of the article until such time as a consensus is reached that something should go in. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Except that is completely and utterly untrue. There are four accounts on this talk page who have written in favour of having a list. Four versus 3. That is a consensus *against* you. It also includes two other accounts editing in favour of a list. What you have said is a lie. As for the text that I have written being that of a banned sock, again, that is demonstrably false. The information that I have included - if you actually compare like for like - is quite different. There is a section with potential candidates who have declined to stand - Baker, Rees-Mogg and the like. There is also the addition of new candidates who have publicly expressed interest and new potential candidates. So on virtually all counts, what you have said is a lie. Please stop edit warring and threatening people. You have a consensus AGAINST you and your rationale for not including a list is nonsense. Thank you.--Johnny Moore12 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC) In this section, only two editors have said they are in favour of a list. Earlier discussion was some months ago: if anyone else who commented then would like to wade in now, that would be helpful, but I am wary about relying on months-old discussion, much of which, we later discovered, was sock-puppeted. The text you added clearly uses previous edits by a banned sock, although you have changed it somewhat. Compare this to this. Your other comments do not deserve a reply. I suggest you retract them. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Quelle surprise, Johnny Moore12 has been blocked as a sock. Bondegezou (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

List of potentials

Hi, Been looking at the thread and the talk and it seems to me that it would be good to have a comprehensive list. The Tory leadership campaign has started and the Prime Minister has said that she will be leaving office very shortly. There is no reason why a full list of candidates shouldn't be on the page. Same happens for previous leadership election pages and Presidential election pages too. Also, there has clearly been more people on this page suggesting that there should be a list than not. I think it would be good. Thanks. Please stop edit warring about this.

Most of the "people" arguing for, and editing for, a list have been the same sockpuppet: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Torygreen84. This has made it difficult to actually discuss the merits of having a list or not!

The Prime Minister's departure has been expected soon many times before, yet she is still there. We still don't know when their might be a contest. Thus, I remain reluctant to switch to a list myself and I think we would do better to cover the current jostling for position in prose. This is what Wikipedia expects: see MOS:PROSE.

If we do have a list, it should be based only on citations from the most recent round of leadership speculation. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also, as before, suggest that, if we have a list, it is written from scratch, rather than just using the text written by the many times banned sock. Bondegezou (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

On this page, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems to be you and one other person. It seems to me having read this that most people don’t agree with you on here. I happen to think that a list works and there is an upcoming contest. I also don’t think it should be arbitrary cut off at which candidates should be included and considering the contest has been ongoing unofficially since 2017 election, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be included. Also my edits weren’t those of the banned sock. Do not do that again. Thank you. Okeeffemarc (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Okeeffemarc, you used content in your edits here that came from the material that the oft banned Torygreen84 sock was adding, as here. For example, both edits make extensive use of a reference called "auto3" that is defined in the bullet point for Damian Collins.

I'm not saying that material is necessarily unreliable, but we should be cautious about it: there is no reason to AGF about anything that Torygreen84 did. Nor should we reward the behaviour of an oft banned sock. Maybe that's a reliable source that says what it says and Damian Collins should be in a list, but I suggest it would be preferable to start from scratch or review such material carefully.

