Talk:2009 Speaker of the British House of Commons election

Possible Candidates

Beg to move that Possible Candidates section remains included, as other election pages incorporate such sections. Comments? Seivad (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK... I basically think that BBC speculation about who might stand (including some people who have definitively stated in the past that they don't want to be Speaker) is just speculation. There is no reliable source to say that those listed might stand, above any other MP. I notice that the equivalent list published by The Times a couple of days ago included Princess Anne; there is a lot of frivolity going around, making reliability even more difficult to establish. Saying that other articles have comparable lists is not a basis for anything, here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 2012#Potential candidates for example of this. The Speaker election is only a month away, candidates are starting to come out already and, when they are cited by the mainstream media, I think they could be put on this page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is especially true, given we are only stating that they have been CITED as candidates, and have not necessarily given any indication that they will/wont stand. We are not saying this, only that they have been mentioned as candidates. e.g. in the same way John Huntsman has not given any indication that he is/is not standing for President, but the media have SUGGESTED he MIGHT. Seivad (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For your example, WP:OSE seems to apply. If I could be bothered, I'd go and deal with it along the same lines of this. Once people announce that they are standing, of course they should be added. But if you're in favour of including the material that I deleted, which is simply one particular organisation's speculation, you'd have to explain why I shouldn't include my front-runners, the BNP's front runners, the Daily Mirror favourites and so on. The lists that have surfaced so far have included people who've said they don't want the job, and have included jokey people such as Princess Anne. They are not verifiable to say that these are "potential candidates" above any other MP (Alistair Darling, for example, is as much a potential candidate as Sylvia Heal at this stage, as far as reliable and definitive sources can tell us). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

<< In response to Seivad, do you suggest that any published list of potential candidates should be mentioned simply as a published list of potential candidates? Because if so, I'll put one on my blog, and we can include that. My guesswork and speculation carries as much weight as The Times - particularly since theirs includes a member of the Royal Family who is clearly ineligible. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Then what makes John Huntsman Jr. a more eligible candidate for President than Jason Lee (actor), they both meet the eligible criteria as per Darling meets the criteria for Speaker. So I guess I will just go and add every Natural Born US Citizen who is 35 or over to the Potential candidates for US President? Or even better I could add them to my blog as a reference? I am not using a blog, or a partisan newspaper as a reference, I am using the taxpayer funded press, which has an obligation to be neutral. Also, not wanting to be speaker does not necessarily exclude somebody from the running, as the speaker is not a consenting role. Seivad (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OSE. The page you cited may not be a shining example of policy adherence. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion would be that we shouldn't list anyone as potential candidates. We shouldn't give undue weight to what is likely to be primarily speculation on the part of journalists. I suggest only listing individuals once we can cite reliable sources which state they have declared their wish to be considered for the role. As has been noted, the election isn't the long off so any candidates will presumably have to declare themselves as such promptly so we shouldn't have to wait long. Adambro (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We'll have something to flesh it out with very soon, and until then, for all we know, any and every MP will stand, unless anyone has a reliable source to definitively state otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I appear to have missed the main discussion here, however I agree with what has been said that candidates should only be added after they have announced their candidacy. As such, I have added Sir Alan Beith as a candidate as he has announced his candidacy here. Spiritofsussex (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said! And I expect he's opened the floodgates now, we'll probably have 3 or 4 more candidates announced by the end of the week. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 or 2001?

The "Rules" section says that the new rules were "introduced in 2007"; however, the BBC article used as a reference (this one) says 2001. Which is correct? Loganberry (Talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Standing Order 1B (the rule regarding secret ballots and the need to be nominated by 12 people, three of whom being from the Opposition) - were introduced in 2001 (see the 2001 Standing Orders here) - therefore, I have changed the date from 2007 to 2001 and included the link as a reference. Spiritofsussex (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Title

Would this not sound less clunky at British House of Commons Speaker election, 2009, which is where I looked for it? At least make it a redirect. 79.64.151.151 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoilt ballots / turnout

So, do spoilt ballots get included in the turnout, or not? Evercat (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they should. --Philip Stevens (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Name of article

Why is this British and not UK? PatGallacher (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Originally the title did contain UK but was moved for unstated reasons. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason was stated for the move (not done by me): to match the main article on the topic, Speaker of the House of Commons. Whether that article is correctly named is another issue. Disembrangler (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)