Talk:2010 United Kingdom general election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opinion polls from late 2005 to early 2009

There is here a detailed breakdown of trends in opinion polls from the time David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party through to early 2009, which will most likely soon be reduced to a more concise summary. It would be a pity to lose it altogether, however. In that it appears to be neutral would there be support for adding it to this entry, under Opinion poll trends since 2005? Another disinterested reader (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The section has now been reduced; the original material remains in the page history, at [1]. Another disinterested reader 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If the 2005 election, fought on the new boundaries, would have given Labour a majority of 44 instead of the actual 66, how can the article claim that any swing to Labour in 2010 will result in an increased Labour majority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.196 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, very good point. Does anyone have the Rallings and Thrasher figures nicely collated, and can work out what the swing would need to be to preserve the status quo? Wereon (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to claim that 'any swing to Labour in 2010 will result in an increase in the notional Labour majority'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Notional Winners

Do people feel the need to highlight the Islington South and Finsbury constituency in this comment? While it may be the only (non-Scottish) constituency in the list to have undergone no boundary changes (I haven't checked this) there are other constituencies whose boundaries remain unchanged (e.g. the Isle of Wight). --Neil (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I added in IS&F there originally, because the statement as it was was wrong. Perhaps the unaltered seats should be marked with an asterisk, or something? Wereon (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've revised the warning. It's a bit more wordy that I would like, but I think presents the issues in a fair light without implying the situation in IS&F is unique. --Neil (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Targets of interest

With two months to go to the most likely date of the election, the Tories are odds on to win an overall majority [2] with, according to the punters, around 337 seats.[3] That would mean they would gain 139 seats, give or take, depending how you treat the boundary changes. So the Tory targets that really count are those from around number 120 which could give a hung parliament to number 150 which should give them a safe working majority.

Should we have a section for these 'battlefield' seats? There is a list on Electoral Calculus that could be used.--Cavrdg (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Placeholder for results

Just a note for after election night: I've created a page MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 with some blank values as a starter for the results of this years election. Hopefully this template will make it easier to maintain the results. ChrisUK (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Parties contesting the election

The "Pirate Party" is taking part in this years election too, could someone add them to the page? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.233.67 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to add material yourself - that's what wikipedia is all about ChrisUK (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in targeted seats

Finchley and Golders Green is currently held by Labour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.17.47 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See the italicized paragraph above the table. Wereon (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Polling graph

I've replaced the graph of Ipsos MORI polls with one showing ICM results instead. ICM poll more frequently than Ipsos MORI, their figures bob up and down less, and their methodology has been largely unchanged for years. I hope this isn't too controversial.
I removed a graph quite recently which, while pretty, was seriously flawed - it plotted all the polls on one graph without any smoothing, and hence the fluctuations were mostly due to methodological differences between the pollsters rather than genuine changes in opinion.
If anyone could come up with a way to resurrect that, that'd be great - it seems wrong that Wikipedia should prefer a certain pollster, but we can't really show half a dozen individual graphs either. And while you can take a moving average of the whole lot, it'd favour companies which poll frequently - at the moment, principally YouGov, with its new somewhat-suspect weightings. Wereon (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anyone who is familiar with polling objecting to this Wereon. ICM are clearly regarded as the gold standard of political polling in the UK and MORI are not. The only problem I can see with the new graph is that it probably needs a broader range, 5% to 45% is a little cramped so it needs to start at 0% and run at least to 50% - Galloglass 11:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Trendlines website

www.trendlines.ca/electuk.htm was removed by ChrisUK Reason: This link does not contain any relevance to the UK general election Don't understand reasoning given - please explain.--Screen42 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that reason is clearly erroneous, but the site shouldn't be included anyway. It's pseudo-scientific, in that it assumes that the polls are moved by long-term trends, when experience shows they are moved more by events (budgets, interviews, etc.). Not only that, it blindly follows UNS (despite polls having shown that the swing to the Conservatives is greater in the marginals), and is full of minor errors and false assumptions - that the election will be June 3, for instance, or that 368 MPs would constitute a minority. In short, it's not scholarly, and that's the reason it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wereon (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought I was being clear. This is the link that was removed: Trendline website. When you click on it you get a blank page with a link saying "please click here again" . When you click on that page you get to a page about peak oil depletion. At least - that's what happens on firefox at least. I'm still not sure how this link is relevant to the UK general election ChrisUK (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

OK - I think I see the problem. The link I removed from the page didn't work, but if you use this link: Trendline website it does work. The trailing slash needs to be removed to make the link work. If you do put the link back in, remove the trailing slash and it should work for all users ChrisUK (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unconsciously adjusting the obvious typo. Your reason wasn't erroneous, but the rest of what I've written above still stands. Wereon (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Election targets

There seems to be a problem with the Labour targets.

Finchley and Golders Green is a Labour constituency but in the Labour targets section its listed as a conservative seat. Is it listed as a conservative seat and a labour target because of the fact that Its likely to be a conservative seat? or is it just a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.172.118 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See the italicized paragraph above the table. --Neil (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's ON!!!!!

The Times of London says that Brown's going to ask the queen to dissolve parliament Tomorrow!!!!Ericl (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says (5 April) With 24 hours to go before he is expected to call the election,....[4] Agreed that if the general election is to be on 6 May, then he needs to ask for a dissolution on 6 April (Tuesday). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? The twelfth would be the actual dissolution date for a May 6 election. Wereon (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It is the 12th according to this [5]. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

He asks for the dissolution this week (the 6th is the day I've seen), but the actual dissolution only occurs on the 12th with the issuance of the proclamation dissolving this Parliament and calling the next. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, [6]. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no objection to waiting for that official announcement before changing the article to reflect 6 May as the date, correct? -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not from me. While it's Breaking News on BBC and ITV (it interrupted the Frost finale!), I'll agree to wait until Brown goes in front of the cameras. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've just noticed a flurry of editing here - I've semiprotected the article for a day, to hopefully stop people going back and forth endlessly, albeit with the best of intentions, until tomorrow morning! Let me know if there's problems... Shimgray | talk | 21:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with waiting. Nothing's going to change between now and then, admittedly, but still best to wait. :) HonouraryMix (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've now lifted the semiprotection, as well as the move-protection which was put in place after last year's edit-warring over the title - both now seem moot. Shimgray | talk | 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hooson, 5 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} My request is to add the following:

"On 5 April 2010, BBC political editor Nick Robinson reported that the election will be held on 6 May 2010 ."

Hooson (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It smacks a bit of recentism. If Robinson's right, it'll be irrelevant tomorrow. If he's wrong, it'll perhaps deserve some mention as a great journalistic cock-up. Wereon (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's widely reported in reliable sources. It would be ridiculous not to mention this fact as a lot of people will be coming to the article now to find out more. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Wereon, it is informed speculation, basedd, no doubt, on leaks from off the record sources. Better to wait 12 hours and the the actual facts of the announcement can be put in the article. A day is a long time in politics! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We are simply stating fact - it is expected to take place on the 6th of May. We are not claiming it will, nor that it has been officially announced.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say, I'm ambivalent - on the one hand we all agree it is the 6th, on the other hand the BBC article is rather good at not mentioning a source beyond their own editor, and it's not like we'll make anyone point and laugh at us for being sluggards if we wait until tomorrow to state it as fact. Either way, reducing the editwarring is desirable... Shimgray | talk | 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this was just from one source, but it is widely reported. I assume the media have to be made aware of the arrangements for tomorrow so they can plan their reporting.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they've phoned to book his taxi to the Palace ;-). I've clarified the date section of the article a bit - you might want to drop the citations out of the lead sentence, since they're not needed if it's discussed in the running text, and the infobox also needs catching up. Shimgray | talk | 22:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What it comes down to is that we know it will be 6 May, but there is really no good reason to say more than we have until the

announcement is made, which will be soon enough. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Has now been officially announced so the page can be edited Lariso (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} As above, election date has now been confirmed by the PM in a public statement. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This has already been added to the article.  Chzz  ►  10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I don't wish to start a revert war, but I don't believe that the opening lead at the moment reflects the wikipedia policy for opening sentences. I personally don't think either that the definition of a page title should contain a bold definition which points off to another article. Lots of people will be accessing this page in the next few weeks so I don't think we should be trying out new styles, lets stick with the standard bold definition of the article title. The link to UK elections is useful but can easily appear after the bold definition.ChrisUK (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be getting more bizarre now with the date highlighted in bold. There must be something we can agree on. How about the following suggestion for the first sentence:

The United Kingdom general election of 2010 is a general election that will be held on 6 May 2010 and see voting in all constituencies of the United Kingdom to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) to seats in the House of Commons, the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

This tries to be both a definition and informative of when it is. I still feel it's a bit of a mouthful though to squeeze into one sentence Comments? ChrisUK (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Past examples:

• The United Kingdom general election of 2005 was held on Thursday, 5 May 2005 to elect members to the House of Commons.

• The UK general election, 2001 was held on 7 June 2001 and was dubbed "the quiet landslide" by the media.

• The UK general election, 1997 was held on 1 May 1997, more than five years after the previous election on 9 April 1992.

• The United Kingdom general election of 1992 was held on 9 April 1992, and was the fourth consecutive victory for the Conservative Party.

• The United Kingdom general election of 1987 was held on 11 June 1987 and was the third consecutive victory for the Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

• The 1983 UK general election was held on 9 June 1983.

There's surprisingly little consistency in these! All the past ones but 2005 omit the administrative details on who's being elected where, though. Shimgray | talk | 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value of consistency for this. The opening sentence should conform to the needs and flow of the article, not some objective sense of what a UK election article should start with. The case for consistency is especially weak with this one because it is about an ongoing event. I will say that the recent linking of the bold iteration of the title is against guidelines, and I have removed the link. I'm not sure the link is actually necessary, so I didn't bother adding it back elsewhere in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bolding a link in the title, is not against WP:BOLDTITLE, this articles awful title is not a proper noun, and linking descriptive titles is allowed, because, as is the case here with United Kingdom general elections, with such descriptive forms there is nearly always a sensible parent article that should be linked as early as possible. And frankly, repeating 'general election' and 2010 twice in the opener certainly doesn't look right. MickMacNee (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Liking bold titles should be avoided under that per WP:BOLDTITLE, and since the link is not absolutely necessary, there is no reason not to avoid it here. Since you seem to think the link is important, I've gone ahead and inserted a link elsewhere in the lead. I'm not sure I understand what the problem with repeating the phrase "general election" in block of text as long as the lead is, and I am completely perplexed by your mention of the year. I said nothing about the year, so I'm at a complete loss as far as that goes. -Rrius (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking it in the second paragraph isn't following the doctrine of 'as soon as possible' either. By then, a reader's eyes will have inevitably wandered to the link provided in the massive infobox instead, which being the size of a house, is unmissable. MickMacNee (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to insert it higher, that's fine, but as I've established, it is not essential to put a link in the bold text (which is horrendously ugly, forcing the eye to endure transitions between three different typefaces in rapid succession). -Rrius (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but where exactly does BOLDTITLE either say 'should be avoided' or talk about colour transistions? In this situation, it explicitly allows bold linking in the title, I cannot see how you can have read it any differently. And I cannot see the logic in saying linking to a parent article asap is not essential. It is frankly normal, all you do by leaving it out is annoy people who know it exists, and confuse people who don't. As an aside, the horrid repetition that is present in "election of 2010 will be held on 6 May 2010" is surely just obvious, no? MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First, "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to provide more detail." Second, the article is not truly a child article. It is not as though this article is the result of forking United Kingdom general elections. If the damned article is so essential, why is such a link missing from the other general election articles? This essential link seems to be more in your mind than anything else. -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Having checked every article for a general election from the mid to late 1800s forward, none link bold text, and few link to United Kingdom general elections in the lead. Only one links the words "United Kingdom general election", and that one links to United Kingdom and general election. In fact, few if any seem to link to United Kingdom general elections in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You should know not to use other articles as a reference, if none of those are FA's, it's meaningless, and that's only the first of many pitfalls in comparing articles to articles, instead of articles to guidelines. MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. This is not a case of saying because the other articles don't include it, this one shouldn't either. Rather, you are arguing that United Kingdom general elections is a parent article, and a link is so essential that it absolutely must be in the first sentence, and therefore the bold text. I am saying if that were the case, you would see it elsewhere. And since the link is not only absent from the bold text at more than a hundred years' worth of election, but also absent from the leads of most, if not all of them, your case for its being absolutely essential is rather weak. -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an essay somewhere that pretty much debunks this theory of gnoming, but I can't be bothered to find it. Clearly your mind works completely differently to mine and we read articles and guidelines completely differently. Under your explanations, bold links would ever be allowed, and as they clearly are not banned, then that interpretation is simply wrong, and you would never get a more perfect example of when bold linking was relevant and meets the principles behind the opening sentence than this. As it is, for navigation and for comprehension, this opener is sub-standard, and that is an obvious parent article, end of story, but seeing as every other revert on this article is yours, I'm not going to push it. It can stay like this for all I care. MickMacNee (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My "theory" is that we should try not to put links in the bold-text iteration of the title, which is what the guideline says. I would not, as you say, ban all links from the bold text, but would keep them out when they seem important to have in the lead and it is possible to insert them elsewhere in the lead. You say that United Kingdom general elections is a parent article and that it is vital to link to it in the first sentence. First, it is overstatement to say it is a parent article. This article is a parent article to MPs standing down in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. That article is clearly a content fork from this one. The generic general election article, on the other hand, is a list article with an entry linking here. The text above it is very generic and provides no information essential to understanding this article. As such, there is no desperate need to put the link at the very beginning of the article. Finally, it is unfair for you ascribe WP:OWN:ownership behaviour to me and to say I'm responsible for "every other revert". On the 5th, I was part of an effort to stop people from stating 6 May as the certain election date prior to the actual announcement. On the 6th, I twice reverted an IP editor who thought it necessary to put "6 May 2010" in boldface even though it is not a alternative name for the article subject and election dates aren't put in bold. Finally, I reverted the link in the bold text. Once. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think interpretations of what is and what is not inside guidelines will always be different and the important point here is to reach concensus so other more pressing points can be worked on over the next few weeks. My only reason for raising the point in the first place was because I think "look and feel" is very important for the reader. If I come across an article for the first time which "looks different" from what I was expecting, I may not be inclined to trust what I read. I'm not saying that every well formatted article is therefore trustworthy, but that badly formatted articles haven't had the level of scrutiny from other editors yet so the content may also be questionable. There will be a lot of visitors to this article from both the UK and other countries in the next few weeks so the priority should be to give them the experience they expect from a wikipedia article on an important subject.ChrisUK (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't bad formatting, pure and simple. Just because you don't see it often does not mean it is bad, and it is not discouraged whatever anyone says. What is bad is not linking to relevant articles, and pointlessly repeating words and dates in the lede. I wouldn't trust any publication that offered such poorly written content straight out of the box in the opening paragraph. MickMacNee (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, point accepted, it is not bad formatting, that was a wrong choice of phrase. However as you rightly point out you don't see that kind of format too often and I still feel this article should look and feel as "normal" as possible for the reader. I also agree that the opening paragraph is a mouthful and could be much much shorter and concise - but I'm not convinced though that making the article name a link achieves that aim either. I might have a go at making an edit change to make it shorter but I'll retreat if it doesn't go down well with everyone.ChrisUK (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning to do the whole lead or just the first paragraph? If you're up to it, maybe you could tackle making the whole thing conform to WP:Lead. Either way, good luck. -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made just a small change to the first sentence to try to tighten up the wording. On the whole I think the lead is a very good summary of the article. This section will be re-written extensively after 7 May anyway so there's little to be gained from micro slicing too much now. My original reason for raising this discussion point was that we had an unusual format for the opening sentence a few revisions ago, especially with reference to the linking of bold text. This has been debated extensively above and there now appears to be a consensus. ChrisUK (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is not consensus, I just gave up because frankly, there is no way you can fight logic that says United Kingdom general elections is not a parent article of this article. If that's genuinely the case, which is not apparent to me at all, then Wikipedia has screwed up royaly. I added the part about what this election menas to the lede re. the house of commons etc way back when, precisely because of such glaring failings. If it werent for me, the actual opening of the lead would still be : "There will be a UK general election on 6 May (no links). Because of boundary changes....." MickMacNee (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We have reached the two conditions for consensus as defined in wikipedia because (a) the majority of participants in the discussion above agreed that a link should not appear in the bold lead for this article and (b) a mitigation was proposed for the minority objection in that the link should appear after the bold text as soon as possible in the lead (although I notice that this mitigation has not been implemented yet). I thank MickMacNee for his civility in this debate and also because if it wasn't for him we would indeed have the most terrible opening to the article. ChrisUK (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did implement the change here, but someone must have reverted me. -Rrius (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was this edit. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Crickey - it was me that reverted out the change in this edit. Sorry about that - didn't realise quite what I was doing there. I'll put it back in ChrisUK (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, no. I've already put it back in in a different way. -Rrius (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

