Talk:July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election

Running
'Run' should be changed to 'stand' throughout (British usage, not American). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disintegration1989 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Section on hypothetical general election polling dependent on Conservative leader
At the beginning of the month, I enquired over on the talk page of the 'Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election' article whether a section that lists various hypothetical Westminster voting intentions dependent on who was/became Conservative leader would be worth adding to the article. The consensus appeared no for the time being, but now that a specific page has been created for a potential Conservative leadership contest, it appears that it now may be a useful addition. The reason why I'm not just going ahead to add it (as I did on the 2020 Labour leadership election page) is because I am unsure of what table design to adopt; I have drawn up several examples, with the below being designed based on some feedback I received when I first made an attempt to warrant its notability; one problem is that the recent 'Red Wall' polling by Redfield & Wilton was conducted with so many potential leadership candidates I don't think it would fit on the page when viewed on a device with a small(er) screen (and I would need to clarify which seats R&W classify as the 'Red Wall', as each pollster seems to have a different definition in that regard).

 ' Red Wall ' only

Of course such hypothetical polling is a little unreliable as to how the public would really vote in an election with these candidates as leader, and similar polling done prior to the 2019 leadership election was not included on its page, yet I do believe this could be worth including. --Phinbart (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Amended today to allow for smoother viewing of page. --Phinbart (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Cataloguing New Conservative MPs calling for Boris to resign
Julian Sturdy, John Baron David Simmonds MP

Guyb123321 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Declined
In these election articles we usually only include candidates as having declined if any reliable sources had considered them a potential candidate beforehand. Otherwise any MP not standing could be included. No reliable source has considered Fabricant a potential candidate, so I don't think we should include him in the article here! Would you be happy to self-revert, please? Ralbegen (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do that now. Thanks for informing me. Alextheconservative (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably, therefore, MPs shouldn't be added directly to the "Declined" section, only moved there from "Potential" or "Publicly expressed interest"? LondonStatto (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much. Ralbegen (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Declared candidates
Most declared candidate sources are third parties, not official declarations of a campaign. For example, a different MP saying they would back them or an anonymous source to the media. Should these really be included, or should declared be officially declared campaign statements by the MP? BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The standard should be that a reliable source, like a broadsheet newspaper, says they are running. MP's campaign statements would be primary sources, which we should avoid using (except as supporting sources to a secondary source)! Ralbegen (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks – understood. I think it is not factually correct to say Tom Tugendhat & Penny Mourdant have “declared”. They could well do so in the coming days but I think this list should be amended to only show confirmed candidates who have themselves declared, sourced as per suggestion by @Ralbegen BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved them into the potential list. They haven't declared and there are no reliable sources that say they have! Ralbegen (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You've added Grant Shapps as having declared his candidacy, but the source you've provided doesn't support that. A supporter floating his name may indicate he's likely to stand, but that's what the other headings are for. Would you be happy to move him back to the potential section, please, pending unambiguous reliable source coverage that he has declared his candidacy? Ralbegen (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sure! I misunderstood because the tweet begins "Grant Shapps entering the race", it reads as though he announced. Owenwntr (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As at 09.50 today, Shapps's name is left out of all of the declared, "publically expressed interest" and potential lists (yet is paradoxically included among endorsements). I suggest he needs to be added somewhere unless he rules himself out! Rif Winfield (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you construing as the difference between "announced she would run" and "officially declaring"? Declaring candidacy and announcing candidacy are synonyms. We have a reliable secondary source saying she's announced her candidacy, so she's declared it. There are other reliable sources that say the same thing, in different ways. Ralbegen (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant at the time was that she was announcing her intention to do that if a leadership contest came up – not that she had officially declared now that one has actually begun. However, I now see even Guido is reporting she's officially declared so I'm not going to push the issue or revert further. — Czello 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. A few minutes after a move from 2022 Conservative Party leadership election was proposed here, the article was moved to 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) and the former title turned into a dab page as suggested, so this proposal is now moot. No prejudice against any editor proposing another move at any time. Station1 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Conservative Party leadership election → 2022 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election – There's another Conservative Party leadership election going on in Canada for 2022. I don't think either election could be called the primary topic, even though there's going to be more media coverage of the UK election. A dab page should be created at 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. schetm (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Since you started this discussion, the page has been disambiguated in the way UK party leadership election pages usually are. You may want to withdraw your proposal. Ralbegen (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Lower case usage – ministerial and department titles
In the Candidates section, there are lower case first letters for virtually all of these. Eg. foreign secretary not Foreign Secretary. It looks very weird, I have to say. But there are so many of them that some editor(s) must have decided that it’s correct. Is it? 🤔 Boscaswell   talk  08:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:JOBTITLES is the Wikipedia style guide for job titles. It's also common in reliable sources and other encyclopedias. Ralbegen (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I understand. It still looks wrong, though. Boscaswell   talk  04:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree; it does. Headhitter (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only does MOS:JOBTITLES lead to the publication of articles that look very wrong, it is incapable of internal consistency (for example, government job titles referring to Wales or Scotland must always be capitalized). This style guide ought to be radically revised as soon as possible. It has been acknowledged in other talk page discussions that The Guardian and The Observer are extreme outliers and that other reliable sources consistently do not use this style. Harfarhs (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Rishi Sunak has officially announced his candidacy for the 2022 election
Rishi Sunak has announced his candidacy for 2022 Conservative election. Please mention it on the page RayAdvait (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It is already motioned in the Campaign section and in the Declared Candidates list. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Political office
I wonder if just using the most recent office in the table of declared candidates is slightly misleading. For instance for Jeremy Hunt it is true he is Health and Social Care Select Committee chair, but his leadership credentials probably rely more on the fact that he is a former Foreign Secretary (as well as holding several other cabinet posts between 2010 and 2019). Equally Sajid Javid's last ministerial role was arguably not his most significant, while Penny Mordaunt is currently a junior minister, she is a former Secretary of State for Defence. The particular issue here is there has been some speculation that candidates who served in the cabinet under Theresa May, but not Boris Johnson (or served in a more junior role) might use this fact to distance themselves from the Johnson era. That said I could see the danger of the table getting too cluttered. Dunarc (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline graphic
There's a very cool timeline graphic on the page for the 2019 leadership election - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election#Timeline

