Jump to content

Talk:2022 Southend West by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date?

[edit]

Isn't it jumping the gun to assume that this election will happen in 2021? The Parliament website says "A new Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. There have been a few times when seats remained vacant longer than six months." In other words, it's possible the election could be next year. It might be better to change the name to "upcoming". In linking this page to other articles I've titled the link "future election" or similar to avoid making assumptions. Blythwood (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's not been guaranteed that it will be in 2021, so we shouldn't assume that it will be. Looking at the recent bielections list, some of them have taken over 2 months to happen, so could easily be in 2022. So we should move it to a less committal name without a year that may be incorrect. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently moved 2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election to Future Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election and no-one objected. The same here would seem sensible. I was kinda waiting for the AfD to finish first, but that's not necessary. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I then also moved this article to Future..., but PatGallacher has reverted both back. PatGallacher, what's your reasoning here? We have, best I can tell, zero RS saying these by-elections will be in 2021 rather than 2022. It's OR to claim they will be in 2021; past by-election experience suggests that they could easily be in 2022. The matter came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Southend West by-election and there seemed to be consensus there for a move. Bondegezou (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any consensus at present. Given that this raises a number of questions, I suggest you submit a formal move request. PatGallacher (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have given a clear policy reason for the name change. If you feel this "raises a number of questions", could you say what those are here? We can't reach consensus through discussion if you don't explain your actual concerns.
Here or at the AfD, Joseph2302, Blythwood and RyanPLB supported a move, plus me. At the AfD, you, PatGallacher, concurred there was an issue with the year, but didn't clearly express support for or against a move, as I read it. You can of course clarify here. Robin S. Taylor didn't see the need for a name change yet, but I'm unclear if they actively opposed the idea. That seemed like enough of a consensus to me, so I boldly moved the articles, as per WP:MOVE. What do you mean by "a formal move request"? Do you mean as per WP:RSPM? I will do that now... Bondegezou (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

should this exist yet?

[edit]

Should an election that doesnt even have a date yet get an article the same day the incumbent dies, esp when he gets killed? The entire article is conjecture, contains no information and to me appears in bad taste. jonas (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonas1015119 Hi, I believe AfD is a more appropriate venue than RfC for these concerns. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Southend West by-election → Future Southend West by-election – Unknown whether the by-election will be in 2021 or 2022. No source says it will be in 2021 and it could easily be in 2022 judging by past by-elections. Prior discussion at the top of this Talk page and on an AfD mostly supported a move. Same reasoning applies to 2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election. I made the move, but it was reverted by PatGallacher who suggested a more formal process. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support based on my reasoning above. Blythwood (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support like I said in the section above, there is no guarantee it will be in 2021, as no date has been announced. Move to "Future" until a date is confirmed properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes sense to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Where a seat falls vacant during the first 9 months of the calendar year, its virtually certain a by-election will occur by the end of that calendar year. I still think that, on balance of probabilities, it is highly likely the by-election will occur this year (I can't actually find any recent examples of a vacancy occurring in October not being filled by the end of the of the calendar year - although would be interested to know if there are any) - however I don't see any harm in moving it to Future Southend West by-election and then moving it back to 2021 Southend West by-election once the writ has dropped.Guyb123321 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No date has been set. If we are looking at precedent, the 2016 Batley and Spen by-election took place just over four months after Jo Cox was murdered. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Agree with Guyb123321. Likely that the by-election(s) will occur in the next 2 months but I'm more than okay with it being moved until we get a confirmation of the date(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by XxLuckyCxX (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not strongly opposed to this move, but it poses a few questions. We have tended to put the current year on a pending by-election, and move it later if necessary. Do we describe all by-elections as "future" until we get a definite date? Or do we set a cut-off point, before which we assume that the by-election will happen during the current year, and if so do we set it at 9 months or when? I have had a quick look at this issue, it is not clear how long after a vacancy takes place the by-election has to wait. PatGallacher (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could just have raised those questions in Talk or on the UK Politics WikiProject page?
When a by-election happens is up to the House of Commons and, by convention, the choice of the party of the former MP in cases of death or resignation. Thus, the context matters and a set rule isn't necessarily appropriate. I suggest what we should do is follow basic Wikipedia principles: follow WP:RS, add a bit of common sense as necessary. If we see reporting that a quick by-election is likely then that's going to be a different situation to if reporting suggests there will be a long delay. We should also be aware of WP:CRYSTAL/WP:OR requirements, and we can do that by erring on the side of caution. If we're not certain, go for "Future..." until such time as RS provide more information. Bondegezou (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Longest_period_between_a_vacancy_arising_and_a_by-election_writ_being_moved is relevant here, and points us to 1941 The Wrekin by-election where the by-election was held just over a year after the death of the previous MP. In terms of more recent elections, the period from vacancy to vote was 87 days for the 1995 North Down by-election.
"UK by-elections held more than 3 months after vacancy" from the House of Commons library has more examples. It points out that there is no requirement for a by-election to ever be held. Theoretically, a seat can just be left vacant until the next general election. It terms of what's usual, it says, "A new Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. [...] The by-election timetable is between 21 and 27 working days from the issuing of the writ." Vacancies occurring after 11 December must have the by-election the next year. I think there's enough of a question mark over any vacancy occurring in Oct-Dec. If you want a rule of thumb. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This decade, 2011 Belfast West by-election saw a 134 day gap between vacancy and election. Because Sinn Féin don't take their seats, the tradition that the defending party move the writ doesn't work, which seems to add to delays. Bondegezou (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is enough time left in 2021 for a by-election to be held (the delay after Cox was likely due to the summer recess) and if it gets pushed back past new year then we can move the page. Following this suggestion would force us to move the page twice whenever it ends up happening.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did we get the move right?