'Other Parties'

This is just really an attempt to formalise an existing situation, but the 'other parties' section has the potential to become huge so a little organisation may be needed. It appears that the current arrangement is (in terms of paragraphs):

• Parties other than the three main, who are represented at Westminster [England, Wales and Scotland]
• Parties other than the three main, who are represented at Westminster [Northern Ireland]
• Parties represented in Europe, or the devolved assemblies, other than those above.
• Major political alliances of minor parties. [2 paragraphs]

Someone had added the 'Liberal Party', who don't fall into any of these categories as yet, so my addition was to place them in a new paragraph below these, which might be called

• Other parties.

We should probably define a standard for inclusion (contesting 'x' number of seats?) to avoid mentioning every fly-by-night party. And get started on the List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2010 when nominations have closed, and reliable figures are available for the number of seats contested. I helped with the List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005, which I think represents some of the best Wikipedia-style collaboration and conciliation, giving neither undue prominence to minor parties, nor excluding them unfavourably. --Neil (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried amalgamating the two "coalition" paragraphs; even if they don't have much chance of gaining any representation, they're certainly of general interest as things new to this election. I've removed the Liberals - giving them a comment to their own is undue weight - but re-added them as a note that they chose not to campaign under the TUSC umbrella. I don't think a catch-all paragraph of "other parties which don't really have much strength" is useful - it'll just end up being an unwieldy list where people tag on their favourite obscure parties, with no real basis for including or excluding any in particular. Shimgray | talk | 11:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead: Gordon Brown

What's the best way of referring to Gordon Brown's becoming leader of the Labour Party? The wording was originally appointed, which I changed to elected by the Labour Party, and was (I think rightly) changed back to appointed when somebody pointed out there was no actual election as no-one else got enough nominations. I think "appointed" is slightly better than "elected" to describe this, but I don't think either's really satisfactory. Perhaps "elected unopposed" - we don't need to go into much detail, given the leadership election's got its own article? Any other ideas? Jonathan Hall (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep it simple then perhaps, "The election is the first to be faced by the Labour leader Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, having become party leader in 2007 after the resignation of Tony Blair." As you pointed out, readers can find the details of the process in the linked article. Road Wizard (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - it's very significant that he was wasn't even elected leader of his own party and it sounds like we're trying to hide it. Manbilong (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He was elected - unopposed, but still elected. Valenciano (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you be elected if there wasn't a vote? As far as I know, once John McDonnell failed to secure enough nominations, Brown was simply appointed leader. Hardly an election in any meaningful sense. Manbilong (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This a common mis-understanding. An election is the process of choosing; in politics it is choosing a representative or someone for high office. If an election is contested, which is usually the case in politics at national level, but not always at local or regional level, then a poll takes place to fill the position or office. The whole process, nomination and polling is the election. If only one person is nominated or if a nominee withdraws before the poll, then the sole remaining nominee is elected or chosen. This is why in the Christian bible the Lord's chosen people are also referred to as the "elect". Consult a quality dictionary such as Collins or OED for further information. Don't consult the Wikipedia article election as it fails to clarify this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Election issues

The article should give some space to describing what the major issues are in the election and what the major parties' positions on those issues are. This would be especially helpful to readers not familiar with UK politics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A general overview of the issues would be fine but going into too much detail by listing all three main parties positions here would be well beyond the scope of this article and would have to be a new one. There also would have to be some mention of the policies of the minor parties on these issues too in the interests of both fairness and balance. - Galloglass 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think that would be an excellent addition, especially as a separate article referenced from here using a main tag. It would aso provide a good record for rthe future. Something like Party manifestos in the UK general election of 2010 would be a good start which can then be linked to with redirects like 'election issues in UK 2010 election" et. Why don't you give it a go? ChrisUK (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has an excellent page that allows readers to compare all the policies of all parties contesting more than a sixth of the seats in any country of the UK. Perhaps providing an external link to that would be sufficient? The page is [7] Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not being British I can't really claim the expertise needed to put something like that together myself. The BBC guide is helpful but lists dozens of positions for each party and doesn't really make clear what the "big issues" are that will actually lead people to vote one way or the other or that are getting the most attention from candidates and the media. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Future structure of this article after 6 May

I think it's worth pooling some ideas on how this article might change once it is history after 7 May. A lot of stuff will probably get cut and replaced instead with results, analysis etc. My guess is that there will be an edit frenzy on 6 May followed by a period of reverts, cuts, additions, redrafts etc in the days afterwards. So itmight be worth spending a bit of time before then thinking about:

• what the new sections might be
• where the old stuff should go so it doesn't get lost
• what the next general election article should be called and where it should go

On the last point I think I created this article the day after the last election and I notice from the Talk archives there was a period of about two years after that where the name of the article was constantly debated. Maybe we can just learn from the past to avoid that again.

On the old stuff point, I personally think that sections 3 to 8 will not be relevant any more, but the content could just be fork lifted into a new article called something like Events leading up to the UK general election 2010 where events mean everything from the boundary change commission to opinion poll trend changes. ChrisUK (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking of creating an article called something like "Timeline of the 2010 United Kingdom general election campaign". At the moment I just have notes stored locally. I want it to follow the 30 or so days from Brown going to Queenie up until the big day. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

this makes sense and I like the title. At the last election I created Pre-election day events of the United Kingdom general election, 2005 to put the stuff in which is probably the worst title ever. Yours is much better. ChrisUK (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the sections that you say will not be relevant anymore, all are already summaries of content forks, so I presume you are talking about removing them completely. It would be wholly inappropriate to simply drop those summaries. Some of them will change dramatically over the next month, making it difficult to even think about what they should look like after the election. For the others, it may well be that they need to be trimmed to avoid giving them undue weight after the election, but removing them altogether would be an overreaction. One of them could possibly be trimmed down now: the border changes, and I suppose I'll give that a try. -Rrius (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean remove completely, but looking at previous articles, I'm guessing that results, analysis etc of the election could way in at around 30Kb, so the current content would need to be boiled down quite considerably to make the article digestible. But it would be a shame to lose the content itself which is why I suggest hiving the whole chunk into a new article and just summarise it savagely here. And in the future the most relevant thing about this article will be the result not the build up. But I also agree that it's hard to take a decision now about what it will look like.ChrisUK (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As I say, each of those sections is already a summary of a subarticle. The answer, then, is to reduce the length of the summaries here when the time comes, not to move those summaries to yet another article, which in turn would summarise the main articles. For the moment, we should just let the existing subarticles and the summaries change organically, then worry about what's appropriate post-election in the days after 6 May. -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of readers current and future, below are listed the relevant sections and related articles:

• Other parties contesting the election (List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2010)
• Opinion polls, and analysis of votes in relation to numbers of seats (Opinion polling in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)
• Television debates (United Kingdom general election debates, 2010)
• MPs not seeking re-election (MPs standing down in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)
• Boundary changes (Boundary changes for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 & Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)

-Rrius (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on length alone it is going to be difficult to retain the "pre election" stuff and the results stuff all in one page and still make a readable article. As of today, this article is 62Kb. The 2005 article is 38Kb, and just contains results stuff really with all the pre-election material in another place. So, we could be looking at well over 100Kb for pre-stuff and results all in one page which will be very difficult to boil down to anything remotely readable. Furthermore, the events leading up to the election are notable in themselves and would justify a seperate article. The trouble is to pick a title though, since this article covers things that happened way before the election was called (like the boundary changes) and also covers things that aren't events like the marginal seats analysis. So I open the debate again to everyone to discuss what should happen to this article over the next few days and to suggest titles. My first proposal is "Events leading up to the 2010 UK general election"ChrisUK (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Keys

The graph in the "Opinion poll trends since 2005" section lacks a key (other than the python code which generated it), and the "Swing to gain" statistics lack a proper description of the unit used. It's not really hard to work out what's these are, but all the same I object. Could someone add these, please? Diggory Hardy (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well volunteered. Wereon (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Constituency maps

This issue doesn't strictly relate to this article, but I figure that anyone who is interested will be watching this page anyway. My maps for the new constituency boundaries have been hiding away for years on the Commons, and as Parliament is to be dissolved tomorrow it's finally time for them to be used. In the vast majority of cases, the new map has the same name as the old map, but with "2007" inserted before the word "Constituency".

Could someone please run a bot or something to sort this out, to save me going through all 591 relevant constituencies? Wereon (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I started, but now I'm going back and having to revert myself. There are a few problems. I have a list of constituencies based on Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 (excluding Scotland), and I've removed a the ones marked "new creation", "unchanged", and "no change". To solve the problems I'm having, could you remove each constituency for which there is no new image, and write the name of the image for each one that does not follow the "insert '2007'" pattern? -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's new images for all except the Isle of Wight and the Scottish constituencies. Northern Ireland is missing too - I think I must have forgotten to do it. The constituencies which haven't changed, such as City of Durham or the Islingtons, still need to be changed, because the boundaries around them have changed.

I've put a list of the anomalous names at User:Wereon/sandbox. Wereon (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius, that's great! Wereon (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary Candidates

I am trying to raise political awareness in my borough by writing pages for the parliamentary candidates here. It keeps being merged with the UK Election 2010 page. This is despite all candidates being notable in fields other than politics. How can I ensure that their pages remain without redirecting? 90 000 people depend on being able to access information on who they are voting for.

Wikipedia isn't here to raise political awareness. If you want to do that, start up your own website.

What's your constituency? Wereon (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Islington North. And I resent the idea that I was suggesting the only reason they should be on wikipedia is to raise awareness. They should be in here, they are important men and women for the next month, and all have achievements worthy of notability.

