Talk:Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)

Untitled comment

Reverted what appear to be unilateral changes. Please ask for consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancheta Wis (talk • contribs) 00:07, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

When did post become official?

When exactly did the post come into formal existance? I note there's no-one listed for 1915-1916 (presumably because of the all-party coalition) - would it be the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937?

Some of the leaders in earlier periods are unclear - in the 19th century in particular the Conservatives and Liberals in opposition did not always have a single undisputed overall leader. Timrollpickering 11:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps it would make sense in the 19th century to have separate lists for leader of the opposition in the commons, and leader of the opposition in the lords, if such lists can be devised. For the commons I would assume that it would be something like

(note sure who the commons leaders of the Whigs in opposition were) Sir Robert Peel 1830-1834 Lord John Russell 1834-1835 Sir Robert Peel 1835-1841 Lord John Russell 1841-1846 Lord George Bentinck 1846-1848 Benjamin Disraeli 1848-1852 Lord John Russell 1852 Benjamin Disraeli 1852-1858 ?? (Lord Palmerston?) 1858-1859 Benjamin Disraeli 1859-1866 William Gladstone 1866-1868 Benjamin Disraeli 1868-1874 William Gladstone 1874-1875 Lord Hartington 1875-1880 Sir Stafford Northcote 1880-1885 William Gladstone 1885-1886 ?? (Lord Randolph Churchill?) 1886 William Gladstone 1886-1892 Arthur Balfour 1892-1895 Sir William Harcourt 1895-1898 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman 1898-1905 Arthur Balfour 1905-1911 Andrew Bonar Law 1911-1915

For the Lords it'd be, uh,

Lord Grey ??-1830 Duke of Wellington 1830-1834 Lord Melbourne 1834-1835 Duke of Wellington 1835-1841 ?? (Lord Lansdowne?) 1841-1846 Lord Derby 1846-1852 ?? 1852 Lord Derby 1852-1858 Lord Granville 1858-1859 Lord Derby 1859-1866 Lord Granville 1866-1868 ?? (Lord Malmesbury? Duke of Richmond?) 1868-1874 Lord Granville 1874-1880 Lord Salisbury 1880-1885 Lord Granville 1885-1886 Lord Salisbury 1886 Lord Granville 1886-1891 Lord Kimberley 1891-1892 Lord Salisbury 1892-1895 Lord Rosebery 1895-1896 Lord Kimberley (?) 1896-1902 Lord Ripon (?) 1902-1905 Lord Lansdowne 1905-1915

Or some such... john k 19:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1846-1852 is chaotic to say the least for the Conservative leaders. The problems include:

• Attempts at reunification between Peelites and protectionists, pushed mainly by Stanley (he didn't become Derby until 1851) who had authority as overall leader of the protectionists (at least though they soon asserted themselves as the sole Conservatives), but resisted by Bentinck and Disraeli, amongst others, in the Commons.
• A deep ambiguity amongst some new MPs as to which side they were on, blurring the divide.
• Weakness and chaos amongst the protectionist leaders in the Commons. Initially it was Lord George Bentinck, but he was weak and resigned at the end of 1847. Then it was nominally the Marquess of Granby from February 1848 until March 1848! Then no leader for the 1848-1849 session, then a triumverate of Granby, Disraeli and J.C. Herries - primarily to stop Dizzy becoming leader. At some point Dizzy became effectively the sole leader and eventually officially, but exactly when is unclear - the list I have dates him as sole Commons leader from February 1852 (i.e. the Who? Who? Ministry).

