Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

Relevance of change of monarch?

Some editors seem keen to add the fact that it will be the first GE since death of Elizabeth/ascension of Charles. This has no impact at all on the timing, conduct or result of the election, so while it is undoubtedly true, and while it is acknowledged that a government nominally acts in the monarch's name, it is entirely irrelevant to the election (ie the process of selecting members of parliament, rather than the period of governmental power). This series of articles has tacitly acknowledged that by having no reference to the monarch in its previous editions: if there were any relevance, then the (e.g.) 2005 GE article would refer to that being the 14th during the previous reign. It wasn't mentioned then, or in other equivalent articles, because it is nothing to do with the election. It might matter constitutionally that there is a monarch, but not who it is or how long they have held the role. The first of a reign is no more significant than the 3rd, 7th or 11th: if anyone thinks otherwise, it is for them to demonstrate the reason why. Failing that, the comment should be removed, and remain absent. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Once the election has been held, there will probably be a "government formation" section, where of course the winner's trip to see the monarch is an obvious mention, and mentioning that it's Charles' first time following an election seems reasonable. I wouldn't call that lead material, though.

As for right now? I think it's WP:CRYSTALBALL territory and should be removed. EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We are meant to follow what reliable sources say. Reliable sources are not talking about this as being a significant part of the story of the next election. Ergo, we shouldn't either. Also, there is no mention of it in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead, as per WP:LEAD. Bondegezou (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again… OGBC1992 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's pretty minor and no need to include it, but 1955 United Kingdom general election does have an equivalent mention - though to be honest, there it almost feels like padding to try and flesh out an otherwise very short lead for an unexciting election! The other "first of the reign" elections don't, until we get back to 1837 (when it was still constitutionally significant). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Boundary reviews deadline

There is a suggestion here that the four month deadline for submitting the new Parliamentary Boundaries Order to a meeting of the Privy Council has been missed. No one knows for sure what this means and there are no reliable sources yet but it is worth keeping an eye on. Cavrdg (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This tweet in reply says the deadline has been met. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Date

Although Sunak has said he is going to hold the election in 2024, this is clearly not binding on him, and if polls don't improve for the Tories during 2024 it can't be ruled out that he'll change his mind and leave it to the last possible date. So I'm not sure this should be in the lead sentence, though it could be mentioned elsewhere in the article. What do others think? Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The weight of reporting around this does not suggest that reliable sources are putting that much weight on Sunak's statement. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

De-facto referendum

Sturgeon had said that it was her (apparently personal) intention to treat the election as a 'de-facto referendum' on devolution. But she is no longer in authority: did it ever become an official SNP policy? Has Yousaf said that he regards it as such? If so, that should be what is stated and cited in the 'Background' section; if not, it should probably be deleted as the personal musings of somebody of no official standing. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This is already covered in the "Campaign" section - Yousaf also favoured using the election as a de facto independence referendum, but this was voted down at the SNP's annual conference. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks: I read that subsequent to my query, and deleted it from the top of the article as it was cited as not being party policy. Probably worth keeping where it is as part of remote background. Kevin McE (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Predictions three weeks before the vote etc

I take it we will carry this on, just to ask what are the current best seat predictions?

• https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
• https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK
• https://electionsetc.com/ They seem to have stopped by they might come back for this election
• https://www.britainelects.com

Is there any others we should be keeping an eye out for. Crazyseiko (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We should be led by reliable source coverage, and it's too soon to really think about assembling tables for an election that hasn't been called yet! Honestly, in the 2019 article these tables take up a massive amount of space and prominence in the article relative to the prominence of seat projections in sources: we shouldn't be looking to recreate that for the next election. Ralbegen (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

being prepared for a snap election is no bad thing, however they have been done for the past 4 elections. Maybe a new page would be better, mind you maybe we should also have a new page for TV debates, and results which took up even more room. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This page https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48371-yougov-mrp-shows-labour-would-win-1997-style-landslide-if-election-were-held-today does include a prediction, but it was commissioned by Tory Party donors and has been criticised as having ulterior motives, so perhaps it isn't "authoritative", or "objective", I suppose I mean. Nick Barnett (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Why no mention of Reform?

Reform is projected to win 9% of the vote but bizarrely I cannot find a single mention of it anywhere on the page - is this intentional or simply a glaring oversight? Please let me know if there is a reason for its omission otherwise will add, thanks Lord Pharoah (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly because they have no MPs (and are also projected to have none)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also because we're not just listing every party - where in the existing article would they actually warrant a mention? OGBC1992 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The 'opinion polling' section shows a plot where Reform are in joint-third place, without further explanation. Adding a single sentence about Reform in that section appears justified to me. Modest Genius ^talk 15:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a separate page for polling (Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election) - I suggest it makes more sense to edit that page, rather than just mention them on this one for the sake of it. OGBC1992 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No, if the plot is shown in this article, it 'makes more sense' to explain its labels here, not in a different article. Readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to understand the labels here. Modest Genius ^talk 12:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2019 article mentions 'Brexit Party' over 50 times despite them winning no seats either - in any case it seems odd to have no list of major candidate parties on the page for the election. Lord Pharoah (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That is very different, as a) the Brexit party made a deal with the Tories which turned out to be highly significant (no such deal exists this time around) and b) this election hasn’t happened yet. Once it has there might well be valid reason to mention Reform. At the moment it would just be crowbarring them in. OGBC1992 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a statement of record, not a blog of what might be. When Reform has election results to report, we can report them. doktorb _words^deeds 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Notional results to use

Thrasher and Rallings have now published their calculated estimated 2019 general election results, which most media organizations will use. There is however a slight problem that the precise actual results of the 2019 general election are known for the new seats in Wolverhampton and Walsall councils, because those (and only those) councils published election results by ward in 2019. My instinctive thought is that in those places, we should use the actual known election results over the estimates, but news organizations do not tend to do so and they just use Thrasher and Rallings data everywhere. This is meaningful because Thrasher and Rallings estimated Labour to have led by 6.2% in the new Wolverhampton South East, but in fact we know from the published data that it in fact went Conservative by 1.4%. So the decision on whether we use the real published election data or the Thrasher and Rallings estimates for those seats will affect how many seats each party notionally has. 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)