Jump to content

Talk:2006 Liberal Democrats leadership election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article2006 Liberal Democrats leadership election is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 11, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
January 5, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Contest rules

[edit]

I don't know the Lib Dem rules but the following reads a little odd:

All members of the Liberal Democrat party are permitted to vote for either;

  • One candidate in an election in which are there are two candidates, or
  • Two or more candidates in an election in which are there more than two candidates using the preference voting method of proportional representation.

In the second case, the candidate with over 50% of the vote or the most "first preference" votes would be declared the winner and subsequently the leader of the Party.

Given the Lib Dems' own position on elections, surely it would be a straightforward Single Transferable Vote election? Timrollpickering 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you absolutely right that it's the STV system as long as there are more than 2 candidates - I'm going from memory, but for the vote for President, we (I'm a LibDem member) had two candidates, and were instructed to vote for one ONLY, not to list them in preference. I couldn't think of the STV name when I typed that section (:embarrased face)!! If there are more than 2 candidates, then the vote would be STV.
It's the Alternative Vote (aka Instant-Runoff) for a single position rather than proportional STV (as you need more than one seat to be proportional), but it's correct that it's an X if there are two candidates but numbered preferences if there are more. --Whouk (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some technical differences in the count between AV and single-winner STV, though they have no effect on the result, I think the most accurate wording would be "In the event that there are more than two candidates, voting will be conducted under the Single Transferable Vote (which effectively reduces to the Alternative Vote in a single-winner election)" Po8crg 21:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of technical details that can vary between different implementations of AV and STV, but I'm not aware of any generic differences between an STV election for one place and an AV election...? Bondegezou 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I voted in the President election last year, won by Simon Hughes. Only two MPs stood for the post - Lembit Opik the other - and the election was by First Past The Post. We LibDems don't always do things with straightforward thoughts or processes.. :P =) doktorb | words 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I voted too (for Opik, as it happens). With only two candidates for one place, STV, AV and FPTP all reduce to the same thing, so the voting method was entirely consistent. Bondegezou 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, Wiki bringing LibDems together (and Doctor Who fans by the sound of it below =)). Incidentally, I voted for Opik too; it's strange how no-one admits to choosing Hughes, eh :) doktorb | words 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant to the article, but for balance I did nominate and vote for Simon. I can't say I would vote for him to be re-elected if he stands again though. --Whouk (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For info - if there are only two candidates, there is no need/no point to vote preferentially as one candidate is certain to secure more than 50% of the vote. Preferential voting is only relevant if an eliminated candiate's transferred votes can alter the result. In a two horse race, the candidate who coems second is the runenr-up. There are no votes to transfer.

I'm watching this page, I think it's changed a good dozen times already! Going to be busy round here - good luck to you sir ! doktorb | words 19:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

[edit]

What's the consensus on deciding whether a potential candidate has ruled himself or herself out? e.g. Simon Hughes said a couple of months ago that he wasn't briefing against Kennedy and wasn't planning to challenge him, and he didn't sign Vince Cable's letter, but he hasn't ruled himself out of running *since the leadership election was announced* - therefore he should stay on the 'May run' list until he makes a statement, right?