How difficult would it be to add the same thing to this page? Does anyone know how to create and maintain these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.5.118 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren't difficult to create and maintain, you can see the code if you look at the source for that page. But I am personally not a fan: they look scruffy, with lines covering text and a lot of colours that need a legend! For this election, there will be less than a week between candidates' initial declarations and none of them have left yet, so there would not be any benefit to this kind of thing at the moment. When the time comes, I think a table of candidates with the dates their campaigns ended and the reasons (withdrew to support another, insufficient nominations, eliminated during a ballot) would be an easier to follow and more informative alternative. Ralbegen (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I rather like the chart, but I agree it's much too soon to add it. If the rumours are true and we're going to see a vote (or even two) every day then it'll make the chart a bit redundant as many candidates will be knocked out in a very short time frame. — Czello 11:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Candidates declared
Might I suggest that the Candidates Declared section makes more sense if in chronological order of when candidates declared, an approach often taken in articles of this form, than the current alphabetical order. Bondegezou (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When I was initially adding material to that section I had it like that, but at some point there were so many candidates that alphabetically by surname made it much easier to navigate and follow the same order as other sections. My vague intention, dependant on what shape coverage of the election ends lends itself to best, was to start shifting prose covering candidates into the order in which they withdraw or get eliminated to create a kind of chronological order by when candidates exited the contest, accompanied by prose about that period of the contest. (So a periodisation of the pre-nominations period including the all material about Chishti and (maybe?) Shapps with very brief coverage of how the other candidates announced their campaigns; then the first ballot covering the platforms and pitfalls of candidates eliminated at that point, and so on, at every stage with most of the coverage of the remnants' campaigns in the last section). Ralbegen (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Smear campaigns
@Cas2122 has stated that this "page must remain factual and not allow politically motivated edits. I have re-removed the section in the interests of fairness."

Due to the nature of this election and the style of it I want to ask for citation where smears are not tolerated on Wikipedia articles.