That source, "auto3", is dated 26 November 2017. A lot has happened since 26 Nov 2017, which was 18 months ago. I don't think a citation saying so-and-so was a possible candidate then tells us much about who might be a candidate in whenever the contest actually is... and it still hasn't been called. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are now producing articles on the likely leadership contenders, so I would be comfortable with a list in this article based on recent sources such as here and here. I remain of the view that a very long list that mixes in single passing references to backbenchers in 2017 with the likely contenders now in 2019 would be a mistake. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ralbegen: and @Hankyjade: Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough. It might be sensible to limit a list to announcements and speculation from this calendar year, or since the latest EU exit date delay from March. The prior ebb and flow is covered adequately by the prose. I'll draft something up and propose it here before making any edits to the article given past experience. Ralbegen (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the field, do you think it'd be worth having a criterion of something like two independent reliable sources? There are a lot of names being mentioned, and slightly raising the bar could mark a reasonable cut-off to avoid the fringes. I've only been able to find one list that includes Graham Brady, for instance. I wouldn't include the Telegraph one Bondegezou linked to, because it's written by a Conservative MP. This is what I can put together based on a quick review of recent coverage, without requiring a second source. Ralbegen (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I am sorry but I disagree on this and think it is out of order. There has been a consensus (apart from two of you) in favour of a list. I have watched this page. The sources in the list are reliable and most come from the best sources in the country. Considering the Tory leadership contest has in effect been running for two years (hence the longevity of this page), all sources should be included. That is the same for US Presidential election, it was the same for 2016 Tory leadership election (hence inclusion of Owen Paterson, Anna Soubry and Justine Greening). The same applies in this list. The one in the Telegraph is not written by a Conservative MP but even if so that would clearly be a reliable source. Btw the contest has been called today, it will begin once the Withdrawal Agreement reaches the Commons for the fourth time.

I'm really struggling to follow the point you're trying to make. Torygreen84 abusively used multiple accounts to push for a version of a list over the course of more than half a year. Bondegezou gave you a link to the record of sockpuppet investigations that saw sockpuppets banned. The fact that speculation has arisen at various points over the last years doesn't mean that there's been a leadership election running that whole time, and MPs mentioned once eighteen months ago would have more recent references if they were still considered to be possible contenders.

Also, the Telegraph piece is by Andrew Mitchell, who is identified as a Conservative MP in bold text in the opening paragraph of the article. Perhaps you were thinking of something else? Ralbegen (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't have a rule as such as to who should be included under "potential". I think WP:BALANCE means we should focus on the candidates getting serious attention now, not on people where one article mentioned them 18 months ago, and MOS:PROSE means we should be putting as much effort into the prose as any list. Okeeffemarc, in the unsigned comment earlier, mentions the US Presidential election articles, but those have always, AFAIK, imposed criteria for who to include that were much tougher than "one RS mentioned them". US Presidential articles have deliberately ignored candidates who were formally nominated because they didn't meet their criteria for coverage.

This article is about the next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, which still hasn't started. We're close enough to the start that I think we should have a list now, but this article should be about the election coming, not about speculation that went nowhere in 2017. I will go through the list and chop names based on out of date citations.

The Andrew Mitchell article... I thought it was interesting precisely because it was by a Conservative MP in the know!

Finally, pictures... most articles don't have them, nor in these quantities, so I'm going to boldly chop them. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've chopped speculation from summer 2018 and earlier. I've left some citations as early as Nov 2018. Happy to discuss that. I've also restored the prose that Okeeffemarc had removed for no apparent reason. We should also go through and check all these references as some date back to Torygreen84's additions. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the Andrew Mitchell article is interesting as a reader, but I think it's a bit too close to the horse's mouth to be as useful for establishing inclusion in a list. I'll go through and make some alterations to this version of the list, because it's currently including Andrea Leadsom refusing to rule out a leadership bid as being "declared", and ditto Dominic Raab in a list of runners and riders from 2017 as "declared"...

Moreover, I really think we should strike all the "(leave supporter)" and "(remain supporter)" bits and pieces. It's synthesis, and those words mean something very different now to what they're being used to convey in this list. There are plenty of things noted in these articles about candidates that are more noteworthy than their position in the 2016 referendum, like their current views on EU exit and the tradition of the Conservative Party that they come from; but those are better dealt with in prose. The list should just include names and briefs, in my view. Ralbegen (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling

This article now has a very long opinion polling section. It takes up more than half the vertical length of the page. Is there a way to reorganise it within this article to be more moderate, or does it perhaps need to be forked into its own Opinion polling for the next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election page? Ralbegen (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Fork it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Done! Ralbegen (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion driven by indefinitely blocked user