Candidates like anyone else need to meet a minimum requirement, like any other person or subject as this project is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. For the minimum standards needed please read WP:POLITICIAN. - Galloglass 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's you who said it. Wikipedia isn't here to deal with such ephemera; you even imply yourself that they won't be "important men and women" after next month. And take Adrian Berrill-Cox, for instance - what on earth is he notable for? His article only established that he is a PPC, works for the FSA, and has muscular dystrophy - which one of those means he deserves to be permanently recorded here? Wereon (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is precisely the fact that they are PPCs which means they are relevant enough to a substantial local population in one of the world's largest cities. I struggle to see the usefulness of an encyclopedia which champions 2000 word vagaries about fictional characters with no references, but won't allow the people who may well close our hospitals, our schools and our public transport a simple biography accounting for the fact that not only were they a success in their professional field, but also have been selected by a major political party to run for public office. A huge feat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.154.23 (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(I understand the need for notability guidelines etc...I suppose I'm just frustrated by the limited ability to engage young people in democracy. I'm not trying to be rude!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.154.23 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Whilst there's a firm and long-standing consensus that PPCs are generally not notable, there doesn't seem to me to be any obvious reason we couldn't have a short summary in the page on the constituency which lists the current candidates and gives potted biographies. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies trouble. I note that the US articles on State elections have no issue with pencil sketch profiles about all candidates who stand. This may be a cultural thing as well as a Wiki issue, because I feel less enthusiastic about adding small paragraphs about every candidate (although there is Haltemprice and Howden byelection article which was a special case for all sorts of reasons). The multi-party nature of British elections makes the concept likely to be cumbersome. doktorb _words^deeds 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the follow-ups. Does it rely on Wiki users to make the pages? I know from asking that the parties would be glad to have a stub of the constituency and a list of candidates. Nothing more. Nothing partisan, just knowledge of their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.154.23 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that all constituencies have pages, and nearly all with a list of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates. As has been explained candidates who do not meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN are likely to have pages redirected to the appropriate constituency. Some candidates may have achieved notability in other fields, see WP:BIO. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so former MPs, the leaders of councils in major metropolitan areas or celebrities such as Esther Rantzen or the late Screaming Lord Sutch are likely to have articles, but most local activists are unlikely to meet the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia, which may be different from standards in other media. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There ought to have been a list of PPCs - there is for nearly every other constituency. I've added one now. Wereon (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Daft question but I would expect the article to be named 2010 United Kingdom general election, yes I know all the other general election articles use the comma but it doesnt look right. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a daft question at all. The naming of election articles is, due to long practice, a special case in terms of naming conventions. They are also articles that are not especially likely to be linked using their titles. Sometimes people would link from "2010 United Kingdom general election", but it would be relatively rare. Things like the "2010 election", "2010 general election", "election in 2010", "elected in 2010", "first elected", "re-elected", or even "2010" are far more likely. I'm guessing that's at least part of why no one thought it worthwhile to change them when the conventions were written. I hope that answers the question. -Rrius (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, although I would still argue this is not the common name but I have made the point, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the form starting "united Kingdom..." is best in keeping with naming policies and general usage. However, the ", 2010" at the end looks a bit ugly. I suggest a move to United Kingdom general election of 2010. Currently it's a halfway disambuator, similar to putting the "(2010)" at the end, and halfway is enver good in my view! GDallimore (Talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in (apparently) the standard form for all other countries' election articles. If anything, I'd say the biggest problem with it is using "United Kingdom" as an adjective, rather than "British"; it sounds very journalese. We don't have France presidential election, 2007, after all. Wereon (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate subarticle's name

Leaky Cauldron, MickMacNee, and I have pretty much agreed to move United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 to United Kingdom leader debates, but it occurs to me that the discussion should be more widely advertised before we pull the trigger. The discussion is at Talk:United Kingdom general election debates, 2010#Article Title. -Rrius (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"United Kingdom leader debates" is a vague and unhelpful title. It's present name is a logical extension from this article, why mess with things that work? Mu2 22:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather inclined to agree. And as for the argument that we don't need a year because it's the first one - are we absolutely sure of that? I know the media like to spin it that way, but I'd be very surprised if a PM and a Leader of the Opposition had never before had a debate together (outside Parliament) just before an election. Wereon (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent, but whatever the case, discussion is occurring at Talk:United Kingdom general election debates, 2010#Article Title. -Rrius (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Key to colours used in article graphics

As an international reader, I am not familiar with the which colours represent which parties in UK politics. For instance the graph uses four colours and while I was able to figure out the blue, red, and green from the top sidebar introducing parties and leaders, there was nothing there explaining the purple (magenta? I'm colourblind.)

Likewise a similar key for the UK map would help clarify matters.

On the plus side, I must applaud the creators of both graphics for choosing colours which are easy for all users to see and differentiate. Thanks tonnes!

Xianjiro (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh crikey, you raise a good point. Opinion polling in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 gives the colours (Red=Lab, Blue=Con, Yellow=LD, Grey=Other), but that's of little use if you're seeing the yellow as green and the grey as magenta. The ideal solution would be to add swatches to the image, but I know precisely no Python.

As for the map, it has a key on its description page. Wereon (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline templates

I recently added timeline templates to this article, so that the sequential events were marked up with hCalendar microformats and could be displayed visually. This was reverted with the edit summary "the timeline entries are too short for this template to make sense". What does this mean? The templates should be rested, so that our readers can benefit from the additional functionality offered by them. At the same time, the {{Start date}} I added to the infobox was removed, thereby breaking its emitted microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dem swings

Given the danger/joy of the Lib Dems polling in first, reflecting the latest BPIX and YouGov polls, I think it would be helpful to include scenarios for swings to the Lib Dems. However, I can only find one definitive verifiable scenario: a 2.5% swing from Labour, with little swing to the Tories, results in a Labour hung parliament (Swingometer). Using the Swingometer and a bit of OR:

• 9.5% Labour to Lib Dem: Tory hung parliament;
• 16.5% Labour to Lib Dem: Lib Dem hung parliament;
• 19% Labour to Lib Dem: Lib Dem majority.

Any swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems under 20% results in a Labour parliament, with the Labour most strong at a 9% swing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, unless perhaps the lead is sustained. UNS only works with smallish changes anyway; it broke down in '97, for instance. If the YouGov share actually happened on polling day, God knows how Parliament would look. Wereon (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so, really. And to answer your question: the entire South West goes yellow, as does half of Labour-held Scotland, and a smattering of yellow around Yorkshire (a few constituencies such as Huddersfield and Bradford East are suddenly competitive now). Newcastle would remain red, though; they'd return Labour even if Jesus Christ was the leader of the Conservative party. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd really, as Newcastle has a LD council. Interesting times. Wereon (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It was half-a-joke, half-serious; the Tories have almost no representation in the North East, and especially not in Newcastle or Sunderland. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zoomed in graph?

Can someone make a graph with a shorter time period? The next couple of weeks are going to be very interesting, and the current graph with 6 month grids kinda hides all of the recent excitement, and isn't really helpful. I notice someone added one, but was reverted for being 'dodgy'?--Fangz (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It had serious methodological problems! I've discussed it on User talk:Talkstosocks. Wereon (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Constituencies...

What is best done about the article List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies ?

I have changed the opening paragraph but this will need a complete reworking or a redirect, given that it deals with the constituencies prior to 2010...

Any ideas ?

doktorb _words^deeds 06:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One question to ask is whether those constituencies should even remain together. Perhaps they should be split up by country, with the article titles noting the years those boundaries were in service (e.g., "Scotland's parliamentary constituencies (2005–present)"). -Rrius (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In the short term perhaps an admin could move the current article to List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies (2005), then move Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 to List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. Then we could figure out what to do with the old list. In the meantime, the 2010 list should clearly be at the generic "List of..." at this point. -Rrius (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1st, 2nd and 3rd party and the leaders' pictures

When the result of the election comes through, what will decide the order the leaders' pictures are placed in, and how the parties are labelled? Seats or votes? Does who becomes PM come into it? Can we try to decide the criteria before the election result? There may be dispute over it later. Urpunkt^☎ 19:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, 1st, 2nd, 3rd party aren't actually labelled o~o. Ignore that part Urpunkt^☎ 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The new PM's party on the left, then by number of seats. -Rrius (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

*Cough* United Kingdom general election, 1929 or United Kingdom general election, February 1974. Precedents both ways. Not sure how non-UK ones go. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Both examples follow Rrius's explanation.

1929; 1st party is the PM, 2nd is the next party with most seats, 3rd has least seats.

1974; 1st party is the PM, 2nd is the next party with most seats, 3rd has least seats.

The 1974 one looks odd because the PM's party is not the strongest, but that is because the PM did not resign and attempted to form a coalition government. Road Wizard (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Heath did resign as the outcome it just took a few days - in fact he resigned faster than Baldwin in 1929. The two are not consistent. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 1918 shows that the PM's party doesn't need to come first, it just goes in descending order of votes. I'd personally prefer the order to be on number of seats as that's what parties aim to maximize to give them power in parliament/government.--Mgp28 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section getting long

The lead is rather longer than is ideal, and I converted to a footnote the distracting description of the anomalous delay in one seat. The innovation of the televised debates is a major new aspect of UK politics at this election and must have a mention in the lead. I would be inclined to remove the whole paragraph from the lead that refers to the SNP and other minor/regional parties; their aspirations are not central to the UK General Election and they are adequately dealt with in the body of the article. Comments welcome on this. Sussexonian (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

New Force

Beyond the opening template being complicated is there any reason why DC is not listed as leader of both Conservatives and New Force? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not a single party. It is two parties that have come to an informal arrangement of supporting each other. Cameron is listed as the joint leader of "New Force" alongside the Ulster Unionist leader. Unless you have a source to suggest otherwise that appears to be the correct arrangement. Road Wizard (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It is formal enough to be recognised by the electoral commission here. Interestingly for 1987, a similar pact is in the infobox Fasach Nua (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is just the official name of the Conservative Party. The 1987 dual leadership is because the Liberals and SDP fought under a shared label of "SDP-Liberal Alliance". Are there sources to say that all the Conservative and Ulster Unionist candidates across the UK will be fighting under the shared banner of "Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force"? I suspect it will only be the Northern Ireland candidates fighting under that label. Road Wizard (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So why do we choose one label over the other? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First, "Conservative" is the common way of referring to Cameron's party. More importantly, why would we favour the label used in a few NI constituencies (if indeed it is so used) over the one used in hundreds of others in the other three countries? -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because they will be contesting around 632 seats as Conservatives and up to 18 seats as "Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force"? Applying the label to the entire Conservative party when they have not entered into any formal arrangement with the UUP would be more than a little odd. Road Wizard (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So why do we choose one label over the other? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. If you would like a different answer you may wish to rephrase the question. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Same question right back at you. Why should we choose the one you want over the one used in 97% of constituencies? -Rrius (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never stated I had wanted one over the other. I asked why one label was used over the other, when both are used by party candidates, yet wp has made an editorial decision to only use one Fasach Nua (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

→ See the guidelines on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UNDUE. "Conservatives" is the common name for David Cameron's party and adding "Ulster" to the name for the sake of 2.8% of all the candidates in the informal alliance of the two parties is giving undue weight to the title. Road Wizard (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the threshold wp requires? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no threshold. If something is the common name for something then it is the common name for something. Wikipedia editors may discuss the source evidence to judge what name is appropriate; the consensus of that discussion is what is used. If you wish to propose a change of name present your source evidence, the editors here will discuss it and then reach a conclusion. Road Wizard (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

common name is not relevant to this, Interestingly the BBC gives each home nation equal weight Fasach Nua (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided nothing to support your view, and the link saying "parties and issues" from left sidebar on that page brings you to a page that undercuts your argument completely.[8] The page lists the Conservatives as one party and lumps the UUP and "Unionist New Force" together. -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont recall expressing a view Fasach Nua (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain the purpose of this discussion? If you have a proposal to make then make it. I will no longer answer any of your questions on this subject until you make your intentions clear. Road Wizard (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

UCUNF isn't a name, it's a description (if you don't mind the irony of this being used again re: Ireland). We wouldn't list the BNP candidates under any of the names here, after all. At the same time, for expedience, we just call the Labour Co-operative and Democratic–Farmer–Labor parties as Labour and Democrat respectively. If the UUP get enough seats to be influential—and I doubt it (the last regional parties to be anywhere near influential were the IPP and pre-1922 Sinn Fein)—they'll be listed in the infobox on their own, as would the Greens, SNP, Plaid, BNP, etc. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the co-op is the best analogy, it is a seperate party, but they share the same whip, and I'm happy enough to follow the precedence on this Fasach Nua (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Incumbents on constituency pages

I plan to start marking incumbent MPs by putting "(i)" after their names in the results boxes at the individual constituency pages. Does anyone have any objections? MPs contesting a seat different to that which they previously held would be marked as well. I'm not aware of any seats where two MPs from the last Parliament are contesting the same seat, but if so, I would handle that by marking them both as such. The idea is to make it clear for readers when an MP is being voted out, and with all the new constituencies, it would be hard to handle it any other way. -Rrius (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Brent Central Wereon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

With the election only 10 days away I think this is more trouble than it's worth. People can easily enough find out the incumbent by looking down the article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea. There are no incumbent MPs, all seats are vacant. As PatGallacher says, looking downj the article to the results of the 2005 shows the former MPS. And this discussion should be taking place at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, not here. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Constituencies with new articles but old candidates will have no such table to look down at. If you really want to be hypertechnical about whether a person seeking re-election could be called an "incumbent", a different letter or symbol could be used. While it would require of me and anyone who decides to help me a certain amount of effort, it is difficult to see how it is "trouble" or a "bad idea".

Copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Incumbents on constituency pages

I'd say this is a bad idea too - you can often see the old mp just by looking down the page to the 2005 results (where there's no 2005 results, there's probably boundary changes). --h2g2bob (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please respond at the discussion linked above as the discussion is now occurring at the right place. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Short term polling graph

Can people quit removing the short term polling graph, especially without discussion? (Hint: if there's a revert war over it, then it needs discussion.)

Longer term graph makes it impossible to even read the mere current (and therefore, most important) status of the vote, let alone a number of significant and much commented on artefacts:

• 1st Debate effect - Lib Dem having their best polling position since start of records, including times where they are ahead of conservatives. EVERYONE is talking about this, and it's vaguely POV to pretend this doesn't exist.
• 2nd Debate effect - was there one?
• Calling the election effect - whether there is a change just because the election was called.