I am of the position of ensuring to have them in a dedicated section labeled smears as I think it's important to draw attention to the behaviour that many political commentators are considering relevant to this election and as such the article should reflect this. Scorchgider (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Smear" is an inherently loaded and PoV term which seems to just being used to remove or mitigate criticism towards candidates. Per WP:NPOV your proposed section (including the version you added) clearly isn't acceptable. — Czello 16:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that the section from Hayton was a transphobic source, and The Daily Mail and Spectator obviously aren't WP:RS 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Spectator isn't inherently off-limits for reliability, but as it consists entirely of opinion pieces it needs to be attributed per WP:RSP. — Czello 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, I'm surprised Spectator isn't off-limits. Thank you for telling me 78.149.121.207 (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Eliminated Section
Hi all, I just wanted to ask whether people would prefer to keep the 'eliminated' section under candidates, or to merge it with the 'nominated' section. The precedent from 2019 suggests we should do the latter, but I see the arguments for changing it to the former. Quinby ( talk ) 16:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * When I added the Eliminated section was thinking about 2020 Labour Party leadership election (UK) which has it and uses a similar table format (campaign columns) to this one. I think it makes sense to separate the sections as the candidates who are eliminated won't need the endorsement section (which will presumably dwindle over time and could end up near the end of the contest with multiple boxes just reading [0/358 (0%)], which doesn't seem helpful). Additionally a separate table allows us to add info when the candidate was eliminated and who they endorsed which seem like more useful thinks to have about them now. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support an eliminated section because otherwise its a little confusing as to why Hunt and Zahawi are listed with candidates that passed the 1st round of ballots. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Interesting comparison with the 2020 Labour Party leadership election (UK) article. I would argue that we shouldn't use the Labour article for precedent because the elimination process is different between the two parties. Labour leadership candidates are eliminated if they fail to reach a certain threshold (e.g. Thornberry failing to receive the requisite number of CLP/affiliate nominations in 2020). Whereas Conservative leadership candidates are gradually whittled down to a final two (initially by thresholds (20 MPs for the first ballot, 30 for the second). This is an important distinction because we know for sure that there will be six candidates who will be eliminated in the ongoing Conservative contest (assuming that none of them withdraw between now and the final MP ballot). I favour retaining the "Campaign status" column in the table that's been created for the "Nominated" subsection, as an alternative to the proposed addition of an "Eliminated" subsection. Willwal1 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

When is round 2?
Should be mentioned 159.196.12.156 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC Number of candidates in infobox
I tried to add this earlier but it got reverted, so bringing it to talk page for discussion.

I think it'd be preferable to include all eight candidates in the infobox rather than just six, as demonstrated here. It doesn't make a lot of sense to exclude two when there's room for them, and whilst the infobox is intended as a summary rather than detailed results, I think it's a bit misleading to include most but not all of the candidates. Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 12:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that eliminated candidates should not be included in the infobox as it does look cluttered. The 2019 Conservative leadership race only includes the top 2 candidates who made it to the fifth round, so I think little by little as these candidates get eliminated in the 3rd and 4th round of voting, they should be removed from the infobox to reflect the current field. That's why (as of now) the infobox includes Full results for all candidates below on it as to show the reader the candidates presented on the infobox is not the complete list of candidates who ran. The concurrent 2022 Canadian Conservative Party leadership election did something like this when they did not include eliminated candidates in the infobox and only kept the current (qualified, advanced, etc.) candidates. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that in the long run, only top 2 should be included. Otherwise, it needs to be all 8, which is too many. Having six listed, with 4 of them later listed as "eliminated in second round" but not listing those eliminated in first round would be massively confusing. The final vote has just 2 candidates, and those should be the only ones listed, once their identities are known. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree: better to follow the precedent set by the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election article, in which there was a similarly large number of candidates. I would favour removing Hunt, Zahawi and Braverman from the current infobox, then continuing to remove candidates as they are eliminated and/or withdraw. Willwal1 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that all eight candidates who qualified to the ballot should be included in the infobox for now. When a final two has emerged that will advance to the members' vote, then the infobox should contain only the final two. I believe that provides a better summary of the results while removing candidates as they are eliminated or withdraw could be confusing. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 15:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jjj1238 100%. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd say something on this matter. As I was involved in the discussion in 2019 that led to many candidates not being in the infobox (see Talk:2019 Conservative Party leadership election) and having supported the eventual consensus (which was based on the statement The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance found in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), I would like to point out what was decided there does not need to be what is decided here. While I think at the moment only candidates still in the running at the moment should be in the infobox (so I support the edit made to remove Braverman, Zahawi and Hunt), after the election it may be a better summary to include a different number of candidates in the infobox than in 2019. So I think it would be better to decide after the final MPs' ballot which candidates to include, when us editors can see which candidates should be included based on which candidates reliable sources thought would had a reasonable chance of getting through to the members' ballot (which may include more than 2). -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  17:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Have already mentioned why I think it is best to include all 8 candidates in the infobox, but further to that I feel it is also worthwhile also mentioning why including only two feels like a bad idea. Namely, this wasn’t a two-horse race, and several of the candidates have been subject to media speculation about winning and genuinely had a serious chance. Having two candidates in the infobox could generate the misleading impression to casual readers that there were only two candidates with a serious shot. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 19:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Win Back Trust.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FXorQEAUUAEWNDF (1).png

Consensus
Hi do you think i could get a consensus fir this image: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FXorQEAUUAEWNDF_(1).png I think it is a good image which shows exact numbers for the change from the first ballot which is information not precisely given anywhere else on the article. 89.242.129.128 (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox portraits consensus
Since this has been debated in edits again and again, I am attempting to reach a consensus on the portraits used in the infobox finally. There seem to be two main proposals.

