Talk:Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Socialism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible candidates[edit]

Can I add anyone I think might be a candidate? Or shall I wait until they announce their candidacy? No/ All the possible candidates should be removed and as people comment that they will stand then they should be added but not until. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been reported on Sky that the Cabinet have agreed that no one will annouunce their intention to stand until after the discussion with the Liberal Democrats is over. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news, Cleg says he did not ask Brown to stand down. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone's added a list of candidates again. I agree we shouldn't include this information until candidates are formally announced. And, to be honest, most of them seem unlikely. I imaging it's going to be a race between Balls, David Milliband and Johnson, but we'll see. In the meantime, does anyone object to me removing it again? I'll leave it for now and wait for feedback. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add the list, but I've found references from national media claiming that the politicians listed are potential candidates (and removed those who haven't seen any speculation). It seems moderately useful to me and I'd prefer to retain it, although if nobody else agrees, I'm not that concerned. Warofdreams talk 14:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The list of possible candidates, was started again by an IP. It is valueless speculation. Adding possible names and removing them and adding joke names that some writer somewhere has added, it is just not what we are here to do. Keep any speculated names out of the article, there will be actual names in the next few days. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I do not like this word 'triggering', even though it now has a cite for having been used in the media. Has an official process been initiated yet or not? Because that is what the word 'triggering' means to my mind. If not, then all that has happened is that he has said he will go, and an official process of a leadership election will begin at some point in the future. MickMacNee (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree I just saw a report that the National_Executive_Committee have said they will be meeting in the next few days and it is my understanding that they are the ones that actual announce the leadership election and actually it has not been triggered at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, an election has been triggered by the announcement. The precise details of when nominations will open, when polling will take place etc., will be determined by the NEC, but there is no doubt that Brown's statement has triggered a leadership contest. The contest can't now be reverted. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See Timeline for the Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2007 for a similar chain of events. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is were you come here and discuss, not were you come here are make some comment and then revert my edit. There is no mention of triggered there? It is correct that nothing official has actually happened, actually the article has been created previous to the actual situation existing, I agree with Mick, triggered is wrong. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
perhaps I should have linked to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007. Are you actually suggesting that a contest has not been triggered. Are you surmising that the NEC will refuse to accept his resignation? [1] also uses the word. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you prefer "precipitated", "started", "led to", "caused to get underway", "intitated", "set in motion", "led to", "actuated"? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Put very simply, how has a formal process begun, if there are no candidates, no election date, and (presumably), no formal resignation letter or date, of the incumbent? All we have, is an announcement it is to occur, at some vague point in the future. If that means 'triggerred', then so be it. It doesn't ring true with me. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please state what term you would prefer for the start of the process? Or are you speculating that Brown has not stated that he is to resign, that he has not said "I therefore intend to ask the Labor Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election," he continued. "I would hope that it would be completed in time for the new leader to be in post by the time of the Labor Party conference. I will play no part in that contest; I will back no individual candidate."[2] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. I really can't be arsed with this. Unwatching. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "I therefore intend to ask the Labor Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election," ... intend to ask is the point in question. When he actually asks that will be the trigger, he intends to trigger, but has not done it yet. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Of entirely academic interest now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Candidates and supporters[edit]

Given that this election will be unlike the 2007 election, I don't think it provides much of a guide on how to handle publicly declared Commons PLP supporters of each candidate. Theoretically, we could have 257 names listed either as candidates or supporters (assuming Brown really does stay in and really does stay out of the election). With Alan Johnson supporting David Miliband, it is only a matter of time before this becomes an issue, so I thought I'd bring it up now. If we do list them, do we also want to list Lords PLP supporters? -Rrius (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Caroline Flint told the BBC she supports D Miliband as well. -Rrius (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record I support Caroline Flint. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no fantastic rush, just wait and allow the candidates to announce and add them and then see if there is any notable issues worthy of adding. Who denies they are standing is worthless this article is actually for the most part about the candidates and the candidacy, not the people that didn't. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The main thrust of my question is whether we are for or against listing supporters. I'm not asking this because I have a strong urge to start listing people. Rather, it is inevitable that someone will add such a list, so I am looking to get a discussion going on whether that is a good idea. Why wait for what will certainly happen before thinking about this? -Rrius (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
IMO Perhaps as the situation unravels one or two issues may become notable, presently they are not. A list of who is reported as saying they support who is close to valueless, major issue only please. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
When someone is verifiably reported by reliable sources to be standing, usually by their own open self declaration is the time to start a list. until then it is the usual mindless media speculation. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it notable that Flint supports milliband? we will have a list of people that support each candidate and a list of people that don't support anyone and a list of conservatives that support whoever and a list of press people that support whowver. Where does it end? Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course it is notable. She is a Commons member of the PLP. Something like 12.5% of Labour MPs are needed for nomination, and the Commons PLP (together with the Labour MEPs) are one-third of the electoral college. Beyond that, different MPs (especially former ministers like Flint) have a reputation for being part of one wing or another of the party or are associated with one candidate or another. I think it is beyond question that a list would be sufficiently newsworthy for inclusion. The main objection, it seems to me, would be the space 257 names would take up. -Rrius (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
With a lot of citations, unless someone in the end reports them all in a single cite. Perhaps wait till the result and then add only the supporters of the winner all the others seem to have little long term value imo.Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should the frontrunner undeclared candidates (Miliband jnr, Balls, Cruddas) not be mentioned? They are the primary focus of the coverage in reliable sources, and this article is very deficient without their inclusion. (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In American election articles, there are often lists of "possible" candidates, meaning people who have been mentioned in a reliable source as a possible candidate (usually as someone considering running). Perhaps we could do that here. I know there are reliable sources for Ed Miliband, Balls, and Cruddas, so that would cover the three you mentioned. -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you have a citation, it is non encyclopedic press speculation and if other articles have done it that is an issue for them. Possible candidates will either move to declare and so the temp status of a possible candidates is worthless and if the press say jonny might be a candidate that is also completely valueless, citation or no citation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


The background section should explain, at minimum, why there was a leadership election (i.e. results of the election from a Labour point of view), why Brown's resignation unfolded as it did (negotiations with Lib Dems), the debate about an immediate election vs one in September. All this can be done in a paragraph, so I am very surprised at the reversions. Unless there are sound objections, I will resume building this section to give the topic its proper context. (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well why do we need a background section expanding? This article is about the election, not about the resignation or the election, we have links for that, keep the details that belong on other article, on other articles, be consise and focus on the topic of the article and link to other issues. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated content[edit]

Almost al the content in the ede is being duplicated in the backgroulnd section , the lede and the background need merging to a simple section. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


