Talk:2021 North Shropshire by-election

egregious

DeFacto, the citation gives the quote, including the word "egregious". I am unclear on your objection...? Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, as far as I can see, that primary source does not support that the "Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards" used that word. It says "The Commissioner found that Mr Paterson had breached the rule prohibiting paid advocacy..." The only place I see that word in that source is where it is attributed to the committee's reporting of the commissioner's findings. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, oh, I see what you mean now. Sorry. So, can we re-word it to the "House of Commons Committee on Standards concluded this was an egregious case of paid advocacy." Or even just give a quotation box for paragraph 212? Bondegezou (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be relevant in an article about those allegations and the watchdog proceedings, but I'm not sure it's relevant at all in this article about a by-election in which he isn't even standing. In fact, I don't think any of that 'background' section, apparently a direct copy from his article, is relevant here, it's sufficient to just say he resigned, and readers can follow the link if they are interested in why. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no standalone article about Paterson's breach of the rules. (I would not call them "allegations": the designated process has ruled. RS do not couch their language.) There is coverage in a subsection on Paterson's article.

We are bound to follow what reliable sources are saying. This will evolve as the election comes closer, but all the RS coverage of the by-election to date has been in the context of Paterson and the events around him, so I think it's WP:DUE coverage. This is not like the 2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election where the former MP died peacefully and the reason for the by-election has no implications for the campaign. This by-election is all about Paterson, even with him not standing. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

His article is more appropriate than this one, at least it is an article about him, this one is about a by-election. We don't need to repeat that section from his article when we can link to it in short summary in this article. He isn't even candidate in this by-election, so it is tangential to this article, at best. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's tangential is up to reliable sources, I would still say. The articles cited in the Candidates section talk a lot about Paterson and why he's resigned, ergo we should too.

Also, WP:NOTPAPER: we have the space. This is not a long article and we're talking about two paragraphs in the Background section, not pages of material! Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

But as neither of the two articles cited in the 'Candidates' section mention how much he earned as a consultant, who he worked for, the details of what he was alleged to have done in contravention of the standards, the potential recall petition, the details of the amendment, or who proposed it, then you would presumably agree that we shouldn't either? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite how WP:DUE works. An encyclopaedia article is not written in the same way that a newspaper article is. Our article should not be a copy of newspaper coverage. The article should be written as an encyclopaedia article, for a readership who haven't been following the story and aren't necessarily even in the UK and could be reading this article in 10 years' time, but it should cover topics with the same weight as the reliable source coverage.

I interpret that to mean that (1) we should cover Paterson's fall as a topic that RS see as being important to coverage of the by-election, but (2) we should provide sufficient background detail for the reader to easily and quickly catch up. I think the current two paragraphs does that reasonably well. Happy to discuss specific changes, but we're rather going around in circles on the general point... and no-one else seems interested in inputting to this debate! Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I offer this BBC article on the date for the election being set. It includes a significant section entitled "What did Owen Paterson do?". Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Quotes from candidates?

To what extent should we cover candidates' public statements in an unbiased manner? I've previously added quotes from the Labour and Reform UK candidates as they seemed illustrative of their positions and representative of the reliable source coverage given. DeFacto then deleted the one for the Labour candidate. An IP editor just deleted the one for the Reform UK candidate, although I've reverted.

I ascribe to WP:NOTPAPER and think we should be aiming for longer by-election articles that (accurately) represent different campaigns. I don't think we should be settling for articles that just list candidates and give the final results. Candidate quotes are one way of doing that, although not the only way. I'm happy with paraphrasing candidates' stances. But what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the article should cover what candidates say - either about what they are going to do if they are given the honour of representing, blah, blah, blah or how untrustworthy, sleazy, blah, blah, blah their opponents' parties are. We'd end up with an article full of party-political bullshit if we went down that road. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to include either of those things, but we can still write about what they focus on in their campaigns, who and how they attack, and so on, where it is covered in the sources. That could definitely make interesting reading for future researchers. Jdcooper (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

For example, the Labour quote you mentioned was just the candidate describing themselves as honest, which is highly commonplace, but the Reform UK angle is interesting in illustrating the dynamics between the parties. Jdcooper (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, I see no policy basis for your argument. If we are to cover a political event, we should report what the politicians are saying and claiming, in a WP:BALANCEd and WP:NPOV way. We are here to write an article, not just do some tables of results. This is Wikipedia, not Wikidata. What are we to write about if not the campaign? What do you think should be in an election article?