Proposal A: 2017 official parliamentary portraits This proposal puts forth the official parliamentary portraits taken after the 2017 United Kingdom general election, as every candidate in the running has one of these portraits taken and published on Wikipedia. Pros are that they are uniform across all candidates, depict each candidate at the same time in history, there are no distractions in the background, and they are recent. Cons are that they are less recent than some Proposal B photos and is not the best photo of every candidate.

Personally, I am strongly in support of Proposal A. I believe that it provides a clean look to the infobox and is easier for the reader to look at. I find no compelling reason to abandon the 2017 parliamentary portraits, as there have been no significant changes in appearance for any of the candidates, 5 years ago is still recent, and these are all clearly professional portraits taken in a formal photoshoot. My preference would have been to use the parliamentary portraits taken after the 2019 United Kingdom general election, but since not every candidate has one, I am in full support of using the 2017 photos. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 14:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Here me out, I feel that the images used in proposal A would be beneficial in the candidates section since they are all the same background and bring some consistency. I would also support using the images in proposal B for the infobox because (as of now) candidates are being removed from the infobox based if they get eliminated or not so there won't be much until its a 1 v 1 in which that case the images of proposal B would be a good contrast with one another. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting this discussion. I support proposal A for the reasons you state, and I would like to add onto your argument, which I have also stated in edit summaries, about there being no significant changes in appearance for any of the candidates. The only reason "up-to-date" images are beneficial is because the person in the photo still looks the same. This means c. 2022 are no better than 2017 images because as we've both stated, all the candiates look the same now as they did then. This doesn't mean in other instances, e.g. the lead image in BLPs, the most recent image shouldn't be used, because it's not disruptive to those articles to use a newer image (as long as it is as good as the older image, obviously poor new images do not take precedence over good older ones). However, in the infobox's images, uniformity is desirable, which is only acheivable by using slightly older, but still up-to-date images, so considering there is no benefit in using only slightly newer images, and a benefit in using uniform images (which happen to be older) I think I've summarised why I support proposal A.-- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  15:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal B We should use up-to-date photos that represent what the individuals look like during the contest. The top 4 candidates all style their hair somewhat differently today, for example. Bondegezou (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for proposal B. At the end of the day I agree with Bondegezou that the candidates do look different (Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss look significantly different to my eye). I also don't think there's much merit to the argument that we need to make the infobox look good as a major concern. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the "purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article" and if we are going to use Proposal B in the article for identification why not the infobox. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since Sunak's appearance hasn't changed much, I would suggest that the 2017 image be used for him as there is no rubbish in the background. <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  15:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for proposal B Up to date images. 78.148.34.210 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

ConservativeHome polls
Why isn't ConservativeHome polls listed. They should be.La lopi (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not polls, so they shouldn't be listed as polls. They're surveys of a website's users. They do not follow standard polling methodology. Bondegezou (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence in lead
" The next Conservative leader, who will also become the new UK prime minister....". Yes, we know that will happen, but it won't automatically happen, so it needs a little explanation in the text, in the "Procedure" section. Perhaps something like: "Once it is demonstrated that the new leader commands the support of the majority of the House of Commons, Queen Elizabeth II will appoint that person as Prime Minister later that day". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds good in principle, but we need to be careful which day we are suggesting it might be "later" on. As far as we know, the election results are due to be announced on 5 September, although there is a chance that drop-outs may mean the result is known earlier. Also this Telegraph report says Johnson is expected to resign on 6 September (the day after the election results are expected). -- DeFacto (talk). 07:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems like overkill to me, certainly in terms of the lead. Reliable sources say the next Con leader will become the new PM. Precise details of how that happens are not lead worthy. Bondegezou (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that it was "lead worthy", I suggested that the "Procedure" section should be amended to support the wording in the lead. Per, perhaps simply remove "later that day" from my suggested wording.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Tories have a majority of 70+. It will automatically happen. There doesn't need to be a Commons vote first. LondonStatto (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sky debate cancelled
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-cancels-conservative-leadership-debate-after-sunak-and-truss-pull-out-12654286

Keep it in the table but with strikethrough? Or move to a separate section? LondonStatto (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Since the debate was scheduled and all candidates were invited, it should be stricken through, and not removed. Also a note about Sunak and Truss pulling out can be added. Dhruv edits (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've set it in a separate section in the table as it was easier to cite, but feel free to revert if you think it would look better. LondonStatto (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Precedent can be drawn from last leadership election where it was stricken through. Dhruv edits (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Results subsections
There appears to be disagreement between myself and @Dhruv edits about the appropriate way to format the Results section. He has created a whopping seven subsections, one for each voting round.

