Talk:2010 United Kingdom general election

Template:Hidden infoboxes

2 May - Mona Sahlin article

This is a single article, not on the Guardian election page[1], not carried by any other news agency[2], not raised in any notable debate. It is simply not an election event and placing a minimally noteworthy editorial article on this page introduces an anti-Conservative POV. I will remove it and leave it to discussion if User:Rd232 wishes to reinstate it. |→ Spaully ^τ 11:52, 3 May 2010 (GMT)

It's your personal opinion that a foreign intervention in this manner, relating to a key policy, is "minimally noteworthy". It's also laughable to claim it introduces an anti-Conservative POV - somehat reminiscent of US claims that reality has a liberal bias... As to media coverage, maybe the scale of Conservative support in the media has escaped your attention, despite it being listed in this article? Reinstating as clearly notable event in campaign, its notability qua foreign intervention being supported by a separate Guardian reference - it's not like it's just my opinion. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It is minimally notable by wikipedia notability guidelines. From WP:NOTE, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. There are no secondary sources for this assertion, the article being by Mona Sahlin or a direct quote in the same issue, and there is no further discussion in the media; the coverage would not be described as significant given the press coverage of nearly everything in the context of the election, thus it falls down on two points of the general guideline. It is not our job to judge bias within the media when establishing notability. The consensus on discussion below seems clear so far that this is overly detailed for this article and not of suitable notability. This may change of course but I believe you are running contrary to consensus and guidelines by reinstating it. |→ Spaully ^τ 16:48, 4 May 2010 (GMT)

I'm sorry, but when you quote from an irrelevant policy in a manner that demonstrates its irrelevance I have reason to doubt that you're paying sufficient attention to the arguments. WP:N, as your quote shows, applies to whether a topic merits its own article. It remains the case that a foreign intervention in a UK election is a significant thing, and the fact that the self-declaredly biased media hasn't reported it (besides an aside in the Mirror) is neither here nor there. (Also, compare some of the other incidents mentioned on voter registration - these don't have demonstrated widespread coverage either.) I'll start an RFC on inclusion to get more input, and I'm reverting for the same reason. Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are acting against current consensus - why revert and then ask for comment? Just to warn that was your 3rd revert within 24 hours. I will leave this discussion for others to have fun with and bid you farewell, I believe my points stand for themselves. |→ Spaully ^τ 17:38, 4 May 2010 (GMT)

