Talk:Timeline of the 2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK)

10th Anniversary of Diana's Death

This could be a big test for Gordy - if he captures the nation's mood in commemorating this moment he could breathe some real life into his Prime Ministership - if he mishandles it with a lack of empathy it could be confirmation that he really will never connect with the man in the street and be a portent of electoral disaster to come.jkm 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that it's going to be much of a factor unless he appears to be trying to use the event for his own purposes or appears openly insensitive. Most likely a short statement on it, however it is 10 years on whereas when Tony Blair was handling it it Diana's death was recent.--Lord of the Isles 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed info

Removed three off-topic factoids: 1) The views of the Beard Liberation Front are not relevant, and information like that contributes to this article becoming the bloated mess that has led it to be AfD nominated. 2) and 3) The views of one Labour figure on two other Labour figures' actions, neither of whom ultimately elected to stand, are not relevant enough events to be included in a "Timeline" (though they would be to be included in an "indiscriminate collection of information"), particularly as the Miliband opinion is about Miliband's future as a politician, and thus absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. There is much more irrelevant information here that can be removed, I will keep sorting. Jdcooper 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have changed the tense of the description of past events into the past tense. Wikipedia is not a news site, and these are suggested as factual events, so I have been bold and changed their description to fit that. I hope everyone is agreed with that. Also I have removed some more information that I don't see as relevant/notable, either because its not about the leadership race or because it is, but doesn't seem crucial (the opinions of Neil Kinnock, Tony Benn and David Cameron). I also removed some stuff about banter between Cameron and Blair in Parliament, I don't see how that was relevant. There are some tidbits that I didn't necessarily think should be there, but thought were controversial (reporting of every word Miliband says to the press and Brown's meeting with Bush, for two), so i have left them for discussion. Hope everyone is at peace with my edits! Jdcooper 02:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Benn and Neil Kinnock are influential though on many in the Labour Party, exactly what the effects of their statements were of course is speculation, the Socialist Campaign Group was actually founded as a result of many in Tribune including Neil Kinnock not backing Tony Benn in the 1981 Deputy Leadership Election against Dennis Healey, and Charles Clarke was Neil Kinnock's Chief of Staff when he was Labour leader, Charles Clarke had been very scathing about Gordon Brown saying he had "psychological issues" and was a "control freak" [1] and had stated he would run if David Miliband didn't - something caused him not to run so while exactly what caused him not to run unless reported on is outside the scope of Wikipedia, certainly he was someone who having been going to stand suddenly announced he wasn't going to stand and praised someone as leader who he had previously publicly questioned his psychiatric state. it's quite a contrast whatever the cause of it.[2]

As for David Miliband, I happen to think he was genuine in that he was never going to stand, but that is my opinion and as such not relevant to Wikipedia and David Miliband was almost more talked about as a candidate for a long time than anyone else, and for whatever reason Margaret Beckett (who is a senior member of the government) and others declared he shouldn't stand because it would damage his career and he wouldn't succeed, so it was part of events related to the leadership campaign in that so many in the press and parliament were talking of him as being a candidate.--Lord of the Isles 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying, but I think to include excess detail about potential candidates who aren't running, and were never planning on it, just because there was media speculation (outside of simply mentioning that speculation) is unnecessary. I think were we just to stick to reporting the events in the leadership elections then the timeline would be manageable enough to put back into the parent article, which is measly at the moment. Jdcooper 03:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Afd Result