I would suggest that this is wholly unnecessary. There simply is not enough content for each round to merit creating these subsections: at most, there are 2-3 lines of text for each round that has passed. It would be more effective to include paragraph breaks to break up the writing into the different rounds, rather than cause the navbox to be unnecessarily expanded into seven new subsections.

Please see the Results section of the 2019 leadership election article. There are no subsections, just a simple paragraph of descriptive text. Willwal1 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Willwal1 You should check the page history properly. I didn't add subsections to the Results section once you made the change. It was done by @DeFacto. I agree with DeFacto's changes because the information is better presented through subsections. Also, you cannot compare this page with previous leadership election, since it is pretty obvious that the Results section of this page is much more detailed than the last one. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for mistaking you with @DeFacto. In response to your point, I would say that although the section contains more text than the corresponding 2019 article, it still is not nearly as detailed as it ought to be for subsections to be created. If presentation is the issue, then I would propose replacing the subsection with bold type headings, formatted as ";First MPs' ballot". This would clearly present the different rounds / stages without an unnecessary and garish expansion of the navbox. Willwal1 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Results infographic
This is neat. It would be even better if it showed the threshold for reaching the final two. That's a horizontal line at one third of the electorate. S C Cheese (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your question is tricky as the first ballot also has a threshold (30 votes). You might also see the 50%, majority line as a threshold, passed by Theresa May in 2016 after which the Members' Vote was cancelled. Adding these thresholds would clutter the graph. Currently the thresholds per ballot are described in the text, only if relevant. My suggestion would be to stick to text and keep the graph clean, results only. Uwappa (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about the additional threshold in the first ballot but it would be a very short element and small at usual resolution. But the one third = 120 line would quickly show progress towards that final threshold which is the key outcome of the MPs' votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S C Cheese (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Drawing a horizontal line as below would give the false impression that it also played a role in earlier ballots.

Do you mean a line segment which would apply only at the last ballot? I still would prefer to solve it in text, keep the graph clean. Uwappa (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for preparing that. S C Cheese (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-62216697 at 15:57 explains the threshold at 1/3 of votes. A candidate with more 1/3 of the votes secures being in final two. Yet it is not a real threshold. In 2019 Jeremy Hunt made it to the final two with 24.6% of votes. Uwappa (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Official name
Can we agree that the official name of the party is the Conservative and Unionist Party? 2A02:C7E:173E:4100:383B:D578:89DD:F82E (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That is their official name. But I don't see why it's relevant here, as we use the common name here. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't take any issue with the article title. But with common names the official title is usually present in the head of the article. In this case, it has been edited out a number of times, with no clear explanation by editors as to why. 2A02:C7E:173E:4100:D968:A407:F240:7041 (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Rishi Sunak, 4th ballot, 33.0% or 33.1%?
Mr. Sunak obtained 118 of 357 votes = 33.0532213% which rounds up to 33.1%. user:Dhruv edits correctly pointed out that percentages seem to add up above 100%. (33.1 + 25.8 + 24.1 + 16.5 + 0.3% + 0.3 = 99.5 + 0.6 = 100.1)

Suggestion: Round consistently, accept rounding errors. Use 33.1% and for totals votes count keep a seemingly incorrect 99.4% based on 355/357= 99.4397759%, rounded down to

