Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Politics of the United Kingdom PROJECT Devoted to improving coverage of British politics on Wikipedia.

discussion page

This is the talk page for WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
Place notices here about UK politics articles, and you will surely receive helpful support from interested editors! Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Inclusion of rejected ballot figures in results tables

Last month, I added the results to the page 2024 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election. I included the raw results figures that were included on the declaration PDF and council web page (electorate, turnout percentage, rejected ballots), but I didn't add anything that had to be calculated manually (turnout, majority, vote percentages, percentage changes, swing).

Since then, other users have added those calculated figures - but they've also removed all of the Rejected Ballots (Template:Election box rejected) lines from the results tables. This means that the tables now appears to have an inconsistency: the tables' "Turnout" raw figures column show the number of valid votes, but the "Turnout percentage" comes from the source results declaration, which is calculated using "Turnout = valid votes + rejected ballots". So anyone trying to confirm the figures based only on what's listed on this Wikipedia page will encounter this discrepancy.

So, my preference is to add the Rejected Ballots lines back in for the sake of comprehensiveness. (The figures are published, they're relevant to making the tables as accurate as possible, so why not include them?) However, I'm also aware that a lot of election results pages don't include them. (For example, the 2023 election page is the only one of that council's results pages that includes them.)

So, my question is: should I add the Template:Election box rejected lines back in? Nick R^Talk 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes, absolutely. Not sure why anyone wouldn't include that, as turnout cannot be calculated correctly without it. Cheers, Number 57 22:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Update July 2024, after the general election: Despite the above comment, I never got round to adding the rejected ballots numbers back into that local election page. But now that the general election has happened, I've encountered the issue again with being unsure which source of figures to use in the article Walsall and Bloxwich (UK Parliament constituency), as there are various slight differences between them. I've put together a more detailed comparison of the differences between them on its talk page, but to summarise:

• The Council's own Declaration of Results PDF? (That seems the most comprehensive.)
• The Council's results web page? (That shows a completely different turnout percentage figure.)
• The BBC or Sky's results pages? (They each show completely different numbers of electors. They don't show rejected ballots. And I can't work out how the BBC gets its turnout percentage change since 2019 figure.)

(I think that the other seat with results announced by Walsall Council, Aldridge-Brownhills (UK Parliament constituency), has similar discrepancies, but I haven't looked into that in as much detail.)

Whichever one gets used as the source, there'll be a mismatch somewhere - even if that's a mismatch between what's used in the 2024 results table, and what was used in the articles for the two predecessor seats Walsall North and Walsall South (neither of which include lines for rejected ballots).

I've found related recent discussions about the inclusion of rejected ballots at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_26#Calculation_of_election_percentages and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Election_Percentages. (I was looking at the Wikipedia:NOR page because I wasn't sure if it's preferable to cite a primary source like the Council's declaration of results PDF, or a secondary source like the BBC's results pages.)

Also, when it comes to seat gains and swing changes, I'm unsure about whether Walsall and Bloxwich should be treated as a new constituency, or a continuation of the former seat Walsall North. (2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies#Linked_seats includes it in the "Linked seats" table, and the BBC seems to treat it as a continuation by describing it as Labour gain from Conservative - although as I said, I can't work out how the BBC has reached its turnout percentage change since 2019.) But that might be a better question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies or Talk:2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Nick R^Talk 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Update regarding the strikethrough bit: having looked again at How the BBC reports this election, it says that its results are not a direct comparison of Walsall North (2019) -> Walsall and Bloxwich (2024), but are instead based on notional 2019 results with the new boundaries. That explains why they're treating it as a Labour gain, and might also be how they're getting the strange percentage change in turnout. (The Guardian's election map has a similar disclaimer: "New constituency. Change figures based on modelled 2019 results.") Which raises the question: with these new constituencies, should Wikipedia articles follow the BBC when it comes to listing party gains/holds, and using notional figures to compare turnouts and swings? Should that be done even if, as in this case, the BBC's results for 2024 contain some figures (e.g. registered voters) that don't match what the Council's own announcement says? Nick R^Talk 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nick R: If it's a new creation we don't have to portray it as a hold or gain. Use {{Election box new seat win}}. Rcsprinter123 (negotiate) 19:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ministerial offices in infoboxes

