![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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
Finnophile.
Finnophile
29th Dec. Finnophile
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 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 -
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Can we take it that Harriet Harman now holds this post? PatGallacher ( talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
just wondering if adding the exact period in office is a good idea 95.145.155.227 ( talk) 19:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
265 days
for
Harriet Harman with {{ayd||{{#time:j M Y|+ 265 days}}}}
instead. --
AJP (
talk)
10:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)