I think he's said somewhere that he isn't standing. Incidentally, can you remember to sign your comments please =) ~~~~ does the job. doktorb | words 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hughes will not be running in the contest Mikeroberts 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ignore any statement before today (unless restated) as there are numerous cases of politicians ruling out standing in a hypothetical contest and then standing in an actual one. The BBC tonight is reporting Hughes as keeping his cards close to his hands and he hasn't given a clear "I'm not standing" statement similar to Campbell and Oaten. For the moment the media at least regards Hughes as a strong potential candidate and without an explicit statement I don't think we should run what would be speculation otherwise.
The other point is that a lot have ruled out "standing against Charles Kennedy". If Kennedy throws in the towl before the formal contest takes off then it's possible several of the "not standings" will. Timrollpickering 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it looks like he may be considering running, according to a statement. So, yes, he mst remain on the may run list. (Mikeroberts 11:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It might be best if, for the two definite categories - standing, and not standing - are given a documented source: ie, a website with a quote from a press conference/interview where they offer/rule out their candidature. MikeMorley 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ones I added last night came directly from their interviews with BBC News 24 and I'm not sure if the varioues websites have always caught up. If anyone can spot an online report of this can they ammend the relevant reference?
Also I think the numbering on the footnotes is out a bit - is anyone able to sort this out? Timrollpickering 12:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes are completely screwy now and I have yet to master Wikipedia footnotes! Can anyone help? On a separate note, can we add Simon Hughes to the "considering standing" category? Announcing that he will declare his intentions at a later date seems like a tacit acknowledgement that he is definitely considering what to do. Bondegezou 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The media have talked about him standing (and I hear rumours) but the reason he's given for waiting is that as president he's responsible for the process. That should pass after the Federal Executive meeting this evening. --Whouk (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reference for John Hemming standing? Bondegezou 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it says on his blog that is thinking about standing, but not yet made a final decision. What about a subsection for people who have said they are thinking about standing, but haven't formally said they will either way? Or what about splitting "may stand" into those who have said they may stand and those who it is speculated may stand? Bondegezou 16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just created a split but I think we must be careful to only include those who explicitly say "I am considering standing" and not just any Lib Dem who gets asked this question in an interview about the events and fails to give a clear cut answer. Timrollpickering 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Hemming's claim to have the support of two MPs looks unambiguous to me to mean two other MPs. His blog entry Going for it! appears to be a declaration that he is going to do his best to stand if he can get enough MP nominations. Bondegezou 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's something of an edit war going on over the John Hemming entry if anyone would like to help defend NPOV and verifiability. Bondegezou 16:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also revise the "speculated on" list? The media and the pundits talk of two likely candidates, Simon Hughes and Mark Oaten. I've seen some mention of David Laws, but some of the other names in the list (Norman Baker, Chris Huhne, Susan Kramer, Sarah Teather) seem implausible. Bondegezou 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/Default.aspx?market=19089997 gives the bookmakers' odds. Most of the media is only talking about Campbell, Hughes and Oaten. Bondegezou 12:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Cable

[edit]

He's been interviewed on both Newsnight and New 24 and his comments have been tending towards "I am not going to stand against Charles Kennedy" although he hasn't been the most empathic. Timrollpickering 03:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kennedy's resignation, on News 24 he said he'd support Campbell, although only grudgingly given his choice of words! Bondegezou 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Teather

[edit]

I think she will be likely to announce an intention to stand within the next few days, because of her actions on Friday. Mikeroberts 13:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was on Sky News suggesting support for Ming, I can't find an internet link at the moment, but she said something like Menzies has her respect and the respect of constituencies. doktorb | words 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She's now been removed from the list of potential candidates. Any reason why? It states that she supports Ming Campbell, and I am aware of Doktorb saying that she did, but is there any written/online evidence of that yet? (Jamandell (d69) 17:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This is so frustrating because I've seen her on the television supporting Ming! And I can't find anything on BBC News to confirm that. She is certainly a Campbell supporter, as she has confirmed in interviews, but I just cannot find any internet sources for this at the moment. doktorb | words 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I believe you now, in a way I was hoping you weren't true, as I was hoping for her to stand, but oh well! Thanks (Jamandell (d69) 20:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Matthew Taylor & Nick Clegg

[edit]

Is there any source for their declining now that Kennedy has withdrawn? Timrollpickering 15:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both said on BBC News 24 that they'd support Campbell. Someone had updated the page to say Opik was also supporting Campbell, but prior to Campbell saying he would stand, he's said (again to BBC News 24) that he would support Mark Oaten if Oaten stands. Any clarification anyone? Bondegezou 16:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opik will back Oaten if he stands but he hasn't yet decided. Until and unless Oaten says he won't stand, I don't think it's accurate to say that Opik backs Campbell. --Whouk (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events leading up to