John_McDonnell_(politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This guy has been added as a candidate, the citation does not support the claim? Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation was already there: It would be nice if you actually read what you were reverting. -Rrius (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Why are you edit warring this rubbish? Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suffering from selective illiteracy? The article I linked to above is included as a reference. It is dated 16 May 2010 and after saying that David and Ed Miliband are running it says,
So what exactly is your damage? -Rrius (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to comfirm that this person is a candidate at all. there is no press coverage at all, he is not a candidate at all, are there supporting reports? Adding press stories and commentary is not what we are here to do, The sun thought we should say this and the telegraph wanted us to say this and the express said this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No press coverage? The Times article clearly states in the third paragraph that McDonnell intends to stand.--Britannicus (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, you are being obstinate. What's linked to is a Sunday Times article written by the paper's deputy political editor. How is that not press coverage? -Rrius (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are adding false content about living people. This living person has not nominated himself, you have a single claim that is not supported, and you are warring to keep its valuelessness in the article. what for? Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? The article, written today, is from a reliable source. It says he "has announced his intention to stand". So what are you talking about. Since your statements so far directly contradict a reliable source, you are either dead wrong or doing a really, really bad job of expressing yourself. -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The blp Of this person that is claimed to be a candidate John_McDonnell_(politician) has no edits at all at his article, why is that? if he is a candidate then why are there no reports? There are no reports at all in the press and in the media. Your adding your citation and warring the content when it is clear that there are no reports about this claim/ Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one has edited John McDonnell (politician) yet. I feel as though I've stepped through the looking glass. You have said repeatedly that there is nothing in the press. Since when did the Times stop being part of the press? Before saying once again that there is nothing in the press, please state exactly what problem you have with the Times article. -Rrius (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, please stop your intellectually dishonest accusations of edit warring. To whatever extent I edit warred, you did too and before I did. -Rrius (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Worse than edit warring, you are insisting on inserting a weakly cited disputed claim about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Since when is the Times a weak source. What the hell are you trying to say? I've pulled him down as a candidate and used the exact language the Times uses. I think that's a sign of good faith, but you are still being aggressive. What gives? -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
And, by the way, there is nothing libelous about saying he is running for the leadership, even if there were no citation whatsoever, so your "worse than edit warring" comment is absurd. -Rrius (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is, just because a newspaper said something is happening, doesn't mean it is actually happening. Has John McDonnell announed he intends to stand? No. Has he said he is considering standing?. No. Does this Times article even source the claim? No. And finally, the million-vote question, will McDonnell's name be on the ballot paper? Quite possibly not. (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Times's source is McDonnell. The article says that he has announced his intention to stand. How could the source be clearer. I've looked around, though, and this may refer to remarks he made before shortly Brown resigned (thus, before there was leadership contest) saying that he would run in a leadership election if Brown did resign. I think that makes him an announced candidate, but I recognize that others may see it differently because he said this before the resignation. If people could focus on the facts here, rather than the barmy contention that we can't rely on the Times as a source, it would be helpful to actually advancing the discussion. -Rrius (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

According to The Times[edit]

I have removed this as it is worthless speculation, according to the press. In addition, the Times is reporting that Ed Balls will announce his candidacy during the week of 16 May; that John McDonnell intends to announce he is standing; and that John Cruddas and Andy Burnham, the former Health Secretary, are considering joining the race.[3] Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly fuzzy on the difference between speculation and assertion. The statement is an affirmative statement supported by a reliable source. Saying that Burnham and Cruddas "might" run is speculation; saying they are "considering" runs is an assertion of fact. That the other two are assertions and not speculation is so obvious that I really hope I don't have to explain it to you. -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am fuzzy, but I appreciate you removing your inserted falsehood from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no falsehood, so why don't you dial it back a bit? The only other editor who's commented agreed with me, and you have still not bothered to properly explain yourself in the section above. As you should have gleaned from my edit summary, the change is not a permanent change of stance. I am giving you a chance to explain your problem with the article, which you have somehow fail to do so far. If you can't there will be no reason not to put McConnell back up. Your reaction from the start has been totally disproportionate. -Rrius (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? Mcdonnel has not announced, well he is not being reported in the press as having announced. but him back if you insist but it is not being reported. It looks false to me. John_McDonnell_(politician) Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking, the Times, the bloody Times, says he "announced his intention to stand". I will ask for the umpteenth time. What is wrong with the times? -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Add your claim again then, I object and dispute it Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Whether you believe it or not, I respect you quite a bit as an editor. As a result, I want you to explain what your problem is with the Times source. I recognize that no one else is carrying the same report, so I'm willing to hold off, but I really want you to explain what your problem with the Times or this particular article is. -Rrius (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not here to waste my time talking absolute opinionated crap Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That is rather strange reaction to what I said. Why won't you explain your position? Do you believe that the Times is not part of the press? That it isn't a reliable source? Do you believe the article means something other than that he's running? I am genuinely confused as to what you're trying to say. I'm also completely at a loss as to where "opinionated" anything comes into this. I am not expressing an opinion as to whether the man is in the race; I am passing along what a reliable source says. -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You have wasted my time having to defend a living person against your weakly cited inserts when I disputed them and you warred your weak claims back in. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
So it is just your opinion that the Times is a weak source, then? Your continuing failure to properly express yourself is what has wasted your time, not me. -Rrius (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential candidates[edit]

There is nothing encyclopedic or long term about the claims of the press that jonny is a potential candidate, the whole comment requires removing and not renaming. Worthless speculation would be as good a header. Removal is the correct thing to do. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, it is not speculation. Speculation is a guess. McDonnell has said he intends to run. How is repeating that even close? -Rrius (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Its weakly claimed and not widely reported. An editor on the times claimed that him and him and her might run and that in his opinion him and her would have a lot of support. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not weakly supported, and that is not what the Deputy Political Editor of the Times says; she says he has announced his intention to stand. In any event, here's another reliable source: The Financial Times ("So far the list of confirmed contenders includes the Miliband brothers and John McDonnell, a veteran leftwinger."). The lack of wide reporting may have more to do with the fact that he is not well known and that the Sibling Rivalry is a much more compelling story. -Rrius (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't care about this issue at all, I am only interested that we report it correctly. I can't see that article but I do know that when a contender announces his intention to stand there will be massive coverage by the press and the the news whoever he is, it is simply not true to assert this McDonald person is a nominee, this is a false claim and weakly cited and should not be asserted as if a fact. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
First, no one is a nominee because no one has filed nomination papers. The NEC hasn't even agreed the timetable for the election yet. The Milibands have announced they will stand, and so has McDonnell. The latter fact is established by not one, but two, major UK news sources with very good international reputations. How is that "weakly cited"? It is simply bizarre that you claim it is a "false claim" when two such reliable sources make it. Why do you assume you know better? In the end, it appears you are denying reality because you think there will be a media frenzy when any candidate says he or she will run. That is simply not true. Minor candidates don't get that sort of attention. -Rrius (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Each and every nomination will receive large press coverage, your man has had no coverage because he has not nominated. You claim is very weak and that is the reason you removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, no one has been nominated because the NEC has not even started the process yet. If only nominated candidates are to be listed, I'll take down the Milibands too. You don't know what you are talking about. We shouldn't disregard the Times and Financial Times because you think there will be a hoopla for each candidate who announces. I took down McDonnell out of respect for you because I wanted to give you a chance to better explain your opposition. If your opposition is confined to the fact that you believe in minor politicians who announce will get huge coverage and therefore its absence means he must not be a candidate, then there is really no reason not to put him back up. Do you have a better reason? -Rrius (talk)
Are you still claiming he is a candidate? PleasE, your claim is not being reported, not even thinly never mind widely. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not claiming it, two reputable news sources are reporting it, so of course it should be included. It is absurd to propose that we should not believe press accounts unless the entire political media get excited about it. He is a minor figure; his failure in 1997 is rarely remembered. That does not mean we should not include him as a candidate. -Rrius (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cruddas says he won't stand[edit]