[edit]

Just as some self-reflection, it does now appear that this by-election will be in 2022, so we were right to be cautious, although the Bexley by-election is in 2021, as is the North Shropshire by-election that was triggered by later events (the politics of that election meant the Conservatives wanted a quick election). Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers Newspapers announcements ~ there's a candidate in an election ~ you deleted

[edit]
Blocked sock — Czello 20:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You wanna edit check, go ahead. There is still a candidate, no matter how much you want to trim. The newspaper, Southend Echo is part of Newsquest, part of Gannett, so if you want to say their journalist didn't publish rival "libdem and conservative" wikipedia hackers 'erased' candidates, go right ahead. Good or bad, it's what the press say. Enjoy putting it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingJames80pc (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Why don't you check the links, and talk here first. Maybe we can agree some text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingJames80pc (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's main article link.. https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19828306.southend-west-election-standing-sir-david-amesss-seat/?cmpid=cmt

4 minutes for you all to complete, or let me finish what I was editing, with references... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingJames80pc (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is no rush to include material. I'm looking into guidelines for the thresholds for including candidates, especially candidates with no indication of party affiliation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And since you asked my opinion, there's no way more text than one sentence is justified: "Other candidates standing for the seat include a man who changed his name by deed poll to English-Independence Hang-Murderers." —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source which you have linked to is quoting the subject. It is not an indication as to the views of the author or publication in question. Alpaca the Wizard (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KingJames80pc has since been blocked indefinitely for copyright violation and is also believed to be a sock. Bondegezou (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And isn't, notably, on the ballot paper. 94.196.103.194 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the venerable Mr. Humphrey is not even standing in the end. This is an excellent lesson for why we shouldn't post lists of candidates until the SOPN is released. Jdcooper (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Catherine Blaiklock

[edit]

Is the Catherine Blaiklock standing for the English Democrats the Catherine Blaiklock who co-founded The Brexit Party? I presume so, but…? Bondegezou (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She says it's her on her Facebook page and the article now links to Catherine Blaiklock, but it would be good if we could find some secondary RS reporting we could cite to support some text on this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who added this link, I don't see how they would be two different people. In November 2021, you reverted an IP claiming she had joined the ED after speaking at their conference. Cilidus (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted then because no citation was given. I am happy now that this is the one and only Blaiklock. I think, in addition to the list of candidates, it is nice to say something about each candidate in the text. We could say something like, "The English Democrats' candidate, Catherine Blaiklock, previously co-founded and was the first leader of The Brexit Party (now called Reform UK)." That's all true, but I am wary about adding that if no RS has made the same point. What do you think? Bondegezou (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The "Candidates" section should theoretically note who all the candidates are etc. But I looked for some information on Pilley and Childs, and all I found were non-RSs, so I didn't add them. Jdcooper (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Pilley, he previously ran in the 2021 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council election#Westborough, finishing last (ref). Graham Moore stood for the English Democrats in Erith and Thamesmead in 2015, finishing last (ref), and again for the ED in Bexleyheath and Crayford in 2019, finishing last (ref). Cilidus (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pilley also contested this seat in 2017 and Rochford and Southend East in 2019. While I would not suggest including all election results, these are an example of previous experience covered by RS. Cilidus (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been down the polling station, and Jayda Fransen's name is indeed on the ballot