Disappointing attitude I am sorry but I am very disappointed by the attitude by people who have been editing this page and the lack of a collegiate attitude that has been shown. I have looked at the history of this article and it seems to me that driven by just two editors who don't seem very informed about the issue (when various accounts have clearly made edits which were backed up with good sources), editors have sought to take this down rather aggressively and dominate the discussion. I think it has been unhelpful and the quality of the article has been ruined. I also wonder whether those editing are sufficiently knowledgeable about it. It is clear that both editors have been editing in bad faith and not taking arguments on board (especially in regard to a list). I am going to go through this in several steps. First, deleting 'Leave supporters' and 'Remain supporters' in a contest which is clearly going to be dominated by Brexit and the position of each candidate on Brexit is patently absurd. Of course, it matters whether they voted for or against Brexit. The idea that it does not matter is bananas. Second, a whole host of quality information and content keeps being deleted in regards to the list. There are fewer candidates than those mentioned by the press who are standing. Why are people like George Freeman mentioned as 'declined'? Why is Michael Gove as 'not publicly expressed interest' when he has expressed interest in the leadership of the Conservative Party - ran for it for heaven's sake - and is mentioned as a potential candidate whilst refusing to deny it? This is why it is important that *all* candidates who have been linked in the last TWO years are listed because one does not know who will put themselves forward. Unless they have said explicitly that they will not stand should they be excluded. Moreover, it is important for historical and political reference that their name is included. A point has repeatedly been made of the US Presidential elections and how all candidates are listed from as far back as four years ago. Same applies in the context and there is no reason why not. Any sourced candidate should be on the list with no questions and anyone who has expressed interest in the leadership at any point should be as 'publicly expressed interest'. Why have pictures been removed? Again, look at the US Presidentials. Third, this is not the 'Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. The contest is taking place in 2019. It is the 2019 Tory leadership contest. It has been confirmed - not hinted at, not speculation, CONFIRMED - by the chair of the 1922 Committee that the contest will happen after the Withdrawal Agreement has been held in early June regardless of the result of the vote. That has been confirmed by Sir Graham Brady and that means there is a leadership contest *this year*. Actually, a contest next month. So why on earth has this not been moved to 2019 page which I set up? This is a matter of basic common sense. Fourth, politicians do not have 'political roles'. This is absurd language. It is their office. You include their constituency and their most recent senior office. It is just ridiculously unprofessional for that not to be included (again, it's not Work and Pensions Secretary on the list, it is Secretary of State for Work and Pensions). Why has sourced public endorsements for candidates been removed? I find this completely underwhelming and terrible editing. Okeeffemarc, please read WP:AGF. It is not appropriate to accuse others of "editing in bad faith" without good evidence. You have re-inserted erroneous text stemming, best I can tell, from a permanently banned individual. That is bad. I have reviewed other articles on UK political party leadership elections and none of the ones I've seen have taken the approach with pictures you are suggesting. Why not work with other editors on specific concerns you have around candidates and endorsements? I can see arguments for and against moving the article to 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. If others are happy with that move, I can go with it. However, articles are not moved by cutting and pasting content. See WP:MOVE. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC) I have looked at the other articles on UK political party leadership elections. If you look at the history of 2016 Tory leadership election page, pictures were used for all candidates who publicly expressed interest in the leadership of the party. The reason why I suspect other editors are using the former list is because it is truly terrible. Candidates are not included when they have said they would stand (for eg. James Cleverley, Matt Hancock hasn't ruled himself out, Dominic Raab isn't even mentioned, Michael Gove and Javid). It's just really bad and should be changed. The fact that candidates keep moving and making changes or not respecting or acknowledging clear improvements could only lead some to believe that it is acting in bad faith.--Looool12 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC) The article is not very good I am not pleased with the article: 1) It should be moved to 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Why has that page been deleted? The Prime Minister has already announced that she will be going after the Brexit deal is done and the 1922 Committee confirmed that the process of choosing a new leader will begin in June regardless of what happens to the deal. 2) The picture of Rory Stewart is poor 3) It is 'constituency' and 'latest held office' not 'political roles' which makes no sense 4) A company - or a donor - is not an endorsement, for heavens' sake. And we don't know that donations given to parliamentary offices equate to donations for a leadership campaign 5) Dominic Raab and James Cleverly have announced interest in the role. How have you got them in 'potential' and Raab and Cleverly in 'potential'? 