We have it in the article that Cruddas is a 'potential candidate . according to the times, tonight he is reported on national news to have rejected any intention to stand, we should correct this, it was only added yesterday and we should simply remove the whole press speculation or we will only have to add that the times said it thought that Crudas was going to stand but then Crusddas didn't stand, as I said its valueless and non encyclopedic content and only twenty four hours later is citable as incorrect.Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a bit picky to say that a person who was a potential candidate, but decided against a run can't be in section called "Potential candidates"; we aren't calling him a potential candidate by doing so. For the third or fourth time, this is not "press speculation" or speculation of any kind. It was widely reported that Cruddas was considering running. That is not speculation; it is fact. If you look at the other leadership election articles, most refer to candidates who considered running, or even who other party members thought or hoped would run, but didn't end up doing so. It is idiotic to say that a clause saying Cruddas was considering running is somehow contradicted by a story saying he thought about it and decided he wasn't up to the job. The first says he was thinking about it, and the second says he thought about. Where is the contradiction? -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This so called potential candidate section was added by you yesterday and only today it is reveled as a false claim and valueless rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It was not and is not a false claim. You need to read what is actually written instead of creating your own version in your head. It said, "In addition, the Times is reporting...that John Cruddas and Andy Burnham, the former Health Secretary, are considering joining the race." Read that again: "considering joining the race". Not "joined the race", not "about to join the race", not "expected to join the race", but "considering joining the race". I don't know about you, but when people consider doing something, there are at least two possible outcomes: the do it or they don't. For you to say that somehow deciding against a run means he never considered a run is insane. Read the article you are linking to as somehow proving he never thought about. He thoughtfully explains why he isn't running. How could he do that if he hadn't considered it? Your argument is illogical and just goofy. -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't comment on what did not happen, the times suggested johnny was going to stand (add link to the times website) and then johnny did an interview with the guardian saying he was never gonna stand (link to the guardian website) yawn. It is not especially notable at all that Cruddas is not standing, he never was citable as saying that he was standing.Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a novel and nonsensical argument that once again shows you don't understand the difference between "considering a run" and "expected to run". If you truly do not understand that "considering a run" means "is in the process of deciding whether to run", then you are an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot, so I'd like to know why you are refusing to admit you understand. The timeline is nothing like what you say. Cruddas started thinking about running, the Times reported he was thinking about running, he made a decision, then the Guardian reported his decision. That is pretty simple, really, and your belief that the Times was perpetrating a "falsehood" is just bizarre. My best guess is that you know you are wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it, so you are making weaker and weaker arguments. -Rrius (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Only runners are actually notable, unless there are some notable issues surrounding the possibles and some strong supporting citations which with your claim there are not. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I see you've now abandoned that line. Well, the new one is simply wrong. Read some other election articles. Specifically, read the other recent leadership articles, where people who declined to run or failure to get enough nominations are mentioned. Who didn't run is interesting, clearly notable, and of worth to readers. The field of people who don't run sets the contours of the field of candidates. It is simply wrong and short-sighted to say it is not worth including and not notable. If it isn't notable, why do so many news articles mention it? -Rrius (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have not abandoned anything. As I have said here I feel bad to re-comment, I have posted my points and case, I won't continue to repeat, time has so far shouted in my support. Actually the only notable thing is that there are so few announcements. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The paucity of announcements could have many causes, including the fact that the process and timing have not even been determined by the NEC yet. In any event, your idiosyncratic distrust of all media sources has got to go, especially if you are going to continue editing current events. The Times is a reliable source which editors have a right to use as a source notwithstanding your personal objections. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not my position that the times online is not a good cite but a single op ed online times link is not a freedom to add a major claim from there about a living person that is not being widely reported and claim it is useful content.Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not an op ed, or even an editorial (which is what I think you mean). Rather, it is a news story written by the deputy political editor. Your bizarrely restrictive interpretation of BLP simply isn't on. There are two quality references supporting the claim that McConnell is running. There is absolutely nothing weak about it. -Rrius (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Declined section[edit]

Declined what? Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the sentence above the list. Why do you refuse to read what you criticise? In any event, it is a subsection of the "Candidates" section of this leadership election. Anyone who can't figure that out doesn't deserve to draw breath, let alone have it explained to them. -Rrius (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Senior Labour figures including Jack Straw, Alan Johnson, Peter Hain and Yvette Cooper have ruled themselves out... cited to this article in the times online, there is no attribution at all no comment that, we have spoken to these people and they have said this..... The issue for me is, well they never ruled themselves in did they? no, its press speculation, this was never going to happen but the times said that it had not happened. Really? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not press speculation. What is the matter with you? It is a demonstrable fact these people have publicly declined to run. If you really want individual citations for each of them, I can provide them, but I don't have time now. Your continuing lack of understanding of the term, "speculation", however, is something I will deal with now. You clearly do not understand what speculation is or what WP:V and WP:RS are about. We can and should take the Times at its word when it says these people have declined to run. There is no reason not to believe it other than your decision yesterday to oppose anything I attempt to do. -Rrius (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing the matter with me . You support that this press speculation valuable content and I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is nothing wrong with you, why do you continue to assert that normal press reporting is somehow speculation? It is mental. -Rrius (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not mental. Your claims are weakly cited and the cited content that you want to include is non encyclopedic, changeable Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
And that is just ridiculous. The cites are far from weak. The Times says the Miliband brothers are candidates and that McDonnell "also announced his intention to stand". That is not speculation of any kind; it is saying that McDonnell said he is in. The Financial Times says, "So far the list of confirmed contenders includes the Miliband brothers and John McDonnell, a veteran leftwinger." Again, that is a definitive statement that McDonnell is in. There is no question of speculation, and that is two sources, both of them of the highest calibre. Saying that is weakly sourced makes no sense whatsoever. The Times, again, a paper of the highest calibre, said that Cruddas and Burnham were "considering whether to run". That is a statement that those two, depending on their decisions, might run. Cruddas ultimately decided against it, but we have not had word from Burnham on a decision. The Times, which I will take this opportunity to say is a paper of the highest quality, also says that Jack Straw, Yvette Cooper, Alan Johnson, and Peter Hain "have ruled themselves out", which is to say they have said they are not running. There is no possible way that could be considered speculation under any sane definition of the term. I really wish you'd put aside this speculation accusation, because it is crazy. That these people have ruled themselves out is important, as is knowing who might run. For anyone with a sense of who these people are, knowing who isn't running and who may run helps explain the race. It is in any event manifestly a notable part of the story of the race, as proved by the fact that their possible runs have been mentioned for months and that their decisions not to run have received significant press attention. -Rrius (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding this useful and well-referenced information. Warofdreams talk 10:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

John McDonnell[edit]

Why do we not have a picture of John McDonnell in the candidates section? We have Balls, Burnham and the Miliband Brothers. so McDonnell should be there as well. Will anyone object if I add one with some detail and a reference? TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated pictures[edit]

