Talk:2024 Conservative Party leadership election

Date

No matter how likely it may seem, we cannot assume a date for this election. We must wait until reliable sources publish the declared date before asserting a date in anyway in this article in Wikipedia's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Other figures"

Considering that the leader of the party must be an MP, unless the party changes the rules (or even so much as publicly considers the possibility) in order to allow non-MPs to stand, is there any constructive purpose to this section?

Not only is it rather a moot point, considering who would make good leaders/ run for candidacy if they were able to, but the only source used to back up the possibility of David Cameron's candidacy acknowledges that it would only be possible in hypothetical scenario of resigning from the Lords in order to run in a byelection, something the article describes as "extremely unlikely". 2.25.38.65 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Table format

I think the separate table sections that include current and former offices could be condensed into one section like 2024 Democratic primaries/2024 Republican primaries or 2024 Iranian presidential election. All the info could be merged under a section called 'Experiences' or 'Offices held'. We could limit the number of entries to three or if we want to list all of the offices held, we could add a collapsable option. Here's an example:

Candidate	Constituency	Experience	Campaign	Ref.
James Cleverly	Braintree (2015–present)	Shadow Home Secretary (2024–present) Home Secretary (2023–2024) Foreign Secretary (2022–2023) Education Secretary (2022) Party Chair (2019–2020)	Announced: 24 July 2024 Website

TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Trim of the Candidates section needed

Since this page has existed, we've had Declared candidates, Potential candidates, Expected candidates, Declined candidates, Discussed candidates, and Previously Potential candidates. It's a bit ridiculous.

I propose we have: DECLARED; POTENTIAL (including those that have been discussed by the media and those for whom an announcement feels imminent); and DECLINED (whether or not they had seriously considered running before ultimately deciding not to.)

I see no worth in a section full of names like Grant Shapps and Penny Mordaunt who are categorically NOT going to be a candidate, and whose chance of being a candidate had been ended before Sunak had even resigned as leader.

In terms of trimming, given the deadline is in little more than 48 hours, it's probably pointless merging the Potential and Likely sections at this point, but I would still endorse scrapping the ex-MPs section. OGBC1992 (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on scrapping the ex-MPs section as it's important context for the current election. Having no mention of Penny Mordaunt, despite her being seen as a frontrunner prior to the election feels like an omission. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is there so much unrelated stuff in the article?

There is tons of discussion in the background section that isn't really relevant to this page. If someone wants to know details about the last leadership elections or the general election campaign, there are other articles for that. Sure, it is useful to give a little bit of background in particular what caused Sunak's resignation and maybe the results of the last leadership election, but the section is really excessive. Eg, how is discussing the "D-day controversy" in any way relevant to this leadership election? 192.76.8.93 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Candidates Exclusion

There’s some funny editing going on. Liz Truss - who was seen before the election as a potential candidate - has been excluded from the list repeatedly. This is despite several sources - including from Sky News and The Evening Standard where she gives non-denials - saying she wanted the job. Other sources which mention Truss are included yet sources that mention her are not included. This does not seem to tenable. Likewise, it’s very well sourced that both IDS and Dowden were potential candidates as caretaker leader. Both of this was a source of commentary in the run up to the general election and the Tory leadership election with IDS explicitly asked. In fact, Dorries explicitly endorsed him for this. Again, every mention was removed. James Heale from the Spectator also mentioned Gareth Davies - if Fawkes is an unreliable or insufficient source then it’s incumbent on other editors to check.

Cates’ endorsement of Jenrick is excluded when it is mentioned in the endorsements page. It doesn’t seem like the editing is informative or consistent. 2A00:23EE:2148:1E77:3419:2568:A2B7:7C71 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, a couple points:

• Regarding Truss, my problem is that the sourcing is sloppy. From a source included through the edit, here is a quote: 'No one expects Truss to run again'. It just seems like you put into google 'Liz Truss Tory leadership election' and copied as many articles as you can find. If you wish her to be included, choose only 1 or 2 of the best articles which seriously consider her.
  
• Caretaker leader explicitly is not the same as running for leader in the leadership election, and as such have no relevancy in this section.
  
• Regarding Guido, it is the editor who adds it's job to make sure they are including high quality sources that can be relied upon. One editor cannot be adding unreliable information and requiring others to follow behind cleaning it up. Please see this list for more information. The Spectator is not the best of sources either. It is worth also saying references should not solely be a tweet link, this is not sufficient.
  
• Please feel free to add back the Cates endorsement, this was just a manual revert in order to not have to go through and do each one individually.
  

Regards, Quinby (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think it’s fair to say that many of the sources did say Truss was a potential candidate. Surely, the reasonable thing would be to include Truss sources that are relevant and exclude one which isn’t relevant? I will add with the relevant sources (I think Sky News is sufficient).

As for caretaker leader, I think it’s relevant because this page does not merely deal with the leadership election but the succession. Even in the context of a leadership contest, it is entirely possible that - as with 2003, 2007 and 2022 - a single candidate was put forward in the contest (in this context possibly with the understanding or agreement that they would resign at a later date). Under the leadership rules of the Conservative Party, that would be the only way for them to have chosen a new caretaker leader who wasn’t Sunak. It is also not how this page works too - Hunt has been included despite most of the commentary being as a caretaker leader. We also included IDS and David Lidington in the 2019 contest even though the commentary was largely about them being caretaker leaders. We also did include IDS on a list of potential candidates when the contest was about to start with a profile, alongside other leadership candidates. So it is strange for us to remove him. And in any case, even if I were to say that it wasn’t relevant in the context of this page, it is still the case that Dowden was seen as a potential candidate even though he was reported not to want to do the job. So he should be recorded as someone who declined to stand regardless of the case. At the very least, there should be some mention in this article that there was serious discussion about a caretaker leader with Iain Duncan Smith and Oliver Dowden being the most prominent names mentioned. This was a live and significant topic during this contest and for the succession (before Sunak chose to stay until November).

I partly agree on Gareth Davies but I do think allowance should be given for commentary. For example, we cited that Trott and Countinho were going to support Badenoch. This was removed and then it turned out that both women would go onto endorse her. I also think a political correspondent from the Spectator - as with any political correspondent - should be seen as a credible source. I will try to find a more adequate source if that is ok. There’s also a possible inclusion of Andrew Bowie who was also touted as a potential candidate. 2A00:23EE:2148:1E77:3419:2568:A2B7:7C71 (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Sky News ran with a short story on Truss herself saying things, not much of a discussion as the description of that section suggests.
  
• If you feel strongly about caretaker leader suggestions being added, put that somewhere else in the article (probably at the end of background). Otherwise, it clashes and gives a different view.
  
• If Dowden was spoken of as a candidate, you provided no sources to suggest such a thing.
  
• If an adequate source exits, Davies can stay. If it is solely 1 or 2 tweets which are not directly from those it is about, that would not be sufficient I believe.
  

Quinby (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think a Sky News source where Truss explicitly refuses to rule out standing for the leadership again is sufficient to be included as a potential candidate. Politicians who wish to rule out leading a party don’t provide a non denial. This is also in the context of her being asked by a journalist if she will stand.

I think you’re not quite getting my point on a caretaker leader. The issue is that under Tory leadership rules, a caretaker leader would have to have been elected in a similar way to Howard and Sunak. So on those grounds alone, it’s sufficient for them to be included. 2A00:23EE:19A0:1D71:C5E4:49EA:D3A3:E3B3 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)