Oh please - there has been no serious discussion of the points I raised, and anyway WP:Consensus#Consensus can change. Rd232 ^talk 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what definition of "notable" are you using? How is an opinion reported by one UK news outlet notable enough to be singled out as one of the most notable things to have happened in the election? It is pretty ridiculous to find a lack of significant coverage unfair because the papers are avowedly biased when the BBC (neutral) and the Labour supporting papers have also not been reporting on this. Also, while consensus can change, your edits should await that change rather than trying to establish it. -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean this article then here is not the place for it. It might be useful for any possible future article that discusses Conservative education policy if they do win the election and start to implement this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It could make sense if there were a section about the policy areas debated during the campaign, but it is not itself a notable incident, and clearly has not drawn significant coverage. -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you've removed it again. And still no-one has bothered to argue exactly how this is not significant. Are there ten-a-penny precedents for such foreign intervention? (The Guardian ref in the deleted text said otherwise - what's your evidence?). Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Gordon Brown has never put his right shoe on first before; would it be worthy of inclusion if he did tomorrow? Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't make its happening now one of the most important things that happened during the election. If this actually were significant, there would be stories from numerous papers with quotes from Cameron and Gove trying to defend the policy. After two days there is still only the one story about it. It seems highly unlikely to me that this is something most informed voters know about, and including it feels more like trying to publicise Sahlin's argument than trying to tell the story of the election. Presenting this in the context of the parties' policy positions might well make sense, but trying to present it as an important thing that happened along the way is unwarranted. -Rrius (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Some things are considered notable regardless of coverage. And in my view, foreign intervention in an election (by an important political figure) is always significant - same as all MPs are considered notable, even if they're really really boring and never in the news. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But is she notable from the perspective of British politics? It's not like one would expect the leader of the Swedish SDP to agree with David Cameron anyway. Wereon (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it might be notable enough for inclusion in a discussion of policy positions, but it is difficult to see how you could think this is such an important part of the election, that it should be singled out as a "notable event". -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Is an intervention in a UK election by the leader of a foreign political party significant enough to include in a list of "Notable campaign events"? The intervention relates to a policy adopted from that country by a UK party. disputed text Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be more significant if there was some sort of row about it. Evercat (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's that sort of attitude which makes the Bigotgate politician-gets-annoyed-by-voter non-story (The Day Today, eat your heart out) significant even though it's just noise. Add in how ludicrously Conservative-dominated the UK media is, and you have a recipe for completely distorting politics. I'm not saying Wikipedia should seek to fix that, but we should take it into account in this context of weighing importance of something the media have no interest in reporting. (Same as they had no interest in covering "Stroudgate" (see end of this piece) - despite it being far more significant in policy terms, due to Stroud's influence on Conservative policy, than Bigotgate.) Rd232 ^talk 19:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To put my point a slightly different way, I would see a row about it as evidence of it's being significant. :) Evercat (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• In my view, this is not significant enough an event to warrant inclusion. Sahlin's input has barely been covered - only as far as I can tell by the Mirror and the Guardian, and even those left-leaning newspapers haven't made much of it. And I don't think a foreign political party leader commenting on a policy (as opposed to outright supporting a candidate) is inherently something worthy of inclusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the criteria for inclusion of such events should be 1) They have received substantial media coverage, or 2) They are judged likely to influence the outcome of the election. The publication of the Guardian article fulfils neither of these, unlike "Bigotgate". Wereon (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wereon, and indeed what appears to be the consensus above. --Neil (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I didn't actually say I agreed with anyone. Leave me out of consensus calculations. :) Evercat (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bercow

Because the BBC shows John Bercow's win as a Tory hold, we do as well. Of course we all know Bercow no longer has a party and won re-election as Speaker. So when do we break with the BBC on this? -Rrius (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes he does. He is still a Tory member. If he was no longer Speaker he would revert to the Tory back benches. He is not opposed by convention in his seat, except UKIP did this time. Still a Tory officially, so we don't "Break with the BBC on this". Leaky Caldron