1868-1874. First Malmesbury (1868-1869), then Cairns (1869-1870) then Richmond (1870-1874). Also Beaconsfield was leader 1880-1881. Timrollpickering 20:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about Derby not inheriting until 1851. Did he have a writ of acceleration on the Lord Stanley title that put him in the Lords, then? In terms of the rest of the 1846-1852 period, does it even make sense to say there was a single leader of the opposition, given the opposition between Peelites and Protectionists? Or should we say that Aberdeen and Stanley were both leaders of the opposition in the Lords, and Peel and Bentinck/Granby/Granby, Herries, and Disraeli/Disraeli were leaders of the opposition in the commons? john k 17:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From recollection I think Derby was created a Baron in his own right. Peel doesn't appear to have organised his followers into a party, according to Llewellyn Woodward's The Age of Reform - England 1815-1870 (in the Oxford History of England series). The impression of the period 1846-1859 in that book is one of immense political chaos with many blurred lines. If the position "Leader of the Opposition" did not formally exist at this point then I reckon we'd probably have to try contemporary Hansards to see who was asking Business Questions or the like. Timrollpickering 18:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Beckett

It is worth noting that although Beckett was referred to as 'acting' leader of the Labour Party during the period between the death of John Smith and the election of Tony Blair; nevertheless, by virtue of the Labour Party Constituion, she was techincally the 'leader'. Indeed she could have insisted on retaining that post until the scheduled Labour Party Conference of 1994. Accordingly, by convention, Beckett was automatically the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It would be interesting to ascertain whether she drew the appropriate salary; however, there can be no doubt that she was constituionally entitled to use the term. Tgsh2005

If this is the case then what about George Brown in 1963? Also during 1940-1945 there was actually some dispute over the front bench - the Independent Labour Party tried to seize it (despite having only 3 MPs!) but it was agree not to have a formal salaried LotO. Should Beckett (and Brown) be listed as acting? Timrollpickering 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This really raises a broader question about what it means to be Leader of the Opposition, which is worth discussing. Is it that they are 'generally recognised as such.' If so, Beckett, despite the Labour constitution, was only ever seen as acting Leader of the Opposition. If we accept her as 'Leader of the Opposition' then we must presumably also accept George Brown (1963) and Herbert Morrison (I think) (1955). Equally, we could ask if Leader of the Opposition is sometimes a de facto position within the House of Commons. I.E: There was no leader of the Opposition in WWII because there was an all party coalition. However, Archibald Ramsay MP was jailed during the War, though he was still an MP, because he was pro-Hitler. In this case, as he was not in the coalition but an MP, would he not qualify as Leader of the Opposition? I am really unsure about having Beckett on the list and have previously deleted her to find her put back. Is there any way of finalising this?

Finnophile.

The BBC, it seems, has Beckett as 'Leader of the Opposition for three months.' Google her name and term and you'll find this. They are at least a 'reputable source' in this regard. As such, though I still slightly concerned about it, I think she should be kept and will also insert George Brown and Herbert Morrison. I'd still be interested in anyone's view regarding Archibald Ramsay.

Finnophile

The 1940-1945 coalition was not *every* party in the House - the ILP (3 MPs) were never a part of it, nor were the Communists (1 MP) and there was also the Common Wealth Party which got a few MPs through defections and by-elections. But it was agreed that the post of Leader of the Opposition would not go to any of them but instead be nominally held by a senior veteran Labour figure. However they would not receive the salary...

The 1937 Ministers of the Crown Act introduced a salary for the Leader of the Opposition and I suppose we could judge the 1940-1945, 1963 and 1994 cases on the basis of whether or not anyone was actually drawing the salary (and thus officially LotO).

I'm not sure the BBC can be trusted on such a matter as it's there's a constitutional difference between the acting leader of the largest party and a formally salaried holder of the post - and they're likely to list the first before the second. (In other areas of British politics they have been known to make mistakes - election results such as showing the numbers for Scottish seats when talking about Wales or getting the names of seats the wrong way round are others). Timrollpickering 20:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I found out about this ILP thing between my last post and yours and inserted a paragraph on James Maxton. By the way, the Communist Part, though not a member of the war coalition, supported the government and the Commonwealth Party had fewer MPs than ILP. You raise a very good point, however: By what criteria do we assert that someone is Leader of the Opposition? If it's just that they're paid it becomes a very recent thing: even monisters weren't paid until relatively recently. Another possibility is asking who is opposing the PM at the Despatch Box, as long as they sit in the same House. Or one could just claim that it should be the leader of the largest opposition party at any given time unless the person who leads that party is itself unclear. I would suggest leaving in BOTH the Labour symbolic opposition leaders during WWII and the guy from the ILP. You are quite right that the BBC cannot be relied on always for these things. I found out about the 'succession of leaders during WWII' from their website but when I contacted them nobody had any idea who they were or where this info had come from!!!

