Talk:2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Partygate

I think the text on partygate is too much for the current page and a small sentence with a link to the partygate page would be suffice. Do you agree? Jord656 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think you need enough that people can understand events when just reading this page, and I think we currently achieve that. It’s not a huge amount of text! Bondegezou (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official list of candidates published

https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/11902/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated-and-Notice-of-Poll/pdf/Statement_of_Persons_Nominated_and_Notice_of_Poll.pdf?m=1687533987950 OGBC1992 (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the unscientific and biased poll from this article

As tge article itself clearly states, "the poll has been criticised for sampling issues, and under-representing the young". As it is not a reliable poll, it should not be included on Wikipedia. 2.100.64.182 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article provides that caveat I think the poll should stay. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbent

could someone remove BJ as the incumbent as it won't let me Jord656 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson centric

I still feel that this page is very Boris centric, yes there should be a link and a short description, but I feel that if we are going to put history/background ot should be for the seat itself and not focusing on BJ and partygate, for which there is a separate wiki page Jord656 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is a separate Wiki page about the constituency too, so, sorry, I don't understand the argument you are advancing there. It seems to me -- and, more importantly, to reliable sources -- that the reason for the by-election is likely to impact on the result of the by-election.

That said, it you have more material to add about the campaign, more RS to draw on, then I'm all for those. The proportion of the article on Johnson and his resignation should fall because the rest of the article should grow. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ULEZ

Since ULEZ expansion is believed to have been a major factor in the outcome shouldn't it be mentioned that ULEZ was introduced by Boris Johnson when he was the London mayor and that Khan's decision to extend it to outer London was approved by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, working for Tory PM Johnson? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a mention, although it would need to be sourced, and the source would also need to be mentioning it in the context of the election. This is Paul (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good source. Bondegezou (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's enough weight in the vague and ambiguous mention in that source to imply that the current massive and unpopular ULEZ is anything to do with the scheme Johnson was thinking about almost 10 years ago. And, given it is nothing more than a quirky piece of trivia, dragging it in would, I think, risk sounding like political posturing on behalf of the Labour Party. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly true and verifiable that (1) ULEZ was introduced by Johnson, and (2) that the scheme has changed since then. That is easy to describe. Reliable sources have had this discussion, so that suggests we should too. Bondegezou (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even our own article on ULEZ cites Johnson as its instigator: Plans for an ultra–low emission zone were under consideration since 2014 under London Mayor Boris Johnson. In 2015 Johnson announced that the zone covering the same areas as the Central London congestion charge would come into operation in September 2020. ULEZ has also been widely cited in media as being a factor in the Conservatives' retaining the seat. So I'd say let's include it. This is Paul (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]