Talk:Leader of the Opposition (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unsigned comment 2 When did post become official? 3 Margaret Beckett 4 Adding comment to generate list of contents! 5 Infobox for Leader of the Opposition 6 Guidance 7 Order reversed

[edit] Unsigned comment

Reverted what appear to be unilateral changes. Please ask for consensus.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)