Talk:2016 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

Bit early?

As of 13.00 30/06/16 there is no leadership election. I appreciate that this could change, even within a few hours, but it seems a bit early to be doing this.

Just wanted to voice that. Thomas Triton (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to "speculated upon..."

This is not yet an event.
It is at the time of the article move / name change, a media speculation, hence the article move from
Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016
to
Speculated upon Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

move request discussion

Crisis is very opinionated - there is not even a challenger yet, we need to report this in a neutral manner. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral would be nice. Your proposed title is not neutral. The word coup is very opinionated.

Here's a few dictionary definitions of crisis (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crisis) A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point. An unstable situation, in political, social, economic or military affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change. A sudden change in the course of a disease, usually at which the patient is expected to recover or die. (psychology) A traumatic or stressful change in a person's life. (drama) A point in a drama at which a conflict reaches a peak before being resolved.

I think the current situation meets one or more of these definitions. Earthscent (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing that violates NPOV in "Labour Party (UK) leadership crisis, 2016." Attempted coup however is clearly a loaded and partisan description. I strongly oppose any further attempts to move the article without talk page consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved to the current name from the clumsy "Speculated..." title. "Crisis" seems NPOV to me: it doesn't lay blame on either side, but reflects the severity of the situation and how it has been reported by reliable sources. "Coup" is a word used primarily by pro-Corbyn supporters and would not be neutral. Bondegezou (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The word coup is in 13 of the citation headers, it is actually a coup that has created a crisis. All the organized timed one by one on the hour resignations. Actually, currently, this whole page is piffle and without a declared leadership candidate is political short term fluff. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact that it was an organized leadership coup that failed, is and will be the long term notability of these circumstances - unless there is a major change that is not apparent right now. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Total Frontbench Resignations

The Telegraph has a list of the 60 frontbench resignations as of 2 July, just in case it needs referencing somewhere. The article itself is unrelated, I just saw the list at the bottom and thought it'd be worth saving. [1] Since the article's publication, Fabian Hamilton's resignation on Monday was described as the 65th resignation the following day by The Guardian. [2] Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, The Spectator has this running tally: [3] Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

there are no declared leadership challengers

there are no declared leadership challengers - it is also worthy of its own header, please don't attempt to merge this fact, it's well worthy of primary focus..;

Please accept this as factual and don't remove it - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The point of section headers is not to highlight particular facts. WP:MOS has guidance, I believe. It seems to me clear from the article as a whole that there are no declared leadership challengers and no actual contest (yet). Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree with you totally, the whole article is designed to create the impression that there is a challenge, and there is not at all, just press and political attempts to get the voted in democratic leader to resign. Corbyn will never resign, he is too focused on democratic process, Imho he will never resign due to undemocratic pressure, any contender will need to beat him at the ballot and he will totally accept that if he loses. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the article still creates somewhat an impression of a challenge. That was certainly how it was initially setup, anticipating an election starting any day. Hence the initial page name "Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016". There has been row-back from that, but I still feel it's not a proper historical review yet. Rwendland (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

May 2020 is the next election date - three years and ten months from now Govindaharihari (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The "Possible candidates" section should be completely rewritten and prosified. The situation has moved on. There is still a "crisis" - the article title does not need changing - but the initial thought that there would be a simple leadership challenge has been at least partially superseded by other ongoing discussions in relation to the role of the party leader and that of the parliamentary party. The current approach of listing "possible challengers" is far too reductive for an encyclopedia article such as this, and needs to be revised. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yea, its laughable that such as dan jarvis has expressed interest is in the page, and multiple other personal promotional trivia - Ow , although I have no chance of winning and will actually never stand I express my interest, please promote me and report as much as possible. I've also removed more rubbish from the article, add it back if you like it. I have trimmed the article to what imho is the real important details.Govindaharihari (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Govindaharihari and others for some good work on the article this morning. Govindaharihari, I feel you've gone too far the other way in places, so I will add some thngs back. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

.I see user User:Bondegezou has just replaced the rubbish, laughable - such bias makes wikipedia a laughing stock. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like reliably sourced material to me. What reliable sources say trumps the individual opinions of editors. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, we have a core principle on Wikipedia that we assume good faith in the actions of other editors. I would suggest you read the page about that policy: WP:AGF. If you cannot be polite towards the rest of the editing community, you will achieve little here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Bondegezou sorry, I got a bit excited. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Pre-move consensus

As this page is currently move protected until the end of August I think that it might be useful to establish a consensus that if Angela Eagle (or any other person) does formally challenge Corbyn for the leadership (as it appears will occur on Monday) that this page be moved to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2016. Showing some pre-move consensus would allow for an admin to unlock the page without worrying about the potential outbreak of perpetual page moves. Ebonelm (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. Earthscent (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Though there is a case to be considered for separate articles. Would all the preliminary history in this article be appropriate for an election article - it would be a shame to lose some of the history recorded here. And even after the election, there is likely to be continuing associated notable events (eg at conference) better recorded outside an election article. Furthermore the election article is likely to be large, given the interest of editors in this topic; so keeping some info outside the election article has some merit. Altogether not a strong case, but worthy of consideration. Rwendland (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with the case for separate articles, there is enough here for an article by itself. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate articles would be good too. The sooner the better, now that Eagle has announced. Earthscent (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how much more on the crisis we can add to the article once the election starts. I think that if we keep it all in one place it would make a much stronger article. If we find that it's getting too big then we should split but initially I think we should keep it all in the same place. At least half of this article would need to be copied into a new election article anyway. Ebonelm (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

50 or 51 nominations needed for 20%

There are conflicting media articles over the number of nominations needed for 20% of MPs+MEPs, some 50 but recently more saying 51. We need to decide what to do about this.

Doing news.google.co.uk search on '"angela eagle" "50 nominations"' shows up no WP:RS cites published today, and generally less WP:RS cites overall than '"angela eagle" "51 nominations"' which lists several WP:RS published today.

I cannot find a cite debating this issue in detail, but diving into some WP:OR the difference depends on the position taken on the 2 suspended but not expelled MPs, Simon Danczuk and Naz Shah; if they are excluded it reduces the number of MPs+MEPs from 251 to 249 (20% from 51 to 50). As is not unusual for it, the Labour rule book does not specifically address the issue of suspended MPs, but suspended ordinary members are not excluded from ballots (just meetings etc) so I would predict suspended MPs are not excluded. (See rulebook Chapter 4.I.3) Assuming suspended MPs are not excluded the electorate is:

232 (MP general election, no by-election loss) + 20 (MEP) - 1 (Jo Cox) = 251

Rwendland (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

″There is, however, conflicting legal advice from the party's lawyers, GRM Law, that the incumbent is still required to secure the 50 nominations in order to appear on the ballot.[30] ″ The cited reference http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-legal-advice-automatically-on-ballot-leadership-challenge_uk_577003cfe4b0d2571149d42a makes no mention of GRM law. Tomxcoady (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)