29th Dec. Finnophile

Several points:

After the Reform of the House of Lords, triggered by Lloyd George's Budget, a Prime Minister was effectively compelled to be an MP.

Debateable - there were several times post 1911 when peers were real contenders for the premiership/leadership. I don't think the Parliament Act was the line in the sand at the time.

From recollection the Communist Party was all over the place - I don't think they supported the coalition before Germany declared war on the Soviet Union (at the time they were opposed to "a capitalist war").

I think the ILP was down to three MPs by this point - one of the ones elected in the 1935 general election had defected (back) to the Labour Party. Since the post was official by this point (i.e. the salary) and Maxton was not asking Business Questions I dispute that he was in anyway the Leader of the Opposition in any formal sense. (Informally it seems Nye Bevan was at times the nearest to a Leader of Opposition!)

Also in 1906 Balfour lost his seat in the general election and had to get back into the House in a very early by-election. For a few weeks Joseph Chamberlain led for the Unionists but stated that he was doing so "on behalf of my Right Honourable Friend the Leader of the Opposition who is presently out of the House", quite clearly referring to Balfour. The LotO is probably best defined as the leader of the party that has taken the role of "His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" - and if none has then no Leader can easily be identified. Timrollpickering 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Roll Pickering - I want to include what you said on 11th Dec 2005 - that the ILP tried to seize the front bench - in my brief paragraph on James Maxton. I think that as there was no clear leader in this period, stating the de facto and de jure leaders is worth doing. Where did you get this info from and have you more detail? Finnophile (10th Jan 06)

I'd have to check through the books - having been studying and researching the politics of this era for years I've picked up a lot of this stuff. I can take a look next time I'm looking through the various books for formal references.

I dispute that there was no clear leader as there was clearly someone taking the role, asking business questions, formally responding to the PM and the like, just not taking the salary. Maxton may have been the most effective politician in opposition but that's not the same thing at all. Timrollpickering 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would submit the following: In general, the Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the largest party not in government and, as such, the one who takes PMQs, assuming they both sit in the Commons. We would also expect, if there was such a thing, this individual to take the salary. However, WWII was a unique situation. The Leader of the Opposition (Attlee) became a member of the government and a number of Labour MPs (such as Greenwood) were sent to the Despatch Box so that the chamber could function. These people, following these criteria (and from your previous posts you seem to agree with them) were NOT the 'Leader of the Opposition' because they did not take the salary and they are members of the governing coalition itself. There was no official 'opposition,' just coalition members that questioned other coaliton members. It was a unique situation. However, I think it is interesting for the reader to know about people like Greenwood - who did the questions though being in the coalition - and Maxton - who did not do these questions but was, nevertheless, leader of the largest party that was not in the coalition. Equally, I think interim leaders, though they might not take the salary, are also of interest from the reader's perspective because they carry out the function. If we really wanted to be strict about it we would remove Beckett, Greenwood, Hastings-Smith, Pethwick-Lawrence et al. But I think this info would interest to the reader and therefore propose keeping it in the article.