He left the party. He no longer holds party membership. He did not run as a Conservative, but ran as Speaker seeking re-election. If he fails to be re-elected as Speaker, he will remain an independent member unless and until he takes some party's whip. One does not revert to prior party membership, as is seen with Speakers who go to the Lords. Also, the Times does not show him as a Tory, but as what he is. Going with the BBC is not supportable. -Rrius (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your wrong. Leaky Caldron 16:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Prove it. -Rrius (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Our own Speaker article says he still votes in the Commons in the event of tied motions, so unless he does this by flipping a coin, I can't see how he is not technically still considered a Conservative and, ergo, his seat is a Conservative hold, despite the various conventions that he is apolitical. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. A person can only vote in the Commons if he or she is a Tory? Or a Speaker votes according to a party whip? What are you trying to say? From the House of Commons Factsheet: The Speaker: "Accordingly, on election the Speaker resigns from his or her political party. During a General Election the Speaker will still need to be re‐elected, but is unlikely to be opposed by any of the major political parties. Speakers do not stand on political issues, but as “the Speaker seeking re‐election” and do not campaign." And: "The Speaker must keep apart from old party colleagues or any one group or interest and does not, for instance, frequent the Commons dining rooms or bars. Even after retirement, a former Speaker will take no part in political issues, and will sit as a Cross‐Bencher if appointed to the House of Lords." -Rrius (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So, how does he vote then, in the event of a tie? Flipping a coin? As an Independent? I can see how that would go down a storm if say, ID Cards ever ended up as a tied vote. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Speaker has a casting vote, which he exercises in accordance with conventions that attempt to maintain the status quo, where possible. See Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) and House of Commons Factsheet: Divisions, page 6. -Rrius (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, Speaker Denison's rule. Bercow resigned from the Conservative party as soon as he was elected; he is in no way, shape or form, a member of the Conservative Party. ninety:one 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And as the examples of at least the last 3 of his predecessors show, when he eventually stands down he will likely end up as a crossbencher in the Lords. Once you're Speaker nowadays, you never go back to outright partisan politics. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, he is no longer a Tory, he resigned his membership, and if he exercises a casting vote, then the convention is that he votes in favour of Government motions. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I emailed BBC News pointing out this factual inaccuracy. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did so before too (and also complained about their mangled constituency names). I notice that they have Michael Martin listed as a Labour hold in 2005, so presumably it's due to some insane editorial policy they have rather than a cock-up. Wereon (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jez, it's not correct to say he would use his casting vote for government motions. There are a variety of conventions, such as maintaing the previous decision of the House, and giving it the opporunity to consider the matter again. For example, if Brown & Clegg do a deal, & the minor parties split in such a way that the vote is tied, the Speaker's casting vote would be to maintain the previous decision of the House, i.e. keep Brown as PM, which would also give the House the chance to vote again in the not too distant future on the same question. Peter jackson (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I plead guilty to ver-simplification. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we make the conservative seat number "305+1". The "+1" referring to the speaker, upon whom we are currently divided.86.160.8.206 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Because those who disagree are mistaken. Bercow is no more a Conservative MP than Shaun Woodward is. Wereon (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/, its quite clear he's an independent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another ref for Bercow not being a Conservative is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8655330.stm#speaker -- Evercat (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent Prime Minister

Wowsers, why hasn't David Cameron's name been added there. He's got a minority government. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Canada, GoodDay, it's still possible Labour and the Lib Dems will band together. -Rrius (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, William L.M. King's Liberals pulled off a Progressive backed Liberal minority government, after the 1925 Canadian election. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of Martin in 2006 or Dion in 2008. -Rrius (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In those scenerios, more then 2-parties would've been required, to overthrow the Conservatives (the Bloc being dismissed). GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GB remains PM until the Queen appoints his replacement. That is Britain's constitution. Leaky Caldron 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, Brown has to either tender his resignation to the Queen (and the Queen accept it), or the Queen must fire him, before she appoints a new PM. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope Nick Clegg is asked by QEII to form a government. It'd be nice to have a Whig government again... (or LDP, since Japan's isn't in power for the first time in recorded history) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't citation needed be removed from this part? There is no need for citation because it is too be decided at this point, if any citation is needed, it could just be an internal link to wikis Hung Parliament definition or the BBC election page --Little-Rena (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I have added both a wikilink and the cite. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Results section split?

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split off the "Results" section to a new article? It seems to me the maps, while awesome, are a bit much for this page. Perhaps "Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2010" or "Regional results of the United Kingdom general election, 2010" would be good targets. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The length problem is caused by the county maps. I think all of the maps are excellent, but do we really need a separate map for each English county? We have one map for Scotland, one map for Wales and one map for Northern Ireland. It would save a lot of space if we simply had one map of England too. Another option is to have one map for each region of England. ~Asarlaí 00:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this problem by creating a new article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have waited until more editors had a chance to reply. ~Asarlaí 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was the logical solution.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to have that new article; most of the stuff there belongs in the main election article. The maps probably belong in MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010, but I can't see what harm they're doing here. Wereon (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article was way too long. Now every section of the article is pretty well sized.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think we needed a new article, there already was an election results spinoff, it could go there, but the length here was no doubt too long.

where did this [3] content go? Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"What if" results under PR