Graphs are an aide to the reader. What, exactly, is the motivation behind removing them? If people are disputing showing the Lib Dem rise because it's allegedly POV, then realise that we'd be showing this graph if it was a Labour, a Conservative, or a BNP +10% swing instead.--Fangz (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It does need to be updated with every new Yougov poll though. It was around 5 days between the last updates, that is simply too long this near the election. - Galloglass 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That is true... --Fangz (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2005 election page had a similar section on daily polls in the build up to election day (although I think it was a table rather than a graph). This then got removed after the election day as it's no longer relevant to the article's subject (although I think it got put in a "pre-election day events" type article so it's preserved for posterity). I don't think it's unreasonable to have a similar graph in this article in the run up to 6 May. But the reason I would give is because polls are part of the election build up events like campaigning and debates. We shouldn't be arguing over whether to show it based on who's in the lead or who had risen the most - that's a weak reason for including or excluding it.ChrisUK (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a new graph, would like people's opinions:

--Fangz (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't have Y-axis as "% vote" if you're giving a figure between 0 and 1. Evercat (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rochdale gaffe

What's the rationale for calling Duffy 'the voter'? How do we know that she's registered to vote, and also how do we know that she's going to vote in this election (she may not feel like it now)? If we decide not to use her name, then we should call her 'potential voter' rather than voter to be accurate.ChrisUK (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This section is given undue prominence in the article and I suggest that it be deleted. There are numerous incidents every day, obviously this was quite important but under Wikipedia:Not_News#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, section 4 it is not worthy of such a large section. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - maybe leave for 24-48 hours to avoid re-creation, but it is just one incident amongst many in this election campaign. --Neil (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A sentence or two may be warranted as its the first really embarrassing incident for any party leader, but the level of detail is too much. Fences&Windows 01:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down and renamed the section as Notable incidents. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is already being elevated by the media as being more important than the final leaders debate which finished a few hours ago, as the "incident of the week" (quote Andrew Neil, This Week just now), and considering we are now in the last week of the campaign, any suggestion that this is/was just another minor incident is obviously quite wrong. The Afd/DRv has already become a farce, where everyone seems to be able to predict the future and call NEWS before a single cycle has even occured, but there are already, even after just one full cycle, tons and tons of sources out there that show this incident is being examined worldwide wrt to the effect on Brown's campaign, and has even kickstarted some parts of the world into noticing there is even an election going on, so if people could stop obsessing about BLP and actually start writing about the imapct of the comment, that would be grand, and would certainly improve this article greatly. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The expression flocking

IMO it is very important in the story this expression used flocking The woman did not simply mean happy go lucky immigration she said flocking, this is a reference that is closer to mass migration, flocking is not a fluffy term, she clearly was moaning about it and meant it as she said it. This is quite important as it relates to Brown referring to her as a bigot. Why not define it as it was clearly intoned. The immigrants are flocking here and you can't say anything about it or they call you a ****** she didn't say the word. It is a bit much to assert brown was rude if we are not going to attribute the weight to her comments as they clearly were meant. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a transcript at The Guardian. Calling her a bigot implies an intolerance; it's clear from the context that's she complaining about mass immigration's effect on the labour market and overpopulation, rather than immigrants themselves. Wereon (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to start with becasue I didn't realise it was a quote, but as it is, the definition helps, a fuller quote to shoe context is reasonable, but the judgement of clarity should be for the reader to decide.--Nate^t/_c 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your re-adding it because the source does not support the quote, which is inaccurate. The fact that this is not a BLP does not change the fact that we should be careful about attributing statements to people. -Rrius (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I've listened to it a few times. It is clear she's saying that you can't even talk about immigration in the context of their using benefits. Here is the key part of the exchange:

• Duffy: The three main things what I had drummed in when I was a child was education, health service and looking after people who are vulnerable. But there's too many people now who aren't vulnerable but they can claim, and people who are vulnerable can't claim, can't get it.
• Brown: But they shouldn't be doing that, there is no life on the dole for people any more. If you are unemployed you've got to go back to work. It's six months...
• Duffy: You can't say anything about the immigrants because you're saying that you're... but all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how "flocking" is of such earth-shattering importance. -Rrius (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from" is borderline nonsensical: "er, the Eastern Europeans are flocking from... Africa, the traditional summer migration route for Eastern Europeans"... Anyway the "flocking" is just tabloid-speak for migration in large numbers. The key point is "flocking" as a response to Brown's remark about the dole - by implication, it's EEs coming to UK to live on benefits. (Which is both bigoted and ignorant: EEs are generally working in some capacity - often as plumbers, doctors, or criminals...) Rd232 ^talk 17:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is your, and apparently Brown's, belief that it is bigoted. It's a bit funny to read "EEs are generally working in some capacity". I think the objection among low-income people is to paying unemployment benefits to immigrants at all, especially when they are already paying benefits to Britons who are out of work while immigrants hold jobs they could fill. I don't entirely agree with the argument, but it is arrogant to simply dismiss it as bigoted and ignorant. In any event is not for Wikipedia to agree with you. -Rrius (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"while immigrants hold jobs they could fill"... yeah right. Reality is, the jobs EEs are taking are mostly either jobs no-one wants (agricultural labour) can't do (plumbing etc - because no training available) or aren't qualified for (doctors etc). [A notable exception is construction, where EE labour has driven down wages.] Unemployment benefits are so low that few hang around on them - they either get a new job or go back home to family. You can argue about "bigoted" (which if we take it to mean "prejudiced", i.e. judging people based on a category, it is), but it's certainly ignorant. It's sad because there are plenty of people living on benefits - but, somewhat ironically, they're mostly underskilled or over-50s British, or non-EU asylum seekers without the right and/or ability to work. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's both OR and a violation of BLP for Wikipedia to call her bigoted, rather than merely reporting that the PM described her as such. Wereon (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is neither of those if we explain, using WP:RS, why some people consider those views bigoted. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, you've no idea if she's bigoted or not. Unless you know the lady personally, you know nothing of her views beyond what she said on television. You can draw very little from her words other than that she objects to mass immigration, which is not itself bigoted. Wereon (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(a) I have no interest in arguing whether she is - not least because a few words spoken under the stress of meeting the PM can easily be semi-random!! The point is what would Brown reasonably think about her response, in the context of his previous sentence. Lumping people into a category in the way she did sounds somewhat prejudiced. Rd232 ^talk 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Brown referred to her as a bigot, we should not remove her comments that help to explain why Brown would comment about her like that, I would like to see the flocking comment replaced, Why remove it? I don't understand that at all.It is really important, Brown called her a bigot and we should report accurately her comments to allow readers both sides of the story, not just..Brown called her a bigot and she was a long term labour voter that mentioned immigration, flocking comment is very important in this report and should clearly be included, removing flocking is like removing bigot? Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Like Rrius, I can't see why you attach so much weight to the word. Is it because it's an animal metaphor? It certainly wouldn't normally be taken as pejorative in British English; it just suggests it's happening in large numbers. Wereon (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats exactly correct, she wasn't simply expressing a fluffy immigration comment she was talking about flocking and also in the same comment said, but you can't say anything about it or they call you a ******. .. and it was in reply to these comment that Brown referred to her as a bigot, if you want to report browns bigot comment, it surly is important and neutral to report her comments honestly? Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite. Rd232 ^talk 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. If you are referring to the actual conversation, she did not say they call you a [blank]; she said "they'll say you're—" and cut off. You are trying to extract way more from this than is there. As for "flocking", she doesn't "talk about flocking" as you say she does. All she said is what I repeated above. It is laughable to say her incomplete "where are they flocking from" thought was "talking about" flocking. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• She was clearly not a supporter of eastern European immigration and referred to it as the immigrants flocking here, if we report Browns bigot comment it is only fair to report any comments that may have caused brown to say that about her. Isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No. It would be fair to quote her in full, but to take a few words out of context, repeat them inaccurately, and try to present her as if she had been railing against immigration is completely unfair, not reflective of the facts, and not according the best practices of Wikipedia. I am frankly shocked that you of all people would be so willing to be so eager to do this. I suppose the problem is that you are blind to the fact that there are BLP concerns with respect to Mr. Brown and Ms. Duffy, who is not a even public figure. It would be enough to say they were discussing public benefits and immigration, then include a full quote in the references, if thought necessary. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • No. This... is not a honest reporting of her comment.. and questioned the influx of Eastern Europeans into the UK. Please don't personally attack me, I am far from blind. If you insist on its inclusion then the details of her comments become very relevent, for me I would not name her at all, there is no need at all. There was a BLP created for this woman which has been deleted, none of which has got anything to do with me. I am not eager to do anything about this, it is the kind of worthless content that I would resist but if users insist on including it then it should be portrayed and reported fairly. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The biographies of living people policy (BLP) exists to shield Wikipedia from legal liability, and its provisions apply to claims about living people regardless of whether the article in question is the article of the person in question or even whether it is about a person. Your preferred version was absolutely not an honest reporting of her comment and didn't even bother to quote her actual words. In any event, taking the words about immigration out of the context they were uttered in is highly dangerous because immigration is a highly contentious issue. If you cannot see that, you have indeed become blinded on this. -Rrius (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Rob, explain how on earth it could possibly be that having less context is more fair than having more. On what planet is your pet project of ensuring that the word "flocking" is included more important than ensuring that events, especially those involving living people, are presented in a balanced way? -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated misunderstandings of my position are becoming tiresome. As I asked you, stop personally attacking me, this is not as you opine my pet project and I care less about the word flocking is included or not. I would ask you to cease with this repeated opposition to any position that involves me, move on . forget about whatever it is that upset you and cease to imagine that you have any understanding of my position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"IMO it is very important in the story this expression used flocking." That was you, was it not? For you to suggest that I always disagree with you is fatuous. I oppose you when we disagree, and I support you when we agree. I have said over and over that we need to show the context of her remark on immigration. When I attempted to do so, you reverted me so that you could restore the part of her quote that includes the word "flocking". Exactly what is one to take from that? -Rrius (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

From the video..."you cant say anything about the immigrants because they are saying that your ****** but all of these Eastern Europeans that are coming in, where are they flocking from?... and what are you going to do about all of these students that are coming in"..http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649308.stm

As best I can tell she says, "...because you're saying that you're uh uh—", then she cuts herself off. -Rrius (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the correct quote in, with source. I agree that including the quote is better than any attempt at a summarising (and we do it for Brown's remark, too). Mdwh (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the comment directly above. As the issue is controversial the best way to avoid unintentional bias would be to include a large part of direct quotation to allow readers to establish the context of both remarks. Unfortunately at the moment the article has been changed to remove the "where are they flocking from" and does seem unambiguous. Cjeam (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's important to include as much context as possible - the question "where are they flocking from" if nothing else is nonsensical, and thus impossible to answer, making GB's frustration understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manbilong (talk • contribs) 07:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to submit this as a further option for the text. The BBC have transcripts of the exchanges that can be referenced. Please provide feedback, or feel free to copy and create you own version within my sandbox so we can hopefully reach some sort of consensus. Cjeam (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The other F-word

The Mirror has another theory — that Brown thought she used a different f-word and this coloured his impression of her. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds very suspect: that'd place the stress on the word "from", otherwise it'd be being used as a verb and not an intensifier, which would make no sense.

Besides, I'm not sure to what extent the Mirror counts as a reliable source. There's a long discussion at [9] if you're interested. Wereon (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

External links - other parties

The list appears to be a bit NPOV, this source [10] lists 133 distinct party labels. Some of the parties in the list have only one candidate and others with more candidates are missing. At least one on the list does not appear to have any candidates. Perhaps with regard to NPOV and the fact this is not a directory the list should be removed. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We ought to exercise some common sense here. We can't link to every independent, nor should we. It's probably alright as it is, though Animals Count, with its one candidate, shouldn't be there. What's the party not fielding any candidates - England First? Wereon (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cant find a candiate for the England First Party and as you say the Animals Count is a single-candidate. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we, perhaps, have an intermediate section for regional parties that already have representation e.g. SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein, SDLP, DUP, UUP? Evercat (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks absolutely fine to me! Wereon (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fermanagh and South Tyrone

Am I missing something? where does this swing come from? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism: [11]. Fixed. Wereon (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the 4 NI seats listed, 3 are odd

DUP arent running in F & ST

UCUNF didnt run in last election in S.Belfast

UCUNF didnt run in last election in S.Antrim

Is this worthy of inclusion? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The F&ST bit is based on last time; if the DUP aren't standing, it probably ought not to be there. The other two seem to be, quite reasonably, taking UCUNF as a continuation of the UUP. Wereon (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also support Fermanagh being removed as the DUP aren't standing there so the comparison is inaccurate. Valenciano (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can a party not target a seat if it didn't stand the last time?? Are TUV not targeting North Antrim? Also, SF is surely targeting South Down? Mooretwin (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And how would you calculate the swing needed? Wereon (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements

Several papers have been added with notes that they traditionally support one party or other or that they did so in 2005, all based on one source from September. None has a source for having actually endorsed a party this time around. Does anyone have a source for 2010 endorsements by the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, and The Independent? -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they've been confirmed yet, but all but the Indie are dead certs anyway. Wereon (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The way it was presented created the false impression that they had endorsed this time as well. I went ahead and changed it to a simple table, which I hope others will approve of. -Rrius (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is important to reflect that the editorial boards of The Observer and The Guardian (as are the Sunday Times and The Times) are different. There has been instances where the endorsement of the Sunday edition has been different to the weekly edition. Monsumo (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Election map

I've uploaded the new election map, in preparation for Thursday: File:2010UKElectionMap.svg. As it's a 6 MB file, I suggest that if anybody is stricken by an urge to update it during the big night, they only upload it intermittently. Wereon (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made silly efficiency suggestions before like the one I'm about to; we'll see if this one fares better: would one person be willing to take on the work and would everyone else be willing to leave the work to that person? Requests for updates could be made at that person's page or at File talk:2010UKElectionMap.svg. Just a suggestion. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I'd volunteer, but I'm busy that night (on not-unrelated business!). If nobody else wants to, I'll do it on Friday morning. Wereon (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd volunteer with the understanding that I am in the US so will be getting my information online rather than from television. I doubt that makes a difference, but others can weigh in on that. -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that anyone attempting to keep the map up to date will have their hands full when results start flying in. It'll also require many hours of constant attention. And you'll be constantly looking up seat names just to see where they are. But if you think you can manage... Evercat (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

couldn't you just hotlink to a similar map on, say, the BBC? then maybe replace with this one after the event? or just link to a live map and leave this one till after? seems silly to duplicate effort that a media outlet is undoubtably going to be doing anyway --Arkelweis (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Guardian/Observer