Finnophile (11th January 2006)

Two questions -

1. Have we ever figured out if anyone acted as Leader of the Opposition during Asquith's coalition government? That, like Churchill's coalition, saw the leaders of all the main parties (Asquith for the Liberals, Law for the Tories, Henderson for Labour) in the government, with the sole exception of the Irish Parliamentary Party. Was John Redmond the leader of the opposition (I've never seen any indication of this)? Was nobody? Did they do like they did during WWII and give the job to a senior Tory outside the government?
2. God damned Whig commons leaders...does anyone have any idea who led the Whigs in the commons between Tierney's resignation in 1821 and Althorp's appointment in March 1830? I can't find any evidence on this subject at all. john k 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding comment to generate list of contents!

Couldn't work out any other way to do this, and when I removed a test, the table of contents vanished again! Carcharoth 13:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for Leader of the Opposition

What about creating an infobox for Leaders of the Opposition, just like Prime Ministers?Mathsguy 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral Changes

Please ask for agreement. Someone has woefully oversimplified the issue of who was LoOpp during both the wars. Obviously these simplistic changes need to be reversed.

Guidance

I think perhaps we need to have an introduction explaining that many of our listings pre-1832 and for some time afterwards are best guesses in a time when clear leaders as opposed to various faction leaderd within each party were the exception not the rule. Alci12 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Order reversed

Believe it or not but people are most interested in the most recent leaders of the opposition. That's why I've reversed the order, so that it is most recent to oldest. CaptainJ ^{(t | c | e)} 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but people generally like to read lists in chronological order. john k 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment we seem to have a sort of compound order - leaders of the opposition since 1905, in chronological order; followed by leaders of the opposition from 1807 to (bizarrely) 1915, in chronological order. I can see why this is done (though the article isn't clear what determines when the post became "official"), but the result is a little odd. TSP 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative PM?

Is this really true? "He or she is normally viewed as an alternative Prime Minister ... "? Surely it is only true during a general election when he/she is indeed an alternative, but after the election surely not - other members of the cabinet then become alternative PMs. Abtract 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

acting Tory leader in 1906

I had thought it was Austen Chamberlain who was the acting leader of the opposition in 1906, rather than his father. Can anyone confirm this? It seems unlikely to me that as divisive a figure as Joe Chamberlain was in 1906 could even have been accepted as acting leader for a month. Especially since he'd been on the backbenches for more than two years by then. john k 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked a couple of histories of the party and John Charmley's A History of Conservative Politics 1900-1996 page 32 says the following:

With Balfour out of the House it was inevitable that Chamberlain [very clearly referring to Joseph] would deputise for him - which was bound to mean that the Tariff Reformers [of whom, as Charmley notes, there were 109 out of 157 MPs] would have their way. Lansdowne, shaken by the scale of the Unionist defeat, did not think he would 'approve' of the line which Chamberlain would take in the Commons. He told Balfour that he sure that 'Joe' would 'nail his colours to the mast, and invite us to set at work at once to convert the country to his fiscal proposals.

It's pretty clearly referring to Joe not Austen. Note also that it wasn't just Balfour who lost his seat but quite a number of the last Unionist cabinet. Plus I think the convention at the time was for former ministers to sit on the Opposition frontbench, rather than the organised system of a formal Shadow Cabinet mirroring every Cabinet post with junior shadow ministers supporting them. And of course the landslide (along with departures like Churchill and Gorst) had tipped the balance in the party decisively towards the protectionists. Also Roy Jenkins's The Chancellors has a long essay on Austen and doesn't mention his being acting leader in 1906 at all. Timrollpickering 00:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I must have been confused. That clearly is Joe being referred to, not Austen. john k 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Third party leader

I have recollections of successive Lib Dem leaders being described as "the Leader of Her Majesty's Other Oppposition" at the Remembrance Sunday ceremonies (and this predates all this "Liberal Democrat Shadow Cabinet" stuff) but a quick Google doesn't show anything - am I just misremembering? Timrollpickering 16:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an awesome title, if real. I have no real idea. john k 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