IMO it seems excessive to have two pictures of the same people in a small article, all the pictures have been duplicated in the infobox, it it just me and my browser that thinks it is valueless duplication? Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a bit pointless to duplicate them. I'm not sure whether there's some precedent about this sort of thing. It would make sense to me to have pictures of everyone in the candidates section and the eventual winner in he infobox. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Just looked at a couple of the others. The article on the 2007 contest has pictures of the contenders in the infobox and just details further down, and 1994's article does something similar. Looks like that's the precedent, although it looks a bit messy with so many pictures in te infobox. I think I still favour my original suggestion, but am happy to have it look like the others. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I would advocate deleting the gallery, but with five candidates, we are at risk of getting to seven candidates, in which case the infobox would be unable to handle all of them. Should we go with the infobox pictures for now, but use a gallery if we get to seven? If we do get rid of the gallery, the caption text should be moved to the list of candidates. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about, for now, we get rid of the images and candidate information in the infobox and rely on the gallery? If, after the 27th, there are 6 or fewer candidates who have gotten their 33 signatures, then we could add those people to the infobox, and leave the images of anyone who does not in a section for candidates who failed to get on the ballot. I think that would also mean removing the candidate information from the infobox for the time being. -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That would work ok. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Support Rrius's proposal. In any case, I don't think we should add people to the infobox until the official candidates have been put forward (i.e. after the nomination period is over). After all, it's far from sure McDonnell can even get the required number of MPs. HonouraryMix (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Scores on the doors[edit] This link does not look wikipedia reliable, are the numbers and names considered reliable by editors here? I can't find any detasils on the site about editorial control or names of contributors and so on, is there a real need to keep an unverified day by day alleged total from this external link? Are there figures being reported anywhere more reliable sourcy. Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't want to remove the content a second time, especially when I had a lot of questions about the quality of the source, but no answers. For what it's worth, there is another similar source out there showing substantially the same numbers. That leads me to believe that the numbers are broadly accurate and that we could get a reliable source for them, but I have no idea how to find that source. -Rrius (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets see if other editors comment, as I see at present I am for removing the figures unless a more reliable source can be found. I also think the figures may be correct but we should imo not include them on that basis, should we? So I am for removal and you seem to be also..if there are not a rush of reasons why we should keep them in at this time I will remove them in a couple of hours. (unless there are objections) Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I guess I forgot to say explicitly that they should be removed unless they get a better source. I agree completely, but I do hope someone comes up with one. -Rrius (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well its not a blp and if we got consensus that the site was reliable figures then perhaps it could be used,, but not really. I left matty a note but he is an intermittent user every few days, I think with your comment and mine I will remove them removed. I also would like to see the figures reported in a reliable citation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here in the Daily Mirror Kevin Maguire says ex Labour mp says "Ex-Labour MP Sion Simon has launched a new site, labour-uncut, and is covering the leadership race." .. but the figures are not reported, so at least we know rthe source of the figures is a notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be okay to restore it with something like, "According to former MP Sion Simon, the nomination figures are as follows:"? -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps with the comment from Maguire somehow to confirm that..yes .I could support that, at least we have attribution. It is a million times better than that awful poll that is in the section below Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do that then. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That was a bit of a dilly dally but I am happy with its reliability now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A poll from The Telegraph readers[edit]

User talk:Nightstallion has recently added this YouGov poll result from the Sunday times/ times, what is notable or especially reportable about that? As I know we don't bother publishing individual poll results, any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

shrugs I see no reason not to cite polls on elections, but if you prefer to have less content rather than more, fine. —Nightstallion 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality valuable content is the more the merrier. Your addition did not quite reflect the citation comments and the other issue is that polls are these days 10 a penny and without also commenting as the actual questions asked and such like reporting some simple figures from a larger poll is a misrepresentation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the notability of this particular poll and this particular time. A future poll of those directly involved in the election, nearer the time, could be more relevant. At the moment this is no more informative than a poll asking which country will win the 2010 World Cup. Leaky Caldron 21:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, perhaps. premature is a better expression than valueless. I agree that when the time comes and the nominations are known and there is a notable poll of the publics opinion then it will clearly be a good thing to report. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
shrugs I think that it also says quite a lot if you see the public opinion on all of the possible candidates at the start; and your analogy is false, as noone gets to vote on who wins the World Cup, whereas voters do get to vote on the new Labour Party leaders policy (albeit indirectly, and some time later). —Nightstallion 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Aren't we just using a tittle-tattle, blogger near-insider source here? Unless there is a published, reliable source I think we are risking accuracy for the sake of trying to keep up with developments. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this above. Rob and I were both uncomfortable to start with, but came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with saying, "former MP Sion Simon says X", as long as it is sourced. Why is it a problem that he would have insider information or that he is saying it in the form of a blog? People should be able to judge for themselves whether a former MP is a suitable source, and including the attribution explicitly allows just that. -Rrius (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the BBC, the numbers are wrong. It has Ed Miliband with 34, David Miliband with 19, Balls with 4, Burnham with 1, and the others with 0.[4] -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

From the bbc cite...the Labour Party said they would update the figures twice a day on their website until nominations close on 9 June. Anyone got a link? Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

we should add these figures from here Rrius Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Supporters list[edit]

I tried to bring this up before, but we never really got anywhere. LeakyCauldron has already deleted a list of supporters at Andy Burnham, so i It is only a matter of time before someone adds a list here. The names are available at Labour's website, so we have a perfect source. I know from the discussion above that Rob thinks the names aren't encyclopedic, but I disagree. Who supported whom in the election is of value in telling the story. However, I think it would take up to much space, and the encyclopedic value is outweighed by the tendency to clutter. What do others think? -Rrius (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying, you think that it would be good but it will take up a lot of space? You want to add the 250 names of each individual that voted for whoever, a link would be fine for that imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying that there is value to listing them, but not enough to justify the space it would take up at this article. A link isn't really enough because there is no guarantee that the link will continue to exist later, but, again, the information isn't quite important enough to bother with. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
IMO its an external link but we have server space, is it worth a list...Who Labour members of parliament voted for in the nominations for who would enter the labour leadership election of 2010
(edit conflict) Haha. I think List of nominations for the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 would be better, but the question is whether it is notable for enough for a separate article. -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Any external link we need to preserve can be Template:Citewebed. Leaky Caldron 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing you actually mean the wayback machine thingummy rather than what you linked to. Do you know how to do it? -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, R. I copy edited my link above - it should be WP:Webcite, but I must have missed the edit conflict with yours. It is similar to wayback and easy to use IIRC. Leaky Caldron 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Percentage lookup table[edit]

Becoming, as I was, irritated with the daily need to calculate stuff, here's a lookup table instead:

