Talk:2015 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

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.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Mid‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

"...and wife of Ed Balls"

The article doesn't comment on the marital status of any of the other candidates. Is it right to make an exception for Yvette Cooper? I've removed those words - comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's the only one with a spouse who is politically relevant, a spouse who almost certainly would be running himself if he hadn't lost his seat. It seems fair and informative to mention it. It's not really any different from mentioning that the Milibands are brothers. 94.194.162.45 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Would it make sense to keep candidates out of the infobox until nominations close or we have the maximum of six candidates with sufficient nominations to qualify for the ballot? The former would mean waiting until 15 June, while the latter would mean waiting until somewhere between 9 and 15 June. -Rrius (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential candidates/ruled out

There are some people who have been 'ruled out' and mentioned as 'potential candidates' who have never expressed any interest or have never seriously been linked to the job. Some of them have actually not been listed as 'ruled out' though they have pulled out because it is a given that they won't stand. Must be rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy's Cafe (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right; I've taken out the section. The remaining names were rather thinly sourced, and did not appear to seriously consider the race. Neutrality^talk 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruled out candidates should only be mentioned if they've made a public statement on the matter. For example, in the 2014 Scottish Labour leadership election, some politicians called for Gordon Brown to stand for the role, but he ruled himself out. There were also a string of others, such as Jackie Baillie and Jenny Marra who spoke on the issue of running for leadership. This is Paul (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labour List "polling"

I'm not sure we should include the results of the two LabourList surveys in the polling section. This is not a representative survey conducted by a reputable polling organisation.

In the case of a general election or by-election, the precedent on wikipedia is to exclude this type of poll. Has there been discussion elsewhere about including this sort of information for an internal party elecion?Frinton100 (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A poll on a website that anyone can respond to is neither scientific nor notable. Such polls are not included on any election page on Wikipedia. Tiller54 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sub-section of "Opinion polling" specifically for Non-scientific surveys (LabourList included) so as to make sure they are not held to the same standard as the scientific opinion polling. This way, anyone & everyone who comes to this page can see ALL of the polls, scientific or not, & they can gauge who is leading the polls (scientific or not) with what group(s) of people. This is why the non-scientific surveys should be included and this is why I've added a specific sub-section for them. Brucejoel99 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many readers will glance at the article without knowing the difference between real polls and non-scientific surveys, and could be confused into thinking that the non-scientific surveys offer a clue as to who will be the likely winner of this election. If someone looks at the section and goes away thinking that Burnham is likelier than Corbyn to lead the Labour Party than this page has does the opposite of what an encyclopedia article should do. Ratemonth (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't we put a disclaimer at the top of each section, something along the lines of this. For the opinion polling section, "The polls in this section have been undertaken by media pollsters known to use scientific polling methods." In the non-scientific survey section, we could put "The following surveys have been taken by many organizations via non-scientific methods in order to gauge their following's ideas about the leadership contest." The point of an encyclopedia is to give information about a subject, which opinion polls & non-scientific surveys both do when it comes to the leadership contest . Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And might I also add that (hopefully) people who know enough about politics to look at this page are smart enough to tell the difference between actual opinion polls and non-scientific surveys. Readers are (hopefully) responsible enough to know that scientific opinion polls are a better source than non-scientific surveys. Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're more of an optimist than I am. But a disclaimer for the section sounds fine to me. Ratemonth (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK to keep the non-scientific surveys w/ disclaimers? Brucejoel99 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I prefer, but it's a fair compromise I think. I don't speak for anyone else of course. Ratemonth (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The results of non-scientific polls should absolutely not be on the page. They don't get included in other election articles because they are of zero value. They shouldn't be included here. Wikiditm (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article, please help

I have created the article Endorsements in the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015. Please feel free to help build it! AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over which Cooper photo

2007 Ministerial portrait (110px wide) link

2010 photo (112px wide) link

There is a dispute about which photo to use in the infobox, and I would welcome views on which photo is best. The differing views so far expressed are:

I think the 2010 photo is better as it is closer to her appearence in the leadership election; the 2007 photo suggests she has a very young appearence.
User:Brucejoel99 prefers the 2007 photo because "her ministerial photo looks much better and fits the page better" (taken from revert comment).

There are no more recent photos in commons, and I couldn't find any better with an acceptable licence using google, so the choice is just between these two.