1918-22

Does anyone know what was going on during this period? Maclean and Asquith are Leaders of the Opposition even though the non-National Liberals had fewer seats than Labour in 1918? And did Asquith continue to serve after the government split, when Lloyd George's Liberals would have become the largest Opposition party until the election the following month? 172.142.157.170 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maclean became the de facto leader of the Liberal Party because a meeting of the Liberal MPs opposed to the coalition took place in 1919. The meeting resolved that it was the Liberal Parliamentary Party and elected Maclean as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Party. It was Liberal Party practice that when there was no overall leader or the leader was not a member of the House of Commons, the Chairman functioned as the Commons leader. Until the 1969 party constitution there was an overall Liberal leader only when there was a Prime Minister or the most recent Prime Minister from the party still active, available to take the lead. For example Lloyd George, who although an ex-Prime Minister was not regarded as an ex-Liberal Party Prime Minister and so was not in the strict sense overall party leader, was treated as leader when Asquith retired because he was the Chairman of the Parliamentary Party elected in 1924.

Meanwhile the Parliamentary Labour Party, although it had more seats than the opposition Liberals, did not have an office of leader until after the 1922 general election. The PLP Chairmen, William Adamson 1917-21 and J.R. Clynes 1921-22), presumably did not want to act as if they were a leader and so let Maclean and later Asquith function as Leader of the Opposition.

I do not think Lloyd George was regarded as leader of the opposition between the fall of his government and the 1922 election. The dissolution took place almost immediately (LG resigned 19 October 1922 and the dissolution was on 26 October) and Parliament did not sit after August 1922, so no transfer of the parliamentary role of Leader of the Opposition could have taken place. --Gary J (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Leader Nov 1931-1932

Is there a clear source as to whether this was Henderson "currently outside the House" (a la Balfour in 1906) or Lansbury? The various pages aren't in accord. Timrollpickering 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900-2000, in its Labour Party leadership section, has a note that "A. Henderson lost his seat in the 1931 election. The acting leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party was G. Lansbury". Elsewhere in the book, in Lansbury's ministerial biography, he is described as "Leader of the Opposition, 1931-1935. Leader of the Labour Party, 1932-1935". Henderson is described as "Leader of Lab. Opposition, 1931-32".

I think the distinction is that to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, you have to be a member of the House. If the leader of the principal opposition party is not an MP then they can be spoken of as Leader of the Opposition, but not Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons. It is really a definition problem with the term 'Leader of the Opposition'. Is the Leadership of the Opposition to be regarded as a purely parliamentary position or is it a function of the leadership of a party and not dependent upon the leader being in Parliament. --Gary J (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Legislative Provisions

Erskine May confirms that the Leader of the Opposition was first given statutory recognition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937. I have looked at the text of the Act. Section 5 states that "There shall be paid to the Leader of the Opposition an annual salary of two thousand pounds". Section 10(1) includes a definition (which seems to codify the usual situation under the previous custom) -" "Leader of the Opposition" means that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in that House".

The 1937 Act also contains an important provision to decide who is the Leader of the Opposition, if this is in doubt. Under section 10(3) "If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive".

Subsequent legislation also gave statutory recognition to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords. I have looked at the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. Section 2(1) provides "In this Act "Leader of the Opposition" means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons". Section 2(2) is in exactly the same terms as section 10(3) of the 1937 Act (apart from substituting Her Majesty's for His Majesty's). Section 2(3) is a corresponding provision for the Lord Chancellor to decide about the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords.

This information confirms that Leader of the Opposition is, strictly, a Parliamentary office; so that to be Leader a person must be a member of the House in which he or she leads. I would suggest that whilst there had been generally recognised Leaders of the Opposition in each House for more than a century before 1937, it is only from 1937 that they could be said to be official in the sense of having statutory recognition. I suggest we need to list Leaders of the Opposition separately for each House both before and after 1937. Although the Leader in the House of Commons has been pre-eminent for the last century or so, the leaders in the House of Lords are still a type of Leaders of the Opposition. I can draft a brief introduction explaining how the idea of a recognised Leader of the Opposition arose and the above statutory provisions about an official Leader of the Opposition. Do others agree this is the way to develop the article? --Gary J (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan to me. john k (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have more or less implemented the text part, although there are a few inconsistencies between my sources and the existing lists, which may need a bit more research. --Gary J (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New leader

