Talk:Leader of the Liberal Democrats

message: Needs to be updated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.127.117 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deputy Leader

message: Should Vince Cable really be in this list, given a number, as he wasn't an actual leader? --William Quill (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view, when I first set up this list, was that interim leaders should be included. As long as it is made clear that the person was an interim leader, then a casual observer can see who was leading or acting as leader at any given date. I suppose an alternative would be to have two tables, one for elected leaders and another for those who carried out the job on an interim basis whem the leadership was vacant. --Gary J (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd sugguest leaving Cable in the list, unnumbered and perhaps in italics. --William Quill (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems a sensible compromise. --Gary J (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cable

message: Liberal Democrats states the merged party didn't come into existence until March 3 1988 - should we not use that date for Steel and Maclennan? It feels odd to be using dates from the time of negotiations (I presume the date for Steel is the all member ballot result, which wasn't actually the legal instrument in its own right), especially since that might technically make David Owen eligible for the list. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Nick Clegg's letter to party members refers to an "intention to resign", not that he has actually resigned. I would take that to mean that Mr Clegg will continue as leader until the leadership election is completed. In any event as the deputy leadership is vacant, following Sir Malcolm Bruce's retirement, there ois no one else who could be interim leader of the party. --Gary J (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership after 8 May 2015 

message: It seems bizarre to use formal titles for former leaders, when they are far better known by their common names. It makes Wikipedia less accessible to people who do not already know who got which title, and it smacks of a needless snobbery. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; also Leader of the Conservative Party (UK) does not use formal titles etc.  It also goes by style of address at the time of office (so uses "John Major" rather than "Sir John Major").  I have reflected this, except for the case of Vince Cable who had been knighted between his two terms of office.  MIDI (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: According to the article, it states that the Deputy Leader, in this case Ed Davey, becomes acting leader until an election can be held. Is Ed Davey now acting leader?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade TruthTeller (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Davey acting leader 

message: Now that Ed Davey has been elected leader in his own right, how do people feel about removing Brinton and Pack from the list and adding them as footnotes? Whilst they were co-acting leaders I feel their presence along with a photo distracts from the main list. Just a thought. Littlemonday (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! Arrivisto (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree too. A footnote is the best pay to record Brinton and Pack. Davey was very much the frontman in this period the other two were far more background. Kalamikid (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brinton and Pack as acting leader 

message: The timeline is inaccurate, overstating Campbell's length in office, and understating Kennedy's and Clegg's. I regret I can't see how to correct it. Any ideas? Arrivisto (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline is inaccurate