User:Sceptre insists that the Guardian and Observer are the same paper and shouldn't be listed separately. Saying they are the same paper stretches the point a bit. They are sister papers, with common ownership and a lot of shared content. However, ownership is not the key to editorial endorsements. Those come from the editors. Thus, the papers are only the same for this purpose if the editors responsible for making endorsements and other editorial page decisions are the same for both papers. Are they? If in fact they are, the relationship should be made clearer than using "and" instead of separate lines as not all readers of this article are going to be familiar enough with the papers to understand why they are listed as a single entry instead of being listed separately. -Rrius (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of me wants to say that The Guardian and The Observer are different papers, but the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph are not; but I think that's due just to their names, and not strictly logical. Is there any instance of a Sunday paper endorsing a different party from its corresponding daily? Wereon (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

[12] seems to support Sceptre's view. Wereon (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

{http://observer.guardian.co.uk/} also supports that view. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the papers share ownership and content. That is beyond question and beside the point. The important factor is who made the decision to endorse. If the editors responsible for making that decision are the same at both papers, they should be treated as the same; if not, they should not. -Rrius (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the Sundays have different editors as far as I can ascertain. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we avoid such deep philosophical questions of what is and isn't a paper, and defer to precedent elsewhere. I think British Electoral Facts goes Sceptre-wise, and that's probably as close as we can get to authoritative. Wereon (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not unusual for daily and Sunday sister newspapers to back different parties. In the 2005 general election, The Times backed Labour and The Sunday Times backed the Conservatives:

Newspaper endorsements in the 2005 general election[13]

Dailies		Sundays
Newspaper	Endorsement	Newspaper	Endorsement
The Daily Express	Con	The Sunday Express	Con
The Financial Times	Lab
The Guardian	Lab/LD	The Observer	Lab/LD
The Herald	weak Lab	The Sunday Herald	anti-Blair
The Independent	LD/Lab	The Independent on Sunday	LD/Lab
The Daily Mail	anti-Lab	The Mail on Sunday	anti-Lab
The Mirror	Lab	The Sunday Mirror	Lab
		The Sunday People	Lab
The Daily Record	anti-Con
The Scotsman	Lab
The Daily Star	neutral
The Sun	Lab	The News of the World	Lab
The Daily Telegraph	Con	The Sunday Telegraph	Con
The Times	weak Lab	The Sunday Times	Con
The Evening Standard	Lab

— Richardguk (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this format makes more sense for this section - to make it newspaper centric rather than party centric. I've re-formatted the section to look like this so let me know what you think ChrisUK (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If the editors are in fact different people and the evidence is that sister papers do in fact split endorsements, it seems to me we should treat them as separate. Something like the table above would be nice. -Rrius (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I too endorse the use of this table. Monsumo (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Blair? Evercat (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Oh I see, that's 2005... Evercat (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the above format is sensible. Furthermore we should be wary of OR in determining the endorsements. I have updated the table by reference to the BBC's determination of who the papers are backing. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Future structure of this article after 6 May

I think it's worth pooling some ideas on how this article might change once it is history after 7 May. A lot of stuff will probably get cut and replaced instead with results, analysis etc. My guess is that there will be an edit frenzy on 6 May followed by a period of reverts, cuts, additions, redrafts etc in the days afterwards. So itmight be worth spending a bit of time before then thinking about:

• what the new sections might be
• where the old stuff should go so it doesn't get lost
• what the next general election article should be called and where it should go

On the last point I think I created this article the day after the last election and I notice from the Talk archives there was a period of about two years after that where the name of the article was constantly debated. Maybe we can just learn from the past to avoid that again.

On the old stuff point, I personally think that sections 3 to 8 will not be relevant any more, but the content could just be fork lifted into a new article called something like Events leading up to the UK general election 2010 where events mean everything from the boundary change commission to opinion poll trend changes. ChrisUK (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking of creating an article called something like "Timeline of the 2010 United Kingdom general election campaign". At the moment I just have notes stored locally. I want it to follow the 30 or so days from Brown going to Queenie up until the big day. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

this makes sense and I like the title. At the last election I created Pre-election day events of the United Kingdom general election, 2005 to put the stuff in which is probably the worst title ever. Yours is much better. ChrisUK (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the sections that you say will not be relevant anymore, all are already summaries of content forks, so I presume you are talking about removing them completely. It would be wholly inappropriate to simply drop those summaries. Some of them will change dramatically over the next month, making it difficult to even think about what they should look like after the election. For the others, it may well be that they need to be trimmed to avoid giving them undue weight after the election, but removing them altogether would be an overreaction. One of them could possibly be trimmed down now: the border changes, and I suppose I'll give that a try. -Rrius (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean remove completely, but looking at previous articles, I'm guessing that results, analysis etc of the election could way in at around 30Kb, so the current content would need to be boiled down quite considerably to make the article digestible. But it would be a shame to lose the content itself which is why I suggest hiving the whole chunk into a new article and just summarise it savagely here. And in the future the most relevant thing about this article will be the result not the build up. But I also agree that it's hard to take a decision now about what it will look like.ChrisUK (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As I say, each of those sections is already a summary of a subarticle. The answer, then, is to reduce the length of the summaries here when the time comes, not to move those summaries to yet another article, which in turn would summarise the main articles. For the moment, we should just let the existing subarticles and the summaries change organically, then worry about what's appropriate post-election in the days after 6 May. -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of readers current and future, below are listed the relevant sections and related articles:

• Other parties contesting the election (List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2010)
• Opinion polls, and analysis of votes in relation to numbers of seats (Opinion polling in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)
• Television debates (United Kingdom general election debates, 2010)
• MPs not seeking re-election (MPs standing down in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)
• Boundary changes (Boundary changes for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 & Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010)

-Rrius (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on length alone it is going to be difficult to retain the "pre election" stuff and the results stuff all in one page and still make a readable article. As of today, this article is 62Kb. The 2005 article is 38Kb, and just contains results stuff really with all the pre-election material in another place. So, we could be looking at well over 100Kb for pre-stuff and results all in one page which will be very difficult to boil down to anything remotely readable. Furthermore, the events leading up to the election are notable in themselves and would justify a seperate article. The trouble is to pick a title though, since this article covers things that happened way before the election was called (like the boundary changes) and also covers things that aren't events like the marginal seats analysis. So I open the debate again to everyone to discuss what should happen to this article over the next few days and to suggest titles. My first proposal is "Events leading up to the 2010 UK general election"ChrisUK (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this length will be solved by the passing of the election. The entire "Contesting parties" section will be replaced by the results table, and the marginals table will no longer be necessary as is. The "Boundary changes" section could easily be trimmed. Instead of the paragraphs explaining the changes in each country, we could just say only England received new seats (four); England, Northern Ireland, and Wales all experienced significant boundary changes, and Scotland received its last review in 2004, so was unchanged from the last election. Finally, the polling section could be cut back almost completely. It could, like many such sections, retain only a graph, or it could also explain when the Tories overtook Labour, Labour's brief lead in 2007, and period since the first debate. -Rrius (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above from Rrius - the article after 6 May has a very different slant to that of beforehand so a lot of the current info just won't be relevant. Maybe I'm just concerned about losing so much information though - I think everything in the article today will still be of encyclopedic value as a document of record and context, although it will have to have a different name. ChrisUK (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper Endorsement Article

Probably not everyone realised this, but someone created an article: Newspaper endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2010, while this article has its section on the same topic [14]. I propose to delete one of these as they are essentially duplicates. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why that's important enough to warrant its own page. It's just a table of information, and deserves to be in the main election article. Wereon (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, ought we to have the Evening Standard there? All the rest are nationals, and we have no other regional newspapers listed. Wereon (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thx for the response. I can't do anything much with only one person giving his/her view. I just point that out so someone bold can do something about it. I like the format used in the separate article, so I think it might be a good idea to use it if we decide to merge/move everything here. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the size of this article it would be reasonable to try and summarise the table here in a text paragraph mentioning important changes, and link to the article with the table in WP:SUMMARY style. Rd232 ^talk 06:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour's manifesto - alternative formats

I just removed an event from Notable Campaign Events for 15 April which reads; "Labour was criticised for not making its manifesto available to visually impaired people and those with other disabilities after delays in the production of Braille and audio format versions of the document, but said these would be available shortly." which comes from this BBC News article. I'm not sure that it's a notable campaign event as such, but it might be worth a mention if we are summarising the manifestos somewhere. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two million or so people with some degree of visual impairment in the UK, so this would have inconvenienced a lot of people who might have wanted the manifesto in one of these formats. Looks like they have since released it in alternative formats. [15] I think it should be included somewhere. Paul Largo (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

By that logic the Sahlin thing (RFC above) is far more notable: the Conservative education policy will actually affect people, whereas not being able to read the Labour manifesto soon enough, and temporarily having to cope with getting info second-hand... not ideal, but hardly notable. Plus: the number of visually impaired floating voters willing to read the Labour manifesto? Probably a lot closer to two than 2m. Rd232 ^talk 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this just something else to kick Labour about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.86.117 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there may be more than two, but whatever the case this would perhaps be more notable if Labour had failed to produce an audio/braille manifesto, or if they'd arrived too late to be digested before the election or something. As it is this was really a minor hitch in the production of the thing. Like I said earlier there might be a place for a brief mention somewhere else, but not in this article. Incidentally, as the manifesto was recorded by Richard Wilson, this fact could be mentioned in his article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue is certainly not important to this article. -Rrius (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't fit into this article and is a relatively small event in comparison to some things. But speaking as someone who is visually impaired I'm concerned that people would think there are only two of us willing to read the manifesto - that makes me and one other bloke. I personally know at least ten to fifteen visually impaired people who have read or listened to it (and the others) in some format. FWIW the delay was an inconvenience but not a disaster. I just downloaded a PDF version of it and listened to it using a screen reader, as did one or two others I know. Bootlegbobby (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

what I said was "a lot closer to two than 2m". Which is surely also true of non-visually-impaired floating voters willing to read the Labour manifesto. Good you found an alternative solution, anyway. Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pitches toward Middle England

"David Cameron is attempting to make a pitch towards "Middle England" — the people who it is said have abandoned the Conservative Party since 1992 for Labour or the Liberal Democrats.[11]"

The source has no mention of Cameron, or the Conservative party or of the loss to Middle England. It states that Brown is targeting it.

He will say: “New Labour will never retreat but positively entrench our position in the centre ground, in the mainstream as the party of reform — new Labour renewed, not just holding the centre ground but modernising it in a progressive way, too.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article649665.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.63.22 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article does not support the claim. I have heard the claim before, but I can't point to a specific source. I'll search for one, but I'm not going to get to it soon. -Rrius (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

you have 11 hours --93.97.63.22 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Until? Wereon (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Until this page self-destructs! -Rrius (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seats won

As we go through the night of 6/7 May, are we going to update the map (and constituency articles, &c.) based on completed and declared counts only, or will we accept projections that a party has won a seat (especially for safe seats)? -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely the former. Who knows what a safe seat is nowadays? Wereon (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, let's not forget Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Quality over speed. Rd232 ^talk 06:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The media doesn't tend to make projections that X has won a seat until the returning officer declares it. The counting process is totally different to North American elections. LondonStatto (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is accurate, efficient and quick unlike the mess in in the USA :-) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind though that a UK seat to parliament is an order of magnitude smaller than a US Congressional district, and even the US press which often does predict legislative seats to US Congress generally does not project our state legislative seats until they come out. You can however expect the BBC to say after a few seats come out thinks like; "if the average swing continues, party X will gain __ to ___ seats." after the polls close.Jon (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, being an American, Jon, I can say our media do call state legislative districts. Of course the national networks ignore them completely, but the information is available on local broadcasts and on the websites of print sources. -Rrius (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Gag law

"British law prevents the media from [...] detailing the parties' positions on the issues."

Greene, Richard Allen (May 6, 2010). "Britain faces potentially historic vote". CNN.com.

Should that be mentioned? It sure seems pertinent enough. --78.34.222.188 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The source says reporting restrictions are in place for polling day only. It might be worth a mention purely as an interesting fact, but it doesn't seem to be overly important. The media has had several weeks to report on the polls and policies of the parties in minute detail; a muted commentary during the hours of voting might be a welcome break. Road Wizard (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"might be a welcome break"? Is that your personal opinion? On a Wikipedia article talk page? Anyway, include it or don't, I just brought it here with a preformatted source. --78.34.222.188 (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Factually inaccurate information from a foreign source with apparently no ability to interpret teh sources available to it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Two points to answer there. First, "might be a welcome break" is not an opinion, it is a hypothesis to which there are at least two different answers (if I said "is a welcome break" then that would be an opinion). Second there is nothing wrong with stating an opinion on a Wikipedia talk page - the act of discussing what goes into an article relies to a large extent on balancing different opinions. Road Wizard (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's just not true. I doubt it's even true on polling day, though I couldn't swear to it. The BBC specifically has its own impartiality guidelines, but everyone else can mostly do as they please. Evercat (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

print media can do what they like, since they're "self-regulated" (ahem). Broadcast media are subject to Ofcom election rules [16]. As the BBC put it in regards to polling day, "In line with the political parties and other UK broadcasters, the BBC will not be reporting the election campaign or offering discussion about the campaign on any of its outlets while the polls are open."[17] Rd232 ^talk 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

STOP sign

What balderdash! It's unnecessary in-your-face garbage, which will make no difference whatsoever to vandals. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. NW (Talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good move. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

I understand the notice needs to grab attention, but I think it's just a wee bit obnoxious. Can someone make it a bit smaller? --.:Alex:. 22:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail on the farce over not enough Ballot Papers, people unable to vote etc

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1274093/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Thousands-left-unable-vote-huge-queues-form-polling-stations-Britain.html Nanonic (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  lol daily mail. That said, the Electoral Commission have just issued a formal response, so... Sceptre ^(talk) 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Elected MPs

Do we have an established category for MPs elected at this election? If not, we ought to create one urgently. PatGallacher (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Note on top of page?