Can we take it that Harriet Harman now holds this post? PatGallacher (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

H. Morrison

Can someone remove Herbert Morrison from the table? He is inserted in November 1955, but was never Leader of the Opposition. When Attlee stepped down Gaitskell was elected as Leader. See Oxford DNB if confirmation needed, here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35121 I don't want to mess around with the table in case the formatting goes awry. Thanks. --gobears87 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that when Attlee retired, Morrison, as deputy leader of the party, took over for a couple of months before Gaitskell was elected. Is that not accurate? john k (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Right Honourable

Corbyn is not yet Right Honourable because he has not yet become a member of the Privy Council and may well not do.

I am not quite sure that it is correct to say that he is the Leader of the Opposition yet, just because he is Leader of the Labour Party, unless and until he becomes a Privy Councillor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.119.94 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ramsay MacDonald was considered Leader of the Opposition between the general election of 1922 and when he became PM in 1924, and he was not a privy councillor. john k (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hazhk

Hazhk Hey mate,

Bit confused by your recent revert. Your summary includes "the old image is being used temporarily ", but the image you're reverting to is not the old image. It's the new image. Am I missing something? NickCT (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

1922-1924

Obviously, Labour did not have a leader in the Lords, because there were basically no Labour peers at that point. But does that mean that the position was vacant? Weren't Crewe, and then Grey, as Liberal leaders in the Lords, effectively functioning as Leaders of the Opposition there? john k (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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 at this page) AusLondonder (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

period in office

just wondering if adding the exact period in office is a good idea 95.145.155.227 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Prime Minister Edward Heath (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 240 F 146445266 ewos9Tpw9TVLhBAxfbBzFIUjpHo8jnpD (cropped) (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Smith 1990 crop.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 1975 - who was Leader of Opposition 4-11 February?

The article on the 1975 Conservative Party leadership election states that "After his defeat in the first ballot [Edward] Heath asked Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Robert Carr to "take over the functions of leader" until a new leader was elected." Carr's own article also includes this detail and I have seen it referred to elsewhere. Heath's article states that he immediately resigned after his defeat. Taken together this would imply that Heath resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party on 4th February 1975 and Carr held that role on an acting basis until Margaret Thatcher was elected on 11th February 1975 at the second ballot. However I am unclear if this means Heath also ceased to be Leader of the Opposition on the 4th or if he remained in that post until Thatcher was elected. If he did resign as LotO presumably someone had to take his role at Prime Minister's Questions and I would guess that would most likely to be Carr? What ever the guess if Heath was not LotO 4-11 February 1975 then the list needs to be amended (though it would be good to establish if the post was vacant or if Carr held the role). Dunarc (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As an update it looks from Hansard as if Carr took the Leader of the Opposition's place at Prime Ministers questions on 5th February 1975 (and Harold Wilson referred to Heath's departure during this session), though this would not automatically mean he officially held that position. Dunarc (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

List sorted by tenure

I thought it made more sense to have this by years and days, rather than just days. However, the problem is that some leaders of the opposition served more than once, and I don't know how to combine multiple dates for a calculation. So in those cases, I just wrote "x years, y days" instead. That still sorts, except when it comes to leaders who served for less than a year. Their service is "x days", and this doesn't sort properly. I can change it to "0 years, x days", but that doesn't look right to me, and the dates which do have a calculation are sorted separately. Can someone help it get sorted correctly please? There must surely be a way to sort manually added durations of days within a list like this.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorting by tenure for manually added durations is (hopefully) now fixed by replacing e.g. 265 days for Harriet Harman with {{ayd||{{#time:j M Y|+ 265 days}}}} instead. -- AJP (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)