99.4%, which adds up with

0.3% spoilt and

0.3% abstention to

100%. Uwappa (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Uwappa I thought about what you have suggested when I made that change yesterday. I decided to change Rishi's % because it has the smallest difference between rounding up and rounding down (i.e. only 0.004%), while the difference was much larger for other votes %. Since 4th ballot results won't be on the infobox, I don't think such a small rounding inaccuracy in Results section would matter. Dhruv edits (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a small difference indeed. It caught my eye as 33.1% comes very close to 1/3 of votes, see explanation by S C Cheese above. Would you like to round 33.0532213% up to 33.1% and explain the add-up-rounded-numbers-peculiarity in a footnote, linked to the 99.4%? Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's unnecessary to add a note about such a trivial and negligible rounding off difference, considering the rounding off has no impact whatsoever. Dhruv edits (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, your point of view is very clear. As the difference is trivial and negligible to you, would it be fine if I replace 33.0% by 33.1% and write a footnote for the peculiar 99.4%? Uwappa (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have no issues. Dhruv edits (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Done: changed 33.0% into 33.1, added footnote. Uwappa (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Number of rows in infobox
Should all 5 of the ballots be included in the infobox? The page for the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election doesn't include all of the ballots and only includes the last one and the Conservative members vote – I don't see why the previous ones are relevant when the Full results for all candidates below link is clearly displayed at the top of the infobox. DylanClarkWebb (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a place for hypothetical VI?
I've now had both a section on this page and the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election page containing hypothetical voting intention for the parties under each candidate removed, despite the fact there is a precedent for its inclusion on the 2020 Labour leadership election page - having added that information myself and seemingly with no apparent issue.

I'm just wondering if it's worth me spending any more time trying to find a way for this to be featured in any capacity. If anyone wants to chime in, here's the revision that was removed from this page, and here's the one removed from the Opinion polling page (which I amended by including Red Wall polling too). I'd say at the very least the recent three-scenario FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus poll is worth including somewhere (potentially with seat estimates included too), as that's the most relevant and least 'speculative', as the editor removing it from the latter page called the hypothetical VI section. And, for reference, here's the original discussion about a potential hypothetical VI section. Phinbart (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Show only latest poll for finalists, omit derived lead%, show data in donut charts, sort largest percentage first. Get percentages that add up to 100%. Wonder: Is difference worth telling?
 * Uwappa (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I support including the hypothetical polling figures in this article. I do not support ’s proposed approach. Sorry, Uwappa, but I can’t see why we would only show the latest poll, as per WP:NOTNEWS, and we should avoid donut charts, as they have similar problems as pie charts. Bondegezou (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose it as it as this article is supposed to be about the 2022 party leadership election and not outdated (Mordaunt has already been eliminated) fantasy future general elections. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I support including it as polls play a role. Bondegezou convinced me, it should be a complete story, so I withdraw my previous proposal. The data in the proposed table should also show the starting point, the 2019 lead of Conservatives. A graph of the 2019 situation and top 3 candidates scores in various polls:

Uwappa (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've devised a new table, which also includes some new Deltapoll polling released earlier in the day. It features only the two most recent polls, not ones conducted months back when the rumours of a leadership contest were bubbling quite effervescently, but obviously never came to the boil. It's got the Sunak/Truss/Mordaunt polling, and the Sunak/Truss polling after Mordaunt was eliminated:

During the 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, polls were conducted evaluating voting intention under certain potential candidates for leader of the Conservative Party.
 * Hypothetical voting intention under different Conservative leaders

Let me know what you think. Is this better? I'm guessing the December/January polls (+Jan Red Wall poll) are not worth including here? By the way, thanks for the effort you've put in, Uwappa; could you by any chance be able to explain the graph in your second proposal?, as I'm not quite sure what it means or how to read the data displayed. --Phinbart (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if it's worth it, I could do what Uwappa suggests and include the last GE result at the bottom, for comparison? --Phinbart (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Edward_Tufte calls this a 'relational graph' (The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 1. Graphical Excellence, page 48). The graph shows the percentages of votes for Conservatives versus Labour, from the last election results to the latest polls for the top 3 candidates. At the light grey diagonal percentages would be equal. At the right bottom half Conservatives are in the lead, at the left upper half Labour is. The graph (based on 20 jul 16:37 revision) reads as:
 * The point at the right hand side shows the result of the 2019 elections, the Conservatives have a current lead in parliament at 43.6%, with Labour second at 32.1%. This current lead is big, far from the diagonal. This is the starting point of the graph for all candidates.
 * For all 3 candidates the lead would swap to Labour, cross the light grey diagonal. The lead for Labour would also be far from the diagonal. It would be a major swap, but these are polls, not elections. This lead swap is the main story line.
 * The thick blue line represents finalist Rishi Sunak, with results from 3 polls, with the latest at 25% versus 37%.
 * The thick green line represents finalist Liss Trus Sunak, with results from 2 polls, with the latest also at 25% versus 37%.
 * The thin line represents Penny Mordaunt, who did not make it to the final. Only one poll has results for her, at 27 versus 36%.
 * The graph shows that results for both finalists end in the same point, 25% versus 37%. There is no majority for any party.
 * Graph, table and text should be a troika, graph for overview, table for precise numbers and text to tell the story. The story could describe the polls in a timeline: current lead of Conservatives in parliament, the lead swap in the polls, Labour's desire for new elections soon and Conservatives' preference not have elections yet but select new leader first. Uwappa (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Results, percentage of registered voters?
Should percentages of Truss and Sunak be Uwappa (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * a percentage of 172,437 registered voters, 47.2% + 35% = 82.2%?
 * as well as 57.4% and 42.6 = 100% of 141,725 votes cast?
 * There needs to be a citation in the table that supports the 172,437 registered voters and hence the percentages calculated from it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added ref to table, both in article talkpage, video Graham Brady reveals Liz Truss has been elected as new Tory leader. 172,437 registered voters mentioned at 10 sec from start of video.
 * The current graph shows % Member's votes cast (57.4% 42.6%). Should it show % votes (47.2% 35.0%) to be consistent with MP Ballots?
 * Uwappa (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Campaign logos
What has happened to the thumbnail of Sunak's campaign logo? Davidships (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kemi Badenoch October 2022 official Cabinet portrait.jpg