Someone has produced graphs of what the results of the election would have been under various proportional systems, and has posted them under CC-Attrib licenses on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oledoe/sets/72157624017184792/. Is there an article that could make use of these? Fences&Windows 16:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what use they'd be - people vote differently under PR rather than FPTP. Plus it'd look like Wikipedia was pushing a pro-PR POV. Wereon (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If the graphs had been produced by a reliable source or received coverage by a reliable source then they might be worth mentioning. At the moment they can only be considered original research. One of the problems with graphs like these is that it is very easy to skew the results depending on the assumptions the creator makes; we must have a qualified third party scrutinise and publish the data before going anywhere near them. Road Wizard (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC shows graphs of a similar form at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm - the graphs change depending on the system you pick. The data are from the Electoral Reform Society. --Mgp28 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Original research based on speculation and WP:Crystal. This article is about THE result and outcome, not what might have been. Leaky Caldron 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

MP seat diagrams from Commons

See my post at Talk:House of Commons of the United Kingdom#Seating diagrams from Commons concerning choice of MP seat diagrams (meaning the quantity of seats rather than actual seat positions). -84user (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

This edit [4] said to discuss the addition but the editor doesnt seem to have discussed, while I would generally agree with long links this one if a neutral addition (all parties) to the manifestoes of each. Therefore I either support them here (and wikipedia does leave room for exceptions) or merge into the article.Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP was perfectly legitimate to remove them all per WP:LINKFARM. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

IP here; I really don't see the benefit to the reader of all these. You might have had a case for inclusion before the election when prospective voters would have been curious about what the parties were offering and how boundaries had changed, but now these are of very little relevance. We can't neutrally exclude an arbitrary number of parties in order to bring the links to a manageable number. Perhaps as a compromise we could find one link summarising what the parties offered and another summarising the boundary changes. As a general rule the number of external links should not be in the double digits. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this landing page from the BBC on "Parties and issues" to replace the manifestos. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PS to be fair by "discuss" I presumed that 86.41.61.203 meant that you should discuss on talk if you objected. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the links to the manifestos should be kept as a record of the issues on which parties fought the election. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

31 ex links to manifestos...seriously? 86.41.61.203 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe another link like the BBC's above mention one can be there if it covers all parties this list does. But again there is no hard and fast rule as such because WP:Ignore gives room for the exceptions when certain circumstances allow for it. I've taken off the subsections on the link. Unless one wants to move this to the relevant split-off article?

(The IP who called for a talk himself challenged the addition so the onus really was on him to put it up for talk.)Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ignore all rules you're going to need a strong consensus... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, given that there is no such strong consensus, I am going to go ahead and implement the compromise proposal above; if editors are unhappy with that, we can put it to a wider RfC. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the term "incumbent"

I want to bring up the point that the usage of the term "incumbent" in the article, especially in the section "Notable defeated incumbents", is technically incorrect. There aren't any incumbent MPs during the election period, as all MPs lose their seats when parliament is dissolved in the Westminster system. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 03:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is splitting hairs. Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just wrong. "Incumbent" means the person running for re-election. Rd232 ^talk 07:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of results

There is still one that is white (undeclared) that no-one has filled in. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - it's grey (independant) - perhaps pick a better colour to distinguish it more? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Distinguish it from what? You noticed it, didn't you? Wereon (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour Gains

Looking at the election website on sky there appears to be 4 gains for the Labour party. Chesterfield, Blaenau Gwent, Bethnal Green and Bow and Glasgow East. Yes Glasgow East was originally lost in a by election but as the outgoing MP was standing again surely this must also count as a gain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's usual to compare results only between general elections, ignoring by-elections. Rochdale was a Labour gain as well, though Rallings and Thrasher had them notionally already holding it. Wereon (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hung parliament

Quoting the article: " It was the first time since 1974, and only the second time since the Second World War, that a British general election returned a hung parliament.[2]"

I'm curious, why is the 1950 election not considered one which resulted in a hung parliamet? I wanted to ask before I thought about editing that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtm (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

At the 1950 election there were 625 seats. If any party had 313 seats then they would control a majority in Parliament; if no party reached 313 then the parliament would be hung. As you will see from the linked article Labour managed to secure 315 seats, which left them with a small majority.

If you have further questions on the subject not directly related to this article you may wish to ask them at the reference desk. Road Wizard (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)