Talk:United Kingdom general election records

Please try to follow the style of the by-elections page: UK by-election records RodCrosby 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

General election victors had not contested previous election

This heading is unclear - I think it means that the party of the victor did not stand in that seat. Is that right? Anguswalker (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. As you find the heading unclear, could you suggest an alternative? Warofdreams talk 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a suggested change Dupont Circle (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious that we are talking about individual constituency contests throughout this article. The proposed change is cumbersome. An introductory note is better. RodCrosby (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor parties other strong performance

I'm not quite sure what is meant by 'Parties without representation in Parliament' as e.g. Sinn Fein and Respect did win seats (or a seat, in the latter case) at the relevant election. Anguswalker (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This means that the parties had not been represented in Parliament until the election in question. The Respect case is marginal, so I've included a note about it. Would you like to suggest a way to rephrase the blurb to make it clearer? Warofdreams talk 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

MPs defeated at consecutive general elections

for this category I mean sitting MPs, which invariably means defeated, returned at a by-election, defeated again. Nellist and Mitchell don't belong here, but maybe under another category, durable losers?? RodCrosby 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

0 votes?

According to this respected source, someone got 0 votes in 1983. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge83/results.htm Can this be verified in another source? RodCrosby 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is rather an old comment, but this clarifies the situation - his candidature was disallowed (this is actually covered in our article on the British Movement. It's not clear whether he appeared on the ballot and his votes were not counted, or whether he was not permitted to appear on the ballot, but either way, he didn't get 0 votes in any meaningful sense. Warofdreams talk 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Belfast West 1983

Crewe et al assign a 1979 notional Provisional Sinn Fein vote in this constituency and others in 1979. Upon investigation, it appears they are referring to Republican Clubs, who stood in 1979. Without having a theological debate on the "Rock Family Trees" of Irish Republicanism, for practical purposes, is Crewe right? RodCrosby (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Crewe is mistaken. Republican Clubs became the Workers Party and took fifth place in 1983. They had split with [Provisional] Sinn Féin in 1971. SF didn't stand in any elections post-split until they sponsored Anti H-Block candidates in 1981, then stood under their own name in 1982. Warofdreams talk 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Crewe must have been of the opinion that their votes were interchangeable with PSF? RodCrosby (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So it appears, but it seems rather odd, given that the clear successor of Republican Clubs also stood in 1983. Warofdreams talk 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tatton

This article says that the drop in share of the vote for the conservatives in 1997 in Tatton was 24.7%, but the article for Tatton says it was a 17.6% drop. I dunno which is right, just thought I'd point it out Jh39 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merthyr

The record swing in the 1970 election was toward an independent candidate, not to the Conservatives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._O._Davies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.150.10 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the swing is correctly given; the two-party swing can and is given between any two parties which contest two elections in a row. Incidentally, the swing from Labour to Davies cannot really be calculated, as Davies stood for Labour in 1966. Warofdreams talk 15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement

This article has been kept at AfD. During the discussion, I see that User:Claritas raised the following issues: "The first is that it claims to take into account only results from after 1945 (which is a fairly arbitrary point), and secondly that it actually doesn't follow that claim. The choice of which records should be hosted on the page is entirely arbitrary - I can think of plenty of possible records which do not appear on the page ("Highest percentage of vote"). The choice of records and the choice of which results can be counted towards the records seems fairly arbitrary to me. The article is in need of being split due to its excessive length, but there's no logical way of doing it."

I tend to agree that these are significant issues, but I would like to see the article kept and improved. Does anyone have any suggestions for addressing these? Warofdreams talk 10:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)