1: 0.39% 2: 0.78% 3: 1.17% 4: 1.56% 5: 1.95% 6: 2.33% 7: 2.72% 8: 3.11% 9: 3.50% 10: 3.89% 11: 4.28% 12: 4.67% 13: 5.06% 14: 5.45% 15: 5.84% 16: 6.23% 17: 6.61% 18: 7.00% 19: 7.39% 20: 7.78% 21: 8.17% 22: 8.56% 23: 8.95% 24: 9.34% 25: 9.73% 26: 10.12% 27: 10.51% 28: 10.89% 29: 11.28% 30: 11.67% 31: 12.06% 32: 12.45% 33: 12.84% 34: 13.23% 35: 13.62% 36: 14.01% 37: 14.40% 38: 14.79% 39: 15.18% 40: 15.56% 41: 15.95% 42: 16.34% 43: 16.73% 44: 17.12% 45: 17.51% 46: 17.90% 47: 18.29% 48: 18.68% 49: 19.07% 50: 19.46% 51: 19.84% 52: 20.23% 53: 20.62% 54: 21.01% 55: 21.40% 56: 21.79% 57: 22.18% 58: 22.57% 59: 22.96% 60: 23.35% 61: 23.74% 62: 24.12% 63: 24.51% 64: 24.90% 65: 25.29% 66: 25.68% 67: 26.07% 68: 26.46% 69: 26.85% 70: 27.24% 71: 27.63% 72: 28.02% 73: 28.40% 74: 28.79% 75: 29.18% 76: 29.57% 77: 29.96% 78: 30.35% 79: 30.74% 80: 31.13% 81: 31.52% 82: 31.91% 83: 32.30% 84: 32.68% 85: 33.07% 86: 33.46% 87: 33.85% 88: 34.24% 89: 34.63% 90: 35.02% 91: 35.41% 92: 35.80% 93: 36.19% 94: 36.58% 95: 36.96% 96: 37.35% 97: 37.74% 98: 38.13% 99: 38.52% 100: 38.91%

Evercat (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just been plugging the numbers into a spreadsheet. -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture box[edit]

I am not good with picture boxes, but is it possible to get them all in a line, this imo would look a bit tidier. Off2riorob (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

6 would be a bit wide, but we can do 3x2... Evercat (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer that, thanks Evercat. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of support[edit]

there are a few comments being added to these people

Noteworthy MPs who declined to stand as to who they are claimed to be now supporting, it seems unclear as to where that is cited to? Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have cited the claim about harman supporting abbott. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added references for the rest. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Harman is NOT supporting Abbott, she is remaining neutral, but nominating Abbott because she wants a woman on the ballot paper, as supported by the article cited here.--Andrewginger (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone said Straw is supporting D Miliband, but I have found no evidence of it. When he ruled himself out, he said he would wait and weigh the arguments. I've removed the reference of support and will add a note that he is neutral tomorrow (or when I remember) if no one finds a citation for his supporting DM. -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirct page[edit]

Just wonderind whether we should change Labour Party leadership election, 2010 from a redirect to this page to a disambiguation page given there has now been a leadership election in Australia's Labor Party. I know the two parties are spelled differently, but I can imagine people will want to search for the Australian election and a disambig page would give them easier access to it and avoid possible confusion. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this a couple of days or so. If nobody has any serious objections I'll change it ove the weekend. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, nobody seems to object so I'll do it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done There's now also a redirect to the page from Labor Party leadership election, 2010. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cooper supports balls[edit]

Where is the quote from Cooper that she supports Balls I can't see it here, could you please point me to it, bit blindness sometimes, and I have had a good look on her blogs and I can't find statements that support she is supporting Balls. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Scroll down to where the nominations are. -Rrius (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Rrius has also replaced this which has been uncited for a while and tagged? Jack Straw[21] – nominated Diane Abbott,[citation needed] former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, previously Foreign and Home Secretary

Nominated it says. Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You are comparing the Straw nomination made in the last hours of the nomination period to assure there was a woman on the ballot to this? You wanted a source that the woman is supporting her husband's campaign, which is pretty non-controversial to begin with, but then you won't even except direct proof that she does? Unbelievable. -Rrius (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As I see it supporting has many issues, in what way is she supporting him, they have simply voted for that person. perhaps if that is what they did then we should put voted for? Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about, no one has voted? I know you disregard news accounts, so this probably will mean nothing, but here's a source for you. -Rrius (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes Darling has and is quotable as actively having made speeches in a way at to support D milliband campaign. He has been active in promoting him. Cooper has not, unless you have citations (I didn't find any) actively support Balls in a similar manner.

IMO the two cases are worthy of differentiation, if someone simply voted for a candidate then voted for would be a fair representation and if someone has actively canvassed and and made speeches in support of a candidate then supported would be a fair representation of such actions. Also have you got a citation that supports the content that Straw nominated Abbott as presently that is uncited. I would have preferred it if you had cited it before you inserted it Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to Darling; I was referring to where, in the article, it says that Cooper is supporting Balls. That is actually enough, you know. -Rrius (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
As for Straw, it's here. -Rrius (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You have just added this to support that Cooper has actively supported Balls but I don't see anything in there that says that? Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ed Balls has the vote of former ministerial colleagues Tom Watson and Kevin Brennan, but other than his wife, Yvette Cooper, has so far struggled to win the support of former cabinet ministers." Does your browser not have the ability to search in text? -Rrius (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been blocked for warring at another artcle, perhaps you do need to step back a bit,it was hard talking to you here as well. I see you have reverted again to your POV position, I will discuss with later when you are unblocked I will start a discussion about it to get some other opinions, Cooper has done nothing to support Balls apart from sign his nomination papers, so as Darling has actively suppored by the waty of speeches and so on it is needed to show a difference between those types of support. Please come back in a more discussing frame of mind. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you are being impossible about this. You deleted because there was no source. I restored it with a source. You complained that the source only said she's nominated him. I added a source that says she is supporting him. You complained that you couldn't find where in the article it said that. I copied the quote for you. Now you aren't sure which sort of support she's giving. My eyes may be deceiving me, but those goalposts appear to be moving. Here are the facts:
  1. They are married; it would be noteworthy if she didn't support his bid for the leadership. No such stories have emerged. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
  2. She nominated him. Only some of Abbott's supporters didn't truly support the candidate they nominated. The general rule is that if you nominate someone, you support them.
  3. She nominated him early on in the process. —It's not as though she gave him a pity nomination to make sure he got through.
A source says she supported him. —That seems pretty good to me, and you haven't really explain why you are unwilling to accept this story.
You are only making a stink about this one line item, yet it's not clear why your distinction between her and Darling does not equally apply to Cruddas, Hain, and Johnson. That suggests to me that you have simply dug in.
In the end, I will not accept your singling out Cooper to be treated as not supporting the person she clearly supports. If you want to convert all of them to "nominated" (including Darling), that's fine, but it is baseless and ridiculous to suggest that Hain and Johnson are somehow more supportive of Dave Miliband than She is Balls. I'm not likely to respond for a while because I want to watch Slovakia and Italy. -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, here's the quote: "Ed Balls has the vote of former ministerial colleagues Tom Watson and Kevin Brennan, but other than his wife, Yvette Cooper, has so far struggled to win the support of former cabinet ministers."[5] Off2riorob, your own original research about what it takes to support someone is not useful. We use what sources say. Fences&Windows 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Also: "Morley and Outwood MP Ed Balls is the third candidate to have reached the threshold of 33 MP nominations, which is required to formally enter the race. However, the shadow education secretary has only picked up the backing of one other shadow cabinet minister – his wife Yvette Cooper, the MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford."[6] Our own speculation on why she hasn't given a nice soundbite shouldn't have any influence on how we edit the article. Fences&Windows 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Noteworthy politicians who were not in the House of Commons[edit]