6) Hancock, Gove, Hunt have all said they are interested/pointedly refused to rule out a bid 7) Nicky Morgan ruled herself out on Today programme 8) George Freeman is a potential candidate who expressed interest in 2018 (check the BBC, for heaven's sake, or Twitter) 9) Tobias Ellwood should be in declined. Where's his mention? 10) If you are going to include Atkins - who declined - then it's a matter of public record that Alofumi and Dowden were touted by the media 11) Where are all the mentions from Tim Shipman in The Times? Are we saying that Wikipedia editors know better than the Political Editor of The Sunday Times? 12) Michael Gove had an endorsement (Ed Vaizey) 13) Sajid Javid had an endorsement (SImon Hoare) 14) Boris Johnson received an endorsement from Simon Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Why no mention? 15) You can't have 'Brexit Secretary' in one bit and then have 'Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Exiting the European Union'. Either you have the full office or you shorten it 16) David Gauke has been touted as a possible candidate from the One Nation Group. Even did a speech to Onward thinktank. No record of it. Why? 17) It's not MP. That's an abbreviation and suffix. It's Member of Parliament. 18) Brandon Lewis was touted. He should be in declined as the Conservative Party Board ruled him out. 19) The box with declared candidates is terrible. 20) Surely, what matters isn't the source material but whether the quality is good. Previous lists have been better in terms of accuracy and professionalism. This list and this editing is not good. So shouldn't it be changed? A majority in the whole page seemed to support the old lists.--Looool12 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC) I agree with this analysis.--86.182.186.138 (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2019 The whole article should be moved to the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. This is because the Prime Minister has announced her departure from office and the 1922 Committee Chairman, Sir Graham Brady, has declared that there will be a candidate in June Changes with the list of candidates should be reverted as it was before it deleted in an act of vandalism in the previous 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election page. This is because such list of potential candidates was far more accurate and informative than the current list on the page. It is being edited by people who I fear know little on Tory Party politics.--Looool12 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Looool12 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2019 It should be moved to 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, a page which was deleted by editors for some bizarre reason. It has been confirmed by Sir Graham Brady, Chair of the 1922 Committee, that the contest will take place in June. It will be launched this year. That it has not been moved is really strange, it literally has been confirmed. I am not sure there is much arguing with this. Here are reliable sources that were asked for: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48290760 & https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48305262/tories-take-brexit-criticism-on-question-time Looool12 (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC) I do not see a confirmed election date in either of those sources. All I see from Brady is a statement saying that a committee would meet sometime after 3 June. Until there is a confirmed election date in 2019, moving this article to the proposed title would constitute WP:OR, as far as I can tell. Maybe someone more familiar with the topic and with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy can provide an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, there is a date. If you listen to the video made by Sir Graham Brady what it has said is that they will meet to agree a timetable for the election of a new leader after Meaningful Vote 4 is completed which will be the beginning of June. Re-read the article. The election is taking place in 2019 no ifs and no buts. I think it's pointless to deny when the evidence is literally in front of you.--Looool12 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC) OK, there is reportedly an approximate date for the meeting to agree to a timetable (the beginning of June). What is the date of the election? If we don't know that from a reliable source, then we do not have confirmation that the election will be in 2019. This is simply not a big deal; work on the article under its current title, and when a firm date for the election is reported in reliable sources, the article can be moved. I am marking this request as answered, pending a reliable source that reports the actual date of the next election. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC) It is a big deal because the title of the page is wrong. If you look at the US Presidential primaries, the year of the primaries were announced before the date of the contest confirmed. SO there is already Wikip precendent. Also, there is confirmation that it will be in 2019 because if you have heard what Sir Graham Brady said in the source which I showed to you, he said that the setting of the date of departure will be in the summer. In case, that's unclear, the date of the contest commences is 3 June which is after MV4. So there is no reason not to change it.