NB the other 3 photos are 112, 111 and 116 px wide, so I don't understand the basis for thinking the 110px 2007 photos fits the page better than the 112px 2010 photo. Rwendland (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my earlier comment, the 2007 photo is an official ministerial photo, like Burnham's, whereas the 2010 one is taken by someone at that speech. At the beginning, we also had a ministerial photo of Liz Kendall that was later deleted from the Wikimedia Commons, & there is no ministerial photo of Corbyn. But the way I see it is that if there's an official "ministerial" photo we can use, use it, regardless of others.Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like either, however my choice would be the 2010 photo. I don't think the 2007 photo fits the page any better. AusLondonder (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there hasn't been much discussion here, 2:1 are in favour of the 2010 photo, so I'll change it in the article. Hopefully we will get a better one soon. Rwendland (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders in odds table

I've added the leader to each date in the odds table with the labour colours like in the opinion poll table, but as I'm not that good with odds and which ones are better, I've used these two links to help me

Hopefully I've done it right, but if I haven't done it right please just correct it! Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 19:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison purposes just take them all as fractions, the lower the better. I was going to update the table with the current odds. They're listed at http://www.justbookies.com/election-odds/ for all the major bookies. I was going to lose the date element (which seems more important for the opinion polling, and also would take up much too much space) and just update it weekly with the most recent odds. How would people feel about this? Wikiditm (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiditm: Sounds like a good idea! Better than having randomly dated sets of odds going on all the way to September. Seagull123 Φ 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might add in something that they put in the statistics section of football team season articles that say when it was last updated, just to show readers how recent it is. (See here). Seagull123 Φ 15:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are Yesterdays Neo-Cons Loosing the Debate?

Andy Burnham says that he is "worried" that, if Labour takes the wrong turn, "there's a real risk that the party could split." Well he would say that, would not he? Given that Burnham has more than a passing interest in the outcome of the election, should Wikipedia allow itself be to used as a platform for his dated (reds-under-the-bed) scare tactics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.135.224 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think the article should be changed? -- Hazhk (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the scare tactics of Andy Burnham are clearly in his own self/election interests, and given that Wikipedia is not a platform for election candidates, then might not the comments of Andy Burnham be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.249.160 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do try and remember that wikipedia aims for neutrality, so wearing your heart on your sleeve while presenting your case isn't exactly the best approach! That whole section about the election integrity is poor to be honest. It definitely feels off to report what Andy Burnham said - you wouldn't have a section "Accusations that Liz Kendall is a Tory" and list the Corbyn supporters who used this talking point earlier on. But then who DO we include? John Mann is there currently, but he's an Yvette Cooper supporter. All of the commentators I've seen on this are either Cooper/Burnham supports or Conservatives, both with obvious vested interests. At the same time, the talk of infiltration is a big part of the election, so we need something. I'll try and rewrite the section tonight, but if you think you can do better, go ahead and edit it yourself. The page isn't protected. Wikiditm (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the odd New Labour supporters, it is not at all clear if the public are that concerned about talk of infiltration of the Labour Party. For it is possible that many people - including folks that have never voted - see the growing numbers joining the party as a welcome sign of involvement. So, to counter-balance all the talk and spin of mass-infiltration, might there not be section concerning the mass-involvement in the Labour Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.104.14 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting System

There is a lot of (too much?) information about the nomination process but nothing about the voting system. Is it First Past The Post or a type of Proportional Representation? This seems particularly relevant given the polling and polarisation of the candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.226.132 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article already says: "The vote, as in previous elections, will be held by the alternative vote (instant-runoff) system." I've added a sentence to the lead, for greater clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraphs

Hello everyone. I added a couple of paragraphs to the opening section mentioning the surge in membership (and its associated ties to Corbyn), and the high profile interventions seen lately. I felt that the big issues/debate going on around the election really hadn't been brought up (asides from mentions of increase of membership and possible entryism later on the page), and I feel this is really key to understanding the election. Regards. MrPenguin20 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it. Although I think the "Corbyn factor" should be mentioned there, it would be WP:UNDUE to allow it to dominate the lead section to the extent suggested. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Sizes

Hi, can somebody change the sizes of the photographs so that they are equal sizes. I like that somebody has updated the photos, but it seems a bit unfair to have Jeremy Corbyn's as much bigger than everybody else's. 03.57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to Corbyn's image - it was unnecessary and - more importantly - would have led to continuing discussion (or edit warring) over one picture appearing larger or smaller than the others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree, there was no need to change anything. Thanks for that. 00:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not associate increasing membership with Jeremy Corbyn

The opening section currently reads "The election campaign has seen a surge in Labour Party membership, with nearly 610,000 individuals being eligible to vote, compared with 200,000 party members in early May. This increase has been in part credited to the social media campaign around Jeremy Corbyn." I've previously edited out a similar sentence in the dispute section. The changed numbers in membership is due to the technical procedure change so that union members have to join individually rather than being able to vote in block through their union. Both sides are presenting the increased numbers as due to Corbyn, as anti-corbyn people can depict "infiltration" and pro-corbyn people can depict "corbynmania." The YouGov poll which sparked the discussion of entryism found a 43/26/20/11 split for overall first preference votes, and a 50/25/16/9 split among those who have joined the party since the 2015 election. Talking about the increasing membership alongside talking about Corbyn is misleading and inaccurate.Wikiditm (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems wrong. It is well known that the large majority of new members are planning to vote for Corbyn and joined for this very purpose. SmokeyTheCat 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the poll results here. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ul79cmahd5/LabourLeadership_150721_day_one_W.pdf The figures I gave are the ones in the official release. There is an increased preference among newer members for Corbyn, but it is nothing like the story being portrayed. From the YouGov polls, if Labour prohibited anyone who registered later than 2010... Corbyn would still win. It's widely reported that masses of people are joining the party to vote Corbyn, but as yet there's no evidence for that. The technical change re unions is the main driver behind the membership increase. Wikiditm (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we report in this article are what reliable sources report. They have been known to be wrong - but, if they relate the increased membership "in part... to the social media campaign around Jeremy Corbyn", it is reasonable and balanced for that claim to be reported here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The sentence is only saying that the sources have claimed that it is due to Corbyn, not that it definitely is. We can clearly see that sources have claimed this. It may not be, and the polls might be wrong, but this is what has been reported by reliable sources, as Ghmyrtle says.Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image gallery in "candidates" section