Just wondering if this section is really necessary. Certainly Peter Mandelson's name has been mentioned as a possible future leader from time to time (though I con't remember whether it was during this leadership election), but James Purnell? His article says he decided to leave frontline politics so why would he want to be Labour leader? Besides which this section is entirely unreferenced. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Purnell and added a ref for Mandelson (whether that article, from August 2009, is relevant to this article isn't really clear though). If Mandelson is to stay, however, I don't see why he should be separate from the other declined candidates, especially if there's only one non-MP listed. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As this section has been re-added again for the umpteenth time I have tried to rewrite it a bit. The last user to re-add it points out that Non MPs are included in the 1997 Tory leadership election so I've rewritten it along the lines of what is said in that article. Whether it should stay though is a different matter. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Labour Party rules say only MPs can be leader: VII.1.A.ii "The leader and deputy leader of the party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP". So it makes no sense for us to list non-MPs as possible contenders, despite 2009 press speculation or the 1997 Tory leadership article. Rwendland (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agree they shouldn't be incuded in that case. If it's covered in their rule book then that negates any argument to the contrary. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the best answer would be a sentence explaining that only current MPs are eligible, so despite earlier speculation, figures such as Mandelson were not potential candidates. The sources appear to support it, and it would discourage anyone from re-adding Mandelson, etc, to the potential candidates list. Warofdreams talk 15:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
ok, as it's been added again this afternoon I've tidied it up and mentioned that Party rules prevented them from standing. But I've tacked it onto the previous section rather than giving it one of its own. Hopefully this will end the desire people have to keep adding this information. If it shouldn't be included, and editors (mostly anon ips) keep causing problems by re-adding it and edit warring then it might be worth suggesting this article for the Pending Changes list. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone have a full list of debates/hustings that could be added? Rutld001 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Televised debates[edit]

Thursday 26 April for the Question Time debate? Shouldn't that be a September date? TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's happening on Thursday 16 September. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Is an infobox necessary? It seems to me that for elections using AV it's impossible for it to be comprehensive: either we have numbers from different rounds for different candidates, which is pretty confusing; or only include the first round, which in this case falsely suggests a David Miliband victory. I think the format used in Labour Party (UK) deputy leadership election, 2007 is clearer. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it could get complicated as David Miliband seems to have been ahead until the last round. Perhaps doing away with the infobox is the best thing, then having the comprehensive results in the main article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree in part. It is difficult to summarize the results in a meaningful way in the infobox, and having looked at Australian by-election articles, they don't even try to use an infobox with AV (what do they call it? Preference voting? Whatever, it's the same thing). Of course it would be possible to simply list the candidates without results, simply putting Ed Miliband in boldface, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. On the other hand, it would be nice to have more than an image with a caption, to allow for navigation to the previous and succeeding (there will be one eventually) elections and to the previous leader. Therefore, perhaps it would make sense to create a new infobox for UK party leadership elections, or even just Labour leadership elections. It could be similar to the current one, but with a Labour badge instead of the Union Flag, a picture of the winner with a link to his name below it instead of the candidates, and the previous leader noted in a way that doesn't require repetition of the winner.
Whether we eliminate or replace the infobox, I propose we merge the list of announced candidates and nominations. Replacing the two nominations columns with "withdrew" for McDonnell should be sufficient, and we can work out the table-sorting issues. -Rrius (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This IP edit drew my attention to some parameters I was previously unaware of. I've expanded their use to cover each round in the infobox, which I think solves the problem I described above. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The first and final rounds are enough. Since the infobox serves as a summary, showing all four rounds is overkill. -Rrius (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


While it is helpful to mention people who were mentioned as candidates but declined to stand, putting in a 10 good-sized images takes up far more space than is necessary for people who were never actually participants in the election. Doing so therefore violates WP:UNDUE. Just because it is possible to add images of people doesn't make it necessary, or even desirable. -Rrius (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find that you are wrong. Non-candidates have pictures in reference to US Presidential elections. Also, non-candidates are critical to the election i.e. if Yvette Cooper stood then the leadership election would have been very different. Also, look at the Conservative Party leadership election 2005. Addition of pictures, provides knowledge about who certain people are. At first you're argument was that images were less important than references, now you have conveniently changed your mind by saying it is not necessary. I suggest you refrain from making trouble because you have an instinctive defence of the 'status quo'.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I doubt I will find I am wrong, but I doubt you will ever see that you are, which is why you need to await consensus. How is it that you don't understand that you, as the person who wants to make a change, have the onus to convince other editors that your change should happen?
Non-candidates are important, but not "critical" to telling the story. Showing Jack Straw's face adds exactly nothing to the telling of the story. And the comparison to US presidential elections is poor at best. Those articles are huge and can absorb a lot of extra material. This one is short, so cannot.
Whether the 2005 Tory election is as you say is immaterial. Just because something exists somewhere else does not mean it is right, and does not mean it would be right here.
As for your idiotic contention that I "conveniently changed my mind", I addressed that already in an edit summary and at your talk page. But I guess I have to try again to make it stick. Edit summaries are not a long-form medium. Given the constraint, I noted the most pressing problem with your edit when I reverted you, which was your asinine deletion of references. You restored your edit with the references included, so I gave the rest of my complaint, i.e. that the images give undue weight to a minor part of the subject of the article. I suggested you take the discussion to the talk page. You didn't. I reverted you, started this discussion, and left a note at your talk page. And you reverted again because, again, you don't seem to get that you need to get consensus behind your changes once someone objects. -Rrius (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This is very typical of people like yourself. You cannot make a cogent and clear argument, therefore you resort to insults even though you have little knowledge of British politics (judging by your location). The fact you have some thwarted erotic desire for every intrinsic detail in order to get your own way, is rather troubling. Hasn't it ever occured to you that many readers have better fish to fry and deal with your nonsense. 2005 leadership election is not immaterial, as article need to be consistent - you are plain wrong on that one. I urge you to actually learn about what you are talking about, rather than edit warring and insulting other users or I will happily report you to admin.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
1) "Very typical of of people like yourself". Isn't everyone typical of their type? Also, how on earth do you presume to know me well enough to sort me into one type or another.
2) I didn't call you an idiot, I called your contention that I changed my mind idiotic. Insulting a stupid position is not an insult to the person who espoused it. Your argument was silly and was born of frustration rather than any solid basis.
3) I have been a student of British politics for years, and even if I weren't, that isn't terribly relevant to the question of whether we need images 10 people who were never candidates and never said they would be. It is a debatable question whether people of that ilk should be listed at all (I know because I have seen the question debated again and again), but adding a gallery of their images puts far too much weight upon them.
3) "Erotic desire"? Interesting way of putting it. The sentence itself means nothing, so I can't really respond to it.
4) If you have "better fish to fry", then why aren't you doing so?
5) As for the 2005 Tory article, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that something is done one way at that article does not mean it is right for this one. It doesn't even mean it is right for that one, come to that.
6) What is it exactly you think I need to learn? You have failed again and again to explain why the attention paid to these people needs to be dramatically increased.
7) You still don't seem to understand WP:CONSENSUS. The article is deemed to have consensus for its stable form. You made a change, which is acceptable under WP:BOLD. But I reverted you. At that point in the cycle, it is for you to come here to advocate for your change. In other words, you need to gain consensus for a change to the prior consensus. That is extremely basic stuff, and it is astounding you don't understand it. Your continual efforts to enforce your will without getting a change in consensus is pure, bloody-minded edit warring. It would be nice if you learned more about these fundamental aspects of Wikipedia before making any further edits. -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have left the following notice on the talk page of everyone who has participated on this talk page other than the two of us and two editors who have been indefinitely banned (User:MickMacNee and User:Youreallycan, who edited here as Off2riorob): "I am contacting you because you have participated in prior discussions at the above article, and it would be appreciated if you gave your views on an current dispute. One editor wants to add a gallery of images for people who declined to stand for the leadership. Another editor objects on the grounds that doing so puts undue weight on the people who did not participate." I think you will agree that this is an even-handed account of the dispute. -Rrius (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaky Caldron 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rrius. This is WP:UNDUE (not to mention "noteworthy" is a completely biased peacock term that has no citations making their mention notable). Also please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. It doesn't matter what other articles do; we're not obliged to do it their way. Also, AngieWattsFan, I suggest you remain WP:COOL — you've been blocked before, and being so belligerent will only earn you the same fate. – Richard BB 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not support the addition of pictures of non-candidates in the this article. This would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE as has been stated by others. Verifying that non-candidates were possibilities would involve original research. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a very clear consensus against including images, so hopefully we can now end this discussion and carry on with our lives. – Richard BB 15:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I could live with or without the images, but the arguments against including them seem to carry more weight, yeah. —Nightstallion 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there would be a case for the inclusion of an image on a case-by-case basis if the person's non-candidacy was important enough to be developed in detail in the article (I talk in generalities) but not otherwise. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Three were not MPs and so were not realistic candidates, and all 10 were people who were mentioned by the media as possible candidates because they had been senior Cabinet members in the Labour years (all but Cruddas) or had stood for the deputy leadership in 2007 (Cruddas, Hain, Harman, and Johnson). IIRC, in none of these cases was there even a strong rumour the person was talking it. -Rrius (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rrius. Including images of non-candidates seems a bit pointless. A case could be made if a heavyweight was expected to stand but changed their mind (i.e., like Michael Portillo in the 1995 Tory leadership election), but apart from that we should just stick to those who actually participated. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I find the list of non-candidates useful, but pictures of them overemphasise their importance and don't add anything of value. Warofdreams talk 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