--Looool12 (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on 21 May 2019 A first class source from Tim Shipman in late 2017 when the race unofficially began (which describes many of the candidates who are standing) has been removed. These should be included for historical and encyclopedic reference: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-hunt-sets-his-sights-on-no-10-3fg2tsl20 Another source from Nick Watt has been excluded which mentioned Bim Alofumi. He should be in the declined list: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45785004 Victoria Atkins and Nicky Morgan should both be in 'declined': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmrD8b9UY George Freeman has not been ruled out. He said pointedly that he had 'no plan' in the article (which is not the same as 'no'), he did say that he could stand *if asked* which is to express interest in the job. The BBC has got him as a prospective candidate: https://twitter.com/BBCSounds/status/1126773269980270592 & https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1126499268569645056 Dominic Raab's leadership campaign has begun. That has literally been confirmed by BBC Newsnight. He should be on the confirmed list. That is a declaration of intent: https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1129144637908668417 Cleverly has expressed interest in the Conservative Party leadership: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/20/future-party-time-show-tories-can-make-progress-say-leadership/ & https://talkradio.co.uk/news/james-cleverly-mp-i-would-love-be-prime-minister-18100128143 Matt Hancock has also refused to rule out a bid and has clearly made clear that he is seriously considering it: https://talkradio.co.uk/news/matt-hancock-my-time-hasnt-come-yet-run-tory-leader-19052031060 & https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matt-hancock-conservative-leader-run-tory-leadership-polling-members-boris-johnson-a8921531.html & https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-must-attract-youth-or-face-defeat-says-minister-v2plmnppx No mention of potential candidates from Number's 10 Tory leadership dossier. This is a top class source and is less than a year old: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/19/leaked-tory-dossier-reveals-secret-plan-replace-theresa-may/ & https://www.reddit.com/r/tories/comments/9h9g7q/leaked_tory_dossier_reveals_secret_plan_to/ Javid has pointedly refused to rule out a bid which is essentially the same as 'publicly expressed interest'. "Wait and see" essentially is a "maybe": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5m7dKc2kUo Simon Hoare is backing Sajid Javid and there is no mention of this: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/extory-chairman-grant-shapps-tories-wont-buy-remainer-turn-brexiteer-as-next-leader-a4144976.html Ed Vaizey is backing Michael Gove and there is no mention of this: https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/conservative-mp-ed-vaizey-calls-for-theresa-may-to-resign-as-pm/1547996618665759/ Suella Braverman is backing Dominic Raab and there is no mention of this: https://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-brexiteer-dominic-raab-leads-the-race-to-succeed-theresa-may-prime-minister-2019-3 & https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/16/dominic-raab-esther-mcvey-tipped-brexit-candidate-future-tory/ Scott Mann, Eddie Hughes, Derek Thomas and Phillip Davies are backing Esther McVey. Why isn't there any mention of this? There is also confirmation for Davies' support in the Daily Mail (although I note this is problematic as a source): https://cornwallreports.co.uk/scott-mann-and-derek-thomas-throw-their-weight-behind-esther-mcveys-new-blue-collar-group-as-mps-jockey-for-position-in-tory-leadership-contest/ & https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-latest-tory-leadership-esther-mcvey-theresa-may-a8922021.html Kit Malthouse linked as a potential Tory leadership candidate: https://www.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/news/andover/17651814.mp-discreetly-vying-to-become-prime-minister-says-national-newspaper/ Simon Clarke has backed Boris Johnson publicly: https://twitter.com/SimonClarkeMP/status/1129280519051632640 Jacob Rees-Mogg has backed Boris Johnson publicly: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1128930/brexit-news-latest-jacob-rees-mogg-boris-johnson-conservative-leadership-race-candidates & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUZRO57xzE & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbwNm2Ljvq8 & https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/07/boris-johnson-could-unite-tory-party-says-jacob-rees-mogg-clear/ I recommend these changes be made. Looool12 (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Thank you for doing this research. Please read the instructions for making an edit request. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". I have removed the template for now. I expect that editors who are watching this page will evaluate the notes above (reformatted to comply with basic talk page formatting guidelines) and implement them for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet investigation