[edit]

Should we have a section on Kennedy's downfall? OldManSin 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that should be covered on Kennedy's entry. Bondegezou 16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a bit here on the general background with a See Main Article: Charles Kennedy as it puts the event in contect. Timrollpickering 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps there should be a few paragraphs on here, or perhaps a link to Kennedy's page. Mikeroberts 16:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included the work that was done on Kennedy's page, it is now also section 4 and 5 of this page also Mikeroberts 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, do you think it's helpful simply to duplicate the text which is on the Kennedy biography? David | Talk 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not ideal, but I think it is important, as do others, to have some text about Kennedy's downfall. I only intended it to be temporary, so that it could be edited by somebody else into something more helpful. Perhaps you would like to have a go? Mikeroberts 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellanea

[edit]

Why are half the people working on this page also Doctor Who fans? Bondegezou 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because many of those editing here are Liberal Democrats (contributing their expertise while trying to retain a NPOV, of course), and geeky LibDems tend, for some reason, also to be Doctor Who fans. --Whouk (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to make of that above comment, being a Lib Dem supporter myself. (Jamandell (d69) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Guilty as charged =) LibDem and Doctor Who fan. Also quite a fan of following boundary commission decisions...er.... doktorb | words 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say how common this is, but I definitely fit the description of a 'geeky LibDem Doctor Who fan' :). Maybe it's to do with the sci-fi-like hope that the party will be Government? -UK-Logician-2006 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well for balance I'm a Doctor Who fan but most definitely not a supporter of the Lib Dems! Timrollpickering 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And would Doctor Who be a LibDem? Or would that depend on which incarnation? Ground Zero | t 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Pertwee incarnation's exile ever coincide with the existance of the Lib Dems? (The Paradise of Death implicitly suggests it might have.) In any case surely he'd be a Macmillan/Edward Heath Conservative although it's not clear if the UNIT stories take place early enough for that to matter. The McCoy Doctor would just vote for whoever the history books say won - so probably not the Lib Dems. And I reckon the Hartnell incarnation would decline to interfere and tell any canvasser to bugger off. Timrollpickering 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Campbell still officially Deputy Leader?

[edit]

(Copied from my own post on Talk:Menzies Campbell)

The coverage is unclear as to whether Ming is currently formally the Deputy Leader acting as leader whilst the post of Leader is vacant or somehow has been automatically become Leader. If he doesn't win the leadership election will he still be Deputy Leader or would there have to be a fresh official election (of MPs if I remember correctly) even if just to reappoint him? Timrollpickering 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell only became Deputy Leader in 2003, when Alan Beith stood down. His principal challenger was expected to be Simon Hughes but Hughes opted to run for the Mayor of London rather than fight for the Deputy Leadership. Therefore Campbell was elected unopposed and very quietly in October. I couldn't find any details of who elects the Deputy Leader but it is clearly a separate process from the Leadership, so if Campbell were to lose the leadership election, he could continue as Deputy Leader if he wanted. The Lib Dems' website implies that the leadership is vacant and Simon Hughes said yesterday that Campbell was "interim Leader" so I would say it's a case of the Deputy acting-up, rather than the Deputy being automatically promoted. David | Talk 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Deputy Leader is elected by the parliamentary party. --Whouk (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ming is, and remains, Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party (as such he's acting leader of the parliamentary party and in effect acting leade of the party). If he is not elected party leader he'll still be deputy. It's not true that he was elected unopposed, he beat Malcolm Bruce 31-22 in Feb 2003 when Alan Beith became Chairmand of the DCA Select Committee. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.9.18.142 (talk • contribs) .

Okay shall we do Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2003 and, if necessary, Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2006? Timrollpickering 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMQs

[edit]

"Simon Hughes also asks a question at PMQs but receives _equally_ poor reviews."