I somewhat boldly edited the infobox for Rishi Sunak to reduce the ministerial offices he held (other than PM) to a single heading. This format is used for Israeli ministers, see Benny Gantz or Benjamin Netanyahu. I would advocate this as a clearer style, and in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance"). Someone who wants to a see the ministerial career of someone at a glance will discern it more with it in summary form of offices and years. This is particularly so with those who held quite a variety of office over time, Michael Gove or Alan Johnson. If I'm looking up Alan Johnson now, the at-a-glance information I'm interested in is more likely to be that he was SoS for WP, etc., rather than the PM who appointed him and who came before and after. That is relevant information to his biography and to Wikipedia, but defeats the purpose of an infobox if there's a heading for each separate office. Therefore, I've advocate grouping all ministerial offices under one heading, and similarly with all shadow ministerial offices. There could be debate about what merits its own heading, PM itself certainly would, for example. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think cabinet positions deserve their own heading. I've restored the single heading for his parliamentary secretary role. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that now from a visual point is that Sunak's cabinet positions are hidden by default. If the purpose of the infobox is to display key information, it's not aided by having them hidden in that way. It's not about the merit of the positions, of course Chancellor of the Exchequer is an important role, but whether boxes become too bulky or unwieldy by listing every office separately. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Michael Gove infobox and similar is ridiculous and clearly violates MOS:INFOBOX. Infoboxes need to be compact or what's the point of them? Bondegezou (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Term Start"

Once again, we see many people being newly elected as MPs (and the flurry of new interest in editing of related articles). In template:Officeholder and in free text, I have seen some squabbles over when a newly-elected MP "starts".

I can see a brief discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 4#c-Road Wizard-2012-09-23T21:32:00.000Z-Grandiose-2012-09-23T21:25:00.000Z2012.

My understanding was that in this context, someone could not hold office until the the day the returning officer provided the constituency result.

The Polling was until 22:00. The first seat to be declared was Houghton and Sunderland South- at 23:15 on the same day as the polling, wereas the last was two days after the polling- Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire was the last seat to declare, due to multiple recounts after the election,

So, in this most recent election, results of declaration were announced across three dates.

Then there is the swearing in which might be an oath of allegiance or an affirmation.

The swearing in, might not be completed on the same day, according to IoG.

The Parliament website currently list "representation" dates for MPs- which seems to run from the date of election.

Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If the UK Parliament website gives 4 July as the start date, even for the MP whose seat didn't declare until Saturday 6th, then that's good enough for me, and for Wikipedia. It has been discussed before, and we have agreed that the term start = election date. PamD 21:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Although, what you link to doesn't really make clear what "4 July" actually signifies. The line above it says "Elected 1 time". What's certain is they were all elected on 4 July whenever the result was called. I think the question probably revolves around how significant is the swearing in, i.e. is that when they technically become MPs and between 4 July and then they are merely "MPs-elect". Are the Sinn Fein MPs technically MPs, for instance? I couldn't find any RS discussing that. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I won't argue with the source in terms of what goes in the box, but clearly the 4th is not technically the date they 'Assumed office', aside from the few counts called before midnight. You can't begin a job before you are confirmed as having the job. Crowsus (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is the established convention that MPs become MPs on polling day, as reflected in the Parliament website and elsewhere. It might be written down in legislation somewhere but I can't find where it might be. It's probably also incorrect if MPs elected at the same election have different start dates simply based on the declaration of results, the timing of which I don't believe holds any legal significance. The "Assumed office" wording is probably not helpful in these cases, so I think it's best interpreted as the date of election (i.e. 4 July) in all cases. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC on GE2024 infobox

In order to centralise and clear up the ongoing debate around the inclusion of 4th, 5th, 6th etc parties in the GE2024 infobox, I have begun an RfC here. Your input would be greatly appreciated. CipherRephic (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)

I boldly (rashly?) edited the redirect "Deputy Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)" to point to "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", which seemed a more useful target than "Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)". The problem is that infoboxes for a number of politicians that pre-date the title of "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" make use of the "deputy" parameter, and link to this redirect. I've put things back as I found them for now. How to resolve? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Party colour in table: Help!

Help, please. I'm not a dab hand at tables, but thought it would be useful to add a table showing the complex origins of new seat Waveney Valley (UK Parliament constituency). I've carefully copied the code to get a bar of party colour ... but it isn't working. I've looked at it super-carefully and cannot see what's different between my attempt, in Waveney_Valley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Boundaries, and the table in Waveney_Valley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Members_of_Parliament and all the other examples I've looked at. I'm presumably missing something terribly obvious: please find it for me! (I thought of asking at the HelpDesk but thought I was more likely to find someone used to using this code here). (It turns out that it's pretty dull information for this seat, as all five contributing seats were previously the same party, but it seemed like an interesting table to add, for a completely new seat). PamD 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I've asked at the HelpDesk too. PamD 15:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

- a knight in shining armour sorted out my line breaks. I thought I'd tried every variation but apparently not! PamD 15:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Party navboxes