The edit warring was getting ridiculous; I've protected the page for 3 days. Feel free to request unprotection if a suitable compromise is reached before that time. Some of the comments here are getting rather personal too. Can everyone please focus on the content and the merit of the arguments rather than throwing snide comments at each other? Chamal TC 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Chamal. Much needed. Hopefully the debate will be over by the end of the page protection. – Richard BB 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-candidates' pictures[edit]

I would like to begin by apologising for the edit warring but I would like to put my point across. I do feel that Rrius has tried to move the goalposts, but I will not dwell on certain misdemeanours and rudeness. Non-candidates are essential, and other pages have recognised this through the use of pictures. However, specifically in this case non-candidates changed the dynamic of the whole leadership race. Yvette Cooper, Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman obviously stand out. The reason why is that almost all of those mentioned had been considering leadership bids, preparing to stand and had they stood things would have been very different - in fact had Jon Cruddas stood as the candidate of the soft left, David Miliband would have been leader. Also, many mentioned have extremely senior figures - Jon Cruddas is now policy co-ordinator, Alistair Darling is now running the pro-Union campaign and very likely to replace Ed Balls, Harriet Harman is deputy leader and Yvette Cooper is seen as a replacement for Ed Miliband in the future. Also, had Purnell and Kelly remained in Parliament it is very possible that they would have also stood in the leadership contest. Therefore, images are needed in order not just to identify these people but give a sense of importance in the role that they played - and by not standing they played huge roles. In fact, some went onto be heavily involved in leadership campaigns themselves. I am sure that is the reason why US Presidential election pages and the 2005 Tory leadership election have pictures for non-candidates - for this very reason. Thank you.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Without WP:RS everything you claim for a fact is WP:OR. Leaky Caldron 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is a question of WP:RS and WP:OR - point is that these non-candidates are very significant.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this all speculation? As I said above, something like this would only be relevant in the case of an example such as Michael Portillo during the 1995 Tory leadership bid, where he went as far as establishing a campaign office only to pull out of the race. I also think US presidential elections work slightly differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't US candidates go through a series of state-by-state primary elections to secure the backing of their own party before going forward to stand for the presidency? Many pull out during that race because they don't get the backing, or whatever, and the number eventually gets whittled down. We can certainly mention those who were believed to be contenders in the Labour Party leadership bid, but including pictures of them seems a little pointless. Guessing whether Balls will be succeeded by Darling or Miliband by Cooper is something probably best left to people like Andrew Neil and the aforementioned Mr Portillo, and definitely not for an encyclopedia. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at United States presidential election, 2012, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, andConservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2005, and they do not support her position. The only candidates at any of those articles whose images are included are ones who announced a candidacy, either staying on to the end of the race or withdrawing. As best I can tell, there are no potential candidates at all noted in the 2012 US article, and the Conservative article notes two potential candidates who declined, John Redwood and Edward Leigh, yet their pictures don't appear. So this whole argument, which was improperly based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the first place turns out to be based on other stuff that didn't even exist. I turns out that AngieWattsFan simply missed the distinction between people the media mentioned as potential candidates but never became such, and people who actually did stand but dropped out. -Rrius (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting that Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012 was split from Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 for reasons of size and includes names and photographs of people who didn't run. Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012 also exists and includes similar content. (I don't have any strong feelings on this issue, I'm just aware that these things are easy to miss amongst the myriad articles on the 2012 election.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it is worth noting. The decliners are only so heavily featured in a sub-subarticle specifically about candidature. It would be undue in the main articles, and it would be more so in this article, which contains so much less information overall. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Consensus is clearly against AngieWattsFan, and s/he seems to have ignored the fact that it's irrelevant what other articles do, despite it being said numerous times, and that the claims that it's significant that these people didn't stand aren't backed up by any sources — not to mention that it's undue weight to include pictures for these people. I think it's time to invoke WP:STICK and abandon this discussion. – Richard BB 18:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the consensus in the section above above is to remove the pictures, and having just looked at the version which did have the pictures, I support their removal. They overwhelm the article, and add little value.

I hope that User:AngieWattsFan will desist from further edit-warring, and improve the civility of her comments. Angie is a fairly new editor, who is clearly passionate about improving Wikipedia ... but she needs to remember that Wikipedia makes decisions by WP:CONSENSUS, and civility is essential to that process. AWF's comments at the head of this section are an interesting piece of political analysis, but fail WP:NOR. Background knowledge of a topic is a great asset in any editor, but Wikipedia only uses material from reliable sources.