I note "sleaze" is a particular issue in this by-election and we need to cover that.

I added a bunch of material in a recent edit, based on RS-reporting, including otherwise missing descriptions of several candidates, as well as material about party's campaign lines. While I am quite happy to be re-written, I think your blanket revert of the whole edit was unnecessary. Bondegezou (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I restored the latter. That's why it makes sense to do smaller and fully described edits. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I asked at WikiProject UK Politics for more input here, but none has been forthcoming. DeFacto, Jdcooper, could I try to pin you down a bit more: what specifically would you like to see in the article? Jdcooper, would you support the edit I made that DeFacto reverted? Both, I offer 2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election as an example of what I think a better by-election article looks like. Agree/disagree? Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Secondary-sourced, due weight, and NPOV balanced opinions of the campaigns are probably ok. The last thing we need though are screeds of quotes from the politicians (or their leaders or colleagues) attacking each other or each others' parties, leaders, or colleagues, or of their own puffed-up claims and boasts of how much better they will be than anyone else, or stuff that's only reported in local news sources with no lasting or national relevance. Wikipedia is not a soap box, political campaigning platform, or attack site. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I'm slightly more liberal about this. I wouldn't call your edits "screeds of quotes", it was all phrased in NPOV encyclopaedic language. It is of course essential that it's all secondary-sourced to ensure notability/impact, but I have no problem with including how and why the parties are attacking each other, as long as it's neutrally reported. Could also be local, because local issues are sometimes relevant. I try to think in terms of what future researchers might want to read here. Jdcooper (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Internal Polling

Hi all,

I was wondering if internal polling should be included in the article. For those of you who don't know, the Lib Dems conducted some 'confidential canvassing analysis,' which got leaked to twitter. They looked at postal votes only for this. Below I have included the data. The question I pose is that should it be included in the article? I would lean towards including it, as it just gives some more information on the matter, but I can see the issue that certainly arise from publishing it, especially the confidentiality problems. CON: 47.7% (-15.0) LDM: 37.8% (+27.8) LAB: 10.5% (-11.6) GRN: 1.9% (-1.3) Other: 2.1% (+0.1) (+/-) compared to 2019 election results in the constituency Quinnnnnby (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well they certainly leaked it themselves, it's effectively a part of their campaign. I would say the problem is more the verifiability/reliability. Not sure where I stand.. we have included such data in articles before, but I can also see the reasons why not. Jdcooper (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say any involved political party 'leak', especially from a primary and self-published source, should be totally avoided. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Quinnnnnby, I think your recent edit was a good attempt to cover this topic without presenting the "internal polling" as itself reliable, but I think you got a bit WP:SYNTHy. If reliable sources talk about something, so can we, taking care to respect NPOV. OR, BALANCE etc. DeFacto's strong position here has not attracted much support. If a reliable secondary source talks about what someone said, then what they said is not primary and self-published source. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not whether it's covered by a source though, it's whether we want to include political campaigning in the article. We can say they used the ploy of 'leaking' their own poll, but we shouldn't be giving article space to promote the message they are using the 'leak' to push. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I've added a new sentence that clarifies both sides of the argument and tried to removed the SYNTH problems (thanks for pointing it out Bondegezou). Are you fine with this rendition DeFacto?