Should we add a hatnote (at the top of the page) linking to MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010? Most people will be looking for results, so let's make it faster for them. ninety:one 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Derry East

The bomb squad was called after a car was abandoned in a parking lot and then they performed a controlled explosion. --Lenerd (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I might be being really stupid, but can somebody explain the infobox results to me?

Tories before:193 Tories after:306 Stated change:98. Labour before:345 Labour after:258 Stated change:-87. Lib Dems before:62 Lib dems after: 57 Stated change:-5.

Tory change..306-193=113 !=98 Labour change.. 258-345=-87 !=-91 Lib Dem change.. 57-62=-5 (this is the only one that matches the actual change from before the election to after)

Am I missing something here? Is there some prediction or missing result that these are based on/exclude? I notice they sort of match the BBC web site but I don't understand how they are calculated...

LaFoiblesse (talk) 2010-05-07 20:00 (BST)

There have been major boundary changes for constituencies since the last election in 2005 and 4 new seats were created, both factors make comparison to the previous results difficult and potentially misleading. To present as clear a comparison as possible the BBC data is based on "notional" comparisons that estimate how many seats the parties would have won if the same constituencies were used 5 years ago. Road Wizard (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And some marginal seats do flip parties when they restructure the boundaries. For example, Rochdale was represented by a Lib Dem, but was classified as a Labour seat for the purposes of counting gains. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify swing

I am not familiar with the concept of Uniform national swing or Swing (politics), so could someone clarify the uses in this article? I have also added this {{clarify}} tag to Swing (politics):

"reason=better explanation needed: is swing a percentage, and if so, a percentage of what exactly? For example, does a swing of 30% current minus 25% previous equate to 5 percent, or 20% percent or something else? A precise example would be helpful."

In United Kingdom general election, 2010 the term swing appears in a table as "Required swing" associated with a decimal such as 0.02 or 0.50, and in the same table as "Actual swing" associated with a percentage such as 9.3% or -4.3%. What does 0.02 mean there? 2 percent or 0.02 percent? -84user (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, swing represents the percent of people who change from one party to the other. Say we have a hypothetical constituency of 100 electors. In the first election, the Reds get 40, the Blues 30, and the Yellows 20. If, in the second election, the Reds get 30, Blues 45, and Yellows 25, that's a 12.5% swing against the Reds to the Blues, and a 7.5% swing to the Yellows. As to your second question, "0.02" refers to "0.02%"; in this context, a majority around 20 or 30, if that. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Seats won image

Could someone amend/replace the image that shows the seats (10.2)? It's confusing to someone who doesn't understand the situation, as it suggests all the non-Conservative parties are linked together. How about something showing the three main parties in three blocks with "others" in a fourth? John Smith's (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally, images like this represent the actual seating patterns in the chamber - until we know the outcome of current negotiations we have no idea how it will look! It's probably best waiting until we have a clearer idea of how things will actually look. ninety:one 23:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note to the image to disambiguate this..Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• 'Graphical representation of seats won in parliament, shown in order of seats won by party, starting bottom right and reducing clockwise'

Seats gained / seats lost

I don't no if this is a standard infobox that I should raise there, but the way seats changed hands, I thought an extra couple of columns would add extra visible info to this effect. We've got seats won and change, I thought we could add 'seats gained', 'seats lost' and change 'change' to 'net change' under these. ( too many changes!!). This would help to show how many previous mps lost their seats vs new entries. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Next Prime Minister

User:Fasach Nua has tagged the TBD entry under the next Prime Minister in the infobox as {{citation needed}}, following my request to them to not add Gordon Brown there. See User talk:Jezhotwells#United Kingdom general election, 2010. Just though I would raise this here as of course it is not actually possible to provide a citation for something which has not yet happened. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was the primeminister subsequent to the election that was tagged rather than "next primeminister" Fasach Nua (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a distinction without a difference. The fact is that we don't know who the resulting prime minister will be. It may be Cameron, it may be Brown, hell, it may be User:Fasach Nua. We actually could cite that, but it seems you are trying to make a point, Fasach Nua, so could you please just tell us what that point is? -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we change the tag 'previous prime minister' to 'presiding prime minister' that would cover the way the system works and also mean 'previous' wouldn't it? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First, "presiding prime minister" is pretty vague. Second, that is not a change we'd make here; that text comes from {{Infobox officeholder}}. -Rrius (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok to be specific how about 'encumbent'? I'll checkout officeholder later... But if it doesn't have a clause covering it what if we change TBD to 'unknown' that can't need a cite... if it's really necessary to push the cite then a note to how pm's are selected would suffice. Seems pedantic, this, but I guess we might as well be as accurate as possible! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If Brown stays in office, he isn't the "next" PM, he's still the same one. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Next UK General Election

I think an article on the next UK General Election should be created, as it's pretty likely that it could be held in the not too distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjsr501 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Already been done: Next United Kingdom general election. Wereon (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is WP:Crystal Ball to speculate exactly, there is wikipedia convention to create a generic "NEXT election..." and then moved the info when the dates are finalized. The trouble here is what if there are 2 general election in the same year, how does the nomenclature go?(Lihaas (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As was done for 1974 United Kingdom general election, February 1974 and United Kingdom general election, October 1974 with a disambiguation page United Kingdom general election, 1974. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Banzhaf Power Index

I created a graphic showing the Banzhaf Power Index for the result, and i would like to know if you want it or if it's ok to show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisdanielmesa (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Trivia additions

the addition about the first, 2nd, 3rd, 4th results to come in are pure WP:Trivia ("Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information") If its so important the list of elected MP's can be sorted by the order of results coming in.Lihaas (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ulster Unionists in targets section

the marginal seats of main parties section gives space to seven parties: Tories, DUP, Labour, Lib Dems, PC, SNP, and the Ulster Unionists. This seems to be an arbitrary selection. Based on seat strength coming into the election, the UUP on a single seat were joint ninth, on a par with Respect and behind SF and the SDLP who are not included. In this election, they have gotten no seats whatsoever, thereby finishing behind the Greens and Alliance. How can their inclusion as a "Major party" be justified? 86.41.78.67 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The tables exist from a pre-election standing, and look at what seats parliamentary parties came close to winning, but lost based on the notional results of the new boundaries. IIRC, the other parties did not have any marginal losses within some given swing of being wins. The fact that UUC lost its seat, which was relied upon by the other IP editor, is completely irrelevant to whether it had targets going into the election. -Rrius (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Every party had targets; by what objective measure are the Ulster Unionists' more noteworthy? Were they predicted by a reputable source to pick up more seats than the Greens/BNP/SF/SDLP/UKIP? If so, please show us. 86.41.78.67 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The sections in question appear to be a split of a previous 'Northern Irish Targets' section, which I believe simply listed the seats in Northern Ireland where the smallest swing would be required to take the seat.

86.41 - thanks for discussing.

The Ulster Unionist Party is, and has been, considered a major party for Northern Ireland and the UK for many decades, arising from the Irish Unionist Party. Their success or failure in this election was quite pivotal, as the UUP have found themselves in this position relatively recently, and particularly because of their new pact with the Conservative Party. The UUP/Conservatives managed to get a substantial share of the vote in the constituencies they fielded candidates for. Their success at achieving elections in this First-past-the-post system is irrelevant.

But besides all that, the fact is that there was a major battle in one constituency (South Antrim) with the party's leader; and the refusal of Hermon to ally with the Conservatives and the possible expectation to do well as a result of the alliance. The fact that the UUP lost its only seat, despite still being a main political party, it in itself notable. For South Antrim, the party's leader changed constituencies in order to contest. The South Belfast seat is a marginal seat and has been since what.. at least 2005, when the split in the Unionist vote gave it to the SDLP?

I don't see any reason for the information to be removed. If anything, more information might be added, though I don't know enough about all 650 seats to know if there were any other particularly highly-contested seats... apart from perhaps the Fermanagh & South Tyrone seat which, as it turned out, was hugely contested by Sinn Féin and an independent unionist. So the independent should probably also be added to the list (Sinn Féin were incumbent, so it was a "target" for the independent).

Rrius, you say that the "UUC lost its seat [..] relied upon by the other IP editor" by which I presume you mean me. Do you think the article needs a citation for this fact? Personally, I don't think so, as it has been well covered in the media and on the Internet already: the sky is blue.

--94.15.111.232 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support returning to a 'Northern Irish targets' section, however will this section continue to be relevant? After all the election has finished now, and there *are* no targets! --Neil (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a "Northern Irish target" section, as there are no equivalents for Wales, Scotland, England, Cornwall, North-East England, London.. etc. The targets section remains relevant after the election because it is a record of which marginal seats or controversial ones had been targeted for the election. --94.15.111.232 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the mainland parties don't stand in Northern Ireland. If there are winnable seats in England, Wales and Scotland they will be within lists for each party. Northern Ireland is a special case, and therefore should be treated in a special manner. By simply listing the smallest swings we present data in a reasonably objective manner, without declaring that any of the four parties are any more or less important than any others. --Neil (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Neil you should keep up to date with the news! :) The Conservatives fielded candidates in Northern Ireland, and not for the first time either. The Greens also stand for election in Northern Ireland. I don't see any need to treat Northern Ireland differently to other regions, even if none of the three main Westminster parties had never stood for election in Northern Ireland. --94.2.123.233 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't see a difference between the NI party system and those of the other countries of the UK, then yours is a unique view. -Rrius (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - as noted elsewhere, the Ulster Unionist Party ≠ the Conservatives, and the Green Party in Northern Ireland ≠ Green Party of England and Wales, or indeed the Scottish Green Party, in fact being a part of the Green Party (Ireland). --Neil (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question doesn't make sense. I didn't ask for proof that the UUC lost its seat; I said it doesn't matter as the target section is necessarily taken from a pre-election stance. As for how NI is different, the fact is that, while Scotland and Wales have nationalist parties, the Northern Ireland party distribution is completely different to those on the island of Great Britain. -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, why not just delete the whole targets section from all parties (both major and minor) now that the elections are over? People that are sourced as doing much better or much worse than expected can have comments to that in the sub article about the results. Jon (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Truncating the tables and subsections at least would be a good idea. Readers of the future are unlikely to be that interested in this content relative to what we could be devoting space to. 86.45.154.128 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckingham

A warning to all editors: for some reason, the BBC are treating Buckingham as a Conservative hold. Cameron actually has 305 seats (at the moment). Wereon (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up above in a section called "Bercow". LeakyCauldron is convinced that a Speaker reverts to prior party membership somehow. -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is discussed above at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2010#Bercow. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read above first! Wereon (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I took my view on this following a TV interview Bercow gave in which he was asked what would happen if he was to loose his job as Speaker. He said he would return to being an ordinary MP. I cannot find the source on BBC iPlayer. I know he is not a Conservative MP, I know he stood unapposed by the main parties in yellow & green representing the Speaker. Nevertheless, he said what he said. Leaky Caldron 11:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[18] now has this as "Speaker hold" Evercat (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Results table

The results table as displayed in this article looks different from the one displayed in the template (Template:United Kingdom parliamentary election, 2010), even though it seems to be the template itself (there are edit and discussion buttons). As it appears in this article, the table is a little misleading, leaving out certain important results. 81.157.226.29 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad - the table in that template is from 2005. All that needs to be added to this table is the "Others" category, including the independent MP. 81.157.226.29 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the template with the 2010 results now, copied across from the main election article's results section. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Renames needed

 Done Fences&Windows 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservative targets for next UK election, Labour targets for next UK election and Liberal Democrat targets for next UK election are anachronistically titled and need timestamping. Could an autoconfirmed editor move them please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.154.128 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong detail ...

In the article are the wordes "Green leader Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion, the first Green MP worldwide to be elected under a first-past-the-post system." That ist wrong. Hans-Christian Ströbele was elected in an first-past-the-post constituency in Berlin for the german Greens into the Bundestag. --84.142.103.47 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for believing what I read in the papers. Fences&Windows 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seats count

Is this correct? Which "party" is the speaker in? As the numbers add up to 650 which should include the speaker... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

See, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a79.stm its clearly blue for Conservatives which isn't correct. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Labour_ministers_and_MP.27s

I'm not clear why it is necessary or encyclopedic to include vast lists of blue-linked loosing candidates with their former roles (barely notable in many cases). Utter clutter. Message left at IP's talk page. Leaky Caldron 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly not notable. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Results by country

Any reason why Cornwall is not included in the table of county maps? I know we're often treated like the fairies at the bottom of the garden, but we do actually exist ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's there now - I'd guess they were being added as they were created. [Isle of Wight hasn't made it at time of writing...] --Neil (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The IoW is always a little way behind the rest of us anyway :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Just casually reading the article and noticed in the first paragraph, ", whil still finding themselves ro be kingmakers to form a new government."

I don't believe this is proper English, and was wondering if the article may need to be further checked for grammar errors.

98.227.163.63 (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Article [further] splits

WP:Article size affirms 30k as too long, this is well over that at 90k currently. I think some more splits are need here. The results can be moved away, particularly the graphics on an already existing page. Perhaps party details can go off onto their 2010 electoral pages.Lihaas (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not according to WP:SIZERULE... 100k of readable prose is what is considered too long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to graphics person: Green targets

The Green Party targets were Brighton Pavillion, Norwich South and Lambeth. They won Brighton Pavillion. Can the editor who did the graphs also include this one? Politis (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Lambeth, it was Lewisham Deptford. Fences&Windows 13:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary demographics

I've started a new section "Parliamentary demographics" (please feel free to give this a better title or merge it into an other section if appropriate). I've included a mention of the first two female Muslim MPs. It would also be good to include statistics on the number of women overall in Parliament before and after the election but I haven't yet been able to find a reference for the new female total - if anyone can find one please let me know. SP-KP (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that notable? Wereon (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the change in the number of women rather than the content I've already added as a doubling of the number of ethnic minority candidates is clearly notable, and the election of the first female Muslim MPs (given the cultural attitudes towards women in a large part of the Islamic community) also. I've subsequently found an article which says that the proportion of women has increased from 19% to 21.5% (it doesn't give the precise figures so I'm still hunting for something better). I think that's notable on the grounds that a) the figure is so low compared to other countries b) given the attempts by 2 of the 3 big parties to increase female representation and against the background of progress towards a parliament reflective of the country in other areas, the jump has been so small. It would be good to hear your reasons for questioning notability. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should also add c) that despite the above, this is still the highest ever female representation in the UK Parliament. SP-KP (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of "Effect of the expenses scandal" section

• Lihaas (talk · contribs) removed wholesale the following secction today [19], as "uncited". I cannot be bothered to cite it, Lihaas definitely cannot be bothered either it seems, and thinks it is so objectionable it doesn't warrant a more nuanced approach, but I don't think any of it is remotely not citeable, so I'm posting it here for reference, in case anybody else can be bothered to rectify this situation, which is sadly not technically against the rules, but is in my opinion, not remotely how you go about improving articles. MickMacNee (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The predicted backlash from the 2009 expenses scandal of a rise in the number of successful Independents in the election, failed to materialise. In addition, few results in seats were attributed solely to the scandal, even though cleaning up politics and Westminster became a major theme of all three main parties' election campaigns.