Whether this article stays as it is, renamed, or merged, does not require afd to decide. Please use this pageto obtain consensus to do any of these. Petros471 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Afd did establish a consensus that the name should be shortened with the reference specifically to the Deputy Leadership Races dropped, therefore I intend to shorten the name to the one I suggested ( Timeline for the 2007 Labour Party (UK) Leadership elections and new Prime Minister ) at least as an interim measure and then if the consensus is that it isn't quite enough then further modifications can be made. Original afd page--Lord of the Isles 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah just noticed the template above was broken, I've fixed that now. If no-one objects, I don't have a problem with your suggested move. Petros471 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest: Timeline for the 2007 Labour Party (UK) Leadership elections as this is more concise: the title doesn't have to tell us everything about the article. 'and new prime minister' sounds a bit awkward grammatically, as connected to 'timetable for': you wouldn't have the phrase 'timetable for the new prime minister', as the meaning is unclear. 195.137.30.238 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I support that title, since the elections are for the new party leader. The fact that said party leader will probably be new prime minister as well is incidental, that's not what they're deciding (nominally, at least). Jdcooper 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It also relates to the position of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister which are separate though from the actual leadership elections themselves even though it is a weird sort of notional separation in that if the Queen were to reject the Labour Party's choice for Prime Minister it would cause a constitutional crisis in which the Queen might be replaced through a vote on the floor of the house, although she if she were to dissolve parliament before they could meet to vote then in theory they couldn't remove her legally. But contrary to what most of the press seem to be reporting the majority party in the House of Commons or the majority of MPs don't elect the Prime Minister in this country.--Lord of the Isles 04:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline -> Narrative

• I am totally in support of the recent edits made by User:Lord of the Isles to turn this from a timeline into a more readable narrative, but it seems to me that doing so simply creates a duplicate, namely this and the parent article(s) about the Leadership elections. What with the parent articles, particularly the one for party leader, being pretty thin on content with their timelines removed, I feel we should merge the information back into the parent articles, where further conversion from timeline format to narrative format can take place. Thoughts/support/opposition? Jdcooper 03:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the information in the timeline though relates to both the leadership and deputy leadership elections and if integrated is liable to be duplicated in both, so if it was done that way it might make more sense to re-integrate all 3 articles into a single article. It might be better to move everything relating to before the time from Tony Blair's requesting the NEC to find a successor from the leadership and deputy leadership articles; and move everything specifically relating to the actual elections from when the NEC met through to declaration of the results over to the leadership and deputy leadership elections and have a link from this article to those in place of the information. The appointment of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister is constitutionally separate and so shouldn't really be in the leadership or deputy leadership articles because it is a matter for the Royal Perogative and because if there was a change of government then while the Labour leadership might remain the same, the actual Prime Minister would be likely to change to one from a different party.--Lord of the Isles 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry dude, its late and i didn't expressly get that, what kind of move/merge/splits were you proposing there? Regardless, the parent article about the leadership elections is measly, with not a lot of scope for expansion outside of developments which are likely to be added to this article, whereas the deputy leadership race article could plausibly be expanded a fair amount. I see the two as totally distinct elections, and I don't think that much of the info in the "Timeline" article is common to both elections, outside of the similar timeframe. I think they should be separated to give the deputy leadership article space to move, while the leadership article could be shaped into a pretty final format right now, with similarities (in form of article at least) to previous Labour leadership race articles. Jdcooper 04:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was meaning just referring to the actual election process and things that went on in and during the election in the leadership and deputy leadership articles, and the announcement of the vacancy by Tony Blair - in the sense that officially there wasn't an election process until the members of the leadership formally requested the NEC to find successors and it is the election that those articles relate to which really ends when the NEC declares the results; really they aren't parent articles anymore because the timeline also relates to the main Labour Party article and the article on the next General Election as well and in relation to the 2005 General Election in that it covers the transition of Prime Minister as well--Lord of the Isles 05:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Article name

This is unwieldy and out of sync with the main articles at Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 and Labour Party (UK) deputy leadership election, 2007. Note also that Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1976, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1989, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990 and Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995 all reference just the leadership and not the premiership.

Unless there's objection I'll move this page to Timeline for the Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2007 in two days time. Timrollpickering 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Navbox

Shouldn't the template be at the bottom of the article rather then in the see also section? Any objections if I mov it? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)