Quinnnnnby (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No I wasn't fine with it, and still think it adds nothing of any encyclopaedic value to the article. At best, all it shows is how cynical and desperate party campaigning can be, and how the electors are treated with contempt and taken as fools by the campaigners. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A description of that campaigning does, IMO, have encyclopaedic value. This is, after all, a section of an election article talking about the campaign, and this is part of how that party is campaigning. Even if you disagree with what they are doing that doesn't meant we must not talk about it. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between describing it in neutral terms (which is how we should do it) and pushing it as if we were campaigning for the LDs - as it was (which is how we should not do it). -- DeFacto (talk). 16:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just jumping in to ask what you are meaning by neutral terms DeFacto - you removed my reference to the lib dem vote 'rising to' second place (which is entirely true and shows that they are increasing a lot, if anything it is an understatement), as well as removing 'significantly' as being too subjective (I think anyone looking at a drop of 10% would classify it as that). Moreover, when you edited it earlier, you were very sceptical of the polling result, using phrases like 'they say' in a way that is accusatory, and there is no proof to suggest that the leak is on purpose. Of course it may have been on purpose, but the neutral stance is that as far as we know, it is not, but it could be. I would argue we want to provide a balanced view that accurately describes what the poll says, but not be too explicit in the numbers. As a side note, thanks M2Ys4U, you have covered it well. Quinnnnnby (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything they say is calculated to influence electors and we should not be repeating it, especially in Wiki's voice. Their poll wasn't a scientific one, whatever it 'shows' is irrelevant and there is no need to labour it. As you say, there's no need to mention anything about it being a leak, and we don't currently. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

But inherently that is a biased point of view DeFacto. You are assuming that the poll was unscientific, you are assuming it is made to influence electors. Do you have any concrete evidence or sources? Otherwise that does not represent a neutral point of view, and you must publish both sides of the argument whatever your stance is on them. I am going to stop the back and forth on this article, though I believe we should include the reference to the leak and, looking at the talk page, most agree with me. Hope you have a good evening Quinnnnnby (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think we need to try to support what they are saying, rather than just say what they are saying? That is where the issues are - in those last two sentences. If we leave all that stuff bolstering what they are saying, then we need to balance it with stuff opposing what they are saying. And then, for balance, we'd have to do the same for what all the other candidates' political campaigning. That's what we need to avoid. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, which I think has been done. My most recent edit, which you reverted, was not pushing or campaigning for the Lib Dems, it was adding (sourced) context of how they are campaigning. Please remember you do not WP:OWN this page, edits don't need your approval to be included. I will restore my edit and move on from editing the section for now. I suggest you also take a break from editing this section so that everyone can calm down and this doesn't escalate in to a big(ger) edit war. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Had been done, but I see you've bypassed this discussion and re-added the disputed bit again. I know I put a typo in my edit summary, but meant WP:BRD (not BRED) - are you familiar with it? Either way, we still need to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE too, and that biased content pushing how well they are doing and suggesting that a coincidence last time means they'll be right this time is nonsense, supported only by the political betting blog of a former LD politician! Hardly a reliable source. I therefore propose deleting it per the Wiki content policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think PoliticalBetting.com is a respected blog in this area, but I concur that it may not reach WP:RS requirements and I removed references to it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements and unrelated politics?

Bondegezou, why? And, per WP:BRD, please remove it until a consensus is reached here to keep it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, reviewing editing and Talk page discussion, it appears to me that there is, broadly, consensus to cover a lot more in the article than you would prefer. I am happy with the "bold (again)" edit I made (as per WP:BRD). With respect to this particular edit, we routinely detail endorsements in election articles; I see no reason for your objection to that material. The news about defecting Conservative councillors has been covered in multiple reliable sources, explicitly linking those actions with the by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Future North Shropshire by-election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Future North Shropshire by-election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 7#Future North Shropshire by-election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. jp×g 23:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Biffen

DeFacto, you've been consistent in wanting less in the campaign section, less on endorsements, so I was surprised you reverted my trim of the paragraph on the endorsement by the widow of John Biffen, something that's only been reported by one reliable source, the Shropshire Star. Why have more text on this than on other issues, e.g. the Guardian's endorsement? Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou, I wanted none of this, and would still prefer none of it, but as we seem to be stuck with it, it needs to be balanced and contextualised, and cover all candidates as far as possible. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So why not trim the Sarah Biffen section a bit? WP:BALANCE means paying due attention to the amount of coverage in different reliable sources. Baroness Biffen's endorsement is only in the Shropshire Star, a local newspaper. The Guardian endorsement is a national newspaper. News on the defecting Tory councillors, the row over Morgan's tweets about Patel, etc. is in multiple RS. Ergo, I think we should have a bit less on Biffen...? Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a modest and concise summary which would lose context if trimmed further. WP:BALANCE would mean balancing endorsements from different sources on the same candidate, not between different candidates based on quantity of available cover!