Article name in the event of a second 2022 leadership contest
Given the increasing likelihood of Liz Truss being at least challenged before Christmas, this article may need renaming. "2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) (I)"? "Summer 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK)"? Mahlermad (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's another Conservative Party leadership election in 2022, we will disamiguate it by month: September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK). But we shouldn't do that in anticipation, only if another election happens! Ralbegen (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. Consensus arrived at July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

July–September 2022 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election → ? – Some editors have started a discussion to potentially move this page, but there was never an official move discussion started. Please see the discussion below for further details. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion prior to move request being opened
This article has been moved to Summer 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK), Summer 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (that time by me), September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) and back to July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. We should reach a consensus here. I think September 2022 is the best title, because that's when Truss was elected. We have precedent in September 2016 UK Independence Party leadership election, which also took place from July to September in its year; and there are a number of other leadership election articles disambiguated by month, all using a single month. I appreciate that MPs voted in July 2022, but nobody was elected in that month: the election took place in September. Ralbegen (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not been changed to July 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, which seems the strangest of all to me! Pinging editors who have moved the page:, , , , . There's clearly no consensus at the moment, so we should reach one through discussion. Ralbegen (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the precedent set at, the consensus appears to be that the starting month alone is sufficient for disambiguation purposes. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not according to the infobox at September 2016 UK Independence Party leadership election; only one round of voting took place, which happened to be the final result. In this case, voting kicked off in July. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "First 2022 Conservative Party leadership election" (and the other "Second 2022 Conservative Party leadership election"), then it's not ambigious or misleading as to which election is which. -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  20:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That would only create ambiguity with 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * then "First 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK)"? -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NATURALDAB usually takes precedence before parenthetical disambiguation. "July 2022" is a natural disambiguation. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also unecessarily misleading when the election took place in August and September. Also the guideline says nothing about it being especially prefered. -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  20:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per 's comments, WP:PRECISE means that titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For example, William Jefferson Clinton would be precise indeed, but "Bill Clinton" is precise enough, so no more is needed. I fear that the proposed name for this article would be too long and precise for it to be workable, and in the end people would end up using one of the shorter redirects. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with Impru at the time, but I think they're right in retrospect. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * no, it is not right and nobody agrees with your bold move. Please revert yourself. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That 1910 general election was decided in January, and some constituencies voted late. This Conservative leadership election was decided in September. Nobody was elected in July. MPs voted in July, and most members voted in August. But the election didn't happen until Liz Truss was elected! Every other leadership election article disambiguated by month uses the month in which the winner was elected, rather than including any qualifying process, campaign period, or voting period. The MP ballots are a qualifying process which is more theatrical than most, but as it didn't produce a single candidate, the election didn't happen until September. Ralbegen (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling it just July is ridiculous and confusing. As is calling it just September. The contest lasted the whole period from July to September, therefore the onbly valid and WP:RECOGNIZEable title is a variant of July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. Can't believe this has been moved again, possibly to the most ridiculous choice so far, after being "Summer" and then "September" earlier. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * MPs voted in July, and members voted in July, throughout August, and into September, when the result was announced. Thus the election took place over a period of several months, and that WP:DATERANGE must be mentioned in the article title. It is unacceptable to mention only July, and it is unacceptable to mention only September. This is not a problem for things like 2022–23 Premier League, which is decided in 2023 but played out in both 2022 and 2023. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is calling it September ridiculous and confusing when Liz Truss was elected in September? Voting happened from July to September, but nobody was elected until September. I've submitted a postal vote for a May election in April before, it doesn't mean that they were the April–May 2019 United Kingdom local elections. There aren't any direct analogues because no party that works remotely like the Conservatives has had two leadership elections in a year, but if you browse the and similar, there are dozens of leadership elections disambiguated by a single month, when the leaders were elected. "September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election" is much more recognisable (because that's when Truss was elected), natural (because it requires less knowledge to find the article), concise, and consistent with similar articles, particularly "October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election", its immediate successor. There is a case for "July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election" being more precise, but it is worse by all the other WP:CRITERIA. However, it is much better than "Summer" or "July". Ralbegen (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the (UK) really necessary? I appreciate the main article has that title, but there were presumably not any other July-September 2022 partly leadership elections elsewhere, and the October one does not have the (UK). Andrew Gray (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the (UK) is necessary. For the reasons you stated above, and there's no geographical clarifier for any other Con leadership elections, including the October one. It's overprecice and looks cumbersome, especially with the 'July–September' also in there. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree that adding '(UK)' to the article title is unnecessary. Dhruv edits (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've requested a move to at WP:RM/T. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical disambiguation is indeed unnecessary. July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election really seems to be the best title, being also consistent with October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. Schl äger4  (Talk) 22:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The only point in favour would be that the main article on the Conservative Party includes the (UK), but then all articles on Conservative leadership elections should have the (UK). But overall unnecessary in my opinion. Rogl94 (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Originally the "UK" was inserted to separate this election from 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, but now that the title includes all the months "July–September" (rightly IMHO), the UK disambiguator is unnecessary. The Canada election was in September only, albeit that members could start voting from July. I'm not sure how we settle the wider debate mentioned above, but I think given some editors favour "July" only, while others favour "September" only, July–September remains the best option. It unambiguously describes the time period given that (unlike other elections conducted over multiple months) crucial elements of the election such as the MP votes that whittled the candidates down to two, were decided in July. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's currently a (UK) disambiguator put after Conservative Party, but in other UK party leadership elections we put the (UK) disambiguation after election. I still think that September makes better sense for the month, but (i) if it continues to be July–September it doesn't need geographic disambiguation and (ii) if it did, it should be at the end of the article title, not in the middle. Ralbegen (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s one right answer here, but “September…” seems the best choice to me too. Bondegezou (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it really is not. The election was not just in September, there were votes and results announced in July too. The current title is unobjectionable, nobody can call it inaccurate, whereas saying "July" or "September" can be disputed. Best to leave alone at this stage, other than dropping the unnecessary UK disambiguator. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion after move request opened