Independents supported by the Jury Team or the Independent Network, support networks who both attempted to select and promote high quality Independents who had signed up for the so called Nolan Principles of public life, set out in the Committee on Standards in Public Life, failed to have any significant impact, particularly Esther Rantzen's bid to take the Luton South constituency on an anti-sleaze platform, eventually polling in 4th place with just 4.4% of the vote.

Similarly, while not an Independent, the UKIP Leader Nigel Farage failed in his attempt to unseat Speaker John Bercow, heavily criticised for his handling of the expenses scandal. Going against the normal political convention, Farage decided to stand in the Speaker's seat, which is normally not contested by major parties. His bid failed after he polled third in the vote for the Buckingham constituency with 17.4%, behind the re-elected speaker with 47.3%, although an Independent John Stevens, standing on the Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy ticket, polled second with 21.4%.

One high profile loss that was attributed to the scandal was the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's loss of her Redditch seat, following a 9.2% swing to the Conservatives. Ann Keen lost Brentford and Isleworth, but her husband Alan Keen retained Feltham and Heston. The couple were criticised for claiming for a second home in central London while rarely staying in their nearby constituency home. Former Home Office minister Tony McNulty lost Harrow East to the Conservative Bob Blackman and Conservative David Heathcoat-Amory lost Wells to the Liberal Democrat Tessa Munt. McNulty had apologised in the House of Commons after using expenses to allow his parents to live rent-free in his constituency home, and Heathcoat-Amory was criticised for claiming manure on expenses.

---

I've asked him to discuss it here, personally I'd re-add it with a {{Refimprove-section}} template at the top. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The "predicted backlash" is synthesis and original research because it comes out of the mind of individual/personal analysis. Unless cited with sources it does not warrant a place here because wikipedia is not a collection of thoughts or a blog. If there is attribution for the anti-corruption candidates the scandal in particular then they need to be cited. Otherwise what one might term "common knowledge" becomes synthesis.

I moved the sourced high-profile loss to the above section because those were cited.

That said I'm open to leaving the section up with a tag to call for citations, however should no citations be forthcoming in due course the section has to go.Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I readded it with a RefImprove tag, agreed that if sources aren't forthcoming the section should be re-removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Auto archiving

I've added auto-archiving to the article after 3 days with a minimum of 5 threads remaining. Comment here or remove it from the top if you object. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Results by county

Is this section needed as it only really pertains to England as constituencies in the other parts of the UK often cross borders between local government areas plus some of the counties no longer exist namely Avon, Humberside and Cleveland Penrithguy (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In view of the fact that there was a swing to Labour in Scotland while there was a swing to the Conservatives elsewhere, and that the Conservatives won an absolute majority of seats in England, while Labour won an absolute majority of seats in both Scotland and Wales is certainly a significant aspect to the election results: a Labour/Lib Dem/Nationalist coalition would impose on England policies that were rejected there, while a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition would impose on Scotland and wales policies that were rejected there! The results in the individual countries should therefore be included in this article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The map of Buckinghamshire needs to be updated. Bazonka (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the grey area, that is the Buckingham seat, contested and won by the Speaker. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. But technically it is a Conservative seat. Perhaps some explanation is needed below or in the image. Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a Conservative seat, see the Bercow thread above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you're wrong, technically it isn't a Conservative seat as the speaker isn't the member of any political party - that is a very important part of British democracy that the speaker isn't the member of any particular party. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in that case the table in the Results section is wrong, as it shows 306 Conservative seats. Bazonka (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a note at the top of the table explaining this ;) - I'm sure the press will correct their coverage early next week and then we can update the table. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to wait for "the press" to change; the Times has it correct, but the BBC has it wrong. Why not simply switch the source that managed to get its facts straight? -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the BBC so hopefully something might change - wouldn't hurt to get some more people on it though! ninety:one 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent Prime Minister

Wowsers, why hasn't David Cameron's name been added there. He's got a minority government. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Canada, GoodDay, it's still possible Labour and the Lib Dems will band together. -Rrius (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, William L.M. King's Liberals pulled off a Progressive backed Liberal minority government, after the 1925 Canadian election. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of Martin in 2006 or Dion in 2008. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In those scenerios, more then 2-parties would've been required, to overthrow the Conservatives (the Bloc being dismissed). GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GB remains PM until the Queen appoints his replacement. That is Britain's constitution. Leaky Caldron 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, Brown has to either tender his resignation to the Queen (and the Queen accept it), or the Queen must fire him, before she appoints a new PM. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope Nick Clegg is asked by QEII to form a government. It'd be nice to have a Whig government again... (or LDP, since Japan's isn't in power for the first time in recorded history) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't citation needed be removed from this part? There is no need for citation because it is too be decided at this point, if any citation is needed, it could just be an internal link to wikis Hung Parliament definition or the BBC election page --Little-Rena (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I have added both a wikilink and the cite. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Results section split?

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split off the "Results" section to a new article? It seems to me the maps, while awesome, are a bit much for this page. Perhaps "Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2010" or "Regional results of the United Kingdom general election, 2010" would be good targets. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The length problem is caused by the county maps. I think all of the maps are excellent, but do we really need a separate map for each English county? We have one map for Scotland, one map for Wales and one map for Northern Ireland. It would save a lot of space if we simply had one map of England too. Another option is to have one map for each region of England. ~Asarlaí 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this problem by creating a new article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have waited until more editors had a chance to reply. ~Asarlaí 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was the logical solution.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to have that new article; most of the stuff there belongs in the main election article. The maps probably belong in MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010, but I can't see what harm they're doing here. Wereon (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article was way too long. Now every section of the article is pretty well sized.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we needed a new article, there already was an election results spinoff, it could go there, but the length here was no doubt too long.

where did this [20] content go? Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

MP seat diagrams from Commons

See my post at Talk:House of Commons of the United Kingdom#Seating diagrams from Commons concerning choice of MP seat diagrams (meaning the quantity of seats rather than actual seat positions). -84user (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"What if" results under PR

Someone has produced graphs of what the results of the election would have been under various proportional systems, and has posted them under CC-Attrib licenses on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oledoe/sets/72157624017184792/. Is there an article that could make use of these? Fences&Windows 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what use they'd be - people vote differently under PR rather than FPTP. Plus it'd look like Wikipedia was pushing a pro-PR POV. Wereon (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If the graphs had been produced by a reliable source or received coverage by a reliable source then they might be worth mentioning. At the moment they can only be considered original research. One of the problems with graphs like these is that it is very easy to skew the results depending on the assumptions the creator makes; we must have a qualified third party scrutinise and publish the data before going anywhere near them. Road Wizard (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC shows graphs of a similar form at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm - the graphs change depending on the system you pick. The data are from the Electoral Reform Society. --Mgp28 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research based on speculation and WP:Crystal. This article is about THE result and outcome, not what might have been. Leaky Caldron 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of results

There is still one that is white (undeclared) that no-one has filled in. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - it's grey (independant) - perhaps pick a better colour to distinguish it more? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Distinguish it from what? You noticed it, didn't you? Wereon (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour Gains

Looking at the election website on sky there appears to be 4 gains for the Labour party. Chesterfield, Blaenau Gwent, Bethnal Green and Bow and Glasgow East. Yes Glasgow East was originally lost in a by election but as the outgoing MP was standing again surely this must also count as a gain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's usual to compare results only between general elections, ignoring by-elections. Rochdale was a Labour gain as well, though Rallings and Thrasher had them notionally already holding it. Wereon (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hung parliament

Quoting the article: " It was the first time since 1974, and only the second time since the Second World War, that a British general election returned a hung parliament.[2]"

I'm curious, why is the 1950 election not considered one which resulted in a hung parliamet? I wanted to ask before I thought about editing that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtm (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At the 1950 election there were 625 seats. If any party had 313 seats then they would control a majority in Parliament; if no party reached 313 then the parliament would be hung. As you will see from the linked article Labour managed to secure 315 seats, which left them with a small majority.

If you have further questions on the subject not directly related to this article you may wish to ask them at the reference desk. Road Wizard (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

This edit [21] said to discuss the addition but the editor doesnt seem to have discussed, while I would generally agree with long links this one if a neutral addition (all parties) to the manifestoes of each. Therefore I either support them here (and wikipedia does leave room for exceptions) or merge into the article.Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP was perfectly legitimate to remove them all per WP:LINKFARM. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

IP here; I really don't see the benefit to the reader of all these. You might have had a case for inclusion before the election when prospective voters would have been curious about what the parties were offering and how boundaries had changed, but now these are of very little relevance. We can't neutrally exclude an arbitrary number of parties in order to bring the links to a manageable number. Perhaps as a compromise we could find one link summarising what the parties offered and another summarising the boundary changes. As a general rule the number of external links should not be in the double digits. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this landing page from the BBC on "Parties and issues" to replace the manifestos. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS to be fair by "discuss" I presumed that 86.41.61.203 meant that you should discuss on talk if you objected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the links to the manifestos should be kept as a record of the issues on which parties fought the election. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

31 ex links to manifestos...seriously? 86.41.61.203 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe another link like the BBC's above mention one can be there if it covers all parties this list does. But again there is no hard and fast rule as such because WP:Ignore gives room for the exceptions when certain circumstances allow for it. I've taken off the subsections on the link. Unless one wants to move this to the relevant split-off article?

(The IP who called for a talk himself challenged the addition so the onus really was on him to put it up for talk.)Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ignore all rules you're going to need a strong consensus... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, given that there is no such strong consensus, I am going to go ahead and implement the compromise proposal above; if editors are unhappy with that, we can put it to a wider RfC. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wo, wo, this was way to quick a judgemetn to delete his. the last comment says we're going to need a bigger consensus, but there was attempt to do so. There was a 2-2 vote for/against the "link farm," (with one neutral IP making a suggestion) the onus is on the one to challenge the removal. There was no consensus for removal.Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bercow

Resolved

 – he is not counted as Conservative

Because the BBC shows John Bercow's win as a Tory hold, we do as well. Of course we all know Bercow no longer has a party and won re-election as Speaker. So when do we break with the BBC on this? -Rrius (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes he does. He is still a Tory member. If he was no longer Speaker he would revert to the Tory back benches. He is not opposed by convention in his seat, except UKIP did this time. Still a Tory officially, so we don't "Break with the BBC on this". Leaky Caldron

He left the party. He no longer holds party membership. He did not run as a Conservative, but ran as Speaker seeking re-election. If he fails to be re-elected as Speaker, he will remain an independent member unless and until he takes some party's whip. One does not revert to prior party membership, as is seen with Speakers who go to the Lords. Also, the Times does not show him as a Tory, but as what he is. Going with the BBC is not supportable. -Rrius (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Prove it. -Rrius (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Our own Speaker article says he still votes in the Commons in the event of tied motions, so unless he does this by flipping a coin, I can't see how he is not technically still considered a Conservative and, ergo, his seat is a Conservative hold, despite the various conventions that he is apolitical. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. A person can only vote in the Commons if he or she is a Tory? Or a Speaker votes according to a party whip? What are you trying to say? From the House of Commons Factsheet: The Speaker: "Accordingly, on election the Speaker resigns from his or her political party. During a General Election the Speaker will still need to be re‐elected, but is unlikely to be opposed by any of the major political parties. Speakers do not stand on political issues, but as “the Speaker seeking re‐election” and do not campaign." And: "The Speaker must keep apart from old party colleagues or any one group or interest and does not, for instance, frequent the Commons dining rooms or bars. Even after retirement, a former Speaker will take no part in political issues, and will sit as a Cross‐Bencher if appointed to the House of Lords." -Rrius (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So, how does he vote then, in the event of a tie? Flipping a coin? As an Independent? I can see how that would go down a storm if say, ID Cards ever ended up as a tied vote. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Speaker has a casting vote, which he exercises in accordance with conventions that attempt to maintain the status quo, where possible. See Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) and House of Commons Factsheet: Divisions, page 6. -Rrius (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, Speaker Denison's rule. Bercow resigned from the Conservative party as soon as he was elected; he is in no way, shape or form, a member of the Conservative Party. ninety:one 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And as the examples of at least the last 3 of his predecessors show, when he eventually stands down he will likely end up as a crossbencher in the Lords. Once you're Speaker nowadays, you never go back to outright partisan politics. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, he is no longer a Tory, he resigned his membership, and if he exercises a casting vote, then the convention is that he votes in favour of Government motions. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I emailed BBC News pointing out this factual inaccuracy. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did so before too (and also complained about their mangled constituency names). I notice that they have Michael Martin listed as a Labour hold in 2005, so presumably it's due to some insane editorial policy they have rather than a cock-up. Wereon (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jez, it's not correct to say he would use his casting vote for government motions. There are a variety of conventions, such as maintaing the previous decision of the House, and giving it the opporunity to consider the matter again. For example, if Brown & Clegg do a deal, & the minor parties split in such a way that the vote is tied, the Speaker's casting vote would be to maintain the previous decision of the House, i.e. keep Brown as PM, which would also give the House the chance to vote again in the not too distant future on the same question. Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I plead guilty to ver-simplification. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we make the conservative seat number "305+1". The "+1" referring to the speaker, upon whom we are currently divided.86.160.8.206 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Because those who disagree are mistaken. Bercow is no more a Conservative MP than Shaun Woodward is. Wereon (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/, its quite clear he's an independent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another ref for Bercow not being a Conservative is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8655330.stm#speaker -- Evercat (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Leaky Cauldron is definitely wrong on this one Angryafghan (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I accepted the position a week ago in a piece now in the archive [22]. Leaky Caldron 09:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the term "incumbent"

I want to bring up the point that the usage of the term "incumbent" in the article, especially in the section "Notable defeated incumbents", is technically incorrect. There aren't any incumbent MPs during the election period, as all MPs lose their seats when parliament is dissolved in the Westminster system. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 03:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is splitting hairs. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just wrong. "Incumbent" means the person running for re-election. Rd232 ^talk 07:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bazonka, continuing to hold their same seat (as per the constituency history) is incumbency. Its not that someone else was there in the interim.