I also suggested avoiding local newspapers for cover, but as most commonly used publication used for sourcing the article seems to be the Shropshire Star, it would seem inconsistent, even churlish, to rule it out where this previously unknown candidate is concerned. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BALANCE (and WP:DUE) includes both of those things. We take a neutrally-worded summary of all the available sources, taken as a whole. As we have been attempting to keep this article clear of minutiae that could be construed as repetition of party election campaigning, I have removed the specifics of the endorsement. Still has plenty enough context, as far as I can see. Jdcooper (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE says, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." 1 citation in a local newspaper is less prominence than 1 citation in a national newspaper or multiple citations in various national sources. I thought my trim retained sufficient context. Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious

Attaching a 'dubious' tag to the reference for Labour's internal poll, as it seems to be more than quite a bit of sloppy reporting on the part of the Shropshire Star, of a post by an unverified twitter account, rather than an official Labour Party source. If this is an actual internal poll, to put simply: it needs a far better source. BitterGiant (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I am taking The Shropshire Star to be a reliable source. I thus conclude they have done due diligence in determining that the author of the Twitter account is who he claims to be. The article cited does not say this is Labour's internal poll: it says it is David Hallam's. I've thus re-written the text to reflect that, and boldly removed the "dubious" tag. Does that work for you? Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That works for me, but it's still a very dubious source. I've cleaned up the sentence a bit to clarify that this is only a 'claimed' 'poll', and put a 'better source needed' tag on it (because, lets be frank, it does- for as also irksome as the Lib Dem polls are, with their unreleased methodology, they are, I note, still reported on by national newspapers who note they're not 100% reliable rather than local fare which treats it at-face). I hope that's agreeable.BitterGiant (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of a 'better source needed' tag. No-one else has reported on this, as far as I can see, and it seems unlikely they will now. So, either we decide The Shropshire Star is a sufficient source or it is not (and the text is deleted). Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose, on the grounds of WP:UNDUE, the inclusion of content that's only reported in local news sources with no lasting or national relevance, so I support the removal of such content in this article, regardless of whether the source is considered to be reliable. But if we decide that The Shropshire Star is unreliable, then we definitely need to remove everything from the article that relies on it alone. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with DeFacto's suggestion that something only based on 1 article in The Shropshire Star that hasn't been covered elsewhere fails WP:UNDUE/WP:BALANCE and thus shouldn't be covered. Most of the article content is based on broader reporting, although I haven't checked everything against that criterion. I will chop the sentence concerned, but happy to be reverted if others feel differently.

I consider The Shropshire Star to be reliable. I don't think BitterGiant is actually suggesting it isn't. S/he is suggesting that the "internal poll" isn't reliable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"If we decide that The Shropshire Star is unreliable, then we definitely need to remove everything from the article that relies on it alone." Not really. There are editorial decisions to be made. If it's a controversial point that is only cited to the Shropshire Star (or appears that they are re-reporting invective from the Daily Mail) then we can choose on a case-by-case basis whether that is (in)sufficient, but there will be plenty of details (eg. about candidates) that is only covered in the local newspaper because, quite logically, they will be covering their local by-election in greater depth than the national press. As Bondegezou indicates, it is not the case that either everything or nothing based on the Shropshire Star's content is reliably sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologises for taking so long to respond, to be clear I emphatically don't believe that the issue with the article in question means Shorps Star is somehow illegitimate for the entire page, I just think that some discretion should be exercised on what is a very poor article put out reporting scantly on a junk poll that was posted by someone who claims to have been the Labour Comms chief for Wood's campaign, and which wasn't backed by the national level party or reported elsewhere. This doesn't delegitimise Shrops Star, but I think rather emphasises the case-by-case nature of sources. BitterGiant (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral 'Candidates' section

I tagged it as such because it only mentions 6 of the apparent 14 candidates standing. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We only have RS-supported things to say about 6 of the 14 candidates standing. I don't see any POV-violation in the section: we are neutrally reporting the RS coverage. The RS coverage is uneven, for understandable reasons. We list all the candidates in the table, of course. This is the same approach taken in every other by-election article. But what do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This from the BBC lists all 14. There's no much to say about most of them, but a statement of there being 14 candidates and listing their names and parties would seem like reasonable content to include. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added an opening sentence to the section along those lines. What do people think? Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems to address the main concern of DeFacto. That source could be used to write some prose if necessary. I hadn't realised that the whole list was already included... SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

How long has the seat been held?