[edit]

Although the candidate literature in favour of Fransen told people to spoil the ballot. Would be helpful if anyone with knowledge of politics could alter the hatnote with a ref confirming she is indeed on the ballot (unless her name was included there by accident.)--Phil of rel (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Edit: it appears she's standing as an independent candidate, however.--Phil of rel (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says she's standing (as an independent). I don't see what change you want made, Phil of rel...? Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I misread, I thought that the the hatnote said that Fransen herself would not appear, not her party.--Phil of rel (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the hatnote wording to make that clearer. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is it automatic that a candidate with no party alleigance becomes an independent? If it isn't there's a source here [1] which states that she's running as an Independent. Would it be worth adding it even if it is automatic? Does wikipedia cover the processes under which UK elections take place?--Phil of rel (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not automatic that, without a party allegiance, you become an independent. You have to say you are an independent. Thus Childs is listed as "no description", because she didn't say she was an independent. You can say you're running for a party, but the party has to be on the register and approve your candidacy. See Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That Fransen is running as an independent is already cited as we cite the Statements of Persons Nominated. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

I cant edit the article because it is semi-protected. But, total votes have been published at: https://www.southend.gov.uk/elections-registering-vote/election-results-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LGHend (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in Analysis that it was the lowest turnout since WW2 is inaccurate. The linked BBC article says 'one of the lowest'. Manchester Central, 2012, for example, was lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.100.28 (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that. I've fixed it. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilt ballot papers

[edit]

This morning I heard on radio news there had been a 'record' number of spoilt ballot papers, with some bearing handwritten anti-Boris Johnson messages. Worth mentioning once it is in the published news.Cloptonson (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cloptonson. It has been noted the number of spoiled ballots (1,084) in the results table and the paragraph underneath it, as well as the fact that it was higher than any candidate other than the winner. I've seen no source say it’s a "record" number of spoiled ballots but if anyone can find a reliable source that states this then I think its information that should certainly be added to the page. I've been trying to find a reliable source that gives a percentage for the spoiled ballots (by my calculation 6.79%) but have been unable to find any stating a percentage for this. Helper201 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results and turnout

[edit]

Hi, Bondegezou I think it’s better if we return to the wording before you changed it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Southend_West_by-election&diff=1069845043&oldid=1069843646 . There's no harm in being specific and I think this version better complies with WP:SYNTH. The Sky News report does specifically say "reportedly" and I noted the source because this is the only source I could find coming up with this statement. Having the BBC claim in there helps bolster this as well and doesn't detract from it in my view. Helper201 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone here question the veracity of the fact this is the third lowest turnout since WW2? I really think this is unnecessarily tying ourselves in knots. There is a harm in being specific. It's WP:WEASELly and gives the impression that there is some doubt about the fact. It makes the text unnecessarily wordy and hard to read. Should we edit United_Kingdom_by-election_records#Lowest_turnout to add "reportedly" there? Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what the source specifically states, "reportedly", it’s not me saying that but the source itself, of which we should stick to as close as possible. If the writer was so sure then why would they opt to add in that caveat? Helper201 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remain of the view that your worry is misplaced. There is no requirement to stick exactly to the words used by a source (indeed paraphrasing is encourage: WP:OWNWORDS). WP:V does not say that "we should stick to [the source] as close as possible". We state a fact; we give a citation in support. Writing "X says... (citation to X)" is redundant: the citation is there should the reader wish to go read it.
If there was some doubt about the information or sources were debating this, so WP:NPOV applied, then I would worry about the subtleties. Did Boris Johnson have a party in his flat? That's contested, so we need to be careful with "reportedly"s and "alleged"s and being clear who said what. Here is different: was this the third lowest turnout since the war? Yes, no debate. That's how I see it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[edit]

I'm not sure about this snippet "of which it commented "even the fairly harmless sounding Psychedelic Movement has a nasty edge"". The policy itself is worth including, but the HNH editorial on it seems WP:UNDUE to me. Jdcooper (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a re-write. See what you think. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"English Constitution Party" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect English Constitution Party has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17 § English Constitution Party until a consensus is reached. Kevin McE (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Southend_West_by-election&oldid=1229519117"