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torygreen84 relevant to discussion here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Looool12 and Docherty8 have been blocked as socks of Torygreen84. Bondegezou (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Hi. You might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Ruth Davidson from all categories

It's very simple, she should be removed from the 'declined' section - she cannot turn down an opportunity that was never hers to take. Acknowledging that she's ineligible simply proves my point. 94.175.1.119 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should, in some manner, acknowledge the extensive media interest in her. We follow RS and RS talked a lot about her. Exactly how she is displayed, I'm not bothered. Bondegezou (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then how about "disallowed candidate"?Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Election rules/procedure

See Talk:Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)#Election_Rules_2 Alekksandr (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential and declined candidates

Could we have some stricter criteria on who is included in these sections? A member saying they will not contest the election, for example, is surely not enough on its own to justify being considered a declined candidate, unless we consider every Conservative MP not contesting to be a candidate declining to nominate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Declined candidates should only be included if there is some reliable secondary source coverage suggesting that they might have stood. Potential candidates, likewise, should only be included if there is some reliable secondary source coverage suggesting that they will stand. Once all the nominations are known, the potential section will vanish and the declined section can be de-emphasised. I think more important is some prose text describing any key people whose not standing was of particular note. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've just had a look through, and all the people listed in those sections seem reasonably appropriate to me. Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Many of them were speculated as potential candidates more than a year ago, not recently. The same goes for Ruth Davidson, at least the sources that were used in this article. I explained more in the edit summary but if there is reliably sourced speculation relating to this election in particular then of course we could include them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that only those candidates speculated about after the election was (in effect) announced should be included, I mean how far back shroud we go?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

Remove Andrea Leadsom from "Publicly expressed interest" as she has now declared her candidacy and is listed in the appropriate section of the article. ElaenaS (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's done. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2019

Please add Kevin Hollinrake MP as an endorsement for Gove, see - https://twitter.com/kevinhollinrake/status/1132315261338607616

Done! Ralbegen (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MPs endorsements

The MPs endorsements is a bit confusing, because the number of people listed doesn't tally with the shading in the box. For example, 27 people are shown to support Jeremy Hunt, but only 25 are listed, and 17 are shown to support Michael Gove, but only 16 names are listed. Are there MPs who've endorsed these people but do not wish to be listed, or has something gone a little awry? This is Paul (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The numbers include the candidate themselves, who isn't listed. I'm not sure why the numbers would be off in the way you've described though. They should be the number named in the list plus one. Ralbegen (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is rather odd to induce the candidate themselves, I think it can be taken as read they endorse their candidacy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so they should be counted amongst the MPs supporting their candidacy, but not named in the list. That's how ConservativeHome are listing them, and how I've seen support counted in RS coverage of past Labour leadership elections. It's also analogous to the MP ballots that will be taken, where candidate MPs will (you'd expect) vote for themselves. Ralbegen (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense now, and explains why Rory Stewart has one supporter and nobody listed. I wonder though if it's worth adding a note to explain this at the bottom of the table. This is Paul (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a note should be added because this confused me as well. Self-endorsements are not something that exists everywhere. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have a column stated "Endorsements from MPs", with a drop down box within this that says "Endorsements from MPs". Does it need a dropdown box as it is recording the same information as in the main box? 1234567jack (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