• BBC News say nearly 200 years, are they including predecessor seats? They likely aren't including the 1904 Oswestry by-election. Moondragon21 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

References

I've seen different media reports cite different numbers. Some have said since the 1904 by-election, e.g. The Guardian and Express & Star. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The Times says 1904 too. Are there any other sources supporting the BBC's line? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The current consistuency boundaries have existed since 1997. So that's 24 years not nearly 200. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A seat of the same name, with similar but not identical boundaries (North Shropshire (UK Parliament constituency)#Members of Parliament), was Conservative from 1834 until 1885, when it was replaced by the constituency of Oswestry. That seat was Conservative from 1885 to 1983 except for the period 1904-06 when it was held by the Liberals. From 1983, the seat (again called North Shropshire, and with revised boundaries) has been Conservative. So, the answer most nearly correct is "since 1906" - not what the BBC say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wholly agree with your analysis. But the BBC is also possibly roughly correct - who says the "nearly 200 years" has to include those two years 1904-06? Those 200 years don't have to be continuous. Since the constituency was created in 1832, that's 183 Tory years - 2 = 181 years. So kind of "nearly 200". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The wording on the BBC's Newsnight tonight was "held at general elections for nearly 200 years", which excludes the 1904 by-election Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also excludes this one, of course. So the glorious record still stands. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of calling upon certain philosophical razors, I think the simplest explanation is a WP:CIRCULAR issue where the page for North Shrops doesn't include Oswestry, thus people doing an at-a-glace analysis of the election look at the seat's wikipage and, without the Oswestry results being there (not that I'm suggesting they should be there, different seat), will inevitably declare it hasn't had change since the Great Reform Act. That said, I think the BBC Newsnight wording is the best to go on in terms of a source for this page. BitterGiant (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So the source would be this one? The wording, from Kirsty Wark, is "... a seat they have held at every General Election for two centuries." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. BitterGiant (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Result

"The Liberal Democrats candidate Helen Morgan won the election with a majority of 5,925, indicating a swing of 34.2%." This isn't true, a third of the electorate who voted in the last election boycotted this one. The election was "won" with 21.3 per cent of the votes of the electorate. The real winner was abstention with the support of 53.7 per cent of the registered electorate. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"Swing" is a statistical term that can be misunderstood, which is why I've linked it in the opening paragraph of the article. It's used in reliable sources about this by-election, such as this, so there is no reason to exclude it from this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we have evidence of an organised boycott by voters in this election? People can decide not to vote for various personal reasons or excuses. The covid pandemic may have also been a factor in people deciding not to attend in-person polling (and opt for postal voting if they wanted to participate), although I have seen no reporter bring that up. I have heard anecdotal evidence on radio of would-be voters having to miss the polling booth because of need to self-isolate.Cloptonson (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The gripe is more than a little silly, given that by-elections very much do consistently see a noted fall in the vote. The idea that Morgan did not win is fundamentally unserious concern trolling. BitterGiant (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"any form of the Liberal Democrat party"

The Liberal Party which won any seats in 1945 was not "any form of the Liberal Democrat party". But which was that 1945 by-election? The current source doesn't even mention 1945? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it means there was a by-election in 1945 - "since 1945" is just shorthand for "in modern times". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it does. It might be clearer if we simply stated which by-election had the largest swing from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Democrats or its predecessors. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now added a mention of the 1993 Christchurch by-election. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. That's a real improvement, I think. I still think the use of "1945" by SkyNews is a bit misleading. The oldest result shown is for Torrington 1958. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)