Following the 2024 election, some party navboxes have become rather redundant: the extreme cases being Template:East of England Conservative Party MPs, which now only has one entry, and Template:Wales Conservative Party MPs, which is now empty and has been nominated for deletion. I think it might be useful if we consolidate the regional navboxes for Labour and the Conservatives into a single larger navbox, e.g. Template:Conservative Party UK MPs (which needs updating anyway), mirroring what is currently done for the other smaller parties. The Labour one might become a bit large, but we can nest the navboxes for each region and expand the relevant one as required for each MP's article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested approach. Rcsprinter123 (report) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now updated Template:Conservative Party UK MPs and Template:Labour Party UK MPs as examples of how the above suggestions could work. The Labour navbox employs collapsible groups (otherwise it would be far too long when expanded), while the Conservative navbox is short enough to use the usual style. Comments welcome — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph and Spectator ownership

I'm putting this here because the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator are explicitly political entities. They seem to have been seized as assets by Lloyds Bank as part of a financial dispute (see [1]). Does this mean that the entries regarding their being owned by Telegraph Media Group, owned in turn by Press Acquisitions Limited, owned in their turn by Press Holdings and May Corporation Limited and ultimately by Frederick Barclay, are no longer accurate, and all those articles should be updated to reflect this? — The Anome (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Reform UK Party Ltd - difference between members and supporters?

Which of course is the official names of the company running candidates under the Reform UK label. I'm trying to find out what the difference is - the party used to have just supporters, now you can become a member. However, the organisation/party is completely controlled by its shareholders. Its article says ":Reform UK Party Ltd. has fifteen shares. Farage owns eight of these, giving him a controlling majority. The other shareholders are Tice, who holds five, and Chief Executive Paul Oakden and Party Treasurer Mehrtash A'Zami who each hold one share." Does anyone here have any information as to the significance of membership? I think this needs to be added to Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom. Oddly none of this is in the lead of Reform's article, and I'm discussing that on the article talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Robbie Moore (MP)#Requested move 7 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robbie Moore (MP)#Requested move 7 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lady Henry Somerset#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Metropolitan Borough Vote Share Changes Discrepancy

As mentioned earlier on this page, although not resolved then, there is a discrepancy among the change reported for councils which elect 1/3 of their councillors in each election, such as the current metropolitan boroughs. For all of the pages I've encountered, the per-ward change in vote share is reported from the last election to that term, four years prior, however, for the change in vote share across the council, it's split between the change from the election most recent or from the election four years prior.

In my opinion, it makes the most sense to have both changes from the same point, and to have that point be from four years prior. In all elections, incumbency plays a role, and in local elections especially, so to disregard the effect it has in the small scale would be to muddle the picture of the results, even if slightly. Other elections on Wikipedia which contain cycles of representatives elected with an offset take the shifts from the election for that seat, most notably those of the US Senate (see these examples). If we were to refer to reputable sources which record results by council, namely the work done by Rallings and Thrasher (e.g. [2]), these vote swings are from the election four years prior.

Finally, I wanted to give a hypothetical example of how representing the change in vote share from the most recent election (whether one or two years before) can be confusing. Now, I don't know if this has happened, but it's a reasonable situation that we should try to consider. Imagine a situation where 4 incumbents defect to form their own party and win reelection in 2024. They don't run candidates in the next two elections, but all four run again in 2028. If, say, two win and two lose, we'd show the party having lost two seats, but next to the vote share, it'd say New. And to me, if I saw that, it wouldn't make sense. I know this is only an example, but I think it shows how going off of the most recent election and not the one four years before can make things more confusing and harder to understand. AnOpenBook (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Article for creation: The Chris Smith List

Not sure if I can add this to “Articles for creation”, as it isn’t drafted. I think the LGBT+ Labour campaign fund The Chris Smith List could be notable enough for an article - anyone care to have a go? TrottieTrue (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

Hi I think all holder of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain should have this in their info box, because you need consistency and also have the Monarch and Prime Minister as well.86.147.210.198 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Museum of London#Requested move 29 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Museum of London#Requested move 29 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 07:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

General election results - the full compendium

In case anyone else hasn't yet noticed it, let me introduce you to:

Cracknell, Richard; Baker, Carl (18 July 2024). "General election 2024 results" (PDF). House of Commons Library.

A compendium of all the results, tabulated by party, region, etc. Potential useful authoritative source for lots of constituency or MP articles. (I spotted it when an IP added it as a bare URL ref, and with a space before the ref, in Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency), in which I take an interest having delivered many leaflets there). PamD 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Should notional 2019 results be included?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Notional election results which may be of interest to members of this project. PamD 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)