 * Neutral: The purpose of this comment is to serve as a placeholder for further discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors involved in this move thus far in some form or fashion to let them know this has been converted to a formal move request. Steel1943  (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Move to September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK): Liz Truss was elected in September, so it's a September election. Nobody was elected in July or August. Every other political party leadership election that's disambiguated by month is disambiguated by a single month. This title best meets the WP:CRITERIA of recognisability, naturalness, concision and consistency. I acknowledge that there is a legitimate point to be made about which is more accurate: I think it's this title, but the July–September version has a legitimate claim to accuracy. However, July–September is a worse title according to the other criteria. The July version is worse still by all criteria except concision. Disambiguation by country should be at the end of the title if required to match other UK party leadership elections that require geographic disambiguation. Ralbegen (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason to append (UK) to the title. There was no other Conservative Party leadership election held in any other country from July to September 2022. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeating my earlier comment of suggesting move to First 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK), then there isn't any confusion about the dates caused by the title, and nor is it ambigious. -- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  12:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to  per WP:SNOW (see ). The "(UK)" in the middle is absurd. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to . We had already reached that conclusion yesterday. Not sure why an RM was opened. As per my rationale above anyway, it's the only accurate and precise way to describe it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion for the "conclusion" was 1) split between here and WP:RMTR (for some reason), and 2) never advertised at WP:RM. The latter issue means there could very well be an editor who watches for new discussions at WP:RM to provide input and could have input for this discussion, but would have never been given the opportunity or notification to provide input in the discussion's previous state ... all of which is precisely why I assume we have the WP:RM process. Steel1943  (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to  per prior discussion. Dhruv edits (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to  as per above. --Discographer (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to  as per above or September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. I would prefer the latter, as it's clean, simple, precise enough and consistent with the September 2016 UK Independence Party leadership election, which also took place from July–September. The following UKIP leadership was from October–November, but was only titled November. The '(UK)' should be dropped in any case though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantthinkofausernames (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to  to maintain consistency with October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)