2016 referendum positions

I'm really not sure about the inclusion of 2016 referendum positions in the table of candidates. I removed them from the long-list a while ago, but Nizolan added them yesterday. There are lots of aspects about the candidates that are generally discussed, such as the tradition from the party they represent, and their current plan for EU exit, that seem more important and more widely covered than their positions in the 2016 referendum. I don't think we should be including tradition or current EU exit plans in the table, because they are better covered in prose; but I think the same is true for 2016 referendum positions. It gives a lot of weight to them by including them in a table column which I think isn't entirely due. Ralbegen (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The referendum positions are worth including somewhere, but prose would be ok as we can't include everything in the table without it becoming a bit unwieldy and cumbersome. It is worth noting that the subject of 2016 referendum positions was raised during last night's BBC coverage of the elections, with it being suggested that in the light of the Brexit Party's success it was unlikely any candidate who supported remain in 2016 would be elected as the next Conservative leader. This is Paul (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That could be a way to include the material in prose. In the wake of the Brexit Party's success in the 2019 European Parliament election, it was deemed unlikely for a leadership candidate who had supported remaining in the EU in 2016 to be elected as Conservative leader. Hancock, Hunt and Stewart had supported the remain campaign, while other candidates had supported leaving, with Johnson and Gove having been prominent figures in the Vote Leave campaign., for example? Ralbegen (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll see if I can find a source for it. This is Paul (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I put it in the table precisely because there are a lot of people in the party saying the next leader must be someone who voted leave in 2016 (as my diff summary says), so I didn't think it was undue emphasis, but I'm happy to just keep it in the prose somewhere. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, we are not here to provide that kind of information, that is the job of election agents. If it becomes an issue in the election we can talk about is (just like any other issue) in prose. We should not give it undue prominence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It has become an issue in the election, as the source in my diff indicates, but as I said, I'm happy for it to be in the prose. —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

An issue, not the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, I'm not sure what your concern is at this stage. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

-I added them again because I don't see any consensus here.Me | Talk 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Javid declared

https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1133006317130518529 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-48417378

Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Put him in the list, thank you! Ralbegen (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Change

• Mark Harper, Government Chief Whip from 2015 to 2016
• Sajid Javid, Home Secretary since 2018
• Kit Malthouse, Housing Minister since 2018

to

• Mark Harper, Government Chief Whip from 2015 to 2016
• Kit Malthouse, Housing Minister since 2018 OliWatson (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Javid declared so he was no longer merely a potential. Thanks! OliWatson (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Done! Ralbegen (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh I see.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Nicholas Soames

Remove Nicholas Soames from potential/interested and mark as endorsement for Rory Stewart, see https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1133328028644331521

Would he be counted as somebody who'd declined to take part, given that by endorsing another candidates he would appear to have no plans to put his own name forward. This is Paul (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If he already warranted inclusion in the potential list, then he should be moved to the declined list. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A Graphic for Endorsements?

I'm not sure there's any precedent for this, but would some kind of graphic, like a bar chart, help visualise endorsements? As the two candidates with the largest number of supportive MPs will make it into the final ballot, it might be an idea to show how well the candidates are doing? Just an idea :) VelvetCommuter (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel like a sortable table with composition bars already handles that for us? Ralbegen (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the table handles that quite well without having to constantly edit a graphic and reupload. One interesting table I have seen is the endorsements sorted by whether the endorsing MP voted Leave or Remain, which does show significant differences in popularity per candidate. Not really any reliable source discussing it yet though. Perhaps editing the table to more clearly show the relative differences in support might help - the list of candidates probably ought to remain in alphabetical order or by order of declaration of candidacy though. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Harper

Mark Harper has joined the race - see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/30/mark-harper-enters-leadership-race-saying-untainted-theresa/ (paywall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.251.108 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)