But maybe a section title such as "Notable losses and high-profile results" or simply "High-profile results" (As per the BNP that keeps getting removed)Lihaas (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

High profile loosing candidates. The results are only "High profile" due to the candidate themselves, therefore it is the candidate that is notable and the section title should reflect that. Leaky Caldron 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The section title is too long.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

2 May - Mona Sahlin article

This is a single article, not on the Guardian election page[23], not carried by any other news agency[24], not raised in any notable debate. It is simply not an election event and placing a minimally noteworthy editorial article on this page introduces an anti-Conservative POV. I will remove it and leave it to discussion if User:Rd232 wishes to reinstate it. |→ Spaully ^τ 11:52, 3 May 2010 (GMT)

It's your personal opinion that a foreign intervention in this manner, relating to a key policy, is "minimally noteworthy". It's also laughable to claim it introduces an anti-Conservative POV - somehat reminiscent of US claims that reality has a liberal bias... As to media coverage, maybe the scale of Conservative support in the media has escaped your attention, despite it being listed in this article? Reinstating as clearly notable event in campaign, its notability qua foreign intervention being supported by a separate Guardian reference - it's not like it's just my opinion. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is minimally notable by wikipedia notability guidelines. From WP:NOTE, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. There are no secondary sources for this assertion, the article being by Mona Sahlin or a direct quote in the same issue, and there is no further discussion in the media; the coverage would not be described as significant given the press coverage of nearly everything in the context of the election, thus it falls down on two points of the general guideline. It is not our job to judge bias within the media when establishing notability. The consensus on discussion below seems clear so far that this is overly detailed for this article and not of suitable notability. This may change of course but I believe you are running contrary to consensus and guidelines by reinstating it. |→ Spaully ^τ 16:48, 4 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but when you quote from an irrelevant policy in a manner that demonstrates its irrelevance I have reason to doubt that you're paying sufficient attention to the arguments. WP:N, as your quote shows, applies to whether a topic merits its own article. It remains the case that a foreign intervention in a UK election is a significant thing, and the fact that the self-declaredly biased media hasn't reported it (besides an aside in the Mirror) is neither here nor there. (Also, compare some of the other incidents mentioned on voter registration - these don't have demonstrated widespread coverage either.) I'll start an RFC on inclusion to get more input, and I'm reverting for the same reason. Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are acting against current consensus - why revert and then ask for comment? Just to warn that was your 3rd revert within 24 hours. I will leave this discussion for others to have fun with and bid you farewell, I believe my points stand for themselves. |→ Spaully ^τ 17:38, 4 May 2010 (GMT)

Oh please - there has been no serious discussion of the points I raised, and anyway WP:Consensus#Consensus can change. Rd232 ^talk 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what definition of "notable" are you using? How is an opinion reported by one UK news outlet notable enough to be singled out as one of the most notable things to have happened in the election? It is pretty ridiculous to find a lack of significant coverage unfair because the papers are avowedly biased when the BBC (neutral) and the Labour supporting papers have also not been reporting on this. Also, while consensus can change, your edits should await that change rather than trying to establish it. -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean this article then here is not the place for it. It might be useful for any possible future article that discusses Conservative education policy if they do win the election and start to implement this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It could make sense if there were a section about the policy areas debated during the campaign, but it is not itself a notable incident, and clearly has not drawn significant coverage. -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you've removed it again. And still no-one has bothered to argue exactly how this is not significant. Are there ten-a-penny precedents for such foreign intervention? (The Guardian ref in the deleted text said otherwise - what's your evidence?). Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Gordon Brown has never put his right shoe on first before; would it be worthy of inclusion if he did tomorrow? Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make its happening now one of the most important things that happened during the election. If this actually were significant, there would be stories from numerous papers with quotes from Cameron and Gove trying to defend the policy. After two days there is still only the one story about it. It seems highly unlikely to me that this is something most informed voters know about, and including it feels more like trying to publicise Sahlin's argument than trying to tell the story of the election. Presenting this in the context of the parties' policy positions might well make sense, but trying to present it as an important thing that happened along the way is unwarranted. -Rrius (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Some things are considered notable regardless of coverage. And in my view, foreign intervention in an election (by an important political figure) is always significant - same as all MPs are considered notable, even if they're really really boring and never in the news. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But is she notable from the perspective of British politics? It's not like one would expect the leader of the Swedish SDP to agree with David Cameron anyway. Wereon (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it might be notable enough for inclusion in a discussion of policy positions, but it is difficult to see how you could think this is such an important part of the election, that it should be singled out as a "notable event". -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Is an intervention in a UK election by the leader of a foreign political party significant enough to include in a list of "Notable campaign events"? The intervention relates to a policy adopted from that country by a UK party. disputed text Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be more significant if there was some sort of row about it. Evercat (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's that sort of attitude which makes the Bigotgate politician-gets-annoyed-by-voter non-story (The Day Today, eat your heart out) significant even though it's just noise. Add in how ludicrously Conservative-dominated the UK media is, and you have a recipe for completely distorting politics. I'm not saying Wikipedia should seek to fix that, but we should take it into account in this context of weighing importance of something the media have no interest in reporting. (Same as they had no interest in covering "Stroudgate" (see end of this piece) - despite it being far more significant in policy terms, due to Stroud's influence on Conservative policy, than Bigotgate.) Rd232 ^talk 19:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To put my point a slightly different way, I would see a row about it as evidence of it's being significant. :) Evercat (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• In my view, this is not significant enough an event to warrant inclusion. Sahlin's input has barely been covered - only as far as I can tell by the Mirror and the Guardian, and even those left-leaning newspapers haven't made much of it. And I don't think a foreign political party leader commenting on a policy (as opposed to outright supporting a candidate) is inherently something worthy of inclusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the criteria for inclusion of such events should be 1) They have received substantial media coverage, or 2) They are judged likely to influence the outcome of the election. The publication of the Guardian article fulfils neither of these, unlike "Bigotgate". Wereon (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wereon, and indeed what appears to be the consensus above. --Neil (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I didn't actually say I agreed with anyone. Leave me out of consensus calculations. :) Evercat (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy politics & found the election most entertaining, the first I have heard about this is here (ie/ Wikipedia). It's not been discussed by any political forums/TV shows so I think including it is unnecessary as it has no significance (",) Aurelius2007 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dem seats/votes

Shouldn't the number of seats/votes won by the Lib Dems in the infobox be in bold as well, as they form part of the "winning side"? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

They're only part of the winning side as a result of events subsequent to the election, not the election itself. The only "winners" of the election itself were the Conservatives, & I understand that's the principle the bookies work on. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'bookies' tend to distinguish between bets on which party won the most seats and which party won an outright majority. That being said, I've tried to look for precedent. The 1918 election does have both the coalition partners in bold yet as you said this is not the consequence of 'events subsequent' and was a known and central premise of the campaign, the same with the 1931 and 1935 elections. The pages for elections in other countries aren't much help as they don't actually seem to put the winner in bold. The 1910 election seems to support your position, so as it's a reasonable principle with precedent elsewhere it seems sensible enough. DACrowe10 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Swing map

It still needs some finishing touches - most notably, NI needs to be taken out and there needs to be a scale - but I've plotted the Labour to Conservative swing for every applicable constituency. It probably belongs in the article somewhere. Wereon (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice - that must of taken a fair amount of time to prepare. I'd say put it in the marginal constituency section, since I assume the swings more or less correlate to the target swing seats identified before the election.ChrisUK (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Were you able to produce it automatically somehow or did this require you to do it manually? If the former, would you be able to do maps for the other two main swings, just out of curiosity? DACrowe10 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Automatically. And I already have done - see Results breakdown of the United Kingdom general election, 2010. Wereon (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name in lead section

I've switched back the article name to one which was agreed after extensive debate before the election. This is the edit which altered that original consensus. To see the original discussion about the article name click here. If anyone wants to debate a new lead bold text, please comment here first before changing ChrisUK (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Placement of the results section

Does it really make sense to have the results section way down the article, after information about polling and newspaper endorsements? I appreciate that there is a chronological argument of sorts that could be used to justify it (although that same argument wouldn't explain why debates is placed above polling for example). I really think that the results section is so fundamental to the whole article that it should be placed much higher up, even as the first section. The associated commentary can stay where it is, but the table is a stand alone matter of fact and will not look out of place in a prominent position in the first or second section. ChrisUK (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. The results are what most people will come to find, so it should be at the top. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In every other election article, it's chronological order.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. Firstly, the recent UK election articles are way shorter than this one, so the results page features pretty near the top. Secondly, the rest of the sections aren't in chronological order. Why is Campaign before polling or debates since it contains things after those events? And why isn't marginal seats first because these were identified at least a year ago? And the boundary changes were done way before MPs began to declare that they weren't running in the election, and so on and so on.

The placement of sections in a wikipedia article should be based on importance and relevance more than some dubious chronological notion that is difficult to determine. The most important thing about this article is the result - most of the summary talks about the factors that led to a hung parliament based on seats, but in your view we should make the reader scroll through reams of stuff about newspapers and boundarys until he gets to the results page. That just does not make any sense to me at all. I'm not going to start a revert war, but I'd like some opinions of other editors to reach a final consensus on where the results table should be.ChrisUK (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also not true. There are many election articles where the results are either first or near the beginning. More important, since most people who visit an article for a past election will want to see the results, they should be up top. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a big slab of detailed table data needs to be made even more visible. It is so easy to get to via the contents list. I wouldn't object to moving it (others might) but I don't have any concerns where it currently is. Leaky Caldron 07:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point Leaky. There is a lot of detailed data in the table. Maybe that's an arguement for placing it in the second or third section to ease the reader in more gently (maybe after the contesting parties section). But it still needs to be in a more prominent position in my opinion. JerseyKid's argument is a very poor one that there is some chronological relevance to placing it way down for two reasons: (a) he is only applying the chronological argument to that particular section and not the other sections in the article and (b) I'm not sure where the golden rule comes from that chronological order trumps all other criteria for placement such as relevance and importance to the article as a whole.ChrisUK (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thirsk and Malton

Are we just to include Thirsk and Malton in the main results now? I don't see any special reason not to; it was delayed but still part of the general election. Evercat (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Leaky Caldron 17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Entrepreneurs' letter

A new article, Entrepreneurs' letter, seems to fail WP:EVENT. Some businessmen writing a letter is not notable. It was a flash-in-the-pan occurrence that won't be remembered, and the article pads itself out by citing WP:109PAPERS. A selective merge here would seem to be the best solution. Fences&Windows 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; the letter doesn't seem to fail WP:EVENT as the Entrepreneurs' letter was signed by over 110 leading UK entrepreneurs, many of which are current or past UK Entrepreneurs of the Year, gaining widespread media attention including the front pages of The Times and The Sunday Times as well as countless other media outlets (Sky, PA, Guardia, Al Jezeera, CNBC, Sunday Express, Sunday Mirror, News of The World, Daily Telegraph, Metro, Evening Standard, etc)in the decisive week leading up to election day. The article cites trusted sources in line with WP:109PAPERS because it was a successful campaign to warn the UK electorate about the dangers of Lib-Lab coalition. George Osborne, then shadow chancellor, commented on the letter in both The Daily Telegraph and in The Sunday Times “This is a stark warning from some of the most successful UK entrepreneurs about the dangers of Labour and Liberal Democrat policies for the economy.”

How could that be considered a fail? Tho2009 (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete: The news sources cited mostly just mirror each other, the coverage is shallow, and there is no lasting effect. The question is really whether there is any way in which the article doesn't fail WP:EVENT. The fact that Tho2009 calls it "a successful campaign" is suggestive of his or her bias, not its notability. There is no question but that this is exactly the sort of flash-in-the-pan that WP:EVENT is talking about; rather, the question is whether it should be included here and, if so, how much. -Rrius (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• In addition, there is a COI issue here. The bulk of Tho2009's fewer than 500 edits have been to Rob Lewis (entrepreneur), Omnifone, and MusicStation, all of which he or she appears to have created and provided the bulk of the . In this edit, Tho2009 admits to being an Omniphone employee and to being aware of our COI policies. How is this relevant? As this edit shows, the very first signatory Tho2009 lists is none other than the aforementioned Rob Lewis, Executive Chairman of the aforementioned Omniphone. Not only should Tho2009's views be seriously discounted, but someone with experience dealing with WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION (which I don't have) should review the articles I've listed and any others in Tho2009's contribution list. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Rrius, I've played by the rules and made sure I have given full disclosure upfront on all previous articles created, from the start. I've authored several articles, all of which are accurate, informative and properly referenced? I'm trying to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia.Tho2009 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's as may be, but you are or your boss is directly involved in this letter, so your arguments here have to be discounted heavily. The best course for articles like yours is to run them past other editors before going live with them. -Rrius (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand; that's fine by me.Tho2009 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A merger would seem like the best option. Deb (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A merger, this is not a notable event. --Pretty Green (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)