Is this NPOV? Most reviews I've seen said he didnt' do well but not as bad as Ming did. AndrewRT 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my impression too. --Whouk (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

[edit]

It's up to about 36kb at the moment. Do we need to think about how we can trim it down/split it up? --Whouk (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is the obvious part to hive off into something like Timeline of events in the Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 or whatever snappy form is used for other elections. Timrollpickering 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As no-one's said anything against it, I'll hive off the timeline into a separate article this afternoon unless anyone speaks up in the next couple of hours. I'll try to ensure all the references match up and are in order at the same time. --Whouk (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, slightly later than planned. --Whouk (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates formatting

[edit]

I would like to change the formatting of the candidates section so that you can get a better list of who is supporting which candidate. Let me know what you think! AndrewRT 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best way might be to split the second level bullets into categories: MPs, peers, MEPs, etc. Feel free to make changes, or to put an example format on this page, or in a subpage of your userpage. --Whouk (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked poll

[edit]

What do we do with this YouGov poll? The poll definitely happened. Numbers were given to two different websites by an anonymous source (or anonymous sources - we have no way of knowing if it's the same source). Peter Kellner, CEO of YouGov has specifically and unequivocally denied the accuracy of the numbers, but won't reveal what the numbers actually are, not even if they will be revealed later.

Should we (a) ignore it, (b) print the numbers with a big fat disclaimer, or (c) create a page about that story and link it? --Po8crg 09:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it has a health warning, I think (b) is acceptable. It is not unsourced, but it needs to be made clear that the source isn't YouGov itself. —Whouk (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Support

[edit]

I understand that both the Indy and the Grauniad have come out in support of Ming. Should they be included under his list of supporters? Jamse 17:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - it's important information. Have you got a verifiable source? AndrewRT 18:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian comes out for Sir M
Indy article isn't online but another Guardian article says "With both the Guardian and the Independent declaring their support for Sir Menzies this morning..." [1]
Jamse 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Observer leader was pro-Huhne, IIRC. —Whouk (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Leadership

[edit]

Ming's election means there'll now automatically be a Deputy Leadership election. I've started a page for it at Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2006. Timrollpickering 15:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Candidate Preferred Vote

[edit]

Note: if non-transferable votes are discounted, the percentage of the vote won by Campbell is 57.9% and that won by Huhne is 42.1%. Simon Hughes' second preferences split as follows: Campbell 53.2%, Huhne 40.9%, non-transferable (i.e. no second preference given) 5.9%.

This first figure (Campbell 57.9% / Huhne 42.1%) is, in Australia's STV elections, called the two-party preferred voted vote (or, in this case, the two-candidate preferred vote).

-- tilthouse 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has compulsory full preferencing (federally at least) so it's not quite the same thing. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming

[edit]

The naming of this article frustrates me. It does not imply anything about the scope of the article or who it refers to. I had to open the article to discover it was referring to the English party. MyNameIsNotBob 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title refers to the British party. Since the party's article is at Liberal Democrats, it seems that (perhaps surprisingly) there are no other parties of the same name, and so no need for disambiguation. HenryFlower 10:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of naming the Liberal Democrats and whether the title needed to indicate that they are a UK party has been discussed (a lot) on Talk:Liberal Democrats. The conclusion reached was that Liberal Democrats (not plural) is fine on its own because there is no other party that calls itself "the Liberal Democrats". However, there are many "Liberal Democratic Parties", so the page has a disambiguation link to Liberal Democratic Party at the top. It was also noted that "Liberal Democrat" (singular) could refer to other parties than the Liberal Democrats (not to mention refering to the concept of liberal democracy), which is why Liberal Democrat is a disambiguation page. Hope this clears up the issue. Tamino 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Huhne.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Chris Huhne.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clegg

[edit]

Clegg is listed as supporting both Chris Huhne and Menzies Campbell. Is that correct? Should there be citations for the supporters? 86.167.49.31 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Liberal_Democrats_leadership_election&oldid=1196484639"