An image gallery of the four candidates was added in this edit, removed by me here, and has now been re-added here - allegedly for "clarity and aesthetic purposes". This is a joke, right? It looks horrible - it doesn't line up well with the table above it, and it is completely unnecessary. It adds nothing - we already have images (in most cases, identical ones) in the infobox. So, I'll take it out again as it serves no conceivable encyclopedic value, and we can have a discussion here if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the circular photos add very little, given we already have 4 photos in the infobox per normal WP convention. I agree the circular photos are not attractive. Rwendland (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If they could be made to line up and look nice then maybe but even then it would be adding very little. Not worth putting the time in to sort that out.Wikiditm (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PET CAT VOTES IN LEADERSHIP ELECTION

Ha ha, what a new and witty 'joke'. Clearly, you get a better class of BS from Labour right-wingers. Why is Wikipedia printing this stupid dis-information? Honestly, should not this crude stunt be deleted - without delay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.226.161 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is open, so if you're ever unhappy with the quality of the content, feel free to edit it. I just removed the cat story now. It was only on the page for less than a dayWikiditm (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High profile figures having votes removed

Twitter is not a reputable source - just because someone says their vote was removed/reinstated on Twitter is not enough evidence for it to be on Wikipedia. If you can't find evidence from a reputable news source then please delete it Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have now been replaced by news articles. --ERAGON (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future of 'odds of winning' section

With the deadline now passed, it may be worth considering changing the current format of the table in the 'Odds of winning' section. Perhaps having the odds average for each month (May through to September) would be effective? Certainly there ought to be a reflection on the consistent slashing of Corbyn's odds (from 200/1 in May to where they are at present) and the steady increase of Kendall, Cooper and Burnham's. Willwal (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While tempting, this would not be a particularly accurate or meaningful portrayal of odds. They represent predicted probabilities of a future event. A change in odds doesn't reflect a change in probability, but a change in the accuracy of the prediction. If you look up the weather forecast for tomorrow, it would be of no value to find what the historic forecasts were two days ago or a week ago. The best forecast is simply the most recent one. I gave the odds section its current layout because of this, and think the best thing to do after the election would be to remove the section. There are no odds for something that's in the past.Wikiditm (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think that, although odds cannot be regarded as reliable etc., they are still an important aspect of the contest. They are used in the media to show shifts being made by bookies. The same argument you've used could easily be applied to opinion polls, which (lest we forget) are not necessarily an accurate or meaningful portrayal of voting intentions. Willwal (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The odds are 'reliable', but they all relate to a specific future event. When you mention "shifts" that is the bit that isn't strictly statistically accurate. The actual probabilities of the event never changed, but the bookies' predictions of those probabilities did. It is a fuzzy image lens becoming clearer and clearer, with error bars around each of the numbers getting tighter and tighter, rather than set error bars with probabilities that drift around. Imagine the forecasted high temperature for 12/09/2015 as given by the met office on each of the 5 weeks prior as being 16, 18, 19, 20, 19. The only number of use to us is the most recent prediction (19). The predictions further away are worse and worse, and represent the (unreported) error bars shrinking. 5 weeks beforehand it would be most honest to say "we predict 16 degrees, but anywhere between 10 and 22 is possible" then the day before it would be most honest to say "we predict 19 degrees, but anywhere between 18 and 20 is possible". Is it of interest that the numbers appear to go up to the eventual 19? No, maybe to meteorologists or statisticians but even then probably not. The odds of winning today will drift infinity-wards as the error bars close to zero. The opinion polls I think should be left up, they are snapshots of voting intentions for different times, and so do genuinely depict change over time. The odds of winning section depicts improved prediction over time for the same future event. There's no real reason to keep it there after the election, as much as I may see that section as a child! Wikiditm (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JEREMY CORBYN WINS - by a mile!

Given the truly massive scale of the vote for Jeremy Corbyn, as the new leader of the Labour Party, could there be an article concerning this outstanding victory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.145.2 (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't make a heck of a lot of sense. Tony Blair got 57% in '94, John Smith got 91% in '92, Neil Kinnock got 89% in '88. Corbyn won by a substantial amount and many commentators have talked about this. If you want to add something into the article, go ahead, with a good citation and appropriate wording it should be fine.Wikiditm (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Please could someone who knows what they are doing edit the infobox's sections on years or previous elections and next election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.84.64 (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on a RfC at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on infobox image

Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party (and in election infoboxes, such as the one at this page) AusLondonder (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015. 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) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]