It would be good to see an expansion of the section on those who didn't stand ... but it should expanded with text, not with pictures, and it should be referenced to reliable sources. Would AngieWattsFan would like to do that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ruth Kelly[edit]

Why are we including Ruth Kelly as a noteworthy MP who declined to stand? She did not contest the 2010 general election so did not have a seat at the time of the leadership contest. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AngieWattsFan claims that a source s/he has provided supports his claim. However, it does not. The discussion revolving around this is sitting on my talk page, at the bottom. I'm still waiting for AWF to discuss this, rather than edit war, over there. — Richard BB 13:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Just found it and added my thoughts. :) Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The first point is not valid. The list Kelly is included in is of people who had been mentioned as potential challengers in the months before the election but who did not hold seats in the House of Commons afterwards. The greater question is whether she should be included as one of those. AWF's source, which we should note is from September 2008, does not support the claim. It only says she does not rule out a challenge happening, and it does so in the same breath as noting her praise of David Miliband. The clear implication is that she supported a challenge by DM or another Blairite. Further undercutting the supposed fact of her being mentioned as a leadership candidate in the run-up to the election is that she announced she would stand down at the election all the way back in October 2008.[7] So even if AWF's interpretation were valid, it still fails to qualify as it would be a mention more than a year and a half before the election. A simple Google News search shows no mentions of her in the months January to May 2010 as a possible candidate should the leadership become vacant. As such, Kelly should be removed from the list. -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: "It only says she does not rule out a challenge happening". If I'm not much mistaken, it's referring to a challenge by David Miliband, not her. The source can be easily misinterpreted, I accept that, but if the source doesn't support the claim there's no reason to keep it. — Richard BB 06:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at the other sources relating to other "possible candidates" since this was raised at ANI, just in case. The ref for Alan Milburn says nothing about him being a potential candidate either, merely that he was posited as a possible Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than leader. The ref for Charles Clarke is a bit iffy as it's a commentary and there really isn't any meat in the article, even the linked one that suggests he was in the running, but YMMV. I'm not going to remove that one. But the other probably should be removed. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So we have:

  • Ruth Kelly — should be removed as citation doesn't support claim
  • Alan Milburn — should be removed as citation doesn't support claim
  • Charles Clarke — Potentially not a reliable source, but not all that harmful, so could remain.

If there has not been any defence of why Kelly and Milburn should remain by Sunday, I'll go ahead and remove them (unless someone wants to go ahead and do it before — I wouldn't complain). — Richard BB 12:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I accept that the Alan Milburn one is rather dubious, but I remain rocksolid on both Clarke and Kelly. Firstly, the point is that these were suspected candidates in the 'then future' leadership contest to succeed Gordon Brown. Clarke provided a commentary that he would have done a better job of leading the party and we should remember that he was a PPC in Norwich South - a highly marginal seat - and could have won. On the Kelly point, that has been there for the last few years (2010 I think) - no reason to change it. The reference clearly states that actually Kelly was seen as a 'leadership contender' in a future post-Brown leadership contest or a leadership challenge to Brown. No reason at all why she should be deleted. As a member of the Labour Party, I know that during the 2009 period - many thought that if Purnell and Miliband were not standing, she may be persuaded to do it.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The Kelly article is from 2008 and she announced her intention to stand down at the election the following month. So even if we accepted your interpretation, it still cannot be used to connect her to a leadership campaign that happened after the 2010 election. But we cannot just accept your interpretation. The actual text of the article says, "Asked if she thought there will be a Labour leadership contest, Miss Kelly said: 'It's impossible to say what is going to happen.'" Just below the article's title and before the body of the article is a sentence meant to highlight a key point: "Ruth Kelly has lauded David Miliband as a "star of the future" and said a challenge to Gordon Brown's leadership cannot be ruled out." There is an implication there that that the challenge not being ruled out is one by David Miliband. That is further highlighted by the fact that the first quote immediately precedes this: "Downing Street insiders believe that Mr Miliband's prospects of challenging Mr Brown are receding after a disappointing conference. But Miss Kelly heaped praise on the Foreign Secretary: 'He is one of the great talents of the Cabinet - a star of the future, a real asset and a good friend.'"
In no way is is clear that anyone, including Kelly, thought she was a candidate. Indeed, she announced her intention to stand down at the election just four days after the article was published.[8] In fact, it is beyond credibility that anyone saw her as a leadership candidate in 2008, let alone 2010 (which is what the relevant passage in this article is talking about).
As for Clarke, when you read the longer version of the article, it is clear to see that he is talking about the 2007 leadership election: “My biggest mistake in politics was that when I was Home Secretary I could have played a much bigger part in the future direction of the Labour Party than I did. I should have fought harder against the bullying by Gordon’s claque.” Clarke was a heavyweight in 2006, and believes he could have stopped the coronation of Mr Brown. “I wasn’t particularly ambitious myself… my interest was in how Labour could recreate itself to be the story of the future. I thought Gordon was extremely ill-equipped to do that.” Does he really think he would have done a better job? “Actually, I do, if you want to know,” he says, clasping his hands together on his lap. “There were a number of other people who could have done better as well. If David Miliband, or whoever, had led us into the election, we would be in a much better position than we are now.” There is nothing there to suggest that he considered himself a candidate for a future leadership election back in the first part of 2010, let alone that anyone else did. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I've raised a request at the wikiproject for outside input. Blackmane (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Going to go ahead and remove Kelly — it's been proven time and time again that the source does not support the claim, and AngieWattsFan has not provided any reason why it should stay other than "I know the inner workings of the Labour Party, therefore it must be true", and "it's been there for a few years, so it should stay." I don't need to explain why the first point isn't a reason, and the second point is irrelevant — consensus can change, and the whole point of Wikipedia is that we edit these articles to make them more factually accurate. If it has been here for two years unchallenged, then it was here incorrectly. I will also remove Milburn, given that AWF has admitted it's dubious. I'll leave Clarke unless Rrius wants to go ahead and remove it. — Richard BB 18:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A few additional points I'd like to make to emphasise why I've removed these (again). Firstly, if it were true that Ruth Kelly was planning to stand but didn't, I'm sure there would be more sources out there proving it — not one news article online where the claim is written incredibly ambiguously (of course, the truth is that the article doesn't say that at all; AWF is misreading it). Secondly, AWF still hasn't managed to copy and paste the exact line from the article which supports his/her claim. I can only imagine this is because they know the line does not exist. Thirdly, as I said, just because it has remained there unchallenged for some time it doesn't mean it deserves to stay there. Finally, just because you're a member of the Labour Party, AWF, that does not count as a citation. Please see WP:V — you need to prove the claims that you make, and it has been demonstrated that the article you cited does not (furthermore, you have failed to demonstrate that it does). — Richard BB 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear other views, but I will say again that there is nothing in the interview (especially important is the long-form article on the interview, as opposed to the very brief piece AWF provided as a ref) demonstrates that in 2012, when the interview was conducted, Clarke or anyone else thought he had been a leadership candidate in 2010. There is certainly no proof of contemporaneous belief in 2010 that he would be. -Rrius (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see AWF has now removed the entire paragraph. I think I agree with this decision, given the edit summary s/he provided. I thank them for their agreement; shall we declare this discussion closed? — Richard BB 12:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The information is not especially important to this article. -Rrius (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)