Talk:2005 Conservative Party leadership election

Untitled

This page is very good, but needs cleaning up. A better structure needs to be thought up of for the article's sections. David 15:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the timeline section should be blasted (or maybe moved outside the article), and the important bits turned into prose, with many reference-style extlinks. This would then cover the pre-close-of-nominations events, including the text currently in the party conference section. This would then be followed by the sections about the ballots, and then the victory. Morwen - Talk 15:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Help needed elsewhere

For those who worked to keep this page up to date, there's now Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006 which will need similar attention. Timrollpickering 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

References

There are 43 references. 38 of them are basically the same source, the BBC News. Discuss. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rifkind's candidacy - not mentioned?!

Malcolm Rifkind surely needs to be added to the candidates who withdrew section. He was the most senior of them and the only one to be given a conference speech. I've tried to do it but for some reason it won;t let me make any changes even though as far as I can judge the article's not locked.81.141.175.48 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 2005. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050927061442/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=124236 to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=124236
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051101190931/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=125133 to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=125133#
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428045903/http://www.conservativehome.com:80/record.jsp?type=opinion to http://conservativehome.com/record.jsp?type=opinion&ID=48

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

1922 Committee

The article currently says that "Many ... called for the Returning Officer to be a party office bearer who is unlikely to be vacant in the aftermath of a general election." I suggest that, while an office can be vacant, the individual who is the bearer of an office cannot. IOW it would not make sense to say that Marcus Fox was vacant after the 1997 General Election or that Archie Hamilton was vacant after the 2001 one. I therefore propose that the artice be amended to read "Many ... called for the Returning Officer to be the bearer of a party office which is unlikely to be vacant ..." Alekksandr (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Just now came across this (many apologies for such years of delay), but as the user who inserted said section, I completely agree. Presuming that this is gonna be the only comment on this matter given, well, the lack thereof over the last 2-&-a-1/2 years, I'll take the liberty of updating accordingly. Brucejoel99 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

3.1 The current rules

Current as at what date?

The answer today is 1998 - 2 June 2019, but the bare use of the word "current" doesn't supply that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northutsire (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)